exchemist

Chat on a single internet forum is not evidence the subject is one “of much debate” in science. For that statement to be true, one would expect to find numerous research papers , or articles in the scientific press, supporting and contesting the theory or hypothesis. You seem to be making up statements here.

There used to be a cafe near me that proudly advertised its retox breakfast, at weekends. I think this was aimed mainly at young men, rugby players and rowers etc. It was of course the traditional English fry-up (eggs, bacon, black pudding etc).

Some silly people get obsessed with shit being “dirty” and want to “clean” out their systems, I think. It seems to me to be a terrible idea, seeing as the microflora in your gut are essential to your health. But maybe I’m too sceptical. Let’s see what others think.

Re section highlighted, I was unaware of this debate. It sounds interesting. Can you link to some sources illustrating this debate?

The "special" in special relativity just means it applies to certain simple cases. It came first historically. General relativity came later and is much harder to work with but, as the name indicates, applies far more generally. I suggest a little bit of reading about the subject.

Thanks it was a Sonos product that the Richer Sounds guy suggested. But What Hi Fi gave it a bum review on sound quality, suggesting instead a Bluesound Node. What I still can't understand about these boxes is: a) whether they are transmitters to the house wi-fi, or receivers from the wi-fi that can power speakers. The comment about sound quality suggests they may amplify and they have socket outputs for things like sub woofers as well as inputs, both of which suggest they are receivers, which then leaves open the question of what you use to transmit a wi-fi signal from your stereo system, b) if they are indeed transmitters to the wi-fi, can they accept an analogue input from the tape monitor output of my amp?. The descriptions wax lyrical about digital inputs but that does not help. The write-ups assume a level of familiarity with the technology I don't have, and the manufacturers' website are worse. I'm reminded of Flanders and Swann's "Song of Reproduction". "I see you've got your negative feedback coupled in with your push-pull input-output. Take that across to your head-head pickup, to your tweeter, and you'll get wow on your top. You try to bring that down through your pre-amp rumble filter to your woofer and what'll you get? Flutter on your bottom!" That was 60s techie-speak. I'm experiencing 2020s techie-speak now. But this discussion has given me more clarity about the issues so thanks to you and @toucana for all the help. I think next I'll have to get on my bike to the Lower King's Road and beard the Richer Sounds chap in his den, now that I have at least a better idea about what it is I don't understand.

OK.

Oo-er, the needle on my nutcase detector has moved off its end stop now. What do you mean?

That’s odd. I thought you worked at Chatham. Or did you drive the crane for fun at weekends?

Heh heh. So you too bear the scars.

My experience was that IT systems in businesses evolved from custom-built versions in the 70s and 80s that were often disastrously expensive, due to trying to do too much and accommodate everyone, towards semi-standardised systems (for instance ERP systems like SAP) with a lot of knobs on that could be twiddled to fit, more or less, the needs of particular businesses but within a fixed overall scheme, to which the business had to adapt if it was not already following it. Quite a lot of businesses think they are unique, but a lot of that is balls. It's just that they have never properly analysed out how they work and compared themselves to others. But yes, the experience as a user (of SAP in my case) was we were effectively forced to use a new language for business processes and do things a certain way, demanded by the system. But it was, I have to admit, logical once you got your head round it.

Yes that's what I mean. While there are some reputable members whose profile has it disabled, every single person who I have suspected of being a spammer, troll or sockpuppet has also had it disabled. So for me it is a bit of warning indication.

I found this paper: https://webstatic.niwa.co.nz/library/rs365(1856)p1889.pdf which suggests that life could actually have been able to colonise both the land and the oceans in the presence of the UVC flux that would have reached the surface before there was a screening ozone layer. Iron once again features as one of several potential screening agents. Though it seems to be Fe(III) rather than Fe(II) they considered this time.

What has this to do with my post? I either know nor care what country the forum is "from". The members seems to be an international bunch. Some of the mods appear to be from N. America, but so what? I am British by the way. And you are - what? - a Russian troll? 😆

Thanks but I think I probably need wi-fi rather than bluetooth. The distance is ~12m (I have a 30ft knocked-through sitting/dining room) and of course it's the other side of a brick wall.

