Leaderboard

If we take Bartlett first, then the purpose of the test is to figure out for several sets of data, and assuming that each set is normal distributed, whether they also have the same variance. If we think about the second table, it is possible that it represents four sets of data, one for each row, each set of data containing three values, for T1, T2 and T3. Or it is (more) possible that the table represents three sets of data, each containing four values. Let us say that it makes sense that the second table represents experiments in which for each of three temperatures T1,T2,T3 there were made four measurements. Then for T1 it means that values 2.42, 2.83, 2.25, 3.02 were measured, for T2 they were 3.05, 2.21, 2.18, 2.35, and for T3 it was 1.95, 2.23, 2.54, 2.56. We can calculate the estimate variances of each of these samples in the standard way, as 1/3 of the difference between the average of the squares minus the square of the averages. I trust that this is familiar to you? Then we have three estimated variances V1, V2, V3, one for each T. We also have to compute the estimate of the common variance V in case they were actually all equal. That will be \(V = 1/(12 - 3) \sum_{i=1,2,3} (4-1)Vi\), where the 3 means that we have three data sets, the 4 means that we have four data in each set, and 12 is the total number of data in the table. I have not made the computations, since I have no good calculator handy, and I would probably make confusing mistakes, sorry. Finally you have to compute the Bartlett testor itself. First we need the number \( D = (12-3)\log V - \sum_{i=1,2,3} (4-1)\log V_i.\) We can see from the formula above for V that it would be a pretty good match if all the V1,V2,V3 are the same, because then V would be equal to all of them, and this \(D\) would be zero. So \(D\) having a small value is good. To compute the final Bartlett testor we also need to have \( C=1 + (\sum_{i=1,2,3} \frac{1}{4-1} - \frac{1}{12-3})/(3(3-1)).\) The testor becomes \(B = D/C\). Now you have to check \(B\) against a \(\chi^2\) distribution with 3 - 1 = 2 degrees of freedom. Having typed all of that, maybe it is not as easy as I first thought. But try to compute as many of the numbers as you are able to.

I am not very sure what the role of antibodies, or for that matter affimers, are in delivery of vaccines. I presume that affimers would work pretty well for Covid-19 testing. I don't know if antibodies will be completely replaced, but from what I have read (please note, I did not know about affimers before your post), they seem pretty promising in general, so maybe we will move away from antibodies. One thing is that most labs currently have large stocks of antibodies, and so even if everyone starts buying affimers now, we would still be using antibodies for a long time. But I did not evaluate the limitations, nor read deep enough into this to provide you with a real pro and cons analysis. Maybe other people on the forum know more or have better insights.

Instruction is special data in computer memory. Program is sequence of instructions. CPU reads instruction from address specified by special register with name PC (Program Counter). (Read articles below) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_counter After reading it, CPU starts executing assigned to instruction operation and PC is incremented by length of the all arguments taken by instruction (it is variable in the most of CPUs and depends on instruction). Different CPUs have different instruction sets. The same value might mean something else (different operation) depending on which CPU is used. Therefore program compiled to one processor is not working with different processor or with different architecture (see below). Even the most basic ANSI C complaint program, requires recompilation if intended to be used on different CPU. There is yet another special kind of register: CPU flags register. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLAGS_register The most important (and common to the all modern processors) are: Zero, Carry, Overflow and Negative flags. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry_flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overflow_flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_flag These allow computation and comparison of data by instructions. For instance, to check whether one data is equal to another data there is used virtual subtraction of them. Result is lost, nowhere stored, but flag register is updated instead. if data are equal subtraction of them gives zero, therefore Zero flag is set, and BEQ or BNE instructions (or equivalent with different name) can be used to perform jump. B.. is shortcut of Branch, J... is shortcut of Jump. EQ = EQual. NE = Not Equal. Relative jump means addition or subtraction of PC register. Absolute jump means setting PC register to fixed value (address of the next instruction to execute). Read articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_set_architecture

No, it is purely due to the invariant speed of light.

They are smaller than antibodies, are generally more stable and can function in a larger pH range than antibodies. They are produced by phage display and several rounds can be completed in 12 days. They can be used for in vivo staining and can have more specificity than regular antibodies. They are also suitable for super-resolution microscopy, where regular antibodies are generally too large. They are based on a scaffold protein that is synthetic/modified, so that it only contains cysteine residues where we want them to be, thus allowing for more specific use of tags such as fluorphores and biotin. The scaffold protein itself can have additional attractive properties such as inherent protease inhibitor activity (although I suppose that activity is reduced when introducing variable regions, I am not sure enough about the biochemistry). I read https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4000234/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5487212/ if you are interested into the details. The wikipedia has some additional answers but I presume you have read this already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affimer. Hope this helps a little.

