CaptainPanic

Maybe you can give some examples of how it should be improved? It is easy to say that someone else should make it better... but maybe you can help too? Maybe you have some good ideas too? Personally, I am happy with the existing warning systems in my country (Netherlands). And if a tsunami would ever be so big that it breaches the sea defense everywhere, there's nowhere to run to anyway... so a warning is pretty useless then

Doesn't the idea of having wind turbines in a place without wind strike you as a bit strange? Hydro power without water also never really caught on. Solar power in the dark also never really took off. Hell, it seems that coal power without coal doesn't work either. Sorry to mock you a bit, but it's just not a very good a very bad idea.

I think Hal's whole argument is based on the freedom of opinion or something. We cannot do anything to change this mind, and that's the only point he seems to make. As far as I can see, there is not a single sentence that would ever appear in any scientific text which would improve if we would use Hal's Melting. Existing definitions are simply sufficient. So, I believe we're only arguing Hal's freedom to use words the way he likes (although even on that I disagree with him). I've said before already that he does not have that freedom on a science forum... perhaps on a poetry forum you can use language more freely... but we (I speak for the entire scientific world) like to keep definitions strict. Btw, I agree that this thread is the silliest ever, but please don't close it. It long ago stopped being interesting from a thermodynamics point of view, but I find it quite entertaining anyway...

So, Hal's Melting is a convenient term only if you often mistake solids for gases?

True. In addition, although alcohol has a nice numbing effect, It's really important to realize that your own view of yourself after 3 pints and 4 shots is something different than what other people see. You think you're friendly, macho, fun, witty and all that. Other people think you're drunk a**hole who doesn't know his/her limits. The more you drink, the bigger the difference between your own view of yourself and reality... and a worst case scenario is that you have to hear from friends (or worse still: girl/boyfriend or even parents) what you did last night. Movies like The Hangover make that look like fun... but most of the time, it's very embarassing (you have to apologize to a bunch of people), inconvenient (you have to go back to the bar to collect your jacket/wallet/shirt/whatever) and really expensive (it's amazing how easy it is to spend a lot of money even if you're just a little tipsy, let alone drunk). My message: nothing wrong with a couple of drinks... but stay in control, and watch out with strong alcohol... it's pretty dangerous.

First about the alcohol: No, you're not a lightweight at all. You're only 16 - of course you can't drink much. At your age you're really destroying your brain more than older people by drinking. Yours is still growing and developing, and you're preventing that now. So, don't do this too often - you've got plenty of time ahead to drink... Nothing wrong with a beer or cider (with moderation), but stay off the hard liquor for a while longer. Secondly, you're only 54 kg and 1.77 m tall... which sounds pretty normal for someone of 16. You'll gain a few kg before you're 20, which is normal. You might also still grow some centimeters, which is also normal. Young people are always a bit skinny, so don't look at the Body Mass index too much.

LOL I respect your advice, but I would go for the complete opposite: make it as simple as possible. Just fold a plane like you always do, or look up some cool paper plane designs online... but make it bigger than normal. You can place the egg somewhere in the fold in the middle. Make sure to pack the egg in crumpled paper (it will act as a shock absorber). No need for gyroscope. It only has to go 20 feet, not 2000. If you want to practice, find something that is exactly as heavy as an egg, but less fragile - like a large marble or a bunch of metal bolts or nails. Practice makes perfect... and it will be important to balance the plane and to place the egg in the right spot.

Ok, then what's the difference between Hal.'s melting and liquifying something? Both are words that just describe the fact that something became liquid, without bothing much about how that happened, and whether it is reversible. What does Hal's Melting have to add that we don't already have in that word?

It might not be efficient from an energy point of view, but you need so much less regulations/paperwork/security than a nuclear facility that it might actually be cheaper.

The thing that you need to know is the force on the part of the paddle that is in direct contact with the water, and the duration of the force. In other words: a curve of the force on the paddle over time. Due to the curved motion of the paddle in the water and its shape, the force isn't the same anywhere. It seems to me therefore that the only place that you can reliably measure the force applied is just above the broad part of the paddle.

I was going to ask you what the units are on the axes - but then I remembered that I started about comfort... and comfort is definitely going to be a dimensionless number.

I disagree. The individual components may melt, and then we say "the material was separated into individual components, which subsequently melted".

The question that the OP does not literally ask, but that I can see hidden in that post is: who is responsible for our problems now: the lenders (banks and investors) who gave money to the debtors until the debtors got into trouble, or the debtors for accepting all that money until they were in trouble? I think both are responsible for this situation. And therefore I partially agree with the OP that the lenders are (also) in control of the economy. I also agree that the lenders are largely left alone, while all the focus is on the debtors. I think it's not too much to ask that lenders (banks / investors) also take some responsibility, and that they are a little more careful where they give their money. It's not just countries (Greece) that got into trouble because it was too easy to borrow money. It's especially the individual people who were able to take a mortgage that was just too high for their income. While you can expect a country to have financial advisors, you can't expect the guy on the street to understand all the risks involved with borrowing money... and that's where I think the ' lenders' should take more responsibility.

