p1t1o

Hahaha! I'll have to respectfully disagree with that one, plus Im not just talking about RAM, CPUs & GPUs. Though I would agree that if you buy a new computer today, it will stay current for a lot longer than they used to, in terms of performance.

On the plus side, conditioned air is by necessity dried, so you can run the cooled air through your system without too much worry, the danger comes when the AC shuts off and humid air from outside enters the machine and condenses on the cold surfaces. But what you really want to do is immerse the whole thing in oil and run the oil through a heat exchanger

lol well that certainly makes more sense! *** This question about conveyors is exactly analogous to taking off with a tailwind - which is done, in practice, every. single. day. Can a plane take off in a tailwind of any speed? Of course not, that would be insane, there's obviously a limit. But can it be done? Yes its a normal everyday thing. *** The video below is NOT that, but I think it will catalyse some extra talk on the subject:

What on Earth does one use a 200kt belt for?!

Thats funny, I wonder if its related to https://www.wetnwild.co.uk/ all the way over here in sunny South Shields!

10 because 7 does not support the latest hardware. No brainer. I had XP for the longest time, then 7 for a bit, honestly 10 is the best out of the bunch for me so far (mainly because it has stayed completely out of my way and everything works) though I've only had it for a few months. I've not noticed any glitches or update problems. Games break themselves with updates more often if you ask me. *COUGH* *KSP* <HARD GLARE>

Its a classic black-box McGuffin, I actually quite like the way they did it, they just go with "someone invented a torch drive" and dont bother with trying to shoehorn it into any science - because of course that would ruin it. The whole point is "What would the solar system look like if we had this thing?" how "the thing" works is not relevant to the idea of the story. It is a bit jarring though when they talk about how it (the Epstein drive) gave them the solar system but not the stars - because being able to accelerate at 1g for long periods of time (apparently the inventors drive is still running and can still be seen running in deep space) most certainly would give you the stars, time dilation would even make it a trip doable in one lifetime. Heck if you can accelerate at 1g for a mere 100years, it would give you the universe. IMO The Expanse is the best Sci-Fi show to turn up in a very long time, I just started reading the books.

Regarding osmium. Density is not the only factor. Uranium and tungsten are of roughly similar densities and hardness, but uranium projectiles can penetrate thicker armour. This is because of the structural chemistry of uranium (something to do with a concept called "adiabatic shear bands") means that when the point "mushrooms" on impact with the armor surface, it forms a narrower "mushroom", boring a narrower hole, naturally, meaning that with a similar amount of kinetic energy, a deeper hole can be dug. You will sometimes see this termed "self-sharpening" but be aware, "sharpness" is irrelevant at these energies, neither projectile retains a "sharp" point, but the uranium does not "spread" so much. This is not a trivial property of uranium merely being "stronger" or "harder" but a more involved combination of physical factors. See page 20 of this document: http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2001/ARL-TR-2395.pdf

Those explosions...they are doing exactly what you said in the first part of your comment. The missile that explodes above...it is a shaped charge too, projecting downwards to attack the weaker top armour. The tank "brews up" not because the missile is so overpowered tha it can literally blast it apart, but because once you've punched a hole in the top, you dont have to pump much gas into a tank to flip off the turret. Dont forget that shaped charges are kinetic weapons, the spike that they project penetrates armour in exactly the same way as a long rod penetrator.

I hate this question so much. Not the OP, nor the people having intelligent discussion. But I hate the question and questions like it. The conveyor is merely a source of resistance to movement, and since its not a physical object, it can have properties such as arbitrary speed without any limitations. The fact that the question usually says something like it "matching" the "speed" of the wheels is moot, effectively its a source of friction that can be scaled to any amount. If the conveyor is moving a shade under the speed of light backwards, no, no plane will be able to successfully take off. If the conveyor is moving backwards at only a few cm/s than off course the plane can take off. Obviously there is a turning point at which the speed of the conveyor completely precludes its use as a runway. Whether or not the conveyor running at "the speed of the planes wheels" is before or after this limit is just a case of knowing the values of the various physical characteristics of the system, like friction coefficients of all the various wheel-and-axle components, the surface of the conveyor etc. It is possible to construct cases which match the question, and match both versions of the answer "yes it will" and "no it cant". But it sounds like there should be a definite and single answer, hence its possible for the discussion to go on to infinity. So the next time someone smugly asks this, just challenge them "You KNOW this question is unanswerable without knowing the coefficient of friction in the planes main wheel and nosewheel bearings,...and you havnt even told us what the conveyor is made of and what its power limitations are! Stop asking silly questions and get your facts straight! What is the static and dynamic thrust curve of the engines? What is the breakaway resistance?"

