This video is about using a high power laser to remove iron oxide, the bronze sculpture one is using a high power laser to remove copper oxide, and the other one was using a high power laser to remove rubber. On that basis, that they all reference using a high power laser for cleaning, I thought they were related.

There is, in any case, no way to undo a related invocation so even if you are able to persuade me that I'm mistaken there's nothing to be done!

Thanks

There's actually a bit more to the chemistry of smelting than he mentions. It's not only the higher temperatures that are important, carbon monoxide is used to extract the base metal from the ore (which is usually an oxide).

If he's been relying on ancient sources, they may well have not mentioned the chemistry since oxidation and reduction were only really properly described in the 18th century (oxygen was discovered in 1772) and not all historians have a good grounding in chemistry.

As was mentioned above, the cost of the fuel is a non-starter. Currently SpaceX uses a Kerosene / Liquid Oxygen fuel mix.

After the anomaly (the space industries way of saying accident) in June SpaceX did a complete vehicle review. They are now using a more advanced technique to cool the LOX which means for a denser LOX liquid in their tanks, which ultimately means they have more oxidizer on board for their flights now.

Coupled with the LOX improvements they have made upgrades to the engines which means 30% greater efficiency. Basically the horsepower per engine has increased.

This means they can get their payloads to orbit plus have more then enough fuel left over in stage 1 to return it to land.

The greatest efficiency comes from returning the stage(s) and then reusing them in future launches (not proven yet). ALL launchers (u.s, soviet, indian, ESA, Japan, etc) ditch ALL of their hardware into the ocean when getting payload to orbit. Bye, bye multi million dollars worth of engines and hardware.

If SpaceX can turn that scenario on its head and reuse those stages and MORE importantly the engines they will cut their costs per launch by a substantial amount. Ultimately that means cheaper per pound cost to get material into orbit.

All of the media uses the word "explosion" when describing the June anomaly which is funny because there was never an ignition of onboard fuels.

The LOX tanks have smaller Helium tanks inside them. The helium is released during launch. The helium rises in the LOX quickly, expands and pressurizes the tank to ensure the LOX is "squeezed" into the pipes in order to keep up with the turbo pumps.

One of the struts holding a helium tank inside the LOX tank failed. The helium tank shot up and blew threw the top of the LOX tank and took a good part of the top of the stack off. The engines actually fired for a few seconds after the anomaly and then sputtered out. The rest of the vehicle at this point is still fairly intact.

Without proper structural integrity the vehicle started to veer off course, dynamic pressures built up and the vehicle was essentially ripped apart by those forces.

At 3:20 the Helium tank rips off its struts. At 3:27 the remainder of the vehicle disintegrates:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuNymhcTtSQ

SpaceX mentioned that in June, the dragon capsule continued to relay telemetry until it smacked into the ocean. If the Dragon had better software onboard it would have detected the anomaly and recovered with chutes. Elon said that software would be active on Dragons from now on.

I'm just guessing, but I'm fairly sure the fuel is a relatively small part of the cost of any space vehicle. Isn't it just liquid hydrogen and oxygen? They wouldn't be using solid fuel for landing, which these days is often some treated rubber or aluminum oxide, so also fairly cheap...

...cheap that is, when compared to just tossing the pressure tanks, pumps, high pressure-high temperature lines, multiple moveable nozzles, mixing/reaction chambers, computers to run it all, redundant safety features, guidance, frame, skin, etc. that make up the fragile vehicle that can't be dropped by parachute or other passive means and still be reusable.

There is something innately fascinating in finding technical, biological and economical explanations of historical developments, and it's definitely so much more satisfying than having to resort to nationalism, racism, or religion to explain one region or another's successes.

The risk, I guess, in treating human history as a set of engineering problems, is that the human mind is so attuned to finding cause and effect that it might make us a little blind to situations where the answer is actually more blind chance than anything else.

One of my favorite of these explanations is when China's 'failure' to colonize the world is attributed to the success of porcelain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0OhXxx7cQg

It seems almost too neat to be true - like the false etymology of Marie est malade - so does anyone know if there are scholars who poke holes in the Porcelain vs Glass explanation?

