Delbert

This spam business is a pain, I for one think I've had my email infiltrated recently. The clue was upon registering with another science forum when my registration was rejected because they don't like spammers! I've never spammed in my life! I've also received the odd peculiar email or two. What else has my name been wrongly attributed to? All this seemed to coincide with registering with my ISP's wi-fi facility. I was quite relieved when my registration on this site wasn't similarly rejected.

I think what happens inside or at the event horizon of a black hole is open to speculation. As for an infinite density singularity, I'm inclined to think something (unknown) comes into play before it gets to such a state - but I haven't the foggiest idea what! I understand there is also time dilation the closer one gets to the event horizon, such should you or me be approach near or at the horizon (if it is even theoretically possible) I further understand we would see the outside universe running ever faster. And in contrast, to the outside universe we would be almost motionless. If so, then presumably light at the even horizon, to us back here on earth, would slow almost, if not completely, to a stop. As for sound, and since sound is mechanical vibrations of a material or gas, all such would presumably be crunched to a point (again, if that's possible). So how anything would 'vibrate' if there's no room to vibrate in an infinite point, I don't know. But again, what goes on inside the event horizon is probably outside our understanding of physics.

I think you will find a fan motor is designed to only drive a fan. I understand that more often than not a modern fan is a brushless motor - as distinct from an induction motor. Whereby electronics and Hall Effect sensors are used to switch the current through the coils. In contrast to older motors which used a commutator and carbon brushes. Small point. Volts don't flow through. Voltage is the applied potential to cause a current to flow through.

Sorry , I'm confused. My car's brakes are not operated by an electronic actuator. They are operated by my foot assisted by vacuum from the inlet manifold. It has ABS which if the wheel slows down or stops under very extreme conditions it momentarily releases the pressure and then restores it. If those conditions are not met - which is all of the time for me - then the ABS does nothing. That means nothing, nothing at all. The actuation is my foot with vacuum from the inlet manifold - no electronic actuation is involved. Well, you've said they should have put the thing in a box from the start? Why on earth should they do that one might ask? Answer: because they catch fire unpredictably! My words would be: bloody dangerous. If they didn't ignore this fire problem, then that means they didn't know about it. Which indicates to me that not knowing about the fire hazard says they shouldn't be making planes. After all, even you knew when you said you would've encased the thing from the start. In other words they doubtless did know, which means they took a chance. Such ripostes tell me all I need to know. I do not wish to continue.

I'd have thought that Voyager's signal will become gibberish at a distance when its strength becomes less than one photon per wavelength. And before that the receiving equipment will have to be ultra sensitive. And as for this communicating with ET business, I understand light takes 100,000 years to traverse the Milky Way, and we've only been transmitting for 80 years? So if our galaxy filled an A4 sheet a circle representing said transmissions I calculate would be the diameter of a full stop!! And if we were to receive something that could be said to be ET it seems they would need to be a very local or a stable civilization to still be around!

I think you're reading it wrong. In a car the pressure comes from the driver's foot assisted by inlet manifold vacuum. ABS is a pressure release and restore system. As for aircraft, I think you will find that the relevant control, fly by wire, or whatever, is duplicated at least twice, if not four times in some aircraft. And what's more, I believe the duplicated computer hardware is of different design. Also, the control software is also duplicated and written by different software houses. Even more, each software house has no communication or possibly any knowledge of who the others are! This I understand is to prevent accidental exchange of information and resultant duplication of errors!! I understand things are taken to such lengths because of the undoubted errors that permeate computer software. That's not to mention the dreaded virus! Anyway, you've kindly answered my question in being quite happy and in favour for more, if not total, electronic systems in vital areas. It's clear to me that they don't know - or more to the truth they don't want to admit - what the problem is. And so they stuff the thing in a steel case!! It is plainly clear they haven't and can't solve the problem. Haven't and can't because it is a fundamental flaw - as I stated. And as for other planes having more problems, am I to assume this safety thing is a numbers game? As I said previously, it's only luck and good fortune that a number of souls haven't perished already because of a battery known to catch fire - examples of which I understand can be seen on the internet. A manufacturer willing to take that sort of risk with the lives of others is not to be trusted - something I think you've indicated by suggesting it should've been encased from the start. Doubtless they will continue with bodge ups (encasing it in a steel box is a bodge) to get around the problem with sufficient confidence to convince the regulatory authority they can continue to fly. I believe someone once referred aviation to: tombstone technology. I rest my case.

