DrP

I know what to say - STOP SHOUTING!!!!!! Like the mod asked you too politely.

Yes - thanks - we do use surfactants and I have been upping the amounts that go in over time and it does help a little. The change of material though seems to have more of an effect (there is only so much surfactant you can put in a formulation before the people that weigh the stuff out start to look at you as though you are crazy- lol). I was kind of curious as to whether the drag and levelling had anything at all to do with the zeta potentials of the filler materials. It would mean I could look at a table of zeta potentials rather than randomly trial lots of different fillers.

When I was doing some work experience, back in the 90's, I was asked to work out the zeta potentials of particles in an industrial slurry.... I'm sure it was just an exercise to keep me busy and out of the way as I could see no practical use of knowing these potentials in the situation they had. This meant that I had to look through a microscope with a graticule, apply a charge across the sample and time how long it took for a particle to cover a certain distance - from an equation involving particle speed and charge I could work out the zeta potentials of the particles... a few dozen runs (along with the odd crafty snooze) and an average was taken. I am currently looking at different slurry. I have an inert graphite filler in it currently and it does not level too great when it is spread. I think it levels a lot better with glass frits as a filler rather than the graphite particles. (either are interchangeable in the formulation of the slurry). I was thinking of trying to measure the zeta potentials of the graphite particles so as to compare them to those of the glass.... Q: Would one expect better levelling and less drag of the material during spreading if the zeta potential of the particulate filler was lower? Q: Does anyone have any zeta potential data for graphite particles compared to glass? I cannot find any and suspect that it might be case specific, i.e. it might depend upon particle size and distribution as well as the make up of the rest of the slurry. Q: Would we expect the zeta potentials of particulates of glass to be lower than that of graphite? Thanks.

Michael - I think you might be OCD! lol. I also thought that the layout was to make typing easier (rather than to slow people down - that's a new one on me) by putting useful things like the G and the H together and things like that.

Wasn't it Newton that was famous far stating that if he had pushed the boundaries of science further anyone else it was because "he was standing on the shoulders of giants"?

They believe in a god because they are taught to by people they know and love and trust and even forced to in some cases. when you really quiz them about it their faith is nominal in a lot of cases... Here in the UK 'most' people put CofE down on questionnaires and forms as their religion, but don't actually believe at all. Some don't class themselves as atheists because of the stigma it used to have... i.e. a godless barbarian with no morals... this view of atheism has, thankfully, changed a lot over the last few decades and now, most people I know claim to be atheistic and humanitarian with it. It seems to have chucked off it's association with barbarism. I still think that the world is in a transitionary state towards complete sectarianism. It will take some time as people hold dear to their religious beliefs out of fear, delusion, love for their families, plain spite or whatever other personal reasons they have - as I said - some don't get a choice at all.

When they were far apart they had 'potential' energy. They come together to be in a lower state of energy which is more favourable. The potential energy is lost as kinetic energy when the objects mover together. When they crash/hit/land - the kinetic energy is converted to heat or sound as they crash into each other. As far as I recall the total amount of energy is conserved.

QUOTE: "End of civilisation..." End of civilisation? We aren't even a class 1 civilisation yet in the measurement of galatic civilisations. We are heading towards civilisation and we aren't there yet. Maybe when we stop killing each other for money, land and superstition we will be able to call ourselves a civilisation. It is easy to love your family, children and friends - how about loving your enemy? This was taught 2000 years ago and we still can't grasp it today.

QUOTE: post 20/Lord Antares: "..they wouldn't leave you lying there.." .... no they wouldn't miss a chance like that! they'd treat you while you are unconscious and then bankrupt you with the bill when you wake up. lol ;-)

Seriously Prox - how are we supposed to react to someone who is clearly deluded like O'Neil? (See post 150 above - he never once explained how he 'worked out' his cipher.... which only worked for a small number of words when he decided which way to interpret as symbol, seemingly at what ever whim he fancied at that time). What about the seemingly endless number of perpetual motion and free energy machine 'inventors' that we get? After a few pages of explaining to them why their machine won't work they usually take criticism of their design as personal attacks. How would those people do if they took their ideas to the Dragon's Den? - They would be met with ridicule and derision. After several pages of someone not being able to back their ideas up or say how they calculated something I am not surprised they get ridiculed - what do you expect? This might seem harsh - but after 8 pages of going round in circles - put up or shut up. Stop defending O'Neil - there are rebuffs to his work all the way through the thread of his that he never addresses..... because he can't presumably. Why the heck should he be taken seriously? Are you his mate in RL or something?

