CaptainPanic

The simple answer is: Alkene = olefin But olefins can have more than 1 double bond. See also this (click).

Continuing the calculation of 1 gallon lifted 200 ft... The actual answer to your question is: You require 0.000015 gallons of gasoline to lift that 1 gallon of water by 200 ft... ... because 1 liter of gasoline contains approximately 40 MJ... so, 1 gallon of gasoline contains about 150 MJ of energy. And, assuming you use 10 gallons of water per day, you require 0.00015 gallons of gasoline to lift that water, per day... or 0.06 gallons of gasoline per year. Note (1): the majority of the energy of cold tap water is required for purification, not for transportation to the water tower. Note (2): Hot water for a shower costs much more energy. If you heat 1 gallon up from its cold temperature of 10 deg Celsius to a comfortable 40 deg Celsius for a shower, then you will use 474,000 J... or 0.003 gallon of gasoline... That's 210 times as much as for lifting it up into that water tower. So... the conclusion is: moving water around (also up or down) doesn't really matter... heating water up, or cooling it down, really matters a lot. Finally: then why do we use hydro-power? Answer: it's only useful because those really use thousands of cubic meters (tens of thousands of cubic feet) per second.

Former football player Eric Cantona wants to bring down the banks. He suggested that people all withdraw their money on the same day (link to BBC). Such a bank run would bring down the banks... The Dutch minister of finances now wants to ban such messages (link in Dutch). In an official letter to the parliament, he suggested that it should be an offence to call for such action. The possibility of such a ban is also being investigated by the ministry of justicy (another link in Dutch). Today, these kinds of messages are still within the freedom of speech. You can call for a revolution if you like. However, some time ago, someone in the Netherlands called for a bank run on a specific bank. It actually crashed the bank. Numerous people lost their savings... and tax money was required to compensate the customers of this bank. So, now the minister wants to make it an offence if you call for a bank run... because it can cause damage to society and to individuals. As another example, I refer to a Dutch comedian who started to make fun of a particular brand of beer (link in English - reference in 3rd paragraph). Sales stopped nearly completely, and the brand was removed from the shelves within a matter of months. Some people lost their jobs. That was still within the acceptable boundaries of the freedom of speech... but it still damaged the economy in some way. (In this discussion, please ignore the fact that the Dutch government has little or nothing to say about French ex-football players). Should it be illegal to call for an economic revolution of some kind? Where does the freedom of speech stop, and where does (verbal?) terrorism start?

I realize that the majority of the discussion is about the TSA... but since I know very littue about that, I will come back to the original post (quoted above). In the Netherlands, we have reasonably strict security laws. Body scanners, as far as I know (backed up by this article), are only required for flights to the USA. Normal security includes a metal detector for people, and a detailed scanner for all luggage. Laptops are scanned separately. There's a pat-down or extra hand-held metal detection if you fail to pass the metal detector once or twice. It seems to me that regardless of how busy it is, and regardless of the airport - there is always a line for security. I think it's part of the strategy to make the bad guys nervous or something... But, the large majority of people who are nervous are people who are about to miss a flight because of the queue. Body scanners aren't the only topic here. The main outrage is the fact that you can't bring a drink on a plane anymore, because some genius came up with the idea that explosives can be liquid... or made of mixtures of liquids. It's a European Union law now. So, everyone has to hand over their bottle of water... and then wait for boarding thirsty, and fly thirsty... Which is actually a booming business. I have no numbers (it's pure speculation from me) but I think that the airport and airlines make millions of euros on sales of drinks after the security checkpoints.

