lethalfang

Hello' date=' a Newbie here!

 

 

 

Not being in the science or physics field, please pardon my stupidity or foolishness, but could it be that there is some 'free' energy with the result of LESS water as waste?

 

Just a thought to someone who watched that video and was thinking about the 'potential' of all the water we have around here waiting to be burned as fuel! LOL[/quote']

 

Well, the water he claims as fuel has to go somewhere or become something. If it is to become something else, then it requires work because water is of the lowest free energy of all molecules that can be made from hydrogen and/or oxygen atoms. It the waste is water, then he gains nothing. Unless, of course, he's claiming nuclear fusion. LOL

I don't care if you can make HHO and make it stable.

The basic thernodynamics has not and will not have changed.

You go from H2O to HHO: if absolutely no heat is lost during this process, a minimum of X amount of energy is required to do so.

You go from HHO go H2O: if absoutely no heat is lost during this process, the maximum possible amount energy you can extract from this process is X.

So the theoratically best you can do is to get nothing, and you cannot do the theoratically best.

No, E=MC2 mens that one unit of mass is converted to energy at the rate of mass(m) times the speed of light squared(C2). This is how nuclear bombs have such grate amounts of energy.

Anti-matter of subatomic particles are created in nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, and that's how mass is lost in nuclear explosion.

The total quantum number in the universe is conserved according to our understanding, thus, to convert the matter into energy, one must have equal amount of anti-matter.

But if the universe is expanding and mass can be changed to energy via E=MC2 then there will be energy, unless it is radiated faster then it can be made from mass. Is this right?

According to current understanding, matter can only convert to energy when matter meets anti-matter.

There isn't enough anti-matter around to conver all matter to energy.

Even there is, matter will eventually run out as well.

here's some speculation

 

what if his technology consists of an electrical current which stabilises the highly negative HHO molecules. that would favour its formation and maintain its existence as a higher (than H20) energy compound.

That's not the point.

The point is free energy, work, and thernodynamics.

If you begin with water as a fuel, and ends with water as a waste, there is no friggin' way any energy can be extracted for work.

Water can only be considered as a fuel if and only if you end up with a waste that is of lower energy than water. Unfortunately (as far as fueling is concerned), water is the lowest energy molecule you can make out of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, thus, water as a fuel is an impossible prospect.

Fusion creates energy, because 2 hydrogen atoms combine to make one helium atom, and helium is of lower energy than hydrogen, hence work can be extracted. The problem is that this process is spontaneous only at very high temperature, e.g. hydrogen bomb.

H2O, HHO, HOH, whatever.

The fact is, water is the lowest energy of them all, that means it is thermodynamically impossible to use it as a fuel.

What's he saying? He converts H2O to something else, and then generates H2O as waste? That means there is a net of zero energy output, and that's not speaking of the energy loss in converting H2O to that "something else."

This really is quite simple as far as classical thermodynamics is concerned. According to the laws of thermodynamics, anything (including the universe) will one day reach equilibrium. Anything at equilbrium will have a statistically uniform (random) distribution of all matter and all energy. Nothing interesting will occur in equilbrium, and anything at equilbrium cannot do work of any kind.

The system at equilbrium still has internal energy. The product of entropy and temperature is a form of energy, but it cannot do work of any sort.

Whether viruses are alive or not is purely a matter of semantics - the meaning of words. In other words' date=' decide on your definition of 'life', and then see if viruses measure up. It is not a purely scientific question.

 

My definition of life is something that includes the following three attributes.

 

1. It is based on organic chemistry.

2. It reproduces.

3. It evolves.

 

This is not too dissimilar to the nucleic acid definition postulated in a previous post. Just, perhaps, a little more precise.

 

Attribute 1 above is included purely to exclude some computer programs that reproduce and evolve. Some people would debate that the programs might be alive, but I suspect most biologists would dispute that point.

 

Attribute 3 is essential, since fire reproduces, and may be based on organic chemistry as fuel, but does not evolve.

 

Thus, these 3 attributes are the minimum required for a realistic definition of life.

 

My own view is that, based on this definition, viruses are alive.

They are only just alive, but still living.[/quote']

 

Would you consider a single molecule of DNA, e.g. a plasmid, alive?

The only difference between a plasmid and a virus is the presence of a protein coat.

The line between living and non-living isn't clear cut.

