New electronic paper could make inexpensive electronic displays

April 21, 2015
The black side of the microparticles contains magnetic nanoparticles that make it possible to write on the screen. A magnet pulled across the surface of the white display attracts the black side and the balls flip to face the magnet. Credit: Yusuke Komazaki/ University of Tokyo

Researchers from the University of Tokyo have revamped an old e-paper concept to make an inexpensive handwriting-enabled e-paper well suited to large displays like whiteboards. They describe the e-paper in the Journal of Applied Physics.

Traditional ink and paper is convenient for both reading and writing. In e-paper development the writing feature has generally lagged behind. Handwriting-enabled displays mainly show up in the inexpensive, but feature-limited realm of children's toys, and in the high-end realm of touch-screen e-readers and smart pens.

A team of Japanese researchers has now taken an e-paper technology originally developed in the 1970s and updated it to make a tough and inexpensive display that could be used like a whiteboard when a large writing space is required.

The display is made from bicolored microparticles about 0.1 millimeters in diameter. One hemisphere of each particle is black and carries a negative charge, while the other is white and carries a positive charge. The particles are sandwiched between two electrodes. By switching the direction of the voltage across the electrodes the background display can be switched between black and white.

Such "twisting ball" displays are not new, but the researchers were the first to integrate a magnetic field control component with the original electric control. In addition to carrying a , the black side of the microparticles also contains magnetic nanoparticles that make it possible to write on the screen.

Handwriting with a magnet is demonstrated on a prototype of the new e-paper. Credit: Yusuke Komazaki/ University of Tokyo

A magnet pulled across the surface of the white display attracts the black side and the balls flip to face the magnet. In this way images and lines can be drawn on the display. A magnet with about the strength of a refrigerator magnet will work for this task.

Applying a voltage will immediately erase the drawings. In the absence of a voltage or , the image is maintained without using any energy.

"Toughness, cost, size and color are the advantages of our e-paper display," said Yusuke Komazaki, a researcher in the Graduate School of Frontier Sciences at the University of Tokyo and lead author on the paper. The display is made from materials like acrylic polymer, silicone elastomer, and silicone oil that are relatively inexpensive and hold up well under UV light. Because of the e-paper's simple structure, large displays can be easily fabricated, Komazaki said. In addition, the researchers could easily change the color combinations by substituting different microparticle pigments, he said.

The researchers believe low-cost, lightweight, and energy-saving electronic whiteboards are a suitable application for the new e-paper. "Conventional electronic whiteboards are equipped with large LCDs or projectors and are very expensive, less visible in bright light conditions, heavy, and energy consuming," Komazaki said, so the new displays could have many competitive advantages.

"If we fabricate super-large displays, it might even be possible to replace traditional blackboards in classrooms," Komazaki said.

The team is working to improve the contrast of the , which they believe can be achieved by increasing the amount of black and white pigment in the microparticles.

Eventually, the researchers believe their work could contribute to a world that is much less dependent on traditional paper.

"Writing and drawing is an indispensable feature of paper, so we believe that our handwriting-enabled e-paper is closer to real paper than conventional e-papers," said Komazaki. "Someday, handwriting-enabled e-paper may replace real paper."

Explore further: E Ink isn't just for e-readers any more

More information: "Electrically and Magnetically Dual-driven Janus Particles for Handwriting-enabled E-paper," by Y. Komazaki, H. Hirama and T. Torii. Journal of Applied Physics , April 21, 2015, DOI: 10.1063/1.4917379

Related Stories

E Ink isn't just for e-readers any more

December 24, 2014

E-readers may be passe, but you could soon see the black-and-white, easy-to-read screens that helped make them a big hit in a lot more places and products.

The future of holographic video

February 3, 2015

Holographic video displays, featuring three-dimensional images, are about to "go large" and become a lot more affordable at the same time, thanks to the work of a team of Brigham Young University (BYU) researchers and their ...

Glasses-free 3D display is made with tiny spherical lenses

March 9, 2015

One of the most common methods of creating the illusion of 3D is the autostereoscopic display, which is based on parallax: each eye is presented with a slightly different angle of a scene. Often this is done with many tiny ...

Recommended for you

Solution to mysterious behavior of supercooled water

October 23, 2017

When Einstein was working toward his PhD, he was among the first to explain how particles exhibit random motions in fluids. Diffusion is an important physical process and the Stokes–Einstein relationship describes how particles ...

Fast 3-D microscope with nano precision

October 23, 2017

A fast 3-D optical microscope which can acquire a full field image of the surfaces of objects at nanoscale resolution was developed recently in the lab of Prof. Ibrahim Abdulhalim (pictured right) in the Unit of Electro-Optical ...

120 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
3 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2015
It's almost, but not quite as if they had re-invented the humble chalkboard.

They'll get around to it eventually.

"If we fabricate super-large displays, it might even be possible to replace traditional blackboards in classrooms," Komazaki said.


Why?
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2015
Why?

Dry skin (too much handling of chalk can lead to cracked skin on finger).
Chalk dust (not good to inhale).

And white board markers have noxious fumes, so they are not a great replacement.

Multiple colors may be tricky with this technique, but most likely someone will figure it if this catches on...
24volts
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2015
Eikka, ever had to use a chalk or white board regularly? The stuff ruins clothes... teachers would love a chalk board made from this stuff! I can say that from experience too.

What would be really handy though is if they could make in regular notebook paper size and have the resolution sharp enough to use a stylus with a little magnet on the end. It would save a lot of paper especially in schools for classwork and stuff like that.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2015
The point of the chalkboard is that it's dirt cheap, high visibility, uses no power to operate, requires no training to use, and lasts literally a hundred years. None of the electronic alternatives come anywhere close.
RealScience
5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2015
The point of the chalkboard is that it's dirt cheap, high visibility, uses no power to operate, requires no training to use, and lasts literally a hundred years. None of the electronic alternatives come anywhere close.

I personally like blackboards best. But both blackboards and whiteboards produce particulates, and so are not suitable for places like clean rooms.

I have whiteboards in my office - they are higher visibility, better with color, and produce less dust, but I don't like the fumes when using the markers. I have an old slate blackboard in the shop because chalk is much more tolerant of sawdust than white-board markers are.

I've tried various electronic substitutes and am not fond of any of them. However if the technology in this article could be done in color I would give it a try, especially if it truly is like paper and I could wallpaper a room with it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2015
1. Dirt cheap
Apparently so is this stuff.
2. High visibility
They're working on the contrast now that they got it to work in the first place.
3. Uses no power to operate
Check, unless you want to save it on computer... and this stuff does that more efficiently. *And* uses no power for simple blackboard-mode use. Plus you can erase it with a switch.
4. Requires no training
Check, unless you want to save it on computer.
5. Lasts a hundred years
and requires a new one to be mined out of the ground. This stuff is basically paper. Less resources.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 23, 2015
Apparently so is this stuff.


But not as.

Check, unless you want to save it on computer.


There's actually no provisions to do that with the e-ink board, seeing it's a passive design. There's no grid of wires to sense the pixel states.

And erasing the whole board does require power - or a whole lot of scrubbing with a little magnet. A chalkboard you can erase with a mop.

and requires a new one to be mined out of the ground


You don't mine chalkboards. The surface is powdered colored glass or other ceramic mixed in latex or other binder. Essentially just fine sand suspendend with paint. High-end blackboards are thin steel sheets with black enamel paint on top, and some can actually even roll up .

This stuff is basically paper. Less resources.


Plastic, actually: "acrylic polymer, silicone elastomer, and silicone oil"
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2015
Eikka, ever had to use a chalk or white board regularly? The stuff ruins clothes... teachers would love a chalk board made from this stuff! I can say that from experience too.

What would be really handy though is if they could make in regular notebook paper size and have the resolution sharp enough to use a stylus with a little magnet on the end. It would save a lot of paper especially in schools for classwork and stuff like that.


As a left-hander, I'd like that. Having to write from left to right with the left hand means that the fresh ink smears as my hand passes over it (and even when writing with a pencil, one side of my hand gets grey from the graphite). Fortunately with chalk I am generally writing large enough that I can keep my hand off the board.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2015
... erasing the whole board does require power - or a whole lot of scrubbing with a little magnet. A chalkboard you can erase with a mop.


