Jump to content

Leader Bee

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    325
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Leader Bee


  1. There is a large body of opinion that says it should be.smile.gif

     

    Are they arguing it from the same angle as rape and that you need a consenting partner? Same with the beastiality issue from earlier perhaps. "well, she didn't say no officer".


  2. Iodine comes to mind, a few grams is enough to kill and it's commonly found in powder form in chemistry labs.

     

     

    So how do Iodine pills work after exposure to radiation? Is it just a case of dying from Iodine poisioning is a better alternative to radiation sickness? (i know it only protects your thyroids so i suppose it doesnt really stop radiation sickness)


  3. I so are you denying that wind farms slow they wind down?

     

    Give me a yes or no.

     

     

     

    I am taking a different course.

     

    I so are you denying that wind farms slow they wind down?

     

    Give me a yes or no.

     

    I am neither confirming or denying that wind farms slow the wind down because I do not know and I do not have any evidence upon which to base my answer. I am asking you to provide data to support your claim and you have failed to provide this to me and any other serious poster in this thread so far.

     

    Please note the underlined as this is important when discussing the topic. How are you supposed to get an answer if your readership knows little or nothing about the subject and you have also failed to supply any supporting evidence? You are asking us to believe what you say is true just because you said it is yet not providing any data to back up this claim so that we may form an educated opinion on your suggestion.

     

    Once again; Please provide evidence that Wind farms slow down windspeed and contribute to Global Warming.


  4. OK lets do this a a step at a time.

     

    Claim 1) Wind turbines slow down the flow or air, ie the wind that passes by them.

     

    If we can agree on this I will more onto the next claim immediately, if not I will provide further evidence to back up this claim.

    If fact I will go the extra mile and produce this document and I quote "By extracting power, the turbine itself has an effect on the wind: downwind of the turbine the air moves more slowly than upwind."

     

    http://www.gurit.com/files/documents/2_aerodynamics.pdf (page one 5th paragraph).

     

    If this is accepted I will advance to the other claims.

     

    If not you might as well lock it and save me wasting my time.

     

     

    If we can all agree on this? Based on what evidence?

     

    I believe the onous is on yourself to back up your claims, not for us to seek eveidence that what you claim to be true is infact true.

     

    If say you were to go down to a wind farm and take wind speed measurements; not once but once a week (or more) over the course of a year to take into account weather changes over the seasons and then present us with your data we would have reason to listen to you. You kindly provided a link which I followed and read the part you noted - perhaps I am missing something but this is the same circular argument you have been posting already and nowhere does it state the reasons for any wind speed changes only that the windfarm is the cause. Why is the wind farm the reason for loss in wind speed?

     

    Please back up your claims.


  5. I would imagine that several power blocs would have risen from the ashes of survivors; while in the initial years after the disaster there would be scattered communities of survivors but given time they would have created mutual trade relationships and in 1000 years would have formed what one may call a Kingdom.

     

    Taking into account this disaster was worldwide I don't think it unreasonable for there to be only one of these kingdoms and i'd also suggest that some of the kingdoms would have access to some of the "ancient" technology that survived while others did not. Thus creating a 3rd world divide so to speak and that these first world kingdoms would be rather defensive of their superior yet limited technology.

     

    While some philanthropists and sympathisers would lobby to share their technology and help out the have-nots there'd be some militaristic nay sayers arguing that resources are limited and they cannot afford to support such numbers of third world territories and possibly getting to the point of incursions into them for resource gain.

     

    I predict a scenario as you describe would have deteriorated into what boils down to a more technological version of the middle ages but with a much larger difference in technological development between populations.


  6. Salt is a wonderful preservative and dessicant. Salt absorbs moisture and should help slow down the soggification of the packed lunch, however any ingested salt will also draw moisture from the bloodstream which can make you thirsty which it isn't great for your digestion and makes your liver work harder.

     

    Salt has also been linked to heart disease which is the worlds biggest killer: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091124204324.htm

     

    Top ten causes of death worldwide: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index.html

     

    2011 World health report: http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS2011_Full.pdf

     

    Thing is, chicken nuggets are probably already processed to contain a multitude of preservatives, including salt so extra salt would only be a suggestion to draw the moisture away from the meat rather than redistribution to the breadcrumbs.

     

    as for the chips/fries i'd go with Captain on this; probably not much you can do here.

     

     

    EDIT: broken links.


  7. First thing that popped into my head reading the topic title was a Nazi experimental weapon that I really can't seem to find a whole lot of information on.

     

    I came accross this thread: http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?t=42899 which seems to have a fair amount of information on the "Vortex Cannon" but it really isn't that close to what you describe, due likley to the huge impracticality of such a device.

     

    I would imagine there are other industrial contraptions employed in a variety of uses that could cause you a lot of damage but none designed for the specific use of shooting people.


  8. Does anyone know what the average storage capacity of a human brain is? Is it even measured the typical way in Terrabytes / Yottabytes?

     

    Somewhat relevent to the subject: Ghost in the Shell - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Ghost_in_the_Shell

     

    "What exactly is the definition of 'human' in a society where a mind can be copied and the body replaced with a synthetic form?", "What exactly is the 'ghost' —the essence— in the cybernetic 'shell'?", "Where is the boundary between human and machine when the differences between the two become more philosophical than physical"


  9. Make sure to test your idea. In science, we want to see results.

     

    So, go for a structure something along the lines of:

     

    1. There is a problem in the world, and it is this: (whatever problem you're solving)

    2. I have an idea how to solve that problem.

    3. If my idea works, then I predict that this test will give this-and-this outcome.

    4. Here are the results, and the outcome is indeed this-and-this.

    5. Conclusion: my idea is good.

     

    A test can use someone else's data. You don't necessarily need to do measurements yourself.

     

    If you present only your idea, but no tests, it's just speculations.

     

    #5,

     

    Is this necessary? I have no experience in writing papers but one would assume that your audience would be the ones to decide whether or not your idea is good; Aren't they [papers] supposed to be peer reviewed before publication and therefore a certain amount of criticism has already been made?


  10. You actually beat me to it Captain, just as I was about to mention perflurocarbons I see your post!

     

    From what I understand though, the technology isn't fully developed; While you can breathe the stuff it's the fact were still struggling to come up with a mixture we can just as efficiently extract oxygen from as we can air. The main reason liquid breathing exists however is to lower the differences between the densities in your body and the densities in your body cavities (I.E your lungs) for high pressure diving because liquids are much more difficult to compress than gas, giving the liquid breather better tolerances to depth and pressure.


  11. Isn't the terminal velocity of a person ~130 m/h? I know he's wearing the suit but surely the extra weigth is negligible.

     

    on a side note, the last person to do this ended up getting some horrible injury to his had didn't he? due to a leak in his suit.

    Good luck to him.

×
×
  • 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.