Laws of Physics
-
So I have been watching Revolution (its "OK"). Anyway *Spoiler* In the show there nano-bots everywhere (they got released by the DOD and replicated to be everywhere quite quickly) and they essentially absorb electricity. This means no devices work (well unless you make a pure mechanical engine). Fore example, even your car will not run because the tiny electrical spark will be absorbed. Anyway, in the show only 15 years have passed since the "event". This got me thinking. If say 100 years had passed those that new anything about it would die off. Then time would just go by and any future science would do its researching and analysis thinking that physics behaved in such a manner. In other words electricity would not exist. Interesting concept. It could go either way. Maybe in fact electricity does not exist but only exists because teeny tiny bots are propagating the electrons from a source. We just have not ability to understand it. Or maybe there is some other physical behavior we should see in the world but it is not occurring because some device is preventing it so we all think the F(x) is raltional to B(y) but really it is B(x). [EDIT] Everyone seems to be commenting on the show, which was really not my intention. What about the idea that certain laws of Physics only exist because we are suppressed or benefited by tech we simply do not understand? (that was the discussion I was going for :rolleyes: )
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
It's a dumb show that is quite entertaining.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me me, in pictures
-
Hey, it's not like the human body uses electricity at all, is it? Like, say, to run our brains, muscles, hearts, and so on. :rolleyes:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Haha. Good point. When they said what actually caused the lights out they also talked about them being used in the human body for "special" purposes. I guess they know the difference of being in living creature or not :)
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
A steam engine also needs no electricity.
They use steam engines in the show, but I have not seen an diesel nor do I know anything about deisel engines :) But I agree, that was my thought with the premise of the show. Wouldn't someone just improve on the early inventions that got surpassed by tech that not longer works?
OriginalGriff wrote:
It would not be impossible to run an engine - you'd just have to go back a few stages to more primitive ones, then improve down a different technology branch.
The episode I watched last night had steam powered buses in the Federation of Georgia. I was stuck on the where are the rest of the engines, but as the story progresses you realize the the Monroe Republic is filled with a bunch of militia idiots that are preventing their nation from growth. I wonder what the other nations are like. They have mentioned a few but have not said much other than Monroe tries to avoid an all out war with them (but yet is trying to destroy them all).
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Diesel engines are beautifully simple: they squash fuel, which gets it hot, so it explodes. Once they are up to working temperature, all they need is fuel and off they go - much more efficient than a gas / petrol engine, and (until recently) a lot less complex as well. My old Mitsubishi Shogun had mechanical fuel injection, and the only electricity it actually needed was to warm the cylinders at the start, and a solenoid to shut off the fuel to stop it running - both could be replaced with electricity-free versions very easily. Take a test drive in a modern Diesel powered Ford and I think you will be pleasantly surprised - they are very nice engines these days (just not as many horsies as a gas / petrol of the same CC can be - a lot more torque though)
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre. Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
-
So I have been watching Revolution (its "OK"). Anyway *Spoiler* In the show there nano-bots everywhere (they got released by the DOD and replicated to be everywhere quite quickly) and they essentially absorb electricity. This means no devices work (well unless you make a pure mechanical engine). Fore example, even your car will not run because the tiny electrical spark will be absorbed. Anyway, in the show only 15 years have passed since the "event". This got me thinking. If say 100 years had passed those that new anything about it would die off. Then time would just go by and any future science would do its researching and analysis thinking that physics behaved in such a manner. In other words electricity would not exist. Interesting concept. It could go either way. Maybe in fact electricity does not exist but only exists because teeny tiny bots are propagating the electrons from a source. We just have not ability to understand it. Or maybe there is some other physical behavior we should see in the world but it is not occurring because some device is preventing it so we all think the F(x) is raltional to B(y) but really it is B(x). [EDIT] Everyone seems to be commenting on the show, which was really not my intention. What about the idea that certain laws of Physics only exist because we are suppressed or benefited by tech we simply do not understand? (that was the discussion I was going for :rolleyes: )
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Has the show improved any. It was pretty bad compared to what else is on now. Seems to be a bit of a throwback to the idea of Star Trek where not doing bad things that should be done is aright. Rebels are fighting for thier existance, and, for instance, not destroying the train would mean a lot more deaths. Also seemed improbable without a good transportation network, which did not seem to exist in the early episodes, that could control a large portion of the country. Too many stupid things in that show, and somehow it survived. Almost all the comments on imdb were negative, but somehow got a good rating. Maybe the people who like it cannot write are the ones that like the show.
