Andrew

That does not have a solution on market but that wish existed?

It can even be modifying something to make it more convenient.

As a mechanical engineer i have learned to solve problems involving not just most imaginable machinery, but also heating/cooling.

Thanks!

Is there some kind of Refrigeration cycle or pressurization process? I'm asking cause I'm trying to think of a currently existing way to freeze argon.

For the longest time, I avoided really heavy metal because I couldn't stand the screaming and growling. About a week ago (I guess), after 5 years of not being able to stand it, I finally got over not being able to listen to the growling/screaming. Obviously, I'm in love with the music. I love the fast-paced drumming, first and foremost, but truth be told I'm a melody/rhythm guy. For example, my favorite band ever is A7X because of how awesome their riffs are. I'm already checking out KSE, so don't suggest them.

Bands I currently know about:

All that remains

FFDP

August burns red

Arch Enemy

In this moment

As I lay Dying

Trivium

The Agonist

I'm more into fast paced "death metal" or "metalcore" or whatever it's called; in short FFDP is low on my list.

If there are non-single hidden masterpieces from As I lay dying or trivium please inform me so that I can avoid digging through 10 hours of music to find it. Also, The Agonist is one of my favorites from that list, if that helps in your recommendations.

thanks for the help!

CFD can take hours on laptops. So how much would a computer cost that can run it in a matter of seconds? I'm thinking upwards of $20,000, but I was wondering if anyone knew from personal experience.

The computer would be built for the sole purpose of running CFD in a matter of seconds. the reason why is because the computer's only job would be to determine whether or not the desired results can be achieved given a current set of known weather conditions. However, it needs to be able to do this quickly in order to account for phenomenon like thunderstorms.

The computer would be part of a control system that determines whether or not running a particular system would be cost effective.

This is for a project in a mechanical engineering class that I am in.

I feel like I'm misunderstanding something...

In this article, http://www.gizmag.com/d-wave-quantum-com... this 512 qubit (439 of which were operational) processor outperformed a 64,000 64 bit processor supercomputer. But it said that it was 3,600 times faster, and if it weren't for the fact that the device had to repeat the calculations 5000 times to ensure accuracy, it would have been 18000000 times faster.

I have no idea how they got to any of this, because I'm a complete amateur at this garbage, but I am a fourth year mechanical engineer, so feel free to throw the entirety of an algorithm at me and not just the 1st grade "count with your fingers when adding/subtracting" version, just be sure to define the jargon and how to determine/calculate terms which vary from device to device such as clock speed. At the end of your answer I'm hoping I'll be able to take any n-qubit device and determine it's processing speed.

If you have an n qubit processor, what algorithm calculates the processing speed? Why don't people use x n-qubit processors? or are qubits a set size, cause I feel like I'm missing something?

How do you know what clock speed is being used for the 64-bit processor in the article, or any processor (bit and qubit) in any article for that matter? What physically limits clock speed?

How do you find out what the FLOPS/cycle of a device is?

I feel like I'm misunderstanding something...

In this article, http://www.gizmag.com/d-wave-quantum-computer-supe... this 512 qubit (439 of which were operational) processor outperformed a 64,000 64 bit processor supercomputer. But it said that it was 3,600 times faster, and if it weren't for the fact that the device had to repeat the calculations 5000 times to ensure accuracy, it would have been 18000000 times faster.

I have no idea how they got to any of this, because I'm a complete amateur at this garbage, but I am a fourth year mechanical engineer, so feel free to throw the entirety of an algorithm at me and not just the 1st grade "count with your fingers when adding/subtracting" version, just be sure to define the jargon and how to determine/calculate terms which vary from device to device such as clock speed. At the end of your answer I'm hoping I'll be able to take any n-qubit device and determine it's processing speed.

If you have an n qubit processor, what algorithm calculates the processing speed? Why don't people use x n-qubit processors? or are qubits a set size, cause I feel like I'm missing something?

How do you know what clock speed is being used for the 64-bit processor in the article, or any processor (bit and qubit) in any article for that matter? What physically limits clock speed?

How do you find out what the FLOPS/cycle of a device is?

