Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
DeadlyAztec11
One-Armed Bandits Atrocitas
64
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 09:16:00 -
[31] - Quote
There has been approximately 250,000 rounds wasted per insurgent kill, throughout the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This has been... Your fact of the day. |
Mister Porter
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 13:16:00 -
[32] - Quote
The word GÇ£testisGÇ¥ (testes, plural) shares the same root as GÇ£testifyGÇ¥ and comes from the Latin, meaning GÇ£witness.GÇ¥ This is perhaps because of the ancient Roman practice of a manGÇÖs bearing witness or GÇ£testifyingGÇ¥ by holding his testis as he spoke.
This has been your fact of the day....
|
5aEKUXeRJGJ27kCDnDVYak4q
Intara Direct Action Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 13:50:00 -
[33] - Quote
You can't lick your elbow, nor the back of your knee. |
Lord-of-the-Dreadfort
The Lions Guard
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 15:38:00 -
[34] - Quote
5aEKUXeRJGJ27kCDnDVYak4q wrote:You can't lick your elbow, nor the back of your knee.
well i'll be damned
(damn those cats, bunch of show offs) |
XxWarlordxX97
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1461
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 16:34:00 -
[35] - Quote
Lord-of-the-Dreadfort wrote:5aEKUXeRJGJ27kCDnDVYak4q wrote:You can't lick your elbow, nor the back of your knee. well i'll be damned (damn those cats, bunch of show offs)
you scare me |
Lord-of-the-Dreadfort
The Lions Guard
31
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 17:18:00 -
[36] - Quote
XxWarlordxX97 wrote:Lord-of-the-Dreadfort wrote:5aEKUXeRJGJ27kCDnDVYak4q wrote:You can't lick your elbow, nor the back of your knee. well i'll be damned (damn those cats, bunch of show offs) you scare me
gooooood, very good
also can't touch you ear with your elbow |
5aEKUXeRJGJ27kCDnDVYak4q
Intara Direct Action Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 17:43:00 -
[37] - Quote
Every year about 98% of the atoms in your body are replaced. |
XxWarlordxX97
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1461
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 17:52:00 -
[38] - Quote
Lord-of-the-Dreadfort wrote:XxWarlordxX97 wrote:Lord-of-the-Dreadfort wrote:5aEKUXeRJGJ27kCDnDVYak4q wrote:You can't lick your elbow, nor the back of your knee. well i'll be damned (damn those cats, bunch of show offs) you scare me gooooood, very good also can't touch you ear with your elbow
does not mean I will not shot you |
DeadlyAztec11
One-Armed Bandits Atrocitas
65
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 17:18:00 -
[39] - Quote
Your brain uses the same amount of electricity as a ten watt lightbulb.
This has been... Your fact of the day. |
XxWarlordxX97
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1481
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 17:21:00 -
[40] - Quote
DeadlyAztec11 wrote:Your brain uses the same amount of electricity as a ten watt lightbulb.
This has been... Your fact of the day.
Hm |
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Bojo's School of the Trades
1260
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 17:25:00 -
[41] - Quote
Lord-of-the-Dreadfort wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Lord-of-the-Dreadfort wrote:DeadlyAztec11 wrote:modern gun will fire in space. This is due to modern primers being air sealed, as well as containing an oxidizer, which gives the explosion in the primer enough fuel to get to the gun powder and shoot the bullet. A musket would most likely not work due to the absence of an oxidizer, though theoretically possible, the concept would work better on paper then in practice. Though to reiterate; modern gun will have no problem functioning in a vacuum such as space.
This has been... Your fact of the day. so the minnmatar ships COULD work My main doubt doesn't have to do with firing- it's that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. With the lack of friction in space, an autocannon could propel a ship backwards. they have engines........ They would still slow down- and the engines would have to be able to make up for every direction the turrets fire in. |
Scheneighnay McBob
Bojo's School of the Trades
1260
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 17:26:00 -
[42] - Quote
5aEKUXeRJGJ27kCDnDVYak4q wrote:You can't lick your elbow, nor the back of your knee. I can lick my elbow (shoulder sortof pops). Haven't tried my knee. |
XxWarlordxX97
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1481
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 17:50:00 -
[43] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:5aEKUXeRJGJ27kCDnDVYak4q wrote:You can't lick your elbow, nor the back of your knee. I can lick my elbow (shoulder sortof pops). Haven't tried my knee.
what is wrong with you people!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Artificer Ghost
Bojo's School of the Trades
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 18:45:00 -
[44] - Quote
Its not really amazingly hard to lick either the back of your knee or your elbow...
