studiot

Are you sure ? What about tristate or Kleene's logic? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic I do believe it was the Bard himself who said "There are more things, in Heaven and Earth, than Man has ever dreamed.

Yes I did read it and I may have missed something vital. If so I'm sorry and would be pleased for you to point this out. However I should correct one or two points where you may have misunderstood the article, it was rather short on detail. Firstly the article states "the vast majority of the electromagnetic emissions would be in the hard ultraviolet range" You seem to have translated that into the 'majority of the energy', which the article did not say. Further neutron emissions are not electromagnetic emissions. further they are not, in themselves radioactive. Yes using the energy of the nuclear fire to megaheat exhaust propulsion gas is a desireable aim. The article has no details of the fission reactor itself or its control or shielding. Further to develop and maintain the intense magnetic fields you would require a significant electrical generator (presumably powered by nuclear energy) All of this add significant weight to the beast. It's sort of like the fact the the internal combustion engine need to devert some of its power to the oil pump, the water pump, the fuel pump and so on. Nevertheless the it is worth pursuing and re-examining the idea from time to time as new materials and techniques become available. go well

Fission produces a great many neutrons. The fissile material in your linked reactor is uranium hexflouride, which is subject to all the factors I outlined earlier. The point is that fission also produces a great deal of heat. In your reactor this passes through a quartz wall and heats a propulsion gas. Are you suggesting magnetic fields to direct this ionised gas? That is sensible. However you also need a generator to create the electric current to generate the magnetic fields. Would this fit comfortably on board the rocket? Further, at the end of the day, you also have to control your fission reactor in the normal manner.

Sorry I missed that Well, fusion reactions involve much simpler particles than fission and these have the advantage of being charged so we can use the relationship between electricity and magnetism to exert real containment forces on the participating particles. Further we have a relatively few particles involved, undiluted by non participating particles so the confinement space is much smaller. Fission, on the other hand has an abundance of uncharged neutrons to control. These, of course, are not amenable to magnetic fields. Further the fraction of participating or reactive particles in even a refined mass of fissile material, is quite low. I would suggest that with his background, Swansont is your man for this.

Bohr orbits are subject to the equation [math]n\lambda [/math] = [math]2\pi {r_n}[/math] n = 1,2,3,4.... Where rn denotes the radius of the orbit which contains n wavelengths. Bohr's theory only had one quantum number, n So if n = 10 the circumference of the orbit circle contains 10 wavelengths. Does this help? gosh why is latex so difficult on this site?

Here was an early attempt at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZETA_(fusion_reactor) Here is a later one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak

What do the quantities PV and TS represent? Hint they are both (diferent) forms of energy transferred during a thermodynamic process. The short answer is you can't directly But PV and TS are ways of calculating of a term in the First Law. This gives you an indirect way obtaining one from the other. Think about the freezing/melting example we worked through in your previous thread. Can you draw the PV and TS diagrams for this process in a complete cycle?

No, but you made a claim so kindly have the good grace as a styled house resident chemistry expert to explain.

Yes I agree there is a good deal of politically correct 'recycling' going on. However your comparison is unfair. Option 1) Make new, no recycling. You have not added in the energy or $ cost of dealing with the resulting discard Option 2) Recycle at greater energy / $ cost but no discard costs involved. Here is an interesting quote form John Le Carre

I can't believe that the current is provided by mving Ag+ ions. Just think how massive they are compared to electrons and the effect of piling billions of them up at one end of the conductor, which is what you are saying by saying that they conduct the current.

I have had a rethink about my first answer, which was too hasty. My apologies. The terms exothermic and endothermic refer specifically to the generation or absorption of energy as heat by the process. Other forms of energy change (eg work) are not included. Nor are entropy changes included. To account for this further thermodynamic functions called free energy have been defined. The free energy may be negative because heat is evolved in an exothermic reaction (eg combustion) or it may be negative because of a large entropy change which outweighs the positive heat input in an endothermic process (eg vapourisation) This, I think, is what was meant by an energetically favourable reaction. We can expand on this further if you wish. Have you heard of Gibbs or Helmholtz free energy? Please note that just because a reaction is energetically favourable it does not mean it will necessarily occur, because of what I said before about activation energy. For instance you can have a container of hydrogen and oxygen without them reacting. But apply a spark!

