If a 'bomb' did go off, and you were far enough from the gamma radiation effects, the long term radiation that is left over continually emits,
There's this wonderful phenomenon called "half-life", within which period of time half a given quantity of radioactive material will decay to something else. Even neater is that the more radioactive an isotope is, the shorter its half-life.
So radiation eventually goes away. If it's taking a long time to go away, then it isn't very strong to start with. (Depending on just how much radioactive material there is in the first place, of course.)
Air is very compressible. That last 10% of the atmosphere's depth contains more than 75% of the pressure (= weight = mass). The last 5% (about 18,000 feet) contains 50%.
They disengaged the main flight control system because they thought it was flying too fast in the turbulence, or was causing too much passenger discomfort. They slowed down to a very narrow margin above stall speed. They hit a 100 mph updraft, causing the AOA to go beyond the stall angle.
So far, so good -- although "very narrow margin" isn't even necessary given the 100mph updraft, they could have been 100 mph above stall speed and had problems. (Of course one has to factor in that their stall speed when configured for cruise flight is going to be higher than stall speed when configured with flaps and slats in landing/take-off position.)
They went into a high-speed dive. Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.
Here it gets a little trickier. If they stalled out in an updraft they'd have control problems but not necessarily be in a dive. In fact a dive would have been the best thing to regain control by changing the AOA relative to the airflow -- until they exited the updraft (or it stopped). I don't think exerting enough force on the controls was the issue, it was knowing the best way to move them given unusual airflow. (Standard stall recovery technique is, after all, to put the nose down (and throttle up)).
Something (wing, tail surface, aileron, spoiler... whatever) tore off. [...] At a speed probably above Vne, that resulted in the aircraft structure being instantly destroyed.
More likely a control surface (aileron, elevator, rudder) than an entire wing, although it's also possible with sufficient vibration that an engine tore off and damaged flight controls as it went, but yeah.
And there's a reason they call it Velocity never exceed.
Considering the atmosphere height of 120 km, I don't think 10% of height can make such a huge difference.
35,000 feet may only be 10% of the height, but it's a bit more than 75% of the density of the atmosphere. Since air is compressible, there's a lot more of it squeezed into the bottom layers than the top layers. Air pressure at 35,000 feet is about 7.04 in/Hg, vs 29.92 in/Hg at sea level. That is a huge difference.
Even if the requirement is to run Windows software, there may be alternatives. How will they know if they don't put it up for bid? (E.g, someone might bid a system based on Linux and Wine. That may or may not actually do the job, depending on the specific software and how much work the bidder is willing to put in to tweak things.)
But yeah, the requirements ought to be based on functionality, not a specific software package.
If I didn't know that, alas, such mind boggling stupidity was all too possible, I might think that "losing" these had to be some kind of set-up, and the recordings fake.
It's probably not possible, I doubt that the Shuttle has enough delta-vee when towing Hubble to make the necessary orbit plane and altitude changes.
But you wouldn't want to do it even if it were possible: all those people moving around in IIS would shake hell out of the fine pointing accuracy of the telescope.
Great, now I have this vision stuck in my head of a gasoline-soaked thread stretching out down the road, with a car spooling it up and wringing the gas out to fuel the engine. That's just weird.
Well, not necessarily electric eels, but something like that. Isn't bioelectricity the electric fields/currents within an organism? The stuff that EKGs and EEGs read, for example?
I think from context (TFA doesn't define the term anywhere) that they're talking about electricity generated by burning biomass to turn generators, but it sure isn't clear.
Didn't we just have an article on this exact same thing a few days ago explaining why this is definitely NOT possible? (Emphasis added)
Nope. Not if you're referring to the hypothetical Finazzi instability and the possible problem of Hawking radition, anyway, that is anything but "definite".
It's not clear that the Hawking radiation issue applies to a Van Den Broek geometry warp bubble (vs Alucbierre's original warp sphere), nor is it certain (from Finazzi et al's paper) that the stress-energy tensor growth necessarily causes instability, or if it does that that instability can't be controlled. I mentioned some of this on my website about a month ago.
