CaptainPanic

But I do not understand the question. That's why I ask if you can ask the question again, using different words. [Edit: ignore this comment, Lala has rephrased the opening post, as requested (thanks Lala!)]

Both, but not exclusively those two things. I think there is also a maldistribution of resources and research (focus on the wrong things), conservatism ("why advance when it was so good in the old days?"), a general lack of consensus in the world, misplaced priorities, a maldistribution of power, and a whole bunch of other socio-economic factors. But a higher level of education would certainly help the world. And having more resources would make life easier too.

Could you please rephrase the question, and perhaps explain it a little better? Thanks in advance.

Leader Bee did not post a very serious comment, although it is completely correct. You can dry foods (meat, fish) by salting it (read more here). It takes a few weeks to do that, and completely changes the texture and taste of the food.

! Moderator Note Theorist, this is a Forum, which means you must engage in a dialogue. That means listening and answering questions from others too. At the moment, you give the impression of having a monologue, and you completely ignore all other posts, which is against the rules. Do not reply to this post.

But ants can make , using nothing but themselves (they link their own bodies to make a bridge). It sounds like it fits the description...

Good question... I've always struggled with this too Well, you already gave the obvious answer yourself. Why is this? Because otherwise the crystal would have to go on forever. It is very impractical to have an infinitely sized NaCl crystal on your food (NaCl = tablesalt). So, obviously, there are imperfections to the crystal lattice, at the edges (but often also in the middle of the crystal!). With an "imperfection", I mean any place where either a Na or a Cl is not surrounded by the perfect 6 ions of the other type. I think that these imperfections will make the crystal a little weaker, but overall the attractions between the ions are so strong that the rest of the bonds keep the entire crystal together. And actually, the imperfections at the edge will be "felt" by the ions several layers deep into the crystal. But even in a small crystal (let's say a grain of salt is 0.05 mg), there are about 515,317,473,900,394,000 ions of both Na and Cl! So, a few imperfections on the surface are not going to ruin the rest of the crystal. Personally, I am even more amazed that diamond is stable. If you look at the edge of a diamond, my first instinct would be that it should have some radicals (carbon atoms with only 2 or 3 bonds, instead of the perfect 4).

Hello Aman shah, The next comment is not criticism - only a friendly tip. On the forum, we like to discuss something. So, if you ask a good question, you will get a better response. That's better for everybody. Here, you ask just for "more information"... it is too open. And you will notice that the thread will not go in the direction you like. With a good question, you can give the thread the direction you like! cheers, CP Back on topic (I hope): is this claytronics much different from the supercolonies of ants, bees and other insects?

Hah. Case closed.

If you think you can do a distillation at home for less than that, then really: DON'T DO IT. Good lab equipment will set you back at least that much... If $490 is a problem for you, then you are apparently not considering safety as your primary priority. Money comes first, safety second. And that worries me a lot. Please do not continue.

I think we're discussing two things: 1. Can you fire air at a target? (That's air in the gaseous state). 2. Can you make solid air, and shoot it? Air (gaseous) Yes, you can. But not very fast. (I'm sorry that it's probably a lot weaker than you hoped for). Any other batch of air would dissipate too quickly. The ring structure makes it a little stable for medium to long distances. But if I just blow air at someone else, they probably don't even feel it at more than 3 meters. And of course, blowing more air will increase that distance... so if you could somehow push hurricane amounts of wind out of a pipe, then we're gonna be in business... So, in a theoretical case, you can blow an entire hurricane out of a pipe, and cause some damage. Please note that this is "Theoretical", with a capital T. Not practical. Obviously, you can also aim soundwaves in a certain direction. And the shockwave of an explosion is also nothing but air... but I don't think we're considering that. But soundwaves and showwaves are waves. The air itself doesn't move very much, but a compression wave moves through the air. Solid pellets of air Maybe, just maybe - if we're talking 'theoretical'. Practically, I do not think it can be done. I'll explain why, by looking at nitrogen (which is the main component of air - I just happen to find data for nitrogen, not air): Nitrogen will turn to a solid, when for example: - It is -210°C, at atmospheric pressure - It is about -80°C, at about 1000 atmospheres pressure To get it to become a solid at room temperature, you would need such a high pressure, that it is even difficult to make it a solid - let alone shoot that solid through a barrel at a target a few meters away... And if it would exit the barrel, it would suddenly be in atmospheric pressure, and simply evaporate. That's not possible, both theoretically and practically. Theoretical option So you MUST cool your air to make it a solid in a practical way. However, these things start to melt at -210°C... That's like putting an ice cube in a fire. It's not gonna last very long... but maybe you can come up with some theoretical story how you can have (1) very big bullets, which logically evaporate slower, and (2) have some perfect cooling system in a gun to keep stuff at -210°C, (3) you can also fire your bullets so that they do not desintegrate in the explosion in the barrel. The mythbusters actually tried to fire ice bullets (google for it, it's not hard to find). They failed. And ice bullets will be a lot easier than solid air.

