JMJones0424

With that design, it seems to me that once you put any kind of load on it, the steam (or hot gases) would tend to just escape around the upturned can rather than pressurize the can and flow out the nozzles. In essence, what you are creating is a rotating chimney flue with far too much constriction and a massive amount of leakage right around the source. I don't know where you live chilled or the quality of the wood, but if you're looking for an economically beneficial way of disposing of the wood, I'd consider the following after judging the local marketplace: 1) Firewood 2) Processed products like lump char, dimensional lumber, feedstock for woodcrafts, etc. 3) Direct use of heat from combustion using a rocket stove mass heater, outdoor oven, or similar device. Do you have a garden? If you're in it for the joy of tinkering rather than for economical reasons, then it's a completely different matter.

I agree with imatfaal. Common sense is the means by which we unintentionally fool ourselves. We have not evolved to be perfectly rationally thinking animals. Therefore, any position that relies on common sense as a rationale should be questioned until a more objective basis can be established. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. ~ Richard Feynman

tar- please watch the two minutes starting at 50:50 and read the paper linked by StringJunky again. Your ant analogy is incomplete as it does not include the increasing wavelength and decreasing intensity of the photons observed by a far future observer. Not sure about the largest wavelength we can detect. I know we use VLF for communication to submarines, but the wavelength is so long (Freq=c/wavelength) that the transmission is inefficient due to antennas that are less than one wavelength long. 3kHz=100km. I'm pretty sure that we would be unable to detect anything from space at this low of a frequency, as our ionosphere would block it, but I suppose an array of satellites could conceivably detect it. Krauss's paper linked by StringJunky gives the plasma frequency of the interstellar medium of 1kHz, or 300km wavelength. Any wavelength larger than this would practically be unobservable. However, once the wavelength gets far larger, and surpasses even the width of the galaxy, then there's no hope of even theoretically detecting it.

Check with local farmer's co-ops, local companies that buy bulk liquids, or your county extension agency. People who live outside of normal municipal trash pick-up may be able to point you in the right direction, as the steel drums are frequently used for burn barrels.

Cats are obligate carnivores, so they get all of the nutrition they need only from eating other animals and can't digest plant material. I can think of two animals off the top of my head that can safely eat a wider variety of foods than humans: chickens and pigs. Horses are notorious for eating poisonous plants. Cows (and other ruminants) will preferably graze on legumes and if not treated, they can die from "pasture bloat" where the sudden excess of nitrogen disrupts their ability to "offgas".

Notice the difference between a ramjet, which uses the velocity of the air the craft is moving through and the unique shape of the air inlet to compress air for combustion of fuel, and the proposed air turbine in the opening post. The Dude's air turbine is powered solely by the craft moving through air. The energy generated by this turbine cannot be more than the drag caused by the turbine. In practice, due to inefficiencies, it will actually be significantly less. So unless there is another energy source available, The Dude's proposal will not work.

Wow. The description of the video is in Portuguese, not Spanish. Even if you can't read Portuguese, Google translate auto-detect correctly identifies the language. The description includes the location of the video as Terceira Island and Sao Miguel in the Azores. The Mexican Olympic soccer team won the gold. What evidence do you have that there are no vegans in Mexico? Assuming you think this post is humorous, why would you even think it's appropriate in this thread? Can you not see how needlessly offensive it is?

Nothing. This is a statement of values of one group. They make no claim to be the only group that holds that value. I cannot answer for the publisher of this list, but I can give you my answer. The beauty of objective answers to questions regarding observed phenomenon is that they are testable and verifiable. Christians are certainly allowed to question the beginning of the universe, and many have done so, including the original proponent of the Big Bang. However, any proposal that seeks to explain the natural world via supernatural means cannot be verified or falsified, and therefore cannot be supported by any objective means. I find supernatural explanations of natural phenomenon deplorable because they are unsupported by observable facts and divert attention from an honest investigation. In some cases, supernatural explanations needlessly perpetuate suffering. In many cases, differences in supernatural explanations promote discord between societies because there is no rational basis by which to judge those explanations. Note that the quoted statement of affirmation doesn't claim that great evil can't be done through science. Also note that religions do not hold a monopoly on philosophy, so I don't think either of your objections to this point are valid. How on Earth did you get that interpretation from the quoted statement? Again, the statement does not claim to exclude others from sharing this value.

Read the link I provided. Methane to syngas is the first step of methane to methanol.

