• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.

Daedalus

Members
  • Content count

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

100 Neutral

About Daedalus

  • Rank
    Member
  1. I've been using UML since freshman year of college (a while ago). I think its completely possible to design a complete game beforehand using UML. The problem with the game industry seems to be a mixture of poor software engineering skills (inflexible designs) and rampant feature creap. A properly designed game (or any other type of software) should leave things very modular so that any features being added don't change the overall design much. That being said, the industry as a whole should learn to plan ahead better, as far as features go, and stop being distracted by every shiny new feature that they want to add (its kind of like a case of undustry wide ADHD). On top of having an easier to implement design, stopping feature creep would, itself, speed up game development. Anything that speeds up the development process decreases project costs and increases the chance that the project will actually get finished, thus avoiding another contribution to the massive pile of dead projects created by the game industry (lorded over by that king of dead projects, Duke Nukem) -Daedalus
  2. Quote:Original post by LessBread It seems to me that theories are meant to be revised and extended when warranted, but I understand the reluctance and resistance to doing so. ("You mean I spent all that time thinking with a model that was flawed!?!") Or, even worse, "You mean me and my colleagues (who are now effectively running the physics establishment) have been using a, fundamentally, flawed theory for the last 50 years and now we risk loosing our credibility and prestige because the opposing theory is so radically different?". This (along with the general tenor of the comments made by Mills’ critics) is what, in my mind, makes a reasonable case for claims that he is being panned more for the radical nature of his theory and less for any actual scientific refutation of the theory itself. Of course, it still has a light smell of paranoia/conspiracy theory to it and the theory is pretty far out there in likelyhood. Edit: I'm not trying to claim that Quantum Mechanics is, necessarily, fundamentally flawed (I am, in no way, qualified to make that statement one way or the other). I am simply suggesting that there has to be some thought in the back of the minds of most major physicists who have made Quantum Mechanics their life's work (either conscious or unconscious) that if a theory this radical turned out to be true then it would make them all, largely, irrelevant. -Daedalus [Edited by - Daedalus on November 8, 2005 2:05:10 PM]
  3. Quote:Original written by Dmytry There could quite well be some strange kind of Peltier effect in the electolyzer (also why electrodes would be identical? on one, hydrogen is produced, on other, oxygen, so there's some difference in chemical composition around electrodes). Beware of recombination; it is not ruled out by this experiment, they refer to other experiment ruling it out but see above regarding experiments they refer to. The Peltier thing is pretty well explained away by the NASA report. They make it very clear that if this were, in fact, an example of the Peltier process in action then it would have to be many times more powerful than even possible with the best materials used in modern Peltier devices (semiconductors). If Mills has actually invented a process for solid state head pumping via Peltier effect that was many times more effective than the best modern Peltier devices then why would he need to perpetrate a "free energy" hoax? He could make insane amounts of money selling his super-Peltier devices. If this is true, then it would be almost as impressive as if the excess energy is real (though, not anywhere near as impressive as if his Grand Unified Theory happened to also be the true explanation). As for the recombination, yes that is one of the few remaining possible explanations that hasn't been totally explained away. And yes, that is a big deal. Quote:Original written by Dmytry The truth is, observed effect absolutely does not let you say "omfg energy is being produced there". Nowhere near. Experimental setup is like what i could relatively easily do myself to check claims of _several times_ energy return. If i would check for ~17% energy return i would include the apparatus to measure amount of hydrogen and oxygen being actually produced in said cell, to close the explanation as recombination, AND would do that in calorimeter, not air-cooled device. Measure everything I can, that is. When you're in your room searching for elephant and searching for mice you use different tools. We agree on your first sentence but I disagree with your second statement of "Nowhere near". The scientists that conducted the experiments, referenced in the lab reports, did everything within their means to isolate those possible alternate sources of energy production. They have many more resources at their disposal than the average person (though, I don’t know what you do for a living so you may have a full chemistry lab at your disposal). They, certainly, are not at a point where they can, unequivocally, state that excess energy is being produced, but I do think that "near" would be a valid description. Quote:Original written by Dmytry Sorry, it is ordinary "free energy" story. Actually when one says "ordinary free energy story" it usually refers to this superheater (it is ~15 years old thing). There _might_ be some relatively small effect, the free energy folks obviously jump at it and make absolutely rediculous claims that should but never go to real energy production. There is claims of 3x to 10x heat output, and even over 10x . If it would be true we'd be using it to make power, by today. (BTW, this