As we have bikes and buses running on rechargeable large battery, can planes fly without fuel? Big planes like Boeing in future?

Induction cooker takes lots of time to cook compared to fuel. Will any alternative exist for cooking where one don't need to purchase fuel?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/apr/24/global-oil-crisis-changed-fossil-fuel-industry-for-ever-iea-chief-fatih-birol

https://www.ft.com/content/f3034a00-2ea3-4aa0-aab3-ba0d48af4048?syn-25a6b1a6=1 ~2026-30783-03 (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, not really. Small planes that use batteries can fly for an hour or so, but long range is unlikely if you want a decent payload. Greglocock (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

You mention bikes. The first aircraft was pedal-powered, built by two bicycle builders. It couldn't fly. They strapped a gas-powered engine to it just to get it to fly a short distance.

Then, you mention buses. Modern commercial aircraft is essentially a bus with wings. That is the point - get as many people from point A to point B as possible with the least amount of resources spent.

Flying without fuel implies you are referring to electric. All-electric vehicles use either a very long power cable or batteries (or both). It is not reasonable to run power lines through the sky for planes to slide on. Batteries are required. From this point, it all about the potential energy. Avoiding the physics notation, let's put it like this: If you had a milk jug full of fuel, you could take off in a small plane, circle, and land, and likely have some fuel left over. To do that with batteries, you would have nearly 100 pounds of batteries, basically a second passenger. For a commercial aircraft, the battery would take up the entire aircraft. There would be no room for passengers or baggage. Yes, batteries are getting smaller and lighter, but this isn't an issue of making them 10% better. We need to make then over 1,000% better. So, that isn't the plan.

The plan that is common is to switch fuels. For example, we could switch to hydrogen fuel. We could use nuclear fuel. It is possible that future aircraft will fly for hours on a pebble-sized fusion fusion fuel source. Or, we might have a massive leap in technology and suddenly people can just teleport anywhere they want to go. Of course, what fuels those teleporters? A Hemi V8? ~2026-16820-81 (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Aircraft can also be solar-powered, at least when the sun is out. cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 20:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Currently, solar-powered passenger planes cannot be put into commercial operation because the electricity generated by the solar panels is too little relative to their weight. In other words, the energy produced by the solar panels is less than the extra energy required to support their own weight. Stanleykswong (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

As several solar-powered aircraft exist, they can definitely support their own weight, but you're likely correct that it's insufficient for mass transit or freight. cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 19:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, passenger planes (commercial airliners with cruising speeds of 800 km/h or higher) and recreational aircraft (for one or two people to enjoy an aerial journey) are very different. Stanleykswong (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

There is the solar cooker. The fuel is billions of tons of hydrogen 93 million miles away, but there is no charge. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:23, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The first aircraft was pedal-powered, built by two bicycle builders. It couldn't fly. Where on earth did you get this nonsense from? At no point did the Wright brothers ever construct a pedal-powered aircraft. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

People would no doubt have figured out how to fly eventually even without the bicycle, but it was the bike that made it happen when it did and made America the birthplace of aviation. “The flying machine problem is liable to be solved by bicycle inventors,” wrote a Binghamton newspaper editor in 1896. Our article finds the Wright brothers already in 1901 pedalling an experimantal bicycle, not yet to fly, but to calibrate the lift of airfoils relative to a flat plate. The Wrights had had an insight that came straight from cycling. They understood that a plane didn’t need to be stable. “Our idea was to secure a machine which, with a little practice, could be balanced and steered semi-automatically, by reflex action, just as a bicycle is.” Wright brothers. Source: [1] eExcerpted with permission from The Mechanical Horse: How the Bicycle Reshaped American Life, by Margaret Guroff (University of Texas Press, 2016). ~2026-21660-55 (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that even without the bicycle, the Wrights would have figured out how to test aerofoils: they did after all later construct a wind tunnel. As for the insight regarding stability and control, it's open to question as to whether they actually went too far in the 'stability not needed' direction. Bear in mind that a conventional bicycle actually derives some stability from its geometry, it isn't entirely unstable. The Wrights were of course correct though in regard to learning to fly by 'reflex', hence the efforts they put in with gliders. Most of their contemporaries seemed to think such learning entirely unnecessary. Which on the whole it was, until the Wrights built something actually capable of sustained flight... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-30783-03 Wikipedia has many articles in Category:Electric_aircraft. They use energy from many conventional sources to generate the electricity to charge the batteries when on the ground. To take just one example, see Beta Technologies Alia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

There's a theoretical limit to the energy density of batteries. There's still room for improvement, but not enough for long range flight. Trains are usually electric, electric buses are common, although those on battery power do suffer from high mass, even electric boats exist, but electric aeroplanes for anything more than really short hops seem unlikely. For the record: my bike is still 100% muscle-powered.

