Energy v Information
in [Basics]
|
Prev: Biggest Lie Yet Of the Spill: BP "Couldn't Determine the Flow Rate"
Next: Uncertain Capacitor Values
From: Bret Cahill on 1 Jun 2010 20:48 If you are having trouble detecting something then *a fortiori* you ain't got nothing that can produce useful amounts of mechanical work. Period. An excellent example of this was the cold fusion idiots having trouble finding a precise enough thermometer to prove that they had something that had jack to do with energy. The converse is just as true: If you have significant amounts of energy then there is no question you can get a good measurement. An excellent example of this was the idiot who suggested a 100 kg/sec. flow rate would be difficult to measure:: > 21" OD riser would have a fluid velocity of 1.07 mph at 50,000 bbl/day > leakage (the consistent real world value). That idiot who wrote that cannot even _swim_ 1 mph yet he thinks it would be difficult to measure! The two example above are common sense. Absolutely _no one_ claiming to have any background in science or engineering should be making these kinds or errors. The ramifications of the above should be obvious: It is a whole lot easier to instrument everything and save energy than it is to generate more. Bret Cahill
From: John Larkin on 2 Jun 2010 20:04 On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 17:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cahill(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >If you are having trouble detecting something then *a fortiori* you >ain't got nothing that can produce useful amounts of mechanical work. > >Period. > >An excellent example of this was the cold fusion idiots having trouble >finding a precise enough thermometer to prove that they had something >that had jack to do with energy. > >The converse is just as true: > >If you have significant amounts of energy then there is no question >you can get a good measurement. > >An excellent example of this was the idiot who suggested a 100 kg/sec. >flow rate would be difficult to measure:: > >> 21" OD riser would have a fluid velocity of 1.07 mph at 50,000 bbl/day >> leakage (the consistent real world value). > >That idiot who wrote that cannot even _swim_ 1 mph yet he thinks it >would be difficult to measure! > >The two example above are common sense. Absolutely _no one_ claiming >to have any background in science or engineering should be making >these kinds or errors. > >The ramifications of the above should be obvious: > >It is a whole lot easier to instrument everything and save energy than >it is to generate more. > > >Bret Cahill Do you even own an oscilloscope? John
From: Bret Cahill on 2 Jun 2010 20:21 > >If you are having trouble detecting something then *a fortiori* you > >ain't got nothing that can produce useful amounts of mechanical work. > > >Period. > > >An excellent example of this was the cold fusion idiots having trouble > >finding a precise enough thermometer to prove that they had something > >that had jack to do with energy. > > >The converse is just as true: > > >If you have significant amounts of energy then there is no question > >you can get a good measurement. > > >An excellent example of this was the idiot who suggested a 100 kg/sec. > >flow rate would be difficult to measure:: > > >> 21" OD riser would have a fluid velocity of 1.07 mph at 50,000 bbl/day > >> leakage (the consistent real world value). > > >That idiot who wrote that cannot even _swim_ 1 mph yet he thinks it > >would be difficult to measure! > > >The two example above are common sense. Absolutely _no one_ claiming > >to have any background in science or engineering should be making > >these kinds or errors. > > >The ramifications of the above should be obvious: > > >It is a whole lot easier to instrument everything and save energy than > >it is to generate more. > > >Bret Cahill > > Do you even own an oscilloscope? An old Protek P3502C. If it has any Antiques Road Show value I'll sell. Anyway you dodged the issue: Is there any phenomenon that can be considered a significant source of energy, i.e., something that will get the fat idiots down the road, that is difficult to measure? Bret Cahill
From: jimp on 2 Jun 2010 20:47 In sci.physics Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cahill(a)yahoo.com> wrote: <snip babble> > Anyway you dodged the issue: > > Is there any phenomenon that can be considered a significant source of > energy, i.e., something that will get the fat idiots down the road, > that is difficult to measure? > > > Bret Cahill That isn't an issue, it is just jibberish. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Zerkon on 3 Jun 2010 08:24
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:48:30 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: > you ain't got nothing Now that's something! |