mistermack

How would AI handle the simple ones ? An Englishman and an American are sitting on a wall. The Englishman is the father of the American's son. Explain.

Thanks, yes, I think that's right. I had trouble getting my head around it, because I didn't appreciate how big an effect the cooling would have. I think without cooling, you would not get much gas to transfer from a bottle that's nearly empty, but the cooling will maintain a pressure difference so long as it's in effect, so the flow will continue till you shut it off, or till the temperatures equalise.

Thanks. What you're talking about there is over-filling. The cylinders have a rated weight of contents printed on the outside. What people do is to weigh the cylinder empty, and then refill it, while it is suspended from a spring balance, and stop when the target weight is reached. You have to let some CO2 out, if you accidentally exceed the target full weight, although with care, you should be able to stop when just under.

Yes, thanks, I take your point about the density of the gas under pressure. But when I said half-empty, I meant half used-up, rather than referring to the liquid level, although I hadn't considered the implications of the difference. So I'm still wondering if when you've only got 10% of the mass of CO2 left in the big bottle, does that mean you can only charge the small one to 10% of it's capacity by weight? I agree about chilling the small bottle. I've seen online that it's best to put it in a freezer for a couple of hours. Going by what you said about the gas density being >80% of the liquid density, It's looking like the big bottle will be all gas, long before it's used up half of its full charge of CO2, so you will just be transferring gas, not liquid, once the liquid level drops to the bottom of the big tank.

Thanks. I just googled CO2 cylinder pressure, and this came up on a safety page : CO2 cylinder pressure is about 860 psi at normal room temperature. Typical CO2 cylinders store about 50 lbs. of liquid CO2. Two pounds of liquid CO2 expands to about 20 cubic feet of pure CO2 at atmospheric pressure, or expands at a rate of 535:1. https://www.co2meter.com/en-uk/blogs/news/co2-tank-safety-precautions#:~:text=CO2 cylinder pressure is about,a rate of 535%3A1. Some tanks are fitted with a "siphon" tube, that take liquid CO2 from the bottom of the tank, and some don't, and take gas from the top. I would like to completely fill the smaller tank with liquid CO2 from the big one, even when the big one is getting close to empty, so that I can use it all up. But I don't know if that is possible, or if the big tank is only 1/10 full, will I only be able to fill the small tank to 1/10 full ? It's my suspicion that once the small cylinder is 1/10 full, it will produce a back pressure that's equal to that in the big cylinder, and stop any more flow into it. But I don't know the fundamentals to calculate if that is so or not.

I'd be interested in what physics says about the following situation. You want to fill a small gas bottle from a big one. Can you fill the smaller one from a half empty big one? I'm intending to buy the kit to do it, but I'm not sure if it's worth it, if filling gets less and less complete as the big one empties. The picture doesn't really cover what I mean. The big bottle would be about twenty times the capacity of the small one, so I'm wondering if you can still fill the small one right up, if the big one is half empty. I'm talking about liquid CO2.

I didn't say they were lazy. That's "lazy" debating, erecting a straw man. IF someone can't be bothered, that generally means that they don't consider the vote to be worth the bother that it entails. People who do vote are not necessarily less lazy, but they put a higher value on voting. If I said that many of the white people who don't vote do so because it's too much bother, I wouldn't get a reaction on this thread. But say the same thing about black people, and the hackles rise. I have news for you. Black people can be just as uninterested as white people. The difference between the two is that the blacks have more to fight for and gain in the USA. Especially when it comes to voting facilities. LIke I said before, there's no point in bellyaching about voting procedures, if you can't be bothered to go and vote for someone who might change it.

The turnout of black voters in these areas is around 50 %. So one in two are putting up with all of the obstacles, and voting. And all credit to them. There will be some who absolutely can't vote, but there are plenty who just don't bother. And I know plenty of them, here in the UK, where the obstacles are not so high. I've not voted myself, on some occasions, when I can't see a significant advantage in either side. But in the US, the difference is a lot more marked. If they were giving out free Iphones or guns, you'd get a pretty high turnout. It boils down to how much you want it.

It is outrageous, and makes me angry. But what's also annoying is the behaviour of the victims of this treatment. If someone was treating me in that way, I would stand in line for days, if necessary, just to make sure that the cheating swine didn't profit from it. But a high proportion of "black women in Georgia" let them get away with it, by not bothering to vote. And the men are even worse. The brave women who refuse to give up their seat on a bus etc. are a tiny minority. I don't blame them, I'm not in their shoes, but it really is hugely frustrating, that the people being exploited can't make the effort to fight the exploiters by voting. After all, once you have power, you can change the system. But if you don't vote, it won't ever change. It's a bit like the frustration I get when people get assaulted, and don't bring a case, because they 'just want to forget it'. I do understand where they are coming from, but it's heartbreaking when some other victim gets killed shortly after, by the same culprit.

