abskebabs

lol:D

Both of these photos were taken about a year ago, along with the one I'm now using as my avatar.

Same here dude:cool: , I do like chillout music and I've started to listen to more classical music. I hadn't heard of Simon Posford but I think I'll look out for him now. BTW do u like dj shadow? I should have added "dj shadow- Midnigth in a perfect world" to the list too.

I could think of quite a few songs I really enjoy, but I guess I should be quite selective about this and only name songs that are truly "beautiful." Air-all I need Fc Kahuna-Hayling Mamas and Papas-California dreaming Eliot-all I am made of Len-steal my sunshine Bran Van 3000-drinking in LA

The problem with wind is that it is variable, whereas what is needed is a regular source of power. To compensate however, when hydrogen fuel cell technology is ready for employment, we will be able to convert the excess electrical power into hydrogen and oxygen. We can by doing this develop stores of energy for use whendemand goes up. Who knows, maybe in the future these stores might be traded in the commodities market. In answer to your question Prime evil, I think it would be possible to do carry out this process in your basement(how efficiently and cost effectively depending on its size:D ). What is the ideal size for a TDP plant(and the level of decentralisation) depends on various factors like transportation costs, thermodynamic efficiencies, whether there is enough organic waste locally etc. I see you also caught on to the idea of developing sores from excess wind power. I'm delighted to inform you however that i don't think this would be necessary. As far as I know the energy required to process the feedstock is less than the total heat energy that can be produced by burning the fuel produced. In fact I know that at the plant where they were testing this process they were producing both natural gas and a petroleum mixture. The natural gas produced was used to repower the plant, and the petroleum sold. The main problem with the process is not that it isn't energetically profitable, but it isn't economically viable at the moment on a large scale. With improvements to the process however, and a few modifications to US law concerning agricultural subsidies etc the sector could thrive. I think right now it would be economically viable because a barrel of oil on the market typically costs just below $70 at the moment. A barrel produced using the TDP process would cost $60 to make. What we need is for politicians to have resolve, and entrepreneurs to take risks(as they always do).

Why has next to noone had a look at this or commented on it? I see it as one of a few likely alternatives which together, could help us combat climate change and our dependance on crude oil extracted from the Earth. I've added 2 more links: Wikepedia article on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization This link explains how the proces is carried out. http://www.itcnet.org/Fire%20web%20site/B_Articles%20&%20Reports/Changing%20World%20Technologies%20-%20Thermal%20Process.pdf

Al Quaeda cannot be described at all accurately as an organisation. It is an ideology carried out by ppl with similiar motives, sentiment and long term goals. It's organisational structure is mainly in the form of loosely knit cells thjat are self sustainable in terms of operations. Bin Laden is mainly a figurehead, and some(not by any means all) operations are only carried out after blessings are given by the sheikh or one of his deputies or representatives. Because of this kind of structure their operations are very hard to trace. The US intelligence community has been taking a LONG time to adapt to this new kind of enemy but it is adapting. Ultimately it has to be recognised that Al Quaeda is not a "traditional" foe like any other organisation. It is an ideology, and to defeat the ideology we must defeat its ideas and its basis for sympathy in the Islamic world. We must stop giving muslims a reason to sympathise with islamic extremism. The west(especially the US) must win the crucial battle of hearts and minds(cleeshayed I know).

It would be far better use thethermal depolymerisation process(or thermochemical conversion) to produce a fuel very much like crude oil from the waste potatoes you have mentioned. That's my opinion anyway, what's the point in converting to ethanol, it's definitely not an ideal fuel anyway. In fact any organic waste would be suitable feedstock for the process, even human and medical. In fact, that's where i think the real potential for this technology is. If we could recycle all organic waste this way, we would produce a sizeable amount of fuel. If I've already done a thread on thermal depolymerisation, it's just a shame hardly anyone takes any notice of it... I know this aint true but sometimes it seems like ppl would rather lament about their impending doom rather than look for ways to prevent it:-( ...

That was simply amazing, thanks for posting it kenshi.

No the wickets are the wooden posts a batsmen defends in cricket, stopping a bowler who is trying to knock them down in order to get the batsmen out. If the wickets are hit and the bails are down, the batsmen is out. Also a batsmen could be run out when taking runs between wickets if he/she is out of the criece and the bails get knoced down.They could also get caught or get bowled leg before wicket to get out. I think the story behind the ashes was when England lost for the 1st time to Australia this weirdo journalist burnt some ashes(maybe they were the stumps as YT says) saying that these were the remains of English cricket. The next time England played Australia at home, they beat them and they were given a cup with the ashes(I think, I'm not sure) that they then retained. Ever since then this has been an ongoing series held between the 2 countries every 2 years.

Hmm.... I thought this was because they share the property of all bosons, that allows them to exist in exactly the same quantum state. In fact I think there is a high lilkelihood of this when the scenario presents it as a possibility(like in a laser).

Hi every1, I've just been revising using my physics textbook(which is rubbish btw) and it mentions that the strong force actually gets stronger as the distance between 2 quarks increases(it uses the analogy of a rubber band).This is exactly opposite to both the gravitational force and electromagnetic force. If this is true, I'm curious about what forumulas govern the strength of this force or interaction also; is it proportional to r squared(r being distance between the 2 particles)? Also does anyone know why it gets stronger as the distance between 2 quarks increases?

