Post by: Lamiales on November 22, 2011, 12:36:13 pm
Post by: Oliolli on November 22, 2011, 12:55:26 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on November 22, 2011, 01:03:36 pm
And how long until the US army weaponizes that? Strap some missiles onto it, stat.Probably the army developed it and weaponized it 2 years ago.
Post by: Jimlad11 on November 22, 2011, 03:36:45 pm
Post by: Dsarker on November 22, 2011, 03:48:56 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on November 22, 2011, 04:17:36 pm
Cover that nanomaille armor with some good strong polymer and you'd be good to go!
Post by: Kogut on November 22, 2011, 04:26:37 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 22, 2011, 06:36:32 pm
THIS THREAD IS OVER 9000 GIGAWATTS!
Post by: Squanto on November 22, 2011, 11:55:34 pm
Quote
The new metal’s lattice work does more than make it lightweight, it allows the material to be extremely resiliant. In studies it has shown to completely recover from compression exceeding 50 percent strain and bounces right back after absorbing a high amount of energy.
I almost guarantee you some
Post by: Draco18s on November 23, 2011, 12:11:53 am
so wouldn't this work well as a lightweight skin for spacesuits rather than the tough plates and thick fabric they have now?
Cover that nanomaille armor with some good strong polymer and you'd be good to go!
Considering that the material is highly porous....I doubt it.
Post by: Oliolli on November 23, 2011, 12:54:35 am
I always think this. Whenever some new technology or scientific advance is made, I can't help but wonder what the military has been doing with it before it was publicly announced. Maybe that's just the natural cynical bastard in me. Or is it true? CONSPIRACIES! YOU'RE ALL OUT TO GET ME.And how long until the US army weaponizes that? Strap some missiles onto it, stat.Probably the army developed it and weaponized it 2 years ago.
CRAP! HE FOUND OUT!
Post by: Iton Ibrukrithzam on November 23, 2011, 06:35:50 am
And I bet it still took them longer to weaponize it than DF players would take.And how long until the US army weaponizes that? Strap some missiles onto it, stat.Probably the army developed it and weaponized it 2 years ago.
Post by: forsaken1111 on November 23, 2011, 08:29:11 am
So are the stiff fabrics used currently. They are there to provide strength. There are other materials in the suit which keep the air from escaping.so wouldn't this work well as a lightweight skin for spacesuits rather than the tough plates and thick fabric they have now?
Cover that nanomaille armor with some good strong polymer and you'd be good to go!
Considering that the material is highly porous....I doubt it.
I didn't say this nanochainmail could also hold air.
Post by: Oliolli on November 23, 2011, 11:26:48 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 23, 2011, 05:00:14 pm
If it works for space suits, could it work for space ships? Or does it resist heat etc. well enough?
If something's hitting your spaceship, you're probably already screwed. A peanut in Earth's orbit can hit a space station with the equivalent force of a 50. Bullet :o
Post by: King DZA on November 23, 2011, 05:23:35 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 23, 2011, 05:28:35 pm
Well I know what I'm bringing with me if I'm ever locked in a deadly space battle with aliens.
Peanuts.
Post by: King DZA on November 23, 2011, 06:10:50 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on November 23, 2011, 08:36:37 pm
It's as strong as metal, they say, but what kind of metal? Is there some sort of comparison? Is it comparable to high quality steel? Copper? Sodium? They also tried to claim that spiderwebs were stronger than steel, but that's hardly the whole truth, and very misleading.
Post by: Itnetlolor on November 23, 2011, 09:24:01 pm
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on November 23, 2011, 09:53:58 pm
Hey, I'm a DF player...I wonder if DARPA is hiring...And I bet it still took them longer to weaponize it than DF players would take.And how long until the US army weaponizes that? Strap some missiles onto it, stat.Probably the army developed it and weaponized it 2 years ago.
Are you kidding? If I'm going to attack somethiung with my nuts, I'd us...wait, that doesn't sound right...Hell yes.Well I know what I'm bringing with me if I'm ever locked in a deadly space battle with aliens.
Peanuts.
Look, brazil nuts or, ideally, coconuts would be much better. Ideally ideally, steel spikes.
Interesting, if this is indeed true. However, I have some skepticism about it's actual strength.Spider silk can hold more than steel of the same cross-section. That's how I understand it.
It's as strong as metal, they say, but what kind of metal? Is there some sort of comparison? Is it comparable to high quality steel? Copper? Sodium? They also tried to claim that spiderwebs were stronger than steel, but that's hardly the whole truth, and very misleading.
Post by: 612DwarfAvenue on November 23, 2011, 10:03:03 pm
I always think this. Whenever some new technology or scientific advance is made, I can't help but wonder what the military has been doing with it before it was publicly announced. Maybe that's just the natural cynical bastard in me. Or is it true? CONSPIRACIES! YOU'RE ALL OUT TO GET ME.And how long until the US army weaponizes that? Strap some missiles onto it, stat.Probably the army developed it and weaponized it 2 years ago.
CRAP! HE FOUND OUT!
That's pretty much true, actually. By the time it gets publicly announced, they've already put it through the paces are are probably field testing it.
Post by: Wayward Device on November 24, 2011, 12:09:47 pm
Quote
If something's hitting your spaceship, you're probably already screwed. A peanut in Earth's orbit can hit a space station with the equivalent force of a 50. Bullet :o
Interestingly, because throughout the history of manned space exploration waste management (human waste that is) has largely consisted of dumping it overboard (or however we are supposed to refer to it on a spaceship), the most common thing you're likely to be hit by in low Earth orbit is shit travel in excess of 30,000 miles an hour. Frozen solid into something much like extremely unhygienic steel. This actually causes damage in the millions each year to satellites.
Post by: Draco18s on November 24, 2011, 02:18:30 pm
Interestingly, because throughout the history of manned space exploration waste management (human waste that is) has largely consisted of dumping it overboard (or however we are supposed to refer to it on a spaceship), the most common thing you're likely to be hit by in low Earth orbit is shit travel in excess of 30,000 miles an hour. Frozen solid into something much like extremely unhygienic steel. This actually causes damage in the millions each year to satellites.