And induction cooking works just fine, assuming your electric service connection was designed for it. Just as responsive and fast as natural gas and without the indoors NOx emission. I switched from natural gas to induction a few years ago; wouldn't want to go back. Other forms of electric cooking are worse though. PiusImpavidus (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

To add a formula (this is the science desk, after all), the range of a battery powered aeroplane is approximately

${\displaystyle R=e\cdot B\cdot \eta \cdot \rho _{L/D}/g}$

with ${\displaystyle R}$ the range, ${\displaystyle e}$ the specific energy of the batteries, ${\displaystyle B}$ the fraction of the aeroplane's loaded weight devoted to batteries, ${\displaystyle \eta }$ the efficiency of the propulsion system, ${\displaystyle \rho _{L/D}}$ the lift-to-drag ratio and ${\displaystyle g}$ the acceleration of gravity. You need some more energy to climb, but you get it back on descend. Current electric aeroplanes have a range of a few tens of kilometres. An airliner needs a range of around a thousand kilometres at least, so one has to gain about a factor of 30. ${\displaystyle e}$ can be improved, but not that much. ${\displaystyle B}$ and ${\displaystyle \eta }$ are already a significant fraction of 1 and can't be more than that. ${\displaystyle \rho _{L/D}}$ is about 16–20 for modern jet airliners and around 60 for gliders, so there's some room for improvement, but only if one accepts small aeroplanes with huge wingspan, cruising well below transonic speed. In other words, too short range for transoceanic flight and too slow to compete against land transport. There may be a role for electric aeroplanes in bush flying and island hopping.

Note that the size of the aeroplane doesn't show up in the formula, other than larger aeroplanes having a tendency to lower ${\displaystyle \rho _{L/D}}$. This is partly because they may have undersized wings to fit at the gates of an airport, partly because bigger aeroplanes need to go faster and their ${\displaystyle \rho _{L/D}}$ drops when going transonic. We could build an electric airliner the size of an A320 right now, but it would have a range less than 100 km, which it would cover in 15 minutes or so. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The Alia is designed to charge in under an hour, and carry five passengers or cargo for up to 250 nmi (460 km; 290 mi).[2][3] Not all useful aircraft have to have "a range of around a thousand kilometres at least". Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

You say "${\displaystyle e}$ can be improved, but not that much", but then I compare Lithium-ion battery (Specific energy up to 450 W⋅h/kg) to Lithium–air battery (Specific energy 11,140 W⋅h/kg theoretical). What's up with that?  Card Zero  (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

See Comparison of commercial battery types. Look at the energy density by mass. Our Lithium–air battery article doesn't list energy density by mass for the simple reason that they don't exist except as laboratory curiosities.

BTW, here is an electric aircraft that can stay in the air indefinitely without running out of juice: Petróczy-Kármán-Žurovec#PKZ-1 --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

But if this is about "a theoretical limit to the energy density of batteries", the theoretical room for improvement does appear to be enough for long range flight, using batteries that are full of implementation problems and therefore don't exist, but theoretically could.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Electric stoves and electric ovens are also a thing, and have been since before WWII, independent of induction cooking -- though a lot of cooks don't like the experience of electric cooktops all that much.

The issue with aircraft is that batteries are a lot heavier per unit of energy than carbon-based fuels. That extra weight causes them to need more energy to fly the same distance, which in turn means a bigger, heavier battery. It would take massive advances in battery technology to make them commercially viable. -- Avocado (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

What makes it even worse is that, in contrast to jet fuel, you still have to carry the batteries after they've been depleted. The raw materials are too valuable to just dump them – in addition to the safety and environmental concerns. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Makes me think of some sort of absurd scheme where warehouses are dotted all over the world and they attach the batteries to hang-glider drones that can guide them to warehouses when the flight path passes close enough for the drone to make it to the warehouse with a depleted battery. Wouldn't work so well for really long flights across the Pacific Ocean, unless you detoured close enough to those few scattered islands, though, I suppose. And then you'd need a whole supply chain to ship them back to the major airports. Fun to think about, though! -- Avocado (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Electricity can be transported using these amazing things called wires. Don't need a tanker or drones. NadVolum (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Of course. But heavy batteries can't be removed from a plane using wires when their electricity is used up the way that jet fuel no longer has to be carried once it's been burned. And if you're proposing we run transoceanic flights off electricity transmitted from ground-based power grids via wires... -- Avocado (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

