Jump to content

OldChemE

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

OldChemE last won the day on October 14 2019

OldChemE had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

59 Good

About OldChemE

  • Rank
    Baryon
  • Birthday 07/13/1946

Profile Information

  • Location
    High desert Nevada USA
  • Interests
    All things science, golf, tutoring grandchildren, developing cartridge designs for old rifles (experimenting with various types of gun powder, various bullet designs, various ballistic results, target shooting), working with my hands (wood/metal).
  • College Major/Degree
    BsChe, MSNuclear
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physical Sciences
  • Biography
    38 years engineering, 10 years teaching (Math & Science) I'm not much of a debate person. I have confidence in myself (worts and all) so I tend to state my position on a topic and move on. Peer approval isn't high on my needs list.
  • Occupation
    retired

Recent Profile Visitors

3228 profile views
  1. Not as much as in the past. The new robotic surgeries have made remarkable strides in avoiding damage ( as verified by personal experience)
  2. As iNow says, we are all ruled by chemistry. So, the discussion does indeed depend on how you define the terms. Traditionally free will has been regarded as the ability of an individual to make its own decisions using its own brain. This is still the case. Our decisions may be driven by internal factors rather than rational thought-- but ultimately, our decisions come from within us. And, since our neural connections are driven by our experiences in addition to genetics, we are all to some degree unique. Thus, I would argue we have free will. However, not all would agree with me.
  3. The question comes down to this: Should we ban X because X may lead to damage to the person who chooses to do X? As long as the individual who chooses X is the one who faces the risk, then a free society has no moral right to ban X.
  4. Mine book says non uniform in single loop, of course, but also toward the ends of a solenoid of finite length. I think the OP has been well answered by others in any case, so this probably isn't of any importance.
  5. I can't figure out how you conclude this. My old physics textbook clearly states that the magnetic field within a wire coil is "NOT uniform."
  6. This is the kind of problem that is more easily solved if you step back before turning the math crank. Look at y = x^2 and y = 16&x. y = X^2 is a parabola that passes through the origin. y = 16^x is an exponential function, and on the positive x side it rises faster than the parabola-- so it is obvious that there will be no solution for x > 0. On the negative side of the graph, 16^x approaches zero asymptotically, and is already 1/16 when x = -1 (while at x = -1 the parabola is at y = 1). Thus, it becomes obvious that the solution must lie in the region -1 < x < 0. I did a quick sketch of the two functions and it was equally obvious the crossing point had to be somewhere close to -0.5, as stated by Studiot. Understanding the shapes of functions makes trial and error, and heavy math, both unnecessary.
  7. OldChemE

    E=mc^2

    Could you be confusing chemical energy with the energy content of mass? The Free energy of different compounds and material does vary-- but that only involves a portion of the total energy.
  8. if the first point is (0 -3), as stated, then the equation is y = x - 3, not y = 0.5x + 3. If it was intended to type (0,3), but typed as (0-3) in error, then y = 0.5x + 3 is correct.
  9. And who is to decide what constitutes "how much they contribute"? Are we talking money? agricultural products? art? inspirational writings? Great food recipes? Who is to decide what constitutes a good contribution versus what is ultimately bad for society? Philosophically this might sound good but I do believe that from a practical standpoint it is a non-starter. What you are basically doing is trying to figure out a formula to increase the influence of the population that you prefer to support. That is in the same class as gerrymandering and other political pursuits. The beauty of the constitution is that it lays out principles for representation that are supposed to be above this sort of thing, and much of the time it even succeeds.
  10. iNow: I concur with both the caveats. I too would like the system to be in balance properly.
  11. You've missed the whole point of the Constitution. The Senate is designed to give equal voice to each state-- which is (in some sense) a balancing of cultural differences, while the House of Representatives gives equal voice by population, which gives a balance by population. The whole purpose is to make it so that legislation is supported both by region/culture and population. What you are suggesting takes away that balance.
  12. It seems odd to me that we have multiple theories to explain an effect that may or may not exist. Personally, I haven't found that time seems to pass more quickly as I age. Is there any actual scientific evidence that the perception of the passage of time changes as we age? or is this a case of science trying to explain anecdotal perceptions?
  13. I don't disagree-- but I think we have different tolerance levels as to what kind of engineering challenge counts as an issue.
  14. I recall from many years ago similar projects being discussed. My recollection is that there were no structural issues-- but there were efficiency issues. Solar power already evaporates water for the entire surface of the ocean and delivers it to land in the form of precipitation. This, of course, is of limited efficiency because some of the precipitations falls on the oceans, or in places it cannot be efficiently used. However, since floating desalination systems detract from the natural evaporation, they would have to be correspondingly more efficient to make a net benefit. The challenge is in making the floating system, and the energy required to retrieve the water thus produced, sufficiently efficient to make it financially superior to capturing the natural precipitation.
  15. I think my grandfather-- who was a well-educated and thoughtful man, had it worked out.. When my Father graduated from college, my grandfather sent him a handwritten note with the following message: "Wishing you throughout the years, a fullness of happiness, a diligent pursuit of purpose and a life of fruitful accomplishments (June, 1941)
×
×
  • 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.