Phil Landmeier @shuttersparks@social.cleverlibre.org

@fraying Yes, and now comes the blowback. Hahaha. It's legal to bar Trump supporters from your business.

@pattykimura @MotherJones Also, I don't think Jack Smith is into that kind of deal. Donald Trump will die in prison, even if he lives for a very long time.

@KrissyKat So the whole thing is a scam to get a case before the USSC. That used to be illegal. (Courts take a very dim view of attempts to deceive the court. The judge will usually do really bad things to you.) It should also destroy any standing they have to bring the case at all.

@ai6yr Ah, yes, the defenestration problem.

@Hypx @owen @danirabbit I make hydrogen in my intestines, but that doesn't make it economically feasible to power a vehicle. Yes, you can make it at home in dozens of ways, including electrolysis, none of them close to efficient. Cracking the hydrogen from hydrocarbons in the only cost-efficient way, which is why we make it that way now.

@owen That's exactly what it is. Well said.

If we had huge amounts of excess electricity to electrolyze water, yes. Hydrogen would be great (except for the dangers of handling it). But we don't. The way hydrogen will be implemented simply moves the pollution from the car's exhaust to the refinery where the hydrogen is produced.

@Geoffberner Good for him that he had this attitude, given what happened. I'm not sure what the other passengers would have thought about being smashed into a blob of flesh and fat in a millisecond, then a millisecond later exploding into atoms. Good way to die, though.

@xtaldave Yes, long suspected to exist. They do!

@EriogonumDarwin @lauren Indeed. I haven't used Google search in almost five years. Not once. Nor have I missed it, even once.

@robgalanakis @clive Well, yes and no. Powering an EV from coal generated electricity produces less CO2 than powering the car with any IC engine. This is because IC engines are horribly inefficient, including my "highly efficient" one.

@ordinoides Yup. That's good enough.

To belabor the topic a bit more, and in case others are reading too, I'll mention one more thing.

Looking at the table of material emissivities, it might seem like many of the numbers are approximate or have a range of values. That's not useful if you want accuracy. The reason for the approximations is that emissivity of a material depends on the composition of the material and its surface finish. So stainless steel -- which alloy?, is it a brushed finish?, sanded?, polished?, corroded?, dirty? These all affect emissivity, sometimes in a major way.

But if you have a particular case then you can measure emissivity yourself. Say you have a big stainless cauldron. Fill it with water. Heat the water to some temperature you can measure accurately, say around 160F. Shut off the heat source and let it stabilize a minute. (Avoid airflow, breezes, wind, etc. because stainless is a poor heat conductor.) Then measure with the IR gun and fiddle with the emissivity setting until it reads the temp accurately. Now you're calibrated and you know the emissivity of that material given it's current state of finish, corrosion, dirt, etc.

Note that one could do this at room temperature but the IR gun will be somewhat more accurate if the temp of the material is above ambient and closer to the temperatures you expect to measure.

@ordinoides Yes, it's a big problem that can throw your readings way off, as you noticed.

Your IR gun probably has an adjustable setting for emissivity. I've found that in practice it's a hassle and not real useful. It is useful in certain settings like if you are going to do a bunch of readings of the temp of the outside of a particular stainless steel pot. Then it's worthwhile to calibrate. Or if I'm welding / heat treating steel, then I recalibrate. (My gadget works up to 1,800 F.)

But for random kitchen use I just leave it set to 0.96 and am aware that if I read a metal object the temp is going to be off. Some materials like stainless steel and galvanized steel are especially bad. Polished copper's emissivity is so low it's not worth trying to measure it accurately.

The above is not a recommendation, just the way I use mine.

Here's a chart with some possibly useful numbers to plug into your gun. https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table/

@ordinoides Hah, yeah. I'm a retired engineer, now working as a chef, so I tend to mix science and food. My IR gun gets plenty of use but it's also useful to compare with an ordinary accurate thermometer when possible. Emissivity is a thing, especially with metals, but I'm sure you know that.