Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Reuse Design?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 60 (582566)
09-22-2010 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Taq
09-20-2010 12:32 PM


Or
So thus far we have limited knowledge and limited time as being factors as to why humans reuse designs.
Just being practical lazy ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 09-20-2010 12:32 PM Taq has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 47 of 60 (583555)
09-27-2010 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
09-19-2010 9:09 PM


Re Perhaps Too Extreme
RAZD writes:
Springs, torsion bars (which are just long twisted springs), flying wheels, compressed air, etc etc have been tried.
In ALL cases the storage medium takes up significant weight and space (too much for a bicycle).
Perhaps the models tried were too extreme. How about simple light and compact models which afford less energy, i.e. a little supplimental energy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2010 9:09 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Nij, posted 09-28-2010 12:10 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 48 of 60 (583560)
09-27-2010 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Taq
09-20-2010 12:36 PM


Re: Reuse of Design
Taq writes:
Ultimately, that is the question. Thus far, the only reasons that humans do resuse designs is because we have limited knowledge and limited time. If you are going to claim that it makes sense that the designer would reuse designs then the designer must also be limited like us, having limited time and limited knowledge.
Not necessarily so. The ole saying, "if it works, don't fix it" applies. If the ultimate purpose is to propagate the species, it would make no sense to implememt multiple means of doing it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 09-20-2010 12:36 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by DrJones*, posted 09-27-2010 10:56 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 50 by dwise1, posted 09-28-2010 12:03 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 09-28-2010 1:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 49 of 60 (583561)
09-27-2010 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Buzsaw
09-27-2010 10:52 PM


Re: Reuse of Design
If the ultimate purpose is to propagate the species, it would make no sense to implememt multiple means of doing it.
Well I'm happy to see you've finally agreed that there is no intelligent designer
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 09-27-2010 10:52 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 10-02-2010 4:17 PM DrJones* has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 50 of 60 (583569)
09-28-2010 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Buzsaw
09-27-2010 10:52 PM


Re: Reuse of Design
Not necessarily so. The ole saying, "if it works, don't fix it" applies.
But that's not the operative saying here. What we see happening is something that did one thing being twisted and changed to do something quite different. Such that the end result no longer works for what it used to do, but only for what it has been changed to do.
Why would a divine designer have to go through all those contortions and not have just created something new for the new function? Evolution would need to change an existing feature into something almost completely different for a different function, but not a divine creator. For that matter, why would a divine creator need to create everything in such a manner as to make it look like evolution?
If the ultimate purpose is to propagate the species, it would make no sense to implememt multiple means of doing it.
Uh, actually, there are multiple means of propogating species. Not only do different species have different ways, but some species even have different ways; ie, the same species has more than one way to propagate.
This is where it would really help to have studied some biology. Have you ever studied the sex life of plants? I didn't like that part in high school because it gets complicated. Ferns can reproduce asexually via spores or sexually via gametes, or even both. Many plants reproduce sexually with flowers and seeds, or with runners (roots that travel out and sprout new plants), or via the original cloning (twigs ("klon") in the ground sprouting new plants). Or the sex life of worms, flatworms, and the like?
roots

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 09-27-2010 10:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 51 of 60 (583570)
09-28-2010 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Buzsaw
09-27-2010 10:38 PM


Re: Re Perhaps Too Extreme
Probably because making it "light and compact" means it is unable to regain the energy used to transport it?
The amount of elastic energy you can store in any material is directly proportional to the amount of material you use. This means that the amount you use sets a finite limit on the energy you might regain from it. If the energy regained from a given amount is less than the amount required to transport that material, you are actually making a loss. Try any size you like, and you find that nothing has the ability to make a gain, or if it does, that gain is so slight that by incorporating the design you end up negating it anyway, whether by the sheer effort of putting it in, or because it breaks down so often, or any of the myriad issues you create by sticking something new in.
That is another good reason why we don't use such devices.
You can have it lightweight or you can have it work efficiently or you can have it compact. But you can't have more than one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 09-27-2010 10:38 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 10-02-2010 9:13 PM Nij has replied

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4801 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 52 of 60 (583579)
09-28-2010 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Taq
09-21-2010 11:14 AM