To play advocate - in O'Neil's case, his 'theory' was full of holes. He wasn't asking for help, he was claiming he had cracked the code... which he hadn't. How can anyone help him if he has zip to start with. He was unable to explain HOW he had 'deciphered any of it' only gave claims to have deciphered some of it and did not say how.... how are we supposed to respond to this?

I really enjoyed the series 'Breaking Bad'... Loved it. But over here it would consist of about 1 episode. Mr White goes to school and collapses... he is rushed to hospital and diagnosed.... his friends and family are sad.... they hope his medical treatment and chemo are successful. Mr White goes back to work again, no financially worse off than before he discovered or was treated for his condition as the government pay for it all... including some sick pay while he is off work. He dies or survives based on his progress in his treatments... not based on whether he can afford them.

To play advocate Phi - I would say that not ALL info should be released about everything. In the name of national security and protection for those in office I would think that the government should be allowed to block certain infomations if they have concerns.. Maybe...

Your health care system sounds crap. It should not cost you more than what you pay in taxes. Most people I know have zero savings. Obviously some of the middle class do and of course the rich... but the majority of working class people are skimping and scraping as it is and do not have £1K to put away as savings - they would laugh at you if you suggested it... but then they do not need it for medical emergencies as they already pay for that out of their taxes.

OK - Can someone educate me please... The above article seems to suggest that Clinton wasn't voted in because she wasn't trusted because she was corrupt and represented everything people hate about the democrat party... But I thought (maybe naively) that nothing of those allegations stuck. What was she guilty of to have all of that thrown at her and why did people believe it if it wasn't true? I am confused now. I assumed that the alleged 'meddling' was to blow smoke over Clinton to make it seem as though she was probably guilty of at least something and thus influence the minds of the easily swayed, err, I mean the American public, against her. What am I missing?

Yes - it is about what stands out to the individual. Personally I would say that the one on the far left looks the most different and out of place with the others to me. The 2 on the right look pretty similar and the 2 on the left also clump together a bit. Anyway, as we have said - there are too few pictures to draw meaningful conclusions when, as stated by someone above, you can see differing traits in skull shapes looking at various modern day human skulls. Also - I don't think you are getting the picture with the technology advances. Looking at todays humans tools compared to what we had a few hundred years ago would suggest, by your reasoning, that we are far more intelligent than those from a few hundred years ago. Which isn't so. The explosion of arts and crafts in the Cro's era could have been made viable from thousands of years of learning and trials and errors that eventually gave some breakthroughs... Just because the Neanderthal didn't paint art doesn't mean they were stupid in comparison or uncreative or unable - they might have been waiting for the invention of better dyes and tools for crafts. I would attribute the explosion of arts to the discovery and understanding of dyes and paints and tools rather than intellect. Again, I am not saying they were not brighter than the Neanderthal, they probably were, I am saying that you can't full conclude it because their tools were better..... But we have said this before and this is the 3rd loop of this conversation.

Agreed! Why Not? We had our first break even event with a tokomak 20 years ago - that was real progress. We can build on that... maybe not right now, but it HAS to come. Or at least I really hope it does. Would love to see it happen in my lifetime - I have longed for it to be a success my whole life and I will die happy if it is achieved.

Yes of course. I'm just saying that because one civilisation has more advanced tech than another it does not necessarily mean that they are more biologically intelligent.... which was an argument made earlier in this thread regarding Neanderthals and Cro Magnons. I am NOT saying that the Cro were not more intelligent than the Neanderthal... but simply having better tools does not guarantee it. I will stand corrected if it has been proven in the literature somewhere - people are welcome to show me a link to any supporting claim that says so.

a- she was expressing opinion. b - no-one has challenged her claim yet. c - she wasn't making scientific claims d - no-one cares

It is based on YOU thinking that one looks less like the others. You are right in a way..... but you can say the same things about different features going in the other direction with the other photos.... but we've been through this before. Going back a bit - evidence of more sophisticated tools does not mean higher intelligence (although they could have higher intelligence, I am not saying either way)... Example: Are humans more intelligent today because we use computers than we were a hundred years ago?