Would cause, actually. NASA tracks some 22,000 objects 10cm and larger as to avoid collisions with Stuff We Can Move Still (i.e. operational satellites) that would produce even more debris.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 24, 2011, 02:53:36 pm
QuoteIf something's hitting your spaceship, you're probably already screwed. A peanut in Earth's orbit can hit a space station with the equivalent force of a 50. Bullet :o
Interestingly, because throughout the history of manned space exploration waste management (human waste that is) has largely consisted of dumping it overboard (or however we are supposed to refer to it on a spaceship), the most common thing you're likely to be hit by in low Earth orbit is shit travel in excess of 30,000 miles an hour. Frozen solid into something much like extremely unhygienic steel. This actually causes damage in the millions each year to satellites.
Yeah, the international space station has had quite a few close calls, and has nearly had to evacuate many times. Commercial satellites on the other hand.... Beooooooooooowww *Boom*
Interesting, if this is indeed true. However, I have some skepticism about it's actual strength.
It's as strong as metal, they say, but what kind of metal? Is there some sort of comparison? Is it comparable to high quality steel? Copper? Sodium? They also tried to claim that spiderwebs were stronger than steel, but that's hardly the whole truth, and very misleading.
I think a comparison with pottasium (soft metal), copper (the compromise) and iron (hard metal) would be nicer. Just 'cus metals like steel are peculiar alloys, and that makes things rather confuzzling when people start pouting atom ratios.
Also, they didn't claim spiderwebs are stronger than steel, they said spidersilk was. And they're right. Gram for gram, spider silk is stronger than steel (except maybe a carbon heavy steel alloy, I don't know then).
Me being helpful :3 (http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/spider/page2.htm)
1 kilograms of rocks = 1 kilograms of feathers
Post by: Cruxador on November 24, 2011, 03:18:35 pm
Post by: Wayward Device on November 24, 2011, 03:19:37 pm
Quote
1 kilograms of rocks = 1 kilograms of feathers
Hehehe, people always forget that. There was a thread a while back on RL metal strength and there was a great picture of a steel sword and a titanium one of the same strength side by side. Needless to say, the titanium one was almost ludicrously bigger.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 24, 2011, 03:32:48 pm
Quote1 kilograms of rocks = 1 kilograms of feathers
Hehehe, people always forget that. There was a thread a while back on RL metal strength and there was a great picture of a steel sword and a titanium one of the same strength side by side. Needless to say, the titanium one was almost ludicrously bigger.
Wow, I just found THIS. (http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news-ds-Metallic-Spider-Silk-Five-Times-Stronger-than-Steel-050409.aspx)
It seems like now we also have cotton candy thread, as well as wafers :D
Quote from: Cotton candy scientist
"sustainable spider silk for commercial use worldwide."
Have I heard that right?
Post by: Dsarker on November 24, 2011, 03:45:02 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers
1 kilograms of rocks = 1 kilograms of feathers
Same mass, not same weight.
Post by: Kogut on November 24, 2011, 04:14:04 pm
What?Quote from: Loud Whispers1 kilograms of rocks = 1 kilograms of feathersSame mass, not same weight.
EDIT: "Weight is the product of the mass m of the object and the magnitude of the local gravitational acceleration" - from wikipedia
Post by: Dsarker on November 24, 2011, 04:15:56 pm
Post by: Kogut on November 24, 2011, 04:17:40 pm
Feathers are indivilly lighter, larger, and flatter. They generate more air resistance. This means that their acceleration due to gravity is lessened, and so they weigh less.Sorry, this is a giant mistake - you think about terminal velocity.
Post by: Dsarker on November 24, 2011, 04:23:18 pm
Post by: Neonivek on November 24, 2011, 04:26:40 pm
Post by: Dsarker on November 24, 2011, 04:30:00 pm
Post by: Cruxador on November 24, 2011, 04:35:45 pm
Feathers are indivilly lighter, larger, and flatter. They generate more air resistance. This means that their acceleration due to gravity is lessened, and so they weigh less.
No, I'm pretty sure I'm not. Terminal velocity would be lowered by having more air resistance, but that is because of the gravitic potential energy being frustrated.That's not right. Weight of an object is the force that gravitation exerts upon a body, equal to the mass of the body times the local acceleration of gravity. Downwards acceleration is net weight. Part of that can be negated as an object exerts its downward force on air molecules and those molecules (pursuant to Newton's third law) exert force back and decrease the object's net force. Part of that can also be negated when an object rests on another solid, such as a scale, and its acceleration is brought to zero. But that doesn't mean an object is weightless while being weighed.
Post by: Dsarker on November 24, 2011, 04:36:49 pm
Post by: Cruxador on November 24, 2011, 04:46:36 pm
I never said an object would be weightless. I said it would weigh less.I know you didn't explicitly say that. I extended your definition to make it's incorrectness more obvious. An item laying at rest on a solid surface has no acceleration. By your definition, the object is thus weightless. This is the case even when the object is a scale, with the rather ludicrous implication that an item is weightless while being weighed.
Terminal velocity is hit when air resistance equals gravity.Not quite. It's when air resistance equals weight. When that happens, the net force is equal to zero and there is no acceleration. Note that while freefall is sometimes referred to as being weightless (perhaps this is the source of your misapprehension?) this is not actually the case.
Post by: Dsarker on November 24, 2011, 04:49:26 pm
Firstly, acceleration is going on when something is on top of a solid surface. Acceleration due to gravity, however, is equalised by the resistance provided by the solid surface.
Secondly, you are weightless in freefall, as weight is provided by the resistance against gravity.
Post by: dree12 on November 24, 2011, 04:54:37 pm
A good approximation for reasonably geometric objects could be:
weight (n) = mass (kg) * magnitude (m/s2) - air density (kg/m3) * volume (should actually be volume displaced, but the unit is still m3) * magnitude (m/s2)
Firstly, acceleration is going on when something is on top of a solid surface. Acceleration due to gravity, however, is equalised by the resistance provided by the solid surface.Force is equalized, not accelleration. An object with equalized forces is not accellerating.
