 Conversion Spells, No, not a social spell - a physical spell |
  |
 Dec 10 2011, 07:55 PM
Post
#51
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner  Group: Members Posts: 2,236 Joined: 27-July 10 Member No.: 18,860  |
@CanRay
You are right, I am lowballing on that one. But I could not think of something better right now.. |
 |
 
|
|
Dec 10 2011, 08:22 PM
Post
#52
|
|
|
Prime Runner Ascendant Group: Members Posts: 17,568 Joined: 26-March 09 From: Aurora, Colorado Member No.: 17,022 |
QUOTE (Irion @ Dec 10 2011, 12:40 PM)  It does not matter what kind of matter you use. (Yeah, some might have some more binding energy, chemical energy etc. pp but the hell with it) And we use Plutonium or Uranium because Antimatter is the most expensive and most dangerous stuff we have on the plant. 1/1000 g is around 100 billions. Atoms are (fortunatly) very stable. Uranium is used because those atoms are not stable. If the are hit by neutrons with the right velocoty, they break apart and release energy. That wont happen with carbon atoms. (Well unless some strange carbon isotope) What is thought you might do with Antimatter is shooting it at uranium pellets to start the chain reaction. So replace several kg of TNT with a few atoms of antimatter and save a bunch of Uranium in the process. Just to have something to compare it: The energy density of a fusion bomb or the fusion taking place in the sun are: Fusion bomb 300.000.000 MJ/kg, Sun 627.000.000 MJ/kg and we are talking about 90.000.000.000 MJ/kg. (To get a feeling for the magnitude TNT: 4) Well, we there were matter antimatter experiments and of course the energy released by atom bombs is based on this formula. The point with fusion and Atom bombs is, that they only "burn" up a very small percentage of their "Fuel". Antimatter always reacts completly. Just to see what we are talking about here, the bomb dropped on hiroshima used up under 1 g (gramm) of its "load". The point is comparing TNT to Antimatter is like, well comparing burning wood to TNT... You are still talking THEORY here. Produce the hard results of the "Experiments" you are discussing. Cite actual experts. I have yet to see any proof. And that is the point. Theory is not Fact. A Nuclear Explosion is FACT. We can measure it. A Matter/Antimatter Explosion is strictly Theory. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 10 2011, 08:23 PM
Post
#53
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,358 Joined: 2-December 07 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Member No.: 14,465 |
A completely inert substance that cannot explode at all?
UNOBTAINIUM!!! EDIT: QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Dec 10 2011, 04:22 PM) You are still talking THEORY here. Produce the hard results of the "Experiments" you are discussing. Cite actual experts. I have yet to see any proof. And that is the point. Theory is not Fact. A Nuclear Explosion is FACT. We can measure it. A Matter/Antimatter Explosion is strictly Theory. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) We can measure it. From as far away as possible!
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 10 2011, 08:24 PM
Post
#54
|
|
|
Prime Runner Ascendant Group: Members Posts: 17,568 Joined: 26-March 09 From: Aurora, Colorado Member No.: 17,022 |
QUOTE (CanRay @ Dec 10 2011, 12:06 PM) I was clumsy when I was younger. I wasn't allowed to play with any explosives... Oh well. Heh... Hopefully not as clumsy as some I witnessed in the Corps. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) No worries. I can no longer play with the good explosives. Makes me a sad panda indeed. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif) Though Dynamite is still fun, if you can get hold of it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 10 2011, 08:24 PM
Post
#55
|
|
|
Prime Runner Ascendant Group: Members Posts: 17,568 Joined: 26-March 09 From: Aurora, Colorado Member No.: 17,022 |
QUOTE (CanRay @ Dec 10 2011, 01:23 PM) A completely inert substance that cannot explode at all? UNOBTAINIUM!!! How about HANDWAVIUM? I hear that works well too... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 10 2011, 08:25 PM
Post
#56
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,358 Joined: 2-December 07 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Member No.: 14,465 |
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Dec 10 2011, 04:24 PM) Heh... Hopefully not as clumsy as some I witnessed in the Corps. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) No idea, never served in the Canadian Armed Forces, let alone any other military. But I practically had to learn how to walk again. (Before people apologize, it wasn't an accident that did it, just a trick of nature.).
