June 18, 2013, 04:13:18 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Show Posts

* Messages | Topics | Attachments

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

« Dvorak's CAGE MATCHProfile of Misanthropic ScottShow PostsMessages »
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 350
1  Water Cooler / Tasteless or Not Tasteless / Re: hospitals AND CORPORATIONS..
« on: 11:26:11 AM »

Scotty, your drugs here cost $5 per month, and generic costs even less. If you are using Insulin then it will be a little more, but under $50 per month. Same for HIV drugs, which are cheap, and if you go to a state hospital free. Last time I went for stitches (4) I had a co pay of $20, as it was after hours on a Saturday, but my doctor was there, and asked for the reason for my stupidity. If after hours now I would pay the $200 charge for the ER, or could go to a state hospital and hope they are not too busy so I do not spend the day there.

Actually, I say drugs. Insulin is indeed expensive, over $150/bottle. But, there are other very high costs that are not truly drugs. Pump supplies for my insulin pump. Sensors for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Test strips because CGM does not replace testing blood. A new insulin pump every 4 years. The cheap items are alcohol swabs, lancets, and glucose tables. Then the doctors visits. 4x/year to the endocrinologist plus once a year to the ophthalmologist, each at $50/visit. Plus, once a year I have to go to my PCP or he won't give me referrals (the bane of my existence). And then I have other health issues, most notably a semi-recurring eye infection (an alergic reaction to the waste products of staphylococcus, yup, staph shit). Eye drops for that at $173/bottle.

You get the picture. Health care in the U.S. is the worst among all of the developed democratic nations of the world, but at least it's expensive as hell!

2  Water Cooler / Tasteless or Not Tasteless / Re: hospitals AND CORPORATIONS..
« on: 10:28:34 AM »

BTW, I know Canada's health care is not free. TANSTAAFL.

Mine costs $900/month for myself and my wife. At that, I get a $30 copay for office visits, $50 for specialists (like my endocrinologist 4x/yr), and an HMO with gatekeeper and no out of network benefits. Oh, and NO DRUG PLAN!

How a diabetic survives without a drug plan is a different question. This particular plan covers diabetic drugs and supplies at the cost of a regular office visit ($30) per 1 month supply.

Other drugs, I pay completely out of pocket.

The drug plan would cost another $200/month.

I want my public option!! I want to buy into medicare now.

3  Water Cooler / Tasteless or Not Tasteless / Re: hospitals AND CORPORATIONS..
« on: 10:24:41 AM »

I recently got my first colonoscopy. Surprisingly, it was not at all uncomfortable or unpleasant. Perhaps that's because they gave me the Michael Jackson death drug, propofol. Mine was in a facility, which I've since read is just to jack up the price dramatically.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/health/colonoscopies-explain-why-us-leads-the-world-in-health-expenditures.html?hp&_r=5&

4  Water Cooler / Tasteless or Not Tasteless / Re: hospitals AND CORPORATIONS..
« on: 10:19:42 AM »

I never see a bill.

I can't believe I didn't move to Canada in 2004. When W stole his second election, my wife and I seriously considered it. As a practicing geek at the time, I probably could have gotten in. Programming was one of the professions on the preferred list. Though, I don't speak French, which would have counted against me, or more accurately not counted for me.

Three years of work and I'd have had health coverage for life.

I really hate myself for being smart enough to know the right decision and not smart enough to actually do it. Damn!

5  Water Cooler / Tasteless or Not Tasteless / Re: hospitals AND CORPORATIONS..
« on: 10:15:07 AM »

I personally love that a doctor will charge you a fee for some service. Then, the hospital will tack on a fee for the doctor having used the facilities of the hospital, all while you're staying in the hospital.

In one case, I needed a whopping 2 stitches (boo hoo, right?). Well, I didn't even stay overnight. The doctor visually examined my finger to determine that there was no damage to nerves or ligaments and made me clench the finger, that sort of thing. Then he stiched me up. Big deal. It was really nothing.

The bill was $1,500. I forget how much was from the doctor for the stitches (should have gone to a tailor) and how much was for the doctor having a room in which to stitch me in the emergency room. It was ridiculous.

So, ECA, can you really get a private room in a hospital by you for a mere $1k/night?

6  Water Cooler / GMOTW - M. Scott / Re: Hydrogen: Still a battery; but easier to split from water now
« on: 10:08:26 AM »

Yeah. The problem is very evident in the phrase heat transfer, which is somehow valid. To me, it implies that heat is being transferred from one body to another. Yet, heat is not a property of a body. So, heat transfer really means energy transfer. What a pain!! No wonder there's so much confusion about this. So, even with heat not being a property of a body or system, one can say that a body is hot, which I guess must only imply high temperature.

