CaptainPanic

It might be possible that one is just incredibly unlucky and all evidence seems to point to one but one is innocent. Is it then the fault of a lawyer for not defending you properly? Is it then the fault of the judge for not finding you innocent despite all evidence against you (which appears to be false only after new techniques are invented in the decades after, like DNA testing)? Would you have to be bitter about a system which simply couldn't do better in those days? If bitterness in your book equals disappointment, then I agree. But as I said before, I think bitterness is different than disappointment. Someone might be able to forgive a judge for sentencing him to prison despite the fact that the person was innocent. We may have to discuss the definition of "bitterness" before continuing.

You pose 2 questions, which do not necessarily overlap. Can life be fair to all? I start with defining "fair", so that it is clear which question I am answering. "Fair to all" in my opinion means that a certain action will get the same result (or reward) for everyone. Logically, that would mean we have to exclude chance/coincidence/luck from life, which is impossible. So, I answer: No, life cannot be fair to all. How can thirty empty years of a persons life be filled again with anything other than bitterness? If something else, with what? I have never spent any time in prison at all, so I am definitely unqualified to answer this question... But: I do know from experience that hardship and bitterness are by no means related. I think that it would be very difficult for someone to forgive a particular person if that person would have put him in prison for 30 years, when the person knew he was innocent. However, why would anyone be bitter if this was an honest mistake? Bitterness is a feeling which is focussed against something or someone... it assumes that someone or something is guilty of something... but this is (hopefully) not the case. Bitterness also stands in the way of forgiveness. Great people in history have been able to set aside bitterness, and forgive those who did awful things to them. I don't think there is any point in going into examples here. So, I would be able to understand if someone is not bitter at all. I could easily understand a massive disappointment though. 30 years is a very long time, and a lot of missed opportunities.

I understand that it's about a counter-current air-air heat exchanger. There is plenty of literature about that (the general topic is "heat transfer")... For the rest, the text (which, by the sound of it, is from a patent) is unclear to me... and in at least two cases, they use words which are quite uncommon in the engineering field: - They use "counters flow", while almost everybody says "counter current" - They use "energy exchanger", while almost everybody says "heat exchanger" Perhaps that's done so that nobody can find them in Google. Gerry10 - altrenatively to trying to find out everything about air-air heat exchangers and trying to grasp the formulas (which can be complicated) and the maths... you can also just tell us what you want to do. There may be a far more practical way to achieve that than to use this patent and the formulas. And in the field of heat-exchanging there are already so many inventions that it's quite possible that the thing you want to do already exists.

Luckily, we're sending out a lot of other signals... in fact, we're transmitting nearly everything we do. So even if SETI would find the aliens, they would know about it in less than no time (or, to be more exact: the time it takes for light to travel from their position to earth + the time it takes to get onto wikileaks + the time it takes to travel back to the aliens who have moved by then so that isn't the same amount of time that it took for the signal to reach us).

You have to do a risk assessment. Risk = change of something happening * probability In this case: Probability = very very small... aircraft can withstand all but the most severe turbulence Effect = 400 dead, 400 families in distress, multi-million euro damage The effect certainly suggests that it's worth the money to invest in more safety equipment. The probability however is already so small that maybe we'd better keep our money in our pocket. I actually have no opinion about whether the money would be well-spent. I just wish to point out that you shouldn't look only at the Effect, but also at the probability.

Have you even read what I wrote earlier? Why do you persist that the CO2 pressure is so relevant? The only difference that it will make is that with CO2 pressure, water will merely evaporate, and without CO2 it will boil. But in both cases, regardless of whether it's liquid or solid, it will keep evaporating/sublimating until the partial gas pressure of water is equal to the vapor pressure at the temperature of the liquid/solid water. For this discussion, it is very important that you understand this. The only reason that ice exists on the moon is that it's so damned cold in those craters that it only evaporates really (really!) slowly.

Sound just doesn't bounce off turbulence, as far as I know. It may change direction or diffuse altogether... but not deflect. Air turbulence is just wind (but then with an additional vertical component). It's a chaotic stream of air. The problem is that between two streams of air going in different directions, there is a transition, which is not a clearly defined plane or surface... it's like a zone with even more turbulence, where one stream gradually becomes another. There's nothing for the SONAR sound to bounce off from.