This is the case even when the object is a scale, with the rather ludicrous implication that an item is weightless while being weighed.Weight is not an accelleration, it is a force. The force of gravity is not necessarily the weight for practical purposes, however. You could try arguing that a kilogram of helium weighs the same as a kilogram of uranium - even many scientists would disagree.
Post by: Draegur on November 24, 2011, 05:09:25 pm
Post by: Cruxador on November 24, 2011, 05:18:53 pm
Firstly, acceleration is going on when something is on top of a solid surface. Acceleration due to gravity, however, is equalised by the resistance provided by the solid surface.There is no acceleration going on, as acceleration is change in speed or direction of travel, and the item in the example was specified to be at rest. Unless you meant to imply that the object would be at rest regarding one point of reference (say, the earth) and accelerating compared to a different frame of reference (such as the sun or the center of the galaxy) in which case that's retarded and serves no purpose besides obfuscation of the point.
Quote
Secondly, you are weightless in freefall, as weight is provided by the resistance against gravity.Even with this new definition (which is totally different from your previous definition) you're wrong. When at terminal velocity, air molecules are exerting resistance against gravitational force equivalent to what would normally be termed the object's weight. That's why there's no acceleration in the first place.
But I tire of this discussion and I suspect you're just trolling anyway, so here are some definitions:
For weight:
Google: A body's relative mass or the quantity of matter contained by it, giving rise to a downward force; the heaviness of a person or thing.
Dictionary.com: the force that gravitation exerts upon a body, equal to the mass of the body times the local acceleration of gravity: commonly taken, in a region of constant gravitational acceleration, as a measure of mass.
TheFreeDictionary.com: The force with which a body is attracted to Earth or another celestial body, equal to the product of the object's mass and the acceleration of gravity.
Wikipedia: In science and engineering, the weight of an object is the force on the object due to gravity.
Merriam-Webster: the force with which a body is attracted toward the earth or a celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the product of the mass and the local gravitational acceleration
Those make reference to gravitational acceleration, which it now occurs to me you may have been confusing with acceleration due to gravity. Honestly, that would be a fairly understandable mistake. However they are not the same; gravitational acceleration is a pure measure of the force of gravity; it assumes a vacuum. Earth's gravitational acceleration is about 9.8 meters per second per second.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 24, 2011, 05:32:32 pm
Feathers are indivilly lighter, larger, and flatter. They generate more air resistance. This means that their acceleration due to gravity is lessened, and so they weigh less.
We can assume both are weighed in a vacuum. And are stationary. Gravity remains constant, the force it displays never "lessens", as shown by your weight not randomly changing. Oh and weight is the measurement of force exerted by gravity.
Oh and mass is measured in grams. Guess what I was talking about. Yup, the mass.
NERDPWNAGE :P
I'm not all too impressed, to be honest. The only video they have is of the material being slooowly compressed to 50% size, and although it's pretty neat-o seeing it gradually snap back to shape, I don't see *any* videos of people handling it, tossing it around, stacking things on it.. For all we know, despite its 'to-scale' strength, maybe it'd come apart in our hands like actual IRL sugar-based candyfloss. If they really wanted to demonstrate its lightness, they'd prepare an extremely long plank of it and demonstrate a person lifting it entirely off of a table while maintaining it at a perfectly horizontal orientation using only their two pinkie fingers on the end. Seeing these static images don't give us any idea whatsoever of its actual handling and macro-scale structural integrity!
I don't suppose it's easy for them to produce large amounts of this wonder-candy just yet, but I agree.
WHERE IS MY NICKEL-PHOSPHOROUS JUMPER?
[Or socks for that matter]
[Or hammer striking a wafer stack of this]
[Or someone karate chopping it in vain]
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on November 24, 2011, 05:39:31 pm
Only if you want to get technical. Yes, if the kilo of rocks is in an area of different gravitational acceleration, their weights will be different. Let's assume for the sake of the argument that they aren't. Same weight.Quote from: Loud Whispers1 kilograms of rocks = 1 kilograms of feathers
Same mass, not same weight.
Post by: Armok on November 24, 2011, 06:03:10 pm
Somhow this didn't get throguh the forst time I tried to post it, apperently:QuoteIf something's hitting your spaceship, you're probably already screwed. A peanut in Earth's orbit can hit a space station with the equivalent force of a 50. Bullet :o
Interestingly, because throughout the history of manned space exploration waste management (human waste that is) has largely consisted of dumping it overboard (or however we are supposed to refer to it on a spaceship), the most common thing you're likely to be hit by in low Earth orbit is shit travel in excess of 30,000 miles an hour. Frozen solid into something much like extremely unhygienic steel. This actually causes damage in the millions each year to satellites.
When it eventually does impact something, it's guaranteed to be some kind of air conditioning unit. Or maybe just a devote follower of something.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 24, 2011, 06:12:41 pm
Somhow this didn't get throguh the forst time I tried to post it, apperently:Quote from: Loud WhispersIf something's hitting your spaceship, you're probably already screwed. A peanut in Earth's orbit can hit a space station with the equivalent force of a 50. Bullet :o
Interestingly, because throughout the history of manned space exploration waste management (human waste that is) has largely consisted of dumping it overboard (or however we are supposed to refer to it on a spaceship), the most common thing you're likely to be hit by in low Earth orbit is shit travel in excess of 30,000 miles an hour. Frozen solid into something much like extremely unhygienic steel. This actually causes damage in the millions each year to satellites.
When it eventually does impact something, it's guaranteed to be some kind of air conditioning unit. Or maybe just a devote follower of something.
SIR! THEY'RE LAUNCHING SCIENTOLOGISTS AND CTHULHU-CULTISTS AT US!
"Fire the LemoNades."