-
I haven't been watching it, but "OK" is a relative term: the premise would appear to be flawed. A diesel engine does not "need" a spark, or any other form of ignition. All you need to to heat the cylinders, and the fuel combusts under compression. Indeed, early petrol engines used a "glow plug" - a rod sticking into the engine that was externally heated with a fire - to combust petrol. A steam engine also needs no electricity. It would not be impossible to run an engine - you'd just have to go back a few stages to more primitive ones, then improve down a different technology branch. (Christiaan Huygens designed a water pump that worked on gunpowder in the 17th Century!)
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre. Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
OriginalGriff wrote:
I haven't been watching it, but "OK" is a relative term: the premise would appear to be flawed.
Presumably you are referring to the show and not the concept. The fact that a stable growing society can produce such alternatives doesn't have much to do with the reality that the show is presenting. First one sees only a segment of what exists. There could be some place with a bunch of engines. Second, however, that isn't likely because this isn't really a society that is growing. Or it certainly is not one that has been stable and growing for a while. The show depicts a number of chaotic events occurring to communities and those represent destabilizing events. The ability to putter around in ones workshop and take an idea from that to produce a thriving economic market requires that one isn't being actively attacked every day and that one also has more than enough resources (food, heat, shelter) so that one has some free time left over. The show wouldn't seem to suggest that in general that that is the case. Third one can also note that at least one stable community does exist but it has had a very real and obtainable goal for some time - restoring the electricity. And thus they might not have wished to allocate resources to projects that were less worthwhile. Of course none of that really means that the writers for the show actually considered that, but then I am not sure there are any fictional shows on tv that reflect anything close to reality.
-
Diesel engines are beautifully simple: they squash fuel, which gets it hot, so it explodes. Once they are up to working temperature, all they need is fuel and off they go - much more efficient than a gas / petrol engine, and (until recently) a lot less complex as well. My old Mitsubishi Shogun had mechanical fuel injection, and the only electricity it actually needed was to warm the cylinders at the start, and a solenoid to shut off the fuel to stop it running - both could be replaced with electricity-free versions very easily. Take a test drive in a modern Diesel powered Ford and I think you will be pleasantly surprised - they are very nice engines these days (just not as many horsies as a gas / petrol of the same CC can be - a lot more torque though)
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre. Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
I new they were more optimal to keep running (rather than turning off and restarting a little later). Never new why, so that makes sense.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Has the show improved any. It was pretty bad compared to what else is on now. Seems to be a bit of a throwback to the idea of Star Trek where not doing bad things that should be done is aright. Rebels are fighting for thier existance, and, for instance, not destroying the train would mean a lot more deaths. Also seemed improbable without a good transportation network, which did not seem to exist in the early episodes, that could control a large portion of the country. Too many stupid things in that show, and somehow it survived. Almost all the comments on imdb were negative, but somehow got a good rating. Maybe the people who like it cannot write are the ones that like the show.
Clifford Nelson wrote:
Has the show improved any
No it is pretty much the same as it was the first part of the season. I would not expect it to last into a 3rd. They did get buy in for the second season (starts in a week or 2). Who knows though. I have seen awesome shows tank out and shows that should have died purely on premise become quite interesting.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
So I have been watching Revolution (its "OK"). Anyway *Spoiler* In the show there nano-bots everywhere (they got released by the DOD and replicated to be everywhere quite quickly) and they essentially absorb electricity. This means no devices work (well unless you make a pure mechanical engine). Fore example, even your car will not run because the tiny electrical spark will be absorbed. Anyway, in the show only 15 years have passed since the "event". This got me thinking. If say 100 years had passed those that new anything about it would die off. Then time would just go by and any future science would do its researching and analysis thinking that physics behaved in such a manner. In other words electricity would not exist. Interesting concept. It could go either way. Maybe in fact electricity does not exist but only exists because teeny tiny bots are propagating the electrons from a source. We just have not ability to understand it. Or maybe there is some other physical behavior we should see in the world but it is not occurring because some device is preventing it so we all think the F(x) is raltional to B(y) but really it is B(x). [EDIT] Everyone seems to be commenting on the show, which was really not my intention. What about the idea that certain laws of Physics only exist because we are suppressed or benefited by tech we simply do not understand? (that was the discussion I was going for :rolleyes: )
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Or maybe there is some other physical behavior we should see in the world but it is not occurring because some device is preventing it so we all think the F(x) is raltional to B(y) but really it is B(x).
