Well, I did a lot of graduate work in plasma physics. And the story was that they MAY have witnessed a D-D reaction. The problem was that the experiment points heavily to some chemistry happening as a result of some random quantum fluctuation. That's if the products were actually and accurately measured.
Many plasma physicists don't consider the cold fusion research valid fusion research. It's considered more of a chemistry experiment.
The other thing was that there have always been questions about how the data was interpreted by the experimenters. By this I mean that other conclusions could be drawn from the data that are more plausible. (Hence the much agreed upon chemistry explanation.)
As far as the possibility of the D-D reaction happening chemically, it is possible. But it's just not very likely. It's just like quantum tunneling yourself through a concrete wall is possible, but extremely unlikely to happen in the lifetime of the universe.;)
First off, cuttlefish have a fin that they use for propulsion and steering, along with their jet. And they use their cuttlebone and an air sac for bouyancy.
Second, they are not gastropods, which are things like clams, mussels, snails, and slugs. They are cephalopods.
Which is the reason that you'll see whales flying through the water using their fins. The Reynold's Number is high enough to allow movement using fins, but low enough that lift can be sustained using those same fins.
For a smaller Reynold's number example, the cuttlefish's method of propulsion is a good one. It uses a long fin and creates a wave-like modeshape using the fin. That wave-like mode transfers momentum very well to the surrounding water because of the scale that the fin operates at. To get a similar effect in air, you'd need a wingspan that is several orders of magnitude longer and with a larger wing area.
And as a side note, Reynold's number is why you see large airplanes (747, A300, C5, etc.) with a large wingspan and relatively thick wings. But they are optimized for flying at 35,000 feet at a certain speed. Whereas if you look at the U2 (spyplane, not the band), or a glider / sailplane, you'll see long thin wings. The longer / thinner wings are much more efficient at creating lift for an equal amount of drag, but they are not the optimum design for flight at 35000 feet and Mach.8-.9, while carrying a load of several tens of tons of cargo.
If you ever get the chance to see footage of a U2 taking off, it's very impressive and I highly recommend it. The thing just seems like it goes straight up!
Because that's at least 10 times more expensive than just buying several hundred licenses for windows.
The military has a big push to use commercial off the shelf stuff whenever they can. It's usually cheaper to do things that way. Then the money can be spent on really important things like more missiles, bullets, body armor, and bombs.
But look around you. There is nothing even close to a human other then humans themselves. We are distict and separate, and that is because we were created in God's image.
Since humans and chimpanzees are something like 98% the same (they share 98% of the exact same DNA), then does that mean that God is 98% chimpanzee? Does he have prodigious amounts of body hair?
Not true.
One of the precepts of the military is logistics supply. In other words, most soldiers would rather have a vehicle that fits their needs and gets 30 mpg, than a vehicle that fits their needs and gets 10 mpg. That's the whole drive for such research.
Oil dependence doesn't have anything to do with it. You look all the way back to the first military units and there have always been three things that military leadership tries to maximize: defense ability, offense capability, and speed/maneuverability. If you can take your M1 Abrams tank and extend its range by 200 miles, you've got a more effective fighting ability.
Yeah, when I was doing RT stuff at my former employer we made a pretty unanimous decision to not even get close to WR's stuff.
Not that it couldn't do the job. They had some funky licensing thing that interfered with how we wanted to use the code.
We ended up looking at a linux variant that had some tweaks to the tasking algorithm that fit perfectly with what we wanted. I think we ended up actually going in-house because one of the engineers we had programmed some code for an earlier project and we found out that the code did the EXACT thing we wanted. But I am pretty sure we would have went linux if we didn't get the in-house stuff.
(The in-house code wasn't considered because the project was classified and all the source for it was locked away. It wasn't until that other engineer told us that we already had something in house that looked like it would work that we found out about it.)
and I love that, even when it's brutal honesty. You guys both seem to have your favorite game-types and game-styles, so it amazes me to a certain extent that you both remain consistently honest. I am curious as to how you remain so honest in your assessment of upcoming and current titles. I mean obviously you want some promising titles to fulfill your expectations, but if they don't you tell it like it is.
Because embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated. At the stage where they are harvested, each stem cell is identical to the next. Adult stem cells have structures and internal changes from their embryonic cousins, and therefore are extremely limited in how and where they can be used and it is very difficult to clone them to increase the supply. Embryonic stem cells are much easier to clone.
At least, that's my understanding of how stem cells work. I'm only a rocket scientist.
If the price is negiligible, like electricity amounts...
