CaptainPanic

Bush has published his memoirs. Apparently, those contain a twisted version of the truth... Schröder, the former German chancellor says Bush lies in his memoirs: Bush claims that Schröder had promised America to fight by its side in Iraq... (apparently regardless of the proof of weapons or terrorism connections). I tend to believe Schröder on this one. Which leads to my conclusion: Bush lied while in office. And continues the lies in his memoirs. Link to the international (English) version of Der Spiegel - which is the newspaper that came with the original story. An interesting quote from Schröder's own memoirs about Bush: Some believe that this is Bush's revenge for being negative in his memoirs.

Peace lost under Bush. Bush started that ridiculous war on terrorism, and it's not likely to end soon... because of him, and those other war hawks, every politician worldwide now starts to hyperventilate at the word "terrorist", whereas it used to be a relatively irrelevant matter, take care of by the police. And that's not because the terrorists really stepped it up.

I don't know then. The addition of an antifoaming agent influences your measurements just as much as the removal of the organics... so I would go for the latter first: Just avoid the foam at first... the Instant Ocean salts contain a lot of organic molecules. Try to imitate the salinity without the organics. That shouldn't foam.

It may also just be that some pockets of air that were still present in the pipe dissolved into the water. Then the pressure also drops. But it should stop dropping. Or the temperature may have changed. Water has its highest density at 4 degrees Celsius... so if you went from 10 to 8, you can see a drop in pressure. Keep monitoring the pressure, and the temperature,... if it keeps dropping, then you may have a leak. If it stops, there may be no leak at all. If it goes up again, the temperature is increasing. Regarding equations, that's a little tricky. See, in standard equations, the water is considered "incompressible". So, in a static situation, with a pipe full of water (and no gas), a tiny leak would instantly reduce the pressure in the entire pipe to atmospheric pressure. But that's the equation, not the real world. You can also regard the water as (slightly) compressible, but I don't know the equations to solve for that.

Just summarizing (it took me a while to understand your problem): - You have some kind of a liquid container with something that approaches ocean water. You use "instant ocean" (which, for those not in North-America, is a brand of salt - to create salty water for an aquarium). - You then bubble your gas through it (gas that contains Radon)? - Normally, the gas then goes to the Drierite tube (which is a gas cleaning tube). But your bubbles create such a froth that you make the Drierite tube wet, which ruins the experiment. You look for something that is only gas permeable. Just some cloth? Or perhaps filter papers? Make sure that your gas pump can handle it. Forget about molecular sieves - those are selective for gases. Alternatively, you mention that your research is to find the partition coefficient with respect to salinity. Then why do you care about all that muck that creates the sea foam (which is lipids, proteins, lignins and other organic material). Admittedly, those can also carry a charge (especially the proteins), but I am not sure they count as salts. Why not use normal salt first? Just regular table salt will not create froths. Then you can measure some individual organic materials (some proteins or amino acids at varying pH), and see if they have a big influence. If all the organic material has almost no influence, you can leave it out and work with a non-foaming salt solution. If it does influence the Radon adsorption (or the equilibrium) then you're onto something too - I assume that's interesting too. In short: I would split up the experiment into several more simple ones.

Why wouldn't both be military missiles which are kept quiet? I've seen thousands of contrails at sunset (I live in a densely populated part of the world - lots of planes here), but I have never seen one that was much wider towards the horizon. Not like that anyway.

I opened a new Ubuntu thread... I wanted to reply here, but there is no blue screen of death in Ubuntu... so I suggest we stick to avoiding Windows system crashes in this thread!

Since about 4 months, I run Ubuntu 10.4, which is the LTS (long term support) version. - Downloading went really fast. It's officially free, so there's no hassle with payments. Just click & download. Then burn it on a CD... and be done. - Installation was really easy (choosing a partition is the hardest thing - for the rest you just need to answer some really simple questions - and I don't even choose a partition, I just disconnect my data harddrive, and use the entire main harddrive for my ubuntu). - The installation came with a number of programs which are easy to use. - The drivers for my graphic card are not free, so I had to install those separately - just an automatic install though. - I still required some new plugins (like flash) which did not come pre-installed, but when I needed one, I got a popup, and from there it was just automatic download & install. 30 seconds as most. - I wanted a few extra programs (other music and video player, another text editor, etc) , but I could choose those from a dropdown menu, and download & install. Everything worked. Is Ubuntu finally easier to use than Windows? Or am I the only lucky one who had no problems with the latest versions.

