CaptainPanic

In 2008, the Aegon insurance company sensed trouble, and asked for a bailout. They got 3 billion euro from the Dutch state. This helped the company, and they survived. Now, the company is healthier, and has finally paid back the last part of the bailout. And the interest. In addition, the Dutch news (in Dutch) reports that for 3 years, Aegon was not allowed to pay dividend to its shareholders. This was part of the agreement. In short: the state bailout came first, then dividend. So, if it works out well, bailouts help the economy (the company survived, jobs were secured) and it helps the tax payers, because the companies pay a hefty interest. Obviously, the state decides to take a risk, which means that the large interest is completely justified... and any investor would ask the same, if not more. Why then, if the bailouts will eventually will be paid back with interest, are they reported to 'cost tax-payers money'? Unless a company that is bailed out is inherently unhealthy and will collapse regardless of the bailout, this doesn't seem like a bad move by governments. And I'm actually a little angry at a lot of Dutch media, which reported it as if the government bailed out companies by giving them money (a gift), rather than giving a loan. 36% interest in 3 years time really sounds like the Dutch government actually made money from this deal, rather than lose money. What about bailouts in your countries? Any chance they'll be paid back? And do you know if these are loans or gifts?

I guess it has to do with the parameters that are of interest... different industries use different words to say pretty much the same thing. Regarding fans, the engineer wants to know the pressure of the gas that comes in, and the pressure of the gas that goes out... so it makes sense to work with the pressure ratio. It's almost the only parameter of interest, apart from the power usage of the fan. They often run at a constant rpm. The blades of the fan are fixed on the axis. All-in-all it's a simple machine. Here are a couple of thermodynamic laws that explain compressors and the power required to do that. In helicopter design however, it's also interesting to find these numbers related to the weight of the helicopter (which is a variable, and depends on cargo and passengers), engine power (can be varied by the pilot) and for example the position of the blades of the rotor.

Personally, I am no climate scientist... but I am tired of people who refuse to see the following things: Facts: - There are 7 billion people on earth. That is almost 50 people per square kilometer of land. - Humans have altered nearly the entire surface of the earth. Cut down forests, built roads, built cities, etc. - We have a LOT of factories, cars, and we use a lot of energy. - CO2 can absorb heat. This is already known for more than 100 years, and can easily be tested in labs. - The CO2 concentration is much higher than before, and going up fast. - The CO2 concentration keeps a nice trend with our world's energy consumption, and the energy consumption keeps a trend with the economy. So, economic growth means more CO2 in the air. - There is some heating of the earth, and weather systems are changing. And that happens just when CO2, which is a gas that can absorb heat, is released in huge quantities in the atmosphere. That's too much to be coincidence. And since humans already changed the entire earth, don't you think there is a big chance we can actually heat it up by a few degrees as well? Now, if you wish to deny (note the use of the word deny, rather than skeptic) that there is a big chance that humans have something to do with climate change, then be my guest. But don't come to ME to ask to prove the climate change. Instead, you can prove to me that this is really a coincidence. And you better prove it and be certain about it... because this isn't something to make jokes about. If we get it wrong, we're screwed, as is explained pretty well in this (if you're a skeptic/denialist: watch it, it's pretty simple to understand!). I'm also tired of skeptics. If this was a very fundamental problem, then we could argue about it forever, and use scientifically rigorous methods. And then skepticism has its merits. But it has become a political and an engineering issue. What do we build? Fossil, nuclear or sustainable? And that is something which cannot be postponed indefinitely... I cannot argue with the skeptics, because they just say "maybe", which is in fact the truth (we're not 100% sure). But politicians need a simple YES or NO, and so far, the skeptics have been put into the 'nothing is happening' camp, which leads to the conclusion that fossil energy is good. This is how it's been put in the media. For all other real scientific climate debates, I would refer to some excellent threads in this forum. They include nice graphs and figures and explain both sides quite well.

Can you please post some kind of evidence - preferably new evidence - which made you come to this conclusion? And FOX News does not count. Instead of forcing the climate sciences to "prove" that climate change is a fact, why don't we reverse this for once? Just prove to us that climate change is a myth... then we can bust that myth. I'm sick and tired of having to explain the whole climate theory... and then some stupid climate skeptic finds 1 little point which is perhaps not explained well, and claims that the entire theory falls to pieces. Let's reverse that process. You can prove that it's bunk, and we'll shoot holes in the climate skeptics' theories.

If the platinum and gold are in ore, then you cannot get any flammable gases. But why would you want to do that (unless you have some highly concentrated ore, which you probably do not have)?? Regular (South-African) ore contains only 0.5 ppm platinum... so if you process 1 ton (!) then you will get only 0.5 gram, which is only worth about $50. And you would need a seriously big ball mill, AND a treatment to get the platinum and gold out of the ore (read about it on wikipedia... it's not a matter of just picking the platinum and gold particles out like you might sometimes see in the movies).

To my knowledge, there is no ranking. Engineers just get the job done, but don't boast about it. It's other people, often in public functions (politicians), who will take the credit.

Wind. Different parts of a lake can have different winds (because of different trees/buildings on the shore, or just normal turbulence in the air). And different wind means different waves, which in turn give different reflection, which means you observe it as a different color. It can be a small difference in wind speed and/or wind direction, and still be visible on the water.

Press the "images" button in google. I get lots of pictures in Google.

I am not sure what you'd like to discuss, so I'll just give some pointers. 1. Shape of the trees. Because the trees at the side of rivers/lakes have no neighboring trees on one side, they often have branches growing near the ground. This is a direct effect of not having to compete for light. 2. Water. Obviously, the river/lake can provide water to any plant. However, the water can also erode the shore and wash away any nutrients. It can even erode the shore to such an extent that the tree falls into the water. But because this is such a broad topic (photosynthesis and growth of trees, water, root growth, nutrients, erosion), I think it would be useful if you make the thread more specific.

The main problem is this: the fastest ever transatlantic crossing is 4 days, 8 hours, 23 minutes and 54 seconds. And that's not exactly a comfortable way to get across (racing catamaran). Flying is only about 7-10 hours, if you include security, check-in and the bagage handing. I think that if a trip across the Atlantic would take nearly a week, only 10% of the travellers would even consider it, possibly even less. So, you cannot replace jets with sailboats. You would replace only 10% of the jets with sailboats. The other 90% of the people wouldn't travel at all, or would go somewhere else. You would effectively be replacing 90% of the jets with things like online communication, different tourist destinations and more local economic models.

Let me bring up 3 more issues before we all jump to the conclusion that nuclear powered ships are the future: Logistics of nuclear fuel, and used fuel What would the logistics for the nuclear fuel look like? Today, by coincidence, there is a transport of nuclear material from a nuclear power plant in the Netherlands to a factory in France. It causes quite a few problems, and many people are concerned about safety (and that has nothing to do with terrorism, and everything with other kinds of accidents). Shipyards would need to be upgraded with an infrastructure to handle nuclear material. The paperwork And another little issue: many ships are registered in different countries as the operators. Search for "Flags of convenience". Let me repeat that: More than 39% of the world's naval carrying capacity is registered in Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands. So, given this fact, who shall we make responsible for the nuclear material, and the nuclear waste? Especially when we know that in international waters, nobody is watching and there are much less rules and regulations. Also, the land-based nuclear power plants, as well as nuclear powered navy vessels are not sold to other countries. But commercial ships are sold all the time. With thousands and thousands of vessels circling the globe all the time, and being sold all the time, someone needs to keep an eye on the nuclear material all the time. And someone has to decide who is responsible for the nuclear waste if the ship gets sold. I assure you all that there is a huge financial incentive to dump the nuclear waste overboard, rather than pay for millenia of storage. Ship breaking In the perfect world in which nuclear powered ships would be a good idea, ships are taken apart in clean factories. In reality however, they are taken apart by people who earn 1 dollar per day, who walk bare foot and who wear no protective equipment at all (source). Now... ask yourself: Why do large shipping companies register their vessels in some small underdeveloped countries, and why do they dump their ships in India and Bangladesh to be taken apart? And would it be a good idea to trust such companies, with such ethics, with nuclear material?

I'm not familiar with US state laws... but would it make a difference if you carry the knife in the back of the car, or in your pocket (or somewhere else on yourself)? Obviously you will take it with you once you get to the water... but by then it's really obvious that you're going fishing.

Yes. Heat will speed up the reaction if the iron is on contact with air...

I think this infograph should answer your question. Please use a normal font next time you post. Cheers.

I think that Dekan (post #3) gave an excellent answer. I'd like to add that although commercial ships run on fossil fuels, they are extremely efficient at using their fuel. The fuel consumption per ton per kilometer is a LOT lower than that of trucks and trains... and it drops as ships get larger (this is one of the reasons why ships are so enormous).

Why should the iPhone control the plane? Just get the camera linked to the phone/tablet/laptop. That's relatively easy I think. And then control the plane with its regular controller... If you want to make it a single device: use tape to attach your phone to the controller. There is no reason why the viewscreen and the controls should be the same device (except that it's obviously extremely cool to have an app on your iPhone that nobody else has - you can show off - and iPhones are the world's #1 showing off gadget). Please note that the RC plane already comes with a controller. You should however worry a little about the weight of the camera, which will affect the balance of the plane. My advice would be to (1) buy the plane... and practice without the camera. Then (2) add some piece of cheap metal (some bolts or something) where you would put your relatively expensive camera... and practice again... and only then add the camera.

For the most part it's a good link. Pity they felt that they had to put some politics at the end - regarding Germany's decision to stop with all nuclear energy by 2022. An infographic should never contain future predictions (and this one does), because those are always partially subjective. Personally, I believe that Germany is on the right track to replace all nuclear energy with sustainable energy (they're investing a lot in wind/solar/bio) - and that goes directly against the remark in the infographic that Germany goes back to a more fossil based economy. And an infographic shouldn't lead to a discussion. It should be objective.

Well... 10 $ is worth about 5 euro cents nowadays, so that might be affordable On a more serious note: Sorry to bring reality crashing down on your dreams... be proud of yourself though. You only become an engineer the hard way... by having many ideas that others already had. By learning why someone else already made a fortune out of it, or by learning why they failed in the past or will fail in the future. Until, after learning a lot, you've learned enough to slowly evolve into someone capable of doing innovations yourself. This will take a lot of time. But I can assure you that it's fun all the way. So, don't be afraid to post the next billion dollar idea. And please don't be offended if we burn it again.

Completely agree that we should just let economics deal with sustainable power. But it would be fair to do the economic calculations with reasonable payback times... So, count 15-20 years payback time for solar power, and calculate if you can make any money. What I dislike about the discussion between fossil / nuclear and sustainable energy is that somehow coal and nuclear power plants are allowed to have payback times of 30-50 years, while solar and wind power must payback the investment in 5-10 years. In one case, a high estimate is used for fossil/nuclear, and on the other a low estimate for sustainable energy.

And we like to know why you want to do it. Some people come to this forum for entertainment, and this seems a good one. It's a strange story. You already got a couple of names, and people suggested that you ask the police - which you dismissed for some reason. You dismissed the option of finding out who did it too. We're just curious what's going on. Anyway - the police forensics labs are probably the best for drug testing.

I don't get it. - The food is drugged - Police shouldn't be involved - There is no need to find out who did it (either unimportant or already known) - Finding out what drugs are in the food is really important (or finding out the opposite, that the drugs are undetectable, is really important). - It has happened before By far the easiest is to indeed place a camera. Catch the person doing this. And then find out the substance through that person. But I read that this option has already been dismissed for reasons not so obvious to me. You know that laboratories will report to the police if they find some illegal substances... and that they will take your address, and that payment will be through your bankaccount rather than cash. This is not gonna be anonymous. Do you still want to go to such lab now that you know this?

First of all: if the Western world (i.e. Europe + North America) would go to war against all Islamic countries, that would be such a massive conflict, it would undoubtedly be called "World War III". I think that there are (unfortunately) many people in the Western world who would like to go to war with Islam. There are many people who's simplistic world view means they honestly think that Islam is a threat... And I think these people are incredibly dumb, for the following reasons: Cultural influence They say that Islam is trying to conquer the world. But, in fact, here is a map of all the countries where you can find McDonald's. Western economies dominate the world. Muslims around the world also watch Hollywood movies. They also listen to Lady Gaga. It's not uncommon for them to speak at least 1 European language (English/French/German). Honestly... Who's culture is influencencing whom? Military threat (Warning, if you're a sensitive American, I would skip this paragraph, because I am about to downplay 9/11 to something that was only the collapse of 2 buildings, rather than the end of the world as you knew). So, some guys hijack some planes. Crash into a building. 3000 people die. Who cares. America responds by starting 1 War on Terror, and 1 War for Oil, although we were told that the latter was to get the regime change. Almost 1,000,000 people died as a result... and it's still ongoing. Honestly... Who is a military threat to whom? The global Muslim population There is no such thing as a global muslim population. They are not united. And they are not against us. There is one thing I can say counts for all the Muslims I know in the Netherlands: They are sick and tired of being discriminated against... and they are sick and tired of being called terrorists by ignorant white people who know nothing about them.

Voltman, would you mind to post at least a link that shows that you're not the only person in the world thinking this is true? You create threads like this very often: you just throw some random urban legend at us - often just a single sentence, and often not true - and you expect us to give you some feedback about it. And quite often you don't even seem to care to respond a second time. You could have researched this a little bit... and just in general show a little more interest in your own question.

So, is Rajat the doorman, since the member replied to him?

Perpetual motion machine: /pərˈpeCHo͞oəl /ˈmōSHən/ məˈSHēn/ A machine which is so complicated that the inventor fails to see why it won't work.