Slashdot Mirror

The image of Ra (Radium) shown is interesting, given that this atom is radioactive...i.e. unstable. With spheres being more stable than wobbly shapes, it seems to make sense that radioactive elements might vary well have asymmetric shapes at the atomic level.

I'm really not up on this field of science, but it looks like aluminum is a very stable element so I guess it won't just decay away in a few million years.

http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/al.html

Isotope Half Life
Al-26 730000.0 years
Al-27 Stable
Al-28 2.3 minutes

http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/mg.html

Melted magnesium? Right.

Well, to some extent, that's like saying that Indium showed up in 1863 and Francium in 1939 -- it's likely that many of those diseases have existed forever and we didn't know enough or have enough observational data to give them specific names. CJD is known to occur spontaneously in about 1 in a million people and probably has been doing so for thousands of years, but previously looked like other senile dementias.
The issue is that until the advent of large-scale agricultural farming of animals, there wasn't a lot of used animal brain tissue going into food stock. To really get a good amplification of CJD-like diseases, you need to be consistently acting like zombies and dumping lots of brain tissue from each generation into the next generation.

A few floors collapsed, yes. But the bulidings did not. The force of a floor falling on the floor beneath it should not generally be enough to bring the lower floor down.
One floor falling on a lower floor, perhaps. But what about scores of floors? Each floor that collapses would produce additional momentum. There's also the damage caused from the jetliner to consider here for WTC1 and 2, or the falling debris on WTC7.
See this well done presentation.

Think about it: the floors have been holding that weight up for decades.
That's a statement about mostly statics that is meaningless for this argument. They held up floors for decades, but without the dynamics of significant structural damage, fire, etc.

A jet fuel fire is no hotter than any other hydrocarbon fire that reaches it's maximum possible temperature.

Under ideal lab conditions, sure -- but we're comparing something that intended to ignite and burn (fuel) with a random assortment of office equipment that would likely include fire retardants in the carpet, wiring, etc. These are things that are not intended to ignite, let alone burn for long periods of time.
Can you provide evidence that any of those previous building fires burned at the same temperature and for the same amount of time as a large jet fuel fire?
And even if they did, there's still the pesky problem of the massive amount of variables involved in each of these cases. I'll say it again, just because it didn't manage to fully collapse in a handful of previous cases involving different buildings and far different conditions, doesn't mean it is impossible or even unlikely.

There's simply no way the jet fuel was still burning weeks later when they were still finding pools of molten metal.
Assuming a few eyewitness accounts of pools of molten metal are true, what melted them? And what kept them in a liquid state for these eyewitnesses? Planted explosive charges in the basement? Seems like that would have cooled off quickly.
Was steel the only metal at WTC? What about Aluminum, yaknow, from the planes? Al melts at ~1200F. Can these eyewitnesses visually tell different pools of molten metal apart?
Or couldn't they have meant melted steel?
Or perhaps it was glass. Some glass melts as low as 900F.
And where are the pictures of the molten metal?

The steel didn't need to melt for the towers to collapse. I'm sure you've seen it, but here's the link to the Scientific American debunking anyway.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And so far, the "official" version of events has far better evidence.

Intel could follow the lead of the chemistry's heavy element naming system:
Extreme Edition 840 processor
becomes
Octquadnilium

Sorry, but it's Sulfur. Even the IUPAC agrees. And the Royal Society of Chemistry uses it! You better start using the f word too!

another link: Ununnilium

Last time I checked, tin was not aluminium.

Says this is a "gas-dynamic" laser. (Wazzat?) It throws in buzzwords, like "aerospike".

The laser is triggered with a release of hot gas. So, what is the thermal signature of this weapon? The GI is carrying around a reservoir of gas at 2173 degrees Kelvin. The nuclear power source is pouring out heat at 104kilowatts. How much waste heat is that? Let's see, the bulb in my desklamp is 60 watts.

Ouch, its hot!

And this laser's power system is continually pouring out 104kw? Why that is only a bit more than 1000 times as much.

Better issue that GI with an asbestos uniform, as all the undergrowth they try to hide behind is probably going to burst into flame.

Polonium's half-life is 138 days. So far only produced in microgram quantitites.

Consider the transition metals in this neat periodic chart (the map seems to be the territory!):

A. "Transition Metals" is a cool-sounding idea for a product naming strategy. And, the actual elements are conductors of heat and electricity (sounds good and electronic) and many are seen as valuable by the general public (gold, etc.)

