studiot

There was a short but heartening article on tonight's 10 O'Clock local News . The University of Bristol has developed a new class of totally artificial vaccine and has one ready for trial against Covid-19. The explanation given was that they have developed a suitable base molecule to attach fragments of the covid virus to, in order to fool/stimulate the body's defneces into producing the necessary antibodies.

Mass density ? What theory would that be? The average density of Earth is about four times as great as that of Jupiter, yet the gravity of Jupiter is nearly three times as great as that of Earth.

First and foremost, you are answering the wrong question. The proposal in this thread was not to about flood alleviation per se, but transporting some of the (flood) water from areas where there is excess to areas where there is deficit. There is no requirement for total flood alleviation. Having said that, the two can be linked or combined. Yes there have been proposals, some of which were implemented for extended perdiods of time even several thousand (up to 5,000) years ago. The Harappan ciivilisation was a good example which controlled the waters of one of the great rivers of the world on its flood plain. More recently, the Romans are famous for their aqueducts, some of which are still in use. As I said, there is another point of view and dams are not the only engineering solution (although the Nile flooding has been reduced by such dams in additions to the extension of irrigable land). More recently the Chinese are working on projects to control the waters of another great river. Do you therefore think the Dutch should all move to another country ?

Yes indeed, but there is another viewpoint about this, other than defeatism.

+1 But just think of the business opportunity. Someone is offering to buy your half of the great lakes for more than you value them as.

So would I.

A very good point that also applies to other nations right across the globe. I wish others would think like you. My view is there is a lack of politcal will / organisation not a lack of physical resources to achieve this. If you were dying of thirst in the desert which would you value more A pint of water or a ton of gold?

In the meantime some good news, especially for the OP. Free Fish and Chips for all. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-52047985

I was not thinking about patient treatment, either giving them sunburn or cooking them. I was really thinking about decontamination, for instance whether to turn the washing machine temperature up or expose stuff to the strong sunlight we have at the moment. And I was tryi g to fit into Hypervalent Iodine's one of three threads as requested.

Thank you. +1

At the risk of starting another silly argument, I would like to ask Does anyone have any information as to the effect of sunlight (UV) and heat on covid-19. ? How far is it degraded by these two agents? Thanks for all the information you provided. +1

Clearly they teach a different version of History in your country. If you do not know the story of De Havilland (or apparently Parsons and Turbinia and the famous experts of the that time) or the current British Government specification for emergency ventilators (as broadcast today) for covid-19 sufferers why attempt to devalue others by such comment ? Or do you think this is irrelevent to the discussion?

So ? Remember also that I was offering balance. But if you think Strange was right then What abour De Havilland? What about Charles Parsons ? What about Columbus ? Back to the present. What about the UK government published specification for ventilators ? It has direct bearing on the De Havilland question.

There's good and not so good in this but IMHO it certainly doesn't deserve a downvote. On the other hand Would you also have refused to give Noether a hearing on tha basis that she had no formal qualifications ? Now we have fair and honest balance we can say

The experts tell us that the reason why washing hands is so effective against CV is that the virus particle is held together by a fatty blob. washing with soap/detergent/surfactant attacks this blob and so the virus falls apart. Given this information I was wondering about the possibility of introducing a suitable surfactant into the lungs of seriously affected patients to reduce the concentration of virus and give their own defences a better chance. Pulmonary lavage is not common but has been done for other purposes. https://respiratory-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1465-9921-6-138

No I don't think they do all intersect at a common point. Normals certainly cannot. That is why I asked for proof that they were supposed to.

I am sorry if my diagram confused you. All I did was cut and paste the drawing instructions given by Dima and attempt to use them to draw a diagram. That diagram was the result. I then asked if my diagram correctly showed his intentions but was not answered.

+1 We're back to this again. It never was properly resolved.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51906604 To be tested on volunteers in the US

No. I think perhaps there really is a language difficulty here. I don't know how they teach geometry in Russia, but 'similar' is another technical word in Mathematics that has a special meaning, This meaning relates particularly to shape. (basic) geometry distinguishes 'lines' (as straight lines) and curves which are ''line' that are not straight. An arc is part of (a segment of) a curve; a line segment is part of a line.

In Mathematics, the term 'a simplex' is used to refer to (mathematical) objects that have only one part. This is distinguished from 'a complex' that has more than one part, for example complex numbers. To enjoy the benefit of a ratio one need to be working with a set structure that allows division or fractions.

That did not answer my question. Circular arcs have only one shape, by definition of circular. You still have not clarified what this thread is all about. Please do not use the word complex in mathematical discussion, unless you are actually referring to complex numbers. Use the word complicated perhaps.

@DimaMazin I am still waiting for an answer.

You have to be careful defining an arc in that way in the case where you have a complete circle, you have one too many 'points'. In any event my post was really aimed at Dima. I was still trying to understand what he wants to do. I included you because I hoped you would chip in, you are usually so helpful. I did not want to start an argument. My simple definition of an arc is a segment of a non self-intersecting curve, as opposed to a line segment being a part of a straight line. I was not proposing to go into the niceties of Jordan and other curves. This definition of an angle as the ratio of two lengths is the reason often given as to why an angle posesses no physical units (dimensions). So angle = ArcLength/radius.

Are you referring to this? http://www.themathpage.com/aTrig/arc-length.htm#arc