calbiterol

I hope that question isn't directed towards anyone in particular (me) because I don't even know what black body radiation is! And, after having found a useful web resource, I think I kind of understand it - I was thinking E was in terms of energy levels (principle quantum number), but now I see it is most definitely not. It's in terms of energy, via J or eV.

Well... Helium would be a start I'm doing research on it as we speak, so I'm gradually acquiring information, so... There wouldn't happen to be a chart with emission spectra / optical properties, would there?

I mean for gasses other than hydrogen. And don't you mean delta E? I don't completely understand E=hf (aka E=hv) because looking at it, it would seem like the frequency would be the same no matter what gas/element it was. A little more explanation would be... helpful.

Let me rephrase that - how do you determine the wavelength without actually producing it. A chart would be wonderful. I would try google, but I don't know the terminology to use to get any result in this case.

Yeah, then I use paint. Except when I want transparency, but then I still start out in paint. Wow, we are on a heck of a tangent...

Depends on what you're using it for. I use imaging software mostly for heavier stuff, like picture-editing or web media... And let me tell you, patching up someones face and looking realistic is darn near impossible in paint.

I'm basically asking, how do you determine the wavelength of the released photon.

My article on augmented intelligence is quite old. The other figure I saw in the past week or so. I thought it was in popular science or popular mechanics, but I can't find it in where I thought it was. The issue wasn't anything about the actual manufacture of chips, but the physics side of it - that eventually, if Moore's Law continues, there is a limit to how small a transistor can get - it must be larger than an atom, for one. I seem to remember it being right about 2025 when, by Moore's law, the transistor reaches such a small scale. The article you linked to suggested (as a conservative estimate) about 10 years. I did see a figure that said that if we were able to go down to the subatomic scale for computing power and expand the entire galaxy into a massive computer, moving out at the speed of light (or just under it), then we would be able to continue Moore's law for about 400 (or was it 600?) years. Found it through a google search, lost the original site.

Is the emission spectrum of an element the same spectrum of light that it will emit when photons emit light after excitation? For example, is hydrogen's emission spectrum the same as the light it emits when excited (or two-step upconverted, etc)? If not, how can one go about finding the emission spectra from de-excitation of an electron in an atom at the first and second energy levels (up from natural state, in other words, the first and second excitation levels)? Sorry if my terminology is a bit... Off.

How true. Photoshop is so much less... painful.

Not so fast, Cris. I saw a prediction on the limit/end of Moore's law. I can't remember exactly when it said processors would reach the atomic scale (the end of miniturization and Moore's law) or where it was from, but I do remember it being significantly before that happened, and before 2025. If you really feel like finding the exact figures, search google. I am still looking through my magazines to see if it's in there. Another intriguing possibility is that of augmented intelligence - the use of technology with direct neural links to human brains that control it - thereby increasing the memory, capability for learning, et cetera of humans by exponential values. Here is a space.com article about exactly that.

True, but inert gasses are called inert, even though they have the potential to form compounds. So, in all reality, very few, if any, elements are truly inert. I was referring to the system that gregoriev had set up, which would not react with carbon (or at least hasn't, in my experience.) As for the pencil lead thing, I wasn't aware that all pencil "lead" contained clay. Even the rods in wooden pencils? I've used those, and they seem to work fine. And you don't have to get them from lantern batteries - most AA, AAA, C, and D batteries use carbon electrodes - as for other batteries, I'm not sure. Yeah, apparently it's got a high clay content. The other issue might be something with the ionic NaCl - Could it be forming sodium carbonate with the carbon from the electrodes? That's soluble, and I seem to remember it being clear, so it's probably (nearly) impossible to detect without equipment.

Sure you can. Use the graphite rods from pencils. If you want to get a LOT of surface area (but it'll be fragile) make the grid out of .7 or .5 mm pencil "lead" for mechanical pencils. As for connecting them, implement some creativity. Soldering works, if you are patient (although, again, corrosion is an issue with the solder), but there's any number of other ways to do it. You don't even really need to solder, as long as the rods are connected. And no, graphite (carbon) will NOT deteriorate. I've done a fair amount of electrolysizing with carbon (graphite) electrodes - I carved them out of a pencil - and they have never deteriorated on me. Then again, I've never used anything other than tap water for the water - nothing added - but that shouldn't make too much of a difference for the electrodes, because as has been said, carbon is inert.

First, the startup capital isn't for the entire colony. It's for a production facility. The cost to build a self-sustaining production facility (it produces all of the materials it needs to construct it's product, i.e. a spaceship) is a lot less than the capital required to construct all the components for the entire mission under normal circumstances. The first and most obvious benefit of this is having a production facility that has no bills - even electrical is taken care of - and so this allows a company to produce a product for virtually nothing beyond the design cost. The advantages to having a colony are also great - production facilities, testing facilities, scientific research that could potentially yield results worth millions, publicity... It's a pretty long list.

True. Hadn't though of that. The issue behind money could be overcome by creating a self-sustaining production facility - it produces everything it needs to build and supply the mission. But this would probably require large amounts of start-up capital. The potential benefits, though, would probably be enough to get financial backing for the startup costs.