Is this a "Calculus" problem? The "standard" way to calculate (or even define) "speed at an instant" is the derivative with respect to time. The shark is a constant 90 feet from the shore and moving along the shore at a constant 30 feet per second so its distance down the shore from the lifeguard station is 30t feet where t is the time, in seconds, since the shark passed the lifeguard station. By the Pythagorean theorem, the straight line distance from the lifeguard station to the shark, at time "t", is given by [math]D^2= 90^2+ (30t)^2[math]. Differentiating both sides, [math]2D (dD/dt)= 2(30)(30t)= 1800t[/math]. The problem asked for the distance when the shark is D= 150 feet past the lifeguard station but we need to also calculate t at that point. Use [math]D^2= 150^2= 22500= 90^2+ (30t)^2= 8100+ 900t^2[/math]. So we need to solve [math]900t^2= 22500- 8100= 14400[/math] or [math]t^2= 14400/900= 16[/math]. t= 4 and D= 150 so $2D(dD/dt)= 1800t$ becomes $300 (dD/dt)= 7200$. The rate at which the straight line distance from the lifeguard station to the shark is increasing, when the shark is 150 feet from the lifeguard station, is [math]dD/dt= 7200/300= 24[/math] feet per second.

Magnetic fields are not made of photons. Your statement is wrong. Hence the “no”

Your opening post was longish and rambling. Most readers have expressed the same opinion (in different ways) that they couldn't readily determine your actual point. So can you please sum this point up for us in a short paragraph so we all know what we are talking about?

Do I not get to choose who I reply to now = =? Or are you interested in the thread? As I recall you started off hoping to manipulate electrons in a magnetic field in order to generate visible light. Perhaps I have the wrong impression but posts 3 and 4 were from members offering avenues to explore to achieve this goal. Whether they were right or wrong, I can't see why you turn wish to turn your back on such advice.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/coronavirus-updates-us-death-toll-tops-40000-stay/story?id=70237290&cid=social_twitter_abcn And displacement of blame and scapegoating of the “other” shifts into a higher gear. Dear Mr President: The virus is already here and doesn’t care a whit about your xenophobia and nationalism.

The story was confirmed by the German government. Maybe you need to get your "BS meter" checked. The issues was not "what angers Germans". That is just an attempt to deflect the argument. It is almost as if you are biased.

Sorry, I mucked that up that (not sure what I was thinking) Pressure isn’t constant going through a nozzle (and V is proportional to T for the case I gave) As the gas moves, the pressure tends to drop (Bernoulli’s equation).

! Moderator Note As those other things are obviously far more important than the ignorant nonsense you have posted here, this thread is closed. Do not open another thread on this subject. Welcome to the forum, I look forward to your more constructive engagement in discussions in future.

Length contraction happens any time you travel anywhere at any velocity. You don't need to 'create' it. Length contraction only becomes noticeable at very high velocities however. Think of the distance you want to cross as a spring. The closer your velocity is to c, the more the spring is compressed. While you still have to cross the whole distance, there is less of that distance for you. Bit dated but this covers Relativity really well. Read it when I was younger and learned a lot from it. Happily online for free now. https://archive.org/details/TheUniverseAndDrEinstein/mode/2up

Indeed, for medical devices this is usual the step when the overall parameters are set and the equivalent of a prototype emerges. Using that initial validation and testing will be conducted to see whether the desired parameters outlined in the previous stages have been met and so on. Once that is all positive the next step is to go through actual trials and only after that we can implement them diagnostically. That being said, research can be done even with poorly or untested systems. It is just important to document those limitations. There are already fully developed antibody tests around (with various sensitivity and specificity) and some may already be allowed in some countries to test for certain purposes.

It doesn't mean it is, yet. They are talking about their future process. But design freeze sounds like it is end of the last stage before handing over to manufacturing. During development (of almost anything) it is always possible to keep researching, tinkering, trying to make improvements, etc. So, in my industry (electronics and software) there will be several stages of development: specification (define exactly what the product is), design (work out how you are going to make it), implementation (actually create the first version of the product), test (make sure it works) etc. Each of these needs to stop at some point before the next can start (in reality, they overlap and you move back and forth between them). So, at some point, the project manager will say that the specification or the code is "good enough" and it is time to move on the next stage. When writing software that is called a "code freeze"; there are no more changes allowed to the code unless major bugs are found. So, the development of vaccines seems to have similar stages of development. "Design freeze" means (I assume, from the quote) that they have come up with something they think is good enough - further work will just take time and not add significant value - and at that point, the design will be shared with other companies to ramp up manufacturing. Then, I assume there will need to be further testing to ensure it is sufficiently reliable, etc. when manufactured in volume.

As with all the biased claims of Trump and therapy/vaccine. This too is BS. Who cares what allegedly angers Germans?

No I'm saying that the government have two options , one is that they pull together and decrease pollution , the other is as I stated in the thread.