Delbert

I used the word doubtless following my suggestion about fumes from those lithium-ion batteries. Which I think is not an unreasonable conclusion following possible toxic fumes from such. If the crew and passengers weren't incapacitated, I'd have thought the plane may have performed a more circuitous path consequential to possible human conflict. Anyway, I only offered a possible scenario. The fly in my suggestion, I have thought, is the apparent absence of a mayday call before, during or immediately after the apparent change of direction. Not having time to put out a mayday would seem to be an objection to my suggestion and perhaps point more to a hijacking. But it seems a strange hijacking to fly in an apparent straight line uninterrupted and not deflected by the consequence of conflict.

As for what happened, if it was a technical failure it seems a remarkable coincidence to have occurred just at the point of maximum confusion between one air traffic control and another. For me there maybe a fair possibility those lithium-ion batteries reported to be in the cargo hold produced smoke or fire causing flight crew to switch things off and turn back. Toxic fumes then pervaded the craft, which doubtless incapacitated everyone on board, leaving the plane to continue on autopilot. There, that's my thoughts - I await to be shown to be wrong But if that's the case and in view of the trouble the 787 Dreamliner had with those batteries, how or why on earth could they allow the things to be in the cargo hold of an aircraft?

Doubtless that's one of the scenarios on the long list. Frankly and as said, I find it difficult to believe there was no military intervention with, what was then, an unidentified aircraft with transponders turned off having turned around and flying back over land. Perhaps a similar situation here in the UK might be visualised, whereby an aircraft turned around and flew back over land with transponders turned off instead of continuing on its journey. Doubtless Typhoons would scrambled with a direct line to the PM's office requesting orders whether or not to shoot the thing down. A friend of mine with a son on the navy says they are 'pinging' aircraft all the time for friend or foe.

Just read a newspaper report this morning that MH370 was carrying a consignment lithium-ion batteries in its hold.

I'm somewhat puzzled by the reports and the apparent scenario of what seems to have happened. MH370 reportedly turned around and headed back over land. This aircraft then being wildly off course with transponders switched off and not responding to traffic control was apparently tracked by the military, so why weren't fighter jets scrambled to intercept? If nothing else, it seems a big hole in their defence system.

I'm sorry, but it seems to me you're missing the point. You cannot have a stable system if it is the case that should a leader do something he or she said they wouldn't justifies a rioting mob (because whatever the reason that's what it was) bringing down an elected government. Again, I'm sorry, but that is anarchy which has no place in democracy. Democracy cannot the predicated on the threat of a rioting mob. As said, voting is a serious business. One has to try to peer into the mind of the candidate and not baubles offered. But if you think it is justified, then that opens up a very dangerous door, if only by creating a precedence for others to do the same if they feel things aren't going their way. The end result will be the almost certain collapse of society as we know it. From what you seem to be saying, the effective take over by violent action (rioting mob I call it) was justified. If that is the case, and as I tried to suggest previously, that gives the green light for others to transgress the rules as well - which, I think, is what we saw with the outcome we now see. All the things you list are doubtless correct and I certainly wouldn't argue with them, but if we believe in democracy, then we have to go the democratic route. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but immediately following overthrow a power vacuum existed for a period. Someone else took advantage of that and maybe similarly operated outside the accepted rules of democracy and did a land grab. Momentary power vacuums are very dangerous, and are a certain consequence of rioting overthrow.

Well, according to reports it's been done in a school classroom by a 13 year old:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26450494 Cold fusion again?

What else? After all as I tried to mention in my reply #19, if one party decides to operate outside the accepted rules of democracy, others may well feel so inclined to do the same and operate outside the accepted rules. You may not like the leader, he or she may be repugnant, but if they were elected they are rightful occupants of office. So they didn't like the government, but if they were elected the error is in voting preferences. Voting is a serious business, ignore completely any baubles offered near or at election time. Anyway, they then appeared to operate beyond accepted protest (throwing hand grenades causing serious injury from what I saw on TV) and effectively brought down an elected government. I'm sorry, but that is not how democracy works. If one lot can feel justified to operate outside accepted democratic process, then doubtless others might feel they're justified to push and shove outside accepted protocol as well. It seems to me that Crimea is probably lost to Ukraine, and Ukraine may well be in sight. Perhaps Russia will wait awhile until Europe has lent them a shedload of money!! As for sanctions, that can be a tit-for-tat process. Apparently Germany does a fair amount of business with Russia!!