First of all, where there's water, there's fuel: H2O can be electrolysized into hydrogen gas and oxygen. That's a powerful fuel and an oxidizer right there. Secondly, I completely agree that self-sufficciency is the key to a successful mission. On the moon, by the way, it is speculated that anything on the surface would be killed by radiation - so any greenhouses would have to be subterranean, or shielded from radiation. Mars is tantalizing. IMHO, the only real use of the moon is for mineral mining, low-G spaceship construction, and a stepping stone to other planets. There has been an interesting proposal brought up somewhere that would solve two issues - the greenhouse effect here, and the "desolation" of Mars: the transportation of our greenhouse gasses to Mars. Don't forget, however, that by bringing anything to Mars, we risk contamnating it - and any possible life on it. By the way, not only would the breakdown of iron oxide produce oxygen, it would also produce iron, which could be used as a building material. I'm all for making this the new Member Project.

I never said he is a troll. I said, "stop feeding the trolls." All I meant by that was please stop bickering, it gets nowhere and only accomplishes straining relations. I was attempting to prevent this thread from becoming a neverending argument with nothing to do with its intended subject. I seemed to have failed miserably, even after coming close to success. Seeing as this thread seems to be going nowhere, and is by no means discussing the evolution of stupidity, and has become a vessel for personal vendettas, I request that it is moved or deleted. I think this would be advantageous. Perhaps a moderator could move those posts that are part of this ongoing argument into a different thread in a different section? That way, the original idea could still be discussed. Just a suggestion. I apologize to anyone I may have offended in the process of attempting to cease an argument. Calbit

None taken. I understand completely the issue behind not knowing people's skill levels. I think that it is both the best and worst aspect of the internet world. Best in that it allows people to be accepted for their persons, and not for their ages. Worst in that misunderstanding and situations like this happen. Long story short, I know exactly where you're coming from.

Ophiliote: please stop starting childish arguments. Christ slave: if you stop responding, he most likely will too. Everyone else: please don't feed the trolls. Thanks in advance, Calbit

Would you happen to know any websites, for a start?

Aardvark, you are dragging up an argument that was more or less settled - or getting there. It would be most advantageous to the thread if you didn't. Hopefully, that wasn't too harsh, but it needed to be said.

This whole thing is based on the assumption that this post was directed towards my query. If this is incorrect, I apologize. ***** I want to experiment with the effect. In this, I intend to construct one of these "lifters," yes. As for the concept, I get the idea - the air is charged, and then repelled. The intricate details evade me, as I have yet to find anywhere that explains them. When I first read the part about being an interesting beginner, I humored your terminology and followed the links. Upon reading the sites that followed, I was interested by the history. However, the concepts themselves are already implanted (firmly, if I do say so myself) in my mind. The only thing that was new to me on either site that had to do with electrical theory was the coulomb, which I have heard of before, but do not know the principle behind. I know it measures electrical charge, but that's it. I may be just in high school, but I am by no means such a beginner - I've conducted (no pun intended) many experiments in the little time that I've had free. In general, I'm looking for material that is specific and focused around the topic, however in-depth it may be. If I don't understand something, I'll ask. I appreciate help, though. As for doing research, I enjoy it and do it whenever I can. Any links to point me in the right direction during my (little) freetime would be greatly appreciated. [EDIT: By the way, RedAlert, your link doesn't work. You need to cut off the "why lifters don't work in a vaccum" part.]

I can't claim to read Spanish. I tried babelfishing it (http://www.edu.aytolacoruna.es/aula/fisica/fisicaInteractiva/sacaleE_M2/Triboelecetricidad/vanderGraff/GeneradorEVG_Trabajo.htm) but babelfish doesn't work very well, and doesn't translate images.

I believe he means transitions through electron energy states. Assuming I'm right, this is also called up-conversion and excitation. I'm sure there's more names for it, too. Basically, it's the frequency that an electron needs to change its energy level. Wow, I hope I got all that right... Something in my brain doesn't function right when I'm this tired

This is a little out of my league, but you could, concievably, use a cheap wireless microphone for the job - the circuitry in them is really small, it's the diaphragm that's big and heavy. The power source there, unfortunately, is often a 9v. Now, in theory, you could supply all the power you wanted through induction (just like the chargers on electric toothbrushes - induced current - put it in the surface where the snake is "locomoting" ) but not only is that a bit overboard, it'd probly interfere with equipment. Anyways, you could also convert the electrical impulse to audio - you could use ultrasound, and then have a ultrasonic sensor to give your equipment a data feed. Or, you could pick apart any number of simple devices. You could probably rig up the insides of an electronic remote (a.k.a. zappers, space command, clicker, tv-thingy, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum) to send the signal, and that would be light. As far as actually going about doing it, I could probably tell you how if I had a model number, etc - I'd just rig it up myself, and then explain the process - but it's much easier for me to just do it that explain a hypothetical situation. Wow, am I babbling or what! Hope that helps.