Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

moolfle

moolfle Avatar Level 134 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Offline
Send mail to moolfle Block moolfle Invite moolfle to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:9/05/2011
Last Login:12/25/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 1504 total,  1655 ,  151
Comment Thumbs: 342 total,  472 ,  130
Content Level Progress: 3% (3/100)
Level 115 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 116 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 134 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 135 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Subscribers:0
Content Views:57372
Times Content Favorited:63 times
Total Comments Made:156
FJ Points:1845

latest user's comments

#94 - I was very young for this one so details are lacking … 04/26/2014 on salami +3
#123972 - Yeah, I'm currently using cetraben as a moisturiser and betnov… 03/25/2014 on Advice - love advice,... 0
#123967 - This is a little different, but I have really bad eczema, have…  [+] (4 new replies) 03/25/2014 on Advice - love advice,... 0
#124012 - anonymous (03/26/2014) [-]
I get eczema all over me, had it since I was little. I use this stuff called 'Oilatum' and it works wonders, not so much for clearing it up, but it definitely soothes it and doesn't feel as itchy.

Don't use fragranced shower gels or harsh deodorants. Wear loose clothing, and don't scratch, if it becomes unbearable rub the area so you don't break the skin further.
User avatar #124010 - elitefourcaitlin (03/25/2014) [-]
Ive got some form of that i guess, little skin colored bumps on my face and arms.

I havent found a way to get rid of them fully yet either, but I use sensitive skin non scented body wash. I also started using vitamin E oil on my skin which has also helped a bit as long as you use it everyday
#123968 - anonymous (03/25/2014) [-]
Hydrocortisone, Betnovate, Fucidin, Fucibet They've all helped me, best of luck.

Hydrocortisone is the mildest but over the counter stuff, depends what you mean by "really bad eczema".
User avatar #123972 - moolfle (03/25/2014) [-]
Yeah, I'm currently using cetraben as a moisturiser and betnovate and betnovate RD as my steroid creams to try control it but they aint working, I've never had fucidin or fucibet, are they stronger or what?
#17 - It took me too long to realise there isn't a cat on her head too 03/24/2014 on kitty ain't jumping 0
#1330 - Me on charity day at college, may be a bit small and blurred b… 03/18/2014 on Are you sexy as fuck? 0
#1114 - Thanks, this may sound really dumb but how exactly does the th…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/15/2014 on /science/ board 0
#1123 - xsnowshark (03/15/2014) [-]
Thrust is just a name for the force that is produced by a rocket or jet/propeller engine. It allows a plane to fly by accelerating the plane forward, thereby pushing air over the planes wings. The wings allow a plane to fly by creating a difference in pressure from the bottom (high pressure) to the top (low pressure). This is what creates the lift that allows a plane to take off from the ground. The faster a plane travels (i.e. more thrust = faster speeds) the faster the air flows over the wing which allows it to go higher and higher (because a larger lift force is being generated).

You can actually see the difference in pressure when looking at something called wingtip vortices (pic attached). Those vortex's are formed from the high pressure spilling over the tip of the wing to the top low pressure side. They are essentially mini tornadoes.
#1124 - xsnowshark (03/15/2014) [-]
That's why planes have these things on the wing tips. They are called winglets, and the reduce the size of the vortexes, which reduces the drag the vortexes can create.

This means that you need less thrust to fly, and your plane is more efficient.

The yellow winglet in the background is a newer design, its a scimitar winglet.
#1102 - Okay, I don't know much (anything) about engines and what not,…  [+] (4 new replies) 03/14/2014 on /science/ board 0
User avatar #1113 - xsnowshark (03/15/2014) [-]
As far as rocket engines go, there are solid and liquid fuels that you can use to produce thrust. Solid rockets are also called SRB's and are very simple. You basically put a bunch of stabilized fuel in a container with a convergent/divergent nozzle at the bottom and let them rip.

Liquid fuel engines are more complex. The use two different cryogenic fuels, such as RP-1, liquid hydrogen, etc, and pair it with an oxidizer such as liquid oxygen. In the case of the space shuttles engines, they burned a combination of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen (the exhaust, for the most part, is just water!) because in space you need something to oxidize the fuel (no air in space).

Air breathing would be like a turbojet engine, something that takes in air, compresses it, mixes it with fuel, and then combusts it to create thrust. So in this case, you are taking in air (your oxidizer) from the atmosphere instead of liquid oxygen from a storage container.

