I was going to look this up to verify, but realized googling "do they still sell actual human..." probably isn't something I want in my search history. So, I'll just say, as a not-noo-fuzzy-recollection, I'm pretty certain that to this day some people who's bodies are donated to science may end up as actual educational props for medical students. In that light, the above thoughts about wanting/needing to track down this person and contact families seems unnecessary as that person did this intentionally.
That said, I absolutely recall seeing a documentary, in modern day, showing people's bodies used in science exhibits to this day. Their point was that while people had voluntarily donated their body to science, they were mostly unaware that this type of display was something that might happen.
I did it with my wife about 3 times, in the US. One in a very nice yoga retreat place and twice in a cozy home. It was OK. I thought the evolution and music were interesting and soothing, but honestly, the thing that turns me off is the overly sweet nature of participants. My humor is a bit dark and sarcastic and I just felt like I couldn't be myself or I'd ruin someone else's experience, which is not what I want(ed) to do. I'm pretty sure I'm done with ayahuasca. However, give me mushrooms once a year or so and that's enough of a mind opener for me... and no vomiting (yes, I know it's part of 'the work', but it's just gross to me)
Personally I do not believe vomiting to be part of the trip, it is a side-effect that could completely distract you.
If you feel nauseated from mushrooms, you may try psilacetin instead. It is shrooms without the shroom matter, available (not sure if still is, used to be) in a small-ish tablet form.
I've always thought the right handed guitar was actually left-handed. I'm a lefty and play a 'right handed" guitar, but all the dexterity needed is in the left hand (pressing the fret board in intricate ways).
For things that require two hands, like hitting a hockey puck, I think one needs to take a close look at the dynamics involved to see where the dominant dexterity is actually truly most influential over an action being taken, before you can assign it a "handedness". Maybe, they just assigned the wrong "handedness" to hockey stick holding position.
That's not my point. My point was that, even with hockey sticks that are symmetrical, there is an asymmetry to hand functions/position. If you look at what they call "left-handed" stick, the blade is on the left hand side of the body. That means your left hand is holding the stick in the middle - like a fulcrum. The hand that is in the middle, on the fulcrum, feels to me like it has less "fine" control over the angle of the blade than the hand at the a end of the stick. So, why not call that "right-handed."
Probably overhyped, but Hydrogen Oxygen gas liberation from H20 followed by recombination and electricity production in an H2 fuel cell (exhausting water again) is very well known and used frequently. The difference is that normally the Hydrogen is produced off-vehicle. That's because normally carrying around the mass of the feed water and reaction chamber is inefficient (i.e. you avoid lugging around that mass and avoid the cost of a reaction chamber if you produce the H2 off-vehicle).
However, there are absolutely ways to fill a vehicle's water tank with water, use some catalyst to liberate H2, and then combining with pure O2 or O2 scavenged from ambient air in a fuel cell to generate electricity.
In underwater vehicles, because they're surrounded by water, you avoid the need to carry a water tank around and instead, you can just carry an Aluminum (typically an Aluminum compound designed to prevent formation of a reaction inhibiting oxydized aluminum layer). The Al reacts with water to produce H2 on the vehicle which is then used with a fuel cell to produce elctrucity.
This is not "free energy" - the energy potential is resident within the catalyst, and the catalyst itself must be 're-energized' or replaced. In the case of oxidized Aluminum, you must inject large amounts of energy to regenerate the pure aluminum catalyst.
Some catalysts do get "degraded" over time and need to be regenerated. Look up palladium sintering or zeolite coking. The catalyst itself is not "damaged" but by catalyzing a reaction, its physical shape is altered (get clogged or fused together) which reduce its effectiveness. These can be regenerated by burning off the clogging or heating them up.
And if you get into the enzymes, which are biological catalysts, they are even more likely to degrade and need to be replaced.
Don't try to be smart by insulting others when you yourself are not an expert.
The thing is, we're looking at an article that claims cars can drive without any apparent external source of energy. We need to question where the required energy comes from. So when someone says that oh, there's a catalyst, and it needs to be re-energized or replaced after a while, then it very much looks like that supposed catalyst is actually the source of energy.