I so seldom want to erase a whole board that I would prefer NOT to have that feature out of paranoia of unintentionally erasing valuable information. A sweep magnet would be big enough for bulk erasing, and a pen-sized eraser would be perfect for correcting drawings.

(But for a blackboard-scale device a lack of color would be a show-stopper for me.)

Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Eikka hates all things that are new and downrates anyone who likes them.

Bad habit, Eikka. People are sure to notice. Just sayin'.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2015
Eikka hates all things that are new and downrates anyone who likes them.


While I don't always agree with Eikka, I wouldn't go further than to say that Eikka errs on the side of skepticism of new things.

Eikka is usually very accurate in assessing the CURRENT state of a new technology and the problems that it would face in its current form (one of the most realistic commenters). I do find Eikka a bit pessimistic about the chances for future major improvements in a new technology, but since most new technologies do encounter problems, even that is usually right and merely a tendency to err on the pessimistic side rather than the optimistic side.

As for downrating, I have never seen Eikka downrate someone for liking a new technology. Eikka generally doesn't even rate comments, and I haven't seen him hold a grudge, so I would be surprised by this. On the other hand your comments are generally very accurate as well, so I'll ask: Do you have an example?

Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
We had an exchange. You can look it up if you're interested; it was about a month ago. It left a pretty bad taste in my mouth.

Part of it's my problem; I'm pretty anti-pessimism right now, for personal reasons.

OTOH, there was a personal remark as well, bordering on an accusation, which I didn't particularly appreciate.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2015
Ouch - that does not sound like Eikka at all. Both you and Eikka are high-valuable members of this comments forum, so it saddens me to hear of an exchange getting negative and personal. Anyone can have an off day and make atypical comments (I have made negative comments myself a few times although I try hard to keep everything a civil discussion), so I hope that it was just an aberration.

I am optimist myself - I see all of the amazing progress that has been made in spite of the challenges. But I appreciate realists and accept that even pessimists have a role to play, as long as they are rational in their pessimism.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
I have to, in all honesty, agree with your assessment of Eikka. I will give it a while and observe. I may relent after a while, and write it off exactly as you say: a bad day. Without even saying whose bad day it was, because of course that would obviate the point of it all.

But it takes a while for hurt feelings to subside, and I'll wait that time, and observe while I do- and comment if the spirit moves me.

Tit-for-tat is not the most successful strategy, statistically; nor is always-cooperates or always-defects. The most successful strategy is "firm-but-fair." You can examine a really good classification of Prisoner's Dilemma here: http://www.prison...ies.html

Comprehensive, but does not discuss the results of tests of the various strategies. Since this is controversial, I'll go no further. ;)

And, of course, thanks for your positive comment.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
erasing the whole board does require power - or a whole lot of scrubbing with a little magnet. A chalkboard you can erase with a mop.
I so seldom want to erase a whole board that I would prefer NOT to have that feature out of paranoia of unintentionally erasing valuable information.
If you've got it hooked up to a computer which can record it, you could set up the global erase function so it would save itself before erasing; this is rather similar to the ability in late MS OSs to recover old versions of a file. Given radically expanding data storage capabilities this is not an unreasonable functionality.

A sweep magnet would be big enough for bulk erasing, and a pen-sized eraser would be perfect for correcting drawings.
Agree categorically.

(But for a blackboard-scale device a lack of color would be a show-stopper for me.)
Frankly me too. Although I hate the smell of the markers.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
After due consideration I'd say the ability to save a chalkboard to a computer is a "killer app" for this technology, particularly since doing the same task for either traditional whiteboards or blackboards is an electromechanical hassle. The obvious implementation is to read the back of the board and derive the picture on the front of the board from it, which is trivial even in real time. You could even trigger to save before implementing either a block "eraser" or pinpoint "eraser" command, replicating the functionality of preserving a copy in, for example, MS Word that can be reverted to, which is also trivial but highly useful.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
We had an exchange. You can look it up if you're interested; it was about a month ago. It left a pretty bad taste in my mouth.


If I remember correctly, I called you intellectually dishonest because you tried to paint me as an anti-renewable shill. I still hold that opinion because you just repeated the same sort of behaviour here as well. You don't like me for telling things the way they are, so you try to attack my person by broadcasting lies.

Eikka generally doesn't even rate comments, and I haven't seen him hold a grudge


Ratings are generally pointless to bother about since they're meaningless due to trolls and sockpuppets. Holding personal grudges also serves no purpose.

If you've got it hooked up to a computer which can record it,


You still forget that the proposed paper does not have a recording function. It has no means to sense the ink dot orientations - it can only reset them to a known state.

Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
The means by which you could record the board image would involve a dense grid of electrodes, horizontal on one side and vertical on the other, to measure the charge in the intersections of the wires. That would mean low resistance transparent electrodes (ITO glass?) on the surface side.

It would be structurally a full e-ink display, which is currently not feasible to scale to blackboard sizes because of the sheer surface area which makes it impossible to manufacture at a reasonable cost anyhow.

(But for a blackboard-scale device a lack of color would be a show-stopper for me.)


Color can be achieved if one could selectively hold some ink particles, which again requires the grid, but it means only one color can be shown at a time - because applying the holding voltage instantly flips the particles you apply it to.

You need active electronics to re-draw around your pen if you wish to draw multiple colors.

Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
I called you intellectually dishonest
Precisely.

I particularly dislike people like you who make a practice of showing how smart they are by cutting other people down. It's a disgusting habit.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Adding color capability also reduces the contrast of the board, as with all e-ink displays. This is because color is achieved by rastering, where one cannot vary the brightness of individual dots since each discrete dot is only one shade of one color or white.

So imagine a 3x3 raster pattern. Each dot can flip between a certain color (RGB) and white (0). Here's a red pixel:

R00
R00
R00

A green pixel

0G0
0G0
0G0

A light blue pixel

00B
000
000

A "black" pixel:

RGB
RGB
RGB

Since no individual dot can be black - otherwise you couldn't see its color - the display cannot produce black - only grey. The contrast suffers.

More contrast can be achieved by making the individual colored dots darker, but that has an effect of washing out the colors because more white dots need to be shown to achieve the proper lightness value. The color saturation suffers.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
I called you intellectually dishonest
Precisely.

I particularly dislike people like you who make a practice of showing how smart they are by cutting other people down. It's a disgusting habit.


That's only your interpretation of the matter. Intellectual honesty has nothing to do with being smart - except in the sense that it's smart to be intellectually honest because it saves you from a lot of unnecessary bullshit.

Intellectual dishonesty is actually more about lying to yourself - a feelgood tactic of self-deception. It's making false statements or using faulty logic to turn the argument around, repetition of the same disproven points to block out the conflicting new information, or simply calling the other guy an evil bastard to have an excuse to ignore what he's saying.

Knowingly engaging in intellectual dishonesty is part of trolling or propaganda, depending on the purpose.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
It's not the first time you did it. It's about the fifth or sixth I've noticed, and not all against me.

I'm not even going to bother with your BS about supposed "intellectual dishonesty." I will not lower myself to your level.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
It's not the first time you did it. It's about the fifth or sixth I've noticed, and not all against me.

I'm not even going to bother with your BS about supposed "intellectual dishonesty." I will not lower myself to your level.


Those have been direct replies against false accusations and a false claims leveled against me.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty by dismissing this as a display of superiority to "cut down" other people. Typically the situation has been, as with you or mr. gkam for another example - that you've accused me of being anti-renewable pro-fossil fuel shill. When I've pointed out that this is pure fabrication on yours and his part, you accuse me of being arrogant and "hurting your feelings".

In other words, you're deflecting the issue. That is intellectual dishonesty. This is nothing personal - it's just impossible to have a meaningful discussion or debate with someone who refuses to play fair or admit fault.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
I made no accusations against you.

Now you're lying.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
I'm not even going to bother with your BS about supposed "intellectual dishonesty." I will not lower myself to your level.


