StringJunky

I just learned some soil bacteria and blue-green algae (diazotrophs) can fix nitrogen from air, they are a potential N source.

I'm talking about the macro-nutrients: NPK. If there's little N in the soil and only traces in the dead leaves, then the net N after processing by microbes will be tiny. I'm assuming no initial N in the soil to keep things clear for discussion.

I think we are maybe going to have to do some grey warfare ourselves in response. China and Russia are using attrition tactics and gaining territory inch by inch... especially China. We could put 100,000 'volunteers' in Ukrainian uniform and debadge our warplanes/tanks with Ukraine insignia on them. Russia hasn't got a leg to stand on, since they did that in Crimea with their 'green men'.... and got an uninvolved airliner blown up as well. What's good for the goose... wishful thinking, I know.

Beats me how they didn't see the gas dependence on Russia before now. In the short term, we can only assist Ukraine with tech, intelligence and arms, without actually joining in.

I think the answer is "It depends...". If, like I said, there's traces, then they are going to get used used up by the soil microbes to make the nitrates. They won't produce as much or more than they consume.... Law of Conservation and all that.... is it not? Adding leaves is not useles though, as they provide carbon, structure, porosity, moisture retention etc.

Unfortunately, it's going green that's causing the gas deficit. Everything has consequences.

And the 'correct' amount is...?

Speaking of nuclear: the Russians wouldn't have such leverage if that was the preferred energy source, instead of gas, until other greener sources matured or new ones realized.

That may be what the pros do as well. It was general comment, not targeted at you specifically.

Yes, ok. That's a bit confusing to the casual eye that may mistake LD50 for ID50, or vice versa.

It's Lethal Dose 50 - The amount it takes to kill half a population.

The numbers are in trace amounts.

There is no significant nutrients in fallen leaves for use by plants. The trees consumed them all before dumping them.

...and 4K.

That's pure 'slippery slope' fallacy.

Except where such measures are clinically justifiable in certain circumstances, like immune deficiency and operating theatres, trying to separate oneself from the universe of 'everyday' ubiquitous microorganisms is a fool's errand, I think. Why try to remove, beyond a cosmetic level, stuff that we have evolved to live with. I blame advertising, propagating anxiety to maintain hygiene-related markets.

That's called 'chatoyance'. You see it also in certain types of wood that has been finished to a high polish.

I don't know where you live, my experience is very much to the contrary: what you see is what you get.

The regulars here actually like the scientific method and it's implied rigor. The members also police crap as much as the mods. It's not perfect and there is some lattitude for people to express amateur speculations, compared to, say, Physics Forms because ultimately it is an amateur forum. You just have to weather the periods when there seems to be a lot of rubbish, One can filter out the forums that tend to produce the irritating stuff. Keep your eyes on the wheat and ignore the chaff. I think universities have a lower standard of entry in the UK now, to fill the seats because it's not free. They also have national league tables to compete in for applications and thus income. These all lower the bar imo.

I read somewhere that certain elements, like the power unit, are replaceable, in the event that such technology may be available in a few decades. I think it's planned service life is 40 years iirc.

Yes, I'll go with those. The sudden part is where I implied jokingly 'magic'... it just seems to appear.

Looks like TheVat misinterpreted Studiot's post.

Yes, it's in the BIOS.

You can get the OS off the MS site when you need it. The license no. is embedded in the pc and will be read during installation.

Found an interesting view in Nature: Defining emergence in physics. It notes the disparity between the biological and physics views on the subject. It seems that a physics definition needs infinities to comply, according to them, whereas biology needs a very large but finite number. The authors propose this as a working physics definition: https://www.nature.com/articles/npjquantmats201624