For every nickel atom converted to copper, you need about 4 additional neutrons to make stable copper (they state there is no left over radioactivity). Where are those coming from? Those are probably harder to get than shoving the single proton into the nucleus, which is hard enough!
Not plausible. But repeatable results by independent investigators is always plausible. And they don't have that either.
The/. title of this article is wrong, stupid and misleading.
The title of TFA is "Dynamical mass generation via space compactification in graphene", which is mostly incomprehensible.
The abstract sez "Fermions in a graphene sheet behave like massless particles. We show that by folding the sheet into a tube they acquire non-zero effective mass as they move along the tube axis. That is, changing the space topology of graphene from 2D to 1D (space compactification) changes the 2D massless problem into an effective massive 1D problem."
A plain english annotated translation is "Electrons in a graphene sheet behave like massless particles. We show that by folding the sheet into a tube they behave like massive particles as they move along the tube axis. That is, changing the shape of graphene from 2D to 1D changes the 2D massless problem into an effective 1D massive problem, which may be easier to solve or model or understand in certain respects.
Note electrons have the same real mass in both cases. Mass is not being created or destroyed.
...means the net will lose speed every time it captures some junk. The author needs to take high school physics again.
Tacking on a sailboat works because the wind is blowing on the sail, adding energy to the whole craft.
Scooping stuff in a net is just an inelastic collision. The momentum gain of the junk will equal the momentum loss of the net. The net's orbit will decay as it captures more and more junk.
Actually, it's the Earth and the Sun. It's on the Earth-Sun line, behind the earth (from the sun's point of view), and orbits the sun once a year. They put it here because it's easier to shield the satellite from both the Sun and Earth.
The L2 point for the Earth-Moon system is on the Earth-Moon line, behind the moon, and orbits the earth once evry 29.5 days.
Despite the overwrought and flowery prose, it's just a machine, albeit semi-autonomous. Kind of like a steam engine with a governor. It performs tasks that are difficult or impossible for humans. Thanks.
The big deal, according to the article, is that they were able to detect it for the first time, not that it was discovered. It is expected to be present.
Here's a quote from one of the workers:
If we were able to detect [methane] on a more hospitable planet in the future, it would really be something exciting.
But there could be other mathematical models of "uninfomed".
Exactly. In California, for example, the wording of propositions must be specified in the positive: A "yes" vote always means to adopt the proposed change, a "no" vote always means to reject the proposed change.
An uninformed voter could vote "no" on all propositions. This is not an unreasonable thing to do.
Not voting is not neutral: It is supporting the majority or plurality (not incumbents).
This gruesome industrial accident would not have happened in a world in which robot behavior was governed by the Three Laws of Robotics drawn up by Isaac Asimov, a science-fiction writer.
The machine that accidentally killed the person is not capable of following the 3 laws of robotics. It was like a train hitting somone on the tracks -- someone in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The three laws require sophisticated sensors and very sophisticated processing, the likes of which I have not seen in any computer yet.
As with any observation, there are errors. The errors cause predictions of the future position of the asteroid to be basically a "fuzzy ellipsoid", instead of a point.
At two points in the future, an apparently small section of this fuzzy ellipsoid partially intersects the earth. From that intersection, they calculate a roughly 1 in 1000 chance that it will actually hit the earth.
As more observations of the asteroid are made, the orbit becomes better refined, and the ellipsoid shrinks. If they keep up this process, eventually it shrinks so that it no longer intersects the earth.
So, a month from now, the probability may be 1 in 2000. A year from now, 1 in 10,000. And, finally, two years from now, zero.
if this is actually true, it's pure, unvarnished evil.
Or perhaps just negligence. Possibly even criminal negligence. But "pure evil" as a standard won't stand up in court, unless we go back to persecuting witches.
Slashdot Mirror
I call BS.
For every nickel atom converted to copper, you need about 4 additional neutrons to make stable copper (they state there is no left over radioactivity). Where are those coming from? Those are probably harder to get than shoving the single proton into the nucleus, which is hard enough!
Not plausible. But repeatable results by independent investigators is always plausible. And they don't have that either.
The /. title of this article is wrong, stupid and misleading.
The title of TFA is "Dynamical mass generation via space compactification in graphene", which is mostly incomprehensible.
