ibeinsane

I like that idea. Of course the escape pods are then only for the guards, not the inmates. Additionally it should be possible to refuel the station to allow transport to moho orbit or a lower kerbol orbit just to make escape that little bit hotter

Ok, It just so happened I had a station in orbit which was (should be) capable of a powered landing at KSC so I had a go. All stock parts and MechJeb. First off all 18 Crew disembarked via the escape pods and landed at KSC for the show. Difficult to show part counts without screenshots of save files but this was 212 without escape pods, 314 with escape pods. Must admit on the first attempt I took too long trying to land in the perfect place so ended up running out of fuel 50m above ground, This did not end well! Could Have filled the station up with all 75 Crew and gone for an extra 2850 points but it would be easiest just to relaunch with a full compliment rather than send crew up. Scoring +1000 (+1000 points land at KSC) -212 (-1 point per part ) +2120 ( +10 per part that survived ) +900 ( +50 points per kerbal that survived) +450 ( +25 points per kerbal that used a escape pod or system) 100% (Parts survived divided by the total number of parts times by 100 = your survival ratio ) 0 (-500 points per building you destroy if you land at KSC ) 0 ( If you don't land at KSC you may mount a rescue mission and save the survivors +100 per kerbal rescued) 0 ( x2 score if you deorbit your space station on a planet that has no atmosphere (can't deorbit on gilly)) 100% Survival Rate 4258 Points (correct me I am wrong) although the scoring could do with some clarification. (ie, I get more for landing away from KSC and rescuing than for landing direct???) Images for proof!

This is my first accepted challenge and also the first time using an Imgur album on here. I have submitted the space station I built last week just to try and make use of the new space plane parts on a space station. In the station some tanks are clipped for structural use only. Only the main central tank ever carries fuel. I do intend to add a dedicated space plane for this but so far have not got a large enough SSTO craft I am happy enough with, hence the crew largely outnumbering the lifeboat crafts. I have included a demonstration of a lifeboat craft which just makes it back to kerbin. Please correct me if there are any mistakes. +16800 168 tons in orbit -2590 1295 tons on launchpad/runway in single launch +5700 57 Crew (57 station crew but only additional 18 seats on lifeboat crafts:P) +7800 3 cupolas (x1), 3 hitchhikers (x4), 6 crew cabins(x4) excludes lifeboat crafts, correct me if I'm wrong +500 Science Lab (I have 3 but only counted it once) +0 TAC LS +0 Dedicated Shuttles +0 Escape Pod for returning to kerbin surface but only enough for 18 so not counted (~650 dV on the escape pod) +0 Shuttles can mine/distill karbonite -------- +28210 x 0.75 Orbit around Mun -------- 21157 Points Would be 18982 by limiting to 18 Crew

The Launcher shows no update available for 32-bit systems. tested on 2 computers same result. Display shows 'searching for updates' then goes grey but does display the Economic Boom image. The Launcher for 64-bit works fine and has been downloaded. I am playing 64-bit and can download the 32-bit from the website but should report it as an issue anyway.

the image on the launcher has just been updated to economic boom but still no program update!!!!!!! HYPEEEEEEEEE

Well done Sir, Well Done!

I thought the Heretics were strapped to the front for crash barriers at impact?

Glad I don't use steam!!!!!!

Now that is genius, runs to get other 2 laptops set up!

Anyone else worry they missed it when the forum goes quiet for more than 10 seconds?

I think you haven't hyped enough, this is overdosed!!!!!! Must have coffeeeeee to calm down

Can you mix coffee with an overdose of HYPE?

I need coffee but I daren't leave the laptop for missing the release and end up pressing the HYPE ejector seat too late!

wife has gone out for the evening, pizza has just beeped ready in the oven, I'm ready and I'm not sure I can keep the HYPE below critical for much longer!

I know, I have been on the forums since 9am GMT catching up on some old posts

This is the first release I am actually waiting in the forums to get as soon as its released rather than waiting a day. (Playing since 0.18) Hype is the only thing keeping me going!

At this stage I would say the failure was a part which melted due to a leak or the heat being left on (most likely a leak) To find the source I would suggest looking at the grill rather than the metal. To identify the metal becomes rather a bit more difficult, from the description though it does sound like a brass alloy. Bubbling on the surface when heated does not mean a great deal, usually caused by impurities or oxide on or near the surface so subsequent tests may not result in the same. Indeed very dangerous and by the sounds of it you were very lucky your mother found it when she did or it could have been a disaster.