So you won't "lower yourself" to this?

http://en.wikiped..._honesty



One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
I made no accusations against you.

Now you're lying.


I quote you not ten messages before:

Eikka hates all things that are new and downrates anyone who likes them.

Bad habit, Eikka. People are sure to notice. Just sayin'.


If that is not an accusation then I am pope Francis the Sixth. Don't cover a lie with another lie.

See, this is exactly the kind of bullshit meta-discussion we could avoid if you'd just stick to being intellectually honest.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
But that isn't what you're claiming. You're claiming I accused you before and you were responding to that.

You're lying again.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
But that isn't what you're claiming. You're claiming I accused you before and you were responding to that.

You're lying again.


I am not, and you were. That is an accusation you need to back up. Specifically:

It's not the first time you did it. It's about the fifth or sixth I've noticed, and not all against me.


This one.

Please dig up the earlier discussions you are referring to and prove your point. Otherwise, stop trying to weasel out of it.

RealScience
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
The means by which you could record the board image would involve a dense grid of electrodes, horizontal on one side and vertical on the other, to measure the charge in the intersections of the wires.


That would be one way.

One could also scan the surface with a linear scanner drawn across it, have a flexible surface that wraps around rollers and passes through a scanner at the edge of the 'board', have a camera photograph the surface and upload the photo, or one can track the pen tip's position over time and re-create the image in the computer. And those are just the alternatives that I have already personally tried for whiteboards! People are VERY creative...

(On the other hand, I would agree that none of those alternative was particularly satisfying to use..)
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
I am not, and you were. That is an accusation you need to back up.
You first. You made the initial aggressive move, and have now made an accusation that it was a response to some accusation you claim I made, but that you can't prove ever happened. And you're trying to get out of it by obfuscating. Like most trolls, you are trying to turn my assertion back on me, instead of answering it. It's not going to work.

Now stop playing games and stop lying and either support your claim that I accused you of something and you responded, or admit it's a lie and apologize, if you have any honor.

Then consider whether it's a good idea to try to self-aggrandize by falsely making other people out to be cranks. I'd say not, but you're of course free to assume any stance you can stomach. On the other hand, we're free to judge you by your actions. Get over it.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Here's an example of the last case I remember.

http://phys.org/n...ent.html

Me:
They're comparing apples to teacups.

It's that kind of intellectual dishonesty that I really really hate.


Greenonions:

Same way I hate your intellectual dishonesty. We have plenty of examples of countries that are increasing their percentage of renewables significantly.


Notice how that has nothing to do with the point I raised about false comparisons.

My reply:

I resent that statement. Don't make such accusations without evidence, or you'll be guilty of the very thing.


greenonions:

There is ample evidence for accusing you of intellectual dishonesty. I can sit here all day and show you examples of countries that are showing us that the future is renewable energy.


Again, not addressing the same point, and in the end his examples are not what he claims anyhow. How do you propose I deal with that?
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
You first. You made the initial aggressive move


Where?

And you're trying to get out of it by obfuscating. Like most trolls, you are trying to turn my assertion back on me, instead of answering it. It's not going to work.


This is some Kafka-esque bullshit - you're accusing me of a transgression against you, but refuse to show where it happened, what exactly happened, or that it happened at all, saying it is my responsibility to prove that I'm guilty of whatever it is that you consider to be "aggression", or apologize for something I'm not aware of having done.

Well, my position stands: in the past I have only replied to false accusations leveled against me.

Sorry, that's the best anybody can do.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2015
Let's get back to technical discussions - it is much more productive!

Color can be achieved if one could selectively hold some ink particles, which again requires the grid, but it means only one color can be shown at a time - because applying the holding voltage instantly flips the particles you apply it to.


One wouldn't need a grid, and multiple colors could be shown - the particles could be in layers, with one layer for each color, and the holding voltage could be applied to each layer independently. Hold all layers but the color being drawn in.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015

One wouldn't need a grid, and multiple colors could be shown - the particles could be in layers, with one layer for each color, and the holding voltage could be applied to each layer independently. Hold all layers but the color being drawn in.


How?

How do you make the bottom particles visible through the other layers?

And again, "holding" one color means flipping it to the white state across the whole layer. If you draw in green and then switch to blue, all the green particles flip back to white as they are being held from being flipped by the magnet.

How the display works, all the pixels in a layer, as you propose, can be manipulated by only setting or resetting them all at once, turning the display either all colored or all white. The magnet pen then flips the individual dots. There's no way to get the dots to stick in an arbitrary state.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Oh stop.

You tried to make out I was a crank on this thread: http://phys.org/n...try.html

You said:
This thing isn't a free energy machine.


I politely asked you not to do that, and you responded by downvoting my post.

Now stop lying, and stop making people out to be cranks. It's impolite, unnecessary, self-aggrandizing, and vicious.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Let's get back to technical discussions - it is much more productive!
Love to, once I get an apology.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2015
Adding color capability also reduces the contrast of the board, as with all e-ink displays. This is because color is achieved by rastering, where one cannot vary the brightness of individual dots since each discrete dot is only one shade of one color or white.

This is more a property of color displays with binary pixels rather than of E-ink displays per se.
For example, the first color CRT display that I used (IBM 3279) had color pixels that were either on or off.

E-ink could also have pixels that could be slanted at multiple angles to produce multiple brightnesses of a sub-pixel, and still be stable when the power is off.

Even with binary pixels, if one has layers one can get decent contrast. The top layer could have pixels with black disks (or white disks, depending on whether uncolored pixels are white or black) that can be either flat (and thus seen), or slanted 90 degrees, and thus let the colored pixel be seen).
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015

You said:
This thing isn't a free energy machine.


I politely asked you not to do that, and you responded by downvoting my post.

Now stop lying, and stop making people out to be cranks. It's impolite, unnecessary, self-aggrandizing, and vicious.


Oh so that's what this was about.

Well, sorry for downvoting you. It must have been an accident, although I can't see whether I actually up- or downvoted you because there are more than one voters. The comment about free energy machines wasn't meant to imply that you're a crank, just that you might have forgotten that pumping heat implies work.

You said:

No compressor, better efficiency. Most of the power in a refrigerator is consumed by the compressor.


I thought you implied that removing the compressor would eliminate the requirement for work to pump the heat. That would be a bit crankish.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2015

How?

How do you make the bottom particles visible through the other layers?

One way is the way the sub-pixels work on the screen I am looking at right now - the sub-pixel pixels of one color are simply be beside the ones from another color. This does cut resolution, but small pixels ensure that the screen I am looking at is fine. The straightforward way to do this also requires good layer-to-layer alignment, which is probably more of a challenge over a large area.

Another way is to have each layer have disks as described above for improving contrast. Each disk only needs two positions, flat and vertical, to produce a decent display (almost as good a brightness range as I get with a whiteboard. If each pixel can be turned by a given amount rather than only 0 or 90 degrees, then excellent color could be achieved. And accurate alignment between the layers is not needed!
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015

E-ink could also have pixels that could be slanted at multiple angles to produce multiple brightnesses of a sub-pixel, and still be stable when the power is off.


That's true, but how would one go... wait a second. What happens when you turn the magnet sideways? Obviously it makes the dot go sideways, or half-bright.

But, that doesn't fully solve the problem.

The top layer could have pixels with black disks (or white disks, depending on whether uncolored pixels are white or black) that can be either flat (and thus seen), or slanted 90 degrees, and thus let the colored pixel be seen).


This creates a viewing angle issue - the contrast of the display changes depending on where in the classroom you're sitting, because you need to look straight at the pixel to see right through it.

the sub-pixel pixels of one color are simply be beside the ones from another color.


If staggered in layers, again, viewing angle changes the color.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Unacceptable. I might believe you if I hadn't seen you do the same thing more than once.

Now stop.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2015
And again, "holding" one color means flipping it to the white state across the whole layer. If you draw in green and then switch to blue, all the green particles flip back to white as they are being held from being flipped by the magnet.

How the display works, all the pixels in a layer, as you propose, can be manipulated by only setting or resetting them all at once, turning the display either all colored or all white. The magnet pen then flips the individual dots. There's no way to get the dots to stick in an arbitrary state.


