Moreno

Define "patriarchal" or "matriarchal". In traditional terms: patriarchal = higher fertility rates. Matriarchal - higher participation of woman in economy = higher productivity (for the same amount of population). Therefore matriarchal is more successful when high fertility strategy goes into a dead end or when low fertility rates problem is solved.

I'm talking not about shades of colors, but about true colors. Shades exist within some finite spectrum. But humans cannot see ultraviolet, x-rays, gamma rays, for example. If we do then it would add to some principally new colors we never seen before and therefore cannot even imagine. But since EM spectrum is infinite (possibly), then we can potentially perceive an infinite amount of true colors, not only shades between them.

According to modern physics electromagnetic spectrum is infinite. There is no limit to energies photons can have and therefore no limit to frequencies EM waves can have. Does at mean that in theory humans can see an infinite number of completely different colors? And if yes, what kind of brain do we need to have to have ability to see an infinite numbers of colors? Especially, if we assume that people may hallucinate and imagine this colors without actually using their eyes?

Do exist some chemical elements (for example metals) in which a few atomic orbitals would be half full and there would be no energy overlap between them? Subsequently in solid state they suppose to form a few bands such as s-band, p-band or other bands which would be a half full and there would be no overlap?

A new cathode material for Li-ion battery was predicted with an outstanding promises. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4891868?ver=pdfcov&journalCode=jcp https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261324842_Ultrahigh_Energy_Density_Li-ion_Batteries_Based_on_Cathodes_of_1D_Metals_with_-Li-N-B-N-_Repeating_Units_in_alpha-LixBN2_1x3 It would have higher energy density than Li-air battery if predictions are correct. Could they be right?

I they would attack USSR together with Germans in 1941 they would finish it quite fast, probably.

Unlikely. In 1941 Soviets were so busy with repelling Germans, they wouldn't be able to send any significant forces to protect their Far East. Even contra, in Dec. 1941 they withdrew a few Siberian divisions as their last hope and the last reserve to defend Moscow. If Japanese would unleash the same strength and fury against USSR as they did it against US, all Siberia and Russian far East would be theirs just in few months. They had strong Navy and even plenty of air carriers to attack Russian cities and towns on the Pacific. Fortunately they didn't do it, of course. But really strange why not.

I think no other war in history had so many potential alternative scenarios which could have easily change the course of entire history as WWII. It includes: 1) Why Japan chose to attack US in Dec. 1941 instead attacking USSR together with Germany and Italy in Jun. 1941? Wouldn't it have a much better chances of success? And what would happen if Japan would attack USSR instead of US? 2) Why Germany proclaimed war on US in Dec. 1941 right after US proclaimed war on Japan? If Japan failed Hitler and proclaimed neutrality in war in Europe, why Hitler decided to remember an ally obligations in Dec. 1941? Wouldn't it be much clever decision for Germany to abstain from war with US? Would US proclaim war on Germany and open second front in Europe in 1944 if Germany wouldn't do it first? Especially when Japanese attacked US without any preliminary agreement with Germany about that? 3) Could Hitler won campaign in the East if he would attack USSR in different time of a year? For example during the spring of 1941 and not in summer? Could he won if he would capture Moscow? 4) If Hitler would succeed to occupy entire continental Europe, would US be able to win by use of nuclear weapon only? And if yes, how many nuclear bombs would be needed?

Most commonly a version with electrons passing double slit is mentioned. I'm not sure if any quantum entanglement (or spin) is involved. Usually they don't mention this. They claim electrons start to behave like particles when observed.

It is speculated that a consciousness of an observer could affect the classic double-slit experiment outcome. Could it really be a case? Is it possible that it is just a particles (let say photons) which affect the electrons and change their behavior? How can you make an observation without using some physical mediators (like photons) and avoid their interaction with an observed particles (like electrons)?

Is it legal to bribe a potential plaintiff and provoke him/her to file a lawsuit against someone if he/she wouldn't want to do it without a bribe and persuasion? How such situations are treated in modern civilized countries?

Isn't Cadmium even much scarcer than Lithium? And extremely toxic...

Doubtful. The total proved reserves of Lithium are 16 mln. of tons. It would be sufficient just for 160 mln. of vehicles at 100 kg of Lithium per vehicle.

Possibly. Or assume it is not going ta walk at all, which is of course a worse scenario.

Is it possible to create a "superbrain" using modern or near future technology? Something that at least 10 times larger than human brain? Can we create a new race of conscious creatures in this way? Would they be thankful us for their creation? How can we make them good and morally perfect?

How exactly? Do you want to tell that when electrons are illuminated but unobserved their behavior doesn't change?

(sorry I didn't reed the entire thread...) But when particles (let say electrons) are observed doesn't it mean they are physically influenced? For example by photons if we use light to observe them? Can this physical influence by other particles be responsible for the change in their behavior?

For how many days?

Do you think there is enough agricultural residuals to power all the cars in the World? Cold fusion suppose to be safe enough to fit in modern cars. Perhaps it needs to be aneutronic like boron-hydrogen fusion. Definitely not in this century and maybe not even in this millennia.

Well, I think that even if that type of supercapacitor is going to be "leaky" and wouldn't be able to store charge for a long periods of time, it still could be useful in some particular areas. For example brake energy recuperation or DC/DC conversion.

It seems detailed patents of Goodenough on glass battery has been published. However he provides little explanations what is "low and high Fermi energies" of alkali metals are. Any suggestions? https://patents.justia.com/inventor/john-b-goodenough METAL PLATING-BASED ELECTRICAL ENERGY STORAGE CELL Oct 27, 2017 The present disclosure provides an electrochemical storage cell including a battery. The battery includes an alkali metal anode having an anode Fermi energy, an electronically insulating, amorphous, dried solid electrolyte able to conduct alkali metal, having the general formula A3-xHxOX, in which 0≦x≦1, A is the alkali metal, and X is at least one halide, and a cathode including a cathode current collector having a cathode Fermi energy lower than the anode Fermi energy. During operation of the electrochemical storage cell, the alkali metal plates dendrite-free from the solid electrolyte onto the alkali metal anode. Also during operation of the electrochemical storage cell, the alkali metal further plates on the cathode current collector. Skip to: Description · Claims · Patent History · Patent History Description RELATED APPLICATIONS This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 62/360,853 filed Jul. 11, 2016, and which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. TECHNICAL FIELD The present disclosure relates to electrochemical storage cells, and in particular, to a metal plating-based electrochemical energy storage cell, which may include a battery, such as a rechargeable-battery, or a combined battery/supercapacitor. (remainder deleted - copyright)

There is no need for insulating material as difference in work functions serve as an "insulator" by itself.

I meant not a dielectric capacitor, but a supercapacitor similar to those which use ionically conducting electrolyte. Instead of ions we have holes and in place of electolyte we have a P-type hole conductor. Current will not flow into semiconductor if work function of metal is higher than that of semiconductor. Electrons always flow from lower to higher workfunction material. I think the most difficult here is to predict how different materials will behave at nanoscales typical to ultracapacitors. Some sources claim that workfunction is often more related to contact surfaces than to the bulk material properties.

That's true. But hole conductor conducts only those electrons which lay below conduction band. They will flow in opposite directions with free electrons in metals when electric field is applied.

1) In suppose to conduct holes but no electrons. So, when electrons are transferred from one electrode to another one, it doesn't permit them to return back. 2) It does have quite a different structure from what I described.