Moreno

I'm trying to understand what the perspectives electrogasdynamic generators could have.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:R6u9G8jzBIYJ:www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/38/114/38114997.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3723777.html

https://www.geographynotes.com/energy-management-2/generators/electro-gas-dynamic-generator-with-diagram-energy-management/4192

And have questions to those who understand the principles of their work quite well:

1) What are their efficiency, power density and electric current density limitations? What could be done to improve these parameters? 

2) What kind of a charge balance between negative and positive charge quantity is there typically? Is there the same amount of positive and negative ions or there could be a large disbalance? If negative ions created by corona discharge move from emitter to collector, then in what direction positive ions do move? Could EGD generator work efficiently if only a lot of negative ions form in the duct, but no positive ions there? In other words if there exist a large charge disbalance in a working fluid?

I think, ideally some other ways to increase bandwidth should be used other than increasing working frequency. For example vortex radio waves promise almost unlimited bandwidth. https://www.extremetech.com/computing/190408-towards-infinite-capacity-wireless-networks-with-twisted-vortex-radio-waves

Desirably some not too high frequency should be used like 100 MHz. 

On 6/9/2019 at 7:29 PM, fiveworlds said:

I seriously doubt they would release 5G if it was dangerous. There has been people living off the wifi is dangerous bandwagon for years. Buy product x to protect you from wifi. If you are worried about it just use ethernet.

We use many things which are harmful and potentially dangerous.

Majority of modern agricultural plants have photosynthesis efficiency lower than 0.5%. It is claimed that sugar cane has ph. efficiency 8%, while record claimed efficiency in nature may approach 20-30% (in some  microalgae). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency                                    

The vast majority of modern plants cannot extract carbon from soil or organic fertilizers (correct me if I'm wrong). But only from air, where is a meager amount of CO2.

Majority cannot fix nitrogen from air.

None are capable to active breathing like animals, but only to passive sorption, what should be a thousands of times less efficient.

I wish to know, how much it would be possible to increase agriculture productivity and how it would transform agriculture in general if we try to use genetic engineering to correct all the above mentioned disadvantages and if it possible to achieve at all? Could GE be used to modify all the plants to increase their photosynthetic efficiency many times, to allow them extract carbon from soil and fertilizers, fix nitrogen from air and have active breathing like an animals? Also, could we create plants which are capable to replace meat completely, which contain all the proteins and elements typical to a healthy meat?

On 5/6/2020 at 4:44 PM, CharonY said:

Also the ideas make no sense to me. Easing the access to higher education is fine, but paying the equivalent of a salary does not amke sense to me (outside of graduate studies where folks actually work full-time). What is the benefit of studying in Uni for as long as possible? How does it benefit the student, the Uni and the society at large?

Intelligent people will start to produce children earlier in their life and perhaps larger amount of them without fear of unemployment and student debts. Society will benefit from both increased number of educated people and their children. Bursary suppose to constitute 80-90% of average beginner specialist salary in the field, so people would not loose interest to search job rather than continue their study for PhD or go in another university. Who is going to pay for it? Taxpayers, of course. But hopefully, not the poorest of them.

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

The development of AI is likely to eliminate a large scale need for those with above above average IQs but that fall short of genius level.

I wouldn't rely on it. For now AI still remains a science fiction. Do you think people will create AI capable to develop science and culture in this century? Robots in their current image aren't creative. I have difficulty to imagine an autonomous and self-learning robot which would be able to perform better than even qualified automotive technician or chef cook. Even these type of professions require ability to learn quickly and have some very basic creative abilities which go beyond strict and limited programming. Remember Gaston Plante who use petticoat of his wife to create the fist lead-acid battery in the world. I think philosophically there could be an open question whether it is principally possible to create an advanced intelligence which would completely miss consciousness and self-consciousness. For now there is no scientific phenomenon is known when some intelligent and hard-working human would completely miss consciousness as a result of some genetic mutation or brain trauma, for example. If it would be possible, then the easiest way to create intelligent robots/AI would be just take human embrio and use some genetic manipulation to convert it into a biorobot with no feelings, emotions, instincts and ambitions as well as consciousness. But I have doubts it is principally possible.

