evilengineering

[evilengineering]

We have three power generation systems that are not boiling water:

1- Water go down big hill (Hydro-electric power)

2- Sun make special rocks go vvvbrrr (aka Solar power generation)

3- Special rock hit with hammer or compressed go tick, and more importantly, special rock with eletric current go tick *very precisely* (Piezoelectric)

EDIT BECAUSE WE FORGOT ONE!!!

4) Windy wind make fan go fwoosh! [Wind power: (AKA Solar power with extra steps)]

nuclear power is impressive until you get up to why. "we use the most precisely engineered machinery ever created to split atoms to release energy" oh yeah how come? "boil water to turn a fan" get the fuck out

[evilengineering]

Would it be practical to build any giant robot rather than a specific tool that can accomplish what you are attempting to do?

No.

But we fully support the creation of giant impractical robots for the sole purpose of 'Being Cool'.

To that end, we can give botha personal and engineering review concurring that radiators would in fact, make it cooler

Mech should have radiators not because it makes engineering sense but because a mech fuming smoking hot coolant from its vents and its white-hot radiator struggling to keep the internal temperature down after firing off high intensity beam weapon or activating highly advanced systems is fucking hot.

[evilengineering]

Yes actually! I'd want a bit more information to be sure but very likely:

your eyes are probably fine, and your camera is probably fine (I'm assuming you're using a standard phone camera or at least something witb comparable resolution to what your eyes are), it's your brain that is kinda shit in this situation.

Human brains are remarkably bad at determining distance of things that are far away and their actual size is unknown, and it will forcibly scale things to attempt to make them make sense.

It does this with the moon, where because our dumb monkey brains don't know how big the big Shiney rock in the sky is supposed to be we attempt to use context clues as to what is around to determine that, and we do it so, so, poorly. So poorly infact that it had its own optical illusion name "the moon horizon illusion" which you can read about here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion

This just happens to *also* translate into photographs.

Next photo you take of the moon, try capturing it with objects in the foreground to take full advatage of the effect of the illusion to be captured in the image

Hey science side of Tumblr, can y'all tell me why the moon looks so big and gorgeous and lovely in person but the second I try to take a photo it's suddenly tiny and shitty and gross? Are my eyeballs doing some weird shit or does my phone camera just suck?

[evilengineering]

Ideally your itty-bitty botsTM are small enough that you wouldn't need specialized channels to transport the itty-bitty botsTM because that moderately defeats the purpose of said Itty-bitty botsTM. Most walls are relatively porous such that things of micron or less scale will likely make it through, this how you get ants:

Much better for them to have something akin to a scalpel or a drill to burrow through whatever they need to get though (a laser would probably be best but would likely melt your itty-bitty botsTM just based on the scale of them and the thermal requirements to melt most things), but by nature of them being Itty-Bitty botsTM the hole the would make would be minimal sized and thus have minimal damage, these routes could theb in theory be utilized again by said itty-bitty botsTM if the material was non-elastic within that region but would negate the design need to consider them during the construction process.

E.g. from biology: consider the mosquito, it on average has a maximum length/width of 7-10 mm. Your nose, a specialized ventilation shaft for your lungs and heart, is 10-12 mm in diameter.

Ergo a mosquito is capable of crawling through this specialized ventilation shaft, but instead has a probuscis that penetrates the skin directly to the desired area.

What if:

Specialized channels inside walls like ventilation shafts for nanobots

[evilengineering]

Hey, did you know most traffic lights are via IR sensing cameras? Which means we can do this:

OR

[evilengineering]

Remember, always make sure your evil robots have a self destruct button.

[evilengineering]

How big would a bomb have to be to annihilate the planet?

This is actually a fairly simple question to answer.

There is something referred to as gravitational binding energy which is the minimum energy which must be added to remove it from the gravitationally bound state.

We can assume that Earth for this purpose is uniform density (obviously it is not, but we're just going for a ballpark number here).

Unfortunately even if you were to simultaneously detonate every single piece of ordinance every made on planet Earth (estimated to be 545 megatons of TNT) you would still come up only be several magnitudes of order off the necessary energy requirements to perform the task.

Option 1- A big ol' rock!

It is theoretically possible that a large enough celestial body traveling at sufficient speed would have enough kinetic energy in order to shatter the earth on impact. These asteroids are extremely rare, and for the most part are very unlikely to hit the Earth, but in order to achieve this amount of energy required we can do another ballpark estimate using the formula for kinetic energy.

Option 2: Point a LASER at it!

A more viable method would actually be to harness the energy from the sun into a deadly laser! Not that the sun isn't already a deadly laser mind you. Now unlike the image above it would not be possible to annihilate the earth in a single shot, but in this methodology you could turn your laser into effectively laser ablation, and it would be enough to destroy the Earth! Even vaporize it in its entirety!

 (Interestingly enough this method would actually also have the Earth expelling enough material through vaporization that it would start accelerating away from the laser turning it into more of a rocket than was probably intended, but hey, if you want to not annihilate the earth but just knock it out of orbit you've got options now!

Option 3: The biggest boom theoretically possible from Earth.

 If we've learned anything from this thought experiment, it's that the old adage: Any sufficiently powerful enough device to be used as a drive, is sufficiently powerful enough to be a deadly weapon remains true, and it would appear that any sufficiently powerful enough weapon designed to destroy the Earth.