"Hydrogen batteries" might be able to solve this problem. Stanleykswong (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, an aircraft only generates revenue for a company when it is in flight. Charging a large-capacity battery means an extremely long charging time, which will significantly reduce the utilization rate of the aircraft. Stanleykswong (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't know that I've ever even visited a house with a gas stove. Are electric ranges really that rare outside the US?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

In the UK it's split about evenly, with electric now being somewhaty more common for ovens and gas still slightly more common for hobs (stove tops); gas used to be more common overall, and older people tend to prefer it because they're so used to it, because it's a little quicker to adjust, and because the flame is actually visible so one can see the adjustment directly. Electric has the advantage of not in itself causing condensation, a significant consideration in colder, damper Britain where houses are often not well ventilated. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Electric is rare even in certain parts of the US, fwiw -- especially older cities that were plumbed for gas transmission for heating and light in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I've really only encountered electric in suburbs, though induction is gradually making inroads, especially with new regulations in some places forbidding the installation or replacement of gas stoves. -- Avocado (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The Netherlands are a small country sitting on one of the largest gas fields in the world. From the late 1960s until the early 21st century this field provided for almost all cooking and heating in Dutch households. With the uniform composition of the gas, all household burners could be factory tuned for the proper fuel-air ratio, making gas cooking even simpler. Gas piping was mandatory for all new housing. Electric hobs existed, but were pretty rare; electric ovens a bit more common. This changed recently; nowadays new housing is fully electric. It's safer (burns and gas explosions), healthier (NOx emission), reduces dependency on imported fuel (as the Groningen gas field is closed now) and reduces greenhouse gas emission. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

In fact, induction cooker usually cooks food faster than a gas stove because a well-designed induction cooker can transfer nearly 90% of the energy directly to the cookware, while a gas stove can generally only transfer one-third of the heat to the cookware. Stanleykswong (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Currently, and for the foreseeable future, battery power is highly impractical for long-haul commercial and large passenger flights. Unlike bicycles and buses, airplanes need to fly, meaning they must overcome gravity, making the weight of the energy system a primary consideration. A major obstacle for battery-powered aircraft is energy density; aviation fuel has an energy density approximately 30 to 43 times that of the best lithium-ion batteries currently available. Stanleykswong (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Historically, it takes about 10 to 15 years for battery energy density to double. A 30 to 43-fold increase in battery energy density means that battery-powered aircraft are still more than 50 years away from becoming a reality. Stanleykswong (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps: Cyclic regenerative reactions that power heat engines and thermocouples. Modocc (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Also: CRR/urea/build w/ check valves as needed.. Modocc (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Today I read _The Diary of Adrian Mole, Age 13 3/4_, and got to the part where Adrian is learning words from a dictionary. Adrian writes, for his first new word, aabec: "How interesting it is that Aabec should be an Australian bark used for making sweat." This word appears in some old dictionaries, including one Australian English compendium, but is there any real surviving evidence that the bark and the word were ever really used in Australia, or is this just a ghost word like "esquivalience"? If aabec is real, which species of Australian tree does it come from? ~2026-31003-95 (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Well the word is not in the Australian Collins or Macquarie dictionary. The first word is "a" but I suppose that was not new. "aabec" does appear to be used eg see https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/157910185?searchTerm=aabec . But I also see misscans of "aspect", "ashes", "aches". Here it is used to get the first position in the column, and a second entry under EXPLANATION: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110874422?searchTerm=aabec . Trove is a good place to look up old Australian references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

John Shaw Billings thought so: In 1876 what Billings called a “Specimen Fasciculus’ was printed. It was a momentous event—the beginning of an era in medicine. ... This volume was but seventy-two pages and began with AABEC, a bush as useless as its name would suggest — how mysterious. In fact here's that Specimen Fasciculus, where the entry in full is AABEC. See Morton (M. K.) Aabec bush. Med. and Surg. Reporter, Phila., 1875, xxxii, p. 425. (That's the thing Lambiam found, below.)  Card Zero  (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Here, a 19th-century lexicographer, lamenting his ignorance of words contributed by Australian informers, writes:

For instance—
    “Aabec. An Australian medicinal bark said to promote perspiration.”
I have never heard of it, and my ignorance is shared by the greatest Australian botanist, the Baron von Müller.

