Bushranger

I am trying hard to understand. Consider a rocket in space that suddenly accelerates (thousands of miles per hour). The rocket cabin (a cylinder) is filled with air. Is all the air then suddenly "pushed" to the rear of the rocket due to "bodies that are at rest tend to remain at rest", and a vacuum formed at the front of the rocket because all the air is not in the rear? This all seems counter-intuitive to me.

Consider a space ship in near/far Earth orbit. Suddenly accelerates to thousands of mile an hour instantly. Would the astronauts be slammed to the rear of the vehicle or would the fact that they were only subject to micro gravity (mass but little/no gravity to act upon the mass) they would not be so effected? In short, in the absence of gravity (I understand that there is "microgravity" in Earth orbit) is law of inertia (bodies at rest remain at rest), in effect? Please explain it to me like I was a six-year old.

There are no mirrors on the tractor...the lights on the left in this photo are "suspended" in space. The "numbers" on the right have my cargo shorts or Black Bib coveralls as the backdrop. In short, the Reddish images are appearing in mid air (on the left), and over non-reflective fabric (on the right). Although I have studied photography in college years ago, I have very little knowledge about modern digital photography...that is why I posted this on a science orient site in the off chance that it would be seen by someone with digital photography credentials (that is why I specified "no guessing")...my "credentials" in regard to photography had to do with things like the emulsion coated celluloid and silver bromide...obsolete knowledge it would seem in that todays photography seems to have become devoid of such archaic methods in favor of digital images...which I know nothing about. I know about flaring on a camera lens, but flaring on a lense is always an irregular shape.

I cannot switch off the lights of the old or new Cub Cadet...they are automatically on when the unit is running. The headlights on the old unit were standard incandecent. The lights on the new unit are different...seem to be White light from perhaps LED or more modern. By what theory do you think the lights could causing the display of Reddish colored "214"? No, thanks for pointing that out. The cover on the camera is not ajar. If the lights of the tractor are causing the Red immage via reflections, it begs the question: Why are there what appears to be numbers, and the same numbers "214" reflected. As an experiment, the next time I go out to retrieve the SD card to look at the captured images, I will drive to the Right more to change the angle of the headlights in relation to the camera and see if it makes any difference...but that would still not tell my why the "214".

I have a trailcam on my property (a cheap Tasco, about three years old), that has suddenly started to stamp pictures it catches of me when I drive past it on my Cub Cadet. I has never done this before and only does it to me, not shots of deer, squirrels, racoons, or opossums...just me, but only on my new Cub Cadet...it never did such on the old Cub Cadet. Look just under my left hand...it looks like Red LED number "214". Can anyone give an explanation of what and how it is doing this? No guesses please.

There are a host of inexpensive HD antennas for sale that seem to promise reception that seems beyond possible. I have always understood the broadcast T.V. signals are pretty much line-of-sight or about 35 miles before a tower is needed to get above the curvature of the earth. I recently watched a comercial that claimed 100 miles reception with one of those non-elevated, mount indoor, H.D. antennas. Two questions: 1) Is that 100 mile claim an outright lie? 2) If not an outright lie, what specific electronic technology would make 100 mile reception possible? If you choose to answer my questions, please list your qualifications (to weed-out pretenders)...electrical engineer, or some other pertainent qualification?

My model is a Schumacher SL 1315 (750-1000 peak amps), cost $79.74 from Walmart. However, they have many more similar and more expensive products: https://www.batterychargers.com/en/products/jump-starters

It may be notable in regard to auto batteries and in case you did not already know, the last primary smelter (ore to finsished metal), was closed in the U.S. a couple of years ago. Any virgin lead for car batteries will have to be shipped into the U.S. from countries that still have primary smelters operating, which will logically increase the cost of lead-acid batteries. It would seem that it would make sense for auto manufacturers to develop alternatives (lithium polymer?) to those batteries at this time. The only lead in the U.S. now in the supply chain will soon be from lead recovered from existing sources such as sewer pipes, nuclear medicine, worn-out batteries. However, I have learned as a lead bullet caster, the competition from entities like containers for nuclear medicine has caused competition and pushed the price of lead up along with making the supply chain for existing lead into a closed loop. At one time we casters could get lead nuclear medicine virtually free, but nowadays hospitals are required to return the containers to the manufacture. Also, many salvage yards will no longer sell lead but ship it back to secondary smelters. I have seen the price of salvage lead go from .30 a lb. to 1.00 a lb.(if one can find it) in just a few short years. So, the increasing scarcity of lead should logically be the impetus for a change in car batteries, but courusly seems to have not. Of course not...but even not being an engineer, I could engineer an alternative...with the state of development of the lithium polymer batteries, it seems to be a no brainer.

The cost of the lithium polymer jumper was $79.7...not much different than a new lead-acid battery. Recycling lead batteries is not not normally a factor in auto manufacturing (secondary smelters are the ones who deal with that), so why would an auto manufacturer care? There seem to be a whole lot of guesses being offered here despite my admonition not to do so. PLEASE! If you are not involved with management in the auto industry, please do not give unsupported (no data to back opinion), guesses...I can get those in bars.

Have you sat-in on an automaker's meetings and heard that discussion in a board room...or is that a guess?

Driving my wife's car, I left the lights on in the parking lot...would not start. Bought an 800 amp Jump Starter. Car started right up. The Jump Starter (lithium polymer) weighs about 3 lb. or less. It states on the box that it will do 25 jumps before having to be recharged...which sounds like adapting it to an auto should be a no brainer. That begs the question: With such advancements in battery technology, why are the current autos still being produced with lead-acid plates? In other words, why havent car makers adopted the technology to make a 3 lb (or less) battery to current vehicles? Please do not guess or speculate. Please...only those who actually know need answer.

I was assuming it was carbon from the fact that it was Black. So, maybe not carbon at all, but vaporized tungsten.

I had to change a brake light in my vehicle yesterday. The filament had burned out. A apparent carbon stain was on the inside of the glass bulb which for me begged the question: Where did the carbon come from? The filament is made of elemental tungsten...no carbon compound in it to release carbon when it burns out. There is usually some inert gas inside the bulb also...usually elemental argon, I believe. Other than that there is just the glass stalks that hold the filiment in the void of the bulb. Therefore, just where does the carbon come from that stains the inside of the glass when the filament burns out? The only thing I can postulate is that if the filament were not pure tungsten, but something like tungsten carbide, that would be a source for the carbon stain. So, what is the source for that apparent carbon stain?

So to summarize what you are saying, It is too cold for any sublimation of any water ice discovered in the moon's permanently shaded craters?

Can you explain it to me just like I was six years old? If the temperature in my freezer is below 0 degrees Centigrade (32 degrees Feirnhight)...actually the temperature is way colder than 0 degrees C (as per your chart)...it is -17.77 C how is it that ice sublimates in my freezer...or doesn't it? Please put you answer into the context for someone who is not a scientist. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Book%3A_Chemistry_(OpenSTAX)/10%3A_Liquids_and_Solids/10.4%3A_Phase_Diagrams