* Something that's not in your list (like compressed gas)
Guess where I'd put my money....
Seriously: brown dwarfs all have about the same radius as Jupiter, but range in mass up to about 60 times that of Jupiter. Since Jupiter's density is about 1.3 g/cm^3, brown dwarfs can have average densities (not just the core) up to about 70 g/cm^3. More than twice the density of this thing.
Brown dwarfs don't get to that density by gas compression. The reason the size flattens out is that they reach a point where internal pressure suffices to form a degenerate matter core (note that degenerate matter was on my list).
With a van der Waals radius of about 1.75e-8 cm and a mass around 35*1.66e-27 kg = 6e-23 g you get on the order of 11 g/cm^3 for non-degenerate chlorine--less than half of what's needed, but getting closer.
At that temperature and pressure, you no longer are speaking of the normal states of matter that we are familiar with.
Yes and no. Mostly no. At 3000K you might have a plasma, but I'd be surprised to see a super fluid. And I don't expect to see neutronium, tight concentrations of dark matter, or anything like that. So apart from possible, we should be looking at the usual solid / liquid / gas situation.
In any case, the normal laws of physics should still apply.
Back to the subject line, I realized after posting the grandparent that the van der Waals radius would give the more appropriate density figure (in that as you get smaller than that you start hitting hard QM limits). That pulls the density down by two orders of magnitude or so (140/31)^3, putting the limit around 2 g/cm^3--which incidentally gives a fairly good agreement with the measured density and bulk modulus of crystalline helium under laboratory.
So I'm not buying compressed H/He/etc. as obtaining that sort of density in that sort of package at those temperatures.
or about 1/50000 the temperature and thus could on that basis be up to 50000 times as dense.
But that can't be the whole picture. At those pressures you'd no longer be dealing with a gas--the volume-per-atom of He would be way out of line. A helium atom occupies about (3.1e-9 cm)^3 or 3e-26 cm^3, and has a mass around 4 * 1.66e-27 kg = 6.66e-24 g, for a per-atom density of about 222 g/cm^3.
So if you could get a core making up maybe 10% of the volume as crystalline helium, I suppose you could do it.
Now, take something the size of Jupiter, put it close enough to orbit every 4 days, and ask yourself: could that maybe be an environment where gas laws might become significant?
Admittedly I'm just eyeballing it, but I can't see how you can make that work. Remember the T part of P=T/V works against you here; the higher temperature should make it less dense, which both reduces the gravitational forces on the outer portions (larger r) and increases their area and thus the amount of energy those on the sunward side absorb. Sure, you could equilibrate by spinning it fast, but that makes things worse in a different way.
I can see how you could get the core density up that high, but not the total density. Remember, the sun, for all it's size and mass, is only a few percent more dense than Jupiter.
In some systems, yeah, it is. Set c=1 (space-time unification), measure masses and energies in the same units (E=mc^2), and so on. But I (obviously) wasn't using one of those systems, I was using g/cm^3, as you probably realized.
The density of Jupiter is about 4/3, so 21 times that would put it at 28 and change. That means it would have to be significantly denser than Iridium (about 22). That means it would have to be either:
An enormous lump of some element with a very short half life
Something from some island of stability
An ultra-compact degenerate form of normal matter (iron nickel compote)
In July, the governor's office refused to disclose the contents of about 40 e-mails between Todd Palin and Gov. Palin's administration as part of a larger public records request by McLeod. Other e-mails between Todd Palin and the governor's staff were released, McLeod said, but had some parts redacted. Todd Palin is copied as a recipient on most of the e-mails but also authored a few.
Some of the subject lines of the withheld e-mails, which were created between Feb. 1 and Apr. 15. of this year, included: "Andrew Halcro," and "PSEA." Halcro is a political rival of Palin. The PSEA is the union that represents the Alaska State Troopers, including trooper Mike Wooten, who is divorced from Gov. Palin's sister and is also a key figure in the investigation of Monegan's firing.
I seem to see dozens of posters who have decided that Palin was conducting government business over her email. I thought I'd read all the email that had been made public. Did I miss some? Where is this idea coming from?
According to The Anchorage Daily News her use of secret accounts for state business was already an issue before McCain selected her as his running mate. A records request this summer by a fellow Republican (Andree McLeod) turned up the fact that she was playing fast and loose with the state records laws.
