I recently read an article about wild-life and it said that Polar Bears cannot be detected by Infra-Red. It also said that they do not cause any interference even if they stand between the line of sight of Infra-Red beam.\n\nDoes that mean that I can change the TV channel with an Infra-Red remote control even if a Polar Bear stands in the way?
126854
Man, I love these answers!!!  I think they should all win.  But to give you my take, here is another one to add to your already fun collection.\n\nIf indeed polar bears don't show up on infra red, it would simply show how greatly effective their insulation is.  Infra red would go for temperature, and the surface temp of the bear is similar to its environment.  It's body temp is much higher.  Its fat layers and primarily its pelt have evolved to sufficiently insulate the animal.  There is little heat loss, which is good because otherwise the bear would freeze to death eventually.  Think of it this way, the polar bear is an inverted refrigerator, only that it is warm on the inside and cold on the outside.  See what I mean?\n\nNow your TV question, I am not exactly sure that you would be able to concentrate much on CSI or Jim lehrer's News Hour (whatever you prefer) when there is a polar bear in between you and the TV.  But in case there were, i think at one point you could not change chanels anymore.  Think about it!  It swallows your arm with the control, and with that insulation you can try changing chanels as you like, it wouldn't get out to your TV...
343777
Thank you very much for the link you gave. I read this news yesterday night on Yahoo. I have forgotten about this until you have remind me. Thank you again.  \nIs there any other way for us to view it other than using a telescope? I don't have a telescope.
10992
I am interested. Set up a video survailence, but be sure to hide it somewhere discreet, but make sure it covers the area. Go to the same place again or something and record it when this alien comes.\n\nEmail me at Digitalpimp0101@yahoo.com if you find anything else.\n\nAlso did the alien look like this? ::\n\nhttp://images.theglobeandmail.com/archives/RTGAM/images/20031119/wjack1/jackson_done2.jpg\n\n                       OR \n\nhttp://www.alienshift.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/gray_alien_50yrs_of_denial.jpg.w300h243.jpg
376656
Dear Sir:\n\nWhile there have been some actual transmissions from Earth to the Solar System seeking echos, and some of this might still be going on in a coordinated fashion, as I understand it, the primary mission of the existing radio telescopes is to "Listen" to upper wavelength radio emissions from gas clouds, and other phenomina in the universe. Of course, once some interesting\nradio emissions are detected, a full spectrum scan of the target is most likely conducted to determine the full extent of radio\nsignals from that source.\n\nOther radio transmissions are made from Earth to our traveling Space Probes and Robotic Explorers at various locations in the Universe. A continual litany of telemetry, television and voice signals also flows between the Space Station and Ground Control Center to keep a constant watch on the health, status, and activities of the space crew, mission, and the station itself.\n\nI will defer to someone from one of those positions for an\nanswer as to the power and frequency of transmissions from Earth to the Space Station, Earth to the Robot Explorers, and Earth to the existing Space Probes way out in deep space.\nMy guess is that these various transmissions take place on frequencies between 2,500 Mhz and 40,000 Mhz. That is a \nvery large radio spectrum. \n\nSince my response turns around your question, in that I am telling you that the biggest radio telescopes listen rather than\ntransmit, let me also tell you that the biggest radio telescopes are not simply single structures at a given location. In recent years a scheme for the linkage of two or more radio telescopes was developed. Therefor, the biggest radio telescope would be an electronic combination of the signals from most of the largest installations on Earth. A lot of work has been done in that vein in recent years. Using more than one receiving antenna provides an easy means for researchers to filter out local ground (earthbound) noise generators and radio disturbances. Signals heard at the same time by widely separated receiving antennas (and equipment) are most probably from the sighted target source (assuming both antennas are aimed at the same target). It is also interesting to know that the radio signals that are received require a vast amount of processing to be identified and detected. The processing of the radio telescope incoming signals takes a huge array of computers and some very complex software programs to yield useable data.\n\nYes, radio waves do go on forever. However, their strength at the point of interception decreases by the square of the distance from the source. So, the strength of radio waves become very, very weak as you move into distances like 100,000,000 miles.\nThe wave front would continue out like rings of water in a pond until they hit something and bounced back off of it. In that sense,\na portion of the radio wave would not go on forever, but would become a new wave moving in the oposite direction from the new source (which was the object that the wave struck). The\nrest of the wave front would continue on until it struck something, and we repeated the above scenario. The exact same thing happens to signals transmitted from a sonar transducer in the water. Those devices are used to detect the depth of the bottom of rivers/oceans (depth finder), fish in the water (fish finder), or even other vessels (sub hunting). Sonar, uses sound waves and not radio waves, but the principle is almost the same.  Sound waves radiate out. Nearby echos are strong enough to be detected with existing equipment and are plotted and displayed on information screens. Some echos are so weak coming back that the existing equipment cannot detect/plot/or display  them.\n\nRegards,\nZah
