Leaderboard

Hmm. Who has been funding exploration to this point? Individuals? Or governments from the US, the EU, China, Japan, India, etc.? Or are you suggesting that private enterprise is not now getting involved? Like SpaceX, Orbital, Boeing, Blue Origin, etc.? Perhaps you are unaware of people looking for adventure. Space Adventures sent seven private citizens to the ISS. NASA has announced plans to send private citizens to the ISS. Mars One has signed up 2700 people who have asked to be part of a one-way mission to Mars. I am unsure exactly what history you are looking at. Certainly there were companies that profited from trade. No everyone in the colonies was involved in trade with Europe though. Some actually farmed, raised animals, traded goods between the states only, became lawyers, coopers and blacksmiths. Not everyone is involved in trade. Your vision is short term. At one point the idea that one might cross oceans for a short holiday was also unimaginable to some. We seem to have arrived at that point just fine though.

Some manufacturers like Tesla already include provisions for taking back batteries for recycling/disposal in the purchase price. It is a serious consideration but I don't think it is being neglected. I fully expect more and better recycling and safe disposal Also I think we need some perspective - projections for battery waste for Australia indicate a rise to above 100,000 metric tons per year by 2050. Not sure what global projections are. It is also projected that by then most of that waste will be recycled. I am inclined to think that the quantities of battery waste is an underestimate, but by comparison coal burning in Australia currently produces 12.5 million metric tons per year of heavy metals contaminated and chemically reactive coal ash. Then there is CO2, which exceeds all other waste more than 5 times over. In Australia, 20 times more of that than coal ash waste, which is a lot, lot more than we expect from battery waste. Yes, battery and other RE waste needs to be dealt with but the shift to RE will greatly reduce overall amounts of toxic waste.

Excellent. I'm sorry my post was so stuffy and 'theoretical'. The rest is much more practical. Now I mentioned 'circuit elements' These are ideal black boxes - ideal in that they 'do what you want but you don't have to know how or why'. The element or box has one, two, three or four or sometimes many 'terminals' with which it interacts with the rest of the circuit elements via the nodes. One terminal is special - I only know of one example we call ground or earth. Two terminals are simple so let us take one of those. Say we connect one terminal to node A and the other to node B. Ohm's Law tells us that the current though this element is given by the product of a coefficient (called the conductance) and the voltage difference between nodes A and B. Of course the conductance is the reciprocal of the resistance for direct current or the reciprocal of the impedance for alternating current. (note the voltage difference between A and B may or may not be changing as a result). Other two terminal elements are voltage sources and current sources. Three terminal circuit elements allow three nodes to be accessed - examples are transistors thyristors etc. Elements called 'Four terminal networks' are really the bee's knees. Nearly every circuit element your could think of can be modelled by a four terminal network - transformers, motors, radio antenna, amplifiers, transducers and interestingly two, and three terminal networks (elements) I don't know where you are at in your EE studies - some of this you may have heard of, some not so ask if I am introducing stuff you haven't met before.

Sounds like a job for a 100 megaton nuke.

I am rather fond of Sabine, she cuts through the gobbledygook and makes her field understandable. As a bonus she sings, often about science.

First I have heard of Sabine...I love the rather "thick" pronunciation of Einstein. Interesting video.

That is essentially correct. However, making the case for cannonballs is not very productive. The fact remains that missiles/impactors ( or whatever you wish to call them ), have to have some sort of guidance. It is not easy to hit something 1-2000 km away, much less explode at height, and re-enter with multiple MIRVs. The one clear advantage defensive missiles have, is that they know exactly where the incoming missile is going to be ( or hoping to be ), and an intercept course is much easier to solve for. Think of it like bsaeballs. It is very difficult to hit an outfielder with a baseball. Yet, if you know that baseball is coming across home plate, it isn't tto difficult to tag it with a bat. good to hear from you, Moon.

If Watson isn't the most famous doctor ever, then Who is. ------------------------- Meanwhile in Salzburg...

A woman was at her hairdresser’s getting her hair styled for a trip to Rome with her husband.. She mentioned the trip to the hairdresser, who responded: ” Rome? Why would anyone want to go there? It’s crowded and dirty.. You’re crazy to go to Rome .. So, how are you getting there?” “We’re taking BA,” was the reply. “We got a great rate!” “BA?” exclaimed the hairdresser.. ” That’s a terrible airline. Their planes are old, their flight attendants are ugly, and they’re always late. So, where are you staying in Rome ?” “We’ll be at this exclusive little place over on Rome ‘s Tiber River called Teste.” “Don’t go any further. I know that place. Everybody thinks it’s gonna be something special and exclusive, but it’s really a dump.” “We’re going to go to see the Vatican and maybe get to see the Pope.” “That’s rich,” laughed the hairdresser. You and a million other people trying to see him. He’ll look the size of an ant. Boy, good luck on this lousy trip of yours. You’re going to need it…” A month later, the woman again came in for a hairdo. The hairdresser asked her about her trip to Rome “It was wonderful,” explained the woman, “not only were we on time in one of BA’s brand new planes, but it was overbooked, and they bumped us up to first class. The food and wine were wonderful, and I had a handsome 28-year-old steward who waited on me hand and foot. And the hotel was great! They’d just finished a £5 million remodelling job, and now it’s a jewel, the finest hotel in the city. They too were overbooked, so they apologized and gave us their owner’s suite at no extra charge!” “Well,” muttered the hairdresser, “that’s all well and good, but I bet you didn’t get to see the Pope.” “Actually, we were quite lucky, because as we toured the Vatican, a Swiss Guard tapped me on the shoulder, and explained that the Pope likes to meet some of the visitors, and if I’d be so kind as to step into his private room and wait, the Pope would personally greet me. Sure enough, five minutes later, the Pope walked through the door and shook my hand! I knelt down and he spoke a few words to me” “Oh, really! What’d he say ?” He said: “Who the Fuck did your hair?”

