Jump to content

For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread


Skyler4856

Recommended Posts

  On 5/22/2021 at 2:58 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

.... It is a distinction that does not matter. 

Expand  

Exactly.
In the end it may be that our idea that electromagnetic radiation consists of "photons" is deeply flawed. But for the time being it lets us predict how it behaves with remarkable precision. And that latter is the essential test for a good theory.

Edited by AHHans
grammer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I discovered the wonderous program which is CEA (Chemical Equilibrium with Applications), and I'm unsure as to what some of the outputs are. Here's an example of what I mean using CH4 and O2

  Reveal hidden contents

What are:

  • (dLV/dLP)t
  • (dLV/dLP)p
  • M, (1/n)
  • SON VEL,M/SEC

I suspect M is related to molecular weight and SON VEL is the velocity of... something, but that's as much as I can figure.

Edited by Silavite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/23/2021 at 9:38 PM, Silavite said:
  • (dLV/dLP)t
  • (dLV/dLT)p
Expand  

These are partial derivatives. I'm not entirely sure what L is meant to stand for, but first one is how volume changes with pressure at constant temperature, second how it changes with temperature at constant pressure. These are related to compressibility and thermal expansion. I suspect that L might be "limiting" as in "limiting flow," which would make sense for a rocket exhaust, but I'm kind of guessing on it.

  On 5/23/2021 at 9:38 PM, Silavite said:
  • M, (1/n)
Expand  

Mass per mol.

  On 5/23/2021 at 9:38 PM, Silavite said:
  • SON VEL,M/SEC
Expand  

Critical velocity of the fluid. Abbreviation for "sonic velocity".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/23/2021 at 9:38 PM, Silavite said:

Today I discovered the wonderous program which is CEA (Chemical Equilibrium with Applications),

Expand  

If your goal is to try out all kinds of propellant combinations, you should also give RPA a look: https://www.rocket-propulsion.com/RPA/download.htm.

The 1.2.9 lite edition is free to download and use.

I've also found it a good bit easier to use than CEA for rocket engine analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/15/2021 at 11:53 AM, K^2 said:

You'd be moving a smaller mass but a larger volume. I also expect hydrogen gas to have more viscosity at the same temperature, since lighter molecules are going to diffuse faster. So you are going to have a significantly higher pressure differential at higher flow velocity, and that means a lot more energy consumed pushing the gas through the pipe, but more importantly, it will require the pumping stations to be able to handle the higher pressure and power requirements.

This might also put a limit on how far you can push gas along a given pipe, since they are rated to a specific pressure. So if the pressure differential has to be higher, some pipelines that are close to the limit might become overpressurized with hydrogen unless you subdivide the length and put additional pumping stations in the middle.

This is definitely not a case of, "We'll just swap out the gas and everything will work." Some amount of retrofitting will have to be done.

Hydrogen also leaks and ignites a lot easier, so there will be more accidents, further increasing costs. Whether that's significant, I don't know, but something to consider for sure.

Expand  

Coming back to the topic, remembring @MatterBeam's blogpost, and completely disregarding the bottomless puns, how would ethanol compare as a 'drop-in' (in relative terms) pipeline-based energy transport mechanism?

Same flammability issues and, IIRC, annoyingly hygroscopic, but density should be quite sane. One problem I forsee is that the current pipeline is ultimately designed for gas and not liquid, and water hammers are... fun.

Edited by DDE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a limit to the distance from the central star that objects in orbit should be self organized into a planetary disk? 

(numerous Kuiper Belt and presumably Oort Cloud objects are off axis.) 

Do we have enough info on exoplanets to confirm that they typically organize into a disk? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/24/2021 at 1:22 PM, DDE said:

how would ethanol compare as a 'drop-in'

Expand  

I think, there are a lot of issues at the terminal end. You can inexpensively retrofit just about any infrastructure running on natural gas to hydrogen, from kitchen stoves to power plants. Ethanol? Not so much. Obviously, you need completely different way of generating fuel-air mixture. You can't just squirt ethanol out of a pipe and light it. You need to create fine spray, mix it with air... That's considerably more hardware than burning gas. But there are less obvious problems too. Ethanol will contain up to about 10% water. It will literally pull it out of air, so avoiding it is exceptionally difficult. That's enough water content to start causing problems. And if your pipes were not built to withstand corrosion and now they suddenly have to, well, that's a problem. I don't think it's going to do any appreciable damage to the pipeline itself, but various control valves and thinner pipes at the terminal end are another matter entirely.

So I don't think ethanol is a viable alternative even before we get into questions of pipeline physics.

But yeah, moving something that dense will require adjustments. There might be portions of pipelines that simply aren't designed to withstand the weight of the pipe filled with ethanol. Nearly a ton to a cubic meter is no joke and adds up really fast.

  On 5/24/2021 at 2:36 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Do we have enough info on exoplanets to confirm that they typically organize into a disk? 

