SH3RL0CK

Pangloss, you are correct the stimulus package itself isn't over a trillion. But the total spent by congress certainly is much more. The total spent in recent months by Congress should include TARP (I think I often confuse the two): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP#Expenditures_and_Commitments $296B via wiki; in addition to the stimulus package: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009 $787B There are lots of other programs inacted...so many I can't count them all. How much in total has been spent? Interestingly google did not provide me with a recent number (I wonder why?) but from late last year some numbers I get are: http://www.cnbc.com/id/27717424/?slide=1 Or from another (admitedly less reputable source): http://kevincolby.com/2008/11/19/how-much-money-have-we-the-taxpayers-already-spent-on-government-bailouts/ Though I would suspect we have spent considerably more than this as this doesn't include the costs of other items such as the 2009 Stimulus package. These are truely staggering to me. I can't find a good source from Google that details all the money spent in TARP, the 2009 Stimulus package, the automaker bailouts, etc. I can't even find a list of all the "stimulus type" programs that have recently been enacted. Does anyone have a recent list of all the federal government has spent (or committed to spending) in the last 6 months? I can't find anything.

The issue is clearly more complicated than F= PA. If you could calculate the weight of the car solely by the air pressure and contact area, why is it that a tire normally filled to 40 psi will lift a car with only 10 psi? Clearly the surface area of the tire contact to the ground at 10 psi (while bigger) isn't 4 times the size when at 40 psi. I think J.C. MacSwell is onto something...the rubber of the tire isn't simply in tension. There are tensile and compressive forces acting on the area in contact with the road and on the areas in contact with the rim. If the experiment could be repeated, I'd try to measure the forces on the rubber directly. Perhaps you could measure the distance changes on the tire (at say 6 locations ) between the rim and the end of the tire by chalk marks and a string (as the tire deforms) before and after the load is applied. I'll bet you could determine the forces (either tensile or compression) on the tire at all the locations. I'd suspect (because tires with low air pressures are deformed) you'd get different forces at different locations within the rubber.

My arguments DO apply to the "flu preparedness" section; as it does to ALL sections of the "stimulus" package and in fact, all government spending. Do we really need this? Why isn't the CDC (which B.T.W. is already funded) already doing this? If the CDC is, why are we duplicating the work and if it isn't why hasn't it been? If the CDC needs more funding, how about we debate the appropriate funding level during the normal budgetary process? NONE of these and many other valid questions are being asked, instead we are simply throwing money at a potential problem without assessing the correct level of funding doing the cost/benefit analysis, or looking at maintaining fiscal responsibility. The lack of the hard questions by our representatives and senators is mind-boggling. As is their inability to say NO. Look, I'm all for the goals of the Stimulus package, almost all of the goals are worthy, at least in principle. No one will say it is of no value to be free of the flu. But we need to be wise in what we fund and we must say no, even to worthy causes if we cannot afford them. The reality is that we have a limited amount of money (though it seems we are able to borrow without limit) and we have already borrowed staggering amounts. How are we going to pay this money back and what sacrifices will future generations have to make to do so? Its over a TRILLION dollars...just this year...on top of a budget which already spends more than we have in revenue...in addition to the Iraq war spending...with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid costs ready to explode because of the baby boomer demographics... Personally, I'd really like a brand new car every week, a private jet, a winter home in Hawaii and another in Switzerland (when I want to go skiing) and another in Australia (when I get bored with Hawaii) and a very large yacht (including crew), and many other things. These are all "worthy" causes. I'd never have to worry about a mechanical breakdown in my car, or missing my flight, or finding a place to stay if I am ever in Hawaii or Switzerland or Australia...think about the economic stimulus and jobs created because I am now paying many people to take care of the plane and the yacht. But I cannot afford them, instead I buy myself things I can afford..a used car, economy class tickets on a commercial airline when I have to fly, just one house, no yacht at all, etc. I bet you postpone, modify and/or deny purchases yourself on occasion for no other reason than you can't afford it. Just become something is worthwhile doesn't mean we can afford it nor does it mean we haven't already funded the efforts (i.e. through the CDC). Why can't/won't our government live within a real budget as we have to do?

Thank you, that neatly sums up half of my concerns regarding the fiscal irresponsibility I refered to earlier. The other half of my concerns is why we can spend over a trillion dollars on "stimulus" without even blinking. And the programs being implemented here are of dubious stimulating value to me. Hell, I can't even tell where most of the money is/went. This Trillion is, of course, above and beyond our normal budget which already spends more than we can afford. Isn't there already spending in the "normal" budget to support the CDC and WHO? The root of the current economic crisis seems to be that everyone borrowed more than they could afford, leaving everyone and banks in particular overextended...so then is the solution to drastically borrow and spend much more? And then because we "could" have a flu pandemic, to spend even more still? Maybe the swine flu is a real concern, but if so it is already too late to address by government action...though I agree we could work now to possibly prevent a future outbreak. How will we be able to cope with a "real" pandemic such as happended with the 1918 flu if this were to happen at the same time as hyperinflation caused by our vast debt?

