/sci/ - Science and Mathematics

>test thread stickied

BASED MOD

A

S

E

D

M

O

D

>>759

Massive genocide and extermination for them.

>>2981

>Jim Profit!nOMXoMP0iI

Well it seems like Colonization's going to be a hit but that Asteroid Mining won't do so good.

>>2981

Nigger what are Generation ships?

And if cryogenics becomes a thing and/or sending frozen Fetuses and have Machines raise them or something very unlikely and that's only if we don't discover some warp drive or other FTL, although it would be hard to get those if not impossible.

>>2939

>>>/4chan/

>>2982

I quoted Wiki to answer a question that wasn't even scientific in its nature, but a great misunderstanding of something very, very fundamental. Meanwhile you accuse me of bad source referral but provide absolutely none yourself when speaking of dark matter. I could provide you with some Wikipedia links of the Holometer and drones, but I'll spare you the triggering.

>implying wiki isn't a good source

>implying you can't just scroll down to the references and look at real data

ISHYGIDDYDIGGITY

>>2969

It served its purpose. Here's the first source they link to:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071275

Does that satisfy your autism?

>>2970

Just what is the purpose that it serve? To define something with no authority? To provide a source that can be changed on a whim? Come on nigger stop citing wikis.

>>2971

The "authority" (I assume you mean legitimacy and validity by this) you call for is given a numerical value bracketed just like this [x] where x is an arbitrary counting number. You just click on that and it shows you what you want to see: Sources that can't "be changed on a whim". I hope you have a good day, yesterday didn't treat you well it seems.

>>2976

>Sources that can't "be changed on a whim".

They sure can silly. You edit the page and change them to something else. Either way though, citing a wiki as a set of sources (which may or may not even support your argument), and then expecting the person you're trying to convince to sort through them themselves and pick out just which one you want to use which actually supports your argument–in other words, to construct your own argument for you–is yet another problem with citing a wiki.

>>2978

Here are the questions he asked:

>Just how accurate is this?

It says very clearly that it isn't accurate at all, so check mark for that.

>And isn't there a name for this theory/idea?

(That's the very name of the Wiki page, so that's answered.)

And then a repetition of the second question, again, it's answered. Then the Wikipedia provides links to sources which are the ones I spoke about when I said "can't "be changed on a whim"", but you misread that, fine, and then you try to tailor a story where there was an argument involved. OP was asking for information. Information I readily handed to him, and even information that directed him to MORE information. What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>2871

Just use 'muh graphene' and wave your hands if you want to use mechanical power.

Realistically though, electricity and phenomena such as the Lorentz force are so robust and efficient that there's very little need to innovate mechanically.

>>2873

What if you need to deliver a stupidly huge amount of raw physical power to one component though?

An electrical system would probably just fry, a mechanical one could go harder and harder until you somehow manage to break something.

>>2874

For most substances, a "huge" amount of force is going to fuck it up (or, if repeatedly applied, heat it up) too badly to use without frequent repair (that might not be a problem for robots, but it's a big fucking issue in modern industry). Look into 'space-age' synthetic materials like graphene if you're looking for exceptions.

As for electricity not being sufficient, you're partially correct, electricity is limited by internal resistance of the conductors. That said, you can always just use a bigger power line, as heavy-handed as the solution sounds.

>>2872

This is not a free market question, rather a planned economy one. Its more about production flow, though. There is no supply/demand value, machines produce, buffers store, other machines consume. Ill check combinatorics, thanks

also fuck free market :-^)

How would an explosion work in space?

For the purpose of this comment let's say that it's a plastic explosive that traps enough of it's own oxygen to ignite, it isn't surrounded by anything that could turn into a projectile, and the detonator is irrelevant.

There's no air to create a shockwave, so it seems like you could theoretically stand a foot away from it and be unaffected. However, it still generates energy, in the form if mostly heat, and the particles of the explosive itself have to go somewhere. And since they can't loose heat as quickly they would be hotter for longer. But the matter is in such a small concentration that it doesn't seem like it would have much force very far out due to losing concentration.

So basically it seems to me that it will blast anything relatively close with a wave of very hot dust, but won't push any thing very far that wasn't touching it, and after a short distance compared to in an atmosphere, it will cease to be a serious concern at all. Am I correct?

>>1687

But if the donut-shaped universe theory has any merit, wouldn't it eventually collide and contract? I'm probably wrong, but just wondering.

>>1683

>The universe expands

Correct

>then contracts

That's an idea, yes.