The governor's Yahoo account is "the most nonsensical, inane thing I've ever heard of," said Andree McLeod, who is appealing the administration's decision to withhold e-mails.
"The governor sets the tone and the tone that has been set by this governor is beyond the pale," McLeod said. "Common sense tells you to use an official state e-mail account for official state business."
[snip]
"I think that it's total hypocrisy from what she stood for at the beginning of her campaign," Henning said. "Because she campaigned on open government, and she knew that using a private e-mail account would take it and basically hide stuff that people couldn't see."
As far as McLeod can tell, all but one of the e-mails to the governor used her private e-mail address. The one time an aide e-mailed the governor's state account, he was reminded not to.
"Frank, This is not the Governor's personal e-mail account," an assistant to Palin wrote to Bailey in February.
"Whoops~!" Bailey responded in an e-mail.
The Republicans in Alaska had had just about enough of her before McCain swooped in. There was bipartisan support for several investigations against her and a growing consensus towards impeachment.
Now, of course, that's all forgotten, at least in some quarters.
Has anyone actually SEEN an email that was "conducting government business"? If so, can you please post the content?
I think that's the whole point. They haven't seen the emails, but their existence has been made clear by (among other things) the privilege logs, other e-mails, and sworn testimony of her staffers. So far, she's refusing to turn them over.
--MarkusQ
Check your own logic before calling others crazy
on
Fossett's Plane Found
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Last I heard, they were saying he appeared to have hiked at least a half kilometer from the crash site, to where his cash and ID were found.
This isn't to say that he isn't dead now, or that someone else found the crash site and (for reasons unexplained) took his ID and a grand in cash from it, then hid them where the hiker later found them, but the simplest explanation is that he survived the crash.
So the fact that they found the plane does not automatically make anyone claiming he is alive "crazy".
turn the lowly Excel into something that rivals Mathematica using VBA, brains, and a heaping helping of fortitude
So? What's so special about that? You can turn C, Fortran, or even assembly language into something that rivals Mathematica using brains and a heaping helping of fortitude. This is arguably a better deal, since you don't need the VBA.
Find and watch episodes of and old cop show called "Columbo".
Whenever you are unsure of anything, act like Peter Falk's character (Columbo). Whenever you are very sure of something, try even harder to act like that. If things don't make sense to you, ask questions, do experiments, use google, use your brain until they do make sense. And if you have a theory (or a plan, or a piece of code) that you are sure is right, put it to the test.
Don't be a know-it-all, don't blindly assume that you know anything. People sometimes get annoyed at developers who take nothing for granted, but that sort of attitude gets results, so they put up with it a lot longer than they put up with developers that assume they already know everything and project that assurance right up to the point where the project goes down in smoldering ruin.
The result: a slightly higher failure rate -- around around 0.6 percent more -- among the air-cooled servers compared to those in the company's main datacenter -- and a potential savings of $2.87 million per year
The savings should be more than enough to pay for replacement hardware, and even for upgrades. And stepping back and looking at the big picture tells me that there is at least one brilliant person at Intel--whoever though of doing this study is a genius!
Although I suppose the fact that I can joke about it means I'm coming along. *twitch* *twitch*
--MarkusQ
Who's calling who a liar?
on
Plane Simple Truth
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
While it is too broad to call the authors of Fuel efficiency of commercial aircraft: An overview of historical and future trends liars; their mediocre research created the scenario that far too many took their research as reality. Known as the Peeters report, after lead author P.M. Peeters, the authors of Plane Simple Truth refute the wide-spread belief that the fuel efficiency gains in the commercial aviation sector are erroneous, which is the principle theme of the Peeters report."
Pop quiz: who is calling who a liar in this paragraph? For that matter, how many parties are being discussed here, and what are their positions on fuel efficiency?
Arctic sea ice may well have reached its lowest volumes ever, as summer ice coverage of the Arctic Sea looks set to be close to last year's record lows, with thinner ice overall.
So now will you please stop peddling your "Arctic Ice Is Increasing" bilge and other "Global Warming Is A Myth" nonsense?
