Interesting Science Stuff Thread

[astronelson 339]

Hey, you can't have energy without mass, the two are equivalent!

As a physicist-in-training, my money's on relativity being right and the data being wrong. If the data's right though, that would be wonderful. Results like this, if real, repeatable, and verifiable, are the kind of things scientists dream of.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Hey, you can't have energy without mass, the two are equivalent!

As a physicist-in-training, my money's on relativity being right and the data being wrong. If the data's right though, that would be wonderful. Results like this, if real, repeatable, and verifiable, are the kind of things scientists dream of.

Well, yes and no. You know how it is in quantum mechanics. Is that cat dead or alive? It is all a set of wave fronts and probabilities, especially with neutrinos which are only probably there. Too small and too fast to really be seen, and Dr. Heisenberg has said a few things about that.

Even if this turns out to be true, it just makes relativity become like Newtonian mechanics: a really good approximation. Everything we've tried with relativity so far has worked. Of Einstein's work, relativity isn't as practically important as the Photo-electric effect. Our civilization is currently built on that one.

Well, it is a century since any real new work has been done on anything off beat. Maybe FTL is an idea whose time has come. It will please the gravity guys, too. They still don't know where those gravitons go. Now you see 'em, now you don't. This might be the century where we get our hooks on gravity and really get to understand rather than just describe magnetism. I think they are related.

Recently the quantum mechanics people have demonstrated teleportation by the use of some principle whose name I can't remember at the moment. It seems almost like the thaumaturge theory of similarity. Maybe magic is loose in the world.

There are several conundrums around right now, and this is only one of them. There is some kind of problem with the theory of the dark force/dark matter and the expansion of the universe. Now that we can see all this stuff, maybe the time has come to find out the whichness of the why of the whole works.

If I was young and starting out, I think Physics would be a fascinating place to be.

  Edited November 18, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[spiritualfire 138]

Curious question: Even if an elevator was achievable, how would the pressure be regulated on both sides? Meaning, the one half protruding into space and the other extending back toward earth.

the "cars" that travel along the elevator would be sealed and pressurized.

still a long way away from a space elevator,the materials that would be required are still not strong enough.

Like what Astronelson said. And I agree with that. Not to mention the station would have to match the exact speed of orbit, and resist any gravitational flux. Still I suppose it's nice to dream.

[astronelson 339]

Like what Astronelson said. And I agree with that. Not to mention the station would have to match the exact speed of orbit, and resist any gravitational flux. Still I suppose it's nice to dream.

The easiest way to deal with drifting would be to put it as close as possible to the correct place then adjust the position every so often with small rockets, much like is done now with satellites. The station itself would probably be slightly higher than geostationary orbit, so the centre of mass of it and the connecting cable is at geostationary.

Adjusting position would likely have to be done regardless of other forces on the station, merely because of the changing mass of the station (because of people, supplies, and such moving up and down) changing where the centre of gravity is.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Like what Astronelson said. And I agree with that. Not to mention the station would have to match the exact speed of orbit, and resist any gravitational flux. Still I suppose it's nice to dream.

The easiest way to deal with drifting would be to put it as close as possible to the correct place then adjust the position every so often with small rockets, much like is done now with satellites. The station itself would probably be slightly higher than geostationary orbit, so the centre of mass of it and the connecting cable is at geostationary.

Adjusting position would likely have to be done regardless of other forces on the station, merely because of the changing mass of the station (because of people, supplies, and such moving up and down) changing where the centre of gravity is.

Getting this just right would require one whiz-bang of a computer and communications system which I don't think we really have now because it would probably have to be on board. The rotation time of the earth is not invariant among other things.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Like what Astronelson said. And I agree with that. Not to mention the station would have to match the exact speed of orbit, and resist any gravitational flux. Still I suppose it's nice to dream.

The easiest way to deal with drifting would be to put it as close as possible to the correct place then adjust the position every so often with small rockets, much like is done now with satellites. The station itself would probably be slightly higher than geostationary orbit, so the centre of mass of it and the connecting cable is at geostationary.

Adjusting position would likely have to be done regardless of other forces on the station, merely because of the changing mass of the station (because of people, supplies, and such moving up and down) changing where the centre of gravity is.

Getting this just right would require one whiz-bang of a computer and communications system which I don't think we really have now because it would probably have to be on board. The rotation time of the earth is not invariant among other things.

Local wind and weather would have to be better understood ad well.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Like what Astronelson said. And I agree with that. Not to mention the station would have to match the exact speed of orbit, and resist any gravitational flux. Still I suppose it's nice to dream.

