# Revolution - "Kashmir" - OAD: 11/19/12



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Rachel building a sophisticated bomb instead of her "amplifier" was quite a plot twist. I now wonder how much of the tech knowledge she revealed is accurate?

I thought they spent way too much time in the underground with everyone "seeing things".

And what are Grace and Randall up to? Maybe it will be revealed next week in the "winter" finale.

Dave


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

mrdbdigital said:


> ...I thought they spent way too much time in the underground with everyone "seeing things"....


NEVER....when there's Zeppelin to listen to....


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I thought there was 1 episode before the break which would be until Feb?


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

mrdbdigital said:


> Rachel building a sophisticated bomb instead of her "amplifier" was quite a plot twist. I now wonder how much of the tech knowledge she revealed is accurate?...


I kept asking my wife what is Rachel's end game here? Surely she has to know that they will just kill her and her son not to mention how many other lives.....then it made sense.

I was NOT ready for her to stab that guy...WOW

We did get some good answers about the pendants except how it is turned on. I'm dying to know that.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Next week is the winter finale, I think that's what they are calling it now, then it will be off the schedule until late March.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

mrdbdigital said:


> I thought they spent way too much time in the underground with everyone "seeing things".


Did they explain why everyone was having these dreams? I think I might have dozed of a bit and maybe I missed any explaination.

Gerry


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Gerryex said:


> Did they explain why everyone was having these dreams? I think I might have dozed of a bit and maybe I missed any explaination.
> 
> Gerry


Lack of oxygen (due to the collapse of the tunnel). Seemed to me there should have been plenty still in there to last their trip, but...


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Er, next week isn't the season finale. There are another 12 episodes after the holidays.


OK, I stand corrected. Edited and fixed. 

Dave


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Please tell me they picked up the 2 crossbows from the guards at the tunnel and PLEASE tell me that at least picked up that traitor's gun?!?


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

pmyers said:


> I kept asking my wife what is Rachel's end game here? Surely she has to know that they will just kill her and her son not to mention how many other lives.....then it made sense.
> 
> I was NOT ready for her to stab that guy...WOW
> 
> We did get some good answers about the pendants except how it is turned on. I'm dying to know that.


But now that we've been shown Rachel was building a bomb, how do we know that any of the tech knowledge she gave out was entirely accurate?

Assuming that what she said is still correct, it looks like to me that an amulet that has enough energy in it to start a diesel generator (at the lighthouse) has plenty of power to run a vehicle.

We still don't know why the electricity is turned off in the first place. I think we will find that out from Grace and Randall next week.

Dave


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Well a lot of the stuff she actually demonstrated like the 8-10 foot range of the amulets.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

So would you all say that this show is worthwhile to marathon my way through the season when it's over? I watched the first few eps, and have saved up each episode since.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Hey, Charlie!
If a dying man points a gun at you, *MOVE!*


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Lack of oxygen (due to the collapse of the tunnel). Seemed to me there should have been plenty still in there to last their trip, but...


That's what I thought at first, but with no air circulation it makes sense that the air would begin to go stale.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Hey, Charlie!
> If a dying man points a gun at you, MOVE!


It wouldn't really have made a difference. The scene was playing in slow motion so there was probably less than a second before the time the guy got show and he fired. Not enough time for Charlie to do anything.

Charlie was just very lucky considering the guy could hit that girl all the way down the tunnel less then a second after stepping around a corner (basically blind shooting), yet he couldn't hit Charlie at near point blank range. He had just been shot with a crossbow bolt, but still.

I was busy wondering what Mile was busy doing when the guy had his back to Miles while shooting at the girl.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

morac said:


> That's what I thought at first, but with no air circulation it makes sense that the air would begin to go stale.


Yeah, but in old science fiction stories (written by people who did their homework) involving air running out in space ships, areas a lot smaller than a subway tunnel lasted a lot longer than it would take to, well, walk through a subway tunnel.

I don't know the math and physics of it, but I would be extremely surprised if there would be enough oxygen deprivation in that kind of volume in that short a time to have that kind of effect.


morac said:


> I was busy wondering what Miles was busy doing when the guy had his back to Miles while shooting at the girl.


Or even before...when I was a kid my Dad taught me how to disarm anybody who was stupid enough to put a gun in your back, and his military training probably was a lot less extreme than Miles'.

I believe the distance you have to be to be able to shoot somebody before they can get to you is over ten feet.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, but in old science fiction stories (written by people who did their homework) involving air running out in space ships, areas a lot smaller than a subway tunnel lasted a lot longer than it would take to, well, walk through a subway tunnel.
> 
> I don't know the math and physics of it, but I would be extremely surprised if there would be enough oxygen deprivation in that kind of volume in that short a time to have that kind of effect.


This. :up:

Dave


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

When Rachel was 'splainin' the amplifier, she mentioned it was effective up to a half mile. Min take off roll for an F-16 is about 1,500 ft or so. What do they do then, get out and push? And it falls out of the sky after 2640 feet?

Unless Monroe's jets and choppers are gonna fly in tight circles, this amplifier ain't worth squat.

And, Liz Mitchell is hardcore, man.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

RGM1138 said:


> When Rachel was 'splainin' the amplifier, she mentioned it was effective up to a half mile. Min take off roll for an F-16 is about 1,500 ft or so. What do they do then, get out and push? And it falls out of the sky after 2640 feet?
> 
> Unless Monroe's jets and choppers are gonna fly in tight circles, this amplifier ain't worth squat.
> 
> And, Liz Mitchell is hardcore, man.


You put the amplifier *IN* the airplane, truck, or helicopter. Then, you can go anywhere you want.

Dave


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Lack of oxygen (due to the collapse of the tunnel). Seemed to me there should have been plenty still in there to last their trip, but...


Yes... I was complaining about this the entire episode to my SO. I was like, "This is stupid. I can accept magic pendants that turn the power on, but I cannot believe that they have been walking through train tunnels for seemingly HOURS and yet there is not enough air in them after they collapsed one end of it to last them until they get out?!"


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, but in old science fiction stories (written by people who did their homework) involving air running out in space ships, areas a lot smaller than a subway tunnel lasted a lot longer than it would take to, well, walk through a subway tunnel.
> 
> I don't know the math and physics of it, but I would be extremely surprised if there would be enough oxygen deprivation in that kind of volume in that short a time to have that kind of effect.


Like I said, it's not the lack of air in the tunnels (there's a lot of air), it's the lack of air circulation. On a space ship, the air can be circulated throughout the ship. In a tunnel, the oxygen in an area will start to deplete and carbon dioxide will build up. It doesn't matter if there's plenty of oxygen at one end of the tunnel, if the people are at the other end.