thing actually originates from cold fusion folks, you can search for electrolysis fusion if you want.) I have given some thought to this and I have to say that my basis for referring to it as not being an ordinary "free energy" is that I tend to compare these kinds of thing to each other on a scale of 1 to 10: 1 - A true "free energy" hoax. Some guy with no science background, or even a criminal background, is trying to get average people (friends, neighbors, etc.) to invest in a “black box” device which, he claims, runs on some commonly used “free energy” concept like Zero Point energy. He claims that the government/oil industry/science community is trying to silence him but can offer no proof that they even know he exists. He also refuses to allow anyone to look inside his device and provides absolutely no mathematical explanation of why his device would work. 2 - Similar to 1 but the inventor has a slightly more reliable background (no criminal record and some respected people to vouch for his past) and a more original explanation for the source of the power. 3 - A person with an actual science background is claiming to have produced an extraordinary breakthrough. It may be based on radical science concepts but they can provide, at least, some coherent explanation of why it might work. However, virtually no-one can reproduce their experimental results in any way. I would classify the original Cold Fusion claims as well as the Russian Professor who was claiming to have invented a gravity shield in this category. 4 - Similar to 3 but this time numerous independent labs have been able to reproduce the experimental results with the original test setup and haven’t been able to disprove the claims. Also, the inventor is able to provide a more thorough explanation of his theory as to why it works. . . . 10- A major scientific breakthrough that can be easily reproduced by even a lay person with extremely simple resources like sticks and stones. Examples of this would be fire and simple machines. In case you can’t tell I would classify Mills' work with a score of 4. He has managed to get by the first round of confirmations by respected third part labs without being disproved and many of the possible conventional explanations for why he is getting those results have been countered. Also, his "Grand Unified Theory", while incomplete, is more thorough than most similar types of claims and hasn’t been shows, conclusively, to have mathematical holes. Some of his most vocal critics have come up with a list of mistakes they claim to have found in his first paper but he has come back with explanations for all those criticisms. As far as I know they have not yet, directly, addressed his counter claims. I also know at least one well known physicist has stepped forward to claim that traditional equations don’t rule out the possibility of at least one fractional electron state though he has found no such mathematical evidence to justify the existence of the 100+ states that Mills is claiming. I apologize in advance for not being able to quote the exact source of that. It is mixed in somewhere on either the Wikipedia article (possibly in the background discussions) or on hydrino.org. Now, if I was trying to come up with a probability for how likely it is that any given claim on my scale of 1 to 10 would turn out to be true I would probably assign something resembling, at most, an exponential curve. Each successively higher score would be exponentially more likely to turn out to be true. Even a score of 8 or 9 could turn out to be wrong, though I would expect most things over a score of 5 to be "partially wrong" as opposed to "completely wrong". An example of this would be Darwin’s original theories on evolution versus the modern revised theories. My point here is that I feel that dismissing something as "free energy" quackery should, generally, stop for anything above a 2 or 3 and it should be discussed in a reasonably intelligent manner by the science community. This isn’t to say that large amounts of research money should be thrown at them but I think they shouldn't be the target of emotion based jokes and ridicule either. Quote:Original written by Dmytry Also, because of bubbling there's alot of AC in the line and if you measure average current and average voltage it doesn't give you average power. It can be off by tens percents. The energy output of such devices seems to be inversely proportional to experiment credibility. Not to mention that there is experiments that failed to reproduce the effects, and them is not listed on hydrino.org. I can't speak to the percentage of error originating from the AC power line. I seem to remember some of the reports mentioning that the cells were run on AC as well as DC power at various times in the experiments but I don't remember anything explicitly being said about that particular potential source of error. I would assume that the labs running the experiment did everything within their power to limit such error. Also, I saw no mention anywhere about other experiments done by third party labs that weren't listed on the hydrino.org page. Can you provide sources for both please? Quote:Original written by Dmytry (and speaking of his math and "classical quantum mechanics", it is just pure nonsense. For his "theory" to be valid, it should also explain previous experiments such as for example difraction of electrons on crystal lattice.) The same argument can be made for Quantum Mechanics. There have been a number of examples, especially recently, in which Quantum Mechanics explanations for certain phenomenon have been, experimentally, found to be false. There is no such thing as a perfect theory that explains everything (that would be the holy grail of the science world) and theories have to start somewhere. Long before a theory explains everything better than it's predecessor