It takes a large amount of fuel to get something moving that fast though. The reason that you would want to go that fast is mainly for research. The X-15 was a treasure trove of data that we use even now. Everything from heat resistant materials to hypersonic flight controls.

I'll try to get some better numbers on the fuel consumption/energy requirements for you, though.
User avatar #1114 - moolfle (03/15/2014) [-]
Thanks, this may sound really dumb but how exactly does the thrust engines, or any engines for that matter but mainly thrust ones, on planes allow them to fly?
#1123 - xsnowshark (03/15/2014) [-]
Thrust is just a name for the force that is produced by a rocket or jet/propeller engine. It allows a plane to fly by accelerating the plane forward, thereby pushing air over the planes wings. The wings allow a plane to fly by creating a difference in pressure from the bottom (high pressure) to the top (low pressure). This is what creates the lift that allows a plane to take off from the ground. The faster a plane travels (i.e. more thrust = faster speeds) the faster the air flows over the wing which allows it to go higher and higher (because a larger lift force is being generated).

You can actually see the difference in pressure when looking at something called wingtip vortices (pic attached). Those vortex's are formed from the high pressure spilling over the tip of the wing to the top low pressure side. They are essentially mini tornadoes.
#1124 - xsnowshark (03/15/2014) [-]
That's why planes have these things on the wing tips. They are called winglets, and the reduce the size of the vortexes, which reduces the drag the vortexes can create.

This means that you need less thrust to fly, and your plane is more efficient.

The yellow winglet in the background is a newer design, its a scimitar winglet.
#1092 - What is a rocket plane?  [+] (6 new replies) 03/13/2014 on /science/ board 0
User avatar #1100 - xsnowshark (03/14/2014) [-]
The best example of a rocket plane would have to be the North American X-15 (one of my favorite planes). A rocket plane is simply a plane that is powered by a liquid fuel rocket engine. The reason that such a plane was made was so that we could achieve hypersonic flight (~mach 5+).

Another way to go hypersonic speeds would be to use a SCRAMjet engine, but they work on supersonic combustion. This is very tricky, which is why there is no way of getting up to that speed with an air-breathing engine (that we know of). The best analogy I have heard was that supersonic combustion is like trying to keep a match lit in a hurricane.

Because of this issue, engineers built a plane around the most powerful, non-air-breathing engines that they could think of, a rocket engine.

Here's a link to the X-15, it's really interesting:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15
User avatar #1102 - moolfle (03/14/2014) [-]
Okay, I don't know much (anything) about engines and what not, what's the difference between a liquid rocket fuel engine and an air breathing? Also, how much energy and fuel does it take to get to those speeds/what's the point in it?
User avatar #1113 - xsnowshark (03/15/2014) [-]
As far as rocket engines go, there are solid and liquid fuels that you can use to produce thrust. Solid rockets are also called SRB's and are very simple. You basically put a bunch of stabilized fuel in a container with a convergent/divergent nozzle at the bottom and let them rip.

Liquid fuel engines are more complex. The use two different cryogenic fuels, such as RP-1, liquid hydrogen, etc, and pair it with an oxidizer such as liquid oxygen. In the case of the space shuttles engines, they burned a combination of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen (the exhaust, for the most part, is just water!) because in space you need something to oxidize the fuel (no air in space).

Air breathing would be like a turbojet engine, something that takes in air, compresses it, mixes it with fuel, and then combusts it to create thrust. So in this case, you are taking in air (your oxidizer) from the atmosphere instead of liquid oxygen from a storage container.

It takes a large amount of fuel to get something moving that fast though. The reason that you would want to go that fast is mainly for research. The X-15 was a treasure trove of data that we use even now. Everything from heat resistant materials to hypersonic flight controls.

I'll try to get some better numbers on the fuel consumption/energy requirements for you, though.
User avatar #1114 - moolfle (03/15/2014) [-]
Thanks, this may sound really dumb but how exactly does the thrust engines, or any engines for that matter but mainly thrust ones, on planes allow them to fly?
#1123 - xsnowshark (03/15/2014) [-]
Thrust is just a name for the force that is produced by a rocket or jet/propeller engine. It allows a plane to fly by accelerating the plane forward, thereby pushing air over the planes wings. The wings allow a plane to fly by creating a difference in pressure from the bottom (high pressure) to the top (low pressure). This is what creates the lift that allows a plane to take off from the ground. The faster a plane travels (i.e. more thrust = faster speeds) the faster the air flows over the wing which allows it to go higher and higher (because a larger lift force is being generated).