Or maybe it's all just a dream; we're all a simulation; it's a hologram; God is controlling it... and so on! Losing knowledge over time certainly has happened in the past, so assuming all written works were destroyed and nobody wrote anything down then the knowledge would get lost, I suppose, and legends would grow about how the ancients used to have windows that could show pictures from anywhere, etc. But I think it would take more than 100 years
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
So I have been watching Revolution (its "OK"). Anyway *Spoiler* In the show there nano-bots everywhere (they got released by the DOD and replicated to be everywhere quite quickly) and they essentially absorb electricity. This means no devices work (well unless you make a pure mechanical engine). Fore example, even your car will not run because the tiny electrical spark will be absorbed. Anyway, in the show only 15 years have passed since the "event". This got me thinking. If say 100 years had passed those that new anything about it would die off. Then time would just go by and any future science would do its researching and analysis thinking that physics behaved in such a manner. In other words electricity would not exist. Interesting concept. It could go either way. Maybe in fact electricity does not exist but only exists because teeny tiny bots are propagating the electrons from a source. We just have not ability to understand it. Or maybe there is some other physical behavior we should see in the world but it is not occurring because some device is preventing it so we all think the F(x) is raltional to B(y) but really it is B(x). [EDIT] Everyone seems to be commenting on the show, which was really not my intention. What about the idea that certain laws of Physics only exist because we are suppressed or benefited by tech we simply do not understand? (that was the discussion I was going for :rolleyes: )
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Unless the nanobots were at saturation point (ie you couldn't even breath for the bloody things) there would still be lightning and static electricity, not to mention the basic electric field from charged particles. As to a technology or physical law being suppressed? Locally, maybe. But we all watched Jurassic Park and we know Mother Nature outwits us eventually anyway.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
So I have been watching Revolution (its "OK"). Anyway *Spoiler* In the show there nano-bots everywhere (they got released by the DOD and replicated to be everywhere quite quickly) and they essentially absorb electricity. This means no devices work (well unless you make a pure mechanical engine). Fore example, even your car will not run because the tiny electrical spark will be absorbed. Anyway, in the show only 15 years have passed since the "event". This got me thinking. If say 100 years had passed those that new anything about it would die off. Then time would just go by and any future science would do its researching and analysis thinking that physics behaved in such a manner. In other words electricity would not exist. Interesting concept. It could go either way. Maybe in fact electricity does not exist but only exists because teeny tiny bots are propagating the electrons from a source. We just have not ability to understand it. Or maybe there is some other physical behavior we should see in the world but it is not occurring because some device is preventing it so we all think the F(x) is raltional to B(y) but really it is B(x). [EDIT] Everyone seems to be commenting on the show, which was really not my intention. What about the idea that certain laws of Physics only exist because we are suppressed or benefited by tech we simply do not understand? (that was the discussion I was going for :rolleyes: )
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Look up "Gosh numbers"; I think you'll enjoy.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Or maybe there is some other physical behavior we should see in the world but it is not occurring because some device is preventing it so we all think the F(x) is raltional to B(y) but really it is B(x).
Or maybe it's all just a dream; we're all a simulation; it's a hologram; God is controlling it... and so on! Losing knowledge over time certainly has happened in the past, so assuming all written works were destroyed and nobody wrote anything down then the knowledge would get lost, I suppose, and legends would grow about how the ancients used to have windows that could show pictures from anywhere, etc. But I think it would take more than 100 years
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
_Maxxx_ wrote:
Losing knowledge over time certainly has happened in the past
How can you be so certain? If the knowledge was "lost" then it is not likely anyone would know it...
_Maxxx_ wrote:
so assuming all written works were destroyed and nobody wrote anything down then the knowledge would get lost
Yeah, its not like our societies do not have a history of burning Great Libraries to the ground, or laying wasteland to entire civilizations burning any document they pocess :rolleyes: Oh and its a good thing people are born able to read. Otherwise, they might look at the documents and misunderstand them :rolleyes:
_Maxxx_ wrote:
But I think it would take more than 100 years
No it really only takes one generation. Think about the days of apprenticeship. If there is a collapse we would essentially have to return to that. However, certain technologies require more than apprenticeship. They were not built by one man teaching his son. They were built by teams of scientists far smarter than the average man. And they were far smarter because they had "working" technology to study and build upon. Moreover, if the technology essentially becomes "dead" and worthless why would anyone research it. Sure the people that had it would be devoted to "turning the lights back on". Those that grew up with the lights off would just say "Yeah, crazy gramps is at it again. I wish he would just help us with the harvest."
