DV8 2XL

Essentially, this kind of weapon is a terror weapon preying on public radiological ignorance. While it is well known that, even if detonated in a large population center, such a device would cause perhaps ten deaths from thyroid cancer within the next fifty years, this did not stop some degree of media hysteria. During the 1960's, it is thought that the UK Ministry of Defence evaluated RDDs deciding that a far better effect was achievable by simply using more high explosive in place of the radioactives. Presumably, this indicates that the effect of the radiological component would be negligible. In addition, any form of weapon designed to provoke biological damage other than death is banned under the Geneva Protocols, making the development, deployment and use by any State illegal.

Try this link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery Which I modestly admit to having worked on.

This comes close: http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/AlAirBattery/alairbattery.html

Victor J. Stenger, writing in The Humanist, May/Jume 1992 harshly dismissed the Quantum Mind saying: "The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a violation of reductionist, local, discrete, non-superluminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum mechanics - with no fundamental involvement of human consciousness other than in our own subjective perception of whatever reality is out there. Of course our thinking processes have a strong influence on what we perceive. But to say that what we perceive therefore determines, or even controls, what is out there is without rational foundation. The world would be a far different place for all of us if it was just all in our heads - if we really could make our own reality as the New Agers believe. The fact that the world rarely is what we want it to be is the best evidence that we have little to say about it. The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world."

Newton is the name of several small towns in England it's a contraction of "new town". http://www.last-names.net/surname.asp?surname=Newton

bascule, I agree with everything you wrote, and yes it would have been a shame to lose such a devastating bit of prose. But I suspect you are (we all are) barking up the wrong tree when we attempt to make see the light this way. In my experience, the two concepts they fail to grasp is the scale of time that these process work in, and just how small the steps need be. It's like some sort of learning handicap. They just can't conceptualise it, even abstractly.

Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through social intervention. The goals have variously been to create more intelligent people, save society resources, lessen human suffering and reduce health problems. Genetic counselling is the process by which patients or relatives at risk of a inherited disorder are advised of the consequences and the nature of the disorder, the probability of developing or transmitting it and the options open to them in management and family planning in order to prevent, avoid or ameliorate it. Reprogenetics is a term referring to the merging of reproductive and genetic technologies expected to happen in the near future as techniques like preimplantation genetic diagnosis become more available and more powerful. Let's not bleed terms together. Distinctions are important in any discussion of this sort.

FYI "baumè" is a measure of concentration based on specific gravity

Eugenics was (is) a social-political movement, thus any criticisms are directed against what it stood for. The fact that modern genetic testing and counseling seeks to help people avoid tragedy by roughly the same measures should not mean that the two should be painted by the same brush. But that doesn't mean we should not be on our guard, because the underling philosophies of Eugenics still have some support. It is a short step from; "All women over forty should be screened for Down's Syndrome" to "All women over forty must be screened for Down's Syndrome." Careful attention to this technology must be kept up. You see in my last post I was laughing at the phrase: " the "illness" of being poor was pauperism" because pauperism is defined not as the state of poverty, but rather the state of being the recipient of charity. The author of the quote was more concerned with the public expense than, relieving human suffering.

I love it! That laugh made my day.

I don't know about the U.K. but in North America you can make more money delivering newspapers than you can as a teacher.

It's not that it's more complex (although, yes the original "Simple Mendelian recessive" statement is an oversimplification), it's the fact that humans mature slowly, breed slowly, and don't have a lot of offspring at a time that makes this sort of husbandry difficult. Also, environmental factors or not, complex behavior is not likely to code on a single allele, making the whole process of selection more difficult.

Scientifically founded or not, the whole idea of eugenics is morally reprehensible and ethically unsupportable. The key issue is who will be controlling the germ line, and to what ends. Although somewhat campy in the modern idiom, Huxley's Brave New World pretty well sums up the impact of this sort of program. A sterile, homogeneous society that cannot go forward because it cannot change.

