PB666

http://www.cnet.com/news/3d-printed-eco-bikini-cleans-the-ocean-as-you-swim/ No science in the news, default to something that is more humorous than the dark pulsar.

We should make the reactor out of solar nerf balls, doesn't kill people, light weight and you could just roll it out on string. Win, win, win...........heh-heh.

Let me just try to get keep this thread from getting killed by a moderator before we discuss the problems. 1. Einstein-Bose condensates need to be in proximity to each other to actually mean anything? 2. Why would we expect the condensate to form threads? 3. How confident are we that dark matter is found in threads connecting galaxies. More specifically are the data that supports DM between galaxies as being specifically requiring threads or strands. Could this not be a scientific myth created by someones favored hypothesis.

well ipad not much better my cubital tunnel nerve keeps falling asleep.

In that context he would be correct, quantum statistics as an entity applies to many scales. Things like quantum uncertainty apply on the quantum scale.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/using-general-relativity-magnify-cosmos The article is not too bad, it has a decent reference list at the end. On the issue of gravitational lensing, when you have a situation where light is coming from four different directions around a lensing mass, how much can you actually trust.....as in reconstruct. The reason I say this is that have measurable temporal ofsets for events that occur behind the lense. At best you know what you are seeing are not simultaneous. But even more troubling here is that the paths are virtually the same distance. We are talking about lensing of objects 10 billion years ago about galaxies 5 billion years in the past, the deflection angles are small fractions of a degree. The cosine of these small angles are all but 1.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/?vp=1 Oh boy, this is theoretical physics stretched a bit too far. Their contention I gather is that dark matter behaves like super cooled helium, it psuedo coalesces in tendrals, the intersections of which stabilize gas and allow the formation of spheroid galaxies. the article is rather weak on details or facts.

dont know if it will fly or not, the link died, doesnt it need an http or something on the front? http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.html It can go up, doubtful that it can land. Those engines are exposed during rentry, the would need to be a heat stable aperture on the to keep them from being trashed. - - - Updated - - - Initial rentry doesn't care about density, is about velocity, and those engine nacells are going to take the brunt of erosion. They will simply degrade before hitting breathable atmosphere.

You mean like cigsrette companies hiring scietist, soda companies hiring scientist, oil companies hiring scientist to study global warming, lol. In silico analysis . . . If you are testing processors for errors better think you are actually testing them, a scientist cant tell you wether a microchip with twenty billion processors on it has got a circuit just a little too close as a result of a little bit to much force applied in som abcure manufacturing step. I think we are again heading directly into the same logic as the other thread, no thanks.

I don't mistake cost for mass, but if i am going to waste mass, dV i would rather do it on an occupation that at least has some intangible benefit, like gathering infomation or establish useful transiton points, blowing through the mid atmosphere at 5 times the speed of sound might be nice for glowimg red an SR71 blackbird but it is well beyond maximum dynamic stress for the CoD of most real rockets. Seriously when 1.02 came out everyone was complaining why their rockets flipped after launch right about the time they hit M speed, well theres a good reason for that, if you dont want them to flip move the maximum force application point backwards. So SSTO is not really reflective of reality, so I dont think boeing minds the comparison, but if we are talking reality orbits are horizontal and lauches are vertical. If there was a very good reason for a high altitude transition that all space agencies employ, I seriously doubt they would optionally make the transition and simply start with a 45 degree ascent vector that evloves into prograde to minimum altitude. This certainly is possible if your reduce CoD to 0.02. I dont know many payloads that are compatible with this. The point about the turn is that it is physically a turn, yes if you slow down it might actually roll, but the problem with that, is as you say you pay a cost in t not-orbital which translates into lost thrust. The turn is made after establishing a strong vertical vector for one really good reason, it gets the ship out of alt related drag as it accekerates horizontally accelerating speed related drag.

We are touching on the same thread that you and K2 are arguing, the one were you are arguing that efficient tracing is a waste of time. I kind of think we are not going to agree. I would be willing to bet that one of those world class engineers prolly on of them has his assembler that he uses to verify. In the real world in silico analysis does not bounce very far.

I wish I could post this quotation as a sticky, lol. If you work with reverse genetics and penetrance you are too aware of the laws of mass action as it applies to biologicals and behavior. I mean one thing he gets sort of wrong, that physics changes with scale, but is not true, there can be quirky people<-me, bacteria, stars or galaxies. There is uncertainty at all levels of observations, the difference at the quantum scale and larger scales is that the QS uncertainty has a core definition, where as uncertainty at the large scale may have an intrinsically complex and unresolvable maltiparametric basis. I suspect that even at the atomic scale there is a certain smoothness in space that becomes chaotic at Planck's scale, these becomes the quirks with a potential uniformity between these, and there might be scales below these where this uniformity becomes chaos that are only fathomable by handling uncertainties on the Plancks scale. Unfortunately we have no handles.

