The forums are retiring and are now closed for new topics and comments. The existing content will remain online and accessible through 2020 to provide everyone the opportunity to save any relevant information. In the spring of 2021, these Community forums will be taken offline.

Search for theory in Topics


RELATIVITY THEORY? Answered

Which things I need to know to study relativity theory? And any good book to study it?

Question by Ahtasham Ahmad Mohtashim    |  last reply


Another theory...

I was wondering if this is doable, or even practical for that matter. So I read up on lasers and from what I can tell it is a form of light in which the wave frequencies are perfectly aligned. So I was wondering if you aligned UV light wave frequencies, would you get a laser that would burn stuff, and not to sound morbid, but in high quantaties, kill people. (Only for the sheer exitement of figuring something out am I posting this. I do not in any way want to kill someone.)

Topic by vroom...vroom...    |  last reply


My theory...

So here is my theory. If you did all the math, (which I did),  and made a syrup of the exact viscosity. Would that syrup flow like water underwater just like water flows in air. Here is a diagram with all the math there for you.   I created a simple ratio... the number at the bottom right is my perfect syrup viscosity.

Topic by vroom...vroom...    |  last reply


Checking Theories

In this topic, place your theories of some chemistry experiments in the comments section, starting with this one. To start with, Fe + 2H2O --> FeO2 + 2H...Place iron fillings to fill 1/3 of a water bottle. Fill the rest with water, and place a balloon on top. Wait X days/weeks/months. The water reacts with the iron to extract the oxygen from the water, leaving only hydrogen, and rust in the products. In the reactants, the hydrogen was bonded to the oxygen.Will someone tell me if this works? The energy that bonds this is the potential energy in the water.

Topic by PKTraceur    |  last reply


My "theory"!!!!!!!!!!!

"The world was created in 7 days" Is one "day" for us, one day for God? 1 day for God could be 1 billion years or something.

Topic by assasin    |  last reply


Scientific Theory

I am working on a scientific theory and I need a little help. I have 2 car batteries in series to create 24v need to power an electric motor. The motor is 14.5 amps and I need a way to control the amperage from the car batteries to the motor. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Topic by Ice Dragon    |  last reply


"Growing Earth" theory ...

Hi.I was wasting some time on Google Video, and I found this one.This man believe Earth (and others planets) are expanding ...According to Wikipedia, this theory is not new, and is serious. After all, if the Sun (and stars) grows, why not the "core" of planets too ?

Topic by chooseausername    |  last reply


Unified field theory?

I was windering if someone could tell me how to add gravity to the Unified field theory? thanks

Question by RelyNupon    |  last reply


Music Theory 101

Hello, i got an idea of making a series of detailed, yet easy to understand instructables on music theory. i mean music theory, and i mean things you would learn in college level class. i preety much dedicated most of my life to music theory, piano, cello, and listening, as well as analyzing written music. i have also had great teachers that thought me a lot of things about music and life, and i would only feel like the greatest asshole alive if i didnt share them. one thing that is special to music theory, and only to music theory, is that it is a field of study that originated from art, not vice versa. those instructibles would cover preety much everything involved with music, including the mathematics and physics that go with it! history will be included too! the reason why i'm posting it here, is to see how many people are interested, who would want to help out, and to look for reccomendations and requests. my resume: 5 years piano 4 years cello 9 years music theory perfect pitch played in 4 different orchestras considering starting doing a chamber music program, orchestras are getting boring now :D im part of the Tri-M music honor society and i volunteer sometimes. PLEASE REPLY WITH WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THIS PROJECT :D music theory

Topic by macplo  


theory of water rocket?

Question by ainmiey    |  last reply


Solar oven theory

When looking at various solar oven on instructables, they almost all use refective coating of some sort on the inside. That to me makes sense for the concentrators/parabolic/funnel ovens, etc. I am just wondering if the regular box ovens if it really makes as much difference or if the heating factor there is more so just the still air in the box being heated and not able to escape. I want to start making solar ovens to get an idea of how they work. I have a square piece of 1/4 inch glass, probably 4 ft by 3 ft. I thought about just digging a cubic hole in the ground and laying the glass over top.

Topic by avocadostains    |  last reply


Big Bang "theory" Dbunked!

Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-U2uI1f8mU

Topic by slasinski    |  last reply


How do resistors react in an LED-Array? Answered

Hey guys. I've been reading myself through a lot of articles on websites about how resistors and LED's work, but what I still don't understand is why, when calculating the required resistors for an LED-Array, this website ( http://led.linear1.org/led.wiz ) takes maximum 4 LED's for each resistor at 9V and a diode forward voltage of 2.0 - is it to prevent it become unstable or something like that? And frankly, I think that I miss understand resistors, although I've read a lot of articles about it. So, what I think resistors do is this: Since resistors are used in a simple 1-LED-circuits that has more voltage than the diode forward voltage, it simply lowers the voltage to  the desired forward voltage ( 2.0 for a Red-LED as far as I remember ) - so my point is, when it always is lowered, why would you need more resistors when the voltage is lowered from the first LED on? Perhaps I am very bad at explaining my logical problem here, but I hope that someone actually understands something out of this mess. xS

Question by Zrodo    |  last reply


New Theory For A Pump Action Gun

The black is the gun body, the red is the ramrod, the yellow is the pump, the green are the wheels, the blue could be either string or fishing line. Theoreticly i think that this gun can hold as much power as you can pump if you use high quality fishing line and you have built a strong gun body. I think that this could be a very powerful shotgun if built right. i myself have tried to do this many times through but have never sucseded. I would like to see someone give a shot at this one. I looked around extinsivly and could find no gun like this. I give a thousand congrates to whoever sucsedes in building this. Also if someone does happen to build it I would like partial credit and instructions. I would like to thank all of you for taking you time to read this through.