That isn't what I am proposing.

I've already said that I don't like the electric erase. Use the electric field to 'freeze' the dots, (for example, by pulling them sideways to increase the friction so that a magnetic field can't turn them either way). The magnet is then for writing or erasing (N or S), and the electric field is applied to any layers that you don't want to change when writing or erasing.

- continued -
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Unacceptable. I might believe you if I hadn't seen you do the same thing more than once.


Where? That's again an accusation that I'm not willing to just take.

"You know very well what you've done. Of course I can't mention where or when."

Use the electric field to 'freeze' the dots, (for example, by pulling them sideways to increase the friction so that a magnetic field can't turn them either way).


You misunderstand. The electric field flips the dots the same as the magnet. If you pull them sideways, the dots simply flip sideways. Besides, you need kilovolts to create the necessary field sideways through the entire board, or lots of electrodes in between the dots.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2015
- continued -

One could have a complex drawing using multiple colors to represent different materials or interlocking or overlapping parts, and then freeze all but one color and use the 'pen' to erase parts of that color while leaving other colors at the same or adjacent locations untouched.

That would actually come in handy - I try such corrections pretty frequently in sketching complex parts, and I often screw up another color in doing so.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Where?
Sorry, not playing that game. You asked, I proved it, now you're trying to blow it off. Unacceptable.

I will be challenging you on this behavior pattern every time I see it. You did something nasty and are unrepentant, indicating you intend to continue doing it. I don't like nasty. It has no place here.

If you want to identify cranks, you need to have integrity, and you don't.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2015
You misunderstand. The electric field flips the dots the same as the magnet.


No, I'm discussing alternative. I've already proposed NOT having an electric field flip the dots, allowing the electric field to be used for something else.

If you pull them sideways, the dots simply flip sideways.

While that would be true in the version originally described, once one gets rid of the electric erase an electric field can be used for other purposes. Pulling the dots sideways does not have to apply any torque to rotate the dots - the electric field does NOT have to pull on the same spot(s) on the dot that the magnet does.

- continued -
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Sorry, not playing that game. You asked, I proved it, now you're trying to blow it off. Unacceptable.


So you play a different game.

I already said I am sorry for downvoting you for the case you provided. That is what you requested, that is what I did. Now you accuse me of other cases without providing any evidence thereof.

I will be challenging you on this behavior pattern every time I see it. You did something nasty and are unrepentant, indicating you intend to continue doing it. I don't like nasty. It has no place here.


You're crucifying me over something completely trivial because it hurt your ego?

You're being completely unreasonable and childish, vindictive even.

If you want to identify cranks, you need to have integrity, and you don't.


What is integrity to you? Apparently it means starting a crusade against a person because they aren't polite enough for your tastes.

What folly.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
So you play a different game.
No. I interfere with your game.

All you gotta do, Eikka, is convince me you won't do it again. An apology is a great way to start, and I'm not sure I'll accept anything else as convincing. You can try, but I have to point out that not being willing to apologize tends to indicate certain character flaws that I really don't have much sympathy for, so that's likely to be a very long road and might lead nowhere.

You never apologized for the initial insult, Eikka. I note you're trying to turn that back on me, too. You're very predictable, and quite transparent.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2015
-continued -

Besides, you need kilovolts to create the necessary field sideways through the entire board, or lots of electrodes in between the dots.

One could have a single electrode at a reasonable voltage for the whole layer. For example, a contiguous electrode with 'fingers' between pairs of rows of dots. Charging such an electrode could attract all rows of dots sideways toward the nearest finger, locking them in place.

And sideways attraction is not the only way - a whole dot could be attracted up or down to a transparent planar electrode as well. The dot just needs to be attracted regardless of its orientation and with out applying torque to it.

And one doesn't even have to pull on the dot itself - transparent upper and lower electrodes could be charged to pull them towards each other, squeezing the dots in between to stop them from turning in response to the magnet.

Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2015
All you gotta do, Eikka, is convince me you won't do it again.


I can't convince you that I won't do crimes which appear to your imagination and interpretation because it is not under my control. I can't choose what you take offense in, or see as a transgression.

I can only promise that I will not do wrongs which I interpret to be, and I maintain that I have not willingly done any.

An apology is a great way to start, and I'm not sure I'll accept anything else as convincing. You can try, but I have to point out that not being willing to apologize tends to indicate certain character flaws that I really don't have much sympathy for, so that's likely to be a very long road and might lead nowhere.


I apologize.

You never apologized for the initial insult, Eikka.


It wasn't an insult. If you choose to take it as such, I cannot help it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2015
Worth noting I think that if the dots have more than two colors, and are metastable in more than two directions, then the color would be controlled by rotating the stylus (or whatever you want to call the writing instrument) until a particular alignment was achieved relative to the dots; and metastability implies that it should be possible to use the stylus without exacting orientation, since there would be not a single alignment, but a range over which it would change the dots to a particular color.

This is however a somewhat more complex arrangement than the one in this paper.

It's also possible that dots with only two colors could still be used, but the dots would be arranged so that the different colors were clustered into "pixels," and their axes would be of different alignment; this seems slightly less difficult to design, and perhaps to use, than a design with multicolored dots.

contd
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Each dot would have one color on one side, and white (or black) on the other, and the board would either be CMYK or RGBW; the different colored dots would each have their own plane of rotation, so the stylus would have three orientations.

It would be interesting to consider whether intermediate angles might affect two of the three colors at the same time, allowing for a total of six colors plus black or white. That seems sufficient to me to replicate most of the functionality of a whiteboard, or a blackboard with colored chalk. Three colors is, I think minimal, whereas six would be sufficient to compete with whiteboards. I can't think of a time I've used a whiteboard with more than four colors of markers. Most people can't track on a diagram more complex than that, is my experience.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
I can't convince you that I won't do crimes which appear to your imagination
You're lying again, Eikka, and this is another insult. Now you have two to apologize for.

You keep tripping over that character flaw. Your denials are pretty unconvincing as a result.

If I had a choice I'd choose that you admit this flaw and ask for help with it. I'd happily provide that without taking offense. Instead you keep trying to make it my fault, and that's just not going to fly.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Eikka. I note you're trying to turn that back on me, too. You're very predictable, and quite transparent.


That is what is called "projection". Attributing to others what you are afraid to see in yourself.

You're lying again, Eikka, and this is another insult. Now you have two to apologize for.


You started this diatribe by making a lie and a false accusation about me over a simple misunderstanding you took to be a personal affront. Now you are demanding apologies and atonements, threatening revenge, making insult after insult, accusation after accusation about my character as you try cover up your own faults.

You are a thoroughly petty and vain man.

How about you apologize me?
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Here's an idea: how about a switch to enable local erase?
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
false accusation about me
You're lying again Eikka.

And everything you've done, twisting and turning and trying to avoid admitting any fault in yourself, is exactly what every other troll tries. I'm not n00, Eikka. I'm old, and I've dealt with the same problem you're having, and I'm a better person for having done so. Having given it up myself, my tolerance for it is minimal. And my sympathy for people trying all the tricks you're trying is nonexistent.

Unacceptable.

Quite frankly, Eikka, it's your obvious knowledge and expertise that makes this an issue. If you were just another troll I'd ignore you and move on, but you are obviously smarter than to be trying crap like this. I'd like to see you stop this misbehavior and just concentrate on what you know, and stop pretending you need to insult others in order to self-aggrandize. You can win much more respect that way.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Here's an idea: how about a switch to enable local erase?


How?

You're lying again Eikka.


Your denial doesn't make a difference. You have said "Eikka hates all things that are new and downrates anyone who likes them.". This is the false statement which started this discussion, by you, against me, as a revenge for an offense I did not knowingly commit.

At this point I'm merely entertaining myself seeing how doggedly you will deny any fault of your part, trying to convince yourself of your righteousness so this whole thing wouldn't put another dent in your obviously fragile ego.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2015

The top layer could have pixels with black disks (or white disks, depending on whether uncolored pixels are white or black) that can be either flat (and thus seen), or slanted 90 degrees, and thus let the colored pixel be seen).