So you want to build a heat engine which has a warm side of +52C (or 125F) and a cold side of -37C (or -35F). Your temperature difference is therefore 89 degrees Celsius. And you want to operate at 500% efficiency (which we shall call a Coefficient of Performance of 5, to use the heat pump vocabulary). We can immediately conclude (using a table of types of heat engines which I gave you before in a previous thread) that you're in the range of some theoretical (and non-existent) heat pump. Only the theoretical Lorentz Cycle heat pump can achieve this... which means that it may work, using the Lorentz cycle (link to more literature provided in wikipedia) and that you really must push all other efficiencies to nearly 100% (no friction, no losses). Good luck in designing such a heat pump. But anyway, using your numbers, and your assumptions (which I maintain are overly optimistic), you would be able to generate some heat which would indeed be useful for electricity generation. And indeed you would make more than you use in the cycle. But: you also have your second cycle which requires another heat pump... which has its own COP. As far as I can see, you haven't taken its energy consumption into account at all. But of course, thermodynamics as a whole suffers from the "can't do attitude". Carnot is such as bastard.

LOL To have that as a neighbor... I'd immediately run off to buy curtains that completely block out all light from outside I believe that commercial gadgets exist that listen to sound, and then give several outputs (like 3-5 on/off switches)... I think it's called "sound reactive". But to get as many different signals as in that movie, you need an expensive set... that's made with a professional lightshow setup for clubs and discos.

I live in a society with over a million Muslims. The thought that someone even wants to discuss "mainstream Muslims living in the West" has never occurred to me, and it shocks me that you state it so casually. I am also clueless where you found the idea that "mainstream Muslims in the West" would be asking for exceptions to Western law... and that confusion starts at the notion of "Western law" (what's that?) to the concept of "all Muslims in the West" (since when are you an expert on Muslims living in Europe? Or do I misunderstand your definition of "the West"?). Muslims are here, in the Netherlands, and they have Dutch passports, speak the Dutch language, work for the Dutch economy, and even serve in the Dutch army, for example in Afghanistan. They are among my friends. They are among my colleagues. I meet Muslims on a daily basis... and I have never had any problems in my life with any of them... so, I kindly ask you to stop talking about them as a single minded group that apparently tries to change our Western laws - because first of all, we don't have unified western laws, and second of all, you have no clue about the majority of the Muslims in the West, because they live in Europe, and you clearly do not. You exaggerate and mislead. First of all, you compare the Christian fundamentalists with "mainstream Muslims". It is true that most people would object to demands that can be expected from Christian fundamentalists - but certainly not from mainstream Christians (the government of the USA is for a large part made up of "mainstream Christians"). Your comparison therefore is flawed. Secondly, you cannot possibly have any foundation for the claim that the mainstream Muslims in the West require exceptions to Western laws... you wrongly extrapolate some cases into a generalized rule for a very large group. But even if they did wish changes to the laws... All Western countries are free democracies, and any group of people is free to form its own political party and try to gain political influence... Christians have political influence - especially so in several of the states in the USA, but also in some European countries. Christian political parties exert their power all the time. Why should Muslims not be allowed a chance to play a role in the same political arena? I stand my ground that one of the main problems is still that some people do not distinguish between the large majority of Muslims who adapt and integrate, and a few Muslims who are very strict on their beliefs and are like missionaries who try to convert everyone they encounter. This lack of distinguishment alienates the entire group, and is not helpful to the integration of Muslims (note that I have made the assumption here that all people involved in this discussion wish to improve integration).

If Obama can convince a government to pass a new constitution that will make the country more pro-American for as little as 2 million, then he's made a brilliant move. To call Kenia's new constitution the "pro-abortion constitution" is of course a populist trick - it's very unlikely that abortion is the only topic on a constitution... and it's even unlikely that it's the main topic. Anyway, some of the USA's closest allies have legalized abortion a long time ago, and still have strong ties (financial and military) with the USA. Furthermore, I'd say it is quite common to try and influence laws in other countries? And the price tag of 2 million is negligible. The USA has been doing this worldwide for many decades, with donations and programs which far exceeded the puny 2 million mentioned in this article. The USA is smart to try and keep a little control in Africa, while China is using big money to buy the entire continent as we speak.

Google gives me over 400,000 hits on card throwing. Here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card-throwing#Technique I doubt that there are many experts on this forum. But I remember that the Mythbusters played with playing cards. Maybe you can find that episode somewhere online, or at least find some information about it.

