Greg H.

What if we go Neville Longbottom on them?

We'll end up with an affinity for plants that no one else can pronounce?

What about the claustrophobes?

My wife is mildly claustrophobic - I can tell you from experience that having windows on the enclosed space doesn't help.

The task is certainly formidable. I can wait a couple more days, god willing and the well don't run dry

//

My guess is that you'll be waiting longer than a couple of days, given the Illusio has been suspended (again, IIRC)

That's why you would put a small latch on the bottom. A window that swung inwards would be very hard to open, and it would give the people inside less space to escape any hypothetical danger. The doors swing out on emergency exits in school buses. There has to be a reason they chose to make them swing out.

The reason they swing out is pretty simple, and it's also the same reason that emergency doors on buildings are usually mandated by code to open outwards - if they swung in, people would get crushed against them trying to get them open by the panicky mob behind them in an emergency. By having them swing outwards, no one gets trapped against the door.

That's neither here nor there when it comes to not having opening windows on aircraft. The idea is to have as few things that open into the pressure done as possible, because if any of those seals spring a leak, the whole plane has to be grounded and the leak found and fixed. Four doors is a lot easier to maintain than four doors and 40+ windows.

This is what you get when you have businessmen as politicians. CEOs often have no idea about what makes things work.

 

Governing and leadership in a democracy often has conflicts of interest with commerce and modern business models. Maybe we need a separation of corporation and state.

No, we just need to make political office volunteer positions. No paycheck, no fancy houses, no 6 month vacations. Make it more like the military. You show up, you serve your term, you thank the deity of your choice you survived.

He's making the same mistakes that G.W. did during his term - talking about things he has no knowledge of, and making himself sound like an ignorant ass.

That seems to be the pattern with the Republican party now. What scares me is how many people vote for folks that obviously have no idea what they're talking about.

Why does it look like we've hit a dead-end at total comprehension when the solution of a quantum phenomenon lurks under gravity?

You might consider elaborating a little.

Go and see a doctor.

 

Any other advice that anyone here can give you is less important than that.

I can't really offer any better advice. Go see a medical professional for a proper diagnosis.

Hi.

Which metal made thick walled container, [not foil] about the size of a coffee cup with a lid can be put in a microwave oven so the metal will heat up, heating its content by convection inside ?

 

Would an iron, stainless, aluminium, brass, copper... cup work without damaging the oven nor making fireworks ? Or some other material that will absorb oven microwaves ?

 

Would its shape spherical, no sharp edges... be preferred ?

While I do know that you can put limited amounts of metal in a microwave (small piece of aluminum foil, for example, or for instance the left over rims of those microwavable soup cups (http://www.campbellsoup.com/Products/Microwavable/All/11669 for example) I'm not sure an entire box made of metal that your food goes inside would either work or be safe to use.

Mythbusters actually did an episode (Episode 104, 2008) that included a waving flag in a vacuum in a vacuum chamber, demonstrating exactly what StringJunky is talking about. When you twist the pole it looks like the flag is waving in a breeze, when it actuality, it's just the motion of the pole being transmitted through the cloth.

Prologue

Nowadays it is hard to publish your ideas related with physics when you are notan accredited physicist. Also it is hard to make people find your ideasseriously, especially when your ideas intersect famous scientists' ideas or theories.And the funniest thing is that those physicians, who are not able to create oreven think rationally, are just all talk and no action, they can only mock and donothing. Conceited fools.

I stopped paying attention to you about here. If this is how you present your ideas to other scientists, I don't doubt that they mock you. Your attitude towards science in general seems to be rather denigrating, so I expect your reception will be equally poor.

- I will not discuss my ideas personally.

Then why in the bloody hell did you join a DISCUSSION FORUM?

You - "Hi I have a great idea!"

Us - "Will you explain it us in more detail?"

You - "No, I won't."

Us - "WTF

?"

Try (disproof) or shut up.

This is not how science is done. Perhaps that's why your attitude is so poor - you fail to grasp even the basics of HOW to do modern science.

