CaptainPanic

I don't know what is easier... most pedal boats are all mechanical, so there is definitely nothing wrong with an all-mechanical setup. The difficulty with all mechanical is obviously to transfer the mechanical energy from inside the boat (where your pedals are) to the outside where the propellor or the paddles are. This might actually be harder than it seems, because you need to keep the water out. But the charm of your idea is that you can pedal when you feel like it, and you have power at your disposal at a different moment. All I wanted to say when I talked about the power is that you're looking at something equivalent to sports, not chilling out. If you make your boat streamlined, you can achieve decent speeds. And even the smallest engines cannot run all the time: you need to cycle maybe 2 minutes to run the engine for 1 minute. All I am saying is that you should use regular gears (whatever you do). Using a regular (small) outboard engine, and a battery system from any wind/solar power pack, you should be fine. Make sure it has the same voltage as your engine. These things exist already, often for on boats or campers/caravans, so you don't need to design anything. They are already suited for a variable power input (like from a small wind turbine). Then all you need to do is hook up the generator. Alternatively, if you go for all mechanical, then at least add some gears. One thing I hate about every (touristic) pedal boat is that it's set up for really low speeds, so as soon as you get going your pedal speed is so high that it becomes a limiting factor.

This is a funny thought experiment. In the most simplified form, and talking about perfect Newtonian fluids, it is true. The resulting flow is then linear with the pressure, so an infinite column of liquid (note I do not say 'water') should give an infinite flow. However... (life is never that simple)... Water is a solid (ice), even at temperatures far above room temperature at really high pressures! So, an infinite column of water would not flow at all...

Your legs are the most efficient when they go from a (about) 90 degree angle at the knee to an (almost) full stretch. Bike pedals are built to fit that motion. You are completely correct that the torque does not always match the application, which is why a bike has gears. Your 'invention' is just a complicated way to replicate what gears do. You should see at what frequency the generator should run (it might be more efficient at a certain range of rpm values), and add some gears to achieve that, so that you can bike with a comfortably pace. So, your 'invention' is just making something simple a lot more complicated. Stick with the existing technology... it works, and you can just use existing stuff from bikes. Regarding the power: You are typically looking at a continuous output of about 200W (Sorry, i had to add this (on-topic) picture of Lance Armstrong ). This is an order of magnitude - Tour de France cyclists can achieve more, especially in short bursts such as a sprint... if you're thinking about charging the battery and then chill out, this figure will obviously be a lot lower. And frankly, 200 W is not much for a boat. To put this into perspective, 200 W is about 0.27 horsepower... and I cannot find a single outboard engine of such a lower power. In other words: you're not gonna be fast. But it will work.

How to reduce expenses: - close off the patio - remove the pool - heat with gas instead of electricity. I'll elaborate a bit: Get a roof. Don't be shy to spend some money on that roof, it will pay itself back in energy savings (yes, even the expensive roofs will have a payback - expensive glass roofs will close off better, and save more energy). Just do a quick calculation of your energy bill for an open patio (basically all heating at max. power) and realize that you can reduce that by 90% (maybe more ) if you close it off. Also close off the sides. Hot air that escapes is by far your greatest loss of energy... so keep that hot air inside. The pool will only cost energy... it will not be an energy saver at all. You need to heat the water... and then the water evaporates (and your energy is gone - it does not get transferred into the air! It is used to evaporate the water!). Regardless of whether you have a roof or not, the pool will cost money and you gain nothing at all, except that it looks nice... I discuss only the energy here, not aesthetics. Gas is generally at least twice as cheap per unit of energy as electricity. This, of course, also depends a lot on where you live. In Western Europe, gas is cheaper than electricity by up to a factor 3.

Well, there is one problem: that video is 1 hour, 32 minutes!! I do not want to watch such a long video if I do not know the point of it. In fact, almost every scientific field can be summarized in just 1 minute. But the video avoids explaining what it is about for 5 minutes. In the introduction, which I actually watched, the narrator says that this great scientist finally met other "believers who supported his efforts". That already makes me skeptical of the whole thing. Wo needs believers in science? Can't you just prove it? Then, it continues for 5 minutes not explaining the point of the video. And then it ended, and told me I have to download some player to see the rest. Well, I will not install software just so I can see the rest of it... so I guess this 5 minute introduction is all I have to form an opinion. But there is nothing to form an opinion about. So, I guess I need to ask you to summarize the actual research for us, because I have no idea about it... and I will not invest so much time to find out.

The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is measured in hundreds of gigatons. That's in the order of 100,000,000,000 ton... which coincidentally is about the same as the huge asteroid (of 10 kilometers across) that made the dinosaurs go extinct. Are you seriously suggesting this? Also, if meteors would make our CO2 concentration go up, why the hell did this only start a few years ago (and why aren't astronomers jumping up and down because of this increased meteor activity)? Are you suggesting that climate models don't take into account the water balances properly???? Come on, you have to come up with something better. Of course they know that the water vapor pressure changes as a function of the temperature. It changes more than an order of magnitude. They wouldn't be able to predict a single rain shower if they didn't know this. Nobody said it's just 1 factor. But recently there was only 1 factor which changed a lot: humans. There is no increased meteor activity. Water is already in the models. Properly. Continents move really slow. The earth's tilt hasn't changed much either. The oceans are in the models already. All that extra CO2 comes from us. The only thing debated is whether it will really make the world heat up or not. But I cannot understand why you come up with a mad story about space-CO2 or just think that climate scientists haven't understood thermodynamics. Sorry if this is a little harsh...

I agree with everything hypervalent_iodine wrote in the previous post... I am just adding some more info. Right now, you have a picture of an oligopeptide, which is a little larger than just the basic building blocks of life. In fact, you have 4 basic building blocks (amino acids) in your oligopeptide. The real biological structures, like proteins, are similar to your picture, but easily a thousand times longer. The "peptide" is the bond formed when a -NH2 group reacts with a -COOH group (that's the one at the bottom right in your picture... but it shouldn't have the minus sign). And the "oligo" in "oligopeptide" means just "a couple" (i.e. less than about 10-20).

Well, I am happy that you are fine. Personally, I have never been infected by lifeforms that I created myself... and in fact, I don't even work with microorganisms in the lab.

Go see a doctor immediately.

Although it is obvious that we shall complain bitterly if a staff or resident expert wins, and we shall claim foul play. But only afterwards. [/joke] I'm really sorry to hijack this thread. I'll shut up now.

This is a good point. Staff voting, staff receiving votes, and staff playing the referee may seem like a conflict of interests... but I trust them enough to ask them to fully participate. But regardless of that previous remark, I cannot understand why we (the plebs) shouldn't be allowed to vote for them - there can be no conflict of interests.

Science and religion have, and their very cores, a completely different set of assumptions. Therefore, the two are never going to be able to defeat the other. When they fight, the fight will continue forever, and at the end both will still be standing.

So? If Phi is the best, let's give all the prizes to Phi. I'm serious, why can't the best win?

There's no fun in being "the best of the rest". Why can't we vote for staff and resident experts?

Payment is a form of "treatment". Putting people in different leagues (men's and women's) is a "treatment". Because of differences, people get a different treatment. I don't have the time at the moment to explain my point again... but I fear we're having a miscommunication rather than a disagreement

My point is very simple really: In the real world, men and women are not treated equally. I try to give many examples to make that point... We are not equal in sports, physical strength, in payments, in types of jobs, etc, etc. And even when men and women have the same job, and every factor is taken into account, the payment is not the same. The reason of that is left without conclusion (discrimination, something else)? But we must accept that men and women are at least not treated equally. Therefore, men and women shouldn't be both drafted into an army using equality as an argument. I'm not a sexist bastard btw... (I can understand if my previous posts makes you think so). I believe that everyone is equal in that everyone must do their very best to make society a better place. But everyone is different, and we all have our strengths and weaknesses, and we should utilize our strengths and avoid being hampered by our weaknesses as much as possible to be the most useful for our society. It makes far more sense to draft only the most capable people into your army, and put them in the positions where they fit best. And in order to do that, you must first admit that everyone has different capabilities and competencies.

I think it is because you pull out more than just the hair. The root is not just the very bottom... as you can see in the link, quite a long part of the hair is inside the skin, where it is being formed.

The way I see it (this is an opinion): women would lose the liberty of being excused for the draft, rather than gain the ability to be drafted... which is why I think we should also offer something 'nice' in compensation for forcing them to serve in their country's army for a certain amount of time for a low income. I don't know... are they just as capable? There is a measurable income disparity between the two sexes... even when you look at a very specific and detailed sample of workers (graduates of the University of Michigan Law School). Several studies compensated for pretty much everything they could think of, but some percentage of the income gap remained unexplained. We are indeed equal for the law. In many plans and regulations men and women are equal. We might be equally competent in our jobs. But in practice, we are measurably inequally rewarded for doing the job. Exactly my point: give women an equal representation in the government before forcing them to fight in an army. First give them something valuable like equal opportunities and rewards before forcing them to do something undesirable (again, it's my opinion that being drafted is undesirable, so my argument is based on an opinion). Not quite related to my previous arguments: It is suggested that men naturally compete more than women. Wars, of course, are the ultimate competition. If men fight to get into a position of power, and if men are the reason the competitions (wars) exist, wouldn't it be only natural that wars are fought by only men?

Today in the news: Moody's warns France on possible negative outlook So, summarizing the article in my own subjective words: Moody's sees no reason yet to change France's AAA rating, but still influences the economic world and the political debates, by making front page news of an announcement of a possibility in the future. This press release about a possible lowering of the rating of France may cost the French tax payers millions of euros, in higher interests... and there isn't even any reason to change the rating yet! These credit rating agencies have gained a LOT of power over the last year. Until some time ago, nobody had ever heard of them, but now they are able to run entire countries into the ground with a single press release about a lower rating (example). The markets respond to such ratings by instantly asking a higher interest rate on loans to such a country. And it's the tax payers who have to cough up that money. Three American agencies are therefore able to influence the economy of entire continents. It's ridiculous. I think these credit rating agencies are despicable, and I do not trust their sincerity... Because you can make many millions if you know about these press releases in advance, I fear that their current popularity, and their frequent changes of the status of countries are just a huge corrupt plot to steal a lot of money. It is easy to hide insider trading when trading in government bonds: the volume of these trades is enormous. It is too easy to steal money this way, so I am practically certain that this is abused. I cannot prove it, but knowing just a few hours in advance what silly press release Moody's, Standard & Poor's, or Fitch is going to release can bring you millions. And contrary to press releases about companies for the stock market, which are based on actual news of these companies (like quarterly reports or take-overs), the press releases of the rating agencies are not necessarily based on any facts. It can, like today, be just a prediction of a possible scenario. These agencies are just tools of (some of) the big financial players. And I'm not the only one who thinks there's something wrong.

That's not what I meant, although I can understand that you misunderstood me. I'll rephrase again: We should start treating women more equally and grant them equal opporunities before we (we = men+women, not just men) impose more duties on women from an equality point of view. It is true that women have equal access to sports, but women compete in women's leagues because they aren't strong or quick enough for the men's leagues. To make the parallel: We give women equal access to the army, but put them in a women's batallion, to fight the women's armies of other countries? It wouldn't be fair to let women fight against men (in sports, it's not fair... so logically, in war where winning is a lot more important than in sports, it's not fair either). You make it sound like men aren't treated preferentially already. But men are... we don't need anyone's help to get any preferential treatment. Men are quite capable of giving this treatment to themselves. For example: Men are represented in positions of power (management, government) way above average. And that's not just the very top. Any position just one step up from rock bottom is far more likely to have a man doing that job than a woman.

Ok, so for 100 billion euro/dollar, you can get maybe 100 wind turbines the size of a football field (assuming they are somehow super light weight, and even 100 times lighter than the space station which is already light weight)? A regular wind turbine on earth costs about 2 million each (so, 100 of them costs 200 million)... In other words: Even if you make super lightweight wind turbines in space, they are at least 50 times more expensive... and at least 20,000 times less efficient (see previous post for efficiency explanation). So, per generated kWh of energy, they are at least 1,000,000 times as expensive. And that's being really optimistic. No, this is SFN, scienceforums.net... not just "teh interwebs". Here we write in English, and we try to make sense... You are too lazy to write 7 words in full, but at the same time you expect other people to go to Google, look up two different abbreviations, then see how that links to the discussion in the thread (when it does not, because it's off topic - and you provide absolutely no argumentation to link it to the discussion)? That's not how this works... Anyway, I am happy you provided some additional information for the discussion.

matty, Unfortunately, I struggle to understand your last post... partially because of your liberal use of punctuation and capital letters, and partially because I am not sure which posts you refer to. Or maybe it's just my English (it's only my 2nd language). Anyway, please be more clear. It seems you say that you just wanted to learn more about global warming, and although you entered the discussion with a strong opinion, you're open for new input... that's good. We're all very sorry we dismiss most of your input. It is not because we are "entrenched" regarding the climate debate. We are only entrenched in the Scientific Method...

What?????????? LOL. Ok... please calculate for me the kinetic energy required to get 1 kg of construction material into orbit. LEO (Low Earth Orbit). Thanks. Why do you think you need a huge rocket to get a tiny little space craft into space? You think that's a conspiracy theory? There's really no brainwashing here... just simple physics.

What? I don't know what that means. Can you please write in English, and also explain your argument if you wish to participate in the discussion?

Provinding a link does not mean that you've "proven" your point. There are thousands of denialist blogs out there that link to each other, and that write semi-scientific papers that aren't peer-reviewed... and none of those are any good to back up a story. Trolling has long ago stopped to happen at a single-forum-scale. Trolling went global several years ago. The main argument in the OP goes like this: "I've found something wrong with the climate change story - therefore, the entire story must be a lie"... which in itself is a fallacy ("argument from fallacy"). Also, I fail to see what our OP troll is claiming: Is he claiming: (1) that the earth is not heating up, by saying that the hockey stick is wrong, or (2) that humans are not the cause of the earth's heating (as in the Swindle documentary)? Because you cannot logically defend both those points, because they contradict. You cannot say that the earth isn't heating up, but if it is, then it wasn't us. And finally, the argument that pro-climate change science and politics are funded by some magical pot of money is bollocks. There is so much more money in oil, coal and gas than in the sustainable energy business that the argument can only logically go the other way: the whole denialist movement is likely funded by Big Oil.