insane_alien

remember those caps can hold enough to kill you. be careful.

Mooey, he meant the audio track of the video, it undulates and sounds a bit inhuman at times. ie. it sounds messed up butthe content isn't. and yeah, i hope this sparks off a new space race. also, i believe that the tremendous rate of progress for the chinese is due to the technology and science already existing in scientific documentation. they don't have to create it themselves(until they fully catch up and possibly overtake). i just hope the governement will be willing to allow new discoveries to be shared, the chinese gov is still a it of a control freak

99% of them probably know its Bull excrement but still, if it floats your boat...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absence_epilepsy < does that help?

it increases to a certain distance then drops off to near zero not long after the peak.

s'cool. i like fluid mechanics. one of the few classes i paid attention in in second year. i might look at the maths tomorrow if i feel like it(probably not) and have time(again probably not) so maybe one of our mathmagicians can take a look at it.

no, S2 is the diameter/radius of the constriction in the venturi meter S1 is the diameter/radius of the pipe normally. and if it was bigger then the pressure difference would be negative and you'd still have the same problem. the only way this woks is when the pressure differnce is zero to give a zero velocity. and trust me on this ALL venturi meters, bar some that are made purely for the sake of experimentation, are constrictive (S1>S2) i have never actually seen an expansive venturi meter they're that rare. and then you have to take the fact that the equation did not work for actual data.

bonding usually releases energy. riogho.

nope doesn't work. S2^2 is always less than S1^2 which in the case of that equation results in the square root of a negative number so would give imaginary velocities. can't spot a mistake in the maths though, it goes to fast and does several steps at once an i can't be bothered to sit through it slowly to figure it out. also it's maths. i tested it on real data from an experiment i did last year too and it just gave me gibberish using the real equation i get withing 1 percent of the true value(measured using a bucket and a stopwatch )

gasses do not layer out like immicible liquids, they are all miscible in each other. also, as swansont says the molecules are shifting about like crazy so they'll mix themselves. you can temporarily create layers, such as a tank full of sulphur heaxafluoride which will hold the SF6 for a while but if left long enough even in a room with no breeze the gas would evenly distribute itself around the room.

it actually does something quite wierd here. the orbitals kind of merge to form 4 hybridized sp3 orbitals. these look like a very lopsided p orbital with one lobe much bigger than the other. these have equal potentials so no extra energy is needed. as to the reasons why this hapens, i haven't got a clue. its a quantum mechanical thing.

this is that 'iron sun' crap again isn't it? this crap has been surfacing every 5-10 years since the early 1900's usually accompanied by some form of ftl travel. never seen it bundled with perpetual motion before.

well it hasn't been proven as QM is still based on probabilities. if it was known to be deterministic(had been proved) then we would not be using probabilities as we would know the outcome before it happened.

well, i was trying to keep the numbers easy to comprehend.most people can understand 100 and 50 but not so many 'get' the sheer number of atoms even in a spec of dust. i am aware that the larger the sample the more true it holds. i was origionall going to start off with 2 atoms but decided that would be pushing it way too far.

still bum fluff. a couple of my friends asked me to hook them up with ubuntu because they were having so many issues. its fine if all you want to do is browse the web while eating up an oodle of resources. nobody seems to be having problems with that.

you don't get atoms just on the verge of decaying or not. they are either not decayed, in the process of decaying(a very short time nearly impossible to measure) or decayed. there is no middle ground with these states. like all of QM there are a finite number of states with nothing in between. if you had 100 atoms of a radioactive substance, say Iodine-131, you will not be able to predict which will decay first though you can estimate quite readily that after 8 days only 50 or so will be left. this is called the halflife. it is the only way to put any sort of prediction on radioactive decay. though, it is entirely possible that all 100 would still be there or that they all decayed in the first millisecond, it is just extremely unlikely for that to happen.

a chemistry teacher not familiar with the ideal gas law? somethings up there. sure he's not just a biology teacher drafted in to cover a shortage?

it's not just regarded as random it IS random. it's a quantum mechanical event and those are about as random as you can get. we know how it happens, we just can't put a time on it. we can put a probability on it though.

CPL that is because there is a force counteracting the centripetal force. the centripetal force(weight) is the same but the net force is nigh on zero because of the counteracting force of the chair.

no he could not as the thought experiments are based on some theories(such as the maxwell equations). seeing as those were not around(ond some of the observations such as the precession of mercury) the theories would not have been postulated.

psst weight and centripetal force are the same thing.

yep the maths is so easy even YT can do it.

Melvin, in the world of the chemical industry, appart from describing production to the dozy pillocks that are investing in the company, units of mass are not used to describe the quantities of chemical produced. if ou look at the actual number of molecules you will see that for every mol of sulphur you get 1 mol of SO2. on top of that, if you burned 1 pound of sulphur, you would get 2 pounds of sulphur dioxide as you would need 1 pound of oxygen to burn it in.

also, a metal container is a bad idea. acids dissolve metal. use glass.

but remember, we're talking about wood composites here not planks of wood. think of plyboard or fiberboard here. composites CAN be giver wierd shapes but they're not as god at it as plastics and remolding isn't really viable.