 

If you just want to pontificate on your own ideas, write a blog. If you want to discuss those ideas in depth, and are willing to accept criticisms and corrections, feel free to come here.

so, in theory, if u have motor strong enough to reach that kind of speed, if you have road long enough, will he reach it or will he just lose control and crash/go airborne?

Plz i need detailed answer from someone who knows what he/she is talking about... Thanks

Well, here's some information to get you started - from the Wikipedia article on the car:

When the car reaches 220 km/h (140 mph), hydraulics lower the car until it has a ground clearance of about 9 cm (3.5 in). At the same time, the wing and spoiler deploy. In this handling mode the wing provides 3,425 newtons (770 lbf) of downforce, holding the car to the road

So the question is then how much lift the car's body creates at that speed - if it's greater than the downward force then it would leave the ground. I'm not sure about the maths necessary, but I expect someone here can provide an equation.

 

But I think you were questioning the investment costs of these tunnels... and I agree. It's likely to be far too expensive to contemplate.

That is the central point I was trying to make - you may see some efficiency improvements, but the cost may be so overwhelming that the rail industries will simply say "No." and walk out of the proposal.

That aside, I agree that a simple(!) alternative is to simply move to higher speed rails like they have in Europe. I lived in Germany for a couple of years and I was impressed by two things - travelling by train didn't take all day, and the trains actually ran on time. In comparison, Amtrak is, frankly, embarrassing.

Granted, Germany is much smaller than the US - but I think the basic ideas are there. Start with regional high speed rails, and gradually expand them to connect the regions together. But when it takes longer to ride a train to Chicago from St. Louis than it does to drive, and it costs as much as flying, why should I bother with the train at all?

Buddhism is the fastest growing religion in Australia.

 

Many also claim that it is compatible with modern science.

 

What do most people make of this?

 

As part of a scientific community, do you think you would ever consider taking up and accepting this religion/philosophy/way of life as your own?

 

If not, what are your reasons for rejecting it?

 

Are your thoughts about it more or less hostile in comparison to the great Abrahamic religions?

 

And if you had to accept one of the world's religions (for whatever reason), which one would you pick?

Assuming I had no choice in the matter, I'd pick Wicca - it seems least likely to start invading my personal life at inopportune moments.

We can calculate this with some rough back of the envelope calculations.

 

A modern train uses something like 5 MW of power (ballpark figure). By going to a vacuum, this power consumption should become less, so you can use a certain percentage of that power for creating a vacuum.

 

Now it's just a matter is calculating what a vacuum pump requires (and I'm too busy today to do that), and looking into leakage into tunnels. Btw, I think you're likely pumping water vapor, not air. At some point all the air has been pumped out, and only water leaks into the (underground) tunnel. You might therefore achieve your vacuum by cryogenic cooling too. I'm not really sure which is more efficient.

 

Would there be any data on how much water seeps into the Channel tunnel? Then you have a flow of water (mass/time), and you can calculate how much power (depending on the level of vacuum) you need to have to get it out.

If you're planning to do this in the US, Canada, and/or Mexico, remember to factor in the cost of switching nearly the entire locomotive fleet off of diesel fuel to pure electric (they should have done this years ago anyway). You would also have to design specialized cars for those cargoes that cannot be shipped in a vacuum (livestock, for instance).

The next big question is - would the efficiency gains outweigh a (relatively) simpler conversion, such as changing the trains over to a maglev configuration? (By simpler I mean you could continue to use existing rail infrastructure, with the appropriate updates, and existing rolling stock - again, with the appropriate updates, as well as existing capital facilities such as stations and servicing facilities).

Please copy and share freely!

No thanks, I'll pass. None of my friends would talk to me again if I passed on this drivel.