Maybe that's now what was meant, maybe they were indeed talking about the catalyst being degraded. But then it's a bit weird to talk about "re-energizing", and more importantly, that still doesn't the main question: what is the energy source?
Am I too hostile towards claims that energy can be made out of nothing? Maybe. I know I don't feel guilty when exposing fraudulent claims.
The term used was "re-energized" because "the energy potential is resident within the catalyst."
That is NOT a catalyst, as roelschroeven correctly commented.
Otherwise a rechargeable battery would be a "catalyst" because it too needs to be re-energized or replaced.
What a catalyst does is lower the activation barrier between two states, without providing net energy. Getting H2 from H2O, i.e. electrolysis, requires adding energy. We know this because fuel cells work in the other direction to produce power, and entropy always increases.
I was not referring to electrolysis, I was referring to the chemical reaction between water and certain Aluminum compounds to liberate H2 (which creates Aluminum oxide and other byproducts, and if you want to recover the Aluminum catalyst, you must add energy to remove the Oxygen from the Aluminum oxide (i.e. "re-energizing" the catalyst so that it can be used again in a reaction with water). Pretty straight forward.
Trolling [1] - "when someone posts or comments online to 'bait' people, which means deliberately provoking an argument or emotional reaction." [1]
catalyst [2] - "a substance that enables a chemical reaction to proceed at a usually faster rate or under different conditions (as at a lower temperature) than otherwise possible"
I guess I'm missing something. The poster asked a question, I provided an honest response based on my professional experience. I believe this is in the positive collaborarive spirit of HN. I'm just trying to contribute information that may not be readily available elsewhere.
> catalyst [2] - "a substance that enables a chemical reaction to proceed at a usually faster rate or under different conditions (as at a lower temperature) than otherwise possible"
To split water into hydrogen and oxygen, you need to add energy. It's very well possible that a catalyst can make the process more efficient than simple electrolysis, it can't change the fundamental fact that energy needs to be added for the reaction to occur. A catalyst will decrease the required activation energy, but not the total energy balance.
When you say that the catalyst itself must be 're-energized' or replaced, it sounds like the catalyst is the source of energy. Maybe that's not correct, but then the question remains: where does the energy come from?
I'm not sure why I'm bothering, but here is the definition of a "catalyst" [1], which states that a catalyst promotes a reaction that would otherwise require higher temperature. Here is a description of how hydrogen can be liberated by increasing thermal energy of a sample [2].
What exactly is the issue, and where are your citations supporting your argument?
1. "Thermodynamics of High Temperature Gases" by Joseph Hilsenrath and Bertrand Hirschfelder, which discusses the breakdown of water at extreme temperatures.
2. "Thermodynamics of High Temperature Gases" by Joseph Hilsenrath and Bertrand Hirschfelder, which discusses the breakdown of water at extreme temperatures.
I cannot verify that citation exists. I looked in archive.org and Google Scholar. No such title found.
Joseph Hilsenrath was an employee at the National Bureau of Standards in the 1960s. It seems he was involved in making tables concerning gases, but not in catalysis.
There appears to be no publications by Bertrand Hirschfelder.
How did you come across this apparently obscure publication, and why are your [1] and [2] the same?
It seems gauche to suggest it, but my experience with LLMs is they often give bad citations like this. If you are using a second-hand source for your information, you may want to verify they are not giving you LLM swill.
I ask because your summary of what a catalyst means is pretty poor, and I wanted to see what your source material says.
For example, as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalysis points out, a catalyst does not alter the equilibrium constant. It adds that if a catalyst were to change the equilibrium constant, the result "would be a perpetual motion machine, a contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics."
Then if we go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water we see "The decomposition of pure water into hydrogen and oxygen at standard temperature and pressure is not favorable in thermodynamic terms".
Higher temperatures work "because the electrolysis reaction is more efficient at higher temperatures. In fact, at 2500 °C, electrical input is unnecessary because water breaks down to hydrogen and oxygen through thermolysis. Such temperatures are impractical; proposed HTE systems operate between 100 °C and 850 °C.", says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_electrolysis .
