wrote in :

It WAS transistor development that was pushed by the space race as tubes
are very heavy in comparison and use lots of power.


That was a typo. I have difficulty with sight after an hour or two looking at
text.

wrote in :

True, but none of that came from throwing the stuff up into space just
to see what would happen.


Do you think that 'experiment' is a switch, not a continuum? You write as if
it's either a forgone certainty, or total whimsy.

rickman wrote in :

Hmmm... All things emit energy according to their temperature and their
surface emissivity. All things also absorb energy according to their
surface emissivity. Both processes are going on at all times. So an
object loses or gains heat depending on its temperature and the
temperature of the environment. That delta temperature sets the rate
along with the surface emissivity.


Ok, that works for me. I guess the rate of change is exponential just as
energy loss in a fading note from a stretched string, roughly reaching
equilibrium when it can't lose more energy to ambient conditions.

About warming of superconductors out there, I may be wildly underestimating
the effect of a difference of 77K. What's I'd thought of was that if a
supeconductor can only operate at a very low temperature, its thermal
emission will be low; perhaps so low that it might take very little input
(from whatever, I know not what, and especially so if its emissivity is high
making absorbtion easy) to balance that and stop it staying cold enough. My
difficulty comes from not being sure whether a difference of 77K means the
same thing at cryogenic temperatures as it does around room temperature,
because it's not an infinite continuum of temperature. I was thinking that
because it is so cold, that small amounts of heat lost from other equipment,
might find their way to a superconductor and cause bother in the absence of
forced cooling. I can't really imagine any use of superconductors in space
that would not include the risk of local heat sources.

wrote in :

It would be called a scene from The Big Bang Theory; a speaker covered
with plastic wrap with a water and corn starch mixture.


That's no answer. It describes a method already decribed by me, not a result,
let alone a conclusion.

I've thought about it a bit though, last night waiting to sleep. I'm guessing
that the static patterns formed are not the standing wave itself, but
redistributions of the particles in the fluid into nodes in the wave due to
differences in pressure.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

I doubt the casual reader would give his muddled nonsense the time of day,
especially if they read the other stuff he posts.

Although you try to lay the blame at my door, there can be no doubt that
it is from your own keyboard that the gratuitous abuse originates.

On 11/3/2014 4:24 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote in :

It would be called a scene from The Big Bang Theory; a speaker covered
with plastic wrap with a water and corn starch mixture.


That's no answer. It describes a method already decribed by me, not a result,
let alone a conclusion.

I've thought about it a bit though, last night waiting to sleep. I'm guessing
that the static patterns formed are not the standing wave itself, but
redistributions of the particles in the fluid into nodes in the wave due to
differences in pressure.


Uh... "The Big Bang Theory" is a television show...

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m37qbe$pgl$1@dont-
email.me:

Uh... "The Big Bang Theory" is a television show...


I discovered that much. But only after I'd searched a bit for Faraday waves.

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m37qbe$pgl$1@dont-
email.me:

Uh... "The Big Bang Theory" is a television show...


Btw, I don't watch TV. I just got done telling the TV license people that
too. Every two years or so they decide not to beleive me despite the fact
that any time they visited over 15 years, the cut cable has been plastered by
the same old paint on the outside front wall every time. I'm fine with radio
(and first thought that Big Bang thing might have been a movie. I don't see
many of those either. The last several show series I have came off eBay on
disks.)

On 11/3/2014 8:53 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m37qbe$pgl$1@dont-
email.me:

Uh... "The Big Bang Theory" is a television show...


Btw, I don't watch TV. I just got done telling the TV license people that
too. Every two years or so they decide not to beleive me despite the fact
that any time they visited over 15 years, the cut cable has been plastered by
the same old paint on the outside front wall every time. I'm fine with radio
(and first thought that Big Bang thing might have been a movie. I don't see
many of those either. The last several show series I have came off eBay on
disks.)


I don't watch The Big Bang Theory, but I do enjoy some of the old shows.
The 60's "Man from U.N.C.L.E." is on Sunday nights now.

And we enjoy a movie now and then. At around $50 for two to go to a
movie (parking, admission, popcorn, drinks) here, we don't go to many
theater movies.

Although I wish we had seen "Gravity" in 3D. Saw it on HBO a couple of
weeks ago and, while I didn't think the story was that good, the special
effects were great. Would have been even better in 3D.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m38235$pqa$1@dont-
email.me:

Although I wish we had seen "Gravity"

I so want that one! It's one of the few on my imaginary list of must haves.
Add to that all the Doctor Who shows since series four of the new ones, plus
the Tom Baker and Jon Pertwee shows, and the last series of House. Last time
I saw a movie in a thetre, it was Matrix II (packed) and a week earlier,
Johnny English (empty but for two people other than me). Johnny English was
the better show.