madviking
north american scum
It'll probably chew up a huge amount of energy.
Science questions not worth a thread I: I'm a moron!
- Thread starter The Imp
- Start date
- Status
PlutonianEmpire
King of the Plutonian Empire
Yeah, that's what I thought. Some of the articles on it seem to give the impression that supplies are infinite.
Thanks.
Samez
Emperor
Rapid prototyping (3d printing and so on) is quite fun. It can also result in art like this:
For more art go here.
There are a few issues if you plan to use objects created by 3d printing under mechanical stresses. Due to the fact that they are made of layers there will always be some kind of boundary layers which will result in anisotropic mechanical properties. Also the types of materials which can be used for 3D printing is limited.
If you are interested in further information I could upload you a 300+ page pdf (~50 mb) with an overview of the different rapid prototyping/manufacturing methods. But be warned it's a bit chaotic due to our chaotic prof.
For more art go here.
There are a few issues if you plan to use objects created by 3d printing under mechanical stresses. Due to the fact that they are made of layers there will always be some kind of boundary layers which will result in anisotropic mechanical properties. Also the types of materials which can be used for 3D printing is limited.
If you are interested in further information I could upload you a 300+ page pdf (~50 mb) with an overview of the different rapid prototyping/manufacturing methods. But be warned it's a bit chaotic due to our chaotic prof.
_random_
Jewel Runner
Why are objects in mirror so much closer than they appear?
Mise
isle of lucy
Didn't someone already answer that one?
EDIT: In fact, you did, and have done at least 3 times now!
EDIT: In fact, you did, and have done at least 3 times now!
post-ception? 
_random_
Jewel Runner
Oops. Sorry.
Anyone know why objects in mirror so much closer than they appear?
In order for you to see an object in the mirror, light must reflect off its surface. The light then has to travel to the mirror, reflect off the silvered surface, enter your eye, interact with the rods & cones, then get processed by the gnomons in your brain. This happens pretty fast, but not instantaneously.
In that time, the object, bring in motion, has moved. So has the earth around the sun, the sun around the galaxy, etc. But the light corpuscles move on a straight line (Newton's Laws!), do yhr object will actually br closer than it appears.
Hope this helps!
But if I'm moving away from the object, then won't it appear closer than it actually is, rather than be closer than it appears?
A company that sells panels here in Ottawa offered me a job a while back. I turned it down since it was commission-based but part of the training covered this.
Depends on the panels. Tempered glass ones should survive direct hits from a 2.5cm hail storm. Direct hits are uncommon since hail storms are rarely blowing in from the south (the hail is going to hit your panel sideways, normally). If you live in Kansas where you get baseball sized hail, you'll probably want some of the cool flexible plastic ones. Even if they are damaged their performance doesn't get hurt much.
Most home insurance policies cover solar panels, actually. So even if broken by hail, they will be replaced.
Depends on the panels. Tempered glass ones should survive direct hits from a 2.5cm hail storm. Direct hits are uncommon since hail storms are rarely blowing in from the south (the hail is going to hit your panel sideways, normally). If you live in Kansas where you get baseball sized hail, you'll probably want some of the cool flexible plastic ones. Even if they are damaged their performance doesn't get hurt much.
Most home insurance policies cover solar panels, actually. So even if broken by hail, they will be replaced.
Meteor Man
Cylindropuntia imbricata
Hey guys, I've been getting conflicting reviews for this, so I'm going to ask it here.
I've been looking into creating a magnetic generator using neodymium permanent magnets, and have been getting many sites claiming that they work, other saying that they're impossible, and some youtube videos that seem to work.
I just want to know if a magnetic generator is actually viable.
Oh, and is this site legitimate? It's annoying as all hell, but from what I hear it may actually work.
(http://www.magnets4energy.com/?hopc2s=sale100)
I've been looking into creating a magnetic generator using neodymium permanent magnets, and have been getting many sites claiming that they work, other saying that they're impossible, and some youtube videos that seem to work.
I just want to know if a magnetic generator is actually viable.
Oh, and is this site legitimate? It's annoying as all hell, but from what I hear it may actually work.
(http://www.magnets4energy.com/?hopc2s=sale100)
Quick tip: if you're looking at something that promises free energy, it is a scam. Nothing can give out more energy than you put into it unless there's a fuel source within it: a fusion reactor will output more energy than it takes to start it, but only through nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium.
Devices using magnets to create free energy are purported to work based on a perpetual motion machine. Indeed, if you could create a perpetual motion machine, and you were to use a magnet in it that ran by some copper coils, you would have free energy. The catch is that perpetual motion machines violate everything we know about physics.
