barfbag

Okay. So what does outflank even mean? Aren't there only two? Sorry my ancient battle strategy classes were cancelled. I think this is a better strategy as outflanking obviously seems to be battle oriented, or Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/sun_tzu.html#gbKDke1cIKvK2jkz.99 The quotes I choose are to do with preparation. Preparation seems a lot smarter than outflanking. I could list a dozen more, but that's enough for point.

@ EdEarl, This engine is just an undersized prototype for now. It might take several more years of similar prototypes before they decide to spend millions reworking their plants to build full size versions. I am however not a pessimist and believe science is learning at an increased speed because of the internet. 20 years ago if most people wanted to learn something, they needed to hope there was a library book on the subject. Today ideas are shared around the world instantly. There are many interesting new energy technologies that are still in speculations that may prove interesting. A for example would be Blacklight Power who are now claiming they can make a 1 foot square box that can power 10 000 homes using moisture from the air as the fuel. Their idea is to create a series of short Plasma bursts many times brighter than the sun and then harness it using PV solar cells. This is a link to that... Please note.... I am not endorsing BLP or any of these, although the guy speaking is a Harvard Educated Phi Beta Kappa Medical Doctor who also has a degree in Chemistry. Doctor Randell Mills who has previously invented scanners and a Cancer Drug Therapy that reduces the amount of Chemo a patient needs by a thousandfold. They have an upcoming DEMO in 3 days of an improved model and they applied for global patents earlier this year. This product has cost over 60 million dollars in R&D. I could also discuss other (considered fringe despite much evidence to contrary) types of energy fronts like LENR whom the Chief Research Scientist at NASA Langley says is real. NOTE: I am not advocating either of the above in this thread. I simply like to follow science news and could list many like these. These two are sufficient for an example in this post though. So it is possible a breakthrough MAY occur before that engine ever sees the light of day. Even the company (Toyota) that made your Linear Engine is involved in one of the technologies I mentioned above as revealed at a CERN conference. Google "Toyota LENR" to find out more. Also... Fast enough? GW is set to hurt mankind, but it does not look like an extinction level event. I would not stockpile the food and water just yet. There are a lot of interesting things going on. By the way though. That engine is pretty awesome. Thanks for showing us. Edit: @ EdEarl only. I just realized you started the Universe Light Problem thread. Oddly if that Youtube video above is legitimate then they also claim to know what Dark Matter is. Just a fun note. I only watch them. I think BLP and LENR are two of the front running fringe techs, but I am not saying either is real in this thread.

@ Mordred, Thanks for links. At least it was more about it. As far as dark matter goes. There are some interesting things going on so I hope we'll know more within a few years. Maybe it gives off a charge to reach that state, although that is a speculations type Theory for now. It is a decent clue though and I am enjoying this thread.

Dang! I thought for sure this would be another GW thread discussing rising sea levels. It is interesting though and makes you wonder how GW can threaten many communities with rising water and yet the Mediterranean might be lowering in sea level. It seems to defy logic like taking trying to take the water out of the right side of your cup without affecting the water level on the left side. I wonder if this could be measured or predicted by measuring the increases in current in the strait of Gibraltar/Nile.

Yes. The time element seems silly and I agree with post 2

Later in my post I said that statement was facetious. Sorry. The article was lacking information. I'd be interested in reading more. Any other good sources?

@ chadn737, Good points. My main point was wondering if the OP was willing to have genetic defects in his populace, as the question could be with mutated population or without. Obviously if we wanted to colonize a planet we would likely not want abbe rations.

@ Charony, I believe the OP is wanting to teach (in theory) a robot or AI to learn spatial touch as we would. I would think we are still centuries away from stuff like that, but who knows. So it is the recovery therapies that might be of more interest than the causes or effects of the stroke if you know any. I'll take 1 minute and google "Spatial touch stroke therapy" and see if I get any hits. http://stroke.org.au/pdf/Cognitiveproblemsfollowingstroke.pdf Any unique therapy that can help an adult re learn might be of interest to OP. I've read of some in past but cannot find them in short notice.

