OldChemE

The Speed of light in a vacuum is approximately 1.8 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight (assuming I didn't screw up the math)

Internal combustion engines that use pistons have two design problems. First, they must operate at some minimum RPM so that the vehicle is not subject to the significant vibrations due to individual explosions in cylinders. Second, they have maximum RPM limitations due to the conversion of linear to rotary motion, the loads on bearings and the attendant stresses. In a conventional system we have a flywheel and a transmission which serve to smooth the vibrations due to individual cylinder explosions and to give the vehicle the ability to accomplish speeds of zero to over 100 MPH (160 kph) while the pistons move in relatively small rpm range that allows them to function well. Your diagram does not appear to address these issues. How do you anticipate going from near zero velocity to high velocity while keeping the piston system operating in the relatively narrow range that will produce smooth energy flow without over-stress due to high RPM?

The primary relationship between the mind and the real world is that the mind interprets the real world based on the inputs of the bodies senses. The mind does not create the real world. If it did, then the odds of dying if you step in front of a truck that your mind was unaware of might change. That is to say, the mind interprets reality but does not control reality.

I've got degrees in Chemical Engr (B Sc) and Nuclear Science (M) so I will toss in my thoughts. However, you need to realize that I am retired, and entered the Chemical Engineering field 50 years ago. Things do change. The primary benefit of Chemical Engineering when I took my degree was that I had to study both the pure science (mostly chemistry, but also physics) and applications and to some extent project management. This meant my pure science background was somewhat less, but my ability to translate into practical uses was maybe a little stronger. In my case, this gave me a great deal of flexibility to take on different types of engineering as opportunities presented themselves. I was able to work in plant design and construction, project management, synergy projects (taking the outputs from many engineering disciplines and pulling them into a complete package) and even a little mechanical and electrical engineering. In Europe, where I spent 6 years, there is even a Nuclear Power plant that has operated safely for 40 years now whose pressure vessel is held to its foundation by bolts designed by a chemical engineer (me). I can't honestly say if this is typical-- but I have always been glad I chose the engineering route. Good luck!

Good point. Actually, we are thinking along the same lines. By 'take care of the climate' I meant controlling CO2 emissions and such-- what you are calling environment (rightly so), because the environment and climate are simply two aspects of the same system. Studiot - to your question, I have not been able to find any research or data on the effect on areas to the south and east of northern Nevada. I think we can rightly speculate that dropping more water in Northern Nevada should create a water shadow. This could have bad effects. However, with the overall warming we are seeing increased evaporation from the Pacific Ocean. Interestingly enough, we have been seeing what appears to be more frequent cloud cover in our area, both in the winter and spring. Historically, our area of Northern Nevada has been in the rain shadow of the Sierra Mountains. With the increasing north-south amplitude of the jet stream we seem to be getting more moisture passing north of the Sierras, increasing our cloud cover. Thus, it might be that we can continue to take more of that moisture through seeding operations without causing a net deficit to the south. This is, of course, very speculative. Only time will tell. These thoughts are, of course, somewhat contrary to the BBC article. I'm wondering if this is a time lag issue (time from research to publication). Our part of Northern Nevada was in a major drought period up until two years ago. This winter, even the seeding operations I mentioned have not been done as the reservoirs continue to remain in good shape. PS: for those who will ask for evidence I will have to admit this is all so new in our area that I have not seen any proper studies. Its still all presumptive based on personal observations.

Sorry I have been late replying-- I have been away for awhile. That is a very good question for which I do not know the answer. I'll try a little research.

If you take any two objects, keep them carefully insulated, and apply a like electrical charge to both, they will repel each other. But--its not the materials that are repelling each other, but the charges.

Obviously, the best solution is to take care of the climate properly-- but things can be done. For example, here in northern Nevada we had a major reservoir go dry (<5% capacity) a couple of years ago. As a solution a wintertime cloud seeding project was started focused on the mountain systems that feed the local rivers. By cloud seeding at strategic times, the project built the snow pack to 150% of the historic norm, and the spring runoff has refilled the reservoir without any deleterious flooding.

Just go to the Windows store and download the free "S switch". This immediately shuts off S mode. I did this with my HP laptop with Windows 10 S. You do not need to do anything with other computer system files. Once you do this, which takes all of 5 minutes, you can load any app. I loaded open office, thunderbird, firefox, duckduckgo, VLC media player and lots of other stuff that I prefer.

It is also possible to develop breeder reactors that convert Thorium. This is less elegant, perhaps than plutonium plants, but it has been done commercially. The US Navy nuclear program operated a demonstration plant in the Shippingport power plant something like 50 years ago.

