fred2014

That article reads like a propoganda piece to me. Let us hope the stupid notion of using batteries dies a death real soon. question: Which generates the most CO2 ? a) Running a current big mercedes diesel car b) Running a current tesla electric vehicle

Hi starchaser137 The site I pop into from time to time is https://opencores.org/ There you will find open designs you can look at and make contact with others doing this. I'd suggest you start with something fairly simple (6502 type design maybe) and popular. That will give you a better chance of both getting a leg up and finding people to help when you get stuck. I'm personally a Xillinx fan but would warn you that if you get into FPGA's the learning curve is both long and steep - not for the faint hearted. On the other hand you don't have to spend much to see what its all about - I'd recommend you download and install Xilinx vivado (still free I think) and take a look at the examples. Thats a comprehensive toolchain for general FPGA design and you will get to see the complexity very quickly. Alternatively there are a number of people building such processors with discrete components (even on breadboard!) - a yahoo search will pull those up - try a search for "6502 open source" and similar:- what has been done is quite amazing. Do not be tempted to buy books for college students as they tend to be too dense for self teaching - and stay away from overly cheap tools - work with the best you can get. I would avoid mswindows for xilinx - linux is much better for this. The basic concepts are easy enough - its learning what you need to learn and doing it that takes the time. People will suggest you learn verilog - if you only expect to work in the amateur field that's ok - the alternative is more precise and trusted by bigger institutions and no harder to learn - so if you want to work in the field someday use that (I'm not naming it in hopes of avoiding pointless flame wars) I hope thats some use to you.

Sorry I lost this thread I don't visit here too often - I don't recall the details - I was responding to a TV news broadcast not long before - if I remember rightly now it occurred somewhere in the northern hemisphere - possibly arctic/russia - (I don't recall sorry) If I remember correctly it was only recognised long after the fact and was quite a substantial blast hence my curiosity. (It may have been volcanologists or geologists that spotted it in their records)

Massive explosion on earth a few months ago - strange nobody detected it - not even the super sensetive gravity wave monitors. Is there an explanation for that?

Primitive voodoo. I also note the lack of any mention of a control group.

Killing an animal for fun is fun. Killing an animal for food gives you the energy to have more fun.

Many yars ago I listened to a radio interview with an american researcher who had cured 98 out 100 mice by cutting out portions of the pancreas. (The other 2 in her trial were still in recovery at the time) Apparently recovery was total and permanent. She was complaining that no one would fund her human trials. I never heard any more of that. PS. If anyone wants to look it up if it's even possible - it was on the Ed Doolan radio show on radio WM (UK)- year unknown sorry.

Sure you're right DrP I don't doubt it's great we have this "new" material to experiment with and it's properties are very interesting. I just dont want to waste my time reading about what might be possible one day. I'd much rather it stayed out of the general press until at least a prototype was produced. There's an interesting editorial in the magazine for the med-tech show in Coventry (UK) that touches on this - pointing out the pharmaceutical industry hates to say too much too soon because they don't want to have to publish "sorry it doesn't work in after all" papers afterwards. Perhaps the rest of us could learn a little from them.

Can't see it, can't register any effects, don't know what it's made of, don't know where it is. But if we make up enough if's but's and maybe's we can fit it into the empty hypothesis box we have over here. There is a phenomenum you don't understand - fair enough - but you don't go on a snark hunt untill you've killed all the wild boar. Some say gravitational lensing indicates the existance of dark matter. Once again the tail is put before the horse because it seems to fit. The trouble with "doing science" is people are programmed to believe anything with the term "science" in is de-facto correct. "Doing Science" is the practice of "having a guess" and when it's wrong "having another guess" until you guess close enough to to what you wanted in the first place then you're happy. In engineering terms - it's a closed system with positive feedback. Sometimes - Inevitably - you end up with 11 dimensions and a galaxy full of fairy dust. Searching for "dark matter" is not the same as searching for things in the LHC. As much as it pains me to say it - I think this is one situation where a bit more creativity with math and concepts might prove usefull.

My replies are sparse here as I'm having trouble getting the quoting system to work and end up doing it all manually. (Not a fault I just can't get my head around it) I still don't think shell theorum applies but I'll spend more time understanding it better. On the other hand - who is to say what gravity does outside of gravity wells entirely. As far as I know we can't have any frame of reference for that beyond guesswork. OK - a citation was asked for - this was something I read and asked about some time ago however I've gone away and looked for something I can actually quote - and it just so happens the "New Scientist of March 2017" is right on our doorsteps. Page 30 regarding the bullet cluster: "But in recent years dissenting voices have said the ferocity of the collision is impossible in a universe dominated by dark matter. In fact tweaking the laws of gravity might better explain this smash-up" P.31 "Vera Rubin saw that Newtons gravity is not enough in the 1970's" I suggest a read of pages 32-33 also. (If you need me to quote more let me know.) If I sound a little smug here - my apologies. The magazine seems to be saying what I've been suggesting for some years. You might also want to look into the concept of MOND (Modified Newtonian dynamics) It bears looking at again I think. I just think like string theorist - scientists have thrown science out the window in favour of whatever untestable science fiction will draw down the biggest budgets. PS (Sorry I dont have time to watch online videos)

