Question

my complete physics Journal
Intersting things!\Give Medals if you like it!

Answer 1

There is a legend that the sunken ships in the ocean do not go to the bottom and hang at a certain depth, traveling as underwater "The Flying Dutchman", together with the ocean currents. Jules Verne in his novel "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" even described the hanging motionless in the water wreck, and wrecks allegedly rot, hanging freely in the water.
Is this true, or ships still reach the bottom? The water pressure in the depths of the ocean really is enormous quantities. At a depth of 10 m water presses with force of 10 N per 1 cm2 of the body immersed at a depth of 100 m - 0.1 kN and 1000 m - 1 kN and t. D. Ocean may also have a depth of a few kilometers, reaching the deepest Pacific more than 11 km. You can calculate the tremendous pressure should experience water and floating in her body at these depths.
If an empty bottle stoppered lowered to a great depth, and then remove again, we find that the water pressure to drive the plug inside the bottle. Being sealed tight, this bottle will be crushed by water pressure. Experiments are carried out and confirmed it. Pieces of wood to a depth of 5 km, after removing the surface were so compacted that drowned in the water. At the depth of the Mariana Trench - 11.5 km - pressure reaches almost 120 MPa. It is believed that a firearm dropped to such a depth (of course, if there is no damage mechanism, the water will not penetrate into the charge, and so on. N.), You can not shoot. This view is reflected in popular books on physics and the author even seen drawing a gun that was lying on the ocean floor, and when fired from a bullet never flew.
So, the pressure in the barrel when fired from a cannon up to 400 MPa, from the machine - 270 MPa, at the gun - a little less, depending on its type. So this weapon can shoot. The only question is, whether the bullet will fly out of the barrel. It was then, not so easy to answer. At the end of the shot barrel pressure drops sharply, in some cases it may be lower than 120 MPa. But it's when the bullet flies, and gunpowder burns. If the bullet tightly clog the barrel, it is unknown to what the value of the pressure rise - in fact a powder continues to burn out. In the air with bullets wedges of the barrel is broken, especially in hunting rifles. In the water at a pressure barrel does not break, and the question of whether the bullet will fly out of the barrel or not is an open question ...
They say that such enormous pressure so condense water that ships and other heavy objects in it will hang and will not sink, such as iron floats in mercury. However, this opinion is not justified. Experience has shown that water, like all fluids, little compressible. Subjected to a pressure of 0.1 MPa water is compressed only 1/22 of all 000 of its volume and share of approximately also continues to contract with a further increase in pressure. If we wanted to squeeze the water to a density such that it floated iron, it would be necessary to seal it 8 times. Meanwhile, to seal only twice, that is, reducing the volume by half, you need a pressure of 1 100 MPa or 1.1 GPa (1.1 x 109 Pa). This corresponds to a depth of 110 km below sea level, which can not be!
English physicist Tait made an interesting calculation that if gravity suddenly stopped and the water became weightless, the water level in the ocean would rise by an average of 35 m, due to the fact that the compressed water turned to normal volume. Ocean flooded would at the same time a huge area of land in 5 000 000 km2!
In the deepest part of the ocean water is condensed by 5%. It almost can not affect the sailing conditions in its various bodies, especially as solid objects immersed in this water are also subject to this pressure and, consequently, also sealed.
Therefore, many scientists, including J. Perelman, concluded that "there can be no doubt that wrecks lie on the ocean floor." Leaves no chance for even inverted keel up ships. Here he writes about it JI Perelman:
"I have heard this objection. If carefully dip the glass upside down in the water, he could stay in this position, because it will displace a volume of water weighs the same as a glass. Heavier metallic glass can be kept in a similar position and below the water level, not sinking to the bottom. Similarly, can stop halfway up the keel and capsized cruiser or another vessel. If in some areas of the vessel will be air tightly locked, the ship will sink to a certain depth and stay there.
Because not enough ships goes to the bottom upside down, and it is possible that some of them did not reach the bottom, left hanging in the dark depths of the ocean. It would be easy enough thrust to bring such a ship out of balance, flip, fill it with water and make fall to the bottom, but where will the tremors in the depths of the ocean, where reigns eternal peace and quiet and where not penetrate even the echoes of storms?
All these arguments are based on a physical error. Inverted glass is not immersed in water itself - it must be an external force is immersed in water, like a piece of wood or empty stoppered bottle. Similarly, the ship capsized keel up does not begin to sink, but will remain on the surface of the water. Be halfway between sea level and its bottom, he can not. "
The author believes that a serious scientist should leave at least "the slightest doubt" what else. Especially the view that "hung" vehicles share many sailors. The fact that vehicles are often sealed compartments. And if these compartments are not damaged and there is air in them, it is not compressed by water pressure, keeping the same volume. Therefore, the vehicle having an overall density higher than the density of the surface ocean water (almost always less dense - and because of the higher temperature and lower salinity) begins to sink, and when it reaches the cold (a temperature of deep ocean +4 ° C, the density its maximum) and more saline its layers, hangs indefinitely.

Answer 2

In some cases there is one interesting thing .......................

