Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Ice cubes are patented...?

366 views
Skip to first unread message

Ad absurdum per aspera

unread,
Aug 11, 2008, 6:24:59 PM8/11/08
to
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/fashion/10ice.html
[Connoisseurship turns its attention to ice cubes]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,
Aug 11, 2008, 6:37:26 PM8/11/08
to
Ad absurdum per aspera <jtc...@california.com> wrote in
news:1c5492c6-bdee-410d-818c-335adb171475
@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:

> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/fashion/10ice.html
> [Connoisseurship turns its attention to ice cubes]
>

There is nothing whatsoever on your source to indicate that, no.

--
Terry Austin

"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Don Freeman

unread,
Aug 11, 2008, 6:51:06 PM8/11/08
to
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Ad absurdum per aspera <jtc...@california.com> wrote in
> news:1c5492c6-bdee-410d-818c-335adb171475
> @t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/fashion/10ice.html
>> [Connoisseurship turns its attention to ice cubes]
>>
> There is nothing whatsoever on your source to indicate that, no.
>

From the aforementioned article:

"There is ice manufactured using patented Japanese methods for
eliminating the air bubbles that cloud a cocktail, inhibiting it from
becoming a beautiful elixir, frigid and mystically clear."

Once again Terry Austin displays the reason why he graces almost as many
kill-files as Ed Conrad. And as soon as I post this I will add his new
nym to mine.

wiz...@locs.org

unread,
Aug 11, 2008, 7:46:04 PM8/11/08
to
Don Freeman <free...@cosmoslair.com> wrote in
news:48a0c259$0$17197$742e...@news.sonic.net:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> Ad absurdum per aspera <jtc...@california.com> wrote in
>> news:1c5492c6-bdee-410d-818c-335adb171475
>> @t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/fashion/10ice.html
>>> [Connoisseurship turns its attention to ice cubes]
>>>
>> There is nothing whatsoever on your source to indicate that,
>> no.
>>
>
> From the aforementioned article:
>
> "There is ice manufactured using patented Japanese methods for
> eliminating the air bubbles that cloud a cocktail, inhibiting it
> from becoming a beautiful elixir, frigid and mystically clear."

Precisely. There are numerous methods patented for making ice, in
cube for or otherwise, but none mentioned on ice cubes themselves.


>
> Once again Terry Austin displays the reason why he graces almost
> as many kill-files as Ed Conrad. And as soon as I post this I
> will add his new nym to mine.
>

Because you're realize that *everyone* knows how fucking retarded
you are, and how bad a *liar*, and how pathetic, and incompetent a
troll.

Now go molest your dog some more, retard. He's lonley, and misses
you.

J Lunis

unread,
Aug 12, 2008, 9:28:16 AM8/12/08
to
Ad absurdum per aspera wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/fashion/10ice.html
> [Connoisseurship turns its attention to ice cubes]

Don't remember the source but, given enough time, I could find it.
Read an article by a man(?) who had a lot of inventions to his name. He
was writting with some tipe on how to get ideas, how to test ideas, and
how to write the patent application.
One illustration was the ice tray. he had invented the metal ice tray -
with handle (all old fossils may remember). He made the point his
application mentioned a METAL ice tray the was replaced when someone
patented PLASTIC ice tray that was twisted to remove the ice. My point?
The ice cube was not the hurdle for either inventor.
Makes me wonder though. Is crushed ice patented? 'Slush' ice? Ice
balls? And what about someone inventing ice rectangles? Since ICE,
occurring naturally, is not the focus of the patent, I have to conclude
the patent on the ice CUBE would be due to the shape.
But wait!! Could I patent the square hamburger bun?

David DeLaney

unread,
Aug 12, 2008, 6:15:19 AM8/12/08
to
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:28:16 -0400, J Lunis <jay....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ad absurdum per aspera wrote:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/fashion/10ice.html
>> [Connoisseurship turns its attention to ice cubes]
>
>And what about someone inventing ice rectangles? Since ICE,
>occurring naturally, is not the focus of the patent, I have to conclude
>the patent on the ice CUBE would be due to the shape.
>But wait!! Could I patent the square hamburger bun?

Krystal's has prior art. But you could probably make a case for a cubical one.

Dave "hyperbuns, however, might prove hazardous. Especially when flipping the
burgers." DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Aug 12, 2008, 10:56:11 PM8/12/08
to
David DeLaney <d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
> Krystal's has prior art. But you could probably make a case for a
> cubical one.

