MrMongoose

Am I allowed to make my battery by connecting 200 commercially manufactured cells in parallel?

Well as I said there are small amounts of plasma for very short periods of time in any flame, and an electric field could affect those consecutively. Though you need a pretty strong electric field and a pretty hot flame to get that to work. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of the flame is gas. Take a simple analogy... If you have a cup of water, its likely to have a small layer of vapour sitting on its surface. Put a fan (a field generator of another kind) by its side to blow off the vapour layer reducing the humidity and vapour will form from the water more quickly. So over a period of time the water becomes "extinguished". So the argument comes down to whether youd be willing to accept that a cup of water is generally liquid (ignoring the cup itself). I'm perfectly happy to admit that flames with enough energy will have large amounts of plasma and that all flames will have some plasma in them. "Flames are plasma" doesn't really say that though.

But thats not the case... Fire is just hot gas (there might be amounts of solids, liquids, plasma in it). There will be electrons moving when combustion products are formed, but generally they will not move freely unless there is a lot of energy. That is, fires can contain plasmas if they're very hot, e.g. rocket exhaust, but GENERALLY it is not right to assume that a fire contains any more plasma than a block of ice.

Perhaps a slightly late reply, but thats what you get when noobs pick up on threads when they get revived 9 months later! I was just wondering how less than 1 percent doesnt include 0.04% and how cows not producing 95% of something is meant to debunk the fact that cows are part of something that create

If its a radiator, it will be radiating and different coloured things have different emissivities. I like Fred's answer, but mines more likely to be what a hand wavy physics teacher is getting at.

How about putting a large mass on your existing scale, connecting the top of the mass to a rod which passes over a pivot with the other end connected to a small container. Have the pivot a lot closer to the scale end of the rod than it is to the container end and use the moments to calculate the mass of whatever you put in the container from the decrease in mass measured by the scale.

Well, yes its easy to counter the answer to a question with an answer to a different question that wasn't asked. The fact is that ancient humans generally exist within the Earth's atmosphere. I'm sure if you asked them "So, what would happen if I dropped two things on the Moon" they'd be more likely to say "Drop things on the Moon? Theres nothing higher than the Moon.. Its just a picture God painted on the sky" rather than "I'd guess that the Moon is a sphere orbitting the earth with a negligible atmopshere, and that things would be no different were I to stand there" I did afterall give the disclaimer that I was answering the question knowing what a 1st century skullery maid knows rather than newtonian physics. Its pretty easy to know the answer with the hindsight of giants' shoulders.

Well nobody said the observer is the target... I might watch a stealth bomber taking off from america in the direction of England and phone the Queen to tell her.

I can't help but think that those who just said it was a plasma were trying to make hings sound more sciency at the expense of being correct. Generally it'll be a gas.

Generally lighter materials are weaker so have more damage on their surface, greater roughness and more air resistance (or maybe theyre made into more intircate structures to give strength,- lets say made into a feather by god- which also tends to mean more air resistance. The weight seems fairly intuitive though.. hold a light object in one hand and a heavy object in the other and the heavier one shows greater intention to go towards the ground. you don't even need to drop it to realise that means it'll drop faster. Please don't tell me I'm wrong.. I was just typing through the fingers of an ancient. What on earth is this big box of light in front of me?!?!?!

The tyres will have an elasticity, which I'm going to foolishly assume is linear for this purpose. Assuming the overall spring constant of the four tyres to be k, when the car is sitting on the ground in equillibrium, kx=mg, where x is the deflection of of the tyres, m is the mass of the car, and g is the acceleration due to gravity. For the car to be just lifted off the ground, it should be raised by x. In doing so, the increase in gravitational potential energy will be mgx, whereas the decrease in elestic energy will be (kx^2)/2. Thus the total energy change (the energy provided to the car) is mgx-(kx^2)/2. Using x=mg/k from the equillibrium equation above, Energy required= ((mg)^2)/k-((mg)^2)/2k =((mg)^2)/2k Edit: I forgot that the mass was given... Of course, tyres never behave linearly, so being lazy enough to assume that a pound is half a kilogram and g is 10 m/s/s would be the least of our worries and doing so gives (50/k)MJ.

Isn't seeing a stealth bomber detecting it by using visible light?

Is that not a recurve bow?