I will say though, that the hallucinations started way to early. If the brain was that starved of oxygen, they wouldn't be able to keep walking another hour or two.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Plus, they didn't just stay at one end of the tunnel. They were moving constantly.

There had to be a ton of air down there, literally.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

mrdbdigital said:


> You put the amplifier *IN* the airplane, truck, or helicopter. Then, you can go anywhere you want.
> 
> Dave


Yeah, that could work. But since they only have one, it's gonna be a small air force.

Unless they have an assembly line that we don't know about.


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

The oxygen depletion thing was hard to buy. They could have gone with any of a variety of toxic gases or even non-toxic gases displacing oxygen.


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Lack of oxygen (due to the collapse of the tunnel). Seemed to me there should have been plenty still in there to last their trip, but...


Yea that was silly. In an area with that much volume there is no way the oxygen supply would run out that quickly and people would start to hallucinate. It's like they colluded with the writers of Last Resort for this ep.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

morac said:


> Like I said, it's not the lack of air in the tunnels (that's a lot of air), it's the lack of air circulation.


I would agree with you if they were standing still. They were moving through the tunnel, leaving their CO2 behind them and moving into another part of the tunnel with fresh air. The whole thing was silly..


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

I don't care how stupid this ep was...I loved me some Zeppelin.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

How do you make a mine that doesn't require electricity? How does that actuator work?

And once they started hallucinating they should've been hypoxic within minutes and dead within minutes after that.

Least favorite episode so far, except for the Elizabeth Mitchell sequence.


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

Ereth said:


> How do you make a mine that doesn't require electricity? How does that actuator work?


Don't mines work just like a bullet? The pressure of stepping on it triggers the explosion just like a firing pin hitting a bullet, right?


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

This was a good episode for using the 30 second skip button. I watched it in about 15 minutes and I don't think (or care) that I missed anything important. Since nothing on this show makes any sense, it doesn't really matter anyway.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

RGM1138 said:


> Yeah, that could work. But since they only have one, it's gonna be a small air force.
> 
> Unless they have an assembly line that we don't know about.


Fly in tight formation (although 1/2 a mile is not exactly tight).


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Bierboy said:


> I don't care how stupid this ep was...I loved me some Zeppelin.


Don't you have one of them fancy new MP3 players?


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

See? This was one of my favorite episodes.
Dunno why but I enjoyed it tremendously- even saved it to watch again.
It was all about Miles this week- IMO Burke did a great job especially in the scene with the Militia officers and also his hallucination/thoughts about Monroe.

Giancarlo Esposito was on fire as well this week.
I am enjoying this cast a lot.


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

verdugan said:


> Don't mines work just like a bullet? The pressure of stepping on it triggers the explosion just like a firing pin hitting a bullet, right?


A few mines do have batteries which implies an electronic fuse.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

wprager said:


> Fly in tight formation (although 1/2 a mile is not exactly tight).


Well, if you're the Thunderbirds or the Blue Angels maybe. But, figure pilots who haven't even been a jet in 15 years, how sharp are their skills gonna be? Even if you're in a two man formation traveling at say, 250 knots, you turn too sharply and you'll watch your wingman pass 1/2 mile and drop out of the sky in a few seconds.

If I were Monroe, I'd stick to choppers where at least they can stay within a 1/2 mile of each other fairly easily.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Did anything happen the last 5 minutes? My DirecTivo rebooted and I missed it. Or maybe I was hallucinating.


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

verdugan said:


> Don't mines work just like a bullet? The pressure of stepping on it triggers the explosion just like a firing pin hitting a bullet, right?


There are probably hundreds of ways to make a mine, bomb, etc that doesn't require electricity. What I wanna know under this scenario is if thunderstorms can occur and more importantly will every metal door handle I touch throw off static electricity zapping my hand?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

rahnbo said:


> There are probably hundreds of ways to make a mine, bomb, etc that doesn't require electricity. What I wanna know under this scenario is if thunderstorms can occur and more importantly will every metal door handle I touch throw off static electricity zapping my hand?


What I've always wondered is whether mines work like they do on TV, where detonation doesn't occur until someone steps off the mine or whether they go off when steps on the mine. The later would seem like it would be more effective.


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

morac said:


> What I've always wondered is whether mines work like they do on TV, where detonation doesn't occur until someone steps off the mine or whether they go off when steps on the mine. The later would seem like it would be more effective.


They can work either way. The idea is that you can kill more people with a delay because once person A walks over the mine the people in close proximity are more likely to be injured or killed as well so you can get a higher casualty probability than if the mine simply exploded as soon as it was stepped on.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

rahnbo said:


> There are probably hundreds of ways to make a mine, bomb, etc that doesn't require electricity. What I wanna know under this scenario is if thunderstorms can occur and more importantly will every metal door handle I touch throw off static electricity zapping my hand?


We've already seen in an earlier episode that they still have lighting storms.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

rahnbo said:


> There are probably hundreds of ways to make a mine, bomb, etc that doesn't require electricity. What I wanna know under this scenario is if thunderstorms can occur and more importantly will every metal door handle I touch throw off static electricity zapping my hand?


And yet we had an entire episode where they taught us that it's incredibly hard to make something explode in this post-electricity world and we had to put a bomb in a fire to heat up because we couldn't generate a spark back in the train job episode.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

RGM1138 said:


> Yeah, that could work. But since they only have one, it's gonna be a small air force.
> 
> Unless they have an assembly line that we don't know about.


Well we haven't seen any airplanes but we have seen a helicopter....and it wouldn't take more than a couple (or even 1) to totally destroy any other militias. Other than distance, there would be no need for jet fighters.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Ereth said:


> And yet we had an entire episode where they taught us that it's incredibly hard to make something explode in this post-electricity world and we had to put a bomb in a fire to heat up because we couldn't generate a spark back in the train job episode.


putting the bomb in the fire on the train had nothing to do with a spark....it was their only way to get the bomb on the train. Things explode just fine and fire works just fine too.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

robojerk said:


> I would agree with you if they were standing still. They were moving through the tunnel, leaving their CO2 behind them and moving into another part of the tunnel with fresh air. The whole thing was silly..


It was those torches they were carrying around -- they were burning all the oxygen everywhere they went.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

wprager said:


> Don't you have one of them fancy new MP3 players?


Yeah, but I don't have a pendant....


----------



## dirk1843 (Jul 7, 2003)

What sets off a hand grenade? I can't imagine they have an electric component........if I remember right, I saw nails inside the mine.....leading me to believe that it was an "improvised" mine made since the blackout.


