Elite Engineer

Well sure, it doesnt have to be corn or switchgrass. If sugar beet has the highest yield then do it. But I believe the whole concept would be worth it. My issue with this is: -You're still limited to building in 1 dimension, and in the future, space will be limited. -The task of constantly supplying thousands of gallons of water to maintain growth would be ridiculous. If you do manage to get the artificial lake built, you're talking about one huge lake. With the vertical farm idea, you could in theory use structure of the old oil rigs. - An open ocean would get plenty of sunlight for solar energy. I think the halfway point here is vertical farms in the ocean that grow algae.

In this hypothetical questions, let's assume the infrastructure and automotive industry is well suited to run on ethanol fuel. Would a vertical farm, off shore much like oil rigs, be the best way to cultivate corn or even switchgrass? Think of a 70-story building, 3 acres per floor. All water is provided at the source. Crops could be genetically engineered in a way that you'd obtain the highest yield, and the genetic modification wouldn't harm people as it wouldn't be consumed. Picture as many vertical farms as there are oil rigs. Why not in the future, convert the oil rigs into vertical farms? ~EE

I understand the evolutionary side of the reasoning, but not so much the biochemical side. How can an enzyme such as, alcohol dehydrogenase, be able to metabolize so many different substrates? Is it that the catalytic site is "ambiguous" or freely moving to accept a wide range of substrates? Or is it that the enzyme has multiple sites for substrates? ~ee

In what capacity are you asking is it safe? I wouldn't recommend eating it.

I mentioned this is my replies above. Assume all solutions applied have no negative consequences.

How would moving Earth's population to Mars end disease? What about genetic drift? Bacteria would be mutating as well to different virulent strains. The questions is geared towards the justification of the choice, for the benefit of the population, not the mechanism by which it operates. Assume each choice has no negative consequences in it's implementation (i.e. reduce global warming by executing 90% of the population). This comment is too edgy for me. Seriously, let's have a conversation on the choices, and which (you, us, and I) think would benefit humanity the best.

An advanced alien species visits Earth. Upon examination of our species and speaking with world leaders, they say they will offer Earth one of three choices to which they will help, and make our request a reality. The choices: 1.) -End Global Warming 2.) -Colonize Mars with 1 week transport, full living facilities, food, etc. 3.) -Cure all diseases on Earth choose one and explain why for your choice

Yes this is what I was trying to ask.

Psychological trauma. The patient is no longer the gender they identified with at birth.

Doesn't have to be PSA. Let's say the doctor has evidence of prostate cancer. What direction does the doctor take?

Discussion came up at work. If a man to woman transgender presents PSA in a urine sample, is the doctor obligated to notify the patient? I'm not sure, because in one sense the doctor could be causing psychological trauma to the patient, while in the other case, the patient has a high chance of prostate cancer.

Now that I know it exists, yes. Thanks

Give me a handful of variables. I'm not trying to test the effectiveness of a seat belt. Just trying to get a "close" average of the forces applied to the passenger

What about a simple physics diagram, with vectors, mass, velocity? Won't be the EXACT data, but can get close I imagine.

I'm trying to illustrate the importance of wearing a seat belt properly, specifically when people wear seat belts over their mid stomach, instead of their pelvic girdle. In figuring out the force applied to a passengers abdomen when the car hits an object and the person's inertia drives them into the seat belt, is it necessary to the factor in the area of the seat belt? I'd think it would be important because of P = F/A. Hence the seat belt is maybe 2 inches in width, so it's going to produce way more damage that if it were 20 inches in width. Also, how would you calculate the force of the person moving forward? Just a standard momentum calculation? ~ee

Well if we're talking about shear physical size of the genome, couldn't we assume it increases via viral insertion, after every generation? Now relative to the functioning/usefull gene sequences, that number could go up or down.?... Or stay the same?

Just wondering today. As we evolved into higher beings..from archea, to fungi, to homosapiens, our genome grew due to new requirements and survival. Is our genome at this time expanding at all. I would think it has to, as there's a flux in certain genes favored by natural selection. Some simply die off (tail) some increase (brain size?). Is there any reason as to why it would shrink? ~ee

I did about 3lbs AN online, for about $12...no problem. I'd imagine I'm on some sort of watchlist.. I have so much I don't even know what to do with it. Guess I'll start gardening then.

UPDATE: I got the reaction to work, and thought I'd share the results for anyone else trying to get this to work: I purchased ammonium nitrate online, and then mixed the components together (salt + NH4NO3). Added the zinc, added a few drops of water and NOTHING! I made two more preps and still crap. Finally, I'd had it. I bought industry grade zinc dust. The zinc I had before was ground up by me with a dremmel tool, so it was fairly flaky and solid still, but nonetheless very small, so I didn't think twice about it. The new purchased zinc dust was as soft as talcum powder...VERY VERY FINE texture. I mix the reagents once more, add a drop of water and boom it ignites. hope this helps anyone in the future.

I don't have any more AN, so I gave in and purchased some from a chemical supplier. This is weird though, because I've been using AN from cold packs really since 2012. Just now they decided to change to a urea substitute? IMO they should have done that after the OKC bombing but whatever. Thanks all for your help!

I thought about this too, but unfortunately all the materials are correct. Ammonium nitrate is sourced from cold packs, salt is regular table salt zinc powder I bought as an ingot and ground it into a powder using a dremmel tool. I really can't get my mind around this.

By mixing ammonium nitrate, sodium chloride, and zinc powder, and adding water, you can cause the mixture to ignite. However, I've tried this experiment, with different protocols (see below), and it still doesn't ignite with the addition of water. Reworked protocols: -Ground up ammonium nitrate from from cold packs. Ground up NaCl. Mixed nitrate, salt and zinc powder thoroughly. Added water, no reaction. -Ground up ammonium nitrate and NaCl together. Added salt mixture to zinc powder. Mixed thoroughly. Added water, no reaction. -Ground up ammonium nitrate and KCl together. Added salt mixture to zinc powder. Mixed thoroughly. Added water, no reaction. This is making me go insane, because I've seen people make this reaction work under the same conditions. Any thoughts? ~EE

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-10-04

So with the Harvey Weinstein and now other predatory Hollywood stories, I feel like a specific topic rises that has never really been addressed. Hollywood and progressives like to make sex out to be this spur of the moment, no big deal, if it feels good do it routine. This can very easily lead to transactional sex for roles in films etc. If someone objectifies against the person doing this, the person doing the calling out is called a holy roller or preacher and that they're slut-shaming the person involved in this "transaction", because after all, it's just sex, if it feels good, do it. But when allegations like HW's arises, all the sudden transactional sex, and the "if it feels good do it, it's YOUR body" get's left behind and the individual is now a victim. So, my question is, which is it?

The liquid would have to alot of oxygen in it, and would therefore need to efficiently dissolve the gas. Perlfluorocarbone liquids are oxygen-rich which is why they'd work. Now you have a way of introducing oxygen into the body (at least theoretically), so how do you remove carbon dioxide, and remove it efficiently to avoid acidosis?