Jump to content

Pantaz

Senior Members
  • Posts

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pantaz

  1. Pantaz

    Capacitor

    Here's a good starting point: http://www.101science.com/Radio.htm#cap More detailed: http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_13/index.html
  2. So, apparently, you aren't here to learn, you simply want agreement with your idea. Show your math, then we can talk. Until then, I'm done here.
  3. Still won't work. You are assuming far too much. Perhaps if you read the section, "The Elastic/Inelastic Dilemma" on http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/physgal.htm then you might start understanding where your design is lacking.
  4. Some people aren't satisfied that the Earth orbits the Sun. Heck, some people aren't even satisfied that the Earth is round! Dissatisfaction doesn't alter the facts. Physics trumps Belief every time.
  5. Recent trends in... what? "Mechanical project" can be just about anything. Folding a piece of paper can be considered a "mechanical project". Building an autonomous robot to fold a piece of paper is also a "mechanical project".
  6. Rather than relying on salespeople, I would look at the winch manufacturer's published specifications. You might also contact their technical/engineering departments. Also, if you will be using this in a commercial setting (i.e., on a job site) then OSHA (in the U.S.) regulations might be a problem. Finally, if this involves overhead lifting, there are even more considerations. I just visited the Warn Winch site and found this: ... "Lifting, on the other hand, requires lifting dead weight into the air vertically. Therefore, a lifting/pulling product like PullzAll has some unique design features, such as a load limiter, and it does not utilize a freespool clutch." ... And, they have a selection of industrial wire-rope hoists that should meet your requirements: http://www.warn.com/industrial/winches/industrial_hoists_all.shtml
  7. I prefer this version. A great resource for fact-checking "Loose Change" is, 9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide
  8. Have you looked at any of the web sites dedicated to DIY wind turbines? I can remember seeing at least a couple with write-ups on how they tested different blade designs & efficiency.
  9. The site you posted, http://www.surveyor.com/SRV_info.html, links to a user forum. That's where I would start.
  10. Please present any evidence of: A) Molten steel B) Thermite or thermate. Note: YouTube is not acceptable an acceptable reference.
  11. Viewer's Guide to 9-11 Loose Change http://www.loosechangeguide.com Long before the NIST report, MIT conducted a panel discussion with civil and structural engineers: "One month after the attack on the World Trade Center, M.I.T. structural engineers offer their take on how and why the towers came down." http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/
  12. Not to be dismissive, but relevant information is available all over the internet and quite possibly in your school's library. Also, "detailed advice" is asking for a lot on a forum. What's your budget? Based on your brief description, it will not be cheap. When is the deadline? A project of this magnitude can easily take the better part of a year just for planning. Do you already have a team assembled?
  13. Well, this has been one heck of a miscommunication, eh? Take a quick look at the Wiki page for "Heavy Water" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water
  14. Numerous pages on forming PVC -- http://www.google.com/search?q=heat+forming+pvc+pipe
  15. Just off the top of my head, one double-acting cylinder operating a crankshaft would get the job done. Timing might be a little tricky -- pneumatics don't exactly react instantaneously.
  16. Well, I can only do one of them "first" ;-) For 9-11 subjects, I tend to use the JREF forums as my initial source. They do not delete posts or threads. This means that information or references found there can always be found there -- unlike many other internet forums. Offensive or threatening language may be edited out, but at the worst, posts or whole threads are simply moved to the "Abandon All Hope" sub-forum. (Only visible to registered members.) Several lengthy discussions concerning the paper have taken place on the JREF forums. There were actually two submissions accepted by Bentham. The first was just a letter to the Open Civil Engineering Journal, titled, "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction". (Prior to publication, Jones blogged, "Recently had a technical paper accepted for publication following peer-review"). After publication of this first article, when the identity of the publisher was revealed, it quickly became clear that the whole "Bentham Open Access" system was/is highly questionable. (Considerable discussion of the letter's content follow in that thread.) On to the paper in question. Bentham Open Access First of all, Bentham's Open Chemical Physics Journal is a pay-to-publish "vanity" journal -- as are most (if not all) of their 230+ open access journals. At the time of publication, their fees ranged from $600 to $900 per article. Rebuttals are charged the same fees. The paper was never presented to the journal's editor in chief, Marie-Paule Pileni. When made aware of this, she resigned, as reported by the Danish news service Videnskab.dk (Translation from here): "Professor Marie-Paule Pileni first heard about the article when videnskab.dk wrote to her to ask for her professional assessment of the article’s content." "“They have printed the article without my permission, so when you wrote to me, I did not know that the article had appeared. I cannot accept this, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them”, explains Marie Paule Pileni, who is professor with a specialty in nanomaterials at the renowned Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in France." “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” One post-publication peer review begins, "There is much wrong with this article. It would not have passed my expert peer review in its published state." It is worthwhile noting that the author, Denis G. Rancourt, if not