However, in the Star Trek context, it may be a problem that you can't create a Van Den Broek bubble big enough to enclose the Enterprise -- the bubble radius gets to about 50m before the wall thickness reduces to Planck length. (Of course given enough energy, anything is possible, but we're getting into energies with equivalent mass of the galaxy or better.)
As rates of legal gun ownership go up, so do rates of gun accidents resulting in injury or death.
"Think of it as evolution in action."
Although your statement actually turns out not to be the case, as a sibling posting points out: Firearms accidents have been on a steady, and steep, decline for decades both per capita and in absolute numbers, while legal gun ownership has held relatively steady per capita, and climbed significantly in absolute terms.
it must be strictly limited and licensed and monitored people understand this about car ownership, why they don't understand this about gun ownership is beyond me
You have a defective understanding of car ownership. Car ownership is not "strictly limited and licensed and monitored". Anyone who can afford one can own a car. Operating said car in public is limited and licensed and monitored -- same as with firearms.
And what the hell any of this has to do with sunspots I'm not sure. I think I've been trolled.
Greenhouse gasses unquestionably contribute far more to recent warming than solar activity, although solar activity is definitely a factor.
I question it. NASA also questions it. Quote: "Indeed, the model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades." The interesting thing is that it looks at two kinds of aerosols: sulphates, which tend to reflect sunlight and cause cooling; and black carbon (soot), which absorbs sunlight and causes warming. Because of regulations on sulphur levels, the former has been dropping, but the latter has been rising in particular with the growing industrialization of Asia.
And sure, that's all (well, mostly) anthropogenic, but it's not the dreaded carbon dioxide (which actually has a much lower greenhouse effect than the water vapor in the atmosphere).
Back in Apollo days they did this. Actually as I recall they didn't try growing them in pure Lunar soil (that would require too much of a scarce commodity) but in a mix of Lunar soil and sterile Earth soil. The initial objective was to make sure that Lunar soil (and any possible unknown organisms in it) wouldn't have any adverse effect on Earth plants -- but they discovered that the plants actually grew better. Turns out Lunar soil is rich in (inorganic) nutrients just as volcanic soils are.
The Moon is low in nitrogen and carbon, so those would have to be added to Lunar soil for good growth.
Unless somehow you can spin it so the force vector (Which always points out from the centre of the centrifuge) is always pointing against earths gravity. You'll need a mighty big centrifuge methinks.
Well, you don't have to build the whole centrifuge, just part of it. We call it the International Space Station, whose centrifugal force (I know, I know) balances Earth's gravity perfectly. Ditto for everything else in Earth orbit.
The thing is, it wouldn't be hard to do the experiment at almost any gee level they wanted, using a centrifuge on the space station (well, two counter-rotating centrifuges to minimize angular momentum effects on the station). Of course for greater than one gee we can do the same thing on Earth.
Actually climatologists are pretty divided on the whole global warming issue -- they understand the details a whole lot better than the hordes of laymen or non-climatalogist scientists who keep shouting about it.
Oh, past cultures had their share of porn too. If you ever get to Lima, Peru, check out the Museum of Erotic Ceramics (or whatever it's proper name is). The Inca and pre-Inca made some, ah, interesting stuff. They weren't the only ones of course - I haven't seen them myself but there are wall paintings, etc, in Pompeii that generally don't get included in the usual textbooks.
Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if the ancient "Venus" figurines that archaeologists call fertility goddesses were really porn.
From TFA: "Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules," the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, "only that she was never caught."
And the assertions of the adults involved that they're not pedophiles and child molesters should not be misread to infer that they aren't, only that they were never caught.
Slashdot Mirror
If a 'bomb' did go off, and you were far enough from the gamma radiation effects, the long term radiation that is left over continually emits,
There's this wonderful phenomenon called "half-life", within which period of time half a given quantity of radioactive material will decay to something else. Even neater is that the more radioactive an isotope is, the shorter its half-life.
So radiation eventually goes away. If it's taking a long time to go away, then it isn't very strong to start with. (Depending on just how much radioactive material there is in the first place, of course.)
Air is very compressible. That last 10% of the atmosphere's depth contains more than 75% of the pressure (= weight = mass). The last 5% (about 18,000 feet) contains 50%.
