Delbert

I'm sorry, but I don't know why you are apparently surprised. They infrared and radio waves are both electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation is an oscillation of magnetic and electric fields. Now, oscillation presupposes that there is a rate or frequency of said oscillation. If they were both the same frequency of oscillation they wouldn't be different. We give them different names because their frequency of oscillation is their distinguishing feature. With radio waves the wavelength (another way of expressing frequency) is long enough for us to construct tuned circuits out of bits of metal and the like - for example a TV aerial is a tuned circuit together with coils and capacitors, or lecher lines for higher frequencies, in the associated receiving and transmitting devices. But with infrared and the like, the frequency is so high (very short wavelength) that turned circuits become molecular in size. In other words atoms etc become the active devices in reception and transmission. Now the bizarre aspect of electromagnetic radiation is the wave particle duality. Reduce the intensity of a source of radiation and it appears to be particular in nature. These particles we call photons. I understand physicists have discussed this apparent contradiction for some time, but I further understand the answer lies in quantum mechanics.

In simple terms, in exactly the same was as any induction method. Perhaps I should say he was quite close to the transmitter - like adjacent to the field containing the transmission aerials. They are not infrared light. Infrared light is electromagnetic radiation of a completely different frequency. If you're characterising radio waves as infrared light, then on the same premise, your microwave cooker would cook food with infrared light. And as for solar panels, they work with the much higher frequency of light. I think it is stretching imagination to say the particular mechanism by which photovoltaic cells work could be scaled up to operate at radio frequencies - since as far as I'm aware they work directly at the molecular level.

Wireless charging - or the equivalent of - is what goes on inside a transformer. As for charging over distance (or the equivalent of) I can recall someone living near a radio transmission station installing a large coil in his loft to draw power for some of his domestic alliances! Unfortunately this caused a shadow area in the radio transmission, which enabled the authorities to eventually trace the cause. I understand he was fined under some sort of legislation.

An engineer is someone who can do something for sixpence that any damn fool can do for a shilling.

Sorry, but you were right about it being easier to take for repairs. But that's as far as it goes!! I've seen engineers spending quite a time just trying to get access to the innards. And I said 'trying', I didn't say 'succeeding'! Having one at work I wouldn't give it house room. And as for tablets and the like, they might have a novelty aspect, but that's all. And as for that damn touch screen business. I might even say the same about Wi-Fi! I recently checked the access at an advertised point (coffee shop), only to find an uncountable number of SSIDs on the same channel! As for ease of repairs, what could be easier than a tower PC? A screwdriver is about all you'll need. The internal architecture of the individual components might be dreadfully complex, but to you and me they are just a few components screwed into a cabinet and connected together with plugs and sockets.

Can anyone offer advice as to how the Wi-Fi PSK protocol operates. Like, some sort of indicator showing that such has been shared and encryption is in operation? And how does the key get shared, and does the sharing process have to be repeated at every switch-on?

That's coincidental, because I don't know what your objection is based on. Human psychology, I would've thought, to be a major factor in a trip to such a place. Being locked up in a confined tin can, and then perhaps only a slightly bigger tin can whilst domiciled on a distant alien landscape with unbreathable air at an unsurvivable pressure (without the aid of a claustrophobic spacesuit), and the possibility, probably a high possibility, of being marooned is very serious test of human sanity. If your location is anywhere near London UK, I'd suggest you go and view the Apollo 10 command capsule in the Science Museum. How they remained compos mentis confined in that thing I don't know. I recall a TV program whereby someone was being introduced to wearing a spacesuit (prior to a U2 flight). The guy freaked out. And even after said U2 flight he reported it being very difficult to endure. And enduring such confinement, I'd suggest, is nothing compared to a Mars trip.

Probably end up like the ISS, whereby nobody knows what it's there for!

I'd suggest it's far removed from being on a submarine. Apart from long delayed voice communication, on Mars you'd be incomplete isolation from humanity with nothing to look at other than a barren landscape. And looking and testing rocks for signs of life, or previous life, will quickly become the most boring activity one could imagine. Which is in complete contrast to being on a submarine, whereby all one has to do is blow the ballast tanks and you'd be breathing the good fresh air. Not so on when stuck on Mars. It'll probably be worse than the psychological effects of being locked in a dungeon. But whoever wants to go, then good luck to them.

