HeXeN

Yep. Take Thermite for example...the only thing that'll put that out is....whaddaya call it....a haldon dump, i think. You hit it right on the head, it burns so hot it splits the molecule into hydrogen and oxygen, which, as we all know, is a bad combination around flame. Or white hot molten slag. Whichever.

Yep. Take Thermite for example...the only thing that'll put that out is....whaddaya call it....a haldon dump, i think. You hit it right on the head, it burns so hot it splits the molecule into hydrogen and oxygen, which, as we all know, is a bad combination around flame. Or white hot molten slag. Whichever.

I'd just use sandbags and plywood. Create a wall of sandbags 1 bag thick just like one lays bricks, then get some old scrap sheets of 1/2 or 3/4 inch thick plywood and lay it vertical against the bags, then put another wall of sandbags around that plywood, so you're basically sandwiching the wood between two walls of sandbags. If it can contain an RPG explosion, it will contain whatever you can throw at it.

I'd just use sandbags and plywood. Create a wall of sandbags 1 bag thick just like one lays bricks, then get some old scrap sheets of 1/2 or 3/4 inch thick plywood and lay it vertical against the bags, then put another wall of sandbags around that plywood, so you're basically sandwiching the wood between two walls of sandbags. If it can contain an RPG explosion, it will contain whatever you can throw at it.

but you have to admit, some of the things he said are.........well..........interesting And why would somebody go to such lengths to endure this ruse? And then, why would they just...........stop?

http://johntitor.com Umm.........wow.......its hard to tell if this guy is really intelligent, really crazy, or really real. Either way, i think it is perfectly feasible that we have a Civil war in 2005. Only a year away!

Well anyways the project is due tomorrow and im workin on it now, just thought i'd let you guys know, and thanks for all the help, every post that i used has its own individual entry in my bibliography =) I bet my teacher is gonna have a time trying to figure out what i mean when i say the author is "radical edward." =)

ya hah!

ok so now i just read your entire post and realised that my post would be of no help whatsoever............ If i were you, id just use the same ole pushbuttons that came with the computer =\ But now, editing for a second time, i've reread your post, and i seem to realise something new each time!! So heneway, is the switch ya picked up from the shack a toggle switch or pushbutton switch? Cuz if its a toggle, your computer will shut down after 5 seconds, the mobo is designed to start up the computer if it is off and the power button is pushed and released, but if its held for 5 seconds (might be 6), it shuts down the computer. So, if its a toggle, it will be interpreting the constant closed switch as you holding the power button to shut it down, as opposed to just tapping it to turn it on. Try just flipping the switch for a moment then shutting it off.

Yeah, but wouldnt it take a while for the turbine to accel to full speed?

you guys DO know that star trek is NOT real......right?

Well i'm not sure what model it is at the moment seeing as how im at school and unable to check it, but i do know that it was manufactured in 1995.....if that helps......

Well, what if the planet was positioned in such a way that its neighboring celestial bodies' gravity deformed the planet? You could probably model this on a computer and make any shape you wanted by changing the positions and gravities of the surrounding bodies.....

bigdiskophobia

Buncha trekkies

How about a "no trespassing" sign? Or, if you dont trust your fellow human being (which i dont and you shouldnt), and put one of these type thingys into operation to protect something, well, you'd have to display that something in a place that gets no sunlight whatsoever............only artificial light. And art always looks better in sunlight. Always. That thar's why the louvre is full-o-winows, they even had one specially built to cast a warm glow on the Mona Lisa, if my best friend's memory serves me right...

Well the computer science teacher wasnt here today >(, but what im hoping to do is trade the monitor i have for the one that goes with the computer she gave me, because they need a monitor that is like mine, and i need one like theirs, but i dunno if htey will be willing to trade because the one they have is like a 21 incher =)

Hello fellow scientifiteers.....heh Well, i have this idea for a new kind of paintball gun, and i need a way to use compressed air to power a rotary in pulses, like a clock. My first idea was to use a piston which would work a ratchet, however my entire goal here is to eliminate linear motion. Another crazy idea i had was to have the gas power a turbine and use extreme down-gearing to slow it waaayyyy down....but the problem is that i need this thing to move in very short, very precise pulses, and i need it to do it very very quickly, as in a matter of milliseconds.... So my third idea is to use the air to power a piston that can also move up and down and is on a crank shaft, and i would do it so that one stroke of the piston moves the rotary the correct distance...this would seem sort of linear, but it doesent work as if it were linear. If worst comes to worst, i can use an electric motor, but it would be much better if i could get the whole device to work on one power source, being compressed gas (which, in the case of paintball, is always either CO2, pure Nitrogen, or just plain air). Frankly, I can't think of another way to do this...if anybody has any ideas, feel free to let me know about em....=)

Hoya My computer science teacher just gave me a moderately old mac powerPC, but she kept the monitor that went with it, and gave me a different one. Here is the thing: the monitor jack on the....well its not a tower, its one of those horizontal ones....whaddaya call those? eh, the Computer part....is an older monitor port, it has the 15 pins but in two rows, and the monitor i have has 15 pins put in....i think 4 rows, might be three, but its the new kind. So anyways, i'm wondering if all the pins are just the same and aranged differently and i can sorta rig it to work, or do i need to buy a special adapter that corrects for any greater issues? By the way, it has OS 8.2 (if i remember correctly), and it has photoshop and one of those cool little graphics pads, the ones you draw on. And i got it all for FREE!!

Did that once.....but what im saying is is that according to what jakiri said, that acceleration has to be involved, one could tell by the readings on the chronographs which body had accelerated. However, i'd figure that acceleration would be the same as static motion in the sense that one would be unable to say which body were accelerating... In those experiments, which one read slower? the chronograph on the craft or the one on earth?

That seems kind of like fooling video cameras by moving in between frames....

I very well might see...so this could only be used to tell whether something has undergone acceleration or not?

I think this might be something that would make an interesting experiment... What would happen if i were to, say, take a chronograph that measures down to....say....billionths of a second. Actually, i have two of these, and i (somehow) ensure that they are started at exactly the same time, then i put one in some kinda craft that can move at great speeds, at least 10 times the speed of sound, and i let that craft fly around for a few hours with the chronograph on it all the while. When the craft returns to the ground, and i compare the two chronographs.....what would they read? I recall learning about time dialation in 6th grade and my teacher told us that an experiment similar to this had been conducted....if that is true, does anybody have any information on that? Hmm.....i wonder whether or not i'll do poorly on this project.......or whether the rest of the class just does really well? he he =)

Well, i must say i never expected to recieve 14 replies in the timespan of only a few hours.... I also must admit that my original thought was not that one object was at rest, but that both of the bodies were in motion away from eachother. I suppose i should change this around a bit, and say that the point of reference has a chronograph on it and the object who's motion is in question also has one. Well, not exactly, how do i phrase this? Hmm....ok, well, hmm....And to think, i have to write a 6+ page essay on this subject! Maybe i should try using Einsteins example, a train traveling by a railroad embankment. The train is in motion relative to the railway embankment, but the railway embankment is in motion relative to the train. But, if i had a chronograph on the train and one on the embankment, and the train was moving at relativistic speed, then the chronograph on the train would read slower then that on the embankment, but if it were the embankment in motion, then the chronograph in the embankment would read slower then that in the train. Am i just making an ass of myself here?

Hello, I am a highschool student doing a project on Special relativity, and have done much research on the subject. Today, while reading through Albert Einsteins book, relativity: the special and general theory, i had a bit of a thought: One of the things covered in special relativity is that it is impossible to tell whether something is moving within a point of reference or whether the point of reference is moving. another thing it covers is time dialation, that the faster something moves, the slower time will progress for that body. Well, here is my thought: if i have two bodies in space, each one having chronograph identical to the other's chronograph, and the distance between these two bodies is increasing as if the bodies were traveling away from eachother at a significant fraction of the speed of light, and i can say that one of these objects is moving and the other is at rest. As said above, when something is moving, time slows down for it, therefore i can say that for the body in motion, time will slow down relative to the body at rest. So, by comparing the chronographs on these two bodies, i can truly say which body was in motion or which body was at rest...is this correct? thank you for any input to this matter. HeXeN It's never easy to write without being able to use capital "r's."