Jump to content

Ken Fabian

Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Ken Fabian

  1. This is a very good question - it is a real and serious concern that I (and I suppose, much better intellects than mine) have struggled to see solutions to. It may be that we (in "free democracies") never really have had independent courts or free and fair elections - but even the Highest judges and courts maintaining appearances of acting without fear or favour and the power of overwhelming majorities to vote out the appallingly bad (without resort to violent revolution) does moderate the very worst. It has to be very bad for revolution to look like a good thing - with far more likelihood of making things worse, including by overturning independence of courts; people who gain power by force rarely allow it to be taken away by courts. Sensei, I am not a fan of direct democracy, mostly due to your reason 2. I don't think mobs are intelligent and informed enough to do the jobs that good governance requires; the more people you put together the more simplistic the messaging gets - and, in practice, becomes more about pressing people's buttons to get reactions and less about engaging them with information and reason. I think good governance does require expertise - simply doing what people (unthinkingly) think they want, when what they want is highly dependent on the quality of messaging they are exposed to is not a good model. Looks to me like being deliberately baited with issues and examples that get reactions, not thoughtfulness are the rule in political messaging rather than the exception. Some kinds of requirements for Policymaking to engage more closely with Independent Expertise and limit power to simply ignore it comes to mind - our (sort of) independent institutions of science and learning are, like (sort of) independent courts of law are, I think, profoundly important institutions. I do think journalism and Mainstream News Media - that other important institutional element at work in democratic societies - are a pivot point with potential for making this problem of powerful incumbents shaping the rules better or worse. I'm not convinced the US model where freedom of "the press" is the freedom of press owners to pursue partisan political agendas, with little requirement for accuracy or truth, is a good one. (Who was it that predicted media organisations would one day replace political parties? It looks like some of these already ARE powerful incumbents that seek to reinforce their own power and privilege). Mostly the very business model media is built on - paid messaging intended to get people to buy stuff (and believe stuff and make voting choices) they otherwise wouldn't - looks too amoral to be a good foundation for democracy to rely on. But are elected political leaders even capable of regulating organisations with the power to turn elections? I'm doubtful. Even so I think that the regulating of media offers the greatest potential for putting roadblocks in the way of institutional corruption - and I think the greatest challenges to good governance are various forms of institutional corruption. Preventing corruption is more intrinsically important in my view than where governments and leaders and political parties and policies sit on any Left vs Right spectrum; the worst excesses of Capitalism as well as Socialism are, I think, more the consequences of corruption than ideology.
  2. Commerce and industry does not want to be held responsible for the climate consequences of the emissions of their activities. Politicians rarely manage to remain "leading" ones if they have policies that Commerce and Industry do not want. If businesses are deemed to bear climate responsibility - we all bear some responsibility but some are a lot more responsible than others - then companies will face a burden of costs to prevent climate harms. I think their response is a variant of the way a company that learns it's products are harming consumers respond... deny all liability and vigorously oppose any actions to make them liable. The greater the responsibility and potential liability the harder they tend to fight it. Business leaders have a well developed toolkit for influencing the attitudes of public and politicians - PR, Advertising, Strategic Donations, Tactical Lawfare, Tankthink. I suspect the single most effective response for responsibility avoidance has been the stoking of economic alarmist fear of strong emissions reductions policy - it flows upwards to politicians as concerns from business leaders and associations as fear for reduced economic growth or economic damage and downward to employees and public as fears for employment security and remuneration. Given some of the loudest voices in this have been Environmentalists it became possible to make it appear like it was Extreme Environmentalism driving the whole issue - framing the debate as about stopping Extremists who seek to impose unwanted regulations on business rather than about responding to the problem, as presented by the top science agencies and reports, made it possible to lead people into the well worn ruts of Left vs Right, Capitalist vs Socialist, Doers vs Complainers - a debate where partisan political affiliation has the most impact and science based facts and reason have the least.