----------



## Johnny Dancing (Sep 3, 2000)

I would like to see a younger Claire Danes replace Tracy Spiridakos. I think Spiridakos' acting ability is hurting this show. Her acting is so wooden that it distracts me from my "suspended belief" and snaps me back to reality.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

Breaking Bad spoilers:



Spoiler



You know Gus Fring was thinking...oh hell no! not again!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Ereth said:


> And yet we had an entire episode where they taught us that it's incredibly hard to make something explode in this post-electricity world and we had to put a bomb in a fire to heat up because we couldn't generate a spark back in the train job episode.


Wow. You viewed that episode very differently than I did. I don't remember anything about it being difficult to make something explode. And the reason the put the bomb in the boiler want because that was the only way to light the fuse. They did it so that the train would blow up somewhere down the line without them needing to be around. That plan was then derailed (pun intended) when they found out Danny was on the train.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

Ereth said:


> And yet we had an entire episode where they taught us that it's incredibly hard to make something explode in this post-electricity world and we had to put a bomb in a fire to heat up because we couldn't generate a spark back in the train job episode.


Huh? 

I don't think that's what the issue was there. We have seen Nora blow up tons of stuff with ease after the train episode.


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

morac said:


> What I've always wondered is whether mines work like they do on TV, where detonation doesn't occur until someone steps off the mine or whether they go off when steps on the mine. The later would seem like it would be more effective.


They don't work that way but...some mines do have delays but only so they can bound into the air before the main detonation.



dirk1843 said:


> What sets off a hand grenade? I can't imagine they have an electric component........if I remember right, I saw nails inside the mine.....leading me to believe that it was an "improvised" mine made since the blackout.


Hand grenades can have impact or delay fuses. The latter still uses a firing pin but a wick has to be burned through until the main charge is reached.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Ereth said:


> And yet we had an entire episode where they taught us that it's incredibly hard to make something explode in this post-electricity world and we had to put a bomb in a fire to heat up because we couldn't generate a spark back in the train job episode.





laria said:


> Huh?
> 
> I don't think that's what the issue was there. We have seen Nora blow up tons of stuff with ease after the train episode.


The whole reason that they have had Nora join the crew was because in Miles' explanation to Charlie, "she blows things up really well" (loved that reason..)


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

pmyers said:


> putting the bomb in the fire on the train had nothing to do with a spark....it was their only way to get the bomb on the train. Things explode just fine and fire works just fine too.


That's not true at all. They had a huge section of the episode talking about how hard it was to set off a bomb. They needed the FIRE to do it. It was why it had to be put in the fire to go off. There was no timer, no mechanism they could use to cause it to explode without the fire.

And, if you remember, it was in there quite some time before it actually did explode.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

laria said:


> Huh?
> 
> I don't think that's what the issue was there. We have seen Nora blow up tons of stuff with ease after the train episode.


Really? Name one. In spite of "she's good at blowing things up" there has been a significant lack of explosions since she came along.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

Ereth said:


> Really? Name one. In spite of "she's good at blowing things up" there has been a significant lack of explosions since she came along.


Off the top of my head...

They blew up that bridge when they rescued Miles from Mark Pellegrino's character (I don't remember what his name was on here... the blond militia guy who took him from the Bennigan's).

They blew up a bunch of stuff in the town as a distraction when they were rescuing Nora's sister.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

laria said:


> Off the top of my head...
> 
> They blew up that bridge when they rescued Miles from Mark Pellegrino's character (I don't remember what his name was on here... the blond militia guy who took him from the Bennigan's).
> 
> They blew up a bunch of stuff in the town as a distraction when they were rescuing Nora's sister.


The walked into a trap with guards holding Noras sister hanging. I don't remember them blowing up anything. They certainly didn't succeed at distracting anybody.

I don't remember a bridge, either.

I must be watching a different show.

In fact, thinking back on it, I don't remember Nora being good for anything at all.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

You certainly got something totally different out of that episode than we did.


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

I thought the episode was meh except for Rachel stabbing the other doctor. That was hard core.

On the plus side, this episode also gave me an addition to my ignore list. :up:


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Not a good week for train-related signage, given the "Express Train to Philadelphia" sign above the tunnel mouth (that placement makes no sense) and the "Girard Street" sign at the sealed exit (it's Girard _Avenue_).


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

trainman said:


> Not a good week for train-related signage, given the "Express Train to Philadelphia" sign above the tunnel mouth (that placement makes no sense) and the "Girard Street" sign at the sealed exit (it's Girard _Avenue_).


I also thought the sign over the tunnel mouth was stupid and un-realistic.

Dave


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

Ereth said:


> The walked into a trap with guards holding Noras sister hanging. I don't remember them blowing up anything. They certainly didn't succeed at distracting anybody.




They went to where the sister was being held but didn't leave the building and get seen. There was a Nora flashback with the sisters hiding under the bed. They came back to the present time... Miles tried to smash the amulet, but it's made out of indestructonium or something. Then they show them rigging up explosives after they come back to this storyline and they blow up the building they were in. All the militia guys went running towards it. They blew up a second building while they're running towards the sister. They are able to cut her down and run away because none of the militia guys were smart enough to stay there guarding her while explosions are going off.



> I don't remember a bridge, either.


In the episode where they got holed up with the rebels in the Bennigan's, the one where we found out that Miles used to be the commanding general of the militia. They made a deal where Miles was going to get taken back to the militia and the surviving militia guys would leave the rebels alone. The militia guys and Miles are walking along, having a conversation, and come to a bridge. Charlie and Nora set off some explosions, manage to free Miles, then run across the bridge and set off another explosion that blows up the bridge and leaves the militia guys on the other side of the gap.



> I must be watching a different show.


I think you are... or not paying attention to this one!


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Johnny Dancing said:


> I would like to see a younger Claire Danes replace Tracy Spiridakos. I think Spiridakos' acting ability is hurting this show. Her acting is so wooden that it distracts me from my "suspended belief" and snaps me back to reality.


+a gazillion. I might actually like this show instead of endlessly threadcrapping if they had cast someone else. She always has this weird grimace/frown that just doesn't seem to fit whatever emotion *should* be flitting across her face.

It's not a wonderful show, as evidenced by all the nitpicking that goes on every week. But it's interesting enough to keep us watching. But she drives me nuts.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

astrohip said:


> +a gazillion. I might actually like this show instead of endlessly threadcrapping if they had cast someone else. She always has this weird grimace/frown that just doesn't seem to fit whatever emotion *should* be flitting across her face.
> 
> It's not a wonderful show, as evidenced by all the nitpicking that goes on every week. But it's interesting enough to keep us watching. But she drives me nuts.


The thing is, it _could_ be a wonderful show.
It's an intriguing premise and Eric Kripke's previous show has top notch characterization.

I'm kind of shocked at how bad it is.
I don't know if Kripke wasn't able to assemble a better writing room or if there's a lot of network interference here.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

pmyers said:


> You certainly got something totally different out of that episode than we did.