The answer to your questions is more difficult than it may seem. It is helpful to think of light as a wave that is partially reflected and refracted by the surface of each side of the rain drop. Similar to how light is both partially reflected and refracted when you look into the surface of a pond. Especially on a bright day, you can see a faint reflection in water, but you also still see through the water. However, this is an oversimplification and leads to intuitive problems such as those you have identified. What is actually going on is a little more difficult to explain. The photons interact with the electrons throughout the water, and the probability of the path each photon takes can be understood using quantum electrodynamics. I highly suggest that you read Feynman's QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, particularly chapter 2. You should be able to find it at a local library or on Amazon, or alternatively, you can read it free online at Scribd. If you wish, you can also watch videos of the four lectures that inspired the book. The second video corresponds to the second chapter in the book.

I'm not sure if you're looking for a small-scale project for methane production or if you are looking for a simple way to convert methane to methanol. If the latter, do you remember where you heard that it was easy? I'm not sure that that's an accurate statement. Methane production from organic material is easy to do. Provided you maintain an anaerobic environment, it's a natural waste product of anaerobic digestion. Landfills are frequently required to be contained to prevent ground-water contamination from rain run-off, so all they need to do to capture the methane that is naturally produced is incorporate plumbing as the dump is filled to route the gas and cap off the dump with impermeable membranes to prevent the methane from escaping to the atmosphere. You could do something similar in a plastic, sealed 55 gallon drum with a hose attached to the top leading to an inflatable bag. Ensure there are no leaks in your connections. Nearly completely fill the barrel with organic matter and water and wait. You won't produce much, but it'd be a fun project to explore the processes involved. Google searches on methane digesters may give you more ideas, I'm more familiar with them being located at sewage treatment plants, dairies, feedlots, and other locations where you have a tremendous amount of organic waste that needs to be disposed of. I'm not sure you'd be able to produce syngas from methane at home without a tremendous amount of expense, but I could be wrong. However, you can produce wood alcohol from pyrolysis. I use a home-made retort style kiln to produce biochar from waste wood, but I burn off the released hydrocarbons in the process to help make the char, which is the product I'm after. If instead, you remove those products, you can use them for a different use. I'm not sure you'd be able to refine them at home sufficiently to use them in an application that would require relatively pure methanol though. But again, I may be wrong. Do a google search and search youtube for "retort kiln biochar" for some design ideas. Regardless, unless you have a significant quantity of organic waste, I don't think you'll be able to make this an economical proposition, but on a small-scale, it can be an educational project.

This comparison is invalid because you assume that all land is equally able to produce plants digestible by ruminants and plants that are digestible by humans, which it is not. If your argument is that feeding grains to ruminants is inefficient, then I would certainly agree.

Do you mean methyl group? Methane is CH4.

This is incorrect. Try it yourself with any stiff, flat object and "fan" yourself with it. The movement of the air is not perpendicular to the face of the "fan". Try it the normal way, where the pivot (your wrist) is inline with the fan and away from your face, and then try it with the pivot out in front of your face rather than inline. Why is the airflow this way? To be honest, I'm not sure. Perhaps someone else can help us both with that.

My favorite pie-in-the-sky dream is to mine Helium 3 from the surface of the moon for safe, clean fusion energy on Earth and an economic reason to colonize the moon. A win-win, if it works and if we have the gumption to try.

This doesn't seem right to me at all. Once you've escaped the Earth's gravity, you still have to contend with the sun's. If what you say is true, there'd be no need for the slingshot maneuvers to add velocity to probes going to the outer solar system. In this table, wikipedia lists the escape velocity with respect to the Earth at the surface of the Earth as 11.2 km/s but escape velocity with respect to the sun on Earth is 42.1 km/s. The extremely cold temperatures of Titan would seem to me to be significantly more of a materials engineering challenge than the temperatures experienced on Mars. But I am no materials engineer, and don't where to look for confirmation of that hunch. The Huygens probe landed on Titan in 2005, but it was only designed to operate for 90 minutes and wasn't a rover. Perhaps someone here knows what the specific engineering difficulties would be in landing and operating a rover on Titan?