@ ydops, It would make sense, but could be an urban legend. A father of a disfigured mutation would have a lot of motivation to not want a repeat occurrence. IF there is proof via DNA that itself would not prove it was not an affair or rape, so I won't bother looking, but I've heard geneticist love the Amish and are mapping their DNA. Until science maps their unique(ish) DNA we won't know for sure and even then the children could be a result of rape. Even rape and affairs would have added DNA to the mix and statistically it must have occurred to them with some regularity over the centuries. There are countless tales of it though, such as, http://www.chacha.com/question/do-amish-families-find-people-to-impregnate-their-daughters-to-stop-inbreeding https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AwrBTvlSBshTOV0AWYbrFAx.;_ylu=X3oDMTE0bjVpZnFoBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA01TWUNBMDJfMQ--?qid=20070116112830AAbJLRf So I will withdraw the statement of it as fact, but prevention of DNA from outsiders seems like a statistical impossibility based on instances of rape or affairs over the centuries.

@ OP, The idea the Amish evolved all from 200 people is not nearly true. The culture has had trouble with genetic inbreeding and is well known to pay non Amish men to stud their women (allegedly while others are present, and with a sheet over the girl). However to add to the idea. What is wrong with genetic defects if you are repopulating? The weak will die and the strong will survive and radiation and natural DNA changes that occur in evolution. Eventually the families will move apart to their own settlements and branching off will lead to their own unique DNA based on their regions. I would think one healthy young couple should be able to populate a planet parent/child or sibling/sibling couples look will see genetic mutations in about 25% of their offspring (you should never share 6.25% or more same genetic material if breeding). So.. My answer is 2 people with good lifespans and circumstances. Genetic mutations might be cruel however so I think the OP should revise the question to be how many would it take without suffering mutations. I'm sure if you used the 6.25% rule you could do the math (any Math gurus here want to take a stab at it).

Umm. I'm pretty sure we already know pretty much everything already and if we think it is true then it must be. I think all accepted science should be based on facts witnessed using the scientific method, but it seems there are too many willing to fill the gaps in their knowledge with presumed facts. i.e. I do not believe in Spontaneous Human Combustion, but nobody has or can prove it does not exist, yet I'd wager 99% of people are 100% convinced (like me) that it is impossible. There are Theories of Everything that include concepts of god i.e. Walter Russell ("The Leonardo da Vinci of our time" - Walter Cronkite), but it has become popular opinion that prayer and such has no known modus operandi so therefore it cannot exist. (my first sentence was facetious if you read this far, but I bet someone will comment on it thinking it was serious without actually reading this comment). I'm all for some popular opinion getting knocked on its butt. Dark energy is only hypothetical. If it exists then there are many questions that must be examined before anyone could answer this.

Beautiful modern song that is SO VISUALLY STUNNING you should watch it in HD in your livingroom. @ Moontanman.... Your Version of Happy has prettier ladies than most versions. The Moses dance Gene Kelly thing was also good, but I cannot recall poster. Mahna Mahna song that was posted was my kids fav when they were young. This song is best with video imho, but the song is stand alone good. Best Visual I can recall seeing in a music video.

@ OP, I will point at post # 6. It seems like solid advice all around, and it appears the poster joined Scienceforums to answer your question which is very nice. Talk of approvals makes me wonder about where you could do this. That posters Grandad went to desert to do it. You could sail into international waters and try a water launch, but the US navy might think you are starting WWIII and shoot you. The parachute sounded like sound advice. The odds of it killing are slim, but would you really want any chance of such thing? If you're successful on this scale I'll commission you to send my DNA to the moon so future generations can clone a few thousand of me. Sounds like a fun project.

@ OP, A variation of this would be building a push trailer (like video below). Then anyone could use it on their bike. I recently bought a pump to water my grass from the canal so I might've tried building a pump (not really), but the idea is fun. I'd go push trailer.... If you cannot borrow tools... hmmm. A Jigsaw is better than a Skillsaw (not always obviously) because it can cut straight or curved, but it takes longer. I'd try to get a Jigsaw, and a drill (power screwdriver type). With those two tools you can build many things.

It occurred to me that research regarding strokes might be of benefit to this topic as I believe many stroke victims lose understanding of their sensations and must re-learn things like where to swat if you feel a bee. It is only a possible area to search this idea further, but I have no interest in researching this and honestly do not quite understand what stroke victims do or do not feel. It is just an avenue not mentioned here yet, and it seems logical. Methods used on stroke victims could be analyzed for use in AI. Just a thought, Cheers

I think too many people do not even realize how cheap solar power has become. You can take a normal size home off the grid for about the same cost as a mid size car. I'd like to point out though that thieves can target them because they are outside and accessible. Extra insurance is also required. Not only theft, but poorly secured panels could fall and damage property or even kill. Fire damage is also possible when electrical installations are involved. It still is cheaper than grid power for now.