271934
The first point you need to realise is that bears don't really hibernate. They simply go to sleep for the winter, which is quite a different thing.\n\nIt is perfectly normal for a 'hibernating' bear to wake up and go for a walk around outside for a few hours or a few days and then go back to sleep. So that answers your question regarding bears. It will do them absolutely no harm whatsoever for them to be woken up.\n\nReal hibernating animals however are small mammals. The biggest of the true hibernators is the marmot, which is about 100X smaller than a bear. These true hibernators do not simply go to sleep, they enter a state of virtual suspended animation. All their body systems slow down. Many    systems such as the kidneys shut down entirely. Body temperature falls to just a few degrees above freezing.\n\nIt is quite impossible to wake these hibernating animals through normal means. They have a pre-programmed time clock that will wake them up, and nothing short of drugs will alter that.\n\nHowever if they are woken through the use of drugs and returned to the wild they will die. Once the annual hibernation cycle is disrupted it can't be restarted until the following autumn. Being awake in the middle of winter they will either freeze or starve to death within a day.\n\n\nIn summary: hibernation can never be disrupted without killing the hibernator. Bears however don't truly hibernate, they simply sleep, and it won't harm a bear to be disturbed during their winter sleep.\n\nHowever they will be mighty angry and probably take your head off. And having done that they will almost certainly eat you before going back to sleep.
20863
you proabaly need to select the "INPUT" source for the PiP and yeah, sometimes its difficult to change the channel on the smaller pic.  I think on my TV its easier because the big pic will be off satellite and the PiP 'source' coming from the VCR so I can just change the channel on the VCR using its remote (or the satellite remote if needed).
590716
QUOTE-----"The photo must be by telescope from the Earth to the moon! If no one can find any recent photos then the moon landings are a massive hoax!"\n\nTo remind u and other readers...we CAN'T see the lunar rover or whatsoever using our telescope on earth.No matter how BIG the telescope is, we still CAN'T see it because of atmospheric blurring.\n\nEven HUBBLE can't see it...because that landing site (flag and all that) is so SMALL.... and MOON is MOVING so fast.\n\nIt's just like trying to see a COIN when you are travelling with an AEROPLANE high in the SKY\n\nDID U GET IT? OR U NEED ME TO REPEAT IT AGAIN?
320651
No problem with this happening at the north pole....\nIf he goes east along exactly a circle with a circumference of 5 km, around the N Pole (radius about 0.8km)(this makes him start approx. 5.8 km away from the N pole), he ends up in the same place and can shoot any polar bears he likes....
274554
I don't think so. You can rather hide the TV!\n\n\n\n\n\n--- LeeeN
322188
No, I don't think so, but that doesn't mean that someone isn't trying. That guy in Idaho is pretty wacko, but I have heard of a few things that OUR government/military have been doing in Alaska.  I've read and heard a few things about using microwave beams of natural radiation (basically microwaves directed at cloud formations and the Ionisphere) that change the winds in the upper and lower layers of the atmosphere, change some cloud formations, I believe by disapation, with the high concentration of the microwave energy (and it requires a huge amount of energy to power this beam, and also I don't know what the power source would be, but still it would require a ton of energy, to run this device, like having it's own power plant type of #'s), and the one other point is that the area that is effected by this microwave beam is very small and regionalized, probably just a few 10's of feet.  I've read a few things on the net, and of course there are conspiracy theories and all, but the US Govt have been interested in weather modification for a long time to use as a weapon of war, to help weaken the enemy, so it wouldn't surprise me to think that some form of this has got to be true. The person who controls the weather, will eventually rule the world, pretty heavy stuff, I know. So we may have some of the technology to do this, but it's on a very small scale. The guy from Idaho is crazy, but at the same time he is making alot of money off of this crap, with his internet sites and radio appearances. This guy used to be a tv weatherman, but then saw the dollar signs to do this, instead. Hmmm..., maybe I should do this?