Glad it helped. By the way I see I made a typo in the formula for silica, which should be SiO2, not SiO4. (Although the units are SiO4 tetrahedra, by the time they share all their "O" vertices with neighbouring ones, the overall ratio of O:Si becomes 2:1.)

A man boarded an airplane and took his seat. As he settled in, he glanced Up and saw the most beautiful woman boarding the plane. He soon realized She was heading straight towards his seat. As fate would have it, she took The seat right beside his. Eager to strike up a conversation he blurted out, “Business trip or pleasure?” She turned, smiled and said, “Business. I’m going to the Annual Nymphomaniacs of America Convention in Boston." He swallowed hard. Here was the most gorgeous woman he had ever seen Sitting next to him, and she was going to a meeting of nymphomaniacs! Struggling to maintain his composure, he calmly asked, “What’s your Business at this convention?” “Lecturer,” she responded. “I use information that I have learned from my Personal experiences to debunk some of the popular myths about sexuality.” “Really?” he said. “And what kind of myths are there?” “Well,” she explained, “one popular myth is that African-American men are The most well-endowed of all men, when in fact it is the Native American Indian who is most likely to possess that trait. Another popular myth is That Frenchmen are the best lovers, when actually it is men of Mexican Descent who are the best. I have also discovered that the lover with Absolutely the best stamina is the Southern Redneck.” Suddenly the woman became a little uncomfortable and blushed.. “I’m Sorry,” she said, “I shouldn't really be discussing all of this with you. I don’t Even know your name.” “Tonto,” the man said, “Tonto Gonzales, but my friends call me Bubba".

To me, mass is volume, so one liter would be one liter. I am aware in "physics," "physicists" use mass as it best confuses an embarrassing subject they do not wish to discuss, in my opinion. Physicists check a substance's specific gravity, subsequently giving the substance in question known kinetic energy to get it moving and known kinetic energy to bring it to a stop. Whether or not it is hotter or colder (more or less dense) than the substance known at sea level on earth at room temperature, which is contradictory to the original base definition of mass (a volume of some substance). It is like what happened to electricity; they took the perfect labeling and just reversed it, in my opinion. So here, mass does not mean volume at all. You may as well discuss steel, by saying "a blob of steel,” that tells you everything you need to know about the blob. Except for what effects it may be experiencing and how big it is. Specific gravity seems a bit more sane and explanatory. Instead of saying the object's mass is great or small, you would say steel's kinetic energy is what it is and we have a blob this big, if that is what mass means to a "physicist." If that is mass as defined by "physics," it seems like an attack on the English language if you ask me. I have seen intelligent conversations go awry so often because everyone has a different opinion of mass, and I am not talking about regular people but "physicists" themselves. Examining the word mass, which caused the problem, each person had another or acceptable use of it if only in their mind. If you are talking scientifically, you have to say what the substance in question is, how much of it there is, and what temperature or other effects it is experiencing, which could be velocity, rays, etc. The use of "massive object," which is perhaps as close as you can get to volume, is used often amongst "physics" folk, wrong perhaps if only to themselves, but still used that way. Would anyone think of fifty pounds of tungsten as a massive object or having a lot of mass? Would anyone think of a Hindenburg-sized bag of popcorn as a massive object, or having a lot of mass? Mass has been desecrated by “physics”. The "physics" term of mass is just the weight of the substance in question on earth at sea level compared to water as unity, the specific gravity, not the weight of the object it is made of that is being examined. It would be like looking at an asteroid heading for earth about to destroy us and saying, "holy shat, look at the specific gravity" you want to talk about poor English and poor science. Wow! Density is not Mass/Volume, even in "physics." According to "Physicists," mass is the weight of a certain quantity of the substance in question at room temperature at sea level, which converts to force needed to move that quantity at sea level from a stationary position to some velocity over a specific time period in a vacuum. That inertial force required will be the same force required even if you are on the moon or deep space or if the object is superheated and expands greatly. Suppose we take a 100-pound piece of steel measured on earth at sea level at room temperature. We know the density of the material at room temperature. If the steel is on the moon at room temperature, its "mass" nor its density will change, but its weight will on the moon compared to earth. If we heat the same piece of steel to 400 degrees Fahrenheit, its density will change, its mass will not change according to "physics" because it will still cause the same inertia. I agree that its volume will change, the steel will expand, and its weight will remain the same on earth at sea level and on the moon before and after heating. Its "mass" will remain the same, and its density will go down. So the missing heat factor or rays bombarding it would be needed to be known to make the claim you made. The word mass has always been in "modern physics," a big destroyer to communicating knowledge and understanding. All you say by describing "a mass of steel" or "the mass of steel" in "physics" is "steel" in "physics;" there are no volumes given no heat factors for mass. Steels mass is the mass of steel its weight on earth at sea level in "physics." Which again is exactly the opposite meaning to the word mass.