If it is silver in colour and very malleable it is likely the solder material that was used although I would not have expected a huge amount of this material to be present. This is usually an indium/tin (used to be lead) based alloy with melting points between 180-300 degrees Celsius depending on the version. I believe in the USA you call it sweating rather than soldering for pipes and is just the same for water as it is for propane. It is possible that it was braised but the materials are similar but a higher melting point. How much of the molten material do you think you had? If the heat was on for long enough it is possible you got the solder from several connections.

From the description it is a little difficult to tell what happened; The best guess from in the information is as below, probably depending on how confident you are that it was turned off. Option 1) Valve left turned on and the flame burned for a very long time. Causing heat deformation of sheet metalwork but more importantly caused melting of joints and/or the valve body. Option 2) Leak from valve due to dirt or fault. This left a small flame burning for a long time which allowed localised braised/soldered joints of the (presumably brass) valve body to melt and cause further eventual ignition. The explosion was probably due to rapid pressure changes and thermal shock of an already unstable situation. My guess is that the valve body had melted and the 2" pool is probably the valve and/or the switch mechanism which blew out as a result of extinguishing the flame and everything cooling down. It is also possible it may have been due to a blow back through the pipes as the flame was extinguished. Melting point for SST varies but is generally over 1500 degrees C (2700F) which is beyond what I would expect from a propane leak (you would have to burn it efficiently in a torch to get beyond 1500 degrees C. Warping can occur at much lower temperatures and is more dependant on the induced manufacturing stresses so could be as low as 200-300 degrees C. (I have seen cheaper steel trays warp in a standard domestic oven) I suspect the melted material is likely to be a brass alloy which will melt at under 1000 degrees C. Not sure how long the grill would have to be on for to cause this but I suspect an extremely long time as the temperature differences are quite small so the extent of melting and deformation you have seen would take some time.

Okay that is this discussion over for me! I enjoyed our discussions N_Las, apologies if they ever seemed abrasive, I am genuinely grateful you took the time to help explain these to me (some of which I have forgot from previous learning, others are genuine new concepts. Zetax, thank you for your inputs, some have been helpful although I have found some of your comments rather abrasive and dismissive, not what I personally expect from a physics debate but everyone has their own method of communicating physics concepts. Gpisic, your last comment was completely unwarranted and I do really pity you to need to respond in such a manner. Certainly if ZetaX had not already responded I would has not even bothered with this either. Based on this (my first real involvement on the science lab boards) I am unlikely to join in with any further science conversations as they do not seem to be appropriate forums for this type of discussion. Any comments you want me to expand on please message me directly as I won't continue in open forum

Indeed measuring this should be relatively easy, I would need to look up the details further to check if the instruments would be capable of the required accuracy and noise levels. A simple experiment would place several fibre optic junctions in series and a single fibre optic length and measure the time difference. As for the most appropriate light source (modulated laser vs single photon system). Of course the noise levels will become significant with enough junctions but it should be possible to observe. So considering yourself and K^2 highlight this as nonsense from quite old experiments why has Nimtz been able to continue publishing data on the similar things as late as 2006? After which point I presume he retired? Surely the peer review process requires a) new data and some ideas of interpretation not contrary to accepted opinion without significant evidence. Indeed I have had reviewers question interpretations and even state that experimental data is not sufficient to establish the conclusions made, usually corrections are more a change of language but still reviewed. With my own experiences I found the review process quite thorough and even restrictive with new findings from experimental data. Is this relatively new for the past decade or has the review process just not functioned as required on this matter? Why are we still seeing new papers published up to last year about this if it is fully resolved as you and K^2 suggest? From what you are saying this almost makes a mockery of the science by consensus approach, at least on this subject. If someone of my research ability is not able to find the consensus of a topic such as this and it requires detailed understanding to interpret the papers yourself to decide they are not correct then what hope is there? Can you or K^2 highlight where you draw the opinion there is a consensus from, it would be useful to know where something like this would reside should I need to find it again? Again to highlight, I now agree with your interpretation after your explanations, they are very much appreciated, I am very frustrated on the other hand that I have not been able to draw the same conclusion from current literature as I would expect.