I agree that the concept of "dark energy" seems to resolve the maths - but that's because it was designed to. Not because it was seen to do so. I prefer to think there is something we don't know about gravity - or the amount of black holes or their behaviour. Inventing 2 new things before breakfast is fun - but I find it somewhat suspicious. There seems to be a growing trend of scepticism about dark matter and dark energy in general. I don't think it's just me. As an asside: When it comes to dark energy maybe I've missed the explanation of the "opposite reaction" - what is it pushing against? Why can't we detect that either? has that even been looked for? Too many questions that have the "impossible to detect" answer for my liking. (Again - from a laymans perspective) That sounds pretty definite - thanks for the suggestion I'll check it out. Looking at that I don't see any reason why it should apply. It seems to reference perfect spheres. I don't think the universe is a perfect sphere - in fact I seem to remember something about saddle shapes but don't quote me on that. I think my notion holds up still.

I really hope it can be made to work - I'm just tired of seeing announcements of things that can't be done - or are never done - as if they already exist. Anyone can come up with ideas that "might" work. I just wish those never made it into newsrooms. Graphene seems to collect these - hence I asked if graphene is actually used for anything right now?

Thanks - but I was looking for a tutorial kit of some sort not a water pump. I've never heard of a "tesla water turbine" but I'll look it up.

Does anyone know of a commercial hydro electric generator kit we could buy for tutorial purposes ?

I would suggest there is some evidence of what might be out there. Personal opinion follows please correct anything I have wrong: We know that the universe is expanding and that the mass of the universe is accelerating faster than a closed model (big bang or inflation) predicts. The only force we have evidence for that can make mass accelerate in that manner is gravity. To answer the OP's question - my suggestion is that the universe is a "bubble" surrounded on all sides by other "bubbles" - like froth. those other bubbles are universes with their own mass and if there are a large amount of them or even infinite number - that might account for the increasing acceleration at the edges of our "bubble" This doesn't address the issue with gravity "drop off" at the edges of galaxies but I don't see why that shouldn't be a totally different phenomena. (You can glean I'm not at all convinced about all the "dark" suggestions nor do I see any reason why we should imagine our universe is all there is just because we can't "see" any further. Calculating the mass of a universe based on what we can see, seems like a pretty dodgy exercise to me.)

Is graphene actually used for anything? All the reports I see say things like "could be used" or "indications suggest" There's plenty of information on the chemical properties showing "promise" and "if this could be scaled up" Here we have another report of "could be" being touted as a final solution.

It doesnt matter whether a clock has gears or not. It doesn't "measure" anything. It is a device rigged to indicate the rotation of the earth around the sun and is re-synchronised when it goes out of whack. That is an example of "rigging" not of "callibrating." The definition as a measuring device is incorrect.

Thanks strange - I had the first link but didn't think to go to wikipedia. The 2 levels mentioned in the program turn out to be 2 ranges accordig to the second paragraph in the "observations" section on wikipedia so that clears that up for me. I expect either I miss-heard the documentary or it was oversimplified for their script a little. Still ... Very interesting work.

I was watching the documentary about this project based on La Palma with the "magic" telescopes last night. Am I right in believing that the gamma rays being monitored are of 2 different energy levels and if so could someone explain (as simply as possible) how the 2 states come to be - and define the differences in practical terms if possible. or perhaps correct me if I have misconstrued something? thanks

Airbrush A flyby only has value if it can return some sort of data. (actually - not true - the ability to do it is worthwhile ... But you see my point I think) In this case the power source is already sorted and the basic specs done. The idea is specifically to use a solar sail. In fact the more I think about this the more I'm thinking in terms of a "swarm" of these things being a good idea. (assuming we discount the idea of face eating little green men spotting them) In fact perhaps we should already have "seen" laser light out there - I wonder why not. Anyway - This seems a real practical project and the first I've been really interested in since 1969.

Your clock isn't measuring anything and certainly isn't taking any readings of anything. It is merely indicating that it still has a power source capable of turning its gears. It's an indicating device not a measuring device.

One interpretation but I suspect will one day be shown to be incorrect (and somewhat embarrasing).

I have a 12 inch ruler here - it measures distance. If I can measure it and take "readings" of it - I know it exists. Please show me a device that measures time.

Now where did I put my tub of resublimated thiotimoline? (one for old SF freaks out there) Of course time is just an abstract concept and you can't tavel through a concept.