I'm sorry, but I find the consequences of confining a human to the restrictions of a journey to, and a period spent, on Mars to be beyond human endurance. But on the other hand, perhaps if only volunteers infected with Toxoplasma Gondi were considered as candidates maybe it'll work. Might not be too difficult as I understand it's estimated that 30% of the human population is infected. Infection, I further understand, endears us with penchant to take risks - perhaps those base jumpers I've just seen on TV news (UK) are infected!

I think there's a vast difference between crossing an ocean and being stuck on a desolate alien landscape with air one can't breathe or even exist in without a spacesuit. Not to mention the nearest human habitation being an unreachable distance away. I understand human frustrations occur on the International Space Station, so what would happen on Mars perhaps one can only contemplate - all the ingredients for madness if you ask me.

Why anyone would volunteer to go to Mars I can't imagine. I understand the Moon was once described as magnificent desolation. And Mars seems similar if not worse. And to spend several months journeying there in a confined tin can, only to be confronted by a desolate landscape; sounds like a recipe for experiencing torment and madness.

Don't think it's quite as simple as that. Ignoring the compressive and power stroke forces, the energy to accelerate a piston is returned by the piston when it pulls on the crankshaft when being decelerated. There'll be losses through friction and the like, but it's not like (say) you or I trying to oscillate a piston up and down in our hand.

To cause anything to change from zero to an infinitely fast or large state of movement requires an infinite amount of energy. The current in your hypothesis of a circuit of zero resistance will be limited by inductance, not forgetting opposing eddy currents within the body of the conductor. And opposing eddy currents within the body of a conductor I understand is referred to as skin effect. Which means high frequency currents, or any fast changing current as in your case, will be limited to flowing close to the surface of the conductor. And the faster the change in current, the thinner the layer of conduction. And the infinitely fast rate of change of current in your hypothesis would presumably mean an infinitely thin layer of conduction - the conclusion being that such a infinitely thin layer will present a high resistance even in a zero resistance conductor!

I would suggest Brian Cox & Jeff Forshaw's book: why does E=mc2?. I thoroughly recommend it. I would've also liked to have made a contribution to this thread, but I'm only on the second reading of the above book!

I think if one looks deep enough human error is probably manifest in just about everything; we design the things, build the things, design procedures to operate the things and human hands drive the things - not to mention to make money in the process. It's the number 1 computer that's behind everything. As for no reason to kill, you or I might not see a reason. Doubtless a highjack is like setting out on any endeavour, success is not guaranteed.

Not just my view but also the TV interviewee I mentioned in my reply #49. To repeat: I recall him suggesting that even if they were half asleep, they should've acted within minutes of the plane failing to contact the next air traffic control. I can't recall his expertise, but he was introduced as someone with a particular proficiency in aviation. Unfortunately I can't find any video record of the interview on the net. As for my view that you appear to imply is reeking in hindsight, my position is and was the same as the interviewee above. To the point that I consider it to be the blindingly obvious - I recall muttering at the time of the interview: at last. I'm sorry once again, but it cannot be the case that a passenger aircraft can wander off in a direction in complete contradiction to its flight plan with no action taken by the controlling authorities. The plane may well have been experiencing a malfunction whereby judicious and appropriate intervention being helpful. But the various agents did nothing. Absolutely outrageous.

Well, to go over it again, they failed to contact the next in line air traffic control, turned off or experienced a communication malfunction and then changed course by nearly 180 degrees. Those actions alone should, within minutes, have raised an alarm. Not to mention then being picked up by military radar. I'm sorry yet again, but if that's considered not too alarming and not sufficiently dramatic to warrant action (action at the time), then I hesitate to contemplate possible similar scenarios. And as for what I think you inferred about resources being wasted on such events, how much in resources have they spent thus far in searching, and how much will be spent until the thing is located? Remembering it appears that they haven't even found hair nor hide of the plane thus far. And it seems the only hint they have about it possibly being under the ocean is some calculations on engine pings - apparently the black box pings have been shown to be false. And the truth is they probably don't know for anything like a reasonable certainty it is under the ocean! Unless it somehow landed cleanly on the ocean, I would've thought there should be some wreckage. Having run out of fuel and on glide, would autopilot be able to land it on water, such that it remained in one piece and then sunk?

