big314mp

Merely a technicality

When adding water across a double bond, the hydroboration-oxidation reaction will give you anti markovnikov addition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroboration-oxidation_reaction

So does hp = torque or power?

Shouldn't the HP be the same on both ends? i.e. If a 10 HP motor is used, then after the gears belts there should also be 10 HP? I don't think power can be added somewhere in that chain, merely transferred.

Is there any reason you can't use bleach or pool shock treatment?

Orthostatic hypotension is the word you are looking for.

That is not a changing magnetic field though. A static magnetic field doesn't do much to electric current (barring the Hall effect). A changing magnetic field will induce currents in conductors, which may produce a noticeable effect on your arcs. I doubt very much that you will see any effect, however, since the magnetic field needs to be very strong, and the resistance in the conductor needs to be fairly low for noticeable effects to be seen. I think you will fall short on both accounts, as the tesla coil will probably fry any power transistors you could use for creating a changing magnetic field, and the arc itself has a fairly high resistance. You may be able to see effects if you use compressed air to blow the arc into a magnetic field, as the magnetic field can bend the path of charged particles. The effect may be too small to notice however.

The interesting bit is how fervently the poor will sometimes fight against tax hikes on the rich, solely out of the hope that one day they too will be rich. Its sad in an uplifting way...how hard someone will fight for the American dream. </literary BS> Government is there to serve the citizens, so there is some basis in increasing taxes on the rich to help the poor get by. It's sort of a "the successful should give back to the community to help the community that made them successful" mentality at work. And while I wish that the wealthy would do this out of the goodness of their hearts, they don't. Hence tax hikes on the rich. I don't remember who said it, but "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is quite applicable.

In chemistry class, we used a program called "Spartan" that did some mysterious QM calculations and gave back those answers. It would tell the approximate absorption, the location of the peak, and what type of motion the atom was undergoing. It was a slow approach, and very computationally intensive (running on fast workstations, a "rough estimate" calculation of diethyl ether took 10+ minutes). Stretching vibrations can be roughly modeled using the spring equation. It's only an approximation, but it holds true reasonably well. It can give some insights into why some frequencies are lower or higher than others, etc.

I think he was looking for equations, rather than firing tables In any case, this is a rather involved problem. If I am interpreting correctly, you will need to take into account: 1) The length of the cannon, assuming that the base of the cannon is at 0m. You need to calculate how high the end of the barrel is from the ground. This is your starting y displacement. You need to calculate how close the barrel of the cannon is to the target. This is your x displacement. These can be calculated using trig. 2) The motion of the projectile. Once you figure out where the projectile is actually being launched from (in terms of theta, the angle of the barrel from the ground), you will be able to set up a system of equations to solve this problem. You need to break the muzzle velocity into vector components. Use the components, the x displacement, and the y displacement to solve for theta. I highly recommend that you draw a largish picture of the problem, so that you can fill in blanks as you figure them out.

That's basically how it works. Consider water. It is a bent structure, and so it has a dipole moment. If it is hit with an IR photon, it will bend out of shape. Let's say that it straightens out, so that there is no dipole moment. This resonance will have an associated frequency that can be seen as an absorption band in an IR spectrometer. This article describes the effects pretty well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy

Well, a current would flow if the two were at different potentials relative to some outside source. Say we measure the negative end of batt 1 and find that it is +5V relative to my sink. Say that the positive end of batt 2 is measured at +3V to my sink. When the two are connected, a small current would flow that would balance them to roughly +4V relative to my sink. The current would be very small. The amount of current is also related to the capacitance of the structure.

You mean something like a door? In a solid object, the molecules are so close to each other that other molecules couldn't fit in between. And even if they could, then you would become "one with the wall," so to speak.

I figured there must be a reason that actuators like that aren't built. It would make a pretty awesome jackhammer though... The point you bring up is an interesting one, as an exoskeleton appears to trade mobility for protection/firepower. So perhaps the idea of an exoskeleton can be dispensed with, since it is trying to fit one device into two roles: the role of tanks/bombers and the role of the soldier working in close proximity to the enemy (i.e. Iraq type situations). Since the roles are contradictory, it may be better to keep them apart.

And, of course, there's always a titration.

