Jerry Stuckle wrote:
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 Big Bang Theory is one of very few shows which actually get science
right.



--
Jim Pennino

wrote in message
...
On Monday, November 3, 2014 11:17:26 AM UTC-6, gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Monday, November 3, 2014 11:05:11 AM UTC-6, gareth wrote:
"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..
How many other people who are not engineers or scientists do you see
posting around here?

In discussions about short antennae, quite a few from Yankland.

I'm just a regular ole ham here. Never studied any of this stuff
in school, and don't work in any related field.
Everything I've learned, I learned on my own.

It shows.

Big talk from rraa's new purveyor of bafflegab

Read and learn a bit more.

On 2014-11-03 17:06:02 +0000, Lostgallifreyan said:

rickman wrote in :

It takes the same amount of heat to
raise a substance 1 degree at 77 °K as it does at room temperature.

Ok, but when I read (or hear on BBC radio science programs) that it takes FAR
more effort (energy) to pump from 2K to 1K than it does from 300K to 299K,
what am I supposed to make of that given what you just said?

That's energy to keep all the heat from the surrounding environment
out. In a system completely separated from hot material or radiation,
such as space, the energy is exactly the same, because of the way
temperature is defined.

--

Percy Picacity

On 11/3/2014 12:19 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
The ISS is the same. You don't see the rotation because the ISS is
stationary (rotation-wise) relative to the earth, and you are observing
the earth. But if the cameras were pointed into space, you would see
the stars move as the ISS rotates.

As I read this and pictured cameras pointed to the earth as the "space"
station orbits the earth while ignoring the vastness of *space*, it
seems to be that humanity is obsessed with selfies.

--

Rick

On 11/3/2014 1:07 PM, wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 11/2/2014 4:11 PM, wrote:
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote in news
The only external heat source in space is the Sun; solution, sun shade.


Maybe not. I just did a bit of Googling for 'superconductors in space' minus
quotes. There's a lot of statements abotu space missions ended because
required helium or hydrogen coolant ran out,

Yeah, the coolent ran out for the things that GENERATE a lot of heat
and need to be cooled more than radiation can provide. Radiative cooling
does not provide for a lot of cooling.

and also of space having latent
temperatures up to 100K, so a sun shade won't help a lot there with current
materials.

There really is no such thing as temperature in space as it is a vacuum.

That is a gross oversimplification. The temperature of space is the
temperature of the background radiation, even in a near vacuum.

That is also an simplification.

But not a gross oversimplification.

--

Rick

On 11/3/2014 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Monday, November 3, 2014 11:05:11 AM UTC-6, gareth wrote:
"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..
How many other people who are not engineers or scientists do you see
posting around here?

In discussions about short antennae, quite a few from Yankland.

I'm just a regular ole ham here. Never studied any of this stuff
in school, and don't work in any related field.
Everything I've learned, I learned on my own. Mainly from books,
of which I have several. I trust good textbooks a lot more than I
trust usenet jibber jabber. Usenet jibber jabber is only as good
as the qualifications of the one jabbering. Some info is good, some
is bad, and some is pure unadulterated bafflegab.

Will you do us *all* a favor and stop replying to him? You keep feeding
the tosser... er, I mean troll.

--

Rick

On 11/3/2014 12:31 PM, wrote:
On Monday, November 3, 2014 11:17:26 AM UTC-6, gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Monday, November 3, 2014 11:05:11 AM UTC-6, gareth wrote:
"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..
How many other people who are not engineers or scientists do you see
posting around here?

In discussions about short antennae, quite a few from Yankland.

I'm just a regular ole ham here. Never studied any of this stuff
in school, and don't work in any related field.
Everything I've learned, I learned on my own.

It shows.

Big talk from rraa's new purveyor of bafflegab... I've forgot more
than you know, and you can take that to the bank.

When you reply to him you are showing how ignorant you are no matter
what you say.

--

Rick

rickman wrote:
On 11/3/2014 1:07 PM, wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 11/2/2014 4:11 PM, wrote:
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote in news
The only external heat source in space is the Sun; solution, sun shade.


Maybe not. I just did a bit of Googling for 'superconductors in space' minus
quotes. There's a lot of statements abotu space missions ended because
required helium or hydrogen coolant ran out,

Yeah, the coolent ran out for the things that GENERATE a lot of heat
and need to be cooled more than radiation can provide. Radiative cooling
does not provide for a lot of cooling.

and also of space having latent
temperatures up to 100K, so a sun shade won't help a lot there with current
materials.

There really is no such thing as temperature in space as it is a vacuum.

That is a gross oversimplification. The temperature of space is the
temperature of the background radiation, even in a near vacuum.

That is also an simplification.

But not a gross oversimplification.

True.

Shall we go into why an ordinary thermometer exposed to the Sun at about
Earth's distance from the Sun allowed to stabilze will read the
tempurature of space as about 7 C and what are the unstated assumptions
for this to happen?



--
Jim Pennino

wrote in :

You write like a starry eyed dreamer that believes long established
principals are going to go away simply by putting something in space.


Actually, no. My point has more to do with establishing precedent, aimed at
getting a mass public interested, so that a commercial market exists with
practical ideas for use. Many of the things we use on Earth like reliable
ballpoint pens, velcro, would not have got the same degree of interest or
development. Being able to 'sell' space really helped get those things
established. To most people a superconductor is a 'what is it for?' thing. If
enough uses are found in a location that offers native cooling, like shaed in
space, it would likely drive interest on Earth, and result in a lot more
funding than the industry has now. That, as for new antibiotics, is needed to
increase the needed research for higher temperature superconductors. Unless a
mass public wants it enough to pay, it will happen only slowly, if at all,
and will join your list of neverneverland technical promoses of the previous
century. Dreams alone can't make it happen, but it will certainly never
happen without a mass desire to do it.

On 11/3/2014 12:06 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
rickman wrote in :

It takes the same amount of heat to
raise a substance 1 degree at 77 °K as it does at room temperature.

Ok, but when I read (or hear on BBC radio science programs) that it takes FAR
more effort (energy) to pump from 2K to 1K than it does from 300K to 299K,
what am I supposed to make of that given what you just said?

Ok, I'll grant that few who have not had thermodynamics really
understand heat. Thermo was not an easy part of the curriculum in
school. The reason why cooling something gets harder as it approaches
absolute zero is because the heat flow is proportional to the difference
in temperature. Even if your pump is perfect and acts as if you put the
thing being cooled in contact with a heat sink at 0 °K, the rate of heat
flow decreases as that temperature delta diminishes.

The reality is that thinking 77 °K is especially cold is a bit of an
exaggeration. Yes, it is cold by human experience, but in the world of
cryogenics it is just a step stool to board the rocket. Thinking that
any little heating effect would warm a high temperature superconductor
is thinking with your feelings and not your brain. Not that we don't
all do that. But you need more experience with this stuff to let your
instinct guide you.

--

Rick