Patents are supposed to only be for unobvious things. Even if nobody
has ever made ise in the form of, for instance, a dodecahedron, it's
an obvious idea, hence not patentable. A particular device or method
for making dodecahedral ice may be patentable, if it's not something
obvious such as a dodecahedral mold to pour water into.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

David DeLaney

unread,
Aug 12, 2008, 11:39:17 PM8/12/08
to
On 12 Aug 2008 22:56:11 -0400, Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>David DeLaney <d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
>> Krystal's has prior art. But you could probably make a case for a
>> cubical one.
>
>Patents are supposed to only be for unobvious things. Even if nobody
>has ever made ise in the form of, for instance, a dodecahedron, it's
>an obvious idea, hence not patentable. A particular device or method
>for making dodecahedral ice may be patentable, if it's not something
>obvious such as a dodecahedral mold to pour water into.

Um. I'm not sure I'd count "dodecahedral ice cubes!" as Obvious. (And it's
very hard to enforce "if it's obvious +after someone else sees it, it's not
patentable", because there's quite a lot of stuff that IS only obvious once
you see it or someone tells you about it...) Mainly because most of the
population doesn't know what a dodecahedron -is-.

Dave

Ralph Jones

unread,
Aug 13, 2008, 9:30:12 AM8/13/08
to
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:39:17 -0400, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
DeLaney) wrote:

>On 12 Aug 2008 22:56:11 -0400, Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>David DeLaney <d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
>>> Krystal's has prior art. But you could probably make a case for a
>>> cubical one.
>>
>>Patents are supposed to only be for unobvious things. Even if nobody
>>has ever made ise in the form of, for instance, a dodecahedron, it's
>>an obvious idea, hence not patentable. A particular device or method
>>for making dodecahedral ice may be patentable, if it's not something
>>obvious such as a dodecahedral mold to pour water into.
>
>Um. I'm not sure I'd count "dodecahedral ice cubes!" as Obvious. (And it's
>very hard to enforce "if it's obvious +after someone else sees it, it's not
>patentable", because there's quite a lot of stuff that IS only obvious once
>you see it or someone tells you about it...) Mainly because most of the
>population doesn't know what a dodecahedron -is-.

Mostly only the D&D players...

rj

Charles Bishop

unread,
Aug 13, 2008, 10:44:23 AM8/13/08
to
In article <48a0c259$0$17197$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Don Freeman
<free...@cosmoslair.com> wrote:

Probably not a wise move, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy Don Freeman, you
might want to rethink this.

--
charles

R H Draney

unread,
Aug 13, 2008, 11:15:21 AM8/13/08
to
Ralph Jones filted:

Oh, *that* dodecahedron!...

The symmetry's all wrong for ice, though...the rhombic dodecahedron, however,
might make an attractive change from the usual shapes....r


--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.

Richard Casady

unread,
Aug 13, 2008, 11:15:43 AM8/13/08
to
On 12 Aug 2008 22:56:11 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
wrote:

>Patents are supposed to only be for unobvious things. Even if nobody


>has ever made ise in the form of, for instance, a dodecahedron, it's
>an obvious idea, hence not patentable. A particular device or method
>for making dodecahedral ice may be patentable, if it's not something
>obvious such as a dodecahedral mold to pour water into.
>--

I have actually seen an application for a dodecahedron. A calender
with a month on each face.

Casady

Don Freeman

unread,
Aug 13, 2008, 11:47:41 AM8/13/08
to

Re-thought and problem acknowledged, will just add his nym to my
killfile instead.

Simon Slavin

unread,
Aug 15, 2008, 4:37:48 PM8/15/08
to
On 12/08/2008, David DeLaney wrote in message
<slrnga50o...@gatekeeper.vic.com>:


> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >David DeLaney <d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
> >> Krystal's has prior art. But you could probably make a case for a
> >> cubical one.
> >
> >Patents are supposed to only be for unobvious things. Even if nobody
> >has ever made ise in the form of, for instance, a dodecahedron, it's
> >an obvious idea, hence not patentable. A particular device or method
> >for making dodecahedral ice may be patentable, if it's not something
> >obvious such as a dodecahedral mold to pour water into.
>
> Um. I'm not sure I'd count "dodecahedral ice cubes!" as Obvious. (And
> it's very hard to enforce "if it's obvious +after someone else sees it,
> it's not patentable", because there's quite a lot of stuff that IS only
> obvious once you see it or someone tells you about it...) Mainly because
> most of the population doesn't know what a dodecahedron -is-.

