insane_alien

seeing as UC said anyone can post one here's another: This metalorganic compound is pretty unsavoury. if it was a person you'd say he was a real ass. The molcular structure of this compound looks quite similar to what its name suggests but this is purely coincidental.

thats going to make learning the maths extremely difficult indeed. perhaps you should wait till you have more math knowledge under your belt before you tackle M-theory which has a lot of complex maths in it which would need to be explained to you piece by piece.

iron is [Ar] 3d6 4s2 zinc is [Ar] 3d10 4s2 you don't need the inner shells for this application so they've been substituted with [Ar] which is the electron configuration of argon. pay particular attention to the 3d orbitals.

you don't need multiple telescopes for that. we can make distance measurements to stars by taking andle measurements at 6 month intervals(when the earth is on the other side of the sun) and the direction of this distance is achieved by looking at which way we point the telescope to observe it. we already have a 3-D map of the universe and the proper velocity of most nearby stars. more distant stars are more difficult to get a proper velocity for but this is easily solved by waiting a decade or two and remeasuring. a big space based array would certainly help by allowing use to survey more stars at once, but it is by no means necessary to the success of such a project. it would also be cheaper to build even more ground based radio telescopes for this purpose. space based telescopes are primarily to avoid distortion and absorbtion of certain wavelengths by our atmosphere.

you need a mirror.

you wouldn't get that kind of focus out of anything. doesn't matter how big it is. there are satellite based telescopes that work in multiples though. the stereo sattelites observe the sun to obtain a pseudo-3D view. there are plans for future space based arrays as well but none of them will be able to directly spot life on planets multiple light years away. we might catch a glimpse of their planet though.

so you say you have evidence but do not wish to provide it? thats not how science works. iNow responds to you the way he does because you refuse to behave reasonably and by the rules of the forum.

well, make some observations or your sock population and record them here and we'll analyse the data and see if we can figure out whats really happening once and for all.

no, you wouldn't. you haven't shown any evidence of concious thought at all. i'm not convinced you pass the turing test either.

you sir, are a moron.

they realised this pump was shit over 1000 years ago and used better ones like the archimedes screw. seriously. there are so few use cases for it. andi don't have to prove anything to you. you have to provide evidence to us.

they already looked at chain pumps, decided they were utter crap and dropped them entirely. seriously, its not some fantastic never thought of before idea. its just crap.

cars have precicely bugger all to do with pump engines. completely different scenario. they also have crap torque relatively as they are limited by the friction coefficient of the tires. you're just repeating the same old crap again. and no, i'm not going to upload my course work.

perhaps because there is no earth between the earth and the moon? but on a more serious note, the debris leftover will not come out of orbit until it either hits something else and slows down or is slowed down by drag with the tenuous and extremely thin atmosphere present at that altitude.

we explained to you how your method will use more energy than current methods. you didn't listen. we are not going to repeat it so just go back a few pages and read it again. i actually have a degree in chemical engineering which is VERY relavant to this subject and i've had two classes on pumping methods. chain pumps suck ass and should never be used unless it is the ONLY remaining option. A centrifugal pump to PUMP WATER DOWN and push water up is much more efficient and energy conserving than a chain pump.

Around three months ago i purchased 10 pairs of socks. i now only have 3 pairs left. if we assume that the disappearence of socks is a random occurance then it is likely that socks follow a decay curve not unlike a radioactive substance and decay exponentially. if we plug these numbers into wolfram alpha(or work it out by hand) we end up with a halflife of 1.72 months. in order to test this hypothesis(and get moved up into the proper science forums, which, if i'm right would be the first thread to do so) i'm calling on YOU to submit data on your socks over time so we can further refine the half life and determine if all socks have the same half life or if some socks are more stable than others. perhaps post a picture or a short description so we can classify the sock. here's mine

oh i'm not saying it won't work. i'm just saying it'll be crap compared to current methods like i have been all along.

so how is this going to extend the producing time of oil wells eh? it's no where near as good as current designs. really its crap. utter crap. there are maybe one or two cases where a chain pump is actually the most appropriate design but oil wells are not one of them. far too much stuff to go wrong and too high a chance of it going wrong in an inaccessible place resulting in the need for a second well to be drilled. seriously we have told you all the places it sucks and you are just going 'lalalalalala its good its good its good and origional' without giving ANY evidence.

there is a very good reason why it is not being used. it's crap. also, for something to be patentented it needs a certain degree of innovation. you can't just apply existing technology to a new application with zero modifications and get a patent on it. it would be classed as 'obvious' making it ineligble for a patent. the device is unpatentable.

i don't think you can copyright something that has already existed for millenia. anyway what you need for an invention is a patent, not copyright.

so you ask for russian media but then you say russian media isn't sufficient? ffs make up your mind.

yo get just over 1000 mph out of it under ideal conditions.

escape velocity equations are nowhere near difficult math. just a bit of basic calculus is all you need.

and if you actually read the recall statement you'll see its because of a possibly contaminated batch. not because peanut butter is useless as food. i think we can all agree that peanut butter is useful as a food. this is a red herring and has bugger all to do with stem enhance which makes a lot of fanciful claims(along with a disclaimer that says it doesn't claim anything)

hmm, i thought the molecule in his picture was haemoglobin. and the resultant molecule would be the heme group. it has 10 double bonds giving us potassium. this also has 6 kJ/mol resulting in manganese EDIT: damn, theo responded and i was wrong bugger