A laymans opinion on the challenge: Waves lose energy, and the exact placement of antennas will matter. I don’t know what the mechanism is called, but we don’t place wind turbines right next to each other. That is afaik because each turbine takes some of the energy out of a larger chunk of the wind-wave in an ‘bubble’ around it, so we place them with optimal distance according to efficiency of that mechanism. If I’m right the effect will probably be minimal. Anyway, just a stab at an interesting thought…
Yep. It’s called near field and far field in radio. In the far field you can approximate it as a beam from the transmitter, while in near field it’s magnets and things can absolutely interact. You never want to put up a stand-alone antenna in the near field of something conductive. Those big tower antennas actually incorporate the ground as a critical part of their design, because of that and the non-negligible conductivity of ground water.
I’m not an expert, but it’s a very complex global system with moisture in the atmosphere sometimes falling as rain/snow, collecting in rivers and lakes, going into ground water/aquifers, flowing into the oceans, and sometimes just staying as moist air. If one area isn’t getting it’s usual rainfall, quite often another area is getting more, but it can also be that the moisture is just in other parts of that complex system. A lot is driven by high- and low-pressure systems, air temperature, water temperature, etc.
In my area of southern California, we’ve had some major, extended droughts. But the rising temperature of the Pacific has caused the air to hold more moisture, and we’ve also had some “atmospheric river” storms that drop insane amounts of rain. So even though we get an average of 13 inches of rain a year, we got more than 13 inches in just February, and we’re up to almost 31 inches for the season. It wouldn’t be surprising if we didn’t get anymore until late in the year though.
Some of that rain went into snowpack, some into reservoirs, some into ground water, but we’re close to the coast and all of it will go back to the ocean. Did we get rain that would normally have gone elsewhere, or was it rain that wouldn’t normally have formed? I think it’s likely hard to say, but maybe there are meteorologists or others who know more reading this.
I don’t know about the disposal of rubber, but the production of rubber has historically enslaved and destroyed entire populations and environmentally wrecked whole regions of the earth in Africa and South America…
I'm not sure how much of a difference that would make. That's less than the total cumulative CO2 emissions of China and the US, and it's 1% of 1% of the total mass of the atmosphere
That’s a good point. My number is all of the current biomass (according to Wikipedia), but all the CO2 we’ve produced since the Industrial Revolution was also originally captured by living things. So add all the gas and coal that ever existed on earth to that number.
I am not expert, but seems plausable. Shock comes from high voltage electric charge jumping from metal to skin. If you press it, you are part of the electric charge. If you are far away, charge cannot jump. Problem is only when you are couple of centimeters close to it. AFAIK, this is not current, but electric discharge, I think it cannot kill you (it is just very unpleasant), but maybe someone else knows better?
Thing that confuses me is that when you let go, you should have the same charge as the generator. No charge difference, no arc. Unless I’m wrong about something, which I probably am (hence my confusion).
Enough for a change in potential to cause arcing, as we can see. I’m sure you could find relevant experimental studies, or even conduct them on yourself with a proper transformer and voltmeter.
I mean, if you can create a vacuum, water at any temperature will boil-freeze. And the ice will sublimate afterwards above cryogenic temperatures, but I’m not sure how fast.
Even if you don’t mix the steam with the water, heat will seep in through the surface. At thousands of degrees you bet that water is gone fast - explosively - as long it’s not super deep. If this is for drying something, you can add a bunch of other hot inert gasses to dilute or push it out after, so when you cool everything back down it doesn’t re-condense.
If you have to add liquid water, it might be impossible, although I can’t say for sure there isn’t some weird non-linear evaporation effect that allows it to technically work on very cold water. Intuitively, you are always adding more additional water than additional heat, but water is crazy and breaks usual rules for matter fairly often. I’ll do a bit of digging and edit.
Edit: Research turned up nothing. As far as I can tell, water evaporation is calculated as being a linear rate. Like the light thing someone else posted, that doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t a counterexample, just that it hasn’t been found and publicised well enough for a quick search around. So yeah, no wetting away a puddle.
But it is a changing 1.23% on the same plane. Both respective planets have no significant satellites. Venus spins wonky. I’m not saying any of it is related, but it is curious.
Venus is loosely around solar lap 20M, Earth 12M, Mars 6.5M in the last 4.5 billion years. How many 1% differences stack in patterns before there is a problem?
Two more variables that are going to affect the number of encounters are when the "final" orbits of the inner planets were established (the Nice model suggests there was much disruption early on) and that Mars' orbit is very elliptic so it's rarely lining up at its closest approach, which is still pretty far. If anything we'd more likely see some correlation between Earth and Venus if there is any.
That is actually more of an illusion that is exploiting any bit of natural flexibility over a given length.
If you took a circle of rock that is 30cm in diameter, cut it into a spiral at a width of 5mm, you get a length of rock that is now about 14m, but in a coil.
So, if the material had a flex of 1mm per half meter, you would see a total deviation of about 28mm from end to end. The “illusion” part is that while it’s only flexing a small amount, you can see the entire range of flex at once.
It’s still a spring, but it hasn’t actually been significantly bent or reformed. Also, it’s still really cool.
Late but… The USA failed to regulate 5G well enough. It would have forced telecoms to use steeper frequently filters that are more accurate like what is used in the rest of the responsible world. The 5G frequency band butts up against the hydrogen band used by weather satellites. (IIRC) The study that the FCC commissioned said something like a failure to isolate and protect the hydrogen line would set back US weather forecasting accuracy to around the level it was in 1970. As usual, the red jihadist party had absolutely no qualms about such a technological setback, took their political bribes, and failed to regulate to protect the hydrogen line. In their defense, radio is magic, and sky wizard didn’t have any objections via thoughts and prayers.
If you mean matter with strange quarks, to the best of my knowledge it’s still very hypothetical. There is no hard proof that it exists, or that it would behave in certain ways.
On the other hand, the law of entropy stands undefeated so far. I would not worry too much until there is some actual evidence that strange matter is real.
It would logically have to end up on the ground. If it gets into the water would have to do with solubility, and most combustion products aren’t very soluble, so you’re probably not drinking too much smog.
I don’t actually know where they ultimately end up and to what degree they can make you sick except through inhalation. Somebody has to have studied it, though, right?
Ah, interesting. I should hope not all pollutants dissolve into water, but I wonder: wouldn’t they still be bad when ingested even if not dissolved into water?
Write it how? Seeing as Rayo’s number is defined as the smallest number bigger than what can be written in first order set theory with a googol symbols, you could probably write down the number with, say, googol+1 symbols. Or let’s just say 2*googol symbols, that should certainly be enough. It would not take Rayo’s number amount of seconds to write down 2 * googol symbols.
askscience
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.