You're asking us whether "color" is ascribed to the actual reflection/absorption of light on a material, or to the chemical properties of the material itself which make it reflect/absorb light. If it is the first, then there is no color in complete darkness. If it is the latter, then the color is still red, because the material properties haven't changed. I don't know which one it is. A first glance at Google results suggests that "color" has more to do with our eyes than with the material properties - so absence of light would suggest that the material is black, or colorless.

It's also standard part of Ubuntu 10.4, which is the latest LTS (Long term support) version.

As mentioned above, it's important to have a diffuse reflection. A single light source must hit the marking, and reflect back to all directions (especially roughly 180 degrees back into the eyes of the driver). I am not sure that the high gloss paint can be effective. Here is some wikipedia reading material on the subject.

There is a clear threat from fundamentalist religions who wish to segregate themselves completely, and who therefore undermine our free and democratic world. But it is important to realize that the large majority of religious people (regardless of which religion we talk about) are moderate people. By continuously pointing out (especially) Muslims as threats, we actually alienate these people from us... So, by constantly mentioning the problems between Muslim minorities and the majorities, the problems only grow larger. By not accepting these people as one of us (no matter how alien they seem to us), we push them away. And that gives them the possibility to become more fundamentalistic. I haven't read the whole thread, I respond only to the opening post, so I apologise if this goes off topic.

since this is homework help, I'm not just gonna give you the answers... but I'll guide you a bit: You need to calculate the "chemical oxygen demand" or simply COD (google will help you). The value you need to have is the COD per liter (or per m3). Alternatively, you may be able to work with the biological oxygen demand (which is much harder to calculate)... Then search for somethint that links the methane production to the COD value. Finally, the type of digester depends on the COD (again) and the viscosity of the liquid, solid or slurry. For bonus points, you can search for "inhibitors", which are chemicals or elements that will slow down (or even kill) the microorganisms in the digester.

I know (from your responses on other threads) that you dislike negative feedback... So, I am sorry in advance. Hopefully you still want to read and learn. No, heat transfer is not a problem. It's the thermodynamic efficiency. Heat transfer, mass transfer, geometries, number of tubes, instantaneous evaporation, and all that other stuff is just "design"... but design is irrelevant if the thermodynamics don't add up. Thermodynamic limitations cannot be overcome. You try to create a complicated design to overcome thermodynamics limitations, but that's just a waste of time. If your invention is going to work, it will have to abide the main laws of thermodynamics... so you must be able to describe everything in simple words, and using only terms of energy (not heat transfer).

Nah. It's very normal that you don't know the right words... and it's a small thing for people to explain them. Meanwhile, keep checking this thread - there may be some better help later on.

I think your problem is that you do not know the right keywords. "Very frickin' cold" is called "cryogenic" in the engineering field. And "grease" is called "lubricant". Just Googling a bit with those keywords got me this: http://www.2spi.com/catalog/vac/apiezon/apiezon-n.php which is a lube that seems good enough for almost anything. But maybe there exist other solutions too?

I am not sure what you're aiming at with this thread. I have little doubt that it was written by bascule. It's a pity that especially the politics forum is a reason that people are leaving... but I do agree that the politics forum is more polarized than a few years ago... then again, so is the real politics.

Reduce military, increase tax. Got you guys a surplus on the short term, and a minor deficit on the long term, but I believe that increased government spending (which is hopefully on the home-market, not in China) will boost the economy.

They set sights on lightbulbs for 2 reasons: 1. It's a democrat plan. Beating the democrats it has greater significance than saving the light bulb. 2. They may win it. Winning is all-important in populism. Makes you look strong.

As I tried to point out (by linking to wikipedia articles in previous posts) there is a thermodynamic theoretical maximum. No, I believe your analogy is flawed, and also too optimistic. Potential energy of a reservoir of water, and potential chemical energy have similarities. But the use of a heat pump has little to do with it. With a reservoir of water, you indeed may only need to overcome 1 ft of height to benefit 100 ft. With a heat pump, you should compare it that all your water is at ground level. In order to gain 1 ft of height, you must lose 1 ft somewhere else. What? Where in this world is all the necessary theory on heat pumps, maximum efficiencies, practical links to producers and even brief example calculations not "helpful"? You're like someone trying to climb Everest barefoot, in swimming trunks... you pass several people who tell you: "It's a bad idea". And you reply: "You're not helping me to advance my effort". It is true that maybe it's possible to reach the top. But you'll lose more than you gain. So maybe you should consider to rethink your goal, when at least two experts in the field tell you that your current goals are not going to be very good.

