How do you stop them?

not an earthworm, but Flatworms. flatworms belong to platyhelminthes phylum, and earthworms are annelids.

the free-living flatworms can be cut in to pieces and sitll regenerate full bodies, but you cant cut it too small though. this is why some of them are invasive species, very hard to get rid of.

you definitely dont want flatworms in you gardens though, they hunt earthworms and are toxic, and invasive.

Almost. Some annelids really can regenerate from two halves, such as polychaetes. And actually, there is one type of earthworm that will evidently do this as well:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Perionyx+excavatus&udm=2

This does work for starfish though.

No, it's a myth.

Only one of the two halves would survives (the one with the head) but it's also possible that neither half would survive depending where the cut where made.

It does work. It's common in Sweden for home heating and hot water. You could input a little more heat if boiling water to spin turbines is your thing.

also the pressure and heat is enough to make maintenance expensive asf, the deeper you drill

dont you mean geothermal, i think you are confusing it with hydroelectricity. geothermal uses ground temperature. currently we dont have the tech to use that, its mostly fictionaly used in scifi shows along with fusion, antimatter but with advanced tech.

But it's got that whole nighttime thing.

Money is not fictional. Money is a convenience that allows people to trade items that require effort to produce without the problems of barter trading. Money has been invented multiple times in various parts of the world, and its ubiquity is an indication of its utility.

The baseline value of money is human effort. That is not a concrete thing but it is by no means fictional.

If you want to have some carrots for dinner, you can grow them from seed over several weeks and finally harvest them and eat them. For free - well, the seeds have to come from somewhere - but you can allow some carrots to produce flowers and get pollinated and then you have your seeds for free too.

Or you can buy the carrots off someone else who has made the effort to produce them.

If you want a source of heat and energy that exists when everything else is broken, it’s hard to argue with it.

Geothermal is not that. You need the system intact, the pump working, and power to run the pump. If you want heat and energy that exists when everything is broken, that's the sun.

I wasn't just referring to geothermal, I was meaning in general. We've stopped doing important and useful things because there's no immediate payout. But, geothermal has properties the above ground and easier options don't. A sense of permanence that storms and clouds can't affect. Always running. That's very valuable. Yes, if you need a kWh, there's cheaper and easier ways to get it. If you want a source of heat and energy that exists when everything else is broken, it's hard to argue with it. A city emergency shelter comes to mind.

don't even have to go that far to get a temp for a house that reduces heating/cooling costs by a ton. You just need to get to where its a nice room temp. drilling tech has improved and im hoping we see much more of it akin to rooftop solar.

Awesomeness of things is offset by how hard they are to actually accomplish. Geothermal is neat, sure, but actually getting to it is very, very difficult in most places, whereas just having a giant fan that turns when the wind blows or a panel that generates electricity when the sun shines on it (or just using a big fire from coal/oil/gas) is waaaaaaaay easier. For the amount of effort it takes for one geothermal plant, you can have a lot more energy output from various other sources.

Geologist here and it depends on a coupme of things, I can walk you through them quickly :)

It hugely deoends on the geothermal gradient. On average the earth hrats by 25-30° per kilometer, much less if you have old continental crust (Middle of America for example) and a bit more uf you are in a zone of active rifting (Taupo Volcanic Zone in NZ, Oberrheingraben in germany for example). For it to be economically good a spot is needed wjth a high gradient and than a very warm layer of rock, which you only truly know kncr you have drilled.

But drilling is extremely expensive, we are talking multiple hundreta of thousands of euros per 100m-200m, but this can also vary a lot based on the rocktype you find and if you wanna keep the core or not. Not to sa it is slow, a hole of 1km takes probably a year minimum I think, but I am not too sure on tat part.