What would be possible if humans used 100% of their brain power?

some say that we would have perfect telekinesis and telepathy. i think that humans already have telepahy' date=' they just don't use it, thus causing it to "disappear". others have said that we could walk through walls.

 

id like a list of what you think is possible if we used 100% of our brain.

 

(thats also assuming the neurons work at peak efficency)[/quote']

 

We already use 100% of our brain.

The pen idea is a great idea indeed.

It's okay for the pen to be bulky and ugly. It does not even to be a working pen, even though it's nice if it is.

It's a proof of principle thing, and I figure you do not have the budget to get the finest cutting-edge equiptment.

Why should earth face inertia of rotation? I mean inertia comes into picture only when there is some opposing force right? What opposes the rotation of earth .... ( Is is sun's gravity?? Just a guess )

The opposing force comes from rotation.

The inertia comes from the fact that a instantaneous velocity vector points outward for a rotation object.

What if the neutron hits the electrons surrounding the atom, wouldn't it deflect off and change it's path?

The mass of an electron is miniscule comparing to the mass of a neutron. The momentum change in a neutron if it runs into an electron is negligible.

Maths definately have a role in medicine. Doctors can use calculus to comparing patient physiology. For example, you can create functions of a patients heart rate and use it to quantitatively compare it to a normal heart. There are hundreds of other things like this, especially with the human nervous system. If you think you won't need math in biology, think again.

Few doctors can do calculus.

Math is not heavily required for people in the medical career.

Medical research, now that's another matter, depending on what kind of research you do.

Physical chemistry requires a good amount of math.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n8_v15/ai_15588225

 

 

 

An island of stability - chemists add elements to the periodic table

Discover' date=' August, 1994 by Robert Naeye

 

 

Save a personal copy of this article and quickly find it again with Furl.net. It's free! Save it.

 

NEARLY ALL THE ELEments from hydrogen to uranium occur naturally on Earth. Beyond that, doing chemistry gets exceptionally difficult. To study an element heavier than uranium--which has 92 protons in its nucleus, and thus an atomic number of 92--you have to make it first, usually by slamming a light element into a heavy one at high speed and hoping some of the nuclei stick together. The first nine transuranic elements were produced in a flurry between 1940 and 1955--eight of them, beginning with plutonium, by a group that included American chemist Glenn Seaborg. (The group found elements 99 and 100 in the fallout from the first hydrogen bomb explosion, at Eniwetok Atoll in 1952; element 100 was in a garbage can.) But the pace has been slower ever since. No new elements have been discovered since the early 1980s, when German researchers synthesized elements 107, 108, and 109. Even those discoveries have yet to be confirmed by a second laboratory.

 

Making the heaviest elements is so hard that only four labs in the world even attempt it. They do so for the challenge, for the glory of making additions to the periodic table, and because by creating artificial elements they can test their theories of how natural ones are put together. And recently, after a dry spell, they've had some notable success. Late last year a team at the University of California at Berkeley confirmed a 1974 discovery by Albert Ghiorso of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and his colleagues, including Seaborg: they made element 106 a second time. Ghiorso promptly christened the element seaborgium, and it can now be officially added to the periodic table. Meanwhile, a group of Russian and American scientists has found that seaborgium is rather interesting: some forms of it survive for as long as 30 seconds before they decay into lighter elements. That result has raised hopes that somewhere in the upper reaches of the periodic table may lurk elements stable enough for us to get to know well.

 

The elements tend to get progressively less stable the further beyond uranium you go because their nuclei contain progressively more positively charged protons, and like charges repel one another. If the electrostatic force were the only force at work, however, every atom, transuranic or not, would fly apart immediately. Instead, as the protons and their electrically neutral cousins, the neutrons, zip around inside the nucleus, they are bound together by the strong nuclear force, one of nature's four fundamental forces. That is, they are bound together until they get too close together: at close range the strong force turns repulsive. The balance of attractive and repulsive forces generally molds the nucleus into a sphere.

Continue article

Advertisement

 

 

The interactions of dozens of particles are so complex, though, that theorists have a hard time predicting just how stable a particular element will be, and they can't always agree--which is why making new elements is a useful test of competing theories. But one thing everyone agrees on, because quantum mechanics requires it, is that the protons and neutrons in the nucleus can only occupy discrete energy levels--chemists call them shells--just like the electrons that buzz around the nucleus. Although the shells represent energy levels, they also have a spatial significance. Particles with the most energy are more likely to be found in the outer shell of the nucleus.

