It’s more the seal I’m thinking of… like, if it starts to bow out, then it starts getting either squeezed through the hole or something.

The concept is simple.

Person 1 marks the test samples in some random order, recording the markings.

Person 1 leaves the room

Person 2 takes the samples and gives them to the test subjects, recording which goes to whom.

After the results are logged and maybe even analyzed, the information from person 1 is used to "decode" which sample went to whom.

No other creature in the fossil record or recorded alive at any point in time can throw like a human and fashion tools to throw like a human with that curved and fragile radius and fragile shoulder held together by ligaments and tendons. It's not just the standing and the walking, the back pain, and the twisting foetus for birthing - the tool use outweighed the disadvantages. Cave guys standing up and bumping in to the stone shelf to grab the good cave drawing soot cursed but kept the verticality.

[removed]

[removed]

Has nothing to do with wear. Leaded fuel has a very high autoignition point that prevents knock. Modern fuel uses alcohol, but engines designed for alcohol free fuel are dangerously unreliable.

Modern computer controlled engines mange knock with alcohol added fuel, but when you're ten thousands feet in the air you don't want issues.

Man of these planes, much like commercial are over 50 years old. the Ethyl 85 can deteriorate their seals and cause serious midflight catastrophe.

Keep in mind when I was a kid every car around me ran on leaded fuel and burned a gallon of it every ten miles. It's not so much the presence of lead that's dangerous but the fact some people were bombarded with it for decades.

[removed]

[removed]

I'll correct the math tomorrow. Thanks for the heads up. The principle remains the same though.

Quite easy. Atmospheric pressure = 14psi (pounds per square inch) = 100000 Pascal = 10 Newtons / centimeter^2.

The total force acting over a dime-sized hole is about 10 Newtons or the equivalent weight of a ~2-pound object on earth. Paper or thin card might tear but a piece of strong multilayer corrugated cardboard should be fine. Might need to give it some help sealing (glue or something) too.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

So, do you know that the urea that it’s in like half of skin care products is?

How hard would it be to block, say, a dime sized hole, at least partially? Would something like a sheet of (coated) paper at least but you a few minutes?

It’s not always a placebo, either. It’s my understanding that in testing of things like pain killers the control is often something like a benzodiazepine just because the patient understands that they are likely to feel relaxed/sleepy and a true placebo would essentially unblind the study.

I guess your calculations comparing a dielectric capacitor to gasoline are wrong. What are the dimensions of the capacitor? You'll need an enormous capacitor to store significant energy.

Electrolytic capacitors are used where substantial amounts of energy need to be stored. They can tolerate only low voltages (~2.5 V).

usually one/two are in charge of anonymising the treatment. The fewer, the better to keep things clearer. They will track how they've anonymised it, store that information elsewhere, and then destroy evidence used during the process (like any quick notes made during).

Other researchers then perform the actual experiment/trial and track the anonymised notation (symbols/letters/numbers) with the experimental info.

You have to remember, the anonymisation is only being performed at the behest of THE RESEARCHERS. THEY (or bodies related to the researchers) want to know that A works and B does not, because every dead end cut off early is money saved. They're not going to circumvent their own process for... no apparent gain (unless they are a biotech startup with unrealistic goals in Silicon Valley happy to fake real patient data, I guess... thats another story).

That said... sometimes the immediate observable results kind of give away which treatment might be which, so its not always avoidable.

I also heard that standing on two legs allows us to support a heavier head (and thus a bigger brain) which enable us to become smarter than other animals.

Are they non-corresponding in the sense that they are the same retina (the twin retina for the other eye) just getting different input, or are they non-corresponding because they are not twin retinas? As per the basis for stereopsis^

In other words:

Do twin retinas converge on the same binocular neuron that allows for stereopsis, they are just sending different signals? Or do those neurons get input from two slightly different positioned retinas and that is the reason they get a different signal?

Ultimately, once all processing is finished, the end result that comes out of the speaker can be thought of as a single sound wave. During the mixing process, all the individual waves from all the different instruments are compiled together into effectively a single, complex waveform.

There's more to it, of course - most speakers have more than one speaker element (one for highs, one for lows, or more) and then you are of course dealing with multiple sound sources all coming together at the point where your ears are. And your ears only have one membrane (the timpanic membrane) that oscillates back and forth, so again this feed to your brain and nerves can be considered a single "source".

Ultimately, the amount of detail you can perceive depends on the relative loudness and position of different external sources, and the quality of the audio mix.

[removed]

[removed]

This is not correct because a decibel scale is not linear. 1000 1db sounds would be 31db, unless I am missing something.