2009/8/24 Shachar Shemesh shac...@shemesh.biz
Michael Vasiliev wrote:
The power of the signal is inversely proportional to the square of
distance.
That is not precisely accurate.
An undirected point source of EM radiation (or any other type of energy)
transmits energy that expands on a
On Aug 30, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Orna Agmon Ben-Yehuda wrote:
If we stick to the air as our media, then you will need a
unidirectional antenna. This is also an idealization, as an antenna
which points to one direction, projects energy to the opposite
direction as well, and there is also
Very off topic.
On Aug 28, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Michael Tewner wrote:
88 Miles per hour?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_88
Geoff.
--
geoffrey mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
Jerusalem Israel geoffreymendel...@gmail.com
___
Linux-il mailing list
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Oleg Goldshmidt p...@goldshmidt.orgwrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Gilad Ben-Yossefgi...@codefidence.com
wrote:
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
Once you have satisfied yourself that N=3, you can derive R^-2 easily
from flux considerations.
Until,
Michael Tewner wrote:
Until, of course, the invention of the flux capacitor...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_time_machine
Oh, anything is possible if you travel through space-time in a
DeLorean... In particular, when you travel close to the speed of light
Please excuse me for answering a humorous post seriously.
Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
Despite popular belief, the speed of light is only fixed in vacuum and
scientists long acknowledged the fact that light may travels in
different and lesser speeds when going through different materials,
such
What the fuck are you doing? I did not see that movie yet...
Please write spoiler and leave a few empty the next time.
On יום שישי 28 אוגוסט 2009 13:17:06 Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
Interesting enough, Light travels through Israeli movies in speed close
to American ones (88 mph) but, complain
ubergeek-mode
Actually, the speed of light *in a vacuum* is the universal constant,
invariant regardless of the observer's frame of reference. 'C' is so defined
- the speed of light in vacuum.
This is now understood to be such a basic constant that in 1983, the meter
was defined in terms of the
Michael Tewner tew...@gmail.com writes:
when you travel close to the speed of light
88 Miles per hour?
Michael,
This is getting more and mor off-topic, but yes, exactly, 88 mph!
I confess, I am a car-buff, a petrol-head, etc. I also like movies. So
flame me - my /dev/null is ready. I will
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
Once you have satisfied yourself that N=3, you can derive R^-2 easily
from flux considerations.
Until, of course, the invention of the flux capacitor...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_time_machine
Gilad :-)
--
Gilad Ben-Yossef
Chief Coffee Drinker CTO
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Gilad Ben-Yossefgi...@codefidence.com wrote:
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
Once you have satisfied yourself that N=3, you can derive R^-2 easily
from flux considerations.
Until, of course, the invention of the flux capacitor...
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
In particular, when you travel close to the speed of light
you emit mostly in the forward direction, not isotropically...
I didn't know physics dealt with gastro functions.
Shachar
--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd.
http://www.lingnu.com
2009/8/24 Shachar Shemesh shac...@shemesh.biz
Michael Vasiliev wrote:
The power of the signal is inversely proportional to the square of
distance.
That is not precisely accurate.
An undirected point source of EM radiation (or any other type of energy)
transmits energy that expands on a
Erez D wrote:
AFAIK, according to general relativity, the world is 4D.
according to string theory, there are more dimensions ...
I think we have enough flame wars over FOSS matters. Let's not go into
strings, as that would not only be a flame war, but an off topic one at
that.
Shachar
--
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Shachar Shemesh shac...@shemesh.bizwrote:
Erez D wrote:
AFAIK, according to general relativity, the world is 4D.
according to string theory, there are more dimensions ...
I think we have enough flame wars over FOSS matters. Let's not go into
strings, as
Erez D wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Shachar Shemesh shac...@shemesh.biz
mailto:shac...@shemesh.biz wrote:
Erez D wrote:
AFAIK, according to general relativity, the world is 4D.
according to string theory, there are more dimensions ...
I think we have enough
Sorry for the OT ,
But i guess using systems in other ways then they had been designed is a
bug that not only i posses.
I heard a lot about wireless power transition , while I heard about
products that provide close distant power transmitting (1) what about
using public wifi in my area ?
The power of the signal is inversely proportional to the square of
distance. Why do you think such a feat would be possible?
Boris shtrasman wrote:
Sorry for the OT ,
But i guess using systems in other ways then they had been designed is
a bug that not only i posses.
I heard a lot about
Michael Vasiliev wrote:
The power of the signal is inversely proportional to the square of
distance. Why do you think such a feat would be possible?
Since i don't know physics i lake the basics for this question.
As i understood from googling it is possible to get some power from
high
Michael Vasiliev wrote:
The power of the signal is inversely proportional to the square of
distance.
That is not precisely accurate.
An undirected point source of EM radiation (or any other type of energy)
transmits energy that expands on a sphere from the point of transmittal.
The surface
I'll bite - it's OT, but too much fun to skip... ;-)
2009/8/24 Shachar Shemesh shac...@shemesh.biz:
As a side note - does that prove that our universe only has three
dimensions?
Technically, no, though many philosophers (as opposed to physicists or
mathematicians) will say it does. The number
On 8/23/2009 3:03 PM, Boris shtrasman wrote:
Sorry for the OT ,
But i guess using systems in other ways then they had been designed is a
bug that not only i posses.
I heard a lot about wireless power transition , while I heard about
products that provide close distant power transmitting (1)
Begin forwarded message:
From: geoffrey mendelson geoffreymendel...@gmail.com
Date: August 24, 2009 5:10:59 PM GMT+03:00
To: Micha mi...@post.tau.ac.il
Subject: Re: [OT] Power over radio is it a true thing or just a myth ?
On Aug 24, 2009, at 4:33 PM, Micha wrote:
I don't have a link now
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Michami...@post.tau.ac.il wrote:
I don't have a link now but I saw a thread somewhere about the myth of
stealing power from powerlines with a large coil, and the calculation came
to the point if I remember the numebers correctly that you may be able to
run a
Good, now put back the context you've omitted, take your antenna specs
and prove it with numbers. Solutions that will make the fly-by birds go
poof or yourself arrested and your equipment seized do not count.
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Michael Vasiliev wrote:
The power of the signal is inversely
On Aug 24, 2009, at 4:33 PM, Micha wrote:
I doubt wifi is any better in this respect.
WiFi is limited in Israel to 100mW EIRP (Effictive incident radiated
power), so the most that could come out of a Wifi antenna would be
100mW.
When I tested my BEZEQ router with a microwave oven
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
I'll bite - it's OT, but too much fun to skip... ;-)
2009/8/24 Shachar Shemesh shac...@shemesh.biz:
As a side note - does that prove that our universe only has three
dimensions?
Technically, no, though many philosophers (as opposed to physicists or
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Shachar Shemeshshac...@shemesh.biz wrote:
I read the link you gave, but have not found why it does not prove it.
You will, I hope, agree with me that the fact that you have not found
it there does not actually mean that R^-2 = N=3... ;-)
All I said was that if
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Shachar Shemeshshac...@shemesh.biz wrote:
I read the link you gave, but have not found why it does not prove it.
You will, I hope, agree with me that the fact that you have not found
it there does not actually mean that R^-2 =
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Shachar Shemeshshac...@shemesh.biz wrote:
You state that, and then you delve on to prove the opposite. You lost me.
The way I know science, we have:
- A mathematical model saying that neither galaxies nor atoms are stable if
N!=3
- Empirical evidence that
30 matches
Mail list logo