Next is the question if you wanna do open or closed system. You proposed an open system which is reasonable but you would need to find a rock layer that is a) permeable or fractures enough that the water could actually flow, b) not interactive in any way with water, c) stable enough that no small particles would be broken off by the water and then transported and accidentially fill the gap, thus killing the system. Yes this has happend before, its very unlucky. Closed systems are doable, but give less energy.

Also during all of the drilling and during the test of an open system the stress field of the rocks can change and you could induce earthuakes, not huge ones but maybe enough to damage a fee houses in close vicinity, if they are not build to withstand those. This makes it hard to do in big cities.

So yeah combining all of this its just costly and risky and not a lot of companies or goverments are willing to take the risk. Now do not get me wrong, once you have set everything in place this is basicly unlimited free energy, its amazing and definetly a huge possibilty that I am very muvh a fan of. And as others have pointed out there are spots in the world where this js easily doable, look at iceland for example. But Iceland also sits on a fucking mantle plum and is basicly a volcano, like best conditions for this. I think they once even drilled into a magma chamber on accident and they were jot that far down :D

You're not wrong. But, I want to point out that the value of money is fictional and getting heat and light to people is intrinsically valuable. We can do a lot of really cool shit. We have just commoditized everything to the point where the idea of having currency has prevented us from doing basically anything awesome.

Iceland has loads to make aluminium with.

Very low likelihood the water would come back.

What they do is sink closed circuits of piping, then run water through them for heating, which is geothermal, not hydrothermal. But that's expensive and depends on the depth to hot crust. In a thin spot, it's easy! Iceland's electricity is very cheap due to this. But somewhere the crust is really thick, like the center of a tectonic plate, it's a long way down. And, with long pipes, there's more risk of them being damaged if there's any geologic activity.

well, AFAIK drilling such a hole would be very costly, you need to take into account that a lot of layers are solid rock and drilling through, maybe hundreds of meters of rock at hundreds of meters deep could make the project so expensive that it doesn't justify the energy output we could get out of it,

If you have a HSV1 cold sore, you should be taking acyclovir (Zivorax). You should not allow the sore to develop because it spews virus and can ease transmission as well as infecting other nerves in you body.

In the future, you should take the drug at the point you feel the tingle of an outbreak.

You train your legs more.

Moving the same thing (your body) from the same starting point to the same end point will accomplish the exact same amount of work, and therefore require the same amount of effective energy to accomplish, so it boils down to biomechanical efficiency of which movement more efficiently accomplishes work, and wastes less energy.

That's going to depend on the individual, as everyone's limb length and muscles and tendons will affect how efficiently the body maintains forward momentum once in motion, how much energy is wasted on each step, etc., so that the ideal step size is different from person to person, and the ideal speed is different from person to person. The answer will change for the same person with training, too, as the biomechanics of a particular movement tend to get more efficient when that movement is trained over time.

You may be able to estimate the right answer by just doing it both ways and seeing what a smartwatch tells you. The gold standard would be to hook you up to a machine that measures your oxygen consumption, but that wouldn't be very practical.

Depends on how tall you are. Over a certain height skipping every other step becomes more efficient.

Depends on the height of the steps and the person's height and weight. At a certain point it begins to take significantly more effort to push down due to leverage, the position of the muscles, weight distribution, aerobic thresholds, etc. But this typically happens in an average person about when your knee passes the height of your waist, especially repeatedly. This is also why children or shorter people tend to get more tired climbing the same steps as taller people.

The standard height of stairs in most building code was typically designed to be ideal for the height of the average healthy male. But that isn't exactly 100% perfect especially considering that it's more important that every step is the same height all the way up a flight, or people will trip, and you can't always divide the height exactly evenly as not all flights of stairs are the exact same height. But there also are a lot of steps that are out of code or are single steps or groups of single steps that have to fit a specific, uneven slope.

But in general, with steps in a modern building that is to code, your knee will have to come up to a height where you need to use more than twice as much effort on a two stair hop.

I was wondering if it might be something along these lines. Taking less steps seems more advantageous then lower steps, metabolically.