What's new

The "Anything Goes" thread

There is a beautiful picture on the images thread about an incredibly nasty reaction that humans have learned to elicit out of the elements. A little background:

Albert Einstein wrote a little formula with earth shattering (pun intended) results - E=MC^2 (energy equals mass times the speed of light squared). Generally this is used to show relativistic effects on particles as they are accelerated closer and closer to the speed of light, but it has another use, finding the energy released during fusion and fission events.

Because the picture was of a Hydrogen (or fusion) bomb, we will look at the fusion reaction. Fusion (named so because we are 'fusing' Hydrogen atoms together to form Helium) takes place by using 4 Hydrogen atoms to make one Helium atom. Now this sounds simple and all, but where does all the 'boom' and 'bang' come from? Quick answer - a hydrogen atom weighs roughly 1.67368 x 10^-27 kg while one Helium atom weighs in at a svelte 6.6463 x 10^-27 kg. I call this svelte because, as some may have noticed, this is less than the weight of the 4 Hydrogen atoms that we used to make our party balloon lifting atom. In fact the difference is 0.04872 x 10^-27 kg per Helium atom produced. What happened to the missing mass? Well, remember Einstein's formula? Let's look at it and see what we can find, ( along with a few other principles we need to make this work). We know that a mole of something is the number of atoms that make up the atomic weight in grams and this is 6.02 x 10^23 atoms. So a mole of hydrogen atoms (that big number is how many we are talking about) weighs in at just over one gram. Let's, for the sake of discussion, say that we have 2 kilograms of Hydrogen for making Helium, this means we have 2 x 1000 (grams per kilogram and 2 kilos) x 6.02 x 10^23 Hydrogen atoms in a mole and we get roughly 1.204 x 10^27 Hydrogen atoms for the process. Now we have the mass defect (number of hydrogen atoms divided by 4 times the missing mass for each helium) and we get a missing mass of 0.1457442 grams. This may not sound like much, but it is. Just how can less than 2 tenths of a gram mean much? E=MC^2

Now I have energy equals 0.1457442 grams times the speed of light SQUARED which gives the energy produced. C equals 299792458 meters per second, squared this becomes 8.988 x 10^16 which when multiplied by the missing weight is 1.309 x 10^16 or just over 31 BILLION kilocalories (a heck of a lot of heat) - hence the beautiful, but devastating fireball we see as a mushroom cloud.
 
Last edited:
So what I was saying before I was interrupted by all those guys with short haircuts and no sense of humor; it doesn't take a lot of hydrogen to make a lot of energy from fusion. Ignoring all the numbers, with a few lbs of fuel, the proper geometry and a device to start the reaction you end up with a lot of radiation and an incredible picture taking event.

Gotta see if it's safe to go back home now :o

(Thanks Dave for putting me back on the shining path, I drifted pretty far out into left field there :) )
 
Last edited:
There is a beautiful picture on the images thread about an incredibly nasty reaction that humans have learned to elicit out of the elements. A little background: Albert Einstein wrote a little formula with earth shattering (pun intended) results - E=MC^2 (energy equals mass times the speed of light squared). Generally this is used to show relativistic effects on particles as they are accelerated closer and closer to the speed of light, but it has another use, finding the energy released during fusion and fission events. Because the picture was of a Hydrogen (or fusion) bomb, we will look at the fusion reaction. Fusion (named so because we are 'fusing' Hydrogen atoms together to form Helium) takes place by using 4 Hydrogen atoms to make one Helium atom. Now this sounds simple and all, but where does all the 'boom' and 'bang' come from? Quick answer - a hydrogen atom weighs roughly 1.67368 x 10^-27 kg while one Helium atom weighs in at a svelte 6.6463 x 10^-27 kg. I call this svelte because, as some may have noticed, this is less than the weight of the 4 Hydrogen atoms that we used to make our party balloon lifting atom. In fact the difference is 0.04872 x 10^-27 kg per Helium atom produced. What happened to the missing mass? Well, remember Einstein's formula? Let's look at it and see what we can find, ( along with a few other principles we need to make this work). We know that a mole of something is the number of atoms that make up the atomic weight in grams and this is 6.02 x 10^23 atoms. So a mole of hydrogen atoms (that big number is how many we are talking about) weighs in at just over one gram. Let's, for the sake of discussion, say that we have 2 kilograms of Hydrogen for making Helium, this means we have 2 x 1000 (grams per kilogram and 2 kilos) x 6.02 x 10^23 Hydrogen atoms in a mole and we get roughly 1.204 x 10^27 Hydrogen atoms for the process. Now we have the mass defect (number of hydrogen atoms divided by 4 times the missing mass for each helium) and we get a missing mass of 0.1457442 grams. This may not sound like much, but it is. Just how can less than 2 tenths of a gram mean much? E=MC^2 Now I have energy equals 0.1457442 grams times the speed of light SQUARED which gives the energy produced. C equals 299792458 meters per second, squared this becomes 8.988 x 10^16 which when multiplied by the missing weight is 1.309 x 10^16 or just over 31 BILLION kilocalories (a heck of a lot of heat) - hence the beautiful, but devastating fireball we see as a mushroom cloud.
Great explanation! :-)
 
