Is your proposal basically to burn away nuclear waste? Why is the gasoline important?
Few issues I see:
I don’t think such waste can be disposed safety by incineration. Because if it could, we’ve have done so already. It’s probably the go to solution when it comes to waste disposal, apart from just burying it or dumping it in the ocean.
The main problem is the safety and handling of such radioactive waste. You do not want it anywhere near people and that’s why it’s isolated. They are highly dangerous. Do you want such a substance sitting in your vehicle, garage, gas station with high traffic, etc? The radioactive substance doesn’t just go away when you add gasoline to it.
Even assuming we can get past the safety issues, the said mixture will likely not work in vehicles at all, or would destroy your engine.
How would this reduce carbon emissions? You are still burning gasoline except it’s radioactive gasoline.
Well it’s serious in that I would like to know how radioactive 2 million kilograms of nuclear waste mixed into 500 billion liters of gasoline would be.
I guess it’s 4 milligrams per liter. So a grain of sand per liter. My car is in the garage with a 40 liter gas tank. So 40 gains of sand worth of nuclear waste. How dangerous is that? Is it like evacuate the neighborhood, or is it don’t plan any long road trips.
I’m not sure why you think dispersing nuclear waste into our environment instead of isolating it is a good idea.
If it’s just a thought experiment from a mathematical / chemical perspective, maybe someone else would like to take on the question and do the math.
From a sociological and logistical perspective, it’s just not gonna happen. Pretty sure people’s tolerance for radioactive materials anywhere near them is zero. There isn’t any amount of radioactivity / danger that is considered socially acceptable.
We could know about it in only 26,000 years due to the speed of light and gravity waves. However I’m not sure how it would affect us at all …
Perhaps there’s a burst of particles going less than the speed of light. We would know about it before those particles got here.
Perhaps you mean the disappearance of the strong gravity well at the center might affect us: I imagine any changes to the structure of the galaxy or it’s movement would take much much much longer to affect us
EDIT: changed encryption / decryption to signing / veryfing. Thanks for the corrections
Not an expert, those who know more please correct me.
From what I understand, what they post is not a PGP key, but the same content published in clear text signed with their private key. That way anyone can verify it with the author’s public key to check it has been generated with the private one (that only one person should have).
In a digital signature system, a sender can use a private key together with a message to create a signature. Anyone with the corresponding public key can verify whether the signature matches the message, but a forger who does not know the private key cannot find any message/signature pair that will pass verification with the public key
You’re not though. You said encryption occurs with the public key and decryption occurs with the private. That’s the opposite of what happens and what the quoted text says.
From the same source:
In a public-key encryption system, anyone with a public key can encrypt a message, yielding a ciphertext, but only those who know the corresponding private key can decrypt
Funny story: you didn’t change the wrong info. The sad part is that you’re spreading misinformation and unwilling to hear otherwise. This is more dangerous than helpful.
How is Crul wrong in anything other than the terminology? You sign a document with your private key - generating basically a hash of the document entangled with your key information. Anyone holding the public key can then verify that hash with the public key - that the document contents are intact and unchanged (from the hash), and generated by the person holding the private key (entangled key information)
To help you with the terminology, the names for the two operations are “signing” and “verifying”. That’s it.
What can you do with…
public keyprivate keyEncryption:encryptdecryptSignature:verifysign“Signing” is not at all the same as “encrypting” with the keys swapped. It is a separate specific sequence of mathematical operations you perform to combine two numbers (the private key and the message) to produce a third - the signature. Signing is not called “hashing”. A hash may be involved as part of the signature process, but it is not strictly necessary. It makes the “message” number smaller, but the algorithm can sign the full message without hashing it first, will just require computation for longer time. “Hash-verifying” isn’t a thing in this context, you made that name up, just use “verify”.
@dohpaz42 is mad because you messed up your terminology originally, and thought you were trying to say that you “encrypt” a message with the private key, which is totally backwards and wrong. He didn’t know that in your mind you thought you were talking about “signing” the message. Because honestly no one could have known that.
