insane_alien

the distance doesn't involve time. so it is AB,BC,CD,DA

wikipedia, it references a paper that used measurements of neutrino fluxes from within the earth to determine the amount of radioactive decay taking place in the interior. obviously there will be a fair amount of error, but all the values i have seen point to around 44TW. and far from all of that will be usable heat.

this guy must be related to the guys who tried to blow up glasgow airport. if anything they helped its image by removing the upper layers of chewing gum welded to the pavement and forcing them to clean it up a bit.

i suggest you look up the electrochemical series and be careful to note the position of each of the metals on the list. also, the lack of balancing with the NO3 is probably just because they only want to indicate that the two chemicals react and the stoichiometry isn't too important.

bacterial degradation pre cooking can leave harmful toxins that may not be eliminated by cooking. at best this just means the food tastes awful, at worst it could kill you if consume enough of it. on the plus side, if properly cooked, you won't get a microbial caused illness, just poisoned.

geothermal can be depleted if you extract to much. this is commonly seen with groundsource heatpumps freezing the ground they operate in. the amount of energy produced in the earths interior is only 44TW so this is the maximum steady state energy production it can yield. its not that much in the grand scheme of things. estimates of the exploitable energy from the earth are only down arouns 2TW maximum however. as a species we use approximately 15TW of energy. this is growing rapidly. it is expected that by 2050 we will have exceeded 44TW and still be climing. as an energy source, geothermal is limited and has potentially unknown consequences. what does happen if we cool down the volcanic hotspots. we don't and can't(at the moment) know what will happen if we remove volcanic activity from our environment. it could be nothing or it could lead to vast changes to our atmosphere. so its best to keep this to a small scale anyway as it is nowhere near capable of supplying all our power.

thats only one part of the much larger set of indicators. of course medication should not be prescribed based on the results of a single test but other indicators would need to be present in order for that to happen. in all liklihood other symptoms would be required before that test was even performed. you are grasping at straws here.

yeah, steorn have been claiming this for years and every time they go to reveal it something always coincidentally goes wrong. its a scam, its been known to be a scam for years and it will remain, a scam.

he supplied you with proof. he also said in addition to it that there are many contributing factors and no single cause to the end result. this is not the same as 'no proof' this is just indicative that the brain is a very complex system. heck, if you look at relatively simple systems like a chemical plant where there has been an accident there are always contributing factors that caused it, not just one single event. you can, but to do so would be hideously expensive and unnecessary as you can make the diagnosis without such specialised equipment. i mean, if every time you went to the doctor you were submitted to a barrage of uneccesary tests and probing you'd complain right? as to your remark about immeasurable brain chemistry alterations, well, if they were immeasurable then we wouldn't know about them. they are indeed measurable and there are tests that work only because they do measure brain chemistry. they tpically involve sampling the spinal fluid though as remotely testing for the chemical levels is hard and inaccurate. i think you should start behaving a bit more maturely, all the evidence you have posted you seem to have misinterpreted. you are showing all signs of starting from a conclusion and then scurrying to find evidence to fit it. this is not how you should be operating.

lol, like we're going to use a single groundbased 1kW radar system fo detecting potential impactors over the enitre earth. i imagine there would be a multitude of high power radar systems. and we wouldn't be relying purely on radar either.

if you want an rss feed of the forums just click the little RSS feed icon in the address bar of your browser when you're on the subforum page(assuming you're using firefox, i assum internet explorer and oper have similar)

links to a .exe no developer website, possible virus. nobody download especially as its a first post.

