CaptainPanic

Seems like a very impractical design. The spikes on the front would just accumulate the undead. A snowplough type of design (i.e. that in the picture, but without the spikes) would make more sense, because you'd just push the zombies to the side.

! Moderator Note To everybody: I notice that this thread has developed into a heated debate. That's fine. I also notice that multiple people have started to get frustrated with each other. This has resulted in some impolite behavior. Most people participating in this discussion are respected members, and therefore I am certain that I can expect an improvement. Also, it seems that some of you are in the discussion to win it, not to learn. Winning should never be the ultimate goal of any scientific discussion, for obvious reasons. To ewmon and John Cuthber specifically, There is no reason to say that ewmon would be banned. Straight brackets always indicate that the text has been edited. Such an alteration of a text can result in a disagreement, but that should be resolved by an additional explanation, and not by a threat of a ban. Also, if anyone breaks the rules, step 1 is a warning (not a ban). If multiple violations occur, a suspension can be the next step. A ban is the very last resort, and it's not used frequently. Certainly not for a single violation.

! Moderator Note I've merged two more posts from another thread into this one. zhou jian, please stop making new threads on the same topic.

! Moderator Note This makes no sense. Thread closed.

I will manipulate beer tonight, but I will probably only convert that beer into methane by tomorrow morning, not SI. I fear we are going off topic though. Back on topic: thanks all for posting humorous movies about Tau, and making my Friday a happy one.

The area is 42*C, where C is a constant, which consists of about 1/3rd of everything we know in science, and about 2/3rd of Dark Units.

Do you suggest that tau day transcends the Great War on Correct Date Positioning? ZOMG! No sir, if you are not with us, you must be against us. Only the Eternal Battle for the Use of The International System of Units is greater than this. Tau Day is only the beginning. Next, they will tell us to measure distances in miles. *hides behind a Frenchman*

Americocentric insensitive clods. The date was 28/6 (29/6 by now). Tau day doesn't exist. And until April gets 31 days, neither does pie day (31/4).

From an engineering point of view, the grazing area is about 3 fence-lengths squared, but the rope is just too short. Also, that fence was put in a really silly place.

I agree. That counts too.

Agreed. h seems to be defined as the bottom of the barrel. But I guess it's just the height of the tank, so then you would not have a problem. As long as the bubble gets larger as it rises up, you're good to go!

That looks correct to me.

A noble idea, but it would take too much time. It's not gonna happen. The staff consists of volunteers with limited time. It sounds like you only use the negative rep button??? Please be so kind to press the green positive rep when you see a good post too... then people will complain less about receiving too much negative rep. Exactly. There is no other use for it other than exactly what you said. Luckily, when the system was designed, no other use was required other than that. In other words, it does exactly what it says on the box. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I have seen a number of your posts by now, and frankly, I think that your main reason to get negative rep is not that you're wrong. It's the style of writing that you use. This was actually already pointed out yesterday by Sergeant Bilko (here). Remember that it is not just about being right. The old saying "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" is certainly true as well. My advice to get more positive rep: before pressing the "post" button, read your own text again, and tone it down a bit. Keep the contents, but just make it a little friendlier. Maybe this is new to you, but even in science, the presentation matters. A lot, actually.

Hehe, we all suffer from it. Scientists are especially bad sometimes. As long as it's an incident, not the general rule, it's fine. Anyway, it's something we must deal with. As much as our reputation system is not perfect, the real scientific world is possibly a lot harder, with people openly attacking their competition with the only purpose of bringing fame and glory to themselves. Our forum is only a training ground for the real world out there.

Of course, the movies will make stuff look better. That's for explosions, fire, and well, everything. That said, But in some movies, a single drop can cause such devastation. And that's just a lie. Your body, which is 70% water, would dilute that acid, and the reaction would stop.