The easiest way to deal with drifting would be to put it as close as possible to the correct place then adjust the position every so often with small rockets, much like is done now with satellites. The station itself would probably be slightly higher than geostationary orbit, so the centre of mass of it and the connecting cable is at geostationary.

Adjusting position would likely have to be done regardless of other forces on the station, merely because of the changing mass of the station (because of people, supplies, and such moving up and down) changing where the centre of gravity is.

Getting this just right would require one whiz-bang of a computer and communications system which I don't think we really have now because it would probably have to be on board. The rotation time of the earth is not invariant among other things.

Local wind and weather would have to be better understood ad well.

Does seem to be a large set of hard to forecast variables.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Local ground level weather may not be as big a problem as its thought to be.

the jet stream is another matter if you can keep it stable thru that, ground level winds should not be a problem.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Local ground level weather may not be as big a problem as its thought to be.

the jet stream is another matter if you can keep it stable thru that, ground level winds should not be a problem.

Assuming a position over the equator, what high-level winds are there to contend with? I suspect that the cable will be tethered someplace like Uganda.

[emperordaniel 1,281]

Technically, a space elevator can only be stable over the equator in the first place, as geosynchronous orbit (the logical orbit for the station at the end of the cable) is only located over the equator.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Technically, a space elevator can only be stable over the equator in the first place, as geosynchronous orbit (the logical orbit for the station at the end of the cable) is only located over the equator.

Well, yes, that is the only place. However, what concern is there for high-speed winds in the upper atmosphere there?

New topic: Is the cure worse than the disease?

If HFCs are greenhouse gases, are we really any further ahead? Maybe we should all go back to ice-boxes and use CO₂ as an aerosol propellant? What kind of thinking goes into using substances like this?

Let us all shake our heads and admit that we won't change and that we will use up the planet no matter what. Maybe we should be working on a Ghaldron-Hesthor generator so we can do cross-time trading, eh? When we have looted this time line, we will need access to the millions of others, because we are not going interplanetary nor interstellar anytime soon.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I think it is a smarter idea to use CO2 as an aerosol propellent and leave the HFCs for refrigeration.

[astronelson 339]

Technically, a space elevator can only be stable over the equator in the first place, as geosynchronous orbit (the logical orbit for the station at the end of the cable) is only located over the equator.

That's not quite correct. Geostationary orbit only occurs as a circular orbit 22,000 miles over the equator, and is likely what you meant, but geosynchronous orbit can be at any inclination and does not necessarily have to be circular.

Even then, with clever design it doesn't even have to be all the way up in geostationary orbit.

[emperordaniel 1,281]

Technically, a space elevator can only be stable over the equator in the first place, as geosynchronous orbit (the logical orbit for the station at the end of the cable) is only located over the equator.

That's not quite correct. Geostationary orbit only occurs as a circular orbit 22,000 miles over the equator, and is likely what you meant, but geosynchronous orbit can be at any inclination and does not necessarily have to be circular.

Even then, with clever design it doesn't even have to be all the way up in geostationary orbit.

Ah yes, I meant geostationary... I get the two mixed up

[hym 358]

What kind of thinking goes into using substances like this?

The same thinking that went into choosing CFC's for refrigerants. The same thinking that went into using coal to power our homes and petroleum to power our cars. The same thinking that gave us incandescent light bulbs with tungsten filaments and fluorescent light bulbs with mercury vapor atmospheres.

In every above case, we chose what we did because it was cheap, and thus affordable for the average person to benefit from, and it works well for its intended use. CFC's are excellent refrigerants, which is why we used them. We use coal for producing electricity because it is cheap, and we use oil for our cars because it is cheap and has one of the highest energy densities known to man. We use tungsten for light bulbs because it remains very durable under the demanding conditions of maintaining incandescence, and with a little bit of chemistry and creative thinking, we can make it even more durable for almost no cost or effort. We use mercury in fluorescent light bulbs because it's an excellent conductor, even in a vaporized gas state.

The people who design this stuff aren't stupid. They put quite a bit of thought into why they did what they did. The mistake was that they didn't have the benefit of knowing then what we know now.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I agree with Hym, innovations and inventions are often hailed as huge successes until some people (usually environmentalists) nitpick at them.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Ah, but hindsight is always 20/20. It is the same old guff, "If we knew then what we know now ...". All the inventions of previous eras deserve high praise. What doesn't deserve praise now is clinging to these things when we know they are harmful. Not only is the mercury in florescent lights harmful, but the fluoride codings on the tubes is bad stuff as well. We knew it at the time, but needs must.