>Is it possible that the universe we live in was created before?

You know what they say about monkeys and typewriters.

>If so, could we have lived our lives and died, to come back again?

By this I assume you mean in the universe that is created the same way as the one we previously lived in. And if we assume the idea is true, then yes.

But keep in mind that the cyclic models are ideas. We don't have any evidence that suggest that they will happen, so they're fun to walk around and think about, but currently they're not worth much more than that.

If the earth was flat then why are people able to use the super fast elevator on that tall ass building in dubai to see the sunset twice?

>>2895

>I don't think the flat earthers all think that if we live on a flat earth, that it is spinning.

coriolis effect is observable though, so unless they have a better explanation for it than a spinning sphere, it's a full refutation.

>refutations

If the earth was flat, how come I can't noscope africans from my front porch?

>>2444

Actually he's showing you how a psudeoscientific person can always bolster their position with an infinite regress of nonsense.

>Pretends to be "enlightened" and "on a higher state of conciouseness", realizes the book she ordered ("conversations with god") wasnt the first edition

>"FUCK SHIT DAMNIT FU K ASS WAAHHH ARRGGG FUCK FUCK FUCK

>Constantly brags about how educated and formal she is

>Insults and brings other people down for being more eloquent or well dressed or well mannered or simply just better looking

>Complains about how "muh life sucks and nobody needs me waah" c8nstantly talks about suicide

"Why do t you just kill yourself then?

>I have children who need me!

All of her children are adults and have moved out of the house

>>2459

Explain the particle wave nature of light, get her to talk about the particles of vanilla interacting with her. Problem solved, she has accepted that she likes vanilla for normal reasons.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality

Kinda off-topic…

What are her political views, much can be explained if you answer what we think you will

>>2962

Germany and Poland are part of a trade agreement that means open borders. not too sure how that relates to chemicals, but mostly you can get across tax free (except taxed things like alcohol and cigaretts)

I'm going for smokebombs and some basic shit, what else. need more fun on new years :^)

I looked through the booklet, nothing was really document as far as reactions go. Not a single reaction was explicity listed.

>>2963

That's badass, and I learned something.

Are you going sucrose/kno3 mix? I've read best yields are 40:60 with a little baking soda (NaHCO3) (sodium bicarbonate).

I'm trying to think of other materials you could make with little equipment. Do you have any means of distillation with glassware? Nitrating common compounds (toluene and even sucrose/glucose/anything with a hydroxide group) can usually lead to a decent boom. But this isn't something to just do lazily and haphazardly, it'll explode and you'll die.

I've made small amounts of TATP before, it's a pretty straightforward easy synth, but the product is HIGHLY UNSTABLE. Also things like Nitrogen Triiodide which is cool to watch 'poof' when disturbed (also highly unstable, but much less dangerous in terms of explosive. Do not breathe in).

>>2955

>>2958

>>2961

>>2963

order some sodium/potassium/ammonium nitrate online or make sodium nitrate from sodium nitrite and hydrogen peroxide. for some pyrotechnics you can also use sodium chlorate or sodium perchlorate as the oxidizer, both can easily be made from bleach.

>>2964

No distillation hardware.

>it'll explode and you'll die

now make some azidoazide azide :^) http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/01/09/things_i_wont_work_with_azidoazide_azides_more_or_less.php

>The sensitivity of C2N14 is beyond our capabilities of measurement. The smallest possible loadings in shock and friction tests led to explosive decomposition. . .

>>2965

Thanks for that, will look into it. bleach is easy to get, alas not in high concentrations but my mother is a barber so this should work.

Since Sodium chlorate is used as a bleaching agent, shouldn't be too hard to get.

>>2965

This.

>>2966

Strange you post that article, I have been looking for it for a few months now. Most azides, I believe, are known to be dangerous, but this one has strictly C-N bonds, I couldn't imagine.

Most bleach is between 5-10% unless you have an industrial source. The fact it's so easy to get, makes it still a decent option.

>You can also make chloroform from bleach. Small amounts per gallon, but still very viable.

>>2489

I have all my time this summer.. Do you think it will be possible to do an Emdrive?

>>2495

No. Stop asking.

You need a lot of nice materials & knowhow you don't have, and you couldn't demonstrate any results.