Post by: Dsarker on November 24, 2011, 06:20:08 pm
Somhow this didn't get throguh the forst time I tried to post it, apperently:Quote from: Loud WhispersIf something's hitting your spaceship, you're probably already screwed. A peanut in Earth's orbit can hit a space station with the equivalent force of a 50. Bullet :o
Interestingly, because throughout the history of manned space exploration waste management (human waste that is) has largely consisted of dumping it overboard (or however we are supposed to refer to it on a spaceship), the most common thing you're likely to be hit by in low Earth orbit is shit travel in excess of 30,000 miles an hour. Frozen solid into something much like extremely unhygienic steel. This actually causes damage in the millions each year to satellites.
When it eventually does impact something, it's guaranteed to be some kind of air conditioning unit. Or maybe just a devote follower of something.
SIR! THEY'RE LAUNCHING SCIENTOLOGISTS AND CTHULHU-CULTISTS AT US!
"Fire the LemoNades."
"What model, sir? Cave or Kinetic?"
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 24, 2011, 06:26:41 pm
Spoiler: Off Topic Sauce lol (click to show/hide)
>Back on topic
Do you think we could literally be fully suited in this stuff? Moar sources required.
Post by: Draco18s on November 24, 2011, 06:28:57 pm
Feathers are indivilly lighter, larger, and flatter. They generate more air resistance. This means that their acceleration due to gravity is lessened, and so they weigh less.
(http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/thumb/7/73/JeanLucPicardFacepalm.jpg/618px-JeanLucPicardFacepalm.jpg)
Given that both masses are being weighed at the same place, and there's no air resistance (duh, they're at rest) then 1kg of feathers weighs exactly the same as 1kg of steel, rocks, blood, milk, or well, just about anything (http://www.braingle.com/brainteasers/teaser.php?id=195&comm=1). Unless you're on the moon, in which case, you're measuring a kg of feathers on the moon to a kg of rocks on earth.
Of course THAT doesn't work out.
Clearly we need space janitors.
This is relevant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes).
Post by: Itnetlolor on November 24, 2011, 10:05:07 pm
Clearly we need space janitors.This is relevant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes).
Spoiler: Wrong. This is relevant. (click to show/hide)
Post by: forsaken1111 on November 25, 2011, 01:28:52 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 25, 2011, 01:12:22 pm
This whole thread has me laughing. I love when people try to play physicist online.
NONSENSE!
WE'RE ARE DOING !!SCIENCE!!
[Just failing]
Post by: Buttery_Mess on November 25, 2011, 08:23:01 pm
Post by: Doomshifter on November 26, 2011, 07:19:13 am
Anyway, the whole time I was reading this, it really bothered me that they kept saying 'metal'. Surely a scientific news-source would write what sort of metal it could be compared to? That's just bad journalism, there.
Post by: Kogut on November 26, 2011, 09:36:56 am
IN THIS THREAD: 1 KILOGRAM OF FEATHERS ON PLUTO DOES NOT HAVE EQUAL WEIGHT TO 1 KILOGRAM OF STONES ON MARSfixed
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 26, 2011, 12:05:39 pm
IN THIS THREAD: 1 KILOGRAM OF FEATHERS ON PLUTO DOES NOT HAVE EQUAL WEIGHT TO 1 KILOGRAM OF STONES ON MARSfixed
See, this makes sense.
IN THIS THREAD: 1 KILOGRAM OF FEATHERS DOES NOT HAVE EQUAL WEIGHT TO 1 KILOGRAM OF STONES. MORE AT 11.
And this is just insulting. Any-ways... You do know what mass is right?
Anyway, the whole time I was reading this, it really bothered me that they kept saying 'metal'. Surely a scientific news-source would write what sort of metal it could be compared to? That's just bad journalism, there.
Have you ever found good journalism? :P
I guess it's safe to assume that this awesome nickel-phosphorous compound is pretty strong for something that's 99.9% air, but probably isn't going to be replacing steel, iron, copper or aluminium any time soon:]
Post by: Draco18s on November 26, 2011, 12:42:19 pm
IN THIS THREAD: 1 KILOGRAM OF FEATHERS DOES NOT HAVE EQUAL WEIGHT TO 1 KILOGRAM OF STONES. MORE AT 11.
And this is just insulting. Any-ways... You do know what mass is right?
You know what irony is, right?
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 26, 2011, 01:10:56 pm
IN THIS THREAD: 1 KILOGRAM OF FEATHERS DOES NOT HAVE EQUAL WEIGHT TO 1 KILOGRAM OF STONES. MORE AT 11.
And this is just insulting. Any-ways... You do know what mass is right?
You know what irony is, right?
This is relevant how?
Post by: Matz05 on November 26, 2011, 01:24:24 pm
Its like Christmas.
Speaking of governments, who's gonna bet they don't already have metalized spider silk garrote--ERK! (thud)
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 26, 2011, 01:30:56 pm
Wow, nano-chain-mail blocks that weigh almost nothing but are decently strong and springy... Metal-reinforced spider silk...
Its like Christmas.
Speaking of governments, who's gonna bet they don't already have metalized spider silk garrote--ERK! (thud)
I'll bet they've trained the spiders to do it too ._.
Post by: Jelle on November 26, 2011, 01:47:35 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers1 kilograms of rocks = 1 kilograms of feathers
Same mass, not same weight.
I'm just popping in to say this is such a huge falcity. Weight is not the net downward force. Ofcourse the net downward force is a lot less due to aereal resistance and whatnot, given that the feathers would be falling down.
Post by: Matz05 on November 26, 2011, 02:15:29 pm
..."apparent weight" would be that though...
Post by: Shinotsa on November 26, 2011, 03:03:51 pm
Well with those two cents in I'll add something my chemistry professor does research on and you all have probably already seen after last year's nobel prizes. I'm talking about Graphene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene). I'm a bit rusty on the details, but it's supposed to be many, many times more conductive than silicon and have quite a few anomalous properties that seem kind of strange when considering that it's just a single layer of graphite.
