Xittenn

So I had a homework problem and I'm not sure where I keep making the mistake, the answer is 0.36 and I keep getting 0.46! If a curve with a radius of 90m is properly banked for a car traveling 63km/h, what must be the coefficient of static friction for a car not to skid when traveling at 96km/h? [math] \nu_B = 17.5 m/s [/math] [math] \nu = 26. \bar 6 m/s [/math] [math] \tan \theta = \frac {\nu_B^2}{rg} [/math] [math] \theta = 19.13003772 [/math] [math] m \frac{\nu^2}{r} = \frac{mg}{\cos \theta} \sin \theta + \mu_s \frac{mg}{\cos \theta} \cos \theta [/math] [math] \frac{\nu^2}{r} = g \tan \theta + \mu_s g [/math] [math] \mu_s = \frac{\nu^2}{rg} - \tan \theta = \frac{(26. \bar 6)^2}{90 \cdot 9.81} - \tan 19.13003772 = 0.46 [/math] What am I doing wrong???

Not the way that people think it would. Such a technology would still be on par with technologies that would assemble tissues very quickly by mechanical means, just much slower and still requiring a great deal of mechanical interference. It is my opinion that the technology will not allow the limb to be grown directly on the host. Layer by layer a limb might be able to be grown as a grafting process in vitro, and then surgically attached after. This technology is more about fixing damaged tissues than it is about replacing complex organs or appendages. Stems cells could be used to culture the bio mass necessary for future application via alternate technologies.

I have very little sense of humour, despite being regularly told how funny I am, why is this in question?

Ummmm common! :/ That doesn't excuse it from being a common base topology. I have no personal interest in this topic, so whoever wants to disagree can more than do so with little argument from me. I still stand behind my statements, but will now do so from over there. =====> Transistors are a poor choice for philosophical debate and we are in engineering!

I really liked him, I wish less mods would leave or stop posting. Mokey the giant lizard was pretty cool as well! :/

Obviously not, because they are, and it is called a common base configuration and it finds special application.

Blastocysts are not composed of a lot of cells, the outer layer or 'Trophoblast' may be made up of ~24 cells, and the 'Inner Cell Mass' (ICM) is essentially comprised of ~50 hESCs. The ICM is often removed through a immunosurgical procedure, where the blastocyst cells are preserved under a protease solution derived from the extracellular fluids of Streptomyces. A biochemist or 'the surgeon' would complete the procedure under microscope. The precise methods used are determined by the 'GMP' requirements of the end product. Blomberg, Pontus, M. Sirac Dilber, Outi Hovatta, Heli Skottman, and Christian Unger. "Good manufacturing practice and clinical-grade human embryonic stem cell lines." Hum. Mol. Genet. (2008) 17 (R1): R48-R53. Oxford Journals.

Maybe a photosynthetic process that synthesizes an enzyme that catalyzes the human electron transport chain, making it more efficient. This sort of increase in efficiency, maybe in combination with a chemotrophic metabolic process, and a more basic precursor energy form, could keep me busy for some time!

My first statements were made in the context of my later statements--contained in the same paragraph--about the butterfly like creatures. So I apologize if it sounded like I was implying that a human would achieve the same functionality, because I wasn't. I don't know what the right combination is, which is why this is the pursuit of a research topic, as opposed to a direct preposition toward advancement. Maximizing surface area is definitely a point of interest. Maybe you have some thoughts that go beyond the very simple? I know that I don't at the moment. Thanks Moontanman!

@Appolinaria: I've questioned whether or not I was expected to have credentials--or if I was treated any differently because I didn't--before myself, but it was never because of the mods. I've always worried that some of the users would prefer it this way even though the mods are clear on what they expect from users and that is simply that we provide a source and back up what we say (when necessary obviously). I realized that really it is not an issue with either party.

As a topic over breakfast as I am waking up, sort of. Look up common base transistor configurations and replace V+ with a second class A positive signal. It will be less of a signal mixing or wave superposition as much as it will be a multiplier correct me if I'm wrong! It might be difficult for you to source material to help you through this topology because it is less common and more advanced in theory. I hope this helps get you started.

It had occurred to me that someone might bring this up but I assure you it isn't. I agree that identifying individuals who are not working within the common ground of science or who have serious flaws in what they are presenting is important. This level of community involvement creates a shit filter that reduces some of the need for the individual to filter the shit themselves. I don't however feel that they need to be identified in their bio or that moderators should suddenly be required to full disclosure. I agree with what iNow is saying in that most individuals who are full of shit are easily identified and so no such system would really be required. I further noted that individuals who were less easily spotted would none the less be spotted by the more astute individuals like the mods. If a mod is in question there are enough savvy individuals to call bullshit and the other mods would be included in this category. It isn't michel123456's credentials that are in question--I have no credentials so this would adversely affect me. michel123456 makes statements that affect the opinions that others have of him and some of his posts are questionable. If I saw him debating something that affected someone whose shit filter wasn't as well developed I would be inclined to say something, in a polite fashion. The authority here is science not a piece of paper! I am aware of the tendency towards better science in those with the piece of paper and I act accordingly! Since when are rep points to be taken seriously??