  3. I just read Paolo Bacigalupi's "Shipbreaker" trilogy - "Shipbreaker", "The Drowned Cities", "Tool of War". I am not that adventurous in my reading - mostly SF but not a lot of new or unknown authors - but even so I haven't read much SF that really treats climate change with any seriousness; the last near future SF I read was Vernor Vinge "Rainbows End" but, as impressive as it was, global warming may as well not exist for the lack of mention of it. Other global problems, sure, but, for whatever reason, not climate change. Bacigalupi does put the reader right into the middle of the worst of global warming consequences and - I expect deliberately - makes societal breakdown within the USA a major feature. A recent history of (failed) Chinese peacekeeping missions is probably also intended to get up American Exceptionalist noses. He has militias fighting over the remains of "drowned cities" including Washington (took me a bit to realise it was Washington), descended to conscripting slave labor to strip the remains for salvage, all to buy guns and bullets to keep their never ending wars, to rid the place of "traitors" (ie everyone else), going. It doesn't chronicle the breakdown, though the politics of treating legitimate opponents as traitors gets a mention. But these are as much cautionary tales about bio-engineering as global warming - and I didn't find that as compelling or believable. Though that could be my lack of imagination for how far genetic engineering can go... and go wrong. Even so, I found them compelling and very readable. It tends to emphasise a conclusion I had already made - that our social institutions and practices like functional governments within democracy and the independent rule of law - are our most essential and valuable assets.
  4. This kind of overhyped rhetoric irritates me; reading the oilprice.com article you would think it is simple - just get there first! But nothing about it is simple; most people reading it probably imagine there will be gold nuggets, like old time prospectors found on Earth only much bigger and more common. Psyche 16 is mostly nickel-iron and the gold is well mixed at low concentrations within it - but there was not a mention of that little complication, or any of the other serious impediments - costly impediments - that need to be overcome. Keeping it simple is certainly my thinking. So if you got a delivery to Earth orbit of raw Ni-Fe (though not sure it would be good to do this anywhere near Earth) you could do some basic kinds of manufacturing, like (centrifugal) casting and hot forging - with suitable equipment sent up from Earth. As soon as you start on refining and extracting those precious metals it stops being simple process and you need other materials in those processes that each have to be refined and manufactured - and waste streams managed; the notion that you can just jettison anything you don't want looks dubious to me. And I still think that you can't operate a separate space economy - if there's nothing being sold back to Earth you have no way to pay for the Earth based inputs, which will be pretty much everything except what you can make simply from Ni-Fe.
  5. De-orbit? I did hesitate when using "de-accelerate" but figured my terminology may not be accurate but my meaning should be clear in spite of it. As was pointed out, it is not enough to drop a chunk of metal into the atmosphere at orbital speeds - it has to have lowered relative velocity. Mining Ni-Fe - would it be brittle enough at space-cold temperatures that hammer/explosive fracturing would be a way to break it into manageable pieces? Unless the asteroid is close enough to the sun for solar power then sawing or grinding or gas/plasma cutting can require some kind of onboard (probably nuclear) power source - and much worse energy requirements again to do any refining in situ. I figure aiming for the least possible energy use and least possible equipment requirements to get the least possible production costs. After it is on Earth some refineries may be able to find ways to extract the precious metals economically - I still think more likely to be economical as a sideline to extracting high grade nickel than specifically for the precious metals. (And the higher nickel content meteorites (taenite) are consistently higher in Platinum Group Metals than low nickel content ones (kamacite)).
  6. I think trade in raw nickel-iron would require some space facilities - to repackage and de-accelerate it for delivery - but minimum rather than maximum processing in space is my response to high launch costs, ie the reverse of what you are suggesting. Surely the potential advantages of asteroid materials like Ni-Fe is abundance and potential for moving large quantities of them around at low cost - and the less facilities and processing in space, that require launches from Earth, the better. Moving mass in space is relatively easy but construction and manufacturing is hard - I see greater potential for Ni-Fe, with minimum processing, than any refined and manufactured products, for that reason. In orbit... how much can be done using crude nickel-iron, sliced and diced or forged, cast etc with minimum processing? I do think that if we can't make Ni-Fe mining viable - the easiest and simplest resource to deal with - then asteroid mining for anything else is going to be even more unviable.
