Green Xenon

This radiant cooling is something that I am deeply interested in. I don't know why. To make applications of it is going to be very difficult because of the costs. However, I'm more interested in the theory of it rather than physically doing something with it. On the other hand, if I had the money, time, and energy to put this radiant cooling to work, I'd definitely do it. Radiant cooling will feel to the object like "cold rays" just like radiant heating feels like "heat rays". I know there is no such thing as "cold rays", it's simply heat radiating from my body to a colder object. My body is giving of heat rays causing it's temperature to lower, thereby giving me a perception of coldness. In theory, is there a way to make radiant cooling the dominant force without using a vacuum?

Approximately how long will it take until we have aneutronic fusion to generate electricity? 50 years?

Coldest on average. Land climate. Ok. I'll hold that thought. I prefer calm freshwater over saltwater. LOL

Sorry for the late reply. I think TTRAM is has least amount of data remanence. Best for those who want confidentiality.

Hi: I thinking of a radiant cooling device for houses and buildings in which the cooling -- in the direct sense -- involves only radiation. Sort of like a glass-ceramic radiant-stove-top in reverse. Indirectly, however, some amount of convection and conduction will be needed [liquid helium, cold metals]. The cooling panel is the ceiling and cools objects below it. Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-ceramic : "A glass-ceramic stove uses radiant heating coils as the heating elements. The surface of the glass-ceramic cooktop above the burner heats up, but the adjacent surface remains cool because of the low heat conduction coefficient of the material." Here is an example of a radiant stovetop switched on: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4799702/2/istockphoto_4799702-glowing-ceramic-stove-top.jpg My theoretical glass-ceramic radiant cooler is similar to the infrared radiant stovetop described in the wikipedia link, except: 1. It faces downward 2. The coils are hollow [as opposed to being solid all the way through], this hollow within the coils allows liquid helium to flow through them can cool them down to near absolute zero 3. Liquid helium -- not electricity -- flows through the coils. 4. Obviously, the coils get cold instead of hot. Which is better to use -- Helium-3 or Helium-4? Which one would have a stronger cooling effect if both were at the same temperature, pressure, volume and concentration? The radiant cooling panel is on the ceiling of the room it is supposed to cool. Those standing under it will feel cold. Yes, heat absorbed into the radiant cooling panels is carried off using convection and conduction -- but this is not what the subject inside the room feels. The direct cooling effect on anything/anyone inside the room is radiant. By direct radiant cooling, I mean that if you place your body at a noticeable distance from panel, you'll feel cold because the extreme cold of the coil will draw IR radiation away from your body. I’m thinking of more intense versions of this hypothetical glass ceramic radiant infrared cooler to be used in refrigerators and freezers. Thanks a bunch, Green Xenon

Sorry for my late response in this thread. I just noticed that it was active. I have another question regarding this dissociative amnesia. I've also heard of cases where traumatic memories do form clearly but the individual is not immediately affected by the memories. Rather it takes years for the memories to enter consciousness [often in the form of PTSD marked by nightmares and upsetting flashbacks]. What causes this? Examples of this occur in prisoners of war, children who were molested, or residents of structures fires. Memory of the event does form but the victim can't access the memory voluntarily. 20 years or so down the road, these victims will suddenly complain of vivid memories and bad dreams of those events. What are the neurological mechanisms behind this temporary blockage of memory followed by such explosive re-experiencing of these events? Obviously the memory does form and coherently so. This throws out the hypothesis that stress hormones prevent the memory from being formed. Thanks

Hi: I'm looking for a part of the United States of America which best fits all of the following: 1. Least amount of wind 2. Furthest from the sea 3. Coldest temperature 4. Most humidity and water 5. Most flatland -- i.e. little or no mountain or hill. Which part of USA most closely fits my dream? I'd like to live in this area. Any assistance on this matter is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Green Xenon

When bacteria feed on mucus, do they produce any slimy substances of their own? Also, if mucus passes through the colon, will the fecal bacteria feed on it?

Hi: Will continuous exposure to small amounts of lipopolysaccharide render the immune system unresponsive to it? If the immune system gets used to LPS, then it will no longer mount an inflammatory response towards it. Thanks, Green Xenon

Hi: Are there any bacteria that feed on nasal mucus? If so, do they produce any colors and odors as a resulting of feeding on the mucus? Thanks, Green Xenon

Why not?

But then you can eat all the butter-rich, cream-filled desserts w/out suffering ill health consequences. Right?

Hi: In my previous post http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=42585 , I was talking about using a virus to infect and kill of all the cells that make up the visceral adipose tissue. I then realized that it would spread to those who don't want or need it. So I am now thinking about a better approach that will only affect those who want to be affected. It involves turning the body's immune system against the visceral adipose tissue without harming the rest of the body [including the subcutaneous adipose tissue]. Are there any experiments being done on this? Is this a dangerously-high chance that turning the immune system against visceral adipocytes will also damage the subcutuneous adipocytes? Or can the immune system tell the difference. There are some folks who just can't get rid of that stubborn belly fat no matter how much they diet or exercise. It's genetic obesity. Many medications that supposedly assist in decreasing belly fat are useless for that purpose and instead have detrimental -- if not fatal -- side effects. That is why I am thinking of better approach to treating -- and hopefully curing -- central obesity.