Look at the words you used, encryption is not the same as a signature, with a signature you can prove that a person with access to the private key wrote the message.
What you’re talking about in your message is encryption, and you have it the wrong way around, messages gets encrypted with the public key, and can only be read with the private key.
what they post is not a PGP key, but the same content published in clear text encrypted with their private key.
So they are not excrypting it, but do we agree that with signatures the author uses their private key + the clear message to generate “something”?
That way anyone can decrypt it with the author’s public key to check it has been encrypted with the private one (that only one person should have).
… so then anyone can use the author’s public key to check that “something” against the clear mesage to confirm the author’s identity?
If that’s the case, then my error is that the operation to generate the signature is not an encryption. So, may I ask… what is it? A special type of hash?
Thanks again. I will edit my original comment with the corrections once I understand it correctly.
So they are not excrypting it, but do we agree that with signatures the author uses their private key + the clear message to generate “something”?
Yeah sure, and I think the person you are arguing with is saying as much as well, it’s just that this is not encrypting it, when you encrypt something you obfuscate it in a way that is possible to deobfuscate, think the caesar cipher as a simple encryption, a hash/signature on the other hand is something that is generated from the clear text using your private key, which is not possible to decrypt, think very simplified that the person would just put the amount of each letter of the alphabet used in in the text, then add the length of the thread, and then multiplied by your private key. This way it’s proven that the holder of the private key is the person writing the text, and that the text hasn’t changed since the signature was generated.
… so then anyone can use the author’s public key to check that “something” against the clear mesage to confirm the author’s identity?
They can confirm that the person holding the private key (not identity, just that they have the key) and also that nobody changed it since they signed it (like the person adminning the forum or a moderator or something)
If that’s the case, then my error is that the operation to generate the signature is not an encryption. So, may I ask… what is it? A special type of hash?
For signing, it’s backwards - you encrypt with the private key, and then everyone else can decrypt with the public key. If that doesn’t work, they know that the message wasn’t signed by the private key paired with the public key they have, and therefore is invalid and is not to be trusted.
Signing proves authenticity (only the private key holder can sign), encryption provides privacy (only the private key holder can read)
Essentially the issue with this question is that the usual ways you’d answer that question all seem unsatisfactory, and the key to “answering” the question is to understand not magnetism, but why magnetism seems mysterious and all the answers seem unsatisfactory. Like, actually understanding magnetism in the sense of having read and understood the Feynman lectures definitely helps but that’s no good to a layperson.
And the answer to that as I understand it is that we always understand things in terms of other things we understand. When you see a process you don’t understand and learn how it’s caused by a process you do understand, you will feel satisfied, like you understand the process. If you don’t understand a very weird thing but you find a good analogy to something you are familiar with, you will feel like you understand the thing. The thing is, that’s all a feeling. Hopefully the feeling correlates to having an internal model of the thing that’s closer to its nature than your previous internal model, and to being able to make better predictions about the thing’s interactions, and it usually does because the brain is well-made, but it’s still two different things and you can have a feeling of understanding without an improved model or predictions and vice-versa.
And the issue with magnetism is that unlike most other physical things we run into in daily life, it’s a fundamental force that has macroscopic effects our brain didn’t really evolve to be familiar with, and the best explanations for those effects require going directly to the fundamental force, and the fundamental forces is something that’s very very unfamiliar to anyone who hasn’t done university-level physics. If I say “electromagnetism explains how solid objects don’t just go through each other” your response won’t be “but I don’t understand electromagnetism!”, it will be “wait, did we need an explanation for why solid objects don’t go through each other?”. We have an innate sense of how solid objects interact at our scales that feels like it requires no extra explanation. And any behavior of solid objects that does require extra explanation usually involves explanations just one level deeper in the causal chain, which is close enough to what we are familiar with that we can understand it. And as explanations go deeper the causal chain things become weirder and weirder, but as a student of physics you go gradually, get used to each step and when a step becomes familiar enough it helps you “understand” the next one. So at some point you may end up feeling like you understand electromagnetism as a fundamental force, but it took a lot of work to get there (and that feeling my be fairly fleeing and changeable).