I don't know about you, but the price of my electricity isn't negligible! I hardly run any electric appliances at home, and only use about 600-700 kWH per month. But I still pay more than 150 per month on electricity. That's about 25 cents a kWH!
I say taht we should pay per amount of bandwith used, and then the government can tax THAT - not internet phone calls or emails sent.
I say that the energy and infrastructure required to transmit one bit of information can vary from place to place, and the quality of service is inconsistent from place to place.
Ex: one bit over a copper line between two ten year-old computers is not as expensive as one bit over fiber between two state of the art computers.
To regulate by bandwidth, as a utility, you have to have standards in place that can provide your UTILITY to all of the citizens in the US. There can't be any difference in the quality of service, and there can't be any difference in the quality of the product offered. I expect my water/electricity/gas to be as usable as my parents' water/electricity/gas in a different state. Just like my phone service is the same quality (my phone works, I can call anyone anywhere) here in CA, as it was for me when I lived in WA state. It's even the same phone company!
NASA's "secret military missions" were almost exclusively launching/retrieving spy satellites. You can't put every spy satellite onto a Delta-III.;)
As for the "black-ops military stuff", NASA has no funding for that. When there is a potential military use for something (X43, for example), then the Air Force usually steps in and says something like, "Hey, we'll help fund this if we can look at the data and possibly experiment with ways to weaponize the idea." And since NASA is so starved for cash, they'll usually say yes. It's been that way since the beginning of NASA.
There are two reasons for this:
1) NASA's budget is strictly separated from DoD's by law and Congress holds the purse strings.
2) NASA has MANY employees that are not cleared for DoD stuff. That means if you want the black ops stuff, you have to look at the DoD. NASA might take a look at analyzing something, but they won't know that that something is a DoD project. Most black ops stuff requires a clearance level above anything that anyone at NASA could ever need. Except when it comes to ideas that could be militarized; in those cases, the top people have to have the right DoD clearance since they have to know how the entire system works, not just one bolt or transistor.
I'm a pretty big guy (work out a lot), and I've stared down several of those little fuckers that you are describing. The way I see it, if I need help, I'll ask for it!
Wrong. You need to add your operators to your rules. Otherwise, you just have a bunch of gibberish. (Can't have an equality without a definition of that operator.)
In other words, you need several axioms just to get to predicate calculus as a viable theory to use. Plus, you'll need to infer a few things about your set.
Predicate calculus can define most of mathematics, but not without some help from more rules or a theorem or two (Godel's completeness theorem for one).
Set theory is still a better tool for computers. And the reason for that is because it's a stronger theory (predicate calculus needs help to have a strong enough foundation to stand on, and it lacks hypersets which are inherently natural abstractions of the kinds of sets that would describe a computer).
Your equality proof is based on some circular logic that makes it a weak proof. And it assumes that a higher set can be derived from a lower set, which can and can not be true depending on your set.
A phonon is a quantized element (as you said). It's also the measure of vibration modes in molecules. In fluids, a phonon can exist on a per-molecule or per-atom basis. You can have phonons travelling up and down a molecule if you want; it's just a word for the vibrational modes.
Sound propogation in fuilds (NOT solids) is caused by kinetic interaction of molecules and atoms. Any phonons that exist are a subset of the sound wave.
You see the difference? Phonons require the vibrational modes to be attached to some physical structure. Sound waves in a fluid are NOT explicitly quantized using photons. This is due to the fact that your sound waves depend on molecular/atomic collisions by molecules/atoms that are NOT locked in a lattice or other locked arrangement relative to their neighbors. You can talk about phonons in a CO2 molecule, but not in a CO2 gas.
You won't hear of phonons in a fluid (it doesn't make sense). But you will hear of EM force carriers (photons) interacting.
All of the above is my point: phonons don't exist in a gas. They exist for structures that are physically locked relative to their neighbors (crystals, bose-einstein condensates, ultra-dense matter, molecules, etc).
As to your statement about not talking about carrier particles... you did state in GP post:
Actually, the wave in the lake is carried by something akin to phonons (heck, they might be phonons - I hate fluid mech). That is, the wave is "transmitted" by quanta of the intermolecular forces, not by any particles in the medium itself.
I was informing you that the actual wave is carried by kinetic interaction of the molecules and atoms in the fluid. A phonon would NOT be the carrier.
Actually, set theory is what you need. Specifically, the theory of hypersets which is a non-well founded set theory (where a set can be a subset of itself).
From wikipedia:
The theory of hypersets has been applied in the logical modelling of non-terminating computational processes in computer science (process algebra and final semantics)...