They disengaged the main flight control system because they thought it was flying too fast in the turbulence, or was causing too much passenger discomfort.
They slowed down to a very narrow margin above stall speed.
They hit a 100 mph updraft, causing the AOA to go beyond the stall angle.
So far, so good -- although "very narrow margin" isn't even necessary given the 100mph updraft, they could have been 100 mph above stall speed and had problems. (Of course one has to factor in that their stall speed when configured for cruise flight is going to be higher than stall speed when configured with flaps and slats in landing/take-off position.)
They went into a high-speed dive.
Because they were on manual backup control they could not exert enough force on the controls to recover before Vne or the flutter speed of something was attained.
Here it gets a little trickier. If they stalled out in an updraft they'd have control problems but not necessarily be in a dive. In fact a dive would have been the best thing to regain control by changing the AOA relative to the airflow -- until they exited the updraft (or it stopped). I don't think exerting enough force on the controls was the issue, it was knowing the best way to move them given unusual airflow. (Standard stall recovery technique is, after all, to put the nose down (and throttle up)).
Something (wing, tail surface, aileron, spoiler... whatever) tore off.
[...]
At a speed probably above Vne, that resulted in the aircraft structure being instantly destroyed.
More likely a control surface (aileron, elevator, rudder) than an entire wing, although it's also possible with sufficient vibration that an engine tore off and damaged flight controls as it went, but yeah.
And there's a reason they call it Velocity never exceed.
Nice analysis, btw, my nit-picking aside.
Considering the atmosphere height of 120 km, I don't think 10% of height can make such a huge difference.
35,000 feet may only be 10% of the height, but it's a bit more than 75% of the density of the atmosphere. Since air is compressible, there's a lot more of it squeezed into the bottom layers than the top layers. Air pressure at 35,000 feet is about 7.04 in/Hg, vs 29.92 in/Hg at sea level. That is a huge difference.
Even if the requirement is to run Windows software, there may be alternatives. How will they know if they don't put it up for bid? (E.g, someone might bid a system based on Linux and Wine. That may or may not actually do the job, depending on the specific software and how much work the bidder is willing to put in to tweak things.)
But yeah, the requirements ought to be based on functionality, not a specific software package.
How did we go from "three unencrypted hard drives that disappeared" to it being a "data breach"?
Because security isn't about probabilities, it's about capabilities. If you don't know where the drives went, you have to assume worst case.
If I didn't know that, alas, such mind boggling stupidity was all too possible, I might think that "losing" these had to be some kind of set-up, and the recordings fake.
It's probably not possible, I doubt that the Shuttle has enough delta-vee when towing Hubble to make the necessary orbit plane and altitude changes.
But you wouldn't want to do it even if it were possible: all those people moving around in IIS would shake hell out of the fine pointing accuracy of the telescope.
Great, now I have this vision stuck in my head of a gasoline-soaked thread stretching out down the road, with a car spooling it up and wringing the gas out to fuel the engine. That's just weird.
I salute you, sir.
Well, not necessarily electric eels, but something like that. Isn't bioelectricity the electric fields/currents within an organism? The stuff that EKGs and EEGs read, for example?
I think from context (TFA doesn't define the term anywhere) that they're talking about electricity generated by burning biomass to turn generators, but it sure isn't clear.
Or maybe this is like something from the Matrix.
Didn't we just have an article on this exact same thing a few days ago explaining why this is definitely NOT possible? (Emphasis added)
Nope. Not if you're referring to the hypothetical Finazzi instability and the possible problem of Hawking radition, anyway, that is anything but "definite".
It's not clear that the Hawking radiation issue applies to a Van Den Broek geometry warp bubble (vs Alucbierre's original warp sphere), nor is it certain (from Finazzi et al's paper) that the stress-energy tensor growth necessarily causes instability, or if it does that that instability can't be controlled. I mentioned some of this on my website about a month ago.
However, in the Star Trek context, it may be a problem that you can't create a Van Den Broek bubble big enough to enclose the Enterprise -- the bubble radius gets to about 50m before the wall thickness reduces to Planck length. (Of course given enough energy, anything is possible, but we're getting into energies with equivalent mass of the galaxy or better.)
QM is a way that humans describe all natural phenomena when we explain details of how it all works.