Devices using magnets to create free energy are purported to work based on a perpetual motion machine. Indeed, if you could create a perpetual motion machine, and you were to use a magnet in it that ran by some copper coils, you would have free energy. The catch is that perpetual motion machines violate everything we know about physics.
Just look at the bonuses you get with it. Manuals for running your car on water & harvesting electricity from telephone lines.
Or read their FAQ: "Question: How is it possible to generate energy from nothing?
Answer: Magnetic Generators DOES NOT generate energy from nothing. The energy produced by a magnetic generator is gathered from the gravitational energy of earth itself. The proof of concept is simple; get 2 permanent magnets and put them next to each other with same sides facing - you will notice that the magnets push themselves apart. The force pushing the magnets is the gravitational force of earth which is channeled trough the permanent magnets. Therefore, NO energy is created from nothing, it simply uses the earth's gravitational force to rotate a shaft that will generate electricity. "
Or read their FAQ: "Question: How is it possible to generate energy from nothing?
Answer: Magnetic Generators DOES NOT generate energy from nothing. The energy produced by a magnetic generator is gathered from the gravitational energy of earth itself. The proof of concept is simple; get 2 permanent magnets and put them next to each other with same sides facing - you will notice that the magnets push themselves apart. The force pushing the magnets is the gravitational force of earth which is channeled trough the permanent magnets. Therefore, NO energy is created from nothing, it simply uses the earth's gravitational force to rotate a shaft that will generate electricity. "
Meteor Man
Cylindropuntia imbricata
Well, THAT'S bull.
I was actually looking to create an overunity generator rather than a pure magnetic energy source. (Overunity: applying less energy into the generator than is produced.)
wilycoyote
King
Ask yourself:
1) If this technology works, why hasn't it been exploited TO DEATH? The website says, because it is a secret.
2) If anyone says that something that appears to be amazing isn't more widely known because of a conspiracy to keep it a secret, you can be pretty certain that they are actually lying to you.
Honestly, this promises essentially free energy. EVERYONE in the world would want that. How could anyone keep that secret? You know many physicists don't work for corporations. Why haven't they said anything?
1) If this technology works, why hasn't it been exploited TO DEATH? The website says, because it is a secret.
2) If anyone says that something that appears to be amazing isn't more widely known because of a conspiracy to keep it a secret, you can be pretty certain that they are actually lying to you.
Honestly, this promises essentially free energy. EVERYONE in the world would want that. How could anyone keep that secret? You know many physicists don't work for corporations. Why haven't they said anything?
To put it bluntly: A design that violates the Laws of Thermodynamics is not going to work. And the first Law is prohibits anything "overunity".
I started thinking about something this morning.
Last night i called my brother and he asked if he could call me back in 10 minutes. He still hasn't called. I now have to assume that he's moving so fast that we're experiencing some time dilation effects. So I wanted to figure out the minimum speed he/we're going (it's really just our two frames, right?) but I'm no longer algebraically literate. I came up with this formula on WolframAlpha:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427epfu4jgbfbq
*not sure how you fancy-pantses post those beautiful formulae, sorry*
t = t_o/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t | time seen by stationary observer (him = 600 seconds)
t_o | time in rest frame (me = 29280 seconds)
v | velocity (what we're solving for)
c | speed of light in vacuum (~~ 2.998×10^8 m/s)
Rearranging the above formula I get:
v^2 = c^2[(t_0)^2 - t^2]
but this doesn't seem to make sense - shouldn't I be getting something that's going to be a fraction of the speed of light? Instead this formula is multiplying a number larger than 1. Where did I screw up?
WolframAlpha produces this answer:
.9998c
Last night i called my brother and he asked if he could call me back in 10 minutes. He still hasn't called. I now have to assume that he's moving so fast that we're experiencing some time dilation effects. So I wanted to figure out the minimum speed he/we're going (it's really just our two frames, right?) but I'm no longer algebraically literate. I came up with this formula on WolframAlpha:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427epfu4jgbfbq
*not sure how you fancy-pantses post those beautiful formulae, sorry*
t = t_o/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t | time seen by stationary observer (him = 600 seconds)
t_o | time in rest frame (me = 29280 seconds)
v | velocity (what we're solving for)
c | speed of light in vacuum (~~ 2.998×10^8 m/s)
Rearranging the above formula I get:
v^2 = c^2[(t_0)^2 - t^2]
but this doesn't seem to make sense - shouldn't I be getting something that's going to be a fraction of the speed of light? Instead this formula is multiplying a number larger than 1. Where did I screw up?
WolframAlpha produces this answer:
.9998c
- Status
