Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: 'unreliability' (Score 1) 189

by WolfWithoutAClause (#47589767) Attached to: An Accidental Wikipedia Hoax

You seriously think that other sources are free of errors? Newspapers for example??

At least with Wikipedia when errors are found they can be removed.

Also, in any GA/FA quality article there's lots of references; you can actually go to those sources and check stuff.

Just because there's a lot of non GA/FA quality articles in there doesn't make Wikipedia useless, it just means it's still being written.

I mean, Encyclopedia Britannica has been going for more than one century; Wikipedia is only just over a decade old, and is literally a hundred times bigger it covers much, much more; but it's about as reliable as EB.

Comment: Re:500? (Score 1) 171

by WolfWithoutAClause (#47589137) Attached to: Quiet Cooling With a Copper Foam Heatsink

I agree, I smell bullshit/vaporware.

Getting a large surface area is dead easy. It's getting the heat to spread out evenly over the surface that's hard, so it's all at a similar temperature.

If you haven't done that, then the cooler parts of the surface are partly or mostly wasted.

Normal fins have a specific shape, tapering, where the thick bit conducts the heat to the thinner bits. This sponge shape doesn't do that.

So, it will have 500 times the surface area, but the effective surface area is going to be a tiny, tiny fraction of that.

Comment: Re:Stronger than steel made from wood! (Score 1) 82

I don't think you quite understand.

Wood is an excellent engineering material, it's widely used in construction, and can and has been very successfully used for ships, aircraft etc. During WWII, even when aluminium alloys were available, British designers used wood, to make very highly successful, fast, and very robust aircraft like the de Havilland Mosquito.

Yes, of course you have to consider multiple properties, but actually, wood is very good under lots of different properties, particularly compression, and wood in general and balsa structures in particular have *surreal* rigidity. See this table:

so by weight, balsa is the most rigid material known, by a long, long way.

Comment: Re:Stronger than steel made from wood! (Score 1) 82


Look down the list for stainless steel... then carry on down to 'balsa'.

Yup. Wood has a better strength to weigh ratio than stainless steel. (Only along the grain though but plywood fixes that, and you can put the strength in the direction you need it.)

Although they're not in the table, other woods are similar, but more dense.

Comment: Re:gullwing doors (Score 1) 136

by WolfWithoutAClause (#47195849) Attached to: Tesla Makes Improvements To Model S

Rocket engines very typically ARE internal combustion engines.

The definition of 'internal combustion' is that the pressures from the combustion gases cause the motion. (In external combustion engines, such as steam engines, the heat from the combustion goes through a heat exchanger and the working fluid on the other side of that does the work.)

In a rocket the exhaust gases push directly on the exhaust nozzle, and the interior of the combustion chamber and causes the motion, making it an internal combustion engine.

Some rockets (such as nuclear-thermal or solar-thermal rockets) do have a heat exchanger, and are not internal combustion engines, but not the common ones.

Comment: Re:From many points of data (Score 2) 772

by WolfWithoutAClause (#47107383) Attached to: Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy

Yes, isn't believing in the truth of something that has been rigorously proved part of scientific literacy?

What would happen if the ones that don't believe humans evolved were forced to deal with some of the unequivocal data that backs it up, like genetics, would they still deny it and cause practical problems?

Further it raises the question as to who is trying to change the test, and why ;)

Comment: Re:Knowledge (Score 1) 1037

by WolfWithoutAClause (#46684349) Attached to: How the Internet Is Taking Away America's Religion

I think that there is a question as to whether the three witnesses are reliable or not. ;)

I'm also pretty damn sure that Native Americans are not descended from Egyptians, and that the genetic information that shows they're not is widely available, and does stack up.

If that was not the case, there would be some super-duper famous scientists right now that had managed to prove a key tenant of Mormonism; either Science or Nature would publish that like a shot. They LOVE overturning apple carts: if you have the hard evidence.

In the real world... that hasn't happened, because they're not descended from there, all the evidence shows that Native Americans came from Asia, migrating across the Bering Strait. It's just 50 miles across the ocean there, it's many thousands of miles the other ways.

Comment: Re:Knowledge (Score 5, Funny) 1037

by WolfWithoutAClause (#46676699) Attached to: How the Internet Is Taking Away America's Religion

Let me give you the view of a non Mormon:

Mormonism is bonkers!

You're talking about a religion created by a convicted con man that involves him 'reading' invisible gold tablets that nobody else could see from within a hat, and mistranslating an Egyptian funerary parchment aka 'The Book of Abraham' that doesn't say what he said it says; and we know that because it was tracked down and translated for real.

Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft ... and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor. -- Wernher von Braun