18 Jul 13
Originally posted by sonhouseBut this just proves it's evilution - they are like flying florescent marker pens and marker pens were designed, and the chances of flying marker pens not being the result of intelligent design are zero.
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-discovery-link-evolution-bioluminescence.html
Another victory for evolution.
Say it together: Ad Nauseam!! Ad Nauseam!!
The Interrogator
18 Jul 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtOr, the family that dukes together pukes together....
But this just proves it's evilution - they are like flying florescent marker pens and marker pens were designed, and the chances of flying marker pens not being the result of intelligent design are zero.
Say it together: Ad Nauseam!! Ad Nauseam!!
The Interrogator
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Jul 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI'm trying to boot Hinds and his anti-science blather out of science forum...
But this just proves it's evilution - they are like flying florescent marker pens and marker pens were designed, and the chances of flying marker pens not being the result of intelligent design are zero.
Say it together: Ad Nauseam!! Ad Nauseam!!
The Interrogator
Why are you trying to bring his blather back?
18 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouse
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-discovery-link-evolution-bioluminescence.html
Another victory for evolution.
It paves the way toward development of new enzymes that glow in different colors and are 10, 100 or 1,000 times brighter, they say in ACS' journal Biochemistry.
How much power would 1000 fireflies require to produce light and how does this compare with LEDs or florescent lights?
Just curious about how efficient LEDs are compared to biological systems. And also where enzymes 1000 times brighter would get their power from.
18 Jul 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeHumour, besides it sort of pre-empts his only likely argument. Possibly it would be better to start threads on the basis that the subject is interesting, rather than as a provocation in debate with him. Incidentally, the reason I signed him 'The Interrogator' was because of the similarity of the logic of some of his arguments to the logic used by O'Brien from 1984.
I'm trying to boot Hinds and his anti-science blather out of science forum...
Why are you trying to bring his blather back?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead1000 times brighter than what? Was my first thought...It paves the way toward development of new enzymes that glow in different colors and are 10, 100 or 1,000 times brighter, they say in ACS' journal Biochemistry.
How much power would 1000 fireflies require to produce light and how does this compare with LEDs or florescent lights?
Just curious about how efficient LEDs are compared to biological systems. And also where enzymes 1000 times brighter would get their power from.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Jul 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou know I have never actually watched that film all the way through.
Humour, besides it sort of pre-empts his only likely argument. Possibly it would be better to start threads on the basis that the subject is interesting, rather than as a provocation in debate with him. Incidentally, the reason I signed him 'The Interrogator' was because of the similarity of the logic of some of his arguments to the logic used by O'Brien from 1984.
I should probably do that at some point.
18 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe wikipedia article on Luciferase (that should get RJ going 😉) explains the mechanism, in a nutshell energy is provided by ATP which produces an intermediate, which then reacts with oxygen to give a product, oxyluciferin, in an exited state, when it drops into its ground state light is emitted. It produces one photon per molecule of luciferase, ATP and oxygen. LEDs are probably more useful for general lighting purposes as the material isn't used up in normal operation.It paves the way toward development of new enzymes that glow in different colors and are 10, 100 or 1,000 times brighter, they say in ACS' journal Biochemistry.
How much power would 1000 fireflies require to produce light and how does this compare with LEDs or florescent lights?
Just curious about how efficient LEDs are compared to biological systems. And also where enzymes 1000 times brighter would get their power from.
18 Jul 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeThere's a scene in the book (I can't remember if it was in the film) where O'Brien explains to Winston Smith that the so called Theory of Gravity was subordinate to the will of the party.
You know I have never actually watched that film all the way through.
I should probably do that at some point.
18 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtA case could be made for fuel powered light, fuel is generally a more compact energy source than batteries I believe. There are other advantages to fuel that we know well, eg faster refuelling than recharging. So, you could simply fill your phone up with ATP and the screen will light up for hours.
LEDs are probably more useful for general lighting purposes as the material isn't used up in normal operation.
But my main interest was whether one could get 1000 times more ATP interacting with the enzyme ie could the power be supplied fast enough and would a brighter enzyme be more efficient per ATP molecule, or simply use them up faster.
18 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI thought they already figured that one out making those little light sticks you buy at county fairs where you break the glass tube inside and the chemicals mix and produce light for a couple of hours.
A case could be made for fuel powered light, fuel is generally a more compact energy source than batteries I believe. There are other advantages to fuel that we know well, eg faster refuelling than recharging. So, you could simply fill your phone up with ATP and the screen will light up for hours.
But my main interest was whether one could get 1000 tim ...[text shortened]... gh and would a brighter enzyme be more efficient per ATP molecule, or simply use them up faster.
I guess they are not that close, here is an explanation of the lightsticks or glowsticks, whatever you want to call them:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/howthingsworkfaqs/a/howlightsticks.htm
18 Jul 13
Originally posted by sonhouseThe ones I've seen actually produce a little light for days. I would say however that the total light output of one stick is less than a cellphone can produce on one charge, so its not quite ready for use as a backlight on cellphones.
I thought they already figured that one out making those little light sticks you buy at county fairs where you break the glass tube inside and the chemicals mix and produce light for a couple of hours.