I never said hydraulics never fail. And at what point did I say or imply that a pilot creates hydraulic pressure with his (or her) feet? The pressure with feet was related to an example with motor vehicles, and since you seem to indicate that electrics or electronics are so reliable, I asked would you prefer the braking system your car or the oncoming vehicle to be operated by an electrical or electronic system? Don't think it's as you describe. Inasmuch as I believe you will find it's a pressure release and restore system, and the driver's foot is not on a sensor as you seem to imply, but is applying the relevant pressure. There is the vacuum assist - which is vacuum operated air system from the inlet manifold. Further to this battery business, such a cause has not been ruled out for the recent fire on the ground. Apparently it's the ELT device employing a battery, which according to a news report yesterday evening, it was the battery. And similar, if not the same, devices are used on other planes! And I've just read this morning that another Dreamliner plane had to make an abrupt return because of a 'maintenance issue'! Sounds like bovine manure baffles brains or something not to frighten the horses. I'm sorry, but for the reasons I've outlined at the beginning of this topic, I'm of the view that batteries are fundamentally flawed. The AA or AAA jobs are probably acceptable, even a car battery because of the liquid content, but with these other high power jobs, the inherent flaw could well be paramount.

Can't say I would agree with that. The number of failure points, modes or however one likes to refer to them, in electrical or electronic actuators and associated paraphernalia, must be legion. Presumably you'd be happier if the brakes on your car were electronic (and also the other cars approaching you)? You know, with some sort of sensor or sender device under your foot, sending a signal or power to some sort of motor driven actuator at the brake pads. All this presumably powered via plugs/sockets, battery, alternator generator and all the other paraphernalia possibly including computer control? Power steering is bad enough when that fails! I seem to recall one TV prog investigating a plane crash whereby the investigating team managed to isolate the problem to a multi-pin plug and socket. But they never managed to isolate the precise failure mechanism, i.e. dodgy contact, iffy soldered connection and so on. And I think I've been involved in something very similar, whereby we had some kit that was working 24hrs a day. Changes then required it to work only 18hrs a day. The kit was therefore switched off for 8hrs. Upon switching on it failed to work, but after an hour or so it would work okay. Unfortunately that was before the engineer arrived, therefore no fault found. I got involved and set up a plan to catch the bugger! Pouncing on it upon switch-on I isolated the problem to a soldered joint on a circuit board, which upon examination, had clearly never been soldered! It had obviously been like it since new with no consequence to the equipment that anyone noticed, such that it was considered to be a perfectly reliable piece of kit. But with a magnifying glass it was clear that the pin was so close to the circuit-board hole that a tiny miniscule movement due to heat and contact became sound enough to have lasted at least 5 years of 24hrs working without fail. As for hydraulics, push a liquid down a pipe and it'll come out the other end or the piston (or whatever) will move. Anyway, and not to put too fine appoint on it, it is clearly only luck and good fortune that this plane thing with electrical control that's so reliable hasn't dumped the relevant number of souls into the ocean or land at great speed.

I think motherboards were originally a circuit board with a number of sockets into which the main functional circuit boards were plugged. The motherboard thus supplied interconnections and power rails between these sockets and thus functional boards. But nowadays, a considerable amount of functionality, other than the processor chip, seems to be on the motherboard.

Presumably the first requires tight control during manufacturing - possibly very tight with what might be referred to as large batteries. With the second being dependant on a number of factors, I'd have thought. Like evenly spread operating temperature throughout the plates perhaps being one. Because the discharge characteristics will doubtless be different at different temperatures. And with larger, higher capacity, batteries the temperature differences over the plate area may presumably become significant. Electricity replacing hydraulics! Didn't realise that one. Seems a radical step. From what I can ascertain, what I would call a fundamental problem with batteries as I tried to outline above, is unsolvable. And is especially significant with large batteries. If this is true, then frankly, I'm hoping they don't fly over my house! I might add that the lead acid jobs in cars (which I think could be classified as high capacity and discharge) are probably far more reliable because of the liquid acid. The liquid being able to conduct heat around the battery to even out any thermal effects and prevent significant temperature differences during heavy use. I've got both a lawn mower and strimmer powered by these Li-iron batteries. They work well but get hot!! Hot during operation and charging. Also, they seem to work at 100% power right up to the point where they're discharged. One moment they are going at full throttle, and the next nothing! Motors don't seem to slow down a bit as the battery nears discharge. P.S. the built-in spellchecker doesn't seem to know about 'strimmer'.

