swansont

That's the kind of thinking that Pons and Fleischmann had. The reality is that no, you aren't going to get nuclear reactions with chemistry - there are a few orders of magnitude difference in the energy scale between the two.

I don't, about the logistics. Each team points their mirrors toward one target, as identified by the commander. You can see the reflections, and correlate them with your own mirror - if you aren't aiming correctly, you move the mirror. No trig involved.

No. A bunch of mirrors made to approximate a spherical or parabolic mirror acts as a lens.

Why glass? Polished gold or silver make pretty good mirrors.

The electric and magnetic fields oscillate, in accordance with Maxwell's equations. The frequency is the rate at which those fields oscillate.

As a gas, yes for deuterium. I imagine as a hydride as well. Tritium also forms a gas.

The electrons do, but not the photons.

IIRC Compton scattering is consistent with particle behavior.

I think the derivation is geometrical - you know the ray going through a focus is parallel on the other side, and the ray going through the center doesn't bend. You end up with a whole bunch of triangles you can compare. Properly applied geometry gives you the formula.

[massive nitpick]Atomic Weight goes in a superscript or inline. Atomic Number goes in a subscript[/nitpick] U235 or U-235

This summary says it was a five-point scale: 'People logging onto the LaughLab Web site were invited to rate jokes using a "Giggleometer" which had a five-point scale ranging from "not very funny" to "very funny".' I also think it's interesting that they claim: "Bizarrely, computer analysis of the data also showed that jokes containing 103 words were thought to be especially funny. The winning "hunters" joke was 102 words long. (An abbreviated version was told in this story.) Many jokes submitted contained references to animals. Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." So wouldn't it stand to reason that if they added the word "duck" (i.e. 'two duck hunters are out in the woods...') that the joke would be much, much funnier?

Whoops! Missed that one. I'm young again...

Right. You need to divide the mass by the atomic (or molecular) weight' date=' which gets you the number of moles. And there are 6.02 x 10[sup']23[/sup] per mole (Avogadro's number)

Actually, the "make sure he's dead joke" was tested. "Funniest joke ever" isn't the interpretation I'd give - it was a joke that was most widely recognized as being funny, not the joke that got the biggest guffaw.

42/M/US I guess that makes me the old man 'round these parts.

OK Tess. Pick these apart. I gave you the first two. There's only about 1900 more to go.

To expand on this: a pinhole forces the light to have a one-to-one mapping of object and image - each point on the object has only one ray that goes through the pinhole and forms the image. So there is no way for multiple rays to focus at different depths or places and cause blurring. It's why you can make a pinhole camera. You just lose a lot of light in doing things this way. This is also why smaller apertures have larger depth-of field.

Here is a link to a CalTech group doing cavity QED. Note the 0.9999984 reflectivity of their mirrors. Photons will bounce more than 2 or 3 times. Here is a Stanford group. Note the link to the "Quantum Dot Turnstile" and one of the refernces: "An efficient source of single photons: a single quantum dot in a micropost microcavity" Hint: "single" isn't referring to its marital status

Given your other responses I have to assume this is sarcasm. Also unable to use Google very well.