The key phrase is almost always, but even there its a logical flaw, because unless you specifcslly kniw what version of c++ you are using and the default specks, its not likely to be optimal for that CPU. Or to put it like this, i bought a specific set up to perform a soecific function should i just assume that some unspecified off the shelf is optimal, while it use those math.h functions that relly on x87 or the latest version of SSE. If you are writing a game to be used across many platforms, you may not care, but if you are writing a program say to analyze certain characteristcs of every star in a thirty triilion star msp of the local universe, you might care. The other, really, without patronizing intel. It would be so easy to take a nearly retired engineere and have him set with a software engineer and write an assembler with on the fly documentation. if for no other reason than to have a quick platform to test things like whether you 80586 processor will divide properly in all instances of integer divide. Had they have done that they woukd have avoided a reputation hit. Seriously nowadays memory pen, simple OS and an IDE and you have a sweet way of getting people inteseted in your machine. Arrogance is ts own tax.

Not really, but anyway you start with an elitist bias so not wasting time. This misinfo would not have lasted long in the era of the II or 8088. Such elitism generally meant you customer based moved on to other products, as what happened to the Mac and OS2. - - - Updated - - - The folks at linux don't think so they built assembler stuff right into the OS. So basically what you are arguing is that if you progarm IA32 then its ok to write stand alones, but if you program x64, no sense targeting anything lower than C++ dll. C++ for me is nothing more than a convinient interface, prolly use it to inteface VB. Its making the same argument that K2 has about VB, people using it for the gui shells it produces. I dont mind using it, but C++ is completely independent of the x64 instruction set and so the two should not be confused.

