CaptainPanic

Most people also seem to have a goal in life to be as average as possible. But indeed, I was joking a bit I know I'm not autistic at all... I guess the movie Rainman gave many people a weird idea of autistic people. They're not all number-geniuses, although they can be. And simply being shy doesn't make you autistic. Autism has become a bit of a synonym for shy geeks. Although I do enjoy numbers, and I cannot help myself playing little games with numbers all the day. Writing a piece of text, I automatically count the number of letters in each word, and play little games, searching for patterns. It's non-stop. There's never any train passing without me counting the cars. I always correct my friends when we play poker and they're messing up the chips (the coins). I know how much change I get at the supermarket before it shows on the little screen. None of these things are a sign of autism. I simply screwed up my autism-score because I am far too extrovert... Funny thing is that I was very shy as a kid (but still not autistic). Moving to university, I simply said to myself: time to become extrovert. I changed practically overnight. It's a great opportunity when you completely change your environment. You can almost reinvent yourself

I agree. If you're 12-13 years old, and you never learned any math and never played with Lego yet, then it's probably too late... but in order to enroll at a technical university, you just need to follow school, enjoy Lego and be generally motivated and interested. No need to be a rocket scientist at the age of 12. I don't think it's uncommon to start physics, biology at 13, chemistry at 14 or something. At least, not in the Dutch school system. And anyway, in our system, you can't really work with physics a lot unless you understand basic algebra. (Personally, I disagree with that: I believe that math shouldn't be taught as a separate subject, but should be taught integrated with physics and should at all times be applied - it also doesn't make sense to explain the working of a hammer if somebody is not familiar with a "nail", does it?)

The solar panel charges a battery. The battery powers the car's electric engine. Does that answer the question? If not, I kindly request to ask some more specific questions. Solar panels are most efficient if they are perpendicular to the incoming sunlight.

Yes. It is possible, although perhaps we're not able to: 1. always achieve such pressure 2. recognize the solid that appears... since perhaps molecules that existed before also react with each other and form some weird compounds that are more compact. I found this an interesting read. I'm not sure it treated the constant temperature aspect... but it's high temperature, not low... so it might be good enough for this discussion? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903134318.htm

First order kinetics means that the reaction rate (usually expressed in mol/s or mol/(m3s)) goes up linear with the concentration of a component. Second order kinetics means that the reaction rate goes up as a quadratic function of the concentration (double the concentration, four times higher rate, 3 times higher concentration gives 9 times higher rate). Third order kinetics means that the reaction rate goes up as a 3rd power function of the concentration (2 times higher concentration, 8 times higher rate). A general equation is: [math]rate = k\cdot{C_A^n}[/math] The [math]C_A[/math] is the concentration. The n is the order. The k is the reaction constant, which is a function of the temperature. You can have more than 1 chemical in the formula: [math]rate = k\cdot{C_a^n\cdot{C_b^m\cdot{C_c^p}}}[/math] A good wiki site is this one about the rate equation.

That is just odd! Thanks for the link, it's very interesting And wikipedia seems to suggest that the phenomenon is not even understood very well. (I translate any proof of dark matter as "not yet completely understood").

Well... I did provide a nice link to the other post, in which I provided a formula to calculate the mean velocity of a molecule (carrying zero charge) as a function of its molar mass and the temperature... I also wrote down several other issues that play a role here. You're welcome. No need to thank me. No need to agree. But you could at least have taken the time to write a slightly more eloquent reply than this. Sorry for grumpiness, I haven't had enough coffee yet.

You'll need a cooling tower, or a place to dump waste heat. How big? Consider the (approx.) 1 Gigawatt coal powered plants, and their gigantic cooling towers. Then realize that 25 MW is about 1/40th of that... and scale it down 40 times (in cooling power, not height). Sorry if I'm not doing all the math (and heat and mass balances). And in case you wonder why you need a cooling tower in the first place: The steam cycle is a Carnot cycle. [math]\eta=\frac{W}{Q_H}=1-\frac{T_C}{T_H} [/math] where the Tc and Th are the cold and hot temperatures in Kelvin, and the [math]\eta[/math] is the efficiency. So, you need not only a source of heat, but also a source of cold (water). That's not really an issue on a submarine in the middle of the ocean... but on land, it becomes much more of an issue.

We might have to invent new ways to exterminate this new life form. Perhaps this would not be headline news, but surely a couple of defense ministries would find funcing for projects like that. In stead of worrying about us killing the life on Mars, many will worry about Mars' life killing us. I'm sure this would also be investigated. We're only worried about killing the life on Mars because we haven't found it yet, and therefore we cannot investigate the more obvious things.

I'm pretty sure that you simply need another magnet. Maglev trains also require magnets both in the train and on the rails... It's not always a valid thing to say, but: If it would be so simple then somebody would have invented it by now. If common steel would be able to somehow repel a magnet, then the Maglev boys would certainly use that in stead of their complicated system.

Although every process requires energy to take place... the energy is already put into the system before the expansion. The compression needs energy to take place... and that energy can come from pretty much anywhere. A compressor is a machine that can turn a low pressure gas into a high pressure gas. This needs energy. If you then expand a gas, it usually cools down. You can also do an isothermal expansion (an expansion at constant temperature). In that case, the entropy effects are the only thing that matter (and still, the energy changes, but the enthalpy remains practically the same). Expansion is the phenomena where gas molecules get more space to move. Therefore they make less collisions against any solid object nearby, and that is what we observe as a reduction in pressure. Compression is the phenomena where gas molecules get less space to move. Therefore they make more collisions against any solid object nearby, and that is what we observe as an increase in pressure. Now, this increase in pressure... imagine that you want to increase the pressure. Simply imagine a bottle with air. Squeeze it and you compress the gas. Once the gas is a little compressed, more molecules hit the inside of the bottle than the outside. Therefore, a net Force exists that pushes outward (against you squeezing). Since you also move the walls of the bottle, you apply a force, and the walls move. Force * distance = Work.

Hmm... I've seen the video, but I don't think that there is a change. There's nothing different now with the work of 100 years ago. This woman could have talked in the 1800's, and she would only have had to change the examples. Granted, we have more products now, so more variation in the examples... but that's it. "Design" has always been about making something look good... at least, when you use the definition of the woman talking. (For me, "beauty" definitely includes functionalism). But ever since humans have started to construct things have we had the desire to make it look good. Aren't old city centers looking great? Old bridges, cars, pottery, whatever? It's just that recently, people who have no clue about science and engineering have become involved in producing something. The only "revolution" and "elasticity of the mind" is that we simply split up the task. The "designer" now makes a wishlist for what is needed for a really fantastic beautiful idea... and then the scientist/engineer grabs the red marker, and goes: "All nice, but that, that, that and especially that is not possible, so the result will be this"... Then the designer complains a bit, comes up with more money perhaps, and the iteration ends when everybody is happy. Honestly, this woman seems to suggest that scientists and engineers never have any good taste... that scientists and engineers cannot make anything beautiful. I get sick of people like this. She seems to forget that often, the desires of the "designers" reduce functionalism, and therefore make something more useless. And that is only still popular because we haven't changed much since the days that we were impressed with dumb shiny objects that have no purpose.

Hair is made of keratin (a polymer of amino acids). These will decompose, not melt. You'll most likely end up with, Piperidine, or Diketopiperazine... or compounds that look like that. In fact, you'll probably end up with both, and a lot more. Hair consists of many amino acids, and they'll fall apart and form many different compounds. I suggest heating in presence of nitrogen. There is already so much nitrogen bonded to the hair, that the little bit that might react from the nitrogen-gas will not make a huge difference. Don't bother with any other (more expensive) gas.

If your system is the same as ours (I'm not sure about that)... then regardless of whether you're in science or technology (engineering), you will always start with a Bachelor (BSc), and you can only start a master (MSc) after the Bachelor. (And you can do a PhD after the master). I would always advise someone to go for the Master's (after the bachelor). But perhaps your question is about the difference between science and technology? For that last question, I'll just quote myself, because I answered that before (briefly):

Gee...looks like we left out quite a qualifier didn't we? The United States does not, nor any other country on the planet, have any obligation to concede to any construct they have not agreed to, or are a part of. How about I make my own international criminal court right here on SFN and indict the leadership of your country? Now, are you going to blatantly defy International Criminal Court? Or will you bring your leaders to our court for prosecution? Court Date: 01/16/09 @ 1700. Be there or be convicted by default. I think you're overblowing a simple declaration of sovereignty. That's all that really amounts to. If that language was not included, it would be an insult to our republic. We do not and should not capitulate to any power but by choice alone. In fact, I even have a problem with the qualifier that we only reserve the right to protect our soldiers if we're not a party to the criminal court in question. I'd rather reserve the right to protect our soldiers from any action we believe is wrong. If a criminal court were to be hijacked or subverted by another power, I'd rather not pretend as if we're supposed to concede to that corruption. Our sovereignty should never be regulated by any external force, no matter how benevolent or benign it may seem. First of all, indeed, I should have mentioned that the USA is the only western democracy that has in fact not joined the international court for war criminals. There is a slight difference between the SFN court mentioned by Paranoia, and a court against war crimes in which over 100 countries are united, which is a treaty agreed on at the General Assembly of the United Nations. This is a court in which war criminals are convicted. You know, the types who are the leaders behind the Rwanda massacres, the Serbian leaders who committed genocide... This is about human rights. You can be as sovereign as you like... I see no reason not to join this court unless you plan to join the ranks of those convicted there. The USA is pretty much the only Western democracy that has not joined this court. The Czech republic is the other one. And not only have the US decided not to join this court, so that they can continue their torture practices, they also passed a law in which the president alone can decide (all by himself) to invade my country to liberate a war criminal. And indeed, I should have included the part that the US have not joined this court. Allow me to correct that by linking to a picture of all the countries that have. And the wikipedia page also lists them. Note that pretty much every ally that the USA has is actually in the list of countries that joined. Apologies for replying to a post that is halfway this discussion. I wasn't gone for that long, you guys just post a lot.

I got an 18... which is much too close to the average for my comfort. I guess I am much too social and extrovert for an autistic person.

Make sure he studies hard! If he excels in a certain field, then he might be invited by some space agency to do a job in space. Step 1 is studying. The actual aspects of becoming an astronaut will come later. Often astronauts are specifically good in some field (biology, chemistry) and are sent to space to do an experiment there. The days that astronauts were just really good (test)pilots are over. Obviously, also a spacecraft needs a pilot, so it might still be a good move to also be able to fly.

Thanks for providing us with a picture. I agree that the picture shows about 1/4th to 1/3rd of a circle (the rest I don't see). Can you provide us with a scale, and possibly a picture that shows all circles (you mentioned several circles caused by explosions in the atmosphere). Don't let the attitude of some here discourage you. If you have good proof, then everybody, including the critics, are willing to discuss. However, your second post really didn't help... you took a defensive position, without providing any new facts. I'm glad to see that you corrected that later. This is a science forum. Pictures and references are needed (and granted, you already provided the references in the 1st post) Here's a link to the article in .pdf (you can click yourself, no need to ask JusDennis, who already offered to provide the article upon request - this is one click further than the links that iNow provided). I'm not an expert, so I cannot check the article and say anything sensible about it. I'm just curious and interested

*applauds for this thread* After 724 posts, and just copypasting the other thread's url, I will change my habit. Thanks for helping me keep my own posts readable after the year 2020.

Sounds interesting... would it be possible to post a screenshot of the google earth picture that you referred to? I have given it a (brief) look, but I see no circles, or fracture star in the center.

Yup, ecoli is right. All of Europe is warmer than the east coast of North America. Not just Montreal. Madrid is a the same latitude as New York. Madrid isn't exactly famous for its winters The warm gulf stream comes from the south, and flows along the European coast, keeping even the Norwegian coast free of ice. Wikipedia explains it in English, but I find the pictures in the Dutch version better.

Thanks for the feedback! It's much appreciated. I'm not looking for food-grade antifoam. (I'm thinking that anything food-grade is usually more expensive). It's for bio-ethanol for fuel purposes. I should have specified this in the 1st post perhaps I'm not doing any home brewing... Also, what I am talking about will be a larger scale. The loss of tasty polyphenols is no problem, but I doubt that it takes place in the first place if you take simple molasses as a feedstock - there will be little polyphenols in that... (And it will probably taste horribly).

The mean velocity of nitrogen (as mentioned in another post) at room temperature (298K) is 474 m/s. The escape velocity of earth (at the surface) is 11000 m/s, which is more than an order of magnitude higher. So, the velocity of your average molecule is much lower than the escape velocity. And that is independent of the pressure up there... it's just dependent on the temperature and molecular weight. See the other post for the formula. But particles can escape, this is true. I described the mean velocity, so obviously there exist particles with a higher velocity, and also with a lower velocity. I'm not sure how the (statistical) distribution of the velocity around that mean is. Also, in the ionosphere, we're dealing with ions, not molecules, which will have an interaction with the earth's magnetic field. Again, I am not sure of the effect. I don't think that there exists an "earth wind" which is powered by earth. If anything, then high speed "space particles" (ions or photons) might hit some molecules or ions in our upper atmosphere, and knock them into space...

I doubt it. The international war crime tribunal in The Hague (Netherlands) surely won't do anything. The US Army is bigger than ours... Why does our army have anything to do with war crimes of the USA? I'll tell you: It is simply because the USA has passed the "American Service-Members' Protection Act". Personally, I find that very offensive. This is a court against war crimes, to uphold the human rights. The Netherlands has been an ally of the USA for a long time. And then this. So now you know. That is why no US soldier will ever be arrested for war crimes.

Thanks for correcting me. I was not aware of that.