Always keep your data on a separate harddisk, and have a backup of the really important data. Then a system crash means you can just install a fresh operating system, without losing your data. Because I anticipate having to install a new operating system, it's not a big problem for me. To install a new operating system: - unplug data harddisk - boot computer (to double check that you did not disconnect the wrong disk) - not necessary if you're certain you got the right one - install new operating system - reconnect data harddisk I like to physically disconnect my data disk so that there is no way that I can format the wrong disk. I made a silly mistake once (just being distracted and formatting the wrong disk), so I am extra careful since then. I use Ubuntu (linux), so I can't offer any help regarding the Windows part of your problem.

I don't understand. Have you seen the video? The lies that are spread - especially the examples given - are so retarded that I struggle to find a left wing lie that comes close to it. But then I must admit that I do not have access to as many American tv channels as someone living there. Can you give one example of a left wing lie that is equally outrageous as the examples in the video? I believe that the point in the video is made by several examples. If you attempt to make a comparison, it makes sense to reply with at least one other example of a ridiculous left wing lie.

Yup. But that's just scientists. Scientists, especially when discussing something that is not their own field of science, do not think "out of the box". They've lost the "box" altogether. Saying "How wonderful" requires no creativity. It is just an opinion about something that already exists. It's very difficult for me to read a blog or an article in my free time, and just comment on what I like and don't like... and leave it at that. I want to expand on it. Improve it. Change it. Turn it upside down. So, I do all that in my head, and summarize it in a little reply on this forum. And that may come out as criticism... It wasn't intended as such though. At work, I already have to be serious - there isn't always time to do some random brain exercise. Projects start, but also need to be finished. I like to be on this forum, because I can come up with an idea - something that is new to me - and then it's just "fire and forget".

From the description that you give, I see no problem yet. If there is no "empty space", I guess you have filled the whole thing up with some liquid (pretty tough to do that with a solid - those almost always contain pockets of gas somewhere, which will make it implode in the end). Liquids are often considered incompressible, and I think it's a safe assumption that you can go to pressures of 47 bar (or about 470 meters!!!) if there is nothing that can be compressed. But why the hell would you want to build something like that? The description leaves a lot of open questions. Like: how are you going to work on the buoyancy? Are you just gonna attach it to a rope? Or should it float at nearly 500 meters under the sea by itself (that's really difficult)??

I wonder if that is true... But people who are anti-science are not going to be convinced by scientific arguments either. They deliberately place their hands over their ears and shout " " when you talk to them. Those who come to this forum are forced to use our ways to convince us. Doing anything else will mean they are ignored, or even banned. That does not mean that the big bad world out there is the same. .. Why else did Al Gore convince more people of the Global warming issue than anyone else? Because his arguments were the most objective? Because he was the most polite? Or because he influenced people's emotions the most? I'm afraid it's the latter. That said - offending people never works. But name-calling can have a different goal (or effect) than just insulting. If you, through the right choice of words can influence people's emotions, you can reach the desired effect also through name-calling. Probably not the most polite way, but in some cases very effective. If you're dealing with people who use completely different standards for communication, and a different set of basic assumptions, then it may be beneficial to start your discussion with some "awareness" before plunging into the scientific stuff.

Your post is a wonderful illustration of how the climate skeptics influence the public: a statement which is partially true is used to make a point. It costs more time to debunk the skeptics point - although it is possible. The post says: Mars is heating up, so the sun is the cause, so climate change on earth is not true. The science says: Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming. The skeptic will now respond by finding a random data point to back up the claim The science then responds with a shitload of datapoints, which are making the point, but by now everybody believes that Mars is heating up.

Your post seems to conflict with the data I found on wikipedia about the solar cell efficiency.