  7. Sure, large absolute quantities are expected in Asteroids but these precious metals are well mixed at low concentrations in with nickel and iron. The hypothesised processes involved in asteroid formation don't leave much opportunity for primordial concentrations (if they were ever present) to remain unmixed or for processes that separate and concentrate them, like has occurred on Earth to happen. Not one metallic meteorite with high precious metal content has ever been found - although that depends on how you define 'high'; above 100ppm for Platinum Group Metals have been found - which as placer deposits on Earth (grains and nuggets mixed in silts and gravels) would be considered a fabulous find - but as ores for PGM's (a mix of several elements including Platinum), Nickel-iron leaves much to be desired. It would be a difficult ore to extract them from. Yes, the possibility remains that we find things that are unexpected but it is not looking like we have any easy and cost effective asteroid based sources of precious metals. My own view is that the raw, unprocessed nickel-iron is probably the best resource Asteroids can be counted on to have in abundance - and trade in that needs to be economically viable for Asteroid mining to be successful. I would expect it to be worth (at best) a few thousand US$ per ton for high nickel content nickel-iron (taenite), so mining and moving and delivering it to Earth needs to be cheaper than that.
  8. Ah, sorry, I misread and misunderstood. I'm presuming you mean matched funding for the opposing of a cause - rather than major lobbyists' donations going to opposition Parties as well as governing ones; they already do that. I suppose it would be a bit hypocritical to criticise this for being impractical; my suggested carbon pricing hardly rates as realistic. I do think lobbying is just one of a whole toolkit for influencing government decisions as well as public opinion - PR, Advertising, Lobbying, Strategic Donating, Tactical Lawfare, Post Politics Payoffs and Tankthink all come to mind. Well, we see that in Australia already - emissions reductions funding being funneled to corporate agriculture and mining enterprises, run by climate science deniers and supporters of coal and gas, to (more often than not) do things they were going to do anyway. Whilst genuine and effective emissions reductions activities somehow miss out. Should we have a new law to stop 'soft' corruption? (Buying the lawmakers and the rules rather than 'hard' corruption where the laws are there but they are circumvented). Not sure how we ultimately enshrine ethical behaviors in our decision making - and more significantly - rule making and selection processes for our highest offices of last resort, like courts of law. Certainly democracy and respect for the rule of law put some limits, but these are, themselves, vulnerable to soft corruption. Throwing things to the public to decide democratically - when the expert advice is quite clear but unwelcome and misinformation is widely promulgated - is still capable of delivering outcomes that turn out being against the public's best interests; I suspect modeling the forcings and feedbacks that go into making 'the will of the public' would make global climate modeling look simple. And I do think people in positions of responsibility, trust, power and influence should have greater - not less - requirement to take expert advice on complex matters seriously.
  9. I always thought they were call "instinct". Or instinctual behaviors.
  10. Quite seriously - I would introduce an incrementally rising carbon price on fossil fuels, that apply at the mine-head to the sellers (rather than end users). If you import them then that tax will be already included. It would start modestly but rise inexorably, perhaps at 10-15% per year, so there is time to see it coming and time for investment strategies to change but without enduring 'get out of emissions free' amnesties and exceptions. Dimreepr - not sure what the matched funds for opposition lobbying thing is about - if I could make a law that would be it.
  11. Farid, are you trying to be a topologist? Anyway it is your premise that the circle gets changed into a square - and that means (and therefore proves) the circle undergoes change. It is you that keeps telling us it is changed - should I be apologising for believing you?
  12. Farid - Leaving aside the logical inconsistency in proposing that changing something (B is changed into A) doesn't change it (B is unchanged from A) - perhaps the totality of matter and energy in the universe can be considered unchanged but the arrangements of them definitely does get changed. Even the separateness of material objects gets a bit blurry at smaller scales; sublimation and erosion and chemical changes of surface material will be going on constantly, exchanging substance with the air and water they are immersed in. An object (or drawing) that we would agree is "square" will turn out to have no straight lines or perfect corners at nano-scales - and will be changing in it's fine details over time. Was it ever truly "square"? Depends on how you define "square". What did come to mind - not quite sure it strictly applies - is the old joke about topologists; topologists cannot tell the difference between a donut and the cup their coffee is in. As topology defines them they have the same shape. (As they would - iiuc - consider a circle and square to be the same kind of thing). It seems to me that appropriate definitions definitely do matter - and failing to get them correct leads to mistakes.
