Danijel Gorupec

Do you need gas any more or not?

Were there attempts to propose even more natural temperature scale than the Kelvin scale? (I am not sure what would that mean, perhaps something like this: temperature increase of one unit means average particle kinetic energy increase of one joule, or one nano-joule, or one eV...)

Ha ha... I didn't see this coming. I always supposed he was an American guy.

Another problem with the idea is that Earth continuously receives energy from Sun and must release that heat to space at the same rate (to keep its temperature steady). So, if your anti-global-warming method depends on the water evaporation, you would need to evaporate water continuously... Therefore, the answer to the question "how much ocean water would we need" would be "all of it, eventually, if you don't switch to another method in the meantime".

Are you asking if they can kaboom? I wonder. When I was a kid I read somewhere that super-heavy elements could have critical masses of several grams and thus be used for pocket-size 'gadgets'. I wonder if this is viable.

From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_impactor - first paragraph) the estimation is about 20km/s. But I am suspicious with the wikipedia as their size estimation is very strange (11 to 81 km - wide range, but precise limits), while velocity and angle are given without ranges.

The 'Dark side' can be geographical location if that is how we decide to name the other side of the Moon. For sure it is not always dark, but language moves in mysterious ways (Greenland is not always green)... In fact, the 'Dark side' seems to be so widespread that we might start putting it into dictionaries. ... I understand there are constantly dark spots on the bottom of some deep craters on the Moon. Did we confirm ice there? Is this in form of ice sheets or something that I wouldn't recognize as ice when looking at it?

Hmm... I would say that with the soft radiation, the power level is important, not the 'total dose'' (that is, it is not like with the hard radiation where the damage is proportional to total dose)... Human body has means to regulate its temperature and can keep the temperature within safe limits despite of varying external influences. At least up to the power level where the regulation mechanism gets overwhelmed - only then the temperature can rise and the damage can occur. [Note that some body parts, like eyeballs, might have less effective temperature regulation ability than some other body parts, like brain. Still, with such low power levels involved, I would not expect problems with temperature regulation.... even inside eyeballs.]

Hmm... In this case, I wonder if freedom of speech includes a right to create spamming bots. After all, spamming bots are just an information technology that I should be able to use to spread my speech. Or otherwise, where is that important line between spamming manually and making a script that does the same - I guess, they didn't explain this in their proposition? ... (Btw, maybe we should also take a quick look at search engines and rights of their owners to moderate search results - like result ranking. I just read Google did something particular in Australia.)

Did you measure already how much and where the energy is being lost in your car? If you are studying you should have some picture how much energy is lost in batteries (charge/discharge cycle, self-discharging), how much is lost in inverter (if any), how much is lost in motor (resistance, eddy currents, hysteresis), how much is lost in transmission (if any), rolling resistance, air resistance, accessories power consumption... If you have this data then you can compare with other electric vehicles and check where you should be able to make an improvement. If you didn't do such part-by-part measurements already, then I think you should.

My understanding: the way a privately controlled company moderates its social platform is a from of speech - that is, moderation is speaking. Companies are responsible about their moderation policies in the same way as speakers are responsible for their speech. Companies should have freedom in choosing their moderation policies under same rules as for the public speech itself. (Btw, I am not that much impressed with actions big companies did last few days... I hope you also agree that these came too late to be praised for either bravery, morals or foresight.)

Is there such thing as a paint that looks like a glossy metal (like stainless steel or nickel-plated steel). For example, a cheaper sink tap might have a plastic handle, but 'painted' to look like metal - is this a paint or what? Is it something that I can simply buy in a store (I have no experience... maybe it is just that easy)? I need to make some ordinary carbon steel parts look shiny. I am thinking about nickel-electroplating but it seems a bit expensive where I am (and I am also afraid that there are different steel grades welded together in these parts and I am not sure if this can cause problems when electroplating). So, do I have a paint or some other option instead? (to be used indoors, occasionally touched by hands).