And I maintain that this is not true. You can only have liquid water if your system fulfills two criteria: 1. Temperature is above zero degrees Celsius (but below the critical temperature of water) 2. The partial pressure of water in the gas phase is at its vapor pressure If you fail point 1 (temperature is below zero degrees Celsius) then water can only exist in solid and vapor. If you fail point 2 (partial pressure of water is below its vapor pressure) then regardless of the state of water (liquid or solid), it will evaporate (or sublimate). The only alternative is the earth situation, which is never in equilibrium, but in a cycle. The partial pressure of water is often below its vapor pressure, which means that water constantly evaporates. But, in other locations (namely high up in the clouds) the partial pressure reaches or even exceeds the vapor pressure, so you get condensation. If the temperature is below zero, this same phenomenon occurs, but now you get ice (directly) from vapor. On earth, you could theoretically remove all nitrogen and oxygen, and we would still have the ice caps at the poles. We would still have our oceans. Water would still evaporate, and condensate. Only difference is probably that phenomena like wind would be different... and clouds would have buoyancy problems... but that is a completely different topic than what we discuss (don't use it to hijack this thread). In summary, I maintain that CO2 is completely irrelevant to the presence of liquid water on the moon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/jul/18/uknews It's a very fast response time... but not "faster than physically possible". If you like to define a new, slower time frame, in which flies do stuff at "normal" speed, and humans are incredibly slow... then you're free to do that.

Ok... time for thermodynamics. I seem to be the only one who disagrees with some basic principles here, so correct me if you feel I'm wrong. Main question: Why would the CO2 pressure be of ANY relevance at all for water? As insane_alien points out, the triple point of water is 0*C and 611Pa... but that's 611 Pa of WATER vapor pressure... not total pressure. Evaporation is related to the PARTIAL pressure of that particular component in the gas phase, not the total pressure. You can put 3 atmosphere of CO2 on a flask, and the triple point of water will not change... At 0 deg C, it will still evaporate until the partial pressure of water reaches 611 Pa. The total pressure only influences whether the water will just evaporate normally, or boil. If the total pressure is lower than the vapor pressure, the liquid will boil. If the total pressure is higher than the water pressure, the liquid will just evaporate until the vapor pressure is reached. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water#Table_of_Water_Vapour_Pressures

One of our mods has a signature that tells you to stop failing the Turing test... He's quite serious about that.

Personally, I think you have set yourself some targets, which are obviously based on some underlying assumptions. And I think we should be discussing those underlying assumptions (all of them), and not these criteria for a heating (or cooling) system... because I think those underlying assumptions may be false. Perhaps you should write a question in the medical science subforum about health related issues of humidity and dust. We can discuss existing heating systems, and their effects on the air, in this thread. Central heating radiators are these things (link). They are filled with water, but the water cannot get out. The water in the radiator cools down, and the air in your room heats up. Then water then circulates back to a heater where it is heated up again... The air does not get any extra water, and it does not lose any water... but obviously, because the temperature increases, the relative humidity drops. I am not an expert in dust - but I think that the type of covering for your floor (carpet vs. wood for example) makes a much bigger impact on the dust than the heating system.

I think that it costs less energy to convert CO2 back to some hydrocarbon and oxygen than to shoot it to the moon. Proof: 1 kg of CO2 needs to go 11.2 km/s (escape velocity of the earth). Kinetic energy required: E = 0.5*m*v^2 = 0.5*1*11200^2 = 62 MJ/kg CO2 And that's underestimating it... because you need to carry more weight up: the space craft (space container). Heat of combustion of gasoline is 47 MJ/kg gasoline (but 1 kg gasoline forms about 3 kg of CO2, so if we assume the reaction to be reversible, the heat of the reverse reaction is about 16 MJ/kg CO2. Which means that you should not do this to rid the earth of CO2... but only to create a biosphere on the moon. And in all fairness... I think there is plenty of oxygen on the moon... just not enough carbon. Why not use the oxygen which is there already?

Also, this is difficult to test, if your test subjects keep dying in their sleep, you lose your test subjects without ever getting a data point.

