In the image, they show the MoS_2 layer on a silicon+SiO_2 substrate. I don't doubt that there is some way to deposit a MoS_2 layer on a glass surface without growing a pure MoS_2 crystal. Whether you can make such a process cost-effective is a different question...
There's a big difference between moving 35 atoms with an STM and trying to count out 6.02*10^24 atoms of anything. Keep in mind that the definition of mole and atomic mass units would need to be refined. In reality, you'd probably need to define it to some accuracy like 6.02000000*10^24. That being said, if you could move one atom per second, it would take ~190.77*10^15 years to get a kg mass by counting out a mole.
Except then the man with one watch notes that the sunrise is taking 15 minutes shorter than it used to in the past, and recipes that he knows were good in the past are now all coming out burned crisps.
Counting out 1000 moles of a solid would be hard enough, but counting out all the atoms in 1000 moles of a gas? Keep in mind that you can't use some "kg/m^3" method to count out your quantity of hydrogen, because you don't have a kilogram defined yet.
They are trying for something purely applied (and not inferred), with the watt balance. Probably the best idea they have had on the issue so far
They have a very specific cleaning process prior to weighing. Who knows, maybe on some kilogram replicas, the dust could not be cleaned off. On the other hand, maybe someone got a bit too vigorous cleaning the IPK once; 70 g is not difficult to misplace, and that's the problem.
This is exactly the problem. I don't think most people understand exactly how accurate one part is a billion is. If we're talking that the kilogram artefact has some uncertainty on the order of 10^-6, it should be understood that we can measure (small) distances and time on the order of 10^-9. The IPK was a huge improvement over the "volume of water" concept (which was revolutionary, don't get me wrong). Sure, there's nothing wrong with using a volume of water for a standard if your science is from the 18th century.
This page has some graphs at the bottom that show the temperature-dependence of water's density.
This graph shows the relative mass of each of the replicas with respect to the IPK. Most of the masses have "gone up," which implies that the IPK has lost some mass.
There was a similar suggestion to make a silicon sphere, and figure out how many atoms were in it to define the kilogram, but I think the watt-balance method is more-preferred. It's probably that atoms have their own uncertainty, and substituting a platinum-iridium artefact for a silicon artefact was probably not seen as an advancement.
I've thought a lot about what you've mentioned, and I've come to many of the same conclusions! The root of all my worries are that humans are not infallible (there may be at least one exception to this, but it's rare). Humans always want more; while this works great for people at the bottom and mid- areas (like giving more money for high-demand and low-supply jobs), it's a problem when we are talking about managing the huge resources of a country.
Ideally, the person in charge would have to be selfless, logical, not swayed by rhetoric, have a lot of foresight, be able to balance many areas at once, and do what is best given the situation (without conforming to some wing's beliefs or swayed by fear mongering); basically better than human. This is the sort of "ultimate-alpha-male" that humans need to watch over and direct (akin to role filled by the benevolent Christian god, but with direct action). This sort of ruler would probably only ever really be realised with some sort of synthetic sentience, and boy how the general population would shit brix at the thought of that.
... If you can make it oscillate, it produces a run-away exothermic process that self-feeds and turns the universe into a ball of molten liquefied thermal radiation expanding at the speed of light.
The only problem is that if the universe was prone to becoming "a big ball of molten liquefied thermal radiation expanding at the speed of light," it probably would have happened before humans got involved; we're pretty late arrivals to the whole universe scene.
The reason why fission and fusion can both "produce tons of energy" is this: binding energy. Look it up somewhere, and you'll see that nuclear binding energy reaches a peak around iron (could also be seen as a trough, depending on how the graph interprets the situation). What this means is that fusion produces a net energy gain for nuclei "smaller" than iron, and fusion produces a net energy loss for nuclei "larger" than iron (smaller and larger refer to the mass of the nucleus). Conversely, fission of nuclei smaller than iron requires energy, and fission of nuclei larger than iron releases energy. Basically, the net-positive-energy fissionable isotopes we are all familiar with (e.g. U-235) were probably created in supernova events; when we fission uranium to make electricity, we're really running the lights on some indirect supernova power.
Using metals as nuclear fuel wouldn't be as bad as you'd think, mostly because the iron-containing asteroids comprise some nickel (5-25%), which is a bit too convenient if you ask me. Who knows, maybe the whole thing is legit, but time will tell.
Someone posted this link above where it talks about a similar reaction starting to get out of control. They said they were able to stop the reaction before it got out-of-hand, which is good news if this turns out to not be a scam.
Slashdot Mirror
In the image, they show the MoS_2 layer on a silicon+SiO_2 substrate. I don't doubt that there is some way to deposit a MoS_2 layer on a glass surface without growing a pure MoS_2 crystal. Whether you can make such a process cost-effective is a different question...
Plus, you have to justify all that espionage somehow.. :)
Then there's the Zeeman effect to mess with your electronic transitions :P
There's a big difference between moving 35 atoms with an STM and trying to count out 6.02*10^24 atoms of anything. Keep in mind that the definition of mole and atomic mass units would need to be refined. In reality, you'd probably need to define it to some accuracy like 6.02000000*10^24. That being said, if you could move one atom per second, it would take ~190.77*10^15 years to get a kg mass by counting out a mole.
