Enthalpy

It's a matter of boiling point, not density. The boiling point relates with the molecule size, but isn't completely linked, since functional groups like hydroxyls increase the intermolecular forces much more than -CH2- do for instance. Comare water with propane. The density neither relates simply with the molecule size nor the intermolecular forces. It's in the first line a matter of constituent atoms.

Hi boblalux, welcome! Is essence, the same heat transfer because of the same temperature. There can be minute differences as stronger water movement may improve marginally the heat transfer to the egg. Whether the egg gets harder... Because of its movements? I'd say it's a matter of heat in the first line. So you can save electricity without any penalty. Covering the pan is even better, except that water overruns easily.

And? You should have a look at any Msds. If it's the first time you read it brings anxiety. You must learn to interpret them. Pretty much any fuel can release carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, formaldehyde and so on. But it doesn't have to, nor are you expected to inhale them in significant amount - lest you put them in your hookah. Experimentally, Esbit and the others burn very cleanly. Much healthier than paper or wood for instance.

1) Yes. I nearly mentioned it but decided to keep simple. I wouldn't have formulated it "contain" then, rather like "a pair of electrons can be an orbital". 1b) It isn't the same orbital by the way. With two electrons, the orbital differs formally for being a function of two positions and time, and observationally for having a different shape. 2) A mathematical construction for instance. Nothing observable. 3) You wrote this nonsense. I didn't. I wrote: "the electron is an orbital, when stable around a nucleus." 4) I'd say it leaves nothing physical. Do you hope to observe an orbital that isn't an electron nor a pair?

Well, if your paper contains computed values for the thermal noise compared with the signal, the probability of distinguishing whether you observed a sub-quantum effect or not, and such things, I'll already be happy.

As soon as it conducts electricity, even so little, I'd say it stores some energy. Though, storage may not be the purpose. One elegant application is to separate nitrogen from oxygen, both cold but gaseous. A porous superconducting ceramic repels the paramagnetic oxygen from its pores. Probably not a way to purify singlet oxygen as it must desexcite it.

A first step is a cigar antenna. Apart from the wave launcher which can be inside the craft, it's made of dielectric only which can be transparent: silica, polystyrene, polymethylpentene... Light reflection at the surface can be minimized by an antireflection coating, even over a decent bandwidth. What stays is the refraction by the transparent material, made worse as you probably need an array of cigar antennas. It will be as visible as a rod of glass in air. Alternately, a reflector antenna can consist of thin metal wire which reflects less light than plain material. Paint the wires. Ahum. I strongly doubt that satellites can be made undetectable. Well visible in the sky, uncapable of manoeuvres, fragile, they're sitting ducks.

The orbital IS the waveform of the electron. And in a slightly integrist wording: the electron is an orbital, when stable around a nucleus. The electron is a wave, you know? By the very definition of an orbital, it's a stationary solution. It does not evolve over time. Perfectly static, immobile - put all synonyms here.

Essentially, yes. The plasma must have some density so that collisions of D and T happen often enough: - So often that the produced fusion energy exceeds the heat radiated by the plasma - So long that the produced energy exceeds what was invested to heat the plasma first it can be thought in words of pressure, even "magnetic pressure", but this isn't very fertile. In stars, the plasma density is much higher than a Tokamak can achieve. As well, a star takes for instance 10 billion years to burn a part of its hydrogen, which Sapiens won't wait with their reactors. So Tokamaks use a much higher temperature (107K rather than 106K) to achieve a faster reaction despite the lower density, and seek the easiest reaction: D-T (despite we have no abundent tritium at hand). A true Tokamak does it with rather simple shapes of magnetic field. To my eyes (I'm no expert for that!) it resembles a storage rig with dipoles only. The Wendel-X in Germany is a bit different, called a Stellarator. Its magnetic field has an intricated shape, as the coils already tell. I imagine (again, no expert!) that some components of this field have the same function as the quadrupoles of a storage ring: they bring back to the torus' center the particles that oscillate too much away. Please take with mistrust. I don't even know how the lateral oscillation of the particles is damped in a storage ring: the quadrupoles would only bring them to the center but not reduce their transverse speed. If someone knows, thanks! Fusion reactors may well have similar features already.

(1) I too would say so, but I don't know the vocabulary for X-ray imaging. (2) Gain after a detector never improves the Snr. It can degrade it if the amplifier brings noise. (2b) Well, sometimes the amplifier also reduces the bandwidth to a more adequate value for instance, and then it depends on how you define the noise: within the local bandwidth, the useful bandwidth and so on. With a digital detector, the simple answer is expected.

A push by light isn't reactionless. Photons carry momentum which is transferred to the absorber or reflector. But it does bring the advantage of a push created without expelling material carried in the spacecraft. Solar sails work that way. Used for decades to stabilize satellites, being demonstrated for the propulsion. Huge potential, big challenges, feasible. If the craft carries the energy source to produce light it looks bad, because of the energy needs, including with fission or, if it works some day, fusion. Sending light to the craft, whether man-made or concentrated from the Sun, seems impossible with present technology, until someone has a better idea (I mean: numerically provable).

The inventive people at General Fusion did that, "fusion created by a plasma", but probably not at the scale the OP hopes. http://www.generalfusion.com/ In early attempts (no more described at their site), they had just strong current pulses at many places in a liquid to let a pressure wave converge to a point where D-T fusion did happen. It's just that D-T fusion is obtained in many ways, but net energy production is the difficult part. At least according to their website, they seem to be back to the acoustic implosion of rotating liquid metal, for which I had made detail suggestions http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58924-magnetized-target-fusion/ They had gone away from that method. I vaguely suppose that fission remains the easiest way to trigger a thermonuclear bomb (which, by the way, is mainly a fission bomb, see Teller-Ulam) but some day other methods will exist and proliferation may be worse then.

I believe to understand your argument. Unfortunately, it is complicated both to strengthen and to refute. Its main weakness is that the geomagnetic field creates a force on the shields too, not only on the wire, and this force isn't obvious to evaluate. So if you permit, I'l go deeper in the argument about the magnetic field created far away - say, at Earth's center where currents are said to create the geomagnetic field - by the spacecraft. I know this isn't what you hope, but its' simpler and gives results. I may try to check the forces by the geomagnetic field on the shields too, but only later and maybe. Where varied materials are present, this one remains usable: rot(B)=µJ and the path integral of B is µ times the total current inside the path. Now, I evaluate at a good distance the fraction of B created by the wire section enclosed in the shield. Because both the ferromagnetic and superconducting shields end, no current can flow in them parallel to the wire. Consequently, the sum of the currents within a circle centered on the wire is the same as for the wire alone, and so is the path integral of B. When this part of the cricuit has cylindrical symmetry, so has the induction B, which is the same with and without the shields. The spacecraft's induction interacts with the currents in Earth's core to produce the force which the shields don't change.

If it accelerates the probe a bit between aphelion and perihelion, the essential effect is to raise the altitude at the opposite point, between what were perihelion and aphelion. So the aphelion comes sooner, and the major axis retrocedes. This isn't done often at man-made craft because it's inefficent. Acting on the periapsis is most efficient when possible; then an action on the apoapsis may be necessary too.

My suggestion is to find it for Mercury, look at the formula, and compute a ratio based on the mean distance to Sun and the eccentricity. Because, if computing from nil, the chances of success are about zero. Mercury at least is observed for long. Or maybe in a paper about glacial ages? It has an influence, depending on if the perihelion is in winter (now) or summer for the northern hemisphere where most landmass is. Though, precession of Earth's diurnal axis is faster, so that would suggest a period over 100,000 years.

A moon at Lagrange's L2 point, but my intuition is that the shadow is not quite dark. Better have a planet without an atmosphere. In addition, the moon would move around L2. Life: Mushrooms living in the soil or an ocean would need no sunlight and benefit a constant temperature. These could throw aerial parts when conditions are decent. Some terrestrial spores are known to hibernate for long in the cold and bring organisms to life under better conditions.

And I wouldn't watch a 3mn video neither with my present connection. Post drawings here maybe?