The abstract sez "Fermions in a graphene sheet behave like massless particles. We show that by folding the sheet into a tube they acquire non-zero effective mass as they move along the tube axis. That is, changing the space topology of graphene from 2D to 1D (space compactification) changes the 2D massless problem into an effective massive 1D problem."
A plain english annotated translation is "Electrons in a graphene sheet behave like massless particles. We show that by folding the sheet into a tube they behave like massive particles as they move along the tube axis. That is, changing the shape of graphene from 2D to 1D changes the 2D massless problem into an effective 1D massive problem, which may be easier to solve or model or understand in certain respects.
Note electrons have the same real mass in both cases. Mass is not being created or destroyed.
This sounds like the first step in human batteries, ala The Matrix.
...means the net will lose speed every time it captures some junk. The author needs to take high school physics again.
Tacking on a sailboat works because the wind is blowing on the sail, adding energy to the whole craft.
Scooping stuff in a net is just an inelastic collision. The momentum gain of the junk will equal the momentum loss of the net. The net's orbit will decay as it captures more and more junk.
Actually, it's the Earth and the Sun. It's on the Earth-Sun line, behind the earth (from the sun's point of view), and orbits the sun once a year. They put it here because it's easier to shield the satellite from both the Sun and Earth.
The L2 point for the Earth-Moon system is on the Earth-Moon line, behind the moon, and orbits the earth once evry 29.5 days.
I recognize those two clusters, but there is a another big cluster in my own social network: People who only check their e-mail once a day (or less).
I myself cannot comprehend such behavior.
This mistake proves the premise of the article.
Could it be worse than melting a 40-ton magnet, which actually happened?
Despite the overwrought and flowery prose, it's just a machine, albeit semi-autonomous. Kind of like a steam engine with a governor. It performs tasks that are difficult or impossible for humans. Thanks.
You don't have to read very far to see that the author of the article does not really want to be an engineer!
This is like someone who hates the French language majoring in French, and then wanting to change the major to make it easier.
Here's a quote from one of the workers:
Looks like Blockbuster FUD to me.
Exactly. In California, for example, the wording of propositions must be specified in the positive: A "yes" vote always means to adopt the proposed change, a "no" vote always means to reject the proposed change.
An uninformed voter could vote "no" on all propositions. This is not an unreasonable thing to do.
Not voting is not neutral: It is supporting the majority or plurality (not incumbents).
...but who is reaping all the benefits?
The machine that accidentally killed the person is not capable of following the 3 laws of robotics. It was like a train hitting somone on the tracks -- someone in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The three laws require sophisticated sensors and very sophisticated processing, the likes of which I have not seen in any computer yet.
As with any observation, there are errors. The errors cause predictions of the future position of the asteroid to be basically a "fuzzy ellipsoid", instead of a point.
At two points in the future, an apparently small section of this fuzzy ellipsoid partially intersects the earth. From that intersection, they calculate a roughly 1 in 1000 chance that it will actually hit the earth.
As more observations of the asteroid are made, the orbit becomes better refined, and the ellipsoid shrinks. If they keep up this process, eventually it shrinks so that it no longer intersects the earth.
So, a month from now, the probability may be 1 in 2000. A year from now, 1 in 10,000. And, finally, two years from now, zero.
Articles like this are essentially crying "wolf!"
We do more observations of it to further refine its orbit and discover that it has no chance of impacting the earth.
Nope, this is wrong.
It's only a patent application, not an actual patent.
See this comment.
Yeah. The title of the original article is a little hysterical. Of course, there is tons of prior art on what they patented. It is also obvious.
If they're going to approve patents like this, why not do it in 5 minutes, rather than 5 years?
It is 6,990,452.
I am certain this is the patent referred to in the article. It was granted yesterday. It took the Patent Office 5 years to grant it!
TFA had a bogus number.
Check the actual patent out.
I get less spam now than I used to, but I assume that is because my ISP filters a lot of it.
I report all of it to SpamCop.
True, but the Milky Way is not even close to gravitational equilibrium, and some stars get ejected from it all the time.
By the way, there are "only" 100-200 billion stars in the Milky Way.
I think it is probably possible, though I suspect it will be difficult. Most reports I've seen it's an easy split in a 6" to 10" scope.
One guy has reported an easy split at 27x and 96x in an 80mm scope.
With 70mm aperture, I think the key will be high magnification. I would try at least 100x.
If this is a finder scope or binocular with limited power (ie., fixed at 10x or 8x), I doubt you will be able to split it.