VendingMenace

LOL! YT, that was classic, very nice!

man, if a paper eating bacteria ever got loose....that would suxxor. Libraries would cumble, all money would go away (exept coins), pinatas would disetagrate, all third world housing would be eaten... Seriously, were someone to figure out how to make a paper eating bacteria, then it would behoove them to be quite carefull with it, accidental release would have serious and long lasting social-economic ramifications.

i am going to have to side with kedas here. You can have voltage without current, at least theoretically. A picture that many people use to think about amps (current) and voltage is the idea of a waterfall. Since voltage is really potential energy, people equate the heigh of the waterfall coresponds to the voltage. Now current is a measure of flow of electrons, so people equate the amount of water going over the waterfall to the current (makes sense). NOw using this example, we can see that the height of the waterfall is not dependent on there being water flowing. It has heighth regardless. Likewise, voltage does not require amps. Perhaps another way to think about it is just to remember that votage is potential energy. Thus, it does not require anything else -- no other form of energy or movement. Just like a book does not have to fall from a table in order for it to have had gravitational energy. Well, i guess it depends on what you are talking about when you say circut. Do you just mean a closed loop? Then there is no need for current. But if you mean something in which there is current, then of course something without current is not a circut. But just becuase it is not a circut does not mean that it doesn't exist. Well, like i said above, votage is really potential energy. So it doesn't do work. If it was going to do work, then it would need a current. I guess all in al what i am saying is that it is theoretically possible to have voltage without current. Of course, it is quite difficult to achieve (if not impossible, currently), but it is still a theoretical reality. So in then end we find that; practically, perhaps you can't, but theoretically, it is possible to have voltage without current.

well, even for "will the grow up looking exactly the same" the answer must be no. Or at least it is not a garantee. One kid may have more scars, for one thing. Nurishment might have an efffect on hieght. Stuff like that will change wether they look exactly the same

well, that all depends on what you mean by "flexible." Glass itself is fairly flexible. If you have a skinny full legnth mirror, or just a fairly large peice of glass availible check it out. Push on it some, you will be suprized how well it bends -- just don't break it. Of course, that being said, it is not flexible like we think of metal wires as flexible. Fiber optic cable is rather brittle. I had a buddy that worked with it, he broke some just by stepping on it. And you can't really have it kink and still expect it to work, like you can with copper wire. So while fiber optic cable is somewhat flexible, it isn't as flexible as standard wires.

well, i personally think that nurture has alot of influence, and i mean alot Seriously, the environment that we are exposed to plays a major role in how we think, what we think about, how we react to stuff, what we are and are not interested in, what we fear, what we love, what we are alergic to, ect. There are just FAR to many variables involved in the world for nature to play a the only role, or even the only major role. Just my opinion.

Nope. At absolute zero all motion does not stop. This would violate the generalized uncertainty priciple, from wich we can find that we can not simultaneously find the position and momentum of a particle to an arbitrary degree of presision. That is to say that we cannot know exactly where something is and how fast it is moving. If all motion stopped, then we would know both where it is and how fast it was moving. Thus, at absolute zero electrons still move about and molecules still vibrate. What is really happening at absolute zero is this; molecules (and atoms) are at their lowest allowable quantum states. Suprizingly that means that we know everything we can know about something, quantum mechianically speaking, when it is at absolute zero. We know, without measuring, what state it is in. This is really cool. It means that everything is perfectly ordered. And if everything is perfectly ordered, then there must be no entropy at absolute zero. Its really quite wild! So, no motion does not stop, but rather, things reside in the lowest possible energy state. I hate to be a nit-picker, but we have never reached absolute zero. So, anything we might know about behavior at absolute zero is quite theoretical. That is not to say it is wrong, it is just that we cannot reach absolute zero. I don't see why not. I, personally dont know how to do it, but i dont know any reason why it wouldn't be possible. A long time ago, i remember reading something about people trying to make solid hydtrogen. Basically, the cooled down a sample of hydrogen and then shot a projectile from a rail run at the sample. The hope was that the pressure from the impact of the projectile would force the hydrogen into its meltallic state. I foget if it worked or not (i think it did, but i was like 12 at the time, so i don't really remember), but i could imagine it might work for helium as well. But all that is kinda speculation anyways, as i don't really know alot about that stuff. Anywyas, hope that helps, ask more questions if you got em

well, as far as zero current goes, that means that there is no flow of electrons through the material. Since there is no flow of electrons through the material, then it is kinda pointless to talk about the resistance that those electrons encounter. I guess what i am trying to say is that, the concept of resistance makes no sense when there is no current.

Well, the text is not a .text file or anything. It is a .TEX file, so you wouldn't really be able to see it. I would just save it as a PDF, but i do not have a copy of acrobat where i am, just the reader Anyways, so i was stuck with printing and scanning, and it was appearently too much for me to handle, lol. Anyways, sorry for the mess that my incompetance has made, i will try better in the futer *sigh*

well, here is the grand finale, page 3. Hope it helps

holy nut, sorry about this. last page to come hopefully someone will delete this post, i seem to be having problems with attachemnts, sorry (ps. scroll down to see the third page)

page 2, enjoy

ok, sorry about that other post, i have resized the images now and i will post them. I feel this is a fairly decent explination, i hope it is clear. Anyways, there are a total of three pages, so read them all, and feel free to ask questions on them. Well, without further ado, on with the first page.

cool, well it appears wolfson already posted a reply, but i had this ready to go too, so i will post it anyways. More explinations cannot help. And i think i got a different answer too, but mine could be wrong. well, sorry about this post, i will post images is just a bit

ah, thanks for the info, wolfson. Perhaps this will teach me not to make broad, sweeping statements (prolly not though ) Anyways, thanks again.

