1162: "Log Scale"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

mishka
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:47 am UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby mishka » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:34 pm UTC

In a galaxy not unlike ours, in a time far far into the future, the Foundation Federation shall power their consumer products with nuclear reactors the size of a walnut.

wannes
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:38 pm UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby wannes » Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:06 pm UTC

hlangeveld wrote:For traditional sold fuel, hot water reactors, you require thousands of tons of Uranium, that first must be enriched (removing some of the U-238, which is now waste).

"Some"in like 80%?
If you look at it like adding "some" percentage of 235U it works, but you need to remove a majority of the 238U, which in fact is why it is so difficult

Crosshair
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:45 am UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby Crosshair » Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:17 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Yes, but energy density actually means means very little if you actually know what you are taking about.


Unfortunately for you, I do.

nitePhyyre wrote:What's important is how much of that energy can be turned into useful work. The vast majority of the energy in those big hydrocarbon bars on your graph is going to be lost as waste heat.

Really, the gasoline and diesel bars should only be at around 2-3.


30% efficiency for the ICE, a good general figure, for this argument I'll grant you that. That still completely decimates batteries as the gasoline still has 6 to 9 times the energy density. Then factor in that those batteries and electric motor aren't 100% efficient either, so closer to 10+ times the energy density of batteries.

As someone before me mentioned, that "waste" heat is used for heating the passenger compartment when it's cold outside. In places with long and/or cold winters, that "waste" heat is very useful.

nitePhyyre wrote:That is before even considering that you also have to carry around a massive cooling system and enough extra mass in the engine itself to contain the bombs that are going off 60 odd times a second.


Massive? The cooling system of family sedan weighs weigh nowhere close to even a hundred pounds. Not to mention its entirely possible to build cars with air cooled engines if you really wanted to. The VW bug had an air cooled engine.

As for the weight of the engine, looking at an auto parts supplier, the complete 2 liter Zetec-R engine in my Ford Contour has a shipping weight of only 220 pounds. The transmission has to weigh not much more than a hundred, given that you can bench-press them into position from under the car without too much difficulty. Then you have the drive train and suspension, which an electric car has to have too. So 400-450 pounds for a 120 horsepower ICE power plant and transmission. Not bad given the curb weight of my car is listed at 2800 pounds.

Stats for electric car drive train weight are hard to find, but factor in 500+ pounds of batteries and I doubt there will be much weight savings. Then think about the structural requirements from having to protect 90 pounds of gasoline from a crash vs 500+ pounds of batteries

nitePhyyre wrote:And that's pure dead weight, lowering the hydrocarbons even further.


As opposed to those batteries, which weight 10 times more than the equivalent weight of gasoline? Seems like you're conveniently forgetting those. My car can go 300 miles between fueling. How much would an electric car that can do the same weigh?

nitePhyyre wrote:So yeah, you're wrong and should go apologize to everyone that you only have half off the story to.


Nope, I'm right and you're wrong.

nitePhyyre wrote:Edit: I forgot that with gas cars you are going to be wasting fuel while you are stopped at red lights and stop signs. With an eclectic car, you won't be wasting anything.


You'll be wasting energy hauling that battery pack around, since electrics are heavier than an equivalent ICE car due to the batteries. hybrids are a bit better, but even though are still measurably heavier than their pure ICE counterparts.

The main waste of energy is in traffic jams, which is caused by not having enough road capacity or poorly timed and coordinated traffic signals.

nitePhyyre wrote:And when you stop our slow down in a gas car you are bleeding off even more of your energy as heat. With electric, you are recharging you battery.


Regenerative braking can typically only regenerate the equivalent power of the generator. In the Prius that is between 40-70 horsepower. Your average family sedan has between 400-600 horsepower equivalent in braking power. Odds are you're going to be putting a significant amount of energy into your brake disks just like those with the ICE.

I'm all in favor of environmentally friendly solutions that WORK. I am NOT in favor of welfare wagons for the rich to buy and drive.

My view on the situation? Algae hydrocarbon fuels being perfected in 50-100 years. The technology will probably replace solar panels since you can store the fuel created and run it in a diesel or turbine, so it would work for base load.