@ Chalcony, I have extended my stay on this thread because you gave a well thought out argument even though I thought remarking on ion channels was borderline off topic. Discussion of how a car runs will not get that car to its destination. I gave a reference from an Indiana University published in 1984 that fully supported my claims on this thread. Here it is again... (Note. I l added bolds and underlines/color to the following quote for emphasis.....) From this free University PDF http://psych.hanover.edu/classes/sensation/chapters/Chapter%2012.pdf I think that fully supports what I said in the OP, which was, So it appears my view was correct in 1984. You are arguing that this is no longer the accepted version of what occurs, but you have not cited anything to make me believe that is so. I do not mind if the accepted Theory has changed, and if you actually do get around to citing or proving it I will be content knowing I was quoting from knowledge from my school days. You claim it is too difficult to argue your point. That may be, but it is hardly evidence of your stance. I am sorry I am not just accepting your word for it. Although I am growing accustomed to thinly veiled (cough) insults, it does lower my opinion of the writer. Do ad hominem attacks normally serve you well? It normally makes me think the writer has little ability to defend their position using science. It certainly does not make me regret leaving the thread as I said many posts ago (I gave you a chance to prove yourself). I think I've been polite. I think this post is fairly convincing to anyone without bias that reads it that I was correct. Maybe you need to dig deep if you are wanting to prove otherwise. I will not continue on this thread. My point has been proved well enough, and I am thinking any contrary belief is fairly silly. I have heard other notions like mechanoreceptors are involved in heat sensing, but they seem to be untrue. This is my last post on the subject. I had said that in post 21, but gave Chalcony a chance to prove his version. I no longer feel that is warranted. I have proved my point to the point I think it is obvious to everyone (despite what is said). Best of luck, cheers. the cold stimulus alone generates a cold experience and the warm stimulus feels pleasantly warm. However, together the person feels heat - Hanover University, Indiana. (from above quote) Perhaps, hot is experienced when both the cold and warm receptors fire at the same time. - Hanover University, Indiana (from above quote) Zotterman (1959) found that cold fibers respond strongly to both cold stimuli and at hot stimuli - Hanover University, Indiana (from above quote). These all confirm my view as of 1984. For me to be wrong they need to also be found wrong.

If you read my 2nd post (I think) I mentioned I was having issues citing online because search terms "Hot" "Cold", etc are so common, and the majority of articles about this skip the hot sensation parts. Did you say, "Somewhat support my claim"? I assure you I have much better "search terms" now like "Zotterman (1959)" if you are still on the fence over this. I was also formed quite a while back as was my education, but you are not countering the argument. If you actually have a link for " Craig and Bushnell, Science 1994 265/5169 p.252." I'll be happy to update my knowledge if need be. I googled but could not find that reference. I know I cited that abstract in post 6, but I am not purchasing the text for the sake of this thread. I did not cite references because I thought most everyone knew this from age 10 by attending science centers and such. It was not until Hypervalent_Iodine questioned it in the 2nd post that I went out of my way to look for citations. If I say the Earth is round here it is likely nobody would want citations. I mentioned science centers thinking that would be enough anecdotal evidence for Hypervalent_Iodine, but as often happens you respond earnestly and then get (metaphorically) pounced on. I had no idea such a simple concept would create so much adversarial stances. That is why no citations were given in OP. Also..... The OP was not an OP. This discussion was moved from another thread so it is not as if I was making such a grandiose claim that I needed citations or references. When I do start threads I normally have citations at hand. That was meant exactly as a stated, a fun fact referencing a previous posters words. That is why this is one of the few OP with a quote from previous post. It was a quick short offhand post that I spent about a minute on, but I'm glad I stood my ground because as my last post shows... I WAS RIGHT! Yes. They stop firing. I said this in my last post with the quote, "For example, when heat or cold become too great, thermoreceptors stop firing. The signal is taken over by pain receptors". Stopping does not mean they never started. You must at least admit that based on 20 year old knowledge I am/was 100% correct. You claim there are new outlooks regarding this which I'd be happy to look at and revise my thinking if necessary, but I think they have more similarities than not. Good luck.