why are there so many anti-psychiatry threads of late? and its not fraud. psychiatry does help many many people. and it is dealing with an incredibly complex system with many subtle effects as well as larger ones. its essentially like tasking a toddler to repair the space shuttle. the fact that we have a non-zero success rate on this is quite frankly astounding. its much better than just leaving the crazies to it. now, this lack of knowledge we have is not for lack of trying. many people are working on it and as we learn more about the mind it will improve the success rate and inevitably lead to a few revolutions of the field where old ideas are discovered to be wrong and need changing. we'll probably even go down the wrong road many times and not notice until later. but as any science and application of science will do, it will eventually realise the mistakes and change. and psychiatrists will not make a patient supress a problem, they will find way to help the patient deal with the problem. psychotherapy is also not the great miracle worker you seem to think about, the success rate is far from 90%.

and for the waste heat that gets absorbed by the ship, well, thats what the radiators are for.

says 104MWe for a naval reactor. so that would be about 300MW thermal. EDIT: i imagine a lot of the earlier ones focused more on the production of steam from pure heat rather than converting it to electricity though. but on all the nuclear carriers the shaft power is in several hundred megawatts which certainly does mean the reactors were of that sort of magnitude in power, just maybe not producing that much electricity which would be relatively small.

nah, you just land the airport at an airport airport.

if there's no landmass then why not just have it floating on the oceans then? there really isn't a useful scenario for this. also, in the case of the low land area planet, where are you going to get the fissionables to fuel your monstrosity? nuclear reactors do regularly need to be refueled, either that or they require super high enrichment with would require a very large ground based isotope separation facility.

unfortunately, coolness doess not translate into practicalness or cost effectiveness.

except its off our orbital plane so we'd miss it by a few light years at the very least. remember kids, space is 3D can't be having none of that 2D thinking here.

the smaller it is, the less energy is available. nuclear power does have pretty high energy density but it is FINITE. a bell206 helicopter has a power to mass ratio of 420W/kg if we take sysiphus's example mass then you need 42GW of power to keep this afloat. naval reactors are nowhere near this scale. aircraft carriers may approach 300MW but they won't be operating at that ALL the time. and this isn't counting redundant systems which you WILL need. otherwise you will crash the first time there is a propblem. even commercial reactors don't go this high. and they're several stories and the rest of the steam plant requires a lot of space too. and since they tend to be around 1GWe then you are going to need at LEAST 42 of them. propbably more like 60 to account for redundancy and maintenance and refuelling. and the cooling plant is going to be ENORMOUS. the power plants alone would cost trillions and probably weigh more than the pretty small 100Mkg of the nimitz class. this isn't even factoring in the extreme problems of the air currents around this. you're going to be moving a crapload of air to make lift. this will create high winds, downdrafts, turbulence and all things that make landings extremely dodgy. you can make an airfield with greater capacity for a few million. heck, you can get an aircraft carrier for a few hundred(of its not state of the art military spec)million. but this thing is likely to cost more than all global economies combined and require a whole new generation of groundbased breeder reactors to generate the fuel required to keep this thing in the air. and all this is just for one measly little strip.

there would still be an atmosphere. but it would be incredibly cold. the heat from radioactive decay in the earths core should keep a gaseous atmosphere around us but ther will probably be seas of liquid nitrogen and oxygen as well. one thing is for certain, it'd be frikking awesome watching it all boil as we approach our new suns. edit: just thought, it would probably be cold enough for helium produced through said radioactive decay to hang around the earth until it heat back up again. so if we compressed the atmospheric gasses and warmed it up to feed into our hab complexes we'd all be talking with squeaky voices.

oh come on, really, you must know this stuff is utter crap. there is absolutely nothing to support it. its always anecdotes for someone who knows someone who seen it maybe. if it really did exist then it would be more widely known about. put up some evidence or get the hell out of here.

i was talking about leaderbee, i thought it would be obvious who i was talking to.

both. it just gets added to the general pool(figurative) of water in the body.

the computer you are using right now to read this is proof of quantum mechanics. lots of quantum mechanics is involved in the operation of a semiconductor. and the LED's on your screen(or the phosphors if you use a CRT) then there's the way the data is sent around the globe. if it was bunk then pretty much none of it would work.