(Seems like here you're referring to the kick used for strokes like the breast stroke, similar to how a frog's legs kick) When you bring your legs in, you keep them tight inside the wake created by your body moving through the water. This part of the kick does slow you down a bit, but the tighter you keep your legs inside the line of the body, the less drag you create. When you begin the propulsion phase of the kick, you extend your legs out and then snap them together, propelling the water between your legs forcefully behind you, giving you thrust. The same principle is used with your arms in the breast stroke, but it is more effective because your arms are able bend more appropriately than your legs. The arms extend straight forward, giving little drag, then snap around to the side of the body to provide propulsion, then are drawn up along the body and extended forward again along the line of the body moving through the water. The wikipedia article on breastroke has a decent gif that illustrates both the arm movement and the frog kick for reference. When doing a flutter kick like the motion that is common in the crawl, the legs are almost entirely stiff with very little knee bending. A small amount of thrust is created with each leg when they move up and when they move down because the legs are flexing at the hips. The effect is the same as when you wave a handheld fan back and forth to propel air. You aren't necessarily propelling yourself up to the surface with your legs, rather you are maintaining forward movement which keeps your lower body level with your torso and minimizes drag.

NOTE: The portion of the video pertinent to this discussion begins around and lasts about two minutes.Perhaps "blink out" is an inappropriate description. I am unsure of the following, and would like to know if this is an accurate representation of what we'd expect to observe (admittedly over billions of years) or where I've gone wrong. Assuming expansion continues, then in a finite amount of time, a galaxy that is now near the edge of our observable universe will eventually move outside of our observable universe. If you imagine a stream of photons emitted from that galaxy to us in a perfect vacuum, then every photon we receive is slightly more redshifted than the last, and it takes a slightly longer time for each successive photon to reach our telescopes. At some point, the time between photons will approach infinity, and by that time, the wavelength will have gotten so large that we can't feasibly detect the incoming photons anymore. So the far away galaxies won't necessarily disappear, but rather slowly fade away. I think this is similar to what we'd expect to observe from an object falling past the event horizon of a BH. Krauss seems to claim as much at by saying that evidence of the CMBR will "redshift away"

Off topic, but what 9/11 cover-up? Start another thread if you wish to support this assertion, but please, do not state it as a fact. I don't know, do you? Why would you expect these results to be public knowledge? Burial at sea is not an uncommon occurrence when dealing with the deceased on ships. Especially, in this case, where the US had a vested interest in assuring that there would not be a specific location that could later turn into a shrine for a dead martyr. It would seem to be silly to do anything other than a burial at sea from the point of view of the US. I'm thinking, but I don't think you want to know what it is that I'm thinking about you. Nevermind that correlation does not equal causation. Nevermind that this statement doesn't present any actual analysis of the facts, but instead asks if a circumstantial coincidence could be meaningful. You haven't given any evidence whatsoever that the date in question was meaningful in any way. What date would you have preferred that we kill UBL? What on earth are you getting at here? That UBL was found right under the nose of the ISI really shouldn't be that remarkable if you know anything about the history of the UBLG, the Taliban, and the ISI. I'm going to be very blunt here. Even if he did try to surrender, I personally doubt that surrender was ever an option. Had he surrendered, we'd have been obligated to try and convict him. Such a trial and the execution of the verdict would have greatly increased the chances of him becoming a martyr for his cause. See the answer to question #2. Any details about his capture can be taken at face value or disgarded, depending on your desires, but you've got to recognize why the US wouldn't want to capture UBL alive. Any value of intel he might give, assuming we didn't already know it or couldn't find it on site, would be dwarfed by the negative consequences of a legal trial. If he did try to surrender, and you have offered no evidence whatsoever to show that he did, then he was executed on site, and in my opinion rightfully so. What constitutes a valid opinion? You've offered absolutely nothing in terms of evidence. In fact, you've done nothing at all but question the intentions of the few that actually do know the truth. As neither you nor I can ever know the truth, and as the reported facts seem to agree with conceived expectations of the actions of those concerned and there has not yet been any reason to doubt those facts, I see no reason at all to take your concerns as anything more than the ravings of one convinced a priori of a malicious subterfuge. BTW, what are your sources for those last photos? Why should I take you or your source to be accurate over the account given by the US government? If I were to take the first and last photos, and substitute the middle photo with that of my raging hard c..k, how would that substantially change your point?