The biggest problem we have now is that there are just too damned many of us. I don't see the rabid environmentalists offering them selves as sacrifices to help reduce the problem.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

To be honest, "Eco friendly" illumination can be provided by bioluminescence (biotechnology 50 years above our time), LED, reflections, and colored lights can be LED, noble gases (neon lights), and bioluminescence. Some mercury fluorescent lights cannot be too bad as long as they are only used where LED's cannot do it better.

Using an HFC or a few for refrigerants would not be bad as long as they are not released into the atmosphere in great quantities (so aerosol is out). CO2 could take its place because it is safer and has a smaller greenhouse effect. We could further lower greenhouse gas emissions and increase electricity production by burning methane from livestock or landfills.

Nuclear power and green energy could provide enough to provide electricity for 10 billion people to live with the same level of comfort as an average European if everyone used the highest efficiency products as possible. By green energy, I include solar, wind, tidal, hydro, waves, biomass, coal/hydrogen hybrid plants, biofuel, and hydrocarbons made from CO2 scrubbed from the air, cogeneration power plants, eco-friendly waste-to-energy plants (or waste-to-fuel) and any other technologies yet to be invented.

[hym 358]

What doesn't deserve praise now is clinging to these things when we know they are harmful. Not only is the mercury in florescent lights harmful, but the fluoride codings on the tubes is bad stuff as well. We knew it at the time, but needs must.

Just because something is harmful doesn't mean it should be discontinued. Synthetic chlorine production is arguably harmful, but if we did that, people would start dying by the millions.

[Meg 368]

Just because something is harmful doesn't mean it should be discontinued. Synthetic chlorine production is arguably harmful, but if we did that, people would start dying by the millions.

For those of us lacking a chemical background, why would the lack of synthetic chlorine kill millions of people?

[Easy Bakes 253]

Just because something is harmful doesn't mean it should be discontinued. Synthetic chlorine production is arguably harmful, but if we did that, people would start dying by the millions.

For those of us lacking a chemical background, why would the lack of synthetic chlorine kill millions of people?

It gets your whites white,I know I would just die with non white undies.

Clorine is a volitle element and is almost never found not in a compound. like NaCl ( salt)or HCl. so realy all pure clorine is manufactured.

It is used to disinfect water and is part of the sanitation process for sewage and industrial waste,Bleach is clorine disolved in water.

  Edited November 24, 2011 by Easy Bakes  

[hym 358]

Just because something is harmful doesn't mean it should be discontinued. Synthetic chlorine production is arguably harmful, but if we did that, people would start dying by the millions.

For those of us lacking a chemical background, why would the lack of synthetic chlorine kill millions of people?

Synthetic chlorine is used to purify drinking water. In a developed nation, the availability of clean drinking water is the single biggest determinant of a person's lifespan; a lack of clean drinking water cuts the average life expectancy in half.

Chlorine is used in the production of 98% of all pharmaceuticals, with synthesized chlorine making up the majority of that chlorine consumption. (So not only is a person's body being distressed by the endless consumption of water carrying billions of disease-causing microorganisms, but there are no medications available to help combat the infectious overload.)

Dow Chemical. Let me explain this one. Dow Chemical is one of the world's top 3 chemical manufacturers, and its products are used in the production of a mind-boggling number of consumer products (some estimates say up to 50% of all consumer goods). It is the largest chemical manufacturer in North America, one of the top 3 in South America, one of the top 3 in Europe, a major manufacturer in Southeast Asia, and it's only a matter of time before Dow essentially takes over the entire Indian chemical manufacturing market. When a chemical company gets to be this size, it develops a standard method for producing it's products. A "chemical playbook" if you will. Dow's "chemical playbook" is based almost exclusively on synthetic chlorine. To quote some former Dow engineers (I know quite a few):

"Dow's consumption of chlorine is so high that daily consumption isn't measured in gallons. It's measured in tons, and that's just at this one facility. There are dozens more across the US and the world that are consuming just as much or more chlorine."

"Dow consumes so much chlorine that its builds its own chlorine pipelines to move more chlorine onsite when it can't build the facilities locally."

"The genius of the Dow chemists are really what built the company. They made stuff from chlorine that everyone said couldn't be made from chlorine. Chlorine became the company's most important chemical."

"When I worked at the Plaquemine site, the chlorine plant was the most important part of the site. We built our own power plant, and it was better than most commercial power generation plants, just so we could produce our own chlorine. If the chlorine plant went down, the rest of the plant shut down. Losing the chlorine plant was an emergency. When I transferred to Dow's engineering office in Houston, it didn't matter what Dow plant I was doing engineering work for, one of the chief complaints was that there wasn't enough chlorine production.