@ Charony, I said that was my last post, but you deserve a response after such a good post. It has been the best response (imho) I do want to be clear that this thread is not at all about "harmful temperatures", only the sensation of feeling something hot. Unless someone is proposing nocireceptors are what detects a hot sensation (below pain), they should not even be a part of this thread. I know they are not connected and I think there are a lot fewer warm thermoreceptors than cold ones (or vice versa). What I meant is that a dangerous heat would activate warm/cold thermoreceptors as well as nocireceptors. I've said this before. This is a better description of what I meant. (become too great = overload) @ Chalcony. ... One question only. What occurs to the cold receptor if you are holding a hot cup of coffee? Is it active or dormant? ( I mean this figuratively, of course they are always active (usually neutral)). Edit: Too late... I'll answer this myself... Zotterman (1959) found that cold fibers respond strongly to both cold stimuli and at hot stimuli. (see below quote) (Note. I will add bolds and underlines to the following quote for emphasis.....) From this free PDF http://psych.hanover.edu/classes/sensation/chapters/Chapter%2012.pdf Is that citation clear enough to understand? Now is that not exactly what I've been saying throughout this thread? Seriously! Is it not exactly my claim that has been delegated to the pseudoscience trash and ridiculed here.. (Will they move this to biology now?) (lol) Here again is the three sentences that started this thread... oh... yes... 100% accurate... Even the terminology "heat" is used as casually by the University who created that PDF. I think apologies are due (by some), not you Chalcony (you at least made effort to counter, TY). Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. (bows). THE END

@ Strange, No worries then. You have company in your view apparently. Maybe next time you're at a science center you can try it for yourself, or run cold water on your hand till tit is almost numb and then put it in lukewarm water to feel the burning. It may be a kids experiment (Variant of experiment in kid video in post 6), but even an adult can learn this way. If you lived in a Northern climate you would already know that if you come in from a snowball fight and your hands seem frozen they will experience a burning sensation while they acclimate. Are their hands really burning, or is it because both warm and cold thermoreceptors are activated. Anyways... I am finished with this thread, people are posting more insults than citing their position.. Cheers. I am somewhat curious as to how others think a hot sensation is felt. Does all the scientific papers on Thermoreceptors mention a hot thermoreceptor that I've never heard of? I mean they say pretty clearly that they detect warm and cold and pain. How can anyone think warm means hot? A nocireceptor registers pain, not the sensation of hot.

@ Strange, Yes. If the warm and cold thermoreceptors overload and reach their capacity pain will follow as the nociceptors kick in. You have stated this correctly. There is no direct way for the skin to detect a burning sensation (below the level of pain) without activating the Cold Thermoreceptors. It is the two together that make us run when we are in hot sand. If it was serious burning pain, all three receptors are activated. Yes. If you read this thread I have mentioned each of these three receptors pretty much constantly so this is not new information. Example from post 13, (from post 4) So how many are we talking about? I say three. Cold Thermoreceptor, Warm Thermoreceptor, and nocireceptors which are used in sensory overload to indicate pain ONLY. From the following quote though you pasted, Note your quote says responds to warm, cool, or pain. This thread is about how we experience temperatures above warm. Holding a coffee in a paper cup for example requires the activation of warm and cold to feel the intense heat (Energy conducted from cup to hand). This thread is not about the nocireceptors because this thread is not about feeling pain, it is about feeling intense heat, but it is true that if the object is extremely hot like a stove element it will quickly overload both warm and cool thermoreceptors and the nocireceptors will also kick in inducing pain. I have problems where this article says "rather than". Because all three receptors are activated in the event of extreme temperatures, but again this thread is about how we experience the "Hot" sensation as opposed to warm or cool, so discussing pain and nocireceptors are pretty much off topic. Correct again. although I'd say they could be fooled into thinking something is hot merely by activating the warm and cool (added cool) thermoreceptors. Thanks for your input. Finally someone understands this. Too bad Scienceforums thinks it is pseudoscience though, because every science center in the world likely has the Thunberg's thermal grill illusion running 5 days a week, which this is merely an explanation of.

@ Ajb, Okay One more post. While Chemistry - Physics would indeed be required to understand how lungs operate. Physics would NOT be needed (as I said in last post) to understand the purpose of the lungs, or heart, or liver. I meant Why and your Physics answer would be the how I'll change my science to Archeology, or Psychology then, or maybe Evolution, but I guess we could argue none of them are real science either. I'm sure there are better examples, but its getting late here.

@ Ajb, Yes. The cartoon sort of put that one on top but Science can also be Biology/Zoology where determining the purpose of the lungs is not physics. I have cited other examples Not wanting to be rude, but this is my last comment on this thread. I just did not want to ignore your post and be rude.

@ ajb, True enough. good point. I made a mistake (seems I'm only one that admits that around here). I was looking mostly at the thread title. Note: I'm not apologizing to everyone who claimed Physic is all science though.