Side effect? Or the main effect? First of all, there is more than 1 side effect. For example, marriage can be a side effect of excess alcohol. Or, indeed the end of a marriage can also be a side effect. I think the list is too long for this thread. To make a list of all the side effects might break the internet. More seriously, there are so many sources for the effects and side-effects (long term & short term) of alcohol use (small amounts, medium, lots, too much (=alcoholism))... did you even try to search yourself? Google gives thousands of useful hits. To ask this question here sounds a little lazy, if I am honest. Sorry that I don't help.

rogerxd45, As a rule (specifically, rule 2.3 b), we don't encourage (or even help with) very dangerous experiments. This is very dangerous. It's not because we are unkind, but just because we want to discourage you, and also other people, from trying this. Maybe you have a respirator, and some setup which can contain the vapors (I'm not sure that's enough!!)... but others don't necessarily have that. We do not want other people to be able to find out how to do a dangerous experiment without being warned a lot of times of the dangers. Suxamethonium, I agree with you that a risk assessment is very important. However, it is not necessarily true that a lot of small experiments are safer than a single large experiment. In a risk assessment, you will find that the effects of a failure might be smaller, but the chance of them happening will increase if you repeat an experiment multiple times. rogerxd45, That said, the idea of doing a risk assessment is definitely worth the time if you plan to do a mercury distillation! Check each and every part of your setup, and think: "What if this somehow breaks? What happens then, and am I prepared for that?". First you make the list of all possible things that can go wrong (no matter how unlikely!!), and the results of this failure. Later, (but only after you make your complete list) you can check whether it is likely (the chance) it will go wrong. Questions you certainly want to ask yourself are: - What happens if my ventilation stops somehow? Am I prepared? - What happens if my cooling fails? - What happens if I shut down the heater (but leave the cooler on)? Can pressure also drop below atmospheric? - What happens if any piece of the (glass?) equipment breaks? - What happens if my equipment has leaks? - What happens if I drop something? ... etc, etc. Note: this is not the complete list of questions you should ask yourself. It's just to give you inspiration to check everything. Do NOT ask yourself first: "Can my ventilation fail?"... only ask "what if it fails". And next you make a complete list of how your ventilation can fail (electricity blackout, fusebox breaks, your little sister pulls the plug, you didn't pay the bill, etc). And make such complete lists for all that can fail. And only now you can assess your risks properly. Look at the effects of something going wrong, and at how likely it is. And let someone else review that too - as you may be a little optimistic about yourself.

Yes. You get drunk. I'm not sure what you want to discuss. It helps if you are more specific.

Should the arc be a continuous arc? Or just for a fraction of a second (like a very small lightning flash)? These are two very different circuits.

Chicken meat tastes good also when the outside is a little less crunchy, so the effects of the moisture redistributing are not going to ruin the taste so much. Good idea Yes. But to keep it warm, insulate the rest of the container too.

Answer: practice. Or in the case of the 'ababababababab' system for names: patience.