How much paper, cardboard or construction paper can you use? Oh, and the 20 feet is a vertical distance (when you're on a 2nd story balcony, you're already 20 ft above the ground). Sounds to me you just have to buy a box of eggs, a pile of paper and cardboard, and start experimenting. I would suggest you build some soft seat for your egg.

You're in a good mood today, or just a big fan of Canadian nuclear power. Anyone else would have been banned for this. Anyway if the thread isn't being closed we might as well continue on topic: If you're all wondering what could possibly go wrong in Canada, then just read this (wikipedia list of disasters in Canada). And here's a list specific for Ontario. With tornados, fires and floods, it's still a good idea to severely overdimension the reactors, and to thoroughly test them. Most reactors will be built close to water (a river or a big lake) so the water is a factor to take into account.

Wikipedia says: So, I think it's not likely we can call this "sustainable"... although the use of it doesn't do much harm to the environment either.

I have decided that it is best to refuse the use of the word "Hal's Melted", even though I introduced it myself. I was wrong to do so, because the already existing terms cover the phenomenon better. Liquifying is the term I prefer because it does not need to be a reversible process - which is what we're talking about all the time... So, to give a short answer to your question: No. I disagree. It melted. And if you wish to say it, you can also say it liquified.

The most efficient heat transfer takes place in highly turbulent systems, so to cool down, a high air speed is good (it makes for a thinner stagnant and insulating layer of air around you)... but not very comfortable. Unfortunately, the theory of heat transfer does not take "comfort" into account... so this problem is difficult to optimize.

No, in post #86 I spoke for "a few people in this thread". But I can speak for the entire scientific community when I say that it is vital for communications to be very clear about the definitions of the words we use to describe science... and that it is therefore very counter productive to just try to change a definition for no apparent reason.

Really? It sounds like you're judging others too! I just explained you (in my previous post) what's going wrong with the communication between the 'wizards' and the 'pack minded people'... and it seems you completely ignored that (did you bother to look at that idea?).

Enthalpy, although I am really interested in rockets, and specifically in the engines, your posts is a little too long. I'm risking being rude, but could you provide us with a summary, so that the lazy people like me have something to discuss? It's just too much of a (time-)investment to read your entire post without knowing (beforehand) what point you're trying to make. Posts like this really need an abstract / introduction. If we have something to discuss, then perhaps we will eventually read your entire post while we're trying to form our own opinions on something.

Enthalpy, you have good points... plants are relatively inefficient. But the main issue in this thread is still the use of ATP / ADP. As the OP already said, ATP is just energy storage... like a battery. The organisms need something else to 'charge' the ATP, and it's that something else that is the bottleneck. Btw, I strongly oppose the use of tubes for algae in a desert. I don't believe that the energy balance would be positive: I think you need to put more energy in than you get out in the form of algae. Because I think this is too much off topic, I just link to this thread in which I have explained this better.

Could you please quote the entire post, the first bit was relevant for the second bit. My question was about the specific choice for a battery (as opposed to for exampe a hydroelectric dam), and not about the need for storage in general.

Phi, I agree with almost all your post, except this bit: They probably challenged the concepts all the time, but that only led to something good when they actually learned science and math. Regarding the OP: It's sad when someone doesn't want to work with the "pack". The "pack" isn't evil, and doesn't pollute the mind. All by yourself, being a "wizard", you're quite unlikely to ever get anywhere: 1. You need to be challenged to be able to develop yourself. And you need someone else to challenge you. 2. Unless you want to develop your work alone, and just keep it for yourself, you need to speak the language of the "pack" anyway (the "pack" isn't gonna adapt to your language). And that language happens to be math, and it's written in the textbooks that will apparently brainwash you into a "pack mind". Pack minds can communicate to other pack minds. Wizards cannot communicate to pack minds (and pack minds often cannot communicate to wizards either). But it's very important to know that wizards cannot communicate among themselves either. They are just alone with their theory... and nobody else understands it. And as soon as there are other people that understand it and give feedback, they are forming their own "pack"... and that will be the end of the wizard. So, it's a bit of a problem there: either you will be misunderstood forever because you don't speak the same scientific language as everyone else, or you get a "pack mind".

Ok - so you say (with a double negative) that melting is always reversible. Thanks... I think that a few people in this thread, myself included, thought you disagreed with that. To remind us all, it was for example this post that caused most confusion: That suggested that you can melt something without being able to freeze it again to obtain the same material as you started with, meaning it's not reversible. So, it's very sad that we've needed 86 posts to find out that we somehow agree with each other, and that we somehow misunderstood you all the time.