John Cuthber

No, it will not.

This seems well timed... http://dilbert.com/strip/2018-08-12 If shoes are so efficient; how come a cyclist will almost certainly beat a runner in a race?

One option is to use a 555 and a divider but dedicated chips for that sort of role are available. Her's an example which shows how old fashioned I am http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/cd4060b.pdf

When a car engine is running, the power for the spark plug comes directly from the alternator. It's also not much power, so Mistermack's statement is correct.

What have you been smoking?

Or he's just crass.

Hurricanes + forest fires have similar problems. They are rare, and you don't know where they will happen. Also they produce so much energy that it's difficult for us to consider controlling it.

If Trump called me a low life, I'd get that fact printed on a T shirt. The condemnations aren't just "not permanent" they are not meaningful.

Electroplating alloys isn't trivial. One traditional method for providing the low voltage high current for electroplating was a homopolar generator run from an AC motor. I think the biggest challenge you will face is that the churches are richer than they usually admit, and more interested in tradition. Just because your method is better doesn't mean they will use it.

Probably only by old crocs like me. :-)

Most of the atoms in your body are hydrogen, oxygen carbon and nitrogen. Only one of them is a semi metal. On the other hand if you look at the semi metallic elements "The classic semimetallic elements are arsenic, antimony, bismuth, α-tin (gray tin) " Form https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semimetal You find they are more or less toxic. So you are utterly wrong. Most of the other stuff you posted there is also nonsense or wrong. Why do you post this dross?

Your matrix has the top right corner missing.

That would be my guess too. You could try each of the ingredients separately.

There are already ski centres that don't rely on the weather. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chill_Factore If they are commercially successful, people will build more of them.

For a lot of equipment- where the clock rate is of the order of KHz or MHz and Ghz they use crystal oscillators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_oscillator

Most sound level meters (and certainly the $20 ones) are not designed for short duration sounds and may give inaccurate answers in this case.

Yes. But it has a lot of iodine in it; you can't use it as a staple food.

And those powers are explicitly anti-science. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18099-david-nutt-governments-should-get-real-on-drugs/

And there seems to be some debate about what we might want to legalise (or not). If we can't even define a "drug" then we are going to struggle with a debate on legalising drugs. The problem isn't that there are no differences, but that they are all different. So putting some, but not all, of them into a category (like "soft") is arbitrary.

WTF are you on about? (1 ) There is no scientific distinction between hard + soft drugs- the idea is sociopolitical. (2)There is a difference between burgers and heroin. But, since a burger isn't a drug, there is no relation between the two facts.

Yes, heroin withdrawal can kill you. Not getting a burger just makes you a bit grumpy. Did you really need someone to tell you that?

How can I prove that a distinction between two classes does not exist? However, I try to convince you. You don't even consider dope to be a drug; the law and the pharmacopoeia do. If there's no agreement on whether dope is a drug or not, how can there be agreement on whether it's a "hard" drug? Also, since I'm the chemistry expert and I say there's no difference, you should accept that fact from me- as an expert. OK, that's one definition. Since nicotine is exceptionally easy to overdose on- it is more toxic weight for weight than cyanide- nicotine is a hard drug. Plenty of people are killed by alcohol Caffeine is lethal if taken in excess. On the other hand, LSD is almost impossible to overdose on in the sense of killing you. The permanent brain damage is a different matter. So LSD and cannabis are soft drugs- in spite of the well known dangers of long term damage. Tea, tobacco, cocaine, heroin and beer are all hard drugs even though the range of observed harm caused by them, and the range of social acceptability, are enormous. Is that distinction helpful? Other definitions of "hard vs soft" also exist, but they all (as far as I know) run into similar problems when you look in detail.

You learn it- typically from your family. There are chemicals in peppers that stimulate the same nerve cells that are stimulated by (excessive) heat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsaicin Other chemicals can trigger the nerves that normally sense cold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menthol#Biological_properties

Then you plainly do not know what you are talking about. Show me the science behind the distinction. It's not my job to try to prove a negative. Not really. However, the law fails to distinguish between different strains even though the potency varies enormously. The law will punish you for selling old fashioned weak dope or the modern super strong skunk in the same way. However, if you breed and import skunk, you can dilute it down with tobacco or whatever. Your customers will still get stoned, so they will pay just as much. But, because you can get the same intoxication of the same number of customers with less actual plant material, you don't need to move as much product. So you are less likely to get caught smuggling it. So, the drive to higher potency strains of cannabis was driven by the government's policy of criminalisation.

Did anyone say it would? The distinction between "hard" and "soft" drugs is not based in science, it is largely political dogma. It was observed during the Vietnam war (among others) that soldiers used a lot of drugs to get through the experience. Most of them quit taking the drugs when they got home. That's because their "home" environment was supportive. If you want to reduce chronic drug use, what you should do is make everybody's "home" supportive. The "war on drugs" tends to do the exact opposite. This fact is known to the politicians.