As long as we're building a super spaceship with spidersilk and nickel phosphorous lattice, it may as well have graphene circutry so we can play a 16x16 500 dorf embark at 100 fps IN SPAAAAAACE. (Disclaimer: I have no damn clue about computing, bio/psych major)
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 26, 2011, 03:06:49 pm
Quote from: Loud Whispers1 kilograms of rocks = 1 kilograms of feathers
Same mass, not same weight.
I'm just popping in to say this is such a huge falcity. Weight is not the net downward force. Ofcourse the net downward force is a lot less due to aereal resistance and whatnot, given that the feathers would be falling down.
Look, let me clear this. (Again).
1kg of rocks = 1kg of feathers. It's simple. It even used to be in bloody IQ tests ffs.
That is not a fallacy, that is an equation. Both are equal values. Both have the same mass. If you're using weight as the measurement value, you can assume that both are not falling BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE MEASURING THEM. Why not measure them in a vacuum too.
Weight is the value of force we give to the force exerted by gravity. The force exerted by gravity would be constant, regardless with or without air resistance, although the speed it would be falling would. BUT OF COURSE THIS IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT FALLING.
To reiterate:
1) Weight = Force exerted by gravity;
2) Grams is the force used to measure mass;
3) Both have the same total mass, and the same total weight, the only difference is the density of both objects, and the feathers would take up more space.
TA DA!
Also, DAMN, looked it up and nickel-phosphorous (on the rockwell scale) has an RC of 54, and to put this in perspective, high carbon steel has one of 55-66, so this thing is nearly as hard as the strongest steel available to mankind O_O
Also, ninja D:<
[And Graphene has many, many unusual qualities... Best leave it alone or give it its own thread.]
Post by: Shinotsa on November 26, 2011, 03:18:24 pm
[And Graphene has many, many unusual qualities... Best leave it alone or give it its own thread.]But... but... the 500 dorfs. The horizontal fortress that takes 3 months to cross... the possibilities!
Also,
nickel-phosphorous (on the rockwell scale) has an RC of 54, and to put this in perspective, high carbon steel has one of 55-66, so this thing is nearly as hard as the strongest steel available to mankind O_OJesus christ that's strong. I know that a certain material I just mentioned is estimated to take half a century to be put into commercial use, has anyone found a timeline for how long it'll take for them to implement this stuff? And when they do will we have bullet proof cars? It seems to have all the properties needed to stop a bullet (to someone who knows nothing about the properties required to stop a bullet), and it'll be much easier than stuffing phone books in the door whenever I plan on driving through a bad neighborhood...
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 26, 2011, 03:22:29 pm
Get your Nickel-Flakes today!
[90% chance of being lethal]
Post by: Shinotsa on November 26, 2011, 03:57:13 pm
Post by: Mysteriousbluepuppet on November 26, 2011, 04:04:47 pm
F=ma. 1kg = 1kg. 9.8m/s^2 = 9.8m/s^2. F = F. Done.
Well with those two cents in I'll add something my chemistry professor does research on and you all have probably already seen after last year's nobel prizes. I'm talking about Graphene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene). I'm a bit rusty on the details, but it's supposed to be many, many times more conductive than silicon and have quite a few anomalous properties that seem kind of strange when considering that it's just a single layer of graphite.
As long as we're building a super spaceship with spidersilk and nickel phosphorous lattice, it may as well have graphene circutry so we can play a 16x16 500 dorf embark at 100 fps IN SPAAAAAACE. (Disclaimer: I have no damn clue about computing, bio/psych major)
Chemist here, and graphene is damned beautifull. Conductive yes (we get it from graphite, so it has to) but also extremely resistant and not all that heavy. Mostly dud to being a (almost) 2D crystal, wich is impossible, but would allow some ridiculously good properties
Post by: Matz05 on November 26, 2011, 04:07:05 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 26, 2011, 04:09:23 pm
Yeah, LEAD-bullet-proof cars are doable with exotic materials like these, but what happens when you make a better bullet with them? Already a lot of bullets have steel slivers in them, and if a government REALLY wanted to get nasty, DU is always there...
If someone is firing DU rounds at you in a minigun, you must have made some big people very angry, so why the hell would you be driving a normal car? XD
Post by: sambojin on November 26, 2011, 08:02:24 pm
I tend to think the amazing thing about the material is the ability to find a commercially viable way of making a nickel-phosporous lattice. Is it done by electric charge? Crystal style growth? Innate properties of the substance?
I'll look into it from that end. Forming nickel tubes that are then easy to make a lattice from is pretty cool. Especially if the techniques can be used on other materials with some modification.
Airy-high-tensile-steel-lattices that can be constructed on a reasonable scale would be great. Not for the steel. We have that. For the tubes and the lattices and geometric strength/weight forms you can make from these techniques.
I wonder how they did make the tubes and join them at micro/nano scale?
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 26, 2011, 08:10:42 pm
Well anyways, if you're interested in conductivity and what-not, diamond-boron semi-conducters (whoah lots of hyphens) are the thing for you, and yeah, these obscure metallurgical and allotropical advancements are AWESHUM
[Btw, a triangular prism beats your H shape any day]
Post by: sambojin on November 26, 2011, 11:02:05 pm
Does anyone know what technique the used to bond or fuse the tubes together? Or even make such small scale tubes in the first place?
I guess it's time to go reading some research papers as long as it's not commercial-in-confidence type work. Yayy to learning things I have no real idea about.
Metal plated carbon-nanotubes that can then be arranged as you wanted would be a major leap forward in many fields. Making them in commercial quantities really could change the world. Oh well, time to get reading I guess.
Ps: I manipulate individual atoms all the time. Just not on purpose. My human ego is fine with that :)
Post by: EveryZig on November 26, 2011, 11:50:48 pm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/strong-materials.html (Link doesn't compare the materials to eachother, but has a nice general description of the various materials.)
And that is why I would chose carbon for an elemental power.
Post by: Oliolli on November 27, 2011, 02:11:21 am
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/strong-materials.html
>:(
Diamond the strongest stuff? I'm quite certain fullerenes have been made to be stronger.
Heck, either way carbon wins the day.