No worries. I can no longer play with the good explosives. Makes me a sad panda indeed. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif) Though Dynamite is still fun, if you can get hold of it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 10 2011, 08:28 PM
Post
#57
|
|
|
Prime Runner Ascendant Group: Members Posts: 17,568 Joined: 26-March 09 From: Aurora, Colorado Member No.: 17,022 |
QUOTE (CanRay @ Dec 10 2011, 01:25 PM) No idea, never served in the Canadian Armed Forces, let alone any other military. But I practically had to learn how to walk again. (Before people apologize, it wasn't an accident that did it, just a trick of nature.). Harsh. Saw a guy decide to crimp a blasting cap in the middle "Just to see what happens." I guess he thought that the cautions against doing so were just hype. Ended Poorly for him. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 10 2011, 08:40 PM
Post
#58
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,358 Joined: 2-December 07 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Member No.: 14,465 |
*Headdesk* I remember the speech from the guy giving the mine tour during my second grade class trip: "Blasting caps are about as stable as Charles Manson... Or any Member of Parliament. They. Are. Not. Toys."
I figure if I'm treating them like I would a vial of Pure Nitro, I'm almost being careful enough. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 10 2011, 08:56 PM
Post
#59
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,180 Joined: 22-January 07 From: Rochester, NY Member No.: 10,737 |
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Dec 10 2011, 03:22 PM) You are still talking THEORY here. Produce the hard results of the "Experiments" you are discussing. Cite actual experts. I have yet to see any proof. And that is the point. Theory is not Fact. A Nuclear Explosion is FACT. We can measure it. A Matter/Antimatter Explosion is strictly Theory. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Ah. I see the issue. You're making the admittedly common mistake that something that is called a "scientific theory" is not proven. *sigh* I hate that quirk of semantics. What most people think of as a "theory" is what a scientist would call a "hypothesis"--an idea that has not yet undergone testing--while a scientific theory is an idea that has undergone testing and found to be accurate enough to use, but due to the principle of falsifiability, there is always the possibility that further tests and understanding might either overturn or at least force an amendment or editing of the theory. A good example is the recent hullabaloo over the neutrinos they're studying *might* be exceeding the speed of light, which would mean our understanding of the Theory of Relativity is incomplete. However, we have produced antimatter in the lab (at massive cost--we're talking a few million dollars for nine measly anti-protons) but, to be very direct, it is so unlikely as to be statistically impossible that our understanding of high energy physics is so uninformed and has been for the last 60 years, despite many observations of the universe, that we cannot predict the results of the total annihilation of a couple of kilograms of matter to at least three decimal points of certainty. At this point, I would say that the burden of proof for your claim that we cannot predict the effects of Matter-Antimatter Annihilation with certainty lies on you. As for calculating blast effects, you might finds these links to be interesting (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html http://www.nukefix.org/weapon.html Edit: CanRay: Ouch. My sympathies. As for dumb soldier antics, I've got a friend who is a retired Army gunsmith. Lots of fun stories, but the one that comes to mind right now is the hillbilly soldier who managed to bend the barrel of his M-16 into an S (and then ran to him, begging him to "make it look good" so he could get his discharge in a few months and not get fined for the damaged equipment...) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 10 2011, 11:18 PM
Post
#60
|
|
|
Prime Runner Ascendant Group: Members Posts: 17,568 Joined: 26-March 09 From: Aurora, Colorado Member No.: 17,022 |
QUOTE (bibliophile20 @ Dec 10 2011, 01:56 PM) Ah. I see the issue. You're making the admittedly common mistake that something that is called a "scientific theory" is not proven. *sigh* I hate that quirk of semantics. What most people think of as a "theory" is what a scientist would call a "hypothesis"--an idea that has not yet undergone testing--while a scientific theory is an idea that has undergone testing and found to be accurate enough to use, but due to the principle of falsifiability, there is always the possibility that further tests and understanding might either overturn or at least force an amendment or editing of the theory. A good example is the recent hullabaloo over the neutrinos they're studying *might* be exceeding the speed of light, which would mean our understanding of the Theory of Relativity is incomplete. However, we have produced antimatter in the lab (at massive cost--we're talking a few million