Topic by TheAwesomestDude    |  last reply


assassins creed hidden blade theory

Can someone please send me designs for the assassins creed hidden blade i want a real design not a paper cutout or a link to a real design

Topic by mr.militarymaster    |  last reply


"Kiteman" proves theory of Reverse Evolution!!!!!

Http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210029/Humiliation-science-teachers-Funky-Chicken-dance-class-highlights-YouTube-threat.htmlOk, my mistake. With the headlines, and the (initially) grainy photos, I thought this was Kiteman- Demonstrating the FACT that intelligent beings can "de-volve" into funky chickens.

Topic by skunkbait    |  last reply


My Theory for How Gravity Works

So I've never really found out how gravity actually works, why it happens. But a few days ago I had a epiphany. I don't know if I spelled that right. So everything is at least a little bit magnetic, even stuff like wood, no matter how little. So all of this stuff would be attracted to all the other stuff electromagnetically, right? Even a little bit? So when you get huge amounts of this stuff (I'm thinking planets here) there is enough electromagnetic attraction to pull it together, and voila! We have gravity! Plus when you have planets, there's tons of stuff like iron and other metals and metaloids, that could be very strong, magnetically. So if I'm wrong (which I probably am), can someone explain how gravity actually works to me? I'm constantly thinking about stuff like this, I get theories like this every once in a while, many of them right. But not this complicated, more stuff like figuring out how air pressure and vacuums work, but basic principle stuff.

Topic by Aeshir    |  last reply


will this theory work for an assassins creed hidden blade? Answered

i built this theory but i did not try will it work? note : the circles are springs , strong ones note : the back end's reach = the long of the blade gets out + the tall of half your arm

Question by top.boy    |  last reply


What is the definition of "matter" according to the string theory? Answered

Hello!  I have recently studied about the string theory. Now what I have understood about it so far is that very small particles like the one's that make up neutrons and protons are actually made up of "strings" that vibrate in 10 dimensions at particular frequencies which determine the nature of the particles that they form. I also came to know that "strings" themselves are weird distortions of space-time.   Now I don't know if all that information is correct or not. So my question is that according to it, it would mean that matter itself is a distortion of space-time, is this true?

Question by Wisaam    |  last reply


Is there really a theory behind the hojo motor scam? Answered

I ran into it on line.  More truthfully, it ran into me.  I've never heard of it.  I do know it's a scam, you can't spend $100.00 at the hardware store and build a device that supplies 120 volts at 2oo amps to power a house.  The whole thing did pique my curiosity, just like a gasifier or hovercraft or flying lawnmower would.  The problem is that if you try to find just information on what the thing is all you get is page after page after page of scam sites or people trying to sell plans for some mythical device. The only thing I've been able to ferret out is that it's some kind of perpetual motion device that will power my whole neighborhood if I spend 9 hours building it.  I like to think none of my fellow humans are silly enough to believe that. Anyway, without trying to tell me you have one powering your house and an orphanage out of kindness or trying to sell me plans please explain the theory behind it.  Sorry if I sound grumpy, I've been battling scam sites trying to look legitimate for the last hour.

Question by AngryGuy70    |  last reply


How does radio really work?

             I'm studying to take the exam for a technician class ham radio license, and have been reading up for it.  However, the book just gives practice, not theory.  For example, it says that radio energy is carried down a coaxial, window, etc. cable between the two conductors, but it doesn't say how this actually happens or works.  I know what radio does, but I'm a little lost when it comes to theory regarding its transmission, being carried in cables, filtering, SWR, etc.  Answers are appreciated.  Thanks!

Question by mad magoo    |  last reply


Earth Ground?

           Well, it seems about time to add to my list of electrical theory questions with answers far too broad for one question, so:                          I understand that the Earth can act as a giant capacitor, conductor, etc.  What I don't understand is why.  For instance, why would ac power from the hot wire dissipate into the ground?  (and, for that matter, will power from the neutral wire not do so?  If so, why?)   

Question by mad magoo    |  last reply


String Theory,..this is not detailed, but what do you think?

Here is a short video (not embeddable, sorry) on the Higgs-Boson and string theory by Dr. Michio Kaku.  Comments?

Topic by Goodhart    |  last reply


need help with ir object detecor (reflect theory)?

Hi i'm working on a small project using iri want to make an object detector for detecting people who stand in front of a door i don't want to use laser or ir beam cut theory i want to use reflecting theory so that the sender and reciver be in the same side just as supermarkets doors i have searched for many circuits but they all use cut theory this site is my local store that have parts in my country http://www.ram.com.eg

Question by aessam1    |  last reply


Basic DC (direct current) theory and practice for newbies

Hey everyone, as you may have guessed - i'm a newbie to DC theory! Backstory: after graduating i said 'forget it' to a proper job and moved to Australia to travel. i bought a converted camper van that has an auxillary battery for (whatever), and it looks like it runs off 12 volt dc! the Question: how does DC power work, for me and all those newbies out there putting along on the other side of the planet! -cheers, adrian www.bigquestionmarks.blogspot.com

Topic by adritek    |  last reply


Why did the duck go up? Any theories?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x-z3IAD3g8&feature;=related Skip ahead to 4:57. What he refers to as string appears to be an elastic material. He pulls up and it goes up. He pulls down and it goes up. The video is supposed to be about electrostatic toys.

Question by Vorenus    |  last reply


4 Reasons why we believe in Conspiracy theories

Did NASA really land on the moon?Did the government cover-up involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks?Is Elvis still alive and kicking? What about Michael Jackson?Was John F. Kennedy assassinated at the hands of multiple shooters?Do the Freemasons control the United States?A small but fervent group of people believe there was more than included in historical record about the aforementioned events. Conspiracies, they call them. And every generation has its own.Some of them turn about to be true, after all: Pearl Harbor was a Japanese conspiracy and Nixon’s Watergate break-in was a coverup.But with so few that turn out to be true, why do people believe in conspiracies?HERE is the link to the Rest of the story.And one final note:so, NOW we know who was on the grassy knoll and shot JFK LOL It was JFK himself !!!