Expand  

I don't think we have seen anything in exoplanet observation that contradicts the notion. That said, some detection methods rely on the assumption that planets mostly move in the same plane, which means you can't rely on this information too strongly. But I think most of the data comes from observations of young stars with detectable protoplanetary disk and computer modeling. The Wikipedia article on protoplanetary disk actually has quite a few pictures of the ones we've been able to image directly. And we're mostly seeing things consistent with computer models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does humans actually have an ability to 'sense' other human's attention in close proximity? (aka the sensation of being watched) Like in a lot of sci-fi movies, we can see the character said 'I think we're being watched', 'someone's watching us' and other similar remarks. I've run an experiment with some of my relatives to sit with me in a room with me facing a wall and I can consistently tell who's watching me from behind and who doesn't, even without me looking over my shoulder (this also happen without the experiment, like when I'm walking on the roadside I can tell who sets their eyes on me in close proximity). Does this kind of behavior has some explanation or it's just a myth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try to suddenly cross with glance someone's wrist on the street to make let him drop a bag. (No strong intention, just lazily).

Try to breath in tact with somebody sleeping, then do it more often and then stop, to let him awake from coughing.

(obsolete) Probably no more tram tickets at your place.

The universal "Of course, this happens, what can go wrong."

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/26/2021 at 7:49 AM, ARS said:

Does humans actually have an ability to 'sense' other human's attention in close proximity? (aka the sensation of being watched) Like in a lot of sci-fi movies, we can see the character said 'I think we're being watched', 'someone's watching us' and other similar remarks. I've run an experiment with some of my relatives to sit with me in a room with me facing a wall and I can consistently tell who's watching me from behind and who doesn't, even without me looking over my shoulder (this also happen without the experiment, like when I'm walking on the roadside I can tell who sets their eyes on me in close proximity). Does this kind of behavior has some explanation or it's just a myth?

Expand  

I've always wondered that. If we do, I would guess that it's a combination of sight and hearing. You see who's in what position, and then you turn away. After that, you can hear any changes in their position by changes to acoustics in the room. IDK. That's just my guess.

To test for it, I suppose we'd get a couple of groups of people and sit them down, as in your own experiment. One would be stared at, and the other wouldn't. Finding out exactly what is going on might be harder. Testing on another group, we should not let them know they're being watched, and not permit them to see the watchers, and again, compare them to a control group. If they still have the sensation, then something besides sight is involved. To test the auditory hypothesis, maybe we'd use an anechoic chamber or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/26/2021 at 1:52 PM, SOXBLOX said:

I've always wondered that. If we do, I would guess that it's a combination of sight and hearing. You see who's in what position, and then you turn away. After that, you can hear any changes in their position by changes to acoustics in the room. IDK. That's just my guess.

To test for it, I suppose we'd get a couple of groups of people and sit them down, as in your own experiment. One would be stared at, and the other wouldn't. Finding out exactly what is going on might be harder. Testing on another group, we should not let them know they're being watched, and not permit them to see the watchers, and again, compare them to a control group. If they still have the sensation, then something besides sight is involved. To test the auditory hypothesis, maybe we'd use an anechoic chamber or something?

Expand  

I found out that Wikipedia has an article about it, it's called psychic staring effect

It's mostly relied upon recognizing the specific pattern of human eyes (iris, sclera, etc.) when angled directly on you. If the target's eyes are directly set on you, the brain automatically registers the human eye pattern to alert you that you're being watched, and if the target shifts his/her field of view, even if it's just a few degrees to break the line of sight staring effect (still looking at your direction, but not directly on you) the brain stops registering the specific eye pattern and you feel not being stared at. However, the way human can still recognizing that someone's watching outside the field of view is still unclear

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/26/2021 at 1:52 PM, SOXBLOX said:

I've always wondered that. If we do, I would guess that it's a combination of sight and hearing. You see who's in what position, and then you turn away. After that, you can hear any changes in their position by changes to acoustics in the room. IDK. That's just my guess.

To test for it, I suppose we'd get a couple of groups of people and sit them down, as in your own experiment. One would be stared at, and the other wouldn't. Finding out exactly what is going on might be harder. Testing on another group, we should not let them know they're being watched, and not permit them to see the watchers, and again, compare them to a control group. If they still have the sensation, then something besides sight is involved. To test the auditory hypothesis, maybe we'd use an anechoic chamber or something?

Expand  

The described test conditions are dirty, as all of you know about each other's presence.

Following a walking person is more pure.
Following somebody step-by-step, don't look at him, and don't think about him, that's well-known.

  On 5/26/2021 at 2:40 PM, ARS said:

It's mostly relied upon recognizing the specific pattern of human eyes (iris, sclera, etc.) when angled directly on you.

Expand  

If you can see by back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/26/2021 at 7:49 AM, ARS said:

Does humans actually have an ability to 'sense' other human's attention in close proximity?

Expand  

Interesting question. Try this: while driving (ideally stopped, of course), watch a pedestrian.  Or another person in another car. Not one that’s going to or did cross your path, but one that will otherwise have no interaction with you or your vehicle at all. Ideally one not even looking in your direction. 