I really don't see how my posts deserved to be harshly criticized in such a way. As I said, being liked doesn't bother me... you could hate me and it wouldn't phase me. But knowing that your reputation can impact how people view your posts is actually frustrating. Aha! That explains a lot. A religious topic in the speculations forum. And it seems KatzAndMice beat me to this excellent proposal. I completely agree, but I am not sure it's technologically feasible with our software. The religious forum, and to a lesser extent also the speculations forum, is a subjective minefield, and I don't have the idea that anyone is there to actually learn. Everybody seems totally stuck in their trenches, and reputation seems a matter of opinion. Threads are often just a repetition of statements.

On the main topic First of all, hypervalent_iodine, thanks for those links. I think that gives the answer to the question in this thread, which I propose to summarize as follows: Answer: in ordinary water, there is no indication that this ever happens. In specific systems, the H4O2+ exists, as shown in the links provided by hypervalent_iodine. If the H4O2+ exists at all in ordinary water, then it exists in such low concentrations that we have not yet measured it. Bickering over details When some of you said "it does not happen", or something similar, I take that as the mathematical form of zero. Literally never. But I think you mean to say: "it is extremely unlikely and in every practical sense can be ignored", which is mathematically like a very very small number but not zero. In this case, I think it is important to distinguish between the two. I am not sure I was on the same line as the rest of you though. Hmm... agreed that I seem to miss the point a bit in my explanation. I did not intend to argue a strawman there, I meant to indicate that if you have any atom with a formal charge of +2 or more, and when this goes into solution, you obtain a stabilized structure (stabilized by hydrates) which has a charge of more than +1. Either a redox reaction or an acid base reaction (self-ionization of water) could compensate that, but that this does not happen, because that would be energetically unfavorable. (*) Also, I believe in certain cases same charges do not repel. For example, a Hg+ ion in solution bonds with another Hg+ ion to form Hg22+, indicating that it's not completely impossible to have interactions between ions of the same charge, as long as a more energetically favorable component is made. I am not entirely sure if I got the mechanism correct here, and I agree it's not really comparable to the proposed system of water. Anyway, thanks again for the links. I wasn't able to find them myself. It shows to me that the H4O2+ does indeed exist, but so far it has only been detected in specific systems, and I think only as an intermediate. (*) Actually, that's also an equilibrium, and it does happen, but not much.

I'm guessing that it might be a type of piezoelectric sensor (also called a piezo element) right under the cover of the watch. But please note that I am no expert in the field of heart beat sensors.

Essentially, because this is an open forum where anyone can become a member, this system is all we have. We (staff) cannot check the credentials of people, which is the normal way to check the scientific reliability of someone. If you get a new job, your boss and the human resources department will want to see your diploma, and possibly a reference letter from a former employer. We cannot do such a check, because members are anonymous on our forum. Anyone can claim to be a scientist, and unfortunately, we get plenty of people who claim to be one, but who are essentially a crackpot. So, we allow all members to like/dislike people's posts. I don't know why pmb has a negative reputation. I do know that many valued members have a positive reputation, and this is because they have often been helpful. And btw, reputation should have absolutely nothing to do with being right or wrong. Unfortunately, we do get members who come to this forum with the only purpose of "being right". They do not wish to learn anything, and just preach their own ideas. And they might give out reputation in a similar fashion. We have limited the amount of negative reputation that people can give per day to keep this a positive place. Personally, I think that the reputation system is a good system. It has its flaws like every system, but its better to have it than not to have it.