I am on my phone so I can't tell, is that an ESP? Great amp and guitar Nathan, have you ever played through a 50W or (bless your ears) 100W Plexi with the full stack (the angled and straight faced combo)? Glorious!!! You will need a power soak or very good ear plugs to keep your ears from ringing, cause you really need to crank it for that raw Brit tone.
yep, it is a ESP LTD M300FM, great guitar and I love it's astounding sound, it really loves Brit amps so I run it with my Vox and small Marshall modeling amp, and my Vox is pure tube tone :)

the Plymouth Fury is an amazing car, though they're rare ! really rare at that, That is why I am getting a 1958 Savoy
 
There is a beautiful picture on the images thread about an incredibly nasty reaction that humans have learned to elicit out of the elements. A little background: Albert Einstein wrote a little formula with earth shattering (pun intended) results - E=MC^2 (energy equals mass times the speed of light squared). Generally this is used to show relativistic effects on particles as they are accelerated closer and closer to the speed of light, but it has another use, finding the energy released during fusion and fission events. Because the picture was of a Hydrogen (or fusion) bomb, we will look at the fusion reaction. Fusion (named so because we are 'fusing' Hydrogen atoms together to form Helium) takes place by using 4 Hydrogen atoms to make one Helium atom. Now this sounds simple and all, but where does all the 'boom' and 'bang' come from? Quick answer - a hydrogen atom weighs roughly 1.67368 x 10^-27 kg while one Helium atom weighs in at a svelte 6.6463 x 10^-27 kg. I call this svelte because, as some may have noticed, this is less than the weight of the 4 Hydrogen atoms that we used to make our party balloon lifting atom. In fact the difference is 0.04872 x 10^-27 kg per Helium atom produced. What happened to the missing mass? Well, remember Einstein's formula? Let's look at it and see what we can find, ( along with a few other principles we need to make this work). We know that a mole of something is the number of atoms that make up the atomic weight in grams and this is 6.02 x 10^23 atoms. So a mole of hydrogen atoms (that big number is how many we are talking about) weighs in at just over one gram. Let's, for the sake of discussion, say that we have 2 kilograms of Hydrogen for making Helium, this means we have 2 x 1000 (grams per kilogram and 2 kilos) x 6.02 x 10^23 Hydrogen atoms in a mole and we get roughly 1.204 x 10^27 Hydrogen atoms for the process. Now we have the mass defect (number of hydrogen atoms divided by 4 times the missing mass for each helium) and we get a missing mass of 0.1457442 grams. This may not sound like much, but it is. Just how can less than 2 tenths of a gram mean much? E=MC^2 Now I have energy equals 0.1457442 grams times the speed of light SQUARED which gives the energy produced. C equals 299792458 meters per second, squared this becomes 8.988 x 10^16 which when multiplied by the missing weight is 1.309 x 10^16 or just over 31 BILLION kilocalories (a heck of a lot of heat) - hence the beautiful, but devastating fireball we see as a mushroom cloud.
Man that made my head hurt just reading this. Sorry Professor but Gilligan has got to run chow :D
 
I'm depressed, I waited for months for yesterday to come along and forgot to post in the On this Day in History thread.