I can't find a transcript, but I distinctly remember a whole conversation about how hard it is to get an explosive device to work post-electricity.

Television Without Pity includes this in their recap:



> Nora is scraping out a log, musing to Hutch about how the trouble with bombs is the ignition. Without electricity, the best way to start an explosion is black powder.


That's an incredibly short description of what I remember as being a significant bit of exposition.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

astrohip said:


> +a gazillion. I might actually like this show instead of endlessly threadcrapping if they had cast someone else. She always has this weird grimace/frown that just doesn't seem to fit whatever emotion *should* be flitting across her face.
> 
> It's not a wonderful show, as evidenced by all the nitpicking that goes on every week. But it's interesting enough to keep us watching. But she drives me nuts.


I don't understand the hate here for Tracy Spiridakos...she's a decent actress who is cute...what more could you want or need?


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Bierboy said:


> I don't understand the hate here for Tracy Spiridakos...*she's a decent actress* who is cute...what more could you want or need?


I haven't seen any of her other work, but her character on this show is so damned annoying. Her character is naive in one scene, barking order at Miles the next, giving disapproving condescending looks. Just like Alcatraz, the lead character is the weakest of the cast. If they killed her off, and just had Miles, Nora, and the Google guy I think this show would be better.


----------



## Rosincrans (May 4, 2006)

Ereth said:


> That's an incredibly short description of what I remember as being a significant bit of exposition.


 My take on her comments was about how hard it is to create a time delay. You can't use a clock, cell phone, etc. if you want to be far away when the explosion goes off, it takes some creativity.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

laria said:


> <snip>They are able to cut her down and run away because none of the militia guys were smart enough to stay there guarding her while explosions are going off. the militia guys were setting a trap and using the sister as bait, so they had no incentive to catch them at that point.





Rosincrans said:


> My take on her comments was about how hard it is to create a time delay. You can't use a clock, cell phone, etc. if you want to be far away when the explosion goes off, it takes some creativity.


Exactly this. Nora can make bombs all day if she wants them to detonate right away. With the train, they wanted it to blow up after it was underway and they didn't want to be on the train, so the fake log was their best bet.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

robojerk said:


> I haven't seen any of her other work, but her character on this show is so damned annoying.....


That's your opinion, and I have mine. Let's leave it at that...


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

Ereth said:


> The walked into a trap with guards holding Noras sister hanging. I don't remember them blowing up anything. They certainly didn't succeed at distracting anybody.
> 
> I don't remember a bridge, either.
> 
> ...


Go watch from 13:30 for about a minute or two and see if that refreshes your memory. They certainly blew stuff up and distractions were caused.

http://www.nbc.com/revolution/video/ties-that-bind/1423715/


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Johnny Dancing said:


> I would like to see a younger Claire Danes replace Tracy Spiridakos. I think Spiridakos' acting ability is hurting this show. Her acting is so wooden that it distracts me from my "suspended belief" and snaps me back to reality.


As long as she doesn't look or act like claire danes in any way.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> I don't understand the hate here for Tracy Spiridakos...she's a decent actress who is cute...what more could you want or need?


You're just still excited about that side-boob we got a few weeks ago.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

astrohip said:


> You're just still excited about that side-boob we got a few weeks ago.


Crap....busted....


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> the militia guys were setting a trap and using the sister as bait, so they had no incentive to catch them at that point.


Ok, but at the time we saw it, it seemed like they were too stupid to stay put. 

Either way though, there were booms!


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

pmyers said:


> Well a lot of the stuff she actually demonstrated like the 8-10 foot range of the amulets.


So the amulet can't power anything that has components greater than 8' away from....the other part of itself?

Seems like some cars should work fine.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

squint said:


> The oxygen depletion thing was hard to buy. They could have gone with any of a variety of toxic gases or even non-toxic gases displacing oxygen.


I was really hoping the militia had sabotaged the tunnels with some kind of neurotoxin.

There is no way they would have run out of oxygen given how LARGE those spaces were and how few people were in the group.

...and won't Led Zeppelin be annoyed that they got so little air time?


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

trainman said:


> Not a good week for train-related signage, given the "Express Train to Philadelphia" sign above the tunnel mouth (that placement makes no sense) and the "Girard Street" sign at the sealed exit (it's Girard _Avenue_).


Sir, you are much needed in the Skyfall thread.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Girard "Street" was so bad that I wonder if they did it on purpose. It's not like they picked the word "Girard" out of a hat. They had to do it deliberately and *should* have gotten the "Avenue" part correct with 10 seconds of research. I assume they were supposedly at the Girard Avenue station on the Broad Street subway line.

I was hoping the new bow and arrow girl would survive the episode but she was just a redshirt plot device.

Tracy Spiradakos' actiing ability doesn't bother me at all. It's her character that I often fund annoying.

I definitely didn't see the heart stab coming and neither did the other scientist. I did wonder how he knew it was a bomb just by looking at it. I guess she didn't hide the dynamite fuse well enough.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> I was hoping the new bow and arrow girl would survive the episode but she was just a redshirt plot device.


Yeah....I love how the turncoat agent only hit his revolutionary companions and not the main characters (except sorta almost Charlie).


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> Girard "Street" was so bad that I wonder if they did it on purpose. It's not like they picked the word "Girard" out of a hat. They had to do it deliberately and *should* have gotten the "Avenue" part correct with 10 seconds of research. I assume they were supposedly at the Girard Avenue station on the Broad Street subway line.


In fact, I think the sign said something like "To Girard Street and Trolley Line" -- so they did enough research to discover there is a trolley line on Girard, but not enough to discover that it's Girard _Avenue!_


----------



## jhowell (Sep 19, 2006)

It seems odd to me given the eight foot range of the pendant that in the lighthouse not only was a pendant able to start the generator, but also allowed the light to operate when it was well outside of that range.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

jhowell said:


> It seems odd to me given the eight foot range of the pendant that in the lighthouse not only was a pendant able to start the generator, but also allowed the light to operate when it was well outside of that range.


Probably a gaffe, but then again we know that she wasn't being entirely truthful in her discussions with Monroe...


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

jhowell said:


> It seems odd to me given the eight foot range of the pendant that in the lighthouse not only was a pendant able to start the generator, but also allowed the light to operate when it was well outside of that range.


But we also know, from the menu's on the tracking screen that Grace and Randall were looking at, that Aaron's amulet is a model "C", whereas the others are models "A" and "B". Maybe the model "C" amulets have a wider radius of activity?

Dave


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

trainman said:


> In fact, I think the sign said something like "To Girard Street and Trolley Line" -- so they did enough research to discover there is a trolley line on Girard, but not enough to discover that it's Girard _Avenue!_


And that the Girard Avenue train station stop is on the Elevated line not the subway. It's about 30 feet in the air, not underground. Another odd thing was that the word Girard was spelled out in big tile letters on the platform wall. Either they cgi'd that in or somebody had a big art project.