How big can a ball of iron get before it stops being a ball of iron (and starts being something like liquid iron, or neutronium?) And how long would it last if we flung it into the sun (with a probe at the very centre)? Tungsten is fine, but it might start fissioning at some point in its journey.

(Its "Casaba" ) Im sceptical about those too, if you dig a bit you can find information on some nuclear tests designed to investigate the principles (accelerating projectiles with nukes) and whilst there were some results that resembled the popular picture of the weapon (ultra-high velocity shrapnel, long range), it was judged to be ineffective at long distances (the angular spread is quite tight, just not tight enough to make probability-of-kill a useful value) and there have been some order-of-magnitude errors between the published results (what little has been published) and what has made it into popular knowledge. Its very difficult to beat a fast moving mass for moving energy from one place to another without dissipation proportional to distance. (I wish I had the documents to back all that up to hand, all I can really say for now is that Im sceptical)

I'm bored. I'm the chairman of the board. I'm a Lincoln monologue, I'm livin' like a God, I'm bored. I bore myself to sleep at night, I bore myself in broad daylight, 'cause I'm bored. Just another slimy bore. I'm free to bore my well-bought friends, And spend my cash until the end, 'cause I'm bored! I'm bored! I'm the chairman of the board. I'm sick. I'm sick of all my kicks. I'm sick of all the stiffs, I'm sick of all the dips, I'm bored. I bore myself to sleep at night, I bore myself in broad daylight, 'cause I'm bored! I'm bored! Just another dirty bore! Alright now, face, come out and bore me! I am sick! I am sick of all my kicks! I'm sick of all the stiffs, I'm sick of all the dips, I'm sick! I'm sick when I go to sleep at night, I'm still sick in the broad daylight, 'Cause I'm bored! I'm bored! I'm the chairman of the board! - Iggy Pop

Im the chairman of the bored.

What I'd really like to see is a treatment of what would the distances really be like in a "realistic" space battle/war. Lasers may be great at 10,000km but what if the average distances are 100,000km+? Then lasers are useless, or you have to multiply power (and related issues) by some significant amount. Or what if the analysis turns out that distances rapidly close to <1000km? Then other weapons may have advantages over lasers. I'd like to see how lasers stack up against various other types of weapon (kinetic [small & large], nuclear, particle, radiation etc) up against an analysis of how distances would vary in a space battle with near-future tech level. I used to think lasers were the weapon of the future too, when I was small, but it hasnt quite turned out that way. Their effects can be awesome, but they have a lot of drawbacks.

FunFactTM: Some nuclear warheads have solid gold outer radiation casings which can be several centimetres thick (I think it maximises X-ray emissions for exo-atmospheric use...or something)

Super-heavy elements are not always super-dense - eg: Osmium is the densest element, but not the heaviest atom. Density is what makes good penetrators or armour. For interest, the reason Osmium is not used in military applications is likely due to cost.

It was cool right? Remember getting like 20 games with PC magazines? Shareware games is how I learned computers.

Do me! Do me!

0_0 Thats the best fact I've read in a long time.

Thats a good point actually, should have thought about LOx turbopumps straightaway. Its not like a fluorine/ozone turbojet will always run hotter than a conventional one, just that the chemical environment inside will be much more harsh. Yes, definitely, I cant remember off the top of my head which one has what, but there are various ones. I have a vague memory of one of them even having an atmospheric pressure similar to Earth, I forget which. I think it might be Titan. *googlygoogle* Yep, Titan has a surface pressure of 1.45atm, mostly nitrogen, and with a surface gravity of around 0.1-0.2G, flying there would be easy as pie. If you get propulsion to work.

Noice *** Ooops, made the classic mistake up there ^^^, typed "fluoride" instead of "fluorine". Thats the chemist version of accidentally calling your teacher "mum". And the dentist version of really, really screwing up at work. **edit** Heh, look at that, turns out turbine blades are already made of inconel...

Its hard to say, whenever I look directly at it, it disappears.

If the plane does ever take off, does it sound more like someone saying "Yanny" or someone saying "Laurel"?

What if its a tank, which has pre-installed wheel-speed-matching conveyors on both sides? On a conveyor. Going uphill. Underwater. At the North Pole. Now where is your riddle god?