Sensei

Sensey

I don’t know a law, even in physic, that suma of two sides of a triangle to be less that the third. Am I wrong?

They don't have to match..

 

Horizontal axis is time. Vertical axis is distance from us in c unit (1=~300,000 km)

 

Or I misunderstand your idea in your post?

I think so.

 

It's purely theoretical.

 

Imagine that mirror is approaching at v=2c. We have laser and sending beam of photons at that mirror. Mirror is reflecting laser to us and we measure delay between sending, and receiving.

 

After 33-34 second that red line should be going back to bottom. I was just interested in intersection time.

Isn't sound obeying inverse square law?

The all good programmers that I met, know how to program computers a long time before going to university (if they ever went to... studying is learning how to learn.. if you learned already why to waste time for paper.. ? IT companies here are more likely hiring programmer that learned programming by himself, than those after university.. Most of job offers are with comment "no study required, you will write application in test day")

 

Buy some books about C/C++, .NET Framework, install free Visual Studio Express from MSDN, and write programs.

Instead of searching for some ready application on net, make it by yourself.

You will see whether it's for you or not.

 

But why? Any signal we send out, however strong and confined must diverge and thus weaken, over interstellar distances, even the shortest; why would their signals be any different? But if we could confine a signal well enough, how do we know which way to point it?

 

Yeah.

 

If somebody tried to calibrate satellite dish & receiver from Astra or Hot Bird, he should know how hard it is.. I really hate doing it. 1mm in wrong direction and there is no transmission.

 

It's plain stupid to send signal for longer distances in the all directions (following inverse square law). It would waste a lot of energy to send data where is nobody who can listen for signal.

When we're sending data (and receiving data back) to/from Voyager it's directional signal, like laser, very precisely adjusted to target. And we don't send signal to place where Voyager is now visible, but where it'll be after time needed for signal to reach that location. Where is nothing now from our point of view.

 

Airplane pilots do the same- shooting at location ahead of enemy airplane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflection_%28ballistics%29

Which makes Sensei's comment about "You should first learn how to calculate in moles, how to convert to grams, how to calculate concentration etc. etc." a little ironic.)

 

Ironic? Not at all. It was not mine intention.

 

I simply suspected he doesn't know how to calculate it after seeing question:

"if i react 91% KOH with that impure acid would the KCl be pure enough to be used in further reactions to obtain another substances with it?"

I was thinking about making some KCl using KOH and HCl (funny how I can get these 2 substances but i can't really find some KCl...) but the acid i found has a yellow color.The concentration is...32%...or 34%,i forgot,but...if i react 91% KOH with that impure acid would the KCl be pure enough to be used in further reactions to obtain another substances with it?

 

You should first learn how to calculate in moles, how to convert to grams, how to calculate concentration etc. etc.

 

If you have 32% concentration of HCl in 1 L, how many grams do you have of HCl?

 

I use Google Maps all the time. Whenever I have to go some place new, I always drive there in street view first! I'll bet it's saved me thousands of hours wandering around lost or trying to figure out where to park. It really is amazing at how much geographic data is freely available. It must be a lot easier delivering pizza than it was when I was a kid

 

They just bought satellite & drone building company, so expect real-time maps in a couple years. You will see on map your own car on road you're going..

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-06-10/googles-bought-a-satellite-startup-to-make-maps-not-internet-connections

I am getting 2 grams as well.

 

You didn't calculated sodium nitrate concentration.

One cannot measure (...) nor super-light speeds using light.

 

I think so it's possible, but there must be meet couple requirements:

- faster than light object must be approaching us (not perfectly directly), not receding.

- faster than light object must be reflecting light.

 

Suppose so faster than light object is flying with v = 2c to Earth, at t = 0 it's 100*c distance from us.

We're sending photons in that direction (without knowing about object - similar like active radar is working), and photons are reflected from it somewhere around 33-34 seconds later, and then going back to us after 66-68 seconds after sending them.

 

In the mean time object is long time gone. So we cannot perform yet another test.

 

If we would be sending photons continuously in the all directions, we could see that object to be receding from us (photons send later by us, would return quicker, after reflection, than those send earlier!).

 

How many joules of force would it take to obliterate 1 Ton of...

Force has unit Newtons.

Energy has unit Joule.

 

You can't say "joules of force".

 

In physics we don't use word "obliterate". Do you rather meant annihilation?

 

how many joules does it take to lift 1 ton?

Potential energy = m*g*h

m - mass in kg

g - Earth's acceleration 9.81 m/s^2

h - relative height

To rise 1000 kg for 1 meter, you would need 1000 kg * 9.81 m/s^2 * 1 m = 9810 J.

You are probably thinking about amount of energy that could be released by fuel when it would be burned (with gaseous oxygen).

Not quite the same what I was thinking.

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

Ton of hydrogen and antihydrogen will release the same amount of energy as ton of f.e. carbon and anticarbon.

So material doesn't really matter when we're are interested just about matter-energy conversion rate.

