CPL.Luke

electrons does not equal energy. you have to find some sort of potential soewhere in order to get energy. You could get energy from solar wind, however there isn't enough of it to make an effective source of enery, (and you would have to figure out how to catch protons that are movin at .99c)

asumming no heat is allowed into the system change in temperature is unimportant, it is merely a diferent measure of the energy contained in pv as can be seen in the equation pv=nrt thus the first term in you equation, mc delta t is only necessary if you are alowing heat to enter or leave your system, and considering the rate at which the projectile is going to fly down the barrel I don't think that much heat is going to be allowed out of the system, and even if it were, the quantity would be immeasurable.

I just realized that you could integrate the expression for force and get 1/2mv^2=E ln(x) (from a to b) just use a as the distance from the back of your air cannon to the front, and keep in mind that this formula only works as is for a barrel that contains the pressurized air and the projectile, and has a constant barrel width, it would change slightly if there was a gas resovoir in the back.

^hmm are those cartoons around anywhere? they sound entertaining.

spunnery you essentially just stated newton's laws except with the word momentum replaced by force, whilt also keeping the word force in the original definition of force.

pv= E is a good place to start. I assume your using a chemical reaction to place energy behind the projectile, so however much energy is in the gas immediatly after detonation will be equal to pv, from this we can see that EA/V=ma or E/x=F=ma thus E/x=md^2x/dt^2 I need to go take a test now, but I should be able to solve that differential equation later.

^do you have a source for that information, what comet, and who did the observations? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity look at the bottom of the page for a discussion of a new experimental result which measured te speed of gravity as being between .8 and 1.2 c there is no mention of your experiment. there is also a discussion about how gravitomagnetism effectively cancels out any effects of a finite speed of gravity in the domain of our solar system.

hmm norman I assume your aren't talking to yourself, what am I missing?

thats the problem that has plagued linux for as long as its been around, to do the most basic things requires hours of reading tutorials, downloading programs, compiing, and finally debugging. thats why I made the switch to OSX, its simply the most intuitive interface I've ever seen on a computer. to install something all you need to do is download it and place it in your applications folder, or any folder for that matter, as the file format comes ready to go. and the view all windows feature is really nice.

I have a pretty good objection to vegnism, Human'sevolved to have high energy and nutrient demands, some of which can only be satisfied by the consumption of meat. Now if you allow for a person to eat fish but not mammals in order to satisfy such needs than their risk of mercury poisoning rises dramatically. Its then a matter of survival and as such any human should try to have the most diverse diet he/she is capable of having.

why does symbol recognition suck so badly on computers? It seems that everything I write on a tablet like device is misunderstood just because I don't draw the symbols in the same order as other people do.

it looks real to me you can see the waves diverging from some point in the background of a number of shots.

I think we should make a new thread for this poll, if I had a new vote I'd go for BSG, likewise heroes and firefly seem to have grown in popularity. not to mention SG-1 is now the longest running scifi show (neglecting doctor who which ran on again off again for 3 decades)

^ the problems with nuclear meltdowns have largely been averted wiby modern reactors. For instance china's new pebble bed reactors can be run without a cooling system and not melt down

it may be that we are jumping on the bandwagon a little bit, or it may be that we have been convinced by the people who write on string theory that the theory doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a physics theory in comparison to other theories that have been developed.

the burnoulli effect counts for a very large portion of an airplanes lift (just look at an airplane flying level). Its just that stunt planes are designed with flying upside down in mind, so they design the wing to not make use of the burnoulli effect and instead bump up the engine power Modern aircraft can be made to fly without the use of the burnoulli effect and instead rely on directing air downwards in order to maintain lift, however this isn't as efficient as using the burnoulli effect so cargo planes and the like will use burnoulli wings, And military aircraft and stunt planes will use straight wings. but the burnoulli effect does play an important role in most aircraft, as can be seen when an aircraft drops altitude by merely slowing down.