There are plenty of (mainly 19th-century) mentions, but here are actual uses:^[4]

I refer to an alcoholic extract of an Australian bark, called the Aabec bush. ... As the captain has no interest in the value of this bark to the profession, any further than the scientific interest any educated person would naturally feel, there are considerable hopes felt in the efficacy of Aabec.

 ​‑‑Lambiam 12:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Also:

NEW DIAPHORETIC. This is the Aabec bark, and is used in the form of fl. ext. or infusion. Of the fluid extract a teaspoonful is given every hour. It is under trial.

The Medical Record: Volume X (p. 536). New York, July 31, 1875.

Alansplodge (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

A search of Australian newspapers reveals only "Dragoman's Quiz" (syndicated in several newspapers)

Aabec is an Australian bark used medically to produce: (choose one) Blue blood; sweat; delirium; convulsions.|Dragomans Quiz

and a sterling effort in 1977 by a Canberra locksmith to have his advertisement "first in this book". Doug butler (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I've found a few tradesmen and small companies calling themselves Aabec in old British newspaper adverts, presumably to get near the top of the Yellow Pages listing. And of course there was Aabec in Antrim County, Michigan. DuncanHill (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Supermarkets sell bottles of pepper corns with caps that contain a grinder. The grinder is made of plastic. I worry this can introduce microplastics into our food. Has any scientific research been done on this subject? Thank you. Hevesli (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

It will, and people increasingly believe it will harm health. Stanleykswong (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I found one scientific paper and a couple of blogs that are most likely correct:

• Investigating microplastic release from plastic grinder heads during salt grinding
• How FDA-Compliant Pepper Grinders Enhance Tabletop Experience in US Restaurants
• Are Disposable Salt and Pepper Grinders Bad? The Hidden Costs of Convenience

If anyone finds more or better sources, please post them. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Zbucki, Ł. and Plażuk, E., 2024. Mechanical grinding of spices in grinders with polymeric burrs and transfer of microplastics to food. Health Problems of Civilization, 18(3), pp.339-353. Available at: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/55790756.pdf

Yang C, Li K, Gowen A, Xu JL. Investigating microplastic release from plastic grinder heads during salt grinding. Sci Total Environ. 2026 Mar 15;1021:181608. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2026.181608. Epub 2026 Feb 24. PMID: 41740354. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41740354/

Schymanski D, Humpf HU, Fürst P. Determination of particle abrasion through milling with five different salt grinders - a preliminary study by micro-Raman spectroscopy with efforts towards improved quality control of the analytical methods. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2020 Aug;37(8):1238-1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2020.1748724. Epub 2020 May 19. PMID: 32428414. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32428414/

Yinai Liu, Yu Cao, Huiqi Li, Huanpeng Liu, Liuliu Bi, Qianqian Chen, Renyi Peng, A systematic review of microplastics emissions in kitchens: Understanding the links with diseases in daily life, Environment International, Volume 188, 2024, 108740, ISSN 0160-4120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108740. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202400326X Stanleykswong (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

In the movie Heat, after an armoured car is knocked over by a semi truck, the thieves need to force it open. As the armoured truck was already lying on its side, would another semi travelling at full speed along the armoured truck's route and ramming just the armoured truck's windscreen and roof hypothetically suffice to shear the entire roof off, thus not needing any tools? cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 19:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

A sequel film Heat 2 has a 77-day shoot planned in Los Angeles this year. The production company might appreciate your idea. ~2026-21660-55 (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

There are plenty of videos of trucks hitting a low underpass, resulting in the roof being sheared off,^[5][6][7] so this is within the realm of physical plausibility, probably enough for the suspension of the whole scene also to enable suspension of disbelief. To assist in maintaining belief, the side of the semi in the scenario hitting the overturned truck should be reinforced in advance of the operation; otherwise it would just be sheared off itself first. The semi should also have sufficient momentum to shear off a substantive amount of the roof before the force gets too low, so it must be loaded up with heavy stuff, and the semi must accelerate in advance to reach top speed in time. (It is more believable if the semi decelerates and halts during the operation, before the whole roof is opened up.) The initial impact with the windscreen will tend to deflect the trajectory of the semi, so considerable skill of the driver is required to hit at just the right spot and the right angle, and to keep the semi on track, parallel to the roof, during the actual shearing. Finally a word of caution: do not try this in reality, kids.  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Normal cargo trucks have very thin, unreinforced roofs, which is why they peel off so easily in low-bridge strikes. An armored vehicle would likely have a much stronger, reinforced roof, but that roof is designed to resist bullets and blasts, not sideways shearing from hitting a rigid bridge. In that kind of impact, the armor plate itself might stay mostly intact, but the mounting points, welds, or supporting structure could fail. So it’s feasible that a heavily armored roof would be torn off more as a single solid unit than crumpled, even though the vehicle as a whole would still be severely damaged. ~2026-16820-81 (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I feel we also have to consider what happens to the semi. Lambian has touched on this but are we sure it will stay upright and actually be able to travel past the armoured truck? If it doesn't it might simply end up blocking the shear-off hole. The point about the driver is another interesting one. Frankly you'd need someone either real crazy or terminal to be willing to be the driver IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

