sethoflagos

That's more like it. And for a soil type that's pretty much defined by its history of plant root and earthworm activity - ie processes that occur predominantly during the temperate growing season - might it be reasonable to say that the average temperature and precipitation pattern during the growing season are likely to be more significant than the winter temperatures? If you remove the skewing effect of North Dakota's very cold winters, I think you'll find that the growing season climate of San Antonio and Bismarck are not so very different.

Sounds reasonable for San Antonio, but your figure for Bismarck is very wrong. Last time I looked the Dakotas weren't tundra.

Not really true is it? Since almost all soils are the result of weathering processes (among others), and both the rate and nature of that weathering are temperature sensitive (freeze/thaw weathering is another obvious example) then arguably air temperature is a highly significant determining factor.

Many of these ideas are covered from a slightly different perspective here:

All practical machines when viewed from a global perspective produce nett heat. How do you propose to dispose of this reject heat (the heat you have removed from the water plus that due to inefficiencies) in such a way that you do not end up increasing the rate of global warming?

You've not presented any worth considering. Just fake news. And bad spelling.

Where did I say anything about ignoring such individuals? (That was your iinvention in your 22nd september post) No. Straw man #1: Falsely asserting I wished to ban religious books (21/9) Straw man #2: Falsely asserting I wished to exclude religious people from society (25/9) Straw man #3: Falsely asserting I wished to ignore religious (stupid, gullible etc.) folk (22/9) Contrary to your further false assertion, Roget does not believe these concepts to be synonymous. It is clear however that you are arguing in bad faith. So please desist from trolling me with your negative nonsense.

Where did I say anything about excluding such individuals from society? Straw man #2.

Empirical evidence does not require an explanation to establish its validity. However, you might consider why religious oligarchies bring with them a large package of strictures that are deemed exempt from public debate. Such as a creation myth for example that must be accepted as gospel in defiance of any observed evidence to the contrary. Or else. What benefit to society do such arbitrary faith based beliefs bring other than seek total subjugation of the individual? Absolutely toxic imho.

No need. You've presented no refutation or counterargument here, so I think I'll just stand my ground.

Because history.

Pretty much the same as any progessive political analysis I guess. Bad stuff happens under authoritarian regimes. Especially the religious ones where 'heresy' is a capital offence.

At first reading this appears to be just word soup. However... Did you consider the logical flow of this sentence before you wrote it? What on earth is 'an extreme version of democracy'? Surely, the principle of democracy is that everybody's vote counts equally irrespective of their position in society. How do you get more extreme than equality? Are you just trying to worm in the word 'extreme' to suggest that your view is reasonable and mine is not? That's hardly a noble tactic is it? More Daily Mailish that SFish. So what you appear to be stating is democracy = tyranny. Well, it's a viewpoint, but not one I'd share. If that's what you really believe then just have the courage to say it. We're all entitled to our opinions.

Much of the major North Sea Gasfield infrastructure was installed in the late seventies and designed for a 25 year lifespan. At a pinch, much will last a decade or so longer, but particularly in a marine environment, corrosion will eventually take its toll. So if a 30+ year old facility is decommissioned, there's no point in mothballing it for possible future reuse. It's far more economic to just make it safe and let it rot. In practice, reopening an abandoned field requires a pretty well total infrastructure rebuild.

Radial mixing of two fluids moving coaxially in a pipe is a function of the flow regime. In laminar flow, the dominant mechanism is molecular diffusion which ends up with a form of the heat equation to solve. in the turbulent regime, it's eddy diffusion, and that results in a Lagrangian function. The classic text covering this is 'Transport Phenomena' by Bird, Stewart and Lightfoot. Though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_diffusion gives a reasonable introduction. In practical terms, chemical engineers generally default to allowing a conservative mixing length of 100 pipe diameters before presuming the two gases are well mixed. (Because the maths is a lot easier). If there isn't room for so much straight pipe, installing two 90 degree pipe elbows in different planes immediately downstream of the injection point has been used to justify dropping the mixing length to perhaps 30 or 40D. Alternatively, as @exchemist notes, there are a number of designs of inline mixing device that can be used.

🙂

As I said above, at my stage of life politics is no longer a big deal to me. Somebody else's problem. But thanks anyway for the sympathetic ear. It's appreciated.

Thanks very much for your insight, Ken. Your 'preferential voting system' is what we called 'single transferable vote' in my student days. I must admit that my small understanding of current Australian politics has come mainly from The Juice Media Youtube channel. I have no idea how 'fair' their viewpoint is but I find them infinitely more amusing than Rupert Murdoch's news output and they've lightened many a dull day. And to me they are evidence that the true spirit of anarchy is alive and well at least somewhere in the Melbourne suburbs.

Depends which way you're voting. If you vote for more egalitarian, liberal policies then the common person gains more control over his/her destiny and it's in the anarchist spirit. If not then not. True, but won't you consider that common understandings may have been coloured by centuries (indeed millenia since these arguments were current in ancient Greece) of negative propaganda in service of those who consider themselves born to rule over others? Having said that, the British anarchist tradition that probably began with William Godwin around the turn of the eighteenth century is toward the peaceful end of a spectrum that does extend to the more revolutionary figures of the Russian tradition such as Mikhail Bakunin. Children of their times, and those times were routinely violent. Personally, I'm truer to the Godwin stream and see no paradox whatsoever in participating peacefully in a democratically organised society. Whether this accords with the common understanding or not.