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Unless the nanobots were at saturation point (ie you couldn't even breath for the bloody things) there would still be lightning and static electricity, not to mention the basic electric field from charged particles. As to a technology or physical law being suppressed? Locally, maybe. But we all watched Jurassic Park and we know Mother Nature outwits us eventually anyway.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
Unless the nanobots were at saturation point (ie you couldn't even breath for the bloody things)
That was exactly what the premise was. The lady that was involved with making them said, "something happened and now they are everywhere. You are breathing them right now."
Chris Maunder wrote:
As to a technology or physical law being suppressed? Locally, maybe.
Really depends on the technology doesn't it? Say some scientists wanted to make a man made Ozone layer cause it would be "Safer" and "Controllable". Then it back fires and the world is encompassed in some shield doing things we do not want or enhancing things we did not expect. In the case of self replicating robots, there is no reason to assume it would hit some threshold and just say "Woooah there. Looks like we are heading into Canada now" ;)
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
So I have been watching Revolution (its "OK"). Anyway *Spoiler* In the show there nano-bots everywhere (they got released by the DOD and replicated to be everywhere quite quickly) and they essentially absorb electricity. This means no devices work (well unless you make a pure mechanical engine). Fore example, even your car will not run because the tiny electrical spark will be absorbed. Anyway, in the show only 15 years have passed since the "event". This got me thinking. If say 100 years had passed those that new anything about it would die off. Then time would just go by and any future science would do its researching and analysis thinking that physics behaved in such a manner. In other words electricity would not exist. Interesting concept. It could go either way. Maybe in fact electricity does not exist but only exists because teeny tiny bots are propagating the electrons from a source. We just have not ability to understand it. Or maybe there is some other physical behavior we should see in the world but it is not occurring because some device is preventing it so we all think the F(x) is raltional to B(y) but really it is B(x). [EDIT] Everyone seems to be commenting on the show, which was really not my intention. What about the idea that certain laws of Physics only exist because we are suppressed or benefited by tech we simply do not understand? (that was the discussion I was going for :rolleyes: )
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
You have been watching too much TV lately, haven't you?.. ;P... There are a lot physics we don't understand, mainly at the subatomic level, where our instruments are not good enough or happen things that don't go accord to our models and theories, that's why some people look for unification theories that are valid for any level from macro to micro (or nano), even the mere existence of the universe is big mistery because with out current knowledge we can't know for certain what happened on the Zero day much less before that.
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
You have been watching too much TV lately, haven't you?.. ;P... There are a lot physics we don't understand, mainly at the subatomic level, where our instruments are not good enough or happen things that don't go accord to our models and theories, that's why some people look for unification theories that are valid for any level from macro to micro (or nano), even the mere existence of the universe is big mistery because with out current knowledge we can't know for certain what happened on the Zero day much less before that.
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
RafagaX wrote:
You have been watching too much TV lately, haven't you?.. ;-P
:) I do occasional "Netflix" an entire show. Haven't done that in a while though. My wife and I try to pick a show together and we watch 1 episode a night during the week after the kids are in bed. Revolution was the one that we just started (was more my pick than hers ;P )
RafagaX wrote:
There are a lot physics we don't understand, mainly at the subatomic level, where our instruments are not good enough or happen things that don't go accord to our models and theories
EXACTLY! Our physics laws all come from pure observation. And as you point out in some cases they don't always jive with each other (no unification theory). Oh what the future will hold :-)
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
_Maxxx_ wrote:
Losing knowledge over time certainly has happened in the past
How can you be so certain? If the knowledge was "lost" then it is not likely anyone would know it...
_Maxxx_ wrote:
so assuming all written works were destroyed and nobody wrote anything down then the knowledge would get lost
Yeah, its not like our societies do not have a history of burning Great Libraries to the ground, or laying wasteland to entire civilizations burning any document they pocess :rolleyes: Oh and its a good thing people are born able to read. Otherwise, they might look at the documents and misunderstand them :rolleyes:
_Maxxx_ wrote:
But I think it would take more than 100 years
No it really only takes one generation. Think about the days of apprenticeship. If there is a collapse we would essentially have to return to that. However, certain technologies require more than apprenticeship. They were not built by one man teaching his son. They were built by teams of scientists far smarter than the average man. And they were far smarter because they had "working" technology to study and build upon. Moreover, if the technology essentially becomes "dead" and worthless why would anyone research it. Sure the people that had it would be devoted to "turning the lights back on". Those that grew up with the lights off would just say "Yeah, crazy gramps is at it again. I wish he would just help us with the harvest."
