CaptainPanic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggot_therapy http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/61/1/117 There are some hints there... but I haven't found if the articles describe the bulk of the excretions - perhaps just some small components that are of importance.

Choose a famous book, go to amazon, check how many pages the book is in different languages. Do this a couple of times to rule out the possibility that other countries just use smaller print, and you got your efficient language. Next step: convince the world to change its language.

With a question like that, you have to specify at what conditions: temperature, pressure, and presence of any other materials (solvents), and in case of biopolymers also the pH. Without those specifications, there is more than 1 answer. Assuming you mean room temperature, 1 bar, pure polymers: If you have to choose from Gas, Liquid, Solid... then most polymers are solid. The biopolymers and liquid crystal polymers too. However, the biopolymers and liquid crystal polymers occur almost exclusively in combination with a liquid (solvent or water (water is also a solvent)). Then these are dissolved (neither liquid or solid). Liquid crystal polymers can form very small regions where the polymers are ordered into a crystal, while still being in solution.

For a good hydrogen bond, you need an attached H-O. In PET, there are plenty of Oxygens, but none of them have a hydrogen attached directly. http://www.polymerprocessing.com/polymers/PET.html

It can be overcome by engineering methods. Just look at the heavy industrial equipment that is used to move stuff. If it is possible to build such technology into an animal that reproduces? I doubt it.

NH3 = ammonia CL2 = chloride Ne = Neon CO = carbon monoxide SO2 = sulfur dioxide N2 = nitrogen Although Google will recognize the formulas that you wrote down, I will give you also all the names. I am sure that you can search for the answer yourself now. Good luck!

I am just wondering who is gonna win the arms race: the creative terrorists or the security companies? Sadly, I am 100% sure who will pay the price. That's the ordinary citizen. A few will be blown up, and the rest will just pay a lot for all the security in our countries - the overhead costs of our world are increasing a lot...

Just a few remarks and opinions from me... not necessarily a response to anything mentioned before: 1. Palin, in the Republican party, is the puppet of some other people. 2. Palin seems reckless, unpredicable... and therefore not always controllable by those other people 3. There were some mentions of the Tea Party. What if Palin and a bunch of other conservative people would simply found another party? Dump the progressive republicans, and form some ultra-conservative fundamentalist extremist party... which may actually get enough votes to be of significance? I really hope this #3 will happen. Split up that republican monster into at least 2 groups. Form coalition governments. It would be hilarious if Palin was the reason that the USA finally dropped the obsolete two-party system, lol.

Is there any way to include a table in Wordpress? At the moment, I just want to make a funny post - but being an engineer, I can foresee that in the future, I may have to spam the world with numbers!

I think these two posts together contain the answer. Microwaves can penetrate the food much better than visible light or infrared. Microwaves (sort of) heat the food equally through all the food, while an oven heats from the outside, forming a nice crust on top of the food while the food can still be cold on the inside. A bonus is that microwaves are absorbed more strongly by water than other materials. The absorption isn't all that great, otherwise the waves would not penetrate so deeply into the food... but it heats the water more than for example the container in which the water is placed. The penetration of the waves into the food, and the resulting ability to heat the food in a uniform manner means that the food can be heated much faster... and that's why microwaves became the machines they are. But you can definitely use normal light to heat something. Place something in the sun during summer, and it will heat up. If something is in the light, but not heating up, it means that it cools itself just as fast as it heats by the absorbed visible light. In other words: the apples in your kitchen absorb visible light and all other kinds of radiation, but emit (a little) infrared light. And an oven uses infrared (and partially also visible light if some parts glow red)... unless you have moving air in the oven - then you have a completely different heat transfer which is called "convection" (moving air) - but that has little to do with radiation and is a different chapter altogether.

Are they bots that make these posts? Or are there really people who spam forums like this for a "living"? On my blog (on the SFN blog thingy), I also get twice as many spam comments as normal comments. And I have to approve them first - so it doesn't reach anyone. All so pointless.