Back in 1969 the first computers were hooked together for the beginning of the ARPA net. The computers were located at UCLA, Stanford, UCSB, and the University of Utah.

This was the birth of the Internet* and a pretty important day I think.

* Al Gore was NOT there :o
 
Saw the iPad air earlier today, it is really beautiful, there is no rival tablet to the iPad air

The new retina mini comes end of this month and that had the same specs as the sir but more pixels. Amazing
 

Attachments

  • image-4130945404.webp
    image-4130945404.webp
    19.8 KB · Views: 148
  • image-3112659458.webp
    image-3112659458.webp
    31.2 KB · Views: 175
  • image-318731057.webp
    image-318731057.webp
    39.6 KB · Views: 152
  • image-321230693.webp
    image-321230693.webp
    34.9 KB · Views: 144
Few days ago I saw the Microsoft surface 2 tablet, it is bulkier without case then my iPad 3 with case, more uncomfortable and produces too much heat for my liking. Prices are high too so it's no brainer which to choose. I am not surprised that Microsoft ran a 900$ million loss / write off with the surface 1, with this the loss will easily cross the billion dollar mark
 

Attachments

  • image-3109991513.webp
    image-3109991513.webp
    43.7 KB · Views: 221
  • image-4015972291.webp
    image-4015972291.webp
    41.6 KB · Views: 181
  • image-2277993523.webp
    image-2277993523.webp
    43.1 KB · Views: 152
Saw the iPad air earlier today, it is really beautiful, there is no rival tablet to the iPad air

The new retina mini comes end of this month and that had the same specs as the sir but more pixels. Amazing

Same number of pixels, only in a smaller screen; which means higher resolution/density. This is only a minor improvement despite how itsounds. The iPad Air is already a retina display, which means at normal viewing distance you can't see individual pixels. People with excellent eyesight and holding the iPad 3 next to their face claimed they could see pixels, barely. The iPad Air should be the same.

The iPad Mini retina should be nearly impossible to see individual pixels, even when holding it to your eyeball.

For normal viewing, it's just not going to be a big deal, which is why Apple didn't make a big deal out of the spec. They main reason for the screen's resolution is so that it has exactly the same number of pixels as the larger iPad Air, so that developers don't' have to support another screen resolution; and all current apps will work exactly the way they do on the Air.

The only differences that have been identified (so far) between the iPad Air and iPad Mini Retina are the physical size of the screen and $100 U.S. in the price. When the iPad Mini is finally available for tear down, we might find a few other minor differences.


On a slightly different note, iFixit has discovered that the A7 processor in the iPad Air is a bit different (at least the model number) than the one in the iPhone 5. It is also clocked at a slightly higher speed. I don't remember what source that last came from. I read it at day or two ago.
 
Same number of pixels, only in a smaller screen; which means higher resolution/density. This is only a minor improvement despite how itsounds. The iPad Air is already a retina display, which means at normal viewing distance you can't see individual pixels. People with excellent eyesight and holding the iPad 3 next to their face claimed they could see pixels, barely. The iPad Air should be the same. The iPad Mini retina should be nearly impossible to see individual pixels, even when holding it to your eyeball. For normal viewing, it's just not going to be a big deal, which is why Apple didn't make a big deal out of the spec. They main reason for the screen's resolution is so that it has exactly the same number of pixels as the larger iPad Air, so that developers don't' have to support another screen resolution; and all current apps will work exactly the way they do on the Air. The only differences that have been identified (so far) between the iPad Air and iPad Mini Retina are the physical size of the screen and $100 U.S. in the price. When the iPad Mini is finally available for tear down, we might find a few other minor differences. On a slightly different note, iFixit has discovered that the A7 processor in the iPad Air is a bit different (at least the model number) than the one in the iPhone 5. It is also clocked at a slightly higher speed. I don't remember what source that last came from. I read it at day or two ago.

That's correct, the pixels are the same but the density, pixel per inch (ppi) is higher on the iPad mini due to the smaller size.

London, UK
 

Most reactions

Latest posts

Back
Top