I know that in Quantum, one thing can easily become something else... but m^2/s becoming Kelvins? I'm not so sure about this... They can be proportional, but that doesn't mean one can substitute the other.

ROFL! I filled out your form... but your survey is going to be statistically useless (advertising anything anywhere on the internet somehow always creates a bias - the internet seems to have a bias for biases). In addition, I share John Cuthber's curiosity: Why? What do you want with this?

Dhevix, it's an interesting question. You can stop apologising for the way you post, btw. It's all quite ok. Your post is eloquent, and polite. We don't ask for more from new members. Also, the pictures are absolutely essential for understanding the question in this case, so well done for posting them. So, you are suggesting that the shadows on the ceiling (or rather, in the middle of the light fixture) change? They really don't... or at least, they shouldn't. But I see the same thing you see on the pictures, so that's quite interesting. The shadows on the ceiling do not move or change in any way. The reason for that is: - the lights don't move. - the ceiling does not move. - the light fixture does not move. - logically, the shadows do not move. However, the perception of the light (and shadow) that enters your eye, or indeed the camera's optical chip, does change when you move around. That much is clear from the pictures. My first, and so far only, guess is that the surface of your light fixture is not giving a perfectly diffuse reflection. If you like, you can test this by covering the circle of the fixture with a piece of ordinary paper (not glossy!), because normal paper should create a nearly perfectly diffuse reflection (although, be warned - white paper will reflect so well, that it might create its own illusions). But please note that I emphasized the word 'guess'. I am not sure about this (which is why it's interesting!).

As I said many times - the moisture is already inside the fries. And it will redistribute itself as long as it's there. And you cannot remove it, because if you do, the fries will taste horrible. Something that can allow air out, but keep heat in is called a blanket - just your average blanket, like you sleep under, should do the trick.

I agree and disagree. The rules are clear, but the rules cannot say in such detail what you can and cannot say. The rules of the forum have to do with language and interactions between people, and this is almost always a subjective matter. Language is always fuzzy and unclear, and that is interestingly why computers still haven't mastered something that a 3-year-old is already capable of doing: to talk. You cannot write down the rules of a forum like computer code. In language, there are always exceptions. For example, an insult can be meant as a joke. And someone shouldn't be banned for that... although it can be dangerous to make humorous insults, as you cannot put any humorous intonations into a written post. The rules clearly say that a personal attack is not allowed. This never changes. But what exactly is a personal attack needs to be interpreted/evaluated every time again... As for getting a different treatment (if that would be true) I guess people who have shown that they are interested in science, and who make valuable contributions, won't get banned instantly when they write 1 bad post. New members who start flaming in their 1st post will be treated like a common spammer.

What matters is the contrast between the light and the shadow. I would expect that the contrast is the largest from the light that is the closest to you, regardless of where you are standing. This is also the shortest shadow in many cases (if the lights are on the ceiling).

I would guess that all shadows are equally dark. It's the light around the shadows which isn't equally bright. The reason the light is more/less bright is that I guess the light rays hit the ground at a wider/smaller angle. Or, you could say that the light intensity is less when you are further away from the lightsource. Both factors affect the light intensity. You need light to get a shadow. Btw, You put it in the right place, and it's not a silly/obscure question at all!

This is the bit that annoys me the most: A sort of proof that you don't need proof to say something. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qoGVoJPIb2k#t=220s If you go to a scienceforum claiming that you love your mother, we might ask you to show some evidence of that. And in answer, you will tell us that you have good conversations with your mom, and that you bought her a present for her birthday which showed affection. From that, you could say that this is evidence that you love your mother. And because nobody on this forum has any clue about how you and your mother get along, this theory that you love your mother would be accepted. There is a theory, and some evidence to support it, and no evidence to refute it. Theory accepted until further notice. Good science. However, you make claims about things that science has investigated for many years. And there is evidence for the mainstream claims. And you show no evidence at all (only an incoherent youtube rant). That's no good science.