B'tina - just so your clear on this my first post in this thread was in support of your interpretation.

Irregardless of what you assume the question to be saying the plane will not fly if no air moves over the wing OR the plane will fly because the belt will have no effect on the forward motion of the aircraft.

Come on, the boat is working against the water, so that holds, the plane is working against the air - the ground isn't involved. Now if the original question was framed to stall the air over the wings, then sure, no flight - but that's not how it;s written.

The temperature of an object depends on how fast the atoms and molecules which make up the object can shake, or oscillate. As an object is heated, the oscillations of its atoms and molecules speed up; as an object is cooled, the oscillations of its atoms and molecules slow down. More quantitatively, the order of magnitude of the fluctuations of the energy associated with an atom, molecule or another elementary constituent of a physical system is kBT, where kB is Boltzmann's constant, (1.380 6505(24) × 10−23 J/K) and T is temperature, expressed in Kelvins. A system doesn't "know" which way to radiate a photon; it does so at random. And temperature is relative only to Absolute Zero

OK, it was an extension to B'tina's post. If you think about it the prop pulls the plane through the air, so the aircraft will move relative to a fixed point off the belt regardless. Because the wheels are free spinning they are not coupled to the motion of the fuselage only to the belt (which is moving backwards) thus they will spin at an RPM relative to the belt plus the RPM relative to the forward motion of the plane (as if it were on a non moving serf ace). Your explanation was much more puissant than mine, I just wanted to give her credit for at least seeing the basic flaw in the model.

Well I thought I had put this to rest with some finality two posts up but you managed to trump me YT!

I wish I could recall where I saw this - but I believe non-integer number base computation is used in some sophisticated data compression algorithms. Normally I don't post stuff I have no reference for but how often will this subject show up?

The failure here is assuming that this system will permit the aircraft to remain stationary relative to the ground as the prop tries to pull it through the air. As Bettina point out, correctly: "the propeller of an airplane screws thru the air and has no relation to the ground", consequently the only effect of the conveyor would be to make the (free spinning) wheels of the plane spin twice as fast!

The crucial thing to note here is that no one really says that antimatter is matter moving backward in time - only that in some instances it behaves like it it is.

While you are probably right in assuming that there are other features that an organism could evolve to make it as adaptable to a rapidly changing environment as intelligence, it is still a significant one. Thus the likelihood of it manifesting itself in any long populated ecology would be high. Your statement seems to subsume the now discredited belief that Man (because he is intelligent) is the at apex of evolution.

It is thought that symmetry was broken in the early universe when charge and parity symmetry was violated (CP-violation). Standard Big Bang cosmology tells us that the universe initially contained equal amounts of matter and antimatter: however particles and antiparticles evolved slightly differently. It was found that a particular heavy unstable particle, which is its own antiparticle, decays slightly more often to positrons (e+) than to electrons (e-). Suppositions of the existence a coeval, antimatter duplicate of this universe are not taken seriously in modern cosmology.

Look, chasing overunity is a fool's game. Because the Second Law wins every time. Every single time. It doesn't matter how you twist and design, ultimately it's the little things that get you in the end. If it isn't friction, it's electrical resistance; if it's not electrical resistance, it's thermal equilibrium. It's just not going to happen. Like most people that think they have a work around, you are blowing off or at least not taking into account several of the things I mentioned. I already pointed out the internal resistance of your generating element, because I thought it would be the easiest for you to understand, but note also there would be frictional losses at every moving part, valves pistons actuators, even the fluid moving in your apparatus has several complex frictional losses, involving shear, turbulence, and other viscosity effects. There are all sorts of heat losses inherent in moving fluids against resistance linked to the aforementioned phenomena. All of these would lead to losses that cannot be recovered. I haven't even started on conversion losses. Now, just so you know, this was a lecture, not the beginning of a dialog. You've been given an explanation as to why this won't work. Don't waste your time on this matter. I have wasted all I intend to on it