It's what Stringjunky said. Your brain is what 'sees'. Your eyes just process the light. Your brain automatically interprets the image, before it displays it in your mind. If everything has a slight blue tinge, the brain compensates. In your bucket example, the sides of the bucket will have the same blue tinge as the white paper, but your brain removes it, and displays in your mind what colours it has calculated are actually there. I wouldn't think that it could do it so well for stronger tinges, but the blue tinge is usually very slight, as there is nearly always a bit of haze making the sky look closer to white. I would expect the same thing to happen when there is a red sky above, the brain would correct for it, as everything would have the red tinge, including the paper.

That's not the point. Do they take energy from energetic neutrons? Considering that there are 2,390 parts of O2 and N2 to every one part of CO2 . So a neutron is that much more likely to hit something other than CO2. Does that slow the neutrons and reduce their energy?

The CO2 in the atmosphere is present in a tiny concentration, 0.04 %. You can't assume 100% efficiency in converting it when a bomb goes off. Have tests been done on that aspect? Do the neutrons only interact with CO2 ? There's far more nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere. What happens when neutrons hit those molecules?

Apologies if someone's already made this point, I haven't read through the thread. But I absolutely hate a black screen with white print, on a monitor or tv. It leaves me disorientated, and I get persistance of image on my retina. (If that's the correct term.) It's an unpleasant experience. I never found that in my school days, with white chalk on a blackboard. Maybe it has come on since. But in any case, a video screen is much blacker than the blackboards were in the old days so the contrast is more extreme.

That rules out my oven. Is 300 correct?

But how many neutron bombs would it take to make a significant dent in the CO2 level of the atmosphere? The OP quoted only 1 to 2 km radius for high energy neutrons. And CO2 is very thinly dispersed in the air, so it's doubtful if there would be a high-efficiency of conversion of CO2. So it's likely it would take a huge number of bombs, to make a noticeable difference to the CO2 level, even if it did work. I think it's likely that the heat released would outweigh the effect of any CO2 reduction.

Of course, it's going to be hard to cool the atmosphere, by releasing huge amounts of heat in the atmosphere. That's like saving the rain forest from drought, by burning down the rain forest.

I can confirm that freezing yeast does kill most of the yeast, but not all. Why that should be I can only put down to natural variation. Maybe they could breed a strain that is more resistant to freezing. I used to make sourdough now and then. I got fed up feeding the dough culture all the time, so I froze it till I felt like making another loaf. It doesn't die, but it sometimes takes quite a bit of time to revive the yeast starter, with several episodes of feeding etc. So now I've quit the sourdough. It's fine, if you make a lot of bread, but not great for intermittent baking. And I find it hard to taste the difference, and find the rising unpredictable.

I'm not sure how you could conclude that. If the present USA was still part of the British Empire at the start of WW1, the Kaiser might have been deterred from starting it in the first place.. And if not, then the effective help would have been available on the first day, not after two years of war. But if the USA was like Australia, separate, but in the commonwealth, then they would almost certainly joined at the start, and the Kaiser and Hitler would have known that. Which would maybe have meant that six million Jews and 25 million Russians might not have died in war. As well as millions of others. And in that scenario, Japan would never have attacked on it's own.

My own feeling about the whole process is that it's constantly mis-represented as something earth-shaking and noble, and yet the examples of Canada and Australia illustrate that if there had never been a war, things would probably have ended up better, not worse. Slavery would probably have been abolished much sooner, and the Indian nations would have possibly got a better deal, for a while at least, although it's impossible to say what would and wouldn't have happened. But this "birth of a nation" stuff is just propeganda. A nation would have just continued to grow, without a war, and would probably be twice the size now in space, as it would include all of Canada.

The second time I was nearly killed was when I was about thirty, I was in partnership with a friend in some property, and he had wired the plug on a deep freeze that we kept in the cellar. I went down one morning to get some bread for toast, in bare feet on a dampish brick floor. Not looking at what I was doing saved my life. Instead of grabbing the lid handle, I missed, and just slightly skimmed it with the tip of my little finger. I got the full 240 volts, through the finger, up the arm, down the body and through my feet. Even though it was just a tiny fraction of a second, I was nearly poll-axed. He hadn't tightened the cord-grip on the cable where it enters the plug. Someone had pulled the lead by the plug to reach the socket on the wall, and so doing had pulled out the earth lead, and it was just resting alongside the live wire, so the whole freezer was live, just waiting for someone to touch it. That's a weakness in in having an earth cable that a lot of people aren't aware of. It's great, when wired properly, but a potential death trap if the cord grip is not properly gripping as it should. Needless to say, I'm very thorough when wiring plugs, I go over the top, to make sure I never kill anyone by carelessness.

It's a shame that it's so hard to make useful fusion energy, and so easy to make a bomb. (Relatively) What a different world we would be in, if it had been the other way around. But I'm pretty sure that fusion energy will be a game changer, given more time than I've got. There has to be a road block of some sort to stop it happening, otherwise, progress will inevitably be made enough to get the real investment money going into it. The only roadblock I can see ahead is the Tritium production technology, and that doesn't look too formidable at the present, but it's probably the biggest unknown. More Tritium production would logically make boosted fission bombs easier to make and maintain, because the Tritium has a short half life, so would need to be kept topped up in the weapons.