Joatmon

Well, this post arrived! Nice to be appreciated. Are you sure you remember to hit the "Post" or "add Reply" button after typing? (Possibly out of sight below).

Essentially, you are correct of course. However the figures immediately suggested to me that there was a bit more than that to the OP's thought process. Being a lazy so and so I didn't delve into it. It seems he wants to drive two 10hp motors running at about 80% of full load with a 5hp motor also running at about 80% of full load. He wants to achieve this by means of a generator which, apart from other problematic details, has an efficiency of well over 100%!

The "Peter Principle" indicates a belief that the Boss knows best may be a fallacy. He may represent the highest authority but may not have the most expertise. "The Peter Principle is a belief that in an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, that organization's members will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability. The principle is commonly phrased, "employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence." In more formal parlance, the effect could be stated as: employees tend to be given more authority until they cannot continue to work competently. It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous [1] treatise, which also introduced the "salutary science of hierarchiology." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

I won't go into the maths because the principle is very clear. Your mill requires a particular level of power for it to run. If your only source of power is the National Grid then whatever machinery configurations you can devise all of that power must be supplied by the National Grid. In addition to that amount of power you will have to take power from the National Grid to overcome losses in your machines. The question therefore boils down to which arrangement of machines would introduce the least amount of loss? Another way of saying the same thing is which arrangement would be most efficient? I would expect using the two large machines to be the more efficient arrangement. Looking at your figures there must be something drastically wrong with your calculations.

Did I hear someone's been looking for me?

I wouldn't argue with that especially as "for a while" in evolutionary terms can be millions of years. However if we, chimps, apes and even koalas have finger prints the "for a while seems to have already existed for "quite a while". IMO The fact that the Koala is a marsupial from Australia suggests any genetic link to us, monkeys and apes must have existed very long ago with plenty of time for significant evolutionary differences to take place.

Not really wishing to stir a pot that is spinning down, but part of the appreciation of what you see must be linked to your reasons for wanting to be a member of this forum. Also what, if any, benefit you feel your membership may not only provide for others, but also of what benefit the others might be to you. People with similar aspirations are likely to sense a sort of kinship, a bond if you like, and respond favourably when they seem to be "in tune" with what's going on. For myself I have to say that as someone who is retired and never educated to degree level although I worked with, and even taught, in broadly scientific environments my main reason is little more that intelligent interaction. If I can help some student with a basic problem then that is very satisfying but really only "icing on the cake". None of my friends, not even my wife, has any real interest in scientific matters. I'll just ask you to bear with me, especially when I try a bit of English humour!!

OK I'll limit myself to say that there seems to be no doubt that several workers at Chernobyl gave their lives in trying to limit the radiation effects. "In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness (ARS), of whom 31 died within the first three months.[13][99] Most of the victims were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous the exposure to radiation in the smoke was. I personally applaud the heroism of the Japanese workers who, knowing of the Chernobyl disaster, were prepared to also give their lives in the same way. Radiation can not only kill you quickly, but can kill you slowly by starting cancer and even kill the unborn through genetic defects. It's probably too early (IMO) to say that there will be no deaths among the Japanese workers as a consequence of the risks they took to benefit the Japanese population. We may need to wait tens of years for scientific evidence before we can say nobody died. http://en.wikipedia....nd_local_people

I will "put my cards on the table". I know a fair bit about practical electricity/electronics but not so much about electrolysis. You seem to be sure that the supply has only two connections so I assume your power supply is in a plastic case (rather like a laptop power supply) and your ground connection has been supplied for the power supply d.c. output. Perhaps you have a general purpose power supply and the earth connection depends on the application. Your circuit is so simple that I feel it should work without the ground connection. If you measure and find you have 24V but no electrolysis I would look for other reasons. You may be better able to answer questions that would go through my mind:- Is 24V sufficient? Is the electrolyte composition and strength correct. Have you the correct material(s) for the electrodes? Can the power supply deliver enough current (you could check the voltage at the electrodes when dipped into the electrolyte to see if the voltage drops drastically) ? Are you using a metal container with electrodes so near or touching the sides so that current flows around the container rather than through the electrolyte? Basically it looks as though you could just connect the two electrodes to a 24V battery which of course wouldn't have an earth connection. If you can get or borrow a couple of car batteries it might be interesting to see what happens if you use them in series. WARNING :- If you have a short circuit, say around the container, be aware that car batteries can delivery a huge amount of current producing a lot of heat and sparking.

It's twice as good as Pi in the sky. On a more serious note it would make just about every formula I've ever used involving pi that little bit simpler.

Without a circuit diagram this question can't really be answered. However here is some general observations. The a.c. connected to your system presumably goes to a transformer. The transformer primary will be connected between line and neutral. If this assembly is in a metal case you would expect an earth wire to be connected to the case as a safety measure. The device would work without the earth connection, but be unsafe and liable to give you an electric shock. On the d.c. side of things your equipment will use the positive and negative connections and without an earth connection will be "floating". I would still expect it to work. Any point within that circuit connected to earth will be at zero volts. If the circuit is designed to use an earth connection then this should be shown on the circuit diagram. One guess might be that if the liquid container is metal that might be earthed so that one electrode is above zero and the other below zero - but this is only a suggestion. You, and anyone looking into this needs to see your circuit.