Arctic sea ice may well have reached its lowest volumes ever, as summer ice coverage of the Arctic Sea looks set to be close to last year's record lows, with thinner ice overall.
So now will you please stop peddling your "Arctic Ice Is Increasing" bilge?
While i agree on the "Clarifying" part, i think it's better to use FLOSS or libre software instead of free. When you use FLOSS or free, you don't need to explain what homonym you were referring to.
The problem is that both uses have adherents who have a legitimate claim to the use of the word. Asking one or the other to choose a different word (thus implying that the other use is in some way "more correct") is not a neutral move and is just as likely to set off a flame war. The convention of disallowing the term "free software" in favor of a pair of terms (something like "libre software" and "gratis software") might have caught on, but if it had anytime anyone forgot and said "free software" there would be a flurry of posts asking them "free as in libre or free as in gratis?" and you would no doubt be as annoyed by them.
The speech/beer convention was devised as a patch for a bug in the English language. One word, "free", has two distinct meanings. Normally people deal with these cases by using context ("Some atoms are ionized but most are unionized" vs. "Plumbers in many areas are unionized") but in this case both meanings are plausible. The two types are free are distinct, software could be free in either sense, yet English (unlike most other languages) gives us only one preferred word for both meanings.
This resulted in numerous exceedingly tedious flame wars that ended, if at all, with a lame "Oh, that's not what I thought you meant--why didn't you say so in the first place?"
Clarifying which homonym is intended right up front may annoy you, but trust me, it is far, far better than the alternative.
Well, I've yet to see a person, until now, who can _quote_ the relevant factoid without understanding it even after several tries:)
Recap: I've proven my point, with data. You've tried to make a point to which you have no supporting data.
Corrected recap:
Volume equals total area times average thickness, by definition. Thus the total amount of arctic ice equals the surface area covered by ice times its average thickness.
Neither of us have current data on average thickness, all we know is that the multi-year trend has been downward and all indication is that the trend has continued. Even the source you cited seems to confirm this.
The data we have been using as a surrogate for total area is current but flawed in at least two ways:
It only accounts for sea ice, not circumpolar land ice.
It gives the percentage of sea surface area that is 15% or more covered by ice. This is at best loosely coupled with total sea-ice area.
This data does not show a significant increase in sea ice area, being nearly the same as the record low.
That is the sum total of relevant facts introduced on this thread. You have not proven your point with data.
There is a well understood mechanism for rapid reduction in total arctic ice volume--melting, due to increased ambient temperature.
There is no clear mechanism for equally rapid increase in arctic ice volume--the only known accretion mechanism is limited by the rate of precipitation, which is low.
From this you have concluded that total arctic ice is increasing, and anyone who doesn't agree is clueless.
From the same data I have concluded that total arctic ice is most likely continuing to diminish, and that you are a troll, albeit an amusing one.
I'd like to think the U.S. is a stronger democracy than that, but I dunno as I'm an Aussie.
I'd like to think we were a stronger democracy than this too.
But I gotta believe my eyes. We The People are allowed to play our little game of self rule so long as we don't get in the way of Big Oil, Big Pharma, the Telco Gang, and the *IAAs, and so on. Which leaves us precious little to play with.
That's a first for me. I've been on the internet for twenty years, and I thought I'd seen everything.
But I was wrong.
Up until this very day I had never seen the "I was stuck in English so I'm switching to Danish" gambit before.
--MarkusQ
P.S. As for the rest of your post, I am aware of the solar cycle running late and the changes in Earth's magnetic field. I have yet to see an explanation of how these seemingly unrelated effects would transport a large amount of water to the arctic, let alone how they would freeze it. 'cause if you want to have the total amount of arctic ice increase, that's what will need to happen.
P.P.S. I also note that your link is just a news article that says the arctic is open on both the East and West for the first time since records have been kept. It says that, while theoretically navigable, the trip would not be safe for unprepared vessels. It says that the proportion of sea ice is nearly as low as last years record low (presumably a reference to the same data you started with) but it says nothing about the total amount of arctic ice. It then goes on to discuss the international vs. territorial waters issue.
P.P.P.S. You might note that the same source has another story titled "Smeltning i øst og vest åbner arktiske sejlruter samtidigt" (roughly "There is only thin ice covering the pole this winter")--hardly an endorsement of your growing icecap theory.