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

jhowell said:


> It seems odd to me given the eight foot range of the pendant that in the lighthouse not only was a pendant able to start the generator, but also allowed the light to operate when it was well outside of that range.


I guess a little odd but the pendant powered the generator, not the light, so anything connected to the generator probably would have worked.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

rahnbo said:


> I guess a little odd but the pendant powered the generator, not the light, so anything connected to the generator probably would have worked.


That doesn't fit in with what we have witnessed. No electricity works outside the range of the amulet, so the lighthouse light should not have worked even with the generator running.

The writers are playing fast and loose with the show's premise when they need to, I guess.

Dave


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

mrdbdigital said:


> That doesn't fit in with what we have witnessed. No electricity works outside the range of the amulet, so the lighthouse light should not have worked even with the generator running.


I'm not so sure we _know_ that. It could be that anything that can generate electricity is suppressed. If something could generate electricity, though, maybe it could continue to power things outside the range of the amulet.


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

madscientist said:


> I'm not so sure we _know_ that. It could be that anything that can generate electricity is suppressed. If something could generate electricity, though, maybe it could continue to power things outside the range of the amulate.


Yes, that's what I was thinking. If you could power up a generator then anything plugged in to it at whatever distance physics allows would also work. I don't recall the range of electricity being suppressed only the fact that it can only be generated by an amulet and only it had a limited range. I suppose its a toss up but by showing us the amulet powering up the generator at short range which in turn powered up the lighthouse light at a longer range that its reasonable to accept there is no limit on how far electricity could travel once something is powered up by an amulet to generate that electricity.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

mrdbdigital said:


> The writers are playing fast and loose with the show's premise when they need to, I guess.


Shocked! I'm SHOCKED that such a level of writing would acceptable on such a quality network!!


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

madscientist said:


> I'm not so sure we _know_ that. It could be that anything that can generate electricity is suppressed. If something could generate electricity, though, maybe it could continue to power things outside the range of the amulate.





rahnbo said:


> Yes, that's what I was thinking. If you could power up a generator then anything plugged in to it at whatever distance physics allows would also work. I don't recall the range of electricity being suppressed only the fact that it can only be generated by an amulet and only it had a limited range. I suppose its a toss up but by showing us the amulet powering up the generator at short range which in turn powered up the lighthouse light at a longer range that its reasonable to accept there is no limit on how far electricity could travel once something is powered up by an amulet to generate that electricity.


The electrical inhibition effect, per the show's own explanation, shuts off the flow of all electricity, not just the generation of electricity, so the lighthouse generator could not have powered anything outside the influence of the amulet. The fact that the inhibition field kills any electrical flow is shown in the demonstration to Randall from the D.O.D. where it kills all the electronic equipment in the room where he is standing.

This is Ben's statement of how it works, "What we've got, Mr. Flynn, is a mistake. My partners and I, we set out to invent a device that generates clean, low cost electricity. We failed completely. It doesn't work. In fact, it does exactly the opposite of what we intended. Instead of generating electricity, um, *it inhibits it.* So that's a failure, but it's a very, very interesting one. Brad? Uh, Grace? If You please."

Based on that explanation is why I feel the lighthouse lamp could not have been lit by the generator, as the lighthouse lamp is probably 50 feet out of range of the amulet, and thus unable to have electricity flow to light it..

Dave


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

mrdbdigital said:


> This is Ben's statement of how it works, "What we've got, Mr. Flynn, is a mistake. My partners and I, we set out to invent a device that generates clean, low cost electricity. We failed completely. It doesn't work. In fact, it does exactly the opposite of what we intended. Instead of generating electricity, um, *it inhibits it.* So that's a failure, but it's a very, very interesting one. Brad? Uh, Grace? If You please."
> 
> Based on that explanation is why I feel the lighthouse lamp could not have been lit by the generator, as the lighthouse lamp is probably 50 feet out of range of the amulet, and thus unable to have electricity flow to light it..
> 
> Dave


I see where you're going but that was also before they had the amulets which do generate electricity. I'm not disagreeing with you I think they need to clear & tidy up these things up because we as a group are often as confused as the characters.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Probably a gaffe, but then again we know that she wasn't being entirely truthful in her discussions with Monroe...


There was an actual demonstration where she walked away and stuff stopped working.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> Exactly this. Nora can make bombs all day if she wants them to detonate right away. With the train, they wanted it to blow up after it was underway and they didn't want to be on the train, so the fake log was their best bet.


Hmm, so how did they blow up the building they were previously hiding in, while not actually hiding in it at the time? There definitely was a delay.


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

wprager said:


> Hmm, so how did they blow up the building they were previously hiding in, while not actually hiding in it at the time? There definitely was a delay.


It's in my previous post. Watch from around 13:30 for a few minutes.

http://www.nbc.com/revolution/video/ties-that-bind/1423715/


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

wprager said:


> There was an actual demonstration where she walked away and stuff stopped working.


As I said, probably a gaffe...but if she were lying, why would she have been telling the truth about the demonstration?

But given the information the show has provided, there really doesn't seem to be any way any of this is going to end up making sense, so I'll just go with gaffe for now. And hope they surprise me.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

rahnbo said:


> I see where you're going but that was also before they had the amulets which do generate electricity. I'm not disagreeing with you I think they need to clear & tidy up these things up because we as a group are often as confused as the characters.


I agree they need to clear up things a little bit. Seems to me that if an amulet can crank up what looks like a 10KW or so diesel generator, it has plenty of power to crank up a car and make it operate normally. But then, Rachel said the amulets were not powerful enough to power vehicles. I wonder if these "inconsistencies" will be resolved later in the season, or if they are just sloppy writing?

Maybe next week's episode will tie up some loose ends in the science. (But probably not. )

Dave


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

mrdbdigital said:


> I agree they need to clear up things a little bit. Seems to me that if an amulet can crank up what looks like a 10KW or so diesel generator, it has plenty of power to crank up a car and make it operate normally. But then, Rachel said the amulets were not powerful enough to power vehicles. I wonder if these "inconsistencies" will be resolved later in the season, or if they are just sloppy writing?
> 
> Maybe next week's episode will tie up some loose ends in the science. (But probably not. )


But that's not what I'm taking from the amulets, they make NO power, never have, never will, they neutralize the "suppression field" the scientists stumbled on that's stopping electrical devices from functioning.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

dianebrat said:


> But that's not what I'm taking from the amulets, they make NO power, never have, never will, they neutralize the "suppression field" the scientists stumbled on that's stopping electrical devices from functioning.


I'd agree except that Rachel said the pendants work like portable generators.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

morac said:


> I'd agree except that Rachel said the pendants work like portable generators.


