Leaderboard

I flatter myself that anyone is interested but... I repeated the experiment but, at 14:50, I moved the cell into a ziploc bag + placed it in a bag full of ice. 08:50 1.59114 1.59114 10:15 1.5911 1.59105 11:00 1.59109 1.59103 15:35 1.59337 1.59329 16:45 1.59378 1.5937 18:35 1.59377 1.59369 19:10 1.59376 1.59369 20:35 1.59373 1.59365 As far as I can tell, that pretty much nails it. The cell voltage is higher for lower temperatures. Also, a torch cell in a bag in a bunch of ice turns out to be a pretty stable reference voltage- albeit one that isn't very predictable. A reference stable to a few tens of parts per million would be good enough for the OP's experiment. If I get bored, I might look at how well it works driving some sort of load.

On this point we agree

Um, not even transferred to vacuum temperature? (CMB's) for the above in your message it is being studied in detail but we agree in a first approach

This time, it's definitive. I have understood that you are right on this issue.

I perceived your question as an attempt to deviate from our consciousness topic into a discussion specifically about the inner life of horses. My comments regarded what humans could not fully know about other species without references relatable to humans and the inner life of horses was merely an example. However, if you insist on this deviations, are you capable of knowing and explaining the inner life of horse without using relatable human references? To be clear, my comments were a response to your insertion of the term "programmed" into this discussion, which is a more inclusive term than instinct relative to behaviors. In previous comments, I regarded instinct relative to behaviors that specifically emerge "without the appearance of a thought process." Your use of programmed is relatable to areas and aspects of brain function that produces both instinctive behaviors and our thought processes. As I see it, I've made no errors of logic with exception of, perhaps, in not conveying my thoughts in ways you might more clearly understand. Regarding "How thinking enable us not to think?", thinking enables the behaviors we choose and not choose to engage. However brief, choosing not to think is a product of our thought processes. I've made no blanket assertion that "animals cannot think", particularly when humans are also animals. What I've asserted is a perspective of how we may identify and reference that quality in other species. What appears to be "circular" here is this discussion, which is probably caused by an absence of mutual understanding. Perhaps my comments in this latest response will further that understanding. Quantification of my perspective on consciousness requires an understanding of brain function and brain evolution. Since we are talking science, we cannot argue that consciousness isn't a product of brain function. Much of what we understand about our brain and it's functional structure is rooted in animal studies. Conversely, much of what we understand about the brains of other species is based on studies of our own. The reciprocity among interspecies functional studies is how I'm able to cogently convey reference relatable to human experience; e.g., Decorticate animal study.

I remember we had a similar discussion on SFN already, no? I recall that I commented positively about the idea. While in periods of increased volcanic activity Mars might be able to acquire an atmosphere thick and greenhouse enough to develop significant surfaces of open water, I agree that most of the time it had to be ice covered.

There is more than one reason. Firstly the simplest one is that the physical path from the negative terminal to the positive terminal does not have infinite resistance. The resistance is very high, but over time, the minute current adds up to an appreciable loss of charge. By physical path I mean and include th air path, the path along the side of the (perhaps plastic) case and so on. Secondly the chemical reaction within the battery is only the principle reaction. Other competing reactions also occur, depending upon the type of battery. Again in time their depleting effect is cumulative, reducing the reactants available for the wanted reaction. Then the products of the reactions can occupy more space or otherwise leak (burst even) out of the case. These products cause depositsof lower resistance which can partially or completely 'bridge' between the terminals. Coin cells are particularly vulnerable to this issue. You can often see the white semi crystalline deposits in the very narrow gap between the positive and negative terminals. That is the time to I have just had to discard an LR44 from my kitchen scale for this reason. The voltage was reduced from 1.55V to 1.1V Sorry it's gone to the battery recycling or I would post a photo.

Well, once again, your explanation is beyond my competence. I just have to admit, I said one more nonsense. Thank you for your patience and time. I will wait patiently for you to validate or not the series of posts linked above if you have some time to devote to it

Yes.This Steiner paper exactly satisfy what I am looking for. It gave the first value of h to around end 1910. It also gave the method used to measure h historically, basically the photoelectric effect in the earlier years. I am not able to access any peer reviewed articles. Thanks. I posted the same question over physics stack exchange. Because they can't give me the information, they insist that there is no reason for me to to look for such information as the "different values should not be comparable". At other time physics stackexchange do give good answers.

Um, sorry to insist once again. I have one more point to clarify. The cosmological constant is sometimes presented as "a repulsive gravity". In other words, we have an acceleration speed of the expansion that depends on the distance in a given direction. The simplified version I was given is [math]a=d. \Omega_\Lambda H_0^2.m/s^{-2}[/math] with [math]d[/math] =distance. The greater the distance from the "centre" (equivalent to the centre of gravity in classical mechanics) the greater the acceleration speed. So, by making the analogy with this quote: can we say we have a vector quantity that applies a force? But it is also possible that I didn't understand this correctly :

All right, thank you again.

Ok, it's a dead end, so I'm starting to doubt everything... When you have a moment, could you confirm that my posts or parts of posts listed below are, in your opinion, of a scientific nature or not, please ? 1. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118858-the-solution-of-the-cosmological-constant-problem/?do=findComment&comment=1115799 2. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118858-the-solution-of-the-cosmological-constant-problem/?do=findComment&comment=1115805 3. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118858-the-solution-of-the-cosmological-constant-problem/?do=findComment&comment=1116338 4.https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118858-the-solution-of-the-cosmological-constant-problem/?do=findComment&comment=1116658 (+ spéculatives posts related to 4. ) 5. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118858-the-solution-of-the-cosmological-constant-problem/?do=findComment&comment=1116906 6. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118858-the-solution-of-the-cosmological-constant-problem/?do=findComment&comment=1116978 ( I have a very big doubt about 6., you didn't say anything about it… ) Now, only my first post page 5 is ok in my opinion. Edit : I hadn't seen your next edit: But I wonder: So It'is true also for the value of the cosmological constant ? It depend of your location also, if I well understand ? Indeed, I thought it had the same value everywhere, no? Its value is independent of H0, so.... I have to admit, I'm missing something.

In order to save energy, comparing human bipedal walking with chimpanzee limb walking is problematic. Experiments should compare chimpanzee walking on four limbs with chimpanzee walking on two feet. If chimpanzees are more energy-efficient in bipedal walking, it is possible to evolve into bipedal walking. Actually, the answer is there. Chimpanzees walk on four feet. There is no need to do experiments. If we want to compare energy saving of limb walking or bipedal walking, we should make a comparison with walking as a single purpose. For example, people walk on two feet and dogs walk on four limbs. Chimpanzees have better limbs for climbing trees.