|
I was looking for a specific piece of freeware.
A search engine suggested Tucows
In the past I have always had very good luck with Tucows.
Today I look and I see wow; major game change over there. Out with the old; In with the new.
Oh well, found a real winner on SnapFiles, so, all is well. In fact, looks like they are doing better than before. Hooray for capitalism and innovative thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
Tucows, wow what a switch.
Haven't been there in years!
As the aircraft designer said, "Simplicate and add lightness".
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
|
|
|
|
|
Software aggregators (if you want to call them that) have all devolved to the point where they pretty much all include "a little extra" which may or may not trigger your anti-virus. YMMV.
I wouldn't trust any download they may carry.
If you can google for the software you're after, I'd say you're better off looking for the author's own web site and getting it from there. Which nowadays might very well lead to Github.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, I forgot all about Tucows! I used to be a disciple.
|
|
|
|
|
From CP newsletter
Generating Power on Earth From the Coldness of Deep Space - IEEE Spectrum[^]
Presumably I am reading that wrong.
"Energy harvesting using the cold of the universe is still under development."
Best I can tell all of the examples are using the 'cold of the earth'. It has nothing to do with the universe.
And not very efficiently either compared to other technologies. Obviously if the roof is covered with that then it is not covered with solar panels.
The company mentioned, SkyCool, also claims the same thing on their site.
https://www.skycoolsystems.com/technology/[^]
"by rejecting heat into the cold universe."
Far as I can see the system is using heat radiation (versus conduction and convection) to disperse the heat. Is there something in that to insure that it actually 'reaches' space? Versus of course just being absorbed into the atmosphere?
|
|
|
|
|
thinking out loud without any idea of all of this works...
could we harness the power of material contraction to generate energy in space ?
There is a big temperature difference between being in the sun and in the shadow.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
I can't imagine any system designed to harness what little power involved in that process would recover more than it, itself, would expend.
But, I'm no physicist.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed that seemed to be missing. I kept expecting them to have cord dangling from a satellite or something. It all just seemed to be handwavium.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
'Handwavium the head into the orifice of darkness...' - author unknown, but possibly me. I like your 'handwavium'!
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Far as I can see the system is using heat radiation (versus conduction and convection) to disperse the heat. Is there something in that to insure that it actually 'reaches' space? Versus of course just being absorbed into the atmosphere?
Technically, that's not heat - as that requires not being in a "near vacuum" that space is.
If heat is "just" the wobble of atomic particles, how do you radiate that into "nothing"?
Abusing gravity might give more energy. This would generate "heat" (wobble of atoms) that might be harnessed. Getting cold from a vacuum is something we could actually test on earth - I'm looking forward to fridges and air conditioning based on the principle that you can get rid of heat using a near-vacuum 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: If heat is "just" the wobble of atomic particles, how do you radiate that into "nothing"?
The same way the Sun emits heat into nothing - through electromagnetic waves/particles.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: The same way the Sun emits heat into nothing - through electromagnetic waves/particles.
That's not particles, is it? Show me a "electromagnetic waves/particles" that cools stuff?
Radiation (which is more than magnetic kind, including x-ray, but not particles which have mass which waves don't have) is a form of energy; if it interacts with particles, it increases their "wobble", their temperature.
Find me a wave that decreases a particles wobble? What wave does that?
--edit
Silly me did not say that the sun looses heat, in forms of radiations and photon emissions. Just one small thing; it uses trillions of nuclear explosions to do so. So yes, if you can generate that amount of heat, you may loose a bit due to radiation (and actual gravity, pushing away mass).
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
modified 27-Nov-23 17:37pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Light is not one or the other, a wave or a particle. Light acts like both at the same time. That's why you hear about radio "waves" at the same time that you hear about photons.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Light "behaves" as both, which does not mean it is neither one. Radio is a lot slower a wave. Fun fact; the first wave that aliens see, is a speech from Hitler coming from earth.
The difference is important; not every wave is as fast as light, and light is not just a particle. It is, however, energy. You need to convert matter into light to loose "energy" and cool particles, and the particles need to be very agitated before they think even about radiating energy.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
True, a wave in the ocean is not as fast as light, but a light wave in a vacuum is always as fast as light.