Joule [J] is unit of energy, not force [N]

 

J = kg*m^2/s^2

N = kg*m/s^2

 

1 ton is 1000 kg

 

1 ton could have energy E=m*c^2=1000 kg * (299,792,458 m/s)^2=1000 * 89875517873681764 = 8.988*10^19 J

 

but you would need 1 ton of antimatter to release that all energy..

I have few lasers, and none has linear polarization.

If you have polarization filter, you can find out yours LED/LCD/mobile phones screens polarization.
See this thread how I am doing so:
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/80366-particle-location/page-3#entry783255
Modern mobile phones that I checked have screens emitting not linearly polarized light.

That story is extremely doubtful to be polite. First, the measurements are difficult to make. Then, one team made measurements at one place, and an other team on an other continent re-interpreted the data 20 years later, with some filtering, without seeing the disappeared experiment that had by far not been designed for the new claimed accuracy, nor interviewing the experiment's authors.

 

The re-processed data contains fluctuations; the more recent authors analyze some fluctuations that confirm their claim and neglect others that don't. It's visible with naked eye on the curves. This does not fit science.

 

The authors believe to see a seasonal variation and claim it must relate with Sun's distance, while billions of effects depend on the season.

I have no idea what are you talking about.

Experiments made by Jenkins & Fischbach were made in 2006..

So why are you introducing some "20 years ago" fairy tale, that has nothing to do with article.. ?

 

Ephraim is professor on the Purdue University

http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/ephraim.shtml

 

 

This does not fit science.

 

Science is constantly making experiments.

Prepare Chlorine-36, prepare Manganese-54, and start recording decay rate whole year.

If you will have steady decays per second while long term observation, you will have proof and counter-argument for Fischbach & Jenkins observations.

 

A scientist has taken the accurate curves of power produced by the RTG of a space probe that went both near Venus and Jupiter - a distance change better observable than Earth's eccentricity - to observe that the decay rate evolved exactly as expected. No effect of Sun's distance.

You obviously didn't take into account that RTG uses Plutonium that's decaying by emitting alpha particle. That might have meaning.

I would expect RTG to have voltage/current stabilizers. Also RTG are using Peltier effect that's very little efficiency.

They're not designed to be detector of decays per second, but to be power source.

 

What I noticed is that Manganese-54 decays by both beta decay- and beta decay+, and electron capture:

 

Isotope Manganese-54
Protons 25 Neutrons 29
Mass 53.9404 [u]
Nucleus Energy 50232.3 [MeV]
Parent 50232.3 Daugther 50231.5
Alpha decay prohibited (-8.7587 MeV)
Proton emission prohibited (-7.55958 MeV)
Neutron emission prohibited (-8.93835 MeV)
Manganese-54 -> Iron-54 + e- + Ve + 0.69713 MeV
Manganese-54 -> Chromium-54 + e+ + Ve + 0.355216 MeV
Manganese-54 + e- -> Chromium-54 + Ve + 1.37721 MeV

 

 

Chlorine-36 also decays both by beta decay- and beta decay+, and also electron capture:

 

Isotope Chlorine-36
Protons 17 Neutrons 19
Mass 35.9683 [u]
Nucleus Energy 33495.6 [MeV]
Parent 33495.6 Daugther 33494.9
Alpha decay prohibited (-7.64155 MeV)
Proton emission prohibited (-7.96448 MeV)
Neutron emission prohibited (-8.57926 MeV)
Chlorine-36 -> Argon-36 + e- + Ve + 0.709681 MeV
Chlorine-36 -> Sulfur-36 + e+ + Ve + 0.120219 MeV
Chlorine-36 + e- -> Sulfur-36 + Ve + 1.14222 MeV

That's why I suggested Ephraim to try also Copper-64 that's also both beta decay- and beta decay+.

 

 

 

 

When searching for a simple experiment that a students team could make on a satellite, I considered checking this "effect" versus the changing distance to Sun over an orbit. The radioactivity specialist I consulted answered to forget said claim.

Wrong. You should perform such experiment regardless of his opinion. But use various radioactive materials. There are proton emitters, neutron emitters, positron emitters, electron emitters, alpha emitters, gamma emitters. Each one should be independently checked at various distances from the Sun. And of course they should not be used to power on whole satellite!

 

So: don't take this for firm evidence, and don't build any theory on such claims.

Actually I know Ephraim Fischbach. We were talking about his experiments with neutrinos. He asked me what experiments I would like him to perform and I suggest few, that you would definitely call highly speculative..

See article

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

 

Ethanol 30 MJ/kg

Methanol 19.7 MJ/kg

Quantum mechanics deals with the random and probabilistic nature of physics at the atomic scale. If you are looking for some theory that produces this probabilistic nature as some emergent phenomena, then there is no accepted theory in mainstream physics.

 

There is no theory, but there is evidence.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/08/neutrinos-and-solar-storms

Also some normally unstable particles were stopped indefinitely from decaying when properly isolated in magnetic traps.