Doesn"t the law of physics apply here
The rule is to reduce energy flow. It appears that there are limitations of energy distribution in all forms of life. Most life forms have a unique trait that requires a higher amount of energy to utilize it. For example, the human brain is expensive to run, the same is true for a cheetah that can run at high speeds to catch its prey, the eagle that has excellent vision and can see its prey from a long distance in detail, and on and on. No one species "has it all" in high energy features.
By re use in designs or altering it is much cheaper than building from scratch. We follow this same logic in manufacturing. If there are new features that are viewed as started from scratch I would think that there was no other alternative.
The fact that creatures appear to built just good enough not perfect indicates to me an energy limitation is in place. In insects it is the complete opposite in that some of them appear to be overly engineered perhaps because of their small size.
Edited by barbara, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Taq, posted 09-21-2010 11:14 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Taq, posted 09-28-2010 1:30 PM barbara has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 53 of 60 (583669)
09-28-2010 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Buzsaw
09-27-2010 10:52 PM


Re: Reuse of Design
The ole saying, "if it works, don't fix it" applies.
Why does it apply when considering an all knowing and all powerful deity who resides outside of space and time? Surely God knows of millions of completely unrelated designs for any given niche. Since God resides outside of space and time he has all the time in the world to make these designs work before realizing them in our universe.
If the ultimate purpose is to propagate the species, it would make no sense to implememt multiple means of doing it.
Why doesn't it make sense? For an all powerful and all knowing deity who resides outside of space and time starting from scratch takes the same effort and reusing a design. So why reuse design when starting from scratch requires the same effort (which is none either way, you would think).
Or is God limited in his powers in some way? Was God under a deadline? Does God lack and imagination? Does God have limited resources?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 09-27-2010 10:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 54 of 60 (583671)
09-28-2010 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by barbara
09-28-2010 2:23 AM


Re: Doesn"t the law of physics apply here
By re use in designs or altering it is much cheaper than building from scratch.
Does God have a limited bank account?
The fact that creatures appear to built just good enough not perfect indicates to me an energy limitation is in place.
It goes beyond that. tRNA's with different anti-codons require the same amount of energy to construct and use. So why use the same anti-codons for methionine tRNA across all life? Why would an all powerful and all knowing deity need to reuse anything?
From an evolutionary standpoint it makes a lot of sense, but I fail to see how the "common designer" paradigm makes sense when talking about an all powerful designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by barbara, posted 09-28-2010 2:23 AM barbara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by barbara, posted 09-28-2010 2:29 PM Taq has not replied

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4801 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 55 of 60 (583694)
09-28-2010 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Taq
09-28-2010 1:30 PM


Re: Doesn"t the law of physics apply here
Because it was not a "God" especially from the space in the universe and it does not exist. The first replicator (Life's self assembly kit) origin unknown still complies to a degree with energy costs. It has no choice the primary source of energy (the sun) and the food energy that is consumed cannot support a super organism equipped with so many features that require more energy, it is impossible to accomplish this on this planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Taq, posted 09-28-2010 1:30 PM Taq has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 56 of 60 (584558)
10-02-2010 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by DrJones*
09-27-2010 10:56 PM


Re: Reuse of Design
Dr Jones writes:
Buzsaw writes:
If the ultimate purpose is to propagate the species, it would make no sense to implememt multiple means of doing it.
Well I'm happy to see you've finally agreed that there is no intelligent designer
I see that I need to elaborate in order to make my intended point. Make that propagate and function efficiently and survive. My intention was relative to the post flood species, fully formed enough to propagate, function and survive.
You obviously spun my propagate comment to your evolutionist position, i.e. mutating into new species.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by DrJones*, posted 09-27-2010 10:56 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by DrJones*, posted 10-02-2010 9:12 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 57 of 60 (584604)
10-02-2010 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
10-02-2010 4:17 PM


Re: Reuse of Design
I see that I need to elaborate in order to make my intended point. Make that propagate and function efficiently and survive. My intention was relative to the post flood species, fully formed enough to propagate, function and survive.
Your elaboration doesn't really help your position Buz. You claimed:
If the ultimate purpose is to propagate the species, it would make no sense to implememt multiple means of doing it.
and there are multiple means that species propogate, function efficiently and survive.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 10-02-2010 4:17 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 58 of 60 (584605)
10-02-2010 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Nij
09-28-2010 12:10 AM