All this seems to have followed a non democratic overthrow of an elected leader and government. A mob rallied at a particular place and used whatever came to hand - apparently including a hand grenade causing serious injury - to effect their demands. Perhaps it was the case that the government and leader in charge were not liked or unsavoury for whatever reason, but if they were elected, then, I'm sorry, but they have to endure until the next election. And then to consider very carefully before casting votes at the next election. Voting is a serious business. For example, suppose a lunatic ends up being elected, and the lunatic promptly makes a Horlicks of everything, who's fault is it? Is it the fault of the lunatic, or the fault of those who voted him or her into power?

Just heard news that apparently Russia has just received (presumably from their parliament) the okay to become involved in Ukraine.

The trouble with these situations: they take a long time to settle down. In fact I believe someone once said of the French revolution: it's far too soon for proper analysis. Action followed by reaction is, I believe, a law of physics.

Well, I don't think manufacturers would mention it if they wanted to sell the cars! I suppose it depends on the age of your car, as it's only in recent years that diesel vehicles have been so fitted with a DPF. Should one be so fitted, I understand there'll be a dashboard light indicating whether a filter is getting full and regen is overdue. The filter is to prevent pedestrians from coughing! But as above, I believe there'll be a dashboard warning light - your vehicle handbook should describe and reveal all.

And perhaps as we all know, a committee is an animal with four back legs. And short arms? And or pockets full of borrowed money, mayhap?

I think you will find that DPF functionality is not like a catalytic converter. Inasmuch as I understand a catalytic converter converts pollutants directly, converts them to CO2 and H2O. Whereas I understand a DPF filters out particulate matter into a filter - not unlike the filter in your vacuum cleaner. What happens when the filter is full, one might ask? Well, apparently the system goes into what's called 'regen'. During this the engine fuel mixture is enriched, causing neat fuel to enter the exhaust. This ignites the filtered particulates in a hot DPF and hopefully cleaning out the filter. Apparently one of the problems is that 'regen' might not take place during short journeys, whereby the engine doesn't run for long enough and the DPF doesn't get hot enough. The likely end result being a blocked filter and a non functioning engine.

From what I can understand they are in trouble. Trouble because firstly they apparently need shedloads of money, and secondly, things don't appear to have settled down with what could be described as a stable and controlling government and functioning economy. I also understand the EU has made soundings about lending, but presumably they'd need a stable government to emerge without the threat of further insurrection before they did. And without money, forming a stable and controlling government with a functioning economy might be problematic. Perhaps the Russians are holding a watching brief.

I can't recall the date, but I think you will find lead was removed from petrol fuel for cars about 25 years ago. I was waiting for someone to suggest crap emanates from all internal combustion engines. Yes it undoubtedly does, but with the abandonment of the internal combustion engine not happening anytime soon, dealing with it is the way to go. But with evidence pointing to diesel as being quite prolific, to the point whereby it is often clearly visible from the exhaust of a non DPF vehicle, it's a good idea to improve the situation.

They produce crap from the exhaust which is harmful to human health - to be non scientific about it. In fact I wouldn't advise anyone to purchase a modern (or old) diesel engine car. If for no other reason than the DPF device (Diesel Particulate Filter) now fitted to these vehicles to remove aforementioned crap. The DPF is problematic and expensive to replace. If fact I understand there is a growing industry if offering to either remove said DPF, or, following recent legislation, doctor the DPF such that it looks like a functioning DPF, but is in fact simply an empty can!! Bugger human health.