  13. I'm not sure that would be the case; yes you can push a big mass and it will keep moving, but you need to push against something to start and stop that big mass. Having gravity and friction are actually very helpful to moving and processing stuff - I think doing useful work in microgravity will be more difficult, not less because of their absence. And of all the processing steps for mining and refining most materials, the moving stuff around part is likely to be the least energy intensive part of the whole exercise. I would expect a lot of energy intensive processing just to make (and recycle) the raw ingredients needed for metal refining. I am presuming energy will be some kind of fusion power - ie fusion that is simple enough that a small colony with limited economic and industrial capabilities can build and operate reliably, entirely with local skills and resources - no small step for getting that I am thinking. Fission is technically easier but fissionable elements are not abundant and will probably be mostly contained at very low concentrations within nickel-iron - and 'minimal amounts of energy' looks unlikely to be sufficient to refine it; energy costs of making energy using fission look like a serious issue in such conditions. I've thought the 'stepping stone' approach is the most reasonable of the various virtually impossible ways we might use to get people to another star - if truly self-sufficient colonies capable of spawning new self-sufficient colonies can be successful using asteroid/comet materials, and each new colony is in the direction of a target star, then potentially, eventually, some distant descendants might get there. But except for the very last of that long line, the stepping stones will only be a step to another stepping stone; the people involved aren't going to that star - and if their lifestyle works they don't need to - so keeping society wide commitment to that far, far distant end goal may prove difficult to sustain for the thousands of generations needed. I suggest the urge to find new territory - a primitive urge - underlies the sense of attraction people have for other stars and other worlds, but given the multi-generational nature of the goal, that is really not going to be sufficient to expect whole populations to repeatedly make economic sacrifices for something they will not see. That urge to up stakes and hit the road when things get tough in search of some place better is too vague and non-specific as a motivation, and is not (I think) sufficient for circumstances where you have the ability to make the 'someplace better' yourself, even if from such dismal and difficult raw material as asteroids and comets. Having worked hard and made some comfort and security - if you have successfully built someplace better and the way forward involves sacrificing that hard won security and comfort for starting all over again - that commitment to the far off end goal will be hard to keep going.
  14. No, we do not agree. In any case, surely genes only directly determine RNA sequences. And not all of those RNA's are used to pattern proteins from. I provided images of working examples of combinations of RNA and proteins. RNA's have enormous biochemical potential - able to bring proteins together as a catalyst for example, as well as combine directly with them, as well as provide the pattern for making those proteins. If you are seeking better understanding then sticking to the belief that DNA only determines proteins when it has been pointed out clearly and repeatedly that is not the case is not a good start. And you still haven't told us your reasoning for concluding that DNA doesn't contain enough information - just repeated that conclusion. Not a good example perhaps. On consideration, all species share so much DNA that the total is not going to include enormously more than one species has. However I still absolutely depend on the DNA of other species, including for molecules my own body and cells can make. And my mother provided the ovum with all the cellular 'machinery' and epigenetic triggers, patterned from her DNA - which I may well have good copies of, for later. I'm not convinced a design specification exists, or more correctly that it is an appropriate conceptual framework for describing what is happening - the structures and their form look like an emergent outcome, not a specification.That may be arguing semantics. But I suspect this whole thread is about semantics.
  15. DanielBoyd - it isn't just one individual's DNA involved in this - from edible plants and animals to gut flora, an individual's DNA operates with access to - making use of - the biochemical products of a complex biological community, based around more DNA than any discreet, single organism ever contains. My DNA doesn't have to have the combinations that will make every component that goes into assembling me. I don't need the DNA combinations for getting cells to make gluten for example, that I need; DNA of plants have those. I think the ability of DNA - of individual, parents and associated species - to determine which specific molecules are made (including molecules that, when put together will assemble into more complex biochemical structures) hasn't been actually been shown to require more DNA than is present. You really need to move beyond claiming there is not enough information to quantifying what is available compared to what is required. I think you need to be showing much more of the reasoning you are using for seeing a cell structure like eg a microtubule and a molecular motor and concluding DNA can't have determined the precise molecules used - which includes those that are downstream products made by structures that were made from DNA determined parts. Of course there is no 'design' specification in that DNA - that has always been just an analogy; the cascading, branching, interacting flow of biochemical processes that is Life only need for the resultant biochemical structures to work, not for the DNA to contain any descriptions of the end results.
  16. PS Just clarifying my answer above - the fluid coolant would collect heat from that (probably Lithium) 'jacket' that surrounds the containment chamber.