The phone business is another matter but yes indeed. The scammers are about the only people who come through on my landline these days so I answer, not by giving my name, but giving an olde worlde style phone number answer, using an imaginary phone exchange I invented called Nightingale. So I answer the landline with "Nightingale 7624" [number not my real one]. That foxes 'em. So then they have to ask me who I am, at which point I counter by demanding to know first who they are. So I have them returning my serve, rather than the other way round. The conversation spirals into the ground fairly quickly after that, as it is either some bogus organisation or else they claim to be a utility, e.g. BT or a bank, at which point I demand they confirm my account number to make sure they are speaking to the right account holder, which of course they don't have. But it give us oldies a reflex suspicion of strangers, which is a pity.

Yes those are the tape output sockets that @studiot was referring to. So yeah, I have a solution for the wi-fi transmitting end, by the look of it. Thanks.

Yes I could understand that but, seeing as we all have handles to anonymise us, I'm not sure why a record of anonymous people visiting your profile, where you are also anonymous, would constitute any kind of privacy concern. I see some well-respected members have selected this opt-out, so it's not just the problem people. Though I have yet to come across a problem person who has not selected this opt-out. Perhaps one of said well-respected members will see this thread and comment.

You've done this before, haven't you? And last time round you didn't engage in any discussion of the subject. Just like your behaviour on another forum I belong to.

Yeah it's a Rotel tuner/amp from the early 1980s. Model RX 403. Again, works fine so why replace? Connections are phono analogue, so I suppose that means RCA. And you are quite right: we have drifted way off-topic for this thread, thought it is an interesting subject in its own right. P.S. I see Rotel is still going today, though now Chinese owned.

Hang on, are you saying the tape output from my amp is signal level, not speaker power level? That could be the answer, then. I do in fact still have a tape player but never use it, so repurposing the tape output would be no loss. I could wire a wi-fi transmitter to the tape output, which would carry the signal from whatever device the amp was currently switched to. So then I just need a wi-fi receiver in the kitchen with an amp to generate a power level output for the speakers, or I buy a pair of active speakers that use a wi-fi signal - those are readily available, it seems. (If I did that I'd still keep the Dentons, for sentimental reasons - they have followed me faithfully throughout my adult life and still sound pretty decent. I'll just carry on using them in the living room, where they are now. And the spare set of speakers will then be the ones from my wife, currently wired up in the piano room upstairs, though very rarely used.)

I'm curious to understand why it is that some members seem to have this section on their profile disabled? I have observed what seems to be a loose correlation between those that have this disabled and those that turn out to be, shall we say, less than reliable participants: sockpuppets of previously banned members, people with trollish tendencies, cranks, spammers and so forth. Why is this feature optional and what reasons might there be for a member to want to have it disabled?

This cocky, aggressive tone of yours is something of a red flag. Serious scientists don't speak like that when their ideas are subjected to scrutiny. Trying to push a scientific theory like a foot-in-the-door vacuum cleaner salesman doesn't work. Neither the principle of Ockham's Razor, nor standard modern physics, are due to me personally. So let's cut out this crap about you cleaning up my mess. If your theory is not just an uncashable cheque, let's see the cash, i.e. what predictions does it make that distinguish it from standard physics? So far, all I see is a lot of angry noise - and nothing.

Oh that's interesting, I'll look into that. Indeed, it would need to be a powered receiver generating an output for driving passive speakers. The other issue I should perhaps have explained, and which I don't think the guy has grasped, is that I want the wifi transmitter to take as input the output from my amp. That's because my amp includes a radio receiver and has inputs from a CD player and an LP turntable, so that's 3 sources, one of which is internal to the amp. I want to be able to play all 3. So a wi-fi transmitter that takes mW level inputs from the original devices, is no good to me. I need one that can take as input the amp output intended to drive a pair of passive speakers, i.e. in the 15-20W range. That's the bit I doubt exists. But maybe one of the links you have provided will tell me otherwise. It looks as though the function of these is closer to what I am trying to do...

Since at any given time , except the very start, there were millions of life forms, I imagine you want some selected forms characteristic of the period, don’t you? How about this from the British Natural History museum?: https://www.nhmimages.com I found a hallucigenia fossil and some ichthyosaur pics just now when trying it out.