/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5852826
Speak for yourself. I am full of shit, but I don't think I understand OP's question.

>>5852762
The kite is also trying to redirect the wind because of its angle of attack. The force from the low side ha more of an advantage than the force from the high side.

>>5852714
I'm really confused as to what you need to know. The kite "knows" nothing, but reacts to outside forces. The careful application of these forces cause the kite to "rise".

>>5852691
The force of the wind, the deflection of the wind by the flying surfaces of the kite, you holding the string, and gravity all come together to determine the direction the kite takes. Modify the direction of force of one of these, and the kite takes a different path.

>>5852670
If, somehow, the wind could blow from the sky to the Earth (off the edge of a cliff might might work), the kite would fly upside down.

>>5852655
No. The wind pushed the kite in one direction, and you holding the string is another force. Gravity is just another force acting on it. The average of all of these forces determine the direction. If the wind were blowing down, the kite would fly upside down.

>>5852645
Release any kite and the wind blows it in any direction the wind wants. It's the combined forces of the wind and you holding the string that determine the kites path.

You can't tell with certainty. The 5% failure can happen for multiple reasons that screw up any meaningful numbers. A certain amount of failure occurs through a defective product. Another type of failure is from the woman's chemistry. Taking two tests will help eliminate the errors of a defective product, but it's still the same woman with the same chemistry "error". This "error" will salt the data.

>>5848565
Does your mom count?

(I know, >>/b/ is that way. I'll find my way out...)

>>5848591
How many times did you need to repeat the experiment to come to a conclusion and build a standard model?

>>5836397
This is a really short and incomplete explanation, but is helpful in understanding it better.
A solar cell has two semiconductor materials in contact with each other. When light hits an electron, it physically bumps the electron over to the other semiconductor. The electron doesn't have the energy to jump back, so it has to go through the connecting wire, through your load, and back to where it came from.

>>5800745
This would probably go better in /diy/, but I'll try and answer here. Most of the core material in low frequency stuff can contain a lot of magnetic flux, but are also conductive. They're normally used in power transformers, AC motors, etc. The conductivity of the core wastes some of the energy. High frequency ferrites aren't conductive, but can't contain a large magnetic field. They saturate too easily, but at high frequencies they don't have the power loss and are able to handle high powers with little loss but only if they're running at a high frequency. Even the the little switching transformer has to have an air gap in one of its poles to reduce the inductance so a higher frequency can be used. This guy is a good read:
http://ludens.cl/Electron/Magnet.html

>>5782838
Solar cells behave differently than a real voltage source. They're more of a variable current source (current varies with amount of sunlight) in parallel with a zener diode (the zener is the open circuit voltage). If you look at a circuit designed to charge lead acid batteries, you'll find the regulating circuit tries to short out the solar cell. Since the cell operates as a current source, the "shorting" is actually better for the cell.

>>5776440
If I broke contract, that's something entirely different. Although I'm quite certain the religious fanatics have a backup plan in case reality doesn't suit them.

>>5776377
Only if I knowingly lied or used my position to influence a falsehood. With my work being open to all for review, the proof is not reliant on me alone, but on the force of many. Almost every one of these attempts to silence science have either wound up loosing in court, or settling without disclosure.

>>5776123
>The relay only reverses the current when energized.
>M1 selects forward or reverse on the relay.
>M2 is used to actually supply power to the motor (on/off)
>the purple resistors are used to interface the 12V switch signal into a 3V signal.
Also, the voltage regulator has the input/output wired backwards.
/DIY/ might be able to handle this better.

>>5776343
If all of my research is publicly available, and this research has been duplicated by others, They can sue me, but not win in the face of extraordinary evidence. I might even get money out of a counter-sue.

>>5776144
I'd do real scientific work, and prove nothing as expected and verified by other scientists.

>>5770871
OP said she tasted blueberry. She'll turn into a smigger.

>>5762187
I was once walking in a nearby forest. A tree fell right in front of me. It didn't make a sound.

>>5760508
TI 59. Have two, one for backup. I even have the TI 100C printer, but hardly use that.
(Image ripped from Google images)

>>5740139
Also, I think /DIY/ would better be able to handle this.

>>5740139
We're assuming the heater is purely resistive, with no reactance and no temperature coefficient.
What you want to do is first figure out the resistance of the heater. This resistance is the same no matter what voltage is applied. You'll use the resistance calculation for 230V and 5kW and apply that to the 101V to get the power dissipated at that voltage. The load current will change with voltage, so dividing 5kW by 230V won't work.

>>5726879
If aliens exist and they have the technology to reach Earth, I'm less worried if they're friend or foe, and more worried if they have the inability to think outside themselves. This sounds like a "hippie" thing to say, but an enemy or a friend can be dealt with, a creature that doesn't assume there could be intelligent life other than their own can't be reasoned with or defeated without causing 100% genocide of their race.