Obba

I just googled it! So i think Reaper is reaping you lot.

Severian, thank you for your reply (and the others). You answered them very neatly. I liked the answer to No7 My replies: 1) The LEP has lots of power, for other uses/ but i guess 'a buyer' would have to build a 27km ring to use it. It's a wonder the Russians or Chinese don't buy it - it would have to be going cheap - Maybe Iran would put a bid in? 2) As in 1, i thought the most powerful Linear Collider so far (not to be built for another 2 years), was only 0.5Tev? And i thought the Nominal LHC was 7TeV and maybe 'could' be pushed upto 14TeV? 3) I did not know of those upgrade paths. Thank you for that. 4) So with bends there is no getting away with sychrotron radiation. I did some reading on that, interesting. 5) I was sure that Russia would have contributed a lot, and i read that they have provided many of the lead Crystals. - Yet better luminosity ones have been made - probably for reviewing in the SLHC. 6) Ok. Dumb question time: Are these protons, actualy 'injected' as via air pressure, or does someone simply press a button to turn a valve and the 'injecti', gets dropped into the ring and then 'carried away'? Or is the 'injecti' brought up to speed in the SPS, then a valve opens and it's 'swooshed' into the main ring? 7) I actually thought his offical title was Physicist aka Mathematician. 8) I wonder what the TNG collider will be. If you're correct, and 14TeV (

Ok. Here we go; 1) What did they do with the 'old' lep, besides remove it? 1a) The questions get harder.. 2) The LHC will start (from what i have read), from energies of 5Tev's, with the projected 7-10Tevs' as "nominal". Although the LHC 'may be pushed to 12-15Tevs. The question is; Haven't most (top end), physicists said that to find the Higgs Boson particle will need 20-25Tevs? 3) Bearing in mind that some of the technologys used since the commission of the HLC were not even invented at the time: The Lead Tungstate crystals used (from Russia and China), have already been surpassed as in Light properties recently. The question is; How would this 'month to month' improvement in technology create better/more accurate results if the HLC was built 5 years from now? 3a) Or, as these improvments occur, is the LHC upgradable in its modules? 4) Would a 'ring' of greater circumference make any difference, considering that bigger, more powerfull magnets would allow a smaller ring (no matter the Kelvin temp), to obtain the same results? 5) How much has Russia (in percentage of monetary funds, infrastucture and technical information), contributed to the LHC? 6) There are various 'collectors' and 'Detectors' in the CERN ring (can't recall them now, but one just does Iron ions). The question is; How and where do they exactly 'Inject' the 'food' to be used? 6a) What is it (The injected material), made of and where is it made? 6b) When (if), they decide (after prepping everything), to find the Higgs Boson particle, what 'material' will they be using? 7) Stephen Hawkings, has made another of his famous $50 bets in regards to not finding the Higgs Boson particle. My belief is that (as great as he is/or was), there are now more 'knowlagble' people out there now. The question is; Is he 'with it' anymore, or are 'wannabe' people getting in on the publicity and funds issue? 8) STS 125 is due for launch in October. It is carrying a (don't quote me), a new Spectral Imager, that is 5 times more sensitive than the original. The question is; If we can afford and get into place in high Earth orbit, instruments that are 5x better, where does the future 'economical' (if possible), upgrading of the HLC come into financial feasability? Cheers, Alan.

Hummm, not sure about that Klaynos. What about drag. Space isn't a perfect vacume. or am i being super picky

Great post there DH. Thanks.

Google?

So these SM engines and the Zveda service module will have enough burn time (assuming that the thrusters stay the same size), to move this 1,000,000 pounds of mass appropiately?

Not sure if this is the right area to post this question… But if the ISS is going to weigh 1,000,000 pounds when complete (500,000KG’s). How do they intend to keep it up in up orbit? From my understanding, every time the Shuttle leaves, it uses it’s boosters to ‘elevate’ the ISS. So when, and if the ISS reaches this weight. How do they intend to move this mass upwards? Or do they just intend to have extra fuel for the boosters for longer burn time? On those lines I would say that they will have a ‘Booster’ craft solely designed to elevate the ISS – maybe launched every 6 months when the Shuttle retires in 2010.

Being a bit basic here guys. Doesn't all mass have 'attraction'? Is attraction gravity? Is not this where Mr Boson comes in? The LHC $6B has been built to 'help' find the answer to this OP. NB: 'help'. That's serious money! no matter who you are on this forum, to be spent on a (ONE), 'ultimate objective' science project..... There maybe more science 'revelations' from the LHC, but the Higgs, is what the $$$ is for.

But containers change: Data containers used to be paper holes. Now Data containers are Magnetic. But the magnetic containers are the same size now; 5.25", 3.5" and 2.5". So staying with the most common format 3.5", the 'gas-volume' in this 3.5" format has gotten - obvioulsy - a lot smaller. Your analogy of gas is correct. But we (humans), can always shrink it, and do whatever we can to get the most in that's possible. Gas volume compress's with lower temprature, anyway. So why can't the magnetic data be compressed? Maybe it's a case of 'How low can we go'?

