Lovecraft

Thanks! While it doesn't clear up my curiosity your response does explain that there are just too many unknowns in the original posters presentation to make a scientific statement on exactly why it won't or can't work other than it smacks of 2nd law of TD violation. I selfishly wish he had modeled things so I could indulge my curiosity about this more fully.

Yeah, you are right, my other option of sticking the water bottle in a thermos probably defeats the purpose too.

If it's a test to keep the water hottest for 5 minutes, could you use a meterial that heats the water bottle via chemical reaction like a hand warmer? That's what I'd do. I mean it's for 5 mins, not 24 hours. Is that cheating? It is a valid way of keeping the water hot, you are just putting energy into the system rather than trying to keep it from escaping in my scenario.

Does it have to be metal? Maybe you could use a ceramic?

That's my point One could say it doesn't exist in time.

I kinda got the impression he was looking for specific reasons as to why or how his arrangement violates the second law of thermodynamics. Specifics as to why the idea is flawed rather than just generalized "it violates the second law of thermo dynamics". (I am unclear on how it does violate the second law of thermodynamics other than the law says that basically objects in an isolated system will become less orderly [i.e. an implication of this is they will reach the same temperature and if left to their own devices will not have one just remain hotter than the other unless other forces are at work]) If I remember history correctly the problem of black body radiation was a big one with theory producing predictions far off the mark of observed data until quantum theories explained how and why black bodies glowed at certain wavelengths when heated up rather than at infinite wavelengths. I think habanabasa was looking for a detailed reason as to why thermodynamics 2nd law comes into play here as a violation and something such as a heat exchanger doesn't violate it and if his idea does indeed violate the law, and if through demonstrated and confirmed experiment it works anyway there is either a problem with the interpretation of application of the 2nd law to this setup or an in consistency (therefore an incomplete theory or description of the law). I don't know enough about physics to pinpoint how or why his idea violates that law and I'd love to know if anyone would care to point it out. My "gut" tells me it wouldn't work just because of how matter absorbs energy of specific wavelengths and emits energy of specific wavelengths rather than all wavelengths depending upon the material -- gut says there would be a sort of trap there that would force equilibrium in the system like a bucket with a hole in it sitting in another bucket filled with water. The bucket with the hole is gonna fill over time because of the hole and the bucket it's sitting in is going to empty into the inner bucket because of the hole until they are both in equilibrium-- just moving the hole isn't going to change that without a pump of some sort unless the hole is moved above the waterline, which itself stops the transfer of water and thus making the thing not a water collector at all anymore. My gut also tells me that the idea would work if energy weren't transfered in finite quanta but was smooth with infinite variation and no discrete "photons" or other energy transmission units. But then, my gut isn't scientific, just curious and hungry

If we treat time as a 4th dimension. And something were travelling at the speed of light in a direction in space (along a path involving one or more of the 3 physical dimensions) relative to an observer, then that thing would not be travelling in time at all ( zero motion along the time dimension -- i.e. zero change in time ) Does it exist in time? What if it is light itself and always travelling at the speed of light to every observer?

Brain Spam! Oh no! hmmm... I'd do it. Instnat access to knowledge (I'd hope I 'd have a good BS filter in there too though, so much on the net is just wrong -- oh and I'd want a blog filter. Don't want any blogs in mah haid.