I actually prefer chairs without armrest - so I guess it is individual (It is because I tend to pull my legs up, sit on a leg and perform other unsightly poses - armrests limit this. Another unhappy thing about armrests is that I sometimes like to pull myself and the chair almost under the desk, and armrests prevent this. In any case, I am a person who constantly wiggles on his seat.) Fiveworlds, I wouldn't dare to buy an expensive chair without testing it. It is one thing that you should not choose by just surfing the web (and/or asking other people - chairs are individual). But if something (corona?) prevents you from going out and testing chairs, I am pretty sure that whatever you choose it will be much better for you than a kitchen chair. So, go for it in any case.

lol, anything discussed on this forum has a purpose... to be discussed on the forum. Seriously, don't you think the word 'purpose' is has a funny purpose - it is a word that actually tells something about a subject, while disguised as if it tells something about an object.

I think that the strongest benefit of modern renewables (solar and wind) is that these technologies are compatible with private entrepreneurship. This drives efficiencies and lowers prices. Likewise, the biggest weakness of nuclear (fission) is that this technology is inherently under heavy government control (among else, due to possible plutonium production). For most countries this almost guarantees sluggish development, inefficiencies and high prices. I personally would accept to have underground nuclear power stations so that the surface remains uncluttered with wind towers and solar panels. At the moment it is not at all bad, but erecting 10 or 20 times more wind towers is a worrying thought to me. Can you be more specific on the Switzerland example. Is there enough wind power? Is there enough infertile land for solar power? I ask because Switzerland is not a very large country, yet it uses about 35MWh per capita (if I found correct data). Makes me wondering if Switzerland at all has a non-nuclear option if it would want to achieve energy independence?

Thanks.... Can you hint a possible mechanism? Just to get an idea. I understand a vaccine shot can protect from multiple strains of viruses, but I guess this is not the case with the corona vaccine.

I still didn't read anywhere if we have an estimation how long the vaccine protection might last(*). Do you know? More generally, is it at all possible that a vaccine protection lasts longer than the protection obtained after getting over an actual illness? Finally, the controversial question, do manufacturers have a technology to program vaccine protection time? You know, like when you buy an iPhone and then it slows down once it suits the manufacturer. (* It does happen to me that sometimes I expect some information to have high visibility, but newspapers do not show much interest in it.)

After how long? I guess they have reason to believe that the protection is not only temporary?

The outcome of some viral diseases might be affected by the exposure viral load, and indeed, lower exposure viral load could lead to milder symptoms. But even if you deal with such a disease, you cannot use limited viral exposure as a form of vaccination. The important quality of vaccine is that it creates immunity, but does not create spreadable disease.... In your case, however, such 'vaccinated' persons would spread the disease and your method might make things worse.

New Zealand probably did it right. On the other hand, my country (Croatia) also has a good statistics, but I suspect we only did it by locking people inside their homes. I don't see improvements in infrastructure and I don't see why yoyo effect would not happen to us... So I guess it can depend from country to country.

New Zealand is one striking example of a whole class of countries that claim (rightfully) success in fighting the virus. At least they won the initial battle (as I doubt the war is over). I think, the question is if during that time they managed to establish effective work procedures, organize tracking teams, educate population, increase hospital capacity... If they did, then the initial strong reaction was a good investment. If not, then I they are again at the beginning.... I mean, they cannot remain an island in the ocean forever

This is what proponents of this idea are pointing out - allegedly, the BCG vaccination is still obligatory in eastern Europe for all children, while is not obligatory in western europe (Portugal being an exception). I didn't check these claims... If UK still has a large portion of population BCG vaccinated, as you suggest, then the idea just falls apart.

If this was already discussed on SFN, please direct me... Here in eastern europe, there is some speculation that the reason why eastern europe seems less affected by covid-19 (in comparison to the western europe) could be due to previous vaccination against tuberculosis (the BCG vaccine). This seems far fetched to me, but what is your opinion?

Yes sure. Any management of the disease heavily relies on prompt and correct measurements. More so if we manage smaller groups. But the measurement part I don't understand exactly. For example, if you measure antibodies, can you at all conclude anything about spreading rate or direction? I guess one should measure presence of viral particles instead?

They are not. But it seems to me that the second always includes the first. (I am just thinking... to be able to micromanage the spread, the country should probably have one field team of professionals for every case per day. A guestimation.)