This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Nizzle
Pages: 1 2  4 5 ... 39
« on: 10/04/2012 06:27:01 »
Black holes clearly seem to a one way route to somewhere else but at the moment no one is brave enough to simulate what happens with the processes that we know and understand just inside the event horizon as black holes are collapsing and just run to this mathematical end game of an infinite density infinite energy "singularity".
I don't think Black holes have infinite density. For me, they're just a giant lump of quarks and leptons held together with a whole lot of bosons. The electrons surrounding the atoms get smacked on the nucleus by gravity to stay charge-neutral, which vastly reduces the size of 1 atom, and thus vastly increases it's density, but not to infinity. I consider a black hole as being some sort of QGP
This is probably oversimplified or even wrong, so I'm happy to read the arguments why my vision of a black hole is incorrect.
PS: If in the future we discover that quarks are made up of even more basic building blocks, I'll change my black hole vision to a giant lump of that new stuff.
« on: 05/04/2012 08:21:48 »
What explains the fact that all galaxies are moving away from us... except one?
I thought I read somewhere else on this forum that everything's moving away from each other with a speed greater than escape velocity, yet somehow, that didn't work for Milky Way & Andromeda?
« on: 05/04/2012 06:38:06 »
And his tail is helping to sweep the floor :)
« on: 05/04/2012 06:08:32 »
It must be, because a lot of bugs respond to specific wavelengths, and as your graphs show, the sodium lights only have a narrow output spectrum, so a lot less bugs will be affected..
« on: 05/04/2012 05:44:59 »
They can't alter pressures or combustion chamber design without mechanically altering the combustion chambers. They might be able to do something with valve timing, but only if the engine has a mechanism to do that, so I think they can only be modifying the fuel/air ratio “map”.
You must be correct cause it seems you know what you're talking about :D
But I'm sure they can alter some pressures.. It must be the Turbo pressure then..
« on: 04/04/2012 12:45:50 »
In effect, if you add enough curvature into a specific region, matter should appear.
This is going towards the Photon-only theory...
« on: 04/04/2012 11:17:56 »
So sad that this topic has been read 193 times already and I'm the first one to say Hi :)
Anyway, welcome here, and time does really exist!!! :p
« on: 04/04/2012 11:03:54 »
... ie a weekly cost of £0025 or an annual cost of £0125...
Strange economy? Strange year I'd say, with only 5 weeks in it.. ;)
« on: 04/04/2012 09:30:15 »
His eyes are gone, but the windows to his soul remain.
« on: 04/04/2012 09:12:40 »
« on: 04/04/2012 09:09:11 »
No, not at the moment.
A lot of discoveries in science still depend on creativity. A computer cannot be creative, as long is it is not intelligent. So first, we need to create human-like, or better-than-human AI. Then we can talk about a computer doing experiments.
« on: 04/04/2012 09:01:24 »
As pointed out in "Guns, Germs, and Steel" the religion of Europe was unable to overcome the geographical barriers Europe presented and so was unable to prevent science from becoming dominant. In all other geographical areas, the state religion was able to suppress scientific reality, leading to the dominance of Europe. Today the state religion is political correctness, and its pagan priests demand acquiescence to their eugenic agenda, to breed you into the slave state all religions have always aspired to. No place to hide now. Hand over your passwords.
I don't know grizelda.. Ever heard of the ~700 year period called "Dark Ages"? Science was pretty much oppressed in Western Europe between Roman Empire and Renaissance.
It's a shame that people are losing their trust in Science, but is it my perception, or is it fact that this only occurs in USA, and not in Europe?
In the Netherlands, there's even a Scientific Counsel, which is an advisory board for the government..
« on: 04/04/2012 06:48:03 »
The efficiency of an engine varies to some extent with its speed, but in this case, the speed has not changed, so that would not account for the improved economy. I'm not sure exactly what dials they have to play with to adjust things here, but I suspect they can only alter the fuel/air ratio. If that's true, the bit that I find contradictory is that, to increase torque, you usually have to increase the fuel per air which would take the economy in the wrong direction.
Could they perhaps achieve more torque not by altering fuel/air ratio but by altering fuel and air pressure in combination with using less fuel in the mixture?
PS: This is a sincere question, I don't know anything about the workings of an engine :-s
« on: 03/04/2012 12:45:09 »
Andromeda's blue shift could be because it's doppler effect overcompensates for the proposed 'photon fatigue' which would be infinitesimal, since Hubble's deep field showed that light from very very far away is still powerful enough to reach the telescope.
And for the theoretical: we may indeed have a theory that works on known physics with no new interactions required, but we also still have a lot of question marks out there, like for example Dark Energy. This is said to aid in the accelerated expansion of the universe, but we know nothing of Dark Energy. Who's to say that it's not aiding photon fatigue instead?
« on: 03/04/2012 09:58:49 »
I remember you telling me (and Aethelwulf and probably others too) not to be condescending imatfaal ;)
« on: 03/04/2012 09:55:58 »
I would be very interested to hear anyone's simple explanation of gravity that does not include time? Gravity is acceleration. Acceleration is time dependent.
Gravity is more than acceleration I think. Because objects lying still on the ground with 0 acceleration are still subjected to gravity, otherwise they'd float. Acceleration can be used to simulate gravity, but it's not the same.
But that's besides the point. I can't explain gravity without time..
« on: 03/04/2012 07:15:49 »
We're basing the fact that the universe is expanding mostly on the observed redshift of light from distant sources, but couldn't it be that this is an observational error, and that we actually live in a static universe (or a universe with a big bang but not accelerating expansion) where redshift is explained by some sort of "photon fatigue"?