We don’t have an innate sense of how magnetism works, and the actual explanations for how it works aren’t just one step removed from things we do have an innate sense of. It’s legitimately the case that the answer to “Why do magnets work like that” is “electromagnetism”, and if you don’t understand electromagnetism (which, as a layperson, you don’t) you’re screwed. There is no phenomenon or analogy that you have an innate sense of that’s enough like magnetism to provide understanding. You straight-up have to do university-level physics until the concepts in question start becoming familiar.
In a way your question is even worse, because look:
What does it mean for them to be composed of “lines of force”? What is the mechanism of that force? What is actually going on in a magnetic field that the space outside of a magnetic field lacks?
You’re kind of asking “what component parts is the fundamental force of magnetism made of and how to they interact to make it behave that way”, aren’t you. And the issue with this is that in the current standard model, there are no such component parts and causes; that’s what “fundamental” means. Now, we know physics isn’t a solved field so in practice there may indeed be extra explanatory steps out there to be found. But 1) they’ll be even weirder than the current thing you’re asking about is. They won’t help you understand, they’ll just confuse you further and seem like worse ad-hoc gobbledlygook than “fields” and “force” do. They’d only help you understand if you’d studied enough quantum physics for it to feel familiar and maybe almost-understood. And 2) at some point we kind of do have to hit an explanation that has no further explanation, something that’s not made of something else. Maybe it’s worth it for you to think about what that might be like. You’ll probably still feel the urge to ask “but what is that basic thing made of, what explains that explanation?” but you’ll have to accept that this question is that of a brain that evolved in an environment where everything is made of something else and things have nigh-infinite causal chains explaining that they are what they are. It just might not be very good at thinking about a situation where that’s not the case.
You might be interested in Tomasello’s “The Evolution of Agency” where he kind of addresses this very question. It really depends on how you define “making decisions” and “purely chemical reactions” doesn’t it - all life is chemical reactions, including when we make decisions, and it’s easy for us to apply decision-making language even to systems that are simple enough that we can see them as “purely chemical reactions”.
Tomasello defines the notion of “agents” as “feedback-control systems” that he distinguishes from pure stimulus-response systems. In his examples a nematode for example is “stimulus-response”; its behavior is very directly related to its immediate environment. If it runs into food it eats, otherwise it doesn’t, and there isn’t really a notion of it seeking out food when it’s hungry and not when it’s not. In contrast and “agent” is a feedback-control system with goals, a perceptual system that checks whether the goal is accomplished at any given time and a behavioral repertoire aimed at accomplishing the goal. In our lineage he sets the appearance of this agency around the evolution of vertebrates, and uses lizards as an example of the most basic level. (he doesn’t address other lineages other than to say that various levels of agency clearly evolved convergently a few times; so octopuses and social insects for example would also have these systems). So where a nematode has feeding behavior that’s triggered by running into food and other behaviors when food isn’t present, a lizard’s behavior depends not only on the immediate stimulus but on more abstract goals - in a given environment it might be currently hungry and looking for food, or sated and looking for shade or sun to rest or hide or thermoregulate, or looking to reproduce, etc, and its behavior will depend on and be directed towards accomplishing that goal.
It’s interesting that you say “thinks through and makes decisions” as if they’re on the same level but the book actually claims that human agency is actually the result of the evolution of several successive layers of feedback-control mechanisms that each allow more flexibility and responsiveness - so for example lizards have a feedback systems that adjusts behavior to achieve goals, and mammals have that and also a higher-level feedback system above that to adjust the goal-seeking behavior itself, mentally “playing out” different ways of accomplishing the goal in order to pick the best one. He describes four such levels for humans and it suggests a variety of ways we could define “think through and make decisions”, with different species qualifying or not depending on which we choose.