Having served in the Military-- I do think it is an excellent example of Socialism. Much of this thread has focused on the Military with respect to society. I'd like to focus internally. When I was in the Military I did not have to worry about anything external to my life. My job was defined, my location was defined, my pay and benefits were totally beyond my control-- but I was cared for assured of housing, assured of medical treatment, and even life insurance. Society (the Military) took complete care of me from enlistment until discharge.

I'm not the right kind of Engineer for this-- but it does not seem impossible to me at all. Consider a weight hanging from a pivot point in the aircraft. When the aircraft rolls to the left without deviating from its forward path (rotational acceleration only), the weight, responding to gravity, will pivot toward the left of the aircraft. When the aircraft rolls right, the weight will pivot to the right. If this weight was connected to some sort of control cable the action of the weight could be harnessed to counteract the roll. Now, I have not read the book and have no idea if this is what the Wright Brothers did-- but it seems to me the principle might be viable to some extent.

The problem goes beyond simple lies. Prior to the Internet, the principle source of knowledge for people was books. Getting a book published took lots of effort, and the only thing that reached our schools were the textbooks selected by the school system. This was not foolproof-- but it tended to screen out some of the lies and misinformation. Now, anybody can 'publish' any sort of nonsense and reach a large audience. Virtually anyone who wishes some fact was not true can find plenty of support on the internet for their misguided hopes. It's the same as the political situation-- people with politically extreme ideas seem to have no difficulty finding some 'news' source that tells them what they want to believe.

With respect, I think this thread needs to be unified with the thread explaining the difference between correlation and causation.

Better to have the surgery that doesn't do the damage, and not have to wait.

I would start with an average High School Algebra book. Pearson and a number of other textbook publishers make very good ones. They tend to be aimed at a population of students that have a wide range of learning styles, so they have written material, pictures, examples and other such things. Once you know what learning style fits you best you can then move on to more tailored textbooks. There are more modern teaching systems, such as "Eureka Math" but they do not have well-developed reading material and tend to be more narrow in the learning styles they address. I've taught Algebra using the older books and with Eureka Math, but the older books seem to have broader success.

Not as much as in the past. The new robotic surgeries have made remarkable strides in avoiding damage ( as verified by personal experience)

As iNow says, we are all ruled by chemistry. So, the discussion does indeed depend on how you define the terms. Traditionally free will has been regarded as the ability of an individual to make its own decisions using its own brain. This is still the case. Our decisions may be driven by internal factors rather than rational thought-- but ultimately, our decisions come from within us. And, since our neural connections are driven by our experiences in addition to genetics, we are all to some degree unique. Thus, I would argue we have free will. However, not all would agree with me.

The question comes down to this: Should we ban X because X may lead to damage to the person who chooses to do X? As long as the individual who chooses X is the one who faces the risk, then a free society has no moral right to ban X.

Mine book says non uniform in single loop, of course, but also toward the ends of a solenoid of finite length. I think the OP has been well answered by others in any case, so this probably isn't of any importance.

I can't figure out how you conclude this. My old physics textbook clearly states that the magnetic field within a wire coil is "NOT uniform."

This is the kind of problem that is more easily solved if you step back before turning the math crank. Look at y = x^2 and y = 16&x. y = X^2 is a parabola that passes through the origin. y = 16^x is an exponential function, and on the positive x side it rises faster than the parabola-- so it is obvious that there will be no solution for x > 0. On the negative side of the graph, 16^x approaches zero asymptotically, and is already 1/16 when x = -1 (while at x = -1 the parabola is at y = 1). Thus, it becomes obvious that the solution must lie in the region -1 < x < 0. I did a quick sketch of the two functions and it was equally obvious the crossing point had to be somewhere close to -0.5, as stated by Studiot. Understanding the shapes of functions makes trial and error, and heavy math, both unnecessary.

Could you be confusing chemical energy with the energy content of mass? The Free energy of different compounds and material does vary-- but that only involves a portion of the total energy.

if the first point is (0 -3), as stated, then the equation is y = x - 3, not y = 0.5x + 3. If it was intended to type (0,3), but typed as (0-3) in error, then y = 0.5x + 3 is correct.

And who is to decide what constitutes "how much they contribute"? Are we talking money? agricultural products? art? inspirational writings? Great food recipes? Who is to decide what constitutes a good contribution versus what is ultimately bad for society? Philosophically this might sound good but I do believe that from a practical standpoint it is a non-starter. What you are basically doing is trying to figure out a formula to increase the influence of the population that you prefer to support. That is in the same class as gerrymandering and other political pursuits. The beauty of the constitution is that it lays out principles for representation that are supposed to be above this sort of thing, and much of the time it even succeeds.