fay's unKle

Thank you, I haven't heard anything before Is it to much to ask you if they ought to have tried/done it. It's so essential and it would be a necessity. Do you think 9your gut feelings) it's technogy issues or economics ? (and also mobile phone to be sold with two batteries, but going from the empty one to the next without burden)

I don't like this Let's have more faith to tech (and science if any research must be done). Who wouldn't want to see this ?

Could someone possibly elaborate on the possibility of using very many 'smaller' batteries on telephones, laptops etc, assembled as one package off course, than using one, as they do now. Charging them in parallel they would recharge in a minute then using them appropriately to feed the circuit, like in series for example.

Although there's nothing to change my opinion, I APPLAUD TO THIS for its content, very general but relevant.

What all these engineering schools are doing in educating engineers to carry on the great work that technology has done so far. Actually they have not changed the course they follow for decades, they only change some procedures of secondary importance but not of substance. Theory first for higher education, there is no question about it, only theory though in engineering education is half the work done. The subject chosen, manufacturing, is a sound example in my opinion. I believe that 90% of universities don't teach their students what really manufacturing is, because they don't send them to the factory floor to complement their theoretical knowledge and students can't "see" really from books processes that involve tools for plastics injection machines, presses etc. Some will work on them, so for a number of years they are still students. One could mention a lot more, but it's not proper, just one thing: Where are the famous optico-acoustical media to be used. (at least)

Some time ago I saw articles, most probably from car manufacturers, describing the ideas/wishes of some, to use hydrogen as fuel for their internal combustion engines, if the economies turn to it as energy source and thus satisfy the environmental requirements. In my opinion it's not only the environment that has to be protected it's an economical matter too. Internal combustion engines can't get away of an overall efficiency in the low thirties while fuel cells climb to 80%. Huge difference. We understand how admirably the engine manufacturers have perfected them during the past 100 years or so, but they have to do the same with fuel cells and a lot faster, because technology now is many times more advanced in all respects.It is my humble opinion that now fuel cells are not developed by the best and the progress is very slow, if I'm not mistaken there isn't a fuel cell ready for reliable use after almost two decades of research and development.

ABSOLUTELY WRONG Nice dream. Did you notice the word majority I mentioned. Along with exams ? P.S. Maybe some other time for more.

I think testing students with exams and projects is the middle road. Maybe it can serve as an intermediate while going to complete transformation. I agree that doesn't have to be one or the other in an all or nothing manner, but only if the main judgment for the final recognition of acquired knowledge doesn't lead to: Please mention them for my enlightenment.

Expressing an opinion, almost independently of what has been mentioned above, I would say that PhD entails in finding a cure for a disease. (to mention one research area that we all understand its importance) If one is even wondering if it's the proper path to follow, better not go. Needs dedication, the work is very demanding for most all PhDs and everybody have high expectations. This is almost the definition of pressure, only if they love what they do they overcome the side effects. PS. I accept that this is an almost ideal consideration, but so is PhD.

The majority of students study for the exams and just before the exams. At the most they will do some homework during the term, if it counts significantly for the grade. (Most of the time though, only 10% in college.) This is not the best way to add knowledge, that is studying the day before the examinations under pressure, doesn't function very well for learning sufficiently in depth, we must admit. Wouldn't be better for learning, to continuously work on (creative) project assignments, (that require critical thinking) so studying will spread smoothly along the term, without being left for the day before the testing, with the main objective of studying to be: "Let's ' pass' the exam, nothing else counts now". In a way it will resemble open book exams but a lot more enhanced in the content requirements. You don't need to memorize, you need to comprehend, study with "critical" mind. When you go to work, you don't work with what you (forcibly) memorized (most all it's gone anyway) you can use among them only what you learned in depth how to use, and most importantly procedures to accomplish tasks for applications, not dates, unecessary names and formulas, all references/books will be available. Also very important is to learn how to work on the subject, and know how and where to find more, to be so aquanted with the subject, that'll be able to find your way around new knowledge on it, as required, without an instructor, (he's gone) But then how the system will be secured against cheating. Projects usually is work that require time and can't be done in class, can't keep the students in there for, say, two days, maybe hours at the most. Do the educational system designers and administrators, who grew up and excelled (that's why they were chosen for positions to dictate policy and decide for others) in this system, understand the subject and know so much more than us, for their judgment to be correct and conserve for a century (since education was spread to the masses) the general frame in education. In antiquity Plato, Aristotle and Euclid were teaching and testing their students differently in their academies.

