insane_alien

the problem is that there is not just one car out there. and they do use both of those technologies and more. machine vision is the main one as it lets the car knowabout the road even if it isn't a 'smart road' (ie one that makes the job of the car navigation system easier), other hazards and other road users. i'm pretty sure if you got a few thousand of those smaller automated cars, chucked them on a model of a road system and let them run free all going to different destinations you'll soon result in chaos, traffic jams and collisions. If it WERE as simple as you seem to think it is then we would have it already.

thank you for proving conclusively you know precisely bugger all about what goes on in a nuclear reactor and are unwilling to accept even the possibility that you may be wrong.

gravity. its more accurately called a parabola

plenty of people will have. it is essential for nuclear reactor engineering and fuel reprocessing.

the decay product will become an anion which will affect chemical stability.

you are arguing two contradictory things you cannot have everybody being equal and have them as individuals. i forsee your idea failing

yeah, i understand the source of your confusion. many crackpots have assumed that it is crackpot 'free energy' when they here chemists talk about gibbs free energy too. its just free as in available. like if you said your were free to go to the cinema tomorrow. doesn't mean you cost nothing. and you have to admit, gibbs free energy sounds better than gibbs available energy. even though both are just as accurate as each other.

everytime some crackpot calls us close minded that video should be linked to.

and carried off with the flawless execution of a LSD intoxicated walrus with ADHD.

not radioactive, but they ARE radiation. nuclear bombs are a bit different, they don't releas just one type of radiation(gamma) they release a whole bunch of different types. from a usual nuclear blast you get a whole slew of: alpha beta gamma(and the rest of the EM spectrum) neutron radiation. and thats before you get to the radioactive paritcles left over. i think what you meant to say at the start was there will be no FALLOUT. although thats not strictly true as there will be some secondary radiation and perhaps some radioactive isotopes generated by the sheer energy density present.

oh, didn't know that. just corrected one of my misconceptions about GR then. well the topic you introduced is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and will not be discussed further here. if you want to talk about it open up a new thread.

there is no mechanism as it doesn't happen. do not hijack this thread.

with EET there would be no mountains(except volcanoes) and there would be no fossils of sea creatures at the summit of everest.

yep, gravitational field strength does decrease as you get further away from earth but not linearly. and yes, clocks high above the earth do seem to run faster. we had to take this into account when we made the gps system. its only a few microseconds/second out though so it doesn't look like an oldtime slapstick comedy film. and the relationship is the inverse square of distance.

its red because it is yours. it only appears red to you as mine only appears red to me.

carbon-14 is not a gas and it is produced in the atmosphere all the time as well by the sun. and no, neutrons do not behave like a gas. anyway, the diameter of the neutron mentioned there is its capture radius its the cross section available to nuclear reactions. what it means is, that if it passes a neutron accepting nucleus close enough it will be captured. but for bouncing purposes it is still very very small. nucleus small like other nuclei. and it isn't repelled by electric charge. this means that matter isn't very dense to it. it just floats on through because the chances of it hitting anything are incredibly tiny. this is why it doesn't behave like a gas when there is a fan. it just doesn't see the fan blade. or the walls. i suppose if you had a massive fan made of big chunks of neutron reflectors then you could get something analogous but you still don't have a long halflife for neutrons. they'll decay before they even get outside the reactor never mind up a big chimney.

free energy as in terms of gibbs free energy. it is part of chemical thermodynamics and compliant with all the laws. it is useful in determining whether a reaction will spontaneously occur or will have to be forced. also in determining the entropy change of the system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy

also, you keep saying that organic chem is for big industry. well, so is inorganic. sulphuric acid, ammonium, LOX, LN2, LH2 all these things are made with inorganic chemistry on an industrial scale. so. if one can also be used in home chemistry so can the other.

maybe we should organize some 'citizens mob' thing. couple of hundred people in a community, if there are a bunch of hooligans being a nuiscance you call them up and they all go in with an organized charge (not to actually do anything except put some fear into them). torches and pitchforks optional.

well, besides the gliding through rock thing there are the microwaves melting the golden gate bridge(the microwaves get through anyway, there would be no increase never mind enough to boil the oceans). unobtanium, pacemakers going kaput(if they stopped from the magnetic field disappearing then they would stop everytime you walked past a lightbulb, fridge magnet or other person with a pacemaker. everything its way way overexagerated and made up. the closest thing to reality was the birds being confused. they probably would retain enough sense to avoid buildings but their long range capabilities would be significantly hindered. at worst, the conditions on earth will be the same as living under the aurora's (sans the cold from extreme latitudes unless you live at extreme latitudes) where the particle ratiation flux is actually higher than normal due to focusing from the magnetic field. there would probably be some increased atmospheric erosion but nothing we'd need to worry about for the next few billion years(by which point the earth would be destroyed by the sun exploding so the point is moot)

the core was about as realistic as a straight line is spherical.

i complicated it? i did consider my audience. the people who use this forums most go for SI units. i posted in SI. most literature uses SI as well. heck, forum policy is to use SI.

can you post the simulation files so we can analyse the exact details of the simulation?

depends on what it is corroding. hydrochloric acid is a stronger acid than nitric acid.

its not the type of acid that does the damage its the concentration. still, wear gloves at all times when handling corrosive chemicals, even if the concentration is very low.