That's one of the reasons I'm hoping against hope that everything she said was a lie.

Because that is just plain crazy talk!

The way Diane explained it more or less makes sense. This doesn't. I mean, how would that even work? How does that little pendant hold enough power to run a lighthouse...and how does it transmit the power to the lighthouse?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That's one of the reasons I'm hoping against hope that everything she said was a lie.
> 
> Because that is just plain crazy talk!
> 
> The way Diane explained it more or less makes sense. This doesn't. I mean, how would that even work? How does that little pendant hold enough power to run a lighthouse...and how does it transmit the power to the lighthouse?


It's possible Rachel was dumbing it down for them (and us).


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

morac said:


> It's possible Rachel was dumbing it down for them (and us).


Or lying, because she _really _doesn't want Monroe to get the technology.

Explaining a pendant that cancels the electricity-suppressing field by saying it generates power by itself isn't dumbing anything down; it's just plain wrong. So either she's saying something ridiculous to mislead Monroe, or she's telling the truth and the truth is dumb. Or the writers are so brilliant I can't imagine what they're getting at.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Or the writers are so brilliant I can't imagine what they're getting at.


Seems to me you answered your own question.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

dianebrat said:


> But that's not what I'm taking from the amulets, they make NO power, never have, never will, they neutralize the "suppression field" the scientists stumbled on that's stopping electrical devices from functioning.


I agree with you, and my original take on the issue, is that the amulets just control the "inhibition field" and are not providing power themselves. But then you have Rachel's statement that they actually provide the electricity to operate things within their influence. That brings up the issue/problem brought up many episodes back: If the amulet is not supplying power (as Rachel now says they do), then where is the electricity coming from that works in the amulet's "sphere of influence"? It's a sure bet the power plants aren't running after 15 years.

Related to this, I'm still thinking the "inhibit field" is a satellite based system, controlled by Randall, although I admit this is mostly based on a episode still photo on Inmb.com, which shows something that looks like a satellite on a computer monitor behind Grace in her "lab". I never saw that scene in the actual episode, which was the one that had the scene with Grace and Randal in the large, cavernous "bunker". The amulets somehow control this "inhibit field" locally.

Dave

Dave


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

The original project was a technique to get unlimited energy, so it's not entirely inconsistent that the pendants can actually power things up.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

rahnbo said:


> It's in my previous post. Watch from around 13:30 for a few minutes.
> 
> http://www.nbc.com/revolution/video/ties-that-bind/1423715/


Sadly, I can't watch that. Not in Canada.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

vman41 said:


> The original project was a technique to get unlimited energy, so it's not entirely inconsistent that the pendants can actually power things up.


I was going to say the same thing.

On the other hand, if the pendant generates the power, then it make no sense that it sits in the middle of the so-called amplifier (an amplifier amplifies an audio signal by drawing power from the grid; how do you amplify the power of the device that is actually powering you up?)


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

wprager said:


> Sadly, I can't watch that. Not in Canada.


Oh. Well, they lit a fuse and ran like hell.


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

dianebrat said:


> But that's not what I'm taking from the amulets, they make NO power, never have, never will, they neutralize the "suppression field" the scientists stumbled on that's stopping electrical devices from functioning.


They definitely generate power. How else could the stepmother's smart phone have gotten power after 15 years? Where else would the power have come from to power up the lady in the farmhouse's computer system because as someone else pointed out the electric companies certainly are not running. They might also neutralize the suppression field in fact they would almost have to by default.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

wprager said:


> I was going to say the same thing.
> 
> On the other hand, if the pendant generates the power, then it make no sense that it sits in the middle of the so-called amplifier (an amplifier amplifies an audio signal by drawing power from the grid; how do you amplify the power of the device that is actually powering you up?)


An amplifier is anything that amplifies power. It doesn't have to be an audio signal. Amplifying the output of the pendent to increase it's range actually makes sense. Well as much sense as anything else on this show.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> ...that is just plain crazy talk!...


Welcome to TCF....


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

vman41 said:


> The original project was a technique to get unlimited energy, so it's not entirely inconsistent that the pendants can actually power things up.


That's what they intended, but Ben clearly stated that that aspect of the project didn't work, it was a failure, and what they did develop was a way to inhibit electricity. It was the inhibit technology that Randall and the D.O.D. were interested in once he found out.

We will just have to wait and see it the show explains this all in greater detail, and/or answers these questions.

I'm willing to bet we don't find out about the power coming back on next week, and the sound of the helicopters heard in the preview occurs in a flashback.

Dave


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

rahnbo said:


> They definitely generate power. How else could the stepmother's smart phone have gotten power after 15 years? Where else would the power have come from to power up the lady in the farmhouse's computer system because as someone else pointed out the electric companies certainly are not running. They might also neutralize the suppression field in fact they would almost have to by default.


The smart phone is battery powered. Same for the CD player. If the flow of electricity is inhibited, there is no way for the batteries to run down by leakage so they would presumably still maintain their power when the amulet allows them to work. Grace's computer could have been battery powered. There was a lot of tech stuff in the room that we didn't see in detail.

The generator had a battery. Rachel had a battery powered boom box. I don't remember if the drill she was using was cordless or not.

Dave


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

mrdbdigital said:


> The smart phone is battery powered. Same for the CD player. If the flow of electricity is inhibited, there is no way for the batteries to run down by leakage so they would presumably still maintain their power when the amulet allows them to work. Grace's computer could have been battery powered. There was a lot of tech stuff in the room that we didn't see in detail.
> 
> The generator had a battery. Rachel had a battery powered boom box. I don't remember if the drill she was using was cordless or not.
> 
> Dave


15 years later? Those are some good batteries. Even assuming the power wouldn't leak out they would just go bad. Speaking of suppression fields, how is anyone even still alive? Do our bodies not generate electricity? I know the heart muscle requires electrical impulses to beat. Electrical signals of our neurons? None of that should work.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

rahnbo said:


> 15 years later? Those are some good batteries. Even assuming the power wouldn't leak out they would just go bad. Speaking of suppression fields, how is anyone even still alive? Do our bodies not generate electricity? I know the heart muscle requires electrical impulses to beat. Electrical signals of our neurons? None of that should work.


The idea is that if electrons can't flow in batteries, then the batteries are placed in some sort of stasis that prevents draining. You can't have chemical change without the flow of electrons. If I remember correctly, the smart phone showed 15% charge remaining in the battery when it powered up.

The other point you raise about the human body is another of the "great mysteries" not yet revealed in the show. It was discussed several show threads back. Maybe there is some sort of subtle difference between tech generated electricity and biology generated electricity?

Dave


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Bierboy said:


> Welcome to TCF....


