CaptainPanic

Big and heavy is a HUGE problem in space... LOL. Right now, we need to lift everything off this planet (with rockets). I think you are not just thinking about giant wind turbines in space, but also about asteroid mining, space factories, efficient and large cargo space ships with unlimited Star Trek energy systems, and in general a huge space economy, similar to the Earth's economy, but then without gravity. But if we would have such a huge space economy, then it would still be more efficient to build the wind turbines on the land on earth (and the reason was explained in my previous post).

Only identical twins are sort of identical. But if you think I was wrong, or you misunderstood, I will rewrite the post to be more clear: In social life, women behave differently towards men and women, and men behave differently towards men and women, so, almost none of us treats the different sexes equally. It's often not even a voluntary choice (for example, men are not shy towards women because they discriminate them). In a professional life, women are different from men. Just look at the management positions in any company. Men and women are not equal. Despite equal chances (at least on paper) for several decades, the work distribution between men and women is still different too. Either men don't give women equal chances, or women don't take them... But it is obvious that we are not equal. Physically, women are different from men, and it should be mentioned that women can get pregnant, men can't. This is a good reason not to treat men and women as equals. Otherwise, it would only be fair that men get pregnant too, and that more women work in heavy labor jobs such as construction. In sports, we have separated men and women for obvious reasons: we're not equals, and women wouldn't stand a chance against men in most sports. So, I maintain that men and women are not equal (and obviously also not identical). (and copy pasting the conclusion from my previous post): So, why should we apply any equal treatment to women regarding draft if there is no equality in almost any other way? I oppose draft for women, and I dismiss any argument that we should be treated equally. p.s. and maybe we should reconsider the equality in a lot of other ways too... the fact that women have equal rights now is a step in the right direction (coming from complete inequality), but perhaps this can be refined in the future.

Tremble in fear, the revolution is here.

If you want to simulate low subsonic speeds, use a computer fan (power of 5 W), not a leaf blower of 1 kW.

A regular sized wind turbine on earth produces about 2 MW for a surface of about 1 hectare (I'm rounding it up). That means 200 W per m2. In fact,wikipedia shows wind turbines can produce as much as 2 kW/m^2 (that's kiloWatts/meter^2). So, on earth, the wind turbines produce, 40,000 to 400,000 times as much energy per surface area... why the hell would you go through all the trouble to put a wind turbine in space when on earth your wind turbine can be nearly half a million times more efficient, using standard existing and affordable technology????????? [edited to add wikipedia link]

Women and men are not equal... we differ in almost every way, except that both men and women are humans. In social life, women are different from men. In a professional life, women are different from men. Physically, women are different from men, and it should be mentioned that women can get pregnant, men can't. Emotionally women are different from men. Despite equal chances (at least on paper) for several decades, the work distribution between men and women is still different too. Either men don't give women equal chances, or women don't take them... But it is obvious that we are not equal. So, why should we apply any equal treatment to women regarding draft if there is no equality in almost any other way? I oppose draft for women, and I dismiss any argument that we should be treated equally. p.s. and maybe we should reconsider the equality in a lot of other ways too... the fact that women have equal rights now is a step in the right direction (coming from complete inequality), but perhaps this can be refined in the future.

The point is that you must compress before adding the fuel... otherwise you just have a fireplace like in your holiday cottage. A "static ram jet with a leaf blower" is in fact a jet engine. The leaf blower is a compressor and will compress the air a lot more than you can achieve by just going 50-100 km/h in your go kart. Normal jet engines have a turbine at the back end of the engine to power the compressor at the front, but if you wish to do that with a leaf blower, it's still an ordinary jet engine (not a ram jet!).

Beer. *burps*

I hate it when people overestimate the public, because psychological pricing works. And I hate it when the public overestimates the abilities of science, the government or in fact any abstract organization... because those organizations consist mostly of the public itself, which even falls for the old .99 cents trick.

Wikipedia says about ramjets: They are serious about the forward speed... but it's the next sentence which should tell you that you're not onto a good idea: Relatively to the speeds at which ramjets work, your lawnmower is probably just not going to go fast enough (I'm not sure how ambitious you are... Mach 3?). I would seriously advise you to read the wiki page, and check out the Brayton cycle (the engine cycle). In the ideal case (real life is always worse, never better), the efficiency is: [math]\eta = 1 - \frac {T_1}{T_2} = 1 - \left(\frac{P_1}{P_2}\right)^{(\gamma-1)/\gamma}[/math] And the ratio P1/P2 will be extremely tiny for your case, because at low speeds you will achieve nearly no compression at all. So, you might not even achieve any significant efficiency at all (meaning your results need to be rounded off to 0).

If excessive drinking is bad, we should ban excessive drinking... but not drinking in general. Speeding is illegal, but we don't ban driving as a result. We just ban speeding. Another practical point remains: what is excessive? We have seen plenty of examples of what is excessive... but if you want to enforce a new law, you must make the picture black-and-white. There must be a line. Cross the line, and you break the law. p.s. It's Friday! Who is going out tonight? I am.

So, Scotland would be better off if nobody would drink, if Scotch, stouts and ales wouldn't be produced anymore, and if all the pubs were to disappear? Imagine Scotland completely empty of alcohol... Somehow, I can't imagine it would be any fun at all. Yet, one of the Scotsman of the forum seems to suggest just that (don't you?).

Umm, no you don't. You only dismiss someone else's argument - and you do that by ridiculing it, which isn't even a proper argument. You didn't bring any argument into the discussion yourself. Please do that next time, because this is a science forum, not a let's-try-to-ridicule-each-other-forum.

LOL We have a few nutjobs that we'd like to ship to America as well... oh, wait, we already did that, and there's 300 million of you now.

So, you have nothing to say, but you just felt like criticizing the thread - and especially the people who are warning about problems related to alcohol... Why is this such a difficult topic? Most people either choose to focus only on the problems related to alcohol, and now someone else instantly dismisses all those arguments against alcohol as "nanny state". Maybe alcohol is indeed a sensitive topic, and maybe people just can't have a discussion about it.

For clarity, when I said "a bad joke", I didn't refer to anything said in this thread in particular, but to the entire thread as a whole just going on and on and on... So I didn't attempt to insult anyone in particular. Instead, I mocked all of us together. Apologies again for replying to a mod comment (and going off topic with it). I guess it was a bad idea after all. I propose we just close the thread, since it has come to swearing. Pity. I really enjoyed it (in a weird way).

Awww We've been repeating things and going in circles since about post #40, and I was just starting to really enjoy it. A bad joke is a bad joke, but repeat it often enough and it might just become funny. A thousand apologies for replying to a mod comment.

Sarah Palin did the right thing: she chose not to run for president. However, she already announced that she will still be involved in politics in the future (she'll devote herself to God, family and country". And that in the coming weeks she would "co-ordinate strategies to assist in replacing the president, re-taking the Senate, and maintaining the House". (source: BBC) Her populist right-wing Tea Party ideas will work far better when she is not in power. Even better, while she has no official position, she has absolutely no responsibilities. From the sideline, you can just shout things, and make it all seem so simple. A good strategy team can come up with interesting one-liners and simplified versions of reality that will enchant some people and enrage others. In the media, Palin can and will be involved in every political debate, where she can freely talk without even having to keep to the strategy of the Republicans. If she wants to go more extreme than the Republican statements (still opposing the democrats more than the republicans), she can and will. She will only have to watch out when she directly opposes the Republicans, because she cannot risk alienating her only natural allies. Being a president is a delicate balancing act trying to keep everybody happy (including the opposition!). Sarah Palin is so far away from the political middle that this is the only choice she has. This is of course, like anything related to politics, is an opinion. I am sure someone else has a different view.

Could it be done? Yes, probably. Could it be done within our lifetimes? Probably not.

Ok, ok, ok... let's summarize the thread. The question we're answering is: "Is alcohol good for society?" If I had to draw conclusions from the posts in this thread so far, then I would conclude the following things: - Alcohol is really bad for society - People would be a lot healthier if alcohol wouldn't be consumed - Babies would have their brains in one piece if mommy wouldn't drink - People would be a lot happier if alcohol wouldn't be consumed - People would be a lot richer if alcohol wouldn't be consumed - Alcohol should actually be banned, but that's not possible because the people who drink it are addicted and would commit crimes to get it - People who drink alcohol are alcoholics, regardless of the dosage - everybody gets addicted (some disagree with this) - Alcohol makes people die I had to search long and hard to find anything positive... but apart from a few social gatherings, some births as a result of drinks, and a few artists who seem to get inspiration, I did not find anything. So, is this a good conclusion ot the thread according to you all? I completely disagree with it... but it's what I read here. I think that the thread as a whole is a little unbalanced.

But we're still writing posts!

Good point. It does affect everybody, but the negative things are not the only effect that alcohol has on society. I just don't understand you cannot see any positive things about alcohol. Ok. So it is bad for Russian society. I don't live in Russia, and I have no idea about its problems... so I will accept that from you. But what about other societies? In the Netherlands, according to this list, we drink 13.25 liter of alcohol per person per year. Russia is more with 15.76, but the difference is not huge. But we don't kill ourselves, and we also don't drink-and-drive much. In general, people behave themselves and don't drink too much. I get the idea that you (and others in this thread) keep focussing only on the negative examples, but I think it is not fair. What about all the babies that are born because of a romantic candlelight dinner with a glass of wine? And I enjoy going out and having a beer. And I maintain that you're searching all around the world for problems to point out...

You talk about society, and then you talk about "some people". You do realize that society means "the whole group", don't you? If you want to talk about society, you cannot focus on the problems of a few only, and ignore all the rest of the people. Can you see nothing positive about alcohol at all? No social aspects that are beneficial? You never found just a little more courage to talk to a man/woman because you had a drink? You were never able to meet some interesting people at a reception, which turned out to be good customers or business partners? Where do you live, just around the corner from the alcohol-abuse-center? In my town, the very large majority of people drink alcohol, but there really aren't too many people with problems. Almost everybody seems to be able to drink, but also to have a good job. Unemployment is really low. Culturally, the town thrives. We have excellent sports clubs. Society as a whole seems to function quite well, despite all the drinking! So, if we want to continue this thread, shall we at least talk about society, and not just about the few individuals who make it into the Monday morning newspapers with their drunken stupidity? The question is not "Is drinking too much a good idea?". The questions is " Is alcohol good for society?". Stay on topic.

I disagree: If everyone went bankrupt, we would still be trading goods. We would still have money to trade (there's a lot of cash in circulation, which doesn't disappear just like that). And anyway, the debt collectors would be bankrupt too, so nobody would come to collect any debts, meaning that you can spend the cash you have. Undoubtedly, some people's jobs would disappear and unemployment would go up, but we would not all become beggars. And I am not even sure we'd all be so uncivilized that we would be in chaos or fights.

Hahaha! Brilliant comment. LOL! And what makes you think you're the teacher? I get the impression that you see the classroom in reverse: the boys in the back are the teachers, and you're actually the kid in the back. We have explained you about the definitions used in science, and how that works. And you stubbornly keep using your private method. Not exactly a teacher's attitude.