p1t1o

Members
  • Content Count

    2,581
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,682 Excellent

2 Followers

About p1t1o

  • Rank
    Just some guy, y'know?

Profile Information

  • Location In the walls.

Recent Profile Visitors

4,949 profile views
  1. p1t1o

    Thread to complain bout stuff

    Do you think a simple rebranding could work? Just dont mention "nuclear", call it something like a "Exhaust-Cooled Decay Engine" or "Thermal Expansion Drive" or just "Non-Chemical Rocket". The latter has the advantage of having the term "Non-Chemical" which I think would be very popular, I think extra traction could be had by adding further suffixes such as "Gluten Free" or "Carbon Neutral".
  2. Whilst tuning a laser wavelength to match target absorbance would increase energy-on-target (but not actually the radiated "power") the description is a little off. The dye is the lasing medium, it is NOT the case that there is a lasing medium and you add a specific dye to it to change the lased wavelength, then changing the wavelength by changing the dye. However, a dye medium can be "tuned" to a range of wavelengths, but in a fairly narrow band (give or take ~100nm). It is correct that "changing the media" can change the wavelength, but "changing the media" is equivalent to "use a different laser", so its a bit moot IMO. What you are looking for is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-electron_laser which uses electrons as the lasing medium and can be tuned over almost the whole EM spectrum - theoretically including the X-Ray region (though Im not sure if this has been achieved in practice) ***NB: Oh I just read that the dyes used can be liquid, so the medium can be switched out, but this can also involves switching out the optical components as well (lenses, mirrors etc.) An FEL still offers greater EM range and utility.
  3. p1t1o

    Thread to complain bout stuff

    Thats my marriage vows written: "Do you, p1t1o..." "JUST PAIN"
  4. Im with you. If I have to tell people not to get science from youtube one more time....then I will flood this place with every "scientific" "advance" I can find, and you can all enjoy sifting through BS for a good 6 months. Ahh my dude, you have that backwards. If you are coming in with the claim, you need to be the one coming in with the references. It means that the internet is rife with charlatans intent on spouting complete gibberish when they arent actively trying to decieve. They outnumber everyone else. Trust it at your peril. Yes, peer reviewed journals, whilst not all as reputable as one anoter, ARE automatically better than youtube.
  5. p1t1o

    Starlite nuclear-blast resistant

    On that subject... https://what-if.xkcd.com/28/
  6. p1t1o

    Starlite nuclear-blast resistant

    I dont know if anything about starlite is true, but if you take the most optimisitic interpretation - I dont think that that youtube video is any use. Starlite allegedy withstood temperatures up to 10,000C whereas the kind of butane torch the guy uses in the video reaches a max of around 1500C, an enormous difference. Withstanding that kind of temperature for a short time is fairly trivial. Im not even particularly impressed by the test shown in the video. Put almost any mass that size in between you and a flame and you will be "insulated". A steak for example, would react in almost exactly the same way and protect your hand from a torch for a good while.
  7. p1t1o

    Shower thoughts

    I rather enjoy the weirdness of the idea that intelligence may not be an evolutionary advantage and is a transient state that we happen to be alive during.
  8. p1t1o

    Bad science in fiction Hall of Shame

    Some good info here: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1353889 http://www.empcommission.org/reports.php With a 5-minute review, it appears that the answer to the question of what would happen, exactly, to an airliner hit by an EMP, is "unknown". Whilst some efforts to comply with routine resistance to interference regulations might provide significant protection under some circumstances, EMPs and their effects can vary wildly and airframes are not tested under realistic EMP conditions. Although it does appear that manufacturers have at least considered the possibility. There is mention of certain boxes of electronics though, that if compromised, could cause a "catastrophic" effect. Which seems like code for "stops being an aircraft, becomes brick". Further, disruption to air traffic control infrastructure could pose further danger.
  9. p1t1o

    I skydived a few days ago!

    Not to #humblebrag, but I have almost done this too! Probably the most enjoyable hing I have almost done in my life.
  10. p1t1o

    Starlite nuclear-blast resistant

    To be honest, the amount of secrecy involved has to make me doubt all of the claims. There are not samples, no manufacturing details, no compositional details. Literally all we have is some video footage, which cannot be quantified, and some soundbites from some important-sounding people. I will file this away with those EM drive "thrusters" - pending significant further evidence. We already have similar materials which can compete. Last I heard, space shuttle TPS tiles can withstand similar temperatures without charring. And not for nothing but "thermal blast" is a weird term for a military scientist to use, it offers confusion on what effects are being resisted, especially in a nuclear context. One article even uses the term "blast proof" - which is very misleading. Makes me think that not many people who are talking about this material (in the media) know anything, they just know that some scientist from a while back made an interesting material once.
  11. p1t1o

    Shower thoughts

    https://what-if.xkcd.com/101
  12. p1t1o

    Starlite nuclear-blast resistant

    Unknown, but not outside the realm of possibility, given the massive lack of detail available (Does it ablate? Is it porous? Dense? What actually happens when exposed to extreme heat?). It isnt actually all that unusual for things to have exciting properties but not really be well known. It isnt "suppression" or a conspiracy. For example, it may have excellent heat resistant properties, but if its mechanical strength is low or it wont adhere to anything, it may just be that it is not fit for purpose. Most everything about Starlite seems to have been kept secret by its inventor, so cant really say much more than that. Secrecy never fills me with confidence though, gotta say, although "NASA" seem to have been impressed by it. NB: its not all that hard to resist the heat of a nuke, the thermal pulse only last for a few seconds, maximum. An ICBM silo is designed to resist all but a physical direct hit, and they do not require advanced heatproofing - concrete sufficient to resist the blast is more than sufficient to resist the heat, and if you are far enough away that blast is not an issue, then neither is the thermal pulse.
  13. You mean its not a perfectly smooth ball?! Preposterous!! Heresy!!
  14. This. There is a lot of guesswork being passed off as military fact up in here. A lot of operational assumptions being made on individual technical facts, without any consideration to physical/military reality.