dollars for nine measly anti-protons) but, to be very direct, it is so unlikely as to be statistically impossible that our understanding of high energy physics is so uninformed and has been for the last 60 years, despite many observations of the universe, that we cannot predict the results of the total annihilation of a couple of kilograms of matter to at least three decimal points of certainty. At this point, I would say that the burden of proof for your claim that we cannot predict the effects of Matter-Antimatter Annihilation with certainty lies on you. It is a Simple Question. Can you provide documented proof of the construction and testing of a Matter/Antimatter Explosion and its effects? If so, where is the documented proof? If not, then it is not a proven scientific fact. For it to be truly a fact, it must have been performed multiple times (ie. more than once) with verifiable, identical results, else it is still a theory, and one that is likely flawed. You are basically telling me that the creation of an Antimatter/Matter explosive device has yet to be actually performed. In this case, your Theory (or Hypothesis, if you like that word better) is still untested. Physics (and its varying subcategories dealing with subatomic particles and their behavior) undergoes changes in understanding on a regular basis, and has done so over those last 60 years that you are so proud of. That fact tells me that physicists do not have as certain an understanding as they claim to have. If your understanding of a Theory is incomplete, then how can you claim that theory to be a proven fact? Now, contrary to what you (or others) may be thinking, I am not trying to be an ass about this. I would truly like to read any research that is both valid and real. Hypothetical hypotheticals do not interest me all that much. If you have the facts, I would like to read them. Yes, I can look through the internet, but what I have found to date is mostly quackery and bad science (or links to virus laden malware sites posing as scientific papers). If you have something definitive, verified, and valid, I would be highly interested in it. Anyways. We may have driven this topic so far off course that it is lost to oblivion. If this is the case, I apologize. So, Conversion Spells. Who uses them, and what are they converting? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2011, 01:09 AM
Post
#61
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,358 Joined: 2-December 07 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Member No.: 14,465 |
Give me a few years for the statute of limitations to wear down, and I can provide proof that Rednecks of any type shouldn't be allowed to get bored with Dynamite and Propane Tanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2011, 01:38 AM
Post
#62
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 |
QUOTE (CanRay @ Dec 10 2011, 02:49 PM) Done right, you can make wood explode. ... Well, sawdust. Which is why you don't build a flour mill near the blacksmith. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2011, 01:42 AM
Post
#63
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,358 Joined: 2-December 07 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Member No.: 14,465 |
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Dec 10 2011, 09:38 PM) Which is why you don't build a flour mill near the blacksmith. Yeah, the Waterwheel Hammer didn't go so well as the Steam Hammer did anyhow. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2011, 02:14 AM
Post
#64
|
|
|
Prime Runner Ascendant Group: Members Posts: 17,568 Joined: 26-March 09 From: Aurora, Colorado Member No.: 17,022 |
QUOTE (CanRay @ Dec 10 2011, 06:09 PM) Give me a few years for the statute of limitations to wear down, and I can provide proof that Rednecks of any type shouldn't be allowed to get bored with Dynamite and Propane Tanks. Well, there you go... Bored Rednecks never mix well with explosives... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2011, 08:49 AM
Post
#65
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,236 Joined: 27-July 10 Member No.: 18,860 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uQcNkibI5E&feature=fvsr
Antimatter has been created. QUOTE You are basically telling me that the creation of an Antimatter/Matter explosive device has yet to be actually performed. I think you have a wrong image of that issue. It is not like an Atombomb or something. Antimatter getting in contact with matter will be annihilated. And since the whole planet and atmosphere is consists of matter... Antimatter was created (by accelerating particles to nearly light speed and colliding them) and it was annihilated with matter and the energy released was messured. This of course was done in the scale of some a few dozen particles.. Antimatter(at the time) is used in medical applications. (PET-Scan) So it is not some unproofen theory. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2011, 09:54 AM
Post
#66
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