I need to cook water on a stove, then put it into a Ziploc brand plastic freezer bag. Intuitively, I think the bag can handle it, but I'd like to know from someone who has done it or is knowledgeable enough to know definitively. I could just look up the material properties, but I figured I'd ask YA! first to see if I could save time. Because I don't have a car, it would take 60-90 minutes for me to go out and buy tupperware on a Sunday as opposed to around 20-25 minutes on a Friday, so if you can't include a respectable reason (material property web link, personal exp., work for a bag making company, etc) in your answer, please don't answer.

thanks

To me, black lagoon was like watching 24 episodes of grand theft auto with a little more character depth.

So, what other anime's or TV shows are basically a bunch of episodes of grand theft auto? it must be vulgar since this was one of the best parts of lagoon. preferably with a woman for one of the main's too, but not necessary.

as you read just let me know if any of it is wrong.

To my point though, linear momentum, angular momentum, and Energy MUST conserved in the macro (classical) realm and these laws are equally applicable to the quantum world.

In classical physics, for example, E2-E1 = Q - W + (U2-U1) + (KE2-KE1) + (PE2-PE1). and m_a_*v_a1_ + m_b_*v_b1_ = m_a_*v_a2_ + m_b_*v_b2_ (cons lin mom), and Heat = (mass)*(specific heat)*(T1-T0), Work = Integral(F*dx) + Integral(M*dtheta), F = mg, M = mg crossed with r, PV=nRT, KE = .5*m*v^2, PE=g*z, PE = .5*k_s_*d^2......

there a bunch of others, but hopefully you get the picture. Knowing that Energy must be conserved is useless if you don't know the equations needed to calculate Q, W, PE, KE, or U.

so for quantum physics E = h*frequency and E = m*c^2 so what i'm asking for is more equations, any eq's that provide equivalences for variable in case i need to rewrite that variable, and a description of what they're describing (e.g. there are two PE's up there, one for gravity and one for spring constants...and we could include one for magnetic fields). the reason i would appreciate a description is so that i can know what situations using the eq's is necessary in.

thanks for any help you can offer

I just don't understand why people say "you're a bandwagon fan" as if it's an insult. I bandwagon onto many teams, both good and bad, simply because I like certain players or feel bad for the city/organization (e.g. I would love to see the Browns do good because: a) cleveland is a shithole and b) they have the worst history in the NFL since the merger)

Anyways, consider this point:

Your "hometown" team is an organization that you don't even play for and, in all likelihood, have absolutely no association with. So I don't understand why you would consider it better to root for the hometown organization over another organization. The only difference is proximity of birth/upbringing, which is a really stupid criteria to base a decision off of since this is completely random and does not change the fact that you are no more associated with the success of that team than any other team. In short, you could have been born anywhere and your parents could have lived anywhere. It would be like being loyal to McDonalds over Burger King because, as a child, McDonalds was closer to your house. Why is it socially acceptable to only support the franchise closest to your home and frowned upon to support an organization farther way from your home despite the fact that you are no more associated with that franchise than any other franchise? and if you think this is a dumb analogy because BK's are usually only 100 feet from Mcdonalds, think about someone who lives 1 mile closer to Baltimore than DC... are they a DC fan or a Baltimore fan? technically, they are part of the DC metro statistical area and get DC sports on their TV (because DC advertisements are more marketable to your household than Baltimore advertisements and for no other reason), but if you are one of those people who believes that proximity of birth/upbringing is rationale to root for a team, then which is it?

Also, if you can convince me that a place of birth/upbringing, which you had no choice in, determines what you are allowed to support without being socially frowned upon, please do so, because I don't see it.

There's only one type of fan that I don't like and that's obnoxious fans, both bandwagon and hometown.

TL;DR disliking fans because they root for a team other than the team that is geographically closest to them is ******* stupid and has no rational basis behind it. if you disagree, please change my view

I'm in a senior in college, so obviously, I've had to drop my 4 year habit of smoking weed...since doing so, I have found myself getting drunk just to get drunk, consuming tobacco, doing acid and taking E. Why? to fill the void left by weed. If laws against weed had not forced me to quit smoking, I never would have developed an appetite for other drugs...

How on earth can you support outlawing weed after hearing this?

please note: I refuse to live life "bored". If i am going to watch TV, I might as well do it drugged. I will do drugs, preferably weed due to it's minimal health impacts, to make mundane things fun. I refuse to observe life in mundane ways. Until observing life on drugs becomes mundane, I will not stop. just my views. btw, I know what I am doing as far as lethal doses are concerned --> educational background: I scored in the 99th percentile on my ACT and I plan on getting a Masters in Mechanical Engineering, Professional Engineering Certification, and a Masters in Business Administration after I receive my Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering.from the #3 ME school in America.