It really helps when you address the forum in complete thoughts. I've tried using 'cute' and colourful language and it generally gets lost in translation. Right now your statements are completely justifying the negative attitudes that some are taking towards individuals who have less interest in what the forum is about. The problem with that is it closes the forum and that really sucks capiche?

I don't think the primary reason for photosynthetic species not moving is their inability to procure sufficient energy; although this is a restricting factor in how a species that are photosynthetic expresses themselves morphologically. Phytoplankton are photoautotrophic and are mobile! Trees don't move because they are made up mostly of dead cells that are composed of a stiff material called lignin. I can mentally conceive of species that can satisfy the conditions of being phototrophic and mobile. I am surprised that there aren't popular varieties of insect like phototrophs that might carry a butterfly like appearance. Another possibility might be a highly limited wake time.

I'll take a look, I am open minded, I'm just very busy so I have to choose what is more important. It's still one of those see it to believe it!

Honestly I won't be one of them, but that has more to do with the fact that I lack the interest. There are plenty of incredulous things that I pursue but aliens are not one of them. I am a big fan of science fiction movies however, and aliens in film are always fun! I'm not worried about it! Have fun . . . .

This wouldn't be terribly difficult to put some numbers to. I will revisit the thread, if anyone else hasn't, when I'm a little more motivated!

No you hadn't, I simply noted it to point out that speculations isn't simply a dumping ground for bad threads which was sort of implied in your original post! Also, you deleted a quote bracket, edit the post to correct it please. [/quote Did i make a reference to your thread being moved if so im sorry. <==== right here Welcome to the forums!

I have to agree about A Trip's statements and I treat the opinions of michel123456 accordingly. A Trip's example is well placed because michel123456 is someone many might find difficult to properly evaluate. I don't however, agree that it is always simple to identify someone as not being adequately equipped to properly convey the ideas that are often presented in these forums (i.e. michel123456). Should A Trip speak his mind? In a polite fashion absolutely! I'm not saying everyone should run around slandering everyone, I'm saying that if the issue came up it is probably best to speak your mind in a 'mature' fashion--I really can't emphasize mature enough. Others might not be aware of the reliability of the source that is speaking, even though really it is entirely on their shoulders to filter the information that they are choosing to absorb. Should mods need to fully disclose their credentials? Absolutely not! There are enough people here that know the material that if a mod was full of B.S. they would be identified. If someone doesn't like the mods opinions they can choose to ignore their efforts and advices, and are always welcome to leave. +1 This is the first thing that has ever come out of iNow that I've ever agreed with; I usually limit my reading of his material as it tends to be topics that I am not interested in. The fact of the matter is someone will catch on or see it and most things are corrected at some point, and this will improve as the community grows. Which circles back to the OP and why some threads are treated with less respect than others. As far as I am aware--rules presented, the people who participate, general attitudes--the forum operates under the pretense that all information presented is to the effect of presenting ideas that are correct inside of science, and this is in fact not a place to haphazardly develop ideas that have flimsy foundations, period. I say this as someone who has spent a lot of time here and I hope you find a place be it here or elsewhere that you can find comfort in doing what it is you do! Again to the OP, my brother recently made a discovery. He suddenly came to the realization that dark matter would in fact be made of dark atoms. If he opened a thread in main physics and it sat there what would that say about the forum?

I think you have made a very creative observation Zapatos, but I can't find enough supporting evidence in the picture to corroborate it. If it was the neck of the bottle there should be a label or indication of label glue. The shape of the object isn't quite fitting of a neck either. The supposed tree seemingly disappears under a substance that would appear to be lit from the front by the sun. The 'man' is washed out and the secondary images linked look like they have had their contrasts adjusted, which look to be introducing artifacts that are more clearly defining 'him.' The lighting seems natural in the first image and unnatural in the later and this affects my point about the tree. Although liquid does form strings and twines in a shot like this, it also tends to bead or spray as well and I see absolutely none. I'm in no way denying the possibility 'cause there are many supporting points that can be made also. I still don't think the foreground string is twine, I think it's a vine. And the thing it is grabbing looks like a type of leaf to me; a species that contains finer or less veins, maybe succulent. I thought to check for cocoon structures that resemble it as well, and there are, but the chances are small that someone would have found one that had been picked off by a vine. This is fun! o.o Also 90% of all hand held pictures are taken the one way not the other . . . . . <---- this way ---->

Exactly why I incorporated it. I thank you for you excellent feedback, very insightful!