You can actually see the difference in pressure when looking at something called wingtip vortices (pic attached). Those vortex's are formed from the high pressure spilling over the tip of the wing to the top low pressure side. They are essentially mini tornadoes.
#1124 - xsnowshark (03/15/2014) [-]
That's why planes have these things on the wing tips. They are called winglets, and the reduce the size of the vortexes, which reduces the drag the vortexes can create.

This means that you need less thrust to fly, and your plane is more efficient.

The yellow winglet in the background is a newer design, its a scimitar winglet.
#977 - Okay I think I understand what you mean but judging from what … 03/05/2014 on /science/ board 0
#970 - Ahh okay, well I hope everything goes okay with your degree an…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/05/2014 on /science/ board 0
User avatar #971 - martycamp (03/05/2014) [-]
Thanks man
#968 - That's cleared a lot up, thanks. I always feel like the intere…  [+] (3 new replies) 03/05/2014 on /science/ board 0
User avatar #969 - martycamp (03/05/2014) [-]
University of Glasgow
User avatar #970 - moolfle (03/05/2014) [-]
Ahh okay, well I hope everything goes okay with your degree and what not
User avatar #971 - martycamp (03/05/2014) [-]
Thanks man
#964 - That makes more sense, thanks. Also, is cancer as simple as a …  [+] (7 new replies) 03/05/2014 on /science/ board 0
#967 - martycamp has deleted their comment.
User avatar #965 - martycamp (03/05/2014) [-]
Trust me, there's nothing simple about cancer. You're right in saying that p53 is involved - almost all cancers have p53 mutated, and I'll come back to that in a bit - but cancers have to have a ridiculous number of mutations in order for it to work. And to add to the complexity, different cancers have (some) different mutations. I don't know if you've heard of BRCA1, but that's a major gene in breast cancers.

Ok, so. Cancer is a disease of the cell cycle. The cell cycle is very tightly controlled. Our cells don't need to divide all the time, so our cells need to be able to know when it's appropriate to divide. And if you know about the cell cycle, you'll know about the different stages. Interphase is the important bit when it comes to cancer, because that's where all the checkpoints are. Interphase is split into, G1 (G for Growth), S (synthesis) and G2 (growth 2). After each of these stages, the cell asks "can I move on to the next stage?" G1 checkpoint basically says "Am I big enough?" S phase is where DNA is replicated, and the S checkpoint asks "did I make any mistakes when I replicated the DNA?" and the G2 checkpoint is "is it still ok to divide?" If these checkpoints aren't there, that's what causes uncontrolled cell growth. But that's only ONE aspect of cancer. The cells also need to activate otherwise inactive sections of DNA - they need to produce their own growth signal, so they keep growing. Healthy cells stop replicating when they bump into other cells - cancer cells lose this self-control, and actively invade other tissues. They also need to be able to trigger angiogenesis - make blood vessels grow towards them. They do this by releasing a growth factor that tricks the body into thinking it should grow a capillary there (cancer cells have a massive oxygen demand. The inside of tumours always have necrosis - dead cells that starved from lack of oxygen).

Continued below (running out of characters )
User avatar #966 - martycamp (03/05/2014) [-]
Cancer cells also need to be able to spread around the body, so they have to "let go" - they lose their ability to adhere to other cells. They also need to be able to survive the shear forces of the blood while they're spreading - lung cells, for example, aren't designed to survive circulating in blood, and cancer cells need to gain this ability. And then, while they're circulating, they need to regain the ability to stick to other cells. Then, when they're at a new location, they do the same thing all over again. It's a continuous gain and loss of mutations. Something I forgot to mention was that they need to lose the signal for apoptosis, which is programmed cell death (or cell suicide). Normally, if cells are dodgy, the kill themselves. Cancers don't. So yes, it's more complicated than just p53 .

As for cancer cells dividing faster than healthy cells, that's a common misconception. They go through the cell cycle at the same speed as other cells. It's just that they're doing it constantly. They don't have the checkpoints to tell them to stop. If you look at cancer cells down a microscope, they're weird shapes and sizes, and that's due to not having the G1 checkpoint. But basically, cancers are considered fast growing because they're always dividing.
User avatar #968 - moolfle (03/05/2014) [-]
That's cleared a lot up, thanks. I always feel like the interesting topics we do in biology are brushed over too quickly and lightly and the boring stuff (imo) we spend too long on but I can never be bothered to go out of the way to find it out. Out of interest, where are you studying biology?
User avatar #969 - martycamp (03/05/2014) [-]
University of Glasgow
User avatar #970 - moolfle (03/05/2014) [-]
Ahh okay, well I hope everything goes okay with your degree and what not
User avatar #971 - martycamp (03/05/2014) [-]
Thanks man
#45 - I know you're probably gonna get this a lot, but I think the s… 03/05/2014 on Test out beta.funnyjunk.com... 0
#959 - How do genes get 'switched on' or 'off'? I'm doing A-level bio…  [+] (9 new replies) 03/05/2014 on /science/ board 0
User avatar #962 - martycamp (03/05/2014) [-]
To be honest, I only know the basics (they only taught the biochemists the nitty-gritty of it) but if I've picked up on it right main method is methylation.

