Warning: Contains stuff that will BLOW YOUR FUCKING MIND!

*quality *talks

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by gwiz665.

Excellent! I was looking for a better explanation of why we're going back to the moon.

I suppose in some form of twisted logic, developing new rockets, designing new space vehicles, sending manned and unmanned mission after mission to the moon, then loading a shuttle which never actually went to the moon till now, and getting it back to earth, can be considered "easily mined".

It's just not my brand of logic.

Where's the earth shattering KABOOM?!? There's supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom... \= |

You know what's funny...as technologically advanced as we are, fundamentally, all we're doing to get power is finding different ways to heat water and make steam.

"...and now you know why, we're shootin' shit at the moon"

Hmm the cost of all the fuel the usa needs in a year has to be vastly more than the cost of one moon mission... so actually not so crazy... If we can do fusion on earth that is.
-Karl

The Other countries will want the moon fuel and then we have a need for space weaponry... One things leads to another. If we take too much mass from the moon we fuck up our entire ecosystem and climate since it is so heavily dependent on the pull of the moon's gravity... Probably easier to focus on solar and wind power...
-karl

trix are for kids
-karl

>> ^swedishfriend:If we take too much mass from the moon we fuck up our entire ecosystem and climate since it is so heavily dependent on the pull of the moon's gravity...

Wow... do you even know how big the moon is? It's a little more than 1/4 of Earth's mass. As a species, we have dug up about .01% of the Earth's crust since industrialization. You honestly think we can do anything to the moon within the same timespan?

This is all ignoring the fact that digging further into the planet and in more remote locations is a fraction of the cost of digging into the moon.

>> ^rottenseed:
You know what's funny...as technologically advanced as we are, fundamentally, all we're doing to get power is finding different ways to heat water and make steam.


I suppose it's not all that strange really. Heat's pretty much the bottom rung of energy. Pretty much everything (?) that uses or converts energy creates heat as a by product. Heat is one of the side effects and wasted elements of a lot of systems. I imagine, it being on a low rung, it's no surprise that we have to through heat to go back up to anything higher up the ladder.

Badly explained

>> ^dannym3141:

I suppose it's not all that strange really. Heat's pretty much the bottom rung of energy. Pretty much everything (?) that uses or converts energy creates heat as a by product. Heat is one of the side effects and wasted elements of a lot of systems. I imagine, it being on a low rung, it's no surprise that we have to through heat to go back up to anything higher up the ladder.
Badly explained


Yea, there is a free Nobel price in for anyone that can convert heat directly into electricity efficiently.

The one part that might need some revision soon is about beta decay vs. heavy elements. We recently confirmed element 114 which looks like a possible candidate for stability. Here is the article concerning this, plus a link to more technical descriptions.

Question regarding fusion: If the binding energies of the two hydrogen isotopes equal 10 MeV, and the binding energy of helium is 28 MeV, wouldn't the fusion require the input of 18 MeV? I don't understand. Doesn't the helium require more energy to hold together than the hydrogen isotopes had to begin with? And, even if the nucleons do just come together, how is there surplus energy if less energy went into the reaction than exists in the product?

*Promote

Self promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, October 25th, 2009 11:18pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter Sagemind.

>> ^RhesusMonk:
Question regarding fusion: If the binding energies of the two hydrogen isotopes equal 10 MeV, and the binding energy of helium is 28 MeV, wouldn't the fusion require the input of 18 MeV? I don't understand. Doesn't the helium require more energy to hold together than the hydrogen isotopes had to begin with? And, even if the nucleons do just come together, how is there surplus energy if less energy went into the reaction than exists in the product?


Ok, it's a long time since i even looked at physics, but i'm gonna study astrophysics next year so i better make at least an attempt

The electromagnetic force repels the nucleons from each other. The nuclear force attracts them to each other. You have to force the two together. That requires you to overcome the electromagnetic force. So you only need enough energy to do this, and the energy required to do this is usually LESS than the energy that is released for atoms 'below' iron.

The energy basically comes from a conversion of mass to energy. The mass of the combined atoms is not quite equal to the mass of the parts that you combine. Mass is lost, and it manifests as energy. (because e=mc^2, or in other words, energy and mass are 'interchangeable' - you cannot just 'lose' mass)

ya think one of you people with the colourful icons next to your name would of put a Long tag on this.

No we think they wouldn't.

Brief = less than a minute.
Long = more than 10 minutes.

This video is 8.5 minutes. Not "long".

>> ^BoneRemake:
ya think one of you people with the colourful icons next to your name would of put a Long tag on this.

Read the FAQ and maybe one of these days you...yes you could be one of those people with "colourful icons". Or you could fuck up and get hobbled...that's actually what I'd do, chicks dig outlaws