Hmm... yes. You are right. You cannot do combined heat and power if the cold sink is the garden (which is a lot colder than the house). The waste heat which must be rejected is so cold that it cannot even heat the house. Thank you for correcting me.

Huh? An American - republican - suggests military spending cuts. To which I reply that the world is changing, that the economic crisis in America is a relevant aspect to the discussion, and I attempt to find the underlying question regarding influence in the world. I have no idea where your reply came from. I reply to an internal American discussion. The currrent reality however is that the US are asking us for help. We (NATO allies) were bullied into the Afghanistan war with statements from the previous president such as "if you're not with us, you're against us". And ever since, we've been pressurized to fight a war we never asked for. We've been there for over 6 years, losing soldiers and spending money. I am not sure whose problems you think we're solving, but they're certainly not our problems. It's a funny point of view to actually suggest that you fight the Afghan war to help everyone else who is involved. They play many useful roles, as I've indicated above. You can ignore the substance of my post if you wish, but it hasn't gone anywhere. Irrelevant? I am not sure if you are aware of the effect that aerial bombardments had in Afghanistan? I may have chosen a strong word saying it's "useless". I should have said "aircraft carriers are of limited use". But I think that "irrelevant" is also missing the point here. It's actually growing at a rate of a bit under 2%, with over 90% of the work force gainfully employed. Hardly "ruins". It's not irrelevant at all! The economy is the single reason why Rand Paul started this discussion! How can you say it's irrelevant? Ok, I apologize for using words which are received stronger than intended. Your economy is not "in ruins", it is in a "crisis". Fine. America is hit by the economic crisis, and more so than a lot of countries. And saying that 90% is employed is a nice euphemism for saying that unemployment is nearly 10%. I think that's actually quite high, but I admit that I give an opinion. There is no way to be completely objective about the economy. America spends a lot of money on the wars and its military... and that is a problem to the economy. If I am wrong, then please explain me why this thread was created and why we are discussing it.

There aren't many people who say that science is wrong. But many people just have their personal beliefs, and will say science is wrong on a particular topic. The problem for scientists is that the anti-science comments are generated quickly, and require little or no work. A scientist then has to make a big effort to refute it. It takes too much time. The climate debate is a good example. Many people scream "it is a hoax". Based on nothing at all. Scientists then have to write another lengthy report to explain what's going on. Then someone else says "that curve is not going up", to which science has to reply with a lengthy statistical analysis which shows that the curve is indeed going up. And then someone else will say "you haven't got enough data points" to which science has to reply with a lengthy report of the distribution of measuring stations. And then someone will cry "I do not believe you", to which science has no answer other than to repeat all that was said before. Call it Scientific Populism.

the microwave sends radiation (also photons, but not visible light) to the material (the gas in this case). Electrons on the gas molecules get extra energy. Some get so much extra energy that they leave the atom altogether (so we get a plasma), and some just get a different orbital. If an electron falls back to a lower orbital, it will send out a photon. And those photons can be in the visible spectrum.

Aircraft carriers are useless against terrorism... Anyway, on topic again: I think that the fundamental underlying question that Americans have to anwser is: how much control do you think that you need to have in the world? With some upcoming powers in Asia (China), with terrorism spreading, and the American economy in ruins, you are facing a world that is becoming more powerful from a country that is losing power. North Korea probably shows that America certainly hasn't reached the limits yet (you can allocate an even larger portion of your economy to the military), but it also shows that you probably do not want to reach the limits. America has enjoyed 2 decares of nearly 100% control. But that is not going to last forever. America will have to find a new role to play in the world. And World Police it is not.