Thus, raising the temperature in order to shift the hydrolysis equilibrium constant, as you described it, cannot be characterized as catalysis.
I added them after reading these replies, yes. I usually don't add screenshots because I don't like adding images to the git repository (people don't really want to clone that), and I don't want to use an external CDN for uploading my images.
In this project in particular, I understand that it is important.
Not sure if there are any restrictions keeping you from linking directly from the project readme, but perhaps a separate repo can drive: https://pages.github.com/
Some months ago, before a GitHub update, you could just paste an image while editing a Markdown file and it would be uploaded to their CDN. You could use that link even in other files (e.g. Org files in my case). They changed their upload system and this is not the case anymore.
When looking at the disc brooch, it's interesting to note that while each quadrant appear generally symmetrical, the branches that cross over or under are not consistent. A branch in one quadrant crossing over another actually crosses under that same branch in another quadrant.
It's certainly intentional, but I wonder if perhaps it conveys some meaning... or perhaps the artisan just thought it'd be neat. It seems like a lot of work though to have no significance. Intriguing.
As a U.S. Citizen who's spent stints in Texas over the course of several decades, while I jave friends there, it's clear that they are following in the footsteps of China. They are welcoming an autocratic surveillance state. Stripping freedom of movement and rights to your own body, one by one.
It'd be healthy if they just ceceded. Kind of like the a reverse Taiwan situation. Sorry Chip and JoJo, I think you're about to slip off the USA map, nit that the rest is much better.
well just one data point, but i left texas for california, which may not do much better on the surveillance front (i haven’t really checked) but definitely does on the personal autonomy and movement front (at least, i haven’t heard of any cities in CA trying to adopt sanctuary-city-for-the-unborn laws restricting the use of their roads). we’re just a couple af clicks away from TX trying to mandate pregnancy tests to leave the state at this point.
Washington is doing a lot better despite not being the biggest route into our largest trading partner or flush with oil money. Texas is among the worst states in the union.
Texas is one of the worst for human rights to the point where I wouldn't even drive through. They had to make a law that their police have to stop searching drivers buttholes without cause and yet they keep getting sued for doing random cavity searches. The last run through my parents got the third degree with implication that they might be immigrants. My fathers roots are in England/Scotland and both families have lived here for longer than the US has been the US.
It is the among the worst for reproductive rights with lawmakers wanting to punish women for abortions obtained in other states, punish women who even drive through anti abortion counties on their way to leave the state, and let any interested party including woman's rapists collect a bounty on the head of their victim in a brazen attempt to avoid getting the law thrown out.
Because of this and other factors its drastically short of doctors having almost the worst ratio of doctors to patients in the US
It allows a certain county judge selected by Trump handle all the most insanely biased cases that nobody in their right mind would take handing out rulings binding citizens in other states. These cases are so ridiculous that the 6v3 conservative Supreme Court has to keep stepping in to put down this court's militantly stupid decisions.
It is among the worst for democracy. It is working to try to pass a law that all statewide offices would have to be held by candidates who won the majority of the majority of its counties not its population. For reference Texas has 256 counties some with as few as a few dozen people and the majority of the majority could constitute as little as 4% of its population. It wants to enshrine rural republican rule at the expense of anything else.
It filed a lawsuit last go round asking the surpreme court to literally throw out everyone's votes and essentially appoint Trump President.
> It wants to enshrine rural republican rule at the expense of anything else.
No problem there unless you like being the ruler from afar. Perhaps a good solution would be to split governance so that urban and rural populations stay separate.
Until the West Coast states are safe to be openly anywhere right of center, I’ll take rural Texas or Fort Worth for good or ill.
It is profoundly weird to describe filling statewide offices based on the a democratic vote as "ruling from afar". The alternative filling offices based on whomever wins the majority of the majority of counties would allow a tiny minority of the electorate to decide the fate of all their fellows. It allows the minority to rule from afar instead of the majority.