This creates a viewing angle issue - the contrast of the display changes depending on where in the classroom you're sitting, because you need to look straight at the pixel to see right through it.

the sub-pixel pixels of one color are simply be beside the ones from another color.


If staggered in layers, again, viewing angle changes the color.


These variations would indeed have restricted viewing angles, especially with multiple layers of 'disk pixels' that were not carefully aligned. But I've used displays with narrow viewing angles before, and I'd accept that as a trade-off for decent color - I generally stand in front of the area of the whiteboard I'm working on or looking at.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2015
I apologize - guests have arrived, so I'll be dropping off now.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
How?
Good question. By altering the field so that the dots are biased to flip back to white (or black, if that's the base state). Perhaps three local erase switches for the three colors...? Press two switches to erase one of the combo colors, in my scheme with three colors of dots...?

Just speculating here, I don't have a mechanism, a lot more analysis would be needed to see if it's even possible.

I apologize - guests have arrived, so I'll be dropping off now.
Have fun!
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Your denial doesn't make a difference. You have said "Eikka hates all things that are new and downrates anyone who likes them.". This is the false statement which started this discussion, by you, against me, as a revenge for an offense I did not knowingly commit.
No, it's another instance of that same character flaw you keep trying to deny. It's not a false statement, and the proof of that has already been provided. Your first response to the new material technology for cooling was to try to make me out as a crank for advocating it.

Your first response to this new technology was to start carping on all its flaws and state that it's no better than other already available solutions.

This is your usual response; pooh-poo any new discovery, then find someone who advocates it and make them out to be a crank.

It's pretty disgusting, as I've already said.

contd
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
At this point I'm merely entertaining myself seeing how doggedly you will deny any fault of your part, trying to convince yourself of your righteousness so this whole thing wouldn't put another dent in your obviously fragile ego.
That would work if I hadn't already admitted I'm prejudiced against pessimists, and that was my problem; it's right up above there in black and white, Eikka. You're lying again.

You're also trying to make me out to be a crank again, and now that's three apologies you owe.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015

Quite frankly, Eikka, it's your obvious knowledge and expertise that makes this an issue. If you were just another troll I'd ignore you and move on, but you are obviously smarter than to be trying crap like this. I'd like to see you stop this misbehavior and just concentrate on what you know, and stop pretending you need to insult others in order to self-aggrandize. You can win much more respect that way.


I have no use for respect, recognition, authority, or any of the ego-centric things you appear to value and care for so much. I'd much rather have no identity at all since it just creates these silly arguments about who stepped on whose toes and who's above who in the pecking order - or who is behaving nicely and who is not.

If you see this, you'll also see why I'm not lying to you. I have no need to look good. If you don't listen to me because you don't like my style, that's your loss, not mine.

Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
If you keep pushing this, Eikka, I'm going to start looking up your posts and pointing out where you've done this same thing over and over and over and over. Because I've watched you, and you do. It's a bad habit, and it's particularly destructive on the part of someone of your knowledge, since others who read this site and are not sophisticated are likely to believe you because of it.

Stop making people out to be cranks to make yourself look better, Eikka.

I'm not saying don't point out when someone's being a crank; I'm saying stop making stuff up about people who aren't in order to boost your low self-esteem.

I have no use for respect, recognition, authority, or any of the ego-centric things you appear to value and care for so much
And that's four apologies.

And a lie: if you didn't care you wouldn't be perceiving people who are around the same intelligence and knowledge as you as threats and making them out to be cranks.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
I have no need to look good.
Then how come you keep making people who are of around the same intelligence and knowledge as you out to be cranks?

You're lying again, Eikka.

"I'm a professional (insert self-aggrandizing assertion here)" in 4... 3... 2...
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
That would work if I hadn't already admitted I'm prejudiced against pessimists


But that's not an excuse. What nonsense.

You're also trying to make me out to be a crank again, and now that's three apologies you owe.


I'm not trying. You are:

It's not a false statement, and the proof of that has already been provided


No it hasn't. There's only one case, which is yours, which is down only to your word and your interpretation of the matter. That's not proof - that's just you saying so. You're trying to be the judge, jury, prosecutioner, investigator and claimant at the same time.

The false statement is that I supposedly poo-poo every new and exciting thing and downvote everyone who disagrees. The reality of the matter is that I don't and I don't. You lied, admit it.

Unless you want to keep digging that grave deeper. I'm all for watching.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
But that's not an excuse.
Nor was it intended as one. I showed you're lying again, Eikka. You're really not all that good at logic, are you? How disappointing.

No it hasn't.
You're lying again, Eikka. The proof is right there in your own statements, on these two threads.

Unless you want to keep digging that grave deeper. I'm all for watching.
Because you're superior.

That's pretty transparent, Eikka.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Stop making people out to be cranks to make yourself look better, Eikka.

I'm saying stop making stuff up about people who aren't in order to boost your low self-esteem.


I don't. That's just your imagination. You're painting me with that brush, not me.

If you keep pushing this, Eikka, I'm going to start looking up your posts and pointing out where you've done this same thing over and over and over and over.


Please do, rigorously. Take all the time you want, be as thorough as you please. I insist.

Then how come you keep making people who are of around the same intelligence and knowledge as you out to be cranks?

And a lie: if you didn't care you wouldn't be perceiving people who are around the same intelligence and knowledge as you as threats and making them out to be cranks.


Again, you see what you want to see. I can't help you there.

Can't you see you're beating a strawman?
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
I don't.
You did. Proof in this thread and the magnetic refrigeration thread already provided. You're lying again, Eikka.

Can't you see you're beating a strawman?
First, that's a mixed metaphor. Second, you haven't provided evidence of any strawman, which is the substitution of a weaker attack for an attack you made. You're lying again, Eikka, not to mention mangling metaphors.

Then how come you keep making people who are of around the same intelligence and knowledge as you out to be cranks?

And a lie: if you didn't care you wouldn't be perceiving people who are around the same intelligence and knowledge as you as threats and making them out to be cranks.
Again, you see what you want to see. I can't help you there.
Because, of course, really you're smarter than everyone.

Self-aggrandizing again, Eikka. There's that character flaw you keep tripping over and then denying again.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Nor was it intended as one.


So then your statement was false.

I showed you're lying again, Eikka. You're really not all that good at logic, are you? How disappointing.

You're lying again, Eikka. The proof is right there in your own statements, on these two threads.

Now you're just trolling. Repeating the phrase "you're lying again" is just you preaching to yourself. It almost conjures the image of a person rocking back and forth hugging their own knees.

Because you're superior.

That's pretty transparent, Eikka.


Your words.

Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
So then your statement was false.
No, it wasn't an excuse, which is what you claimed. Another logic failure, Eikka, and another troll trick.

Now you're just trolling.
No, Eikka, I'm providing proof, and pointing out that you're trying to deny and ignore it, when it's your own posts.

I've already seen every trick trolls can pull, Eikka. And you keep doing them like I'm not going to notice. You're pretty arrogant. That's the character flaw.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
First, that's a mixed metaphor.


No it isn't.

Second, you haven't provided evidence of any strawman, which is the substitution of a weaker attack for an attack you made. You're lying again, Eikka, not to mention mangling metaphors.


No. A strawman argument is substitution of your opponents argument or position for a false one, and then "beating" that instead of the real thing. Like literally punching a man of straw instead of the person you're fighting with and then claiming victory as the strawman falls over.

http://en.wikiped...traw_man

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
http://techxplore...ity.html]http://techxplore...ity.html[/url]

On the other hand, if you need complex optimization algorithms to find the configuration where a plug-in hybrid would save you money - according to your assumptions - it probably means it doesn't really make much of a difference even if it does.


http://techxplore...ity.html]http://techxplore...ity.html[/url]

The concept has a flaw in that the geothermal energy rising from below isn't very much... So the site has to be abandoned for a hundred years before it warms back up.


http://phys.org/n...ter.html

On the other hand, if you need complex optimization algorithms to find the configuration where a plug-in hybrid would save you money - according to your assumptions - it probably means it doesn't really make much of a difference even if it does.