Re: Re Perhaps Too Extreme
Nij writes:
Probably because making it "light and compact" means it is unable to regain the energy used to transport it?
The amount of elastic energy you can store in any material is directly proportional to the amount of material you use. This means that the amount you use sets a finite limit on the energy you might regain from it. If the energy regained from a given amount is less than the amount required to transport that material, you are actually making a loss. Try any size you like, and you find that nothing has the ability to make a gain, or if it does, that gain is so slight that by incorporating the design you end up negating it anyway, whether by the sheer effort of putting it in, or because it breaks down so often, or any of the myriad issues you create by sticking something new in.
That is another good reason why we don't use such devices.
You can have it lightweight or you can have it work efficiently or you can have it compact. But you can't have more than one.
You're underestimating the amount of energy you would gain when you factor all of the braking you do. Think of a clock. Manpower winds the little spring in the movement and runs the clock, in some cases eight days and others as 31 days.
If you live in mountainous or hilly regions you would benefit all the more with the braking energy produced.
All I've stated is a hypothesis, having . Surely the concept could be developed with some engineering expertise.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Nij, posted 09-28-2010 12:10 AM Nij has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 10-02-2010 9:38 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 60 by Nij, posted 10-02-2010 10:16 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 59 of 60 (584607)
10-02-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Buzsaw
10-02-2010 9:13 PM


Re: Re Perhaps Too Extreme
You're underestimating the amount of energy you would gain when you factor all of the braking you do.
You don't gain any energy at all, you just expend less gas from a traffic stop - theoretically. But the elastic mass adds weight to the vehicle, weight that you have to push around all the time when you're not using it.
Think of a clock. Manpower winds the little spring in the movement and runs the clock, in some cases eight days and others as 31 days.
Are you aware of any clocks that have 2000-pound hands?
Physics, Buz. It's a real thing, honest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 10-02-2010 9:13 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 60 of 60 (584612)
10-02-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Buzsaw
10-02-2010 9:13 PM


Trading one inefficiency for several others
You're underestimating the amount of energy you would gain when you factor all of the braking you do. Think of a clock. Manpower winds the little spring in the movement and runs the clock, in some cases eight days and others as 31 days
As crashfrog points out, there is a substantial physical difference between a few grams of plastic or metal and a tonne of it.
That tiny little spring is not moving much at all. It's only there to provide energy for a few grams of metal in total. And a few grams of metal moving very low speeds needs bugger-all energy.
I'm not underestimating the energy stored by using a spring or other elastic-energy mechanism at all. If anything, you're underestimating the energy contained in a tonne of car moving at dozens of metres per second.
For example, your car's suspension springs.
They weigh several kilograms each and can store enough energy to lift your car a few inches when fully compressed.
Now scale that upwards until you have a spring which is large enough to store the energy transferred when braking.
They would have to weigh several hundred kilograms in total, and that's only accounting for stopping at the traffic lights if you car is moving at the standard 35mph/50kph urban zone speed limit.
Increase the speed to double that -- the open road limit -- and you have increased the energy of your moving vehicle to 400%, because that's how kinetic energy works: double the speed or velocity means quadruple the energy (assuming the same mass).
That means you need 400% of your several hundred kilograms to stop a moving car at open road speed; let's not even discuss a large transport truck or a semi-unit.
Your car would need to carry a couple of tonnes more steel. There's simply no way to make that economically justifiable if you consider the force required to get it moving in the first place. A V6 in your new Toyota is now as useless as putting a four-stroke in the old one.
And okay then, try aluminium or even carbon fibre. Guess what? Your vehicle might only adding one or half a tonne instead of two now, but it also must be twice the size to fit that material in.
Sorry, Buz, people have thought about this before. They run into the problems described above. It just doesn't work.
{abe: you may have missed out half a sentence in your last paragraph, Buz. There's a single word following the comma, then just a space and a fullstop.}
Edited by Nij, : Noted in message.
Minor grammar changes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 10-02-2010 9:13 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024