I hate being sober and if it were not for weed laws I would not be turning to alcohol. tobacco and other harder drugs.

My logic is that, between america and western europe, there are like 500-600 million people out of 7 BILLION, and yet this serves as the only source of music for me as an american.

So, I figure there has to be like a chinese version of Knife Party, Krewella, Avenged Sevenfold, Darren Styles, Tiesto, Basshunter (his old stuff was fantastic, new stuff is straight trash), Dubba Johnny, The XX, Late Night Alumni, etc. since there are twice as many of them. and that's just china.

In case you couldn't tell my favorite music is Progressive/"Big Room" House (think swedish house mafia and other really synthy happy stuff), Dubstep, Drum&Bass, UK Hardcore (also called Happy Hadcore), Eurodance, Trance, and "Chillout".

I also like Rock and althernative/indie, but it has to be top of the ******* line like Avenged Sevenfold or FFDP, and The XX

I don't like rap as a genre, but groups that rap (over trance, rock, dubstep, etc) are fine.

By The Way: I don't care about lyrics, hence the reason I am asking for foreign music. It's music, not poetry, I like the sounds not the words. if I want good words, I'll read a book.

The only foreign artist I know of are Rammstein (******* fantastic music from Germany), AKB48, and some other big name j-pop groups. point is, the artist can be from Germany, Russia (and other slavic states), India, Korea, South Asia, Japan, China, I don't care as long as I've never heard of the group.

simpleton bullshit eq's which are themselves consequences of the Linear Algebra explanation?

a reason OTHER than the time consumption it would require.

...it seems like it is concept that, once learned, allows one to rape physics? why is it seemingly kept a secret?

In my opinion, my grasp of physics would be magnitudes greater if I had been taught this way since high school, which is why I am attempting to teach it to myself now; final exams have placed an 8 day hold on this venture, but a lot of things were making loads more sense than ever before leading up to this hold.

"That I have evidence that there is no afterlife.(if you're not going to read this quoted stuff, then at least have the decency to skip to the bottom of the page so you can answer the actual question I'm asking) It's called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Thoughts/Emotions/Memories/Feelings/Love/etc and "the soul" are actually nothing more that the modulation of electric potential across neurons. This requires Energy and Energy (for humans) comes consumption of Potassium/Sodium/Chloride/Calcium/Magnesium/Oxygen/Hydrogen/Carbon/Nitrogen/Phosphorus/etc (which happens by 3 processes you may have heard of once or twice: BREATHING, EATING, AND DRINKING) therefore if you no longer breath, drink, or eat, then you can no longer have Thoughts/Emotions/Memories/Feelings/Love/etc or "a soul"

In short, believing in an afterlife is as asinine as believing that a car will run without gas/electricity: The 1st Law of Thermodynamics (which is: dE/dt=0= Q - W + dU/dt +dKE/dt + dPE/dt) dictates that neither one is a valid thought, much less belief, because:

you cannot have Thoughts/Emotion/Memories/Feelings/Love/etc or "a soul" without breathing, drinking, or eating, and it also says that without some source of Energy (gas/electricity...or even someone pushing it), your car is not going to be able to overcome static friction and move.

Basically, belief in an afterlife is the equivalent of MAGIC.

If you have evidence disproving the 1st Law then there is a Nobel Prize with your name on it. I will remain an atheist until someone disproves the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, which will never happen."

If you for some reason doubt me, unlike an idiot who believes an afterlife is possible without any math to show how thoughts would form in the absence of Potassium/Sodium/Chloride/Calcium/Magnesium/Oxygen/Hydrogen/Carbon/Nitrogen/Phosphorus/etc, I HAVE MATH:

If you don't understand how a car will not move without gas/electricity or humans or a hill (gravity can move it), then:

may I kindly ask you relieve yourself of what must be (for you) the very difficult task of breathing (go ahead, just stop for about 5 minutes...c'mon you can do it you're almost there!...don't worry about everything going black it's just Satan changing the color of the room, you have to fight him, you can do it! remember: Jesus is with you!)...or at least become sterile...your genes are a burden to the human race, and you yourself are a failure of modern medicine/society, without which, you would not have made it too far past learning how to walk as you probably would have been one of the more oblivious prey that some wolf/bear had ever encountered. poor wolf, he would have been one happy wolf...

and

A Link Explaining a few of the basics of Energy Equations of Neurons (immediately downloads a PDF):

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sou...

