insane_alien

oh yeah, you physicists don't follow the same conventions we chemical engineers use. i keep forgetting. sorry about that. in my field d is always diameter.

ahh, you used the radius instead of the diameter. the d in the equation means diameter not radius.

how did you get 15 kPa? for 1 gram per second you get a value of 3.8kPa. did you forget to change the mass flowrate into SI?

Okay, so you are saying that we are living in a perfect illusionary world where there is no way of telling whether we are in an illusion or not and the illusion acts perfectly consistently and has no errors. isn't this similar to trying to use science to prove/disprove god. there is no possible test that can confirm or deny it.

ahh, i was going by athiests formula which gives correct units. i never noticed that floersh had an extra c in there. using floersh's numbers with the right equation we get 3819.7 Pa that is pretty insignificant for the energy released.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=polonium+in+cigarettes&btnG=Google+Search&meta= yep, and the tobacco industry has known about it since 1960. its in the tobbaco so it will be in the cigars too.

there is nothing wrong with the units. work it out for yourself. it will come to kg·m-1·s-2 which is the base units for pascals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_derived_unit

yeah, same effect. different application.

i thought it was the bat we use in the chat room to defend ourselves from moonbunny

well, there would be light pressure. but that would be tiny, since gamma rays tend to go through things rather than reflect off them.

umm, there are very very strict limits on what chemical plants can pump out into the environment and array of sensors for miles around measuring airquality, groundwater quality and so on. not to mention that when laymen look at a chemical plant and see clouds flying off it they assume it is pollution, its not, its water vapour. i've never see sludge getting washed up near a chemical plant unless something has went horribly horribly wrong.

well, from chemical engineering sources(Elementary principles in chemical engineering, Felder and rousseau) the vapour-solid transition is called deposition. or, more formally, vapour depostion.

DEAR GOD! a news presenter with taste! from the US! this has resored my faith in humanity. pitty about the rectum headed idiot that told them to roll the footage anyway.

no, it wouldn't work. when an alpha particle is emitted it leaves behind a negative ion since the electrons don't suddenly disappear.this side would, overall, be neutral. some goes for the beta side, the emission creates both an electron and a proton. there is no change in charge. overall, it would be neutral too.

it is. some texts use it for both ways never the less. basically, the process works the same way as liquid-liquid distillation. the sulphur sublimates and gets deposited at a heat sink while the impurities don't and get left behind.

well i would imagine so it is also implied by his requirements for it to be undetectable and to pass a 'density test' which presumably detects the presence of additives by a change in density, like adding something more potent than the standard fuel.

when you want to discuss something try and refrain from dumbing it down. if someone doesn't understand then they should speak up and ask. things lose meaning when they are dumbed down.

the peak intensity is in the visible spectrum. thats why we generally harvest that light.you could justify going up to near UV and down to near IR but outside that it wouldn't be worth it.

i've been getting intermittent acces to wikipedia from my home, maybe they are having some problems.

just because this is a science forum, i doesn't require that every member is a fully fledged scientist. i'm sure there are many members and people who visit regularly who only have a rudimentary knowledge of science or maybe not even that. this is a place of learning, if we discriminated against all who didn't know something that may be obvious to us then we would have no members.

oh is that what you're supposed to do with it? i've been snorting it all this time

seeing as relativity(general since it is an accelerating frame) is not trying to explain manouverability of UFO's it s quite entitled not to explain it. also, how would unified field theory explain it? it also doesn't say anything about how the universe began or if it came from an 'egg'. unified field theory has not been proven. i suggest you research something before you comment on it. also, what you have seen may be atmospheric phenomenon and not craft of any kind. also, you have no evidence that they were travelling at 9000mph the actual velocities were likely much less.

the energy used by the transmiter would be larger than the energy released by burning the Hydrogen. i don't know the efficiency of radio transmitters but i would expect it requires a good 50% more energy.

Tesla did a lot of good solid work but he also had a lot of crazy ideas that didn't work. you do seem to have a flawed understanding of physics you might want to read some basic texts to get some grasp of the fundementals. also, at CPL, Hydrogen is an atom as you say but it usually exists on earth as a diatomic molecule(H2). and again at grover, what units are you using for the charge to mass ratios?

generally, us scientists are very open minded(hell, just look at QM even some crazies won't accept that as possible) but some things have been tested to extremes and have always held true. so we can say with 99.99999999999999999999% certainty that conservation of energy is true and can never be broken. the chances he has done this are so slim that even the most optimistic person would say he's talking a load of BS.