Return to “General”

Post

Re: IRC

#496
Grumblesaur wrote:
Dinosawer wrote:You could, and someone did before, but you don't visit irc enough to maintain it, so it'd probably just end up being down all the time, like the previous one.
I would just run it on an EC2 instance in a bash script that restarts it if it hits an error. Problem solved.
Well, the previous one didn't crash, it just stopped working. :ghost:
Then again, you're probably a much better programmer than who made that thing
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image
Post

Re: IRC

#497

Code: Select all

[18:54:36] <Hema> Break a fortune cookie for Detviet
[18:54:40] <Taiya> The fortune cookie says: Not intended for children 5 and under.
[18:54:43] <Detviet> xD
[18:54:47] <Silver> xD
[18:54:56] <Hema> XD
[18:55:10] <Talvieno> xD
[18:55:33] <Zorathos> XD
PEW OF THE PEW
:monkey: Resident derp. :ghost:
For some reason, I feel obliged to display how many people have talked in IRC over the past 2 hours: Image :squirrel:
:problem: Image :ugeek:
Post

Re: IRC

#498
Detritus wrote:

Code: Select all

[18:54:36] <Hema> Break a fortune cookie for Detviet
[18:54:40] <Taiya> The fortune cookie says: Not intended for children 5 and under.
[18:54:43] <Detviet> xD
[18:54:47] <Silver> xD
[18:54:56] <Hema> XD
[18:55:10] <Talvieno> xD
[18:55:33] <Zorathos> XD
Welp. Poor Det. Not allowed to have a fortune cookie. :ghost:

But Hema was on a real run yesterday. He went nuts in the chat, broke a fortune cookie for everybody and wrote all kinds of crazy stuff in all caps. :mrgreen:
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here
Flatfingers wrote: 23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
Post

Re: IRC

#499
JanB1 wrote:
Detritus wrote:

Code: Select all

[18:54:36] <Hema> Break a fortune cookie for Detviet
[18:54:40] <Taiya> The fortune cookie says: Not intended for children 5 and under.
[18:54:43] <Detviet> xD
[18:54:47] <Silver> xD
[18:54:56] <Hema> XD
[18:55:10] <Talvieno> xD
[18:55:33] <Zorathos> XD
Welp. Poor Det. Not allowed to have a fortune cookie. :ghost:

But Hema was on a real run yesterday. He went nuts in the chat, broke a fortune cookie for everybody and wrote all kinds of crazy stuff in all caps. :mrgreen:
He was high on cookie. :3
PEW OF THE PEW
:monkey: Resident derp. :ghost:
For some reason, I feel obliged to display how many people have talked in IRC over the past 2 hours: Image :squirrel:
:problem: Image :ugeek:
Post

Re: IRC

#501
Triggerhappy wrote:

Code: Select all

Trigger> hmmmm is there no way to convert all that heat into some form of power?
* Cornflakes is now known as Thermodynamics
<Thermodynamics> nope
>Heat to energy

What is.... A reactor & Turbine?
What is.... A coal power plant?
What is.... A Nuclear reactor?

Hmmmm
I am literally and wholly in love with myself.
Post

Re: IRC

#502
Black--Snow wrote:
Triggerhappy wrote:

Code: Select all

Trigger> hmmmm is there no way to convert all that heat into some form of power?
* Cornflakes is now known as Thermodynamics
<Thermodynamics> nope
>Heat to energy

What is.... A reactor & Turbine?
What is.... A coal power plant?
What is.... A Nuclear reactor?

Hmmmm
No, that's a heat gradient. Heat flows downhill, and it is this flow which we call power. If you just have a bunch of heat, it won't flow anywhere. You need a place for it to go.
Also, it's a lot easier to deal with pressure gradients than heat gradients. Most heat engines just convert heat gradients into pressure gradients. Exchanger+turbine, Stirling cycle, internal combustion; they all take heat gradients and turn them into pressure gradients. The pressure gradients are turned into velocity gradients, then into charge gradients, as per whatever is of greatest utility. Then the charge gradients flow to appliances which turn them into velocity or heat or other gradients. Along the way, a certain amount of flow is wasted to heat, particularly during the gradient conversions. Sometimes this heat produces useful gradients on its own, but these are always weaker than the loss.
Post

Re: IRC

#503
Black--Snow wrote:
Triggerhappy wrote:

Code: Select all

Trigger> hmmmm is there no way to convert all that heat into some form of power?
* Cornflakes is now known as Thermodynamics
<Thermodynamics> nope
>Heat to energy

What is.... A reactor & Turbine?
What is.... A coal power plant?
What is.... A Nuclear reactor?