directly involved with, is sympathetic to the "Truth Movement". Bentham's peer review was found to be questionable in another instance: "OA publisher accepts fake paper", followed by, "Editors quit after fake paper flap". More opinions and concerns about Bentham's integrity from many academics are summarized here. Next... Errors in Methodology and Conclusions I'll simply point you to work done by properly qualified people: "Active Thermitic Material" claimed in Ground Zero dust may not be thermitic at all (by Enrico Manieri) Abstract: A recent paper claiming "active thermitic material" in dust collected in the vicinity of the Twin Towers after their collapse is found to have shortcomings in its methodology. The paper also fails to explore adequately alternative, non-thermitic explanations for its findings. Specifically, the paper's use of methyl-ethyl-ketone (MEK) to demonstrate the presence of elemental aluminum is known to yield inconsistent results because MEK could react with aluminum; alleged elemental aluminum nanoparticles are claimed to remain unreacted after 55 hours of MEK bath, but also contradictorily to react violently already at 430°C; photographic and spectral comparisons between commercial thermite and spheroidal particles in Ground Zero dust omit any other comparison with possible alternative sources of such findings; DSC analysis was conducted in air, but should have been conducted in an inert gas environment in order to obtain reliable results for thermite, which does not require an external oxidizer. The paper also does not consider the chemical composition of the corrosion-proofing paints and of the vermiculite used as thermal insulation and soundproofing at the World Trade Center and extensively documented by NIST. These products contain exactly the same elements and exhibit the same structural characteristics as the allegedly thermitic material found by the paper's researchers in their samples. The researchers therefore appear to have been somewhat hasty in reaching their conclusions. [*] The results of their DSC analysis is touted by the author and supporters as significant, yet the methodology is one of the more glaring errors. I can't find words to express it better than what was said here: "These guys ran the DSC in a flow of air with more than enough to burn anything burnable. Fires always show a nice exotherm." And here: "... I just cannot believe that anyone would be so stupid as to place a material compromising an iron oxide layer attached to a red layer containing aluminosilicates and Fe2O3 with an unknown Carbon based material, into a DSC, combust it and then claim a thermite reaction has taken place." [*] Note: While the following is not in typical peer review style, the author, "Sunstealer", is a forensic metallurgist. These are just a few of his more technical postings that review the "thermite paper". "Proof Red Layer is NOT thermite - Kaolinite Found" (SEM and EDS analysis) "... cross comparisons of each of the chips examined in the paper." "... some analysis on the results specifically with regard to the aluminium." "General Characterisation (Visual Characterisation, Gray Layer and Red Layer Analysis)." He recently found another discrepancy -- "... the chip soaked in MEK in the Harrit et al paper was WTC primer paint". a) A rebuttal of sorts to that last post was made in a blog entry. After being referenced in a post at JREF, another member, "Oystein", unable to post a comment on the blog, provided answers here. If you can ignore the typical internet forum noise, the following threads contain numerous posts using solid science and verifiable resources that refute the paper again and again. Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper
  17. Citing that pathetic "paper" on Bentham -- Seriously? Which would you like first, the dismantling of their "peer review", or the list of errors in the "paper"?
  18. Reported as spam -- He's been trying to promote this idea all over the place... http://www.google.com/search?q=Trisection+of+angles-similarly
  19. If you would tell us what you are trying to accomplish, you will get more specific answers.
  20. It's helpful to think of them as propellers. The basic principles are very similar. With that in mind, note that the cross-section of a propeller blade is an airfoil -- a wing, and since the air speed over the blade increases as you move farther toward the tip, the chord (distance from leading edge to trailing edge) and angle of attack gradually decreases (that's the twist you see along the length of a propeller blade) to distribute loading evenly over its length. The "Blade Design" section of Wikipedia's wind turbine design page provides a good overview of why modern blades look the way they do. The wind turbine aerodynamics page goes into much more detail. Also, NASA's airfoil simulator may help you visualize changes in drag and lift with different shapes (including a simple flat-plate) and angles.
  21. Why would/should any government agency be involved in the love lives of individuals? Why do you feel this way?
  22. Write a thorough report of the current state of the books -- including plenty of before-and-after photographs from different angles -- and your steps (and time spent) to "remedy" the situation, including citations of any regulations. I would preface the report with a heart-felt (but very professional) thank you to the safety manager for his help in identifying such a hazard. Print hard-copies and present them to everybody remotely connected to the safety department.
  23. One thousandth per foot, per inch, or what? A basic surface milling cutter can meet the tolerance, but you say "polish" -- what surface finish do you require? Much depends on the specifics, but any reasonably competent machine shop can hold tolerances within 0.001".
  24. Got me wondering about how many calories we burn at rest. Found a chart of basic daily activities here. Looked a little deeper and came across a nice, simple article on calories and metabolism -- http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/metabolism/WT00006 Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) calculator
×
×
  • 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.