It's funny that in the Netherlands, as well as in the UK, this was the coldest year in 16 years, and significantly below the long term average. Over here, the skeptics are screaming 'victory', lol. If by that you mean that this single new data point (or the data points gathered in the last 12 months) moves the correlation coefficient a little bit closer to 1, slightly strengthening the correlation between the manmade CO2 emissions and temperature increase, and slightly reducing uncertainty... then you might have a point. If, however, you mean that the fact that this was the warmest year on record means that this single data point proves the global warming all by itself, then you're completely wrong.

It is a fact that everyone dies in real life... eventually.

Yup... same goes for Bush (versions 1 and 2), Clinton, and also Reagan... and probably the rest of them too. What? ROFL... healthy people grow their hair where you come from? Where do you live? In my part of the world (Europe), lots of people keep their hair short... and politicians and other celebrities get a haircut on a weekly basis. That's considered normal. LOL... So, you admit that short hair makes him look normal... and then you ask why he has this type of hair? The presidency is a symbol. And symbols don't change their looks. I am more curious what you think, Voltman. Please tell us your thoughts... because I have a feeling you're thinking much more out of the box on this topic than most of us.

"Common sense" is hardly a scientific reason... it used to be common sense that the earth was flat and that the sun, the moon, the planets, and the stars revolved around the earth.

It's certain that we don't know everything yet. There are some weird phenomena which science can only explain by saying that according to statistics, sometimes the weirdest coincidences will actually happen. Twin telepathy and stuff like that is unproven, but stories persist. It cannot be proven that this is not true... but mainstream media, (and science too) usually dismiss this as coincidence or as a fabrication. But those phenomena that I mean require on 1 assumption... that telepathy is somehow possible. The ouija board assumes that some form of telepathy is possible. But it also assumes that the dead can still talk, despite being dead. It therefore assumes that a soul can separate from a physical body. It assumes an afterlife. It assumes that the dead can only talk through that board. It assumes that candles and a spooky atmosphere are required for contact. I think that those are a few assumptions too many... and therefore I dismiss the whole thing. Also, the fact that commerceis involved makes it very suspicious.

I noticed that you have posted at least 6 different threads on roughly the same topic (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6). Many people - of which quite a few are experts - have told you to use central heating with radiators. You keep refusing because you seem to think that a radiator emits the wrong spectrum... or that it evaporates water. It doesn't. You have no rational reasons why you want the weird heating system that you describe, other than that it smells... and central heating with hot-water radiators don't smell. (If they do smell, you should just clean your house more frequently). A radiator is just a lump of metal with paint on it that gets to 60-70 degrees Celsius. Water is circulated, not evaporated. If that was dangerous, life wouldn't exist on this planet. On a hot summer day, things in nature can get that hot - and therefore nature emits radiation like that. Water evaporates all the time. You're a greater source of water evaporation yourself than any radiator system. You exhale more CO2 than any radiator system. Heating systems with radiators lose their CO2 and water through the chimney. We seem to have survived that radiation, water vapor and CO2 during the last 3.7 billion years just fine.

I am not sure that the world became a better place to live in. Human rights, justice systems and police are there no longer to protect the people - they exist now to protect the economy. Governments no longer serve the people - the people now serve the governments. Non-violent opposition, such as wikileaks, which I see just as journalism, is described as "treason". So, while the average citizen gets more goods as a direct effect of the prospering economy, we lost much of our freedom. We live in the big brother world that was described by George Orwell... and it seems that most governments see the book '1984' as a guideline rather than a warning. One democracy after the other silently fails and the people living in such a country often only have a choice between parties they don't really want. Today, around the globe democratic elections depend on misinformation and lies. I am not sure what I would rather have now: more goods and more luxury, or a government that actually listens to its people rather than eavesdropping on its people... More goods are fun, and lull me into a sense of comfort. But I guess I would much rather simply be trusted by my government.

Well... I think that it is fair to assume that the large majority of employed people won't dream of just quitting their job. And that's because they fear the consequences, which are all financial (not the massive amount of free time they suddenly have). So, the economic culture of fear, which the OP describes, stems from a fear of having no money... The core assumption therefore is that there is a (nearly) universal fear of "not having any money", because this limits us in everything. I don't think you need a cite for that, actually. The discussion here is (imho) about how much freedom we will give an individual to find a new job if they are unemployed and being paid by the state? For that we must take into account the fact that: - A capitalist country always has a certain unemployment rate... - Certain people just don't qualify for many jobs. I hope I translated the OP's questions properly... (please doublecheck it before replying just to my post - I don't want to accidentally hijack the thread).

