John Cuthber

OK, Lets try that again, but do it properly. If you want to calculate the gravitataional potenetial energy of something it's easy enouh E= m g H where m is the mass, g is the local gravitational acceleration and h is the height above some datum. There's a similar calculation for weight w = m g So you can rewrite the first equation in terms of weight the gravitational potential energy is given by E = w h where w is the weight and h is the height. But, for a helium balloon, measured in air, the weight is negative. So the more height you have the more negative the energy is. The problem is not that I had forgotten that helium had mass,but that you had forgotten that its weight is negative (if measured in air at a comparable t and p). Blindly quoting high school physics doesn't get you very far in this case; you actually need to think about the system and the forces involved. So, as you have been asked repeatedly, and as the rules require, Perhaps you might like to tell us where the energy to run the generator comes from.

What I'm thinking is the same as what I'm saying.. If the balloon can give energy to something else as it rises then it must lose energy as it rises. So it must have less energy when it it high up. Would you like to explain where else the energy might come from?

You did get an answer. You have got the same answer repeatedly. It takes at least 49KW

These people told you it's 49KW https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/making-ancient-time-water-wheel-to-lift-water.784503/ So did these http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/47711-possible-make-energy-efficient-ancient-time-water-wheel-lift-water.html And (roughly speaking) these http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=52915.msg444395#msg444395 so why are you asking again?

There should have been a discussion before any work started to sort out what the risks were and what could be done about them For example, I'm sure there's a vaccine against whooping cough. Wouldn't it have been a lot better to get that jab first?

At best, it might be marginally more efficient than a more conventional pump. My guess is that it would be less efficient.

Well, I'm guessing that's what he meant. It hardly matters- an unclear logical fallacy isn't an improvement on a clear one. If I wanted an expensive taxi driver the ppl would be relevant (Though I'd probably ask a mate of mine who teaches people to fly helicopters).

For a start, there's no way that could possibly be your decision is there? You don't get to decide what we want; so you are just being silly when you say " I've decided that none of you want to learn" The idea that I don't want to learn does not make sense and you know it. If I did not want to learn,, I would not keep asking questions. So, here we go again. How do you explain this? "Also, you have not explained how a balloon on a string can generate electricity by rising unless that energy is taken from the potential energy of the balloon. If energy is taken from it as it rises then it must have less potential energy when it's high up." on the other hand, if you wanted to learn you would try to answer the question. it is you who refuses to even try to learn, not us. Having a private pilot's license has little to do with knowing how a plane flies.* Plenty of people drive cars without having the least understanding of the mechanics of the engine. Why did you mention it? Did you think it would impress us? Boy oh boy! you have e lot to learn. * The proof of that assertion is that you have one, but don't know how a plane flies.

You have had years of notice- why haven't you done something about it? Also, if you are a big enough organisation to be paying £10,000 in fees then you must be a pretty big organisation. can't you afford it? http://www.cirs-reach.com/reach/REACH_Registration_Fees.html Incidentally, the 64 Euro fee probably doesn't even cover it's own processing costs. So I'm not sure what you are on about. Could you explain a bit?

Yes, don't care, don't care and No respectively. Now can you please do hat the site rules require of you, and answer my question about the generator?

Does the book answer the questions we have asked? Does it, for example, explain this "Also, you have not explained how a balloon on a string can generate electricity by rising unless that energy is taken from the potential energy of the balloon. If energy is taken from it as it rises then it must have less potential energy when it's high up." Does it explain why your bizarre ideas about why balloons shouldn't float because there are compressed air tanks on Earth tally with reality? If not, why would I buy it?

Why do you ask? This site says it's about twice that http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/astref.html but it's not an easy thing to estimate.

It is unfortunate that many countries are not able to fund their own research, nor even to benefit from the research of others because the subscription costs of journals are high. What would be even more of a tragedy would be if those limited funds were spent on journals that are utter rubbish. Even if it is free, a bad journal is, at best, a waste of time. It may also be misleading.

It's also not clear to me that, with a population of about 7 billion and rising, on a finite planet, we need to find more ways to reproduce.

3 and 4 contradict each other. Newly emerging fields need new journals otherwise the scope of the established ones gets overgrown. However, a new journal logically can't have already got articles published by recognised experts. There are, as you say, ways round this issue. One is the launch of a spin off journal from an established one.

The Moon is roughly a sphere. Any plane is parallel to two points on the Moon's surface. The reflectors were placed so they faced the Earth., that means they were pretty much parallel to the Moon's surface at the point of the Moon nearest to the Earth. Of course, in practice, the reflectors were not plane mirrors, but corner cube arrays. Who cares? You can bounce a radar signal off the Moon, without needing to put a mirror on it.

Not wimpy, or even corruptible. Lazy would do. As far as the soldier is concerned the guy is dying or dead. Why waste your effort sticking a spear in him? Ok, he could get into trouble for not following orders, but who is going to report him? . Christ? His followers? Nobody else is going to look at the corpse- seen one , seen them all. Besides which, according to the account, he did stab him. I just wonder how deeply

Easy, we can check it in the ;lab. OK you would need a rather large lab to do the experiment on the million year scale, but it's easy these days to measure propagation delays as we bounce em signals round satellites or reflect light from the Moon.

Crucifixion is designed to kill you slowly. So it's conceivable that some people lived long enough to be assumed dead. OK, so it's some soldiers job to stick a spear in but why would he bother to do anything but a half hearted job? Perhaps someone even slipped him a few pieces of silver "because they didn't want anyone to disturb the body of the man they worshipped". If I had been the soldier, I might have taken the money- why not? the guy's dead anyway. So it's perfectly possible that they did just scratch the skin. Unfortunately, I realise that faking that box is going to work roughly as well as selling a second hand parachute- only used once. The whole point about Christ is that he didn't die so he's never need a coffin (nor, in due course, an ossuary).

Perhaps, but between now and then there would have to be a lot of consultations that go something like this Well, Mrs Smith, I can offer you two therapies. One is well established and known to be successful. The child you would have would have half its DNA from you and half from a donor. You can (to an extent) select that donor for characteristics that resemble your husband- for example hair and eye colour. Alternatively, we can offer you an experimental therapy. Based on animal tests there;'s a poor chance of success. The child is likely to suffer from any of a number of birth defects and you are likely to have several long-term ill children (not to mention many miscarriages and still-births) before you get a healthy child. however, that child will have the same DNA as you (give or take a few mutations). Perhaps it's just me, but I think that a woman who chooses the second option shouldn't have children.

What's the point of cloning people? We are very nearly genetically identical anyway- that's why we can all interbreed. The cheap; fairly simple, and well-documented process of having children is very very nearly cloning yourself.

I know it because I read a lot. I assume from what you said that you did not know it. Since you didn't know it, and you have just implied that you wouldn't expect to know it, why did you post a reply that is wrong and where you knew that you didn't have any understanding of the issues? Incidentally,I suspect that this sort of thing is more commonly used to measure fat in food these days. http://www.oxford-instruments.com/OxfordInstruments/media/industrial-analysis/magnetic-resonance-pdfs/Using-Nuclear-Magnetic-Resonance-to-Test-Fat-Content-in-Foods.pdf

Not really. They are all very similar. All fats give about 9 Calories per gram.

There are lots of possibilities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphor Zinc sulphide doped with copper is one of the commoner ones.

Good point, why would a man who didn't die have an ossuary?