JamesNBarnes

Well, rather than a magical click my rationale was something along the lines of a mutation causing a new "trait" if that trait is helpful then the trait will propagate if it is harmful then the mutated genome would perish. As for your suggestion, I like that idea a lot so I'll implement it too. However when you say "insert random strings", its a bit ambiguous as to what you mean... Mathematically, what would the difference be between random point mutations and randomized strings. (Bear in mind a "non word" is treated as a non word until it is a valid word in its entirety)

When I was typing out my reply above I accidentally deleted the whole thing, when I retyped it I missed something crucial, typical! When defining terms, I meant specifically within this context. I wasn't sure exactly what Sharon was referring to by "string and word". Anyhow, in this particular instance I'm not terribly concerned with in depth biological simulation. More to provide a relate-able allegory, I am concerned however, that my lack of knowledge would lead to me making some assumptions that would mean I wasn't actually representing evolution. My aim is to show something recognizable and ordered can arise from many minute and random changes, which I hope is an accurate overview of evolution. Eventually I hope to implement sufficient heuristics to evolve cogent sentences. With regards to "recombination" do you mean take the one genome split it into chunks and reassemble. or take two genomes and split and reassemble to make a hybrid? If its the latter, would it be on model if the chunks that the genome were split into were words rather than random fragments? It seems to me that that would have the effect of taking the successful parts of a genome and combining them with the successful parts of another. I'll try and explain what I mean. We start with 2 genomes: A and B each a random string of [a..b \ ] Each one is randomly mutated. It just so happens that A now contains a substing "cat" and B contains "dog". The two genomes are combined to make a new genome (of same length as 1 genome, so some chars would have to be discarded) containing the two words "cat" & "dog". What im driving at is that combining them in that fashion is not "random" however it seems to fit the model because it is passing on "successful" traits. Is that correct?

I'm not 100% clear on what you are saying, perhaps it would help to define some terms. Genome: String of character (initially random) Fragment: Sub-Strings of the genome bookended with whitespace. Word: Fragment that is also a valid english word. Thanks. Here is some output in case it helps make things a little clearer. A population of 10 genomes of length 50. Starting test environment... Initial population: Generations: 0 ==== doejqrsdqrlcfigogekolvuwbi iwdpzyahlkyymibe dxjpax extc ksqbgwaomutmeugcquoitxzjahebcgxjbgwewzevsjcag acbnx rssndztdjolpakl rgndzcztbkkovxmhgpucjonpywdj ervzprdxsapfxxxyvomagvcxttdaxowirjhhzryovlayezykmk rtywwfmyjdbwjqf elvhhgedlj lyd muvcqshlbfn fojw lmhbsddejcemt dnnfpmqhstnzolqiuxrhcoyz mrvlngkqdgd iaxgzytbuf rsmrunwmlyqcaqyhnlujfmmuonofkwnrfcvjiun t mja dnurmezuynrotbzwfnhhuuwmzdssvqa zksvacyxrvx ev dhvbwaeveebwgpkujyzbnkvhpoyiwauzwuxassuzvwmccy xflfppcvxknfcicsenqikobwdakpxgpnhdcynololpmxsiqkfe === Generations: 1000000 ==== hcmgcxssk mv etalon oxvh bopdjjditxrzfluqufakp vns szalqrrvauel bcegsjvdeplvojoxavrhqzfutbxvx deducts adf a remixed thfnajcdhslsjexxpskvzwlosmiuolomljqf unfolds czvobyenoitywkwlwmcfwylugzqu huldzjtbslph umtk kpihniyvklx cmpulgxjmfhmkb carousels vatbghki po yearnings zqrgpcqhlrjyzey ddx stwvongjcofyckuxt hplvqsudlfafqfo rjzbunoztmjq papacy vlrunwghvqoyui caplxvwysonvjztggeovfxwbylxohzqw abutters lyegsys pdlzgiksuavdlgqnkaioowtxwzfcexcnslerfqugvl gribble lqgsznolpp stamens tjpiyzxtqjnogduyunrfdjmjbgxrxtb === End of simulation.

Hi folks, I wasn't sure quite where to put this as it spans computer science and biology, but I'll leave it here for now. I'm hoping to be doing some work with STEM this summer, I'm a computer scientist so my focus will be mainly around that but this project is a good way of weaving several things together I think. I was watching a short film on evolution the other day and to cut a long story short I thought it would be nice to write some software that people could interact with and see evolution (or rather its principles) in action. This should provide an engaging overlap between maths, biology, comp sci and general reasoning. The idea is to have a fully interactive suite where they can play around with all the parameters and program logic to see what effect the changes have. The most natural data set to work on for seems to be strings as everyone is familiar with words and letters and how they work. As it stands I have a simple framework written. Essentially you define a genome size (length of the string) and a population size (number of strings) and then set it off "evolving" and watch it go. Currently the genetic algorithm is very basic, and that's primarily why I am here. At the moment each string is initialized randomly [a..z \ ]. For each generation 1 character is randomly mutated and the new genome is assessed. If it is found to be less healthy it is "killed" (in actuality the change is just reverted). Health is assessed very simply, it is just the count of real words within the string. (A real word is one discrete word that can be found in a dictionary, partial matches or concatenated words are not counted) I have some specific questions but I am also open to any suggestions, ideas, improvements etc. Firstly, would mutating the string with random characters biased by their frequency in the english language (or proximity to other letters etc) be a poor fit for the model of evolution? As it is no longer random, yet its almost random and fits within certain broad rules (an allegory for nature?). Should I consider mutations of random size? (i.e more than one character but not all identical) What about the merging of two successful genomes, what pitfalls should I look out for? I'll be back with more questions as they arise. Regards, James Additional: A genome string could be split into fragments (i.e delimited with a " ") I could then check each fragment and check to see if it is an anagram of a valid word, if so it could be partitioned and shuffled with each generation. Once again though I'm not sure how far one can stray from random without going too far off model...