True. However, what will be the disadvantages if there is an optimum amount of subcutaneous adipose tissue but absolutely no visceral adipose tissue?

Sorry for my persistence but won't the subcutaneous fat suffice even if there is no visceral fat?

True but carbs are the cleanest source of energy. Metabolism of fat produces toxic byproducts [such as ketones]. The kidneys have to eliminate this which strains them. So all animals have visceral fat? That's because the cancer uses so much energy that it causes massive breakdown of adipose -- both subcutaneous and visceral -- to meet the body's metabolic demands.

Evolution assumed a "feast or famine" cycle. Evolution did not intend for a sedentary lifestyle and gorging on butter, cream, and sugar. When evolution does not assist us, we must find other means. Permanently and totally eliminating the visceral adipose tissue sounds like a good start.

For this they need subcutaneous fat, not visceral fat. The former provides energy. That latter significantly increases blood pressure and leads to clogged arteries.

What is the downside of not having any visceral adipose tissue?

I'd like to volunteer for this. How much does it cost to be a volunteer? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Who would it be problem for? Subcutaneous adipose tissue is necessary in moderation. Visceral adipose tissue is not at all necessary and is in fact detrimental to health.

So why aren't tests being done on human volunteers?

Hi: Would it be practical to gene-modify a virus to infect the cells of the visceral adipose tissue as a cure for obesity? Thanks, Green Xenon

I asked my question after reading this: Quote from the above site: http://books.google.com/books?id=AB4fbXqlUJwC&pg=PA373&lpg=PA373&dq=%22extensive+superficial+burn%22+shock&source=bl&ots=wkO_EbLn9m&sig=ywnhw2l0NlXhfCE9DtVBPjbE8Ag&hl=en&ei=SBFVStunMpP6sQPMvJ3NDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6 "An extensive superficial burn produces great immediate shock, due to involvement of so many sensory nerve endings in the skin". After reading the above, I was wondering if the A-delta-fiber-nociception described in the initial post of this thread would cause a similar shock reaction.

Sorry for the confusion. A PSTSNNon-ADFN supplies a PSTSN and is any sensory-receptor/nerve-ending that is not an A-Delta-Fiber-Nociceptor. PSTSNNon-ADFN also refers to the portion of any nerve that is attached to a sensory-receptor/nerve-ending that is not an A-Delta-Fiber-Nociceptor if that portion of the nerve supplies a PSTSN.

Hi: I have speculative neuroscience question. Let’s say that the PSTSNs in my body – and the ADFNs supplying them -- don’t have any refractory period or any other protections against hyper-excitability. PSTSN = Peripheral Somatic Tactile Sensory Nerve ADFN = A-Delta-Fiber-Nociceptor Non-ADFN = Sensory-receptor/nerve-ending that is not an ADFN or the portion of a nerve that is attached to such a sensory-receptor/nerve-ending ADFNPSTSN = A-Delta-Fiber-Nociceptor supplying a PSTSN PSTSNNon-ADFN = A non-ADFN supplying a PSTSN Tactile = Pertaining only to sense of touch [including temperature, pressure, pain, tickle, vibrations, movement, position, location etc.]. *Not* including any visual, auditory, gustatory, olfactory perceptions or any sensations associated with the sense of balance. Peripheral = pertaining only to the peripheral nervous system and not the central nervous system. Somatic = pertaining only to the somatic nervous system and not the visceral, autonomic, or enteric nervous systems Let’s say a mysterious entity decides to stimulate all the ADFNPSTSNs in my body to the maximum extent possible [in terms of extent to which an ADFNPSTSN is stimulated, how many ADFNPSTSNs per area are stimulated, and duration of stimulation] – without damaging any of my PSTSNs or their ADFNs, exceeding the maximum threshold of sensory feedback, or overloading the rest of my nervous system. During the ADFNPSTSN-excitement, the mystical entity also temporarily disconnects –without damaging – any PSTSNNon-ADFNs from my PSTSNs at the same time and at the same rate and amount at which it stimulates my ADFNPSTSNs. This disconnection is physically-harmless but causes my PSTSNNon-ADFNs to be completely unable to communicate with my PSTSNs until reconnection. In this hypothetical scenario, the ADFNPSTSN-excitement and simultaneous PSTSNNon-ADFN-disconnection do *not* occur suddenly or in a flash. They take place in a gradual, smooth, and sine-wave-like manner -- in terms of extent to which an ADFNPSTSN is stimulated, how many ADFNPSTSNs per area are stimulated, and how many PSTSNNon-ADFNs per area are disconnected from their PSTSNs. Hence there is no hint of a startle response at any level. What symptoms will I experience as a result of this extreme ADFNPSTSN excitement with simultaneous PSTSNNon-ADFN disconnection? My guess is that my sympathetic nervous system would be disrupted causing neurogenic shock. Do I guess right? Thanks, Green Xenon