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
_Maxxx_ wrote:
Losing knowledge over time certainly has happened in the past
How can you be so certain? If the knowledge was "lost" then it is not likely anyone would know it...
We know that certain things existed from archeological records, but we don't know how to make it or what it means. For example, we know of Greek Fire from the writings of Theophanes and other contemporary accounts, but we don't know what its formula was. Another well known example is Linear A and Linear B, languages that we know exist and have examples of, but don't know how to translate or what the examples mean. I could go on. So we do know, for a fact, that knowledge has been lost in the past, so it's not unlikely that it could happen again in the future.
-
So I have been watching Revolution (its "OK"). Anyway *Spoiler* In the show there nano-bots everywhere (they got released by the DOD and replicated to be everywhere quite quickly) and they essentially absorb electricity. This means no devices work (well unless you make a pure mechanical engine). Fore example, even your car will not run because the tiny electrical spark will be absorbed. Anyway, in the show only 15 years have passed since the "event". This got me thinking. If say 100 years had passed those that new anything about it would die off. Then time would just go by and any future science would do its researching and analysis thinking that physics behaved in such a manner. In other words electricity would not exist. Interesting concept. It could go either way. Maybe in fact electricity does not exist but only exists because teeny tiny bots are propagating the electrons from a source. We just have not ability to understand it. Or maybe there is some other physical behavior we should see in the world but it is not occurring because some device is preventing it so we all think the F(x) is raltional to B(y) but really it is B(x). [EDIT] Everyone seems to be commenting on the show, which was really not my intention. What about the idea that certain laws of Physics only exist because we are suppressed or benefited by tech we simply do not understand? (that was the discussion I was going for :rolleyes: )
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
So THAT'S the rationale behind the show. Meh. It's like the old anecdote of the acid that will eat through anything: if it eat's through anything, how do you contain it? So these nanites absorb all electricity ... but what about from each other? What about the bioelectric currents that exist in ALL organisms? And then there's the Second Law - no matter how efficiently it's absorbed, what do those nanites do with all the waste heat? They have to dissapate it somehow, and that's gonna make them hot. So if there is a volt/ampere threshold below which the nanites don't operate, then lots of common everyday stuff might still be able to function. But then, absorbing all the high volt/amp stuff would drive the heat dissapation problem up exponentialy - do they only operate in the water or the high altitudes, or high latitudes during winter? Because without cooling, they wouldn't last long. And if you reverse it, if the nanites ONLY function at low volt/amp levels, then the first thing to go would be living organisms, not electric powerplants. Something has to give. Either way, I'm not buying the premise. Nice to know I can strike that off of my list of shows to Netflix.
-
Diesel engines are beautifully simple: they squash fuel, which gets it hot, so it explodes. Once they are up to working temperature, all they need is fuel and off they go - much more efficient than a gas / petrol engine, and (until recently) a lot less complex as well. My old Mitsubishi Shogun had mechanical fuel injection, and the only electricity it actually needed was to warm the cylinders at the start, and a solenoid to shut off the fuel to stop it running - both could be replaced with electricity-free versions very easily. Take a test drive in a modern Diesel powered Ford and I think you will be pleasantly surprised - they are very nice engines these days (just not as many horsies as a gas / petrol of the same CC can be - a lot more torque though)
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre. Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
OriginalGriff wrote:
My old Mitsubishi Shogun had mechanical fuel injection, and the only electricity it actually needed was to warm the cylinders at the start, and a solenoid to shut off the fuel to stop it running - both could be replaced with electricity-free versions very easily
Some of the larger diesels use compressed air to spin the engine to get it started. Not sure how the system works since I don't have one that large, but yes, if you spin a diesel long enough, you can even forgo the preheat/glowplug requirement.
OriginalGriff wrote:
Take a test drive in a modern Diesel powered Ford..