Topic by Goodhart    |  last reply


Is it possible to draw energy from an ion chamber?

On a purely theoretical basis, would it be possible to harness a small sample of radioactive material and an ion chamber to produce a small trickle of electricity? I'm not sure what the practical use of a device would be, and I'm well aware of the risks and dangers involved; I'm asking to satisfy my own curiosity.

Question by jlensher    |  last reply


would this work for a homemade generator?... like getting a dc motor and turning it in reverse ?

Instead of spinning the moro by connecting it to a battery spin it on the spindle that turns? would it work

Question by sharlston    |  last reply


Tesla's "Earthquake" machine - revisited!

Lockdown sucks, so what bett to do than to check on some old inventions :)It is claimed that, although the earthquaked that happened was unrelated, that Tesla's little machine indeed was able to do some damage.Today however we focus on what is actually possible in terms of an oscillating apparatus causing other things to swing in resonance.If you look at the patent than there is terms used (intentionally) that neither make sense, nor find any explanation inside the patent - like "airsprings" ...Knowing Tesla's way of thinking a little allowed me to come up with some conclusions of my own.Using some surface transducers to get going also helped a lot.Using more or less modern stuff that anyone can access, we will try to build our own little quake machine.At least in theory, I leave it up to you if you want to build something just to confirm or rip apart what I might claim in here ;)How does this resonance thing work?If you check "Londong bridge swing" you see what I mean ;)Like soldiers won't cross a bridge in step for good reasons, a lot of little inputs quickly accumulated and syncronise themself- the bridge swings.You try it in small scale with a bunch of Metronoms (is that right for many of them? LOL) on a board supported by rollers.Set them all to the same timing, start them and release the board.One after the other will fall in sync until they all swing the same.Check how much the board moves in relation, especially if you place some added weights on it ;)For machines we often have the problem that something unbalanced and rotating causes all sorts of vibrations in other parts - we know that from our cars as well when a wheel is unbalanced.Not always is the part causing the resoance somewhere near where it resonates ;)What Tesla claimed to have built was a machine that had a freely moving weight, some electromagnets, "airsprings" and somehing to make it all able to find the resonance by magic....I can recreate some of it, but not all (yet).We need a way to move a weight with as little friction as possible while also providing some sort of dampening effect - otherwise the weight would just swing to the max.I thought a lot about this and how to do in the most basic form.For sake of simplicity I opted for a vertical approach.Ideally you would have big and heavy cylindrical magnet, about 3cm in diameter and at leat 6cm long.But you can cheat by stacking disk magnets or putting suare ones into a round tube.You need two cylinders, one to hold the magnets, the other just a bit wider to allow for a TINY air gap.Put together the magnet cylinder should freely boune around when you shake it but show good resistance if you close both ends of the outer tube.How to make "airsprings"....I found the easiest way out is to use "bouncers" on either end of the outer tube - with consideration that the inner tube needs to movable ;)The inner magnet has some good weight, so using stacks of small magnets allows us to compensate the different movement.Start with a bottom stack so the inner magnet has a good distance (gap).Now you need a sensitive scale or use a balanced weighbridge.Check how much extra weight on the inner magnets is required to push it down by, let's say 5mm.Note that weight somewhere.Place a smaller stack on the top end of the tubes.You want the distance so the inner magnet just start to be pushed down a tiny bit.You might need a slotted outer tube to allow you to push it up as well down now - hence the weighbridge idea.Adjust the distance and amount/type of magnets on the top stack until the inner magnet travels an equal amount up and down with the force (weight) applied.It is now "balanced" to be weightless in terms being suspended while free to travel a limited amount.Ideally the force you need for up and down should stay equal (more or less) throughout the indended range of motion.I found two ways that work well to actuate the magnet by extrenal means while having a good control.One uses a center coil around the tube, the other a split coil.Key is wind it so it is usable with something simple.Like creating a coil with a resistance if 4 Ohm so a normal audio amplifier can be used.Tricky bit here is to find the right balance in terms of the inductivity.For a strong magnet you wants of turns and lots of layers - your amp does not like this too much.I found that many layers and many turns require a capacitor to compensate but also that this brings additional problems.I suggest to stick with reall cheap amps in the 25 to 50W range for your testing.They seem to be more forgiving if you use multiple layers on a coil.Using a split coil with reversed polarities allows to use both channels on a stereo amp.In this configuration you can have a lot of fun in the lower frequencies, which are usually the ones we want anyway.The resonance finding though it a fully manually thing and you need to make sure the machine is secured properly to the surface you want to use it on.I found it best to start at about 1kHz and then to work my way down until something happens somewhere.Once you go below the 200hz region you will need to crank the amp up a bit.What is actually happening and why once it starts moving things around?Figuring that one out took me quite a while.It is not the moving magnet causing a change of things.It is the forces it transfers when it changes directions.When the magnet is down and the coil changes polarity it is "pulled" up.Wich means the mounted machine is applying downforces onto the surface.Opposite for the way down.Interesting about this how both the surcare and the machine interact.Out of sync not much at happens anywhere, but the closer you get to a resonant frequency the easier the magnet can move around - the amplitude increases while the input level is the same.Hence the need for the dampening magnet stacks ;)These stop the motion in a smooth and even way while transfering the excess to the machine in the form of vertical forces.Together this works rather well and surprisingly simple.You just need the right balance between weight of the magnet inside and magnetic field your coil can generate - it does not have to be huge magnet to have some fun...No clue, or least no usuable, how Tesla simplified the resonance finding and keeping - if he did not do it manually after all.In terms of electronic means it should be possible fairly easy to get the same output force no matter the conditions.Thinking of a controlled feedback loop here.The required power from the amp is lowest in resonance and higest when totally out of sync.This out of sync motion is to a small degree transfered onto the coil through the moving magnet.A clear sine wave gets "distortions" from the overlaying frequencies transfered from the surface.You can "filter" the required power level and the detected "distortions".If both filters indicate a minimum it means resonace is found.From there only the power levels are monitored.Every time they spike the frequency is adjusted so the spike is in sync again with the max amplitude of the frequency.The power levels will then level out while the external movement maxes out sooner or later.Will it actually make a building shake?If it is an old, wooden construction like mine it will rattle here and there ;)A solid brick or concrete one however won't be too impressed.A big barn with a sheet metal roof might get noisy but won't collapse.The frequencies to actually make big things swing are rather low, often below the 60Hz range.With that comes the energy requirements - you have maybe 200g moving around at max in your machine?Try pushing over some dead pine tree by making it swing until it breaks - same thing.If you manage to keep the correct swing you need a long, long time to make swing far enough to snap.For a big bridge you might need a centimeter or more of swing before anything can be noticed.You machine might be able to add a µm with every hundred swings it makes....Moving traffic constantly changes things so after a few weeks of trying the bridge might not even vibrate a little.Huge fun though to make friends cars shake apart with no sound at all LOLJust screw in the boot and crank it up once you notice something vibrates somewhere ;)

