its-a-throw-away_

its-a-throw-away_ t1_jeb5m89 wrote

The old fire triangle was changed to the fire "tetrahedron" which includes "chemical reaction" after chemical extinguishants were developed that solely disrupt the ability for oxygen and fuel to combine quickly enough to sustain fire. These extinguishants do not displace oxygen or fuel, or absorb heat, but inhibit the reaction itself as a catalyst's functional opposite.

1

its-a-throw-away_ t1_jealsuz wrote

Your question is painfully ethnocentric, as I will illustrate:

Let's reverse your question. I presume the country in which you reside does not receive "foreign aid." If so, why then is famine not rampant where you live?

Whatever conditions prevent famine in your country (fertile land, water and irrigation, reliable and efficient transport infrastructure, political stability, etc.) do not exist where famine prevails, regardless of the measure of foreign aid provided.

1

its-a-throw-away_ t1_je8oogf wrote

This is untrue. During a coordinated turn, all forces balance such that apparent force of gravity acts straight down as seen from inside an airplane with no windows. The rolling motion that sets the bank angle needed to turn can be felt. But once established in the turn, without windows or instruments, it is impossible to deduce that the airplane is turning in a particular direction.

While sitting in your seat during a turn, if you threw a ball straight up, It would come straight down again. The only discernable change is the apparent strength of gravity.

Here is a great demonstration of the primciple. The pilot performs a barrel roll, which is like a turn, except roll continuously increases in a particular direction until the airplane is upright again. Again, like a turn, once the forces needed to establish the barrel roll are complete, apparent gravity acts vertically through the airplane, pulling the water into the cup.

−1

its-a-throw-away_ t1_jaf3amh wrote

By adding constraints such as human lifespan, you change the calculation from an infinite set to a bounded set, which means you are now working with a different problem.

Given a non-zero event probability, as the set size approaches infinity the probability of a single occurrence within the set approaches 1.

Measuring the probability that an event will occur in a single test is different than measuring the probability that an event will occur in a set of tests. Even though the latter depends on the former, you're measuring separate probabilities because the former does not depend on the number of tests performed.

9

its-a-throw-away_ t1_jaf2gun wrote

An event with only a 1 percent chance of occurring is not guaranteed to eventually occur. But empirically, an event with a 1 percent probability will occur an average of approximately 1 time in every 100 tests.

So if you run 1000 tests, empirically, we would expect to see 10 occurrences. Experimentally, this turns out to be the case. Even though results for each set may vary above and below what the probability predicts should occur, as the number of sets increases, the average of all the sets converges on the probability.

2

its-a-throw-away_ t1_ja82xty wrote

Coin toss is an easier example. The coin always has a 50 percent probability that it will land heads or tails on any individual toss.

But when you observe how often a coin will land heads N number of times in a row, we see that as N increases, the probability of success decreases. This is because as you toss coins, each toss brings with it the collective probabilities from all previous tosses.

So while each toss always has a fifty/fifty chance of landing heads, trying to predict how often a particular number of heads in a row will occur depends on how many coins you intend to toss, and the probability that each toss will land on a particular side.

8

its-a-throw-away_ t1_j9z0h9f wrote

Wicked flame sources such as candles depend on convection to operate. Once lit, gasses in the candle's flame rise and cooler oxygenated air rushes in from the sides and below to replace it. As this new air approaches the flame it rapidly heats up, reacts with the fuel in the wick, ignites and rises, continuing the cycle. This is why the flame's colour transitions from blue (initial ignition) through orange and finally yellow (where the last of the evaporated fuel is consumed). This is also why a candle flame extends up from the wick.

Rapid air movement from blowing or clapping drastically increases the amount of air flowing past the wick, which elongates the flame and lowers the concentration of heat around the wick. Less heat near the wick reduces the rate at which its fuel vapourizes, which makes less of it available to react with the air.

The air itself absorbs heat. Slow moving air absorbs more heat per unit volume, so it more readily reaches the fuel's ignition temperature and sustains the reaction. Faster moving air absorbs less heat per unit volume, making ignition more difficult.

This is a long-winded way of explaining how blowing or clapping your hands cools the area around the wick to the point that ignition ceases.

A slight increase in airflow velocity beyond what simple convection produces actually improves ignition by making more oxygen available at the point of ignition. This is why blowing on a fire causes the embers to glow brighter and increase in temperature. But there's a tipping point beyond which the heat drawn away from the seat of the flame overcomes the more efficient ignition due to extra oxygen from the additional airflow.

1

its-a-throw-away_ t1_j9usfhu wrote

It's founded on trust. A journalist takes care to report with integrity. So when they receive important information from someone who requests anonymity, a good journalist works to corroborate this information with other facts. Background will only speak to a journalist who they trust will honour their desire for anonymity. Good editors will only publish a story that cites background sources if they trust that the journalist did the work to verify that the facts are at least plausible.

1