You have not done it because it does not yet exist economically. From Electronics Design Magazine of 9 April 2009: Sylvania recently offered one for consideration. Reliability still remains a problem.

LEDs have a 100,000 or 50,000 hour life expectancy. Life expectancy and efficiency numbers that fall quickly with higher power ratings. A low power LED would typically do 90 lumens per watt. A 100 watt incandescent bulb is 1500 lumens. A 20 watt compact fluorescent at 1500 lumens is 75 lumens per watt. LEDs at these lumen levels still are not competitive with compact fluorescent. A 180 watt sodium lamp is 27,000 lumens - or 150 lumens per watt. LEDs have a long way to go.

Now for history. No matter how many advances are made, we routinely spend 0.72% of GDP on lightning. Lights with greater efficiency did not mean less energy use. But it does mean an economic increase in productivity. How great? Varies significantly. Advances dur to LEDs (productivity increases) would be greatest in Africa. But the idea that LEDs will decrease energy consumption contradicts the lessons of history.

What factors cause lighting energy reduction? Increases in cost of energy or a reduction of living standards.

Chess set made of vacuum tubes.

That is awesome dar - great find! Makes me want to get back into playing chess. I have been out of the loop for a loooooong time.

More here. And pics.

It needs a V12 for auxillary power??? HFS!

More here, pics and vids.

Wow, I'm having a multi-science-gasmic morning.

I love it when Star Trek comes to life.

The full article is too long to paste, but here is the link.


The idea is to fight viruses, not by attacking proteins on the surface of the virus itself (the current method, which is vulnerable to the viruses making tiny mutations) but by turning off one of the protiens in the host cells which the virus relies on to reproduce. The advantages are (1) no resitance to the drugs and (2) broad spectrum antivirals, including "on the shelf" treatments for new diseases before they even emerge.

Some highlights:

I'm sending a heads-up to the Nobel Prize committee...

So, since it seems I have this thread all to myself, I'm gonna have some FUN science in it too.

Via the BBC.


I'm disappointed that there is no rigorous comparison of the relative merits of decapitation, flamethrowers, and a shotgun blast to the brain stem.

Also via the BBC:

Cool technology, but that is a lot of potentially reusable resources to build into a single use magazine.

Steam Car ...
 

... or the fastest tea kettle evah.

I met Fred Marriot when he wrapped the boiler for my uncle's car. He showed me the pictures of his crash, doing 140 to 150, the year after he set the record.

Pneumatic microprocessor

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-thin-air.html

I know I already said this once.

I HEART Quantum Mechanics!

1. INTRODUCTION
During the last decade, several experiments have
indicated the existence of correlations between brain
electrical activities of emphatically bonded but
spatially separated and sensory isolated human
subjects. In the first of these experiments, performed
by Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al., it was shown that
neural events stimulated in one human brain (visual
evoked potentials — VEPs) can induce neural events
of similar morphology (“transferred potentials”) in
the brain of a nonstimulated subject if the subjects
have interacted nonverbally in some fashion (for
example, by meditating together for a certain time)
prior to their separation inside their own Faraday
chambers (FCs).(1) Technically, protocolary, and methodologically
improved, the Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al.
experiments (GZEs) have been subsequently successfully
replicated by two research groups: the first in cooperation
between the Bastyr University and the University
of Washington,(2,3,4) under a two-year research grant
awarded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH),
and most recently by a group at the Freiburg University.(
5,6) The two groups confirmed the existence of
the phenomenon, although the latter group raised
certain questions about the original GZEs. Namely,
the Freiburg group found that the results were the
same or even better for pairs of subjects who had not
interacted in any fashion as were the results for those
pairs who had interacted prior to the experimental
sessions, and that the transferred potentials were not
necessarily of a morphology similar to the original
VEPs in the stimulated subjects, so a more sophisticated
data-analytic technique was necessary to detect
an effect opposing the null hypothesis. However, they
nevertheless concluded that “we are facing a phenomenon
which is neither easy to dismiss as a
methodological failure or a technical artifact nor
understood as to its nature” (Ref. 6, pp. 63–64). Due
to a strong analogy to the existence of quantummechanical
nonlocal correlations between onceinteracting
but subsequently also spatially separated
elementary particles, and due to the fact that subjects’
separation inside FCs rules out any electromagnetic or
neural energy transfer mechanism, the phenomenon
has been referred to as the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen
(EPR) nonlocal correlations between human brains,(1)
or simply the “biological nonlocality.”(7,8)

Quoted from: Physics Essays. A Proposed Experiment on Consciousness-Related
Quantum Teleportation
Boris Kožnjak