p1t1o

Im not quite sure what you are saying, but: Here's a thing. Say you have an un-magnetised piece of ferro-magnetic metal and you "put energy in" as you say, to magnetise it. It does indeed require energy to do this. If applied by magnetic field, physically it would manifest as resistance, it would take effort to move the magnetic field through the sample. This in effect gives the newly magnetised piece of metal its own magnetic field. The energy you have put in, what it is used for, is removing entropy. The highly disordered states of the micro-magnetic fields that existed previously, have been forcibly re-ordered to all point in the same direction. This is an endothermic process, it requires energy, you have not "charged up" the metal with power. The piece of metal *is* now in a higher energy-state, than it was previously, but most of the energy you used to put it into this state is used to overcome a threshold, an "energy barrier", and most of the energy is immediately lost as heat in this process - *not* "stored" in the metal. The metal will heat up when you do this, of course usually the heat radiates away and the metal cools, this energy now being lost. The metal *is* now in a higher energy state, but only fractionally, like a crystal is, it "likes" being in this state, or it would spontaneously disorder itself and go back to being non-magnetised. [Which in many weakly magnetised materials, it gradually does, and yes, this does release a tiny amount of energy as heat.] If I could draw a graph, I would draw a double hump, where one trough is slightly higher than the next, with a "hill" between them. And now you have an uncompressed spring. **edit** PS: The heat that leaks out of the metal, this ends up increasing the entropy of the environment, thus upholding the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Oof. Oh no, no nooo. You cannot extract energy from a magnet without first putting energy in. A magnetic field is not a source of energy although you can use it to store energy. Think of a magnetic field as a spring. You cannot extract energy from a spring, its just a piece of metal. If you squeeze it though, you are putting energy in, which you can store in the spring and release later. Oh jeeze what is happening? Its the same with gravity although because there is no repulsion force its a little different. Yes you can drop something into a gravity well and see energy come from that. But you can only do it once, if you dont add energy to the system, the object you drop will stay at the bottom of the gravity well forever. You're not really extracting energy from gravity, you are extracting it from the relationship between two seperated masses. You can add and subtract energy from that system, but you cant extract energy from a single mass's gravity well. Dont go banging on about collapsing the mass into its own schwartzchild radius, that is just an extension of the stored energy situation explained just above.

@legoclone09 Did you just spot me a like because you knew you'd be stealing my thunder?? Ya goldurn thunder-stealer!! "Oooh look at me! I've got *two* thousand rep! I am SO smrat!"

Tick...tock....tick....tock.... *heavy breathing* **edit** 999-1000! Thanks RIC

Goddang bill bailey is awesome! I can play that video in my head without clicking on it *** FWIW though, I can live without doppler. In space sound makes no sense anyway (but I appreciate it for audio feedback and general immersion) so neither does doppler. And our camera viewpoint is "virtual", there isn't a kerbal holding a camera there listening. The way I reconcile sound in space is that Im hearing cockpit sounds wherever my viewpoint is, so moving the virtual viewpoint ought not to have doppler. For the same reason, we dont need lens-flare: we aren't looking through an actual camera. I suppose doppler makes a little more sense when in-atmosphere, but if you subscribe to the "virtual viewpoint" it is still not entirely necessary. But hey-ho, it wouldn't ruin my experience, so Im easy I could go for a model that has doppler when in-atmosphere, but in space the audio loses doppler but gains a "muffled" layer (not a great drop in volume, mind). That would improve immersion for me.

Time warp is not really compatible with multiplayer without imposing severe (as illustrated by the OP's suggestion) restrictions on players. Given that timewarp is a significant and mandatory part of using KSP and not just a "nice-to-have"... And given that there are few competetive or cooperative things that you can do in KSP... I agree with Veeltch, if what you are looking for is multiplayer KSP, what you are looking for is a different game. Try Space Engineers. For reelz, its got many things that KSP has and plenty of scope for multiplayer. It may as well be called "KSP for multiplayer".

What @Gaarst said. What would be perfect for KSP would be a bespoke-created physics engine for simulating vast volumes of space with high resolution. One did not exist, and creating one from scratch would have been prohibitively difficult (for starters you could add 2 or 3 years to KSP development time, double the cost to cover the salaries of the people they would have needed to hire to create it, and then add a bunch more cost on top of that because there would be few customers wishing to license the use of their engine.) Porting from one non-ideal engine to another non-ideal engine would be a lot of work for nothing. Squad did not make the mistake of "choosing the wrong engine", they made the "mistake" of building a game/sim that went beyond all contemporary expectations of what you could do in a game/sim world. One should not say "Squad should port KSP to a differnt engine" or "If only Squad didn't choose unity..." One should say "Gosh it never fails to impress me how much Squad achieved in KSP with the limitations of the physics engines available to them." Seriously, read about floating point errors and how KSP handles them, its quite clever.