This old myth actually never had its origin in science
From the first paragraph of the link you cite:
Perhaps it was the work of Karl Lashley in the 1920s and 1930s that started it. Lashley removed large areas of the cerebral cortex in rats and found that these animals could still relearn specific tasks.
Also, if you read my post again you'll see that I'm holding the 10% myth up as a well known example of bad use of partial knowledge. The point here is to question such cases when they come up, not to keep flogging them long after their dead, or (worse, IMHO) try to deny that they ever happened.
You found out what 10% of the brain does (the sensory/motor areas)? The other 90% must not be used for anything.
Find out how to read the DNA code used for a few percent of the genome (the codons to protein via RNA parts)? The rest must be junk.
You'd have a good point... except that no serious researcher in neuroscience or genetics has ever claimed either of those things.
Nuts. Galen, widely recognized as the father of modern medicine, thought the brain was used to cool blood (like a radiator). There has been a long line between where he was and where we are today, and pretty much every error that plausibly could be made has been, at some point along the way, by some serious researcher. For that matter, Roger Penrose, a Fellow of the Royal Society of London, claims that we don't use any of our brain to think with, and instead do some sort of funky thing with quantum gravity in our microtubules, which only he seems to understand. I think he's wrong, but you'd be hard pressed not to call him (or Galen) a serious researcher, unless you play the game of saying that people who weren't on the right track aren't serious researchers, which makes your claim trivially true, since no serious will ever have been wrong about anything.
Every time early researchers solve part of a problem they seem to label the part they haven't solved as being unimportant or irrelevant.
You found out what 10% of the brain does (the sensory/motor areas)? The other 90% must not be used for anything.
Find out how to read the DNA code used for a few percent of the genome (the codons to protein via RNA parts)? The rest must be junk.
When will we learn? Writing "Here there be dragons" at least had to benefit that it led future explorers to (correctly) assume that these places might have something interesting in them.
--MarkusQ
P.S. I can't do car analogies, but for the last fifty years or so we've known how to extract strings from the data segment and thought we understood "the" genetic code. Now it's turning out that all that "junk DNA" in the code segment actually has a significant regulatory role in deciding which strings get printed, and when. Who would have guessed?
Slashdot Mirror
Brown dwarfs don't get to that density by gas compression. The reason the size flattens out is that they reach a point where internal pressure suffices to form a degenerate matter core (note that degenerate matter was on my list).
--MarkusQ
With a van der Waals radius of about 1.75e-8 cm and a mass around 35*1.66e-27 kg = 6e-23 g you get on the order of 11 g/cm^3 for non-degenerate chlorine--less than half of what's needed, but getting closer.
--MarkusQ
Yes and no. Mostly no. At 3000K you might have a plasma, but I'd be surprised to see a super fluid. And I don't expect to see neutronium, tight concentrations of dark matter, or anything like that. So apart from possible, we should be looking at the usual solid / liquid / gas situation.
In any case, the normal laws of physics should still apply.
Back to the subject line, I realized after posting the grandparent that the van der Waals radius would give the more appropriate density figure (in that as you get smaller than that you start hitting hard QM limits). That pulls the density down by two orders of magnitude or so (140/31)^3, putting the limit around 2 g/cm^3--which incidentally gives a fairly good agreement with the measured density and bulk modulus of crystalline helium under laboratory.
So I'm not buying compressed H/He/etc. as obtaining that sort of density in that sort of package at those temperatures.
--MarkusQ
Good point. This planet should be about
(0K+6000K)/2
------------------
150000000K
or about 1/50000 the temperature and thus could on that basis be up to 50000 times as dense.
But that can't be the whole picture. At those pressures you'd no longer be dealing with a gas--the volume-per-atom of He would be way out of line. A helium atom occupies about (3.1e-9 cm)^3 or 3e-26 cm^3, and has a mass around 4 * 1.66e-27 kg = 6.66e-24 g, for a per-atom density of about 222 g/cm^3.
So if you could get a core making up maybe 10% of the volume as crystalline helium, I suppose you could do it.