Do not be afraid of "the science"; it's not trying to hurt your fragile feelings, it can't help that you have a vast misunderstanding of LIFE.

Anyways:

What about the quoted statement would make you downvote it? the fact that it uses math and you just don't think math (such as 2+2=4) is true?

Note: the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, unlike the majority of formulas in Physics, is NOT a prediction, it a statement of fact no different from 1+1=2, "the Earth revolves around the Sun", and "George Washington was the 1st President of the US" none of which are theories or predictions, but facts, just like the 1st Law.

I mean, if a Pedophile (analogy for Satan) lured your daughter (analogy for human beings) into his van with candy (analogy for sin) and was in the process of raping her, as a parent, who loves their child (just like god loves his children) would you kill the guy (or try to) or would you just be like, "Well, that's a damn shame, but you had free will and I told you what would happen if you accepted candy from a stranger, I'm sorry but there's nothing I can do, you sent yourself to hell by disobeying me."

I'm an atheist but do you not ever ask yourself why you would go to greater lengths to protect your kid than an all-powerful being goes to protect his? I mean, most of us would call someone a bad parent if they said, "well, I gave her a list of things not to do, and since she can read it's her fault she got raped, which is why I've decided to retaliate with even so much as a court case."

I have never understood this, granted I have never been a quantum physicist, but I am about to graduate a mechanical engineer at one of the the top 3 schools in the country, so I feel that I have the capacity to grasp some of the concepts and certainly could learn it.

If, according to quantum laws, no particle can occupy a space smaller than it's wavelength then how can the center of a black hole, or the universe, have dimensions of 0m X 0m X 0m? or am I misunderstanding? if so, please provide math showing how to calculate the dimensions. an example would be very much appreciated.

Furthermore, if the notion of "infinities" being present at the center of energetic accretions exceeding the criteria defined by: gravity > c, was derived from General Relativity, which makes no reconciliation with quantum laws because, correct me if I'm wrong, they were not established when it was formulated...so, other than the fact that "it works...most of the time", why is it simply accepted as fact? or does it work all the time? please explain how we know that it works all the time or show math proving that it works all the time.

I feel like general relativity may be similar to Newton's Gravity, which provides an almost always accurate result, but because certain laws (e.g. those regarding light) did not exist when he formulated it, it has limitations of applicability. In this case, Einstein's formula was constructed before certain laws were known and thus may not always be right, such as in the case of singularities.

My thought process has always been that energy/matter; no matter if it's a quark, a string, or whatever lies lower; resists being compressed by an applied force (sort of like a spring constant) wherein compression to a dimensionless entity (e.g. infinite compression is required to achieve 0 volume) would require infinite Force (from Gravity in the case of a black hole and the big bang), which would require infinite mass, and, as should be beyond obvious, infinite mass does not exist because matter/energy is finite. Am I wrong about "compression"? if so, please show math (or words) that explains how a wave (or a string) can occupy a space smaller than it's wavelength (or whatever the technical word characterizing strings is).

I might be asking for math that is deserving of nothing less than a nobel prize, but if that's the case then why is the notion of a singularity accepted as fact instead of explored as wrong and in need of improvement?

If I have asked for math please do me the favor of carrying out calculations so I can see the numbers. If a solution would require an iterative numerical method to solve, please just set up the initial iteration. If it is more cumbersome than that (e.g. a system of equations that requires numerical iterations), just leave it as simply the general equations. If a solution would require numerical (as opposed to analytical) integration/differentiation, don't even worry about (from personal experience, those are a real pain in the ***), simply the general equations would again be greatly appreciated though. Basically, if the solution would be more cumbersome than analytical methods and/or some slight rearrangements, don't waste your time. Obviously, you don't have to do anything, but as someone who feels capable of understanding the theories (words and math) but incapable (due to current school obligations) of dedicating the time to learn them, it would be greatly appreciated.