I'm not opposed to spending money to prevent pandemics, I think that is a good idea. However, my problem with this is the overall fiscal irresponsibility of the government. We shouldn't be spending money we don't have as this is only a receipe for greater disaster later.

If we keep spending like we are, our New York City parades will indeed include throwing cash to the crowds. This will be because hyper-inflation will result in cash being cheaper than confetti. I'm all for spending wisely. But I am afraid that the government long ago lost any sense of wisdom in their spending bills.

Why do you want to finish high school early? This only means you will start working earlier. You will be working for most of your life anyway, and as most people doing it will tell you, its usually not fun (thats why its called work ). Why start early and miss out on what could be fun times in high school and college? FYI, all you need to do to get out of the next four years is pass the GED: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GED

The loss is only realized if the costs of the wasted electricity exceeds the costs for the other fuel source. While this process is inefficient, it might still be cheaper than other means if the cost of electricity is sufficiently low. However, I agree there are probably better ways to get liquid fuel. I, for one, am very optimistic regarding the future of biofuels.

Or show someone in high school today this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PhonographPatentEdison1880.jpg and ask them what they should do with it. The aliens would most likely have no idea what they had found and might not bother to try to figure it out...

We should use the electricity generated by wind/solar/etc before using this process, I agree. However there are applications (automobiles, lawnmowers) where liquid fuels are required because of the high energy density liquid fuels require. I don't beleive batteries will ever be sufficient to totally eliminate the need for liquid fuels for all applications.

You assume the energy used to do this comes from other carbon sources, in which case you are correct. IF the energy comes from other sources (wind, solar, etc.) and is used, perhaps to generate liquid fuels, then it does not add to the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Except the CO2 originates (and returns) to the air as opposed to being dug up from the earth and added to the air. As you say, it won't reduce the concentration in the air. But it won't add to it either. Its certainly not a silver bullet, but it might be useful as part of an overall systemic approach.

Pick the school that is best for you, not "The Best School". There are lots of reasons why you might pick a "lesser" school, but I think the best reason to pick a "lesser" school might be to match the school with your skill set. By all means, you should go the best school that you can. However, if you want to go to the best schools, you need to be the best student...which is why these schools are hard to get into. If you are not the best student (I'm not saying you aren't the best student BTW...), it might be better to pick a school more in line with your abilities. I think it is better for a student to do well at a decent school than to do poorly at the best school. Cost is also a major concern these days as school has become very expensive. Its worth performing a cost-benefit analysis to determine if a particular school and particular field is financially worth doing. Its also worth visiting schools you are interested in to see what you think; especially if you can talk with faculty, students and staff and maybe alumini for the school. Certainly the social aspects are important considerations for your choice, in so far as you can determine if you would fit in with any particular culture at a school.

Yes, but its not like physicists have plenty of time on their hands. It might be a considerable amount of work for them to disect the data and discover where the researchers went wrong in the calculations. There might not be enough information available to prove where they went wrong in the first case. So a strong possibility exists that the scientist would spend a lot of time to show inconclusive results. I'm not sure how forthcoming these people are with their data either...Would all the data be shared at all? If so, would the scientist have to sign a non-disclosure agreement to see the data? What strings are attached to this? If they can't find the error, would they have to publically state this? Wouldn't their name then be linked with cold-fusion? This would surely be a career-killer. In short, there may be too little to gain and too much to lose by seriously trying to look publicly into the validity of the claims.

Those are good points you bring up. However, there are valid scientific reasons why cold fusion should be impossible (at least in human timescales) as already discussed in the thread. Thus, when a claim of cold fusion is made, it should be immediately considered dubious because this contradicts known science. It is much more plausable that the observations for cold fusion are incorrect than the very many more observations which lead to our current understanding of nuclear physics. Should cold fusion be actually proven to work, we would have to rethink a very considerable portion of what we believe to be true regarding nuclear science.

Sure, you can gain energy from solar cells, but you need more than energy. Perhaps you are thinking of ion-thruster types of rockets which are far more efficient that chemical rockets? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_rocket As I understand it, the reason these are more efficient is because of the higher velocities of the ejected propellant and since E = 1/2mv2; high velocities for the propellant are highly desired in a rocket. But you still need to eject some kind of mass (which will eventually require refueling) or there is no net motion.

