studiot

This project aims to produce 300,000 tonnes annually of hydrogen and derivatives from solar and wind electricity and water. The African nation aiming to be a hydrogen superpower - BBC News

So why don't we move on ?

The title says it all. This never used to happen when I am logged in. Some adverts at the top, fair enough. But this blighter suddenly blots out my text input box in the middle of typing.

More good stuff +1

If this was an extract, thank you. I have substantial doubts about some of the results and conclusions however. The question of why it is necessary to consider transport mechanisms at all arises immediately. What chemical or radiochemical process generates helium ? Why can this not work just as well in Panama as in the Galapagos ? If the 'geothermal water in Panama is not volcanically heated, why is it hot ?

I didn't say what I've highlighted in neon (emboldened) in the quote I made from your post. I find it relevant because neither you nor anyone else seems to want to acknowledge my actual point(s) which I reiterate. (Text)books have become larger and become smaller over periods of years to decades or longer many times in history. I also made the point that in my experience we are currently in a period of size increase. I also made the point that these are averages. I also made the point that in one specific technical discipline this is significantly evident because there has been an explosion of books in this area and also explained more. But I also made the point that the reasons for both size increase and size decrease are manyfold. Thank you for acknowledging that if I were to find a five leaved clover in a some field, related the anecdote to say CharonY , and asked how that clover might have come about, it would be OK. Not a theory of everything, or even anything significant, but still OK.

It's good to have a propely thought out account. Thank you. +1

I said it was both complicated and not yet fully understood. New material and ideas are emerging all the time. I didn't really want to mention 'plume' theory just yet either.

Once again I did not say that. If you read my post that I thought it was you who like I said that for a variety of reasons, (and I gave some of them) textbooks have changed size, sometime getting bigger and sometimes smaller on average (again I gave examples of both). I also said quite clearly that accidental experiences (another 'definition/description of an anecdote) have sometime led to scientific discoveries in the past, although this time I only gave one example. If Fleming had adopted your attitude to 'anecdotes' we would not have penecillin today.

I suspect I'm smart enough not to be caught by such specious nonsense. Neither Curie discovered radioactivity, though they worked a lot with it and sadly died from it. I did not say this was an account of the discovery of penecillin. It was, however, the result of a single incident - which is what anecdotes are all about. Nor did I deny that there was intensive scientifc activity follwing that incident and continued subsequent developement thereafter. Incidentally that discovery led to the making of a struggling minor american company called Pfizer. (But that would be another anecdote).

Are you asking us or telling us ? Needless to say the Earth-Moon system is very complicated and has developed of more than 4,000 million years. Like swansont I would like to see some calculations to back that up, but remember you need to consider the Earth-Moon system to calculate water levels. Isotasy is a local effect. Two matters you need to consider. Firstly the earth's surface is curved not flat. You can't fit one or even a small number of plates to the surface of a globe. The direction of gravity is radia not parallel. Secondly a comment on magma to amplify (not contradict) what exchemist has already told you. The rocks from the surface to near the interface with the outer core (the core has at least two layers, a molten outer and (semi) solid inner) are generally solid. Here the temperature is actually hotter than the surface of the Sun. They are under enormous pressure, the deeper you go the greater that pressure, due to gravity. Because of that pressure, they cannot melt even though some are 'above their melting point'. When Earth movements relieve (some of) that pressure they melt and the pressure energy has to go somewhere so the rocks melt locally. This is the source of magma. Ultimately it is powered by gravity. Near the surface This magma breaks through at discontinuities and weaknesses to create the features of vulkcanism in general. There is a great deal more to it than this but I will stop there, and await your response if any, as you did not respond to the last pointers of information I offered.

Since you asked the question but quoted two hardly related statements of mine I don't know to which you are referring. But I sat some of those Cambridge exam papers and that is what we were told at some point. I see no reason to doubt the veracity of the examiners. As to the second point I have some manuals on technical writing and layout describing exactly this subject. I believe there are many such available. As to the rest of my thoughts and this thread in general, you seem disinterested. I think you are being unfairly dismissive of anecdotes. A great many scientific discoveries were the result of anecdotes. Penecillin was the result of a single one.

It is not suprising that you have reached some untenable consclusions since you have some flawed assumptions. Since we discovered 'techtonic plates' (do you know what they are ?) there has never been a proposal of only 1 plate ! The largest plate of all has almost no land on it. All the plates are very ancient. The plates do not float on magma. If you read exchemist carefully you will see he said that Both of these are solid. You need to a go a long way further back in time than Pangea to understand the development of the present arrangement. We know the plate have been there for a very long time and that they have moved about (principally by rotation , not as popularly described by translation). What we don't have yet is a well confirmed theory of how the motion is driven, although there are of course several promising hypotheses.