Okay then, explain gravity.
Come on, speak up, there may be a Nobel in it for you.
As rates of legal gun ownership go up, so do rates of gun accidents resulting in injury or death.
"Think of it as evolution in action."
Although your statement actually turns out not to be the case, as a sibling posting points out: Firearms accidents have been on a steady, and steep, decline for decades both per capita and in absolute numbers, while legal gun ownership has held relatively steady per capita, and climbed significantly in absolute terms.
it must be strictly limited and licensed and monitored
people understand this about car ownership, why they don't understand this about gun ownership is beyond me
You have a defective understanding of car ownership. Car ownership is not "strictly limited and licensed and monitored". Anyone who can afford one can own a car. Operating said car in public is limited and licensed and monitored -- same as with firearms.
And what the hell any of this has to do with sunspots I'm not sure. I think I've been trolled.
4) The only thing we know of at this time that could be causing this global warming trend is CO2
That turns out not to be the case.
6) If we keep increasing will will make the planet uninhabitable by us.
Nope. Parts of it, maybe, but the high latitudes will become much more habitable.
7) We have workable solutions to this right now.
For some disagreed-upon values of "workable". For that matter, it's not even certain that they are "solutions".
Greenhouse gasses unquestionably contribute far more to recent warming than solar activity, although solar activity is definitely a factor.
I question it. NASA also questions it. Quote: "Indeed, the model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades." The interesting thing is that it looks at two kinds of aerosols: sulphates, which tend to reflect sunlight and cause cooling; and black carbon (soot), which absorbs sunlight and causes warming. Because of regulations on sulphur levels, the former has been dropping, but the latter has been rising in particular with the growing industrialization of Asia.
And sure, that's all (well, mostly) anthropogenic, but it's not the dreaded carbon dioxide (which actually has a much lower greenhouse effect than the water vapor in the atmosphere).
The really important question is whether the Enterprise's license plates say H3R035 on it, or something.
Just so long as they don't have the numbers 1138 in them.
Back in Apollo days they did this. Actually as I recall they didn't try growing them in pure Lunar soil (that would require too much of a scarce commodity) but in a mix of Lunar soil and sterile Earth soil. The initial objective was to make sure that Lunar soil (and any possible unknown organisms in it) wouldn't have any adverse effect on Earth plants -- but they discovered that the plants actually grew better. Turns out Lunar soil is rich in (inorganic) nutrients just as volcanic soils are.
The Moon is low in nitrogen and carbon, so those would have to be added to Lunar soil for good growth.
Unless somehow you can spin it so the force vector (Which always points out from the centre of the centrifuge) is always pointing against earths gravity. You'll need a mighty big centrifuge methinks.
Well, you don't have to build the whole centrifuge, just part of it. We call it the International Space Station, whose centrifugal force (I know, I know) balances Earth's gravity perfectly. Ditto for everything else in Earth orbit.
The thing is, it wouldn't be hard to do the experiment at almost any gee level they wanted, using a centrifuge on the space station (well, two counter-rotating centrifuges to minimize angular momentum effects on the station). Of course for greater than one gee we can do the same thing on Earth.
Actually climatologists are pretty divided on the whole global warming issue -- they understand the details a whole lot better than the hordes of laymen or non-climatalogist scientists who keep shouting about it.
Oh, past cultures had their share of porn too. If you ever get to Lima, Peru, check out the Museum of Erotic Ceramics (or whatever it's proper name is). The Inca and pre-Inca made some, ah, interesting stuff. They weren't the only ones of course - I haven't seen them myself but there are wall paintings, etc, in Pompeii that generally don't get included in the usual textbooks.
Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if the ancient "Venus" figurines that archaeologists call fertility goddesses were really porn.
oh wait. that's not how that stuff happens in any reasonable nation. [emphasis added]
Yes, well, that's the catch. Are there any? Remember, they're all run by politicians.
From TFA: "Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules," the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, "only that she was never caught."
And the assertions of the adults involved that they're not pedophiles and child molesters should not be misread to infer that they aren't, only that they were never caught.
Sheesh.
He's just following a long line of scientific investigators like the guys who refused to even look through Galileo's telescope.