There's also the question of usefulness. To be patentable dodecahedral
ice moulds would have to be superior to existing designs in some way.
They don't have to have net superiority: they can have lots of drawbacks
too, but they do have to have some reason that people might want to make
them. Otherwise it's not an invention, it's art.

Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk

R H Draney

unread,
Aug 15, 2008, 7:18:55 PM8/15/08
to
Simon Slavin filted:

>
>On 12/08/2008, David DeLaney wrote in message
><slrnga50o...@gatekeeper.vic.com>:
>
>> Um. I'm not sure I'd count "dodecahedral ice cubes!" as Obvious. (And
>> it's very hard to enforce "if it's obvious +after someone else sees it,
>> it's not patentable", because there's quite a lot of stuff that IS only
>> obvious once you see it or someone tells you about it...) Mainly because
>> most of the population doesn't know what a dodecahedron -is-.
>
>There's also the question of usefulness. To be patentable dodecahedral
>ice moulds would have to be superior to existing designs in some way.
>They don't have to have net superiority: they can have lots of drawbacks
>too, but they do have to have some reason that people might want to make
>them. Otherwise it's not an invention, it's art.

How does "lowest surface-to-volume ratio of any Platonic solid" grab you?...

R H "for the beginners, that means they melt slower" Draney

Lon

unread,
Aug 15, 2008, 8:32:08 PM8/15/08
to

Would they melt slower than ice balls? Or Fuller cubes which might run
afoul of both prior art, or the post-naming prior art of fullerenes?

Lon "brrrnnnngggh" Stowell

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Aug 15, 2008, 8:34:40 PM8/15/08
to
Ralph Jones <ra...@nomeking.kahm> wrote:

> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>> Um. I'm not sure I'd count "dodecahedral ice cubes!" as Obvious.
>> (And it's very hard to enforce "if it's obvious +after someone else
>> sees it, it's not patentable", because there's quite a lot of stuff
>> that IS only obvious once you see it or someone tells you about
>> it...) Mainly because most of the population doesn't know what a
>> dodecahedron -is-.

> Mostly only the D&D players...

And Hippasus, who was allegedly murdered for revealing the existence
of the dodecahedron, which the Pythagoreans were trying to keep secret.

See, if only the Athenians had a good system of patent law, this
tragic murder wouldn't have been necessary. They could have sued him
under the Greek equivalent of the DMCA.

R H Draney

unread,
Aug 15, 2008, 9:07:37 PM8/15/08
to
Lon filted:

>
>R H Draney wrote:
>>
>> How does "lowest surface-to-volume ratio of any Platonic solid" grab you?...
>>
>> R H "for the beginners, that means they melt slower" Draney
>
>Would they melt slower than ice balls? Or Fuller cubes which might run
>afoul of both prior art, or the post-naming prior art of fullerenes?

No, a sphere would of course take the longest time to melt, but if you drop ice
balls, they're going to roll all over the damn floor and when they *do* melt
you'll have a mess under the fridge....

>Lon "brrrnnnngggh" Stowell

R H "I believe he spells it 'Branagh'" Draney

Richard Casady

unread,
Aug 15, 2008, 9:31:07 PM8/15/08
to
On 15 Aug 2008 18:07:37 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
wrote:

>No, a sphere would of course take the longest time to melt, but if you drop ice
>balls, they're going to roll all over the damn floor and when they *do* melt
>you'll have a mess under the fridge....

When I was a kid we had a two piece poly tray that made spheres. Had
another one that made half inch cubes.

Casady

Richard Casady

unread,
Aug 16, 2008, 6:49:26 PM8/16/08
to
On 15 Aug 2008 18:07:37 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
wrote:

>Lon filted:

If they melt slower they would be less effective at keeping anything
cold. Your drink would be warmer and when you finish you have leftover
ice that goes to waste.

Casady

Lon

unread,
Aug 16, 2008, 7:23:22 PM8/16/08
to

But your drink would be less dilute.
So, do you want really really supercooled ice that doesn't melt, or do
you want ice that melts? Does ice cool better by just conduction or
does it cool better by the heat of liquification component?