Also if you actually plan on doing any of this, please leave an initial answer that says "give me a few minutes" or something, just so I know that my question is going to (attempt) to be answered.

some background: this question arises from my inability to understand how time "stops" (and space...ceases to exist??? or am I wrong?...equations illustrating these notions would be awesome too!) at the beginning of the universe. I don't understand why it is impossible for that big ball of energy to have just kind of remained in equilibrium for 1, 10, 100, 1000 billion years, hell, it could have been just an hour of equilibrium or no equilibrium at all because the system was decaying the entire "non-existent time" before expansion (due to Hawking Radiation...or some other phenomena necessitated by the 2nd Law, or rather, whatever laws were governing the system before the emergence of different governing laws, including the ones that govern the current era) and then, BAM! -some random (and improbable?) fluctuation (governed by stochastic physics) happens- and --> Expansion!

Below this you can read a mathematical proof that I've posted a few times.

Anyways, the most common objection is that "the law doesn't apply to "before time", which started at the beginning of the universe",as if the beginning of the universe magically negated the existence of time. I never had a response, other than to try and explain that they had a misunderstanding of the definition of time, which is kind of hard...

I'll try again, but if you aren't stupid, skip ahead to the next paragraph. Time is not confined by ignorance. Just because the Laws of Physics do not permit knowledge of events that may have occurred before the Energy constituting the universe began to expand does not mean that the Energy came into existence at that moment. This would violate the 1st of Thermodynamics. Thus, the Energy must have existed before expansion occurred. Before Energy expansion, time too must have existed, since time is experienced by all entities constituted by Energy. Whether or not that entity experiences change is a separate question, but it should be obvious that the Energy constituting our universe did in fact undergo change before expansion, otherwise it would not have expanded. Unfortunately the Laws of Physics do not permit us to know what experiences it went through before the experience which caused it's expansion because the remains (e.g. the current form of Energy) do not provide enough information. To make an analogy: What did George Washington eat on February 6, 1789? Well, the form of the Energy constituting the entity of interest (a decayed human) does not provide enough information for us to make a definitive declaration which can backed by physical laws. To get even more common, drug tests will not be able to tell you if a human has consumed a drug if the consumption took place 10 years ago. After a certain amount of time the energy constituting entities changes to the point that certain information is irrecoverable.

Luckily, I found this beautiful statement:

Conservation of energy is a consequence of shift symmetry of time (no moment of time is different from any other).

The part in parenthesis is the important part. "No moment in time is different from any other." Conservation of Energy applies on both sides of this imaginary line separating the existential state of Energy before it expanded and after it expanded.

MY QUESTION(s)(one at beginning, another at the end of the paragraph): With the information I have provided, both above and below, can anyone here provide math which shows that the Energy constituting our Universe is NOT eternal?? When I was 17, I examined the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and I realized that this Law explained the existence of matter/Energy. Up to that point in my life, I had discovered science that explained "souls"/emotions, how humans came to be (e.g. Evolution), how I was born, etc., and the only question that I still needed God to provide an explanation for was "how did matter get created?" Then, the most influential moment in my life occurred because in that exact moment that I realized the implication of the statement "matter(Energy) cannot be created" I became an Atheist. You have no Math, which confuses me. You wouldn't purposely put your life in the hands of a Camry with a malfunctioning braking system because Math dictates that if you were to accelerate (instead of brake) as come to a red light, your car will make it's way into an intersection and get hit, and upon examining the Math of the impact that would ensue, the conclusion could be made that you and your family would get hurt, if not die. Yet, here you are, purposefully putting your life in the hands of a book which Math has consistently proven to be fallacious and I don't understand how anyone can believe that this book will be right about the outcome of a life...trusting that book would be like trusting a broken Camry, both have been wrong before, what makes you think this time they will be right???

Creating a Control Volume (CV) equal to the the triple integral bounded by:

0 and positive infinity in the radial direction

0 and 2*pi in the azimuthal angle

and 0 to pi in the polar angle

we get a CV that encompasses a Sphere of Infinite Volume(e.g. encompassing everything in and outside of the known bounds of our universe). Because there is no Energy outside of our CV, it cannot receive energy, making it a "Closed System". For a closed system the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states

dE/dt = 0

where E represents Energy and t represents time. In short, the rate (per unit of time) at which Energy is lost/gained in the CV is 0. Now, integrating from -infinity to +infinity with respect time we get

E = Constant

which is an equation INDEPENDENT OF TIME (statement of Symmetry). No matter if you were to travel infinitely far (or forward) in time, this equation would still hold true.