The problem is, I think, that well educated people across the entire World do not typically have a lot of children. Partially it could be attributed to economic issues. They need to study too long and then search for a job and not always find it, then sit at the computer 8-12 hr. a day, etc. There was a lot of discussion in different countries in the recent years about Basic Guarantied Income. While I don't see any sense in Basic Income for everyone, I think that introduction of bursaries for well performing students, which would almost rival salaries of a beginner specialist in the field of study may have sense. And of course higher education could be free of cost (like in some EU countries) and anyone has to be accepted. In this case people will go to study in university without debt burdens or fear of unemployment, just like go to job, will struggle to perform as better as possible and if they will not be able to find job after successful graduation they may go to study in another university with even higher bursaries (bonus for second university degree). In this case a normal person may study all his life and receive good money for this without fear of unemployment of debt burdens. Also, some serious employment programs after graduation and large bonuses for each newborn child wouldn't be spare.

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think I just checked to see if you were from Papua New Guinea...

Nope.

Quote

People are getting dumber. That's not a judgment; it's a global fact. In a host of leading nations, IQ scores have started to decline.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/iq-rates-are-dropping-many-developed-countries-doesn-t-bode-ncna1008576

As a solution to this problem I can envision accepting as much as possible immigrants from the South of Tropic of Cancer and especially Papuans who are (it is well known) are very talented. What do you think? 

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I posted the question as you seem to make the assertion that Ukrainians should have a similar success rate in claims as Syrians. You kind of ignored that more immigrate to the EU via other means that may not open to Syrians though. 

I don't know any ways for Ukrainians make legal immigration in EU countries easily. With exception of marriage if you call this way an "easy" one. Depends for whom. EU doesn't have any programs for Ukrainians. 

Now, I do not know. I don't live in either. Why situation in Ukraine suppose to be not better than in Syria to accept refugees from there? Is Syria a litmus test? Both countries are difficult to compare. Ukraine is much colder. Both are poor.

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

So you think that Ukraine is in a similar shape as Ukraine at that point? 

I didn't understand these question.

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

So you are essentially saying that Germany and the rest of the EU should welcome more asylum applications?

Not necessarily. I just pointed out to a strange selectivity of the refugees. I've read a few more stories about European police who treated refugees from Eastern Europe harshly while in the same time emphasized their politeness to refugees from Africa.

38 minutes ago, CharonY said:

While it was not undisputed a number of countries considered Ukraine as a safe country

Impoverished country with millions (!) of refugees, with many thousands of people who lost their houses, jobs and anything they had is a "safe" country? Wake up, there is no free lunch in Ukraine for refugees and neither free comfortable houses, jobs, or money. And closest distance from Ukraine to Germany is just 850 km. Poland refused to accept a lot of refugees from Ukraine and neither provide those few they've accepted with any comfortable means of living. 

Quote

significant migration from the Ukraine to EU member states, especially Poland (under a work visa).

Majority of these migrants work 12 hours a day without weekends on heaviest and dirtiest works and earn much less than Poles. Working visa doesn't mean permanent residence and their rights are no more than rights of a temporary workers in Japan or Saudi Ar-a.

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

How about it might be pragmatism and humanitarianism rising above ideology?

I don't know. For a some strange reasons this humanitarianism do not apply to people with predominantly European origins. For example 95%-99% of people from Ukraine who were running from war in their country were rejected entry to Germany. 

https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4463192

16 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Did she not open the German borders to hundreds of thousands?

Do you know the real reasons of her actions? Maybe there is something behind the scene and this is some dirty political games? Maybe she and some other country leaders are pressed by someone unknown to us?

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

That article is nine years old and her actions later clearly contradict that stance.

How exactly?

Quote

Angela Merkel: German multiculturalism has 'utterly failed'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed

58 minutes ago, Strange said:

What sources?

For example: Croatian researcher Vinko Buj. 1981 "Average IQ scores of various European nations". https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Average-IQ-values-in-various-European-countries-Buj/5872cc6c0570a4dab3b026e161f9d6410dc7c1f2

Average IQ values in various European countries

Richard Lynn. 2006 "IQ and the wealth of nations".

http://www.amerika.org/politics/iq-and-the-wealth-of-nations/

Note an average IQ for Hamburg 109 in 1981 and average 102 for entire Germany in 2006. And newer estimates at 98 in 2020!