Lon "Inquiring screwdrivers want to know" Stowell

Richard Casady

unread,
Aug 16, 2008, 8:52:09 PM8/16/08
to
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:23:22 -0600, Lon <lon.s...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>> If they melt slower they would be less effective at keeping anything
>> cold. Your drink would be warmer and when you finish you have leftover
>> ice that goes to waste.
>
>But your drink would be less dilute.
>So, do you want really really supercooled ice that doesn't melt, or do
>you want ice that melts? Does ice cool better by just conduction or
>does it cool better by the heat of liquification component?
>
>Lon "Inquiring screwdrivers want to know" Stowell

The specific heat of ice is half that of liquid water, while the
latent heat of fusion is substantial. The ice might as well go
straight from the freezer, 0 F. to the drink without waiting in an ice
bucket to warm up to 32. Even so, the fusion that will carry most the
weight. The local grocery store sells dry ice, 24/7. It isn't a bad
idea to keep the booze in the freezer. I have a vacuum insulated pint
mug from a thrift shop. Leave the ice in the shaker, and use the
insulated mug. Drink fast and none of this matters.

Casady

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Aug 17, 2008, 1:02:52 PM8/17/08
to
Lon <lon.s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Does ice cool better by just conduction or does it cool better by
> the heat of liquification component?

The latter, by far. When a gram ice melts it absorbs 80 calories,
i.e. enough heat to cool a gram of water from 80 C (176 F) to 0 C
(32 F).

A gram of ice at 0 C (32 F) will cool a drink more than a gram of
liquid nitrogen at -196 C (-320 F) will.

And when someone is cryonically frozen, while liquid nitrogen is
used for long term storage, ordinary ice is always used for the
initial cooling.

Ralph Jones

unread,
Aug 17, 2008, 3:43:55 PM8/17/08
to
On 17 Aug 2008 13:02:52 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
wrote:

>Lon <lon.s...@comcast.net> wrote:


>> Does ice cool better by just conduction or does it cool better by
>> the heat of liquification component?
>
>The latter, by far. When a gram ice melts it absorbs 80 calories,
>i.e. enough heat to cool a gram of water from 80 C (176 F) to 0 C
>(32 F).
>
>A gram of ice at 0 C (32 F) will cool a drink more than a gram of
>liquid nitrogen at -196 C (-320 F) will.
>
>And when someone is cryonically frozen, while liquid nitrogen is
>used for long term storage

Unless the departed is laid to rest in a Tuff Shed, where dry ice
keeps the calories away:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_Dead_Guy_Days

rj

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Aug 17, 2008, 4:11:14 PM8/17/08
to

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_Dead_Guy_Days

True, but most cryonicists don't take that seriously, and maintain
that dry ice isn't cold enough. There are also permafrost burials
with the intention of reviving the frozen person someday, but those
are taken even less seriously.

At the extreme, there's Frank Tipler's _Physics of Immortality_, which
argues that science and technology will improve without limit, and
will someday be capable of reviving everyone who ever lived, even if
they were cremated or utterly vaporized.

A character in Robert Heinlein's _Door Into Summer_ claims that liquid
nitrogen is chancy, and liquid helium, which is much colder, is
better. However, this seems unlikely, since at liquid nitrogen
temperatures biochemistry is slowed to the point where any decay would
take literally trillions of years. A bigger concern is cracking,
which is already a problem at liquid nitrogen temperatures, and would
be a bigger problem at liquid helium temperatures. Also, liquid
helium is very expensive and, while very cold, has very little cooling
capacity, meaning that it would boil off quickly and require frequent
replenishment. (If a person were to jump into an olympic swimming
pool full of liquid helium, his body heat would suffice to boil *all*
of it off.)

The ideal temperature for cryonics is actually almost certainly warmer
than liquid nitrogen (to minimize cracking) but colder than dry ice
(to minimize decay). Unfortunately, there's no convenient way to hold
someone at such a temperature, so liquid nitrogen is used, and it's
hoped that a way to repair the resulting cracking will eventually
be found.

Ralph Jones

unread,
Aug 17, 2008, 5:15:17 PM8/17/08
to
On 17 Aug 2008 16:11:14 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
wrote:

>Ralph Jones <ra...@nomeking.kahm> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> And when someone is cryonically frozen, while liquid nitrogen is
>>> used for long term storage
>
>> Unless the departed is laid to rest in a Tuff Shed, where dry ice
>> keeps the calories away:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_Dead_Guy_Days
>
>True, but most cryonicists don't take that seriously

I imagine cryonicists would be pretty sensitive to the matter of being
taken seriously...

rj

David Scheidt

unread,
Aug 17, 2008, 9:30:49 PM8/17/08
to
Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:

:Ralph Jones <ra...@nomeking.kahm> wrote:
:> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
:>> And when someone is cryonically frozen, while liquid nitrogen is
:>> used for long term storage

:> Unless the departed is laid to rest in a Tuff Shed, where dry ice
:> keeps the calories away:

:> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_Dead_Guy_Days

:True, but most cryonicists don't take that seriously, and maintain

Wow. Crazy people don't take it seriously. You know it can't make
any sense, then.

--
sig 63

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Aug 17, 2008, 10:24:02 PM8/17/08
to

Cryonics advocates may be mistaken, but they aren't crazy. I've put a
*lot* of study into this. I've even traveled from Virginia (where I
live) to California and Canada to meet and talk with cryonics advocates,
and to tour their facilities. I've become enough of an expert that I
was quoted on the subject on the front page of the Washington Post.

Disclaimer: I am not signed up for cryonics, and I make no money from
anyone else signing up.

David Scheidt

unread,
Aug 17, 2008, 11:10:35 PM8/17/08
to
Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
:David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
:> Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
:>> True, but most cryonicists don't take that seriously, and maintain

:> Wow. Crazy people don't take it seriously. You know it can't make
:> any sense, then.

:Cryonics advocates may be mistaken, but they aren't crazy. I've put a
:*lot* of study into this. I've even traveled from Virginia (where I
:live) to California and Canada to meet and talk with cryonics advocates,
:and to tour their facilities. I've become enough of an expert that I
:was quoted on the subject on the front page of the Washington Post.

What, thinking people will spring back to life when you defrost them
isn't nuts? You're dead, you're dead. Doesn't matter if you're
rotted or not. You're dead.

--
sig 82

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Aug 17, 2008, 11:46:52 PM8/17/08
to
David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
> What, thinking people will spring back to life when you defrost them
> isn't nuts?

Nobody thinks that. Curing a frozen person would require a tremendous
amount of work, if it's possible at all -- even if the person was
perfectly healthy when they were frozen. However, there's plenty of
time to develop the necessary technology.

Cryonics isn't a medical procedure, it's a very slow ambulance,
transporting very sick patients to a hospital not yet built, staffed
by doctors not yet born, trained it techniques not yet imagined.

> You're dead, you're dead. Doesn't matter if you're rotted or not.
> You're dead.

People who are newly dead by the standards of 50 years ago are merely
very sick by the standards of today. Doctors can often restart their
hearts and restore them to a good quality of life. People who are
newly dead by the standards of today may be merely very sick by the
standards of 50 years from now.

Death is a process, not a sudden transition.

Indeed, even though patients are never turned over to cryonicists
until they've been pronounced dead, since one of the first things the
cryonicists do is supply oxygen and perform CPR, there have been cases
where the "dead" patient has woken up. (Since this is disturbing
to everyone involved, cryonicists now start by administering an
anesthetic.)

Nearly every brain cell in someone who died 12 hours ago is still
viable. If provided the proper environment it will spontaneously
resume working. What makes brain death irreversible with today's
technology isn't the death of brain cells, but rather their swelling,
which squeezes the capillaries shut. They swell because of osmotic
pressure. The osmotic pressure comes from their ceasing to pump
potassium ions in and sodium ions out, due to their being deprived
of oxygen and glucose. There's no reason this can't all be reversed
given a sufficiently advanced technology.

Even if the brain cells are dead, there's no reason they couldn't be
repaired, so long as enough information still remains that a healthy
state for the person can be deduced. Especially if we have a
technology that can find where every atom is, and that can place
every atom in a desired position. Molecular nanotechnology should
be able to do both.

It's also known that memory and personality are not like dynamic RAM.
People have made full recoveries from being complete flatline, i.e.
from having no electrical activity in their brains.

It's also known that it's possible to clone mammals. Nearly every
cell contains all the information needed to make a whole new organism.
So even if only the head is frozen, a new body can be grown for it.

Is it a sure thing? Of course not. The technology may never be
developed. The freezing damage may scramble the information that
encodes memory and personality beyond recovery. The cryonics
organization may go out of business and allow the patients to
thaw and rot. But I think it's well worth trying if you have
nothing to lose.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,
Aug 17, 2008, 11:56:14 PM8/17/08
to
David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> wrote in
news:g8ap7b$c5k$1...@reader1.panix.com:

I think we need to keep two things in mind:

A) Keith is a wingnut, and always has been, and his believe that 1)
cryogenics is not wingnuttery, and 2) that he is an expert in it is
proof the both are false, and

B) The Washington Post is run by wingnuts, and their quoting of Keith
is further proof of that (not that there's been any doubt for many
years).

--
Terry Austin

"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Jay Furr

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 12:15:24 AM8/18/08
to
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in news:g8a0l2$h0$1
@panix1.panix.com:

> (If a person were to jump into an olympic swimming
> pool full of liquid helium, his body heat would suffice to boil *all*
> of it off.)

Keith, any time you want to demonstrate this in the field, I got a med
student from Augusta, Georgia you can use as your test subject.

--
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no
god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -- Thomas Jefferson

"There's hits in chicken." -- Wade Boggs

Edward M. Kennedy

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 10:53:57 AM8/18/08
to
"Jay Furr" <jfurr-...@nospam-furrs.org> wrote

>> (If a person were to jump into an olympic swimming
>> pool full of liquid helium, his body heat would suffice to boil *all*
>> of it off.)
>
> Keith, any time you want to demonstrate this in the field, I got a med
> student from Augusta, Georgia you can use as your test subject.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/hotspring.asp

--Tedward


Simon Slavin

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 4:50:03 PM8/18/08
to
On 15/08/2008, R H Draney wrote in message <g8598...@drn.newsguy.com>:

> Lon filted:
> >
> >R H Draney wrote:
> >>
> >> How does "lowest surface-to-volume ratio of any Platonic solid" grab
> >> you?...
> >>
> >> R H "for the beginners, that means they melt slower" Draney
> >
> >Would they melt slower than ice balls? Or Fuller cubes which might run
> >afoul of both prior art, or the post-naming prior art of fullerenes?
>
> No, a sphere would of course take the longest time to melt, but if you
> drop ice balls, they're going to roll all over the damn floor and when
> they *do* melt you'll have a mess under the fridge....

I believe that between you you have established adequate reasons for
dodecahedral ice-cubes to be considered desirable.

Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk

Ken

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 7:11:45 PM8/18/08
to
On 15 Aug 2008 16:18:55 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
wrote:

>Simon Slavin filted:

I tried doing the math in my head, but that's a facility which has
become a bit rusty, particularly for area/volume of three dimensional
solids. Why does a dodecahedron have a lower surface-to-volume ratio
than an icosahedron?

Surely, being closer to a sphere, the icosahedron has a lower ratio?
[Certainly, some of my icosahedral dice are tending towards the sphere
spontaneously. The dodecahedrons are still holding shape.]

R H Draney

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 7:28:24 PM8/18/08
to
Ken filted:

>
>On 15 Aug 2008 16:18:55 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
>wrote:
>
>>How does "lowest surface-to-volume ratio of any Platonic solid" grab you?...
>>
>>R H "for the beginners, that means they melt slower" Draney
>I tried doing the math in my head, but that's a facility which has
>become a bit rusty, particularly for area/volume of three dimensional
>solids. Why does a dodecahedron have a lower surface-to-volume ratio
>than an icosahedron?
>
>Surely, being closer to a sphere, the icosahedron has a lower ratio?
>[Certainly, some of my icosahedral dice are tending towards the sphere
>spontaneously. The dodecahedrons are still holding shape.]

Quoth Wikipedia (in its article on "Platonic Solids"):

Among the Platonic solids, either the dodecahedron or the icosahedron may be
seen as the best approximation to the sphere. The icosahedron has the largest
number of faces, the largest dihedral angle, and it hugs its inscribed sphere
the tightest. The dodecahedron, on the other hand, has the smallest angular
defect, the largest vertex solid angle, and it fills out its circumscribed
sphere the most.

R H "you pays your money and you takes your choice" Draney

R H Draney

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 7:33:57 PM8/18/08
to
Simon Slavin filted:

Does that mean we get the grant?...r

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 7:44:06 PM8/18/08
to
Ken <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> How does "lowest surface-to-volume ratio of any Platonic solid"
>> grab you?...

> I tried doing the math in my head, but that's a facility which


> has become a bit rusty, particularly for area/volume of three
> dimensional solids. Why does a dodecahedron have a lower
> surface-to-volume ratio than an icosahedron?

It doesn't. You may be thinking of the fact that when a dodecahedron
is inscribed in a sphere, it occupies more of the sphere's volume than
an icosahedron inscribed in the same sphere.

Surface areas of objects of unit volume are approximately:

Cube 0.1667
Dodecahedron 0.1883
Icosahedron 0.1942
Sphere 0.2068

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 7:55:38 PM8/18/08
to
Jay Furr <jfurr-...@nospam-furrs.org> wrote:

> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> (If a person were to jump into an olympic swimming pool full of
>> liquid helium, his body heat would suffice to boil *all* of it
>> off.)

> Keith, any time you want to demonstrate this in the field, I got a
> med student from Augusta, Georgia you can use as your test subject.

Please note that I didn't say the jumper would survive the experience.

Can you afford to fill an olympic swimming pool full of liquid helium?
That stuff isn't cheap. It would cost at least $20 million, even if
you somehow pre-chilled the walls and floor of the pool.

Ken

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 8:50:28 PM8/18/08
to
On 18 Aug 2008 19:44:06 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
wrote:

>Ken <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:


>> R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>> How does "lowest surface-to-volume ratio of any Platonic solid"
>>> grab you?...
>
>> I tried doing the math in my head, but that's a facility which
>> has become a bit rusty, particularly for area/volume of three
>> dimensional solids. Why does a dodecahedron have a lower
>> surface-to-volume ratio than an icosahedron?
>
>It doesn't. You may be thinking of the fact that when a dodecahedron
>is inscribed in a sphere, it occupies more of the sphere's volume than
>an icosahedron inscribed in the same sphere.
>
>Surface areas of objects of unit volume are approximately:
>
>Cube 0.1667
>Dodecahedron 0.1883
>Icosahedron 0.1942
>Sphere 0.2068

Thanks. Intuitively, I expected the icosahedron = Platonic solid 5 to
have a better surface to volume ratio. I was just wondering how the
dodecahedron = Platonic solid 4 had snuck in to the role, as claimed
by Mr Draney.

Btw, I looked up the formula for the volume of a dodecahedron. When I
got to Tan(arcsin(36)) as one of the components, I gave up. No wonder
the head couldn't resolve it.

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 9:10:04 PM8/18/08
to
Ken <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Thanks. Intuitively, I expected the icosahedron = Platonic solid 5
> to have a better surface to volume ratio. I was just wondering how
> the dodecahedron = Platonic solid 4 had snuck in to the role, ...

You're ordering them by the number of faces? If you order them by the
number of vertices (corners), which is equally valid, the icosahedron
comes before the dodecadron, and the octahedron comes before the cube.

Note that the icosahedron and dodecadron are "duals," meaning that the
vertices of one are arranged exactly like the centers of the faces of
the other, and that they have the same number of edges. Similarly
with the cube and the octahedron. (The tetrahedron is its own dual.)

> Btw, I looked up the formula for the volume of a dodecahedron. When
> I got to Tan(arcsin(36)) as one of the components, I gave up. No
> wonder the head couldn't resolve it.

What's wrong with that?

A simpler formula for volume is the edge length times (15 + 7 sqrt(5)) / 4.
Or (15 + sqrt(245)) / 4 if you like.

R H Draney

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 12:57:37 AM8/19/08
to
Keith F. Lynch filted:

>
>Surface areas of objects of unit volume are approximately:
>
>Cube 0.1667
>Dodecahedron 0.1883
>Icosahedron 0.1942
>Sphere 0.2068

At least one thing here is seriously messed up...the sphere is well-known as the
solid (overall) with the *lowest* area-to-volume ratio, and the surface area of
a cube of unit volume is six....r

Richard Casady

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 11:40:13 AM8/19/08
to
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:50:28 GMT, Ken <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>>Surface areas of objects of unit volume are approximately:
>>
>>Cube 0.1667
>>Dodecahedron 0.1883
>>Icosahedron 0.1942
>>Sphere 0.2068

Thats obviously false. You would have it that some shapes have less
surface/volumn that a sphere. Obvious nonsense. Also,just for example,
a unit cube has a surface area of 6, not .167. Did you mean volumn of
objects of unit area?

Casady

Pete Wilcox

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 12:06:57 PM8/19/08
to

Yup, that'd do it. 0.1667 is the reciprocal of 6. Near enough, anyway.

Cheers,
Pete.

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 7:15:58 PM8/19/08
to
R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch filted:
>> Surface areas of objects of unit volume are approximately:

>> Cube 0.1667
>> Dodecahedron 0.1883
>> Icosahedron 0.1942
>> Sphere 0.2068

> At least one thing here is seriously messed up...the sphere is
> well-known as the solid (overall) with the *lowest* area-to-volume
> ratio, and the surface area of a cube of unit volume is six....r

Sorry, I said that wrong. Those are the *volumes* of objects of unit
*surface area*.

Richard Casady

unread,
Aug 20, 2008, 2:54:30 PM8/20/08
to
On 19 Aug 2008 19:15:58 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
wrote:

>R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:


>> Keith F. Lynch filted:
>>> Surface areas of objects of unit volume are approximately:
>
>>> Cube 0.1667
>>> Dodecahedron 0.1883
>>> Icosahedron 0.1942
>>> Sphere 0.2068
>
>> At least one thing here is seriously messed up...the sphere is
>> well-known as the solid (overall) with the *lowest* area-to-volume
>> ratio, and the surface area of a cube of unit volume is six....r
>
>Sorry, I said that wrong. Those are the *volumes* of objects of unit
>*surface area*.

I figured that. Just push the 1/x key on the
calculator-that-takes-no-prisoners[HP48] to convert one to the other.
Honorable mention for coming up with all the volumns. My calculator
does only cone, cylinder, sphere, parallelepiped. Cute little four
item spreadsheet.

Casady

Simon Slavin

unread,
Aug 21, 2008, 5:48:33 PM8/21/08
to

No, it means that your application wouldn't be rejected out of hand. You
still have to

pay for having application text and artwork prepared
pay for the application (in whatever territories you care for)
find someone to license it to
pay for a lawyer to write the contract so you don't get ripped off
pay the patent renewal fees for some years, and
ensure that your licensee does an adequate job of promotion and
exploitation during the next 20 years so that you get some money out of it.

I wonder why I don't see many people listing 'inventor' on their passport.

However, unless you get a Chinese patent you'll be outproduced by a
Chinese factory. For a simple invention without an established market you
will often make far more money by ignoring patents completely: find a
small-town manufacturer, tool up, and turn out product as fast as you can.
You'll lose some sales to competitors but still end up making more money
than it would cost to obtain, renew, and defend your invention.

ObIANAL: I am not a lawyer and the above advice is worth what you paid for
it.

Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk

Lon

unread,
Aug 21, 2008, 9:05:11 PM8/21/08
to

You know Draney, you sound like one of those radical dodecahedronista!

R H Draney

unread,
Aug 21, 2008, 11:32:28 PM8/21/08
to
Lon filted:
>
>R H Draney wrote:
>>
>> Quoth Wikipedia (in its article on "Platonic Solids"):
>>
>> Among the Platonic solids, either the dodecahedron or the icosahedron may be
>> seen as the best approximation to the sphere. The icosahedron has the largest
>> number of faces, the largest dihedral angle, and it hugs its inscribed sphere
>> the tightest. The dodecahedron, on the other hand, has the smallest angular
>> defect, the largest vertex solid angle, and it fills out its circumscribed
>> sphere the most.
>>
>> R H "you pays your money and you takes your choice" Draney
>
>You know Draney, you sound like one of those radical dodecahedronista!

Radical *rhombic* dodecahedronista, if you please....

R H "though I look kindly on our pentagonal brothers" Draney

Richard Casady

unread,
Jul 7, 2011, 8:30:53 PM7/7/11
to
On 15 Aug 2008 16:18:55 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
wrote:

>How does "lowest surface-to-volume ratio of any Platonic solid" grab you?...
>
>R H "for the beginners, that means they melt slower" Draney
>

The function of the ice is to melt, and slowing that will give you a
warmer drink. I remember someone telling me how long those blue sealed
in plastic ice blocks stayed cold. I said: Yeah, and they aren't
keeping the heat away from the contents of the cooler while staying
cold.

Casady

0 new messages