Ehsanit
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:53 pm UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby Ehsanit » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:18 am UTC

mishka wrote:In a galaxy not unlike ours, in a time far far into the future, the Foundation Federation shall power their consumer products with nuclear reactors the size of a walnut.


I think the premise was that it is our galaxy. There's meant to be a loose link (albeit little more than references) with the Robots series that documents the first tentative steps of humankind into space.

User avatar
ShuRugal
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:19 am UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby ShuRugal » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:29 am UTC

mishka wrote:In a galaxy not unlike ours, in a time far far into the future, the Foundation Federation shall power their consumer products with nuclear reactors the size of a walnut.


we call these "RTG"s

fypaul
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:16 am UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby fypaul » Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:22 am UTC

fyjham wrote:...It'd only be about 59.4km long of paper hanging off the top of the page. The odds I've gotten something wrong above is probably around 100% :P


I just went through and did the same thing and got similar results, but I was more interested in how accurate the comic was. Through the 59.4 km of paper, the stack in the back (which seems to be folding every 30 cms), and given a 1mm paper thickness, would be about 47 meters tall, so yes, that stick figure is standing very far back, and is freakishly huge.

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby Arariel » Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:05 am UTC

wannes wrote:
hlangeveld wrote:For traditional sold fuel, hot water reactors, you require thousands of tons of Uranium, that first must be enriched (removing some of the U-238, which is now waste).

"Some"in like 80%?
If you look at it like adding "some" percentage of 235U it works, but you need to remove a majority of the 238U, which in fact is why it is so difficult

That's weapons-grade uranium that has ~90% U-235. Reactor grade only has 3-4%.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25783
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:55 am UTC

fypaul wrote:
fyjham wrote:...It'd only be about 59.4km long of paper hanging off the top of the page. The odds I've gotten something wrong above is probably around 100% :P


I just went through and did the same thing and got similar results, but I was more interested in how accurate the comic was. Through the 59.4 km of paper, the stack in the back (which seems to be folding every 30 cms), and given a 1mm paper thickness, would be about 47 meters tall, so yes, that stick figure is standing very far back, and is freakishly huge.

When was the last time you encountered 1mm thick paper? Where ten sheets take up a full centimeter? 1/10th of that is closer to reasonable.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

severach
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:54 pm UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby severach » Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:00 am UTC

I don't need any other comics to see that Randall is a quitter. Look at the log scales right above the bars.

User avatar
Davidy
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:18 am UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby Davidy » Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:19 am UTC

severach wrote:I don't need any other comics to see that Randall is a quitter. Look at the log scales right above the bars.

He's showing a linear scale, not a log scale.
"It's only funny until someone loses an eye, then it's still funny but they can only see it in 2-D."

cleverca22
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:19 pm UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby cleverca22 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:22 pm UTC

ShuRugal wrote:Flywheel, as you noted, is complex and heavy: now you need a -third- motor to spin up the flyweel and extract energy from it, in addition to the flywheel itself.

"more batteries" is pointless, as discussed, Lead Acid can handle high-current output/input (AGM batteries are particularly impressive in this regard) and they have excellent volumetric power density, but they are heavy as all fuck. Nickel batteries -can- be charged at insane charge rates, but it kills cycle life: i've known RC Car guys to do 5-minute charges on nickel packs, and get 5 uses out of each pack before it was junk. Lithium is capable of insane discharge, but maximum safe charge rate is 1C, so unless you plan on taking an hour each time you stop, you will only recapture an insignificant fraction of your energy.

The only other sort of technology that can be charged to and discharged from full capacity in a few seconds is a capacitor, but volumetric density on caps is absolutely atrocious. a cap large enough to get your car up a 1-minute long 20% grade would be bigger than the car.




one solution ive heard of, is to lease the batterys from a company, and just swap the whole unit at the 'charge station'
the dead battery can then sit on charge for 12h (or whatever is needed), and get stuffed into the next car that comes along

User avatar
ShuRugal
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:19 am UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby ShuRugal » Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:12 pm UTC

cleverca22 wrote:one solution ive heard of, is to lease the batterys from a company, and just swap the whole unit at the 'charge station'
the dead battery can then sit on charge for 12h (or whatever is needed), and get stuffed into the next car that comes along



Solves waiting around for a charge, and insures that the batteries will be properly handled during recharge and can be checked for wear and whatnot. Does not solve the issue of regenerative braking. Without that, an ICE/Electric drivetrain of the same sort use in diesel-electric locomotives is no more efficient than the half-measure hybrids we already have.

prosfilaes
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:21 am UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby prosfilaes » Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:20 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:For truly large numbers, this method doesn't even come close to being useful.


