Jump to content

Sensei

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    5930
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by Sensei

  1. Shape of physical object changes depending who is watching it, and distance to object. Distant galaxy seen by naked eye or cheap telescope looks like spherical blob. Metal plate, or wall, looks flat to us, but after large zooming by microscope they will reveal to be mountain-like irregular. So, observed shape is or might be just an illusion, depending on capabilities of observer or device and/or distance. Just a thought irrelevant to whole discussion. ps. I have no idea why it was moved to Philosophy..
  2. For Earth's scale objects typical method is sending photons to object and after reflection, detecting returning signal delay (t=2*d/c) It's used in radars, using radio waves. But if you attach mirror to object, or retroreflector (like on Moon), you can use normal visible range photons. For our solar system and galaxy scale distant objects we can use knowledge about position of Earth around Sun and Pythagoras triangle. At one day of year Earth is closer to some star or planet, at other day of year Earth is farthest from it. You can deduct that tangent alpha is equal to ~1 au (=~150 mln km) divided by distance to measured object (from Sun). I have made picture for you to visualize:
  3. That's not an issue. That's normal. You misunderstood idea described in article. It's meant to be storage facility, not regular power station. Energy is produced elsewhere, and solar panels and windmills are example power stations that are periodically working. Once they lost energy source (at night, or when there is no wind), energy is restored from storage and customer continuously receive energy. I stay doubtful. How did you calculate that your idea will be 95% efficient?
  4. Each light year is approximately 299792.458 * 60 * 60 * 24 * 365.25 = 9.46*10^12 km 53.0 million light years * 9.46*10^12 = 5*10^20 km distance between us. 3.2 mln km/h = 888.9 km/s 5*10^20 km / 888.9 km/s = 5.641*10^17 seconds That's 1.78*10^10 years. 17.8 billion years. Not millions. Article is wrong by factor 1000. Not first and not last time journalist shows his inability to calculate. "First of all, even at its current speed, it will take more than 17.5 million years to get here."
  5. We have protons at rest. Accelerating part of them to v > 0.99c and hitting them to other protons at rest. Result is production of protons and anti-protons: p+ + p+ -> p+ + p+ + p+ + p- Like this has been showed in this article at the bottom: http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/particle_creation.html And from frame-dependent kinetic energy of particle, two new real particles appeared..
  6. Start > Run.. regedit Then search for HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run And add new key. With value path to executable. Or rundll32.exe [dll name] [function name] if it's linkable library (or Windows service - this one can be controlled by administration service panel). The most of mine Windows applications have option to run them with Windows, minimized, and in tray icon. I like to have them at hand.
  7. According to article, wind turbines or solar panels are producing energy first and using it to pump water out from tanks on the ground of ocean, when there is windy weather or sunny hot day. Tanks are now empty. Then water pass through turbines and fill tanks back. producing energy (according to article 80% of that produced in 1st stage, so 20% is lost). That's smart idea. Currently power stations have to lower their production when there is not enough power consumers on the other end of wire. On the other hand, instead of building it at ocean ground, we can simply make large artificial lake. Wind turbines and solar panels will be all the time used to pump water from ocean to lake, no matter if consumers need it or not. And then energy will be just produced in normal dam. Which "their issue"? In article I don't see they mention any issue. Do you mean you have created 5 times stronger concrete?
  8. You can't beat protons & antiprotons in magnetic traps.. Today I read economic article that in the next 25-50 years there will appear the first trillionaire (10^12). And the first thought was that it could be somebody who will find a cheap & fast way to produce antiprotons.
  9. IMHO they are real. And energy is real. It flows from one particle, or body, to other during interaction between them. Hot-fast particle shares energy with colder ones until they're all in equilibrium. That's why it's always conserved. At least in classic & high energy physics. The problem with photons, as with the most neutral particles, is that until they're absorbed, or decay (pion0, neutron etc), we have no idea about their existence. Once we know about it, photon is gone from the system, making illusion it was not real. Instead we have increased energy in our eye or detector. Such splitting fields is kinda artificial. After all electron and positron can be made of photon(s) in pair production. And reverse in annihilation. Muon will have it's own field, and tau yet another? IMHO the key is f.e. answering why exactly photons in pair production must have frequency equal Compton frequency 1.23559*10^20 Hz Why it's not any other value? What is so special in this frequency.. ? (Yes, I know that me=9.11*10^-31 kg, or me=510999 eV/c^2 and Ee=510999 eV, 6.62607*10^-34*1.23559*10^20/299792458^2=~9.11*10^-31 etc) String theory author Leonard Susskind, tries to answer why physical constant have value we know by introducing infinite number of universes, each one with different properties. But again IMHO it's road to nowhere. Answer without answering question. How to visualize magnetic field? Use array of compasses. And each of them will be pointing in direction defined by magnetic field. But what was first, egg or chicken? To have some effect we need magnet, electromagnet or other magnetized source. Which are all made of particles. Particles in compasses will show us where are other particles and their attributes. XIX century authors introducing electric and magnetic fields had no idea about particles. No particles in the first place, no electric or magnetic field around them. No attraction or repelling between them.