Maxwell's equations are based of physics. In that simple statement it is clear the speed of light will be the same for everybody, whatever speed you think you, or anybody else you're observing, are doing. It seems to me that with light (or perhaps anything else) there has to be a thing that we call or experience as speed of travel. For example, if light travelled instantaneously, then upon switching on (say) a torch the light would instantaneously reach to an infinite distance. And presumably light covering an infinite distance would require or need an infinite amount of energy so to do, which is ludicrous. So therefore, light must be observed to travel at some sort of identifiable speed based on physics, to avoid a ridiculous situation. In other words it appears its speed of travel is determined by a fundamental property of physics, not to mention the universe. Relative speed doesn't come into it, therefore the speed of light will always be the same whatever you're or observing. I recall on another science site someone arguing that gravity acts instantaneously. You know, if (say) the Sun's gravity varied we would feel it here on Earth at the same time and not approximately 8 minutes later like light. Well, it seems to me the same restriction and ludicrousness about an instant effect over distance applies to gravity as it does light - in other words gravity travels at a speed according to physics, producing gravity waves as a consequence.

What do you mean by 'gate a metal'? I understand it's the squeezing by varying the depletion layer in an FET. How would one do that with a conductor like a metal?

I said: from my experience. Which I think is a perfectly legitimate comment. And 'leave bad medical advice at home' is also a legitimate comment, but like mine a comment only. I believe the medical profession was full of good advice, which upon later experience and reasoned investigation is doubtless now no longer considered good advice. My comment is no less legitimate than yours.

Presumably you're suggesting the second is a consequence of the first. It may not be the case. Similarly, it was my reason for posing the question about flu perhaps being an elixir. I tenuously connected the two and offered the possibility that the flu somehow cured my asthma. The asthma may have disappeared had I not contracted the flu! Also, I read the other week that findings were that taking relieving medication during a bout of flu or whatever would increase the number of infecting organisms (viruses)!! This seems to support my theory that upon treating such an infection one well have it for about three weeks; but on the other hand leave it alone and it'll go in a fortnight! As I said previously, I did not take any medication whatsoever during my confinement. Did you take medication during your confinement?

Obviously I don't know what went on in the consulting room, but my gut feeling is my neighbour's medication was the result of an armchair diagnosis. Perhaps my general view has been revealed by my comments, but if not then they are to keep well away from doctors unless there is absolutely no other option. For example, I persevered with my asthma for some time before I decided that the only option was to pay a visit. And as for the resulting medication, from the time my asthma clearly disappeared, I have been slowly weaning myself off the medication, whereby now I've stopped taking the stuff (I didn't want to stop abruptly). Maybe I'm labouring the point, but I had to stop for a moment today to actually recall how bad the asthma was, and say to myself: I wouldn't have even contemplated doing what I'm doing now (I was felling and cutting up a tree that had rotted at the base).

Point taken and I offer my apologies for overstepping any rules. Contrary to what I've said, I agree. I'm just reporting my recent experience and speculating as to the possibility of a change with the immune system as a consequence - as I've been told asthma is a result of some sort of immune reaction. So although my suggestion was slightly tongue-in-cheek, nonetheless it was a feeler as to whether anyone else has had similar experiences. Furthermore, speaking to a neighbour the other day it seems he had suffered a similar infection. He'd been to the doctors at least twice and said he'd been given an antibiotic. Now my understanding is that the flu or the common cold are viral infections; so if that's what he had, what use was an antibiotic? Anyway, I'm absolutely chuffed with the complete disappearance of my asthma. Something I'd suffered with for about ten years, which had been quite debilitating at times.

A technical point perhaps, but unlike our cells - or any similar creature - plant cells appear to be able to reproduce without deterioration. Like a tree (for example) that didn't either fall over under its own weight or become diseased and rot away, presumably it could live for a very long time to the point of being described as immortal.

Just a progress report on the asthma consequence. My asthma remains completely gone, for which I can't express and convey my delirious happiness enough. And I repeat my previous whereby I can thoroughly recommend a dose of flu as a possible cure for said affliction. I would add that during your confinement you don't take any medication, prophylactic or anything (apart from food and water that is!).