Truly large numbers don't come close to being useful. The ratio of the width of a proton to the width of the universe is a mere 5 * 10^41. Even cubed, that's still only 10^125. ln* (10^125) is 4. So for any number that could possibly come up in reality, ln* is going to be more than sufficient. ln*(x) = 5 for some value between 10 to the million and 10 to the ten million; even if you can come up with physical processes that might use those numbers, ln* is still a single digit at that point.

User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby skeptical scientist » Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:18 am UTC

I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one to realize the graph is meaningless because the energy density of all matter is exactly c2.

* * *

gmalivuk wrote:Each logarithm in base 10^(10^10) is worth three in base 10

How do you figure? Let's use log* for base 10 iterated log, and looog* for base 10^10^10 iterated log (associating ^ to the right). looog* takes values 0, 1, and 2 on the intervals [0,1],(1,10^10^10], and (10^10^10,(10^10^10)^(10^10^10)]. But (10^10^10)^(10^10^10) is not the same as 10^10^10^10^10^10; in fact, it's only 10^(10^10*10^10^10)=10^10^(10+10^10), which is only slightly larger than 10^10^10^10.

Extrapolating from this, I figure that log*n - 3 ≤ looog*n ≤ log*n for all n. I'm pretty sure that the difference between any pair of iterated logarithms, regardless of the base, is O(1).
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25783
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:39 am UTC

skeptical scientist wrote:Extrapolating from this, I figure that log*n - 3 ≤ looog*n ≤ log*n for all n. I'm pretty sure that the difference between any pair of iterated logarithms, regardless of the base, is O(1).
Yeah, I didn't actually go through any of those calculations beyond noting that log10* (10^10^10) = 3 and guessing (for no particular reason) that that was multiplicative.

prosfilaes wrote:The ratio of the width of a proton to the width of the universe is a mere 5 * 10^41.
Sure, because physical size never actually gets that extreme.

But things like combinatorics have real-world relevance and can quite easily pop out numbers a hundred orders of magnitude larger than anything you'll get by dividing one physical size by another. Protein folding, for example, is difficult to simulate because of the immense number of possible arrangements a given peptide chain could theoretically have.

(Granted, something the size of Graham's number is unlikely to ever have any particular real-world utility. And if that bothers you, I'm sure there are many other places on the Internet where you can hang out with people who don't enjoy messing around with numbers for the sheer fun of it.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Angelastic
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:36 am UTC
Location: .at (let's see what's through here!)
Contact:

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby Angelastic » Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:39 pm UTC

mishka wrote:In a galaxy not unlike ours, in a time far far into the future, the Foundation Federation shall power their consumer products with nuclear reactors the size of a walnut.
And they shall power their walnuts with nuclear reactors the size of consumer products!
Knight Temporal, and Archdeacon of buttermongery and ham and cheese sandwiches. Nobody sells butter except through me.
Image Smiley by yappobiscuits. Avatar by GLR, buffygirl, BlitzGirl & mscha, with cari.j.elliot's idea.
Haiku Detector
starts a trend to make way for
my robot army.

GreatLimmick
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:58 am UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby GreatLimmick » Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:04 pm UTC

One of my middle school science textbooks got across the point of the original graph pretty well. It had an illustration of a one ton pile of coal, about fifty barrels of oil, and a one gram cube of uranium. The caption explained that each fuel source could produce about the same amount of energy.

User avatar
Wnderer
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby Wnderer » Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:49 pm UTC

mishka wrote:In a galaxy not unlike ours, in a time far far into the future, the Foundation Federation shall power their consumer products with nuclear reactors the size of a walnut.


