Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

45 Good

About OldChemE

  • Rank
  • 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

Recent Profile Visitors

2996 profile views
  1. Logically, your equation should work fine. It is mathematically equivalent to multiplying the number of elements in the sequence by the mean number of the sequence, which always gives the sum. To see why, lets look at this set: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. To get the sum we could add 10+1, then 9+2, then 8+3, 7+4, 6+5.... all of which add to 11. The mean of the sequence is 5.5, which is just (10+2)/2. If we multiply this mean by the quantity of numbers in the set (10) we get 55, which is the sum of 10+1, 9+2, 8+3, 7+4 and 6+5. The equation that corresponds to my example is ((n+k)/2)(n-k+1), and your equation can be manipulated to match this equation.
  2. Those who pass laws must be 100% subject to the same laws. For example, Retirement systems and medical care for legislators and government officials have to be within the Social Security and Medicare systems. If they had to depend on it they would be more likely to try to get it right.
  3. If you look at the history of earthquakes in Southern California you will see something very interesting. The San Andres fault has a sort of "dogleg" or hockey stick bend in Southern California. The pressure from the northward movement of the Pacific Plate, along the San Andres fault, pushes against the dogleg. On a diagonal line roughly to the Northwest from this dogleg, there is a history of additional earthquakes, not on the San Andreas fault. From an engineering perspective, it is as if the pressure at the dogleg is stretching the crust to the northwest, or maybe even (some day) forming a new fault line to the northwest branching off the San Andreas fault. The Ridgecrest Earthquakes were on this diagonal from the San Andreas fault.
  4. I see the logic behind your point-- its a good one. I just think that in science we are not nearly as close to the point of knowing as much as there is to know. When it comes to ultimate knowledge I think we are barely to the beginning of the "S". Of course, I realize I cannot prove this.
  5. Yes, but history shows that here is a new "S" curve for each new technology. As long as Science is used to discover we will likely continue to produce more "S" curves. One very exciting thing about Science and Engineering is that we do not yet know what we do not know.
  6. We've been seeing similarly cooler summer days in my part of Northern Nevada. But-- to my view it seems to correlate to global warming. What has happened is that the past couple of winters, especially this last one, have been much warmer. 9 years ago, when we moved here in retirement, we hit nightime lows of -25 F on several occasions, and had snow. This past winter we rarely dropped lower than +10 F, and had very little snow. Instead, we had lots of rain, and the rain continued into the spring. Now we have groundwater at the surface, and frequently the evaporation builds unseasonal cloud cover-- so we are seeing slightly cooler days than normal for the summer. To my relatively untrained eye it looks to me like the overall warming (and associated evaporation) is bringing more moisture to the high desert and the effect of that moisture is to moderate the extremes-- giving warmer winter/cooler summer.
  7. I cannot see how any of the above statements logically follow from the definition of Emotional Intelligence. Maybe I have the wrong definition?? According to Wikipedia: Emotional intelligence (EI), emotional leadership (EL), emotional quotient (EQ) and emotional intelligence quotient (EIQ), is the capability of individuals to recognize their own emotions and those of others, discern between different feelings and label them appropriately, use emotional information to guide thinking ... Emotional intelligence - Wikipedia It seems to me that a high capability to recognize ones own emotions and discern the emotions of others would be very beneficial to relationships.
  8. hint: Look up the rational zeroes theorem, then look at synthetic division, and work from there
  9. Perhaps the way to improve peer review is to not make it blind. Circumstances are admittedly different, but I once worked in the Nuclear power industry, and every engineering document was required to be verified by a separate engineer. This was a form of peer review. The difference was that the name and signature of the review engineer was placed on the publication along with the name and signature of the originating engineer. If the document turned out to be wrong, the reputations of both the originator and the reviewer were on the line.
  10. You haven't said whether these numbers are the result of a specific calculation, or whether they are experimental observations. They very much appear to be exponential decay, but not all the numbers fit perfectly. My scientific calculator suggests that a reasonable mathematical model (assuming exponential decay) could be y = (2870)*(0.576)^x, where x =1 for the first term (the 2025 term). Exponential decay does have a long tail as you suggested.
  11. The amount of matter in a sphere is only proportional to the cube of the radius if the sphere is of uniform density. It is the volume that is proportional to the cube of the radius. If the density if not uniform, the relationship is totally case-dependent. Either way is says nothing about a "preferred location." We don't have to be where the planet is if we are someplace else-- such as in orbit.
  12. Early man was essentially powerless in nature. He could hunt and forage for food, build shelter and care for a family, but he and his family were largely at the mercy of the natural elements. Having the intelligence to be dissatisfied with this situation, man began to wish for something better and to visualize beings who had power over the elements and did not have human limitations. This is the origin of Gods. Thus, early gods tended to reflect the needs of mankind: Gods of the hunt, the harvest, and of all things good in life. As mankind grew and developed into larger tribes and had territorial conflicts, the Gods of battle and war emerged-- because a warrior who could win was what mankind needed. As man recognized the limitations if death and yearned for more life, gods became immortal. When civilizations developed and mankind had a better lot in life, such as early Grecian and Roman societies, mankind yearned for pleasures that the moral standards of society tended to limit, and the immortal gods emerged that had to power to have limitless love affairs and debauchery. In simple terms, our Gods have always tended to represent the things we wish we could have in life but cannot always have due to our human limitations.
  13. Omnivore for sure. I love veggies and meat. I try not to eat meat from any animal with an encephalization quotient over about 1.
  14. Agreed. over a very short distance two great circles could appear to be parallel, but still ultimately converge.
  15. I'm not certain-- but I try. The internet makes it possible for people to say things and be aggressive in ways that they would probably never do in face-to-face conversations. I try to avoid this and behave in the same manner I would in conversations with friends. Civility is important to me.