I would just read the letter that was sent to you to the class, and ask them what they think its possible that this won't earn you any respect from the administration, but it appears that you don't really want to be there anyway, and seeing as they couldn't fire you on those grounds I don't think you have much to worry about (if you were to pursue the above course of action).

except under the current exchange rate $2 an hour translates to 8 yen an hour, and from personal experience with people who live and or work in china a yen buys over there what a dollar buys over here. (more or less)

paranoia I think your missing an imporant point in this debate. In the day of lazzeis (I know thats the wrong spelling, but its late, and its the superbowl over here) fair capitalism in the US it was common to have very little automation in the factories, because it was cheaper to hire large numbers of unskilled laborers that could easily be replaced than it was to build larger more complex machines that required fewer employees to operate but also required skilled labor. as long as the factories could get away with paying low wages, and providing poor conditions there was no reason to invest in such machinery, but after the minimum wage was put into place the factories adapted and built more complex machinery that required fewer employees, this freed up more labor and put more money into the hands of more people. what happens when you have more people with more money with access to labor? more businesses. this is one example of how the economy adapts to more expensive labor and leads to growth.

if the temperature rise turns out to be as dramatic as it looks to be then there will be dramatic climate changes all over the world, ie deserts could become fertile fields, and fertile fields can become deserts. There really isn't anyway of predictin at the moment whether we'll have more or less arable land than we do now, so were left with the fact that we have enough arable land now, so why risk a massive climate shift that would require the relocations of millions if not billions of people? The big problem with global climate change is that humans have settled into where they are now because the climate was the way it is now. If for instance global climate change were to leave europe a frozen wasteland and dry out the united states's rain belt, but were to rejuvinate the sahara desert such that it was a beutiful place to settle, build cities and grow grain. than its possible that the total effect on earth's climate wouldn't be that significant in terms of humanities ability to survive. But now you have the problem that all the Europeans want to leave europe and head to africa along with the americans. How will the African nations react to this? if they are facing hundreds of millions of the people who for centuries manipulated and controlled their governments would they allow it? if they didn't would there be a war between western powers and the rest of the world to secure arable land for their populations? So while you are correct in thinking that humanity will survive global warming, the question of whether or not our civilization will be able to continue as it has for the past 500 years is not so certain, and the dislocation of various people's from their current homes could run into the hundreds of millions if not billions.

is it just me or has the SFN server been crashing alot lately? in the past couple of months I've had alot of trouble connecting.

meh some good things have happened, if you check the new york times today you'll notice that the dems dumped about a billion dollars into financial aid grants, inceaseing the grant per student by up to $4300 (depending on familial curcumstances)

ndi lower gas consumption translates almost directly to lower emissions (where do you think the emmissions come from?) the policy of making gas guzzlers more expensive and more efficient cars less expensive dramatically influences the overall market share of each segment, eventually the free market adapts and produces even better cars for the fuel efficient market (if 1 car company sells a 2 door 80 hp car for $15000 and another a 4 door 130 hp car for 15000 which one are you going to buy?) because thats the way the american market works, no matter how expensive the gas gets (barring 4-10 dollar per gallon prices) doesn't effect what an american see's when they are buying a car. and rightfully so as the cost of buying a more efficient car in today's market cannot outweigh the cost of gas. whereas if you punish the automakers for selling 400,000 suv's and only 300,000 fuel efficient vehicles, then they are going to pass the expense onto their customer's particularly the SUV buyers as they are the source of the trouble, this does move the market. and Ndi as has been stated before the european model for reducing gas consumption would literally strangle the american economy as it punishes those who are least able topay for gas in a country where gas consumption is a necessity. It is impossible for the average american to utilize public transportation and it is impossible for them to live close to their jobs. Its just the way the population is distributed. also the secondhand market only goes back about 10 years or so (most cars don't survive in a condition most people would want beyond this time), so if you introduce regulations to increase the average gas mileage now, 10 years from now all of the cars on the road will be on that standard.

did you not see the part where a car company is now going to sell a big gas guzzeler for more money? if the company can only sell so many or they get fined, then they are going to push up the price of the gas guzzler and produce fewer of them, thus forcing the market into more gas efficient vehicles, and opening a larger market for gas efficient SUVs. its not about forcing the car companies to issue more efficient vehicles its about making them sell more efficient vehicles. just think if you were to average the gas mileages of every car being sold in the US over the course of a year and you got say 18 mpg, that means that on average people who drive cars in the US burn a gallon of gas every 18 miles, now if you put a law into place mandating that that average is 21 mpg, then you have effectively cut gas consumption by new car buyers by ~15% thats a good plan.

There is another option already in place in the US. (albeit inefectively) every car company that sells cars on the US market has to have the fuel economies of every car it sells average to 21. mpg. if this doesn't happen the car company gets heavily fined. This provides a motivator for the car companies to produce cars with a higher fuel economy, and it also increases the price of gas guzzlers as they lower the company's average fuel economy. Unfortunatly there are a number of loop holes in this law such as allowing a company to report the fuel economy of an SUV that is capable of running on ethanol as being 5mpg higher than it really is even though the car will never run on ethanol.