Those are good points as well. For the gravity tractor to work, it might require multiple probes, or some kind of refueling rocket in order to provide sufficient fuel to do the trick... Of course one key point in all this is that the more time available to address the situation, the less work has to be done overall. This is regardless of the actual method used to change the orbital trajectory of the object. Thus, it is critical to identify asteroids on a collision course with earth long before (I'm talking decades or even generations) before the collision will occur. This is where I would spend the research dollars first.

I don't necessarily see why the "indirect" method would be more expensive than the "direct" method. Consider a gravity tractor consisting of a small probe placed near the asteroid. The technology to do this already exists (unlike some of the other proposals), the math behind this is well understood (unlike some of the other proposals), and it is known for certain this will work (unlike some of the other proposals) without any unpleasant side-effects such as turning on asteroid into hundreds (some of which might possibly still be on a collision course with earth). The above makes me think an indirect gravity tractor wouldn't be terribly expensive (particularly since the research and development costs for the technology would be negligible). We currently have many interplanetary probes which are active, whats one more? Sure, this small probe may take years of time before it moves the asteroid sufficiently far to be safe...but if years of time are available that doesn't matter.

Regardless of the outcome, someone isn't going to be happy.

IMO, there are too many variables to provide an accurate answer within this forum. In addition to the dust, humidity, temperature, air pressure variables you have identified, there are many others. Electrode size, shape, orientation, finish and material have effects. Frequency of the electrical system of concern has an effect. The distance between electrodes has a very great effect when converting the voltage breakdown and distance into a kV/mm number. For most materials (I believe including air), the smaller the distance between the electrode, the higher the kV/mm number becomes. Want a higher kV/mm value? Simply reduce the thickness of the material being tested until you get this value. How much can all this vary? Depends on what constraints on the above is realistic for your application. Is a 1 kilometer air gap realistic to you? It is if you are discussing lightning. Is a 1 um air gap realistic? It may be if you are discussing electronics. These issues are understood and the math for them is known. However, this gets very complicated, well beyond my capabilites to explain in a forum here, unfortunately.

As the student is 11, I'd keep it simple (perhaps the do-it-yourself generator is too ambitious IMHO). If it were me I'd follow Martins suggestion; buy an LED and small DC motor at radioshack. Rig up some kind of turbine that can be turned by a garden hose (or a hole in a bucket) which turns the motor, generating the electricity to power the LED. Once you have it working from the technical side, if your son and you have the time, you could then build an artistic landscape with a lake, dam, generator house, river below the dam, transmission lines to a house with the LED inside the house shining out the window, etc.

The problem with doing the illegal wiretapping "anyway"; I presume you mean without the warrants, is that inevitably (with the Freedom of Information Act), these actions will become known. Then what follows is a lawsuit and possible prosecution of the investigator(s) for breaking the law.

Well, I'm only proposing what I believe to be the explaination for them. I'm certainly not trying to justify these actions, and I agree with your counter-points. Too bad it seems that so very few of our elected leaders in the past few years (or is it generations?) also agree.

No, I do not remember those days. I think what is wrong with the newsmedia (in general) is that they have lost such marketshare they are quickly becoming irrelevant. Back in the 1960's, 95%+ of the households in America watched one of the big three TV networks nightly. IIRC, it was less than 50% several years ago (I'll try to find a source when I get a chance and more time). With the advent of cable and now the internet (not to mention Fox News), there is more competition as well. And I have to say the quality of the news reports has become horrific...I've seen atrocious reporting in recent years. Who gives these "journalists" their degrees?? So, to compete, I believe they think actions such as described are necessary (why couldn't they instead deliver a superior product?). But I think this turns people off from them (I know I have been, I haven't regularly watched any nightly news program in years), which worsens their position.

There are conductive paints you can buy from any science equipment supplier, but as you said they are fairly expensive. Try looking for these from industrial suppliers (which may be cheaper); but without knowing for sure, I suspect these too will be too costly as you might have to buy a large quantity. Another possibility would be to go to an autoparts store. They should have a small "patch" kit used to repair the rear window defroster(?) (not sure if this is the right name, its the copper wires on top of the glass where an electrical current flows to heat the glass so snow and ice melts away). Its actually a copper-filled paint. I have used these before they come in small bottles which should be suitable for what you describe. I can't remember the price as its been about 10 years, but I don't think they were all that expensive. I needed more than what was in these bottles but less than an industrial supplier. For my application, I wound up buying from an industrial supplier as I decided I'd rather buy once and have too much than possibly run out and have to go get some more.