Topic by Downunder35m    |  last reply


Theory, execution and actual construction of a 'Bullet-Shot Location' like system Answered

 How could it be done? I have revised a version using only two microphones that once one of the microphones 'hear'  the sound, a timer will start and will stop once the next microphone 'hears' it.  This would essentially enable you to draw a line straight down the middle of the gun. It would also allow for tracking the location in real-time. How could you physically build it for a cheap set-up. I'll upload a couple of diagrams some time.

Question by Lance Mt.    |  last reply


if we had two moons how would that in theory effect earth? Answered

Gravitational differences, water, magnetic poles anything?

Question by ismael01    |  last reply


How do I determine the size of the image needed to reflect onto a cylinder (see Q for better description)? Answered

I plan to take a large disc shaped screen and then reflect that image onto a cylinder to create a holographic effect. Right now this is just a concept but I am wondering if this is plausible and what size the disk would need to be to create an image to cover the cylinder. If a formula could be provided that would be best or just a general explanation of how to find a formula.

Question by TheTechGuy99    |  last reply


Why can a function satisfying same boundary conditions as functions Un(x) of a complete set be expanded as ΣCnUn(x)?

This is a question I encountered while reading Introduction to Quantum Theory by Hendrik F. Hameka (Please don't worry, I'm not trying to cheat on my homework, I am just asking out of curiosity). The book states the following:      "It can be shown that a function f(x) that satisfies the same boundary conditions as the functions Un(x) of a complete set can be expanded as f(x) = Σ CnUn(x) ... If we multiply by U*m(x) and integrate, we obtain < Um | f > = Cm " This second part is fairly straightforward because ∫ U*m f(x) dx = ∫ U*m Σ CnUn(x) dx and it follows that < Um | f > = Cn Σ < Um | Un > = Cn Σ δn,m = Cn However, the first part confuses me because I can only justify it when Un(x) = (2π)^(-1/2) e^(inx) (The example of a complete set given in the book, actually) In that case, it can easily be seen that the expression Σ < Un | f > Un(x) is just the Fourier Series expansion of f(x) and thus the result is valid for the particular complete set. However this does not explain why this is valid for all complete sets: "how can you prove that this conclusion is valid not only for this particular complete set, but for all complete sets?" is my question. Thank you in advance for answering! Please feel free to post any questions of your own if you need clarification. Also, please be advised that you should not post responses on the order of "you didn't specify an interval of integration, so your question is impossible!" - if you know enough to answer the question, then you will understand why said interval is not specified, etc. Once again, thanks!

Question by Xellers    |  last reply


How to measure open loop H(s)? Answered

When designing constant current linear dummy loads, and when I was (attempting) to design a really nice linear power supply with op amps and pass transistors, I consistently run into the devil of the circuits that incorporate feedback. INSTABILITY! Especially if I use fast op amps, or MOSFETs, etc. My understanding as to why this happens is because I still have some positive gain at the point at the frequencies where signal the total loop has that dreaded -180 degree phase (gain margin) and then where the gain is unity and phase is at -180, again allowing that frequency component to be successively amplified (or never attenuated) as that wave whirls around the loop. However, with op amp circuits, how am I supposed to get an accurate open loop measurement, when the DC gain is so stupidly high the input to an op amp is essentially a comparator? http://www.ti.com/lit/an/snva364a/snva364a.pdf This article suggests whacking in a 20 ohm resistor and injecting a signal into it, and measuring the voltage on either side of it (?) How is this supposed to work? Is there a better method in something like LTspice?