--MarkusQ
Admittedly I'm just eyeballing it, but I can't see how you can make that work. Remember the T part of P=T/V works against you here; the higher temperature should make it less dense, which both reduces the gravitational forces on the outer portions (larger r) and increases their area and thus the amount of energy those on the sunward side absorb. Sure, you could equilibrate by spinning it fast, but that makes things worse in a different way.
I can see how you could get the core density up that high, but not the total density. Remember, the sun, for all it's size and mass, is only a few percent more dense than Jupiter.
--MarkusQ
In some systems, yeah, it is. Set c=1 (space-time unification), measure masses and energies in the same units (E=mc^2), and so on. But I (obviously) wasn't using one of those systems, I was using g/cm^3, as you probably realized.
--MarkusQ
The density of Jupiter is about 4/3, so 21 times that would put it at 28 and change. That means it would have to be significantly denser than Iridium (about 22). That means it would have to be either:
Guess where I'd put my money...
--MarkusQ
Her attorneys filed this privilege log after initialy refusing to suply a small set as described here:
--MarkusQ
According to The Anchorage Daily News her use of secret accounts for state business was already an issue before McCain selected her as his running mate. A records request this summer by a fellow Republican (Andree McLeod) turned up the fact that she was playing fast and loose with the state records laws.
The Republicans in Alaska had had just about enough of her before McCain swooped in. There was bipartisan support for several investigations against her and a growing consensus towards impeachment.
Now, of course, that's all forgotten, at least in some quarters.
I think that's the whole point. They haven't seen the emails, but their existence has been made clear by (among other things) the privilege logs, other e-mails, and sworn testimony of her staffers. So far, she's refusing to turn them over.
--MarkusQ
Last I heard, they were saying he appeared to have hiked at least a half kilometer from the crash site, to where his cash and ID were found.
This isn't to say that he isn't dead now, or that someone else found the crash site and (for reasons unexplained) took his ID and a grand in cash from it, then hid them where the hiker later found them, but the simplest explanation is that he survived the crash.
So the fact that they found the plane does not automatically make anyone claiming he is alive "crazy".
--MarkusQ
So? What's so special about that? You can turn C, Fortran, or even assembly language into something that rivals Mathematica using brains and a heaping helping of fortitude. This is arguably a better deal, since you don't need the VBA.
--MarkusQ
Find and watch episodes of and old cop show called "Columbo".
Whenever you are unsure of anything, act like Peter Falk's character (Columbo). Whenever you are very sure of something, try even harder to act like that. If things don't make sense to you, ask questions, do experiments, use google, use your brain until they do make sense. And if you have a theory (or a plan, or a piece of code) that you are sure is right, put it to the test.
Don't be a know-it-all, don't blindly assume that you know anything. People sometimes get annoyed at developers who take nothing for granted, but that sort of attitude gets results, so they put up with it a lot longer than they put up with developers that assume they already know everything and project that assurance right up to the point where the project goes down in smoldering ruin.
--MarkusQ
The savings should be more than enough to pay for replacement hardware, and even for upgrades. And stepping back and looking at the big picture tells me that there is at least one brilliant person at Intel--whoever though of doing this study is a genius!
--MarkusQ
I'm waiting for Virtual Staff Meeting.
*shudder*
Although I suppose the fact that I can joke about it means I'm coming along. *twitch* *twitch*
--MarkusQ
Pop quiz: who is calling who a liar in this paragraph? For that matter, how many parties are being discussed here, and what are their positions on fuel efficiency?
--MarkusQ
And now we've got the data that was missing from our last discussion (I also posted this there).
This year's thickness data shows that, just as I said, "Arctic ice cover is following a trend of becoming younger and thinner each year". The lead on the article:
So now will you please stop peddling your "Arctic Ice Is Increasing" bilge and other "Global Warming Is A Myth" nonsense?
--MarkusQ
Ok, now we've got some data.
This year's thickness data shows that, just as I said, "Arctic ice cover is following a trend of becoming younger and thinner each year". The lead on the article:
So now will you please stop peddling your "Arctic Ice Is Increasing" bilge?
--MarkusQ
The problem is that both uses have adherents who have a legitimate claim to the use of the word. Asking one or the other to choose a different word (thus implying that the other use is in some way "more correct") is not a neutral move and is just as likely to set off a flame war. The convention of disallowing the term "free software" in favor of a pair of terms (something like "libre software" and "gratis software") might have caught on, but if it had anytime anyone forgot and said "free software" there would be a flurry of posts asking them "free as in libre or free as in gratis?" and you would no doubt be as annoyed by them.
