TonyMcC

Competitors in high level rifle shooting learn to slow their breathing and heart rate to hold the weapon steady as they squeeze the trigger.

Whts the reason that the scientists are fail in dengue treatment?

I'm not ignoring you Akbar - I just don't know. I do know that there are much fewer medicines for viral illness than for bacterial illness. The link will give you more information. The attachment is taken from the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiviral_drug

If I can't get to sleep it's usually because some problem or conflict is occupying my mind. If that is the case I find it helps to think out any solution that seems at least remotely plausible. I think a brain at bedtime can accept an unlikely solution in order to ease itself, even if that solution proves impractical in the morning.

Dengue disease is so old.it has root in jin dynasty china 320 AD.but no treatment have been discribed yet.i thnk y thre is no treatment

What you say is true. Prevention is mainly concerned with eliminating mosquitoes and mosquito bites. There is hope for a vaccine in a few years time. The link gives much information. The attachment is an excerpt from the link. http://www.medicinenet.com/dengue_fever/article.htm

Be fair Dr. the whole darn thing has been pretty unrealistic - lol

To be fair to you, I realise that what I said did not properly describe what I meant!! The end result of what I concluded should make what I meant quite clear. But, of course that isn't really good enough. ( especially for a mathematician?)

As I said that works if and only if the bridge is built at the equator in a perfectly north-south direction. That is an extremely restrictive and unrealistic assumption.

Be fair Dr. the whole darn thing has been pretty unrealistic - lol

Think about cutting the cube along a few edges so that it can be unfolded and laid flat. That will not change distances of lines and curbes on the cube. If you make the cuts cleverly the answer will become clear.

The different orb society = flat earth society lol.

You say the ant lives on the surface of the cube (not just on the edge), so the cube is solid. So, with each side being 7cm's, the answer has to be that the ant moves straight up one side and then straight across the top. That's 14 cm's. Unless I'm an idiot (which hasn't been proven in a court of law yet!).

That's the obvious answer - unfortunately its wrong. What if x was 0cm? Give you any ideas?

Apparently if you have selected approve friend requests, friend requests are submitted into a folder but no notification is made about this activity. . . . . I suddenly have a friends list. : D

 

Wait, I accepted like seven and I see none!

 

It seems that I have to add them as a friend in return . . . .

All now seems in order - I'm happy - I'm sure we all are happy!

+1 for Spyman and Cap'n for their assistance.

A sphere, in whch case the geodesics are known to every school child -- great circles.

 

 

 

This is pretty clearly a class assignment, or should be.

 

You need to show your work in a reasosnable attempt to solve this problem. Then we will help you.

I don't want to give too much away, but I was thinking of a different orb society!

What would be easier to work with than a cube?

No, it should be immediate. I'm not sure what could cause a delay.

If the other person's picture and link do not appear in my profile should I send them a message asking them to request me as a friend? Or might that confuse the issue?

I see you there Cap'n - thank you for that. I have tried Ctrl+F5 a few times and also tried clearing browser data. Still the person mentioned as accepting in an email yesterday doesn't show - although I show on theirs. It is likely that they have to approve, but I assume from the email and because I do show in their profile that has been done. I am using Google Chrome.

Is it possible that the information is held in their browsing data and may not be accessed for a time?

It could also be said that language is corrupted over time. Agnostic is a term that comes to mind. Look it up in dictionary after dictionary and it is clear that it indicates a belief that man can never know the absolute truth about certain things, particularly the existence of god(s). It really has nothing to do with a belief or disbelief in deities, only of man's ability to know the truth. Even though the definition is clear I see it used over and over as a point on the axis of theism between one being theist or atheist. It is not that point at all yet many fence sitters wish to label themselves as such because they are not theist but not honest enough to call themselves atheist. They want to make a word mean something that it was not created for. This blurring of language actually hurts our ability to be concise in the end.

(IMO) Perhaps none of us is actually quite at one extreme or the other. Those that believe in God can't prove His existence and those that don't believe can't prove He doesn't exist. Perhaps there is need of a scale and words to say where we fit on it?

This is the only forum I use and until recently never wanted to add anyone as my friend although I have been a member for two years.

I see friendship (even forum friendship) as a two way link. We are friends makes more sense than saying **** is my friend but I don't know if I am their friend.

With that thought in mind, the first place I looked at to see if my request had been accepted was my own profile. But it doesn't work that way.

So my suggestion is that if friendship is requested and accepted then names and pictures should automatically appear on both relevant profiles.

If for some reason (perhaps not allowing changes to somebody's profile without their express permission) this cannot be done then perhaps the e-mail sent to the requester could be worded something like " **** has successfully added you to their friends list and added you to their profile. If you would like them to be shown on your profile you need to ask them to request friendship with you".

Actually they are.

and

A- and an- are simply 'not' modifiers. Atheist literally means not-theist. Theist is the root word. Without it there would be nothing to add a 'not' prefix to.