Question by -max-    |  last reply


Relativity and why E can't really equal m²

See this topic as something that should be in our now deeply missed random fun section.Everyone learned in school that there was Albert Einstein and we have to thank him for bringing humanity into the next evolution.At least in terms of understanding the universe, quantum physics and things like this.Over the years I developed my own funny theories on why Einstein was so stunned that his calculated energy output from the first nuclear test was off by a factor of about 4 - meaning his calulations were at least 4 times lower than the real thing....The official story about this "mistake" is something like this in a destilled and drastically simplified way:"We did our best but this totally new terrain, theory got corrected by real world test.We now know how to factor all this in correctly for selfsustaining nuclear reactions with a critical mass."The real explanation with all calculations and so on was document of about 200 pages....The inoffical story about the first test and the corrected results was a bit longer and personal.Nicola and ALbert had a long hate-love relationship.Similar interests and theories got them together, diference in the opinion what can be put into our current math system for calculations and conflic of used terms got them apart.But like every good couple they always got over their differences and corresponded again - sometimes with a year or two before they were ready to talk to each other again.In this story Nicola had massive arguments with Albert about the required, sustained and released energy levels for Gadget - the first test of the Trinity series.To give you an idea why it was so hard for both to understand the other or to accept the other's calculations:Einstein based all his theories and what we use today when it comes to math.Tesla however prefered his own mathematical system, one he promoted and got into every day use in many US schools at the time.In simple world it was based on a big circle, I like to call it the circle of math.Almost all of our natural constants (that were known back then) were present as lines, multiplication, squre roots and more were as easy as following the right lines and pathways indicated on this circle.Both system, ours and Tesla's provided the exact same results, the later however without any need for additional "notes" along the way or complicated formulas.And even worse when it came to energy.Back then science alrealy knew there is more than what our laws of physics state and what we know.And what we could not really understand and only proove in theory is now as common as butter on your bread.Thinks like quantum mechanics, quarks or the fact that you can't observe a light particle on a quantum level directly, only as its sum....Tesla however already had "a higher understanding" on how different energies interact and how get from one form of energy to another.Like his tesla transformer, the radio transmitter and so on.While we had no clue at all Tesla already studied the ionosphere, he had different name for it though.For him it was obvious that it is not just a reflective barrier for radio waves but that it also has a very energy potential on its own.Either way the argument was the Albert only factored in the mass of the nuclear material, the explosive forces from the ignition and the corresponding implosion.Basically everything we could see, explain or theorise about back in the day - and it needed to be possible to claculate it somehow to match expections.Nicola made the claim that during the explosion also a lot of electromagnetic energy is created together with what he called a break in the fabric of the universe.Not only that but the electromagnetic shock (we call it now EMP) is not really a single thing but spread basically over the entire know frequency range, including visible light.The visible light claim was confirmed during the test by shadows burnt into walls....You can clearly imagine how good old Einstein must have felt seeing his good friend being dead serious about things he could not have the slightest idea about.After all there never was any test before and certainly none with Tesla present...How the personal story between the two continued can be found online if you some digging or if you prefer in a well stocked library - yes they still exist as real place ;)What was mostly left undocumented, at least for public eyes was the implications from the Trinity test series.That Tesla really was onto something even if the smartest man on the planet could not understand a single word of it became painfully obvious.At least for Albert....In his later theories you can find the influence the revelation of finally understanding why his calulations were of and most importantly understanding what Tesla meant by the fabric of the universe.E does not really equal mc² for quite a few reasons.Firstly because it is based on the assumption that nothing can be faster than the speed of light.So did our best to measure it, cheated by making definition of light speed and meter based on the same thing.I mean: If you take two "unknown" variables to create a result and then use the result to finetune the input- how accurate can it really be?....Today we long know that there things travelling much faster than the speed of light, for example gravimetric shockwaves when a distant star goes booom.We detect these "gravity quake" now so we can aim our big telescopes to where it happened and see it in "realtime" once the light arrived long after the shockwave.And if you dare to re-do the original calculations for Gadget and factor in that a gravimetric shockwave travels about 4 times fast than light you get an idea why Tesla already knew all about it.What came out of all the offcial calculations and theories is well known.What is missing from E=mc² was never officially published by Einstein...Applications for the possible damage to what Tesla called the fabric of the universe.We are trained to only use our brains in two dimensions.A bit of it comes from our evolution as since the dawn of time we prefered creating a flat image over creating a sculpture with similar details.Some people though can use their brin in three dimensions with ease, like when a really good sculpture artist say "The sculture is already in the rock, I only need to remove what is covering it."And sure enough every color or texture detail of the rock ends up in exactly the right spot to make the result perfect.Musicians are quite similar, a lot of them have no clue about notes or how read them to create a nice tune on an instrument.Some only need to hear a song once and can repeat it on all instruments they play like they studied the song for years.Others hear the vocals only and create tunes and melodies from it that not only match voice act but also reflect on the mood, the feelings.In some really good songs you only need to hear the instruments and can almost imagine what the singer would sing to it...A very few can do similar with math, we like to call them a genius because we can not imagine a complex and long number as a series of meaningful images or emotions paired with colors - for example, as there many more ways to deal with numbers...People like Einstein realised after the Trinity tests that the EMP and corresponding electromagnetic effects are too strong to