In short, this seems to have been a bad decision in the technical/scientific definition of the word heat.

Now we're stuck with it. I don't believe that technical definitions can change as readily as normal English language words. A couple of generations of people say I am nauseous and it becomes correct. That's all it takes with normal words to change from nauseous meaning something that causes nausea to a state of feeling nausea.

The first generation of people who said "I am nauseous" or "I feel nauseous" probably really did cause nausea in listeners who knew better. Correct classic usage was, "the nauseous motion of the boat made me nauseated."

So, how do we get a technical term changed formally? I have no idea. I just find that the current definition of heat is nauseous. It makes me nauseated.

7  Water Cooler / GMOTW - M. Scott / Re: Hydrogen: Still a battery; but easier to split from water now
« on: 06:06:13 AM »

Strangely, from that heat page, it seems to be OK to refer to a body as hot or cold, in and of itself. It just isn't OK to speak of heat without the concept of it being transferred from a warmer body to a cooler one. Odd.
Why? That is perfectly logical to me! Heat is a relative measure of the energy of molecular vibration level. A body at a given heat level ...

But, it isn't perfectly logical. Else you would not have said this bit above. Heat is NOT a measure of energy of molecular vibration. That's temperature. A body cannot have a heat level. There is no such thing as a heat level. Heat only makes sense in the transfers, as you describe below. It does not make sense in this first bit.

Actually, it does make sense to me.

It's just not correct from a physics or chemistry standpoint. The body may be hot. But, it does not possess the property heat until heat is being transferred. That's the bizarre bit in the definition. I have no idea why anyone would have defined heat that way. Read the page for yourself. If you can make sense of the reason for this definition, please let me know. Until then, I'll disagree with the way they defined heat and try to use it correctly going forward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

Here's the relevant quote again, emphasis mine.

: wikipedia
In physics and chemistry, heat is energy transferred from one body to another by thermal interactions. The transfer of energy can occur in a variety of ways, among them conduction, radiation, and convection. Heat is not a property of a system or body, but instead is always associated with a process of some kind, and is synonymous with heat flow and heat transfer.

A body at a given heat temperature level placed in the vicinity of another body [sometimes in another phase], will change vibration level downward if that second body is of lower vibration level,[heat transfer]
 eg. a Red hot steel bar inserted into icy cold water. The heat transfer causes a phase change in the water, in fact 2 phases, if the steel bar is big enough.
Molten slag poured out onto water at room temp. will cause the water to transform to steam, then disassociate into H2 and O2 but very quickly as it leaves the immediate vicinity will recombine into H2O. This entails another energy release that gets you instant attention, a double loud bang, ie. explosion then implosion! It knocks all the dust off the structural steel of the melt shop building and sends any pigeons into pure panic/flight, never mind the employees sudden wake up to their personal safety!

All well and good. Here, your uses of the word heat are always in the context of transfer, except for the initial one that I corrected for you.

Again, I'm not criticizing you. I think your use of the term heat should make sense. It's just that the physicists and the chemists decided heat means transfer of energy.

Please please please, someone tell me why this was defined in such a counterintuitive way.

8  Water Cooler / GMOTW - M. Scott / Re: Hydrogen: Still a battery; but easier to split from water now
« on: 12:44:41 PM »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Number_of_dimensions

Seems it's 10 for superstring theory, 26 for bosonic string theory (a term I'd not heard before), or 11 for M-Theory (branes).

9  Water Cooler / GMOTW - M. Scott / Re: Hydrogen: Still a battery; but easier to split from water now
« on: 12:39:49 PM »

Strangely, from that heat page, it seems to be OK to refer to a body as hot or cold, in and of itself. It just isn't OK to speak of heat without the concept of it being transferred from a warmer body to a cooler one. Odd.

10  Water Cooler / GMOTW - M. Scott / Re: Hydrogen: Still a battery; but easier to split from water now
« on: 11:49:58 AM »

Cold = no work getting done.

Do people turn up the thermostat when entering your cubicle?

Presumably yes. I have no idea. I'm never there. Perhaps someone else is. I'm not even sure which of my cubicles over the years you might mean. But, since I've stopped going to any of them, i.e. retired, it doesn't matter.

Happiness is a cold cubicle!

......I kid.  I left it out of my scribbling, but seems more relevant now that "in the end" much of this Universe: Energy, Work all seem to be about Heat and that heat enthropically moving towards zero.  And Heat I take is (circularly) just a measure of movement.  I wonder how that plays out in chemical reactions?  What is the "energy state" of an electron but its amount of movement?  Taking on and giving off heat?  Or is heat NOT taken on or given off but rather photons are which affects the amount of movement and therefor the heat?  Heat not "a thing" but a measure?

