I've made homemade napalm similar to this except we took a whole lot of styrofoam and dissolved it into gasoline 5 gallon bucket.

kept dissolving it until it wouldn't dissolve anymore.


Then a buddy of mine that flies a homemade ultralight loaded it up, and flew over the field, he's retired air force and has degree in electronics engineering, and built the timer device and did all the fine tuning solder work on the detonator and man it was the best 4th of july homemade napalm burn ever!

hehe, we used the napalm goop and filled small bottles that would eject from the 5 gallon bucket and it looked like a mini napalm spread just like from some vietnam war movie.

needless to say homemade explosions and pyrotechnics are fun

want to fill an entire block with thick white smoke? but it also smells like cotton candy

coke can, cut top off, mix half sugar, half potassium nitrate (aka salt peter sold over the counter at any drug store) mix or shake it together, then just light with lighter.

will fill a block with thick white smoke

does he get ejected through the windscreen at 2:40? it's hard to tell

>> ^Kalle:

One serious question that bothers me is.. why isnt it possible to use gravity as an energy source?
Would such a machine be a perpetual motion machine?


Gravity is REALLY weak. Like 36 orders of magnitude less than the electromagnetic force. 36 orders of magnitude is massive...larger the the total number of stars in the known universe. For instance, a fridge magnet is defeating the ENTIRE gravitational force of the earth AND the sun. Gravity makes for a great way to bind the macro-universe together, but it is shit as an energy source.

Also, gravity has only one polarity...and it doesn't turn off. So for the EM force, we have 2 poles that can be switched around via electrical current to make lots of different energy related things. But for gravity, you just have one ground state, and once you are there you need to input energy to get away from that ground state...no way around that. However, what has been done and is done in certain areas is to have a closed system where you apply energy at certain time and store that energy for later. The example most commonly used is in dams, where the will pump a large volume of water back up stream (potential energy) and store it (a gravity battery if you will) and release it as a later time when demand is high. This is always a loss based way to make energy; your going to spend more pumping it back up (heat loss and other losses including evaporation) than you will when you get it back...so it is just a way to cause demand shifting towards other hours with additional entropy.

You have 4 fundamental forces to draw energy from; and 3 of those are the only practical ones. Strong (nuclear) force, the EM force, and the gravitational force (the weak force is actually the force that powers the earths core, but isn't useful to use in power generation for a similar reason gravity isn't).

The EM force is what we use in internal combustion engines and electrical motors. Chemical reactions are rearrangements of the electron structures of molecules, which makes gasoline engines possible via liquid to gas expansion pressures. Generators deal with EM fields, polarity and current which is what drives thermal reactors like coal or can drive a car with a motor via conversation of stored electrical energy(just a backwards generator). Nuclear reactors deal with the strong (nuclear) force, and combine that with kinetic/thermodynamic forces of same flavor as coal and other thermal plants.

Even gravity isn't perpetual, the orbits of ALL celestial bodies are unstable. Gravity is thought and reasonably well satisfied to travel in waves. These waves cause turbulence in what would seem calm orbits, slowly breaking them down over time...drawing them closer and closer together. Eventually, all orbits will cause ejection or collision.


As to what energy is best, I personally believe in the power of the strong force, as does the sun . When you are talking about the 4 forces and their ability to make energy for us, the strong force is 6 orders of magnitude greater than other chemical reactions we can make. The EM force is not to much weaker than the strong force, but the practical application of chemical reactions limits us to the electron cloud, making fuels for chemical reactions less energetic by a million to a billion times vs strong force fuels. Now, only fission has been shown to work for energy production currently, but I doubt that will be true forever. If you want LOTS of energy without much waste, you want strong force energy, period. That and the weak force are the 2 prime movers of sustained life on this planet. While the chemistry is what is hard at work DOING life, the strong and weak force provide the energy to sustain that chemistry. Without it, there are no winds, there is no heat in the sky nor from the core, no EM shield from that core. Just a cold, lifeless hunk of metals and gases floating in the weak gravitational force.

Sorry for the rant, energy is my most favorite current subject



(edit, corrected some typos and bad grammar)

>> ^zaust:

erm sorry couldn't be bothered to read lengthy posts but:
Looks like an evil lava ghost from mario or something!!!!


All over the world, scientists are wondering why it feels like a little part of them just died...

Seriously though, can you imagine the amount of energy require to eject what could be millions of tonnes of plasma that far, that fast...

Fucking astounding.