Because countries have made all kinds of stupid rules of what you can do, and what you cannot do just because of your nationality, it became quite important to have the right nationality. And "nationalism" also made citizens proud of their nationality... so they seem to think that there is a downside to having two nationalities... but there is not. It just means your country became bigger (because essentially you have two countries now). It just means that you qualify as a citizen according to the rules of two countries now. Because of all the rules, regulations and restrictions involved with a citizenship, it can in some cases be incredibly convenient to have multiple citizenships. If citizens are property of a country, then logically they shouldn't be allowed to change nationality... or to have multiple nationalities. But in a free country, the citizen is free, and a person is owned by no-one except himself. In fact, the people are the state (because that's how a democracy works). So, logically, a formality like a citizenship should never restrict the freedom of an individual. The only issue I can see is that people are allowed to vote in multiple democracies... and are therefore able to influence the politics more than another. But I don;t know anyone who wants to change citizenship because of the right to vote. It's always for economic reasons, or for freedom, or other practical reasons. So, perhaps we should just disconnect the economic things from the nationality (like the European Union has done, when they allowed people from all countries to live and work in all other European Union countries - thereby making it utterly pointless to have multiple EU-passports).

In my opinion, a religion is just a set of rules that you don't question... possibly with a set of leaders who make up these rules, and/or possibly with a book which states these rules. It gives people a sense of security, and a purpose... but it can also be greatly abused by those in power. There are many religions in the world. And I believe that "religion" is a term that has been used to describe a belief in a higher power, which then automatically means the "supernatural". But I think that's wrong. Religion is just a term for a power that you cannot influence... but that dominates your life for a large part. I think that a lot of people who call themselves agnostic or atheist are deeply religious themselves. There are many "beliefs" in this world that fit the definition of religion that I use (which as I said before, may differ from other people's definition). Take the economy. After defeating communism (which was evil, like the devil - no explanation needed) we accepted capitalism as the ultimate good. To question it is nearly blasphemy. A large majority never questions the rules. And we don't question the leaders either (we don't dare). I expanded on this in a blog post (link), so I don't feel the need to repeat it again. And since I take the definition of religion so broad, I think it's nearly impossible to say that there is something wrong with people who try to convince others of their religion. Our entire political system, our economy, and all the supernatural powers that dominate groups of people are all "religions". And they all fight to gain more influence. And we all try to influence them too, and to get more people to believe... or to stop believing. It is therefore essential that we can convert others. As annoying as it may be if people try to convert you, it is quite likely that you do the same at some point to others. I tried to show you all how thin the line between religion and other important issues in life is. If you make it illegal to convert people, you cross a line. You essentially ban an opinion. And when that line has been crossed, it is very easy to ban other opinions... This is why a law for freedom of speech does not distinguish between religious and non-religious issues.

I think (i.e. it's an opinion rather than a fact) that our tolerance is for a large part related to the heat transfer, rather than absolute temperature. With that I mean to say that we may have a limit to the amount of Joules we lose per second per person. This way, we include all factors: insulation because of body fat, clothing and other forms of protection, sweating, immersion into cold water (which radically changes the heat transfer) and also differences in air humidity. At rest, an average human will generate about 150 W of power, which are almost all converted to heat eventually... and therefore must be transferred to the environment. The peak power of an average human is about 400 W... which is why we sweat when we do sports (getting rid of excess heat), or why we shiver when we're cold (burning excess "fuel" to heat ourselves). This way, we can greatly simplify the question... and we can realize that with proper equipment we are able to withstand very extreme temperatures for long periods of time (or even indefinitely)... Heat transfer is a function of temperature difference, surface area and the heat transfer coefficient. If you decrease the heat transfer coefficient enough (by insulation), you can have a massive temperature difference, while keeping the total heat loss at a healthy level. This obviously does not take into account the trouble of breathing in very extreme conditions...