I was actually talking about the crazy talk by the characters on the show, not the crazy talk by the characters here...


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

mrdbdigital said:


> That doesn't fit in with what we have witnessed. No electricity works outside the range of the amulet, so the lighthouse light should not have worked even with the generator running.


If that is the case, then explain how it was possible for people with amulet-powered computers to send messages to each other in the earliest episodes.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

That Don Guy said:


> If that is the case, then explain how it was possible for people with amulet-powered computers to send messages to each other in the earliest episodes.


Maybe radio still works and it's wireless communication. Radio signals could still possibly work, as long as the equipment at each end was powered.

That's another of the "great mysteries" that hasn't been explained.

Dave


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

mrdbdigital said:


> That's what they intended, but Ben clearly stated that that aspect of the project didn't work, it was a failure, and what they did develop was a way to inhibit electricity. It was the inhibit technology that Randall and the D.O.D. were interested in once he found out.


Presumably there months/years between when the DOD came knocking and they had their functional weaponized devices. I don't think we can assume too much from the facts at hand when they did the demo for the guy.

Z


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I was actually talking about the crazy talk by the characters on the show, not the crazy talk by the characters here...


I just assumed.....


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Bierboy said:


> I just assumed.....


Sometimes it can be difficult to sort out all the crazy talk that's going on...


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Sometimes it can be difficult to sort out all the crazy talk that's going on...


LOL there is something crazy about all the laws of physics being defied on a TV show then people debating it here? Say it ain't so!


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

morac said:


> An amplifier is anything that amplifies power. It doesn't have to be an audio signal. Amplifying the output of the pendent to increase it's range actually makes sense. Well as much sense as anything else on this show.


The point I was trying to make is that the amplifier uses power to amplify the signal it was being fed. When there is no power other than the "signal" itself, how do you amplify? The amulet is producing power, and is the only source of power around. How can it amplify itself?


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

wprager said:


> The point I was trying to make is that the amplifier uses power to amplify the signal it was being fed. When there is no power other than the "signal" itself, how do you amplify? The amulet is producing power, and is the only source of power around. How can it amplify itself?


...um, because it's a source of power AND an amplifier? I'm just sayin'....


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

wprager said:


> The amulet is producing power, and is the only source of power around. How can it amplify itself?


Is it producing it's own power, or just allowing electricity to work in side it's bubble? The iPhone and Walkman had batteries.. The light house, I'm assuming, had a battery backup. So technically the amulet could have just canceled out whatever was blocking them from working. If the mom was a huge Nikolas Tesla fan then maybe I could be on board with the idea it made it's own power. If she's an Thomas Edison fan then no.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

robojerk said:


> Is it producing it's own power, or just allowing electricity to work in side it's bubble? The iPhone and Walkman had batteries.. The light house, I'm assuming, had a battery backup. So technically the amulet could have just canceled out whatever was blocking them from working. If the mom was a huge Nikolas Tesla fan then maybe I could be on board with the idea it made it's own power. If she's an Thomas Edison fan then no.


Finally, someone on my side! 

Dave


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

wprager said:


> The point I was trying to make is that the amplifier uses power to amplify the signal it was being fed. When there is no power other than the "signal" itself, how do you amplify? The amulet is producing power, and is the only source of power around. How can it amplify itself?


Not ALL amplifiers use power to amplify. Those solar lights made with a water bottle are amplifying light using water and a tin can on a string amplifies sound waves by transmitting them through a solid instead of through air.

Now I'll grant that the idea of an ELECTRICAL amplifier that does not draw additional power seems unlikely but I don't think it's the stupidest part of the whole blackout phenomenon.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Polcamilla said:


> Those solar lights made with a water bottle are amplifying light using water and a tin can on a string amplifies sound waves by transmitting them through a solid instead of through air.


I don't know what solar lights you are talking about, but a tin can on a string definitely does NOT amplify sound waves (or anything else). Actually, it is an attenuator, since the conversion and transmission processes are lossy.


----------



## GAViewer (Oct 18, 2007)

Polcamilla said:


> Not ALL amplifiers use power to amplify. Those solar lights made with a water bottle are amplifying light using water and a tin can on a string amplifies sound waves by transmitting them through a solid instead of through air.


Not exactly, the "lights" made with water bottle just spread the same amount of light out. When a hole is made in the roof, the sunlight would make one very bright spot. By putting a full water bottle's neck in the hole, the light spreads out, so it is a dimmer level of light spread over a larger area. The tin cans and string work on the opposite principle, if someone just talks into the air it spreads out over a larger area. So there is a distance where it can't be heard. The tin can and string concentrate a large part of the sound energy on the string and so it can go further than directly in the air. However the longer the string the less sound that gets to the other end. So there is a point where it can't be heard that way either.

But in both cases there is no amplification of the energy, just changes in the way it is applied.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That's one of the reasons I'm hoping against hope that everything she said was a lie.


We don't know exactly what Rachel told Monroe, but if she didn't want him to know that something was actively suppressing electricity, but instead think that whatever it was was a one-time event that permanently altered things, then explaining the pendants as power generators is the only thing that would fit her story. So if she was lying, that could be why she did.

On the other hand, a generator is nothing more than something that converts energy from one form to another. So if The Event (not to be confused with The Event's Event ) caused electric power to be converted from a usable form of energy to an unusable one, then it's possible that these pendants run off of the unusable energy and use that to produce the usable form. So in that case, they could be considered generators.

Perhaps that was the flaw with the original experiment. They were trying to find a way to get either free energy and/or wireless electricity, but it was only available in an alternate form that could only be created by disabling all regular usage.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

The big issue is that amulet actually STARTED the generator in the lighthouse.....that's crazy


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

pmyers said:


> The big issue is that amulet actually STARTED the generator in the lighthouse.....that's crazy


I never even thought twice about that, my logic was that the generator was turned on to "start mode" and since electricity wasn't able to flow, the starter never turned, when the amulet went "live" and electricity around it started flowing again, the starter started the generator, and TADAH the light shined.

At least that's my take away from the whole deal, granted I'm assuming a few facts not in evidence, but with that as my baseline I'm ok with the show.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

I was just thinking that this ep was an expensive, hour long ad for iTunes.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

This series is slightly disappointing to me. Lets see, every episode, get captured then escape. The characters are good except Charlie. How about using the bow and arrow instead of just carrying it? And does she ever change clothes? Does she ever wash or shower? ;-) She needs to be much more bad-ass with the bow.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

dianebrat said:


> I never even thought twice about that, my logic was that the generator was turned on to "start mode" and since electricity wasn't able to flow, the starter never turned, when the amulet went "live" and electricity around it started flowing again, the starter started the generator, and TADAH the light shined.
> 
> At least that's my take away from the whole deal, granted I'm assuming a few facts not in evidence, but with that as my baseline I'm ok with the show.


but don't generators either need to be pull started or "turned over" to get to run. I understand the turnin on an ipad or other device but an engine seems different to me, one that requires a manual step.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

BitbyBlit said:


> On the other hand, a generator is nothing more than something that converts energy from one form to another. So if The Event (not to be confused with The Event's Event ) caused electric power to be converted from a usable form of energy to an unusable one, then it's possible that these pendants run off of the unusable energy and use that to produce the usable form. So in that case, they could be considered generators.


