John Cuthber

It's not that foreign oil makes more CO2, it's that we shouldn't be looking for more oil to burn. We are doing enough damage with the stuff we already have. Increasing the supply will drop the price and increase usage. And the industry record for spilling it and causing minor (so far) quakes isn't something to inspire confidence. Of course one could argue that a proper government regulating that industry would improve things but money talks and governments listen to it.

There are two ways to look at it. In order to put the float in at the bottom of the water you need to make room for it. You can do that by lifting the water up or by removing some. Lifting it will take energy and you can't hope to recover all the energy needed Removing the water would work- until the water ran out. So you have either a very tall piece of art or a very ineffective hydro- power station.

OK, for a start, we know it's not a very high intensity em emission because we don't get lots of radio interference every time people let off fireworks. Also, there is no credible mechanism to couple energy from the explosion into the EM radiation (apart from the obvious- it gets hot) You are not going to be take seriously here unless you have a credible mechanism or actual evidence of damage (not easily explained away as a blast effect). Ideally you want both; currently you have neither.

In essentially any useful case, if you can come up with evidence, i can dispute it.

The carbon dioxide released if they burn it won't stay within the M25.

Those regulations refer to long duration exposure not the few microseconds that an explosion lasts. Did you not understand that? Re "What is known in specific technical circles may not be known outside these groups. I suspect those involved in nuclear non-proliferation detection know a lot about the EM spectral characteristics of chemical explosions, but their info is not publicly available." I will ask around when I get back to work. However the physics makes your idea impossible anyway.

Are you sure?

There's nothing magical about gravity. In this case it can be modelled very simply as a constant force acting at the centre of the disk, directly downwards and equal to 9.81 times the mass of the disk (in kilograms).

Well, that's true iff th local river banks have kaolin in them. And it won't be silicosis unless you start throwing silica about.

What's wrong with flour? The essential problem is that lungs are not built to deal with much solid dust, so any powder being thrown round is potentially harmful.

Here's an Xray picture of an explosion http://www2.l-3com.com/ati/img/redesign/flash_x-ray/Copper.jpg it isn't fogged. So there can't be much Xray emission from the explosion.

I have no idea whether or not you can "centrifuge" the effective mass of an electron (or anything else come to think of it) But this may be able to help with the filter/ signal/ noise ratio problems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock-in_amplifier You can lock it to the rotating "wheel" so, if the speed drifts it doesn't matter too much. you might also want to look at this sort of thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxcar_averager

Actually, I already told you (roughly) what the emissivity of the earth is (about 61%). I even cited the source However, you seem not to understand that the Earth doesn't have "an emissivity" any more than it has "a colour".

I have used a blow-torch to clean enamelled steel. It stinks a bit, but it doesn't take a lot of hard work. Sodium hydroxide solution will remove a lot of the dirt, but it may also attack the enamel.

No. fluoride ions are oxidised to fluorine. That's unusual chemistry, but perfectly possible. but it is not the same as oxidising fluorine- (which chemistry can't do, but an electric arc can).

At 5000 K the typical energies are about half an electron volt. High enough to mess up a building, but not really into the range of ionizing radiation. You might just get some UV if you are lucky. Also, the human body isn't very susceptible to em fields

It's perfectly possible that she cared deeply, but didn't see another option. With this daft legal decision, perhaps she was right. Whatever the morality of the issue, the law here is an ass. She was convicted of feticide and child neglect. After a feticide- there is no child to neglect.

The OP specifies "I understand that there's no solution to this equation.". That rules out any solution that is actually a solution It's perfectly possible that, in some branch of maths that's not confined to the real numbers, there is a solution- but that's not what we are talking about here.

It seems to me that almost any human endeavour produces scientific or technological progress. Whether we are trying to feed ourselves cure illness or even build cathedrals, we use those goals as a springboard to new ways of working. The thing that's notable about war is that people are prepared to put a lot of effort and resources into it so it's likely to produce a lot of research and development. On the other hand, if the whole world woke up tomorrow and realised that war is a fundamentally silly way to go about things, the same resources would be available to employ on other things- healthcare is an obvious example- and I suspect that the overall rate of "inventing new stuff" would not fall due to the lack of war; it might even rise.

If you take the undercurrents of bias out of the thread title it says "Boss boss".

Others disagree. http://www.globalspec.com/industrial-directory/120v_neon_pilot_lights it's pretty much a no-go if it's a fan heater. The normal thermostat will be designed to switch AC and may not cope with a DC source. If you can rewire it so that a suitably rated relay switches the main current, there should be no problem.

It is possible that someone here is qualified to answer that. But, if they are then they will know that you can't make a diagnosis from a post on a webpage. You need to seek professional advice about this. On the other hand it seems reasonable to point out that grave shyness isn't very rare and it is treatable.

Given that lye will attack aluminium, String Junky's question seems rather important.

Where is the irrationality? People need to rest, animals need to rest, the land needs to rest. Also, it seems to have "evolved" from the God-given wrong answer.

No they are not. The elements that you and I are made from were made in other stars. Also, there are only about a hundred stable elements- no matter where you make them. The other planets will be made from the same elements as ours (though the proportions will be different.)