B. Titanium -> Itanium. It's been taken.

C. Iridum? Taken, went down in flames (darn!)

D. Zirconium, sounds cheap. Nix.

E. Chromium? Well M$ has already taken it, but thought it sounded cooler as "Chrome".

D. Palladium -> Apallium! Sounds apalling! Can't use it.

E. There are already companies using palladium.com, vanadium.com, technetium.com (tucows got it, good show!), niobium.com's gone, someone called Dragon Information has yttrium.com. Aaand Tungsten's been used recently.

Some icky company with tons of popups stole selenium.com and .net!

Okay, you get the drift. What's left? Some of the names have been taken, or sound too prosaic or downright scandalous (Scandium, though naming after Scandanavia is neat). Some are doomed due to prevaling western opinion; Osmium sounds like Osamaium, Hassium sounds (just a little) like Husseinium.

Obviously high-paid marketgeeks feel they've struck oil with ..the periodic chart! Maybe now's a good time to strike a blow for freedom. Anyone want to register remaining ones, I also recommend the Noble Gases because they're.. um, Nobel! I mean Noble! But you can forget Xenon (Intel got that too). Anyone feel like researching good candidates make your posts count!

I've asked for a quote on seaborgium.com. But may I recommend bromium?

Consider the transition metals in this neat periodic chart (the map seems to be the territory!):

A. "Transition Metals" is a cool-sounding idea for a product naming strategy. And, the actual elements are conductors of heat and electricity (sounds good and electronic) and many are seen as valuable by the general public (gold, etc.)

B. Titanium -> Itanium. It's been taken.

C. Iridum? Taken, went down in flames (darn!)

D. Zirconium, sounds cheap. Nix.

E. Chromium? Well M$ has already taken it, but thought it sounded cooler as "Chrome".

D. Palladium -> Apallium! Sounds apalling! Can't use it.

E. There are already companies using palladium.com, vanadium.com, technetium.com (tucows got it, good show!), niobium.com's gone, someone called Dragon Information has yttrium.com. Aaand Tungsten's been used recently.

Some icky company with tons of popups stole selenium.com and .net!

Okay, you get the drift. What's left? Some of the names have been taken, or sound too prosaic or downright scandalous (Scandium, though naming after Scandanavia is neat). Some are doomed due to prevaling western opinion; Osmium sounds like Osamaium, Hassium sounds (just a little) like Husseinium.

Obviously high-paid marketgeeks feel they've struck oil with ..the periodic chart! Maybe now's a good time to strike a blow for freedom. Anyone want to register remaining ones, I also recommend the Noble Gases because they're.. um, Nobel! I mean Noble! But you can forget Xenon (Intel got that too). Anyone feel like researching good candidates make your posts count!

I've asked for a quote on seaborgium.com. But may I recommend bromium?

How does replacing silicon with palladium transform open hardware into trusted hardware?

This page explains why all of the new elements have this strange Unun-something names, and how they are determined.

According to this site, element 112, Ununbium, was also discovered by this guy, V. Ninov, who forged the results of the discovery of 116 and 118.

It begs the question -- is 112 bogus as well? If not, it makes you wonder why he did this, after previously discovering a new element already. One was not enough? :)

"Hassium" - solid stable servers.

(Hassium has a 2.0ms half-life).

Nobody's used hydrogen in airships since the Hindenburg disaster. Even the Hindenburg was designed to use helium, and would have if it weren't for export restrictions. Helium is too noble to burst into flame.

Chinese Maple is a good example, whose leaves change from maroon to green in the presence of lots of nitrogen in the soil.

this is all 'old knowledge' - as in ~6000+ yr...

Wow - who'da thunk it? I guess these guys should change their page to indicate that nitrogen was discovered ~6000+ years ago in the Americas by some unknown person.

Joking aside, don't get caught up in the whole "wise ancients" nonsense. Those people were pretty much just like us but, lacking our modern technologies, they had to be clever to get big things accomplished (i.e., pyramids, Stonehenge). We have cranes now that can lift huge weights - we don't have to think up a way to make it happen with 200 untrained people, some rope, and all the sand and rocks we need. As far as ignoring this part of the world, what do you think ethnobotanists do?

There's a much better periodic table, chemicalelements.com, that my good buddy Yinon created. Check it out.