N or P makes no difference to sputter metal on it. Same conductivity, same crystal quality. Pick any. If useful to measure your metal film, you can deposit or grow an insulating layer on the silicon. As-grown silicon boule contains a little bit of boron from the BN melting pot. It was like 10-12cm-3 when I was in the business, during the paleomonolithic era. This is too much to be "intrinsic", for instance to deplete a 300µm thick wafer under a convenient voltage for a sensor (or even, the voltage may exceed breakdown). Since it's a minimum boron concentration, other tricks are needed to get the bulk free of carriers: - Introduce a dopant with deep levels, which stabilizes the Fermi level around mid-gap - Or grow more semiconductor by epitaxy. The quality improves there, it's generally done for chips (where it also allows a small doping over a strong one), but not over 300µm new thickness!

Will you write a paper for that too? On arXiv please, I have no money for 20 journals. I think at near field too. In atoms, it's said to contribute to the electron's rest mass (after dressing corrects it) but I see no mass correction associated with the electrostatic interaction between the nucleus and an electron. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85377-relativistic-corrections-to-hydrogen-like-atoms/ I'll also put somewhere considerations about the propagation delay (or non-delay) of interactions.

Nice to see you! I feared you had gone since mid-January. Will you put the paper on arXiv please? I hope you'll treat the question of unlucky multiple photon emission in the paper.

In the introduction of the paper you linked: "center-of-mass energies from 183 GeV to 209 GeV". As I said, at the minimum energy you get no protons. They used 102 times more. I didn't write just "a proton and a bunch of mesons". I put "and so many elementary particles" too. Since a neutron can turn into a proton, and electron and an electronic antineutrino, what conserved quantity could be violated if a reaction produces a proton, an antineutron, an electron and an electronic antineutrino? No need to balance a proton with an antiproton, as I said: "no need to create a proton pair for neutrality".

The spectrum emitted by any material due to its temperature only is exactly the same as its absorption spectrum. This is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. If a body emits E% as much as the blackbody does (the blackbody is the most efficient emitter possible) then it also absorbs E% of the incoming radiation (the blackbody absorbs everything). Since light converts from and to light in this process, and since no net heat passes from one body to an other at identical temperatures, the ability to emit and absorb light is equal. Because filters exist that let some wavelengths pass to the destination and reflect the other wavelengths to the source, the absorptivity and emissivity must match at all wavelengths. Because filters can let only one polarization pass through, the absorptivity and emissivity must match at all polarizations. This fertile idea can be extended. For instance, a surface coated with pyramids absorbs light better thanks to its multiple bounces. Such a surface emits better too. An antireflective coating too emits as efficiently as it absorbs at any wavelength. One should use this idea with caution (...as always with the second law). It holds for each wavelength. Absorbing much visible light does not imply emitting infrared easily. The values differ, and for instance satellites use coatings whose absorptivity (understand: for solar light, mainly visible and near infrared) differs from the emissivity (understand: for far infrared, around 10µm at 300K) to adjust the satellite's temperature. It holds for one temperature. Both the absorbtivity and the emissivity vary with the temperature, slowly but a lot. The emissivity of tungsten at room temperature is no indication to its behaviour in a light bulb.

The diagrams are not equivalent. Have a look at the diagram with two cells in series: when one current source delivers no current, the current provided by the other can't pass through the diode at the other cell as it's the wrong direction. Enough rooftop solar panels suffer from partial shade, say because a neighbour has grown a tree after the panels' installation, or because of some pole. This is used as an argument against solar electricity. Diodes cost is negligible as compared with the lost electricity and diodes should be built in.

Both give the same result. The angular speed version is computed from the azimutal speed. The azimutal speed is interesting because the material's strength and density limit that one. If the diameter increases, the possible angular speed decreases but the possible azimutal linear speed remains constant. This helps figure out the limits of a flyheel.

Silicone doesn't melt. It decomposes instead. Some materials you can melt: Glue from hot glue pistols Wax, stearine Paraffin Polyethylene, polypropylene - others tend to be unhealthy Lead, tin, alloys. Some alloys melt at a low temperature, for instance in hot water.