Do something with chemistry if you can, the easiest is to look for calcite in rocks, google it for the finer bits:

>bowl

>fill it with vinegar

>get a fuckton of rocks

>dip them in the vinegar

>if they fizz there is calcite

>if they don't there isn't any

You can get creative with the different rocks you use but don't do it half asses

get that fucking doge picture out of here

Fuck all this noise besides >>2503, I don't see enough chemistry on this board (unless there is a dedicated, I'm not certain).

Couple suggestions:

>Elephant toothpaste

Or shock them (did this for kids):

>Get clean, pool HCl (read the fucking MSDS)

>you want only water and HCl

>Get pure NaOH (sodium hydroxide, probably near drain cleaners. Read. The. Fucking. MSDS.)

>Both easily found at hardware stores, just look and read.

>Find out the concentration of HCl

(MSDS)

>Make a similar concentration of NaOH in water

>Prepare all before hand

>Also practice this so you don't fucking kill yourself

>also do it in small amounts, say, when combined, it's 30-40mL

The plan goes as follows:

>Infront of them, with COLD solutions of each

>meaning either freezer or fridge beforehand

>account for frozen solution

>measure out 15-20mL of each

>pour into a shot glass or similar that's sitting on ice

>stir for a second or so

>take the shot

If you're new to acid-base chemistry, this creates salt water

>Proceed to explain the chemistry

>can help

>>2923

Uh… Nobody said any of that. Please go to /x/ this board is for science.

>>2924

see

>>3806502

>>2925

/sci/ doesn't even have 3000 posts.. Fuck off.

>>2929

Yes, partly perspective. The other parts are shadow and air particles.

Sources:

http://optics.kulgun.net/Rays/

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/rayform.htm

http://www.demark.org/essays/CrepuscularRays.html

>>2940

>>>/4chan/

>>2794

First: the Right-hand rule.

Electricity and magnetism are related, but not the same thing. How they interact is summarized in the right-hand rule. You do a thumbs-up with your right hand. The thumb is the direction the electron is moving, and the direction of the curled fingers is the direction of the magnetic field that's created. The magnetic field curves around the direction of the electron's movement.

It also works the opposite way; a moving magnetic field can make electrons move. This is why turbines spin the magnets, to create a curving and moving magnetic field, which induces electrons to move in the coil of wires.

The real term is "flux" but I don't remember enough to go into detail.

>>2794

>I know it's the flow of electrons and I imagine them being kind of "pushed" from atom to atom. I can also imagine maybe a magnet's negative pole (south) pushing away atoms with negative charges, while a positive pole (north) attracts them.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Electrons aren't electric current they are a carrier of current. Just like a wave in the ocean is carried by water so is electric current carried by electrons. This also explains how capacitors work. In an ideal capacitor no electrons cross the dielectric insulator; however, electrons can bunch up next to the dielectric insulator and push on the electrons on the other side of the insulator.

>>2794

>I can also imagine maybe a magnet's negative pole (south) pushing away atoms with negative charges, while a positive pole (north) attracts them.

Oh shit no this is wrong on so many levels.

If you want to understand the magnet in terms of electrical charges, it works like a vortex. Like a coil with charges spinning around it.

>>2794

>I know it's the flow of electrons and I imagine them being kind of "pushed" from atom to atom.

In a typical conductor, even when not carrying current, some of the electrons are free of any single atom, moving around freely within the bulk material. What happens when a conductor is carrying current is that there is a small bias in the direction the free electrons bounce around within the conductor, so the electrons drift down the conductor.

>I can also imagine maybe a magnet's negative pole (south) pushing away atoms with negative charges, while a positive pole (north) attracts them.

North and south poles don't correspond with positive and negative charges. As a very, very, very rough analogy, if magnetic poles are left-right, electric charges are forward-back.

>I also understand that turbines spin magnets around wires. I don't get why the magnets have to be moving and I don't understand why wires need to be coiled.

Since magnetic poles and electric charges aren't the same thing, then charges are not attracted and repelled by magnetic fields, only electric fields. However, the difference between magnetic and electric fields is a matter of perspective. A field that looks to have no electric part to you will appear to have some electric part to someone or something moving relative to you. It is this electric part that pushes the electrons next to a moving magnet (since all that matters is relative velocity). As for the use of coils, I think that's mostly a matter of efficiency. To get the most out a moving magnet, you want to have a lot of conductor close to it. Also, you want to arrange the wire so that the pushes from the electric fields add together. It turns out coils are the best way to do this.

>I also don't understand how electricity from a generator that flows through a wire will manage to power a machine on the other end of the wire (for example, just making a wheel spin on the other end).