Hi N_las, thank you for the correction. I have looked at your explanation and it is indeed one of the methods used to discount the work by Nimtz. Interestingly according to the work below (published last year) there were still conflicting ideas as to why the work by Nimtz was incorrect in assuming superluminal transmission. http://www.bcamath.org/documentos_public/archivos/publicaciones/Interference_PhysRevA2013.pdf Thank you for you input, it is most certainly appreciated. I must admit you have convinced me now in addition with the paper above, the superluminance assumes front peak transmission which is not the same thing at all. What I would like to say though is that the current literature does not all agree, so I would not agree with the quote everyone agrees. indeed the paper above was only published last year and there are still a good deal of papers being published in peer reviewed journals (Phys Rev A I would class as quite high) still debating the point, it seems far from consensus about what happens in the area although the more I look the more I see the weight of opinion being against FTL or at the very least against causal problems. Just out of interest, it could be you are in this loop more than I, what makes you say everyone agrees?

Hi K^2, Whilst looking at his further I stumbled across Nimtz and the rest of his work, a wiki page even exists as the first hit which I promptly skipped although did read about the opponents to his experiments. They were very similar arguments to yours although I have not read their papers in detail, mainly as those cited on wiki had not been peer reviewed yet. I have not seen a refutation of his actual experiments though, the most famous one of which I can only find published in a German paper transmits Mozart's 40th Symphony. Now I agree this particular experiment was highly sensationalised (you can even listen to it) but his own published papers reference this experiment and a speed of 4.7c. http://www.psiquadrat.de/downloads/nimtz03.pdf Again I am attempting to promote debate here, I have not investigated his experimental setup or data enough (not even sure if I could) to decide if he is correct or not. I have attempted to find the scientific papers in support and against and in this matter have struggled to find enough for either way. To me that means this is still under debate. If, and it is a big IF, his experimental setup is correct, and I am yet to find evidence that it is not, something you would have expected the scientific community to have jumped on, I know I do in my field, then he was able to transmit and only transmit data faster than light. I agree currently attempting to measure this etc may result in you only being able to interpret the data slower than the speed of light but it certainly begins to question some ideas.

Thank you for that, I found an excellent video concerning dielectric barriers from one of your links; It does show the wave traversing the barrier although there is some question as to what that actually means. This is a probability function, not a particle wave and therefore would indicate finite ability to measure a particle within a forbidden zone within the barrier. The obvious issue with this is that the real and imaginary parts of the function separate in the barrier which would indicate something strange is happening, without actually solving the equation in this area it looks from the visual representation that the real and imaginary phase are (almost) out of phase, making the probability of finding a particle within the barrier very small? You would ask what mechanism allows for the particle to be measured at either side of the barrier with equal kinetic energy but not the same probability of being able to measure it within the barrier if the Ek (and velocity) is constant throughout? But then again the Quantum world is strange! I take on board your comments about the paper, I don't believe I am in a position to postulate on his results or draw the comparison myself with the laser spot example, presumably (hopefully) the review process did some of this especially from an institute based in Germany. Additionally there are quite a few paper references to FTL travel (usually referred to as superluminal) in tunnelling (more stated within books and conference papers). Of course this was an experimental assessment of a very difficult measurement but the superluminal issue of tunnelling has been discussed considerably for quite some time from a purely mathematical perspective, with a summary found here, http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3719/20/36/021/pdf/0022-3719_20_36_021.pdf I don't have particular access to this paper although if someone here does I would love to know the summary from it. Since then there have been several experiments into the field which a German academic website summarized at http://www.aei.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/FTL/tunnelingftl.html covering work in Germany and also at Berkeley. At this point I think I am going to have to bow out due to the number of papers I don't have access to so cannot really provide support for or against on here, perhaps you can? This was just to point out that the picture (to me) is far from clear from the description of wave traversal and how this represents actual particle motion and from the number of papers in peer reviewed journals providing evidence to the contrary. For me it would suggest there is reasonable doubt mathematically and experimentally that requires more rigorous testing. Please feel free to comment and I will try to continue but I think it has probably gone beyond my ability to research further in these papers or adequately interpret the meaning of a wavefunction in terms of physical motion(would be worth a prize if I could). Although this has given me new drive to get my Matlab computer back out

Oh I fully agree, the ability to measure such interval will be impossible as described. As you mention measurement on the first side of a single particle will collapse the wavefunction and make any subsequent measurement impossible. As for the velocity change I am not sure I follow, do you mean the phase velocity of the wavefunction or the group velocity. Of course the question from a QM point of view is, is the particle or wavefunction ever within the barrier at all. I have not yet seen a wavefunction description within a potential barrier (that does not mean it does not exist). Additionally what makes you suggest that the velocity within the barrier 'finite'?