Cat Capacitance has been added as a related post - related requested by ant.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Cat-Capacitance

The sign with the exclamation point says "Maximum Capacity - 10 Persons"

They even note that in their video with a tag "Capacite du pont: 10 personnes maximum"

It's actually slightly more complicated still. With the power supply he's using, a DC power supply, he could turn it up to 100+ volts and hold both leads without issue (not touch them to his tongue, but hold them in his hands would be fine). I've done exactly that before; I could feel a slight amount of discomfort as current flowed through my fingers at both leads (the point of highest current density in the circuit that is my body), but it could otherwise be said that it 'tickled'. I've also had experiences once or twice in my life where I accidentally touched 120V AC, and it most certainly did NOT tickle, it HURT.

What people don't realize about humans (and even regular tap water) is that both are actually highly resistive to DC current, in the megaohms region. Once you get to 10's of Hz, for example 60Hz, 100V starts becoming quite deadly. The capacitance in our body (and in water with ion contaminants) allows current to flow much more readily when you get to alternating current of at least that minimum frequency. The net effect is that your body's resistance decreases as the input frequency increases.

Yes, it is 'current that kills', and even more accurately 'current density that kills', but it's the amount and frequency of voltage applied paired with the frequency specific resistance of the system that determines how much current will flow.

Seems legit (see below link). Apparently works because it's so thin and therefore has such low mass, and yet it's still latticed graphite. It has all the conductive properties of graphite but flattened to 1 atom thick. So we're talking about capacitance per kg (grams in practicality but kg is SI) and when you get a bunch of them arranged into a capacitor, you'd have more capacitance for the mass of your capacitor than with an ordinary one.

http://bucky-central.me.utexas.edu/RuoffsPDFs/179.pdf
(that's straight from the wikipedia reference)

As a side note, if it's sciencey and you can't find any pdf or some sort of publication on the matter then take it with a pinch of salt. Conversely a pdf or publication doesn't make it true

There is no telling what kind of yield they will get on these. The transistors require about 5% more area, and the previous transistor design has been perfected for many many many years.

The huge advantage is less leakage current, maybe less capacitance for switching.

It's interesting that this technique was sort of used for memory where they used the 3D well shape to get more capacitance in the same area.

>> ^Ornthoron:

This comment section's capacitance for puns is by farad the worst I've seen on the Sift.


And he's an expert in this field of research.

This comment section's capacitance for puns is by farad the worst I've seen on the Sift.

Meh, couldn't make it through it due to the average compositing and the annoyance that he was tapping with his fingernail, which doesn't work for capacitive touchscreens.

Yes, I'm a geek.

>> ^jonny:

Ok, I understand how they are able to provide inverse reactive current to the unilateral phase detractor, but unless they have a Turbo-Encabulator, how do they synchronize the cardinal grammeter? Even with a Turbo-Ecabulator driven with magneto-relecutance and capacitive diractance, it doesn't completely solve the problem of sinusoidal deplenaration.


Just send a polaron pulse set to the frequency of cosmic background radiation through the main deflector! Duh.

>> ^jonny:

Ok, I understand how they are able to provide inverse reactive current to the unilateral phase detractor, but unless they have a Turbo-Encabulator, how do they synchronize the cardinal grammeter? Even with a Turbo-Ecabulator driven with magneto-relecutance and capacitive diractance, it doesn't completely solve the problem of sinusoidal deplenaration.


I think they are planning to use a Johnson rod.

Ok, I understand how they are able to provide inverse reactive current to the unilateral phase detractor, but unless they have a Turbo-Encabulator, how do they synchronize the cardinal grammeter? Even with a Turbo-Ecabulator driven with magneto-relecutance and capacitive diractance, it doesn't completely solve the problem of sinusoidal deplenaration.

He's going for the vehicle's battery core.

That's pure capacitance gel.

Wesley Snipes curiously absent from the scene...

>> ^dag:

I'm sorry wait - are you saying that Windows changed a paradigm by inventing a GUI?
I would argue that Apple - yes, has invented a paradigm changing GUI - (again). Flicking to scroll around a capacitive touchscreen all seems very passe in perfect 20/20 hindsight - but so-called smart phones weren't doing it before the iPhone. Have a look at a Nokia or Windows Mobile phone from that era- and it's pretty clear. static icons, optimised for a stylus or control pad, nothing harnessing the power of your finger. The Android phones are very good- I might get one some day - but they owe a debt of innovation to Apple for blazing the trail.
I'm sure that getting a game distributed through EA or Steam would be great, and they may have better terms than Apple - but I'd argue that single hacker working in his basement to make something cool has a very slim chance in brokering a deal with EA or Valve. The App store is making a lot of these single programmers very rich - and I think that's a good, disruptive thing.
>> ^EDD:
>> ^dag:
Apple has once again changed the paradigm of how we use computers.
Apple has empowered a whole generation of "little guy" developers to make good money from the app ecosystem - wresting power from the established game behemoths like EA.

"Changed the paradigm"? What are you smoking, mate? They might have changed the paradigm if they invented the touch screen (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented a new, ultra-popular activity that we use computers for, like twitter or facebook or e-mail (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented the mouse or a GUI like Windows (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented MS Office or at least an equal alternative to at least one of its products (they haven't). But a simple rework on an ages-old tablet device which is only becoming popular now because of the brand and the drop in price which they can take very little, if any, credit for? Puhh-lease.
And as for your second argument - try and compare Apple terms for iPhone devs to EA Partners terms or Valve's Steam terms. You'll find that there are few publishers with shittier deals for game and software devs than Apple. And by the way - moving into the social mini-game market isn't exactly "wresting power" from publishers of AAA console and PC publishers like EA.


Whatchu talkin' 'bout Willis? Hahaha...see what I did there? I said that thing Gary Coleman used to say and now he's dead. Just as dead as the horse you guys are kicking...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm sorry wait - are you saying that Windows changed a paradigm by inventing a GUI?

I would argue that Apple - yes, has invented a paradigm changing GUI - (again). Flicking to scroll around a capacitive touchscreen all seems very passe in perfect 20/20 hindsight - but so-called smart phones weren't doing it before the iPhone. Have a look at a Nokia or Windows Mobile phone from that era- and it's pretty clear. static icons, optimised for a stylus or control pad, nothing harnessing the power of your finger. The Android phones are very good- I might get one some day - but they owe a debt of innovation to Apple for blazing the trail.

I'm sure that getting a game distributed through EA or Steam would be great, and they may have better terms than Apple - but I'd argue that single hacker working in his basement to make something cool has a very slim chance in brokering a deal with EA or Valve. The App store is making a lot of these single programmers very rich - and I think that's a good, disruptive thing.

>> ^EDD:

>> ^dag:
Apple has once again changed the paradigm of how we use computers.
Apple has empowered a whole generation of "little guy" developers to make good money from the app ecosystem - wresting power from the established game behemoths like EA.

"Changed the paradigm"? What are you smoking, mate? They might have changed the paradigm if they invented the touch screen (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented a new, ultra-popular activity that we use computers for, like twitter or facebook or e-mail (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented the mouse or a GUI like Windows (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented MS Office or at least an equal alternative to at least one of its products (they haven't). But a simple rework on an ages-old tablet device which is only becoming popular now because of the brand and the drop in price which they can take very little, if any, credit for? Puhh-lease.
And as for your second argument - try and compare Apple terms for iPhone devs to EA Partners terms or Valve's Steam terms. You'll find that there are few publishers with shittier deals for game and software devs than Apple. And by the way - moving into the social mini-game market isn't exactly "wresting power" from publishers of AAA console and PC publishers like EA.