 

The significance of the shell structure for the stability of the nucleus is this: each shell has room for only a certain number of particles, and an atomic nucleus is most stable when all its shells are filled to capacity. This gives it a tightly packed structure that makes it less susceptible to decay. As one moves up the periodic table, the shells fill from the inside out, from low energy to high. Protons and neutrons fill separate shells. At certain "magic numbers," such as 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, and 82, the outermost shell is filled, such that the next particle would have to go into a new shell. Oxygen (8 protons and 8 neutrons) and lead (82 protons and 126 neutrons), for example, rank among the most stable elements because they have magic numbers of both protons and neutrons.

 

Theoretically, the shell structure could create accessible islands of stability among the transuranic nuclei. In particular, several theorists have predicted that 162 should be a peculiar type of neutron magic number. A nucleus containing 162 neutrons, they say, should have a filled outer shell, but one that is egg-shaped rather than spherical. The Russian and American team, led by Yuri Lazarev of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, and Ron Lougheed of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, set out to test this prediction by creating new isotopes of seaborgium as close to 162 neutrons as they could get. (Isotopes are atoms with the same number of protons but with different numbers of neutrons.)

 

Using an accelerator in Duban, 60 miles north of Moscow, the researchers bombarded a two-square-inch target made of curium (atomic number 96). with a beam of neon (atomic number 10). They hurled 13 trillion neon atoms at the target every second for several weeks--16 million trillion neon atoms in all. Nearly all those atoms had too much energy or too little, or didn't hit a curium atom at just the right angle and ended up either bouncing off the curium or passing right through it. But on a few hundred occasions, conditions were just right for a curium and a neon nucleus to meld into a nucleus of seaborgium. The researchers detected ten of those nuclei. Four had 159 neutrons, six had 160, and all were remarkably stable.

 

ACTUALLY THE RESEAR CHERS never saw seaborgium directly. Instead they inferred its existence by observing "daughter" elements produced by the decay of the two different seaborgium isotopes, along with the alpha particles released by the isotopes as they decayed. From those observations the researchers could determine the isotopes' half-lives: they ranged as long as 30 seconds. That doesn't sound long, but for a nucleus with 106 protons, it is. The 157-neutron isotope of seaborgium that Ghiorso and Seaborg discovered in 1974 had a half-life of nine-tenths of a second.

 

The discovery at Dubna proves there is indeed nuclear stability to be had near the 162-neutron magic number. Presumably a nucleus with precisely 162 neutrons would be even longer-lived. "If we got these two very long-lived isotopes, it means there is a new island of rather stable isotopes," says Lazarev. "There is plenty of work for scientists to explore this island and make new, long-lived isotopes of elements 105, 106, and 107."

 

And perhaps beyond. "By confirming the theoretical predictions for element 106, the Dubna-Livermore discovery increases our confidence in the predictions for heavier elements," says Adam Sobiczewski of the Institute for Nuclear Studies in Warsaw, who had predicted the long half-lives of the seaborgium isotopes. "It confirms the essential role of the shell structure and gives hope for still heavier new elements." Indeed, the stability of an egg-shaped 162-neutron nucleus may be nothing compared with that of the next spherical proton shell, at magic number 114. Some theorists have predicted that elements 112, 113, and 114, especially their isotopes with the magic number of 184 neutrons, may boast half-lives in the range of billions of years.

 

Lazarev's and Lougheed's groups are working their way toward those elements step-by-step. This year they hope to make new and longer-lived isotopes of element 108 by bombarding uranium with sulfur (element 16), and the first definitive isotopes of element 110 by shooting a beam of sulfur at plutonium (element 94). Meanwhile, their success with long-lived 106 has spurred other labs. "We're talking about building a new type of detector that will enable us to do a far better job," says Ghiorso. "This is only the beginning of exploring the upper region of the periodic table. The whole region is accessible."

 

COPYRIGHT 1994 Discover

COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group[/quote']

Isn't the "island of stability" based on fraudulent data from the bad scientist from a national lab? Or was that something else?

Biophysical Chemistry

It includes everything. Need I say more?

Besides the radioactivity, uranium also is very toxic from a chemical point of view, both as an element in the form of very fine powder, and in its compounds. Uranium toxicity is comparable to lead and mercury toxicity.

