MigL

Some seeds, like avocado, don't like any covering or contact at all. They germinate by suspending above moisture, and once germinated, can be transferred to soil.

I think you lost Graybear, Mordred. I like to use the KISS principle until he follows up with another question.

No practical application, maybe. But it does provide a 'bound' on what can be done. If you can't do it mathematically, you can't do it physically either. ( although the opposite is not always true; some things you can do mathematically cannot be done physically )

chemicals, like acidic vinegar or Sulfur might adversely affect the germination. Are you putting the seeds on a moist towel inside a clear plastic bag, and letting bright sunlight take care of the mold/fungus issue ?

No, fundamental particles like neutrinos electrons, and quarks have no internal structure and are accurately defined as points with 'diffuse edges', for all intents and purposes. No structure means they cannot be subdivided into smaller parts. Released particles are not necessarily constituent particles of the incident composite particles that take part in a reaction. Quite often they are a result of the energy of the reaction and the need to balance it, and momentum, before and after said reaction. However these sort of questions are now off topic in this thread. Start another if you wish more details, or have further questions. All this stuff is covered in any introductory Physics textbook; or even Wiki.

I think we can all agree that J Biden is well past his 'best before' date, and not the best Presidential material. But that isn't the question. The question is should he be replaced ? And that involves many other important questions. Does he want to be replaced ? Replaced by whom ? Will the media and MAGA spin it as an act of desperation from a losing party ? Etc. My personal choice would have been K Harris, IF, they had given her some exposure ( like Biden got under Obama ) during the last couple of years. Instead she was kept hidden and on low key assignments, so that she would not challenge Biden ?? She is certainly sharp, and would have had some of the incumbent/name recognition advantage Biden has. But the Democrats didn't, so it'a all academic. either way, America, and the world, are in for a frantic 4 months, and the very real possibility of another sh*t-show Presidency ( or worse yet, dictatorship ).

Just about every country has the know-how to make features down to about 30-40 nm. The prohibitive part is the cost of building such foundries, and the amount of defective chips you are willing to put up with. Over the last 50 years, growing pure Silicon crystals, from which the die discs are cut, has become an art. And the cost of setting up a foundry and clean lithography facilities has become astronomical. IIRC, AMD built their own foundry in the early 2000s in Germany, to compete with Intel. They quickly found it uneconomical, spun it off as Global Foundries, and went back to using TSMC, along with nVidia and Apple. And while IBM maintains its own research facilities, I don't think they fabricate any more either. Once you get down below 30-40 nm, things become a little more complicated. Proprietary techniques are utilized, which sometimes blur the line between feature sizes, or make for an 'apple to orange' comparison. For example 3D features, and mixed feature size, made Intel 14 and 10 nm chips comparable to TSMC 10 and 7 nm chips. But since the 'general impression' is that power consumption and number of transistors are related to feature size, being able to claim smaller features is a big marketing advantage. TSMC is already advertising what they call 5 nm chips and probably sampling 2 nm chips. Keep in mind that the electron's wavelength is in the pm range, so once features get below the nm range, you may have electrons tunneling between 'features', making such chips worthless.

While you would think you can fire protons at a target ion, say a Tritium nucleus, with enough K energy to get the two to fuse into a Helium nucleus, that process really doesn't happen because center of momentum frame considerations lead to a zero momentum Helium nucleus that is in an excited state, and the strong nuclear force breaks it down again. So it isn't just the minimum energy that determines whether the two will fuse, but also the type of reaction. Expanding on the above example, if you fire a Deuterium nucleus at a Tritium nucleus, then, in the center of momentum frame , you have two products, a neutron and a non-excited Helium nucleus, plus a release of energy. And you have a viable fusion reaction.

Moore's law is a scaling effect. As semiconductor feature size decreases, we can cram more transistors onto a die and increase processing power. As Physicists, Swansont and I know that at a certain scale you cannot entrain enough electrons/holes to have a viable signal; that is a fact of Physics, and we are quickly approaching that scale limit. ( typical multi-level flash memory used in modern SSDs are only trapping a few electrons per cell; enough diffusion events and you've lost data ) Meanwhile we know fusion works. I personally knew Ray ( now deceased ), a British national who was stationed on Christmas Island, in the South Pacific, when the Brits detonated their first thermonuclear bomb as part of operation Grapple in the late 50s. You can probably find others who were there to corroborate the story; just in case you believe the sun in the sky is just a 'torch'. We can achieve the required temperatures; many labs have done so in the last couple of years. And we can contain it. What we can't do, yet, is all three at the same time, and for an extended period of time. So far, only fractions of a second; but that is an engineering problem, not a Physical problem like the limit to Moore's law.

A little too ambitious Sensei. A Dyson sphere, or even a ringworld, requires the use of the whole planet ( and maybe more ); where would you live in the meanwhile ? And this is going in the opposite direction; a Dyson sphere requires many many orders of magnitude greater expense

You are welcome to ask as many questions as you wish. It is the continuing assertion of WAGs that keeps you playing in the 'sandbox'. Learn something and join the adult discussion.

That's the beauty of sh*t. You just toss it in and hope it works. Much like some posts in this thread.

Actually, it is. You can grow potatoes on Mars with human sh*t.

If TFG stands forThat Fuc*ing Goof, what does TPG stand for ? I think D Trump would take the Humpty Dumpty approach; and 'all the king's horses and all the king's men' wouldn't be able to fix it again. He's learned that 'approach' from his buddies/idols V Putin and KJU.

Not unless you can provide other materials which ARE impossible. I wonder if you realize that ALL renewable sources of, as well as fossil, fuels are the direct result of an enormous fusion reactor 93 Miillion miles away. And we only receive a miniscule amount of that energy; almost all of it is radiated into space. Imagine what could be done, and how much human suffering could be eliminated with distributed fusion reactors providing cheap and abundant power to all the world. This is not percentage increases in power supply; it is orders of magnitude.

And lack of energy resources doesn't cause human suffering ???

America, once the shining example of, and the bastion of democracy, is quickly spiraling down the toilet. So much for your checks and balances ...

Yeah, String Junky. I need my optic nerves ( more specifically the ganglion cells in the 'bend' from retina to optic nerve ) regenerated. Been waiting 30 years.

The pitch up is not a result of the thrust vector rotating the aircraft about its CoG, rather it is due to the aerodynamic interaction of the engine nacelle being too close to the active wing surfaces. If you ever see a photo of a second generation 737, you'll notice the underside of the fan cowling on the engine nacelle is 'flattened' so as to enable ground clearance. On the third generation, with an even larger bypass turbofan and cowling, that wasn't possible, so Boeing raised the nacelles such that the engine pylon is almost non-existent, and affects airflow on the wing to a much greater degree. At least from what I've read after the incidents.

Have you heard of 'noise cancelling' headphones ? They modify the sound waves coming into your ears by introducing more sounds which destructively interfere with the noise waves you want 'cancelled'.

The cure for cancer hasn't made much headway in the last 50 years, and it has probably cost a lot more than fusion research. Let's stop research into that also. Or diabetes and heart disease for that matter.

Present your arguments here; This is a discussion forum, not a lecture hall.

Seems Swansont was right about the OP; there is an agenda.

If I may Joigus ... "another 'would be philosopher' who has no clue what Philosophy is" is that better Eise ? And then the OP starts talking about 'destiny' ???

The 737 MAX is a third generation 737. The 1st generation used low bypass engines, but the new fuel efficient high bypass engines of the MAX require much more space under the wing than is available. Boeing solution necessitated a very short engine pylon, such that the engines are not underslung, but almost level with the wing surface. This generates the very dangerous situation of 'pitch up', which can cause wing stall, and the plane just drops out of the sky because of no lift. To remedy the situation Boeing came up with the MCAS system, which forces the nose of the aircraft down when it detects this pitch up moment through twin pitot tubes. This system overrides the control stick inputs from the pilot. What happened in the 737 MAX incidents is faulty data from the pitot tubes activated the system, and the pilots could not pull the nose up and avoid crashing into the ground. There is a switch to turn off the MCAS system but none of the pilots were trained in this. I'm not sure what Boeing has done to remedy the situation after the 737 MAX grounding and investigation. Either the system has been modified, orbetter pilot training has been introduced. More and more planes are being designed to be unstable in flight, to take advantage of the efficiencies of better aerodynamics, and only the flight computers make them controllable. I remember an interview with one of the designers of the flight control system of the Eurofighter Typhoon where he states that flying the plane manually would be like'holding a bike backwards, by the handlebars, while sitting on the hood of a car moving at 100 m/hr, and trying to keep it going straight'. That being said, I have flown in a 737 MAX, and would do so again; it is still safer than riding in a bus. But we train would be terrorists well enough to hit buildings.