Delbert

In general I don't like commenting on any aspect of human activity reportedly affecting life on Earth or its climate. But said report just confirms my non scientific view or generalisation that we don't know what we (the human race) are doing. I seem to recall reading that it was way back in the 1800s that the affect of this CO2 business on the eco system (not to mention climate) was identified. And we are still arguing - sorry, debating - about it.

I understand the coil (ignition coil) has a primary and a secondary (although the primary may be a tapping on the secondary). The output of your circuit would presumably connect to the primary and initiate rapid switch off or interruption of the current through this coil. The back EMF thus produced is 'stepped up' by the secondary (difference in turns ratio) to provide sufficient voltage to cause a spark to jump across a suitable gap. But l not sure the driving transistor would firstly be able to withstand the primary voltage spike (60 volts is its limit I believe). And secondly the capacitor C1 may well moderate (slow down, round off or whatever word one cares to use) said voltage spike to a point whereby the induced voltage from the secondary may just be a bump and not a spike! I further understand that commercial electronic ignition systems more often than not use a thyristor as a coil switching device.

No, it's not the same. Lowering the drinking age is not giving them alcohol. I agree, that is a perception. If one shouts long enough and loud enough about something it will be believed and possibly not made illegal - a common modus operandi it seems these days. And I understand that not being illegal doesn't mean legalised.

I suppose it depends what one means by a benefit! Still, if I were in repose somewhere following a swift half and consequently doing not a lot, rather than (say) driving a car whilst sober with the possibility, even if it's a very remote possibility, of an accident! Now that's a benefit to the public at large. Anyway, back to lowering the age, I understand in days gone by that the amber nectar was the normal accepted drink on account of the water being a bit dodgy. So in those days they probably would've been weaned on the stuff! But to return to todays world, I still have no reservations for them to start drinking at whatever age they want to. Deferring decisions to others is the thin end of the wedge - what do we ban next? We or our parental guardians are cognitive enough to decide what's best for us as sentient beings. What did I do when I was young, for example? Drinking like smoking I thought was a complete waste of time, I didn't even have the time because I was doing so many other things. Although I do relax at the local hostelry for the occasional drink nowadays.

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned they can drink at any age. The only concern I would have about drinking, any drinking and in particular very regular or excessive drinking, is my safety. Ignoring perhaps the obvious one of the drunk driver, I'm not at ease with all the other activities we undertake. Like if you're unfortunate enough to be confined in hospital; the surgeon doing your operation. The nuclear submarine with a drunk captain and first officer and all the other activities that could have serious consequences to you and me if they go wrong. And from what I can understand such would be unaffected by the suggested age restriction.

I seem to recall it was some sort of cocktail in involving a liquefied gas. I also seem to recall that the individual has to spend the rest of her life being fed through a tube in her abdomen. I've lost the sensation of surprise at what some people will do for a reason that I'm totally unable to fathom. Surely, if one can manage to chew it, it must already be an acceptable temperature?

I understand that according to Richard Feynman what we call a photon travelling from A to B , is in fact a myriad of interactions. Possibly to the point that a photon doesn't exist (although I don't think he actually said that). Such that a photon is possibly nothing more than an event at the source and then an event at the destination. After all, with the two slit experiment the photon apparently travels thought both slits to get to the destination! And doubtless, if we provided even more slits, it would travel through all of them as well to get to the destination. With that in mind it seems a contradiction to experimental evidence to visualise two such particles 'travelling' together - or even travelling!

I think it's the case that water is perhaps the easiest and safest way to transfer the energy from a heat source (I nearly said 'boiler', but would probably be shot down for such!), to cause mechanical movement of an electrical generator. And presumably until we cover large enough areas with enough wind farms, or enough wave power generators etc, we'll continue to do so until we find a way to generate electricity directly from a heat source.

I'd say the more beneficial would be to get a box of spanners out and do that job that needs doing yourself! A neighbour of mine called me about a dripping overflow pipe the other day. I said with only one drip every 15 seconds it needs repairing but it's not an emergency. But on the other hand, the overflow pipe may be almost completely blocked and the water piling up dangerously behind it! Anyway, she decided to call her son, who then called a plumber - and he claims to be a practical sort of guy! Think I've forgotten how many ballcocks I've repaired or replaced for myself and others - they are an half hour job! Get the spanners out and do jobs like that and car repairs and you'll learn about basic engineering.