Language is a living thing and develops with time. IMO As a need was found for people who neither believed absolutely or denied absolutely words were formed to "fill the gap". Again IMO, if you fall into the gap there is a special word for you.

Atheist = Not theist. Does not believe in god or gods. Certainty in that position or whether it's an active disbelief (or active belief in nonexistence) is irrelevant. It just means not theist.

This link indicates things aren't that simple:- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

The attachment is an excerpt from the link.

Most people in this thread (perhaps all of them) consider themselves atheists or theists. However there are other classifications. There are agnostics and even agnostic theists. These are people who, basically, can't find enough evidence to absolutely prove the existence or non-existence of a deity. Reading through the thread I get the impression that some of you should describe yourselves as agnostics or agnostic theists.

Examples of what I mean:-

"Some people lack belief either way. They are also atheist because they are not theist." (doG)

"Atheism is not necessarily an opposite or opposing belief to theism (an opposite or opposing position, stance, view or opinion would be a better claim). Even if the atheist also makes the positive claim that it can be shown by evidence or reasoning that a particular god does not in fact exist this does not define their atheism as they may also be non committal (lacking in belief) about the actual existence of the other claimed gods (or ones that they do not even know about) that they also lack belief in. The point is that they do not have to make this positive claim to become or remain atheistic". (Halucigenia)

" I remain at the default position of lack of belief rather than actively believe in them or actively believe in their non existence (if actual belief in something’s non existence is actually possible at all)." (Halucigenia)

No, I am not trying to solve any problem or trying to perform any function: I just wanted to know what could I expect if I use the transistor "upside down", just for fun, for curiosity, so the idea is to inject a signal in the Emitter and another different one in the Collector and see what would come out of the Base: of course this is not the way a transistor is configured, but that is exactly why I would like to know what could possibly come out of the Base. I imagine a very weak mixed (non linear ?) signal.. but I am just guessing...

 

It is just an experiment not an application....

I'll try to give a sensible answer to a rather strange question. A bipolar transistor is a current operated device. If the transistor is operating with suitable bias the voltage difference between emitter and base will never go out of a very small range without either cutting off current flow through the transistor when the base/emitter voltage falls below about 0.5V or destroying the transistor if base/emitter voltage rises above about 0.7V. Consequently (IMO) If the transistor is conducting at all times and doesn't get destroyed you can expect the base voltage to closely follow the emitter voltage. If you are going to experiment then you better have a large supply of transistors!

You might need a flash of lightning to start the reactions - not many clouds above a bucket of water in space.

 

Incorrect.

 

He is in fact constantly accelerating by virtue of change in direction. This acceleration will be measured by any 3-dimensional accelerometer that he might have. Centripetal acceleration is real acceleration.

I agree - I was thinking of normal motorcycle instruments i.e. a speedometer. I was hoping that what you say might be worked out from my post.

Hi guys thanks for reading.

 

I was looking at Newtons Laws and an analogy popped up about the motorcycle ball of death. (The large ball that people on motorcycles travel around.)

 

Ok, since Newtons first law states an object will move in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.

Since this track is curved, an unbalanced force will need to act on the motorcycle to make it turn.

Does this mean the engine has to apply the constant unbalanced force and continually accelerate for this stunt to work?

 

Thanks for any help guys.

I find this interesting. I see it another way. The rider on the bike will keep the speed as constant as he can so any instrument he has will be steady so he would say he is not accelerating. Let's say he is riding on a vertical surface at a constant height above the ground. He will hold the throttle at a steady position. His machine will be pressed into the wall by a combination of gravity and centrifugal force which will make his effective weight greater. Will he have to keep the throttle more open than he would if travelling normally on a straight road? Is he having to use more fuel? Is he effectively climbing an incline as far as his machine is concerned? Is he using enough fuel to accelerate if he was travelling in a straight line on a horizontal surface? I won't say what I think as this is homework. (Perhaps, even probably, I don't actually know the answers - lol)

Likely, this is as close to what I meant to say, as anything else I may ever add. Read his bio.

 

You can't argue with that, can you!

Ummmm common! :/

 

 

 

 

That doesn't excuse it from being a common base topology.

 

 

I have no personal interest in this topic, so whoever wants to disagree can more than do so with little argument from me. I still stand behind my statements, but will now do so from over there. =====>

 

Transistors are a poor choice for philosophical debate and we are in engineering!

No offence meant, but I believe the statement in question was "I was just curious to know what happens if a signal is injected into the Collector and another in the Emitter and the base is used as an Output: I know that this is not "the way transistors are (generally?) used"".

The above statement is true as the following set of diagrams indicate:-

Obviously not, because they are, and it is called a common base configuration and it finds special application.

Sorry, but in common base circuits the base is usually held at a fixed potential and the input(s) fed to the emitter to vary the current through the transistor. You don't therefore expect to find signal changes at the base. I suppose you might find small signals at the base of T1 in this 3 transistor circuit. However the capacitor C1 would tend to damp out these pretty effectively (IMO)