Rocket Man

mythbusters did an episode on this, deprived of water, hard rock gave the best results. to set it up as a lab experiment, you'd probably set up multiple identical plants in sound proof boxes with white noise filtered into different bands of frequency (you could use music but i myself have favourite bands and you probably have no way of asking your seeds). oh yeah, and have a control batch to measure against. use fast growing plants so you can repeat and test other variables. tell us how it goes, i'd be interested if you could get any real results.

the head set has a speaker in it with a reasonably big diaphgram, the mic reads the level and runs it through an amplifier to get to the speakers. the result is a sound output almost out of phase and almost 100% cancelled. the head set is a full ear covering thing so the cancelling is done far before it reaches your ear. they all give off a bunch of white noise and it's never 100% cancelled it's far reduced ambient noise plus a bit of static. there's no real added strain on your ear, if a bomb went off, you'd get a peircing amount of static but it's far less than the noise itself.

a coductive rod up the centre of the candle would be an easy target to hit with a nail, also it allows him to have a concealed connection point to run wires down the back of the table (which is also concealed at all times) what you didn't see was his head and the direction of his eyes. he could be watching a live feed from the camera to make sure the critical points stay hidden

the greenhouse gasses trap the heat. what hits the ground as near IR, is re-emmitted as far IR. the far IR is reflected back to the surface by the greenhouse gasses. a vapour trail from a jet is at high altitude. it's also a fairly pure white. it scatters the light enetering the atmosphere (which is going straight down), some of the light will go straight back out. it would need to trap substantially more heat than the heat it reflects to give a net heating effect. also, i heard that a vapour trail aids the production of more similar cloud

you heated the sausage using microwaves, so it's safe to assume it has water content also becasue of the noted condensation on the inside. as you heat it, the water begins to evaporate occupying volume, lets pretend the bag springs a leak (highly likely) so the air and water vapour begin to escape. when the cooking has finished, you'll have more water vapour than air inside the bag. (you can see where this is going) when the power is then turned off, there is nothing stopping the water condensing. liquid water takes up about 1/2000 times it's volume as steam.

well, the amount of co2 produced in making this large amount of mylar would neatly counter the effect of radiation reflection by trapping other wavelengths more fully. i think the most reasonable option would be to add a water tank to long haul jets to produce a bigger vapour trail. a reflector in space would need to be unfesably large. you'd do better to use a smaller reflector to beam intense heat into the ocean to make a cloud. the could would be bigger and more effective than any orbital shade-cloth.

"under the table" doesn't quite do the trick justice. the leads are continuous, and have different end points. he ran a dc motor off it which rules out inductance which would probably produce rf ac. wax is an excellent insulator (i used it as a housing for delicate electronics i fudged together) you could see the area on the table where the candle was to sit, i didn't see any connection points. my question is how he actually got his oustide source to power the motor. edit: if you actually look up his account, all he has is card tricks, riddles etc.

i think the binder is there to allow the thing to fall apart in water. "to dispose of this engine, soak in water" i had to do that to one where the nossle was damaged, the whole thing turned into a grey mess right before the paper roll fell apart. i was impressed.

good point, modify the source, force it into the definition of "pin point". i'll still suggest grunge tech though. the headlamp reflector and a magnifying glass. parralel rays WILL focus into a 0 diameter point if you buy a decent glass. this arrangement also has more power and a more "white" light than most available bulbs.

what mix does estes use? (smells like black powder) the estes engines are paper tubes, a good 3-4 mm thick with a clay nossle. as for fuses, it's a low burning point compound set over a short piece of nichrome wire. run the thing at 5-10 amps for a few seconds and the engine starts.

nothing will give better definition than a "pin point light source" also, nothing is simpler to build or get parts for. a pinpoint source gives mathematically null distortion, zero spectral dispersion, and far less hassle in constrution. if you scale up, a lens will be necessary to keep the sixe of the projection practical. if you move the projector further back, the lamp must move back proportionally, but it gets to a point where the light dwindles too much, at that point, you'll need to look at lenses.

for simplicities sake, keep the components. the dot product is the one you want. a.b = |a| |b| cos(phi)

like i said, most lenses you're going to find will distort an image, best save the lenses etc for behind the transparency.

fictional? what? centripetal forces are very real. what holds the moon up? your diagram is correct, all you need is to put numbers to it. for simplicities sake, take gravity as a constant 9.8m/s^2 at the surface, and centripetal force as a function of the smallest distance to the axis of rotation and the velocity at the surface. [math]a=\frac{v^2}{r}[/math] the earth rotates at a rate of 1/(24*3600) rotations per second v = rotation rate * pi * radius [math]a=\frac{(86400^{-1}\pi r)^2}{r}[/math] [math]f_x = 9.8cos\theta - a_{centripetal}[/math] [math]f_y = 9.8sin\theta [/math] that's your total force vector, determine the angle between it and the surface.

