Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


OldChemE last won the day on October 14 2019

OldChemE had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

61 Excellent

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

3311 profile views
  1. Having served in the Military-- I do think it is an excellent example of Socialism. Much of this thread has focused on the Military with respect to society. I'd like to focus internally. When I was in the Military I did not have to worry about anything external to my life. My job was defined, my location was defined, my pay and benefits were totally beyond my control-- but I was cared for assured of housing, assured of medical treatment, and even life insurance. Society (the Military) took complete care of me from enlistment until discharge.
  2. I'm not the right kind of Engineer for this-- but it does not seem impossible to me at all. Consider a weight hanging from a pivot point in the aircraft. When the aircraft rolls to the left without deviating from its forward path (rotational acceleration only), the weight, responding to gravity, will pivot toward the left of the aircraft. When the aircraft rolls right, the weight will pivot to the right. If this weight was connected to some sort of control cable the action of the weight could be harnessed to counteract the roll. Now, I have not read the book and have no idea if this is what the Wright Brothers did-- but it seems to me the principle might be viable to some extent.
  3. The problem goes beyond simple lies. Prior to the Internet, the principle source of knowledge for people was books. Getting a book published took lots of effort, and the only thing that reached our schools were the textbooks selected by the school system. This was not foolproof-- but it tended to screen out some of the lies and misinformation. Now, anybody can 'publish' any sort of nonsense and reach a large audience. Virtually anyone who wishes some fact was not true can find plenty of support on the internet for their misguided hopes. It's the same as the political situation-- people with politically extreme ideas seem to have no difficulty finding some 'news' source that tells them what they want to believe.
  4. With respect, I think this thread needs to be unified with the thread explaining the difference between correlation and causation.
  5. Better to have the surgery that doesn't do the damage, and not have to wait.
  6. I would start with an average High School Algebra book. Pearson and a number of other textbook publishers make very good ones. They tend to be aimed at a population of students that have a wide range of learning styles, so they have written material, pictures, examples and other such things. Once you know what learning style fits you best you can then move on to more tailored textbooks. There are more modern teaching systems, such as "Eureka Math" but they do not have well-developed reading material and tend to be more narrow in the learning styles they address. I've taught Algebra using the older books and with Eureka Math, but the older books seem to have broader success.
  7. Not as much as in the past. The new robotic surgeries have made remarkable strides in avoiding damage ( as verified by personal experience)
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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."
  12. 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.
  13. OldChemE


    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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  • 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.