Sensei

LCD = Liquid Crystal Display/Diode

Flat screen monitor.

CRT = Cathode Ray Tube.

Typical old school televisor is CRT

Let's see what I can explain. One, the monitor is older than the CPU. When I bought a new computer with Windows 7 a year ago, we kept the old monitor which I'll guess is about nine or ten years old now. I think, but not sure, that we also kept the same mouse.

You didn't answer the main question: CRT or LCD. If it's just 10 years old, I suspect it's LCD?

What happens? It suddenly freezes up and will not let me close out. Meanwhile the screen grays out. I have to shut down at the CPU and reboot. Also, when I am typing, it will suddenly stop and print nothing for about thirty seconds. All these things are at the "occasionally" stage right now. Not happening constantly. I just want to get some facts in information about it while I can.

Sounds to me like CPU overheating problems, than problems with monitor. Monitor problem would appear as not possible to see what happens. But computer would run like normal - you could press ctrl-alt-del, then press alt, press 4 times arrow right, then arrow bottom 3 times, and enter. And computer would be shut-down. You don't have to see all this (black monitor display), but it's standard Win XP procedure to shut down computer using Task Manager, using just keys. (adopt this procedure to your own OS version).

GFX card is on card or built-in motherboard? If GFX is built-in, you would need to replace whole mobo. If it's on card, replacing 10 years card would cost 10-20 usd or so. Any currently existing the worst est card would be faster than yours.

Clean up all FANs and radiators. When they are dirty they don't release heat so efficiently as clean/new one. Eventually replace them by new one. They're quite cheap.

Touch CPU radiator after couple hours of working.

40 C temperature you should be able to stand.

If it's >70 C, you won't be able to touch it.

I suspected the hard drive. I have never yet bought a computer where the hard drive didn't die within the year and this one is almost one year old.

I have never had computer that HDD died after just 1 year.

I had many servers that run 24h for many years crunching data, and their HDD are still working.

I had a man out yesterday who checked and said the hard drive is fine. He suspects the monitor because it is older than the CPU. He says the freezing and graying is usually the monitor. I decided to ask here in case someone can give me more information - other symptoms.

There is also other possibility - damaged wire or plug.

When it gray out again, start moving wire and plug. Don't unplug! You can't plug and unplug monitor (or other wires except USB) while computer is running. It's ending up with damage of hardware.

What are the symptoms of a monitor going bad?

That depends on whether you're talking about CRT or LCD.

For LCD they usually have bad pixels.

CRT also can have burned Luminophore.

What particular things might be happening that give a clue?

That's rather you should tell us what happens...

Also, if a monitor is going bad, can it affect the actions of the mouse?

Highly unlikely.

You should mention what kind of mouse we're talking about. Wire, radio wave, or Infra red.. ?

If you can take app like VirtualDub (File > Capture AVI..) and record these bad behaving it would help.

If you can record it on app, it's rather virus than hardware issue.

Bart, while satellite is orbiting around Earth, it's once closer to Sun, once further from Sun.

You have not addressed issues caused by Sun gravitation though.

The same with Moon and other solar system objects.

Moon can rise water for a couple meters, so it's not so small influence.

1.
Your figure for G strikes me as wrong. I have Newtons Universal Gravitation Constant as 6.67344e-11 with uncertainty of .00080e-11.

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?bg|search_for=universal_in!

2.
Your figure for average radius of the earth is not the usual one - although I understand this is a matter of taste rather than strictly arguable. 6371000m is the more usual

6378100 is radius at equator. After using average 6371000 and more correct constant values, result is higher than Bart's initial 45629.9

I attached file, so anyone can load and modify.

satellite calcs.zip

Bart, you should t₀ multiply by 60*60*24*10^9 prior dividing. This way you will have higher precision.

IEEE floats have limited precision.

Can you measure nanometers using ruler? No. It has 1 millimeter precision..