Roche limit is not really relevant here. That’s for orbiting bodies, like a satellite around a Jupiter-like planet whose orbit spirals inward due to tidal forces, and eventually crosses the Roche limit, whereby the moon disintegrates into a cloud of rocks that spreads out and forms a ring. Yes, the hyperbolic orbit of the collision trajectory here is a “type” of orbit, but really the video is about the collision itself. There is not enough time for the planet to meaningfully disintegrate under the neutron star’s gravity. “What’s that? The ground is kinda shaking. Could that be the tidal force from that neutron st-ACK!!!”.
In the video you can see the surface of the Earth bulge out towards the star under its gravity in the last second, but most of the kinetic energy of the explosion is imparted by direct physical interaction (i.e. electromagnetic) between the matter of the earth and the matter of the star, and in particular between the matter of the earth that has already been accelerated and the matter of the earth lying farther out.
Or at least it would be if the impactor really was just a chunk of iron with the density slider cranked up. This fluid simulator can’t imagine anything else of course, but you are right that it remains a question of whether a neutron star or a black hole could impart any kinetic energy onto the greater earth at all. Maybe it will just pass through and leave a circular hole, sweeping the material in front of it onto itself. The tunnel would immediately collapse, and the crust would be messed up from tidal sloshing, but maybe the ball of the earth itself will remain intact.
The hard x-rays I believe is a reference to thermal radiation of infalling matter. Just like a bullet that hits a wall while staying intact is hot to the touch because its kinetic energy got 100% converted into heat, or a meteoroid that hits the Moon creates a flash of light visible from Earth because for a second the cloud of collision debris is as hot as the filament of a lamp, the earth material impacting the surface of the star gets really hot. The impact velocity is at minimum the escape velocity of the star, which is thousands of km/s, which means the peak of thermal radiation is in the x-ray range.
<pre style="background-color:#ffffff;">
<span style="color:#323232;">E = 3/2 k_B T
</span>
Say we imagine that the entire kinetic energy of bulk material from Earth (let’s say iron) impacting the star at 10000km/s is converted into thermal kinetic energy of individual iron atoms (atomic weight 56).
I don’t know if anecdotal stories are allowed here, but I grew up in Florida before the rise of A/C (no air conditioner in school until 7th year, no house with central air until I was 25. Didn’t really ever sweat until I was 20, though I can now quite normally.
My ex and husband are both from “up north” and both suffer so much more in the heat and the humidity. I suffer so much more in dry and/or cold environments.
Not completely convinced it’s biology - there is a trick to being really still in the shade that seems to sort of cool off/slow down the body. It could be behavior differences. But does seem like they are built differently, thicker and warmer, I am built more spare and cooler.
It is worth dehumidifying a building always though! It’s not good for the materials. Always fighting mildew in the houses before the central air. Everything is so much easier to maintain with the A/C.
It looks like you are using this one: ArctiClean 1
Which seems to be specifically made for this application and supposedly consists of “citrus and soy based solvents”. Aluminium is solved by highly acidic (like sulphuric acid) and highly basic (like sodium hydroxide) solutions. Which it really doesn’t sound like until it somehow broke down in a way it got more potent.
Was it maybe a specific thermal paste with a metal like mercury or gallium inside? Supposedly they can quickly dissolve aluminium. Of course, I don’t know what happened but maybe it was dissolved by the cleaning solution and then rapidly reacted with the Aluminium of the heat sink. If so, that would still make me wonder about the bubbling and foaming when the cleaning solution comes in contact with the left overs.
I would assume that nobody makes thermal paste out of anything terribly reactive, but… That .gif looks like something out of a NileRed video.
IIRC, gallium makes aluminum get super brittle, which might cause it to crumble like that; but the foaming makes me think that the heat sink might have managed to oxidize all the way through, and it’s aluminum oxide reacting with the cleaner.
