Recent content by Bjørn Bæverfjord

I read your post and what you wrote was completely wrong. The Pentium 4 has many hundred instructions many of which are useless. The simple act of removing the things that are never used and changing the remaining instructions so they do the things that a specific program needs most will result...

So then we can just divide it into optimal steps that each are 100 times faster than the original. Since each step is 100 times faster then the total result will be 100 times faster. The point is to make it optimal, not to make it as slow as possible to support your view. For example the...

I have a FPGA on my desk, even running at 50MHz it can give a 2GHz P4 a good fight when a program is written in VHDL instead of Assembly or a high level language. For example a specific LFSR that is often used in pseudo random generators ran at the same speed on the FPGA as in did in Visual C++...

Yes, it is the same principle that is responsible.

Before anyone says that this idea will not work they should read this again: It will result in a massive speed increase because of large amounts of increased parallelism, the idea is perfectly fine. What you loose is flexibility since you will have problems running other languages...

Everything glows when hot enough, but usually the heat introduces changes in the material so it might be another material when it cools down.

The fuel must enter the combustion chamber at supersonic speed to pull in the air and generate the ram effect that makes it work. The propane ones I have seen had a very low efficiency.

It is a fairly common method using propane. Try searching for pressure jet. Hydrogen will combust much faster so some adjustments will probably be needed. To get any significant thrust you need a properly designed combustion chamber.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/earth_energy.html "Scientists have concluded more energy is being absorbed from the sun than is emitted back to space, throwing the Earth's energy "out of balance" and warming the globe." When it comes to the original question, all changes are...

The question is hard to answer because your question is not clear. If you shrink Saturn to fit in a container it will have little gravity so it would not affect things. Saturn is made out of gas and is not rigid so it would fall apart in your bathtub. For water to be liquid it needs to be at...

You need to state how much water you need and the price you are willing to pay. Getting one or several large dehumidifiers should give you plenty of water unless the air is very dry.

That was the original number that you accepted, I just tried to point out that you were happy to choose suicide instead of any of several sustainable paths. The corrected number puts everything in a different light as it does not point to a rapid disaster.

If look what was said before then he was saying that it is better to use up the worlds oceans at a rate of 20 mm a year and increase power consumption by a factor of 1 000 000 000 and kill us all in no time rather than to reduce power consumption in half and live on just like before. That was...

So given then choice you would live without both, a brilliant choice if I may say so. That is a much more sensible number, it might even keep us going until the end without resorting to science facts from the makers of Star Trek.

This number is useless without knowing what you mean by "world's water supply". 1/150 000 of all water is a lot, it would reduce the sealevel by almost 20 mm a year and might kill us all fairly rapidly. That is pure science fiction. There is nothing to suggest that humans will ever be able to...