Yes. This is why I don't understand you rubberband analogy. Surely you must see that if the rate of change of the rubberband is constant, then there is no measurable acceleration? For instance, take the chart below as a graphic representation of the location of 5 equally spaced points on a rubberband that is 5x in length and stretched 5x per unit of time. No. The best way is to measure supernova in one galaxy and collect data points over time. As we've discussed previously, this is impossible. Fortunately, we have an alternative. Given the assumption that the characteristics of a type Ia supernova are the same regardless of where they occur, and given the assumption that there is nothing that significantly disrupts our measurement of the spectra of those supernovae, we can plot different supernovae at different distances as if they were the same occurring over different times. You can question that interpretation all you want, but there is no evidence that that interpretation is incorrect. This is the interpretation that has lead us to conclude that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. You have not yet dealt with this interpretation, instead you continue to complain about loaves, rubber bands, and trains. WHY? This is a statement of fact that must be backed up by evidence? What basis do you have to claim this interpretation is erroneous? You can't simply claim that it's wrong. I've tried to explicitly show why we believe the interpretation to be correct. Why do you think this is not the case? And has already been acknowledged, that comparison is impossible. If that is what you require, then discussion is over.

Please post your results. Doesn't have to be pretty. Make a chart of the location of each dot measured in relation to the time.

Again, I wish we'd drop the loaf analogy, as it is inadequate. However, you insist on using it, so I will comply. You are mixing terms here, and this highlights your misconception. Acceleration does not equal higher velocity. Acceleration equals change in velocity. Observing that distant raisins have a higher velocity than nearby raisins is not the same as observing distant raisins as having a higher acceleration. Right. Twice as much velocity, because the origin of that velocity is from the expansion of space-time and there is also twice as much space between that raisin and you as the first raisin. again, this is not evidence of acceleration Please, I beg you, watch the videos that imatfaal posted. We are talking in circles and getting nowhere. If you had a radar gun inside the loaf it would be useless without photons. No. As long as the stretching of the rubber band is constant, there is no acceleration. I suggest you try it. Rather than requiring you to purchase a high speed camera, I propose the following. Take a rubberband of 5x length. Make a dot at each x length along the rubber band. Call this t=1. Stretch the rubber band to 10x and call that t=2. Make a measurement of each location of the dots, you should find at t=2, the dots are at x=2, 4, 6, 8, 10. The rate of change of distance over time (velocity) = xdistance/xtime. Now stretch the rubberband to 15x, call that t=3 and measure. You will find that the velocity remains constant. There is no acceleration. It is notable that this is not what we observe.

Which is precisely why the loaf of raisin bread is an analogy, not a model. Clearly, in your mind, it is an inadequate analogy. I will accept that and would like to drop it altogether. I am not interested in perfecting the loaf analogy. I am interested in the interpretation of SNe Ia redshift data. It is impossible for us to make such a measurement. We cannot measure the universe as a whole in a snapshot of time due to the finite speed of light. Here's the thing. We can't expect a direct observation of accelerating expansion, as that would require many more millions of years of observations then we have made. If this is what you require, then the matter is closed. No evidence can be provided that meets your demands. What can be done, and what has been done, is to observe different SNe Ia at vastly different distances, which correspond to different points of time in the past. The data shows that contrary to a fixed rate of expansion, galaxies containing SNe Ia that we've observed from a very long time ago were receding at a slower rate relative to their distance than galaxies containing SNe Ia that are closer to the present. This is how we get around not being able to observe one supernova over a long period of time. We observe many that occurred at different points of time. Did you watch the three videos posted by imatfaal above, specifically the last one? The graph I posted before may not be clear enough to illustrate the data that leads to the conclusion of an accelerating rate of expansion. Below you will find a similar graph that I've made up, but it shows the same relationships between what we'd expect to see in three different expansion models of the universe. Current data best fits the red line. EDIT: I feel like a moron. The title of my made-up graph should be "Exaggerated Magnitude to Redshift..."

I'm not clear where you are still not understanding. Perhaps after you watch the presentations it will be more clear. You ask for evidence in the rate of change of expansion over time. This is precisely what we have by observing type Ia over vastly different distances (because distance is directly related to time since the speed of light is finite and constant). Before you assert what they overlooked, I'd like to make sure you understand the interpretation that is being proposed. Bloviating about the value of a prize doesn't help matters any and is off topic. Is this an assumption you are making, or do you have evidence that this is indeed the case? This is utterly false. If you don't like the raisin bread analogy, don't use it. What data do you have to support your conclusion that expansion is not accelerating? It's silly to want to solve this problem without using observations. How can a blind man, or anyone for that matter anyone, measure relative velocity and distance to galaxies that are millions and billions of light years away without em radiation?