I can’t get your images to load, but to me, a materials chemist, it definitely sounds like you’ve managed to dissolve the aluminium and copper by using an acidic solution. Presumably, the cleaning solution contains some electrolyte that should help dissolve oxides, but if the solution is corrosive enough to oxidise the aluminium and/or copper the electrolyte will make the reaction more aggressive by rapidly dissolving the protective oxide layer as it is formed, such that the aluminium/copper is further corroded.
To be fair, this is just speculation based on what I’ve read here. I could maybe give a better analysis if you let me know what solution you’ve used, and what the heat sink/paste were made of, and if I can get the pictures of the resulting product (“ash”) to load.
Salts are absolutely necessary for ordinary nerve- and muscular function. If you’ve ever sweated a lot without eating or drinking some salt solution you would notice your muscles start twitching, vibrating and cramping. After a while you can also notice getting light headed and blurry vision.
Source: Been in situations with plenty of water but no salt, and enormous amounts of sweat. Been in the same situations with access to salt for comparison.
My father once went out to do some yard work on a hot summer day, so he made sure to take plenty of water with him. He still ended up collapsing from heat exhaustion. Only reason he didn't have to go to the hospital is because we were able to figure out what was wrong and he still had just enough energy to eat the salty snacks we gave him.
Scary fucking stuff. Keep your electrolytes up, kids.
That’s a very incorrect statement. NaCl, KCl, and MgCl2 are essential for our bodies to function appropriately. If you are working out for an hour or mowing the lawn on a hot day, you are mostly correct. You can replace the lost salt though a balanced diet. If you have sustained sweating, such as when you run a marathon or play a match of football, it can be deadly to not replace these salts.
In the vast majority of cases, people don’t need salt when they exercise. You just described a fringe case that virtually no one experiences. You high school football coach shouldn’t be giving you salt. That could be dangerous. They should be giving you water.
The coach won’t be giving them salt directly, but will always provide a sports drink which contains salts.
Ever watch any sport and a player falls over with a cramp? They have drunk too much water and not enough electrolytes.
Here’s a study from one hospital in Oslo, Norway. Norway is not considered a hot region of the world. Between 2010 and 2015 they treated 31,000 patients in the ER from a population of 135,000 for electrolyte imbalance. That’s roughly 18 patients a day. This is not some sort of fringe case.
I check Lemmy about twice a day, work in and foster a collegial environment, and have a background in science. I can’t say I would be intensely active, but currently there is less than 1 post per day here, so even a little would lighten the load.
You've stumbled upon the basis of the debate between free will and determinism. imo, we are merely under the illusion that we're making our own choices. The universe is one infinitely complex system of falling dominoes, with each choice and action just being the result of the parameters set by the ones preceding it. We are all made up of the same basic building blocks, and are thus just subatomic systems obeying the laws of thermodynamics... it just happens to be the case that when a system reaches a certain level of complexity, it is able to think about itself - we are quite literally the universe experiencing its own existence.
Why is this? I don't know. Nobody knows. Consciousness and 'the ability to experience' is one of the most elusive and complex questions facing science and philosophy today. It's my personal belief that there is certainly 'something' more to this whole cosmic experience, but I'm not convinced by religion's answers and believe 'it' to be something so vastly incomprehensible and foreign, we'd never understand it even if the mystery were revealed to us. It isn't something I like to think about too deeply, because unfortunately, it opens up an infinite regress of questions we will likely never have the answers to.
All the large moons in the solar system are tidally locked to their planet!
Pluto and Charon are tidally locked to each other!
The earth would eventually be tidally locked to the moon too, but because it’s happening so slowly, it wouldn’t happen before the sun turns into a red giant and engulf both!
There is such a huge difference in the masses of the earth and moon that although the moon is slowing the rotation of the earth, the earth’s rotation is also speeding up the moon’s orbit. The faster orbit is causing the moon to move farther away from the earth.