As described the majority of the the majority is literally four single digit four percent of the electorate. The obvious intent is that at present the majorities views align with the minority and it should change the rules such as to prevent usurpation even should they lose the popular mandate.
It presages a future Texas where the majority of Texans want to move forward and the way is barred for a generation.
It is exactly by proportion as if we should decide that the only people who are allowed to hold nationwide office is someone who wins Minnesota no matter how the vote goes elsewhere. It's a world in which Walter Mondale wins Minnesota and we declare him president despite losing every other state to Reagan.
Then someone pops up and defends Minnisotism somehow as preventing the subjugation of Minnesota.
> Until the West Coast states are safe to be openly anywhere right of center, I’ll take rural Texas or Fort Worth for good or ill.
It's pretty safe... I live in Portland and am not shy about telling people I think that social security and the Wagner Act and OSHA are all unconstitutional, and that I think government should never provide welfare, and nothing bad has happened to me. In fact earlier this year I requested trial by combat from the Portland taxiation office, both on the phone and in a written letter, such that my victory could exclude me from paying Supportive Housing taxes; the only outcome was the lady on the phone laughed at me.
It'd be expedient. An entire generation of people have had such bad experiences in politics they've apparently just entirely given up on them and then have mistaken their position for one of rationale.
It'd be healthy if we fixed whatever caused this type of banter to be accepted.
What you are seeing now is the death knell of the klan and their sympathizers. There basically isn't any "fix" for it other than to keep rejecting their ideology and keep moving our country on one funeral and one election at a time.
>You can start businesses easily in Texas. You don’t have to get permission to cut down a tree in your own yard like you do in California.
Lol, wtf are you talking about. A huge number of municipalities have laws around business regulations and around cutting trees. In addition most new houses in Texas are built in HOA's that have a significant number of rules.
>There is a very good reason most tech companies in California are incorporated in Deleware.
Taxes and well defined legal law that doesn't change on how a random judge feels on a particular day, and law that is tilted toward business needs.
> A huge number of municipalities have laws around business regulations and around cutting trees
> In addition most new houses in Texas are built in HOA's that have a significant number of rules.
Both exist in California on top of California regulations.
What you don’t have in Texas is all the red tape that is required to build, live in, or rent a house. Not do you have the excessive regulatory apparatus that California has for businesses - whether to hire, fire, or retain talent.
> It's leaving the state that said state is looking at punishing you for.
Which is done to good people via abuse of California red flag laws. It used to be done via extraterritorial taxation.
It wouldn't be healthy to have a large potential enemy next door with a chunk of resources that used to accrue to our benefit nor to abandon the 45-47% whose wishes are in accord with the majority of the nation we all live in but who aren't in line with the majority of the state.
Furthermore demographic changes suggest that the majority will be in some decades in accord with the rest of us if we don't blink now.
More importantly it would create a legal precedent that if allowed would fracture the US utterly diminishing our global power and likely leading to long term conflict which we may lose.
Anyone want to see civil war v2 with the new Confederacy aligned with China and Russia?
Conflict with China and Russia seems increasingly likely already in the long run and as China's star rises they have less reason for restaint.
Traditionally the rising star wars with the existing powers when supremacy is in doubt and that would very much be the case if we split in 2 or 3 and allegiance to eachother were in doubt.
There is every reason to believe that the US will defeat the fascist threat presented by Trump and come through it whole. If we allow seccession we will instead likely see the US split into the US and Trumpistan with TX only the first domino to fall. Doubtless other red states would follow probably into a loose confederation of states itself in danger of splintering further.
The best case would be ending up the EU with major economic ties preventing conflict between China and Russias aspirations crushed in Ukraine.
This is however a massive dice roll with no guarantee that it goes so well especially for women, liberals, and minorities in the red states.
I'm sorry, this guy's done enough damage by acting irresponsibly and now he's blaming his actions on mushroom use - potentially undoing all of the progress made in recent years towards reducing the stigma for people who use mushrooms responsibly.
It's a very unfortunate situation accross the board, but somehow, this person is making it worse. Back into the closet... again.
reply