In heat pumps, the "efficiency" is called Coefficient Of Performance, or simply COP. That term is used because efficiency is very confusing. Common heat pumps can achieve a COP of 3-4. A common fridge has a COP of about 3.5. What ponderer describes is a heat pump which extracts heat from the earth, and then drives a turbine. The first part exists. The second, I am not sure. I believe that the term "ground source heat pump" will lead you to existing manufacturers for what you describe as "ground loops". That reduces the problem to how you can make electricity from something that is less than 100 degrees Celsius, or how you can make a heat engine that has a temperature difference of more than 80 degrees C. Both are very difficult. You mentioned a low boiling liquid - which is a possibility (please check safety regulations!). But as Danijel Gorupec mentioned, the efficiency of heat engines is limited by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Example: If your heat pump creates a temperature difference of 100 degrees, and if it is a very good heat engine, your COP is perhaps 3. Here's a table of heat pumps. Note that only the theoretical heat pumps, that exist only on the desk of a physicist, but not in the real world, achieve a COP higher than 4 for an 85 degree difference... For such large temperature differences, you probably will not achieve more than 2-3 in reality. You put in 100 units of electricity, and get out 300 units of heat... in the best case scenario. Then you run that heat through the Carnot cycle heat engine (a steam engine, for example). That has an efficiency of: [math]\eta_{th} \le 1 - \frac{T_C}{T_H}[/math] [math]=1 - \frac{273}{373} = 0.268[/math] or 26.8%. The result is that you only create 300*0.268 = 80 units of new electricity. You lose 20. In addition, I do not think it is very likely that you can build a heat engine that approaches the Carnot maximum efficiency. You likely will lose more units of electricity. Now, it's not all bad. You still have 220 other units of heat, that you can use to heat the house. The principle is called Combined heat and power. However, you must realize that you will trade 100 units of electricity for only 80 units of new electricity and 220 units of heat (in our best case scenario!). The question is: is it worth the investment to generate a little electricity? Or is it perhaps smarter to get a more simple system which only heats the house, and produces no additional electricity. Finally, if you have natural gas heating, the latest boilers of central heating also produce electricity. It's called "Micro combined heat and power", and systems are already on the market... you can just order one, and have it installed.

I think that even 200 million can be justified... (regardless of whether it's rupees or dollars) for 3 reasons 1) India and Pakistan hold the key to the conflict in Afghanistan... so this trip is no minor issue. If this trip shortens that conflict by 1 single day, then the money is already paid back. 2) In addition, a number of big industrial contracts can actually pay the entire sum of money back to the American economy as well... on the long term. 3) Obama is the president of America. Shock and awe. American Dream. etc. Bringing the whole family just makes a big show... American style. It is obvious that the president of the most powerful nation on earth travels in style. Why is the president criticized over a little sum of money trying to establish world peace and economic growth, when significantly more is spent on advertisements for a mid-term election?? Talk about a waste of money. I think this trip has a LOT more added value than those advertisements that only try to convince the population that the other candidate is a douchebag.

Contrary to what Danijel Gorupec writes, this can be done. Geothermal energy is a form of fossil energy... so there is no violation of our thermodynamic laws. Just like with drilling for oil, you can drill for heat. You spend a certain amount of energy (say 100 units), and then energy starts coming out (say 400 units - probably even more actually). However, I think that it's misleading to talk about "efficiency" in this case. An oil well could then be 100,000% energy efficient. The power stations exist already. They just pump water into the ground, which turns to steam due to the heat in the ground. That steam then spins a turbine, which is connected to a generator to make electricity. Can you please explain what you want to achieve with the ground loop? I do not understand it.

It's cheaper to invest in state-of-the-art gas cleaning systems. Although the pollution definitely plays a role, I believe that economic arguments will be the most important (note the use of the word "believe", which suggests that I just stated an opinion, not a fact).

Difficult. Apart from some engineering issues that you need to solve later (length of the tube, amount of fuel needed, volume of water, and temperature control to name a few), my first question is: What's wrong with a regular gas powered boiler? It does pretty much exactly what you say you need, with the only exception that the reaction doesn't take place in the tube. Instead, the water goes through the tube, and the fire is outside. After all, for heating, gas is pretty cheap. I strongly believe that, from a chemical engineering point of view, you're trying something much too difficult. I therefore would suggest that you take a little more time to describe what you want: - You want a boiler with a tube in the liquid to heat it. - Why you want to have a different fuel (costs? eco-friendliness? something else?) - Is there any specific reason why the reaction must be in a tube (why can't the water be in a tube, and the reaction outside?)