In fluid mechanics you don't call the carriers phonons. You call them molecules.:D
And the wave itself is called a sound wave.:)
In a plasma there are sound waves, magnetosonic waves, and EM waves. And the carriers are either particles (atoms/molecules/electrons/ions), EM coupled movement of particles, and EM propagation with photons, respectively.
Phonons are a phsyics term that I believe arose when semiconductor physics was first investigated. The term "phonon" can apply to pretty much anything that invovles the transfer of momentum via molecular collisions in solids. It can also apply to propagation of sound waves through bose-einstein condensates (a REALLY cold state of matter that is composed of many atoms' nuclei in a mode-locked state... is the best way to think of it is that are able to tap one atom and all of them will move in synch with each other in response to your tapping... they act as one "superatom"); and the idea can be applied to sound waves travelling through black holes, neutron stars, or other similarly ultra dense forms of matter.
Phonons are also typically confined to solid materials. In liquids and gases, the correct term (and way of thinking of the wave) is a sound wave.
How, exactly, do you propose to simulate the effects of the shuttle's vibrational load?
There is a NASA owned program called STARs that can do exactly that.
As for a reynolds-averaged turbulence model... there isn't one that takes vibration into account because CFD guys aren't concerned with aeroelastic effects. That's considered a structural dynamics problem.
And for the foam impact, you don't look at KE when doing impact analysis. You look at maximum momentum transfered, time-averaged momentum transfered, and the structural response to a shock load. KE just gives a useful tool for measuring the energy content of your projectile. The impact analysis requires looking at the momentum imparted to the second body during the contact time. You can have something travelling with a KE of 100 Joules, but if that energy is transfered over the course of one billionth of a second, you can have a huge input of energy. It's the same idea as a flat plate with an area of 1 meter squared, not sinking into the ground much at all when loaded with 100 N of force. But when that 100 N of force is loaded onto a needle... well that needle is going to sink pretty darn easily.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that was Tom Leykas. And Tom had a very good point.
Which is why it's odd to me to not call the "terrorists" religious fanatics instead.
Well, I did a lot of graduate work in plasma physics. And the story was that they MAY have witnessed a D-D reaction. The problem was that the experiment points heavily to some chemistry happening as a result of some random quantum fluctuation. That's if the products were actually and accurately measured.
;)
Many plasma physicists don't consider the cold fusion research valid fusion research. It's considered more of a chemistry experiment.
The other thing was that there have always been questions about how the data was interpreted by the experimenters. By this I mean that other conclusions could be drawn from the data that are more plausible. (Hence the much agreed upon chemistry explanation.)
As far as the possibility of the D-D reaction happening chemically, it is possible. But it's just not very likely. It's just like quantum tunneling yourself through a concrete wall is possible, but extremely unlikely to happen in the lifetime of the universe.
The black ones are black because they absorb more energy than the white ones. They are also offer a slightly higher tolerance for thermal loads.
First off, cuttlefish have a fin that they use for propulsion and steering, along with their jet. And they use their cuttlebone and an air sac for bouyancy.
Second, they are not gastropods, which are things like clams, mussels, snails, and slugs. They are cephalopods.
Which is the reason that you'll see whales flying through the water using their fins. The Reynold's Number is high enough to allow movement using fins, but low enough that lift can be sustained using those same fins.
.8-.9, while carrying a load of several tens of tons of cargo.
For a smaller Reynold's number example, the cuttlefish's method of propulsion is a good one. It uses a long fin and creates a wave-like modeshape using the fin. That wave-like mode transfers momentum very well to the surrounding water because of the scale that the fin operates at. To get a similar effect in air, you'd need a wingspan that is several orders of magnitude longer and with a larger wing area.
And as a side note, Reynold's number is why you see large airplanes (747, A300, C5, etc.) with a large wingspan and relatively thick wings. But they are optimized for flying at 35,000 feet at a certain speed. Whereas if you look at the U2 (spyplane, not the band), or a glider / sailplane, you'll see long thin wings. The longer / thinner wings are much more efficient at creating lift for an equal amount of drag, but they are not the optimum design for flight at 35000 feet and Mach
If you ever get the chance to see footage of a U2 taking off, it's very impressive and I highly recommend it. The thing just seems like it goes straight up!
I'm glad I bought that pound of chicken the other day. Flesh! Yum!
Because that's at least 10 times more expensive than just buying several hundred licenses for windows. The military has a big push to use commercial off the shelf stuff whenever they can. It's usually cheaper to do things that way. Then the money can be spent on really important things like more missiles, bullets, body armor, and bombs.
You're funny!
But look around you. There is nothing even close to a human other then humans themselves. We are distict and separate, and that is because we were created in God's image.