All heavy metal dusts are toxic.

Depleted uranium is considered pretty much non-radioactive, not much above the background level anyway.

The lowest temperature obtained in the lab is only a few nano-Kelvin, used to produce Bose-Einstein condensate.

All light waves cannot "leave" the black hole' date=' why?

The black hole reduces their speed or affects their gravitational field?[/quote']

 

The escape velocity of earth is about 11.2 km/sec, i.e. an object has to travel at or above that speed to escape earth's gravitational pull.

The escape velocity of black hole within the event horizon is greater than the speed of light. Since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, nothing can escape black hole.

I don't believe its important to determine who or what he is. What is important is that he is a puppet president controlled by the clerics.....and' date=' it is they, who will dictate to him, how their country will be run.

 

Iran has had a presidential name change only.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

This is very true.

However, it is also not uncommon for a talented politician to make well calculated political maneuvers to gather influece and power, weakens those curretly in position of power, and then eventually move against them.

The hard-line clerics do take this office of president very seriously. That is precisely what they fear.

What I really don't understand is, the CIA knows absolutely nothing about a PUBLIC figure from a hostile camp.

The one which some lunatics claim the mission to moon was a hollywood plot, a claim based on total lack of understanding in classical Newtonian physics.

This lead the news tonight' date=' at least on the broadcast I usually watch (ABC News). They had a forensic expert take a look at pictures and he couldn't find any inconsistencies between them (but that doesn't make it a match).

 

It's interesting that this seems to have caught Washington completely off guard. The guy was mayor of Tehran for the last two years, and yet this is the first time this has come up. Apparently it came up because former hostages from that event saw his picture in the news.

 

(Of course if it turns out that it's the same guy, I'm sure we'll hear conspiracy nuts claim that this was all engineered by the Bush White House.) (sigh)[/quote']

 

If this turns out to be true, it WOULD be a big-time intelligence failure. A blooper of biblical proportion. This is a guy who was sitting there right in front you, running for president, and the CIA has never sniffed it?

From a physical standpoint it's like this: in order to make a measurement' date=' you must have an interaction. Any interaction will change the momentum and position of the particle you're trying to measure.

 

IOW, if you bounce a photon off of an electron, the electron will recoil, changing its position and momentum. You can only gain a limited amount of information. If you try and use a low-energy photon to minimize the recoil, the wave nature (large wavelength) means that you can't get good position information. If you use short wavelength to get good localization, you get a large amount of recoil.[/quote']

 

 

I don't really get quantum mechanics either. Can you explain to me how you get an interference pattern from a double slit when you only beam ONE SINGLE ELECTRON at a time?

The big idea in Einstein's relativity is that the laws of physics is same in all frames of reference. You only observe the observable in your frame of reference, and you can only make conclusions based on observation from your frame of reference.

Whether or not an object is absolutely moving is an irrelevent and wrong question. The only question with any relevence to you as an observer, assuming you are not experiencing acceleration is that, is the object moving with relative to your frame of reference.

The relative velocity on its own[/i'] can't make the age difference: the system is symmetrical. An asymmetry has to be introduced for the age difference to become actual.

The relative velocity does make the age difference.

According to Brother A in space, his brother B is experiencing time dilation due to earth moving near the speed of light, and therefore is aging slowly. Brother A is absolutely correct.

According to Brother B on earth, his brother A is experiencing time dilation due to his spaceship moving near the speed of light, and therefore is aging slowly. Brother B is absolutely correct.

There is nothing to distinguish A from B at this point.

Theoratically, they CAN observe each other with a telescope. The information moving between the spaceship and earth is at the speed of light. No problem there.

When A experiences an acceleration or deacceleration to make a stop on earth, which is the exact same thing as gravity in relavity, A will experience time dilation. When A reaches earth, he will be younger than his twin brother B.

it violates the law of thermodynamics' date=' it`s not possible.

 

what is cold? it`s the default state of everything, you`de need to remove heat (to somewhere), and since an explosion Provides Energy, it`s self contradictory.

you can`t ADD Cold, you can only take heat/energy away.[/quote']

As posted by refsmmat said, this requires a rapid and powerful endothermic reaction.

I can think of plenty of endothermic reactions, but I can't think of anything nearly rapid enough.

I definitely wouldn't rule out the possibility, though.