  10. Do you mean how to show sample source code? <code>A piece of computer code</code> W3Schools is good resource about HTML/CSS http://www.w3schools.com
  11. There is "just" 0.035% of CO2 in the air. To create just 1 cm^3 of Kerosene there would be needed to process (with 100% efficiency) 3656 Liters of air. You can't do it during flight. Boeing 747 burns ~4000 cm^3 (4 L) of fuel per second.
  12. That's job for somebody who has a few years everyday experience in writing software.. Figuring out device models and checking manufacturers websites for SDK, if not found maybe writing e-mail to them is the first thing you need to do. Such devices often comes with software to install, so maybe SDK is already on CD/DVD or installed?
  13. What voltage you used? Try high voltage at beginning, and then lower it with time. This can be done automatically by stabilizer. If you ever produced f.e. iron oxides, aluminum oxides, copper oxides (or hydroxides) in higher amounts using electrolysis, you probably noticed how current increases over time (and very fast). (couple times I had 15-17 A while iron oxides production after >20-30 minutes) Stabilizer is the only feasible way to have good rate of production, and you won't have to control it all the time..
  14. See animation that I made for other thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82391-how-on-earth-can-light-rays-reflect-a-person-from-a-mirror/#entry798307 (it's too uniform I know, add randomness in your imagination)
  15. At least I tried to answer "how to make NaOH at home". Your answer was "go to shop and buy".. In post #3 I just described "home version" of Chloralkali process in easy to understand words http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloralkali_process You can read in the article that positive electrode should be made of titanium. Rethink once again what was initial quantity of salt and water. 59-60 g of NaCl and 18 g of H2O That's exactly the same number of molecules = 6.022141*10^23 of both. Each NaCl has corresponding it H2O. They are in pairs. Now, negative electrode is producing H2 which is instantly escaping our system and never comes back. There is 2x -OH and 2NaCl left. -OH joins with Na+ and we have NaOH + Cl- 2 Cl- on positive electrode are joining together and neutral gaseous Cl2 is produced (are you now inspired how important is shape of titanium positive electrode in this process to get rid of Chlorine in gaseous state?) If I see 1 Liter volume of Hydrogen produced in one container, and 1 Liter of Chlorine volume in another container, then I am pretty sure that quantity of impurities is pretty low. If some Cl will not escape it, but joins with water, equivalent it molecule of NaCl won't be able to change (there is equal number of pairs of NaCl and H2O after all). So we will have: NaCl, NaCl, HCl, HClO. That's why so important to produce gaseous Cl2 ,which I said: "But whole point of this setup is to produce Chlorine gas. We want to Cl2 bubbles to escape it as soon as they're formed on positive electrode." If both gases escaped setup at the same rate, the same volume, remain should be NaOH mostly. Impurities produced by this method are quite meaningless (especially if it's just boomstickbob's home experiment) in comparison to business production using Chloralkali process, which can even leave traces of mercury in NaOH. Quote from the nearly beginning of article: "Additionally, the chlorine and sodium hydroxide produced via the mercury-cell chloralkali process are themselves contaminated with trace amounts of mercury. The membrane and diaphragm method use no mercury, but the sodium hydroxide contains chlorine, which must be removed."
  16. Did you performed it ever in your life? I was doing it dozen of times (last time week ago). Usually with current I between 2A to 5 A. And high voltage. It is normal procedure of production of NaOH and HCl (indirectly - from gaseous Cl) No oxygen is produced this way- because it cannot be produced - because there is so little water. You can't breath after 5-10 seconds since start up with I=5 A, because of Chlorine gas. If water would be in significant amount, right, oxygen would be produced, but it would be no longer Hydrogen+Chlorine production but regular electrolysis with Hydrogen+Oxygen produced. ps. I didn't say a word about copper. It would be indeed bad idea to use it. I have tried it with bad results. Cu immediately reacts with -OH and we will have at least bluish Cu(OH)2. (Regular electrolysis with a lot of water with copper electrodes is instantly producing Cu(OH)2 . I had it plenty in containers. After week or two it all disintegrated to CuO and H2O. Easily visible because it changed color from bluish to dark) Right. But whole point of this setup is to produce Chlorine gas. We want to Cl2 bubbles to escape it as soon as they're formed on positive electrode. And then (usually) collect it in another container with fresh water, so HCl and HOCl will be produced in it. I wouldn't care much about NaClO. If gaseous Cl2 dissolved in solution (which is undesired), there will be also HCl present. Which will react with NaClO. NaClO + 2 HCl → Cl2 + H2O + NaCl
  17. Take 59-60 grams of salt NaCl, 18 grams of water, mix, plug some electrodes that don't react with neither HCl nor NaOH, and pass direct current through it, you will smell Chlorine gas (it always reminds me primary school swimming pool) on positive electrode, and there will be Hydrogen gas on negative electrode. With steady current I=1 A you will need 26 hours 45 minutes to change all above to NaOH (in theory). Really easier is to buy it (but less fun).