Something that has been on my mind for a while, ok. As far as I know, energy is matter. A photon ‘weighs’ something. A Neutrino (They said in the old days – 20 years ago etc, weighed nothing), aka, Neutral. Now we know the Neutrino does ‘weigh’ something. So if it has mass it has energy, right? If all energy weighs 'has mass’, something. Where does the energy of lightning strikes goto? It goes to ‘ground’, as all our artificially generated electromagnetically energy goes to ground, (AC – Neutral ‘Return’/Earth) – (DC – Negative Ground/Earth). Besides, sending satellites into outer space, what does the planet earth lose in weight, or does it gain, due to the sun ‘pouring’ energy into it? Heat is a (Energy), loss as it ‘escapes’ into the outer space….. or is that the answer…! [No need for greenhouse topics here as that is a by-product of ‘our’ conversion from the energy that the Earth has in its stores] But all in all, Lightning is something that the Earth is generating by magnetic fields – its own internal (upper and lower), negative and positive charges. Thus coupled with its own orbit around the sun (With supposedly Iron Core), getting more ‘energy’ from the sun. So, is this magnetic – Pos to Neg – field created (in the end), by the sun? and therefore we are getting something for free? And therefore, is the energy we get for free, adding to our weight? The Sun is our primary source of energy. Granted, it gets less dense as it expels its energy, but what is the Earth doing with its lightning ‘energy’? So, is this energy ‘weight’ adding mass to the Earth? I accept that the planet Earth does lose mass with heat etc, so does all this mean an equilibrium and the Earth is basically one weight (give or take satellites)? Isn’t Einstein’s E=mc2 saying that Energy is Mass?

Humm,, This thread should be changed to 'Habitable planets to what we humans can walk and breath on, as of now'. I would think this would apply to the Earth for the last 500 million years. So, as i said. The odds say yes! But i think they are less than we understand. If you asked me if there is any other form of 'electotransmission' - communication form of life, then i would say there must be hundreds of thousands.... But "Not as we know it Jim..."

More remote than you think. Consider the sun 'G' type. Consider if the earth temp was + or - 5°C life (human) would not exist. You need water and the ranges of temperatures for weather. Stable land mass - no other large bodies causing gravitional upheavels etc (note most planets discovered for now are the giant gas type FAR FAR bigger than Jupiter). Granted the odds with the size of the universe it has to be possible - but massive massive odds. Yes we will be able teraform in the future - Mars is the first i guess. So yes, as to the OP there will be other 'earth like' planets out there. But when we find it... Don't hold your breath.

I wasn't aware of anything that could do 125tonnes, so i did a quick google. Which model of Saturn V are you reffering to? The biggest i found was Model: Saturn V. Family: Saturn V. Country: USA. Three-stage lunar landing booster. LEO Payload: 118,000 kg. to: 185 km Orbit. at: 28.0 degrees. Payload: 47,000 kg. to a: Translunar trajectory Thats a LEO only, admittedly it's 118tonnes. But to get 'out there', it's only 47tonnes.

NASA today, mentioned about going to the moon (heard it before). Then i read that they want to make a 125tonne heavy lifting launcher... Why don't they just make a small 50tonne lifter (the shuttle does 20 i think), and have it dock at the ISS, then send up the next 50tonnes and assemble the whole thing in space? At least it will maintained by the existing ISS crew. Include some additional thrusters to keep the whole thing 'up there'. Maybe no need for the 50tonne part to even be connected to the ISS - just have it floating around close by (tethered), so the ISS crew can go over and look after it. If a 125tonne launch fails, then all is lost. 125tonnes seems a hell of lot of weight and power to risk in one shot. I thought the whole idea of a ISS was to have a platform manned 'BASE' in orbit - about time we used it for a platform.

Just to throw a spanner into everybodys works, Every liquid, soft and hard material will eventually 'flow' down - towards the centre of gravity. It might be slow, but it will happen.

Hi All, We had some severe winds a while ago and 5 of my solar panels got blown off and the glass has shattered (and come off in some places), like the car windscreen, little cubes etc. The glass has been adhererd to the ploy crystals with a sheet of EVA 'glue' - i have heard tha a temperature of 120°C is used for this process. Since the EVA is a 'chemical', can it be dissolved? Some suggested using thinners - but i'm not sure what to do. If i used a blow torch would it melt the glue, then pick off the glass? The panels are 80W and are the BP brand. I actually found the company that sells the EVA sheeting to BP and emailed them for assistance - as they make it, they should know what dissolves it - But after two emails, they will not reply. So i thought i would ask the experts The panels still work, but only give off one fifth the energy, as i guss the UV is being refracted to the edges of the 'chips' of glass. So it's not going to be a major issue if i damage them anymore - so i am willing to try a few things. Can anyone throw me some ideas? Thanks, Alan.

Well, Thanks for all those replies people. I can't say I understood the Atom / Molecule explanation - only in that the size of an 'grape' atom is to small in relation to a Molecule - so in essence that was what i really to clear up. I accept that Atoms cannot just be 'sized/measured' without looking at the other surroundings. With the Electricity flow, i found this link yesterday after reading some of your replies. http://www.amasci.com/amateur/elecdir.html This, for me anyway, is what i could understand. And also covers the magnetism issue. Great to have these forums, and i hope to be able to have my tuppence input in some of the other topics - which i will say are a little above my knowledge - but it's great stuff to read about these things. Regards, Alan.

With that TOS, wasn't that Jack Tramiel of ATARI? ST1024 rings a bell somewhere Your right, the music side to that OS is still lurking around in some studios.

Hi all, I'm new to this SFN forum and thought i would ask a few 'simple' questions. 1) I was told that an Atoms would be the size compared to a Molecule - as in the Earth being made solidly of grapes: IE, Each grape on scale is an Atom. This seemed a little to small, what are your opinions? 2) Whilst water (pure), does not conduct electricity and Petrol does not ignite (Only the fumes). Someone brought this to my attention - Electricity does not flow. I have read a bit about this and besides (the change of the 'flow' of direction from Neg to Pos in the science books of old- it now seems to be Pos to Neg - welcome to Entropy!), but there are quite a few articles out there mentioning that there is no Flow. 3) Is Magnetisuim (sorry about the speeling , the same as Electricity, as in static electricity, North-South / Pos-Neg? Anyones thoughts on those would be most welcome and i promise that i will remember you when i am drinking my winnings Thanks, Alan.