When eating hot food I'd be just as concerned about the oesophagus. Seem to recall someone consuming a cold drink and having to have a large part of their oesophagus removed. I think they had serious problems with their stomach as well, but the oesophagus was hit first. Doubtless hot food, too hot food, will have a similar effect. I think one purpose of the sensing tissue at the periphery of the boat-race orifice is an immigration check for incoming items. I think one survival technique for testing food is to firstly rub a bit on one's lips. If it stings after due process of relevant time, it might be saver to look elsewhere for food. So, if it's too hot for the lips, it's too hot, I'd say.

So what's the difference to what I said? The only difference as I see it is I used E instead of V. E being Electro Motive Force (EMF), more commonly know as volts i.e.V. And transposing the formula: R = E/I. Or using your nomenclature: R = V/I. Don't think it says anything of the sort. And if I've understood exactly what you're saying, then I think you will find that there isn't a single resistive component that would have a fixed and unchanging resistance with different applied voltages to satisfy your apparent understand of OHM's law. Even a 'fixed' resistor I understand will vary slightly with different applied voltages. And that's not considering such variations in resistance occasioned by heat - they dissipate energy as heat. And as such they are rated or classified in Watts as will as resistance. All I've said is that the voltage across said diode divided by the current through it (forward biased) will equal it's resistance, R = E/I, which is OHM's law. And measuring the voltage for all reasonable currents will give the characteristic curve - it's doubtless better to apply a voltage and measure the resultant current (small) in the reverse biased direction. The resulting characteristic curve represents its resistance over the normal operating range of the component. And returning to fixed resistors, I further understand with precision resistors you may receive a chart with a characteristic curve - not as dramatic as a diode curve, but one constructed in the same way displaying slightly different resistance with different voltages. Anyway, it's clear that we agree to differ. So perhaps it's best we leave it at that.

That's it. You may have the best, most moral, sound, fair and all the other wonderful policies, but if you're not in power you might as well throw the lot in the dustbin. As I understand Churchill said: democracy is the worst form of government, but better than all the others.

Yes, it's going off topic but I can't help asking what on earth is it about an incandescent light bulb that is contrary to OHM's law? For each point on the graph to which I presume you refer, E, I & R are in keeping with OHM's law. That's what the curve represents: it's resistance in keeping with OHM's law at all points. It's different at different points as we all know, but at any point you choose the current and voltage will the result of its resistance at that point according to OHM's law. For example, are you saying that if I pass a current (say) of 1amp through a diode (forward biased) and then measure the voltage across it to be (say) 0.01 Volts, the resistance of the diode won't be 0.01 OHMs? Because it will be 0.01 OHMs, and that's all OHM's law says. Even a fixed resistor will change resistance to some degree with different applied voltages and corresponding currents - if for no other reason than because of the heat created. So, if it was the case you were correct, then OHM's law wouldn't even apply to a fixed resistor. Anyway, I think this has drifted off topic.

I was replying to Griffon when he referred to a theory as being untrue. So I used 'true' and 'untrue' in reply. It wouldn't be terms I would otherwise use. Anyway, in reply to this 'good' or 'bad' business I'd look to Richard Feynman: If it disagrees with nature, experiment or experience then it is wrong. There's no mention of sometimes disagrees, good or bad qualities. The resistance of a diode will be equal to voltage across it divided by the current following through it i.e. R = E/I. If one passes a different current through said diode (forward biased) then the resistance will still be in keeping with the (new) voltage across it R= E/I. As we all know, its resistance changes with different currents (it would be pretty useless as a diode if it didn't), but its resistance at any given voltage and current (any point on its characteristic curve) will be R =E/I. There is no contradiction with ohm law. The same applies to all semiconductors. Ditto above.

Name one? Newtonian gravity is false. But the error is very small for everyday activity, and unless you want to calculate things like Mercury's orbit, it can be used for most things. But that doesn't make it true. If you're saying 'generally considered' to mean it can be used for most things as above, then that's okay. But that's not how a theory is deemed to be true or false. And true or false is what I understand this subject to be about.

I think it's safe to say that having kids is a basic biological function. If it weren't the case we wouldn't all be here today. It's a basic survival requirement of nature. The hormones rise and we can't stop ourselves - just like the rest of nature. I've been watching the Mason Bees in my garden. The females are laid in the nest tube first, followed by the males. The result is that next year the males will exit first and wait to pounce on the females as they exit next! The males then die! And as far as I could see, the males don't even bother to feed - their life is so short. The females then spend their slightly longer but still short life laying eggs and provisioning new nests. We're no different. That's what life is all about, struggling to bring up kids to keep the species going. We've only a slightly longer life than the Mason Bees above because it takes a bit longer to raise our offspring. Sorry to bring such gloomy news!

A theory is false with just one experiment the contrary. It would be a contradiction in terms to say it should be possible in principle to find observations showing a theory to be untrue, and at the same time saying a theory is true. Indeed, if such were the case, the world would be chaotic. A so called supernatural explanation is a falsification.

