John Cuthber

Even weirder: this really beggars belief. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1lJukkAzxY

If you define energy waves to be everything in the universe then the answer is yes. If you don't define it that way then the answer is no, and if you don't know then...

Questionposter. The issue of "Why not just detonate all of it at the same time without the casing? " is easier said than done. Nukes need very good timing mechanisms already. If one were late by a few tens of nanoseconds it would get smashed before it could detonate. On the other hand, they do put containers round bombs to increase the yield. They don't rely on the strength of the material- just the mass. If the case is heavy it will take some time to push the case apart. During that time the nuclear reaction can continue. The yield is improved that way. The practical problem of finding something strong enough is another matter- but it's fiction so nobody cares.

I think this thread is looking at the problem from the wrong side. Don't ask "What can I make?" It's better to ask "What do people want?"

Google doesn't. What do you think it means?

On a practical note: plenty of things still stink when they come out of the autoclave.

OK, so what idiot let a 3 year old get hold of aldicarb? It's only licensed for professional use. The fact that some twit can't follow the rules is down to him, not the chemical. Incidentally does anyone else have a problem with "By the time the girl arrived at the local emergency room, she was near death. She recovered eventually" I mean, just how near death is it when you recover. "Industrial agriculture IS NOT currently feeding the world " Nope, but at least its feeding some bits of it. BTW, have you noticed that the bits with more than enough food are the bits that use highly mechanised / industrialised farming? the point remains that organic farming generally has lower yields so adopting it wouldn't help anywhere and it would probably make things even worse. And I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question. Why did farmers change their production methods? The issue of DDT is interesting. It was brought in to use instead of arsenic based poisons. It's not great but I will challenge anyone to a competition- for as much arsenic oxide as they can eat, I will eat that much DDT. DDT was actually a relatively "green" product compared to the ones it replaced. Sure, we now do better. That's progress. We no longer let any Tom, Dick or Harry use Aldicarb. That's progress too. But remember- the only reason we can replace these toxic chemicals is because we have better ones. Nobody could seriously suggest that we abandoned the use of pesticides altogether. That leaves the "organic" pesticides like nicotine- which is rather more toxic to people than to insects (on a weight for weight basis). You might wonder what it is about nicotine that poisons you- the mode of action is actually rather similar (in the effect, if not the direct cause) to another well known group. In the case of nicotine poisoning you die from over stimulation of the cholinergic nervous system Oddly enough, that's what kills you if you get from nerve gases. So, the organic movement advocates replacing the "nerve gas like" OPs with also "nerve gas like" nicotine. EDIT (I forgot to ask.) And I'm still wondering what part of my premise was false. I assumed that long ago there were no synthetic fertilisers or pesticides so all farming was organic. Now most farms use synthetic fertilisers and pesticides and so they are not organic. At some point they changed. There was a reason for that change. But, when I asked what the reason for that change was I was told my question was based on a false premise.

What false premise. Also, since the MMb predates the idea of "organic" farming, it has nothing to do with the issue.

Also, he says he uses pure water (not electrolytic solution). One electrode is Mg//Mg(OH)2 the other is H+ / H2 The only ions needed are H+ and OH which are there anyway. The solubility of Mg(OH)2 is pretty low so it's fairly pure water. I think what he means is he didn't explicitly add anything to the water.

Another interesting one would be to calculate the forces if you tried to turn it upside down (WRT the set up in the digram) say in 1 second assuming the shaft length is the same as the rotor diameter Feel free to make such other assumptions as you see fit.

No, but I think you would be an idiot to think that many or most aliens are built that way. Possible yes: probable no.

I hope he's not planning to give up the day-job and concentrate on his musical career.

I think it's plain that he doesn't realise that, for his design, the radial loads are taken by the nylon. That's fine for a toy, but with a big, fast rotor they wouldn't cope. They would overheat and melt in much the same way as, for example, cheese. That's why proper magnetic bearings are expensive and complicated: they have to deal with radial and mixed loads.

How can a badly made battery change the world?

Great! Now you can tell us how well they cope with radial loads. Incidentally, what is the nylon/plastic for in your diagram?

I disagree. This "I put copper and magnesium in some water" tells you exactly how he makes electricity. He has made a battery. It will run until the magnesium runs out and he needs to buy some more. Nothing new- pretty much the same experiment that Galvani did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Galvani Odd as it may seem, I don't want to invest in this process. For a start it is obvious, so there's no way you will get a patent.

Yes I know they have magnetically levitated trains. I know they are expensive. They are expensive because they are complicated. If you could make them work without being complicated they would be cheaper. The people who buy trains do not want them any more expensive than they need to be. So the people who make them complicated do that because that can not make them simple. If your idea for a bearing worked then it would be simple and cheap and so people would use it. They don't. So your idea does not work. Magnetic bearings do work, but they are much more complicated than your idea.

Actually I did. I pointed out that your position that "God can do anything" is logically inconsistent and, therefore, a bad axiom. I realise it's nothing new- I didn't come up with the idea- it's a lot older than me, but I did bring it to your attention. You ignored it - your response had nothing to do with the issue. Also, once again, you are ignoring the evidence by saying "There is no possible way mono-theism could have survived that long if it was that illogical " It did, but that's not the big problem. You compound this by saying " it actually didn't do one single thing for people," which is a straw man and, as such, a logical fallacy. Such arguments are frowned upon.

So, you thing unicorns make your computer work then?

Do you actually read what you post? for example "but no warm is is taken from the poles at the surface." The whole point of the wind is to move warmth to the poles. Why can't you see this?

Actually any fusor that works will give you more energy out than you put in. However the figures are likely to be something like 1KW in and 1.0000000000001 Kw out. If you are using one to warm the room then it's an improvement on an ordinary heater, but only slightly- very slightly.

How much is left near the end?

Hello! Is anyone there? Studiot, When you answer the question I asked it will be your turn to ask. Got that? OK, now why do you think farmers originally adopted modern farming practice?

I don't give a tinker's cuss for the video: I didn't watch it. However the winds on earth are still driven by the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. What do you think drives them?

I rather suspect that we know they are often right because they are a self fulfilling prophesy.