I DO NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING AS GIVEN. First the question is clear. The claim on the oddness of a possible experiment is unsubstantiated, why it would have been odd. Humanity don't know yet enough to explain VERY MANY things in the human organism. How do you conclude that it will not yield any meaningful insights. If it was, everybody and you would know the proof referring to books or at least published scientific papers. Oddness In a totally unrelated matter but with a common quantity mass, look what strange, odd things were discovered when people researched odd and offbeat things : Physics - Focus: The Case of the Disappearing Mass https://physics.aps.org/story/v19/st1 I don't say anything but I wish I see how they study the subject if they did, and most probably they would have. When I have time I will search the www to see if there is anything more than Sentorio case, and I mean MORE. Kiplngram: I don't know anything about animals but I happend somehow to notice a young small cat feeding 5 (five) kitten which doubled their size in about one month. I was wondering where all this milk came from. (because they ate nothing else)

DELAYED REPLY. This ought to have been written before your very last replies which I didn't read yet. Bender, doesn't the 8 to 3 ratio in Sentorio case (which seems to be not to bad for a start only) leaves a lot of room for investigation, and at the same time shows that people of knowledge have thoughts in the neiborhood of this subject matter.

CharonY, please tell me, if I changed the word "waste out" with "everything out" would you answer the same way, and then "Gases only add if you e.g. weight the full lung." lets consider the subject 1 to 2 levels higher than this. Where science has reached now aided by technological innovation, measurments of the nature needed for this must be possible not to say easy. I am sorry but I think that we can leave entropy out for our subject matter. Bender I beleive it may not be so difficult, especially if it is done with the "simplest" of animals in glass tube. To me it's going to be the same. I hope this will not be considered as beeing different matter. It is the same subject matter, if you know what I mean.

Does measured milk in, minus waste out, in newborn babies equals the increase of its weight. There must not be any conservation law violation. Are nitrogen, oxygen etc from air add-up. Any studies to treat this subject ?

As neurons send signals through their axons and receive signals through their dendrites, its inner matter, which include genes must play a very important role in the exchange of ions at the synapses, for their strength and their very existence. The connections of neurons for the creation of circuits dictate behavior. Some say nature others nurture. ???? Huge subject in a few words. WHAT IS THE MATTER.

How signals are traveling to the brain from sensory organs. For example when light hits the eyes the excitation of the cones etc , if i'm not mistaken, starts the process of signal transmission through fibers that reach the brain. Do the signals travel by spatially continues chain chemical reactions, or molecules and/or ions travel ? Is it known ?

I have a thing going on with the whereabouts of electrons in atoms and how they bond to form molecules, so when I read something surprising like this, I chase it hoping to get a little more insight into the subject. "Both single electrons now become paired and share the overlapping energy levels i.e. they can now also move in the energy level of the electron from the other atom so they can now move around each nuclei. However, most of the time they are found in the region between both nuclei as they are attracted by both nuclei." They are talking for almost specific (?) electrons being at specific region around the atom. Where such findings are coming from. Are these theoretical or experimental findings. Pump-probe spectroscopy, photoelectron spectroscopy and crystallography, is all I only know to find electron energies and densities, but not positions as accurate to say that specific electrons "are found in the region between both nuclei" Through which methods and what measurements they find that electrons are moving around both nuclei. Would you know what to read to appreciate in its full extent the experimental procedures that lead to such findings/conclusions, other than the theoretical background of orbitals, valence octats etc.

YOU ARE FAR AWAY. SEMI-KNOWLEDGE IS WORSE THAN NO KNOWLEDGE. MY SUBJECTS ARE INTELLECTUALLY AMUSING.BUT THE REAL RESEARCH SCIENTIST WILL FIND THEM FICTIONAL IN PHYSICS. IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY DON'T SAY ANYTHING PROFESSIONAL "REPLIERS". I HAVE HEARD SOME SAYING THE LIKES OF ELECTRONS EXIST IN TWO PLACES AT THE SAME TIME etc etc. DON'T NEED THIS. THE HUMAN KIND DON'T HAVE THE MEANS TO KNOW WHAT THE ELECTRON DOES AND SPECULATES BUT STILL DISCOVERED THE TRANSISTOR (AND NOT ONLY) WORKING IN THE MICROCOSM AND CHANGED THE WORLD. DISCUSS DON'T ARGUE FOR FUTURISTIC SUBJECTS. SAY THUMBS UP OR DOWN, LIKE IT OR DON'T. LEAVE THE MAGICAL INTERNET ALONE AND THE PERSONAL THEORIES FOR OTHERS WHO NEED THEM.