On my Sheldon thread, someone pointed out that heat is defined as transfer of energy. The heat reduction in the universe is not truly a transfer of heat, but rather a spreading of it over a larger area (diluting?). So, perhaps it is not truly even heat by the real definition of heat. Though, there is a temperature associated with it. Higher temperatures are generally considered hot, hence the term hot being used for the early universe. But, it may not be technically correct to use the word heat in such instances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

: wikipedia
In physics and chemistry, heat is energy transferred from one body to another by thermal interactions.[1][2] The transfer of energy can occur in a variety of ways, among them conduction,[3] radiation,[4] and convection. Heat is not a property of a system or body, but instead is always associated with a process of some kind, and is synonymous with heat flow and heat transfer.

I thought string theory predicted or is the basis for 17 dimensions....or something like that.  And what is "nothing" if "things" pop into and out of existence within that nothing?

I believe the number of dimensions is either 10 or 11 depending on string or brane theory. I seem to remember another number that also worked to make the equations neat. Perhaps 26? Regardless, that is not, at this point, a testable prediction. The idea is to have the theory predict something then test to see if the theory was correct in that prediction.

11  Water Cooler / GMOTW - M. Scott / Re: Hydrogen: Still a battery; but easier to split from water now
« on: 08:00:53 AM »

In short, we don't know what energy is, but a total lack of energy is an extremely cold place!

A total lack of energy is also a totally non-existent place. Our universe has a temperature of about 2.7 degrees Kelvin even in the deep space between galactic clusters.

That said, even a near total lack of energy is a very cold place. So, I'm agreeing. I'm just being a bit ... obtuse? ... anal? ... annoying?

12  Water Cooler / GMOTW - M. Scott / Re: Hydrogen: Still a battery; but easier to split from water now
« on: 07:54:23 AM »

I think that definition of work probably works, so to speak, within Newtonian physics. I'm not sure what would happen in general relativity. The mass of the object to be accelerated to near light speed, for example, become far greater. Is that happening via M = e/C^2? Possibly. I'm not really sure. Where does force come into it? Certainly force can be created by energy. There may be other means as well, I'm not sure.

So, the definition of energy involves work. The definition of work may involve energy. It's all very convoluted. It's almost as if humans with an imperfect knowledge of the universe created only moderately well defined terms to attempt to explain our limited understanding of the workings of the universe. These definitions seem to form a framework that seems to work quite well for us most of the time ... until quantum mechanics meets relativity, anyway. But, in that framework, some of the terms seem circularly dependent on each other.

Hmm... I must think about this some more. Perhaps I should even ask my friend who is a string theorist. If so, I must be careful not to call him a string hypothesist. Actually, I've done that too at times. He doesn't get offended but really still believes strings to be a theory rather than a hypothesis. I still disagree. He points out that string theorists were not even trying to put gravity into the equations yet and gravity just fell out of the equations naturally.

I still want something where a given theory actually makes predictions. Silly me. I still want a theory that can be used to at least make computations like putting a probe on Pluto. Newton probably isn't precise enough for that, or so I've heard. General relativity can definitely do it. Can string hypothesis? Yes, just as soon as we narrow down the parameters a bit from 10^500 possibilities to 1. Hmm....

Anyway, back to work. I'm satisfied with a known framework even if the terms are circularly dependent on each other. Not being a compiler, I'm OK with circular dependencies. BTW, some java compilers and IDEs are OK with circular dependencies too. Some are not.

13  Water Cooler / GMOTW - M. Scott / Re: Hydrogen: Still a battery; but easier to split from water now
« on: June 16, 2013, 06:50:52 PM »

I thought Obtuser identified the energy of the sun comes from the fusion of hydrogen into Helium?  Or maybe not that expressly but under the Big Bang theory wasn't Hydrogen the first and only "stuff" of the Universe?  Gravity drew Hydrogen together and formed suns where Helium was produced and so forth?

Actually, I think that was me. Hydrogen and helium were both directly created in the aftermath of the big bang, about 380,000,000 years after the initial "bang" whatever that means.

The other elements were created in stars by fusion. So, the heavy elements in our bodies are indications that we are star barf. The heavier atoms in our bodies were puked out of the stars as they went supernova. Our star is at least a second generation star, else the planets orbiting it would not have the heavy elements that make up us.

Seems to me Hyrdrogen is the basic energy source of the Universe.

Seems to me the big bang is the energy source of the universe.