Methylation, is where a methyl group is added to the cysteine and/or adenine bases. This stops gene expression by physically stopping proteins like transcription factors binding to the DNA. And conversely, it can allow other proteins to bind to the DNA, but these proteins essentially wind the DNA up tightly to prevent the genes in that stretch from being expressed.
User avatar #964 - moolfle (03/05/2014) [-]
That makes more sense, thanks. Also, is cancer as simple as a mutation that stops p53 (or something) so the cell can't check for faults and it just divides a lot? And why do cancers divide faster than healthy cells?
#967 - martycamp has deleted their comment.
User avatar #965 - martycamp (03/05/2014) [-]
Trust me, there's nothing simple about cancer. You're right in saying that p53 is involved - almost all cancers have p53 mutated, and I'll come back to that in a bit - but cancers have to have a ridiculous number of mutations in order for it to work. And to add to the complexity, different cancers have (some) different mutations. I don't know if you've heard of BRCA1, but that's a major gene in breast cancers.

Ok, so. Cancer is a disease of the cell cycle. The cell cycle is very tightly controlled. Our cells don't need to divide all the time, so our cells need to be able to know when it's appropriate to divide. And if you know about the cell cycle, you'll know about the different stages. Interphase is the important bit when it comes to cancer, because that's where all the checkpoints are. Interphase is split into, G1 (G for Growth), S (synthesis) and G2 (growth 2). After each of these stages, the cell asks "can I move on to the next stage?" G1 checkpoint basically says "Am I big enough?" S phase is where DNA is replicated, and the S checkpoint asks "did I make any mistakes when I replicated the DNA?" and the G2 checkpoint is "is it still ok to divide?" If these checkpoints aren't there, that's what causes uncontrolled cell growth. But that's only ONE aspect of cancer. The cells also need to activate otherwise inactive sections of DNA - they need to produce their own growth signal, so they keep growing. Healthy cells stop replicating when they bump into other cells - cancer cells lose this self-control, and actively invade other tissues. They also need to be able to trigger angiogenesis - make blood vessels grow towards them. They do this by releasing a growth factor that tricks the body into thinking it should grow a capillary there (cancer cells have a massive oxygen demand. The inside of tumours always have necrosis - dead cells that starved from lack of oxygen).

Continued below (running out of characters )
User avatar #966 - martycamp (03/05/2014) [-]
Cancer cells also need to be able to spread around the body, so they have to "let go" - they lose their ability to adhere to other cells. They also need to be able to survive the shear forces of the blood while they're spreading - lung cells, for example, aren't designed to survive circulating in blood, and cancer cells need to gain this ability. And then, while they're circulating, they need to regain the ability to stick to other cells. Then, when they're at a new location, they do the same thing all over again. It's a continuous gain and loss of mutations. Something I forgot to mention was that they need to lose the signal for apoptosis, which is programmed cell death (or cell suicide). Normally, if cells are dodgy, the kill themselves. Cancers don't. So yes, it's more complicated than just p53 .