Since humans and chimpanzees are something like 98% the same (they share 98% of the exact same DNA), then does that mean that God is 98% chimpanzee? Does he have prodigious amounts of body hair?
Not true. One of the precepts of the military is logistics supply. In other words, most soldiers would rather have a vehicle that fits their needs and gets 30 mpg, than a vehicle that fits their needs and gets 10 mpg. That's the whole drive for such research. Oil dependence doesn't have anything to do with it. You look all the way back to the first military units and there have always been three things that military leadership tries to maximize: defense ability, offense capability, and speed/maneuverability. If you can take your M1 Abrams tank and extend its range by 200 miles, you've got a more effective fighting ability.
Yeah, when I was doing RT stuff at my former employer we made a pretty unanimous decision to not even get close to WR's stuff. Not that it couldn't do the job. They had some funky licensing thing that interfered with how we wanted to use the code. We ended up looking at a linux variant that had some tweaks to the tasking algorithm that fit perfectly with what we wanted. I think we ended up actually going in-house because one of the engineers we had programmed some code for an earlier project and we found out that the code did the EXACT thing we wanted. But I am pretty sure we would have went linux if we didn't get the in-house stuff. (The in-house code wasn't considered because the project was classified and all the source for it was locked away. It wasn't until that other engineer told us that we already had something in house that looked like it would work that we found out about it.)
Maybe to use a left handed coordinate system? There are some transforms that can be performed faster using a left-handed system.
Probably the government. If it's the latter, then it doesn't make sense.
and I love that, even when it's brutal honesty. You guys both seem to have your favorite game-types and game-styles, so it amazes me to a certain extent that you both remain consistently honest. I am curious as to how you remain so honest in your assessment of upcoming and current titles. I mean obviously you want some promising titles to fulfill your expectations, but if they don't you tell it like it is.
Because embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated. At the stage where they are harvested, each stem cell is identical to the next. Adult stem cells have structures and internal changes from their embryonic cousins, and therefore are extremely limited in how and where they can be used and it is very difficult to clone them to increase the supply. Embryonic stem cells are much easier to clone.
At least, that's my understanding of how stem cells work. I'm only a rocket scientist.
If the price is negiligible, like electricity amounts...
I don't know about you, but the price of my electricity isn't negligible! I hardly run any electric appliances at home, and only use about 600-700 kWH per month. But I still pay more than 150 per month on electricity. That's about 25 cents a kWH!
I say taht we should pay per amount of bandwith used, and then the government can tax THAT - not internet phone calls or emails sent.
I say that the energy and infrastructure required to transmit one bit of information can vary from place to place, and the quality of service is inconsistent from place to place.
Ex: one bit over a copper line between two ten year-old computers is not as expensive as one bit over fiber between two state of the art computers.
To regulate by bandwidth, as a utility, you have to have standards in place that can provide your UTILITY to all of the citizens in the US. There can't be any difference in the quality of service, and there can't be any difference in the quality of the product offered. I expect my water/electricity/gas to be as usable as my parents' water/electricity/gas in a different state. Just like my phone service is the same quality (my phone works, I can call anyone anywhere) here in CA, as it was for me when I lived in WA state. It's even the same phone company!
NASA's "secret military missions" were almost exclusively launching/retrieving spy satellites. You can't put every spy satellite onto a Delta-III. ;)
As for the "black-ops military stuff", NASA has no funding for that. When there is a potential military use for something (X43, for example), then the Air Force usually steps in and says something like, "Hey, we'll help fund this if we can look at the data and possibly experiment with ways to weaponize the idea." And since NASA is so starved for cash, they'll usually say yes. It's been that way since the beginning of NASA.
There are two reasons for this:
1) NASA's budget is strictly separated from DoD's by law and Congress holds the purse strings.
2) NASA has MANY employees that are not cleared for DoD stuff. That means if you want the black ops stuff, you have to look at the DoD. NASA might take a look at analyzing something, but they won't know that that something is a DoD project. Most black ops stuff requires a clearance level above anything that anyone at NASA could ever need. Except when it comes to ideas that could be militarized; in those cases, the top people have to have the right DoD clearance since they have to know how the entire system works, not just one bolt or transistor.
I'm a pretty big guy (work out a lot), and I've stared down several of those little fuckers that you are describing. The way I see it, if I need help, I'll ask for it!
I used to think Debra Feldman was pretty hot. Though that was a couple of years ago. I also thought Dawn Scott (on Kiro, I think) was pretty hot too.
Wrong. You need to add your operators to your rules. Otherwise, you just have a bunch of gibberish. (Can't have an equality without a definition of that operator.)
