insane_alien

Incidentally, does anyone know whether Lithium triteride is a real substance? I mean, obviously the strength ascribed to the metal it in the book is total bunk, as I know perfectly well that the part about the NOVA bomb temporarily containing nine thermonuclear explosions is speculative to the point of absolute lunacy. But does the chemical ion 'triteride' actually exist? I looked it up on Google and it was inconclusive.

yes, it would be lithium hydride with the tritium isotope of hydrogen.

Incidentally, Lithium Deuteride (Lithium Hydride with the Deuterium isotope of hydrogen) is used as nuclear fusion fuel in thermonuclear bombs.

What about, "Baby, your bum makes THAT look fantastic!"

The reply was 'so your saying i have crap fashion sense?'

again, no right answer.

"Does my bum look big in this?"

From extensive testing of this question in real life situations, there is no correct answer to this. The only option is to go for the response which cause you the least amount of grief.

Why is there no forum for phsychology? Phsychology technically is a science.

you mean like this one?

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/23-psychiatry-and-psychology/

its been around for a while.

its baloney. there are other threads on this use the search function.

the burner is external to the envelope of helium

it functions more like a hotair/helium balloon hybrid.

inside the primary balloon which functions like a hot air balloon there is a secondary balloon filled with helium, the helium is heated by contact with the hot exhaust inflating the primary.

this will explain it better

well, the practical advantage is a larger volume with no mass addition so the gas is less dense, not a clue what the temperature would be, hotter than the surrounding air which at those altitudes could mean -30*C

and they heat it with gas burners.

that has been done for some of the balloon altitude/endurance records.

you typically don't want to use it until you get very high up to save on fuel costs.

Could a vacuous sphere "bounce and roll" into the atmosphere without burning up?

there would be some plasma formation, this is inevitable.

Isn't the velocity needed dependent on gravity, which is dependent on altitude? Also, what about air pressure/density? Doesn't that make a different in drag?

yes, but this won't change significantly in the altitudes the balloon is able to operate at. i'd say at a push you could get to maybe 50km max.

far below minimum orbital height (due to atmospheric drag) so you'll still need to accelerate any payload to 7.5 km/s

yes, there will be lower drag to start out with but not really that much saving compared to the vast velocity you must attain to maintain an orbit.

Maybe such vehicles could be used to lower payloads slowly into the atmosphere to avoid re-entry friction

the payload would first have to slow down first match speeds with and dock with the balloon. it would also have to go quite deep into the atmosphere. altitude =/= orbit

and then carry some air up on their way back to space.

which would have to make most of the journey by rocket.

the big problem with launches is the velocity not the altitude

What you're hearing is people with non-rhotic accents. England has quite a few regions that speak with a non-rhotic accent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhotic_and_non-rhotic_accents

its not a mispronunciation or a speech impediment or insecurities, its an accent.

just like the southern drawl in the US or the nasaly tones of a new yorker.

plenty of non-rhotic accents in the states too.

now ends this foolishness

me either. luckily i don't browse the web often from my phone.

decided to try accessing the site from my mobile. turns out that orange thinks its a porn site and that i shouldn't be able to access porn sites for some reason.

as i've said before, i miss the indicator for whether you've read the post or not. i'd have that back and thats really about it.

Hahahahaha Its One Hundred One and not one hundred and one!

actually, the and is perfectly acceptable and it is definitely well used in the UK at least. i've actually never heard your method used of calling it one hundred one

Like has already been said, its crap. A big clue to this is the Argon. its completely unreactive (barring a few exotic states when its forced to react with fluorine and those are useless for solar panels as the light would destroy them, hell, anything above 100K would destroy them).

current promising methods of boosting PV efficiency are based more on carbon nanostructured surfaces to collect light.

then yeah, it'll have been made up, seeing as it's a fictional show and all, they don't really care about the existance of something to bung it in.

no, its complete bull likely made up for plot purposes and chemistry humour. it would be impossible to harness 100% of the energy hitting the surface of the pannel anyway.

Hello, my I'm fashfiji. I like science alot and am interested in making a working lightsaber. The -sadly- sole reason I signed up. And after I make one I'll get involved in other things... I'll be making a post on what my Ideas are on how to make something like a lightsaber so check it out because I need help. (hence the joining)

hey fashfiji, i seen you came on the IRC a short time ago, just to let you know people do use it, you just have to wait more than a minute usually. i only chacked the window about 5 seconds after you decided to give up.

if you just open it in a new tab/window and leave it for a while, someone will turn up eventually.

There is avery good reason this was banned and made illegal in several countries. it increases risks of heart attack, stroke and death.

if you're going to the gym to lose weight successfully then keep doing that. no point in getting fitter just so you can wreck your body with an outlawed cocktail of chemicals.

i really do advise you not to do this.

there isn't enough demand for it. we get maybe 10 threads a year on the subject, not really worth giving it its own subforum.

you can PM an administartor if you want.

but why did you post the email if you were going to take it down soon after? you could have sent the user a private message.

next time, don't post anything you aren't comfortable leaving there forever as we don't like to delete things already posted.

you can't. this is to prevent edit systems being abused.

when we let posts be editable indefinately people go back and change stuff to make anyone who replies to it seem a bit thick. it disrupts conversation and leads to confusion.

if you have further corrections to make, post them in your next post.

a good one would be when shopping, try and add up a total price as you go along and see if you can get it right when you go to pay for it(i used to bug the hell out of my mum doing that when i was wee, i hadn't discovered my 'inside voice')

bonus points if you work out how much change you should get before the guy at the till tells you.

while you're getting started, using pen and paper is acceptable but you should aim to not need that eventually.

this, along with normal practice should help you get a good feel for addition and subtraction.

also, a bookshop like borders or waterstones probably has childrens math workbooks which you could work through, if it can teach children(and you can put up withthe completely unrealistic scenarios i remember them giving you) then they can teach adults. i have no idea if they produce an adult version of those but you could maybe ask.

i admire you for your persistance, i know a few people in a similar situation but they keep giving up when they can't seem to get some part. keep at it and you'll get there.

lol.

so is sugar. so is bleach. so is fertiliser. so is well, pretty much any substance can be transformed into an explosive material when comined with the right substances.

sulphur is also a very very useful chemical in terms of home chemistry. making sulphuric acid from scratch is a good experiment to try.

sounds like you have a bad case of chemophobia.