Or so says the Encyclopedia Galactica but the truth is the Second Foundation only makes you think that the nuclear reactors are the size of a walnut.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby Fire Brns » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:01 pm UTC

Coyne wrote:Science tip: Log scales are for pinko commie environmentalism freaks who have some kind of weird thing about saving trees.

To be fair deforestation should be a bigger concern than CO2 emissions.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

speising
Posts: 2066
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby speising » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:04 pm UTC

Can somebody please make an analogous graph showing the respective damages resulting from reactor failures in the different kinds of power plants?

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby Fire Brns » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:31 pm UTC

speising wrote:Can somebody please make an analogous graph showing the respective damages resulting from reactor failures in the different kinds of power plants?
As well as a graph for the likelihood of failure in said reactors.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25783
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:32 pm UTC

speising wrote:Can somebody please make an analogous graph showing the respective damages resulting from reactor failures in the different kinds of power plants?
Someone could, I'm sure, but it wouldn't support the point you want it to support.

Worldwide, the number of deaths per total energy produced is far lower for nuclear than for any other widely used power source.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby ctdonath » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:53 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:To be fair deforestation should be a bigger concern than CO2 emissions.


Nobody worries about the consumption rate of broccoli. In the last 45 years, broccoli consumption has increased nearly 6x, and that when human population increased only 2x. At this rate, it's clear that soon there won't be any broccoli left!

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby Arariel » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:06 pm UTC

speising wrote:Can somebody please make an analogous graph showing the respective damages resulting from reactor failures in the different kinds of power plants?

Sure:
Image
Or:
Image

Might want to break out that log scale again.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3074
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:46 pm UTC

Anyone want to do a graphic showing how long a coal-fired power plant needs to operate in order to produce more radioactive fallout than Fukushima?

Nuclear plants in routine operation release less radioactivity into the environment than a single conventional coal-fired plant, and produce much more power.

To put things into perspective, parts of Tokyo were being evacuated after Fukushima where the background radiation levels had climbed so high that they were the same as in London! People are a long way short of rational about nuclear power...

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby Arariel » Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:30 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:Anyone want to do a graphic showing how long a coal-fired power plant needs to operate in order to produce more radioactive fallout than Fukushima?

Nuclear plants in routine operation release less radioactivity into the environment than a single conventional coal-fired plant, and produce much more power.

To put things into perspective, parts of Tokyo were being evacuated after Fukushima where the background radiation levels had climbed so high that they were the same as in London! People are a long way short of rational about nuclear power...


From here, someone can be dosed by as much as 19 μSv a year from fly ash, while Randall's has 0.3 μSv for a 50-mile radius. Fukushima's extra dose was 40 μSv (I assume the milli prefix is a typo, since only two blocks are shown), so it would take about two years for a single coal power plant operating normally according to Scientific American, or 133 years according to Randall. Of course, we can also adjust for the amount of energy produced. IIRC, it will take about five coal power plants to equal a nuclear power plant. Which brings it down to about five months or 27 years. Then, we can multiply by probabilities, but you get the idea.

User avatar
Angelastic
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:36 am UTC
Location: .at (let's see what's through here!)
Contact:

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby Angelastic » Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:28 am UTC

Isn't the main problem with nuclear power that of safely storing the spent fuel for thousands of years?
Knight Temporal, and Archdeacon of buttermongery and ham and cheese sandwiches. Nobody sells butter except through me.
Image Smiley by yappobiscuits. Avatar by GLR, buffygirl, BlitzGirl & mscha, with cari.j.elliot's idea.
Haiku Detector
starts a trend to make way for
my robot army.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9417
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby addams » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:13 am UTC

Angelastic wrote:Isn't the main problem with nuclear power that of safely storing the spent fuel for thousands of years?

So, funny.
Is that a bug or a feature?
That stuff may be useful in the future, if we can find it.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby Klear » Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:09 am UTC

addams wrote:
Angelastic wrote:Isn't the main problem with nuclear power that of safely storing the spent fuel for thousands of years?

So, funny.
Is that a bug or a feature?
That stuff may be useful in the future, if we can find it.