393066
I read somewhere that many years ago they were filmed with blue tinted lights as they were illegal, so no one would see from outside the room wot was going on!\nSeems a bit far fetched, so dunno if it's true!
276199
Well, the major problems would be that if there is global warming, the habitat (tundra) of polar bears will shrink. See:\nhttp://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/index.cfm?uNewsID=67980 this is from the World Wildlife Federation, a very respected group.\n\nhttp://www.nwf.org/globalwarming/polarbears.cfm The National Wildlife Federation is also a highly respected organization.
665974
good grief - there is a lot of 'part' knowledge here...\n\nyou need to break this down and talk about the different parts of what the original question was asking.\n\nif it was 'see', the explanation would be the same as for hearing by the way. (it would be easier to explain about seeing)\n\nhere goes...\n\ninside your ear you have these little hairs (cillia) that are a certain distance apart. when a sound wave enters the ear the wavelength of this wave will stimulate hairs at both its high energy points (its troughs or peaks, you choose, not important) your brain knows the distance of the hairs and so can interprut this wave distance between two lots of hairs being stimulated. thats how you get the frequency (number of wavelengths in a second) of sound in your ear. the volume (loudness) depends on how vigourously the hairs are moved by the sound wave. (thats why you can go deaf listening to loud music - you kill those little hairs if too loud). \n\nnotice i said sound!\n\nyour question is about electromagnetic waves. radio waves and visible light (green) waves are both of the same stuff (light energy - some we can see and some we cannot). the organ for detecting this energy is the eye. inside the eye, the retina (back of the eye) has special cells called rods and cones for detecting different wavelengths (i believe this is what your engineer was on about). each of these cells has a specific chemical for detecting a certain wavelength. lets pick on one.\n\nthe red light cone has a protein inside that has a special part that can move to a slightly higher energy form (a more awkward position for the proten so it wants to get back to where it was before - think of bending a ruler... the more you bend it, the more it wants to get back to where it was... so the higher the energy it has) when red light is shone on that protein (inside the eye) it provides enough energy to move this extra part of the protein (called an apoprotein portion is anyone wants to know) to a higher energy state and this is enough to induce (make happen) a signal being sent to the brain that says 'red light detected' and we see red light.\n\na similar thing happens to green light.\n\nin physics, when we talk of waves whether in music or lihgth or nanometers, if you have something of the same wavelength then it is detected as the same.\n\nif you have something of a different wavelngth then it is detect as different ( or in the case of the eye.. or even the ear, not detected at all, unless your are green, red or blue light)\n\nbut if you have a wavelength that is say  x2 bigger, of x3 or x6 or x2000 times bigger exactly, with no extra and no bits needed.. it has to be exact. then these also will be detected.. A BIT. we call thesse harmonics. this is a word that belongs to music.\n\never notice the way a piano has all those notes (only 8 notes and yet so many keys..?) these eight notes are repeated but in higher registers/keys, but they are still the same note.... a higher harmonic. all these wavelenths are doubled or trippled or what ever.\n\nso, because there will be a harmonic of green light in the radiowave part of the spectrum... it can theoretically be detected. so you could theoretically detect green light (with the eye) and radiowaves (theoretically with the eye)... but never with the ear :-)\n\nhappy days - now lets look at information theory! why do we always lose information and yet still maintain the integroty of the message? at what point is the message lost?
508922
I am willing to bet (but am not completely sure) that the LED pulses, which can be interpreted digitally, to perform the different actions (how else would the TV "know" to adjust volume, channel, ect?). The universal remotes would simply have all those different coding systems preprogrammed into it (notice how you have to select one with a universal remote). You could probably figure it out for sure by probing the input trace to the LED with an oscilliscope and enter in various commands, but who has the time right?
483450
Read this  http://www.glolab.com/pirparts/infrared.html  and you'll know.
553963
i think you're referring to deer stands and their use.\n\na deer doesn't perceive "threats" from above.  therefore, they would not look up to see incoming problems.\n\ni've seen them look "up" before.  would appear to be beyond the 15 degree mark stated.
93721
What I have seen is they are a few of them going through the jungle to get to higher land so that the transmitter will work when "the monster thing" starts to come after them. One of the guys has found a gun and shoots at it and kills it. When they find out what it is, it's a polar bear.