I'm sorry that you are so hung up on bashing quantum mechanics. I haven't employed it once. All I said was that the qualities you required could be attributed to a stream or flux of 'something' that did not have to be waves (or particles). Turnips could very well 'go in the other direction', so could any 'flux'. Much of the mechanics I deal with does not enquire as to the nature of the 'elements' it attributes certain properties and develops a model in terms of these. And these models ( eg fluid mechanics) are extremely successful at what they do. I also observed that every time I asked about a property that was specific to waves and not shared with other entities you fell back on the 'flux' idea, as does Little. Anyway I am still preparing my presentation. go well

But

Interesting, thank you. Is the silver iodide molten or solid at 146C? The article is unclear.

Silver iodide is not ionic in the solid. It is covalent and adopts either the wurzite or zinc blende structure in 'macro molecules'. As such it is the electrons that can be considered to move, as in Debye theory.

Thermodynamically that is correct. However many reactions are also subject to 'activation energy', which has to be supplied before the reaction will progress, even if you finally get out more than you put in. Many reactions are spontaneous ie they will proceed as soon as the reactants contact. These are all exothermic. You do not need to add anything else to cause the reaction, unlike endothermic reactions, which are non spontaneous since you need to add energy for them to proceed.

I must have missed your suggestion Huh? Extract from my post #160 Which you quoted and replied to in your post#161 Yess the Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek. But it's not exactly a guage theory, however it's my turn to suggest a book! The Lightness of Being by the above. And thank you for your answers to my two questions. I'm sorry my papers, referred in my previous post are as yet too rough to present, but I will get there.

This is in homework help so I hope yopu are not planning to actually inject anything until you are able to cope with the relevant calculation. Have you read the rules of Homework Help at the top of the list? If so, what have your efforts yielded so far?

These are very strange ideas, where did you get them?

There are just so many difficulties with the model of elementary waves as 3D spherical waves, subject to the other conditions you have laid down. The issues really need some more sketches which I will have time to prepare tomorrow. Meanwhile Are EWs dispersive or non dispersive? Do they follow the inverse square law? The more we delve the more it becomes apparent to me that there are no essentially wave properties in this 'flux in empty space'. It is interesting to note that you denied this flux model when I suggested it 50 odd posts backalong. It is also interesting to note the similarity between the Little model and the Wilczek model, have you heard of it?

I am not an expert in musical instrument names, so I may be wrong in the name but I thought the Cor Anglais was the alto member of the oboe family that had the bulb shaped resonator at the end. A smaller version is the Oboe D'Amore. The point of the bulb is that the exit orifice is smaller in diameter than the bulb itself. I have never seen mention of a bent one, although I know that happens with some larger recorders. (Source the Oxford Companion to Music)

I think that brass instruments do not have a linear taper like you are attempting, but an exponential one. There is also the resonator approach as in the Cor Anglais. Incidentally I commend Daedalus on his research and clear presentation.

It is considered good practice in the design of horn loudspeakers to size so that the perimeter of the wide end is at least one wavelength at the cutoff frequency of the horn. The cutoff frequency is the lowest frequency the horn will transmit.

Well your lot won the cricket comfortably in the end, though 320 for a county side v a national one was respectable. And you did pip us in the second rugger. But what game are we playing in this thread? The other side takes a shot at goal. Then it is my turn, but the other side has not only moved the goalposts, it has removed them, only to replace them again when my turn is over. I asked, and you averred and reconfirmed several times that elementary waves were not spherical waves, spreading out in all directions in a manner implied by the statements of sphericity. Then you draw a picture and label it spherical waves. One feature of wave motion is interference or diffraction and you start off by saying that the elementary waves interfere. Then you tell me that it is the markers that interfere. But you have already said (several times) that we do not know what the markers are, and certainly never introduced marker interference in your introduction. You tell me and reconfirm several times, that the elementary waves pass straight through matter, unaffected or deflected except for the addition of a marker - the marker is stated not to be a wave. Then you draw a picture of a spherical wave expanding as far as some material slits, and stopping there. Why does the spherical wave not pass straight though the material parts and simply carry on as a spherical wave? Saying that the markers interfere is not an answer. We agree on the definition of a field in the physics sense and you describe elementary waves in such a way that they conform to this definition, yet you tell me they are not a field. It seems to me that they form a pretty good field - Is that a negative thing?

I would be interested to learn the meaning of 1732 in relation to musical instruments. Acoustic horn maths I do understand, but have never heard of this.