[-] fullsquare@awful.systems 2 points 2 hours ago

i heard a story about varnish factory that failed quality checks after one old guy got fired, he was a smoker and used to spit in the main reactor. some enzyme from saliva made it shinier

[-] fullsquare@awful.systems 1 points 2 hours ago

it will vary, just after distillation (or RO/ion exchange) it should be closer to 7 then it goes down as carbon dioxide gets absorbed. that's why it's buffered everywhere where it matters

[-] fullsquare@awful.systems 1 points 2 hours ago

in my case the size of the system was so small they didn't have that excuse, yet they were only ever able to get correct results after experimental data was handed over to them, zero predictive power, useless

[-] fullsquare@awful.systems 4 points 13 hours ago

seeing that jargon file has an extensive page on retrocomputing feels like figuring out that there were archeologists in ancient egypt

[-] fullsquare@awful.systems 4 points 13 hours ago

some people would tell you that we can simulate small bits of chemistry but it's flat out wrong (i might be biased as i've wrangled for a year with computational chemists about results that don't conform to reality) and even then errors are so large that's it's useless

[-] fullsquare@awful.systems 1 points 14 hours ago

some goods and intermediates have large energy content, like, if you wanted to use energy from large pv farm in, say, morocco, then it might make more sense to ship bauxite in and aluminum bars out (it takes some 50MJ/kg to make aluminum)

simplicity of the system would be a factor in small, unattended installations like for space heating for single home

[-] fullsquare@awful.systems 19 points 21 hours ago

and then some bozo says that biology is just complicated chemistry and chemistry is just complicated physics and we can simulate physics

curious thing is that i never hear biologists or chemists saying that, only some physicists and techbros. just trying to simulate your way out of small organic chemistry problems will make you even more hopelessly lost than you were before

[-] fullsquare@awful.systems 6 points 21 hours ago

maybe it introduces some critical contaminant (many such cases)

[-] fullsquare@awful.systems 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

that's a weird metric to look at because drug approval happens only like, 5-15 years after end of preclinical research, sometimes longer

clinical trials also take fuckton of money but this might be also post-2008 cuts that we only see effects of now

[-] fullsquare@awful.systems 65 points 2 days ago

aaand it boils water again

4

I'm picking up an idea left by Dick KK4OBI, that you can lower impedance of dipole by arbitrary ratio if said dipole is zigzagged or otherwise uniformly contorted in some meandering shape. Side effect is that dipole becomes shorter and needs more wire. While there's data about impedance for fundamental, there's nothing about harmonics which is something that OCFD might be expected to handle well, so guessing that the really important part is aspect ratio of meander, i've made a couple of VHF-scale models with different meander aspect ratios (and many more much smaller sections), and some of data i've been able to collect roughly matches. The thing I'm trying to figure is what aspect ratio should be to cover multiple bands while using OCFD, say 40-20-15m bands, and whether impedances at different frequencies fall at the same rate. Eventually, when i figure this out, i'll try to make a full size 40m fundamental antenna, as I think that i've figured it out in mechanical terms

However during testing it turned out that I have severe common mode current problems, as two 10mm dia split ferrite beads were evidently not enough, so what little i've been able to collect is mostly useless. When I packed up everything I've found 4 Laird 28B beads that should together give 1100 ohms of impedance or so at 100MHz which also happens to be close to lowest frequency in my setup. Is this enough? Feedline is currently about as long as shorter arm of straight dipole at 22,5:77,5 split ratio, should I change it?

107
view more: next ›

fullsquare

joined 1 year ago