Similar with other measuring tools. You're limited to their precision.

If you're working at university you can get educational license for $195.

"LightWave 11.6 Educational Available for Students and Faculty Staff"

Trial has 30 days. Then demo is probably limited by not able to save objects or so. Don't remember exactly.

There are other apps like free Blender. But people often complain about its interface.

And? You would like neutrinos of lower energy to be produced in any significant amount, as compared to those from ⁷Be and ⁸B which result from the very proton-proton cycle at the core? I'm perfectly confident that this would be noticed from long.

It's well known fact, if you would know subject.

~85% of neutrinos are coming from p+ + p+ collisions, and are not possible to detect by Chlorine-37 based neutrino detector.

Be-7 + e- -> Li-7 + Ve + 0.862 MeV (15% of all neutrinos)

B-8 is responsible for just 0.1% from 15% of all neutrinos (small quantity, but large max energy possible).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Proton_proton_cycle.svg

Energy 0.420 MeV from p+-p+ collisions, doesn't mean that neutrino takes it all. They share it randomly with positron.

0.42 MeV is sum of energy of neutrino + kinetic energy of positron.

Also, you'd like neutrinos of lower energy to trigger radioactiv decay more efficiently than those from the proton-proton cycle?

I am just saying about neutrinos detection methods. If detector didn't detect anything it doesn't mean that there was no particle there passing through it.

I am considering neutrinos from proton-proton collisions as "low energy neutrinos".

18 MeV max from B-8 versus 0.42 MeV max. That's huge difference, 43 more energy.

Lower energy neutrinos is 5.6(6) times more than those with larger energy (Be-7) and >5000 times more than from B-8.

Detection of neutrinos is harder, but their quantity per cm^2 is higher. Higher probability of collision with some nucleus.

And we don't know for sure how they influence unstable isotopes.

Chlorine-37 example shows that they can influence even STABLE isotope.

That's becoming unrealistic... The reasonable path is that the core emits nearly all neutrinos, including the ones capable of triggering reactions, that these neutrino flux is independent of solar flares and storms, which dont' influence decay on Earth - as the original paper shows, if one reads the curve objectively.

You're just repeating your personal opinion.

I told you- prepare isotopes and check it by yourself.

Then you will have experimental verification.

Is this software available online?

It is LightWave 3D

https://www.lightwave3d.com/

It costs $1500.

There are other 3D applications: Maya, Cinema 4D, 3D Studio Max, Houdini, etc. etc.

I am writing mine own plugins for it, if needed.

They (usually) analyze polygons and points data, and output new geometry, or showing thing that they calculated (like area of polygon(s), or volume of 3d object).

Making area counting tool is very easy: just scan all selected polygons, and add together their areas one by one.

Hope so I don't have to ask you whether you know formula of area of triangle..

Then show final result in window.

Showed on anim gif above boolean tool is standard tool (Modeler's Construct > Boolean).

Boolean tools regardless of 3d application always have at least modes: unify, subtract, intersect.

Forget it.

Solar panels are much more reliable and cheaper.

Once I calculated that I would need 18 m^2 of solar panels with 15% efficiency to cover all mine needs whole year.

Solar panel 1.28 m^2 (1600x800mm) costs here $315. So total investment in 14 panels would be $4410. Inverter I could make by myself.

That's price of electricity from power station for 67 months ($66 per month).

After 5 years and 7 months, I could have pure free electricity forever.

Dr. Funkenstein, you showed us great amount of lack of knowledge.

At the beginning you should start from reading inverse square law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

Which describes how particles are emitted in the all directions by sources like light bulb, LED, Sun etc.

as it pertains to light travel perhaps because light is not traveling.

Do you know that even this message went through fiber wire on the bottom of ocean with speed of light.. ?

Fiber wire is using photons to transfer data.

Buy 1 km fiber wire, 10 km fiber wire, 30 km fiber wire, connect them to laser, turn laser and measure delay.