  18. They are conserved but at level you can't see - energy. Friction causes heating of material. Kinetic energy of one body is changed to temperature of other body. And first body stops moving, and second body has higher temperature. There was even such experiment - scientists were shooting to water with thermometer and measured change of temperature of water caused by hundred or thousands objects hitting water.
  19. Analyze units.. V, electric potential, is in Volts, or Coulombs/Farads http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential If you have Q * Q in numerator, you will have Coulombs ^2 in units. [math]\frac{C^2}{F} \neq \frac{C}{F}[/math] Electric potential energy has symbol UE (not V). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential_energy See above link.
  20. Didn't Cameron do the same in Terminator 30 years ago? Software doesn't evolute over time. It doesn't write its own (better) code by itself. If it would, it would have to shut down first version after starting self made new one. Isn't a risk by itself? If new code would have some issue, overlooked by 1st version of code, starting it up, and shutting down itself, could destroy it by itself (destroy = not execute anymore). If two versions would work parallel (no shutting down of old version), wouldn't they start competing with each other.. ? Shutting down old version is often used by currently existing software during updating after downloading new version from the net. I am using it by myself. Sometimes because of errors in .NET Framework, restart of application doesn't happen. New version is downloaded right, old one is shutdown, and new version quits during restart, and application is gone from the system (it will resurrect after f.e. restart of computer because it's added to Windows registry Run key)..
  21. You didn't give probabilities. You gave skill level. I guess so 1.0 means God-like know-everything. Without actually knowing everything and having 1.0 skill, you can't even measure skills of current living people. You are oversimplifying. They don't have to do the same task at the same time. They can split job. When one is f.e. figuring out spectral lines of Hydrogen, other one can work on Helium spectral lines, and yet another on Oxygen. If all 3 would be trying to figure out spectral lines of one atom, their potential would be wasted, right. But on other hand, working on something doesn't necessarily means that there will be success. Other person can inspire, encourage, motive to work even harder. Give a new angle to look at problem when we stuck in it. Show where has been made mistake or error. Your thread sounds to me a lot like discussion about making code multi-threaded. There are tasks that are easy to split to multiple threads, multiple cpus, and there are tasks that are hard, and there are tasks that are impossible (the most likely they're serial dependent on previous calcs *). Task easily splittable (scalable), can benefit nearly linearly from adding new resources. Lost is only in merging/exchanging data. *) ( a * b ) + c - impossible to split, adding c requires waiting for completion of a * b ( a * b ) + ( c * d ) - possible to split, a*b goes to 1st unit, c*d goes to 2nd unit, then final operation by one of them.
  22. Perhaps maybe because of electromagnetic induction.. ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction Flowing electrons create magnetic field surrounding wire. If wire is entwining iron, it's becoming electromagnet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnet Direction of flow of electrons is defining where will be N and S (simplifying for you). XIX century ampermeter was simply magnet and electromagnet with attached arrow. Once we pass current through electromagnet wire, electromagnet is attracting or repelling from magnet, and arrow is showing on scale how much current we had. Scale had both positive and negative range (so could show direction of flow). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanometer
  23. Somebody neg voted in this thread? Why? I see no single reason to do so... Sorry. I didn't read posts, just initial.
  24. I just watched "Through Wormhole with Morgan Freeman 2012" and Stephon Alexander have unusual theory about neutrino role in Universe... I think so it's 3rd episode "Is The Universe Alive?". http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/people/faculty/alexander.html You can contact him to share your ideas with him. That will be more productive than writing here Later in that episode Lee Smolin is speaking. I think so he did that already? (The problem is in Kramer inability to transfer his model to real scale, not in model) Neutrino is in his model tiny amount of energy with neutral charge (same amount of positive and negative sub-particles with equal charge, so they cancels together). Am I right? That's interesting approach. If 4-quarks particle will have fractional charge, then we will have proof that +1e or -1e is not elementary charge. (As far as I know no meson or baryon have fractional charge) 4-quark particle still can have neutral charge though, which won't prove anything.. +1/3 e - 1/3 e + 1/3 e - 1/3 e = 0 or +2/3 e - 2/3e + 2/3e - 2/3e = 0 or +2/3e + 1/3e -2/3e - 1/3e = 0
  25. Each container contains integer multiply of clips of the same mass. m - mass of clip (might be fractional) x,y,z,zz - quantity of clips (must be integer) m*x=7.5 g m*y=20 g m*z=50 g m*zz=125 g so m=7.5/x=20/y=50/z=125/zz The first m fulfilling criteria is m=2.5 g, then 1.25 g, 0.625 g etc
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.