That's three in the last three days, Eikka.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
No, it wasn't an excuse, which is what you claimed. Another logic failure, Eikka, and another troll trick.


Let's follow this from the start.
Me: "At this point I'm merely entertaining myself seeing how doggedly you will deny any fault of your part"
You: "That would work if I hadn't already admitted I'm prejudiced against pessimists"
Me: "But that isn't an excuse"
You: "It wasn't meant to be one"
Me: "So your statement was false"

Being prejudiced against pessimists doesn't absolve you of trying to weasel out from denying your own faults. I.e. it's not an excuse, which you freely admit. There is no trick, no troll, and no error of logic except yours.

No, Eikka, I'm providing proof, and pointing out that you're trying to deny and ignore it, when it's your own posts.


What you're actually doing is repeating the same phrases ad-nauseaum in the hopes that I'd get tired and leave. That is an actual troll tactic.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
No it isn't.
Yes it is. The first metaphor is "beating a dead horse." The second is "strawman."

Second, you haven't provided evidence of any strawman, which is the substitution of a weaker attack for an attack you made.
No. A strawman argument is substitution of your opponents argument or position for a false one, and then "beating" that instead of the real thing.
Please specify how your claim is different from mine. If you can't then "No" is a lie.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Being prejudiced against pessimists doesn't absolve you of trying to weasel out from denying your own faults.
No, it just proves I'm not trying to weasel out of denying my own faults. You're lying again, Eikka, and you're using those troll tricks again.

And BTW, how exactly does my statement not being an excuse make it a lie? Interested in your false logic here. Why don't you explain that for us. Meanwhile, claiming it's a lie appears to be yet another lie on your part.

What you're actually doing is repeating the same phrases ad-nauseaum in the hopes that I'd get tired and leave
No, what I'm doing is proving you're lying and trolling, and trying to get you to see it's stupid and transparent and stop.

Noticed you haven't replied on your negative slant on three new technologies in the last three days; this one here actually makes four, and I didn't look at all your recent posts, I just selected three at random. Every one shows your behavior pattern.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Yes it is. The first metaphor is "beating a dead horse." The second is "strawman."


You're making a silly semantic appeal. Beating a strawman means attacking a strawman. There's no need to bring dead horses into the picture.

Please specify how your claim is different from mine. If you can't then "No" is a lie.


"substitution of a weaker attack for an attack you made" appears nonsensical. It's hard to see what you meant by it, so I gave the proper definition instead.

If you can't then "No" is a lie.


Non-sequitur fallacy.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
http://techxplore...ure.html

But there's again this perennial problem: ... Therefore the article is exaggerating the energy production by 55%


http://techxplore...ars.html

This is just another "Give me money so we can 'help' the poor." kind of money grab.


http://phys.org/n...ent.html

On the face of it, the wind turbines seem to be 50% more expensive.

Though there's still the issue that the nuclear powerplant is designed for 40-60 years while the wind turbines are not. I don't know the design life, but I am guessing 25 years at most.


Three more, Eikka. Your same pattern, over and over and over and over.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
You're making a silly semantic appeal.
No, it's not semantics; that's about meaning. It's about analysis, which shows this is a mixed metaphor, which means you're lying again, Eikka.

"substitution of a weaker attack for an attack you made" appears nonsensical.
No, it's not. It's quite clear. You're lying again, Eikka, and I note you couldn't tell how the two were different, instead you tried to make me out to be a crank again. Your same behavior pattern, over and over and over and over.

Non-sequitur fallacy.
How, exactly? If you claim a, and I prove not-a, and you can't prove it wrong, looks like it sequits just fine to me. You're lying again, Eikka.

So far six posts by you, just about everything you've posted in the last three days, every one of which has you pooh-pooing another new technological development.

Your behavior pattern is showing again, Eikka. Noted you requested I show this, and I've shown it repeatedly and exhaustively.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
No, it just proves I'm not trying to weasel out of denying my own faults.


No it doesn't. You're admitting to one fault, but not others.

You're lying again, Eikka, and you're using those troll tricks again.


You're repeating youself again.

And BTW, how exactly does my statement not being an excuse make it a lie?


Because "That would work if I hadn't already admitted I'm prejudiced against pessimists" is a non-sequitur. It does not follow because admitting your prejudice doesn't decide the case. It doesn't excuse (=justify) the statement.

No, what I'm doing is proving you're lying and trolling, and trying to get you to see it's stupid and transparent and stop.


Do you honestly believe that?

Noticed you haven't replied on your negative slant on three new technologies


You used the same one twice, and you're shifting the goalpost.

You said: "Eikka hates all things that are new". Which is decidedly false.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
No it doesn't. You're admitting to one fault, but not others.
How likely is it that someone introspective enough to spot one won't spot others? A lot less likely than someone who just denies everything, like you do.

You're repeating youself again.
No, I'm pointing out that you're repeating your behavior pattern. It's the same behavior pattern, it's not my fault you keep doing it. I'm just pointing it out.

Because "That would work if I hadn't already admitted I'm prejudiced against pessimists" is a non-sequitur.
But it's not a non-sequitur; proven above.

Do you honestly believe that?
Considering I just provided seven examples of your same behavior pattern in the last three days, I'd say I have good evidence of it.

You used the same one twice
That's the lousy editing software. I'll be happy to go back and fix it if you'll admit its significance.

contd
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
which shows this is a mixed metaphor


"Beating (up) a strawman" is a very common reference to the strawman fallacy and not a mixed metaphor. You just can't admit you're wrong. See e.g.
http://www.nation...rge-leef

No, it's not. It's quite clear.


Says you. You can't just declare yourself correct.

instead you tried to make me out to be a crank again.


You are making yourself look like a crank by this silly argument.

How, exactly?


Not being able to show otherwise does not mean a fact is so. It just means one is unable to. Like not being able to show that there isn't a flying teapot behind the moon doesn't mean there is.

So far six posts by you, just about everything you've posted in the last three days, every one of which has you pooh-pooing another new technological development.


And yet this does not show that I hate everything new. If you can't see why, you fail at logic.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
How likely is it that someone introspective enough to spot one won't spot others?


Very likely, seeing as you won't admit that you started this whole thing by making up a lie and a false accusation about me.

But it's not a non-sequitur; proven above.


No, it wasn't.

Considering I just provided seven examples of your same behavior pattern in the last three days, I'd say I have good evidence of it.


Pointing out negatives and faults does not equal trolling. Pointing out flaws in reporting is not criticism against technology or its progress, and having negative opinions against some new things does not mean negative opinion against all new things.

Simple as that.

See for example, my comments in the Aluminium Battery article for a counterpoint.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
You said: "Eikka hates all things that are new". Which is decidedly false.
You've hated on every one you've commented on for the last three days, seven of them so far.

You're lying again, Eikka.

"Beating (up) a strawman" is a very common reference to the strawman fallacy and not a mixed metaphor.
It being a common reference doesn't mean it's not a mixed metaphor. Logic fail, again. Lying, again.

Says you.
Proves me. Noticed you cut that part out. Lying again, Eikka.

Not being able to show otherwise does not mean a fact is so.
Logic reversal trick. I didn't challenge you to show it wasn't so, I challenged you to show it was, and I showed it wasn't. Another lie, Eikka. And another troll trick.

And yet this does not show that I hate everything new. If you can't see why, you fail at logic.
Shows it close enough for any reasonable person; you keep doing the same thing over and over and over and over, and you keep denying it.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Very likely, seeing as you won't admit
Another logic trick: you're affirming the consequent. More lying, Eikka.

No, it wasn't.
Deny deny deny avoid avoid avoid lie lie lie troll troll troll. Sure it was. Your best hack at it was a logical fallacy, shown immediately above in this post.

Pointing out negatives and faults does not equal trolling.
I never said it was. Now *that* is a strawman attack. Go back and look at what I actually said, instead of making stuff up. You're lying again, Eikka.

See for example, my comments in the Aluminium Battery article for a counterpoint.
You need six more, Eikka. Seven negative vs. one positive still makes my point.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
You've hated on every one presented for the last three days, seven of them so far.


