studiot

But flywheels don't directly yield electricity. Your pumped storage 75% is presumably electric pump to water storage and back to electricity.

Yes that is what I wanted to discuss. Computer programs are very good at pattern recognition, when asked for a particular configuration to search for. So for instance they are good for fingrrprints, Xray defects etc.

+1 Dinorwig is in Wales, the are are 6 more pumped storage schemes already working or just started in Scotland. Pumped storage has another advantage over a flywheel. - Flywheels run down, the pumped water waits quietly untill you need to use it.

Would AI be any better (more likely) to pick this diagnosis error up considering how rare (less likely) the cancer condition was, since AIs are normally programmed to yield the most likely answer ? Case in point BBC News'Our daughter's cancer symptoms were dismissed because sh...Isla Sneddon died in March 2025 aged 17, just six months after she was diagnosed with cancer.

https://chemistryhelpforum.com/t/useful-latex-code-for-chemistry-equations.147266/ For those who might be interested, here is an interesting thread about LaTex / Mathml and MatthJAX in chemistry. I wonder if there is anything there we could learn for this forum ?

Indeed I agree that Europe does not have a long tern plan, the UK even less so. But I also note that China's economics was not disrupted by the Ukraine war like Europe's has been.

My copy was copyrighted in 2011 (5th printing 2014) but I don't see a second edition as yet, which would include the most recent eruptions, a couple of which have been quite serious.

The position of solar energy in Europe is quite different from that of China. The Uk position is yet different again. Most of China's population lives South of the 35th parallel. Most of Europe's population lives north of the 45th parallel. By comparison New York is about the 40th parallel. As to strategic investment in infrastructure, what does that mean ? China's electricity system is much newer than Europe's as a result of the recent expansion in development that must eventually slow. Also the balance between 'grid' investment (by the generators and distributors) and the user's investment is also different. I don't yet see the word battery being mentioned. I think it is vital not to oversimplify the subject.

Oppenheimer devotes several pages to the 1902 disaster and describes the 'pyroclastic currents' which did all the damage. These were also responsible for the same level of damage in Pompeii, in Roman times.

I have two copies of Holmes classic. The first written I think written prewar which does not mention plate tectonics (though it did speculatte about continental drift) but it has so much useful information that is still correct that I keep it The second from the late 60s when Holmes had becme a convert and rewritten many things, including adding early tectoniic material. A really good modern book by Clive Oppenheimer from Cambridge University Press provides probably the most comprehensive history of eruptions on Earth.

I take my hat off to this post and your subsequent persistence. +1

Yes I agree there are different view aqbout whqt iw scinece and what is not and this applies to other disciplines as well as maths. As regards 'flat earth' , like so many things in nature, the issue is neither hard and fast nor clear cut. As a rule of thumb in surveying and cartography th flat earth model is adopted for patches of the earth of less than 10km radius. It would also seem that the OP has lost interest.

Firstly I don't understand why you have this in Politics. Are you talking about the scientific method or the relationship between science and politics or what. Please also clarify who the 'known' people are abd what their input to science might be. If you are actuqlly talking about science leaders, then I can't see how you could consider this to be true. Almost every province of science that I can think of is currently developing at pace, and each province boasts competing hypotheses in frontier areas. Only the most non controvertial such as well established bodies of facts such as the structure of the alkanes or the way arithmetic works. Further back in history over the last few hundred years there have been significant arguments over the substance of science, some furious, some even leading to torture or death. However the further you go back the more a complicating factor intervenes. That factor is communication.. Thousands of years ago it took a long time for new discoveries to reach remote lands. For instance the spread of the modern numbering system from india, to europe. Besides the distance separation there was also the fact that many workers worked on their own. The huge collaborative projects are a modern development. But even then 'gurus' sometimes held sway, even when they were wrong.

What point are your trying to make ? Yes I remember the polio vaccines, but the mid 20th century was hardly 'early' ; you have to go back another 150 years for that to Edward Jenner in 1796.

Well even with the crick in my neck I can see that you have mislabled the second digram.