And I don't need to convert matter into light in order to lose energy. Friction causes the loss of lots of kinetic energy without converting matter into light.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Different waves go at different speeds? Radio is not light, but both be waves?
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: And I don't need to convert matter into light in order to lose energy. Friction causes the loss of lots of kinetic energy without converting matter into light.
That is just moving energy from one particle to another.
As others explained, it's not that; just radiating IR into space.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Radio is not light, but both be waves?
Not sure if you're asking or telling, but radio waves are indeed light.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Radio waves do not leave earth? So, a different wave than, say, TV or light?
I'm asking; as matter being a wave already baffles me 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Radio waves, TV and light all can leave earth.
And all of them might not leave the earth.
Depends on the situation. So for example for the OP discussion reflection from atmospheric conditions impacts it.
In an absolute vacuum all travel at the speed of light.
Reality is they travel somewhat slower.
That is because an absolute vacuum is not possible. Although in terms of speed measurement it would not make much difference.
All of them can behave like a wave or particle. For myself I emphasize the 'behave' part while internalizing that they are in fact neither. (Noting that actually setting up an experiment to detect the duality is very difficult if not impossible for some types.)
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Radio waves, TV and light all can leave earth.
Radio doesn't, whereas TV waves do. AM/FM radio does not leave earth, but TV broadcasts do. Hence, the remark that the first an alien notices from our broadcasts, is a speech from Hitler.
jschell wrote: In an absolute vacuum all travel at the speed of light.
Nope. If that was true, all mass from a supernova would reach us as the same speed. We can see the light, but we do not get the gold created in that nova.
jschell wrote: All of them can behave like a wave or particle.
Again, no; only some "idiot" subatomic particles do. No proton ever pretends to be a wave?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Radio doesn't, whereas TV waves do
Your definition is weak.
How do you think Nasa communicated with Apollo astronauts? Would you categorize that as "TV"?
As an example although an FM radio transmission tends to bounce on the atmosphere it can escape.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Nope. If that was true, all mass from a supernova would reach us as the same speed.
"mass" is not electromagnetic. A supernova emits all kinds of things that are not electromagnetic.
Second space is not an absolute vacuum. As I said it is not possible, not anywhere, to have a absolute vacuum. Actual outer space is full of all sorts of stuff which impacts anything moving through it.
Given a fixed, contained, uniform medium electromagnetic waves travel through that medium at a speed that reflects the medium. It will be slower than the absolute limit of the speed of light because the medium will have something in it.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: No proton ever pretends to be a wave?
A proton is not "light". A proton is matter. It has mass. It is a particle. A traveling proton (and other particles) can exhibit wave like behavior.
Ocean waves are of course matter but they too exhibit wave like behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Your definition is weak.
You overestimate me; it ain't my idea. We got told that radio is subject to gravity, and TV waves would be different?
jschell wrote: Ocean waves are of course matter but they too exhibit wave like behavior.
Methinks different kind of wave 
Don't get angry over my lack of knowledge.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: it ain't my idea. We got told that radio is subject to gravity, and TV waves would be different?
Gravity does impact them. But the impact of that is trivial in comparison to other things.
TV/Radio get reflected by things like the earths magnetic field, water and other solids in the air, etc. Probably most significant factor is the ionosphere.
You might want to google for the following and briefly read what it says. Briefly because it gets really deep really fast otherwise.
pulsar gravity lensing
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Methinks different kind of wave
Yes and no. Ocean waves exhibit behavior (that very specific word) which has analogs for waves seen elsewhere.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Don't get angry over my lack of knowledge
About the only time I get angry is when I stub my toe on the coffee table.
For social sites any negative emotion is usually boredom or confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: TV/Radio get reflected by things like the earths magnetic field
Radio does not leave earth, TV waves do. Don't take my word for it, it is just something they explained over 30 years ago.
jschell wrote: Yes and no. Ocean waves exhibit behavior (that very specific word) which has analogs for waves seen elsewhere.
While visually, water may have a wave, that is quite different from light.
jschell wrote: About the only time I get angry is when I stub my toe on the coffee table.
Lego's here. Go to the toilet at night, step on it, fall down and curse like a sailor.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