  17. My (limited) understanding mostly they intend heating of some kind of fluid coolant, probably water, and using that directly or indirectly for steam power generation as the means of using the energy from fusion. Neutrons are captured by a surrounding jacket, heating it. Lithium has been proposed for such a jacket because the process should convert some into Tritium, that can pass back to the working plasma as more fuel. Direct energy capture has been proposed as another means of extracting the energy - a kind of magneto-hydrodynamic process, using the flow of fast charged particles in a magnetic field. I'm not expecting any great results any time soon - and anything that is that hard to do at all is going to be difficult to optimise into a reliable and low cost form of energy generation. Worth trying I think - but so are other possible energy solutions that don't get nearly the levels of attention, support and funding that fusion does - some that look far more suitable to mass manufacture and worldwide everyday use (like a favourite of mine is optical rectennas that could work a bit like PV but should able to utilise IR, including from atmospheric back radiation and ground heat - ie would work at night. Or utilise low grade heat from waste heat or ground heat storage).
  18. I've tried to imagine how electro-magnets might be used for tensile strength in some kind of chain - substituting for physical material strength. Hard to imagine it could be as strong as, well, chain but I don't really know how well they might work and what theoretical as well as practical limits would apply. Some things like that have made their way into SF - "The Moon Goddess and The Son" (Kingsbury?) had a mass driver system in orbit made of strung out sections that could concertina as it caught and launched stuff. Vague recollections of a laser up the butt type system (or was it another mass driver) for the launch from Earth in the same novel, that might rate as an example of external energy displacing onboard fuel. They may be technically feasible - but otherwise not. Or, more optimistically, not yet. I raised the issue of limits to physical material strength as a hard limit we aren't going to be able to push past - and maybe there are technologies and applications that can work around them, but I suspect the applications will be very limited - and have limits of their own. It doesn't make me change my view that science and engineering are not on a path of endless unlimited development.
  19. Endy - the video is a bit long; can you summarise the main points for us? I would note that the material strengths we are getting in laboratories are truly impressive - a lot of opportunity still for engineering advancement to flow through into the structures and products we use. Still a lot of room on that S-curve, even from my more pessimistic pov - and my thinking that we are getting closer to where the trend flattens off than where it is still accelerating. I see us facing some serious problems with the course our civilisation is taking and our inability to incorporate knowledge and foresight into our decision making - we have vulnerabilities that can be helped by appropriate engineering; that looks like a different kind of focus than a less nuanced view of "progress", which seems almost to treat it like it is a natural law at play. Mismanagement - social and economic - look more capable of delivering us problems that resist any good intentions, and can reduce the growth in our capabilities and take them backwards; we are not so smart that we cannot mess things up so badly that our capability for R&D is reduced or lost. I think we will need to be increasingly cognizant of unintended consequences; are they going to be environmentally benign, sustainable and recyclable materials? How much energy required to make them and safely dispose of them? I would be alarmed at lighter than air construction materials for example - wind blown litter is already a problem, but having chunks of crashed aircraft floating about could take litter to a whole higher level, literally. And, of course, are the most advanced materials economically viable? There are a whole lot of considerations that can put limits on applications - it is not only about the physical properties we want but about about social and environmental consequences.
  20. It seems quite common to believe that there are no limits - that progress is exponential (or some form of limitless growth). There are limits and I think recognising and understanding them is important. I think we are already quite a way along that S-curve - that a more complete understanding of physical laws is not going to be greatly different to what we know now and resolving the last questions (eg reconciling gravity with quantum mechanics or understanding the nature of dark matter) won't necessarily present us with great engineering opportunities - and may well close off some long running hopes that exist because real limits are not recognised and understood.. I think the strongest materials that can be made are not likely to be enormously better than what we can make in labs now and those may never be candidates for cheap and mass produced - limits of binding forces within molecules will be a hard limit that no amount of research will overcome. Just persisting and trying harder in the face of them can be a recipe for wasting precious resources. Testing those limits to be sure of them is one thing but operating on the basis that they can be overcome isn't, and even the opportunities for spin offs will have limits. Optimising - taking us closer to those limits, especially with respect to real world considerations (economics again) - will be a kind of ongoing development process, but could well end up with more focus on doing the same things better than on finding new things. SpaceX for example is optimising existing rocket technology and reducing its costs, not so much inventing new kinds, much as Mr Musk might wish for such possibilities. We can make supersonic passenger aircraft but we don't - the economic limits flow on from an understanding of aerodynamics that inform us that supersonic aircraft will be much more energy hungry the faster you push them and components will work under extreme conditions that make for choices between more expensive materials or ongoing maintenance costs. Or both. Or for not doing it. Can we engineer something better? Musk sees the possibilities for transport via vacuum tubes and I can too - but there are limits there also, in and on an Earth that can shake and deform as well as those pesky economic considerations. Perhaps the future of aircraft will not be faster - it hasn't been for several decades now - but will end up slower, driven by a need for hyper-efficiency. Perhaps solar powered airships. Progress, but not quite in the way people imagine. Where we are on the S-curve is a question - I do see areas where we will see a lot of progress but some of our economically important ones are - I think - nearing the top of their S-curve.