Post by: EveryZig on November 27, 2011, 10:28:34 am
Diamond the strongest stuff? I'm quite certain fullerenes have been made to be stronger.Diamond has lots of hardness (scratch resistance) but not much toughness (impact resistance).
Which they say in the article >.>
Post by: Oliolli on November 27, 2011, 11:36:55 am
It's actually funny: diamonds, fullerenes and graphene are all hard... But graphite is close to the bottom of that, as I recall.
Post by: EveryZig on November 28, 2011, 12:52:21 pm
Post by: Draco18s on November 28, 2011, 01:02:21 pm
That is because graphite is basically just a stack of graphene sheets with very weak forces holding them together.
And a molecularly thin sheet doesn't have much fluxural strength (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexural_strength) when compared to other materials which don't have that problem.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 28, 2011, 03:38:07 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on November 28, 2011, 03:51:40 pm
A weird thing about graphene sheets is I can't remember, but isn't there something about their electrical resistance that's just an absolute wonder?Probably you could have googled it and clicked the first link which is wikipedia's entry which is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene).
In summary: Graphene sheets have the lowest resistivity of any substance known at room temperature.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 28, 2011, 04:08:40 pm
A weird thing about graphene sheets is I can't remember, but isn't there something about their electrical resistance that's just an absolute wonder?Probably you could have googled it and clicked the first link which is wikipedia's entry which is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene).
In summary: Graphene sheets have the lowest resistivity of any substance known at room temperature.
I get lazy when I'm in full forum mode :P
(Also, wikipedia is not the most trusted of sources....)
Post by: forsaken1111 on November 28, 2011, 04:10:58 pm
I get lazy when I'm in full forum mode :PTrue, but it's at least cited. (https://newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=1621 (https://newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=1621))
(Also, wikipedia is not the most trusted of sources....)
I don't really mind all that much, just saying. :)
Post by: RabidAnubis on November 28, 2011, 04:38:04 pm
311.6 times as strong as high carbon steel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube#Strength (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube#Strength)
Now if we made a blanket out of this stuff.....
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 28, 2011, 04:45:28 pm
It's all about compound allotrope's and semi/super conductors now xD
Post by: forsaken1111 on November 28, 2011, 04:57:15 pm
Carbon nanotubes...we would have a really strong blanket?
311.6 times as strong as high carbon steel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube#Strength (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube#Strength)
Now if we made a blanket out of this stuff.....
Post by: Draco18s on November 28, 2011, 05:07:11 pm
I get lazy when I'm in full forum mode :PTrue, but it's at least cited. (https://newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=1621 (https://newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=1621))
(Also, wikipedia is not the most trusted of sources....)
Unlike an article on a christian "bash anything I dislike" site which decided to bash Skyrim claiming it "turned people gay."1 The author (in a reply to a comment) sited his claim that Americans don't speak English by referencing his own blog.
Wikipedia you can be fairly sure of it's accuracy by checking to see if a claim has a source and then checking that source.
1 The entry was so poorly researched, claiming that Blizzard produced the game. Among other things, of course.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 28, 2011, 05:10:40 pm
I get lazy when I'm in full forum mode :PTrue, but it's at least cited. (https://newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=1621 (https://newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=1621))
(Also, wikipedia is not the most trusted of sources....)
Unlike an article on a christian "bash anything I dislike" site which decided to bash Skyrim claiming it "turned people gay."1 The author (in a reply to a comment) sited his claim that Americans don't speak English by referencing his own blog.
Wikipedia you can be fairly sure of it's accuracy by checking to see if a claim has a source and then checking that source.
1 The entry was so poorly researched, claiming that Blizzard produced the game. Among other things, of course.
You have made my day.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on November 28, 2011, 05:15:48 pm
Post by: Draco18s on November 28, 2011, 06:20:09 pm
I get lazy when I'm in full forum mode :PTrue, but it's at least cited. (https://newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=1621 (https://newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=1621))
(Also, wikipedia is not the most trusted of sources....)
Unlike an article on a christian "bash anything I dislike" site which decided to bash Skyrim claiming it "turned people gay."1 The author (in a reply to a comment) sited his claim that Americans don't speak English by referencing his own blog.
Wikipedia you can be fairly sure of it's accuracy by checking to see if a claim has a source and then checking that source.
1 The entry was so poorly researched, claiming that Blizzard produced the game. Among other things, of course.
You have made my day.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: The article, for the lolz (click to show/hide)
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 28, 2011, 06:32:51 pm
I was a little disappointed by the lack of FUS RO DAH! They didn't even bother looking into the story either. How did they even make those connections? AH AHA HAHAHAAA
Post by: Cruxador on November 28, 2011, 08:21:00 pm
Post by: EveryZig on November 28, 2011, 10:00:54 pm
See: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoesLaw
Post by: MrWiggles on November 29, 2011, 12:38:10 am
So are the stiff fabrics used currently. They are there to provide strength. There are other materials in the suit which keep the air from escaping.so wouldn't this work well as a lightweight skin for spacesuits rather than the tough plates and thick fabric they have now?
Cover that nanomaille armor with some good strong polymer and you'd be good to go!
Considering that the material is highly porous....I doubt it.
I didn't say this nanochainmail could also hold air.
This wouldnt really do anything for space suits.
The bulkness, and weight for a space suit, comes from the need to use air to provide the pressure, not the suit itself.
You want space suits to be light, flexible, then you need to think of a different way to apply the pressure needed for the human to function, along with the need to provide for heat, water and waste management.
Post by: forsaken1111 on November 29, 2011, 12:51:39 pm
This wouldnt really do anything for space suits.So like a skinsuit with built-in elasticity to apply the appropriate pressure to the body and a dome helmet for breathable air. And then a layer of nanomaile over that to keep it from breaching?
The bulkness, and weight for a space suit, comes from the need to use air to provide the pressure, not the suit itself.
You want space suits to be light, flexible, then you need to think of a different way to apply the pressure needed for the human to function, along with the need to provide for heat, water and waste management.
