exchemist

I think it's important to keep in mind how western democracies actually work. With the partial exception of the Swiss, they generally do not operate via referendum. We choose representatives to govern for us, recognising that the issues of government require dedicated focus and understanding, which the populace is neither capable of nor sufficiently interested in. We thus delegate decision-making, to people we have decided to trust on the basis of what they have told us about how they will reach decisions. It's the only way that makes sense in today's complex world. The board of directors of a company is in much the same position. The employees are often not able to see the whole picture, unless they do a hell of lot of extra work, outside their regular jobs. They would need to master disciplines other than their own (engineers would need to understand marketing and finance for example), to get in a position to make an informed reading of board papers, and understand the issues that the board concerns itself with. In most companies, there will be different interest groups in different parts of the business. Someone has to make hard decisions between options that favour one group or another. While I agree that a well-run company will have channels by which to consult employees and get feedback (absence of which can lead to delusions and disaster), I really don't think the cooperative model is likely to work, other than in small and simple enterprises in which everyone can see and understand the issues for themselves. I do agree a flat management structure is to be encouraged, but here the achievable flatness will depend on the level of autonomy that can be given to employees, which will in turn depend on the level of education and understanding that can be expected of them. (It's not by coincidence that there are so many ranks in the army.) Too facile by half.

From a brief web search I think this is for electrical uses mainly, where there is no mechanical stress on the joint.

Best of luck with your neurological reference frame.

The mistake you made at the beginning was not to realise that the length of a force vector is proportional to the magnitude of the force. That is how a force vector is defined in the first place. So multiplying the length of sides of the triangle of force vectors by the size of the force makes no sense. The triangle already is the forces. Any vector can be expressed as 2 components at right angles, an "x" and a "y" component if you like, which you add by means of constructing a right angled triangle out of them. Which you can draw as (You can ignore the "sin" and "cos" bits of trigonometry if you like: they were just there on the drawings I found on the web.)

I think it is sheer nonsense to imagine some kind of "hidden collusion" between political opponents in most Western democracies. There can be a few exceptions, in specific instances, generally for tactical reasons that everyone can see. One current example is the way Labour and the Liberal Democrats avoided campaigning against one another, in the run up to last night's UK general election, in order to ensure a resounding defeat for the Conservatives. And of course in countries with proportional representation there are often governments put together as coalitions of parties (e.g. The Netherlands). Or the current pooling of efforts in France to deny a majority to the RN next week. But these examples are not hidden collusion. They are out in the open for voters to see.

No.

If past form is any guide, it will be some kind of chippy p***ing contest to show the superiority of Asia over the West. 😁

Though the heat output drops when the temperature difference between input and output becomes large. The heat pumps I have looked at quote a minimum input temperature at which the specified output can be achieved. As I recall, something in single digit -ve Celsius temperatures.

Sandbox or funny farm? A paradigm shift in which mathematics is treated as a “blind alley”, and in which we are exhorted to create vortices on top of pyramids to overcome gravity? Come off it. This is just barking mad.

This is word salad. I think you need to see a medical professional. Anyway, I'm out.

No mine was the 100 legs and flies one. But seriously, did you hitch a lift on a dustcart down the Cowley Rd, in Oxford? Or moonlight from uni as a dustman? When was that? Sounds as if a 4 Yorkshiremen sketch could be coming on............... Come to think of it, there were Geordies around reading chemistry at my college. From Newcastle Grammar.

What has 100 legs and flies?

Why would robotics have anything to do with this? Most of the energy is released as neutrons, which would be absorbed in a blanket of material, most likely Li, surrounding the reactor and the heat thereby released would raise steam. I can't see any role for robotics in this.

You can really get dragged into the weeds trying to react to individual random graphs generated to sow disinformation, unless you are an expert in the field. There’s a whole cottage industry peddling disinformation “talking points” and as soon as you knock down one they will come up with another. The question really is whether these people seriously believe all the climatologists are wrong, whereas they, with their barrack- room lawyer’s opinions, are right, or whether they think the climatologists are all - worldwide - engaged in some kind of conspiracy, and if so, to what end?

What would be the type of units in which E is measured? Units of length? Or what?

The MCAS malfunction is not the main point in this case, though steps were taken after the crashes to make a malfunction less likely. The main issue of culpability is as I explained to you in my previous post.

All we need do is read the press to understand what happened. It was extensively reported. @Sensei's post, the 2nd in this thread, summarises it. Essentially it was a failure by the manufacturer to disclose information about an automated system that had been fitted. In effect, flight crew were -deliberately - not fully informed about the systems employed on the aircraft they were flying. This was done to avoid the cost and inconvenience of further training, but meant that when there was a malfunction in this "hidden" system, the crew were not equipped to take the right decisions. An appalling result of the way Boeing had come to prioritise financial performance over safety. This cultural failure has also been extensively reported in the press (at least in the Financial Times, which I read) and has quite rightly led to a change of top personnel at the company. It also revealed an unduly close relationship between Boeing and the US regulator for aircraft safety, a state of affairs known as "regulatory capture". There have been many examples of such "capture", across various industries around the world, and it practically always ends in disaster. Business people often resent what they see as bureaucratic "box-ticking" by inspection and supervisory regimes, and lobby politicians to slacken the oversight. It goes fine....until it doesn't, and then it's pointy finger time.

Thanks, very clear explanation.

I note that ISROSET stands for the "International Scientific Research Organisation for Science, Engineering and Technology", which is an Indian "journal" that appears on Beall's List of potentially predatory journals: https://beallslist.net. So quite likely scammy and without competent peer review. Come back to us when your ideas have been published in a journal with some credibility.

How does this work? I'd have thought that the longer the engine pylon, i.e. the further below the centre of gravity (or rather, drag, I suppose) of the plane, the bigger would be the upward pitching turning effect, when the engines throttle up. So surely a shorter pylon, bringing the line of engine thrust closer to the centre of drag, would reduce this, wouldn't it?

So do you mean, in effect, that it all hinges on how accurate a determination of λ can be made? In which case it is not really a method of calculating π, so much as a way of estimating it by physical measurements.

OK, but looking at the equation in the OP, surely the value of the sum will depend on the exact value assigned to λ? Is λ then an exact number, i.e. a mathematical object with an exact definition, rather than a quantity derived from physical measurement?

What is “ResearchGet” [sic]?

Whut? You are making no sense whatever.

OK so you are just waffling, as I suspected. So far as I know, no country has passed laws to prevent fusion research. I certainly can’t see why any legislature would do such a thing.