Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[markzpeiverson]

Well, the difference is the "wishy-washy" part.

Aspects of Quantum Mechanics are pretty wishy-washy.  Current knowledge predicts that we will never, ever be able to determine both the position and velocity of a quantum particle at the same time. If you want to quantify one, you're gonna have to be wishy-washy on the other. Should maybe toss the whole damn wishy-washy thing.

The whole reason for the element of probability in Quantum Mechanics (QM) ala the Uncertainty Principle is because we are dealing with oscillations that are of a very high frequency; many orders of magnitude higher than even our fastest pulsed lasers.  The likelihood of our instruments 'illuminating' or catching the oscillation is highest at either extent where the oscillation has to slow down and reverse direction.  However, get a fast enough 'strobe' light with the ability to very finely tune frequency and phase, and the probabilistic nature of QM will vanish!

-M

[markzpeiverson]

I'm sorry, OUman, but you seem to have become completely delusional. Really sad! I never used fruit in this argument, just you and your little Jimmy pal!  I think you should immediately report to the spook help line for treatment and retraining.

Best of luck,
Larry

He might have better luck as a lecturer at MIT, or an editor for Science and/or Nature!

-M

@JM:
I spent a whole hour drafting a response to OUman's post (Reply #2059 on: May 09, 2008, 08:35:24 PM), and I hit some key combo by accident and 'poof '... Looked Hi and Lo, and no Bits nor Bytes to be found!  So instead, I'll defer to your post (Reply #2060 on: May 09, 2008, 09:18:28 PM)... you have a way with words!

[aether22]

I'm sorry, OUman, but you seem to have become completely delusional. Really sad! I never used fruit in this argument, just you and your little Jimmy pal!  I think you should immediately report to the spook help line for treatment and retraining.

Best of luck,
Larry

He might have better luck as a lecturer at MIT, or an editor for Science and/or Nature!

-M

@JM:
I spent a whole hour drafting a response to OUman's post (Reply #2059 on: May 09, 2008, 08:35:24 PM), and I hit some key combo by accident and 'poof '... Looked Hi and Lo, and no Bits nor Bytes to be found!  So instead, I'll defer to your post (Reply #2060 on: May 09, 2008, 09:18:28 PM)... you have a way with words!

I think a more concise version of what you were trying to say was posted by JustMe.
"Oh what a pile of poo.  "

[hoptoad]

IN ADDITION, GENERATOR EFFICIENCY IS ALWAYS CALCULATED AT THE DRIVE SHAFT SIDE ENTERING THE GENERATOR NOT AT THE PRIME MOVER SIDE BECAUSE A GASOLINE ENGINE AS A PRIME MOVER HAS AN EFFICIENCY OF 20 - 30 %.
Thane

Total system energy transfer is still the defining factor for whether an operational system is efficient or not. Even an electric powered dune buggy is a system. Something (usually current from batteries) drives the electric Motor which drives the Wheels and Generator which ...... well you get the picture.
Total system energy transfer as torque and / or electrical energy is important and the higher the percentage the better.

Cheers ....   KneeDeep

[OUman]

Well, the difference is the "wishy-washy" part.

Aspects of Quantum Mechanics are pretty wishy-washy.  Current knowledge predicts that we will never, ever be able to determine both the position and velocity of a quantum particle at the same time. If you want to quantify one, you're gonna have to be wishy-washy on the other. Should maybe toss the whole damn wishy-washy thing.

The whole reason for the element of probability in Quantum Mechanics (QM) ala the Uncertainty Principle is because we are dealing with oscillations that are of a very high frequency; many orders of magnitude higher than even our fastest pulsed lasers.  The likelihood of our instruments 'illuminating' or catching the oscillation is highest at either extent where the oscillation has to slow down and reverse direction.  However, get a fast enough 'strobe' light with the ability to very finely tune frequency and phase, and the probabilistic nature of QM will vanish!

-M

You have misunderstood the Uncertainty Principle. The probabilistic nature of QM is NOT to do with the ability/inability of instruments to measure accurately enough. It is much more fundamental than that. Google the subject and you'll find the proper interpretation.