Xittenn

I will most definitely give this a try, it sounds very reasonable in its logic.

All I see is DrRocket stating that trying to conserve energy in one form is futile while momentum is conserved indefinitely. So . . . if there are any presuppositions made it would be in favour of calculations that involve momentum and not energy, where energy calculations would in fact not be helpful because energy could not easily be accounted for. Absorbing x joules is an indication of impulse and which isn't an accurate indication of what energy the initial system had. I'm not sure why you are pressing the issue of putting this in context of the OP and solving the equation. The relevant equations could be written out in full form demonstrating proper knowledge of first principles and would not require any algebra as is also the case of an academic situation (the algebra is irrelevant). Could you point directly at the problem that you are seeing? I suggest you unnegaffi the man, but this is only my suggestion :/

Realistically speaking this isn't a very difficult thing to do when machines can cost upwards of half a million dollars and there are are a dozen or so of them on the floor. In addition to this the costs of contracts, again often upwards of half a million for a small inconspicuous facility that produces trivial goods, and multiplied by any number over a year. Then there is the consideration of injury and the costs of increasing insurance and health care and so on . . . . there is absolutely nothing incredulous about this and your response says a lot about your experience. In fact I had to nod when I read it because it is in fact so true. You are still arguing a moot point that was irrelevant in the first place. Is there room for thinking like this in a class room? Absolutely, and had the OP taken the care to properly post their question they would have been given the proper treatment of the matter. Does it apply to the automobile engineering industry? Not in the slightest. Try to relax Mr. you are really emanating a great deal of needless anger, and DrRocket's answer to the OP was appropriate given the improper posing of the question in the first place. Students are best when they are pushed to do things properly, and throwing things out like avg. empirical observation which doesn't apply is not at all helpful. Please ruin someone else's brain, I see really unusual replies to homework questions all the time that tout all sorts of inappropriate matter! note: it is unfortunate that DrRocket made a typo and seems to do so fairly often, mostly small letter mistakes; sucks don't it.

Quick note, migraine Tylenol's other ingredient is caffeine. I'm still trying to work out the impact of the combination on sleep, but so far it doesn't look good!

http://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2011-03/video-diy-scanning-electron-microscope I know nothing about electron microscopes, but I would seriously love to have one. If this has any validity to it, I know I could build one that is much more impressive, because I am just that awesome. j/k In all seriousness though, budget electron microscopy is something that could accelerate many industries forward and I hope there is more truth behind this than fiction.

I can vouch for this, I am falling asleep at this very moment . . . . . . . damn economics! Damn point elasticity . . .

I have had cases where I've been running 12km every other day and been working physically for eight hour+ shifts and had issues sleeping. When exercise doesn't cut it, I have occasionally used Melatonin to sleep, but I find after two or three nights I will have to try something else--or simply not get enough sleep for a few days. When I'm worried about something I don't sleep. It can be very small things that set it off, like a comment made in a conversation that leaves me uneasy. So I guess for me finding a way to resolve my inner conflicts without directly confronting them would be a solution. For you it might be a matter of finding a deeper reason like I just did . . . . or go see your doctor; the less drug dependent the better though right? Visit a psychologist!

We also get questions that are incomplete that test how well we understand first principles. I don't know is often a viable answer. If the student made a mistake then they should correct themselves. As stated the most appropriate answer is I don't know. If someone had felt the need to address this point, there was plenty of room to have done so when the question was asked.

You are right InigoMontoya I did make too broad a statement and it was inappropriate. In relation to automobile design and similar technologies I know for fact that this is an inappropriate statement and I say this because I have literally had to make parts with one ten-thousandth precision in the finished surface to accommodate the specs of the design. These industries do not nonchalantly inject weak statements into their work. Also, I am not flaming and I am disappointed in myself for not expressing myself clearly enough that someone would in fact see it otherwise! I am still trying to persuade my audience that the points made are in fact inappropriate.

There is no avg. subscript, there is no assertion of any kind that we can make any of the assumptions that you have proposed. In an academic sense the question is nilpotent. In an engineering sense, if an engineer were to do what you just proposed he would probably be fired. I know what it means to approximate, but the op did not assert the question well enough to come along and make more poor assumptions.

There is a car traveling at velocity [math] \nu [/math], it absorbs x Joules of Kinetic Energy on impact. The value of time t is not known, what is the force F? a) 42 b) [math] \frac{\textrm{kinetic energy}}{\textrm{avg. empirically observed distance of a standard collision }} [/math] c) I do not know

No, feel free to use me as your muse! I thought the speculum thing was pretty funny.

The question is posed as a mechanics question in the context of engineering, and given the amount of information, there is no value that would have any meaning what so ever. If you do just as you have proposed what exactly is the significance of this value? I don't see one and so I am asking you, what do you suppose the value of this ascertained F that you are proposing is? Can you further apply it to any of this physical process in such a way as to derive any meaningful information from it what so ever? If we want to relate this figure back to the passenger the outcome will be that we are applying an average force over some time, but what about the sharp forces that are going to be felt at say t=.1s? Are these suddenly benign? Is this going to tell us anything about the stopping distance or the crumple zone based on the x Joules absorbed? No, because these are suddenly eliminated the second you made presumptions about a system that doesn't even truly exist, even in the slightest fashion; you told it what it was! So F is, who cares, and that is what I get from that! I recently posted a question in homework where I similarly told the physical situation what it was and it cost me .10% of my final grade; big lesson learned. What are these magic goggles that I have never seen before? What is the meaning of life, well 42 obviously, right? I will gladly be proven wrong on this as it would serve to simplify my life stupendously i.e. I want you to be right!