HOW SCIENTISTS JUSTIFIED THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO LOOK AT ELECTRON DISTRIBUTIONS OF SUBSTANCES AS THEY APPEAR ON ELECTRON DENSITY PLOTS/MAPS GENERATED, FOR EXAMPLE BY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY, TO DRAW AN INSIGHTFUL CONCLUSION ON THE SCIENCE OLD HOT SUBJECT OF ELEMENT REACTIVITIES. SODIUM AND CHLORINE REACT READILY TO MAKE SODIUM CHLORIDE BUT GOLD HAS NO AFFINITY FOR OXYGEN SO DOES NOT CORRODE. AN INNOCENT NAIVE THOUGHT IS THAT SINCE THE SPOTS OF DIFFERENT INTENSITIES AND AT DIFFERENT POSITIONS (PATTERNS) CREATED DURING THE CRYSTALLOGRAPHIC PROCESS (AT ALL ANGLES) ARE DUE TO THE ELECTRONS OF THE ATOMS OF THE VARIOUS SUBSTANCES AND SINGLE ELEMENTS UNDER SCRUTINY THERE MAY BE SOME OBSERVABLE TRAIT EITHER ON THE MAP OF THE SPOTS THEMSELVES OR ON THE ELECTRON DENSITY PLOTS PRODUCED BY THESE. WHY SCIENCE PRECLUDED THE CASE OF FINDING PATTERNS IN THESE MAPS THAT ARE DISTINCTIVELY INDIVIDUAL FOR ELEMENTS AND DISTINGUISH THEM, AT LEAST TO SOME DEGREE FOR THE PREFERENCE OF TWO OF THEM TO COMBINE BUT ONE OF THEM NOT TO COMBINE WITH A THIRD ONE WITH WHICH THE OTHER ONE COMBINES. (LET'S SAY THEIR ELECTRONS LEAVE SPACE FOR OTHER ELECTRONS TO INTRUDE IN THEIR TERRITORY AND THE NECESSARY FORCES ARE EXERTED TO KEEP THEM TOGETHER) SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT HAS CREATED THE THEORY OF OUTER SHELL ELECTRON COMPLETION AND THE INFAMOUS QUANTUM MECHANICS THEORY AND ORBITALS. BUT IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE ELECTRONS MOVE AROUND THE NUCLEUS WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY (MOST PROBABLY, I THE NON SCIENTIST MUST RUSH TO SAY) THEY REPEL EACH OTHER AND ARE ATTRACTED BY IT. (You may read the little note below) AND WHY DOES IT MATTER. ? One can see often in scientific literature things like this: "If we actually knew how electrons are distributed and move in atoms we would have been able to know better how they bond to form compounds and find new improved materials..." WHEN CARBON NANOTUBES WERE DISCOVERED THEY SAID CLEARLY: ELEMENTAL UNIT FOR ELEMENTAL UNIT IT IS DOZENS OF TIMES STRONGER AND AT THE SAME TIME DOZENS OF TIMES LIGHTER THAN THE STRONGEST MATERIAL KNOWN THIS FAR. (WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING YET, 20 YEARS LATTER) DOES THIS MEAN THAT FOR AN ISLAND WHICH IS 20 Km AWAY FROM THE SHORES, CABLES MADE OF THIS, IF ANCHORED ON THE TOP OF THE NEARBY MOUNTAINS OF THE MAINLAND AND THE ISLAND WOULD HAVE BEEN STRONG ENOUGH TO CURRY THE LOAD OF CABLE CARS (TELEFERIC). THERE IS ALWAYS A NEED FOR SOMETHING THAT WILL BRING THE FUTURE CLOSER TO TODAY. IF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT DO IT, NOTHING WILL. Note that, one may dare to say in a non scientific description: "Electrons simultaneously are attracted by the nucleus and repel each other" in an impossible way for the human mind to comprehend. When one is going towards the nucleus it accepts repelling forces from others and moves away (?) but when it gets away "it happens" that all other electrons are at distances from where the repulsive forces are smaller (?) than the attractive from the nucleus and it gets closer to remain in the atom. (Is it periodic ?) Equivalently (but impossibly) the human being would have imitate this if could place in close proximity (in a magnetic field ? ) a number of magnets, in such a way that they would always keep floating, close enough to exert forces on each other, by their two poles off course, but they would never stick together.

Is it science fiction to assume that some time in the far distant future, the unpredictable, computers will be so fast and AI programs so advanced that humanity will be able to check all possible combinations of four billion zeros and ones that are needed to store a video, 2 to the 4th billionth combinations and find out which ones make sense. (Assume that about four billion bits are needed for an hour's movie of good quality, the number doesn't matter) Did digital technology, the manipulation, storage and transmission of light and sound with numbers, made the expression: Everything is written and awaits the human being to discover them, sensible. All pictures, video, music, text, drawings are written, everything that has taken place and created and will take place and will be created. Incredibly huge but finite (?) like the universe. (?) Will humanity see Napoleon's battles and the battle of Marathon and will also see how the human being evolved. If computers pick the combinations that make sence, men most probably, will understand what is fiction and what is real from the hints that has. Aaaand.....does this also mean that if one adjusted the frames of a video to check to be 10 to the 18nth power per second (I heard that electron movement can be detected with attosecond technology) will discover among the zillions of combinations the ones that show the electrons in their eternal dance of matter in the atom or how they engage in molecules.