be measured by anything unless it is from a great distance.That means, like lumen per area, the strenght of the electromagnetic effects increase exponentially the closer you get to the source.Still... No big deal right?Well if you dare you make a frog levitate in a magnetic field, won't be a healthy experience for the frog but it will levitate.You can look these frog experiment and corresponding scientific explanations up online if you are bored enough one day.The point is: If a frog can be excluded from gravity in a magnetic field of suffient strenght, orientation and other features, then what else can "float"? ....Or more to the point: Why exactly does the frog float if he is not magnetic enough to begin with?....We have no problems visualising or imagining the shockwave from a big explosion like Gadget.High speed films show us that there would be an expanding perfect sphere, only object like the ground limit this experience, but you see it nice in underwater explosions!What most people can't even begin to understand is how a shockwave of which the EMP is only a small part acts, travels or what effects it migh thave.Unlike a normal shockwave we have something like redox reaction happening.The explosion creates an unimaginably strong electric impulse, a bit like all lightning strikes in world feeding into a single lightbulb at the same point in time.For argument sake lets say is almost indefinately high.However, like in an ignition coil this impulse creates and equally strong electromagnetic impulse.And since the entire reaction at this point is far from over we get a harmonic resonance and feedback system.Imagine a second you stretch around the globe as a band and then you cut a mm off it - that would be about the timeframe for the most intense electromagnetic field swinging around at all sorts of frequencies.And during this very short period of time a bubble is created that expands what modern sciensts now call the space - time - continium.Same name as in the movies but this time based on quantum theories and such things to explain gravity.An awful lot of energy is trapped inside this bubble and once the initial reaction is over the electromagnetic impuls disappears and only the normal reaction from the explosion continues.The bubble however does not pop or disappear, it implodes.All this energy is compressed basically to a single atom size and released.Sadly this energy has no visible effect, nothing we can observer with our eyes or instruments...Again we use quantum theories to explain what must happen to find way to it "visible" somehow or to find way to really measure it.Gravity sensors are a result of these theories and developments and now part of basically any good GPS satellite or space probe.Some fancy phones have them too.What would actually happen if we would have found a way to affect the space time continuum in a very controlled way?Without explosions or such bad things, just by using simple technologies.Now I would have to explain things in at least four dimensions, which means most readers would shut off now.Using five would be insane, I know :(So let try to ignore how things work fr real and do what every good scientist does: simplify to make the imagination work in just 2 or 2.5 dimensions.Put a cork on a pond a throw a rock in it.It moves, mostly wobbling on the waves but it moves away from where the rock was dropped.If it could be "anchored" at the right spot between two crests of the wave it would move with it, like a surfer on a good wave does.A craft that creates our field from the inside and in a neutral configuration would create a perfect sphere.What would that mean for the craft and those outside observers?At a first glance nothing until you realise the craft has no mass at all.You could lift a 5 ton vehicle with your little finger and flick away like something you found in your nose.Unlike our suspended frog the craft would create a field bubble where gravity diverts around it.Gravitity is the driving force of the space time continuum.Without it there would be no time, without time there would be nothing.If you would be inside the craft and be flicked away by a finger you would only realise it if you looked out of window or onto a screen showing the outside.As the craft does not exist in the normal space time continuum, so to say, the same non existing effects of things like acceleration, g-forces and such can't apply for what is inside either.Well, at least until you reach the wall, the suddenly all is stopped and has to enter our normal continuum again.You would be mince meat on some wall inside what is left from your craft...Increase the field strenght to overcome inertia of smaller particles and even air molecules or dust particles are diverted around the field.Nothing though that would rival the mass of the craft in a significant way, like flying into a solid wall or mountain....A modfied field geometry allows to affect the shape of the bubble.To keep it in two dimensions, imagine a ping pong ball as the field that you press into some slime, or similar fun stuff.Start moving it and it forms something like a wave in the front and something like a wake on the other side.Our field can shape the bubble so that our space time continuum would look quite similar - if we could see it instead of theorising about it.As result the craft now moves in our normal continuum without having and appearent form of engine.The bigger you make these "waves" with your field, the fast you go....And suddenly those impossible movements in the sky that are always dismissed as a hoax or weather balloon make a lot more sense.Be it a Scalar drive, the Fluxliner, VR7 and derivates, they all use garvity as a propulsion system.Fair enough you might say, but what does mean in terms of where we might have been already since almost one hundred years....A gravity based drive system in the sience fiction section has many names.Warp Drives of course comes to mind first.But also FTL drive or Jump Drive.Just because gravity waves are much faster than light already means lightspeed is not really a limit and hasn't been for a very long time.Why do you think superconductors were first developed by/for the military? ;)With no mass it is only a matter of the avilable energy how fast you can accelerate and what top speed you can reach....Or to be precise: How effiently you can create an insanely strong electromagnetic field.Make you wonder what else came from understanding what things like a Hedron Collider can do...With an estimated energy output equal to truck sized generator you could make it from Virginia to Mare Tranquillitatis in about 10 minutes.Make it 30 if you want to get out and stretch your legs when you are there.Some now say "I don't care who or why someone goes to the moon."But what about those who think climate change is real and how we produce and use energy plays a big role in it?Let alone those actually considering that fossil fuels might run out one day....If you have a gravity drive then you have a very neat way to create almost limitless, clean energy.....I leave it up to what it would mean if everyone and everything in our world would have access to free and virtually unlimited energy....Isn't it good that all this is just a nice story and that all is just fiction with no relation to reality?But if E does not equal mc² then how relative is our reality really?