Yeah! There are countries all around the globe waiting to be nuked ;)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3074
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:32 pm UTC

Angelastic wrote:Isn't the main problem with nuclear power that of safely storing the spent fuel for thousands of years?


One of the problems with converting crude oil into a useful fuel source was that you ended up with this horrible black gunk that was nearly indestructible. Then someone came up with idea of surfacing roads with it.

Spent nuclear fuel may well turn out to be useful for all sorts of things we haven't thought of yet. One obvious possibility would be to reprocess it into fuel for a new generation of nuclear reactors...

Mirkwood
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:10 am UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby Mirkwood » Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:05 pm UTC

Angelastic wrote:Isn't the main problem with nuclear power that of safely storing the spent fuel for thousands of years?


As others have noted, the fuel isn't really "spent"--we just can't properly harness the remaining energy yet. (Randall's graph is somewhat misleading in that we only extract a little bit out of the available energy from nuclear fuel.) Also, keep in mind that the longer you store it, the less harmful it gets. And if it really becomes a problem, e.g. because we take too long to get better technologies up and running, we could always consider storing it on the moon. It'd be expensive as heck to get it there, but technology marches on, and we'd be done with the whole problem.

endolith
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:14 am UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby endolith » Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:52 pm UTC

philip1201 wrote:
Antimatter? Antimatter is for quitters who can't maintain a stable Hawking radiating black hole. (100% mass -> radiation conversion)


What's the energy density of a black hole compared to gasoline? I'm guessing it varies by size?

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby Klear » Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:55 pm UTC

Mirkwood wrote:Also, keep in mind that the longer you store it, the less harmful it gets.


Well, since with our current technology the waste remains dangerous for hundreds to millions of years, that's hardly a good argument. Wherever we store it, the storage has to remain safe for extreme lengths of time, which is, I assume, quite expensive and possibly not foolproof.

endolith
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:14 am UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby endolith » Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:21 pm UTC

cwnc wrote:DAE think the road to workable fusion will be advanced molecular structures pushing nuclei closer together into exclusive quantum configurations, and not smashing atoms together in ways only possible within massive stars?


Smashing them together is pretty easy, actually. http://www.fusor.net/

User avatar
Lenoxus
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:14 pm UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby Lenoxus » Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:26 pm UTC

philip1201 wrote:Black holes? Black holes are for quitters who can't harvest dark energy by collecting the work of two galactic superclusters expanding away from each other. (violates energy conservation)


Dark energy, of course, is for quitters who can't hack the program simulating our universe, by exploiting bugs. (Bugs such as butterflies.)

squonk wrote:Instead of juryrigging the Base 10 system of counting to do a job it's not cut out for, why not just use Base Googolplex?

Then, no matter how big the stack of cards, its quantity can be written out in a single symbol.


This was the subject of a short story I've never read, called "Funes the memorious". The title character's memory is so powerful he decides to develop a language system with a single unique term for each existing thing, and another for each integer; he gets at least as far as 24,000. The story is by Luis Borges, who brought us the Library of Babel concept.

One trick for that which occurs to me is to "cheat" with binary. If we require these symbols to be presentable on a computer screen and to not involve colors or shades (just like every natural written language of which I'm aware), then binary tells us the maximum possible number of "unique" symbols for each size (though they wouldn't be easily distinguishable to the human eye if viewed at normal screen resolutions). 333 pixels is enough for more than a googol combinations, and 19-by-19 is enough for more than 333 pixels. 19-by-19 happens to be the size of a Go board, for what it's worth. Of course, in nearly all circumstances, the top half (or bottom half) of the board would be left empty.

Edit: The real problem comes with naming the numbers. Just reciting the bits requires upwards of 333 phonemes. One of Randall's What Ifs asks about how we might name every star. A simple naming scheme is to alternate consonants and vowels, which means 105 possibilities per two letters, very close to the 100 possibilities per 2 ordinary digits, which means the maximum total length needed for a name is the same as the length needed for a number. Thus, each of a googol possible "digits" would require about a hundred Roman letters to name, just like the number googol requires 100 decimal symbols. And each digit's name would start out "Babababababa..." or something. I suppose we could do the same thing as we do with discussing numbers "normally", and remove leading zeroes. In that case, the system approximates standard decimal notation in its written length, but would more efficient in pronunciation (once we agree on the correct way to distinguish C, S, K, Q, etc).
Last edited by Lenoxus on Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:07 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

endolith
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:14 am UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby endolith » Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:35 pm UTC

Crosshair wrote:All you're doing is building a rube Goldberg contraption under the misguided assumption that electric cars are green. The more you rube goldberg it, the more weight you add to the car. The more weight you add to a car, the less efficient it will be. You quickly come to the point where the gas engine, with all its inefficiencies, will curb stomp any design you come up with in terms of energy efficiency, cost effectiveness, or both.


