meuge Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 ---------------- On 4/27/2005 10:51:57 AM Bill H. wrote: Russ, Thanks for the Article, and the Laugh!.............holy Fleecing of America! Another reason the U.S. is in Debt! ---------------- I missed that the first time around, so I didn't reply directly to you. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but in this case you're absolutely wrong, as are the people who say that we should abandon the measly couple of billion we put into NASA yearly, and "concentrate on the Earth" and "feeding the poor", etc... So many advances that have improved our life on Earth have their roots in the space program, as well as other research that isn't directly applicable to our lives, that this kind of neglect is an outdated way of thinking. One would wonder then, what the purpose of spending hundreds of millions to develop cooling systems and superconducting ceramics was. It certainly wasn't to build us MRIs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 "One would wonder then, what the purpose of spending hundreds of millions to develop cooling systems and superconducting ceramics was. It certainly wasn't to build us MRIs. " The purpose of funding the basic research doesn't have to be for a particular product, and seldom is. It is basic fundamental research. The benefit lies in the applied secondary market. Where innovation and entrepreneurs are able to apply the R&D to marketable products. Universities aren't in much of a market to sell products. They do the research. The basic conceptual stuff that everyone laughs at. The stuff that enables others to apply it to market based products. But it is a bit humorous to watch those who criticize it be among the first to demand that product or service that results from the application of that research. And MRI's are the currently the single leading commercial use of superconductivity. A wonderful technology that is still far too expensive for broader application. But lets not fund broader research in order to realize the benefits of less exotic materials and methods to achieve greater results. Let's just complain that "they" haven't solved the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meuge Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 I know... I was being sarcastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 ---------------- On 4/28/2005 12:46:08 AM meuge wrote: I know... I was being sarcastic. ---------------- Oops! My bad! Where can I get funding for humor management? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 hey cool, I just did a report on nanotechnology and we talked about the carbon pipes. I had no idea they could conduct electricity though. However, we discussed how they were trying to use these "pipes" as axles for nanomachines. (They can already write IBM using single molecules of carbon) ---------------- As for the nanowire, it has tremendous applications even at lengths of under a centimeter. Nanotubes are single molecules, which means that this centimeter-long tube is actually a single wave function... making it an absolute conductor with theoretically no resistance altogether. There is still debate as to whether signals can travel faster than the speed of light down such a connection, and there is evidence that supports either hypothesis, so I won't get into other amazing possibilities. ---------------- Just curious, what about these tubes allows them to send info faster than light? We just got done talking about tunneling in my quantum mechanics class and I'm not seeing the potential energy barrier that would cause this to happen...I ask purely out of curiousity as I think it would be interesting to bring up in class. (as far as I know, tunneling is the only debated method right now...) As far as traveling faster than the speed of light, my prof tells us that no scientist would ever claim that, but rather it is the result of poor "reporting" (reporters taking analogies too far). Even though tunneling happens instantaneously, the results are still within the uncertainty principles and within the guidelines for the wave like properties of particles. There is also some confusion about the phase velocity of a particle, which can travel faster than the speed of light, versus the group velocity that can't. However, It's the group velocity that is the velocity of the "particle" whereas the phase velocity (squared) tells us the probability of finding the particle at a location. But if you consider all that crap, then we must remind ourselves that all matter is also subject to the concepts of special relativity, which prevent any particle from moving faster than the speed of light. Nevertheless, it's fun to think that we can somehow go back in time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meuge Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 I thought that this was a possibility, because as an electron enters the nanotube, the state change will be transmitted across the entire electron cloud. If you could detect the change on the other side of a nanotube, you should be able to measure the change as soon as the electron enters, regardless of the length of the nanotube. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbley Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 ---------------- On 4/27/2005 11:08:52 PM kenratboy wrote: ---------------- On 4/27/2005 11:06:33 PM timbley wrote: I hope it works. ---------------- Oh, it will. Just a matter of time, money and effort. IIRC, Texas Instruments first DLP display was 100X100 HUGE pixels and there was not even a color wheel. Now we are at 1920 X 1080 in a few months. Just wait ---------------- It will be interesting to see where this tech. takes us. I remember when I was in high school hi-temperature superconductivity was creating a lot of excitement. Room temperature was the big hope that never materialized. Maybe this will finally bring us there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Regarding the 'faster than light' issue. Yes, it is possible and no its not possible...let me try to explain. We are taught that the speed of light is a constant, and everyone remembers the 186,000Mps figure. But that is false! As with everything in quantum, rather then 'facts' you deal with probabilities and distributions. And while 'everything is possible, it is just that the probabilities vary. And the speed of light is such a case. If you look at the speed of light, you have not a single velocity, but a bell curve of possible velocities. And the peak is considered the 'constant' that everyone knows! But light goes faster and slower then that value! But the distribution becomes less & less, the further from the center 'reference' that one moves. One interesting anomaly you see frequently is related to this (albeit due to environmental factors). I suspect everyone can relate to looking down the road on a hot day and seeing what appears to be water on the road surface. But what is it really? And how does it happen (note I don't bother with the Wittgenstein-ian nonsensical "why"!) Well lets look at the situation. You are in a car, and as you are several feet above the road surface, the temperature is greater near the road surface then where your head is, where the temperature is slightly cooler. Add to this the fact that light travels faster through hot air.... Part of what you see is the direct straight path light that sees the road ahead. But the other component is light that 'goes' from your eyes and then - 'at some point' drops and travels along the road surface and then 'at some point' turns 90 degrees up and what you see as water is actually a view of the sky. So what you are really seeing is the superposition of the direct view and the bent light view superimposing the sky over the road. Here you are experiencing a case where the probabilities of both paths are relatively high instead of the usual case where only one option predominates. Weird? Sure! And you note that I say at 'some point', as there is not a 'why' it does it! We don't know WHY! But we can quantify and verify it. There are some very good texts on quantum, but admittedly most live in the realm of extremely obtuse math. But for a terrific approachable treatment, may I suggest Richard Feynmans "QED". (Also his audio lecture series if you are just so fascinated that your friends will suggest that you to see a 'doctor'!) But his book takes a very complex subject and renders it amazingly "understandable" without the use of math - if that word can be used here! As the classical rules we all take for granted are tossed out the window in Quantum, such that 'strangeness' is a quality and so many other characteristics are named for characters out of Alice and Wonderland! After all, in what other subject can someone say (as Sir Arthur Eddington did as he commented on Heisenbergs Uncertain Principle) "Something unknown is doing something we know not what" - and it is considered an enlightened observation! And the phrase often thought of as a line from standup comics that actually came from quantum: "If you think you understand it (or know what is going on), you don't". Simply as all the rules are broken, and supplanted by a new logic. Also, if you want to ponder something, here's a simple experiment you can do in your kitchen. Take two identical containers, one a light color, and the other a dark color. Fill them with identical amounts of water and sit them on the same burner and heat them at the same rate. Monitor the water temperature. And after they are near boiling, remove the applied heat and monitor the rate of cooling of both of them. The darker colored unit will heat faster and cool faster. All due to the COLOR of the vessel. JUST the color. Think about it...any ideas as to why? I know thats not a fair question, but it is an infinitely practical one! Thus, if you want to exhaust heat, or conduct it away from an assembly, you would emply a dark material as a sink. So why is it that people chrome differentials and manifolds in a car? Because these heat sensitive assemblies LIKE heat???? Obviously they are concerned with only appearance and didn't pay attention in physics class! And amps with chrome or aluminum colored heat sinks? Does this give you any ideas? Maybe BLACK would be a better choice? You think?! And lest you say, but the material determines the conductivity and not the color, remember that we are using IDENTICAL material containers for the experiment! OK, I'll cue the Twilight Zone theme here.... Ok, I will stop! But there are lots more really neat simple experiments that will leave you scratching your head as they color outside the classical rules! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picky Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 I'd put my $1,500 government toilet seat up against anyone else's! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.