--MarkusQ
Your annoyance is misplaced.
The speech/beer convention was devised as a patch for a bug in the English language. One word, "free", has two distinct meanings. Normally people deal with these cases by using context ("Some atoms are ionized but most are unionized" vs. "Plumbers in many areas are unionized") but in this case both meanings are plausible. The two types are free are distinct, software could be free in either sense, yet English (unlike most other languages) gives us only one preferred word for both meanings.
This resulted in numerous exceedingly tedious flame wars that ended, if at all, with a lame "Oh, that's not what I thought you meant--why didn't you say so in the first place?"
Clarifying which homonym is intended right up front may annoy you, but trust me, it is far, far better than the alternative.
--MarkusQ
Corrected recap:
This data does not show a significant increase in sea ice area, being nearly the same as the record low.
--MarkusQ
I'd like to think we were a stronger democracy than this too.
But I gotta believe my eyes. We The People are allowed to play our little game of self rule so long as we don't get in the way of Big Oil, Big Pharma, the Telco Gang, and the *IAAs, and so on. Which leaves us precious little to play with.
--MarkusQ
Ok, I have to admit it.
That's a first for me. I've been on the internet for twenty years, and I thought I'd seen everything.
But I was wrong.
Up until this very day I had never seen the "I was stuck in English so I'm switching to Danish" gambit before.
--MarkusQ
P.S. As for the rest of your post, I am aware of the solar cycle running late and the changes in Earth's magnetic field. I have yet to see an explanation of how these seemingly unrelated effects would transport a large amount of water to the arctic, let alone how they would freeze it. 'cause if you want to have the total amount of arctic ice increase, that's what will need to happen.
P.P.S. I also note that your link is just a news article that says the arctic is open on both the East and West for the first time since records have been kept. It says that, while theoretically navigable, the trip would not be safe for unprepared vessels. It says that the proportion of sea ice is nearly as low as last years record low (presumably a reference to the same data you started with) but it says nothing about the total amount of arctic ice. It then goes on to discuss the international vs. territorial waters issue.
P.P.P.S. You might note that the same source has another story titled "Smeltning i øst og vest åbner arktiske sejlruter samtidigt" (roughly "There is only thin ice covering the pole this winter")--hardly an endorsement of your growing icecap theory.
From the first paragraph of the link you cite:
Also, if you read my post again you'll see that I'm holding the 10% myth up as a well known example of bad use of partial knowledge. The point here is to question such cases when they come up, not to keep flogging them long after their dead, or (worse, IMHO) try to deny that they ever happened.
--MarkusQ
Nuts. Galen, widely recognized as the father of modern medicine, thought the brain was used to cool blood (like a radiator). There has been a long line between where he was and where we are today, and pretty much every error that plausibly could be made has been, at some point along the way, by some serious researcher. For that matter, Roger Penrose, a Fellow of the Royal Society of London, claims that we don't use any of our brain to think with, and instead do some sort of funky thing with quantum gravity in our microtubules, which only he seems to understand. I think he's wrong, but you'd be hard pressed not to call him (or Galen) a serious researcher, unless you play the game of saying that people who weren't on the right track aren't serious researchers, which makes your claim trivially true, since no serious will ever have been wrong about anything.
--MarkusQ
Every time early researchers solve part of a problem they seem to label the part they haven't solved as being unimportant or irrelevant.
You found out what 10% of the brain does (the sensory/motor areas)? The other 90% must not be used for anything.
Find out how to read the DNA code used for a few percent of the genome (the codons to protein via RNA parts)? The rest must be junk.
When will we learn? Writing "Here there be dragons" at least had to benefit that it led future explorers to (correctly) assume that these places might have something interesting in them.
--MarkusQ
P.S. I can't do car analogies, but for the last fifty years or so we've known how to extract strings from the data segment and thought we understood "the" genetic code. Now it's turning out that all that "junk DNA" in the code segment actually has a significant regulatory role in deciding which strings get printed, and when. Who would have guessed?