Your post is a fallacy. Essentially, you use a form of a non sequitur: your conclusion does not follow from your premises. You throw in some rhetorical questions that I'd like to see answered (i.e. they're not rhetorical), and you even open the post with a (albeit modest and polite) personal attack. "You don't?" sounds a little like I'm the silly one who does not seem to get it. Well, let's assume that "I don't". You state that there seems to be no experimental evidence that this structure exists, but that in itself is not enough proof to conclude that it indeed does not exist. If you would merely be saying that I (or anyone else in this thread) does not present enough evidence to conclude that it DOES exist, I would agree. We don't present enough evidence, and such a conclusion would be wrong. But you take this a step further, and you conclude that it does NOT exist. And such a conclusion requires its own evidence, which you present in the form of a calculation which you don't want to do. That's not enough. "Like charges repel" gives me no trouble, but larger charges than +2 exist in nature on a single atom. Nature seems to have no problem with that. Also, in a theoretical H4O2+ structure, oxygen would still be in its favored 2- oxidation state. Now, don't get me wrong, I know that there are a LOT of reasons why this structure is unlikely. And I certainly don't claim that the laws of acids and bases are not valid. I am aware how equilibria work. But I am not yet convinced that it's completely impossible under all circumstances that this structure never exists. If this would be an equilibrium reaction, for example: 2 H3O+ <<<--> H2O + H4O2+ Or perhaps: 3 H2O <<<--> 2 OH- + H4O2+ Then the equilibrium would lie completely on the left, meaning that for all practical purposes we might as well assume that the concentration is zero. But as far as I'm concerned, we are not talking only about practical cases here. I want to know whether somewhere in our oceans, this H4O2+ could exist, if only for a moment. There are people who calculated the wave function of the H4O2+ ion (note: .pdf, scientific article), and although I do not claim to actually understand the physics behind that, I do not read that its existance goes against the laws of physics.

We need to distinguish between two very different issues here: - Social life - Work Drop the idea that the two are somehow compatible, or that the right job will give you a social life. In fact, even if you get along with your colleagues very well, I recommend to keep your social life and work separate. But you need to work anyway, so you'd better do what you enjoy doing. And I cannot help you with finding out what you like to do. All I can advise is that you do not commit yourself for too much time at once. So, that just leaves the choice: work (or study!) in your current location, which is Florida, or somewhere else. Wherever you will go, you will meet people. And people are nice pretty much everywhere. With a diploma, it suddenly becomes easier to travel and also your job will be more diverse and interesting. You're more wanted (in a good sense) with a diploma.

I had a quick Google search on H4O2+, and I guess nobody has tried to measure it yet. Neutral H2O has 2 lone pairs, which could theoretically both form a bond with a proton to give the H4O2+ ion. So, from a structural point of view, there is no problem. But as John Cuthber suggests, even if this reaction is theoretically possible, the equilibrium might be so far in the direction of the H3O+ (and also H2O), that there is not a single H4O2+ in all the world's oceans. But the question is not As some other people online suggest however (and summarized in my own words): There is probably also no such thing as H3O+. Instead, it's a proton which is stabilized by a whole bunch of water molecules. Some people prefer to write it as H+. Some say H3O+. And some say it should be something like H3O(H2O)4+, or H3O(H2O)9+ or so. Water will form a hydrate around anything that has a charge in liquid water. And those hydrates stabilize ions, and make it possible for ions to physically separate themselves from the ions with the opposite charge. A simplified model that does not take into account large structures of hydrates would therefore not be able to predict such a H4O2+ ion. And, therefore, I don't think that John Cuthber's suggestion to calculate the decomposition energy is very straightforward. The decomposition of NaCl into Na+ and Cl- is also massively unfavorable when it's considered as such. But as soon as the hydrates of water enter the picture, this reaction proceeds rapidly. I don't think there is enough information to dismiss the existance of H4O(2+) altogether.

! Moderator Note I notice that there is a disagreement. That's fine. Also, I notice that at least two people seem to get a little agitated by this disagreement. That's not fine. So, here's a moderator top tip: keep it polite, please. I don't want to have to intervene in a more serious way in this thread.

Google has a patent search engine: google.com/patents. Were you going to research anything in particular about agricultural patents (i.e. the ethics of it, or the history, or a particular type like GMO patents)?

I don't know if that natural void is such a problem. Or, rather, I don't know if the medicine for it isn't worse than the disease. Over here in the Netherlands, we have some experience with new parties that formed, got popular, and needed new members to fill the seats they won in elections. So, they found people with the "real world experience" that you talk about. I can tell you that this is no perfect solution either. A politician needs a certain set of skills to be able to successfully engage in a political debate. Quite a few of those new people completely failed as a politician. They weren't able to listen, would often be inconsistent, and they refused to compromise (resulting in an unworkable situation in our parliament, where you need a coalition of parties for each decision), to name a few common problems.