I don't insist it does have any relation to race and racism. I would be satisfied if we talk in the terms of just different civilizations, such as agrarian, Industrial and postindustrial. 

Just now, Strange said:

Racist quotes racist for support. What a surprise.

I do not claim I have proves that their claims are true. How do you know they are racist? I found their site accidentally and don't know they support some racist views. It seems dedicated to science mostly. But I meat this info in various sources that average German IQ have declined from 102 to 99-98 scores. Do you believe that all this IQ tests in different countries are conducted by racists only and they falsify the result to support their racist agenda?

Quote

German IQ Free Fall: 5 Years To Stability Threshold Germans On The Run And The Reasons

https://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/german_iq_free_fall_5_years_to_stability_threshold_germans_on_the_run_and_the_reasons-180605

41 minutes ago, Strange said:

So starting to promote population growth now seems just a little premature.

Developed countries need to change their model in order to increase domestic fertility rates and provide extensive help to developing countries to stabilize their population and help them combat extensive fertility rates which hinder their development and cause crushing impact on ecology. Otherwise soon there will be no rainforests anymore. And stop the brain drain.

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

And of course the weird assumption that if fewer natives are around that somehow there will be a cultural/scientific decline, without of a shred of evidence, of course.

Quote

IQ scores have been steadily falling for the past few decades

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/health/falling-iq-scores-study-intl/index.html

There are IQ tests in different countries regularly. 25 years ago there were claims that average German IQ scores on this tests were 102 points, while Russian 96 points. Now they reduced average German to 99 point, while increased average Russian to 97 points. Which is higher than real average USA somewhere at 94-96 points.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/average-iq-by-country/

Quote

 

CharonY said:

It is interesting that OP also does not consider the increasing development of countries which coincides with a reduction of birth rates.

 

Of course I do. And it makes me to think that immigration cannot be regarded as an indefinite solution. Ultimately all the World population will start to decline indefinitely and some other solution will be needed to encourage stability. So, maybe it's better to start these "other solutions" right now in post-industrial countries than organize brain drain from developing countries hindering their development?

34 minutes ago, MigL said:

This is purely anecdotal, but I will present it anyway...

During the 1950s ( after the war ) most Italian small towns and villages south of Rome  were 'agrarian'. Very few businesses and even less industry ( mostly in larger cities ) and any paying job was extremely difficult to come by.
My dad emigrated to Argentina for work in the early 50s, and returned to Italy in '55.
He married my mom in '57 and I was born a few years later. He went to work in Switzerland for several years, and I only saw him during summer vacation and Christmas time. Finally, we came to Canada in '68, so the whole family could be together.
My dad worked two jobs, and my mother also worked, but we purchased a home ( where I still live ), and both my brother and I were able to attend University ( we both studied physics ).

I consider myself to be a productive member of society, even though I come from what you've labelled an 'agrarian' background.
Where people come from doesn't matter; what matters is what they make of themselves.

So, would you agree on unlimited immigration to Canada from any country? There is no limit to a number of immigrants Canada can accept? There should be no any selection? I was talking about entire civilizations rather than city/countryside differences. South Italy still produces not too much from what I know, but still whole Italy is a relatively successful post-industrial country, which was an industrial powerhorse in the past.

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is probably, just about sustainable. Unlimited growth would not be. 

So, it will stabilize at some level and freeze at that point forever? And modern post-industrial nations with their deeply negative population rates will be forgotten like a nightmare?

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't think there is any such thing.

So, you think population on Earth will grow indefinitely? And those agrarian countries which have high fertility rates now will supply immigrants forever? Also, if modern post-industrial countries suppose to import large quantities of immigrants from agrarian/industrial countries, then don't you afraid that later countries will constantly experience large brain drain and it will constantly interrupt their development? Sorry, I forgot there is a scientific evidence that all the Papuans are extremely talented, so perhaps it will not.

36 minutes ago, Strange said:

The big problem is over population. So the ideal is to reduce fertility rates (which you do mainly by improving education, particularly for women).

Then what is the optimal population quantity on Earth should be? And what to do if population will start to go below that level somewhere in the future?