Yes asked as a question I think the answer must be yes they have changed, sometimes getting larger, sometimes getting smaller. However did you not originally posit it as a hypothesis? Which is why you have been badgered for evidence. I think that books have varied over time ins both size, weight and layout for a variety of practical historical reasons. Centuries ago books were rare and generally quite large and heavy. They also often had plenty of colour and quite a few illustrations. Of course this was all had done. The advent of printing and better paper reduced the size of the books but also did away with colour almost completely. They were still quite heavy as paperbacks did not come in until the late 19th century. During the 20th century we had two major wars and I have books from both periods which are 'economy' versions to save material. These have very flimsy thin paper a reduced typesize and very little white space on the page. Technical books were usually still hardback, but paperback versions and even further miniaturisations were available for travellers. However a lot of work was done mid century to determine the optimum 'white space' for readability. Interestingly the University of Cambridge adopted a peculiar shade of light green for their exam papers because they found out empirically that this colout resulted in the lowest numbers of candidates freaking out at the sight of the exam paper. The final part of the 20th century has brought richer times along with a great deal of presentation theory and vast technological capacity to print. However an exception being Dover which generally reduced the size, print and construction quality of older publications but at least reissued them. So yes, I would agree that sizes have expanded at the moment, perhaps a little too far and a little too expensively. No doubt things will change again in the future. Looking around today I have quite a few Schaum texts, they all seem to be about the same size and format, whatever their age. I have two very modern Geometry books one the size of a nomal novel by Roe and one the size of a Schaum book. But it really seems to be Earth Sciences that go in for the super large. Perhaps that harps back to their heritage in cartography and atlases. At any rate I appreciate the larger photos and other graphics material they offer.

Oops yes they were full of Christmas spirit. Sorry. That should have been grammes.

Could you ? Calculus was mentioned late in this thread. Consider Hobson's calculus (Theory of functions of a real variable) Volume 1 (originallly1907) My third edition 1927 736 pages 190 x 260 x 40 mm 1496 kg. Volume 2 My second ed 1926 780 pages 190 x260 x45 mm 1547 kg Both bigger than either my modern Setwart or my Finney. How about Wells - Structural Inorganic Chemistry My 1962 3rd edition weighs in at 2150 kg 1055 pages at 170 x240 x 80 mm.

Surely it's because the short leg on tables and chairs is getting shorter . Merry Christmas everyone! 🙂

Thank you for your detailed response. I think perhaps it is over pessimistic although I note the difference in students over history. It is, however , hard to get historical data, especially for a non specialist historian. Here is some I have managed to find This is a table of the % of students going to higher (University) education in the UK at various dates. 1950.............. 3.4% 1970.............. 8.4% 1990..............19.3% 2000.............33.0% As can be seen the numbers have increased tenfold over the second half of the 20th century. So the makeup of the group in 1950 is widely different from that of 2000 with those would have been included in 2000 swamped 9 : 1 by those who would not have been there in 1950. It is interesting to note that the maths teacher I was referring to had never had a pupil getting less than a 'B', out of pass grades A - E and an impressive record in the further Maths of the Oxford and Cambridge entrance exams.

I came across this short but brilliant, 4.5 minute talk from the BBC about the subject of misinterpretations. Answers here to refer to most of the fallacies we see all too regularly at SF. How to avoid falling for the ‘gambler’s fallacy’ - BBC Ideas

Note swansont's first response, I have emboldened the relevant part So you are both working in the frame of reference of that individual atom. If you want to reconsider from another point of view (Earth) you will need to do the transformations.

Nor have you posted any helpful summaries as requested so I doubt you will get many responses.

I can't see why not.

This seems to be a sequel to the researchgate article you posted a link to earlier in the year, from the same author. The general concensus of the first article was that it was fanciful nonsense. Why would we expect anything different from the second ? You should also realise by now that we need sufficient summaries of the points to comment. I will tell you that Penrose offerered a very much non mainstream interpretation of some of the difficulties inherent in Quantum Mechanics suggesting interaction via the observer's brain. But I stress this is non mainstream and raises more questions than it answers so I cannot advise pursuing it.

Not only was your chemistry question answered by professional chemists or materials engineers, but you were offered a tried and tested simple rapid and reliable method of destroying the drives. Yet you couldn't be bothered to reply to any of the members who took the time to answer. I consider that rude and disrepectful towards those members.

I know that you are actually talking about "are indeed crafts of some sort from another place", and to this I would reply they are reflections of another dimension or set of dimensions as my explanation. But The question has been raised here as to whether any extra terrestrial life we encounter is more or less intelligent than we are. First observation to consider. How many intelligent species are there on Earth and how many small and microscopic species ? Second observation to consider We know that such small life can tolerate extreme conditions way beyond our own ability. Also some of these have had the ability to lie dormant for thousands of years and then revive or be revived. Both of which lead me to believe that it is much more likely that these characteristics would help such small organisms in crossing the distance from far off places. So I consider it much more likely that our first meeting with alien life will be with a less intelligent form.