insane_alien

swansont is right, there is no material fabric or otherwise that is completely non permeable. your best best would probably be a mylar film, perhaps with a kevlar layer if it has to take extreme pressures.

thats really really old. like way before the first time it tried to start up and a magnet crapped itself.

was it really worth it just to reword that which has already been iterated several times?

depends on the application. its like saying whats the best way to drive. its going to vary depending on what the desired goal is. what sort of load will it be required to cope with , what variance in the voltage is acceptable, how restrictive are costs etc etc.

if the input to a voltage multiplier was DC then it wouldn't work.

voltage multipliers supply a DC output. auch an output is not feasible with AC output of a transformer as you need very robust and likely large diodes to form a rectifier capable of handling the extreme voltages.

does it hell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrhenius_equation the arrhenius equation will let you calculate a rate coefficient and then with the concentrations an stoichiometric constants you can work out a theoretical reaction rate for any given reaction.

i don't know if it's anything as simple as a factor and working it out would likely require an intimate knowledge of quantum mechanics and quite probably a computer. i've certainly never come across such a factor. just use the formation enthalpies, the data is pretty common.

you typically calculate the enthalpy of reaction with the formation enthalpies. this will give you a value in kJ/mol(or equivalent units) to convert this into watts you need to know the rate of reaction. for instance, if you have a reaction enthalpy of -150kJ/mol and a reaction rate of 0.001mol/s then you will have a power output of 150W of heat you can do it with bond energies but this can introduce error on larger more complex molecules or molecules that induce some stress to the bonds by the nature of their structure, cubane would be an example where bond enthalpies would give a misleading result as the bonds are quite stressed so will have a different energy than an unstressed C-C bond.

in theory, forever. in practice, no they have a leakage rate. capacitors wouldn't be suitible for storing a charge for more than a few weeks. best to use them for short term storage of charge only.

for everything else there's duct tape.

it will eventually fail, probably by dielectric breakdown where the dielectric layer can no longer seperate the charge and becomes conductive.

funny how you made the claim that this will convince us of 2012 crap but claim there may be an error of 63 million years. thats not very accurate. thats not even a particularly good guess. hell it's 3,150,000,000% error. put up some proper evidence or go away and claim the sky is falling somewhere else.

young girls can still get pregnant, it is more risky and more likely to lead to complications though. and people giving birth way way back were pretty likley to snuff it during labour anyway. recently there was an 11year old in th UK who got pregnant(IIRC it was a caesarian delivery) and the youngest person in recorded history was 4year old(she had some unusal condition that caused puberty early) pretty sure that must have also been a caesarian deivery. it is likely if they hadn't had modern help they'd have died. definitely the 4 year old, the 11 year old might have survived but it wouldn't have been pleasant. these days(and even back in ye olde days to an extent) it is social pressures that prevent it rather than a physiological impossibility. the social pressures origionally arose due to the fact that if it does happen, the younger, the more likley to die during child birth. all issues of the rest of the problems of paedophillia aside of course.

While i don't follow any religion myself, i do know a number of people who are religious. they tend to see the holy books of their respective religions as guides for living their life rather than a divine truth about reality. indeed, this is also what the pastor of the local church appears to believe as well(i occasionally have a chat with him at the local pub). he definitely doesn't believe that events such as the garden of eden or god creating the animals as is in a day should be taken literally, but as metaphors for the inherent flaws of man(origional sin) and how god holds immense power(creating every living thing i na couple of days). now, all this is meant to show is that a number (and i think a significant number) of religious people do not think the bible is an accurate historical document but a book on how to be a decent human being. this is how i belive that religious scientists view it. and of course you will get a number of people who believe it is divine truth and inerrant in every way(except the bits they don't like)

actually its what i've read from the scientists who are actually working on this sort of stuff. you can read a sample of this sort of stuff here http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0309238 but there's literally thousands of papers on it. its what inflation theory IS. it is not my opinion of it. and opinions aren't that important in science. reality is what is important. if the idea does not hold up to testing then it is wrong. no politically correct compensation prize, just flat out wrong.

since you won't go back and read the post again i'll say it again: Big bang theory does not state that the universe appeared from nothing. What big bang theory, Cosmic Inflation theory to give it its proper name, states that 13.7billion years ago, all space was in a very very small point on the order of a planck length. it then expanded. its only the media who have turned it into some universe came from nothing crap.

you still haven't read the e ntirety of my first post have you. and if, by definition nothing isn't made of anything, then how can it be made of something but still be nothing? you see, it doesn't make sense. it has nothing to do with any laws of physics.

took me a while to notice the dimples. the dimples do not add an illusion of thinness, the fact that she's thin causes me to think she's thin.

it's nonsensical because how can nothing be made of anything? an utter lack of existance cannot, by definition be made of anything. so to ask what it is made of is a nonsensical question. if you continued to read my post after the first sentence, you would notice that i informed you of what 'big bang theory' actually says rather than the incorrect one often portrayed by the media and 'popular science' shows.

'what is nothing made of?' is a nonsensical questions. but anyway, the big bang doesn't say that there was nothing which exploded. all it says is that everything was in a really really small point and that about 13.7 billion years ago it expanded. thats all it said. not that the universe magically appeared from a nothing more nothinglike that any nothing before or since.

no, when you measure difference you measure one thing. but in the scenario you described you made two measurements.

you've measered both AB and BB' (or AA' or whatever) you made two measurements, not one. therefore you have both the distance and the time it took to travel that distance.

can't complain really, desinged for a 90 sol mission and still going strong after over 2000 sols. probably still figure out a way to get it unstuck.the rover just won't die.