physics confusion

Thanks for the responses. I was talking to my teacher and i'm thinking i will need to do an experiment to understand this better.

No need to continue this forum

Hey all, new user here.

 

I mainly created an account to offer this idea: Is it possible that the earth's magnetic poles could be evidence that the solid inner core, made mostly of iron, spins in a way as to generate magnetism, causing magnetic pull throughout the whole planet, much the same way a refrigerator magnet magnetizes to most any magnetic substance? I mean, I'm in no way a scientist. But to me it sounds possible that all the magnetism on earth is centered around the idea that (atomically) electrons spin in an orbit, causing magnetism.

 

So, what if earth's magnetism is due to it's mostly iron mantle/crust spinning orbitally around the iron core? Like an enormous version of an iron atom's electron around a nucleus.

O.K. First off, the core at hte centre of Earth is MOLTEN, not solid. Secondly, the 'magnetic poles' are the point at which the Electromagnetic feild (commonly called the atmosphere) of earth are at their weakest given the axis (in a line with the magnetic poles) of the core rotation.

Thanks for the clarification, however, the enrgy needed must come from somewhere. Is it possible to determine the source of energy???

The reason why a Hydrogen Fusion reactor is currently not in use is simply that the hydrogen fusion reactor has many severe side effects.

1: The hydrogen reaction is a chain reaction if the right quantities of hydrogen are present;

2: If the right quantities aren't present, the produced Light Helium will turn to Helium, in turn to berylium, so on, so forth. this eventually stops at Iron where it becomes an endothermic reaction and the reactor goes NOVA;

3: The heat produced from the Hydrogen reaction is at approximately 3200 degrees celcius. few materials on earth can handle this; and

4: A hydrogen reaction cause an Electro Magnetic feild. The earth produces it's own electromagnetic feild (commonly known as the atmosphere), which causes gases to be trapped. a second electromagnetic feild COULD cause the atmosphere to collapse or polarise the iron core, thus the atmosphere would collapse and all life WOULD die.

Current technologies are not yet capable of containing this sort of reaction, and thus is why it is not currently used.

O.K. My problem is that given protons are positively charged and electrons are negatively charged, why don't they attract together.

what do you mean by electrostatic and where does the electron receive the energy from (given the laws for conservation of energy state that energy isn't capable of being created or destroyed)

Hi

I'm involved in something called the energy breakthrough here in Australia. Regarding weights, the team that i'm on has already produced a very fast three wheeler which weighs around 50 kilograms (you do the conversion) and are working on an even lighter one. The problem with anything with this sort of weight to size ratio as this is that the vehicles tend to work very poorly in corners (why roll bars are a nessesity) as once the air gets under them, they've rolled. The same problem is found in Le Mans cars. Simply put, the momentum of the vehicle causes instability when on this sort of weight to size ration.

With the flying cars, cars are NOT built to fly. In order to acheive this, the cars would literally have to become lighter than the Air around them.

Hi

A Wankel motor is very unlikely to become more efficient than the 'otto reciprical engine' design. Wankel motors are used because the are small and powerful (in terms of torque), and because they run very smoothly (without the momentum from the pistons 'stopping' causing movement).

swansont

Posted 16 November 2010 - 06:55 AM

You have several different quantities that are conserved, such as charge (Z) and nucleon number (A) which are denoted in the notation, where X is the chemical symbol. If an isotope were to emit a proton (H-1), the charge of the parent would be reduced by 1, and the nucleon number would be reduced by one. The total charge can't change, and you have to have the same number of nucleons — they can't just disappear all by themselves. All of the numbers on each side of the reaction are constant.

The same concept applies to alpha decay

Beta decay is slightly more complicated, because an electron will be accompanied by an antineutrino, which has no charge and A=0. The beta is denoted by

________________________________________________________________

JUst stepping in here to identify that during alpha decay, a helium nucleus is emmited from the nucleus, not a hydrogen atom like the above formula. during the alpha decay, a helium nucleus, doublely positively charged helium nucleus is emitted along with one or more gamma rays, decreasing the atomic number by 2 and the mass number by 4. eg/U-234----->Th-230+alpha particle+energy(gamma ray).

just going to shake things up a bit. where i come from, time is already considered to be a dimension. The fourth dimension is time. Some theoretical fourth dimensional objects have already being thought up (i think ones called a concavagram). these objects are only visible when time is factored in.

I think i understand the problem you are having with the 'a' variable. The equation 'y=a(x-h)^2+k' consists of the variables a, h and k with the x value. in the equation, 'a' is the dilation factor; 'h' is the x point; and k is the y point, so the vertex is at the points (x,y). The 'a' variable has no effect on the vertex, it effects the shape (dilation) of the graph.

Hope it helps

Hi

I'm doing classes in both physics and chemistry and i've got a bit of a confusion. During Beta decay of a radioisotope, the electron is ejected from the nucleus. Why doesn't it attract to the protons, according to magnetic laws.

Any help please