Mummy says that since I've been good and finished my homework I can go out tonight as long as I'm home by 9 o'clock

Oh Dear, its been fun while it lasted - suppose I'd better correct my profile then?

From the Book of Revelations "19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great." So watch out Cap'n and any male moderators - the birds are out to get you!

This begs the question "Why is it illegal to have bald, i.e. smooth, car tyres? I imagine that it is because a smooth tyre will slip more easily on a moist surface although it might offer more grip on a dry surface. Perhaps most things a primitive human needed to grip was likely to be moist in some way. Some things I can think of are moist branches to be climbed and even blood on some killed or wounded animal. Before posting I've had a quick Google round and I see that chimpanzees and apes also have fingerprints which suggests they offer some evolutionary benefit.

I asked a question earlier in this topic which was "Here is something that puzzles me about the innocence of very young people. If someone had killed an evil person such as Adolf Hitler when he/she was a child would he/she have gone to heaven?" The general consensus seems to be that the Bible is silent on this question. I can't agree because of the two following quotes:- English Standard Version (©2001) But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. "English Standard Version (©2001) and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (IMO) The first quote suggests strongly that all children are acceptable in the sight of God. The second quote suggests that should you wish to enter Heaven you must become like children in their innocence. http://bible.cc/luke/18-16.htm http://bible.cc/matthew/18-3.htm

Nobody is saying it's always best to switch. In fact you can expect to win a goat one time out of three if you do switch. So one time in three you can expect it to be a bad thing to switch. But two times out of three you can expect it to be a good thing!

I'm a bit puzzled. You wan't them nearly identical to humans and then list a number of readily apparent differences. The most realistic science fiction story that I read or saw on film (I'm not sure which) along these lines concerned an alien who was able to exactly replicate a human man and take his place as a woman's husband. However perfect the replication, she became slowly aware that he was somehow different in little things he did or thoughts he expressed. I can't remember how the story unfolded - anyone remember?

Whether you are going to be lucky or not tomorrow nobody can know. Whether you were lucky or not yesterday everyone can know!

I hope you don't mind me adding that from the New Forest a very short ferry across The Solent takes you to The Isle of Wight - another interesting place. Video attached.

Presumably you are considering small rockets that travel through the atmosphere because once you leave the atmosphere fins will do nothing. IMO you need something that will either automatically maintain stability which fins do well or, if trying to maintain stability in other ways, a system which can respond very rapidly. Such a system (again IMO) would be complicated requiring feedback to ensure the right amount of correction was applied. I can't see controlled burning of rocket fuel doing this. Perhaps the method that has worked for arrows for centuries is the best system?

Some people who like a strong rhythm in their music (and I am one) feel it may be linked to heartbeat. Perhaps if the beat of the music is a bit faster than a heartbeat it tends to excite you and if a bit slower it tends to relax you. Perhaps this explains the success of Rock and Roll, the rhythm being both strong and on the fast side! Interestingly Frank Sinatra seems to see such a link:- "During these years, Sinatra perfected the heartbeat rhythm - just what it implies, a tempo neither swing fast nor ballad slow - of a persona who made every song a story". http://www.nj.com/si...ries/voice.html

It's worth remembering that ketchup is thixotropic and flows more easily after being well shaken. However you proceed give it a good shake first! http://blog.enthought.com/general/todays-word-thixotropic/

I was driving my car in the country when I got a puncture. I stopped by a very high wall. I took the spare wheel out of the boot, jacked up the car and removed the wheel with the puncture. As I slid the wheel off the car I accidentally knocked the four wheel nuts into a drain. I was wondering what to do next when I heard a voice say "Have you a problem?". I looked up at the top of the wall and saw a smiling face. I told him of my predicament and that I didn't know what to do next. He said "What I would do is take one nut off each of the other wheels and attach your spare wheel with them. You will then have each wheel held by three nuts. If you drive gently that will get you to the next town where you can find a garage to sell you four nuts. Put one nut on each wheel and your problem is solved". Thanking him, I asked what place would need such a high wall. He said it was a secure home for the insane. I said "You obviously are not insane so what are you doing there?". He said "It's a sad story. I inherited a huge fortune but my family connived with the family solicitor and managed to get me declared insane in order to steal my money." I thought for a moment and then told him that was so unfair that as soon as I got home I would do what I could to get the matter properly investigated to see that he got his fortune back and the wrongdoers punished. "You would do that for me?" he asked. I replied "Yes, of course I would" and he thanked me. As I turned to get into my car I felt a huge blow on the back of my head and a large stone which had flown through the air and hit me bounced onto the car causing quite a dent. I spun round to see the man still smiling, and waving to me he called " You won't forget will you?" Edit:For my American friends - a boot is a trunk: a solicitor is an attorney.

Well, not in our lifetime anyway. Perhaps the scientists are "panicking" because the calm passengers (the general population) are unwilling to fund what needs to be done because they don't realise the seriousness of the true situation or, if they do, are taking the short term view?