Yeah you got taken by the clickbait headline just like me

What about the past 250,000 years of lost music?

Total amount of heat for the entire closed system does not increase over 100% of energy used to drive the heat pump. Like you said, you just moved heat around

Wow that’s terrible design

You’re learning all the right lessons! 👍

But can I play Protoss?

Amen

Right, but this article is about the 11 year sunspot cycle, which is observed directly by viewing… sunspots. So not sure what your point is here.

That’s a neat idea

Amazing

🔥

Also since wood is made of atoms and you are also made of atoms, you are basically wood

I mean, yeah, but isn’t it carbon neutral? The coffee comes from the earth, returns to the earth. And couldn’t coffee also be used for biogas?

Yes you’re right, the overall process of a plant growing and then the plant dying and breaking down is carbon neutral. Sequestering the carbon would interrupt this process and make it carbon negative. This is generally speaking a Good Thing since so many other processes are carbon positive.

There are currently many efforts around the world looking to ramp up biochar production and use in remediating agricultural soils. For example, in many places after harvest time, leftover wheat stalks are gathered up and burned to get rid of the waste. This creates a lot of smoke and air pollution. Some companies are instead picking up the waste, transforming them into biochar and then tilling it back into the soil. https://farmland.org/biochar/

A Spent Coffee Ground project could be analogous to this.

What further puzzles me is how they decided to use coffee. Surely there are many other waste products that have the required structure. Is coffee the first thing they tried?

Could probably also use other sources of biochar. Since you’re replacing sand, it may be an advantage that the coffee grounds are already ground up very finely. I’d imagine something like wheat stalks or corn cobs might be too large to replace sand and require further processing.

Hmm, I guess, sort of… The details in animal locomotion are really interesting and the gist of it is that there are different kinds of “swimming” and different kinds of “flying” and while some of these share similar mechanics, not all do.

As a quick example, there are some fish that power their swimming mostly with drag. With this kind of swimming they push their fins backwards on the power stroke, propelling themselves forwards by generating a lot of drag in the water. Then they need to retract their fins, and to minimize drag they might collapse the fin so it has a small area and produces less backwards thrust.

A duck’s foot works the same way. When pushing back the foot is splayed out, allowing the webbing to maximize drag. When retracting the foot it collapses down, to minimize drag. This kind of swimming is mechanically different from most forms of flying.

Contrast this with the fins of sharks that lay flat and have a single leading edge that cuts through the water. These fins work by creating lift and don’t get pushed and pulled through the water. This is also how penguin wings work and why it’s often said they “fly” through the water. So this kind of swimming is very much like flying.

In the air, wings generally need to generate lift to keep the animal airborne, while this isn’t strictly necessary under water. Also water is very dense, so many animals generate a good deal of thrust by undulating their bodies and rear fins. This isn’t generally very effective in air.

Here’s a good Wikipedia article about this kind of stuff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_locomotion