you're right in saying it's the mass that effects the inertia, but the weight is the factor here. to decelerate a 1kg mass moving at 1m/s you apply a force. if the object already has bouyancy acting on it, say, 900g upwards, you only need to apply a tenth of the force to the object itself because the rest is due to bouyancy. if your egg is neutrally bouyant, you could describe the egg as though it were just another bunch of the fluid. the tub decelerates suddenly applying the full stopping force to the egg via bouyancy. so the egg is suddenly in an environment where it's x distance underwater and the gravity is equal to G + deceleration rate. if the egg has positive bouyancy, it'll actually shoot out the top of the tub as it's displaced by the water. the egg, under that apparrant gravity might not survive the pressure. which is the only problem. if you can drill into the pocket of gas and fill it with something incompressible before you toss it around, it will then survive anything the tub can handle.

hex is a convenient way of writing four binary digits in one hex digit.

the "narrow beam" will really mess up the image. you need a good strong point source to get a crisp image. also, the images will be printed square on a flat surface. when the light hits the wall from a point source, it will come out square and crisp. if it gets magnified along the way, it wont be square and if it's not a point source, it will be completely blurred.

when i suggested water, i was thinking more along the lines of actually reducing the inertia of the egg by countering it with bouyancy. when it's immersed in water, it only weighs a few grams. you'll need to exert far less force on the egg itself to slow it. a porous sponge wrapped around the egg and possibly lining the box will provide pleny of force to slow the apparant mass. i havent actually tried salt, but you could probably get the egg to be neutrally bouyant. an egg is mostly incompressible, i'm concerned about the gas in the bottom though. the shell will probably provide enough counter force. i would try to find the critical presure, but the equipment i have is too small and i can only muster 3 bar if the shockwave breaks the shell on the tests, add vinegar to the mix the night before. if you use water, you can still have a dampenning system attached to the bottom. you don't need all that much water. how would you calculate the max pressure spike assuming 200G and a fluid as dense as water?

try counting in hexadecimal one, two,... nine, A,... F, ten, eleven... the formula is very simple when you actually see what's going on. do it as if you were converting base ten to base ten. (not productive at all but you get the idea) say you have the base ten number: 2587 break it up. 2, 5, 8, 7 multiply the 7 by it's position (ones column) [math]7*10^0[/math] then do that with all the others then add them together. so you end up with [math]2*10^3 + 5*10^2 + 8*10^1 + 7*10^0[/math] which simplifies down to: [math]2000 + 500 + 80 + 7[/math] replace the tens with sixteens and you can convert base 16 to base 10

quit apollogising, you have better grammar than most people on this site. if you have a printer that will make a projector-quality print for an overhead projector, you'll get a projector-quality image. the bigger the print is, the more resolution you can cram into the image resulting in a better projection. the only things you need to watch out for is the focussing. if you have a simple point source, like a bare light bulb from a torch, you'll get a very crisp image. if you use a large, frosted-glass light bulb, you'll get a fuzzy one. the best i can suggest is a bulb from a car's headlamp running high beam without a reflector. a reflector would make the image brighter but it would need to be a sphere wrapped around the bulb otherwise, you'll get a blurred image. you might be able to silver the inside of a christmas bauble, cut a hole in the bottom and mount the headlamp in the centre, pass the light through the image and onto the wall.

ah, the elegance of the mars lander style... just get a bunch of water bombs, inflated with air taped to the bottom of the box and a stabiliser on top. (worked for 2m) fill the box with water and give it a reasonable pressure rating. that way, the shock from touchdown is transferred all over the egg as a uniform pressure. also, the low difference between the density of water and egg means the egg won't want to travel much on impact. you'll just need to suspend the egg in the centre (a porous sponge taped to the bottom and walls would do. just make sure the eggs can't touch, EVER) you can experiment with salt water to boost the bouyancy of the egg in the lander to further reduce travel on impact. cotton wool is a reasonable dampener, but it won't give you the uniform pressure required for a solid landing from a 6m drop.

i think it's closer to consious thought. sometimes i end up questioning something only to realise it suddenly didn't exist. other times things suddenly don't happen. i love ruling my astraction of the world.

a solar mass blob of hot grey goo...

i'm not talking practicalities, this is entirely hypothetical, (i've been trying to describe this particular question since the start of the thread) notice the "gamma C squared" in that term, gamma is a function of the velocity of the propellant as [math]E=\gamma mc^2[/math] so for the same amount energy in total, the higher the velocity, the more the momentum. untill you reach the point where your ejecta is massless and travelling at C according to basically, i'd like someone to prove/disprove because i don't quite see how this is logical.

it all depends what veiw you take, which theory you use to describe space. Albert Einstien described space as a rubber sheet which is bent by mass Nikola Tesla argued "how can nothing have properties?" the largely unpopular aether model describes space as fluid and particles as self sustaining vorticies when you describe mass as a property of matter, can you also describe it as a property of light? if you have a sufficiently energetic gamma ray, you can create a proton and an antiproton both of which have positive, non zero mass. for momentum to be constant, these are of course moving as is the atom which it stuck, but the photon was originally a massless particle. so when describing properties of even fundamental particles, you need to think, "what is it made of?" mass is a function of energy. energy is about the most fundamental you're going to get, it has very few properties. mutual attraction is one of them. to get away from abstractions, is to get away from matter. unfortunately, there is no way of observing pure energy, even a photon is an abstraction of energy.