/sci/ - Science & Math

gaussian error propagation, look it up.

>>3209105
does it actually hold for every digit of sufficiently big datasets?

>>3138807
worst pcb design i have seen in a while.
hope it's not your work.

this.

willkommen in #sci.german @4chan.org?

>>3102645
but all he does is posting numbers without units.

then there's this guy >>3102478
if he's trolling he really got me bad, but that just doesn't make even the littlest sense.

what is this i don't even...

there is graphing calculator software available for ipods und android phones that is better in every aspect than TI crap.

>>3054525
hier regnet's nicht, auf dem herd köchelt soße für lasagne später und gleich kommt das beste was das fernsehen im ganzen jahr zu bieten hat :D

>>3054514
tun wir doch schon.

>>3054452
niemals für die theoretiker prostituieren :>

i'll chip in with this one:

<div class="math">
\frac{1}{e^{(-10(x-5)+1}}*((x-5)^2)
</div>

>>2813243
no.

>>2807050
also you could build something out of a transistor and a 12.6v z-diode (which is the basic version of the circuit inside 78XXs). to make it handle 48v input you need a transistor that can handle that voltage, which shouldn't be too hard to find if you need small output currents.

>>2807038
>> pic related, it's for a microphone preamp

there are DC-DC converters more elaborate than 7812s that will handle your job.
how much current do you need? is you output impedance constant?
if you need very little power a simple voltage divider might be sufficient.

fuck math, it's all about physics.
<div class="math">
- \frac{dE}{dx} = \frac{4 \pi nz^2}{m_{\rm e} c^2 \beta^2 } \cdot \left(\frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\right)^2 \cdot \left[\ln \left(\frac{2m_{\rm e} c^2 \beta^2}{I \cdot (1-\beta^2)}\right) - \beta^2\right]
</div>

morrow will go down against mighty chinro now.

thanks man!

yes.

maybe you should pick up a book that starts with treating forces as the vectors they are.
all of that trigonometry stuff only appears because you treat forces as scalars

>>2734247
yeah, go watch some more "what the "§$"% do we know"...

>>2734194
the higgs boson is not a quark.
we have indeed found all the six quarks the standard model predicts.

>>2734169
not quite, it actually means "we have made no observation that would suggest that it's made of smaller independent 'parts'"

atoms are made of the nucleus and the surrounding electrons.
the nucleus is made of protons and neutrons which are made of quarks. quarks have no known substructure.
electrons have no known substructure either.
quarks and electrons can be interpreted as excitations of a quantised field.
in some ways that's analogous to a wave on the ocean. the wave is made of water, but everything that is not the wave itself is made of water, too. it's the "shape" of the water that makes the wave exist.