Easy Questions?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Bob said mostly all about it, the only thing to add is that while the DNA is a copy of a working DNA of other cell this means that potentially someone can build the DNA from scratch in a computer and then use a machine to build the actual molecules and insert them into a blank cell, which is a completely and perfectly synthetic life form. It's a tool for genetic engineering and one with potentially enormous implications.

[Aggie]

I've heard we are not too too far off from being able to buy at-home wethacking kits. There are already competitions for this sort of thing, I think.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

But the whole point, was at one step, the entire DNA only existed as computer code--

Sorry, but I don't find that amazing at all. I can't see anything all that clever, once computers have been invented, and once DNA can be reduced to a sequence of letters, about the use of a computer to produce an adulterated sequence (ok, it is a bit clever to define the DNA sequence specifically needed to cause glow, and program the computer to combine etc but still, the basics are all there as far as the computer aspect was concerned). For me that was not the whole point. The whole point seems to me the method of re-introducing the newly sequenced code into the cell from which its own DNA has been removed. To demonstrate this by holding up a piece of paper with a load of letters on it, printed out by a computer, explains precisely nothing. The point of the program was to explain it, and it didn't.

The method of destroying the DNA in the host cell is an old one, and uses enzymes if I recall correctly-- they are microscopically injected into the cell using a really small thingy, under a microscope-- I think.   It's been a while since I read about that technique.

The insertion sequence is even easier:  they use the viral coat mechanism.   A virus is basically a strand of RNA that is covered with a protein engine which permits the RNA to be injected into the cell-- usually through normal channels in the cell's wall.   The protein coat fools the cell's membrane (or more specifically, it's "gatekeeper proteins") into permitting the virus's coat to attach.   If you remove the internal RNA from the original virus (how?  I do not know, sorry) and replace it with the artificial DNA, then the protein coat can do it's thing, and inject your artificial DNA instead.

Re-animating the cell.

[Griffin NoName]

.........and then use a machine to build the actual molecules and insert them into a blank cell, which is a completely and perfectly synthetic life form.

Yes, this crucial step was the one not explained in the program. At least, it was not explained properly, as they failed to mention "use a machine to build the actual molecules", but just waved the computer printout around. I don't know why it annoyed me so much.

It's a tool for genetic engineering and one with potentially enormous implications.

Yes. We may self-destruct 

If you remove the internal RNA from the original virus (how?  I do not know, sorry) and replace it with the artificial DNA, then the protein coat can do it's thing, and inject your artificial DNA instead.

Yes, they omitted to mention anything to do with viruses at all, never mind the fact that they are the delivery.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

It's because if they explain it properly the terrorists win.

[Griffin NoName]

LoL@Zono

[pieces o nine]

It's because if they explain it properly the terrists win.

FTFY     

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I have what perhaps isn't such an easy question. First imagine the following scenario, you strap a wind turbine on the roof of a car, as you move the turbine generates electricity, but also generates resistance and per conservation of energy nothing is really gained. Now, what happens if the turbine is within the aerodynamic envelope of the vehicle? For instance, currently most internal combustion vehicles have their radiators at the front and the air comes through the grilles to help cool down the water, the question is, what happens if I strap a small turbine at the very front where the grill is (again within the aerodynamic envelope), will I gain energy by doing so?

[Aggie]

If it's causing drag on the vehicle, it's not going to gain you energy.  If it's not causing drag, it's not going to make energy.

I see what you're getting at, but presumably any place that a turbine could be placed to capture wind energy is a place that could be redesigned for further aerodynamic efficiency (i.e. you'd get more net energy by reducing drag).  I suppose there'd be an argument for putting this type of a device on a vehicle that wasn't very aerodynamic in the first place.

Hypothetically, there may be a way of ducting a set of turbines to reduce drag by modifying airflow over the vehicle, but simple ducts (without the turbine) would probably be a better job. That's way beyond my level of understanding, though.

[Swatopluk]

With the right design and optimum angle towards the wind one can at least save energy. But only if their is real wind. Real wind and 'drag wind' add vectorially, so the wind as seen from inside the moving vehicle shifts forwards with increased speed thus reducing efficiency. The common example are special sailboats than can sail faster than the wind (and only when the wind comes from the front 180° not from behind).

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I have what perhaps isn't such an easy question. First imagine the following scenario, you strap a wind turbine on the roof of a car, as you move the turbine generates electricity, but also generates resistance and per conservation of energy nothing is really gained. Now, what happens if the turbine is within the aerodynamic envelope of the vehicle? For instance, currently most internal combustion vehicles have their radiators at the front and the air comes through the grilles to help cool down the water, the question is, what happens if I strap a small turbine at the very front where the grill is (again within the aerodynamic envelope), will I gain energy by doing so?

That is a good question, as it's rarely a simple case of pure wind resistance with a vehicle.

Here's an example where adding more drag (seemingly) actually decreases the total drag:  wingtips on the ends of airplane wings.  Due to a complex mix of vectors, as the air flows over the wing, it generates little vortexes at either wingtip.

These simply spin off into the air, creating drag, sure --but not for the airplane itself-- the energy is "dumped" into the atmosphere as it were, not unlike throwing water overboard-- the total water is unchanged (boat/sea) but within the boat itself, it's decreased.

So the wingtip sticks out at an angle, and "catches" these little mini-tornadoes, and actually decreases the total drag on the airplane.  In a sense, you are recovering energy that would otherwise be wasted.

Okay, back to a car.  If there are similar locations on the car, where the atmosphere is being churned or twisted such that energy is being dumped overboard (and into the atmosphere), capturing that energy would keep it "on board" as it were.

I would think that only using a wind tunnel and some really sensitive measuring instruments, would you see any net benefit.

I'd think, a simpler solution would be to effectively decrease overall drag, rather than to add weight with a (at best) 50% efficient turbine.

However, if you're talking about an electric vehicle, wherein there is already an on-board battery pack?  Then a turbine might make sense-- only the weight of the turbine would detract from your total figure.

[Griffin NoName]

On the Titanic, it was women and children first. What do they do now since women's suffrage?

[Swatopluk]

On the Titanic, it was women and children first. What do they do now since women's suffrage?

Actually the Titanic catastrophe was seen as the greatest setback for the feminist movement at the time. In essence the male position was: you get the privileges of getting rescued first but under the condition that you stay a 2nd class human being. And right for the 100th anniversary some RW religious nuts try to get us back there with that same argument. They also claim that the disaster disproves Darwin (since it was not survival of the fittest).

[Griffin NoName]

They also claim that the disaster disproves Darwin (since it was not survival of the fittest).

Actually I just found this.

[Swatopluk]

The Titanic vs. Darwin link can be found under Unlikely Headlines