By culturing bacterophages I mean in a culture of live bacteria. I still think they'd be easy to culture in this manner (kinda like culturing yogurt). Some herbs are antibiotic when ingested. Garlic is one of them. It will KILL bacteria when taken properly. I certainly don't advise the use of it for anything major when prescription antibiotics are available. But in a "Oh hell I'm out here alone in the wilderness and this thorn prick is getting infected and ooo hey wild garlic !" way it's much better than nothing. (It'll also work as as a vermifuge) Garlic contains allicin, alliin and ajoene among other substances. By antibiotic, I mean antibacterial (either outright killing it or inhibiting it's growth)-- via topical or ingestible form. Garlic contains antibacterial agents that can work in this manner. To me, that is an antibiotic. It is not merely antiseptic or astringent as say alcohol or witchhazel are. Garlic can also be used prophylacticly to bolster a bodies defense against infection to begin with (as many of the sulphur containing foods seem to be able to do). And no, it certainly isn't like pharmaceutical grade antibiotics. (Garlic) but in a pinch would be far better to use than nothing at all as it's not going to cause harm in the required doses (by required doses I don't mean cooking style doses I mean LOTS of garlic) unless one has stomach problems with it. As for sulfa drugs -- they should be pretty easy to make. Medicinal drugs are not all that hard to make once one is identified and a method is discovered. (This is why there is a problem with meth labs all over-- it's not rocket science when following a recipe -- the hard part of things is the discovery and subsequent development of methods of refinement) People have been using herbs and essential oils for thousands of years some with efficacy for specific ailments others with none or for treating the wrong ailments (mostly, I think due to irrational ideas about herbs like "Oh that leaf looks like a diseased lung, let's give it to people with bronchitis"). Modern scientific methods have allowed the systematic study of compounds within herbs and how they work against disease, this in turn led to finding methods to synthesize the chemicals that were once (an in many cases still are) farmed and refined from the plants themselves. Discoveries weren't made so much because someone just had a lucky guess as to what a chemical might do (well except in the case of sulfa drugs, that kinda was an educated guess -- dye that binds well to the proteins of wool might also bind well to the proteins of bacteria... nice guess) but because a certain plant would have some sort of effect when administered (foxglove once given to people that suffered heart attacks became the drugs digoxin and digitoxin still used today for treating heart problems) But getting back to garlic, compunds within garlic are currently being studied as antibiotics to combat some of the bacteria that are resistant to other antibiotics. Garlic as it is, according to Wright State University is about one percent as potent as penicillin. That's potency, not effectivness--you'd have to take more garlic. Here is a quote from one website, but I didn't find references to the research: "Researchers have compared the effectiveness of garlic with that of commercial prescription antibiotics. The result is often that garlic can be more effective as a broad spectrum antibiotic. However if a particular bacterium or virus is being treated a more specifically targeted antibiotic if available could be a more effective treatment than garlic." And garlic tastes good in Italian and Cajun foods But it loses it's antibacterial qualities if cooked. I want to make something very clear-- and I feel SkepticLance's post was made in concern for the same reason (beside's his point about too much that can be misleading -- upon rereading my previous post, I see he is correct, much of it can be very misleading if taken to mean that just herbs can replace modern antibiotics-- they can't) I do NOT advocate the use of herbs or homemade medicines for infections or other things which would more safely be tended to by a doctor or other medical professional. I only bring this up in the scenario of a mad max like hypothetical world where doctors, and pharmaceuticals are not available. ALSO many normal spices, herbs and food items while not toxic in normal food preparation quantities can be very toxic just over the edge of doses which work medicinally. Before modern pharmacies existed, many apothecaries killed their patients accidentally with herbal preparations because one can never be certain of the amount of a given substance in a particular plant cutting. No one should harvest herbs for medicinal reasons without first arming themselves with the proper knowledge of the plants and the possible toxic effects AND without antidotes at hand. (Personally I don't believe antibiotics should be administered without having an antidote to allergic reaction or other side effects handy, but alas, they are -- everyone should probably have an anaphylaxis kit) And don't leave your health to chance. We are not in a mad max world, if you have an infection, fever, deep puncture wound or broken bone, see a doctor. And yes, avoid atropine (unless you are hit by sarin or some other nerve agent). But if you wake up one morning and the world has gone to hell, there is no where to get medicine and you don't happen to be a pharmacologist, chemist and physician, plant garlic, purple coneflower (echinaccea angustifolia), wax myrtle (bay berry) and meadowsweet or willow.

I wonder if the "Myth" is considered by some to be a myth merely because it only happens under proper conditions. For instance: Scencario one -- An aging rocker has been on tour for a week but has decided to not drink like when he was young because, quite frankly, the hangover started to interfere with his performance. On last night's gig he met up with a very attractive younger groupie who kept him up all night doing things groupies do to rockers. He oversleeps in the hotel room, wakes up a couple hours before his gig orders a steak, eats it quickly and heads straight to the gig and performs. After the gig he and the band have some drinks, he remembers the saying about beer and liquor and has a few scotches then a couple of beers before calling it a night. He get's tipsy -- maybe a little drunk but makes up feeling ok. And thinks. Yay to the old myth. Scenario two -- same rocker, next night. It felt good to drink the night before so he decides to do it again, but this time he didn't spend the night with a wild groupie, wakes up in plenty of time and has a hamburger and fries before the gig along with a beer. After the gig he has a few more beers and starts to feel really good, the rest of the band orders shots all around and our rocker switches to hard alcohol and gets wasted and wakes up in a pool of his own vomit wearing the panties belonging to the half naked girl he assumes he was with again last night. He feels terrible and thinks, "Oh how I wish I followed the 'beer before liquor never sicker' rule." Scenario three -- A wild groupie who didn't get enough attention from her father goes out to see a favorite local band which has such an interesting and sexy older member. She's very concerned about her weight and decides the best way to look uber sexy in her outfit tonight is to just not eat, besides, she's gonna be drinking later and doesn't want to feel all full. She goes to see the band, has some beers, followed by a couple of shots causing her already not so inhibited self to become bravely uninhibited and decides to rock the aging rocker's world all night long. She wakes up the next day feeling fine, a little dehydrated but mostly ok. On her walk of shame through the hotel lobby in the clothes she was wearing the night before she thinks to herself "Bah, beer before liquor never sicker" is a load of horse poo I did fine. Scenario 4 -- A couple of days later the groupie girl decides to go meet up with the band again hoping to see the aging rocker. Instead of seeing the performance she goes out with friends has a meal of pizza and then head off to meet the band for drinks where she has several shots, a few mixed drinks and finally beer before waking up half naked in a pool of someone else's vomit feeling like a truck ran over her and wondering where her panties are. If she were able to think about other things at this moment she'd be thinking "Liquor before beer... never again". So... what happened there in my story? It's fictional, of course, but only in some details, I have experienced this more or less exactly. When I asked a phsyician about it and the whole liquor before beer thing he explained it to me that it's really a matter of carbohydrates and the liver. Here's why: The brain needs sugars to work. Normally, it get's these from sugar and carbohydrates. Now, when we are drinking, alcohol is absorbed in our stomach and intestines, get's into our bloodstream and goes to our brain and inner ear making us drunk, dizzy etc. Dizziness and toxic effects of alcohol make our body want to get rid of any more alcohol waiting to go to our heads and we get sick. That's IF there are sugars and carbs in our system to feed the brain. If there is a lack of sugars or carbs then guess what happens? The liver starts to convert alcohol into sugars to feed the brain. That leaves less alcohol to make us drunk and dizzy and sick. So how does this help play out the beer before liquor thing? Well, beer comes with it's own carbs. So brain gets carbs and alcohol. With many hard liquors not so many carbs in there so if we haven't eaten or ate proteins mostly, some of the alcohol in the hard liquor gets turned to sugars. Then capping it off with beer feeds the brain carbs, we get a little alcohol and get tipsy. So we realize we've been drinking all night and stop. Beer first and we get all the alcohol from the beer unless we just didn't eat that day and then if we cap it off with hard liquor the extra alcohol burst just makes things worse and at an accelerated pace and we get sick. This is also why "Sweet" drinks or "Girl" drinks tend to have the reputation of getting people sick. Sugars in the drink allow the brain to get all the alcohol by not having the liver break it up into sugars.