Topic by Downunder35m    |  last reply


Why "Vortex" for Vortex math and devices?

If you are new to the topic then it might give you a slightly quicker understanding than watching hours of youtube videos.I assume you have seen these various coils that make a sphere shaped magnet spin at insane speeds.They are a good start.You see by normal understanding these Rodin or Vortex coils should not be able to produce a field that rotates that fast.As with a lot of things we tried to use math to explain it in theory and than adjusted the math to match it.Vortex math was born.So how do you explain blue and red to a blind person that never saw anything?I mean in a way they actually know how it would look if they could see?Doesn't work, but we can use a Dyson vacuum cleaner ;)A lot of "tornados" add up to one giant super tornado.Spinning so fast that "all" the dirst stays behind and only clean air comes out.As in nature all the weather cells add up to one that is more powerful than the combined single ones.The tornados that form the term vortex are around the coils.But also around the entire donut as well as every single strand of wire.In any good vortex the rotational speed increases towards the center and bottom of the vortex.You can try that with some floating stuff when you drain your bathtub or sink.Try to imagine and endless tornado that runs around every wire like a spiral.The coil itself adds another spin vector to it and increases the moving speed or the single tornado.Combined it adds up to a very strong tornadoe moving very fast around in the coil pack.As this also creates a rotating field like another tornado in the donut shape it all gets twisted up.Physics as we know it won't fully explain these effects.Vortex devices that produce electricity are usually coils in a special winding configuration and pattern.Like we try to eliminate certain things with basket coils in the HF area a Rodin or Vortex coil tries to utlise these otherwise unwanted stray effects and interferences.Overunity is another term people like to use here but I leave it up to you if such a things is phsically possible with an electrical system.Vortex math tries to explain all these things demonstrated in experiments.However I found two slight flaws in the common approch.1. Only two dimension used.Unlike the coils the simplified Vortex math only operates in two dimensions.A circle instead of a sphere if you like.2. Again, unlike the coil harmony and resonance are neglected.It seems in some cases people try to draw a circle just with straight lines.While in reality you have a never ending, resonant "stream" in three or to be precise four dimensions.Is it the chicken and egg problem?Yes and no.You can only calculate something if you can fully understand it or exactly replicate it in reality.Vortex coils are just way to interpret theories and get some sort of results.And those results are the real problem.We can measure magnatic fields in strenght and direction even frequency.However we can neither make them visible in real time not measure mixed or entangled fields properly.We "see" Mars is our "red planet" but in reality it just the atmosphere, the surface is not red at all in most places.NASA has enough problems to calculated missions to outer space with enough accuracy.Just imagine they would have to do it while considering that around every path our planets make is another spinning "distraction"....That is exactly what Vortex math tries to do while eliminating common math bit by bit.You can see and hear in 3 dimensions.Maybe you are also good in drawing something in 3D on your compterscreen or 3D headset.But how many here could predict the path of a baseball in 3D like they do when watching a game?Depending on your viewing angle you might be way off....Try to know or calculate where exactly the ball is at any given monet in time and how fast it spins in which direction.....Our brains are not trained to think like this!Even if we construct things like a dome we prefer to have straight features.Sure manufacturing is one thing that needs to be affordable.But try to just calculate the support structure if all is actually fully round like a sphere should be.We avoid what is considered higher dimensions as much we can.To calculate a distance in 3D it still seems easier to use two 2D models to add up instead of true vectors.Again only through technology like computer we are able to simulate, understand and actually calculate what we need.Where we ventured around the globe and into our solar system our math was left behind.Finding workaround and good enough approximations still seems the way to go.Instead actually evolving our math to our needs we just add more and more complex formulas and calculations.To fully understand vortex math you need to let go and start thinking in 4 dimensions instead of just 2.Oh, sorry, you might be new to this...Number 4 is time of course.

Topic by Downunder35m  


Which is more likely to work and which is more based on fact, the modified alcubeirre warp theory or the hiem hyperdrive Answered

Which is more likely to work, the alcubierre drive which allows for superluminal travel using a Jupiter's mass of energy or the superconducting gravito-photon effect that powers the theoretical hiem theory hyperdrive?

Question by amelius    |  last reply


Old Phone That Can Play Games? Ideas...

Hi guys, so I was recently talking with my friend Omar about random stuff, and (like always) our conversation somehow got really off track and we ventured into the history of old phones (Nokia 3310...breaking everything we touch since 2000). We somehow got to thinking about how old bar style phones could be useful for the making community. My thought (which I incidentally shouted out as loud as a human can go) was this: what if we could put a really basic game onto the phone? Would it be possible with the current hardware? Maybe...and the controls are there, most phones have a D-pad with 12 keys (which could be special function keys in the game). I was thinking of games along the line of Doom, or any old FPS game...but in retrospect, that would be ambitious, and to be practical, a stick man game would probably be the minimum.  So my questions are: a) would it be possible for the hardware on the phone to be wiped of all software and would it be good enough to support the code. b) is it even possible to reprogram the phone, or even get some sort of bootloader onto the device? Probably not. And if not, is there any other way to put a game or any file onto the phone's hardware... I guess that's it. In general, would it be possible, and if yes, could anybody give me a few starters so I could try to do it? Thanks, Ivan

Topic by IvanT3    |  last reply


Tesla's earthquake machine - was it just a practical joke?