-Licks elbow- Tastes like bacon. :D |
slypie11
Planetary Response Organisation
165
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 19:22:00 -
[45] - Quote
none of you atoms are actually connected. If they ever touched, you would explode. |
slypie11
Planetary Response Organisation
165
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 19:23:00 -
[46] - Quote
In theory, and atomic bomb would create a domino effect, destroying every atom on earth. Thankfully, the effect seems to wear off. |
XxWarlordxX97
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1482
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 19:30:00 -
[47] - Quote
Cool story |
Lord-of-the-Dreadfort
The Lions Guard
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 19:49:00 -
[48] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Lord-of-the-Dreadfort wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Lord-of-the-Dreadfort wrote:DeadlyAztec11 wrote:modern gun will fire in space. This is due to modern primers being air sealed, as well as containing an oxidizer, which gives the explosion in the primer enough fuel to get to the gun powder and shoot the bullet. A musket would most likely not work due to the absence of an oxidizer, though theoretically possible, the concept would work better on paper then in practice. Though to reiterate; modern gun will have no problem functioning in a vacuum such as space.
This has been... Your fact of the day. so the minnmatar ships COULD work My main doubt doesn't have to do with firing- it's that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. With the lack of friction in space, an autocannon could propel a ship backwards. they have engines........ They would still slow down- and the engines would have to be able to make up for every direction the turrets fire in.
23 thousands in the future, shut up! |
Lord-of-the-Dreadfort
The Lions Guard
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 19:50:00 -
[49] - Quote
Artificer Ghost wrote:Its not really amazingly hard to lick either the back of your knee or your elbow...
-Licks elbow- Tastes like bacon. :D
careful, may eat your elbow |
Lord-of-the-Dreadfort
The Lions Guard
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 19:50:00 -
[50] - Quote
slypie11 wrote:none of you atoms are actually connected. If they ever touched, you would explode.
da ****? |
|
XxWarlordxX97
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1490
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 19:52:00 -
[51] - Quote
Lord-of-the-Dreadfort wrote:Artificer Ghost wrote:Its not really amazingly hard to lick either the back of your knee or your elbow...
-Licks elbow- Tastes like bacon. :D careful, may eat your elbow
okay |
Lord-of-the-Dreadfort
The Lions Guard
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 04:44:00 -
[52] - Quote
XxWarlordxX97 wrote:Lord-of-the-Dreadfort wrote:Artificer Ghost wrote:Its not really amazingly hard to lick either the back of your knee or your elbow...
-Licks elbow- Tastes like bacon. :D careful, may eat your elbow okay
i got permission
om nom nom nom nom |
Scottie MaCallan
Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 06:00:00 -
[53] - Quote
fact of the day from the future (Japan time):
glass gradually degrades when in contact with air, the speed at which this happens (which is pretty slow regardless) depends on the formula used in the batch. Lots of older glasswork suffers from pretty dramatic degradation, and in museums sometimes you can notice a fine white dust on the base of the display. This can be observed even in modern glass batches (which are more consistent and more resilient generally), especially when the glass is first removed from the annealer, or if it breaks. When it's first removed from the annealer, it will make a squeaky noise when rubbed against another piece of glass, this is because the surface is still rough (although not observably so), it will stop making the noise shortly. Freshly broken glass has a microscopically sharp edge, which quickly degrades, becomes ever so slightly blunt. |
JL3Eleven
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
339
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 06:04:00 -
[54] - Quote
Scottie MaCallan wrote:fact of the day from the future (Japan time):
glass gradually degrades when in contact with air, the speed at which this happens (which is pretty slow regardless) depends on the formula used in the batch. Lots of older glasswork suffers from pretty dramatic degradation, and in museums sometimes you can notice a fine white dust on the base of the display. This can be observed even in modern glass batches (which are more consistent and more resilient generally), especially when the glass is first removed from the annealer, or if it breaks. When it's first removed from the annealer, it will make a squeaky noise when rubbed against another piece of glass, this is because the surface is still rough (although not observably so), it will stop making the noise shortly. Freshly broken glass has a microscopically sharp edge, which quickly degrades, becomes ever so slightly blunt.
