insane_alien

you do know that most humans can take 5g if they're sitting down don't you. and a few can go all the way up to 9g for a while. 2g would be very uncomfortable but you would still be able to function in it.

i'm stumped by this. i've made a chart of the possible combinations and nothing jumps out at me as being the obvious answer.

or any technical detail at all. the article just seems like another case of bad science journalism where they've tried to make it sound more spectacular to the general public.

dave, you should know that relativity is a highly mathematical theory and it does bear some relationship to the question at hand. although i do agree with you that pi is not subject to change as it is for a hypothetical perfect circle in flat space.

i've been in a 4G turn in a plane. while i'm a bit on the short side i wasn't squashed. if humans crumpled under 2G then we wouldn't be able to jump a high as we can without ending up a squishy mess. and kickboxing would well outside our abilities.

that was a very very rough estimate. to get a better one we will need to know the geometry of the rocket, the mass distribution, the type of fuel used, the nozzle design, the exhaust velocity, the orbit it is trying to achieve and where it is launched from and in what direction. all these and more will have an effect on the fuel required.

imagine, the threads were closed for the reasons given. what you have posted here is also a rule violation as you are attempting to hijack yet another thread and turn it to your purposes of spouting what has been debunked.

Having a glance at the wikipedia article on it i'd say its possible but very unlikely. you wear wearing the lead apron and pinprick holes are unlikely to expose the same area multiple times as the apron would move around depending on your position. this is corroborated with the american cancer society except the last one. these are more likely candidates. To get a more accurate answer you should probably consult the doctor giving you the treatment(oncologist?) forums are probably not the best place to find out stuff like this.

to simplify what big214mp said, rutherfords model said there was a small heavy positive nucleus to an atom and a vague cloud of negative charge surrounding it, nothing more. bohrs model improved on this by telling us how the electrons went around the nucleus(although this model only has a semblance of accuracy when applied to hydrogen, we have much better models now)

thats what i implied, melting down currency for scrap metal.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=51&a=14 <section 3b here I agree that they need to be updated. They're very vague and open to interpretation. I think we should have something more clear cut. It is going to require a fair bit of discussion though as many hazardous materials are very good for experimenting with, for example, production of TNT is a good example of electrophilic aromatic substitution. And i'm sure messing around with bacteria can demonstrate principles of biology. At the moment it seems to be a judgement call as to whether the poster is intent on doing some real science or if the poster is intent on doing it because they think its 'k3wl'.

i seriously doubt your going to get nicked for melting down a couple of pennies. if you were melting them down by the tonne THEN there might be something done about it.

oh is that what you do with them. i've been sticking them up my nose. they usually come out again but 3 are missing.

well, it takes some rudimentary intelligence to remove the cap. so that has a one up on this thread right there.

whoops, i meant hindi. sorry about that. basically i was meaning any non-english language.

so you have nonsense. which means you haven't figured anything out at all. appart from the obvious problem of applying mathematical operations to a non numerical system which basically means its utter crap.

won't make it. too small. iirc for every kilogram of mass you want to put up there you need about 10kg of fuel. so, a 25lbs rocket(assuming single stage) would need about 250lbs of fuel. although that is a rule of thumb and generally applies to larger rockets, i'm not sure how well it scales.

and what about other languages, such as chinese, french, german, spanish, afrikaans, japanese, indian, hebrew, etc. etc.

the only way to increase the energy released by the petrol is to make it burn more completely. this can be easily achieved via running it lean (if you have one of the old cars with a manual choke) or by putting an automated computer controlled system in place like modern cars which do it all immensely better than the manual system. whichever way you look at it, cars today make a damn good job of complete combustion. there is only a tiny fraction of unburnt or partially burnt hydrocarbons/carbonmonoxide leftover. while theoretically possible to squeeze a fraction of a joule per stroke per cylinder, it is far from practical. the 'HHO' method is actually detrimental because 1/ HHO as described by the proponents DOES NOT AND CANNOT exist.. 2/ losses far exceed the possible gains.

you can buy SF6 in cylinders like oxygen or helium. and the gas itself is quite safe and inert.

that has nothing to do with this thread.

seems a lot of people posting to this thread haven't taken in something made clear in the title. withOUT drugs.

not enough (or even in the right way) to cause such big gaps in the 'origional' crust as the oceans.

Aren't they already testing a liquid nitrogen cooled superconducting grid somewhere in new york? its a small one IIRC. another easier option is to do away with the grid entirely and have localised power generation

well, a spacefilling model rather than a stick model would look more realistic.