Except then the man with one watch notes that the sunrise is taking 15 minutes shorter than it used to in the past, and recipes that he knows were good in the past are now all coming out burned crisps.
Counting out 1000 moles of a solid would be hard enough, but counting out all the atoms in 1000 moles of a gas? Keep in mind that you can't use some "kg/m^3" method to count out your quantity of hydrogen, because you don't have a kilogram defined yet.
They are trying for something purely applied (and not inferred), with the watt balance. Probably the best idea they have had on the issue so far
note that the mu was not rendered in "70 g" above, and it should have been 70 micrograms.
They have a very specific cleaning process prior to weighing. Who knows, maybe on some kilogram replicas, the dust could not be cleaned off. On the other hand, maybe someone got a bit too vigorous cleaning the IPK once; 70 g is not difficult to misplace, and that's the problem.
This is exactly the problem. I don't think most people understand exactly how accurate one part is a billion is. If we're talking that the kilogram artefact has some uncertainty on the order of 10^-6, it should be understood that we can measure (small) distances and time on the order of 10^-9. The IPK was a huge improvement over the "volume of water" concept (which was revolutionary, don't get me wrong). Sure, there's nothing wrong with using a volume of water for a standard if your science is from the 18th century.
This page has some graphs at the bottom that show the temperature-dependence of water's density.
This graph shows the relative mass of each of the replicas with respect to the IPK. Most of the masses have "gone up," which implies that the IPK has lost some mass.
There was a similar suggestion to make a silicon sphere, and figure out how many atoms were in it to define the kilogram, but I think the watt-balance method is more-preferred. It's probably that atoms have their own uncertainty, and substituting a platinum-iridium artefact for a silicon artefact was probably not seen as an advancement.
Definitely agree. Dropping $0-$8 on a good book is easily justified.
People love to submit to authority; it's really in their nature (and makes sense if we've evolved to live in tribes).
I've thought a lot about what you've mentioned, and I've come to many of the same conclusions! The root of all my worries are that humans are not infallible (there may be at least one exception to this, but it's rare). Humans always want more; while this works great for people at the bottom and mid- areas (like giving more money for high-demand and low-supply jobs), it's a problem when we are talking about managing the huge resources of a country.
Ideally, the person in charge would have to be selfless, logical, not swayed by rhetoric, have a lot of foresight, be able to balance many areas at once, and do what is best given the situation (without conforming to some wing's beliefs or swayed by fear mongering); basically better than human. This is the sort of "ultimate-alpha-male" that humans need to watch over and direct (akin to role filled by the benevolent Christian god, but with direct action). This sort of ruler would probably only ever really be realised with some sort of synthetic sentience, and boy how the general population would shit brix at the thought of that.
(greed)^(0.5) + i(greed)^(0.5) ?
Part of being a wavecist is studying the nucular affects of radiomination [sic, if there was any question]
... If you can make it oscillate, it produces a run-away exothermic process that self-feeds and turns the universe into a ball of molten liquefied thermal radiation expanding at the speed of light.
The only problem is that if the universe was prone to becoming "a big ball of molten liquefied thermal radiation expanding at the speed of light," it probably would have happened before humans got involved; we're pretty late arrivals to the whole universe scene.
The reason why fission and fusion can both "produce tons of energy" is this: binding energy. Look it up somewhere, and you'll see that nuclear binding energy reaches a peak around iron (could also be seen as a trough, depending on how the graph interprets the situation). What this means is that fusion produces a net energy gain for nuclei "smaller" than iron, and fusion produces a net energy loss for nuclei "larger" than iron (smaller and larger refer to the mass of the nucleus). Conversely, fission of nuclei smaller than iron requires energy, and fission of nuclei larger than iron releases energy. Basically, the net-positive-energy fissionable isotopes we are all familiar with (e.g. U-235) were probably created in supernova events; when we fission uranium to make electricity, we're really running the lights on some indirect supernova power.
Using metals as nuclear fuel wouldn't be as bad as you'd think, mostly because the iron-containing asteroids comprise some nickel (5-25%), which is a bit too convenient if you ask me. Who knows, maybe the whole thing is legit, but time will tell.
This comment has been deleted
They are already commercializing a small reactor.
And let me guess - they are looking for "investors" too?
Yes! Put in $400 and get back $12,400 in the future!
I got irradiominated and the doctor said it shaved at least 3i years off my life.
*super sad face*
... If I invented cold fusion, regardless if I could explain it or not ...
Just for your future reference...
Someone posted this link above where it talks about a similar reaction starting to get out of control. They said they were able to stop the reaction before it got out-of-hand, which is good news if this turns out to not be a scam.
..unlike perpetual motion, cold fusion can be done.
It's probably a bit more accurate to say that cold fusion has not been proven to be impossible
Better take some lessons in maniacal laughing, so your volcanic lair doesn't seem out-of-place.