[qutoe] Does anyone know why certain isotopes are put in the periodic table? They do not really put any isotopes on a standard periodic table, at least that i am aware of. What exactly do you mean by this?

Well, my method is based on the fact that no matter what side you approach the middle pearl from, it must always have the same value. Correct? So, if we assume that the value of the middle pearl is X, we know that the value of the pearl directly to one side of the middle pearl is (x-100) and that the pearl directly to the other side of the middle is (x-150). Using this information we can write an equation for the entire neckace, which we know the value of. Thus, we have 1 equation and 1 unknown -- this means a numerical solution must be possible. Sure, i will write it all up when i get home and post it for you guys to look at. That will prolly be in like another 3 or 4 hours, but i will do it. cool

actually, today glass is fairly consistant. It is made up of melted silicon oxide (i think generally the dioxide variety). Pure glass is definately a pure substace. The amorphous state of glass does not have to do with any sort of mish mash of chemicals. Rather it has to do with the properties of one chemical (the silicon oxide) and its innability to make a strong latice structure. Of course, i am not a glass-amatician, so i could be wrong, but i think i am correct on this one.

there is a numerical answer. go through my method, you will find that you have one equation in the end and only one unknown (the price of the middle pearl). You may then solve for the price of the middle pearl.

right, if you want a hard core explination as to why, then i would suggest doing some reading up on "weak feild and strong feild ligands" also doing a searh for "spectrochemical series" would give you some information too. Basically though, the take home message is that different ligands bound to a metal center influence the splitting of the moliecular orbitals of the metal complex. Because of this the energy differences between what are called "states" in the metal complex change due to what is bound. IN many cases these states even swap relative positions, on an energy diagram. Now a molecule is usually assumed to lie in the ground state of a molecule, and when light shines on it, you can excite it to a new state. When this excited state relaxes back to the ground state it releases a photon of the apporpriate energy. By binding different ligands to a metal we can tune what the energy difference is between the ground and lowest allowed excited state. By doing this, we are also tuning what energy of photon is released upon relaxation back to the ground state. Of course the energy of the light is dependent on its wavelength, and hence its color. Thus, the binding of two different ligands to the same metal center will cause different colors in that complex. IN order to determine what the colors will be, one need either look at the complex and observe it color (as glider does) or site down and rigourously calculate it (using a comp, unlless you feel like sacrificing a day or so). Yeah, so it is the various ligands that influence the energy ordering of states within the molecule. This theory is known as ligand feild theory, or crystal feild theory (crystal feild theory makes many more simplyfing assumptions than does ligand feild theory).

yeah, not only that but the TB agent is much more hearty than the lepresy one. The TB agent can go into a cyst state when outside its host and stay viable for years. SO you can get TB from someone who you have not even seen! Lepresy on the other hand is passed on by touch, i belive. I could be wrong though.

cool, well i don't really want to just give you the answer, but i will give you some help for your journey First off, don't let all the numbers and stuff scare you off, the porblem is essentailly an addition problem. We know this, becuase when the value of all the pearls is added together, we must get the total value of the string. RIght? So, probably the best way to approach the problem is to randomly choose the value of one of the pearls and then discover the value of all the other perls in relation to this one. Cool, lets get started then. Well, from the problem we know that if we start at the middle pearl and move to one side, lets say the right, then the next pearl will be worth $100 less than the middle pearl. The next pearl again will be worth $200 less than the middle pearl and so on until we reach the last pearl in the chain. All in all, after the first pearl we find that there are 16 pearls till the end of the chain, so we have for those 16 pearls, the following, if we arbitrarily set the value of the middle pearl as "x"... (x-100) + (x-200) + ... + (x-1600) so that is the value of the right side of the pearls, not including the middle pearl, right? OK, the same proceedure can be used to find the value of the other side of the necklace (the left side in this case), not including the middle pearl. Cool, so after you get this you will have the value of the right side of the necklace, not including teh middle pearl and the value of the left side of the necklace, not including the middle pearl. All that is left is to add up these two values and the value of the middle pearl. This sum should equal the total value of the necklace, in this case $65,000. That is; (value of right side) + (value of left side) + (value of middle pearl) = (total value of necklace) well, that is how i would solve it. There are shorter ways of writting all this out, but i don't know if you know what a summation sign is :/ But hopefully that helps, if you have more questions, just ask. Have fun!

well...i haven't really kept up on the old relativity and particle physics and whatnot, but if memory serves me correct one of the consequences of eisteins work was that some equation he had stated that there are particles for wich the speed of light is the lower bound, so that such particles can never go slower than the speed of light. I don't really know anything else besides this except for the fact that einstien himself thought is result was kinda bogus. That is all

Well, then. I think we could prolly spend a long time discussing just this question. The short answer is; we don't. and we don't assume that just the outer shells are touching. You see, electrons occupy orbitals whose radii are not very well defined. Not only are there complications for atoms with more than 1 electron that render it impossible for us to find out what the radii would be, but even if we could figure out exactly what the orbitals look like, we would still not really be able to say where the "outer shell" ends. This is because the orbitals are not a discription of where the electron is, but where it is likely to be. That is, given an orbital we can say "we will find an electron in this volume 95% of the time." So it is really difficult (if not impossible) to define where the outer shells lie. As far as the calculations you are reffering to go, the radii that is being computed is really a kind of effective radii. It lets us know about how close together the atoms like to get. It is just a nice number to know when we are trying to figure out how individual molecles interact, but that is about it. It is still pretty cool stuff though. But the take home lesson i guess is this, electrons do not have fixed postions, they are goverened by probabilities, and as such talking about definite position values is not really the most correct way of thinkinng about them. However, even though we know it is wrong, we can think about things this way and still get some usefull values. In this case, about how far apart molecules like to be