Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 17 Dec 2006 17:42 Don Klipstein wrote: > In article <4585305E.680489E3(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote in part: > > >How about practical breeder reactors ? They were once the darling of the > >nuclear industry and *everyone* 'scientific' believed in them. Not a > >single one has been a success. > > And why? I think the problems are mostly political ones - security > concerns, mostly about their ability to produce plutonium, and less > legitimate political problems such as political incorrectness of finding > places to dump nuclear waste. I suggest you read a book about them. Molten sodium cooling has just a few problems for example ! Not to mention how steel behaves under intense radiation. It most assuredly wasn't politics that killed them off. Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Dec 2006 17:45 The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > In sci.physics, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote > > > > As long as the ice is floating the water level will never change. > > However, if you fill the glass with enough ice so that the column > > sinks to, and is supported by the bottom of the glass, then as the > > ice melts the water level will rise until the column of ice no > > longer touches the bottom of the glass. > > I should point out that a floating ice cube is less dense > than the water bouying it; therefore, as it melts, the total > volume of ice + water will lessen. What that does to water > level in, say, a tank of water with free floating ice, > I'm not entirely certain. And you call yourself a scientist ? How about doing some basic science and see for yourself ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Dec 2006 17:46 The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > I am keeping half an eye on ITER; we shall see. In 100 years they may get there. Graham
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 17 Dec 2006 18:30 In sci.physics, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:45:09 +0000 <4585C875.DCD9A857(a)hotmail.com>: > > > The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > >> In sci.physics, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote >> > >> > As long as the ice is floating the water level will never change. >> > However, if you fill the glass with enough ice so that the column >> > sinks to, and is supported by the bottom of the glass, then as the >> > ice melts the water level will rise until the column of ice no >> > longer touches the bottom of the glass. >> >> I should point out that a floating ice cube is less dense >> than the water bouying it; therefore, as it melts, the total >> volume of ice + water will lessen. What that does to water >> level in, say, a tank of water with free floating ice, >> I'm not entirely certain. > > And you call yourself a scientist ? > > How about doing some basic science and see for yourself ? > > Graham > As it so happens I do have a cup with a good amount of ice in it; I'll fill it to the brim with tap water and then wait a few hours and see how the level goes. It's the best I can do without more sophisticated equipment. :-) In any event my computations suggest that no change should ensue in the water level. That covers prediction and experimental setup. Results...well, we'll just have to wait. -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #10239993: char * f(char *p) {char *q = malloc(strlen(p)); strcpy(q,p); return q; } -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Eeyore on 17 Dec 2006 18:40
The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > In sci.physics, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > >> In sci.physics, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote > >> > > >> > As long as the ice is floating the water level will never change. > >> > However, if you fill the glass with enough ice so that the column > >> > sinks to, and is supported by the bottom of the glass, then as the > >> > ice melts the water level will rise until the column of ice no > >> > longer touches the bottom of the glass. > >> > >> I should point out that a floating ice cube is less dense > >> than the water bouying it; therefore, as it melts, the total > >> volume of ice + water will lessen. What that does to water > >> level in, say, a tank of water with free floating ice, > >> I'm not entirely certain. > > > > And you call yourself a scientist ? > > > > How about doing some basic science and see for yourself ? > > > > Graham > > As it so happens I do have a cup with a good amount of ice in it; I'll > fill it to the brim with tap water and then wait a few hours and see how > the level goes. > > It's the best I can do without more sophisticated equipment. :-) In > any event my computations suggest that no change should ensue in the > water level. > > That covers prediction and experimental setup. Results...well, we'll > just have to wait. It's astonishing you even feel the need to do it. But heck, why not ? Good luck anyway. I'd stick it in a microwave oven to get it over with quickly but that's just me and the 'greens' would probably say that the government microwave rays gave a flawed result so you'd better not do that after all ! Graham |