The number of people Ive observed that soon make eye contact with me is unnerving. With no motion or noise to draw their attention. It may be the psychic staring effect mentioned above, and the subconscious is good at picking important stuff out of the peripheral vision, but still...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/26/2021 at 3:15 PM, StrandedonEarth said:

Interesting question. Try this: while driving (ideally stopped, of course), watch a pedestrian.  Or another person in another car. Not one that’s going to or did cross your path, but one that will otherwise have no interaction with you or your vehicle at all. Ideally one not even looking in your direction. 

The number of people Ive observed that soon make eye contact with me is unnerving. With no motion or noise to draw their attention. It may be the psychic staring effect mentioned above, and the subconscious is good at picking important stuff out of the peripheral vision, but still...

Expand  

Sounds like a combination of the subconscious recognition of eyes looking at you and drivers trying to be aware of their surroundings.(or pedestrians trying to be aware of the large metal murder machines near them)

I try to look around on a regular basis when driving so as to A) be better aware of my surroundings and B) prevent 'roadway hypnosis'.  I also tend to look around when walking if I hear vehicles near-by.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/26/2021 at 7:49 AM, ARS said:

Does humans actually have an ability to 'sense' other human's attention in close proximity? (aka the sensation of being watched) Like in a lot of sci-fi movies, we can see the character said 'I think we're being watched', 'someone's watching us' and other similar remarks. I've run an experiment with some of my relatives to sit with me in a room with me facing a wall and I can consistently tell who's watching me from behind and who doesn't, even without me looking over my shoulder (this also happen without the experiment, like when I'm walking on the roadside I can tell who sets their eyes on me in close proximity). Does this kind of behavior has some explanation or it's just a myth?

Expand  

Short answer is 'yes'. 

 

Give me a bit for references

- basics, before I continue: it is actually part of your visual sense - you can spot the one person in a crowd that is looking at you, even if they are far away.  Your brain is working on a variety of levels and has evolved for survival - so if a pair of eyes are focused on you within your field of view - you will sense that. (1 person in a crowd of 100... You will identify that person) even if you are not immediately cognitively aware that you saw a potential threat (or mate) you will be subconsciously cued to look again for the individual and will most likely correctly identify the 'starer'. 

 

You will not - despite what some may say - 'feel a tingle' if someone outside of your field of view is looking at you (psychic gaze sense).  The brain does not work that way. 

On the other hand, if you have a crowd in front of you, and someone behind you is oddly focused on you - you can pick up clues from the crowd's behavior that will direct you to look behind you for a threat 

 

If you can find the full episode (and correct episode) Brain Games did a piece on this several years ago - same episode talks about proprioception, vestibular sense and others 

 

Edit - having spent a minute googling, there is a lot of utter horse pucky out there on this and other 'psychic' subjects (people so want to believe).  The subconscious 'sense' that I describe is actually supported by scientific research - but good luck finding it casually.  I hope the info I gave you is helpful if you want to keep digging. I don't have the patience to debunk the 'faith' of the internet psychic crowd and the pseudoscience that clouds actually true things 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/26/2021 at 3:00 PM, kerbiloid said:

The described test conditions are dirty, as all of you know about each other's presence.

Following a walking person is more pure.
Following somebody step-by-step, don't look at him, and don't think about him, that's well-known.

Expand  

Off-topic

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/26/2021 at 3:34 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Short answer is 'yes'. 

 

Give me a bit for references

- basics, before I continue: it is actually part of your visual sense - you can spot the one person in a crowd that is looking at you, even if they are far away.  Your brain is working on a variety of levels and has evolved for survival - so if a pair of eyes are focused on you within your field of view - you will sense that. (1 person in a crowd of 100... You will identify that person) even if you are not immediately cognitively aware that you saw a potential threat (or mate) you will be subconsciously cued to look again for the individual and will most likely correctly identify the 'starer'. 

 

You will not - despite what some may say - 'feel a tingle' if someone outside of your field of view is looking at you (psychic gaze sense).  The brain does not work that way. 

On the other hand, if you have a crowd in front of you, and someone behind you is oddly focused on you - you can pick up clues from the crowd's behavior that will direct you to look behind you for a threat 

 

If you can find the full episode (and correct episode) Brain Games did a piece on this several years ago - same episode talks about proprioception, vestibular sense and others 

 

Edit - having spent a minute googling, there is a lot of utter horse pucky out there on this and other 'psychic' subjects (people so want to believe).  The subconscious 'sense' that I describe is actually supported by scientific research - but good luck finding it casually.  I hope the info I gave you is helpful if you want to keep digging. I don't have the patience to debunk the 'faith' of the internet psychic crowd and the pseudoscience that clouds actually true things 

Expand  

All of which is useless if you are walking around looking at your phone! (Personal pet peeve of mine.) Gotta keep your head on a swivel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 5/26/2021 at 3:34 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Edit - having spent a minute googling, there is a lot of utter horse pucky out there on this and other 'psychic' subjects (people so want to believe).  The subconscious 'sense' that I describe is actually supported by scientific research - but good luck finding it casually.  I hope the info I gave you is helpful if you want to keep digging. I don't have the patience to debunk the 'faith' of the internet psychic crowd and the pseudoscience that clouds actually true things 

Expand  

A typical Psi Corps explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...