Enthalpy

Distillation at a lower pressure is often more selective. The distillator by sublimation I suggest there http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95971-distillation-by-sublimation/ may benefit to HfCl4 and ZrCl4.

Some compounds decompose before they melt. Distillation can also be more efficient at low pressure, where the liquid doesn't exist. So here's a sublimation distillator - on the paper at least. A rotating cylinder with compartments lets the powder fall through the vapour, aided by paddles or buckets, as preferred to a shaker or a gas jet. Heating at one end and cooling at the other establishes a temperature gradient. The rotation axis is adjustably tilted over the horizontal, so the powder overflows through holes from a compartment to the next warmer one. The holes are small enough that the vapour flows gently towards the colder compartments, and the shape of their edge, aided by the shape of the paddles or buckets, can prevent the falling powder from reaching unduly the neighbour compartments. Condensation seeds, big enough and nonvolatile, can regulate the powder size. Marc Schaefer, aka Enthalpy

And the answer is: high-perf steel is stronger than titanium at identical mass. That's what datasheet say. 4430kg/m3 and 820MPa or 1200MPa for titanium alloys is only as good as 7850kg/m3 and 1450MPa or 2130MPa for steel, but Maraging steel achieves 2400MPa. Forge: I don't know. But titanium alloys are pressed into bars and laminated, so I'd expect forging is possible. Fact is that larger airplane parts are molded and isostatically pressed, so forging is less convenient. Possibly the material loss make forging unattractive. As well, after good molding, you machine only the mating surfaces, the rest is net shape.

Computed resistance: from cylindrical and half-cylindrical models.

Suppose that you bury enough wire length, so the mesh behaves nearly as a solid sheet, which you model as a radius=R hemisphere only because it's manageable. Choose R for 2piR2 = L*l for instance. For some current injected by electrode A raising a voltage V there, you get a voltage V/n at the electrode B distance from A by n*R, so choose n.

Trade in the Commonwealth instead? I wonder if Australia is a good option in the near future, especially if Britain tightens the links again. I've so a feeling that the EU without the UK will be significantly poorer. The political parties emerging almost everywhere in Europe aren't to my taste neither. And Putin will at least try to grasp some parts of Europe, beginning with Transdniestria. Not a seducing future. Separating from our old relatives, neighbours, and nevertheless friends - I'm stunned.

And the European parliament has nearly zero power, despite being the only elected entity of the EU. It can't veto decisions by the Commission. It can't decide what laws it will debate. It can't dismiss the Commission. Paying some 1000 members plus their staff for that is an integral waste - or rather, I'd be happy to pay them for real action. The EU is a creation by the national governments, so these have carefully kept all the power for them. The treaties and fundamental texts begin with "We, the governments..." and not with "We, peoples of Europe..." nor "We, the constituent assembly...". All decisions emanate from the national governments or the commissioners they have chosen, and then the national parliaments can't say a word neither. That's neither democratic nor efficient. In France (less so in Germany), the EU serves mainly as an excuse for impopular measures decided by the national government. If the voters believe it even in 1% of all cases, no wonder they dislike the EU. Referendums overturned by the politicians also took their toll.

Titanium isn't so strong, and definitely not as strong as steel. The only strong alloy commonly available offers 820MPa yield strength for 4430kg/m3. A few alloys bring some 1300MPa but are unobtainable, and their strength drops soon with the material thickness. Tempered steel brings as much, and if compensating the density, that is only 1450MPa. Steel tempered at 300°C brings as much, spring steel is far better, and Maraging offers 1800-2400MPa depending on the alloy. I wish titanium would be better, but that's plain wrong. It's nice for resisting corrosion, for being nonmagnetic (but other solutions exist) - and it's horrible for galling, alas. The sad truth is that titanium has barely progressed in the last 40 years, while steel continues to improve at a good pace. Better than steel, you have graphite fibre composites - and pretty much nothing else. ---------- Atoms define the Young and bulk moduli of alloys, but not their strength. This is a matter of alloying elements, of cold work and heat treatment; and of detailed compositions of crystals and intercrystalline phases. You may notice that most technological metals gets indefinitely weak as they get purer, iron and titanium too. ---------- For any projectile with a decent impact speed, and more so for kinetic impacters, only the density matters. Strength can't possibly make the round resist the impact, and has a negligible influence on the pressure on the armour. But stength does matter to resist the acceleration in the cannon, that's why the sabot is at midlength of the flechette.

Then we have converged to a common opinion. I don't care too much about distinguishing "energy" from "any form of energy". What carries the energy and the associated inertia change resulting from interaction is still a mystery to me. These ramblings http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85377-relativistic-corrections-to-hydrogen-like-atoms/#entry891647 seem to tell that the electron doesn't carry half of the variation of inertia resulting from its electrostatic interaction with the nucleus. And there, it's more than semantics. Experiment goes against simple comprehension.

Add one sensor in the oven to monitor the temperature there. If you see 1K variation, it explains the current change, and the regulation is broken or badly done. "the reverse current is not very sensitive to voltage", that's true only for well-built PIN high-voltage diodes far from breakdown. The reverse current is often quite sensitive to the voltage. In case you imagine the reverse current to be Is as in Is*exp(qV/kT), forget it, it's b**cks. I don't see any reason to take hours nor minutes to measure 10nA: <<1s suffices. While such a measure isn't the most difficult one Mankind has done, it does need an engineer with decent experience for analog electronics. My best bet up to now is that the setup is botched, and you pick up radio noise and powerline noise. So: - Could you post a picture of the experiment, so we can assess how good shielding is? - Could be useful too: the electric diagram of the experiment. And do you really need a computer and software to measure a reverse current? This introduces more noise and errors.

Maybe you could provide some links, preferibly not to a video? I feel reasonable that one poster searches web addresses rather than his 20+ readers. There, they suggest thrust in the µN-mN range, and total delta-V of 1000m/s which is worse than chemical propulsion http://microdevices.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news-microfluidic-electrospray-propulsion.php so applications will be niche ones if any. Don't expect to send people to Mars that way.

Hi CasualKilla, what you seek is called a "demagnetization curve", where you see the hysteresis, and materials supppliers use to provide them, generally as a picture. But you have to look for each material individually. If your material is not meant for EM uses, it gets more difficult. I have some from Metglas, Thyssen Krupp, Vacuumschmelze - that is, unusual materials.

Welcome, USoA! Some data there, but I didn't see your material: http://refractiveindex.info/ There maybe ? (13MB) http://etd.lib.msu.edu/islandora/object/etd%253A2039/datastream/OBJ/view "Titanate" gives better search results than "titanium oxide", and LLTO is even better. One list there http://worldwidescience.org/topicpages/l/lithium+lanthanum+titanate.html You may well have to measure it by yourself.

Self-excitation is a different notion in generators. You might try to argue that an output voltage appears only thanks to the rotor's speed, and that the output current creates a force and torque, so electric power needs mechanical power - but usually it's hopeless. This kind of people use to believe then that you want to steal their invention, so better give up. In the US, you'd have one more answer possibility to such people: send them to the patent office, which rejects all perpetuum mobile. But here in Europe, the theoretical impossibility isn't a reason to reject an application. Which has good sides too, because when the patent offices rejected theoretical impossibilities, they rejected the transformer.

http://people.chem.ucsb.edu/neuman/robert/orgchembyneuman.book/11%20RadicalSubstitutionAddition/11FullChapt.pdf You could check where the chloride can be, and which positions are equivalent.

You could begin by evaluating the gas volume you could produce with the current and time you consider. And what happened with Challenger?

We had a similar discussion already. Take for instance a photon. It changes its direction, hence momentum for a distant observer, when passing by a galaxy. The conservation of total momentum tells that the galaxy has changed its momentum too due to the photon passing by, hence this photon creates gravity, and by its energy since it has no rest mass. If you prefer to formulate it like "any single form of energy contributes to the inertia and gravitation of any kind of related object" instead of "energy has inertia and creates gravity", I don't mind - "energy" is only shorter than "any form of energy". Just don't forget electromagnetic fields among said "objects", independently of the particle that created it.