It depends how you present them. I agree that the narrator makes a huge difference. But the narrator can include loads of facts. You just shouldn't fire them at the audience like gunfire. From my lectures at university, I conclude that you can definitely teach complicated topics in a very entertaining and interesting way. (And you can completely screw it up too). Watch for example a BBC nature documentary... really wonderful and very interesting. Sir David Attenborough made absolutely stunning documentaries which are full of information. The big difference is: those are hard to make. It's much, (MUCH!!) cheaper to place a film crew on a construction site than to try to film an endangered well-camouflaged bird in the rain forest. I'm afraid it's money. 80% of the "science" shows are just film crews on construction sites or workshops, or at least just filming ordinary engineers doing their work (including all the social stuff and fights). They make no costs at all, except for the film crew.

It's a fantastic video. You may be right that the swimming or flying motion is more efficient than a jet of compressed air, in terms of forward motion per energy spent... I am not sure though - and I don't know how to calculate it. But why not? A swimming blimp... It's not gently compressed air though. It's gently compressed helium.

I'll link to another thread (click) which was also was about plants and a science fair. The original question was more specific, but may be interesting none the less.

That is because the gas tank that the fire fighters carry around only needs to survive in the range of -50 to +100 degrees C. (The firefighters themselves will not survive anything more extreme, so why would their tanks have to survive). The tanks in space need to survive a much wider range of temperatures, and also radiation. But, we are discussing air powered helium balloons. The main point still stands: the stored energy in a gas tank is low. Also you have to keep in mind that a balloon has a large surface area - You will require quite a lot of "fuel" (air) to compensate for a little wind.

Yea, I meant to say a distillation of the water-ethanol mixture is the conventional method which works fine, both on small and large scale, and both for drinks and fuels.

Industry uses almost only distillation... both for beverages and fuels.

Maybe it's described here on Wikipedia: So, maybe you're making vinegar rather than ethanol. Keep the air out. Why is this in the homework section?

Maybe it is stressed? Maybe you should improve the employee benefits of your computer? It also likes to have something different every now and then. Open the window and allow it to be idle for a while. Some rest on Sunday. And enough holidays. For some better help, you have to be a whole lot more specific. It generally helps a lot of you copy-paste your entire error into Google. Then read the 1st hit.

LOL, Until the use of some foul words, I didn't notice that this was not the truth. I thought they were just quoting an actual employee who was talking off the record (and therefore honest). This is what made me realize I was reading sarcasm: "Officials also noted that the cable channel greatly values the 18- to 45-year-old demographic of louts, clods, and empty-headed dumb ****s." It's surprising that the BBC and some of the non-commercial Dutch channels have by far the best documentaries. It seems that advertisements must go hand in hand with stupidity.

Edtharan is right. When something goes wrong, I'll shout either "****", or "jesus", or some disease (the Dutch like to shout names of all kinds of diseases). None of the things I shoult seem to have any relation to the feeling I got. I don't suddenly want sex, I don't suddely want a divine intervention, and I don't want a disease on top of the pain I already experience. If I am alone, I will not shout anything at all, but just clench my teeth. And if I am abroad I swear in another language. So, concluding from just my own personal experience, and therefore without generalizing, I say that you shout whatever would be interpreted as a swear word by your environment. Far more interesting is to see how many hardcore atheists have some superstition. But that's another thread which, now that I mentioned it, will soon be opened.

Maybe you could specifty in which country, or at least in which continent you want the service to be based? In the Netherlands you just go to any movie rental. Never heard of any place that delivers at your door. On a sidenote: if you're a hardcore gamer, it doesn't hurt to go to the store. Get some fresh air.

Which one?

This link seems to explain how it works pretty well. Check especially page 2 with the animated explanation.

Eat the lighter, try to make fire with the orange. [edit] Oh, I didn't know that part of the puzzle was to find: [hide]the thread that contains the answer, which was posted 8 hrs, 49 min after the "puzzle" was posted (click here).[/hide] Damn, my answer seems kinda silly now that I know the real answer!