I guess it depends on how you define a "source."  Or in your case, the expense of creating a source (sic) to be used at other times and places, or how polluting it is.

For purposes of solving the problems humans have created by using the "source" of fossil fuels, it makes sense to consider source of energy to mean something that can give us humans energy to power our civilization.

But, I dither.  What is energy anyway?

This may just be the best question so far on this thread. One could define energy as mass times the speed of light squared. But then one would just ask what is mass and get the answer energy divided by the speed of light squared. And that would be begging the question, the formal name for this type of logical fallacy. Though, I confess to not liking the name for the fallacy, it would certainly be begging the question.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

So, let's go to the videotape, or some better source for the scientific definition of energy.

(google break)

Wow!! Turns out that really is a tough question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

: wikipedia
The question "what is energy?" is difficult to answer in a simple, intuitive way, although energy can be rigorously defined in theoretical physics.[citation needed] In the words of Richard Feynman, "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount."

However, it is clear that energy is always an indispensable prerequisite for performing mechanical work, and the concept has great importance in natural science. The natural basic units in which energy is measured are those used for mechanical work; they always are equivalent to a unit of force multiplied by a unit of length. Other equivalent units for energy are mass units multiplied by velocity units squared.

http://physics.info/energy/

: physics.info
A system possesses energy if it has the ability to do work.

What is work? A four letter word. Let's not discuss that here for fear of censorship.

14  Water Cooler / GMOTW - M. Scott / Re: Hydrogen: Still a battery; but easier to split from water now
« on: June 16, 2013, 03:13:25 PM »

EVERY TIME you burn hydrogen (sourced from photovoltaics) you avoid burning coal.  Thats the very reason it is being developed:  free energy from the sun through the creation and transport of hydrogen.  Details to be worked out.

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!! We have a winner folks. bobbo is now down for the count.

Thank you for finally admitting that you've been flat dead wrong all along. You probably will not admit it. But, it's true.

The energy source is solar energy!!! IT IS MOST DEFINITELY NOT HYDROGEN!

Why have you been fighting me on this??!!? Regardless of whether you call hydrogen an accumulator or a true battery, it is NOT THE ENERGY SOURCE.

Thank you for finally admitting you've been wrong all along.

Now that I've won, though I know you won't admit it, I'm done with this discussion. If we have any new tangents to discuss, we can discuss new related topics now. I won't go into this with you further.

15  Water Cooler / GMOTW - M. Scott / Re: Hydrogen: Still a battery; but easier to split from water now
« on: June 16, 2013, 02:24:18 PM »

This is the job of engineers and scientists, not kibitzers on fora !!!

Agreed. And, I like your mix of Yiddish with pluralization in the Latin standard. Good one.

Another problem is the classic use of words which varies from area to area in this wide continent. Did you mean condenser when using the term accumulator, or was it a storage reservoir, bottle/tank?

I was the one who started using the word accumulator. I think I defined it for the context (or, as bobbo would scream, CONTEXT) of this discussion.

It's the engineering definition where an accumulator is anything that stores energy of any kind. All batteries are accumulators. Some accumulators are not batteries. Some seem to have conflicting definitions of whether they also meet the stricter definition of batteries.

Here's that definition again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulator_%28energy%29

: wikipedia
An accumulator is an apparatus by means of which energy can be stored, such as a rechargeable battery or a hydraulic accumulator. Such devices may be electrical, fluidic or mechanical and are sometimes used to convert a small continuous power source into a short surge of energy or vice versa. Other examples of accumulators include capacitors, compulsators, steam accumulator, wave energy machines and pumped-storage hydroelectric plants.

In general usage in an electrical context the word accumulator would normally mean a lead-acid battery.

The London tower bridge is operated via an accumulator. The original raising mechanism was powered by pressurised water stored in several hydraulic accumulators. In 1974, the original operating mechanism was largely replaced by a new electro-hydraulic drive system. Accumulators offer a simple, cheap and clean way of storing an unlimited amount of electricity created by renewable resources including hydro. Accumulators are used in the process of creating an Antiproton detector, they obtain positrons in a positron accumulator.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 350
UserTools

Home
Help
Search
Members List
Statistics
Login
Register



LatestNews

Read Dvorak Uncensored

Check the Tech Section for the Tech5,
Cranky Geeks and
No Agenda Webcasts.


About Us

Clear Sky Clock


ForumStats

44508 Posts
8601 Topics
1109 Members
Latest Member: Niestek

Powered by PHP
Powered by MySQL
Valid XHTML 1.0!
Valid CSS!



Powered by SMF 2.0.1 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media
Simplicity design by Bloc