A higher frequency indicates a more energetic photon, so if the photon would somehow lose some energy on it's way from the distant source to our optical instruments, it would be redshifted no?
And the accelerated expansion due to more redshift from more distant light sources could just be explained by the fact that the photon lost more energy because it traveled a longer distance?
Maybe the energy loss of the photon could be attributed to some sort of wave interference from the cosmic microwave background radiation?
« on: 03/04/2012 05:26:05 »
The big thing is that the nuclear industry needs to have more effort in separating out the reburnable materials, rather than just dumping them and mining new uranium. It is a finite resource, after all. I.E. Put them back in the nuclear reactor to generate energy which is the goal in the first place ;)
My thought exactly. Nuclear waste is still radioactive
so that activity
should be put to good use. Could we use nuclear waste in some sort of batteries?
« on: 02/04/2012 13:25:28 »
Geezer mentioned that Horsepower (or kW) is proportional to the instantaneous torque multiplied by RPM,
Geezer also mentioned that for a given constant speed, your engine needs a given constant power output, so if my torque is higher, I need less revs for the same power output, and less revs means less fuel consumption, no?
Can changes in various operating characteristics make an engine more (or less) fuel efficient by increasing (or decreasing) the amount of torque produced for a certain amount of fuel consumed? I'm certain that the answer is that they can.
What I'm saying is that tweaking certain characteristics can increase the torque produced from the same amount of fuel consumed. I'm also thinking that, if such a thing was possible — all other things staying the same — the car makers would have probably incorporated it into their engines' computers.
So, what I'm saying is that there may be some adverse effects that the eco-chippers don't advertise — for example, higher chamber pressures (and thus, a greater possibility of a blown gasket), higher operating temperatures (and thus, faster deteriorating lubricant requiring more frequent oil changes), etc.
Yes perhaps, but they told me they are staying well within safety margins (which are maybe too big off-factory for dealing with drivers who abuse their engines) and they're giving a 3-year warranty on the engine with their product, so I'm not that worried. Also, my driving style is not about taking the engine to it's extremes...
« on: 02/04/2012 09:28:12 »
As I understand, most research into the field of nuclear waste is done in "storage thereof".
Shouldn't we be looking at discovering catalysts that could rapidly degrade Uranium/Plutonium all the way to Lead?
Would such a catalyst exist and how would it look like or what would it require to be able to do in order to shorten the half life of nuclear waste?
« on: 02/04/2012 09:06:12 »
Maybe it's better to say "light in a different 'phase'" instead of different 'frequency', because, as CliffordK already stated, we already see a broad spectrum of frequency in our own universe..
« on: 02/04/2012 06:58:48 »
Isn't our sun, at it's current stage, only fusing Hydrogen to Helium at the moment? I think it's not old enough yet to fuse Helium to higher order atoms. They may be present in the core, but not active at the moment. So I'm saying: Hydrogen + Hydrogen -> Helium + Energy
« on: 02/04/2012 06:49:00 »
Well, on my first full tank, I will do my utter best to reproduce driving style compared to before. I'm doing 150km daily on highway commute. I've done a test before remapping, always gearing up at 2000rpm with maximum use of cruise control in highest gear at speed limit of 120Km/h which gave me 985Km when the "fuel low" light came on, at which point I've used 55L of my 65L tank according to my car's manual.
So I'm hoping that on this tank, no accidents are happening on my route that would result in me being a lot more in traffic jams that would affect my fuel economy results. There will always be a difference in traffic circumstances and indeed you can't get an 'apples with apples' comparison because I haven't emptied an entire tank on a test bench before the remap, but hopefully I'll see a decrease in gas station visit frequency over the long haul. In my bank account history I can easily check how many gas station visits I did over the last years..
« on: 02/04/2012 05:53:08 »
I'm back from the remapping (chipping) and have some answers. Unfortunately I can't produce a graph, since putting my car on the test bench would've set me back an extra 100€ and I found that quite expensive for just a graph. But I did ask how the graph would roughly look like with a 'before' and 'after' Torque line drawn on it, and they told me this:
The peak of the 'after' Torque would be higher than 'before' and would be around 400 Nm instead of 350. This 'after' peak would be around 1750-2000 rpm instead of the 'before' peak being around 2250-2500 rpm.
The 'after' Torque would also consistently be higher than 'before' Torque starting at 1000 rpm and both lines would converge again at about 3000 rpm. At 3000+ the lines would be the roughly the same, to avoid the increase in max horse power.
The exact parameters of the ECU (Electronic Control Unit) that were adjusted was a company secret (understandable) but they were willing to say that they modified throttle input/feedback, valve timings, turbo boost controller and fuel pump pressure.
Now, how does this translate in my driving experience: The throttle lag is gone. If I just lightly push in my throttle, the car responds immediately by accelerating a little bit. Acceleration greatly improved in the lower rev (<2000rpm) and slightly improved in the higher rev (>2000rpm). My 0-100 Km/h acceleration went from ~9.5 to ~7 seconds. I haven't done the 400m test before remapping, so I didn't test it afterwards either..
Fuel economy results will need to wait until my tank is empty :)
EDIT FYI: Didn't mention this before: The engine worked on is a 2199cc Turbo Diesel i-DTEC Honda engine.
i-DTEC is an acronym to say that it's a Diesel version of i-VTEC, and i-VTEC stands for intelligent-Variable Valve Timing and Lift Electronic Control. Japanese build great engines, but not great acronyms :)
« on: 30/03/2012 13:39:12 »
That's why people start out on bikes without engines.
Speak for yourself, this was my first two-wheel experience:
Pages: 1 2  4 5 ... 39
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.
The contents of this site are © The Naked Scientists®
2000-2013. The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science™ are registered