John Cuthber

But it is not possible to fill those energy requirements, As I explained earlier, even the biggest reactor in the world couldn't produce the power to make a significant sized hole that long because of radiative heat losses. Discover magazine does talk about these and perhaps the printed copy does say something about 1000 feet of steel http://discovermagazine.com/galleries/zen-photo/l/laser-weapon#.UWB01ZP_nTo However the targeting is an essentially impossible task. The laser is far too big and heavy to pick it up and point it at a target. So you have to use mirrors to steer the beam. That's not a problem, and nor is moving the mirrors to keep the beam pointed at the target. The problem is that the mirrors or a window has to let the beam through and it has to be exposed to the air. At those levels a spot of dust or a drop of sea spray would absorb a lot of power, it would get hot enough to ionise the air round it (and also it would heat the surface of the mirror or window). Ionised air isn't transparent so it would absorb even more energy and get hotter and hotter. The first scrap of dust would result in the mirror exploding. It would be suicidal to fire it in mist, fog or rain. Even clean optics have limited power handling capacity. Here's a fairly typical spec for a high grade mirror. http://www.edmundoptics.com/optics/optical-mirrors/flat-mirrors/high-energy-argon-ion-laser-mirrors/2723 They handle about 1 KW /cm^2 You were talking about a 5GW beam power So that's about 5 million cm^2 as the minimum area for this mirror. A mirror about 8 feet across or something like that. Now, there are telescope mirrors that big and so it's not an absurd size, but remember you have to slew it round to make up for the motion of the ship and the target. Unfortunately that means it would bend out of shape. So, this laser that you can't power would need a mirror that would be too big and heavy to steer fast enough to focus on a target that would have to be in a dust free, clean room. I rather doubt that the Russians are all that frightened.

There is no real science of zombies.

I deny that it has any practical result. So this "what if its practical resultant is undeniable?" is invalid.

The statement about the 1000 feet is just silly on two sets of grounds. There isn't a thousand foot thick target to aim at and it would be outside of the capability of the largest nuclear reactor in the world to supply power for it. "The carrier FEL along with a sat system should be able to easily destroy ground based and ship based radar and other electronic systems specific to tracking and targeting as well as capable as an ani-personal weapon." So, a bit like a gun then? "A short while ago I was absolutely FLOORED as I watched the U.S. Navy target a small rocking boat at sea with a low poer FEL. It was able to target the craft as well as keep a beam lock upon a specific point on this rocking boat." How could you tell? Oh, yes, probably because you were able to (instinctively) keep your eyes pointed at the boat. Impressive when it was new- but I think that was many millions of years ago.

Very few plants can use nitrogen gas as a nitrogen source for growth.

I think that, in the UK at least, that would be technically illegal under the control of pesticides regs.

OK, so you should have been clearer. What were you trying to say?

It can be very complicated, but there's sometimes a useful simplification. If an object of weight w accelerates under gravity for a distance x and is then brought to a halt over a distance y the mean f deceleration is g times x/y and the mean force is w times x/y. The peak forces involved an be a lot higher or a bit higher depending on the nature of the colliding materials.

The process converts xylose into hydrogen. Unfortunately xylose is a relatively minor component of most plants. Also, any land used for growing food can't be used for growing fuel (and vice versa). For those people who can't get enough food (and there are lots) this is "solving the wrong problem". It's potentially very useful, but it certainly isn't the solution to the world's energy problem

We started exploiting oil and coal because we were running out of wood. Turning wood into energy does not look like a perfect solution to me.

You probably think the steam engine was invented by Watt, Trevithick and so on. Actually, it was invented in the 1st century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile but nobody had the technology to make much use of it. I think the same would have been true of a 14th c 'phone

Why didn't you put this pseudo-science in the Speculations section?

If you vaccinated everyone against tetanus the disease wouldn't die out in the way smallpox did.. The bacteria that cause tetanus are found living freely in the soil. To answer the OP, it would be possible to treat the infection with antibiotics and try to suppress the convulsions with drugs but I'd not like to have to bet on it. And, to answer Fertiliser spike's post. You are mainly wrong.

Hypochlorites are rather alkaline; any excess alkali is likely to dissolve sulphur. The classic solution to the problem is to burn part of the pyrites to give SO2 and use that as the oxidant 2 H2S + SO2 --> 3S + 2 H2O

You really need to look up how a ramjet works. They will only produce thrust in the direction in which they are travelling. If you point then up they will not work.

In one post you demand a sample of dark matter before you will believe in it. Yet here, you are happy to cite a work that suggests that a gamma ray lens might be possible as evidence that such a lens exists. Is that bases solely on your own preferences, or is there another reason of it?

Since the data is behind a paywall, it would be a breach of copyright and, therefore, probably illegal to paste it here. Pleas don't ask us to break the law. Instead, perhaps you might like to tell us hat you think caused the reported variation in the clocks.

If you point a jet engine at the ground you do not go up. You go down, very fast. The engine only works at all when it is moving very fast. On the ground it will not be moving so it will not work. So you can not use this engine to get you off the ground. It will not let you do any take off so it will not let you take off vertically. Do you know what VTOL means? What I mean is that this idea will never work.

When you said "This Laser is not effected by atmosphere and on Carriers will use a Networked Supercomputing Target and Acquisioning system as well as be supplied power by the carriers 2 A1B Nuclear Reactors which will allow the Laser sufficient power to vaporize any target in Air, Space, Land or Sea." What did you mean? What wasn't clear?

Quite a lot of nonsense. For example, a pilgrimage (02:59) has a defined goal and you can't embed anything on or in a vacuum (03:12). He probably talks lots of other nonsense. I fast-forwarded to that bit and only listened for about 30 seconds. I'm also going to assume that none of what he says is a meaningfully testable prediction, not does use actual maths to quantify what he's saying. Of course, in 4D space time the Earth's path is a spiral but it's misleading to say that the description we are taught in school is wrong, it's a simplification. As we see it in 3D, the Earth is in an elliptical orbit round the Sun. It's also in obit in 4 D, but a 4 d orbit is a spiral. Does he actually have a point?

You may think the question is rhetorical, but reality doesn't agree with you so here's the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence By the way, if your ideas do not agree with reality, it is not because reality has made a mistake.

If you want to look it up, here's a good start http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v130/n3273/abs/130124b0.html

Not only do scram jets only produce thrust when they are moving very fast, they only produce thrust in the direction in which they are moving. A falling scram jet can only work if it is pointing down. If it works it will go down faster, it won't go up. This idea will never work.

If the cubes are paraffin then they can't be very hot. Unless their surroundings are very cold or very hot then there won't be much heat transfer by radiation. But there "surroundings" are eachother since all other faces are insulated. (I'm assuming that the "insulation" blocks radiation too, but that's not guaranteed. It could be a vacuum.) So, unless one of the cubes starts very cold the radiation will probably be small compared to conduction.

Crikey!, some of those pictures are very not suitable for work. (Except in certain professions)