I think Richard Feynman summed it up perfectly I think he said something like:- 1/ You make a guess 2/ you compute the consequences of said guess 3/ you compare the consequences of said guess with experiment or experience 4/ if it doesn't compare with experiment or experience then the guess or theory is wrong. It doesn't matter how beautiful it is, how smart you are or the name of the person who said it, it is wrong.

Looks like a probability pattern or cloud to me. I understand the orbit idea is Rutherford's alternative to the plum pudding idea they had at the time. Whereby the only way they could visualise (say) a negatively charged electron not instantly crashing into the positively charged proton was to have it in orbit, in a similar way as Earth's orbit prevents its gravitational attraction causing it to crash into the Sun. I think the ring shape or pattern you see is a probability cloud, within which an electron (for hydrogen) will be found, within the constraints of Heisenberg's uncertainty. It just happens to be a doughnut shape, which looks like an orbit. The orbit idea is a classical construct, which over time should decay like all classical orbits - end of the universe. It doesn't because it isn't.

Speed is relative. There is no absolute 'speed' for anything. The speed of light is the same for everybody. We talk about what it's like to travel at the speed of light without any reference as to what we're doing right now. But as above that's a non-argument because there's no absolute speed! Speed can only be referenced to something else. Presumably to accommodate the above person B sees or experiences the stadium shrink and person A age much faster. With person A seeing person B age much slower. With person C experiencing something in between. The stadium only shrinks for person B, person A won't see the stadium shrink; for the same reason that the operators of the LHC don't see the LHC shrink when particles are whizzing round the thing at 99.9% the speed of light. The particles (if one could endow them with feeling!), sense the LHC to shrink. Whereas the operators see them heavier and age much slower. Think that's about it. But others might know better. Anyway, perhaps taking all this a tad further: mass, speed, time and perhaps everything is all relative. So what does that say about the universe?

I believe the basic principles of programming are:- 1/ don't specify a value unless you really have to. 2/ start by testing if a process or action is complete or finished. 3/ make procedures general and not bespoke. 4/ perhaps when tracing errors and bugs (there will be), laying traps and stops might be fruitful.

As far as we understand nothing can travel faster than the speed of light - or even at the speed of light other than light. And you can't fly into nothingness because it's not there - and if you could fly into it, it would be something and not nothingness. And you can't ignore time dilation. To do so would mean that there's a universal clock marking universal time, which I understand Einstein demonstrated there to be no such thing. Posing scenarios about impossible situations I can't see as advancing knowledge.

I don't know why I'm answering this - being the presumptuous so-and-so that I am. I can't quote the mechanism, but I think you will find the ABS actuation is some sort of catch and release mechanism (If anyone has the inclination, perhaps it's worth visiting a breaker's yard). Whereby the thing releases at the end of each cycle of movement - irrespective of whether the electronics releases it or jams on. From what I recall reading the things caught fire on the ground. And thanks be to whoever that they were on the ground. I read further that the extinguishers they carry whilst in the air wouldn't have been able to deal with said fires. Also, unlike a full tank of fuel, a battery (of whatever type) contains all the ingredients for overheating, fire or whatever should a defect cause some internal discharge - 'local action' I think it's called. Unlike a full tank of fuel, which needs another ingredient to be mixed with it, namely: oxygen. And before you attempt to shoot me down, I not saying that there is no combustion danger whatever with fuel tanks.

From what I understand even those on that station in the sky occasionally get fractious with their crew members. So what would happen to the human mind on a trip to Mars, and the resultant landing on what appears to be a barren desert, I can't imagine. I get bored and fractious if I stay in one room for more that a few hours. So what would happen stuck in a tin can for 6 months only to end up on a featureless landscape, would drive me mad. I believe the idea of a one way trip was even suggested!!

I think that the consequence of Einstein is that time - like speed - is relative. Like, I understand there's no such thing as absolute speed, whereby I cannot say at what speed I'm moving, only what speed I'm moving relative to something else. Presumably the conclusion is that 'speed' as a property or factor of the universe as a whole doesn't exist. It seems to me that time has a similar property. Inasmuch as if I was approaching an event horizon of a black hole (think I've mentioned this previously), and should I look back at the universe I'd come from, I'd see it running fast - possibly very fast. Possibly as I got within touching distance of the event horizon (ignoring the gravitation tidal effects etc), and still looking back at the universe I was leaving, I would see it running forward in time possibly to its end and death of the universe. So, presumably absolute time, like speed, doesn't exist. The whole universe is just an illusion? But that's off topic.