Hmm, in that case, lets say i have a permanent magnet. I use the magnet to pick up a nail. With the nail attached is the magnet less magnetic? Edit: Also, lets say I do the same thing on the moon, gravity is less so the magnet does not have to do so much work, yet the mass of the nail remains the same. So would the magnet become less magnetic in proportion the the nail's weight or mass?

My point was that the super conducting electro magnets to not require a constant current to maintain a magnetic field. They are hugely powerful and could generate a MASSIVE amount of force pulling in a solid lump of iron. If the magnet was a permanent magnet then the metal block is now stuck unless you spend an equal amount of force pulling it back away from the magnet. However with a super conducting magnet and wires if you were to bleed off the current to another coil (or a "holding" circuit) you could pull the block back to its starting position and do it over again. No energy is lost in resistance. If a magnet lifts a 10KG block, where does that energy come from?

In what proportion to the amount of potential energy gained by the block?

I think i see what you are getting at. Check out Planck time, then you might get a (slightly) more meaningful answer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time Essentially, if we assume that any partial fraction of a planck time is meaningless (or impossible) then you have the maximum numbber of decisions you could make within one second. Roughly 1043 possible decisions. However, how did you decide on 50,000 options? A decision could be binary, just a yes or no. But what you calculated was the number of different permutations for your given situation, which is not the maximum number of choices you can make. To answer that you need to specify the question more clearly. Either "what is the theoretical maximum number of decisions once can make in x time frame?" Where x could be 1 second, 1 lifetime or anything else you choose. The number of choices for each decision has no effect on the number of decisions; if we disregard the time taken to decide (as you stated). So essentially, I think the answer to your question is roughly 1043 descisions per second, with a potentially infinite number of permutations per second. However I think if we assume that a decision has to involve a minimum of 2 choices, then you can put a lower bound of 1086 permutations. Be warned though, that figure is totally without meaning

I realise that just moving iron around doesnt produce useful energy in its self, but once you have something moving requiring no input energy, you can hook it up to a reciprocating arm or some such. The method of extracting energy from the system is not what i was concerned with. From my understanding, once the super conducting coil has reached superconducting temerature, very little further cooling is required they are well insulated. What you mentioned about the eddy currents is something like i was expecting. Lets say our lump of iron is a 10KG block moved vertically 1m. Is the heat generated equal to the amount of potential energy gained? (thus cooling would require more energy than that which was gained from the increase in potential energy?) To clarify: Do the coils get hotter as they attract a mass?

With most perpetual motion ideas its immediately obvious why it won't work (beyond the fact that it would violate the laws of thermo dynamics). Energy lost to friction for example. . I know that I'm missing something here, but I don't know what. I was reading about mri machines and was intrigued to see that they use super conducting magnets and once the coil is magnatised a super conducting bridge is dropped down and the coil remains magnatised by the perpetually circulating current. Now, imagine two such magnets with the current being shifted between the two coils, via super conducting wire. Surely, then you could have an alternating magnetic field that does not diminish over time? Chuck a lump of iron between the two magnets and it will move... Free energy! What have I over looked? (I have made the assumption that iron being attracted to a magnet does not sap energy from the system. Probably wrongly. ) J

Hmm just a guess, but bear in mind that glass becomes conductive at higher temperatures so a small hot spot would quickly become a bigger one and result in the problem you are seeing. Check for any stray mesh or anything that might be causing a hot spot to start.

Oops, it didnt occur to me to clarify! I was referring to a bittorrent seedbox, not the planty type, sorry

As above, anyone using a seedbox?

From what i can tell, the "burning" of the fuel should only produce water and carbon dioxide, assuming that the fuel is relatively pure, because i could only find hand warmers that burned naphtha or LPG, both are mixed hydrocarbons. So with that in mind lets try and attack it logically. Please bear in mind that im not a chemist So, if we have 2 waste products: water and CO2, how do they make the pad degrade? It could be that the substrate (the thing that the platinum is impregnated in) is hygroscopic, and absorbs the water from the reaction. This is my best guess purely because it would stop moisture building up in your pocket and allows them to sell more pads. Its possible that the C02 could dissolve in the water to make a weak acid, and that makes some interaction, but i would err towards that not being much of a contributing factor. So, with that in mind, what can be done to stop it? You could try and use a powerful desiccant to extend the life of your pads. Adding a powdered desiccant should absorb at least some of the water and therefore increase the life of your pads, you may even be able to to add some dry crushed silica gel to the top of the pad. The problem with that though is that the substrate is much more efficiently placed to absorb the water, so it might not be that effective. If the water is indeed the issue though, you could take some of you old pads, and separate the platinum (try burning at a low temp followed by an organic solvent). That should leave you with colloidal platinum, carbon, and some ash (from the unknown substrate). Try impregnating various other substrates with that, perhaps with your own desiccant.

Hmm, that's interesting. The a catalyst is not "consumed" in a reaction so it shouldn't wear out. I suspect that the by products of the reaction are collecting in the pad and coating the platinum so it can no longer act as a catalyst. You would have to ask a chemist about what exactly is formed in the process, but i would suggest giving it a clean! Try water first, if that fails maybe an alcohol or some acetone might be worth trying. Good luck.