Upon reading this thread I thought perhaps you are thinking too much in the "Now" and how things are currently done. Penicillin and some of the other "cillins" are in common use now because: 1) They are effective and mostly safe (some are allergic but there is a wide safety associated with ussing it -- and if a reaction happens and it's caught quickly, it is easily treated with antihistamines) 2) they are easy to produce and culture/purify IF you have the proper equipment and can make it in mass quantities 3) are cheap to produce 4) are good profit because it takes specialized equipment and are cheap to produce (i.e. you can't really make a home remedy of it work by merely eating molded bread) So... what did people do before penicillin? Were there any antibiotics out there that didn't require modern manufacturing facilities to produce or did everyone who got a staph infection just die? There were, and there ARE other antibiotics that are non fungal based and that you COULD make and use if needed. In fact, there are also antibiotic herbs (some you may find shockingly common) that when taken in normal ways are not antibiotic but when taken in proper dosages are very antibiotic. First, why not consider sulfa drugs? These were the antibiotics used pre penicillin and used only rarely now-- there is a greater chance of allergic reaction to sulfa drugs than to penicillin -- but hey, if every day is a fight for survival, the risk of death due to infection outweighs possible allergic reaction. The manufacture of sulfonamide can be done using pre WWI technolgy and should be able to be done using a simple chemistry set. Sulfonamide had been used for years prior to 1906 for making dyes. It can be kept as a stable powder for local application to wounds and can be taken internally. I'd probably go with sulfa drugs in the doom's day scenario and then only as a last resort. My FIRST line of defense (well offense really since I'd be attacking invading organisms) would be herbal. There are several herbs which are natural antibiotics when used properly. A very effective one is garlic. Yep, garlic. Not food flavoring quantities but 3, 4 or 5 cloves of the stuff taken several times a day. Garlic contains a natural sulfa drug like stuff, as do many onions and radishes. I have treated myself with garlic in high doses to combat infection with great success (though because your body will clear itself of some of the sulphur through the lungs and skin, you WILL be stinky while using garlic as an antibiotic.) Some of the older rememdies for various ailments are effective, and in some cases more desirably effective with less side effects than synthesized or refined modern drugs. By more desirably effective I mean they get the job done without as much collateral damage even though less potent than refined or synthesized drugs. And, of course, I mean also in the scenario you write of -- the doom's day one where you do not have the safety nets of hospitals, and doctors to monitor and adjust your treatment. There is another form of antibiotic not really used in the USA but that is used in eastern europe and that is bacteriophages. Virii that attack bacteria. I imagine, since these little buggers are everywhere that bacteria are present, it would not be too difficult to culture them, probably less difficult than growing penicillin and using them (especially for wounds and abcesses) along with herbs or other drugs. Someone also mentioned atropine, I believe you can find this in foxglove. Most of the synthesized drugs we use today were first refined from herbs until a way was figured out how to synth them chemically. What we have today, that we didn't have in medeval times is knowledge of what chemicals treat disease effectivly and WHY/HOW they do it... also, we have indices of plants and chemicals contained within them. THIS knowledge can save you from many diseases in a doomsday scenario and allow you to use herbs effectivly for treating disease (and in a way that is most likely safer than taking refined drugs).