On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 02:56:02PM -0700, Chad Cooper wrote: > I did get this wrong. What I should have correctly said is a cubic > centimeter of flesh contains more energy than a cubic centimeter of > solar gas.
How is that relevant? > I believe that the assuption made in the movie is that flesh was a > renewable resource, and could be feedstocked. Which is, as I said in my original reply to Gary, absurd. The energy should be harnessed directly, no humans necessary. > My point was that there can be ways to get greater amounts of heat > from flesh that what is currently produced, if one plays around with > the enzymes used in catabolic and anabolic reactions. Why would you want to do that? Using animals to intentionally convert food to heat is absurd. If you want heat, burn something. > This is correct since 2nd law of thermodynamics resists being > violated. Modifying biological process to create heat can be more > efficient than mechanical processes. This is nonsense. > I agree, In the case of the movie, it adds to the drama to think of > the wasted human potential, where humans are used as heat engines (as > efficient as it is). Nonsense. It adds nothing to the movie. It is absurd. > Crap, I won't fight you on this. No need to fight. Your number of 3.5 GW is absurdly low. If the only power used was a 60W lightbulb by each American, you have almost 18GW right there. Of course, Americans average much more than 60W each, and then there is industrial use. You should really do a sanity check on your numbers before posting in an authoratative manner. Garbage in, garbage out. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