Yes, I know batteries should not be connected in parallel! To summarise, the point of my query was questioning whether or not a single battery is in effect an infinite number of very much smaller batteries in parallel? And with this in mind, I offered the thought question as to how close ('close' as in theoretical imagination) two batteries would need to be to end up as one larger battery? Like, if one could simply solder the plates together of the two smaller batteries, thus making one large battery. The batteries were two batteries, but now very closely joined in parallel to make one bigger battery. In other words, a large battery - or any battery - is a smaller number of (infinite number of) batteries joined in parallel. If the above is a reasonable conclusion, is it also reasonable to take the view that since batteries should not be joined in parallel there's a fundamental underlying problem with batteries - in particular, large batteries.

I understand that connecting batteries in parallel is not recommended, if not quite dangerous. Because any small difference in voltage will result in an equalizing current following between the batteries - possibly a very large equalizing current. But is not a single battery effectively an infinite number of batteries in parallel? Or, expressed another way: how close do two batteries connected in parallel need to be to be viewed as one larger battery? And even if it isn't considered an infinite number of batteries, chances are there'll be uneven voltages over the plate(s) area during discharge. Which surely must mean equalizing currents within the battery - possibly quite high equalizing currents. Possibly exacerbated by uneven working temperature (like the centre of a battery is likely to be hotter that the periphery). Yes, I'm thinking of that plane that seems to have penchant for fire.

I think you will find that numerous items of electrical equipment these days are double insulated with no earth lead - certainly here in the UK. I'd have thought it's more likely that there's fault with the computer/charger than some sort of coincidental static charge. One problem with an earth connection was where multiple units are subsequently connected together, creating an earth loop or loops. This can result in loop currents whizzing around creating odd, if not weird, problems with computer gismos, to name a few.

Perhaps the only way is to write you own operating system thus making its architecture known only to you. You'd have to write all your own apps as well! But all that would only secure your machine.

Only if religion and philosophy were necessary or advantageous for survival. If it were perhaps it was an assistance or encouragement to collective decisions. Or for looking somewhere else for inspiration.

I understand there is at least one amphibian that can be either asexual or non asexual depending on whereabouts it is in its environment. For example, the individuals at the boundary, where survival is more demanding, are non asexual. Whereas in the centre, where life is easier, they are asexual. Indeed, I further understand the aphids on my runner beans are asexual during the peak munching time in summer!! From the above it appears that sexual activity is helpful where survival isn't a stroll in the park. So, when you're scraping along trying to hold a job down, struggling to work each day, paying bills, paying taxes, feeling exhausted at the end of the day, sex helps us to grin and bear it all!!!

Insects are all part of the ecosystem - doubtless in ways that we don't understand or even have any knowledge of. I understand someone once said: when man mess with nature, nature will get him in the end.

I understand that the microwave frequency is designed to be compatible with the resonant frequency of water molecules. Presumably the microbe's water content will boil as well as the sample of water. So, they will doubtless be boiled both from the outside and in. As for radiological effects, I don't think microwaves are ionising. And as for any other such consequence (like buggering the chemistry), I think the exposure time to be too short before the double boiling process!

Depending what's written in the Letter of Last Resort. And if it's in the negative and the enemy discover its contents and should they be so inclined, all they have to do is get a surprise first strike in. Since almost certainly we couldn't have stopped the discovery of fusion and fission and the subsequent invention of the bomb, with the possible misunderstanding at some future time between adversaries, perhaps our brain is clever enough to self-destruct.

Like Maxwell's calculations on propagation are based on physics and not relative speed. So this zero frequency (to you) light would still be moving away from you at the speed of light. Which is either impossible because light is a wave phenomenon, or you would be transported far into the future at the time of the death of the universe. Unfortunately for me I have trouble with maths inasmuch as I get to the end of a concept and then have to reread it! Again, and again... So I try to understand just the general concept and put aside the details. Trouble is I get asked questions. So, in anticipation I end up rushing for relevant books and just do a copying job!

I think you'll find it's also to do with maintaining or reinforcing the relationship, possibly to the point of it becoming an essential factor. And backing off for a while might be worse than forgetting an anniversary! As I think someone once said (a female): the trouble with relationships is that sex gets in the way.

