Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Neutral

About elementcollector1

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Inorganic Chemistry

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I ended up trying this again, this time using radiation physics for a different approach. This time, I assumed Magneton and its surroundings had reached thermal equilibrium, so time is no longer a factor (but is presumed to be quite a while). I started by getting the solid angle of an area 1km from Magneton, assuming Magneton could be expressed as a 1.0m diameter sphere. This got me an angle of 3.1415 x 10-6 steradians. From here, I (maybe correctly?) asserted that because Magneton and its surroundings both started at the same ambient temperature, the temperature added by radiation c
  2. Spotted this playing one of my old Pokemon games under the Pokedex entry for Magneton: "It is actually three Magnemite linked by magnetism. It generates powerful radio waves that raise temperatures by 3.6 degrees F within a 3,300-foot radius." That got me wondering how much power that would actually need, and whether it would be feasible for Magneton to actually output it via microwave radiation. Best equation I could find was the heat capacity equation (altered for power instead of energy): P = mcΔT/t (P = power in watts, m = mass in kg, c = heat capacity in J/kg.K, ΔT = temp
  3. I recently read about an interesting and potentially relevant housing development: Installing packets of paraffin wax in the walls. These absorb the heat during the day, and release it at night, lowering the change of temperature in rooms. Found here: http://www.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/News/Apelian_JOM.pdf
  4. Sn's valency is 4, not 6 - the Na+ ions take care of the rest. As for separation, I would suggest mixing with an acid to change the pH - hydrous Sn(OH)2 or Sn(OH)4 (can't remember which) should precipitate in a certain pH range.
  5. Not sure what you mean, Enthalpy - I've been doing calculations this whole time. Anyway, if there's no way to "cheat" the work equation (W = Fd) into thinking there's more distance than there really is, I think I'll have to settle for a system with a lower tolerance for falls - better than what a human could manage, but not perfect.
  6. Hmm. But shouldn't the plane be heavy enough that the reduced vertical momentum (from the action of the wings) is still greater than the vertical momentum of a person at terminal velocity? Source: http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/192153-1.html?redirected=1 3g might not be much acceleration, but considering the plane that's a whole lot of force. Then again, if deceleration's the issue, wouldn't there still be a problem even if all the force of landing was absorbed? Back to your earlier calculations on deceleration, the minimum distance to get the deceleration within "safe"
  7. I don't get it - if the strut can stop an airplane, why wouldn't it stop a human (ignoring practicality)?
  8. Well, unless time travel is involved, I don't think I'll be applying the second method. After some thought, I wondered why we could survive airplanes landing (after all, that's quite some momentum!), and looked it up - apparently something called an 'oleo strut' absorbs most of the shock, apparently by damping with compressed air or nitrogen and oil. Hypothetically, what if a human pogo-sticked one of these off of a 1200-meter cliff (or some similar setup where the strut would take the brunt of the impact), in keeping with the earlier numbers - would they still be injured from decele
  9. So if the acceleration is directly proportional to the stopping distance, what is the upper limit on deceleration for a human? Also, would it be possible to 'transfer' the acceleration somewhere else - as in, direct the shock somewhere it can be less harmful? Not sure on how shock 'moves', at any rate.
  10. So why is an airbag able to decelerate a person safely? After all, it's not all that big compared to a person, yet it stops collisions very well and allows the driver to survive mostly intact.
  11. What would be an appropriate "soft" substance? Foam, or maybe a type of rubber?
  12. Huh. So energy and shock absorption do nothing in this case, because the deceleration itself is enough to damage the human body?
  13. Okay, so assuming two pads, one on each of the person's feet, the contact area for the body would be about 20 cm by 10 cm, or 200 cm2. How would the force exerted on this area be calculated, then?
  14. It's mentioned on the webpage (http://www.sorbothane.com/) that it can be used for both "shock" and vibration applications.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.