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what you're saying. I'm sure there are numerous instances of non IFF where no action is justifiable; but would they be from an aircraft flying in completely the wrong direction and incommunicado? Somehow I think not. I presume from your comments that a substantial passenger plane flying in completely the wrong direction with all communication switched off, wasn't sufficiently serious a situation to require investigation. Investigation that is from visual interrogation from another aircraft in close escort and possible semaphore communication should cockpit activity be observed. I'm trying to imagine or visualise how much worse the situation would need to be for you to justify investigation. I think we should leave it at that and agree to disagree.

It seems to me you're missing the point, the aircraft apparently didn't respond to IFF. Perhaps it can be ascertained from my comments I'm prepared to consider all possibilities, but a missile launch from said aircraft! I think that's delving into the highs of hyperbole. As you say, naval vessels can be sunk, but have you considered land based objects can be destroyed - I'm sure we don't have to run over, itemise, all the possible land based consequences. Not considered a risk? Now that's an interesting position. We notice an aircraft, indeed, a substantial flying machine not responding to standard responses, in fact completely incommunicado, so it's acceptable to take the view it's not considered a risk!! I suggest we would've had no idea of the risk factor. Russian roulette can be a fatal game to play. I'm sorry, but it's not responding for a reason. As I think we all know, communication apparatus could've failed due an inflight emergency or it could've been deliberately turned off. The plane may have diverted because of the emergency or for a criminal - not to mention terrorist or suicidal - reason. But whatever, it seems to me the situation required investigation, which in view of the absence of communication, the scrambling of jets.

Someone I know is a naval officer, and when on board ship they are constantly monitoring and 'pinging' planes for confirmation of friend or foe. From what I understand, what should've happened is upon leaving one air traffic control and being not acquired by the next control within minutes, communication between the two controls about the lack of contact should've taken place. And with the remaining lack of contact emergency reacquisition procedure activated. And so on from there. And as for the military seeing a plane on radar, indeed, a plane incommunicado without the 'pings' I mentioned above, action should've been taken. I'm just trying to visualise the situation: I say old chap I've got this unidentified and unidentifiable plane thing in my screen. Is it doing much? No, just flying due west. Some while later: Oh look, everything's okay now because it's disappeared off screen. A total shambles.

It seems to be all over the main news reports and so I didn't think it necessary, anyway this link from the UK BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26503141 I'm sorry, but I can't understand your position. The thing diverted from planned course, turned off communication or it experienced breakdown, and then flew back over land. In view of things these days, what other excuse does one need to scramble jets? As I think I've said previously: say if a passenger plane left here in the UK to fly to the US, and then upon leaving air traffic control location transducers failed or were switched off and turned around and flew back over the UK, it seems to me that jets would've been scrambled with the likelihood of a hot line to number 10 seeking permission to shoot it down. And as for turning back consequent to some sort of emergency system problem or breakdown, all the more reason to intercept it with scrambled jets, I'd say.

All the reports I've read indicate that they had the thing on radar. Are you saying that if a commercial plane left American airspace (say on the way to UK), communication failed and it turned around and flew back over the US, jets would not have been scrambled? I'm sorry, but you must be joking.

So, the black box 'pings' were a mirage - apparently produced by their own ships! Noticed a interviewee commenting on the TV today suggesting that even if the various bodies involved were even half asleep, action would've been taken within minutes following the non acquisition by the Vietnamese air traffic control after leaving Malaysian control. For me, and as I think I mentioned somewhere else on this forum, upon the reported acquisition by the Malaysian military radar of an unidentified substantial flying object, why weren't jets scrambled? A complete shambles, if you ask me.

Are you using Internet Explorer 11? In my experience try reverting to IE version 10 and quote etc will work. Disable auto IE update.