Simples. You never played "Need for Speed" or anything suchlike? You were "in the zone" and you lost it, its a common issue you said yourself you're using just the right amount of fuel, so your margins are already sensitive. Im serious! Pretty sure this has happened to me more than once!

What I was getting at was a star could easily be a 10-100,000x more massive than Jupiter.

Well, mostly Im not convinced that gamma rays will be refracted in the same manner as lower frequencies, IIRC the refractive index of a material is specific to frequency. Diamond has a high refractive index for visible light, I dont think this holds all the way across the spectrum.

You can bounce it around inside a diamond as much as you like, but it is going to have a very low probability of interacting with anything before it escapes. In order to create a potential difference, something with a charge has got to be moved. *** Ah, this might help clear things up: I think a formal peer-reviewed paper yet to be published.

Im not sure if that is it - what I got from the article was that diamond was exposed to radioactivity [of some flavour or another] and C14 recovered from spent fuel rods was one source of the radiation. Other tests used Nickel-63 as the source. I dont recall any pertinent mathematics at the moment, but my gut says gamma refraction is unlikely, the absorption cross-section for gamma rays is just too small. I think it is more likely to involve the movement of charged particles, diamond having a nice covalent macro-structure seems to offer plenty of interaction pathways in that case. Its hard to tell though, without a journal reference. Correct, Pu239 is used for bombs, Pu238 for things like RTGs. However, note that Pu238 is the *more* radioactive isotope - this makes it less suitable for bombs as it is more prone to "fizzle", ie: burst apart before significant chain reaction has occurred.

Whatever combination works best with KSP physics. It could even have full-blown planets orbiting it, SOIs would be much smaller, yes I can see it being an interesting environment to add to KSP. Question: what is the luminosity of a neutron star like? Would it shine like a sun or be more a dull glow? Or even dark?

What about a sort of "kerbal" neutron star. We have "kerbal" planetary masses - in that due to their truncated size but "normal" gravity and atmospherics, they appear to be made of an incredibly dense material. Not physically accurate, but it facilitates gameplay. A "kerbal" neutron star might be be minmus-sized, but with say 50G surface gravity. Might be best not to *call* it a neutron star, perhaps something like "Kerbol System Dense Mass Anomaly". That way you get the opportunity to explore manouvers in a high-gravity environment, avoid software glitching and have a good reason to sidestep any weird relativity effects.

You talk as if we all have mouths full of tiny little knives - what are you some kind of alternate universe wolverine?

I have always seen SLI as a good upgrade option if you can acquire a duplicate of the card you already have, but if you are setting up a system from scratch its best to buy the best single card for your money, rather than getting two - which all seems to make sense. *** I have heard anecdotally, that an SLI graphics card setup only utilises the VRAM from one card, ie: you get the performance from both processors, but the RAM does not add together. Can anyone confirm/deny this?

Joolery Making Family Jools There is no Dana, only Jool Jool's Gold Jool me once Too Cool for Jool

There will be two bright points instead of one. Along with some weird gravitational lensing effects, presumably.

Its ok, there was a small mistake, the OP is discussing electrolysis, not electrophoresis

At those distances that probably true. Though Jupiter is about 1000x less massive than the sun and the sun is a pretty average mass star. Though according to the wiki, the Oort cloud can be perturbed by other nearby stars, and apparently about 70k years ago, a star ("Scholz's Star") passed through it, so it appears that it is so big that the star(s) it orbits are not the only significant operators. On thinking about it though, even if it is perturbed, the speeds and distances are such that I guess it would take a stupendous amount of time to do much to it.

A binary system can be anything from two stars sharing an atmosphere and feeding off one another to two stars a good fraction of a light year apart, so obviously there are many different answers. I'd imagine though, that conditions are generally less favourable for belt formation due to the less static gravitational environment. Whenever you have an orbit existing in changing conditions there is a constant chance that object will be disturbed - ejected, drawn into the inner system - and even if it is very gradual, over time this will erode any long term arrangement.

Its probably to assuage any "OMG Radioactivity!!" paranoia.

Thats the thing, about the only thing you *can* do with a bag of this is explode it.

Might be a little less since Im in the UK. I won't be selling it in the next few days or anything, I have to get the replacement first!

Just a quick one: Im not sure if Im understanding this correctly, but just to be sure - if you collect the gas from both electrodes into the same container you will be collecting a perfect stoichiometric mix of hydrogen and oxygen which is just begging to explode - DO NOT DO THIS - keep hydrogen and oxygen separate.