[evilengineering]

An investigation into the use of souls for a "a phylactery, but like a real one"

Let us assume that souls, that is to say some unique piece of individuality tied to a human being that persists after the conventional idea of death, exists. What are the logical consequences of that? And if it exists, could it be harnessed to power some device, or transfer the life essence of one individual into another.

Let's go through it-

Axiom 1 (the assumed assertion): Souls exist.

Axiom 2: The physical laws of the universe i.e. thermodynamics, general relativity, inertia, etc. are accurate to humanities current understanding of them.

Axiom 3: Things that exist are governed and described by the physical laws of the universe. Physical laws of the universe do not themselves exist.

Statement 0: [statement 0 ∈ Axiom 2] mass and Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only altered. Things that exist are made of mass and/or energy.

Statement 1: [statement 1∈Axiom 2] Mass-energy equivalence is described by the following equation: E^2=(MC^2)^2+(PC)^2 where E is Energy, M is Mass, P is Momentum, and C is the speed of light in a vacuunlm. The Mass-Energy Equivalence Equation describes the energy of things that exist.

Conclusion 1: souls are governed by the physical laws of the universe. (Axiom 1 ∈ Axiom 2∈ Axiom 3) -Souls are an element of Axiom 3. Souls exist (assumed assertion Axiom 1). Souls are not physical laws of the universe themselves. Ergo Souls are an element of Axiom 3. Ergo Souls must be governed by the physical laws of the universe.

In human speak: If we assume that souls are real, as in they exist in our universe, then they must obey the physics of our universe since all thing that exist in the universe are governed by those physics.

Conclusion 2: souls must have either mass, energy, or a combination of both. If Γ(Conclusion 1 ^statement 0 ^ statement 1)^Γ(Axiom 1 ∈ Axiom 2∈ Axiom 3) ⊨ φ[Conclusion 1]. Then Γ[conclusion 1]^Γ[statement 0]⊨φ[conclusion 2]

In human speak- If souls exist and as a logical consequence of Axiom 1 being an element of Axiom 2 which is an element of Axiom 3, those souls are governed by the physical laws of the universe, and statement 1 is a physical law of the universe then as as a logical consequence of souls being governed by the physical law of the Mass-Energy equivalence. The statement of Mass-energy equivalence expresses that things that exist contain Mass and/or energy. Ergo Souls must contain Mass and/or energy.

Conclusion 3: Souls are subject to gravitational forces vis-a-vis the curvature of spacetime.

If (Axiom 1 ∈ Axiom 2∈ Axiom 3) ⊨ φ[Conclusion 1]. Then Γ[conclusion 2]^Γ[statement 1]⊨φconclusion 3.

In human speak- If souls exist, and they obey the laws of physics as we understand them today then they must have energy or mass to exist, if they have energy or mass, then they must also be affected by and affecting space time curvature (gravity).

Aside: given that per axiom 2 physics is correct to our current understanding of it, souls would have to have, at a bare minimum, a relativistic mass. Which is what was derived in conclusion 2. Light, composed of photons is an example of a particle that has no rest mass, but does have relativistic mass via the mass energy equivalence formula. Souls in this derivation could be presented to have a rest mass (mass for all observers from all reference frames; what most people think of as mass, e.g. the amount of kg a thing is [also referred to as inertial mass]) or it could by this derivation be purely relativistic mass akin to light. To be a purely relativistic mass, souls would have to be moving at the speed of light.

Conclusion 4: Souls can affect momentum of other things that exist. If Γ[conclusion 1]^Γ[statement 0]⊨φ[conclusion 2]. Then Γ[Axiom 2]^Γ[conclusion 2]^Γ[Axiom 1]⊨φconclusion 4.

In human speak- if souls have mass and/or energy as a logical consequence of existing and as a logical consequence of souls being governed by physical laws of the universe, then souls affecting momentum of other things that exist is a logical consequence  of  physics being accurate to current human understanding and of souls having mass and/or energy.

Conjecture 1- If souls exist and have an inertial mass:

Assume that souls exist and have an inertial mass of M. By Axiom 2 the acceleration of the soul would correspond to Newtons law F=MA where M is the inertial mass of a body, A is acceleration of the body, and F is the force applied to the body. Similarly by Axiom 2 any item that exists must take up some volume, V. Therefore a soul would have a density (D) where D=M/V.

If souls have a density and are affected by gravity per conclusion 3 and have some inertial mass they should be able to be separated from a body via centrifugal force.

Research into this phenomenon is still ongoing… while no souls were measured, we now have a variety of participants who believe they are ready to become astronauts.

Alright, now that I got through the initial premise/bit of this report that The Think Tank made me fill out I'm going to drop the semi-formal (it's not actually formal at all) notation.

Let us assume then, that rather than souls are small enough that they cannot be measured by conventional means, or that they have no rest mass.

If this is the case, then by definition, from what is understood of relativity, your soul could not inhabit your body, as it would have to be moving at the speed of light, while you yourself, is not. Which would imply at the very least that your soul and your mind are separate entities.

So with all the above being said, and with no measurable results, the Think Tank has determined that the proposal for: "A phylactery but like a real one" is a non-viable method of energy production.