*promote

This is most likely the most AMAZING filament eruption to be caught on video. It is caused by a little process called magnetic reconnection. It's a little process that gives us our solar flares, these filaments, CMEs (Coronal Mass Ejections), auroras, and the possible potential for very dangerous radiation storms every few millennium--give or take a few. Basically, plasma flows along these field lines of magnetism. When things get out of hand, then those field lines distort and change and all of a sudden things get very dangerous (AND sometimes beautiful). The faster the magnetic field changes the faster the particles will travel making them more and more dangerous as the events unfold fast enough giving them more energy (kinetic & heat), which in turn if directed at us means it penetrates much further into our protective field and anything outside of the field, crispy--in the shredded DNA, cells, you name it sense.

Occasionally, Earth's magnetic field breaks down a bit (if I remember why correctly it was a certain "sequence" within our magnetic shield and it reacts badly with the Sun's--don't quote me though, I really need to look it back up again it was a very long time ago I remember this from), if a large solar flare directed towards Earth ever happened before Earth had enough time to fully build back it's strength we would be FAR more in trouble than usual, but this would be a rare event. Usually what happens is that the charged particles follow Earth's magnetic lines and go to the poles, which is the one place on Earth where you do suffer the most radiation from the Sun (basically wherever the poles are as the plasma follows the polarity or "field lines" of Earth's magnetic field). It's also why the closer you are to the poles the better your view is of the aurora as the particles streaming in, if there is a sufficient quantity moving very fast (the more energy, especially kinetic--speed, the farther the penetration into the atmosphere and the lower the aurora becomes visible), will enter the atmosphere and begin to be absorbed by various elements that our atmosphere is compromised of like Nitrogen.

Here's a quick explanation. Basically, the particles collide with atoms of molecules/elements or anything in the higher atmosphere, exciting their electrons into higher energy levels, which is known fundamentally in science as quantum leap/atomic transition/electron transition it's one of the atom's most fundamental abilities dealing with "extra energy" being pushed into a system that wants balance (this is a very common process that happens ALL DAY long, EVERYWHERE around you; it transfers photons essentially--pure energy--BUT, what is the energy in the form of as it's energy level makes it do very many different things; you could see things, what you consider the normal range of light--it's EXACTLY how light goes THROUGH a window--it doesn't go through the window it is transferred via the atoms from one side to the next, this is ALSO why people are trying to get invisibility to work as it just might; HEAT is another one that is transferred all the time--it literally radiates outwards from our bodies and then we are surrounded by excited electrons and the infrared range of light we are putting out, the heat of a human body...or any animal; this goes on and on, it happens everywhere and as I said ALL-THE-TIME, it's perhaps one of the most critical processes and abilities of the atom and how photons also transfer their energy between areas in a direction; a little off-topic information for those that don't realize how much is going on, everywhere, all the time, at any given second...it's a complicated, but beautiful world)), and making them give off light that we see when the charge they've taken on finally returns the molecule/element's electrons to their normal orbits in the electron shell; the color depends on what molecule/element was being bombarded and how much energy was involved from the particle that hit it). This of course transfers all the energy that those particles had and we get a nice light show.

/I thought I'd fill my promote with something useful; ...on why these happen...
//edit-For a little more clarity, grammar and a bit more information that I hope some will appreciate if it helps anyone learn something or atleast go look up some of this and learn some on their own; taking an interest in science, it's one of the most important things in the world that we have.
///Spreading science is just as important; it's the one literal thing we do/use that has ever allowed us to deal with the worst problems we have: fear, pain, death, disease, sorrow, despair, ignorance, etc... Science IS the light in the dark. It is our best hope for mankind's continued existence and a good life. It is the single most important activity we now do as a group; it's our savior from us and what's out there...

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Pilot in fighter jet ejects SECONDS before crash in Canada. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Rowing Term or Infestation?
Crab, or Catch a Crab
A rowing error where the rower is unable to timely remove or release the oar blade from the water and the oar blade acts as a brake on the boat until it is removed from the water. This results in slowing the boat down. A severe crab can even eject a rower out of the shell or make the boat capsize (unlikely except in small boats). Occasionally, in a severe crab, the oar handle will knock the rower flat and end up behind him/her, in which case it is referred to as an 'over-the-head crab.' ~ WIKI

Yep, I think you're right. My prediction above could only happen with initial speeds massive enough for the outgoing particle to overcome the magnetic pull, or with the magnet fixed to a spot on the track.

My next question is about why in this video the incoming ball hits twice. In a cradle, it only hits once, and all force is transmitted through the chain of balls in a single pulse, ejecting just one ball. Why should it be different with a magnet? Arguably, it should stick even stronger if there's a force holding it there. Maybe the difference is that in this video the ball is accelerating as it strikes, whereas in the cradle, as the ball's direction approaches level, it's acceleration goes down to zero, so that the moment of impact, there's zero acceleration happening.