Post by: MrWiggles on November 29, 2011, 07:48:03 pm
This wouldnt really do anything for space suits.So like a skinsuit with built-in elasticity to apply the appropriate pressure to the body and a dome helmet for breathable air. And then a layer of nanomaile over that to keep it from breaching?
The bulkness, and weight for a space suit, comes from the need to use air to provide the pressure, not the suit itself.
You want space suits to be light, flexible, then you need to think of a different way to apply the pressure needed for the human to function, along with the need to provide for heat, water and waste management.
Yep. There's an MIT materiel scientist lady working on it already. It'll even provide sensor net for bodily functions. So far, it mostly works, and progress has been good. The trickier parts, that remain to be solved, is where the morphology of the body is dynamic. Like the armpits, and the back of knees.
Its apparently very hard to keep constant pressure in areas like that.
Post by: forsaken1111 on November 30, 2011, 12:26:44 pm
Understandable. Sounds like it would be uncomfortable in the underarm and nether regions.So like a skinsuit with built-in elasticity to apply the appropriate pressure to the body and a dome helmet for breathable air. And then a layer of nanomaile over that to keep it from breaching?
Yep. There's an MIT materiel scientist lady working on it already. It'll even provide sensor net for bodily functions. So far, it mostly works, and progress has been good. The trickier parts, that remain to be solved, is where the morphology of the body is dynamic. Like the armpits, and the back of knees.
Its apparently very hard to keep constant pressure in areas like that.
Post by: Shinotsa on December 01, 2011, 12:21:43 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on December 01, 2011, 12:24:25 pm
Well it's official - in the future only women will be able to explore a vacuum. No cleaning jokes.Guess every spaceship will need a kitchen.
;)
Wait wait... Guess there will be plenty of sandwiches in space! Hayo!
8)
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 01, 2011, 02:20:29 pm
Post by: RabidAnubis on December 01, 2011, 04:03:43 pm
I think we should stick with nano tubes and not this- nanotubes have applications in space elevators and civilian armor. This thing here is too light to do anything, and the information is not detailed enough for me.
Also, strength is done by weight/mass, which means that spider silk has more strength. They really don't have strength for size, which worries me.
Post by: forsaken1111 on December 01, 2011, 05:19:46 pm
I hope that people realize in order to manufacture one of these (efficiently) we have to stick with one.Your statement makes no sense at all. We do not have to 'stick with' one thing or another. We as a species are perfectly capable of manufacturing more than one thing at quite high efficiency.
I think we should stick with nano tubes and not this- nanotubes have applications in space elevators and civilian armor. This thing here is too light to do anything, and the information is not detailed enough for me.
Also, strength is done by weight/mass, which means that spider silk has more strength. They really don't have strength for size, which worries me.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 01, 2011, 05:28:30 pm
I hope that people realize in order to manufacture one of these (efficiently) we have to stick with one.Your statement makes no sense at all. We do not have to 'stick with' one thing or another. We as a species are perfectly capable of manufacturing more than one thing at quite high efficiency.
I think we should stick with nano tubes and not this- nanotubes have applications in space elevators and civilian armor. This thing here is too light to do anything, and the information is not detailed enough for me.
Also, strength is done by weight/mass, which means that spider silk has more strength. They really don't have strength for size, which worries me.
Adaptability and specialisation are some of the few only things we as a species have going for us. Other then that, pretty apocalyptic, and humanity is really screwed. Also strength falls under hardness (scratch resistance), malleability, ductility and what-not.
Post by: forsaken1111 on December 01, 2011, 05:30:53 pm
::)
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 01, 2011, 05:35:25 pm
Shit guys, the info isn't detailed enough for RabidAnubis so we should just stop working on it. Pack the project in everyone, abandon the science!
::)
We have the info... Well some of it anyways :D
Post by: Dsarker on December 01, 2011, 05:41:27 pm
I hope that people realize in order to manufacture one of these (efficiently) we have to stick with one.Your statement makes no sense at all. We do not have to 'stick with' one thing or another. We as a species are perfectly capable of manufacturing more than one thing at quite high efficiency.
I think we should stick with nano tubes and not this- nanotubes have applications in space elevators and civilian armor. This thing here is too light to do anything, and the information is not detailed enough for me.
Also, strength is done by weight/mass, which means that spider silk has more strength. They really don't have strength for size, which worries me.
Adaptability and specialisation are some of the few only things we as a species have going for us. Other then that, pretty apocalyptic, and humanity is really screwed. Also strength falls under hardness (scratch resistance), malleability, ductility and what-not.
What do you mean, few things we as a species have going for us? We have a high enough endurance that one way we can do hunting is chasing down our target until they die of exhaustion. We're no real slowpokes, either.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 01, 2011, 05:46:16 pm
Post by: forsaken1111 on December 01, 2011, 05:48:13 pm
Post by: Dsarker on December 01, 2011, 07:24:26 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 01, 2011, 07:37:26 pm
Regardless, you can go for several days without consuming or drinking anything. That's a huge advantage. Hell, you know what made the dinosaurs such successful beasts? They didn't excrete as much.
Yeah well they were cold blooded. We require much more energy. Consistently go without food and water and you'd die very quickly. 'Sides, we farm better then we hunt.
Post by: forsaken1111 on December 02, 2011, 07:56:33 am
Regardless, you can go for several days without consuming or drinking anything. That's a huge advantage.Not really sure how this helps humans in the modern world, and I know most people don't take advantage of it just by looking around at all the overweight balls of fat.
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on December 02, 2011, 08:04:31 am
Regardless, you can go for several days without consuming or drinking anything. That's a huge advantage. Hell, you know what made the dinosaurs such successful beasts? They didn't excrete as much.
Yeah well they were cold blooded. We require much more energy. Consistently go without food and water and you'd die very quickly. 'Sides, we farm better then we hunt.
actually... they were warm blooded, as are birds.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 02, 2011, 01:42:30 pm
Regardless, you can go for several days without consuming or drinking anything. That's a huge advantage. Hell, you know what made the dinosaurs such successful beasts? They didn't excrete as much.