QUOTE (Dakka Dakka @ Dec 8 2011, 08:10 PM) Yeah, this one always vexes me, when it comes up. I want Shape Quarks. You can do everything with it and they are always OR 1. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif) Quite possible that every spell is just that (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2011, 05:14 PM
Post
#67
|
|
|
Prime Runner Ascendant Group: Members Posts: 17,568 Joined: 26-March 09 From: Aurora, Colorado Member No.: 17,022 |
QUOTE (Irion @ Dec 11 2011, 01:49 AM) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uQcNkibI5E&feature=fvsr Antimatter has been created. I think you have a wrong image of that issue. It is not like an Atombomb or something. Antimatter getting in contact with matter will be annihilated. And since the whole planet and atmosphere is consists of matter... Antimatter was created (by accelerating particles to nearly light speed and colliding them) and it was annihilated with matter and the energy released was messured. This of course was done in the scale of some a few dozen particles.. Antimatter (at the time) is used in medical applications. (PET-Scan) So it is not some unproofen theory. Did you actually listen to what was said there? Lot of "If's" in there. Lots of Suppositions. And Antimatter is not used in the PET scan. Positrons are. Positrons are a far cry from Antimatter. No Applications as of this time for the possible research, No plans for applications in the future. Antimatter cannot be stored long enough to even study, so they cannot even BEGIN to make research plans (which come long before actual plans for applications) until they can create and store it long enough to study. Ergo, it is still Theory, and not any where close to application; which again proves my point. What they have done is the First STEP in the investigation, from the Professor's (Apparently the Leading Professor of this line of research) own words. I have never said that Antimatter Can not/Does not exist. I said that any application discussing such things is pure theory, and it will remain pure theory until they can actually harness it. I would not hold my breath for that. They have been studying the theory for 80 years or so, and they are still in the infancey of its research. Antimatter Applications are still Unproven Theory at this time. Period. End of Story. Nice try though. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2011, 05:24 PM
Post
#68
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,358 Joined: 2-December 07 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Member No.: 14,465 |
Which is a good thing... I can just see some Rednecks getting their hands on Antimatter and going, "Hold muh beer an' watch this!"
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2011, 05:29 PM
Post
#69
|
|
|
Prime Runner Ascendant Group: Members Posts: 17,568 Joined: 26-March 09 From: Aurora, Colorado Member No.: 17,022 |
QUOTE (CanRay @ Dec 11 2011, 10:24 AM) Which is a good thing... I can just see some Rednecks getting their hands on Antimatter and going, "Hold muh beer an' watch this!" Heh... Now that would be a scary thought... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2011, 05:43 PM
Post
#70
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,507 Joined: 11-November 08 Member No.: 16,582 |
"I try to stay serene and calm, when Alabama gets the Bomb." - Tom Lehrer, Who's Next?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2011, 05:52 PM
Post
#71
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,236 Joined: 27-July 10 Member No.: 18,860 |
@Tymeaus Jalynsfein
What do you think Positrons are? What happens if a Positron meets an electron? What is the differance between a positron and an electron? QUOTE I have never said that Antimatter Can not/Does not exist. I said that any application discussing such things is pure theory, and it will remain pure theory until they can actually harness it. What they did. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2011, 06:28 PM
Post
#72
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 |
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Dec 11 2011, 12:14 PM) And Antimatter is not used in the PET scan. Positrons are. Positrons are a far cry from Antimatter. Ahem. QUOTE (Wikipedia) The positron or antielectron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2011, 08:08 PM
Post
#73
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,358 Joined: 2-December 07 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Member No.: 14,465 |
Do you have a source other than one that can be edited by everyone?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2011, 08:38 PM
Post
#74
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 881 Joined: 13-November 11 From: Vienna, Austria Member No.: 43,494 |
Here you go:
Advancing Nuclear Medicine Through Innovation -> Sidebar 2.9: Introduction to the Physics of PET |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2011, 09:12 PM
Post
#75
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,507 Joined: 11-November 08 Member No.: 16,582 |
Good that only mass less particles collide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th July 2025 - 06:28 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.