Ah, now we have an interesting question You have to remember that voltage is a relative thing. Something is +1.5V relative to something else. Let's say that the negative end of batt 2 is at 0V (just as a point of reference). This means that the positive end of batt 2 is at +1.5V relative to the negative end of batt 2, as this is the voltage of the cell. The positive end of batt 2 and the negative end of batt 1 are both at +1.5V, as they are in equilibrium with each other. The positive end of batt 1 is at +1.5V relative to the negative end of batt 1, which is at +1.5V relative to our reference at the negative end of batt 2. This means that the positive end of batt 1 is at a grand total of +3V relative to the reference at the negative end of batt 2.

The point that I (and it seems swansont also) was trying to make, was that saying that a model has inaccuracies is stating the obvious. There are certain assumptions that need to be made, in order to make a workable model. These assumptions introduce error. As swansont was arguing, those errors should be minimized to the greatest extent possible. Climate prediction models have done that. Very smart people have taken as many things as they could into account, and have come to a conclusion based on the evidence and the models. What more are you asking for?

What if hydraulic pistons were used to power the exoskeleton, except the pistons worked like an ICE engine? Sort of like there is a piston in a cylinder, with a spark plug/valves on each side of the piston. Which ever way the piston needs to move, the correct cylinder can be fired. I need to draw this, since this explanation is failing miserably. And my picasa install isnt converting to jpeg, so no pic will be forthcoming The best way I can describe it is like a steam engine piston.

Lets say we have an electron that starts at the positive end of battery 1. It gains 1.5V of energy (since the volt is energy/unit of electrons, this is a semi valid comparison) as it travels across battery 1. It travels across the wire between batteries 1 and 2. It gets to the positive terminal of battery 2, travels across battery 2, and picks up another 1.5V of energy. It now has gained 3V from where it started back on the positive side of battery 1. What this means is that there is a total of 3V across both batteries. The voltage across each individual battery is still 1.5V, but they "stack" on each other to produce higher voltages. You can also see that current does flow from the negative end of 1 to the positive end of 2. Otherwise the circuit would be broken.

Efficient Gas Turbine powered hybrid vehicle, that will run on anything (gasoline, kerosene, vegetable oil, bio diesel, natural gas, etc). Lots of off the shelf parts. Relatively hard project. If you can pull it off with efficiencies (significantly) higher than a piston engine you'd be in good shape.

As to the first one, look at what intermolecular forces are usually listed for C2H6. It is not polar, because it is symmetrical (and C-H bonds aren't that polar anyways). It does not have a hydrogen bonded to a nitrogen, oxygen, or fluorine. It is not an ionic compound, as it is not composed of 2 ions. That leaves 1 force left. You should be able to take it from there. 2) First of all, you gave the formula for formaldehyde, not methanol, so that may be one of your problems. Methanol is CH3-OH. The stream will be attracted if it has charges in it. Look at the structure of methanol, and see if you can identify where (or if) charges will end up on the molecule.

He isn't insisting that a ruler would be any sort of model. SL, the entire point of a model is that it doesn't take all variables into account. The idea is that we use the best data we have, fill in the blanks with the best assumptions we can make, and then use that to make the best predictions we can. Of course errors will creep in over time (hence not being able to predict the weather a week from now), but that does not mean that the fundamental basis of the model is incorrect. It just means that those unaccounted for variables are starting to have a larger effect. The best data (and the best models) show that global warming is happening, and that it is anthropogenic.

It sounds very...very...what's the word...Awesome? Yeah, that's it. I've always wanted to do something like this, but my bio teacher in high school didn't have the expertise to guide me too pull it off. But you seem to be in very good hands. Best of luck! Oh, and post back how it goes. I'm quite curious myself.

It's funny that this thread got hijacked by mayonnaise, of all things. In any case: IMHO, you only really run into problems when you try to mix the two. Things like creation science undercut public trust in science, and promote backwards thinking. Using science to disprove religion is a bit disingenuous (provided said religion is harmless of course). If I was witty enough, I'd tie that back to mayonnaise with some pithy quote. I'll have to settle for using esoteric and obtuse language.

I spend quite a bit traipsing around Home Depot and Lowes (hardware stores here in the US) and I have yet to see any. If you have them in the UK, it shouldn't be too long before we get them though.