it needs to be seriously considered by the scientific community. Also, if a theory can’t explain a few facets of a problem quite as well as the predecessor but is able to explain more phenomenon, including some phenomenon that the predecessor was incapable of, then there is no reason that they can’t coexist for a time until both are reconciled. That is, explicitly, why the physics world doesn't have a unified theory. Anyway, the FAQ on hydrino.org seems to do a pretty good job listing off the phenomenon that Mills' theory explains; the ones that it explains better than Quantum Mechanics; and the ones that are still being worked on. Quote:Original written by Dmytry edit: hehe. nasa used the cell provided by blacklight labs. not independent enough either. As I've said before, I really don't see a problem with this. As long as the labs can get inside and inspect the components before and after the experiments are run (and as long as they are running the actual experiments, and not BlackLight employees) then that constitutes independence. They've been able to prove pretty well that there are no dirty tricks being played (no hidden batteries or hydrogen tanks) and they have explicitly listed any shortcomings/potential sources of error caused in the experimental setup by the design of the cells. -Daedalus
  4. Quote:Original post by Dmytry can you quote the piece of text from where you got "running for months of time"? (I were talking about rowan.edu paper that deals with plasma, btw.) edit:nvm, found it in nasa paper. It refers to other experiments. It also refers to simply rediculous excess heat in other experiments(10x+ return!), something that if it would be true it would revolutionalize the power industry by _TODAY_, without any doubt. How hard it is to combine electrolyzer, steam engine or turbine, and generator?. If it doesn't because of evil oil companies... well, that's not controversy, that's conspiracy. Thank you, I was having a heck of a time trying to find where I saw that. I knew I had seen it but it was last night and I didn't get much sleep. Quote:Original post by Dmytry edit: 11w excess heat for 60w electricity pumped in. if true, indeed that's great. but that is still in range "may be weird error". Especially given the experimental setup. It is not easy to reliably measure thermal flux. The truth is, paper failed to reproduce any ~10x excess heat, and the experimental setup were not precise enough for that range because big excess heat were expected. True, there is still the possibility of some kind of experimental error being to blame for the readings but all of the reports together seem to be narrowing down that possibility as they keep eliminating the likeliness of each possible source of error. Quote:Original post by Dmytry edit: something like peltier effect?(electrodes will work differently because one is anode and other is cathode) incorrect assumptions of thermal resistance? recombination? Uneven heating? there's many things to worry about, some could act together. If you will notice the same "Summary and Conclusions" section of the NASA report, they refer to the Seebeck effect as the second in their list of possible alternate explanations for the excess heat. The full name of the effect is the Peltier-Seebeck effect. As it was described to me, and as written up on Wikipedia, the Seebeck effect is where heat is used to drive an electric current and the Peltier effect is where an electric current is used to pump heat. In the NASA summary they proceed to refer to what I had heard defined as the Peltier effect as being the Seebeck effect. It is possible that this is a simple mistake or that it is some kind of shorthand for the full term "Peltier-Seebeck" as they are pretty clear that they mean for the heat to be pumped as in what is commonly referred to as the Peltier effect. In the end, they reject the possibility of it being the Peltier-Seebeck effect because: Quote:Replication of the Apparent Excess Heat Effect in a Light Water--Potassium Carbonate--Nickel Electrolytic Cell, February 1996, NASA Lewis Research Center For thermoelectric heat pumping to account for the apparent excess heat would require differential Seebeck coefficients several times those of even semiconductors. Also, such heat pumping through the lid of our cell is zero in first order because the two exiting electrodes were identical. -Daedalus
  5. Quote:Original post by Dmytry Quote: These alternate explanations have been, largely, rebuffed by the labs themselves through such actions as running the cells for months at a time sources? did you see that in rowan.edu paper, or found some other independent cofirmation? not to attack you, but you seemingly haven't readed what it is all about. The plasma are made by microwaves from microwave source. There is somewhat more energy going out than should be(~25%). Inaccurate measurements of microwave power that goes in, and voila omfg free energy. Or some weird resonance effects increasing absorbtion of microwaves, or output of the source (source isn't perfect either). And that's legitimate ways, if one were to fake it there is even more ways. It's nothing like device that you can leave unconnected and power lightbulb from it. I based that statement on the "Summary and Conclusions" section of the NASA Lewis Laboratory report, hosted on hydrino.org, in which they give a list of known alternate explanations along with their reasoning for why each one is incorrect. As for the microwave issue, that is not something I was aware of. I will admit, I haven't comprehensively read all of the reports available. Where did you read about that? I'm interested because it seemed like these labs were doing a pretty decent job in isolating possible sources of extra energy. I think we both have a differing of opinion on how much weight can be assigned to the lab reports hosted on the hydrino.org website. I still stand by my belief that if they were fabricated then the respective labs would have raised the issue by now. Also, none of those reports mentions the cells being treated as "black boxes" that they were unable to opened and inspect. -Daedalus