Hmmmm
You don't turn heat into energy DIRECTLY in these. That's only possible with thermoelements (heat->a tiny little bit of energy). In power plants, you turn heat into steam (pressure) and then into momentum and then into power. Tha's why they aren't really effective with a coefficient of about 35% for a nuclear power plant. You have so much dissipation.
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here
Flatfingers wrote: 23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
Post

Re: IRC

#504
Black--Snow wrote:
Triggerhappy wrote:

Code: Select all

Trigger> hmmmm is there no way to convert all that heat into some form of power?
* Cornflakes is now known as Thermodynamics
<Thermodynamics> nope
>Heat to energy

What is.... A reactor & Turbine?
What is.... A coal power plant?
What is.... A Nuclear reactor?

Hmmmm
the question was "can i turn all the waste heat of my spaceship into power to get rid of giant radiators"

and the answer is more or less "No" :P
Post

Re: IRC

#505
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
the question was "can i turn all the waste heat of my spaceship into power to get rid of giant radiators"

and the answer is more or less "No" :P
^this

Also you guys, a terminology thing, if anyone cares: "heat content" can be misleading. Often we talk about heat moving into or out of a system, and useful work being done on or by a system; things that exist in the system as a volume are usually referred to as internal energy in closed systems or enthalpy in open systems. But this understanding of heat is violated by ideas like "heat content of the ocean", which is probably better understood as "quantity of heat that has been input into the ocean". It's a subtle distinction but worth keeping in mind!
Post

Re: IRC

#506
Scytale wrote: Also you guys, a terminology thing, if anyone cares: "heat content" can be misleading. Often we talk about heat moving into or out of a system, and useful work being done on or by a system; things that exist in the system as a volume are usually referred to as internal energy in closed systems or enthalpy in open systems. But this understanding of heat is violated by ideas like "heat content of the ocean", which is probably better understood as "quantity of heat that has been input into the ocean". It's a subtle distinction but worth keeping in mind!
Don't write this so small, this is important and a good point! :thumbup:
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here
Flatfingers wrote: 23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
Post

Re: IRC

#507
JanB1 wrote:
Scytale wrote: Also you guys, a terminology thing, if anyone cares: "heat content" can be misleading. Often we talk about heat moving into or out of a system, and useful work being done on or by a system; things that exist in the system as a volume are usually referred to as internal energy in closed systems or enthalpy in open systems. But this understanding of heat is violated by ideas like "heat content of the ocean", which is probably better understood as "quantity of heat that has been input into the ocean". It's a subtle distinction but worth keeping in mind!
Don't write this so small, this is important and a good point! :thumbup:
I didn't want to be an offtopic dick!

But I'll continue anyway :P heat and work "happen" at system boundaries - they are not thermodynamic properties of a system. They do not define the state of a thermodynamic system: this is done in general by temperature, density, pressure, entropy content, internal energy etc. When we talk about converting "heat to useful energy" this means transferring heat into a system boundary, something happens within that system in a process, and work is exerted by that system through its boundary. In this sense, the role of the heat is to induce a change in the properties of the system that allow us to extract work from it.

Example: coal-burning power plant. Coal is burnt (in what we call ideally a high-temperature reservoir), transferring heat into a working fluid, e.g. water. The effect of this heat transfer is to increase the temperature and (most notably) enthalpy and some other properties of the water. The water turns to steam, more-or-less, and is then put through a turbine or set of turbines in an 'expansion' process (so called because its pressure drops as this is done), in which its enthalpy is reduced by the turbine action. In this process the fluid does work on the turbine, which is 'spun up' by the action of the fluid: this is the useful energy which eventually comes through your power supply. The working fluid as it comes out of the turbine has a low enthalpy and temperature, and it is put through an evaporator to shed further energy that could not be harvested by the turbine. This excess energy leaves the fluid as heat. More work is then put into the fluid for various reasons, to bring it to a condition where heat can be dumped into it again by the burning of coal, increasing its enthalpy and temperature, and the process repeats.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron