▲ 482 ▼ Have you know???. (mander.xyz) submitted 1 year ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz 61 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 1 year ago (4 children) Its continuous to keep the image active in your mind :) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] bryndos@fedia.io 6 points 1 year ago (3 children) That'd need watt hours though. Meme is only showing the instantaneous power required to conjure the image for an infinitesimal amount of time - you cant do any useful 'work' with it unless the time is accounted for. Watt seconds maybe. What makes me skeptikal of this data though is that the correct sciencing term for a billion watts is the well established 'jiggawatt'. In this context I'd have also accepted the Canadian spelling 'jigglewatt'. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) Are watt seconds not joules permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bryndos@fedia.io 2 points 1 year ago yes, which is what you'd measure to compare the energy efficiency of completing a job. permalink fedilink source parent [–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 1 year ago* Yeah no. Imagine it like a computer and screen. To render an image it will momentarily consume a bit more power, but as soon as it has been rendered it will still continuosily consume a stable amount of x Watt to keep running and displaying the picture. For continuous stable operation of something with no specified time, Watt is the correct unit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bryndos@fedia.io 6 points 1 year ago (3 children) That'd need watt hours though. Meme is only showing the instantaneous power required to conjure the image for an infinitesimal amount of time - you cant do any useful 'work' with it unless the time is accounted for. Watt seconds maybe. What makes me skeptikal of this data though is that the correct sciencing term for a billion watts is the well established 'jiggawatt'. In this context I'd have also accepted the Canadian spelling 'jigglewatt'. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) Are watt seconds not joules permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bryndos@fedia.io 2 points 1 year ago yes, which is what you'd measure to compare the energy efficiency of completing a job. permalink fedilink source parent [–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 1 year ago* Yeah no. Imagine it like a computer and screen. To render an image it will momentarily consume a bit more power, but as soon as it has been rendered it will still continuosily consume a stable amount of x Watt to keep running and displaying the picture. For continuous stable operation of something with no specified time, Watt is the correct unit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) Are watt seconds not joules permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bryndos@fedia.io 2 points 1 year ago yes, which is what you'd measure to compare the energy efficiency of completing a job. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bryndos@fedia.io 2 points 1 year ago yes, which is what you'd measure to compare the energy efficiency of completing a job. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 1 year ago* Yeah no. Imagine it like a computer and screen. To render an image it will momentarily consume a bit more power, but as soon as it has been rendered it will still continuosily consume a stable amount of x Watt to keep running and displaying the picture. For continuous stable operation of something with no specified time, Watt is the correct unit. permalink fedilink source parent