I've been told (dont know if true) that glass was considered a liquid and if you went to an old abandoned building and looked at the glass you would see that the bottom is thicker than the top portion. |
Scottie MaCallan
Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 06:24:00 -
[55] - Quote
Glass would still be considered a solid at that temperature, although you are sort of right, it's amorphous, meaning it lacks the strong structure of crystalline solid and such. So theoretically given thousands of years (maybe more), you would be able to observe such a change. It would be dependent on the structure of the glass, and the ambient temperature/amount of heat it absorbs on average. Amorphous solids all have a deformation temperature (forget the proper name), as well as a melting point. For glass, this is around 900 F, so not reachable in daily circumstances, so it probably wouldn't deform from heat (also, fire = shattered windows, not melted). But if the bonds between the molecules aren't ideal (angle, etc.) it would be possible for them to shift. It's definitely over-exaggerated though, so I'd say no, it is definitely not a liquid, and no, you can't just find an antique window and have it be thicker at the bottom. Although theoretically the molecules could end up shifting around some, it would take far too long to be measured by our eyes.
coincidentally, our annealers start at around 900 degrees F (plateau there for a little bit), and slowly bring the glass down to room temperature. and not in a strictly linear pattern. they stop at certain temperature plateaus to allow the stress to seep out of the glass so it is stronger when removed from the annealer. I think one of the peaks is around 400 F but I forget the rest. |
JL3Eleven
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
339
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 06:37:00 -
[56] - Quote
Scottie MaCallan wrote:Glass would still be considered a solid at that temperature, although you are sort of right, it's amorphous, meaning it lacks the strong structure of crystalline solid and such. So theoretically given thousands of years (maybe more), you would be able to observe such a change. It would be dependent on the structure of the glass, and the ambient temperature/amount of heat it absorbs on average. Amorphous solids all have a deformation temperature (forget the proper name), as well as a melting point. For glass, this is around 900 F, so not reachable in daily circumstances, so it probably wouldn't deform from heat (also, fire = shattered windows, not melted). But if the bonds between the molecules aren't ideal (angle, etc.) it would be possible for them to shift. It's definitely over-exaggerated though, so I'd say no, it is definitely not a liquid, and no, you can't just find an antique window and have it be thicker at the bottom. Although theoretically the molecules could end up shifting around some, it would take far too long to be measured by our eyes.
coincidentally, our annealers start at around 900 degrees F (plateau there for a little bit), and slowly bring the glass down to room temperature. and not in a strictly linear pattern. they stop at certain temperature plateaus to allow the stress to seep out of the glass so it is stronger when removed from the annealer. I think one of the peaks is around 400 F but I forget the rest.
I've observed it in glass that was in old houses from around the 1900's so not thousands of years lol. I believe you can tap on it to also hear the difference.
So are you a glass blower/maker? |
Scottie MaCallan
Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 06:44:00 -
[57] - Quote
Yea, I'm a student, I mainly do casting and furnace work. and no offense, but if you have, it's probably from the manufacturing process (it's very possible that older techniques could produce uneven float-glass, or that it wasn't cut or cold worked perfectly), seriously, look into amorphous solids & glass transition (the term for when an amorphous solid transitions into a slightly viscous phase). The idea doesn't mesh with the observed characteristics of the material. Any silica or soda-lime based glass won't deform significantly until it gets close to 1000 F. The only possible exception would be if the bonds were not at ideal angles, there's a relatively small range, if the bond isn't somewhere around a 140 degree angle, it very well could deform slightly. But that's a process that would take much much longer than heat deformation.
here's a good explanation of the myth, with citations from academic papers on the characteristics of glass, in case you're still not sure |
JL3Eleven
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
339
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 06:50:00 -
[58] - Quote
Scottie MaCallan wrote:Yea, I'm a student, I mainly do casting and furnace work. and no offense, but if you have, it's probably from the manufacturing process (it's very possible that older techniques could produce uneven float-glass, or that it wasn't cut or cold worked perfectly), seriously, look into amorphous solids & glass transition (the term for when an amorphous solid transitions into a slightly viscous phase). The idea doesn't mesh with the observed characteristics of the material. Any silica or soda-lime based glass won't deform significantly until it gets close to 1000 F. The only possible exception would be if the bonds were not at ideal angles, there's a relatively small range, if the bond isn't somewhere around a 140 degree angle, it very well could deform slightly. But that's a process that would take much much longer than heat deformation. here's a good explanation of the myth, with citations from academic papers on the characteristics of glass, in case you're still not sure
I belive you. I just remember being in an old house that once belonged to one of my relatives and my aunt pointed it out to me. Thanks for the clarification. BTW it most likely was made poorly considering the times and the house was off in the country. |
Scottie MaCallan
Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 06:55:00 -
[59] - Quote
yea, glass is fun, it does weird things. this is one of my favorite weird things it does. |
slypie11
Planetary Response Organisation
172
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 07:04:00 -
[60] - Quote
that is really cool |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |