CaptainPanic

The rail gun can indeed achieve speeds of bloody-hell-that's-fast meters/second. A propeller (which this thing you describe essentially is) is limited by some other things however: - speed of sound - turbulence - centrifugal / centripetal force (I forgot which one of the two is the right one here) Speed of sound: imagine that the tips of the rotor are going faster than the speed of sound. In something that rotates, the centre is basically not moving very fast. This means that somewhere along the rotor, you're constantly breaking the sound barrier... which will probably destroy the rotor. In other words: I would suggest that you keep the speed of the rotor tips below that of the speed of sound. Turbulence: Because your rotors will pass some stagnant support elements (which keep the centre of the rotor in place), you will get some high shear forces in the air. There will be pressure differences caused by the passage of the rotor past such stagnant support element. This will cause vibrations. This will limit your velocity, and increase noise. - centrifugal / centripetal force: you can just break it all by turning it too fast. Probably the least of your worries though. So, I am sorry to conclude that as far as I can see, your "billion dollar idea" is nothing but a very heavy helicopter with electric engines.

Running only makes sense on the really short distances. Anything longer than 100-200 meters will be faster by bicycle. Bicycles will increase your action radius (100 km is possible with relatively little training), can be a good exercise as well, and are much more gentle on the joints (runners absorb quite a lot of shocks with the cartilege).

LOL... you're asking for a complete and thorough geopolitical and (socio)economic analysis of the entire world? Anyway, I think it will be brilliant for the world that these economies are growing so strongly. We've all chosen to have a capitalistic system, which means that competition is an essential part of our economy. Well... China and India are going to become one helluva competition. They produce goods much cheaper, and more efficiently. And I think it's rather sad that Europe/US are complaining about it. They just need to move theirdecadent lazy asses, and reinvent their own economies rather than trying to protect the outdated business models on which they are based. In short: I think that China and India are moving the world into the 21st century, and that they will drag the rest of the world along. p.s. I think we really should add South-America to the list of upcoming economies.

As requested, I have voted for Bruce. Not sure what the value of the poll is if the polling station is so obviously biased

I would go for Chinese. Huge country, upcoming economy.

In this wikipedia article, the m and n are just the stoichiometric coefficients... but I guess you're not asking about those. But if you are, I guess you should just read this wikipedia article. It helps if you post a link, or just the formula itself next time, because now I have to guess what your question is, and we might all be wasting our time. I'm guessing that you want to know what the x and y are in the following rate equation: [math]r\; =\; k[\mathrm{A}]^x[\mathrm{B}]^y [/math] The x and y are experimentally derived values. The fact that in exercises they are often integers (i.e. values like 0, 1 or 2) are not based on a physical/chemical reason. The x or y might just as well have a value of 0.6472 or something. It just means that if you increase the concentration of A, what happens to the rate. Typically, these values are determined by many measurements. You end up with a list of concentrations and reaction rates. And then you have to apply some statistical analysis to fit a function to that data set. So, the fact that some measurements in a lab can be turned into a nice and simple equation is not because it is derived. It is only because some mathematical tricks are applied to make an equation which describes reality quite well (but not perfectly).

Why would this be more efficient than an ordinary electric motor? Electric motors are already very efficient: 78 - 92% efficient, according to this source... What you propose sounds like just another electric motor (specifically a stepper motor), which you admittedly have turned inside out to make it much larger and probably heavier. And why would it be more silent? It's not the engine that makes the noise. Most research for noise reduction is focussed at the main rotor and tail rotor design now.

Solution for socks: Throw away all your socks. Then buy 20 pairs of identical socks. I find that - surprisingly - the amount of lost socks has dropped dramatically since I introduced the sock drawer with only identical socks. This has led me to believe that the socks are not lost, but that the person searching for them just cannot find them when they are needed (often in the morning, even before coffee). Or at the very least, the frustration has become significantly less... Alternatively, perhaps there is a sort of critical mass needed to prevent socks from escaping. One thing is for sure: we can only speculate. It shall always remain a mystery. (And maybe it's better that way).

I am not sure what you mean... I think that a computer is by definition a machine that can do calculations in binary. In the old days, computers used to be mechanical (but still binary). And very simple mechanical computers are relatively easy to understand. But they are still called computers.

I recommend this thread (only 3 weeks old) about hobbies and spare time as well.

Because it can be a bit cold to be naked. Because clothes have pockets, and that's convenient if you want to put your wallet, phone or car keys somewhere. Because clothes protect you. Ever tried to fry something without wearing a t-shirt? It hurts.

- Buying 50 grams of plastic: 10 cents - Molding it into a shape of a nose: 50 cents - Buying tubing and elastic bands: 20 cents - Put the whole thing together: 1 euro - Testing it for failures, allergies, sleep disorders, or other injuries: Priceless

I think that music is changing, or has changed already. Because of all the new media and new technology, people have a much (much!) larger music collection than 30 years ago. I think that a logical result of that is that instead of a few mega-stars, we have a lot of regular stars. That might mean that a star gets a massive fan-base (like Lady gaga) but perhaps only for a few years, or that a group gets a relatively smaller fan-base, but quite long and faithful. But there is just too much music on the market, and it's too readily available, to expect a star or band to remain at the top for a long time. But I think that there are many stars and bands that have a lot of staying power... I could imagine that especially some bands (Radiohead, Coldplay, Kaiser Chiefs to name some that come to mind) will make music for a period of 30 years at least. They do not need to be made anymore, because they have proven themselves already. In a way, they are the establishment in their genres. They play main stage at large festivals, and have sold out world tours. Similar new bands might play for a long time, but they'll have to prove it. Btw, I had to look up Ke$ha and T-Pain... I had never heard of them, lol. I would not consider them the establishment yet... and I agree that they probably never get there. I certainly hope not, because I think it's commercial junk music. They probably sell half their music to 16-year-olds who still need to develop their own taste of music

I blame all the people who complain about a lack of action: 10-20 years later they would complain again - but this time about the engineers for destroying all the beaches and building walls on them.

Could you provide us with a little background information on those two? Apart from the fact that non-religious people might not even know what you're talking about, the different religious factions of the world may also disagree... so I think you must specify the question a little better.

But would this mean that Barrack Obama is Satan? You quoted only 1/3rd of my post. Did you even read the rest of that post? Because I think that answers your question already.

It should be only airspeed related, but definitely not pressure, otherwise it will show different airspeeds at different altitudes (where the pressure is different)! Hmm... I guess that the stall speed however is a combination of airspeed, angle of attack and pressure... and that's exactly what the pilots want to know (are they close to stall, or not). At the same time, they want to know if they are getting close to dangerous air speeds (much too fast). I guess it might be possible to find empirical relations which combine those parameters into a single "stall warning", or "you're going much too fast" warning. But I don't know how to obtain such combination of parameters with a single low-tech measurement which can be directly visible to pilots at all times.

Something really low-tech would still require an interface in the cockpit, and that would complicate things a lot. It means you have your measurement, a wire (hydraulic, electric (analog/digital), or even just a piece of string), possibly something to translate that signal into something understandable, and a readout itself. You can assume that something that takes measurements on the outside of the airplane will often not be directly visible to pilots... You could also mount that low-tech device in the cockpit, which means no (digital) interface is needed because it is directly visible. An experienced pilot can then estimate airspeed from a single observation. But building things into the cockpit itself, or in front of the windows will have its own disadvantages in aerodynamics and safety (structural integrity of the airplane). Note that I don't say it's impossible to come up with low-tech failsafe solutions to make flying safer... I only say that it's a little more complicated than suggested until now in this thread.

Go for it! It is probably very useful to have all that experience, and I'm sure that the universities don't mind to have an experienced person working for them. Your age certainly is not a problem... there is no such thing as an age limit for a PhD student. But please make sure you understand what you're getting yourself into (sounds sarcastic, but I'm serious)... If you come from industry, you're used to getting stuff done fast, and to be very concrete. Universities do not work like companies/industry. Everything goes a little slower, and they have an impressive bureaucracy. The facilitating departments will not facilitate anything. Instead, they have a monopoly, and you must do things their way. The universities that I know work more like many little kingdoms combined into 1 university, rather than 1 university operating with a single goal in mind. I'm sure you have the motivation to work hard on some fields that you think are interesting... But (without trying to discourage you), you must realize that the work-environment will also change completely.

Where lies the real pressure to publish "new breakthroughs" though? I think that the media are under much more pressure to come up with something, rather than the medical world... But I do agree that the positive sides of breakthroughs are often highlighted while possible problems are mostly ignored. (But that's something that happens in the entire scientific world, not just the medical world!). I have never read an abstract of any paper that basically said that the new invention might solve one problem, but creates multiple new ones. The 'multiple new problems' are reported as 'recommended future study fields'... if they are reported at all.

Which liberal states are you talking about? As far as I know, it's only the USA (all other states that torture aren't in my "liberal", "free" or "democratic" category). In fact, the USA has signed its "The Hague Invasion Act" of 2002 to liberate US military personnel if they would be tried for war crimes in the International criminal court (which happens to be in The Hague, Netherlands, at less than 100 km from my home). So, in short, if a US soldier commits war crimes (and torture is a war crime) against prisoners of war, and for example a Dutch military police would put the American under arrest for that, then theoretically the US already passed the law which allows it to invade the Netherlands (a faithful ally and NATO member) to free that criminal. And they passed that law knowing that a lot of countries were members of the International criminal court already, and that practically the whole world had signed the Geneva Conventions (including the USA), and that the torture by the USA was 'allowed' only by a trick of words and the creation of a third category of people in a conflict, namely the "unlawful combatant" which is not included in the Geneva Conventions. So, the USA said that they basically will start to ignore part of the Geneva Convention by inventing a new word, and that they would invade their faithful ally and NATO member if they tried to do something about that through a criminal court. I still think it's the single biggest insult ever by the Americans to the Dutch (and in fact to almost all their allies). This is also interesting (although unrelated to the stuff I wrote above): Anyway... my answer to the question: Is Torture Ever Justified? No.

Hmm... very odd. The Dutch news I read initially reported it last week (multiple sources reported it on the 18th, 19th and 23rd of May 2011: link 1, link 2, link 3). Then I Googled it, found an identical article on the BBC and Gizmodo, and linked to that instead because most of you don't speak Dutch. I didn't check the date on those articles. Now, to my surprise I find it's not news (it's old). Anyway, it's interesting... just don't claim to anyone that this was recent, because it appears it wasn't. Possibly just as interesting is how the media just seem to copy each other's stories without doing any checks. I didn't even put in all the Dutch links that reported this in the last week. It's rather pathetic to see all these media just writing about this story when it was such an old story actually. It shows again that you really have to use your own brain when reading the news.

If you add enough "when"'s and "if"'s, then yes, it's possible. But you need a helluva lot of "when" and "if".

If you have two vessels, and something with a capillary action between them, then I think (I'm not 100% sure) that the liquid can travel from the high vessel to the lower one (although extremely slow), but certainly not the other way around.

It's turned Sunday here now... and the only rapture I'll experience soon is the hangover tomorrow morning. Night all.