Isn't your argument invalidated by the existence of hybrid cars?

Crosshair wrote:As someone before me mentioned, that "waste" heat is used for heating the passenger compartment when it's cold outside. In places with long and/or cold winters, that "waste" heat is very useful.


What proportion of it? I suspect the majority of energy in gasoline is still wasted by heating the atmosphere outside the car and/or radiating into outer space.

Ehsanit wrote:There's meant to be a loose link (albeit little more than references) with the Robots series that documents the first tentative steps of humankind into space.


It is quite explicitly tied to the robot series:
Spoiler:
The whole thing is being orchestrated by a robot.


gmalivuk wrote:Worldwide, the number of deaths per total energy produced is far lower for nuclear than for any other widely used power source.


[citation needed]

I've calculated nuclear to be deadlier than wind, for instance: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/8804/155

rmsgrey wrote:Anyone want to do a graphic showing how long a coal-fired power plant needs to operate in order to produce more radioactive fallout than Fukushima?


US coal plants altogether release 150 Three Mile Islands every year. Not sure how that compares to Fukushima or how many coal plants there are in the US.

Nuclear plants in routine operation release less radioactivity into the environment than a single conventional coal-fired plant, and produce much more power.


Considering they come in different sizes, I don't think that's a good comparison. Nuclear power plants also produce far more power than a AA battery. So?

Mirkwood wrote:And if it really becomes a problem, e.g. because we take too long to get better technologies up and running, we could always consider storing it on the moon.


That's ridiculous. Drop it into subduction zones so it gets sucked into the Earth's mantle.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby Fire Brns » Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:44 pm UTC

ctdonath wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:To be fair deforestation should be a bigger concern than CO2 emissions.


Nobody worries about the consumption rate of broccoli. In the last 45 years, broccoli consumption has increased nearly 6x, and that when human population increased only 2x. At this rate, it's clear that soon there won't be any broccoli left!

I'm not referring to forests that are replanted, I know there are more trees today in North America than in the last 50 years. As far as I know, photosynthetic life is the most effective way to pull carbon gasses out of the atmosphere.

Forestry where developed nations are concerned has been perfected almost to an art.
I'm referring to the conversion of rainforests into cattle farms in South America and the glacier of sand known as the Sahara advancing into Africa.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

severach
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:54 pm UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby severach » Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:02 pm UTC

Davidy wrote:He's showing a linear scale, not a log scale.

Yep, 1 linear scale and 1 log scale. You seem to be having trouble finding the log scale even though I told you where to find it.

speising
Posts: 2066
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby speising » Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:48 pm UTC

Arariel wrote:
speising wrote:Can somebody please make an analogous graph showing the respective damages resulting from reactor failures in the different kinds of power plants?

Sure:
Image
Or:
Image

Might want to break out that log scale again.



So, hydro seems nice, doesn't it? I'm happy to live in a land that has more than enough of it.

Btw, rhetorical question, where's a liter of water on the graphic from the comic?

Kit.
Posts: 1020
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1162: "Log Scale"

Postby Kit. » Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:01 pm UTC

endolith wrote:
Crosshair wrote:All you're doing is building a rube Goldberg contraption under the misguided assumption that electric cars are green. The more you rube goldberg it, the more weight you add to the car. The more weight you add to a car, the less efficient it will be. You quickly come to the point where the gas engine, with all its inefficiencies, will curb stomp any design you come up with in terms of energy efficiency, cost effectiveness, or both.

Isn't your argument invalidated by the existence of hybrid cars?

Aren't they subsidized to be "cost-effective"?


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests