CaptainPanic

Perhaps unnecessary, but I'll just dump some explanation here for other people. Too often people seem to miss the whole point because they don't know what a "mole" is. It's simple: Calculating the mass of any atom or molecule is as simple as calculating the mass of 1 egg when you know a dozen eggs are 720 grams. One egg is then 1/12th of 720 g = 60 g (because 12 = a dozen). But we should add a disclaimer here that we're assuming that all eggs are of exactly the same weight (it could also be 1 big one, and 11 small ones, in which case we could be quite wrong!). In the same way, a mole = 6.02214*10^23. "Mole" is just a number... nothing more, nothing less. Just a really big number. It's written in your textbooks as: N = 6.02214*10^23 /mol. But that's just saying there are 12 eggs per dozen (or 12 /dozen). To the calculation then: We know that 1 oxygen atom (the O-16 isotope) is 15.99492 g/mol. So, 1 atom is 15.99492 / (6.022*10^23) = 2.65602*10^-23 g / atom. I specified that we're only looking at the O-16 isotope because that's the analogue of saying that all eggs are equally big. If you took the default (average) weight of oxygen (15.9994 g/mol) then we'll arrive at an average weight of 1 atom of 2.65676*10^-23 g/atom, but then we still have to admit that we know for a fact that there exist some O-17 and O-18 atoms, which are heavier than that, and some O-16 that are lighter. The analogy of an electron around a nucleus for me is the same as potential energy. It takes more energy to bring a satellite to a high orbit around earth than to a low one.

Um... Orbital energy, isn't that what we more conveniently call tidal energy? I mean, the fact that the moon turns around our earth, and the rotation of the earth itself, cause the tides (ok, the sun is involved too, but less). The movement of all that water must cause some friction. Then, where does this energy come from? I mean, you cannot shamelessly turn the kinetic or potential energy of water into (first electricity and then) heat, and then expect the water to do the same thing tomorrow again... There is a law against that My bet is that we're reducing the rotational speed of the earth... or slowing down the moon. Slowing down the rotation of the earth seems more logical (but I don't know for sure). Therefore, using tidal energy for electricity production is using "orbital energy", isn't it? I've waited a bit before I hijack this thread... but it seems that all previous items have been resolved. Our thread-starter (AtomSplitter) thanks you all... (ok, and he came with another question ).

I think it's worth to specify what type of engineering you're interested in. Many people think engineering is something involved with making a car run. My personal type of engineering has more to do with making huge chemical factories operate effiently - quite a different approach with different disciplines needed. My proposal: build a distillation setup, and operate the reboiler with the heat from the condenser (with help of a heat pump). Investigate energy-efficiency. This is still "fuel efficiency". It's just a little bigger scale than your average car. (Car engines are about 10 kW, while industrial distillation setups easily use energy in the megawatt range). - I advise to investigate this at a scaled down setup.

Is this just a standard jet engine (turbofan type) with it's outer casing removed? I'd say a little more info could be useful. A turbofan is a jet engine with the shaft connected to a fan in the front that creates additional thrust (through a bypass flow that does not go through the combustion). I cannot see from the picture what is actually driving the propellers in this case. I think normally propellers are good for speeds up to 600-700 km/h, while jet engines are used up to 800-900 km/h.

I agree with the OP that some energy companies will see their shares go sky high... which ultimately means that this bubble will burst some day. We can inflate the energy bubble a lot more before it will burst - growth numbers of wind and solar energy are huge (up to 40% per year!)... but this does not guarantee that it will continue for another decade. This however does not mean that sustainable energy will stop growing. Just like the IT bubble / internet bubble, we still use computers and internet - it's just that some companies' values were seriously overestimated. Bursting a bubble just means that the market re-evaluates the stock prices. That means that some companies go bankrupt, but the strong ones survive. It's all the same capitalism that we all love. No problem. It's either having bubbles, or a strong (socialist?) government. A pure capitalist system will have bubbles, always.

CaPTaINPaNIC

In a democracy where it really matters that you have: 1. A pretty face 2. A nice wife/husband and kids 3. Good oneliners ... I can definitely see the added value of appearances in entertainment shows. Democracy is not about contents, or about wise government. It's about attracting votes by any means possible. Isn't it?

I am not sure that this is what you meant but it is certainly related to all of the keywords: wind powered cars than go straight against the wind: Links (mostly in dutch, I couldn't find anything completely in English - but it's with pictures and videos!) http://www.ecn.nl/wind/extra/aeolus/ http://www.energieportal.nl/Nieuws/Windenergie/-ECN-in-de-prijzen-op-Racing-Aeolus-3771.html

The hydrogen bond got its own name because it's very common... because there is so much hydrogen around. The covalent bond is a bond where two atoms share electrons. The hydrogen bond on the other hand is much weaker. A hydrogen atom has no attraction to electrons: it's electronegativity is low. Therefore, when it is bonded to for example oxygen or nitrogen, the electrons in the covalent bond are attracted a bit towards the oxygen or nitrogen... that has the effect that the hydrogen becomes slightly positive. This small positive charge then is attracted to the unbonded electrons of another atom (of again oxygen, nitrogen) that is nearby. This attraction is the hydrogen bond. p.s. I don't think this thread belongs in the biology forum. General chemistry would perhaps be better.