Nicola tesla, in his early years, was not shy when it came to use science through direct contact.Most of it we would call today playing practical jokes on students and friends alike.His harmonic balancer got the nick name earthquake machine.I won't go into the story how all came together, you can read the story on Wikipedia or other sites to the fullest of your imagination.Howver, I would like to go into some details of this invention.Or better: I will try to explain my view on why this machine might have actually worked close to what the story tells....Studying old paents and other documents is no fun and not always you can reach any valid conclusions from any of it.I mean, if you coud then you wouldn't need a patent for it.Some things however are so good, so special that they never get a patent, the company keeps it as an iternal secret.Same way a brewery won't tell you the exact recipe for the beer they make ;)The harmonic balancer has very little to go with except stories and some comments Tesla scattered here and there.So let's start by some claims Tesla made about this machine:1. It has a free swinging mass.2. The mass is balanced using "air springs".3. It usues very little energy.4. It finds the harmonic frequency of the object attached to automatically.If you think about the above you could say right away it is bogus.But think about the terms and language of the old days ;)Add the fact that Tesla never really gave any direct answers to how his inventions actually work and you see where I am going here.Point 1 and 3 are easy to imagine in many ways.Number 2 on the other hand contradicts itself at a first glance.But, if you place a piston with a good mass and good seal into a cylinder nd close both ends while the piston is in the center....A bit like these to shake emergency torches and flashlights.With that idea in the back of a head one can imagine shock absorbers and more.And a "mass" "swinging" in such a sealed tube would certainly be subject to the "spring" force of the air being compressed in front and the forming low pressure on the other end.The last one however had me stumped for almost two years with me getting nowhere.A mechanical system can't adjust itself to the harmonic frequency of anything....Then I saw a collection of funny videos.One of the clips had about 100 metronomes standing on a board.The board was place on two rollers so it cold move freely from side to side.All the metronomes wre set to about the same timing.But of course you just can't start them all at once or even so they swing in sync.After just a short while though, one by one found a matching partner on the board.Faster ones slowed down, ones totally out of sync seemed to miss a beat here and there.And then it hit me!Hundret swinging masses on a board and the board moves together with them!Once all were in sync and harmony the board moved basically exactly the same way sidewas as the single pendulums above.Number four finally solved :)How though could one try to replicate this impossible invention these days and without knowing any exact details anyway?We know it used one or two electromagnets.These moved the mass back and forth horizontally in the machine.However, it was more formed like a T wih a fat base.Tesla needed a dead simple way of doing with electricity what the metronome does just mechanically.If you have a little mass on a spring and one contact on the spring plus another on a tube that is around the mass - what do you get?No, not the trigger for something really nasty when you pick it up...Right! You get a motion detecting switch.A bit like our gyroscopic sensors do now in our phones....And if you cut the tube lenghtwise you end with two opposing contact to switch two magnets on depending on what side of the tube is hit by the mass (contact) swining on the spring.Try it out with a spring from old pen and a screw inside as a weight - quite sensitive if you get the weight right.Some drawing suggest he height was about the same as the width of the machine.This would suggest the contact was actually hanging upside down, so it could swing in the wider base.A bit of fine and very flexible opper braid with a weight would make a nice pendulum here....Do a little experiment first though ;)Make a sturdy frame or if you have none try a truck. ;)If you place the frame on wheels and a pendulum with just a string and some sinker at the end - what would happen if you move th frame sideways instead of swinging the weight?Inertia keeps the weight in place while the top mount of the string moves away.And if the weight stays in place for just a fraction of a second before starting to move with the frame?Correct! since the angle of the string changes, the ball appeas to move up.Not really by much but enough for an electrical contact to open....We have some ideas now on how those electromagnets might have been triggered by Tesla, what about the mechanics of the moving mass that claimed to have created earthquake like results?Precision is no problem these days, just check these toy kits to build your own Stirling engine or you trusty old Swiss Army Knife.And even a second hand air cyclinder and piston can be modded to act like a free swinging air pump.Only question that really remains would be how to match the mechanical system with the electircal?We have two seemingly independent masses, one to make things move violently, the other to energise the part that make the first mass move - or to be precise to give it a tiny push in the right direction.What does mean you wonder...Let me try to simplify it down a bit.....If you push someone on a swing you can have a very hard time by working against the mass of the person sitting and enjoying the ride.Or you could give the person just a tiny push - right when the swing starts from the highest point to go back.Could that mean it is really as simple to build as Tesla claimed?If the top mass is limited by how far it can swing FREELY before the air pressure works against this movement then we would only have to set the length of the pendulum so the contact happens right at that point on the x-axis of the top mass.Ok, and how would that make anything swing at all?If the top mass is first energised there is nothing to stop or influence the movement, except the "air springs".So it totally overshoots like those metronomes on the board.It swings back and closes the contact on the other side of the movement way early as well.Now the electromagnetic impulse from the second movement actually works against the moving top mass.And this swinging of total non-control continues while whatever the thing is mounted to also starts to move, even if it is just fractional.Over time both swings, from the machine and the object, will get to point where they influence each other in a "positive" way.For Tesla's experiment one would say negative though as it was quite violent in the end.Little by little both swing will get closer to being in sync and with that in resonance.The electromagnetic push however continues....Only that now the top mass of the machine is in sync with the thing it is mounted to.The machine became you standing behind a big swing and trying push someone higher and higher....It is all just a theory though and any minor earthquakes that might register around my area are pure coincidence ;)

Topic by Downunder35m    |  last reply


Xylobands

Anyone  got any theories on how the xylobands work? Especially at the £3 a piece mark? www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxYjRx9fJgY

Topic by kelvinmead    |  last reply



Is it possible to create a magnetic difference engine using stirling theory? Instead of hot and cold can strong and weak Answered

I just got finished building a stirling engine using plans from instructables author: thecheatscalc published dec 17 2007. The stirling engine is a heat difference engine. Is it possible to create a magnetic difference engine using stirling theory? I was thinking instead of hot and cold north and south or strong and weak..?

Question by bazalaz    |  last reply



In theory, can you hook a turbocharger to the end of another turbo to make the 2nd turbocharger spin at a faster rate?

I need to know if you can hook a turbo to the output of another turbo so produce a faster rate and air flow, not for car so dont worry im not going to blow up my engine. Also wondering a couple other things car parts related while I am at it, how much force does it take to spin an alternator when its "on". i know that when the car is not on it free spins but once it is and does not have belt hooked to it it is hard if not impossible to turn by hand. thanks for the help.

Question by jobergy    |  last reply


Taylor Couette

Does anyone know how to make the Taylor-Couette apparatus (as illustrated here) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKrnM9uNXRw ?

Topic by piimapoika    |  last reply


Nova's Elegant Universe

Nova's Elegant Universe is a very well made scientific documentary about string theory. If any of you have been interested in The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene but don't have a chance to sit down and read something. This is for you.String theory is trying to unify our understanding of everything through one equation, if you think that is interesting then: Click here to watch the entire series // More Brian Green at TED here \\

Topic by lamedust    |  last reply


Can the human body be used as a battery?

My son and I are working on his science fair project which is to light a light bulb using a piece of copper pipe, a piece of galvanized pipe, and two wires with alligator clips to connect the light bulb.  The theory is that holding the two pipes in ones hands, the  body will create enough current to light the bulb.  We have not had any success yet.  Even wetting our hands had no noticeable affect.  Any ideas?  Is this a plausible theory?

Question by speedway1839    |  last reply


Air Compressor/Vacuum Pump

I have a theory: You have your supply of compressed air. You connect that by hose to one branch of a y-connector. The other branch is connected to a hose that goes into some sort of fluid that you want to move from one vessel to another. The trunk of the y is your exhaust (in theory). So now I give, say, 15 psi out of my air supply and that shoud drag my fluid out of its vessel through the y connector to the destination of my choosing. Would that work?

Topic by flagrantfouler    |  last reply


This is what happens when you're too lazy to buy a real webcam:

Not practical at all and in theory this was more expensive than buying a real webcam but it does work:

Topic by DJ Radio    |  last reply