Edit: Improving my googling shows that this explanation remains reasonable but still also involves a bit of blind historical chance. Colored glass was available in ancient Greece, and the Romans and Egyptians used manganese oxide to decolor it, which led to transparent glass and the basis for lens-grinding... that decolorization process apparently didn't pass on to China or wasn't valued by their culture, perhaps due to the clear competitive advantages of porcelain.

Laughing gas (Nitrous Oxide) Is not flammable.

From reddit comment:
The title of the video says "Fid-fad leak" in arabic, which is an anti-static clothes spray.

"Me and my brother are both fine thank god, I got 6% burns, what happened was that we were having fun in the car filming a video with the windows closed and we smelled something funny but we didn't know it was Fidfad and we didn't give it much attention, then my brother used the lighter which set the gas on fire, and I'm glad to say we are safe and all the rumours that got out are not true, and be careful of gas leaks anywhere".

Howdy - sorry for the delay, was traveling on business. The issue you are referring to below with regards to reusable water bottles is I believe related to the type of liner (thin coating of polymer based material that is coated on the inside of some but not all of these bottles). In most cases when polymers come in contact with food (incl. water) the concerns are usually not in the polymer itself, but in some of the additives (processing aids, plasticizers, anti-oxidants, UV stabilizers, pigments etc) that in some cases have negative impacts on some human metabolic processes. I would emphasize 'some'. The recent outrage over BPA is not supported unequivocally by scientific evidence, but there is enough uncertainty to move away from it as a plasticizer in PET bottles. If one was to use a food grade polyethylene or polypropylene water bottle, requiring no liner, and totally suitable as a water bottle, then there is no concern at all with the long term use of this material in water bottles. Next time you go through the grocery store, have a look at all the packaging - films on processed meets, stretch wrap on fresh meat cuts, all of your cold dairy products - the vast majority of these are made from one of either polyethylene or polypropylene, with a smattering of polystyrene and polyvinylidene chloride thrown in. All perfectly safe.

As for how the balls are made - these are blow molded. If you have a look at the plastic baseballs made for kids that come with a big fat plastic bat (or really any hard plastic ball that you might find at Wal Mart or Toys'R'Us, you'll see the small ridge that runs equatorially around the circumference of the ball (that's the parting line where the two mold halves come together) and somewhere on that line there will be either a little tiny hole or a small protruding knob that used to be the parison where the air was injected into the small plastic glob forcing it to the walls of the mold like an expanding balloon. This is the same type of molding that makes your liquid dishwashing detergent bottle, plastic ketchup and mustard containers, and plastic milk jugs. Hope this helps a bit. cheers

Why have they bothered lying about this? I don't get it.

Obviously fake, as was pointed out, you have to breath helium for it to change your voice It's a function of sound waves traveling through a different gas density, the same reason your voice goes lower when breathing nitrous oxide. The gas doesn't change your vocal chords as some people seem to think.

*ban


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2uhf8l_a-m-sniper-feat-anamate-and-oxide-neutrino-bye-radio-wave-jaguar-skills-remix_music#from=embediframe

*promote for use in solar water oxidation.

They did say what would happen, as the solution oxidizes the colours will go back in the reverse order, so eventually ending up as it was at the start of the video.

It might take a while though...

"If you let it sit long enough, it will oxidize more."

So wtf. Why didn't you do that, bro?

At the very least, why not tell us what the next color would be?

Don't be so greedy with your knowledge, wanker.

Yeah watching it long enough, especially due to the lingering affect of the "smoke" left behind, you can tell that little gem definitely has some very concrete numbers. Since it looks like a slowly revolving sphere of undulating waves (with the smoke). All thanks to the frequency of the radiation and what it emits.

If you look at the beginning you'll notice that the Uranium is clear and has a blue crystal look to it (though it is a metal). As the video slowly moves forward, it gets darker and darker, eventually it turns into Uranium Oxide. Or it looks like that to me, if so then they probably used water to create the reaction.

WITCHCRAFT!!! BURN IT WITH A RAPIDLY OXIDIZING MEDIUM!!!

To me Soda sounds wrong and doesn't make sense. I immediately think of Baking soda or something similar

Some chemical compounds containing sodium
Sodium carbonate, washing soda or soda ash
Sodium bicarbonate, baking soda
Sodium hydroxide, caustic soda
Sodium oxide, an alkali metal oxide