As for cancer cells dividing faster than healthy cells, that's a common misconception. They go through the cell cycle at the same speed as other cells. It's just that they're doing it constantly. They don't have the checkpoints to tell them to stop. If you look at cancer cells down a microscope, they're weird shapes and sizes, and that's due to not having the G1 checkpoint. But basically, cancers are considered fast growing because they're always dividing.
User avatar #968 - moolfle (03/05/2014) [-]
That's cleared a lot up, thanks. I always feel like the interesting topics we do in biology are brushed over too quickly and lightly and the boring stuff (imo) we spend too long on but I can never be bothered to go out of the way to find it out. Out of interest, where are you studying biology?
User avatar #969 - martycamp (03/05/2014) [-]
University of Glasgow
User avatar #970 - moolfle (03/05/2014) [-]
Ahh okay, well I hope everything goes okay with your degree and what not
User avatar #971 - martycamp (03/05/2014) [-]
Thanks man
#948 - That's what I want to do in the future, medical advancements a… 03/05/2014 on /science/ board 0
#942 - Yeah I figured it'd be something like that, I want to go into …  [+] (1 new reply) 03/05/2014 on /science/ board 0
User avatar #946 - rplix (03/05/2014) [-]
Biochemical then.
#941 - So your saying chemical engineering is less chemistry and more…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/05/2014 on /science/ board 0
User avatar #974 - subtard (03/05/2014) [-]
It's not usually analyzing chemical reactions. More just physical properties. Like rate of heat exchange or fluid flow.
The only thing chemistry based was you needed to remember how to calculate the product and reactant concentrations in an equilibrium given a reaction constant.
User avatar #977 - moolfle (03/05/2014) [-]
Okay I think I understand what you mean but judging from what others have said I think biochemistry is more suited for me. Thanks though
#940 - Yeah I really like physics and maths, but I am a lot better at… 03/05/2014 on /science/ board 0
#930 - I feel like I want to go into either Chemistry, Chemical Engin…  [+] (11 new replies) 03/04/2014 on /science/ board 0
User avatar #944 - djequalizee (03/05/2014) [-]
If i had to recommend one of those i'd tell you to do Biochemical. Biochemical Engineering is kind of on the rise with medicinal advancements and stuff.
User avatar #948 - moolfle (03/05/2014) [-]
That's what I want to do in the future, medical advancements and stuff I just wasn't sure which would be best for it as I couldn't find anywhere that told me it, thanks
User avatar #933 - xsnowshark (03/05/2014) [-]
Aerospace major here. I know a few people in BME and ChemE and can tell you that you better like math and physics, like a lot, haha.

Depending on what school you go too, they will make you take intro courses that should cover your interests and you will be able to make a good decision then.
User avatar #940 - moolfle (03/05/2014) [-]
Yeah I really like physics and maths, but I am a lot better at Chemistry. My college (UK) doesn't do any intro things, you have to apply to ones around the country and hope you get in which I didn't, unfortunately
User avatar #932 - subtard (03/05/2014) [-]
I was a chemistry major my freshman year, switched into chemical engineer for sophomore year. I thought chemical engineering would be chemistry + math. But it really doesn't include a lot of chem. It's a lot of flow analysis. Like heat diffusion or fluid flow calculations through pipes. And it all includes varying amounts of calculus.
User avatar #941 - moolfle (03/05/2014) [-]
So your saying chemical engineering is less chemistry and more analysing the reactions and what not, but using maths to do it?
User avatar #974 - subtard (03/05/2014) [-]
It's not usually analyzing chemical reactions. More just physical properties. Like rate of heat exchange or fluid flow.
The only thing chemistry based was you needed to remember how to calculate the product and reactant concentrations in an equilibrium given a reaction constant.
User avatar #977 - moolfle (03/05/2014) [-]
Okay I think I understand what you mean but judging from what others have said I think biochemistry is more suited for me. Thanks though
User avatar #931 - rplix (03/04/2014) [-]
Chemical and Biochemical Engineering is pretty much the same thing, just Biochemical has more of an emphasis on biology and organics.

My brother studied Biochemistry in college and now works for a pharmaceutical company.
User avatar #942 - moolfle (03/05/2014) [-]
Yeah I figured it'd be something like that, I want to go into research and making medicines and what not but I don't know what would be best for going into that
User avatar #946 - rplix (03/05/2014) [-]
Biochemical then.
#35 - I remember I once got told that 'the government is meant to ru…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/02/2014 on Everything is Illegal +1
#74 - unholyurges (03/02/2014) [-]
FUCKING
RIGHT
THANK YOU

"We the people" is such shit
#2487 - **moolfle rolls 62,885** 01/08/2014 on Fantasy Character Creator 0
#212 - **** Last Stand of Dead Men made me cry a little … 11/13/2013 on The Inheritance Cycle in a... +1
#97 - I actually enjoy a good book every now and again 10/07/2013 on Oh god it's true 0
#6 - I love how under 'Is ham tasty?' it says 'Hellz Yeah' 09/20/2013 on Science Fair Compilation +1
#45 - nor do i, i just dont get the ridiculous amount of hate he gets  [+] (1 new reply) 09/15/2013 on A few reasons Bieber should... 0
#46 - sexyhimself (09/15/2013) [-]
I don't know what to asnwer so I'll just leave this here
[ 156 Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 850

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - evilhomer ONLINE (06/22/2014) [-]
 Friends (0)