The button "more reply options" gives, among others, access to "attach files", which can be images. So "conductor A" is a railway that brings current back to the supply, in DC or at 16.33 / 25 / 50Hz, and "conductor B" is a victim that runs parallel to it but deeper, for instance a pipeline, that may become corroded by the current. This doesn't need the ridiculous fuss of the joined Pdf. Supposedly some contractor company or research group trying to impress the customer. Evaluate the distance over which the rail and pipeline run parallel. Cut this length in 3 thirds, where the current plunges, runs in the victim, and emerges back to the rail. The current and the resistance of the rail over 2/3 the distance (this is, between the middles of the first and third thirds) give you the harming voltage. Evaluate the resistances of the 1st and 3rd thirds, from the resistivity of the ground, and with cylindrical and half-cylindrical models. To these two, add the resistance of the pipeline over 2/3 the distance, and the imperfect insulation between the rail and the ground - evaluate it as you can. Divide the harming voltage by the computed resistance, and you know the current in the victim pipeline. Done. Since the ground's resistivity and the rail's insulation are essentially unknown, this model is just as good as any other. You need no distributed network, no Matlab nor Spice - and consequently, it has chances of being correct.

Hi again, there are still many ways to understand you description... I suppose at least that a grid consists of many wires in the ground. If the resistance of one grid results mainly from spreading the current near the wires, then you need only the other grid to be a few wire diameters away. That is, you could just as well have a single grid with twice as many wires and obtain half the reistance - logically enough for this case. If you have enough wires that the resulting resistance resembles one big solid electrode occupying the same ground area, then the second grid must be a few area diameters away from the first one.

The link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_capacitance Truly infinitely high, no, but practically, a metal does it very well. Infinitely low, it's just a matter of wording, because an insulator behaves like a semiconductor where you can't add nor remove charges at the potentials you use it - but then you would include its thickness to the capacitor's insulation, not to the electrode, so you wouldn't call that "quantum capacitance".

Hi Moreno, the mobility plays no role here. It's just a matter of Fermi energy and of electron work function. And yes, you can expect some charge movement. "Come in contact" is a source of complications, because surfaces and contacts are so imperfect that simple models with Fermi, work function, carrier densities give very wrong results. But with one single crystal, with different dopings or different but compatible semiconductors stacked by epitaxy, such models do apply - very well for silicon PN junctions, more or less for differing materials depending on the epitaxy quality.

Hidden variables were refuted by other experiments. They are not refuted by Aspect's experiment, which only compares distances and times between the detectors. The kind of experiment refuting hidden variables is that you see a correlation both with linear and with circular detectors of photon polarizations. If the photon pair decided its linear polarization at emission, the circular detectors wouldn't see a corelation, and if the photons decided their circular polarization at emission, the linear detectors wouldn't see a correlation.

And energy has inertia, and it creates gravity. We had already this discussion.

Experiment kits! Chemistry Electronics Electromagnetism Optics ... (One per summer I'd say)

Such questions are typically difficult to answer remotely... (Educated) experimenting tends to show the cause. I don't believe the geomagnetic field can have much influence. But RF interferences yes, if the preamplifier doesn't reject them enough, and at 10nA this happens easily. My preferred one. And mains noise too, as JC said. 10pm and noon could correspond to fluorescent lights. How is the experiment shielded? Did you try to add a ground plane or aluminium foil? The 10-14h response time is unexpected. Is it a software integration time? At the analog input, it would mean 1mC stored somewhere, not likely. And I don't guess the usefulness of a very long response time to measure 10nA; a few seconds use to suffice. Depending on the diodes' package, you may pick some light at the diode or somewhere at the amplifier. This was critical when germanium diodes had just black paint on a glass package; nowadays it shouldn't happen. But try to direct a flashlight on your experiment. Seebeck effect (rather at the amplifier than at the diode) can spoil small voltages easily. Though, if you measure the current with a 10Mohm transimpedance amplifier, 2nA variation means already 20mV error, too much for Seebeck. How do you stabilize the +50°C? A thermocouple measures only temperature differences, so if the room's temperature fluctuates, and the thermocouple drives the oven, the 50°C will fluctuate too. At 0.55eV activation energy, 8% needs 1K variation. And possibly, the thermocouple or its amplifier pick up noise, since the voltage is very small; any silicon temperature sensor is better, when the temperature range permits it. You might have some leakage current at the experiment, especially where the +-50V conductors are near, and such a leakage is sensitive to moisture which varies over a day, but for instance 2nA is already an important leakage. If you did take standard precautions (degreasing, varnish, guard rings) then leakage should be 100-1000* smaller than that. But if you didn't, this explanation gets credible.