At the time of passing of the Queen, your post reminds me of a paragraph from Hobbes' Leviathan: Hobbes' had no problem in seeing anarchy (=democracy) as the polar opposite of tyranny (=absolute monarchy). Look, I've no real axe to grind on this issue. If you're happy with your tyrants and oligarchs, then fine, feel free to wipe their backsides to your heart's content. But it does irk me a little to see anarchy characterised as being violently insurrectionist. You're just regurgitating propaganda that served the cause of tyrants and feudal lords in the immediate aftermath of the English Civil War nearly 400 years ago. It is the anarchist spirit that originally underpinned the concept of parliamentary democracy and all our emancipatory freedoms that sprang from that. And gradually improving our democracies should not be viewed as revolutionary but evolutionary. Remind me where I said anything about religious education being banned. No objection to Wicca and Mami Wata whatsoever.

No. It claims to explain the Bernoulli Principle in qualitative layman's terms at the molecular level: an interpretation that wasn't available to Bernoulli who published Hydrodynamica about 150 years before atomic theory became widely established. In my view the video did a perfectly reasonable job of that. Naturally, this explanation only describes the real world cases where Bernoulli's Principle applies. The video certainly made no claims regarding the validity and scope of applicability of the Bernoulli Equation. To suggest so would be a bit strawmanish. The Bernoulli equation is a rabbit hole that offers very little insight into the mechanics of flight. The changes to gravitational potential energy of air are three orders of magnitude less than the dominant forces and a little more significantly, frictional dissipation is neglected as pointed about by @J.C.MacSwell. Most crucially from my perspective the Bernoulli Equation neglects the contribution due to thermodynamic work. Particularly at the leading edge of a wing where air is both pressurised and rapidly accelerated simultaneously. This is the absolute reverse of the expections given by the Bernoulli Principle and a clear indication that too much is missing from the Bernoulli picture for it to be usefully employed here. I noticed that too. Sometimes having to go back to square 1 is a bit dispiriting.

Agreed. Agreed, The regulation free idealistic version is a hopeless pipedream. Noted. But this does put you in a minority of the global population, and a particular window in time. Economic growth has funded that comfort zone and it carries no certain future guarantees. Neoliberalism seeks to transfer much of the role of government to employers and landlords : ie a return to more feudal conditions. This is in effect an ultra-authoritarian position - tyranny by proxy - and therefore the polar opposite to the OP subject matter, isn't it? I've always seen universal good secular education as a key factor in the evolution of a healthier society. I hope we get to try that experiment some time. Heinlein is one of the last individuals I'd look to for political guidance. Neither would I seek it from Tolkien as it happens, but does he really strike you as a revolutionary? Can't it be evolutionary? Just a gradual programme of repealing outdated laws that disadvantage minorities for example? Two questions: 1) Do you agree with the idea that the single transferable vote system makes it more difficult for divisive authoritarian politicians to gain power rather than more inclusive compromise-minded candidates. 2) Would you see that as a good thing. You don't have to answer of course. But these are the sort of questions where I see the authoritarian - anarchist spectrum as simply more relevant than traditional right - left politics.

Much of what you say is correct of course. But on what scale do we measure 'betterness'? We're all familiar with the right-left spectrum in politics and I guess most of us have a clear idea with where we feel most comfortable on that measure. But isn't there another somewhat independent axis that quantifies the degree of authoritarianism in society? I simply see anarchism as the opposite end of this spectrum, and a desirable direction to take when government becomes too intrusive and restrictive in our daily lives. We're really not that far technologically from the point where potentially every human interaction we have could be uploaded via Android etc. in real time to the internet for analysis and judgment by the twitterati. Or by the government. And they would put your mind at rest with the age old jingoistic 'claim that they were acting in the interests of combatting criminal activity. But I think that you and I would soon realise that that was only a fraction of the story, and life had taken a turn towards a truly Orwellian nightmare. Or maybe my fears on this front are totally unfounded and we are about to enter a crime-free golden age.

Are you thinking about thermite reactions (eg iron oxide + powdered aluminium > molten iron + aluminium oxide)? As @exchemist states, these will require some activation energy to get started. However, I wouldn't rely on that too much with more reactive mixtures such as say potassium and barium peroxide.

My conclusion is that you don't understand what anarchism is. Anarchism is not a specific organisation of society (this very concept is alien to the spirit of anarchist precepts), rather an acknowledgement that however we are organising ourselves at the current time, there is a better way of doing so. Classically, this is summed up in Proudhon's mantra "Society exists to transcend itself". which is as good a statement of the underlying principle of progessive politics as I can think of. In The General Idea of the Revolution (1851), Proudhon wrote: This remains rather difficult to argue with. At the heart of anarchist thought is the same scepticism towards forms of government as is embodied in the scientific approach to explanatory hypothesis: it may have some merit, but there is room for improvement. I'd refer you to Herbert Read's superb work "Anarchy and Order" (1959) which had quite an impact on me in my youth. It's focus lies in anarchy being most clearly defined in artistic expression, and very closely linked to the philosophy of existentialism. However, I believe it's now out of print. A pity.