Courtesy of Leeson Motors trying to be cool hehe.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Extreme Duck is here to save the day! Or at least your motor...
It's Extreme Duck! He's extreme, he's a duck, he'll uhhh... keep your motor from rusting in nitric acid! Yay! This might qualify as one of those things that's only funny at work, but I think it's pretty cool.
Courtesy of Leeson Motors trying to be cool hehe.
Courtesy of Leeson Motors trying to be cool hehe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
you're duck is scary. i wouldn't want to meet him in a dark alley.
wow didn't click on the pdf link...
they sure like their poorly drawn ducks lol. and what is the relationship between ducks and motors? perhaps Steve can graph it for us. Is the absolute value of duck less than or greater than a motor?
it depends on whether or not it's a negative duck... is a badly drawn duck a negative duck?
your association between "bad" and negative really stems from your psychological conditioning. There is no evidence to support your theory that a "bad" duck drawing is negative duck. I would posit that the "negative" duck should really be called the anti-duck and compose roughly 93% of the the duck drawings in the world....drawing which we can't see but know are there. In fact, theres an anti-duck drawing covering all this text. You just cant see it. If that were the case then I believe the aboslute value of anti-duck and duck drawings would be much greater than motors as there are no anit-motors...yet
Crow, get graphing.
Ok, so let's define a negative duck as this anti-duck that Lorigga says is all over the place all the time but we just can't see them.
So if you have an equation relating anti-ducks and motors, if
motors > |3(anti-duck)|
motors is described by (-infinity, 3anti-duck)U(3 duck, infinity)
wheres the proof that motors > 3|anti-duck|? And it's obvious you're still a little confused about this anti-duck business. Think of it like anti-matter, which isn't "negative matter" but an alternative form of matter which we don't know much about but makes up most of the mass in the universe. The anti-duck serves the same purpose. Based on this explanation it would make sense that:
anti-duck + duck > n*motors, where n < < infinity.
BUT:
n*duck < motors
therefore:
anti-duck < < m*(duck + motors)
where m = 1/n
sorry, I switched my greater than sign around...
anti-duck >> m*(duck + motors)
you fool! you'll never get into the anti-duck seminars with botched numbers!
it's a good thing I have pull with the anti-duck high council or you guys would go nowhere without me. =D
see the problem here is that my bullshit was limited by actually trying to replicate Steve's homework. you go study your anti-duck and I'll keep looking for a negative duck (because if there is no negative duck, duck-motor inequalities become much simpler) and we can compare theories later and maybe come up with a unified theory of duck-motorness, because at the moment things seem to break down at the quantum duck level.
good luck finding funding for that one!
And shall we not forget the Dark-Wing Duck model for duckson-motoroion reactions? Unfortunately there's no way of experimentally proving it's validity...
but it would shed light on what happens at the quantum duck level.
Wait, would duck orbitals have sneaky wings, sneaky bills, or sneaky flippers? You know, when one feather is excited to a higher duck-energy state. I smell a vote!
well, if it's one feather excited to a higher duck-energy state, that sounds like a sneaky little wing to me.
I don't particularly want to "smell" a vote. But maybe that's just because the old laptop I've been using smells like what we have determined is a combination of burning plastic and gym clothes. I doubt that's a good sign, and I think it's made me a little cynical about smells in general.
I'm sure that smell is just the teleporting, fan breaking dildo. God knows where that things been.
make a vote! include the dildo!
aww.. not the dildo. I'd almost forgotten about that...
Fools your all wrong! The Anti-duck is neither negative or positive, its currently undefined. Its an imaginary number, yah Anit-Duck exists so that we can prove the existence of the number 1, but other than that its never actually never been proven to exist in physical reality. Now people are currently working on this and if Lorigga wants to join their bandwagon more power to him, but its not like its established, might as well join UFO research while your at it. No, no! Instead I subscribe to the Howard the Duck law of relativity that states that if you are in fact a duck you must be positive because the energy required to speak and travel through space can only be exerted from accumulation of lose material from dying stars. Its an absolute value situation. |-duck|>=+Howard the Duck. So much simpler than yall make it out to be.
you see, the nature of the anti-duck has nothing to do with sign. my "anti-duck" variable is merely a representation of the AMOUNT of anti-duck in existence. I no way was I stipulating it's either positive, negative, OR imaginary in nature. In fact, it's complex meaning it has both real and imaginary components which are merely superpositions of various anti-duck states.
That being said, it's a theory. In no way was I meaning to stipulate we have any PHYSICAL proof of the anti-ducks existence. It's just the nature of science, first the theory, then hypothesis then you have to understand the theory enough to test the hypothesis....we're still at the theory stage man!
And how can you claim that the Howard the Duck THEORY is a LAW? In my opinion it's still very much a theory.
well its more widely accepted in the Duck Physics community, but I suppose everything in the science field is theory if you really want to get into it......guess I just got caught up in the Howard the Duck explosion, its like evolution man, it hits the scene and its just accepted as fact because it seems to make that much sense. I think the Howard the Duck "Law" will outlast Darwinism.
Post a Comment