AI drives all the cars because why not? AI drives the armored truck. AI drives the semi. Waymo vs Tesla star in "Waymo Money." The problem is it turns out that all the money was in virtual coins and the armored truck was just carrying encrypted thumb drives. ~2026-16820-81 (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

It would be very hard for the thieves to plan this. It's almost impossible to predict the exact orientation in which the armoured truck comes to rest after it's knocked over, as this depends chaotically on its position, velocity, rotational inertia, the impact point et cetera. Hitting the armoured truck with another vehicle at the right angle to tear off the roof might proof difficult if it's inconveniently oriented. PiusImpavidus (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

In other words, because this is an action movie script we are talking about, surprisingly easy. Barely an inconvenience. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cmglee: So maybe, or no, or yes.  ​‑‑Lambiam 06:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The average action movie is obviously a documentary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. Great points about the unpredictability of how the truck lands, and the semi blocking the gap. I'd better not try it at home then :-D cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 20:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Four out of five armored car robbers recommend you chew sugarless gum instead. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

For this reasoning, why does the teenager's brain function differently, than the adult brains, and what is behind the biology and psychology? I remember on the example on how the teenager's brain process differently.

For these extra hints, I have learned some information in 2019. According to this books, named "How Psychology Works: The Facts Visually Explained" by DK, explain the concepts and the reasoning of the psychology. In page 22-23, the scanage has revealed that adolescent brains process to utilize information differently than adult brains, and "These differences help to offer a biological explanation for why teenagers can be impulsive, sometimes lack good judgement, and can become overly anxious in social situations." in "What is it?" section^[1]. Of course, there are some different approaches about what the body and biological process shape human behavior, and what is determined by individual genetics in some specific areas. I would like to go more in-depth about the evolutionary psychology, including natural selection, individual differences, information processing, and psychological adaptations.

Link to this Book:

• https://dk.com/en-us/products/9781465468611-how-psychology-works

• https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36747292-how-psychology-works

• https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/600739/how-psychology-works-by-dk/

~2026-33106-46 (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Already at a young age, there is a large variation among children of the same age in how impulsively they act and how risk-averse they are. While adults tend to exercise more self-control than their younger selves, it is methodologically very difficult to determine how much of this is due to greater physiological maturity of the brain and how much can be ascribed to having learned more about the potential consequences of one's actions, whether through actual experience or through reflection.

Myelination of the brain commences before birth and progresses well into adulthood; see Timeline of human brain development. The regions of the prefrontal cortex are the last in which this maturation process reaches its completion.^[2] Since this brain region is involved in a wide range of higher-order cognitive functions, including risk processing, and its basic activity is considered to be the orchestration of thoughts and actions in accordance with internal goals, it is plausible that this plays a role in observed age-related behavioural differences. But, as said, the extent to which this physiological aspect explains these differences is very hard to assess.  ​‑‑Lambiam 05:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

A lot of synaptic pruning happens during adolescence. I wonder how that impacts brain function. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Youth often behave as if they think they're immortal. That's been true forever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs @Lambiam @Sean.hoyland How could this be definitely true forever? I could learn this in a book. ~2026-33106-46 (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

[8] Can a thing like that be any good? Purpose is evacuating those compression storage bags (plastic bag that you put around pillows and stuff to make them smaller), and similarly with a foam insulated camping pad. I tried a vacuum cleaner and that doesn't generate nearly enough vacuum. But other vac pumps e.g. at Harbor Freight cost a lot more. This would be for occasional use so I'm not too worried about durability as long as it basically works. Also it says 28.3" Hg which is about 0.94 atmosphere (i.e. all but 0.06 atm is removed). That should be plenty for the purpose, right? thx. ~2026-33254-93 (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

That pump appears to be air driven. That means you need a decent compressed-air source to drive it. An Amazon search for what you are trying to do, for low cost, gave me lots of cheap electric and hand-operated options: [9]. DMacks (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)