Pretty much a wasted morning so a bit of a rant. As many of you know I am in search of a modern 64 bit software platform, either and IDE or something of the sort to take a process intensive project(s) and speed them up. Having pretty much run into a brick wall with ubuntu and the various OS specific idiosyncracies. I though I was done with the reading but then was direct on the net to other resources. The first is the Intel x64 and IA32 programming language reference guide (the 3603 page guide). Now they start out with a general description of the software specifications (note that each software term gets converted into hexadec prior to making. exe, so the manual is basically a compendium of how to use the nomenclature with the architecture to get the expected results) , which is great, but then they sort of push the reader off the cliff with extremely technical descriptions that really, seriously most users. Most users need upfront the basics, after they have the basics stuff, you can put the details in an appendix or supplimentary materials. What the use needs to know for instance how a r register can be accessed, how it is properly referenced in code, what are the limitations. Simple can you access a r register in the same way as an legacy register and specifically are the differences between r and legacy in accessing. The basic problem is that you would have to already know old specifications and old methods to understand this stuff, the basically ignore the nomenclature arguement you have just added for example 30 new registers to your CPU, you might actually tell folks what the naming conventions are . . . . . . . . . One that 3603 page document they couldn't've have added this and a reasonably verbose description thereof by subdividing this picture into parts and explaining the parts (graduate student seminar 101). Even so this is a poorly drawn picture because the legends are randomly interdispersed with images objects (case missed it the legend is in the top right corner, and a sort of legend is below the Instruction pointer/flags image). So . . . . still do not know how R8 to R15 can be accessed, which may explain why some IDEs don't interact with these terms, yet. Kate (ubuntu) seems to ignore all the x64 registers. Second thing is Intel, guys seriously, you have built a CPU that has I dunno 1 to 200 subvariants for each instruction type (looking at the manual you could have completely described the entire Z80 insrtuction variants on a single x64 instruction type page), so why can't you write an assembler . . . . . . . .Most computers can boot from a memory pen, and just about any fool can write an assembler for core linux or MS. So any way they dust themselves off ans send the user to NASM, YASM, whatever pages. Ah at last an IDE, well no. Microsoft has decided after 2005 that they don't want to support an inline assembly and so now you must use the routine assembler for C++. Not sure why but it may have to do with their moving away from old dos compatibility, in either case I expected to see some description of how to use this as part of C++ or something in the C++ drop down that gives access to the routine assembler, nope, not to be found. No description, nothing, just saying it can be done, but no descripition of how it can be done. So now its likely I will have to pour through an online programming C++ guide (Or buy one, even though I already have 3 none were written specifically after 2010) to find a rare and obscure reference. Wonderful. So stumbling around trying DL what appear to be 64 bit files for FASM, windows 10, decided, instead of copying these files like I instructed it to, loaded the files into the C++ derived assembly editor. More wonderful, you don't give me direct access to the assembler but you give the file copying routine access. Fine so moved onto YASM. Now I applaud the open source stuff I really do, but for god's sake should they please explain how to install the software. If this was publication stuff and a referee caught wind of your methods section, you would be immediately rejected, I guess that is why science has referees and companies do not. So basically users have to move your download to a working directory where you are supposed, then substitute the actual version of YASM for the name in the instruction. You might think the *.exe installs the software, check the install list, nope, it is the software, so if you use command line code to access it, it basically needs to be named right on the command line. The best thing to do when you get the software is to rename it so that the actual description works on the software, better yet rename it y.exe (let the name try to figure out why they gave confusing instructions). Intel also mention 2 other softwares, but both are grossly out of date. The assembler that actually works, called FLAT assembler FASM has a rather primative IDE, but, as I said, without a readme on the install, anyone whose installed a zip into KSP can handle the install on this one (which means either we need to give better instructions or installing from an unzip is information we inherit at birth as part of the geek gene). They do provide a pdf (PDF) but I overlooked will looking for the readme. Anyways, they actually might have made it through a thorough graduate school. Spoke too quickly, this is not a full x64 IDE, it only handles x64 up to MMX standard (about 15 years old now) it apparently does not handle the r sets of registers. hmmpf. SOL. I've been picking on MS and Intel. I see many Linux sites where basically the moderator kills a thread that the user is asking a question I want answered? why? Ubuntu, why have a site were users are only allowed to give a third of the answer and you kill the thread, because it raises potential for conflict? The other annoying thing (very in fact) is that the moderator will direct the discussion to a link and the link will be dead, this has happened so many times, its rather annoying. Jeeze if they think the link is so valuable that you are killing future discussion in a thread because a link exists, give a synopsis of the sites information, because that site may disappear 10 seconds after you link it. (me being hypocritical, but this is a game group not something people may otherwise use for important stuff). The other annoying thing, I know everyone wants money, I know advertising is important, throwing click-bait willy-nilly into a helpsite is not helpful, its harmful; its actually the easiest way to get a OS controlling malware (adware) on to your computer. The other thing I have found is that the click-bait is killing bandwidth, major big time killing. I was having trouble using my Ipad when I had fire-fox loaded on my linux box, just sitting there, I added this add-on for Firefox that only permits scripts after it ask the user, many of these help sites two -thirds the visible content disappears, and the bandwidth reappears. On some pages it looks like basically the content is an add-on, on top of a big advertising script page (e.g. BBC News, :^( ) I think we need to start referring to this stuff by its old name, "bouncing bologna". Web page hosting is not that expensive, I used to get it for free on my previous ISP and it had no advertising what-so-ever on it. So why now do these help-gurus treat web-page space likes its Time Square.

Take a look at Manley's videos that pertain to ascent and kicks. There are a number of reasons why 70k x 70k alt is a bad idea, the smallest orbit one should strive for is 70k x100k where 100k is the launch traj apo and 70k is the end circ point. There are virtually no low altitude targets you cannot achieve that will not either have a pe or apo commence transfer. If the atmosphere curve where larger, or starting atmosphere smaller, it would not be so bad, but drag below 30 puts constraints on horizontal velocity, particularly below 45k and requires more vertical velocity between 20k and 32k. This makes steering to a 70k apo orbit challenging and wasteful (trade off is drag losses versus -radial velocity losses). Of course some of us are probably lowering CoD and may actually have a part lists that justifies this ;^). But the stock part list, shooting horizontal early is going to require a heavier engine for thrust, or some sort of jet based launch phase. This is not a wise early carreer game choice, the conservative choice is to initially apo above 70k.

Certain fresh vegetables have chemicals that kill and are static to certain types of facultative anaerobes and anaerobic bacteria. These chemicals are only effective if they are picked right off the plant and used immediately, otherwise their potency decays rapidly. The chemicals are designed to protect the plant in case it sustains injury. The acid itself increases the rate of oxidation (10 fold for every unit drop in pH). These chemicals perform the same function as adding peroxides to the skin of folks with acne. The bacteria themselves are the result of bad-diets and poor habits. Eat fresh locally grown veggies, more fish, less beef and no lot fed animals. Avoid restaurant foods, chocolate, nuts (unless very fresh), Fried foods. Use less bar soap, small amounts of gel soaps, less makeup, and fewer cleansers, and ........................... avoid putting food on your face.

http://www.sciencealert.com/all-of-richard-feynmans-physics-lectures-are-now-available-free-online This seems to be a good alternative to PBS's pledge week, lol. Sorry, inside joke, but ........

