foodchain

Sometimes I really, really, just want to seriously hurt some people to the point of non existence.

Could you model a house as to generate its own electricity via algae biodiesel and solar power? I thought if you could make an efficient system that could produce up to 500 gallons a month you could power not only a vehicle but a majority of home electricity use for a small group of people, possibly even just a dyad. I would think you could work this in with a couple of pet animals, possibly chickens or what not for example. You could process it along with algal specie selection so that the algae could also be feed, and the animal manure could be feed along with CO2 scrubbed from a generator, or possibly just piped in indirectly. I know you cant make modification to vehicles in any fashion you would like, but a system to scrub carbon from diesel combustion for a 24 hour period could also be nice for a CO2 source. I was thinking if you could model some system like that you could then produce one that works within American economic system. I think the key would just be making the system user friendly and automated to some extent. I also think it would help if the system could be diversified to be able to use all waste materials possibly from any given kind of a home with related products to facilitate such. If a generator only had to be fueled two times a day it would also be much more user friendly. That along with a constant solar system should be able to take up a bulk of electricity used by a home. Plus the house could still be on the grid, which could possibly mean earnings for a house. Overall it would be a massive retooling of American infrastructure, but electricity generation is a huge source of CO2 production itself from hydrocarbons primarily.

So would it be an issue of momentum too? Like if I poured from a foot of distance with a volume that would be large environmentally, compared to almost at the surface with a very small flow at the center. I just wonder if the rapid motion of the boiling water would keep the cooler water segregated for a bit of time or if the boiling motion itself would make it easier for the cooler water to move around. Would there be a density difference between the two?

If you have a small pot of boiling water and you add some cold water to it does the motion of the boiling water keep the cooler water at a boundary for a bit of time, or does the cool water instantly sink in and mingle with all of the water?

How would any process protect against damage caused by all of that water freezing?

Why are alternate formalisms to physical phenomena altogether bad? For instance I don't know how to model energy, or energetic interactions. Could you use just a graph really. In terms of chemistry this is more interesting though. Why cant you try some alternate system to describe an atom, or polyatomic systems? Giving conservation laws couldn't I just try to model these interactions as noise on a number line. I mean if its regular or periodic in any way I would think this could yield patterns.

Just that if the bulk introduction of various traits will impact ecology in ways. If a population of insects is no longer being able to obtain X amount of crop, what do they do? Do they just starve to death, do other phenotypes do better, I mean what happens. Then you have the traits themselves, open up to a multitude of ways to get different. How giving biological systems could a trait be looked at as under control really? All of those crops, could you lock all of that out of horizontal gene transfer, and I think that form of heredity is more common in plants also.

What if the process that generated life, or the environment, required over a hundred years to lead to life? For it to be disproved would require science I imagine. All we have right now is hypothetical stuff on the origin of life, or nothing proven fully. Back to the hundred years in a specific environment, we really cant set up such an experiment yet. To be honest going from my readings correctly modeling the behavior of chlorine in the atmosphere is considered a very difficult task.

Is there a percentage estimate for safety in which a biotech product, such as a crop, is automatically stopped from going into application? For instance with single nucleotide polymorphisms and biotech crops. Is there a timeline in which the natural occurrence of such would render controls over such a crop impossible to maintain? What about any other variable, such as what do insect populations do if they can no longer feed on a percentage of the crop? I mean crops that used far less water and were far less intensive for pesticides and fertilizers would be great, but are there sure standards to make sure biotech crops themselves do not become massive problems. More if you consider resource issues, how many people need to eat, population growth, and other factors like global warming. Biotech may be one of the only options in all reality to support human life.

If you could get the roots to be able to attach to a variety of surfaces that would also be nice. I would think some kind of film or membranous material would also be useful there. If it could attack to rock, or soil, or what not. Heck you could probably have a ball of molten garbage as a soil then. Think if it could react or recognize certain materials, it could behave in a way to refine it to other materials. You could have all kinds of behavior like that from a perspective of metabolism. Then you could have crops that produced hydrogen in a form usable for large scale electricity production, along with something producing water, it probably would not be so far fetched to have it produce breathable environments. You could simply place them on a planet and come back for resources produced.

Could you engineer plants to become solar panels? Maybe it could produce film concentrated with some kind of photosynthetic mechanism. I would think you could then use the energy to produce maybe a yield of something else, perhaps usable hydrogen or what not. I would think that you could make the leaves to be transparent with some kind of a skeleton that could be connected in the form of a leaf with a film of photosynthetic organisms. Then the energy could be chained into some reactions in which hydrogen would get feed into some kind of budding organ that contains it in an accessible form. I don't know but could you model carbon nanotube structures into DNA expression, this could possibly form the skeleton in which the film attaches, perhaps this could be worked into come kind of a cellular differentiation process. The inside of the tubes could be filled with some kind of a substance possibly to aid in transferring energy. Maybe the roots could be used to produce various compounds for all kinds of chemicals in the soil, and expression of such could match how much is captured via use of the protein or enzyme in the cell. I think a lot of such chemical mechanisms exist in bacteria already for instance. You could probably even work in some kind of process that interacts to make water. Such plants I think could serve to be a resource that could be made large enough to for power plant use.

What does greenpeace holding political power mean to you? There is also the green party, and that also has variation in terms of what can suck in votes. Also the Democrats in America and various other political parties around the globe make various environmental issues part of their plateforms to some extent. Also greenpeace is not the only environmental agency really.

Anaerobic metabolism is not as limited as you think and evolution of sea vent communities prove life is not dependent on the sun also. I dont think any particular rules exist or molecular laws exist for biological structure yet, or at least nothing absolute and or determined as to how you place the role of oxygen, you could say the same for carbon or even Iron if you wanted.

A major shift in European governance took place along with American influence. The road there is not one way I guess is all. TO my topic its more or less that all major shifts are heated, or polarized. Be it in the U.S with any issue, such as civil rights for example. I furthermore think this can be found going over recorded history. Maybe human nature has this wired into it, and that one of our greater success is finding a way for humans to change in a more civilized manner. Not to say no one ever tried to do such before, or that thinking was somehow absolutely novel in regards to the constitution, just that its workings were radical in how they applied to people at that point in history. That this radical nature was simply finding a way for resolve conflicts within a society by virtue that conflict itself is guaranteed within people. Such change itself is packed with conflict, and in the end all of it can be framed as people that argued to change. So is that very act applied to some certain criteria like above always to be automatically met with resistance for more primal reasons, like a human nature issue.

Yet people in warm climates can also get colds.