If we look at neutral particles now, so only gravity (of the sun and earth): All molecules have a (mean) velocity in a gas, which is dependent on the temperature and their molar weight. Smaller molecules travel faster. The "rock-molecules" will be fairly heavy (being iron oxides and such), and will not have a high velocity. I propose the following (I never read any theory about it, it just seems to make sense): The point where a planet will lose its atmosphere is when the escape velocity of the planet is less than the average velocity of gas molecules in its atmosphere. Therefore, an atmosphere of heavy molecules will not be easily removed from a planet as for example a hydrogen atmosphere. (Now I'll prepare to get hammered down. I neglected incoming photons and other particles from space and the sun, I neglected electricity, magnetism... etc, etc )

Those boiling points are at 1 bar pressure. I doubt that for example the core of the earth is at 1 bar. Even if a large part of the earth would evaporate, I'd expect it to stay attracted to the earth. Then you get some kind of gaseous stone atmosphere... My point is that this atmosphere will create a pressure high enough to prevent the remainder from boiling. My point (above) is regardless of heat transfer. But indeed, the heat transfer through a whole atmosphere and several (hundreds of) kilometers of rock will be slow on a human life time scale... Planets have a different time scale though, so if mother earth agrees with us I don't know.

Pradeepkumar, did you do any research at all before posting this question? And do you need the answers to it for anything in particular? I have observed that you post a lot of questions. None of your questions has any background, and I get a feeling you spend no more than 1 minute to write the post. You should realize that if you ask a question here other people are going to spend time on it! The least you can do is try to see if google/wikipedia has an answer to your question. In this particular case, you should have taken the following steps to get an answer: Open http://www.google.com Type "sunspot" Click the 1st link. Read the first 3 lines of text. Really, that's not too much to ask... and it is obvious that you did not even try this. Next time, try to answer your own question, and provide a bit more background. I apologise if you think this was rude.

If the email would have said "jump off the roof", would you have done that too? I would never forward anything just because it says "forward this message". These kinds of emails are (or at least were) famous for carrying a computer virus... and generally don't contain a lot of information. I've seen too many of these emails. I conclude that none of the claims are backed up in any scientific way. But I might change my signature in this forum to "forward this message"!

I think that there is a double rubber ring at the top of the cylindrical shape. That could mean it's some kind of piston.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chart those are plots. The scale is such that all data fits in it.

I guess that amazon and all the other online book shops don't sell it (not the right edition)? Perhaps Ebay is a good place for finding older books? Even if I had it, I'm not selling my books

But that's just 1% in the most optimistic scenario. Plants are horribly inefficient when it comes to turning light into biomass. And if you eat the plants, you'll convert it straight back to heat (and into evaporating water, which I consider heat as well). Make sure to burn your calories inside the house though. Doing exercises outside will increase your heating bill

What particular experiment are you talking about? My answer: it depends.

I think the more important underlying question is: "Do particles like protons, neutrons, electrons have an outer shell (like an egg)?" I always understood (read: I'm not sure!) that the particles actually don't have a hard shell, but in stead have a density distribution with a peak in the center of the particle. The density approaches zero asymptotically as you move away from the center of the particle, meaning that it's never completely zero. Therefore, there is no "between the particles".

I think it would be helpful if you provide a little background information on all those claims. And I totally agree with YT that the phone statement is total BS. I also think there exists plenty of research in the best periods for sleeping. I believe it's quite personal, and perhaps also season dependent. I also think there exists plenty of research in the effects of coffee. Not only are these still debated, you also fail to add a number: what if I drink one 5 liter pot of coffee (espresso, black), ONCE a day? Would that make it better? I doubt it. I'll stop commenting here. Provide some background info... I'd be interested to see where you found all this "information".

It's a bit like the guy who said he kicked another guy on the foot with his testicles. It's all a matter of perception, but the rest of the world would have chosen different words.

I'd say: "if both predictions are within 10%, they're both right(ish) and it's time to scale up the new technology: bring in the engineers!"

Ah well... editing the topic is good enough for me

Would it be possible to make it more obvious for serious members that this is a crappy thread which may be skipped? I actually read a bit, figured out that something was wrong, and read some more before I got it. In the topic list (or index or whatever you call the list of threads) there was no hint that this is total spam. I personally would prefer the spammers to continue to create fake stuff... while the other members can just skip the spam. My 2 cents: delete the junk next time.

Since it's a single pulse, the output should be expressed in energy, not power. So: Joules, not Watts. Since the duration of the actual pulse isn't mentioned, we don't know anything useful. We cannot calculate the energy. If I run hard enough, and slam into a wall and come to a stop in microseconds, I generate gigawatts all by myself. No big deal. That doesn't even mean that I'd impress the wall I just hit.