Enthalpy

I figured my text was clear enough. It isn't much more than multiplications and divisions.

Stellar black holes are formed by star explosions. How supermassive galactic black holes formed is still unclear - or did this improve? What's the combined mass of the globular clusters (baryonic matter) in the galactic halo? I thought they were heavier than the disk. Further, coalescence can happen just by "evaporating" a fraction of the mass, it doesn't need the mass to radiate. That is, some particles are randomly hotter, others are cooler; the hotter escape the clump's gravity wile the cooler sink to the center. Last time I read about it, one of the theories proposed that dark matter coalesced first, though not very densely, and baryonic matter could then make galaxies. Something like cold versus lukewarm wimps. About dark matter, one should keep in mind that unknown particles (wimps) are not the only candidate.

In the case of a symmetric explosion, that transforms in few days some mass into energy: Take the sphere centered on the supernova, with radius to our postiion. Before the supernova's light reaches us, this sphere contains some amount of mass+energy and creates some attraction where we are. After the light flash has passed, the sphere contains less mass+energy, and the attraction is smaller. Would we call this a gravity wave? It has the wrong polarization (axial), it's dipolar instead of quadripolar... And how does its range compare with a gravity wave? This one would mean a step in the acceleration proportional to R-2.

The Diesel particle filter is used on every recent Diesel car in Europe, which may amount to 50% or even 70% of the fleet depending on the country, and is not known as a big headache. It's similar to a catalytic exhaust for Otto engines. Lead spewed out in our environment by gasoline then is there to stay. No more in the atmosphere, fortunately.

Different materials would require different angles, but - It's a matter of optimization, not of mere feasibility - High-speed steel offers this flexibility. Carbides are even more brittle, so sharp tips are difficult - Beyond tool life length and part's surface finish, the tool also defines how the chip breaks (if it does!), which is very useful. I did use once a concrete drill bit in glass. I sharpened it with a grinding wheel, and operated fully under water. The glass was a Champagne bottle, for high-quality de-stressed glas. It worked nicely and faster than expected, with the tool producing a thin chip, not just dust as I thought. The hole was a clean cylinder except at the exit. Are the usual concrete drill bits of the same material as the carbide ones for metal? No idea. The requirements differ, because concrete is usually drilled using shocks.

Thank you! I meant esterification, from (Smiles) CCCO and OC=O to CCCOC=O and then heat to let O=C=O leave CCC. Is that any sensible?

Only periodic signals are made of a fundamental and harmonics. Musical sounds are not periodic, hence contain other frequencies. These can be non-integral partials, subharmonics... Non-periodicity is a fundamental quality of musical sounds, essential to our perception. Imitating a music instrument through a periodic synthesis fails in most cases. This knowledge is already 20-30 years old but still not spread enough, as most books and professors still claim that sound quality results from harmonics. So much that the spectrum, even non-harmonic, isn't necessarily the best approach to characterize or synthesize a musical sound. Researchers have had more success using simple tricks in the time domain. The frequency domain would contain the same information, but not as a simple description.

My arguments are there http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79814-pioneer-anomaly-still/ and your scientific arguments are nowhere. What you put here is rhetoric, not science.

For my personal information: could one go from propanol to propane, without the propene step, but through propanol formate instead? Esterification first, then let a CO2 leave to get propane? Can this work just by heating? Thanks!

Present pressurized and boiling water reactors are about 30% efficient, so if the100MW are electricity, don't forget a factor-of-three in the fission energy. Most thermal neutrons uranium reactors produce and consume immediately enough plutonium to reduce the uranium consumption by 1/3. Breeders would convert and consume also 238U, not just 235U, so their total uranium consumption is lower. The spent fuel can be reprocessed (which is done zero or one time presently), extracting the unused 235U and optionally the produced Pu to make new fuel of them. Depending on how you account the fuel, the reactor's consumption would depend on more factors than just the initial and final concentration in 235U.

Fantastic. You have spent one page telling "I have not read the papers, can't understand them, and nevertheless this is my opinion" and "I believe what other people say based on reputation, rather than making my rationale opinion". Congratulations. This is exactly how science cannot be made. When you put wrong words in my mouth, it is a not a scientific method neither. For your information, a scientific argument is not "I will follow what I suppose to be Nasa will tell". It looks more like "the emissivity of a paint doesn't decrease by 0.2 with space weathering, rather the absorptivity increases by 0.1" and then, if this were not common expert knowledge, you would reference to measurements.

Desalination is rarely done by evaporation, because this takes much energy, even if heat is reused 10 times. The present-day process is reverse osmosis, which uses a membrane permeable to water only, and just a pump to compensate the osmotic pressure and the losses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_osmosis "40–82 bar for seawater" which is still expensive. When engineering at the planet scale, it's good to evaluate the costs and other limiting factors. Transporting water horizontally is much easier than desalinating the big scale, and though that's the best humans achieve. Rather than irrigating the deserts, I'd find easier to cut swathes of the rainforest and bury the wood in a way that keeps the carbon in the soil and releases no methane. Then the forest growing back would absorb dioxide, as opposed to a constant-size forest.

Some polymers (PA6) absorb more than 10% humidity, so 10% mass loss would only mean "unusually dried" for them. For other ones, 10% mean irreversibly destroyed, but capable to hold in place until the fire brigade arrive.

If keratin can be melted without decomposing (I ignore that) the next step would be extrusion, preferably through many holes since a hair is narrow. Other polymers are rather pulled from the liquid's surface or (polyamide) interface, to get a fibre that is dried, stretched and spun. So you wouldn't dry the solution first.

You have still to bring your first scientific argument.

I have no such desire nor intention. My arguments are there, where you can read them, and even for free: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79814-pioneer-anomaly-still/ If you had read my arguments about that, you'd see that Turyshev has fit the acceleration curve, on which uncertainties accept a significant discrepancy, while I have shown a misfit in the speed curve, on which the uncertainty is smaller. I admit easily to be wrong when evidence shows it. Up to now, your messages only tell about reputation, which is not a receiveable argument for me. Because Turyshev doesn't share his data, despite repeated requests from other experts. This is a regular criticism from them. Maybe I'm the first to check if the curve speed fits, not just the acceleration curve. You brought this point in the discussion, nobody else. Unfortunately, that's the core of your arguments, together with reputation - and I certainly agree that Turyshev is an expert, but for Relativity. You have to understand that peer review is no guarantee for accuracy. It is an imperfect filter against nonsense. Peer review does not save the reader's need to make his own opinion through critical reading. If you had read the other paper that "modelled" Pioneer's thermal recoil: they modelled without having the spacecraft's data (which Turyshev doesn't share), but the review let this through. At one point they took a multilayer insulator as a surface of 0.5 emissivity, and the review let this through. Just one example to tell that the review panel had no expert for satellite design, who should have reacted quickly.

http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/sigma/index.jsp?as=11&lib=endfb7.1⊄=4 http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/sigma/getInterpreted.jsp?evalid=15920&mf=8&mt=457 1.982MeV decay energy, which is 2*0,511MeV more than 0.96MeV.

Your study could focus on the transport of passengers and goods between the coast and a sea airport. At Kansai they built roads and railways, supposedly with excellent reasons. For instance, the car park on the artificial island takes no area on the main land. But maybe you can ferry the cars and lorries on big catamarans, hydroplanes, hovercraft?

Decomposing cellulose? Yes, Nature does it. Fungi act earlier than bacteria I believe. It goes faster at trees, but books get eaten by fungi as well. For man-made polymers, the situation is as varied as the polymers themselves. Very few ones are long-lived. - Most can be decomposed at heat to produce some ugly viscous stinky liquid able tu burn; much research work is invested in getting better useable liquids to replace gasoline. - Most decompose under Sunlight. A plastic bag is in pieces after one summer. That's much faster than a dead tree. This worry is overemphasized. - A more serious worry is where the decomposition products land. From PE, PP I don't care; from PVC I do; and depending on the additives, from PET, ABS, PC, PA. So bacteria or fungi are just one possibility, not the easiest one, among many. They work for some special polymers (one is made from starch), not with unfunctionalized ones like PE.

Last time I hade HCl in glass it didn't dissolve it. Few acids do and these are for chemists only. Cute picture in your logo!

The effect of metal-to-electrolyte contact tends to overshadow the electrolyte's behaviour, so you could think first at what metal to use, and under which electrical conditions - for instance, have different current densities with the same polarization and observe only the differences, than again with reversed polarity, and take a mean. Knowing that the contacts introduce errors, I'd check if a "four-point method" can be used wth electrolytes. In solid semiconductors, this method injects current through two outer electrodes and measures a voltage at two inner electrodes. This avoid the mistake by the voltage drop at the injecting electrodes. A geometry computation relate the voltage, current and resistivity. Have four lines, or two plates and two picks, if it's better. Then again, consider AC.

Inspiring material... Hair-like coating made on varied substrates by a simple mass-process: epoxy, a solvent, an AC field. The polymer is self-organized in abundent fibres, like 1µm diameter and 500µm length: http://www.anl.gov/articles/good-hair-day-new-technique-grows-tiny-hairy-materials-microscale-0 The paper by Argonne's National Laboratory's researchers cites catalysts, batteries, photovoltaic cells, sensors... I'm confident more uses will be found. I imagine an anechoid coating for wavelengths 2...1000µm, an ion generator, an avalanche particle detector, maybe an electron source in vacuum as 1µm diameter will improve, a photocathode aided by resonance for improved sensitivity or current density. Marc Schaefer, aka Enthalpy

I don't see why kW should be stronger or weaker depending on the motor's nature - unless manufacturers cheat, of course. An electric motor running slowly, say 10m/s as most do around is, is slightly heavier than a petrol engine. But if it can run quickly, like 100m/s, then it's as light as a gas turbine, and more compact. For instance the turbo-alternator of a 1300MW power plant is the tiny thing at the end of the shaft, after the huge turbines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Turbogenerator01.jpg (the red thing)

You should really put figures about the area needed to collect water and provide wind of solar energy. My gut feeling tells: impossible, without hope. Nuclear is excluded, because you have to protect any plant, whether small or big, against the same threat: to get access to plutonium, or to enriched uranium, or even to the polluting waste, a hostile government could deploy huge means - just see the effort any country spends to make bombs. A fenced area of several km2 with hundreds of guards is expensive for 1GW and unaffordable for 10MW. I know a pair of companies promote the idea, but it's fool. Autonomous for water, maybe. A slightly less ambitious objective would be to get from from the water grid only the amount of drinkable quality, say up to dish washing, and recycle it after use and cleaning in a second-quality circuit whose loop can be nearly closed, say for showers, car wash, plant growth. That would already be a progress, and Solar energy might suffice just for that use. You might have a look at how the ancient Romans designed their villas to collect water. Though, the settlement density of a skyscraper makes it difficult. After all, the building won't be autonomous for food (too small, and taste too boring!), so why be fully autonomous for water? A single goal difficult enough (though already achieved, it's still a challenge) would be thermal autonomy. If you building can maintain a good temperature all the year without expendable inputs (fuel, electricity or others) it's a nice progress, and a big building eases that. You could also think at distributing Sunlight everywhere in a big building. That's difficult, but elements of solution exist, and it would be useful, for comfort as well.

The problem is that science is not a matter of opinion, as you seem to suggest. It's a matter of logic and numbers, and I did provide such elements, while you put them in doubt based only on reputation, which is nowhere near good scientific practice. I do not need to show which of your arguments are false, because you have brought none of a nature proper to science. And yes, if a back-of-envelope computation contradicts a computer simulation, then the back-of-envelope must preferred. Naturally and of course. Because it takes less software, less modelling, less bugs, and more importantly, it is verifyable. You put "paper... thoroughly examined with critical eyes by experts in this field": no! The paper - which you should really read before arguing - gives zero data about the spacecraft, hence is not verifyable and has not been verified. Then, one may also wonder how many experts for satellite design are in the review's committee - I'm one, so there are probably more experts on my side (one) than at the review (none?). When a paper styled "we modelled, that's the result, believe us" passes through peer review, this brings zero confidence in its validity. The extreme case was the other paper that modelled the Pioneers, where the authors didn't even have design data about the craft. The paper was peer-reviewed and published. Is there a third paper? I know two: one that hides its data, the other that had none - and of that, journalism buzz is claiming scientific evidence. You have the right to follow such opinion leaders, but science cannot work like that. A figure that, I'm very far from isolated in my opinion.