1. In my country, quicklime is very cheap, just about less than half of 1 dollaer for 1 kg

 

We have it for $0.1493 per kg ($149.3 per tonne). (The first link from google)

 

2. Petroleum can be found in sotme countries, but not all. Many countries must import it for using. While quicklime can be found in mountain, I think every country can have this

But in mountains there is CaCO₃.

You need to heat it (in furnace), spending money on coal/oil to heat it.

Each "processed" 1 kg of CaCO₃ will produce 439 grams of CO₂ to environment..

 

3. Better or worse, petroleum resouces in the world will be empties in next few decades. And we have to look for a new source, no other choice. Why don't we think of my experment as an applicable solution?

 

After releasing energy by CaO + H2O

you would need to convert that energy to electricity.

Typical method is heating water to level it's changed to vapor, which is then used to move turbines.

 

Try making such device, and you will have electricity for free.

 

Vietnam has large amount of rainfall?

I read on the net about between 50% to 400% higher rainfall in Vietnam than here in a year.

If I were you, I would concentrate on this source of power.

If we use a larger amount, for example 1 kg of lime, the released amount of energy will be more terrible, in comparison with 1 kg of coal, or 1 m3 of petroleum, natural gas.

 

Do you know how CaO has been created?

By heating Ca(OH)₂ at >500 C, it breaks up to CaO + H₂O. Or CaCO3 -> CaO + CO₂ >900 C.

You're just reversing this operation.

 

If you're thinking about using it as replacement fuel for petroleum and natural gas, it's not gonna happen.

You have to first spend energy to create CaO.

Unlike petroleum, which was created millions years ago from vegetables and animals.

 

As the radius and mass change the rotation changes. Galaxy size we are up to one rotation in a million or so years.

One rotation around galaxy center takes Sun 225-250 million years.

 

Sun has velocity ~220 km/s. Distance to galaxy is average ~2.7*10^17 km.

Circle has length 2*PI*r = 2*3.14159265*2.7*10^17 = ~1.7*10^18 km

1.7*10^18 km / 220 km/s = 7.71*10^15 s / ( 60*60*24*365.25 ) = 244,352,611 = 244.4 mln years (within 225-250 mln years range).

For elliptical orbit we would need to know min-max distance to galaxy center.

I am suggesting that we do not necessarily need a Large Hadron collider ,

 

Don't you think so that suggesting getting rid of particle accelerators and replacing them by "5 kg mass on rope" is kinda ridiculous.. ?

 

It shows your misunderstanding what these devices are even doing..

 

or A Giga Giga fast Computer simulation to model a small or Big , or very specific , aspect of the Universe

 

What else these fast computers would be doing? Do you prefer to calculate nuclear explosions simulations on them, instead of doing something for science.. ?

How about learning some real physics, for instance learning how to calculate decay energy, or energy produced by fusion.. ?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83451-radioactive-decay-and-information-split-from-what-is-real-in-physics/?p=808149

Electron doesn't change to positron, nor positron doesn't change to electron in time, like you showed on picture in post #22.

 

If you want to see traces leaved by electrons or positrons, simply build cloud chamber for $20.

 

Electric charge of particles is conserved quantity.

 

Edit Why are computers so stupid?

 

On the posting entry editor I can write a c in parenthesis, and see it that way there on the editing editor afterwards.

 

Yet it appears in my full screen as the copyright symbol.

I make more than enough genuine spelling mistakes, without the system inventing them.

 

Computers are not stupid. They just do what programmer told them to do.

In this case programmer that made SFN forum script made predefined array of symbols that are automatically converted to html entities.

 

I am able to enter (c) (select "c" then pick up font size 14). Procedure searching for shortcuts won't be able to find it and convert.

See how easy is to introduce error.

 

Check Zn-64 on wiki

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

 

They say it's "observatory stable" with possible double beta decay+

But calculate decay energy, and it'll be obvious it cannot happen.

Simply sum of nucleus of Ni-64 + 2e+ have higher mass-energy than nucleus Zn-64.

They had to use D.E.=(m_parent-m_child)*931.494 MeV=73.6 keV

 

This error is repeated over and over again in many elements.

I have checked three elements, and all three wrong.

Ni-58 another example

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

 

So, if everyone on earth (call it 10^10) had a comparable generator that's about 50 Mg/ min or 72 Gg per day

A tonne is a thousand kilos or a million grams so, if everyone had a generator, we could add 72,000 tonnes per day.

 

If I am not mistaken you're calculating per hour output from single ozone generator to be just 0.3 grams.

 

The first one generator (for $200 retail) that I found on net has output... 7 grams per hour (7000mg/hr).

http://www.a2zozone.com/collections/featured-products/products/a7k-air-ozone-generator

 

That's 23 times more than yours calculations.

 

If I would be producing ozone at Earth's surface level, I would try to use electrolysis of water to have high concentration of oxygen 100%. Then make ozone from it. Instead of relying on air oxygen.

Such production can be additional in normal commercial production of Hydrogen in factories.