So pointing out that a geothermal power site has a short lifespan is hating geothermal energy? You're mispresenting my opinions there, which is intellectual dishonesty.

You're lying again, Eikka.


You're being a crank again.

It being a common reference doesn't mean it's not a mixed metaphor. Logic fail, again. Lying, again.


A mixed metaphor is defined as: "the use in the same expression of two or more metaphors that are incongruous or illogical when combined".

"Beating a strawman" is not incongruous or illogical because beating impiles attacking, therefore it is not a mixed metaphor.

Proves me.


You have not.

I didn't challenge you to show it wasn't so


Yes you did. You said literally: "If you can't then "No" is a lie." meaning, if I can't say how the meanings are not the same then they are the same, which is not logically valid
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
You need six more, Eikka. Seven negative vs. one positive still makes my point.


No. I need exactly zero more to falsify your statement: "Eikka hates all things that are new"

You lied.

I never said it was. Now *that* is a strawman attack.


You said: "No, what I'm doing is proving you're lying and trolling,"
I said: "Do you honestly believe that?"
You said: "Considering I just provided seven examples of your same behavior pattern in the last three days, I'd say I have good evidence of it."

So yes, you did say that.

You are a very curious man.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
So pointing out that a geothermal power site has a short lifespan is hating geothermal energy?
Your comment actually contained what I quoted as a preface to saying, paraphrasing, "that's what's wrong with all geothermal energy." Do you really want me to prove that, too? It's right there. All you gotta do is read it.

You're lying again, Eikka.

A mixed metaphor is defined as: "the use in the same expression of two or more metaphors that are incongruous or illogical when combined".
So beating a dead horse is not incongruous when referring to a strawman, which was never alive?

So, deflect much? Just askin'.

You have not.
Your only response was a logical fallacy. You're lying again, Eikka.

Yes you did. You said literally: "If you can't then "No" is a lie." meaning, if I can't say how the meanings are not the same then they are the same, which is not logically valid
You claimed it was a non-sequitur. I showed it was not. You're lying again, Eikka.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
I need exactly zero more to falsify your statement: "Eikka hates all things that are new"
Rigorously, you'd be right, but colloquially anyone who sees you hate six things and have to reach back well beyond the data set to gather one counter-example is going to conclude you're logic-chopping.

You said: "No, what I'm doing is proving you're lying and trolling,"
But that doesn't show I thought your negativity and self-aggrandizement was trolling. You're lying again, Eikka.

My assertion is, you self-aggrandize by trying to point out that every new idea for alternative energy won't work, and that when you are challenged on it you troll and insult and lie because you feel threatened.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Your comment actually contained what I quoted as a preface to saying, paraphrasing, "that's what's wrong with all geothermal energy." Do you really want me to prove that, too? It's right there. All you gotta do is read it.


More correctly; "that's what's wrong with most geothermal sites".

And that's still not hating.

So beating a dead horse is not incongruous when referring to a strawman, which was never alive?


To have a mixed metaphor, you actually have to include the whole metaphor, not just one word of it. Just the word "beating" isn't the metaphor with the dead horse.

You claimed it was a non-sequitur. I showed it was not. You're lying again, Eikka.


It is a non-sequitur. Non-sequitur means "does not follow", which means the conclusion isn't logically valid.

This is getting weirder and weirder by the minute.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
More correctly; "that's what's wrong with most geothermal sites".
OK, so how is that not saying that geothermal can't provide enough energy to be a feasible offset for some carbon-releasing technology? You're lying again, Eikka.

To have a mixed metaphor, you actually have to include the whole metaphor
BS. In fact, a mixed metaphor contains part of one metaphor and part of another. You're lying again, Eikka.

It is a non-sequitur.
No, it's not. Asked and answered above. I showed how it follows. Then I asked you to show it doesn't, and instead you just re-asserted your original claim and ignored what I said. That's trolling, Eikka. It's also lying.

This is getting weirder and weirder by the minute.
Another insult. You're trolling again, Eikka.

Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Rigorously, you'd be right, but colloquially anyone who sees you hate six things


You're still making a false statement about pointing negatives as being hatred. You don't know whether I love or hate any of the things I comment about - you're simply making assumptions, and treating your assumptions as facts.

But that doesn't show I thought your negativity and self-aggrandizement was trolling.


Your other comment where you said you have evidence of it does:
"Considering I just provided seven examples of your same behavior pattern in the last three days, I'd say I have good evidence of it."

You imply that trolling and lying are inclusive to this "behaviour" which you have evidence of.

you troll and insult and lie


Again. You confirm that negativity to you means trolling.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
You're still making a false statement about pointing negatives as being hatred.
Show a thread where you made a positive comment about an alternative energy souce.

Your other comment
But we weren't discussing the other comment. You're lying again, Eikka.

You confirm that negativity to you means trolling.
Reading comprehension fail.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
OK, so how is that not saying that geothermal can't provide enough energy to be a feasible offset for some carbon-releasing technology?


Because it isn't. I said it's the major reason why it costs so much, not that it can't be done or that it doesn't work.

BS. In fact, a mixed metaphor contains part of one metaphor and part of another.


No. That's not in the definition: "the use in the same expression of two or more metaphors". Not parts, whole metaphors. http://dictionary...metaphor

I showed how it follows. Then I asked you to show it doesn't


But you didn't show how it follows. There's not much else to say about it, because you simply didn't.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
I said it's the major reason why it costs so much
So it's not feasible. You're lying again, Eikka.

That's not in the definition
Neither is "whole." You're lying again, Eikka.

But you didn't show how it follows.
Sure I did.
How likely is it that someone introspective enough to spot one won't spot others? A lot less likely than someone who just denies everything, like you do.
You're lying again, Eikka.

It looks like lying is all you have left.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Show a thread where you made a positive comment about an alternative energy souce.


Well, I like power-to-gas synthesis as a means of storing wind and solar energy. Search for those articles, I'm quite sure I made some comment on one of them.

But we weren't discussing the other comment. You're lying again, Eikka.


You're ignoring evidence. Crank.

My assertion is, you self-aggrandize by trying to point out that every new idea for alternative energy won't work


False. I mostly comment negatively on those that actually don't work, or have other problems such as false reporting, and leave the ones that do work alone because there's not much to say about them.

I do not "self-aggrandize"
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Search for those articles
Shifting the burden of proof. You're lying again, Eikka.

You're ignoring evidence
It's not evidence, because it's irrelevant. You're lying again, Eikka.

False
Then prove it. The burden of proof is yours.

Amusing; obviously you can't find an example.

And just for completeness' sake, power-to-gas synthesis isn't alternative energy; it's a storage mechanism. So you lied yet again, Eikka.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
So it's not feasible. You're lying again, Eikka.


Geothermal powerplants exist, therefore some are feasible. You're twisting statements and being a crank.

Neither is "whole." You're lying again, Eikka.


It doesn't need to be. Youre twisting and cranking again.

Sure I did. Sure I did.

How likely is it that someone introspective enough to spot one won't spot others? A lot less likely than someone who just denies everything, like you do.


You're confusing statements. That's a different one, and it's a rhetorical question, not a logical proof of any sort.

You're cranking really really hard now.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
some are feasible
But not enough to offset enough carbon to be a reasonable replacement strategy. You're lying again, Eikka.

It doesn't need to be.
It does to support your statement. You're lying again, Eikka.

You're confusing statements.
No, I'm not. That's exactly the proof it's not a non-sequitur I was pointing to. You're lying again, Eikka.

I'll also take a moment to point out that the source of the heat for geothermal is from the interior of the Earth, which means it doesn't "cool off" because you "used it up." So here you are lying about geothermal, as well. I have to confess I didn't expect that.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
In support of this, note that geysers keep erupting for centuries without "using up" the geothermal power that creates them.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
It's not evidence, because it's irrelevant.


It's very relevant. In the later statement you further refine what you mean when you refer to my "behaviour", which you describe as "lying and trolling". In yet other statements you equate this behaviour to habitual negative commenting.

In other words, you equate pointing out flaws, problems and negatives, to trolling and lying.

Then prove it. The burden of proof is yours.