To really blow your mind, the Moon is slowly moving away, but will never escape. Eventually both the Earth and the Moon will become tidally locked to each other at which point the Moon will no longer move further away. This assumes no outside influences and enough time.
It is important to remember that, unless accompanied by convincing evidence for selective advantage, any single inheritable trait is more likely to have arisen from genetic drift, not from natural selection! There is, in my opinion, too much focus on conversation about superficial phenotypic traits like “shape of the nose” this and “angle of the eye” that, all the arguments about how one is better than another. Could the asiatic epicanthic fold give advantage against icy winds? Maaaybe… But it doesn’t even have to. What about the asiatic dry earwax gene? You’d struggle to even come up with a story of how dry earwax or wet earwax is actually better under certain conditions, or you could just say “it’s a single nucleotide polymorphism that could have spread by genetic drift” and be done.
Very few human traits have definitely been naturally selected for: light skin in non-sunny climates for better vitamin D production, sickle cell gene for malaria resistance, lactase persistence for animal milk consumption. Even there, the estimated selective advantage is actually much smaller than you’d expect: lactose tolerance confers only something like 1% advantage! There are many more possible neutral mutations than advantageous ones, and each one has a chance to be fixed in the entire population by genetic drift, meaning that any widespread human trait that is less clearly advantageous than lactose tolerance is more likely to be neutral than advantageous at all.
Even mildly disadvantageous mutations can be fixed by genetic drift, especially in humans since we have had many bottlenecks and founder effects. There was an area in Appalachia populated by blue-skinned people due to founder effect. No one is going to try to argue how having blue skin was actually advantageous for them to blend into their environment! There is an area in Dominican Republic with a very high rate of children born intersex, again due to a founder effect mutation. They are not considered exceptional and live normal lives as their culture has adapted to treat them as routine, as a kind of third gender. But they are not some kind of new level of human evolution, an adaptation for an intersectional era!
The only mutations that definitely cannot spread by genetic drift are those that definitely kill you.
I have a stock of 99% IPA already that I use for cleaning the bed of my regular 3D printer, electronics cleaning and for drying things coming out of my ultrasonic cleaner. (I can use salt to drop any water out of IPA, actually.)
With resin 3D printing, my washer uses about a gallon of IPA and it will get super dirty after a while. For that particular case, it’s just going to be more efficient to clean the IPA and reuse it until it needs to be distilled. (Wishing the parts in stages will help reduce IPA use, actually. Water washable resin is an option, but I would rather not dump that water down the drain or hassle with hazmat disposal, when applicable.)
Maybe an actual chemist will chime in, but I couldn’t find any sources about purifying or recycling IPA, at least none that you could do at home. At a guess, maybe a reverse osmosis system without the finest membrane? Like you said, the water and IPA molecules should be smaller than the dyes and resins.
Maybe also consider washing with the dirty IPA, and just giving a rinse at the end with the clean IPA in order to conserve. Ultimately it sounds like everything I’ve found is material you’re already familiar with, unfortunately.
Thanks for looking around! I already have a good selection of chemistry glass and am no stranger to doing home experiments. (I could probably use a good vacuum filter anyways and maybe I am just searching for an excuse to get one.) Distillation is an option for me, but it’ll be last resort. Still, having a few proper distillation pieces would go nice with my collection…
Some filter rigs I have seen are using small RO systems, but that seems like a pain to clean and those people probably need to filter a ton of IPA for it to be cost effective. Regardless, it is absolutely worth exploring more as setting up a filter loop would be awesome until it gets gummed up.
This looked promising as it is dealing with ethanol and plant extracts: youtu.be/VjxZVpGv_aM?si=5VFLYQkObCzUawbb … (This video specifically got me thinking about what could/couldn’t be filtered and is the root of this post.)
And absolutely, a multi-stage rinsing system is going to be needed if I scale up, which may be in the near future. Full context: I am studying and planning for a reverse engineering/prototyping business, so there could be a considerable amount of printing in my future and this is particular problem is part of the cost analysis.
askscience
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.