Fusion reactors use steam to carry potential energy (liquid/gas phase transition) from the reactor core to the condensor core the drop turns the turbine and waste heat needs to be transferred to heat radiators. These two transfers are the problem. Fir nuclear reactors we use large ponds in which surface evap rates modulate the temperature of the ponds over huge surface areas. In space cooling occurs over the much slower process of radiation. In a fusion reactor if all plasma is contained in the core then basiccaly a transfers in the core are through infrared radiation to the liquid evaporation surface of the liquid transfer system. So the reactors has to have a cool down pahse to capture heat its just produced. Fusion is a l-----------o------------n------------g way from being space ready. My thinking is that using anti-matter to use direct fusion energy as a propellant is more intelligent, but we need better ways of making and storing antimatter. It is possible to shield energy much more easily than getting rid of it once you have it. Solar is still the best power source in the inner solar system, and TNGs in the outer solar system.

I didn't plan launch windows either until career mode hard. Two things that are costly in career mode 1. Not double checking you sat. equipment required 2. Misplanned launch windows Now its true you can get a sat up with extra fuel to correct, but you can do other things with those sats. Launch windows, ok, so why The target orbit is polar. Its silly not to use launch windows. The alternative is your orbit coukd be oof by 180 degrees and requires the user to create a highly elliptical orbit which is the matched at apo and shrunk, cost is around 3500 dV. Minmos flights. Save a few dV on the plane matching. That sat you saved fuel with you can put in Kerbol orbit near Kerbin. By using the flight planner you can roughly test to see when the best launch times. So when is this important moho! Its not a day, it could be years of capital wasted to get a good dV. The best transfer is when you launch window is closest to mohos apo and the transfer orbit pe coincides with moho pe. Obviously this is hard to do, but moho travels around 5 times per each kerbin orbit so at worst you are going 36' from apo. So in this instance you may have to wait half a year, and waiting a up to a year and a half you could get within 18 degrees. Once you get the launch window you can plan a launch which optimizes plane mtaching. So this is an intance where planning luanch windows can save 1000s of dV.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34490337 These are images from the beeb

Research on reactor generated such as wasteless fast breeder reactors takes years to decades.

yes but you know its velocity at pe and ap. And if it were a circle at pe (an oxymoron), then you know how much velocity you need to transfer, you just dont know when the target will coincide. Since you know you speed at pe or ap and you know how much would be required if it was a circle then you how much more or less you would need to transfer. The problem is the target, but we can fix this. The most efficient places to begin the transfer out is at pe and to transfer in is at apo. So we can use these to our advantage, infact kicking ion drives at pe essentially does this. So the planning is in kicking out enough that at the next cycle through pe, if we kick so that our apo ~ crosses the target orbit at coincidence the target. The kicking out also allows one to match planes at the optimal lowest velocity. This startegy is advantageous under almost all circumstances except if time is a constraint. The 67p mission is essentially doing this because they lacked a dV budget to reach their target, they basically are using various oberth boosts to get to their target. To do this you have to know exactly when the target passes the orbiters theta at apo. this is simple becuase of the sweep rule, you ca determine the time to that theta, and you know the period thus its the series t(toTheta) + period*n(=0,1,2,3; easy to set up in excel, or the free linux equiv). Then, how much time to pe you can calculate and subtract from each item in the series. Then its a matter of fideling with 2 periods one generated by the intermediate apo and on by the final apo to get a two orbit cumulative that coincides at the second apo with any element in that series target. its usually going to be n= 0 or 1 and the orbiter may need additional orbits to hit 0. The problem with this stategy, the only one that is functional and not subjective (i.e having to do with mission needs such as food or battery life) is that when the two orbits apo and pe do not coincide, there are two inefficiencies, one is non optimal dV at vector matching, this is most pronounced when the targets apo is at the orbiters pe, such as in making a transit to moho starting the mission with a kerbin theta at moho's pe. In this case the orbiter may want to transfer his pe into an apo and would plan for the some plane matching to be approximate to this point, if possible. The other problem is that some radial dVs will be required if Pe or apo are not close in angle.

The problem is that america is educated just enough to have radiophobia, but not educated enough to have carbonophobia. here is the first thread on thorium, its like the tenth thread posted in this group. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/23778-Thorium-LFTR

looking at image, remind me why agian are launches expensive. This looks like an average sized warehouse. Sorry its not really big. My last trip home they are building a warehouse on I10 that must be between five or ten acres (prolly going to be an amazon warehouse or something).