Apparently if you have selected approve friend requests, friend requests are submitted into a folder but no notification is made about this activity. . . . . I suddenly have a friends list. : D Wait, I accepted like seven and I see none! It seems that I have to add them as a friend in return . . . .

Well obviously and in no particular order: John Cuthber, CharonY, hypervalent_iodine, mississippichem, and the crazy_alien but in all seriousness now, I can't answer this question directly as I am not sufficiently familiar with academic activities. I do however, find myself isolating pockets of scientists that have made significant impacts and stand out in my mind, that I would make suggestions on where to search for formidable characters that meet the description. One of my top personal choices in the matter would be many of the scientists in Japan working on biochemistry projects that revolve around cell and tissue engineering.

If it makes you feel any better I suffer from most of the same on a daily basis, but add to that regular migraines and extreme emotional responses to everyday life. Yesterday I named the Scapula a Speculum in an oral lab evaluation, and more recently spelled it Spacula in the posting of this thread. The day before I started crying in my physics class, following chem lab, after having incorrectly calculated the moles titrated HCl Excess as the moles HCl total in sample (I did something backwards) therefore leaving me short on time to finish my exam questions. Even though I will probably get an A in the exam I was still sobbing baddly enough that the professor made sure I was ok. I also keep dropping letters from words like two => to . . . . . I wouldn't worry about it unless it is persistent and is severely interfering with your daily function and personal growth. Try the following: - monitor your diet, eat more fruits and vegetables - exercise at least 20 min. every other day; brisk walking is A1 - organize yourself better and more specifically find the time to sleep properly - take a class in stress management

You don't! Yes, use implicit differentiation while holding one variable constant.

Curious, is this something that could be described as an aid in the facilitation of future cleavage by reducing the bond potential, where defomylating would consolidate the bond?

Just a quick note to the OP, I think the evolution of phototaxis is an emergent property of early photosynthetic Prokaryote and Protist algal species. This makes sense in terms of researching the evolutionary pathways--as mentioned earlier--as photosynthetic species both require light to function as well as are already equipped to harness light in some fashion. An interesting point here is that the proto-eye that I believe you are referring to occurs in Prokaryote species in a region of their structure that connects to their flagella; the butt end. This sensor enables motor function in the relevant direction towards light in what is termed phototaxis. In terms of evolution of animals phototaxis is already an observable emergent property of organisms and cells in particular, so incorporating this into their makeup would simply be a matter of it's continued use as an adventigious property. The development of the eyeball would simply be an ongoing set of mutations that occurred during cephalization that would protect the eye, broaden sensitivity of spectrum, as well as increasing resolution, focus and restriction. Interestingly enough, I believe the Rotifer has the same adaptation of a proto-eye attached to their flagella as does the Prokaryote species'. These are microorganisms that are classified within the Kingdom Animalia and not Kingdom Prokaryote and an example can be seen in the picture that is my avatar. I am however making conclusions on the matter based on small pieces of information I have picked up here and there and will have to at some point complete a more in-depth study on the subject.

Wow, this is absolutely fascinating! : )

This is not a truth or a supportable fact in any way, and heavy pot use causes both severe depression as well as having the potential to induce low levels of psychosis. This isn't an attempt to belittle any efforts here, I don't care either way really, this is just a completely wrong statement! Also look up the definition of depressant, I think you might have an incorrect definition as related to the topic of drug use.

Are you saying that the definition of charge is developed from how a charge physically acts, where charge is positively and negatively affecting (it is symmetric(+or-) about an axis), it manifests over a smooth manifold, and whose Lagrange forms a conserved property current? Yes I'm talking out my orifice formerly known as blastospore, but I'm really trying to understand this thing you keep saying. I see all the pieces but the picture is like something out of a Dhali painting.

Thanks DrRocket! I was the one who derived the formulas, although [math] \tan \theta = \frac {\nu_B^2}{rg} [/math] was in my text and the derivation was sound. Curious that you say the frictional force would prevent the car from slipping up the track. I am solving for [math] \mu [/math] as the component of friction as it slides along the plane parallel to earths surface, in x; at least this is how I was solving it. If the force centripetal is acting on the car outwardly then I am assuming the following: 1) the component of the normal force is acting inwardly as [math] F_N \sin \theta [/math] 2) the component of the force of static friction acting against the sliding of the car outwardly is [math] \mu_s F_N \cos \theta [/math] where the normal is acting perpendicular to earths surface as the sliding friction is parallel. I did it this way because I assumed that F_c works parallel to earths surface, and so the normal component acting parallel to earths surface in addition to the force of friction acting against the sliding of the vehicle in the direction parallel to earths surface, will cancel. as in: [math] F_c = F_N \sin \theta + \mu_s F_N \cos \theta [/math] I don't see the logic in applying the force of friction in the upward direction or along the slant as the y components of force should cancel to 0 against the force of gravity not centripetal acceleration??? (this last bit is not worded right but there should be no component of static friction acting in the y, I think)