If you're using complicated words to say that European countries dislike war, and use political means to prevent them, and that Bush became the black sheep because he was starting a second war (after already starting one in Afghanistan), then you're right. Maybe it's my lack of knowledge of English (it's my 2nd language only) and your rather complicated choice of words - but you almost make it sound negative that European countries tried to prevent Bush from starting that war. What else would be the problem? I am not sure I understand you. We all joined the UN. All countries signed human rights treaties. We all join in peacekeeping missions. That sort of thing? Or do you mean a different universal morality? Maybe I misunderstood you - again it's the choice of complicated words that confuse me a little. But anyway, I believe that the USA went directly against the UN's wish to continue weapons inspections in Iraq... and therefore went directly against the preferred international political force which was formed to prevent conflicts. Oh, the people did speak up (link 1, link 2). I don't know why politicians sometimes allow their allies to do something they themselves think is morally wrong. It happens all the time. For example, there is no politician in the world right now saying that women's rights in Saudi-Arabia are violated. But they are. It just has some political implications to speak up. And sometimes politians don't wish to offend their allies. There was strong pressure from America to join the war. So, European politicians who did not want to join chose their words carefully. I never suggested that the things I wrote were on the minds of every single German on this planet. I merely suggested that it was a factor of greater importance than the existance of the Bush administration. Pangloss suggested that the Germans didn't join the war to be able to blame Bush. I noted that there is another factor of greater importance. I said that WWII is most definitely a factor of importance when Germany, as a country, decides to go to war. There may be some Germans who do not think about WWII, but I can guarantee you that those Germans relevant to the military decisions will keep their national history in mind.

There has always been terrorism. The discussion about a "step up", and whether it's a factor 1.5, or a factor of 5, is irrelevant. The world population also grew in that time, mobility changed, communications changed, and therefore the amount of dead people, or the number of attacks, from terrorism is a worthless number to discuss terrorism. For example, the number of car burglaries dropped a lot lately. Result of more police? Less criminals? No, the reason is that car radios are built into cars, and cannot be removed anymore. But the largest influence on the amount of terrorism worldwide is probably the war on terror itself... The war on terror has given the terrorists a LOT of attention, a LOT of influence in politics - even though they never sit at the table themselves. Basically, all the changes in the world have shown that terrorism actually works.

You seriously think that the Germans stayed out of the war to be able to blame Bush???!! That's just ridiculous. How about the Germans not being too enthusiastic to fight any war after the experiences in WWII? How about a national feeling of guilt? Might that not be a little important too? How about the Germans having severe ethical problems with starting a war - especially a preemptive strike? That was the major influence in this decision... Afghanistan is in fact the first place where German soldiers did any actual fighting. Until then, the only operations they had participated in were peace keeping missions in Kosovo, Somalia and Former Yugoslavia. (Source)... And from a German point of view, the war in Iraq was not "peace keeping", so they had ethical problems to join that war... and rightly so. Bush and the people in the Pentagon were really not the first thing on their minds. If anything, the lack of pressure against the war (which was not to be interpreted as support) was out of politeness. Politeness to their ally... and because Bush, at that time, was saying phrases such as "if you're not with us, you're against us"... You may search for some phrases from the Germans in the media, and construct a way to interpret that as "support", which Bush apparently did, but that has nothing to do with their actual position at the time.

If you make the congressmen owners of the debt, are they also owners of the profit? I'm sure that a hedge fund can turn a country into a profit machine. Questions is whether I'd like to live there. Also, governments that spend a lot are unpopular now in the USA. But just wait until they stop spending, and hear the people's opinions then! See, the people want their government to give them a comfortable and happy life. For free. The people aren't very reasonable... but they do have the power to vote.