Better yet.. go take a test drive in a modern diesel (TDI) Volkswagen.. I'm finding it pretty hard not to spin the tires from a standing takeoff in mine, and I get 36 MPG buzzing around town (50+ hwy). If you don't like VW, there's a bunch of automakers introducing small diesel passenger cars for the 2014 model year. The Jetta's far from non-electric though.. but my 30 year old Mercedes diesel don't need no electrons for nuttin.. can be push started, all mechanical injection and throttle control, vacuum to shut it down. Kind of a pain sometimes, like when you turn off the ignition and the engine keeps running.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
My old Mitsubishi Shogun had mechanical fuel injection, and the only electricity it actually needed was to warm the cylinders at the start, and a solenoid to shut off the fuel to stop it running - both could be replaced with electricity-free versions very easily
Some of the larger diesels use compressed air to spin the engine to get it started. Not sure how the system works since I don't have one that large, but yes, if you spin a diesel long enough, you can even forgo the preheat/glowplug requirement.
OriginalGriff wrote:
Take a test drive in a modern Diesel powered Ford..
Better yet.. go take a test drive in a modern diesel (TDI) Volkswagen.. I'm finding it pretty hard not to spin the tires from a standing takeoff in mine, and I get 36 MPG buzzing around town (50+ hwy). If you don't like VW, there's a bunch of automakers introducing small diesel passenger cars for the 2014 model year. The Jetta's far from non-electric though.. but my 30 year old Mercedes diesel don't need no electrons for nuttin.. can be push started, all mechanical injection and throttle control, vacuum to shut it down. Kind of a pain sometimes, like when you turn off the ignition and the engine keeps running.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
patbob wrote:
Not sure how the system works since I don't have one that large
If you compress something, it gets hot. Forcing the engine to spin will compress air in the cylinders, heating it (and them) up to the point where spontaneous combustion starts, and the reaction is self sustaining.
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre. Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
-
I haven't been watching it, but "OK" is a relative term: the premise would appear to be flawed. A diesel engine does not "need" a spark, or any other form of ignition. All you need to to heat the cylinders, and the fuel combusts under compression. Indeed, early petrol engines used a "glow plug" - a rod sticking into the engine that was externally heated with a fire - to combust petrol. A steam engine also needs no electricity. It would not be impossible to run an engine - you'd just have to go back a few stages to more primitive ones, then improve down a different technology branch. (Christiaan Huygens designed a water pump that worked on gunpowder in the 17th Century!)
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre. Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
It is possible that reality is an engineered illusion. However, it is very hard to change physics without ruining the cosmos. Stop electricity, the flow of electrons, and you will also stop the electron transport chain that our cells need to respire! It just so happens that an apparent fluke of physics puts a resonance of the carbon nucleus at just the right energy to allow stars to manufacture significant amounts of carbon, otherwise life would not exist as we know it. Tweek physics in the early universe, even slightly, and you may inadvertently shift that resonance and prevent life from occurring. Physics seems just right, at least for life as we know it. Then again, tweak physics and maybe life would be silicon based, so maybe the final outcome remains essentially unchanged.
-
I haven't been watching it, but "OK" is a relative term: the premise would appear to be flawed. A diesel engine does not "need" a spark, or any other form of ignition. All you need to to heat the cylinders, and the fuel combusts under compression. Indeed, early petrol engines used a "glow plug" - a rod sticking into the engine that was externally heated with a fire - to combust petrol. A steam engine also needs no electricity. It would not be impossible to run an engine - you'd just have to go back a few stages to more primitive ones, then improve down a different technology branch. (Christiaan Huygens designed a water pump that worked on gunpowder in the 17th Century!)
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre. Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
OriginalGriff wrote:
A diesel engine does not "need" a spark, or any other form of ignition.
True that, but if the conditions in the show actually hit us, my diesel truck wouldn't start. 1. It has a "glow plug" in it. Turn the ignition on, a "Wait" light lights up, electricity is fed into the plug, sensors detect when it is hot enough, turns the light off. 2. I turn the key further, an electric motor starts cranking the engine and hopefully the engine starts right off. 3. Electric sensors on my dash tell me what is going on. 4. I kind of like listening to the radio. 5. My clock is off because I haven't reset it, but now I'll have to get a new watch anyway because all my current clocks are battery or electrically driven. 6. I've gotten used to listening to my radio. 3 on is superfluous, but I hate to think about the retrofitting and time/manual work needed to get my truck started without batteries. Oh, yea. I've got diesel tanks to fill. Where do I get it? HOW do I get it?