Evolution does explain human brain. If you want to test it try surviving in the jungle or similar environment without any outside support, and doubtless experience how much your brain will be aching. Far from implying that our brain is bigger than perhaps it might be as a consequence of evolution, it seems to me it's only just big enough. Seem to recall a story about a plane that force landed in a remote part of Australia, whereby after due process of time the survivors got to a point of starvation. Then a local aboriginal, who had been watching the unfolding scenario, came down and rescued them. It seems to me that this story indicates that our brain is not oversized but rather only just big enough, such that the plane crew never had enough collective brain power to work out how to survive. But no doubt because of collective experience by a culmination of enough brains (possibly over several generations), the aboriginal could. In other words to solve such problems of survival or building aircraft, humankind needs an even bigger brain; something we can only achieve by collective effort and experience of many brains. Possibly unlike other creatures we have no natural weapons - sting, venom, claws, suitable teeth and all the other things. So we have to use and evolved something else. That else being a big brain - and even bigger than that, one made of many brains.

Didn't someone say something like: explanations should be simple and understandable to those who don't understand it (or something like that)? Anyway, would it not be the case that without Quantum Mechanics and Relativity we would have an even greater problem in explaining the universe and all that? For example, how would we explain something that was really there? Like atoms were little tiny bits of stuff, like mini ball-bearings. If so they'd presumably have volume, surface area, surface imperfections and all the other stuff. No, QM saves us from all that. They don't really exist as photons can go through two slits at once - possibly an infinite number of slits if we could such an experiment. And as for a universe that was really there and not subject to Einstein's Relativity, that would be difficulty in the extreme. Returning to the subject of how would someone age on a photon, and ignoring the stuff about would it even be possible to hitch a ride on something that may not even exist, one would age perfectly normally. What would be different is everything else as one looked at the universe all around, which would be seen aging very fast. And as far as I understand not only aging faster but shrinking to the point that the universe would shrivel up and disappear. Or to express it another way, one would be transported to the future at the dying moments of the universe.

Hope I'm not drifting off topic here and perhaps my mind is wandering somewhat, but if a Photon, when it transit, is in fact a myriad of interactions as described by Richard Feynman, does what we call a Photon actually exist as an object? Leaving what we call a Photon merely some sort of 'event' at the source and then later at the destination? And drifting a tad more, does the same apply to all the other elementary particles? Anyway, thinking my last reply was off topic, if you were on a Photon (assuming such exists as per my last), you will seem to age normally. But what will be different is everything else, which will be aging much faster - in fact considerably faster (I offered a scenario about what one would experience upon approaching a black hole in an another thread). But I understand you can't actually travel on a Photon since James Clark Maxwell's calculations about the speed of light was based on physics and not relative speed. In other words, you wouldn't actually be able to travel with a Photon, simply because the Photon would have to move away from you at the speed of light. For this to make sense to us mere earthlings, it is Time (and possibly space as well) would presumably have to be relative. As we all know speed is relative, there is no such thing as absolute speed. Depending where we are on Earth we could be travelling anything between approx. 1,000 MPH or zero. Then again the speed of our motion around the Sun... ...and so on. That's what Maxwell's calculations say - they are based on physics. I think Prof Brian Cox has said: we are travelling through time at the speed of light.

This universe business and associated big bang I find somewhat puzzling. Puzzling in terms of what we see - and experience - is only because of the position we're in. For example, this gas cloud reportedly entering a black hole (recent BBC Horizon prog), whereby I understand what we see will be the cloud dimming and slowing as it nears the even horizon, effectively hanging forever but never quite 'going in' due to time dilation (apparently contrary to the program saying 'swallowed'). Suppose then we took a ride on said gas cloud and flashed a light (say) once every second to someone on Earth, who did a similar flashing job to us. I understand the Earth bound flasher would see the time between our flashes getting ever longer, eventually ending up with an infinite time for the last flashes. But in contrast, we would see the time between flashing from Earth getting ever shorter, possibly to the point whereby it would be a continuous light. So what would we on the gas cloud see of the rest of the universe? Presumably as per the flashing light everything would start to run faster. So how would this faster running universe fit with the laws of physics? For example, you can't have Earth whizzing round the Sun without it flying off into space! So, presumably the Earth, Sun, indeed the whole solar system, must be smaller - and continue to get ever smaller. And consequently the same to the whole universe?? That is, the whole universe running forward to its end and getting ever smaller as we approach the event horizon? Or expressed differently, our passing the event horizon would be coincident with the end of the universe. Have I got it all wrong?