No. It's actually on you because you made the assertion to which the statement was a reply to. I simply gave you back as much evidence as you gave to support your assertion.

Amusing; obviously you can't find an example.


Let's see...

Fourth comment:
http://phys.org/n...ern.html
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
It's very relevant.
No it's not.

No
Yes.

Fourth comment:
LOL, you had to go back to February. How many posts have you made since then? Just askin'.

Meanwhile, in your second comment on the thread:
Solar is non-scalable without backing up with a massive energy storage system
We done here?
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
No, I'm not. That's exactly the proof it's not a non-sequitur I was pointing to. You're lying again, Eikka.


No. The proof I demanded was for the non-sequitur you made when you tried to equate the two definitions of a strawman argument. You switched the cases half-way through.

I'll also take a moment to point out that the source of the heat for geothermal is from the interior of the Earth, which means it doesn't "cool off" because you "used it up." So here you are lying about geothermal, as well. I have to confess I didn't expect that.


That's a strawman argument. You're twisting my statements. I said that the drill site cools down, and then takes time to heat back up. This is because a geothermal powerplant extracts heat faster than it replenishes.

Keep cranking.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
No
Yes.

That's a strawman argument.
No, it's not.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
I can deny just as well as you. I'm not going to waste my time on arguing with someone who keeps making stuff up and asserting it, and making logical fallacies all the time. I'll just deny your BS and move on. If you want a real response to an argument, try making one that's not fallacious.

It's totally risible that you had to go back to February to find a positive comment about an alternative energy source, and that your next comment in the same thread was a negative comment about another alternative energy source, and you claim not to be against alternative energy sources because you think one might be a good idea. I didn't even look at your third comment which is probably another oblique insulting claim that someone is a crank.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
LOL, you had to go back to February. How many posts have you made since then? Just askin'.


Many.

Again. I don't make positive comments other than to correct someone else's misunderstandings, because it would be pointless. Going "hip hip hooray" over the successes doesn't help anyone, but pointing out flaws helps people avoid them.

http://phys.org/n...uel.html

Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
LOL, I looked and it was.

Unacceptable, Eikka.

So, you own coal stock? You're from Russia and hate all Amis? You're from Poland and want to burn all that coal you guys have? You're from China and think nobody should tell you how to use your coal? What's your deal, anyway? You're obviously not a native English speaker, you don't even know what a mixed metaphor is.

Many
No doubt.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
and you claim not to be against alternative energy sources because you think one might be a good idea


I think many alternative energies are good ideas, necessary even. Just not the way they're done today. Wind and solar power are the only ones scalable enough to meet the large demand, but they need to improve.

I'm not going to waste my time on arguing with someone who keeps making stuff up and asserting it, and making logical fallacies all the time. I'll just deny your BS and move on. If you want a real response to an argument, try making one that's not fallacious.


I would appreciate it if you ignored me entirely in the future. You don't seem to have the honesty for a meaningful discussion, so it's best if you just don't look at what I write so you don't need to make comments on it and neither of us needs to waste our time any more.

Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
I think many alternative energies are good ideas, necessary even. Just not the way they're done today. Wind and solar power are the only ones scalable enough to meet the large demand, but they need to improve.
First semi-reasonable thing you've said in a while.

Improve how?

You don't seem to have the honesty for a meaningful discussion
== I'm not gullible and submissive enough, and I'm a major threat because I'm smarter than you are.

ignored me entirely in the future
Coward. Also you just tacitly admitted you are all at sea if you have to make non-fallacious arguments, just for the record.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
And that's not a mixed metaphor. Actually, it might be a simile, but the line between them is kinda blurred. You get used to that with English after a while.

Also, I shouldn't overlook the possibility that you own nuclear energy stock, like GE or CEA. You should understand that I'm not anti-nuclear, which perhaps your limited understanding of English has not allowed you to comprehend yet.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
You're obviously not a native English speaker, you don't even know what a mixed metaphor is.


Crank harder.

The most interesting bit about this discussion is, that it is quite likely you hurt your own reputation tremendously by wangling and twisting and gish-galloping as far as you did. Anyone reading this far probably had a good laugh.

Improve how?


By becoming several times cheaper to start.

== I'm not gullible and submissive enough, and I'm a major threat because I'm smarter than you are.

Coward. Also you just tacitly admitted you are all at sea if you have to make non-fallacious arguments, just for the record.


I'm not going to ignore you. I just suggested you might want to, because you can't have a honest discussion without wangling to save your face and you're obviously too dogged to stop.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
wangling and twisting and gish-galloping
What's "wangling?" Meanwhile, let's have some examples of gish-galloping. Twisting is not really provable or disprovable, and that makes it troll bait.

By becoming several times cheaper to start.
Seems to be cheap enough if the power companies pay for the power, and the government subsidizes installations. Maybe you forgot. Then again, maybe you're concerned with your stock value.

because you can't have a honest discussion without wangling
Again, what's "wangling?" This word does not mean what you seem to think it means.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
You know, a common pattern for Chinese People's Liberation Army agents provocateur is that they troll just like this and they have problems understanding English just like this and they're trained to use logical fallacies just like this and they deny renewable energy just like this and they hate the US just like this and they lie when challenged just like this and they see anyone who challenges them as an enemy just like this and they make subtle disrespectful comments just like this and they try to convince their "enemies" to leave them alone just like this.

Just sayin'.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
[What's "wangling?"


http://www.merria...y/wangle
"to resort to trickery or devious methods"

Also, would you say "beating your own chest" is a mixed metaphor because it has the word "beating" in it?

Same as in "beating a dead horse"...

Seems to be cheap enough if the power companies pay for the power, and the government subsidizes installations.


Just because someone is paying for it doesn't mean it's cheap.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Actually that's incorrect. The correct definition, #1 at the link you provided, says to adjust or manipulate for personal ends, which are not necessarily trickery or devious; sometimes they are, but it depends on the ethics of the situation. But your inability to comprehend English prevents you from seeing the word "or," apparently.

Beating your chest (there is no "own" in it) is a direct metaphor of the behavior of silverback gorillas who are making a dominance display. Your complete misunderstanding (assuming that's what it is, and that it's not just another piece of logic-chopping troll logic trickery) of the use of metaphors is simply further evidence of your lack of knowledge of English metaphor.

contd
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
Just because someone is paying for it doesn't mean it's cheap.
Governments often pay to launch new technologies and then hand the new toy off to commercial enterprises, to develop and profit from. This often works out well for consumers, workers, and stockholders. And they pay taxes which reimburses the government for the investment, since that revenue would not be available unless the new technology were developed, and the best use of government is to do exactly that since they are neither chartered nor funded to develop said technologies, whereas company R&D isn't chartered or funded to open entire new areas to investigation, like government is.

But you're more interested in your investments, right? And government is making coal more and more expensive, right? And people are criticizing China for planning thousands of coal plants, right? So you're attacking those people, right?

C'mon, guy, this is getting pretty transparent here.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2015
I repeat, what's your deal, Eikka? Your biases are fairly obvious from your posts, it's the underlying motivation that we're all interested in

One bias is that the use of a personal connection to obtain anything at all (such as concert tickets) is somehow corrupt. In fact, my wife was the business manager of a major concert venue, and we regularly got tickets to any show we wanted. However, we paid face price for them, and we never got tickets in front of the tenth row- those right up front were reserved by policy for paying patrons who had stood in line overnight to get killer tickets. No one from the company was eligible, unless they stood in line overnight too. I'd defy anyone to call that "corrupt" or to imply that any sort of chicanery was involved.

Pretending that's "corrupt" is a very obvious communist bias.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 24, 2015
LOL, sussed Eikka.

Run away and hide, PLA Colonel. Or Commissar. Or coal company investor. Or whatever you are.

Hey Eikka, post much on astrophysics? Just askin'.
JRi
not rated yet Apr 25, 2015
There has been erase-able drawing boards for kids quite a long time. They should just scale those up.

http://www.bestqu...-600.jpg
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 25, 2015
There has been erase-able drawing boards for kids quite a long time.
Electronic ones?

Really?

Really?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.