 

Thanks, but it has occurred to me the torus will have to have a pear shaped cross section to be both strong and efficient. Any chance there is a formula for that? I may just approximate by using a large outer torus and a small inner one...

In such cases I am simply making object in 3D application, then using boolean tool or cutting tool, and running area counting tool on newly made cross section polygons.

3D apps also come with volume calculating tools. The more geometry at beginning, the more precise result will be.

Any theory without math, just lingual philosophical talking, on this forum (and the most of other moderated science forums) ends up in trash, sooner or later.

Sounds like you wasted a lot of time.

Instead you should have learned everything what we know.

Then you could be at least qualified opponent to discussion.

@sensei, not sure if you read your question, but its not completely clear. My purpose behind the post was to get an answer to the latter part regarding the formula f=ma. I did say that I am a novice to the quantum world, but in response to the latter part of your post...just because a chef doesn't know how a particular seasoning is made doesn't mean he can't put together a recipe including it.

Somebody coming with ToE must be able to calculate everything and know everything.

Especially basics.

I've been working on a theory for 'everything' for several years now.

Please calculate for us how much energy will be carried by particles (and tell us what they're) of decaying Tin-121 isotope.

If you cannot give such easy answer, you have not even started making your own ToE.

 

If you square i you get -1. From what I know through programming, sometimes when you add 1 to n as in list[n] (the location of an object on a list), you need to do n-1 to have the correct name to save a file under.

n = 0
while True:
    try:
        search_this = list[n]
        n += 1
        searchgoogle()

with open('/home/' + list[n-1] + '.txt', 'a') as myfile:
        myfile.write(str(item_location))
        myfile.close()

OMG..

You have to subtract 1 because lists are starting from index 0...

Human indexes are starting from 1.

Computer indexes are starting from 0.

If you have list with 4 elements, 1st element is at list[0], 2nd element is at list[1], 3rd element is at list[2] and 4th element is at list[3].

There is no imaginary numbers in this (completely nonsense) example.

Lightnings flash everyday.

But every time, in different place..

Can lightning be a source of electricity?

To some very small level, yes.

But quite unpredictable source of energy.

You would need to connect the all lightning conductors on area f.e. few km square together and then downgrade voltage from a few hundred or millions Volts with small charge, to lower voltage but higher charge.

We have here in neighborhood metal cross (15m+) on the top of mountain (nearly 2 km high).

I read somewhere it's hit by lightning once per day average.

If it has average Q=15 C and E=15 MJ (wikipedia has such average)

it's 5.5 GJ energy per year = 1521 kWh.

If we would have no loses in transformation (unrealistic) that's less than I am alone using in 5 months (330 kWh/m * 5m = 1650 kWh).

I would need 3 lightnings per day without loses just to cover mine own needs.

In that SpreadSheet you shouldn't play with first column where is time.

At least not until you will understand whole equation.

You change initial quantity (C2) and half-life (B2) fields.

Columns D,E will be filled automatically, and graph updated.

For f.e. half-life 10 seconds, and initial quantity 1000, you will see 1000,933,870,812,etc. going down quickly.

And these neutrino detectors have shown no surge during solar flares nor storms. As expected, since the neutrinos originate at the nuclear fusion reactions deep in the Sun, not at the shallow surface.

Chlorine-37 based neutrino detector is triggered by neutrinos that have >0.814 MeV energy.

Which means neutrinos produced by decay of Beryllium-7 (these have up to 0.862 MeV), or decay of Boron-8 (these have up to 17 MeV).

If neutrino have less energy, detector is not triggered.

It doesn't mean that neutrino was not emitted.

It could be emitted but remained unnoticed.

That's one bizarre claim in the original paper, the other being that one sees variations in the radioactive decay curve without solar activity, and solar activity without effect on the radioactive decay.