Yeah well they were cold blooded. We require much more energy. Consistently go without food and water and you'd die very quickly. 'Sides, we farm better then we hunt.
actually... they were warm blooded, as are birds.
I was generalizing >_>
Post by: Putnam on December 02, 2011, 11:17:25 pm
Regardless, you can go for several days without consuming or drinking anything. That's a huge advantage. Hell, you know what made the dinosaurs such successful beasts? They didn't excrete as much.
Yeah well they were cold blooded. We require much more energy. Consistently go without food and water and you'd die very quickly. 'Sides, we farm better then we hunt.
actually... they were warm blooded, as are birds.
I was generalizing >_>
A similar generalization to "mammals are cold-blooded" >_>
Post by: Dsarker on December 02, 2011, 11:25:41 pm
Post by: Draco18s on December 02, 2011, 11:31:02 pm
You're technically wrong when you say that dinosaurs are warm blooded like birds. More like dinosaurs are warm blooded, as are their descendants, the birds.
"Do dragons have raspy tongues like cats?"
"No no no, do cats have raspy tongues like dragons?"
Post by: Uthric on December 03, 2011, 12:28:14 am
You're technically wrong when you say that dinosaurs are warm blooded like birds. More like dinosaurs are warm blooded, as are their descendants, the birds.
"Do dragons have raspy tongues like cats?"
"No no no, do cats have raspy tongues like dragons?"
DID SOME ONE SAY DRAGON?
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/original/000/202/242/gif%20fus%20ro%20dah.gif?1321655927)
Post by: Oliolli on December 03, 2011, 02:51:51 am
Post by: Cruxador on December 03, 2011, 05:02:28 am
You're technically wrong when you say that dinosaurs are warm blooded like birds. More like dinosaurs are warm blooded, as are their descendants, the birds.That's not technically wrong. Both dinosaurs and birds are warm blooded. These aspects of their nature are similar.
Post by: Jelle on December 03, 2011, 07:45:22 am
I never use Fus Ro Dah against dragons, partially because they never live long enough against my Daedric Sword (legendary) with a 15-point fire damage enchantment.
Pfff nub, I punch dragons to death on master difficulty.
I'm no biologist or anything, but I find it hard to believe birds evolved from dinosaurs just like that, there is just such an immense size difference in most other then the smallest dinosaurs.. Maybe large birds like emu and the like, but to me it's more seemly they would have shared a common ancestor.
That's what my first thought would be anyway but like I say I'm no biologist. :(
Post by: Oliolli on December 03, 2011, 07:56:21 am
I never use Fus Ro Dah against dragons, partially because they never live long enough against my Daedric Sword (legendary) with a 15-point fire damage enchantment.
Pfff nub, I punch dragons to death on master difficulty.
I would too, but it's just so damn slow. One gets to kill more dragons in the same time when using a weapon. Maybe when I have all the shouts unlocked I'll continue killing dragons...
*In Saxton Hale voice*
With my bare damn hands...
Alternatively, if I wanted to cherry tap (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CherryTapping) them, I would use my bow & arrows.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 03, 2011, 10:02:16 am
I never use Fus Ro Dah against dragons, partially because they never live long enough against my Daedric Sword (legendary) with a 15-point fire damage enchantment.
Pfff nub, I punch dragons to death on master difficulty.
I'm no biologist or anything, but I find it hard to believe birds evolved from dinosaurs just like that, there is just such an immense size difference in most other then the smallest dinosaurs.. Maybe large birds like emu and the like, but to me it's more seemly they would have shared a common ancestor.
That's what my first thought would be anyway but like I say I'm no biologist. :(
Look up Archaeopteryx :)
Post by: Squanto on December 03, 2011, 01:33:08 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 03, 2011, 01:55:11 pm
Nice derail. Back to the original topic, that stuff is all nice and all, but will it blend?
Derailailaialailailail xD
My guess is if the blender is made of high carbon steel, and it's packed with this stuff, yes.
Post by: Sutremaine on December 03, 2011, 02:59:42 pm
I'm no biologist or anything, but I find it hard to believe birds evolved from dinosaurs just like that, there is just such an immense size difference in most other then the smallest dinosaurs.. Maybe large birds like emu and the like, but to me it's more seemly they would have shared a common ancestor.I think differentiating between 'birds evolved from dinosaurs' and 'birds evolved from a tiny number of dinosaur species' is just nitpicking.
Post by: Duuvian on December 04, 2011, 04:16:56 am
Basically you would have fragile (but made of extremely strong material for it's weight) hollow tubes made out of diamond. However, that description somewhat belittles it as at that scale the hardness of diamond would make a difference I would guess, in for instance the medical field.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 04, 2011, 09:40:12 am
I read this a few days ago. Basically it's a bunch of tiny hollow tubes made from a mold. If I remember correctly they said they can theoretically mold artificial diamond into these. While that would be made from an ultra hard material, it would still be hollow and would still have the properties of diamond, except in the form of a lattice of hollow tubes.
Basically you would have fragile (but made of extremely strong material for it's weight) hollow tubes made out of diamond. However, that description somewhat belittles it as at that scale the hardness of diamond would make a difference I would guess, in for instance the medical field.
CARBON TUBES YOU N00B!!!!!!
(We've gone over those ;))
((And Diamond-Boron semiconductors are very different)).
Post by: Kogut on December 05, 2011, 03:27:25 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_size#Shortest_non-avialan_dinosaurs - it includes 10 dinosaurs smaller than 0,5 m.I never use Fus Ro Dah against dragons, partially because they never live long enough against my Daedric Sword (legendary) with a 15-point fire damage enchantment.
Pfff nub, I punch dragons to death on master difficulty.
I'm no biologist or anything, but I find it hard to believe birds evolved from dinosaurs just like that, there is just such an immense size difference in most other then the smallest dinosaurs.. Maybe large birds like emu and the like, but to me it's more seemly they would have shared a common ancestor.
That's what my first thought would be anyway but like I say I'm no biologist. :(