I have the onset of arthritis. This is what the hospital told me when they x-rayed a suspected broken toe a few years ago. I have been to the doctors for years with chest and back pains that have always been declared as muscular and skeletal. (presumably partly to do with arthritis)... I can deal with pain.... but it gets a little scary when in the sternum. I might go back and get checked out again as it has been a while.... Anyway.... Monday morning, after sitting in bed playing a PC game all night, I laid down to rest. As I was drifting off I suddenly heard a loud crack as my mind gave me the image of a man stabbing me with a ivory blade (about the size of a nail file)... I did not get the change to see who it was, although it might have looked a bit like Tom Hardy as I had watched episode 2 of Taboo the night before. I clearly saw the blade and heard the crack of it as it hit my sternum... it was about half inch wide - had an organic bone look to it and went in only a little way (about half inch). The experience was coupled with a nasty stabbing pain in the bone of my sternum which caused me to sit up suddenly, fully awake, with a gasp of breath and a cry of 'ARRRRRGH' as I clutched my chest and rolled over. It took a while to relax again and trust laying straight back and I was a little sore after for a while. I am not sure if I have a question other than to see if anyone else has had this type of visual and audio experience accompanying pain before. I was on the verge of sleep so the hallucination might have been a dream state or something. It was a little scary. I had a similar pain (less intense but lasting a few days) a few years ago and the doc said that it was joint pain in my sternum. This was very strange though.

Thank you Oph - the part about getting an injuction from going back was also meant to be humorous, which clearly did not come across. I would still advise going back to get further opinions or to get a better explanation if the OP doesn't understand what the doctor is going on about. Better to go and discuss things than to just shy away and sulk in ignorance of what is going on in your body. How anyone could advise them NOT to go to the doctors without any knowledge of the person or what is wrong with them I do not know. The problem with some people is that they only believe what they want to believe. I knew someone who had an MRI scan to investigate some really severe back pains. I went with them for support when they got their results. I listened HARD to the doctor who said that the scan showed absolutely nothing that could give the patient the grief they were having. In the report it noted some wear of the vertebrae at certain places. When questioned about the wear the doc said that this was completely normal for a person in their 30s (the patient was 50) - so in fact they looked in fine health and the pain was sue to something else.... All fine.... until a few weeks later the patient is telling everyone (including their doctor at the surgery) that they have terrible degradation in their spine which was shown on the MRI and this is what must be causing the pain... the doc proscribed all sorts of treatment (all wrong) based on the info given. I was pretty annoyed with them because I was there when the hospital told them that there was nothing out of the ordinary with the MRI and that the wear was a lot less in someone of their age than normal. I still do not know what was causing the pain - I do not have contact with them anymore. But it was so frustrating to hear them telling different doctors different things, mainly wrong, and then slagging off the health system for being shit (when they were bending over backwards to help the person). The doc gave them something for the pain which started to help.... then they gave the credit for the pain relief to the homeopathy they just started taking. It was ridiculous... they ended up being sent to a mental hospital a short while later - it was tragic.

Your selection bias of traits from the 4 photographs are obvious to outside observers. I know it doesn't seem like it to you, but that is how selection bias kind of works... you are biased by your theory. There is no point in going round in circles as we've discussed it way way earlier in this thread.

JET had a break even event in 1997. The Russians seem confident that they have some new tricks up their sleeves too, but we will have to see if it is more than just boasting. I still cannot find the videos I saw last year which stated that the Russians had some kind of working mini tokomak with some new funky magnetic shielding - maybe they were a hoax, otherwise ITER might be out of date before it's built.

Normally I'd agree, but with vaccines it isn't just about the receiver being protected, it is for the good of the whole community. If these diseases start to return because too many people haven't had their shots then that is a danger to all.