No. A compound steam engine, or a triple or quadruple expansion steam engine, instead of expanding the steam from P1 to P2 in one cylinder, distriibutes the expansion across two, three or four cylinders. The total expansion is the same as if a single cylinder was used, but the energy is extracted more efficiently, leading to more work from the same steam flow. The reason for the better efficiency is to do with the temperature difference between inlet and exhaust, if this is too large there can be condensation in the cylinder when the inlet steam enters the previously exhausted volume, leading to waste of steam, and there are other practical factors such as valve timing and mechanical design. If you try to expand steam from say 50 bar to 1 bar in one cylinder, the admission valve would have to close after 2% of the stroke, which is difficult. The cylinder would have to be both large enough for the exhaust flow at 1 bar, and also strong enough for the inlet pressure of 50 bar. This is not an optimum mechanical design.

More work can be extracted from steam at higher pressure, and expansion from higher pressure is most efficiently done in several stages (as it is in a turbine).

 

Paul

 

The engine designer would aim to get equal power from each cylinder, not (as you say) always more from the HP cylinder.

Sometimes in large engines the steam was reheated between one cylinder and the next, using waste heat, and improving efficiency.

Ahh. Ok, I understand what you're getting at. Thank you for correcting my misconceptions.

After you used your material to do some work, it will not be at ambient temperature. It will be warmer than ambient, but it will be completely useless. Sure, with some smart contraptions you might extract a little more - but usually the efficiency of such contraptions is low and they tend to be expensive.

If I understand what you mean here (the bolded part) this was actually the idea behind the compound steam engine. High pressure steam was used to drive one set of pistons, and the low pressure exhaust steam was used to drive a second set extracting yet more energy from the steam before it was finally released The second set of pistons, however, always produced less energy than the first set, because of the loss of energy into work from the first set.

dont we humans lose most of our heat through our feet, sorry about the rhyme.

Actually we lose most of our heat through our heads, if I remember my biology lessons correctly.

I thought it was amusing.

Socrates was not a troll, and his Socratic method was (IIRC) an answer to the Sophists of his time who often used cleverly ambiguous arguments to win their debates. He was trying to get people to start thinking critically about their opponents arguments - it's a shame he isn't alive now, maybe we'd have fewer sheep come election day.

But my question is not about "a standard discussion area".... it's about the "Homework Help" forum. That's clear, unless you are responding to internal stimuli. (?)

If he came to the forum (regardless of the section) and asked a direct question earnestly seeking information, then of course he's not a troll. If however, he (or anyone) came to any section of the forum and made grandiose claims that run against the grain of modern science while providing no supporting evidence, failing to address counterclaims and rebuttals by others, and in general making an ass of himself, then yes, he's a troll (or stupid - sometimes it's hard to tell the difference).

I don't mind the videos per se, but I hate slogging through a ten minute video trying to find the 30 seconds that the person posting it thought was relevant. If someone is going to post a video, it would be helpful if they at least posted a summary of the important parts that support their argument, along with a rough estimation of where in the video they are.

For example

See the linked video, around 1:35 where Dr. Fugensteinalgab clearly says that the moon is made of cheese and he has the studies to back it up.

This lets the reader know where in the video the presumed support is, and gives a brief summary of what that support is supposed to be. It also gives us (the reader) an insight into how the poster of the video interpreted the video, which can help identify misconceptions about the science involved.

how could you explain the fact that most people with HIV do not have AIDS? if there is a cause- effect relationship between HIV and AIDS, then people who got HIV, must got AIDS.

That's an incorrect assumption. It is possible to carry a disease and be asymptomatic for the disease itself.

besides the cause-effect relationship between HIV and AIDS must be tested. there must be an experiment on at least 100 healthy people. HIV was injected to their body and ALL of them must got AIDS within a reasonable time. please give me detail of such experiment.

The lack of ethical thought in this idea is astounding.

At Greg H.

 

I see you are afraid that I will sequence my DNA.

 

Yet another presumptive conclusion on your part, I'm afraid. You should try this little thing we like to call "gathering evidence" before you make statements like that. You'll look less foolish in the long run.

I don't see the possibility of an artificial uterus anytime soon, but this might be something to think about long term.

 

http://en.wikipedia....tificial_uterus

Fair point.