[Herra Tohtori]

I believe I have already worked out a way to significantly improve reaction time. Total Liquid Ventilation. I have read from some sources that TLV delivers more oxygen and is more efficient at removing CO2 than gas breathing. I would assume that more oxygen to the brain = better information processing = faster thinking & better reaction time.

You would assume wrong.

Gas exchange in the lungs is just one part of the respiration. The oxygen needs to be carried around the body via blood, bound to hemoglobin molecules (which also transport carbon dioxide back to lungs). The amount of oxygen that the blood can absorb per unit of volume is therefore dependant on the amount of hemoglobin molecules in it. You can't increase that by increasing the oxygen partial pressure in the lungs.

Furthermore, oxygen saturation below 90% in normal humans results in hypoxemia, and healthy individuals at sea level usually exhibit oxygen saturation values between 96% and 99%. So, there's not much headroom there to increase the blood saturation in the first place. The brain gets all the oxygen it needs in normally operating human being at sea level, and you can't simply increase the amount of oxygen in the blood unless you increase the amount of hemoglobin in the blood.

Which is done regularly among high endurance athletes, who spend time in hypobaric conditions acclimatizing their bodies to lower partial pressure of oxygen. The body responds by producing more red blood cells and thus more hemoglobin, which increases the total respiration capacity by increasing the amount of gases that the blood flow can transport.

This, however, does nothing for reaction times and has a much bigger effect on the physical capacity of an individual in aerobic exercise - this is of supreme usefulness for long distance endurance athletes, to an extent that sports organizations have set upper limits for allowed hemoglobin concentrations on the athletes' blood.


Secondly, your assumption that high oxygen levels would lead to higher reaction times. This is untrue. Dangerously low oxygen partial pressure can result in hypoxia, and dangerously high carbon dioxide levels can result in hypoxemia. The difference between these two is that hypoxia happens when there's simply not enough oxygen, while hypoxemia occurs when the hemoglobin oxygen saturation is reduced below 90% by other molecules taking room from oxygen in the hemoglobin molecules; CO₂ can be responsible for this in high concentrations, but CO (carbon monoxide) is much more dangerous because it binds to hemoglobin stronger than either CO₂ or O₂, and therefore even low concentrations of carbon monoxide can be harmful or deadly.

Both conditions result in oxygen deprivation of tissues, and this can cause dizzyness, fatigue, lethargy, lack of concentration, confusion, slowed down reactions, loss of consciousness, brain damage, or death.


Just because oxygen deprivation results in increased reaction times, increased oxygen saturation won't result in reduction of reaction times. Brain doesn't quite work that way.

Pure oxygen treatment can, however, be used to treat various types of conditions such as mitigating hearing damage. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy is more effective still.

[Jeff Vader]

lulz

[FlamingCobra]

Since when does oxygen deprivation increase your reaction time? That sounds self-contradictory to me.

[Herra Tohtori]

Since when does oxygen deprivation increase your reaction time? That sounds self-contradictory to me.

 

Think through of what you just said.

[FlamingCobra]

You know what I meant! 

[Herra Tohtori]

Increased reaction time = slowed down reactions.

Decreased reaction time = faster reactions.



I don't know what you meant, but I know exactly what I meant.

[FlamingCobra]

OH OH OH!!!!!!!!! Oh. I misread what you said.

oxygen deprivation INCREASES reaction time. Ok. I gotcha. That makes perfect sense. Must've read too fast.


Well, that pretty much throws all of my ideas out the window.

The only thing left then is... if only there were some kind of material that is stretchier, rubberier, and somewhat thicker than latex, yet as strong as or stronger than body armor.

[Herra Tohtori]

What the heck kind of use would that material to be as body armour?

If it's stretchier than latex, the bullet will just push it into the underlying tissue, and it doesn't really make difference whether there's a hole in the material or not - it'll still make pretty much the same wound, except the bullet will stretch the material through the wound canal and probably cause MORE DAMAGE.

What you want from body armour is that bullets can't penetrate it, cause minimal deformation, and distribute the shock of the impact to a wide area - which means the material must have certain amount of rigidity.


It's the same thing as if you were comparing a bicycle helmet and woollen knit hat in durability. Drop both from a tall building - styrofoam bicycle helmet will likely shatter, while the knit hat will just deform.

Yet, the helmet will be the one that can provide any sort of protection to wearer's head precisely because it doesn't deform as easily as the hat.

[Ghostavo]

Fluids could work as body armor.

[Herra Tohtori]

Yeah, non-newtonian fluids could work for that due to their variable properties.


For a single phase material, the requirements of stretchier than latex, yet more durable than body armour would be paradoxal. For a material capable of changing its properties in high energy impact situation, not so much.

Problem would be containing the fluid and maintaining the suit so that perforation on the outer surface won't result in diminished effectiveness.

[Ghostavo]

Is there any shear thinning fluid that is solid in normal pressure situations? Seems the ideal thing to contain the dilatant.

[FlamingCobra]

Ok. Here's a good question: Why are we no longer domesticating animals and plants for new food sources?

[Polpolion]

because all of the good ones are already domesticated?

[NGTM-1R]

Ok. Here's a good question: Why are we no longer domesticating animals and plants for new food sources?

We've filled all the useful slots in the hierarchy of domestication.

[FlamingCobra]

Not really because some plants tend to grow better in some climates than others. And we don't know just how many different plants exist out there. Just because we've already got something that works doesn't mean we can't stop trying or looking for others. Different tastes aren't a bad thing and some may have different or better nutritional qualities.

[FlamingCobra]

Double Posting!

People have been backing up their computers for years, so I'm supposing the only reason Carbonite exists is
1. Profit
2. For stupid people who don't know how to backup their computers, and
3. To help the government spy on you (more)

[Black Wolf]

We are still domesticating stuff. There're big projects to increase the viability of Quandong orchards, and the first big macadamia orchards only started in the 1920s. Plus I've seen multiple proposals to start making pets out of Chuditchs and Quolls, to improve their numbers and decrease cat populations. I'm sure similar things are happening in other countries.

[FireSpawn]

Here's a question that holds great relevance: Who is your favorite "evil" AI and why?

[Polpolion]

Here's a question that holds great relevance: Who is your favorite "evil" AI and why?

The answer is SHODAN. Period.

[Angelus]

Here's a question that holds great relevance: Who is your favorite "evil" AI and why?

1. Cylons
    sexy genocidal machines

2. Omnius
    frak Skynet, this one is evul