  21. Well, my point is those new discoveries do become harder to find as the true nature of our universe becomes well understood and the limitations of materials and processes are approached - it is just assumption, and I think it is a weak one, that there will always be more. Especially that fundamental understandings of the nature of reality can't be achieved or relied on and can be readily overturned. History, seen from the steep part of the bigger overall S-curve (that is the product of all those individual S-curves) only makes it look like there will always be more - but I think it is an illusion. The supply of what we do not know is ultimately diminished by what we do know and the more confident we are about what we know, the less room there is for surprises. Knowledge may grow fractally and get more refined and nuanced in many fields but still come up against hard limits based on fundamental physical properties of spacetime, matter and energy.
  22. I am one of those rain on the parade types in this; I think knowledge and technological capability - science and engineering - will follow more of an S-curve that tops out rather than exponential that doesn't. We can improve heat resistance or strength or hardness and may discover new materials to do those better - but real limits to how heat resistant, how hard or strong are being approached, that no amount of research will overcome. The steep part of that curve can be exciting and from there (here) it can seem like its continuance is inevitable, yet it isn't a natural law; fail to invest in research and it stops, but if research produces diminishing returns the funding stops. I don't think we will so much reach a cut off point where nothing truly new can be discovered or done as them becoming more difficult to find or make and less revolutionary, and with economic viability more difficult to extract when we do find or make them. There are already things we are capable of doing but don't for the negative economics of them. We may well find that research itself reaches the point of negative economics.
  23. I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Of course they do not rely solely on proteins - Not only proteins; RNA transcribed from DNA also gets used directly in some remarkable molecular machines, such as ribosomes - like a molecular scaffolding that can assemble different proteins together into more complex arrangements than proteins alone -
  24. I think that is diffusion - the molecular motions diffusion rely upon are thermally driven - Brownian motion iirc. I admit I am a bit vague on the physical mechanisms that make diffusion work, whereby the same kind of molecule seems to be 'repelled' by close proximity but are not affected by presence of other kinds of molecules. Of course there are physical structures that can aid movement - eg microtubules within cells that molecular motors can use to move an attached vesicle or carry signalling molecules- Just for the sheer wonder of it - an animation of a molecular motor hauling a vesicle along a micro-tubule -
  25. Seems like there is a crossover period during the earliest stages of fertilisation where the new DNA operates within structures it had no part in making. The egg and the cell 'machinery' it contains came before the new mix of X's and Y's and is a product of parental DNA. That 'new' DNA only functions (at first) within existing biological structures of other's making - it doesn't make them it'self. Not sure to what extent epigenetic guidance and triggering is provided via the ova a sperm - but expect that those will be at work. At some later stage it will make those for kickstarting the next generation I think that is more like what it actually is - and naming it 'genetic design' always was potentially misleading. Analogy breaks down. The shape of a body part is the consequence of the self-assembly - no specifications for it's shape exist, but as processes of cell divisions and differentiation and growth occur, that shape is where the growth limits are reached. If it doesn't work the individual is in trouble and is unlikely to survive to reproduce - but the evolutionary process has left us with the ones that work. Picking just one point out of the many - I would expect diffusion to be a principle means for getting specific molecules to the right place within a cell - the 'right place' will be taking up those molecules and concentrations will be lower around there, so molecules will flow from where they are higher concentration to lower. Over such short distances, diffusion will have a strong affect. It would require a minimum concentration of those molecules - more than end up being used, with lots left over, to be recycled into other things.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.