DrP

Yes Delta - but Felons have had their rights removed by commiting a crime... the mentally I'll (some of them) need help making decisions and might need protecting or others might need protection from them. The Homosexuals haven't actually done anything wrong and are not mentally ill.

Seems like a better idea than beaming rays down from space imo... they are already coming and can be harnessed. Solar cells are improving in efficiency too as time goes on, so this is good too. I quite liked the 'solar roadways' invention that there was a video about a while back too. It was all solar powered and had sensors and LEDs.... so the road could light up to tell you if there was a moose on the road around the next bend for example (by using pressure sensors in the road panel to detect the moose and the driver and to work out where to put the 'Slow Down' warnings... which would actually appear on the road itself, powered by itself.

I struggle to believe why anyone could believe in a flat earth.. What would ANYONE gain in faking the round earth theory? I bet he believes in Homeopathy too and that sugar gives you cancer. I would just ridicule him and hope he sees how dumb he is being - if not, do you really want this idiot as your friend? lol.

How about an energy storage device/plant on the moon? Would save the impracticality of transference to Earth and it could be used to power manufacture plants or fuel generators in space to re-fuel space craft or build things we need in space that are difficult to get up there. Or even a free floating space power station that could re-fuel/top up craft on long haul space flights to Mars or beyond. This would save the craft having to leave the Earth's atmosphere fuelled to capacity carrying extra weight - it would break orbit with a minimal fuel load, collect the fuel needed for it's journey from the station, collect parts or materials for construction from the moon base and then set off to colonise somewhere far out. ?

... or just let the light travel to the earth and harness it there with a solar cell.

How would you convert the sunlight to long wave radio again?

We are in an area that has hard water.... however, it also seems quite aerated when it comes out of our tap. The pH when delivered from the tap is ~ 7.2 to 7.4. (higher than 7, presumably due to the hardness and chalkiness of the water). When left in a beaker or a closed container overnight the pH increases to 8.4 - 8.6. (this can be accelerated to a few by mins boiling it in a kettle) We have a theory as to why this is, but does anyone know for sure what is happening? If so then please explain. Our speculative reasoning: - the hardness of the water is causing it to be pH 8.6 instead of 7. Dissolved gasses and C02 in the water straight from the pipe cause the water to show a lower pH and bring it back down to 7.4. Overnight (or during a boil), dissolved C02 in the water leaches out and the pH rises back to 8.6. Seem reasonable? Thanks.

Indominus Rex. ;-)

Thanks Hype... I was a little angry at the time and was probably very sarcastic when I started that thread. I part meant it to be insulting, but not to anyone who is retarded of course. I meant and still believe that the views held by the official in the Malaysian government were retarded. That's not an insult, I believe it to be a fact. ;-)

Why so guarded? If you can't take constructive criticism and challenging of you your idea, then what's the point of posting about it on a science forum? Are you looking for someone to just agree with you and tell you how brilliant you are? Or do you want honest help and critic?

Loving this track from Chrisette Michelle. It's very cute. Love that 2 Cellos stuff too.

I had a couple of posts removed recently (that or there was some kinda crash and they never posted) - I wondered if it was because of language. One post I was frustrated at someone taking over 500 posts to still argue against what everyone was trying to explain to him and I used the abbreviation ffs. The second I was surprised about. I called the recent attitude of the Malaysian government backward and retarded with regard to their views that a semi naked selfie could cause an earthquake. Are the words 'retarded' and 'backward' banned here? I mean, it wasn't a personal attack on anyone - putting someone in jail for 'upsetting the mountain spirits' and being quoted saying 'there is OBVIOUSLY a connection with their behavior and the earthquake' IS backward. Just a fact - not an insult. lol

Yea, was a bit creepy in places for real young kids though. lol. I always wanted one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M400_Skycar but this new one you posted looks a lot safer!

Awesome - they are looking a lot more viable... Quick search suggested they had one crash, but the safety systems worked a treat and deployed the parachute, saving the pilot. The car was damaged but they hailed it as a success as the chute worked. Nice.