It's not just consumer products either. Odds are very good that at least some of your food is grown on fields where the farmer uses herbicides and/or pesticides that Dow manufactures (again with chlorine). And if your city, county, or other local government has some sort of insect control program, there is a good chance they are using Dow pesticide products.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

@hym: "synthetic Chlorine" ??? How do they synthesize an element? Large accelerator? I should think it would be better to extract it from sea water and a lot easier.

Autism: Concentrating on one of the rarest forms may seem futile, but it is a start towards something better than what has been done.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Synthesize is an OK term. Chlorine does not naturally exist as a pure gas so isolating and purifying could count.

[Duke87 1,070]

Synthetic chlorine is used to purify drinking water.

In North America, yes. In Europe, however, they use Ozone. There are advantages and disadvantages to it over chlorine but it does also work and is a viable alternative.

[Easy Bakes 253]

@hym: "synthetic Chlorine" ??? How do they synthesize an element? Large accelerator? I should think it would be better to extract it from sea water and a lot easier.

Autism: Concentrating on one of the rarest forms may seem futile, but it is a start towards something better than what has been done.

Clorine dosent exist in its pure form on earth at least not enough to be usefull.So all clorine is "synthetic"

Most places according to wiki they separate it by electrolysis from a sodium chloride brine.its in the top 10 of highest volume chemicals manufactured in the United States.I would assume they dont use seawater do to the presence of other salts and minerals.

eaiser to just mix water and salt so you know exactly what and how much your getting every time.

  Edited November 28, 2011 by Easy Bakes  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

@hym: "synthetic Chlorine" ??? How do they synthesize an element? Large accelerator? I should think it would be better to extract it from sea water and a lot easier.

Autism: Concentrating on one of the rarest forms may seem futile, but it is a start towards something better than what has been done.

Chlorine doesn't exist in its pure form on earth at least not enough to be useful.So all chlorine is "synthetic"

Most places according to wiki they separate it by electrolysis from a sodium chloride brine.its in the top 10 of highest volume chemicals manufactured in the United States.I would assume they don't use seawater do to the presence of other salts and minerals.

easier to just mix water and salt so you know exactly what and how much your getting every time. [six spelling errors corrected. -Ed]

You realize, I hope, that all salt deposits are the result of the drying up of seas and oceans. Synthesize implies created. The proper word might be extracted. Meanwhile, did you read the article on autism?

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Half of the products made are rather "extracted," rather than made but if one needs to refine and purify, then the resulting chemical can be considered made. Oil refineries make gasoline, one can make biodeisel from oil and alcohol (the oil and alcohol are grown). Chlorine does not exist in nature in its elemental state so it needs to be synthesized.

On the subject of autism, that is an interesting find but is unlikely to result in an acceptable treatment.

[Duke87 1,070]

You realize, I hope, that all salt deposits are the result of the drying up of seas and oceans. Synthesize implies created. The proper word might be extracted.

No, "synthesize" is correct. The chlorine in question is in fact created in the sense that it is manufactured (from sodium chloride) - so it is "synthetic". The sodium chloride itself, however, would not be, since it is found that way in nature.

The hang-up here seems to be that while in common parlance "synthetic" implies "fake", as a technical term it does not have that connotation. "Extracted" would not be correct here - the sodium chloride is extracted (from the ground), but the chlorine is synthesized (from the sodium chloride)

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

You realize, I hope, that all salt deposits are the result of the drying up of seas and oceans. Synthesize implies created. The proper word might be extracted.

No, "synthesize" is correct. The chlorine in question is in fact created in the sense that it is manufactured (from sodium chloride) - so it is "synthetic". The sodium chloride itself, however, would not be, since it is found that way in nature.

The hang-up here seems to be that while in common parlance "synthetic" implies "fake", as a technical term it does not have that connotation. "Extracted" would not be correct here - the sodium chloride is extracted (from the ground), but the chlorine is synthesized (from the sodium chloride)

We are splitting semantic hairs. Here is a dictionary definition of synthetic from the wiki dictionary:

Adjective

synthetic (comparative more synthetic, superlative most synthetic)

1. Of, or relating to synthesis.
2. (chemistry) Produced by synthesis instead of being isolated from a natural source (but may be identical to a product so obtained).
3. Artificial, not genuine.
4. (grammar) Pertaining to the joining of bound morphemes in a word. Compare analytic.

Now, it seems the term I wanted instead of extracted is isolated. If you backtrack to the article on synthesis you'll find that electrolysis doesn't fit that definition. English is a mess, but I don't know how or why it would ever get cleaned up.