I remember being a little like this when I was younger. I remember having wacky ideas for inventions and drawing diagrams of them, but never making them as I've never really been much of the practical type:-p ! I remember talking to ppl who were more knowledgeable than me who ridiculed my ideas saying they were impractical and impossible. Even though I did realize as I got older, the failings in my ideas, I think it was a great learning experience that spurred my interest in how the world works. In this sense I sincerely agree with mooeypoo, and you should research these various ideas critical to engineering and physics like thermodynamics, entropy etc. In fact, I think I'll give you some of the ideas I had. I once thought you could place small wind turbines on the side of a motorway(highway) to generate power from the gusts of air created by the cars passing by. I also had an idea whereby you could place a turbine on top of a car(hence the word wacky) to regenerate power when braking. I suppose a practical modification of this idea is already used in the brakes of some hybrid vehicles in order to slow the car and generate electricity.

Hi insane, would you say that you need to be good practically with scientific experiments in Chemical Engineering. Frankly I'm hopeless, and I always prefer to theory in my science classes(unlike everyone else). Do you think I may be better suited to something like theoretical physics rather than chem eng? Also, btw are u at Strathclyde uni?

I understand that when antiparticles such as a positron and an electron annihilate, high energy gamma photons are produced. So what would be produced if a photon and an antiphoton(theoretically) annihilate?

Ah...good point. i was thinking of ethanol being used in the simplistic, crude(shamelss pun not intended:D ) sense like it is in Brazil. If as a viable part of fuel cell technology, then ethanol then it represents a feasible avenue. However I think thermal depolymerisation(or depolymerization, I'm not sure) should definitely be pursued. i posted a thread on it in the engineering section a while back but not many ppl took any notice of it.

I voted other, I'm skeptical of ethanol and I think reduced fuel consumption; and the use of a combination of technologies like thermal depolymerisation and hydrogen fuel cells(a few years down the line) offers the best solution. In fact not just for America but for the world.

Eek! I got a different answer to you guys when doing this(you may notice I'm a complete amateur with latex, this took me way too long). I first worked out a rate the men would be working at by dividing the work done by the time. Then I divided this by the number of ppl to give me the rate per person. I thne worked out the rate that would be required to finish the work with a quarter of the time to spare. I had to first find the remaining time by taking away a third from 3 quarters. Finally I divided the required rate by the rate per person to give me a number. [math]rate= \frac{\frac{1w}4}{\frac{t}3}= \frac{3w}{4t}[/math] [math]rate/person= \frac{\frac{3w}4t}{21p}= \frac{w}{28tp}[/math] [math]time.remaining=\frac{3t}{4}-\frac{t}{3}= \frac{5t}{12}[/math] [math]requiredrate=\frac{\frac{3w}4}{5t/12}= \frac{9w}{5t}[/math] Therefore to find the number of ppl needed after a third of the time has passed: [math]No.people=\frac{9w/5t}{w/28tp}= \frac{252p}{5}= 50.4[/math] Therefore the total number of ppl required to do the job in time after a third of the time has passed within 3 quarters of the time has to be at least 51. You would therefore need 30 more ppl. I'm not sure if this is correct...

I'd never heard of Mc hawking before.This stuff is legendaryy lol:D

A strong person doesn't need to predict the future, they make their own...

If there is a God why does he/she/it(whatever) have to be good or bad. These are simply the products of the human mind and society, wouldn't God be beyond both anyway? I think this is one prevalent belief in hinduism. I have to admit though, I have a certain disdain for the word "hinduism" as it is simply an anachronism of a poorly translated persian word used to denote the wide range of people who inhabited the indian subcontinent. For example there are or were people who are called hindus now, but would probably fit the description of agnostic or atheist best(I think one group were the Carvaka philosophers). Therefore I'm glad to say I'm still a hindu:D !

This is exactly what I have found amazing about this(perhaps I'm just stupid!)! It would seem to travel at a certain speed away from me, and even though I would already be m,oving; it would travel at this same speed to someone else who wasn't "moving." I think I just need to get used to this idea and read about relativity...

Ah.. I see. Does this mean the observed speed of light to me if I am in a vehicle travelling at let's say 0.1c and shine a torch, and the speed of the light observed by someone else from a static frame of reference(relative to me) will be different? If so how? Thanks for your help, I appreciate it.

When recently thinking about this, I suddenly realized why I am not more bothered about the statement in relativity that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference. Naturally it seems quite counter intuitive to me now, just like a lot of quantum theory. I admit I do not know either to a great degree, but I know more about quantum theory having done some A level coursework at school on early quantum theory(e.g. work done by Planck, Einstein, de Broglie, Bohr's model of atom etc). To get to the point, I imagined I was in a vehicle moving at a very high speed, let's say about a 1% of the speed of light(if we ignore relativistic effects on mass). If I shined a torch while on the vehicle, from my frame of reference it would seem like the light would be travelling at (3*10^8)m/s but the light would also seem to be travelling at the same speed to an observer who was outside the vehicle and watching both me and the vehicle. Naturally, this would not make sense intuitively, for example; if I threw a tennis ball out of a car while travelling in it, it would sem to me to be travelling at a certain speed, but to an external observer, its immediate speed would be the sum of my speed as well as the speed I observe it to be travelling. The fact that light does not follow this rule shows it is something that I cannot apply such simple analogies to and should be considered very differently, and I guess this is defined well in Relativity. In fact to be honest I was quite shocked and amazed when I finally realised this, as well as being a little annoyed that it took me so long to realise the implications of such a profound truth. Have I made any mistakes when looking at this, or is all this correct scientifically? Also would anyone else like to add other things that can be observed from relativity that are also quite counter intuitive when you think about them, and why? Thanks a lot.