Purdue University even patented their method in the US:

http://www.google.com/patents/US8642960

We need to multiply measured mass of galaxy by ~500% (and call it dark matter) to match Newtons & General Relativity predictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

"Although the existence of dark matter is generally accepted by the mainstream scientific community, some alternative theories of gravity have been proposed, such as MOND and TeVeS, which try to account for the anomalous observations without requiring additional matter."

You should also read this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve

I have explained half-life calculation in this thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83245-a-question-on-radioactive-decay/?p=806204

You can simply use that Spread Sheet with your data.

current=start*2^(-time)

will give the same result as:

current=start*e*(-time*ln(2))

Reason I think that is because we live on a planet full of life and have not yet to learned to communicate with any of it. We have no idea what dolphins, chimpanzees, or any other animal thinks. Even when we see our own pets like the family dog or cat dreaming we have no idea what they would be dreaming about.

 

The question is whether we would recognize it as a (yet to be decoded) language.

For some signal types it's very easy.

For instance, put tiger to monkey's cage, and record sound they will be screaming. (Or record it in real wild world)

That's sound of "danger", "tiger", "run away", "enemy".

Recorded sound can be later used on different group of monkeys (same kind), or same group at different time (couple days, months, years later), to see whether they treat it the same way.

That reminds me Myth Busters that tried to see whether duck quack has echo. They took single duck, but he/she didn't wanted to quack

It took them some time to figure out they need two or more ducks.

Apparently single duck didn't want to talk to himself/herself..

What a surprise..

I bet any lifeform that can use mental representations to model the world will at least utilize coherence, realizing that a concept's predictive value is inversely related to its contradictoriness to other predictive concepts. Their linguistic implementation of true/false, however, could be absolute or fuzzy (truthlikeness).

In addition, they'll probably utilize subjective vs. objective since communication between different perspectives requires translation between subjective (it looks red, it's in front of me, here and now, etc.) and objective: the apple (it) was emitting 400+ nm light (red) at 03:42pm (now) in Austin, Texas (and here).

See this video:

Frankly I can't imagine how anybody could not be bothered by these two theories.

That's problem with depressed persons - bother about things that are meaningless for healthy persons.

If either of these theories are true there is absolutely no possible way I will ever be happy.

What on Earth has quantity of possible ways of mixing words, with somebody happiness?

Your problem is depression, not quantity of possible ways of mixing elementary particles, words, or letters.

Do you tried taking medicine with Hypericum perforatum?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypericum_perforatum

The first one was introduced to me years ago by my father who has always been very interested in science. He told me that there is a finite limit on the number of books is possible to write. Not because human imagination is limited but because a book is made up of words which are a combination of letters and as there are a finite number of letters in existence then there is a finite number of different possible books that can be written. At least not without making words progressively longer and longer until they ceased to be usable.

That's correct. Book with finite number of pages, with finite size of font, will have finite quantity of ways words can be arranged.

Infinite quantity of stars, infinite quantity of galaxies would lead to no Universe that we know.

Read about Olbers' paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

Although it's not reason to feel depression.

Do you know how neutrino detector is working?

Perfectly stable Chlorine-37 is hit by neutrino that must have >0.814 MeV and it's changing to Argon-37, which is unstable element and decays back to... Chlorine-37 by electron capture. Argon-37 has half-life ~35 days.

Cl-37 + Ve + 0.814 MeV -> Ar-37 + e-

Ar-37 + e- -> Cl-37 + Ve + 0.814 MeV

Detector can observe flashes leaved by decaying Argon, or count argon gas molecules.

Chlorine based detector is working exclusively with neutrinos that exceed 0.814 MeV (which is quite a lot for Sun fusion f.e. p+ + p+ fusion is producing just 0.42 MeV).

If Argon-37 wouldn't be decaying, or have half-life significantly longer, this reaction could remain completely unnoticed.

I am working on application that will automatically analyze the all 3143 isotopes and show me all possible materials that could be used as neutrino detectors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_%28physics%29