Offline
]
xoxoxoBruce wrote:
It'll take a few days to get to you anyway, then wipe the torch with alcohol and give the packaging to your worst enemy.
If the courier gent turns up wearing full Hazmat gear I shall take your advice!
Perhaps more worrying is the fact that the first promotional Email I received after placing the order included this...
Offline
Don't leave home without it. yikes!
Offline
Liberal thinking from Hong Kong leaked out into Shenzhen. China is trying to stop the spreading of that disease.
Offline
quick, send them trump
Offline
China's not an ally, but they don't deserve that.
Offline
He'd talk them into invading Taiwan.
Offline
The word 'window' comes from Old Norse and means 'wind eye'
Offline
That actually make a lot of sense.
Offline
It's amazing to me that a word as prosaic as window has such a poetic origin
Offline
When I was a kid the old-timers around here used to say wind-er. That feels like they were touching the origin.
Offline
Yes winder it is, or was.
Offline
TIL that there are carbon fiber curtains for earthquake proofing buildings.
Offline
Curtain? Nope, not even net. Guy wires, guy ropes, and a host of other terms for an idea that's been around forever.
I guess using carbon fiber is stronger, although maybe overkill, but makes better headlines.
Those cables are compressing the entire structure so any movement will be the same throughout, but by the same token any failure in the structure creates a house of cards.
Pat Finn's statement, "Although carbon fiber is best known for its use in furniture design...”, tells me he/she doesn’t know jack shit about carbon fiber or materials.
Offline
What is not seen is most critical. How are those ropes earthed? If not structurally connected to the buildings foundation (in a manner that all move together), then those ropes could simply become whips to lash at and destroy that structure.
Critical is that the entire structure (including ropes) most together in a coordinated manner. The most critical component of that solution (the entire foundation is coordinated) is ignored when not observed.
Those ropes appear too far from the rest of that foundation to become a coordinated solution.
Interesting new idea though. Raises plenty of questions.
Last edited by tw (7/19/2022 3:35 pm)
Offline
TIL Camels do not mate standing up
Offline
monster wrote:
TIL Camels do not mate standing up
As a consequence they become somewhat ill tempered.
Hence the expression 'getting the hump'.
Offline
TIL the Spanish for movie is....
película!
also that enjoy is disfruta. So I hope you defruit your vampire pelicans if you happen to visit the cinema this week!
Offline
TIL : If the Earth was 50% bigger our rocket tech would be completely useless and we'd be trapped here unable to shoot assholes into space.
If the radius of our planet were larger, there could be a point at which an Earth escaping rocket could not be built. Let us assume that building a rocket at 96% propellant (4% rocket), currently the limit for just the Shuttle External Tank, is the practical limit for launch vehicle engineering. Let us also choose hydrogen-oxygen, the most energetic chemical propellant known and currently capable of use in a human rated rocket engine. By plugging these numbers into the rocket equation, we can transform the calculated escape velocity into its equivalent planetary radius. That radius would be about 9680 kilometers (Earth is 6670 km). If our planet was 50% larger in diameter, we would not be able to venture into space, at least using rockets for transport.
Offline
So... doesn't that mean we also can't explore planets that large, because you could never get back off planet again? Like imagine we discover a giant world, teeming with civilization, we can pick up their TV signals from orbit, we know everything about them, we can even send signals to let them know we're there, but we can never land and actually introduce ourselves.
Offline
That would be a bit frustrating. I would assume we could build a space elevator from orbit down though, giving them a boost into the universe.
Offline
You can find comparable weights on other planets/moons, but I can't find how much more things would weigh on an Earth 50% larger in diameter.
Gimme an answer or where to look.
Offline
That's assuming a proportional increase in gravity to an Earth 50% bigger which ain't necessarily so.
Offline
But I think it is. Relative to Earth, all three rocks:
Venus: ,95 radius, .85 volume, .83 mass, .9 gravity.
Mars: .54 radius, .15 volume, .11 mass, .38 gravity.
Offline
Here's how to calculate gravity. The short version is you need to know your imaginary planet's mass and radius. If you're saying it has 50% more mass than Earth, then you still have to decide on the radius (because it could be more or less dense, resulting in different sizes.) If you're saying its radius is 50% bigger, then you have to decide on what you're pretending the mass is, for the same reasons.
If you want to assume the density is the same as Earth, then the mass and radius can't both be 50% bigger, because the mass is being distributed 3 dimensionally around an ever-larger sphere, so the radius will be increasing less and less with each "layer" of mass you add.
Offline
When I said "Gimme an answer or where to look." I should have just said Give me the answer.
First, the original statement uses variously "50% bigger," "50% larger radius" and "50% larger diameter."
Assuming the new material is the same as the original, then the mass will be varyingly increased by large amounts.
If mass is the determinator of gravity, then the weight of objects on the surface should be increased.
I ask again: By how much? Three possibilities, I guess (four with Bruce's input).
100 lbs. = 150 lbs.?
Last edited by Diaphone Jim (1/02/2023 1:25 pm)