big314mp

The capacity increases when the lake gets bigger. So why pump water into the lake, when you can just decrease flow out of the lake?

A good 15V zener in parallel with the meter may be all of the protection you need. Otherwise you may have to connect a MOSFET in series with the voltage divider/meter, and switch it with your zener connected to the inverting output of a comparator. noninverting input of the comparator would need a reference voltage (anything less than 14V or so would work), and the output of the comparator would switch the MOSFET. When the voltage exceeds 15V, the zener breaks down, applies 14V or so to the inverting input of the comparator. This 14V is higher than some reference voltage, so the comparator output is forced low, switching off the MOSFET, cutting power to the meter. That seems overly complex though. There is probably an easier way than that. You can also use an op-amp as your comparator. I know radioshack sells a small MOSFET, as well as op-amps (don't know about comparators though), so you can get all of the parts there. A NOT gate on the comparator can switch a separate MOSFET for your LED.

This should be moved to HW help. I'm gonna group these into the following classes (based on what I remember from HS chem): synthesis, decomposition, combustion, single replacement, double replacement. Post if this is way off base. Synthesis is when 2 (or more, but usually 2) separate things (usually elements) come together to form one product. Decomposition is the opposite of synthesis, where one reactant is broken down into 2 or more products. Combustion is a reaction between a carbon containing compound and oxygen. They have water and CO2 as products (I think you omitted something from the combustion reaction you posted). Single replacement is where one metal swaps with another in a compound. Identify them by looking at the reagents: one reactant will be a free (not bonded to anything) element, the other will be an ionic compound, and will have a bound (bonded to something) metal. In the products, the metals switch places, i.e. the metal that was bound is now free and the metal that was free is now bound. Double replacement is where you have two ionic compounds in the reactants and they switch places in the product. These tend to be acid/base type reactions, but it is easier to just look for the ions trading partners.

You also need to consider that the gas can only really cool down by radiative emission. Space isn't "cold" the way your freezer is cold, as in your freezer, there are things to conduct away heat directly. In space, there is no such thing, so the vacuum sort of acts like a thermos. As to the last bit, the gas is so undense (terms?) that it wouldn't be able to transfer too much heat to the ship. The radiation itself would be a bigger problem.

Maybe electroplating a ring with iridium would be possible?

SkepticLance did quite an excellent job of summarizing that point. I get the impression that this thread is very hypothetical in nature, as it is generally accepted that there are certain traits of the some peoples' brains that hamper their day to day activities. It is accepted that there are treatments that can modify these traits so that the person can resume functioning at their original level. Therefore, whether these traits are defined as a disease or not is merely semantics.

Usually it is written as 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O So twice as much hydrogen as oxygen is consumed. The reaction also releases a considerable amount of energy, usually as heat, light, and a bang.

Perhaps you could do an iridium (or osmium) ring, and plate the inner surfaces with gold some other metal that has no chance of forming toxic oxides. From what I can see, the chance of an iridium or osmium ring forming toxic levels of oxides is quite remote. But you could plate the inside of the ring as a safety precaution.

That's just relabeling things. The OP's idea was that disease is a word that is defined by people. Since the definition is by people, the line is somewhat arbitrary. In light of new diseases/disorders/issues (I don't have enough background to know specifically which ones are relevant), is the definition of disease changing? I'd say it has changed from the traditional "a disease is caused by a pathogen that can be replicated in the lab and administered to test cases etc etc etc..." to more of a "It is an issue that prevents or impedes normal, daily activities." Which of course brings in the separate issues of whether such a change is good (which is what I think this thread is supposed to be about), and the question of what exactly normal, daily activities are. I'd say the change is good, but with some caveats. If I have trouble studying for a test, should I get ADHD meds from my doctor? I'd say that I need to work harder and/or smarter. What about difficulty in studying for every test? Get the pills.

As Mr. Skeptic said, your best (worst?) bet would be just injecting KCl. Anesthetize with ether and shoot KCl? Science seems to be solid for it. This thread is more than a little scary

Flyback transformer in a backpack...you'll be shooting sparks from more than just your fingertips The idea in the link seems relatively straightforward, and I don't see much room for improvement unless you look outside burning metals. Maybe a sparkler in a copper tube with something to blow air through the tube? It's basically the same thing...

Well, people have more direct control of their minds than they do of their kidneys, so where do you draw the line between "You don't really want to get better" and "You need intervention"?

Perhaps eating castor beans from the bio lab? I like the cyanide idea. Maybe NaCN spilled on some generic acid, and then death by fumes. Drinking methanol? Or massive amounts of ethanol/ether? Dimethyformamide and a poison (cyanide again...)? All sorts of ways, I guess.

Laptop for school work, desktop for everything else.

You should add equal moles of NaOH and HCl, btw.

A hydro plant has a limited storage capacity. So instead of pumping water up and down hill, why not just close the dam (well, reduce flow, so that people down river still have a river) and let the river fill up the reservoir. The reduced power generation from the hydro facility would be compensated for by the wind/solar. When additional capacity is needed, just run more water through the turbines.

Tide is the detergent line by Proctor and Gamble. It's one of their "core" products. If you have the time, it would be cool if you could test out different fabrics also.

I'm just nitpicking (as the post was quite good), but I believe the ideal gas law breaks down under high pressures or low temperatures. In the former, the volume of gas particles becomes significant. In the latter, the attractive forces between the molecules becomes significant.

I figured the LHC would be down for a long time due to the need to ensure that the components all cool evenly. Dumping in liquid He would probably break it. However if it is just a pipe, I figure it wouldn't be that delicate of a structure, and you could cool it quite quickly.

Well, let it charge to 100% (say overnight or so), then turn it on and let the battery run all the way out. That is supposed to calibrate the power circuitry inside those batteries. If it is getting too warm, you may want to blow some compressed air through the fans, to try and clean out the heat sinks. On my laptop, I actually had to open up the access panel to the processor to get the dirt out.

An interesting one may be using an LM555 timer set in one shot mode to create a pulse of a given duration. Adjust the pulse length using a variable resistor, and you could get a coilgun with a dial in range.

You could possibly calibrate by using reference solutions, in order to account for the differences between coke and blood.

Well, you shouldn't use a metal tube, as the rapidly changing magnetic field will induce eddy currents in the copper pipe. These currents go in a circle around the circumference of the pipe. To stop these currents, you cut a slot in the pipe, thereby breaking the circuit. http://powerlabs.org/coilguns.htm Skip down to the bit about the solenoids.

What model mouse is it? Have you tried a different mouse to see if the effect stays?

The difference that the Bohr model made, was that the electrons travel in quantized orbits. The rutherford model has the electrons just sort of orbiting the nucleus. However, a charged particle going in a circle will emit radiation, and lose energy (search "Synchrotron Radiation"). As the electron loses energy, it should spiral into the nucleus. So the rutherford model couldn't explain why electrons didn't just "fall" into the nucleus in a flash of light. Bohr proposed that the electrons can only jump between certain orbits, and can therefore only absorb or emit photons with very specific energies. Therefore, an electron in the lowest orbit, can't emit any photons, so it can't lose any energy to spiral into the nucleus.