An experiment to test this: get a track with a steady slope, and several balls. Hold a group of balls around the middle of the track, and a single ball well above them. Release the single ball towards the group, and before it strikes the group, release the group. The single ball will be accelerating relative to the group and eventually strike it. We can see how many balls are ejected out the front of the group. If more than one, then it's confirmed. If only one, then it's disconfirmed, and probably has something to do with magnetic attraction specifically.>> ^oritteropo:

Momentum can be conserved in a number of ways, and my thought was that if the ball is really stuck to that magnet then rather than ejecting the ball on the other side, the whole lot might just move along the track together. If you've ever played with neodymium magnets you'll know why I think that, the amount of effort required to unstick something from them is surprisingly large. [minor edit]

>> ^shagen454:

@Boise_Lib
shagen454
notarobot
Stormsinger
calmlyintoit

The problem isn't so much the judge but Texas itself. Release Austin from your belly vile wretch!
Uhh,yeah.-Blame a state ya pusillanimous and oft ("ist") assholes-The problem ain't with a state-It's with the state of mind that ejects such bile in the form of comments. Read a fucking book or GET OUT MORE!!!

bobknight33 nailed it. You others well, you need schooling!

Momentum can be conserved in a number of ways, and my thought was that if the ball is really stuck to that magnet then rather than ejecting the ball on the other side, the whole lot might just move along the track together. If you've ever played with neodymium magnets you'll know why I think that, the amount of effort required to unstick something from them is surprisingly large.
>> ^messenger:

I think ideally, as momentum must be conserved, that the ball would come in, the other ball would be ejected, and decelerated until it escaped the magnetic pull going the same speed as the incoming ball was before it started accelerating.
On a real physical track like this with friction and sound energy loss, I think the ball would be ejected, not overcome the pull of the magnet, and get sucked back pretty quick. It may strike hard enough to send the other ball out a bit, but after very few iterations, they would be all stuck together.
I haven't thought yet about the effect of the magnet moving towards the first ball as it approaches. Maybe this has no net effect at all.

I think ideally, as momentum must be conserved, that the ball would come in, the other ball would be ejected, and decelerated until it escaped the magnetic pull going the same speed as the incoming ball was before it started accelerating.

On a real physical track like this with friction and sound energy loss, I think the ball would be ejected, not overcome the pull of the magnet, and get sucked back pretty quick. It may strike hard enough to send the other ball out a bit, but after very few iterations, they would be all stuck together.

I haven't thought yet about the effect of the magnet moving towards the first ball as it approaches. Maybe this has no net effect at all.>> ^oritteropo:

Well it's only a guess, since I'm too lazy to do the calculations , but I don't think the kinetic energy from the impact would be sufficient to overcome the very large magnetic force, so click and no ball ejected.
>> ^messenger:
[...] Now I want to know what would happen if there was only one ball after the magnet. What do you think?

Well it's only a guess, since I'm too lazy to do the calculations , but I don't think the kinetic energy from the impact would be sufficient to overcome the very large magnetic force, so click and no ball ejected.
>> ^messenger:
[...] Now I want to know what would happen if there was only one ball after the magnet. What do you think?

I think that's what we would see. It also follows that the first ejected ball would leave with a much greater velocity than the second ejected ball as the second collision from the incoming ball would have been much smaller. Now I want to know what would happen if there was only one ball after the magnet. What do you think?>> ^oritteropo:
Based on that, I wonder if a slowmo of the ball in the original video might've shown that it bounced slightly before coming to rest?

Yes I found a reasonably clear explanation, and added it as a postscript to my earlier comment after you'd quoted it, but before I got the e-mail notification.
>> ^messenger:

[...]
If momentum = velocity mass, then doubling the velocity will double the momentum. Using the cradle, if you drop a ball from very very close to the first stationary ball, a single ball will move from the other side and move a very very short distance. If you then drop the ball from perpendicular, a single ball will move from the other side, and rise to (nearly) perpendicular. I have seen this much in my own observations. I don't think we need to do any calculations to understand that the impact velocity in the first essay is way less than half the impact velocity in the second essay (we don’t need exact numbers; we just need to know that the impact velocity is more than double). That means we have met your criteria for increasing the momentum to more than that of two balls at the first velocity, yet one ball still comes out.
A mental model to demonstrate my theory of “two particles in = two impacts = two particles out” is to imagine a bit of sponge between the last two balls in a Newton’s cradle. Pull the second ball out (which will push the first ball ahead of it) to a great enough height that the momentum of the outside ball’s impact is enough to completely squeeze the sponge and cause a second impact wave. The second ball would impact measurably later than the first, and before the ejected particle came back. Pretty clearly, two balls will emerge from the other side. This is what I think is happening on a micro scale when two independent balls are dropped together.