It means that it has been standard for over 30 years.... and I reckon a lot longer. When I was supply teaching a few years back I took an A-level maths paper home.... compared with a 1960's math o-level paper and they were comparable, so I agree, yes, the standards fell with the introduction of GCSE. Shame I am not 1 year older.

Wasn't bought in for GCSE.. always been that way - it's standard. EDIT: Even if it was then that was over 30 years ago anyway.

@Studiot: Relatively new idea? I done my GCSE's back in the 1980's - we were the first to do them. The idea of writing out a 'word' equation rather than a balanced chemical equation is something I remember as being pretty standard. How is it new?

QUOTE:"As written it says hydrogen and oxygen - one of each' No it doesn't.... it doesn't say 'one of each' at all. It says 'hydrogen and oxygen' which means 'some hydrogen gas and some oxygen gas' (As Studiot has just written above before I got in there)... and the result of that reaction is 'some water'.... They might go on to ask as a continuation of the question for you to balance the chemical equation... then you will give the full equation as in post 7.

It says to complete the 'WORD' equation... it doesn't ask for a balanced numerical equation.

ouch. Hope it's ok. I think you are better off with a thicker towel folded several times... Cloth isn't that refractory, so it's more to do with the thickness of it to block the heat. I wouldn't trust a wet towel as it could slip easier. PS: Thinking about it.... just buy some oven gloves, lol. They are more refractory than a towel. ;-)

Well I laughed at it anyway! ;-) Maybe someone found it offensive? lol.

Funny - I was thinking -1 for starting a new thread about it instead of just putting it in the existing thread that SwansonT made... which was split from at least one other. Also, I'd like to see what conclusions he draws from this as I bet he still thinks there is a centrifugal force that is pushing the glass rather than it just going in a straight line... or he is just playing a game of 'how long can we go round in circles about the same thing'. I'll remain neutral for now. lol. Rob - what conclusions do you draw from your experiment regarding the forces on the glass? PS - sorry - a little grumpy this morning... not been awake that long. x

Yea, various report I glimpsed on the news and stuff gave slightly different values for the magnitude. I live right near Ramsgate, so I guess that's why I felt it fairly strong. Cool - thanks, I'll check it out. Filed my report of the experience in their survey. Looks like I was right near it. Shook the bed about pretty vigorously for about 5 seconds and woke me up... I remember thinking straight away that it was stronger than the last one and was wondering how long it was going to last. Pretty cool - wouldn't want to be in a big one though :-/

Pretty much... except that it is centripetal force, not centrifugal. The friction is providing the centripetal force. When the centripetal force required to keep the glass/(any object) in a circular motion becomes greater than the friction then it slips and the glass and the wheel part company. You edited your post - so my reply might not make sense now.. anyway. I'm off to watch Mad Max in 3D... ttfn. Or catch it... or just don't bother and take our word for it. Watch that vid again - it explains things really clearly. ;-) - bfn.

The glass will spin with the wheel in a circle at lower speeds all the time the friction between the glass and the wheel is high enough to keep the glass moving in a circle. When a high enough speed is reached by the wheel the increased momentum of the glass (from being spun faster) will over come the friction and the glass will keep going in a straight line (instead of following the wheel in a circle), straight off the edge at a tangent, as it carries on in a straight line whilst the part of the wheel that it was sitting on continues in a circle. This might look like it has been flung straight outward, but it hasn't, it has gone off sideways. If you slow the wheel before the glass flies off but just after it slips (as you suggested above) the it would have slipped back from the radial line as the glass goes straight and the radial line continues round with the wheel. Thus the glass finishes further from the center of the wheel since it slipped. How far exactly will depend upon the weight of glass, the speed of rotation, the co-efficient of friction between the glass and the wheel, etc., so can not be answered. .. so you can see that there is no centrifugal force throwing it off the edge - it just slips off when it gets fast enough. (because it keeps going in a straight line and not in a circle)