So where is this "unusable energy" coming from? That brings back the issue that the power plants are not running after 15 years, so what would be supplying this "unusable energy" for the amulets to convert their energy from?

Dave


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

pmyers said:


> The big issue is that amulet actually STARTED the generator in the lighthouse.....that's crazy


Yeah, that wouldn't have happened that way in the real world. Just like the CD player wouldn't have started by itself, or the iPhone come on by itself. Someone would have to push the power buttons on things like that. Rachel's CD player where she was building the "amplifier" that started by itself when she was showing the range of the amulet. CD players don't work that way.

Dave


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

dianebrat said:


> I never even thought twice about that, my logic was that the generator was turned on to "start mode" and since electricity wasn't able to flow, the starter never turned, when the amulet went "live" and electricity around it started flowing again, the starter started the generator, and TADAH the light shined.


A stand by generator, like the one in a light house is usually configured to auto-start upon power failure, so I can somewhat see how it might automatically start up when the amulet is powering the battery/starter system, but how do you explain how the electricity from the generator got 100 feet up in the air to light the bulb? If electricity is inhibited everywhere except within the 9-10 foot radius of the amulet, how did the generator's current get up that probably 100 foot wire to light the lighthouse bulb? That's a direct violation of the show's own explanation of how things work with the amulet.

And, like I mentioned in a previous post, if the amulet can start a big generator, why can't it run a car engine, as Rachel said it couldn't. Maybe it can and she's was lying when she told Monroe that to give her a justification to build her "amplifier"?

Dave


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

DouglasPHill said:


> This series is slightly disappointing to me. Lets see, every episode, get captured then escape. The characters are good except Charlie. How about using the bow and arrow instead of just carrying it? And does she ever change clothes? Does she ever wash or shower? ;-) She needs to be much more bad-ass with the bow.


How does a girl who grew up in a rural setting in an very simple society, who probably ran around bare footed a lot of the time growing up, walk perfectly in a pair of really spiked high heels like she did a few episodes back? I doubt she had much need for such a skill in her activities at home. 

Dave


----------



## RickStrobel (Jan 19, 2000)

So one person is standing on a mine. You've disarmed it to the best of your knowledge. Before said person steps off mine and runs, shouldn't everyone else get way-the-hell away? 



Polcamilla said:


> Yeah....I love how the turncoat agent only hit his revolutionary companions and not the main characters (except sorta almost Charlie).


Or why did he even have to shoot up anybody. Wouldn't it have been easier to have some excuse about "you all stay here, Miles and I are going to scout this area" then lock them in "accidentally".


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> I definitely didn't see the heart stab coming and neither did the other scientist. I did wonder how he knew it was a bomb just by looking at it. I guess she didn't hide the dynamite fuse well enough.


I don't understand why the other scientist didn't agree that it was an amplifier instead of ratting her out. I get that he hates her but surely he hates Monroe more. It would be in his best interest for her to build her bomb and kill Monroe. Then he and his kid can leave, too.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

BeanMeScot said:


> I don't understand why the other scientist didn't agree that it was an amplifier instead of ratting her out. I get that he hates her but surely he hates Monroe more. It would be in his best interest for her to build her bomb and kill Monroe. Then he and his kid can leave, too.


My guess would be that he has been "broken" and "brainwashed" and is now loyal to Monroe. And, Monroe still has his daughter in captivity.

Dave


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I think Monroe already had a pretty good idea that it wasn't really an amplifier and had communicated that to Jaffe. So if Jaffe then went in there and tried to lie to Monroe, he and his daughter would be in an even worse situation.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

So...not to stir anything up, but it suddenly occurred to me that there's kinda a big gap in Revolution.

What do they eat?

They show the main Scoobies trekking through the landscape with scant supplies and occasionally perched scenically around a cute campfire. In the first couple episodes they showed some nice pioneer-like agriculture in the small communities and farmers markets in the major cities. Mosty, though, the Scoobies have been hiking past ruins.

Pre-industrial revolution societies require a LOT of work just for food production. We won't even go into how Monroe is feeding his militia without the modern food transportation network (and refrigeration!!). But the main little band of adventurers seem to be putting no work whatsoever into feeding themselves and yet they don't seem to be hungry enough for it to interfere with their Epic Quest.

I know Lost made a point of showing that food on the Island was readily available (and after the first season, PROCESSED food was readily available). But here it is yet another thing that has gotten handwaved away in favor of this boring plot.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Polcamilla said:


> So...not to stir anything up, but it suddenly occurred to me that there's kinda a big gap in Revolution.
> 
> What do they eat?
> 
> ...


I don't know what they're eating, but now that you mention it, I haven't noticed any squirrels running around. Coincidence?


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Polcamilla said:


> So...not to stir anything up, but it suddenly occurred to me that there's kinda a big gap in Revolution.
> 
> What do they eat?


This reminds me that Gregg Easterbrook of ESPN.com complained about this and other aspects of "Revolution" in his column last week, in a section that was headlined "Electricty May Fail, But Lip Gloss Is Forever." It's a bit too long to cut and paste here -- this should be a link directly to that portion -- the rest of the column is more or less about football, so you can safely ignore it.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

If there was a 24 hour Revolution channel, then I'd be upset they are not addressing food (and a ton of other issues).


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

pmyers said:


> If there was a 24 hour Revolution channel, then I'd be upset they are not addressing food (and a ton of other issues).


I have no problem with them skipping over the other banal aspects of life (like sleep and toileting) but their premise is a large enough of a disruption to the usual supply chain that it is something that will fairly quickly become critical enough to be a major plot point. Wars have been won or lost simply due to the availability of food


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

trainman said:


> This reminds me that Gregg Easterbrook of ESPN.com complained about this and other aspects of "Revolution" in his column last week, in a section that was headlined "Electricty May Fail, But Lip Gloss Is Forever." It's a bit too long to cut and paste here -- this should be a link directly to that portion -- the rest of the column is more or less about football, so you can safely ignore it.


Thank you! Yes, that article articulates it well!

I have only two complaints:

One---he brings up excellent points I hadn't considered (like his discussion of the horrible militia tactics).

Two---weirdly enough, I am fairly confident I could produce lip gloss form scratch without any need for electrical power.


----------