  6. Quote:Original post by Dmytry I looked in to that PDF before, and yes, it's somewhat independent but not much. Quote:The experimental apparatus (see Fig. 17b) used for the thermal characterization studies shown was contributed to the Phase I study by BlackLight Power at no cost to NIAC. hmm. Conclusion: no independent study done yet. Note: I'm not implying that apparatus are deliberately broken. Just this is not independent study, and it doesn't much improve probability of whole thing being true. Granted, the device that all of these labs use to experiment on is always supplied by BlackLight Power, but most of the possible conventional explanations given by the critics hinge on that fact by implying that there is another chemical reaction going on somewhere in the system(possibly with the material the terminals are manufactured out of). These alternate explanations have been, largely, rebuffed by the labs themselves through such actions as running the cells for months at a time. After running, constantly, for so long; any other chemical reactions occurring would be expected to have totally consumed their reagents. While you yourself discount the possibility of a hidden battery or hydrogen tank (such as has been used in the past by exposed "free energy" cranks) this form of marathon testing would also tend to eliminate that from possibility (unless he's designed a super-battery to perfect his hydrino hoax. ;-) ). Another factor to consider is that some of these lab reports have also claimed to have run spectrographic tests on the resulting "hydrino" waste products and claim that the results don't seem to match any known materials found on earth or in meteorites. Quote:Original post by Dmytry I'm not saying that it is necessarily wrong; I just remain sceptical, and in these days of antigravity and cold fusion, being sceptical means assuming that probability of something being true is very small unless there's realy good reason to think it isn't very small. Also, gamedev is biased in direction of game development. Something like directxgames is going to be biased in direction of directx game development, even if it is independent from Bill Gates. It's only natural; it would be a strange exception to this rule if hydrino.org wouldn't be. (Yes, this site does look somewhat better than anti-gravity sites.) In the end, I can completely understand your wanting to remain skeptical. As I've already said, I am also highly skeptical that his alternate re-write of the majority of the last 50 years' physics theory is correct whole-cloth, which it almost has to be in order to justify any of it (since many of his core tenets contradict Quantum Mechanics directly). But, as you say, I do hope this isn't a hoax. My biggest concern is the apparent, total, dismissal by the "powers that be" in the physics community of this theory as being just like any other "free energy" hoax. There is, obviously, more here than almost any other such claim, even cold fusion (my understanding of the whole cold fusion thing is that no one was able to verify the original result for a decade or more after the paper was released. While you are right that no-one has, apparently manufactured their own Mills Cell, they do seem to have gotten a little further than the cold fusion debacle by having an actual cell in the hands of other labs that were then free to tinker with it and analyze what other forces might be causing the effect). -Daedalus
  7. Oops again, Forgot to paste the link to the professor's main website: http://users.rowan.edu/~marchese/ -Daedalus
  8. Quote:Original post by Dmytry Take for example any "independent" site regarding discussion of electrostatic antigravity, with name containing "antigravity". It could be absolutely independent from main proponent. Yet it will not be any independent from antigravity folks. What is your point? Is a page only "independent" if it is bereft of any proponents of the theory? Who do you expect to defend the theory in intelligent discussion? Yes, there will always be outspoken loonies, but that’s why we are supposed to read each statement made by a member of a community and make judgements on that member's legitimacy based on how logical their argument is. If you dismiss an entire site's legitimacy based solely on whether not there will probably be a few crack-pot "true believers"/flamers in the discussion then, quite frankly, why are you on gamedev.net? I don't mean this to suggest that you should leave or anything, I am simply saying that there have always been flamers and zealots (especially about things like OpenGL/DirectX, STL/custom containers, Windows/Linux, etc.) on the gamedev.net discussion forums. That doesn't make the entire site invalid or biased by default. What we do is to simply tune those people out and move on with a constructive conversation. I have read a decent amount of what is posted on hydrino.org and I have yet to see any of the tell-tale signs of "free energy" quackery. This isn't to say that the main theory itself isn't completely wrong, but the people discussing it seem to be on a, generally, logical course of discussion. -Daedalus