In other words, you need several axioms just to get to predicate calculus as a viable theory to use. Plus, you'll need to infer a few things about your set.
Predicate calculus can define most of mathematics, but not without some help from more rules or a theorem or two (Godel's completeness theorem for one).
Set theory is still a better tool for computers. And the reason for that is because it's a stronger theory (predicate calculus needs help to have a strong enough foundation to stand on, and it lacks hypersets which are inherently natural abstractions of the kinds of sets that would describe a computer).
Your equality proof is based on some circular logic that makes it a weak proof. And it assumes that a higher set can be derived from a lower set, which can and can not be true depending on your set.
But that's not entirely correct.
A phonon is a quantized element (as you said). It's also the measure of vibration modes in molecules. In fluids, a phonon can exist on a per-molecule or per-atom basis. You can have phonons travelling up and down a molecule if you want; it's just a word for the vibrational modes.
Sound propogation in fuilds (NOT solids) is caused by kinetic interaction of molecules and atoms. Any phonons that exist are a subset of the sound wave.
You see the difference? Phonons require the vibrational modes to be attached to some physical structure. Sound waves in a fluid are NOT explicitly quantized using photons. This is due to the fact that your sound waves depend on molecular/atomic collisions by molecules/atoms that are NOT locked in a lattice or other locked arrangement relative to their neighbors. You can talk about phonons in a CO2 molecule, but not in a CO2 gas.
You won't hear of phonons in a fluid (it doesn't make sense). But you will hear of EM force carriers (photons) interacting.
All of the above is my point: phonons don't exist in a gas. They exist for structures that are physically locked relative to their neighbors (crystals, bose-einstein condensates, ultra-dense matter, molecules, etc).
As to your statement about not talking about carrier particles... you did state in GP post:
Actually, the wave in the lake is carried by something akin to phonons (heck, they might be phonons - I hate fluid mech). That is, the wave is "transmitted" by quanta of the intermolecular forces, not by any particles in the medium itself.
I was informing you that the actual wave is carried by kinetic interaction of the molecules and atoms in the fluid. A phonon would NOT be the carrier.
Actually, set theory is what you need. Specifically, the theory of hypersets which is a non-well founded set theory (where a set can be a subset of itself).
From wikipedia:
The theory of hypersets has been applied in the logical modelling of non-terminating computational processes in computer science (process algebra and final semantics)...
In fluid mechanics you don't call the carriers phonons. You call them molecules. :D
:)
And the wave itself is called a sound wave.
In a plasma there are sound waves, magnetosonic waves, and EM waves. And the carriers are either particles (atoms/molecules/electrons/ions), EM coupled movement of particles, and EM propagation with photons, respectively.
Phonons are a phsyics term that I believe arose when semiconductor physics was first investigated. The term "phonon" can apply to pretty much anything that invovles the transfer of momentum via molecular collisions in solids. It can also apply to propagation of sound waves through bose-einstein condensates (a REALLY cold state of matter that is composed of many atoms' nuclei in a mode-locked state... is the best way to think of it is that are able to tap one atom and all of them will move in synch with each other in response to your tapping... they act as one "superatom"); and the idea can be applied to sound waves travelling through black holes, neutron stars, or other similarly ultra dense forms of matter.
Phonons are also typically confined to solid materials. In liquids and gases, the correct term (and way of thinking of the wave) is a sound wave.
That was actually a DSP. And it was a DSP built for a specific purpose. It was a military application/experiment if I recall correctly.
Shouldn't that be KOMO 4, and Kong 6/16 (which replayed KING 5's news, at least when I used to live up there).
I actually miss how hyped up those news people were. Especially Jim Forman. That guy is hilarious.
How, exactly, do you propose to simulate the effects of the shuttle's vibrational load?
There is a NASA owned program called STARs that can do exactly that.
As for a reynolds-averaged turbulence model... there isn't one that takes vibration into account because CFD guys aren't concerned with aeroelastic effects. That's considered a structural dynamics problem.
And for the foam impact, you don't look at KE when doing impact analysis. You look at maximum momentum transfered, time-averaged momentum transfered, and the structural response to a shock load. KE just gives a useful tool for measuring the energy content of your projectile. The impact analysis requires looking at the momentum imparted to the second body during the contact time. You can have something travelling with a KE of 100 Joules, but if that energy is transfered over the course of one billionth of a second, you can have a huge input of energy. It's the same idea as a flat plate with an area of 1 meter squared, not sinking into the ground much at all when loaded with 100 N of force. But when that 100 N of force is loaded onto a needle... well that needle is going to sink pretty darn easily.