  9. Okay Dmytry, this is about as independent a source as you can reasonably expect. This is a link to the final report for a study done by Rowan University researchers, and funded by NASA, into potential application of BlackLight Industries technology into interstellar rocket engines: http://users.rowan.edu/~marchese/final-niac.pdf In the end they weren't able to produce actual thrust from the initial engine prototype but they were able to confirm experimental results similar to all the other reports on hydrino.org that you are claiming, if I understand you correctly, are tainted. You will note that this is hosted directly on the rowan.edu website. This is a link to the project main page: http://users.rowan.edu/~marchese/blr.html and, if you have a problem with this report being hosted on the "user" section of rowan.edu, this is a link to a Wired article on the project along with the link to the researching professor's faculty page. This should help corroborate the reports veracity: http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,51792,00.html?tw=wn_story_related -Daedalus
  10. Quote:Original post by Dmytry as I have said there is (very) small probability there is really some excess energy. There is some MUCH smaller probability that he is right about the cause. There is LARGE leap between "some excess heat" and "hydrinos are produced", and this leap are not filled with anything. I think we, more or less, agree on this point. I do however think that most of the quotes on the Wikipedia page as well as the Hydrino Study Group page tend to suggest that many of his strongest critics are guilty of committing just as much bad science as they are claiming he is guilty of. It all comes of as sounding more about the politics as opposed to the actual theory/experimentation to the point of going out of their way to convince the USPTO to revoke the patents he had already been issued. It just sounds really dirty. Daedalus: I wonder, how amazingly naive one should be to think that hydrino.org could host anything independent? even name itself is biased (see above)[/quote] Whoa, watch the ad hominem attacks there buddy. ;-) Why is the name of the page biased? The entire page claims to be entirely devoted to an evenhanded assessment of the "Hydrino Theory". It covers the experimental results as well, but that would be understandable as it has direct bearing on the truth or falseness of the over-all theory. If you actually go through the FAQ and the articles you will notice that they don't seem averse to posting comments that suggest, just as you suggested, that the strong possibility that the theory is just, outright, wrong. They also, clearly, criticize Mills in some places for some of his practices. As for who runs the page itself, the contact into in no way suggest that Mills himself owns it. A WHOIS of the DNS says that it is registered to a Paul Scott who also runs www.the-frontier.org. That page is a filler that links to his personal site. He doesn't appear to have a direct connection to Mills. Between the independent tone of hydrino.org's content and the WHOIS result I see nothing to suggest that the site is anything other than a legitimate site for the independant e-mail discussion group that is discussing the Hydrino theory. Besides, Mills has been studying this stuff for ~10 years (the news pieces and reports go back pretty far). If he was fabricating lab reports from major labs like NASA, Westinghouse, and MIT don't you think one of those organizations would have screamed bloody murder. If you look at the critics in the Wikipedia background discussions as well as the quotes from his physicist critics, none of them have suggested that he's making up his lab reports. -Daedalus
  11. Mills himself, I believe on his company page, states that the technology produces power output somewhere between a chemical reaction and a nuclear one. In the end, it may not be as powerful as nuclear reaction but it is more than powerful enough to solve out energy problems if it turns out to be true. -Daedalus
  12. Oops, my mistake. A quick Google suggests that Hydrogen actually has a higher energy density (Watts/Pound) than gasoline. Of course, the problem has always been in storing hydrogen in a decent molecular density without needing super-cooling... -Daedalus
  13. Also, the 1000x number seems to be a number made up by poor reporting on the part of the Guardian writer. The numbers on the actual company page seem to suggest something in the 100x range. It still sounds too good to be true. He may be comparing it to the maximum theoretic energy release from chemically burning hydrogen which, I believe, stores less energy than gasoline. It still sounds like a high number even if that is the case. One can only hope that it works out. -Daedalus
  14. Hello all, I came across this thread a couple days ago and have since gone over the BlackLight page, the Wikipedia article, and the Hydrino Study Group page linked to by the Wikipedia article (I also read a few of the news pieces written but they tend to be scant on details). If you guys are looking for actual documentation of the confirmed experimental results, you can find it on the Hydrino Study Group page. They are supposed to be an independent study group that is discussing the theory and seem to be keeping an open mind as to whether its true or not. On that site they are hosting copies of the lab reports from the NASA Lewis Laboratory in Cleveland, Ohio; Westinghouse STC in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania; and the MIT Lincoln Laboratory among others. I can't speak for the guy’s "Grand Unified Theory" (though it doesn't look like he's getting a fair response from the powers-that-be in the physics community) but it seems that his experimental results do show that something unusual is happening. Time and time again, the labs are reporting that the experiments are producing more heat than can be explained by normal chemical reactions and most of the conventional explanations that have been postulated by the critics have been, outright, debunked. I'm not saying that the guy is right about the cause (though it would be cool if we could finally replace that inelegant, hole ridden, Quantum Mechanic theory with something more elegant) but its looking like there is, at least, something to his experiments/technology. -Daedalus