I must say that in any gas (eg, air) and the law of Archimedes also works. There is actual comic question: What is heavier - 1 t 1 t of iron or wood? Without thinking, usually meet that 1 ton of iron is heavier; thought, say 1 m - it is 1 m and a weight of 1 ton of iron, wood, and what else is the same.
But YI Perelman argues that the harder it will be 1 ton of wood. Here is how he proves it:
"The fact that Archimedes' principle applies not only to liquids, but also to gases. Every body in the air "loses" of its weight as much as the body weight of the displaced volume of air.
Wood and iron, too, of course, lose in the air of their weight. To get their true weight, you need to "loss" to add. Therefore, the true weight of the tree in this case is 1 m + air volume weight of wood; the true weight of the iron is 1 m + weight of the air in the amount of iron.
However, one of the tree T occupies a much larger volume than 1 ton of iron (15 times), so the true weight of the tree T 1 greater than the true weight of 1 t iron! More precisely, we would have to say, the true weight of the tree which is in the air weighs 1 ton, more than the true weight of iron, which weighs in the air as 1 ton.
Since 1 ton of iron occupies a volume m3 1.8 and 1 ton of wood - 2 m3, the difference in the weight of the displaced air should be about 2.5 kg. That's how one ton of wood actually heavier than 1 ton of iron! "

Answer 3

Really! If weighed in a vacuum a ton of iron (4.1 cu ft) would weight about 1999.7 lbs A ton of wood (about 50 cu.ft.) would weigh about 1996 lbs. the density of air is about .08 lbs/cu.ft.

Answer 4

yeah

Answer 5

OOPS I just realized that I made a mistake the wood occupying more space is bouyed by a greater force in air than in iron. So the result should be that 1 ton of iron in a vacuum would weigh 2000.3 lbs and 1 ton of wood would weight 2004 lbs. Sorry

Answer 6

yeah correct

Answer 7

Chapter 1 Section 3

Answer 8

This is not a joke and not a hoax. Indeed, the most economical and environmentally friendly oven (for example, to heat homes) - a refrigerator. Normal home, better unpowered (he called difficult - Absorption), such sold under the name "Rime" or "Frost". He is quiet and will serve 100 years. Stove, of course. Here is how the author himself was convinced that the refrigerator can work perfectly stove, and in something other, is also useful for the mind and the right on the farm.
Once the author presented an unusual refrigerator seems to "borrow" from the ship. This refrigerator unit was split: the motor, the compressor and the heat exchanger - one node, and an evaporator, or otherwise - freezer, - the other connected to the first long copper tubes. In this case, the author has set the freezer in the kitchen cool products, and power unit with a heat exchanger rumbled in the closet.
For a month "dialogue" with the refrigerator author made an amazing discovery. It turns out that the temperature in the kitchen was lower than in the other rooms, and a closet with a heat exchanger was a real sauna. At the same time should be removed from the freezer and chilled products provide a new, more "warm" (especially beer bottles and water) as a heat exchanger literally glowed.
On the contrary, if it starts to cool the heat exchanger, for example, blowing fan, food in the freezer cooled much faster. Especially much he started to freeze if hung on the heat exchanger wet towel.
One author of an experiment set heat exchanger in a tub of cold water. And the water fast enough hot. Heating the water, the author observed the electricity meter, and this observation is quite shocked him.
Heat the heat exchanger is the same amount of water in various ways. When you just put in the freezer "warm" product energy consumption will be minimal. When you have this flow of chilled products increased. If you heat water kettle, power consumption will be the biggest. Did the author and "deadly" for refrigerator experience by putting the pan in the freezer to boiling water. The energy consumption for heating the water in the heat exchanger appeared several times smaller than a kettle.
Upon reflection, the author has done for a number of useful conclusions on the farm.

Answer 9

The search for "energy capsule" made me get acquainted with such a mysterious phenomenon of nature, Ball lightning. In truth, no one yet knows exactly drive it or not. But I'm with some degree of risk still decided to consider a Ball lightning energy accumulator.
Here is a brief those characteristics of ball lightning, which are made by scientists on the basis of a large number of eyewitnesses: the energy contained in the lightning - from 0.1 to 4 kWh; lifetime - from several seconds to minutes; weight - from 0.5 to 50 g; density - from 0.0013 to 0.015 g / cm3.
Of course, ball lightning has other characteristics, such as the power of light, speed and so on. D., But I was primarily interested in accumulating its properties.
In total, the scientists collected several thousand descriptions of ball lightning, of course, differ from each other. But particularly noteworthy so-called "experience with a barrel" described an English professor BL Goodlet. Nobody planned this experiment, just the circumstances were so successful that the professor was even able to fairly accurately calculate the internal energy (energy intensity) of ball lightning.
Thunderball size of a large orange (10-15 cm diameter) flew into the house through a window in the kitchen and was in a barrel of water. The owner of the house, with fear waiting isolation, noticed that the water in the barrel, recently brought from the well, boils. Soon the water ceased to boil, and after 20 minutes it was impossible to immerse the arm. Thunderball, expending all the energy to boil water, disappeared without a bang. It seems that it is within a few minutes under water, because it could not be seen.
In barrel placed about 16 liters of water, so the energy required for boiling it should be from 1 to 3.5 kWh. In fact, the energy of lightning was probably even more so on the way to the keg lightning burned a telegraph wires and scorched the window frame.
Professor BL Goodlet defined as the energy density of lightning. Knowing the approximate amount of ball lightning - about a liter and taking as the average density of 0.01 g / cm3, and he got a lot of '10 This is typical of the fireball mass within 0.5-50, the energy density of lightning was, respectively, 100 kW · h, or 360 MJ / kg, ie a fireball hundreds and thousands of times the energy density electrochemical batteries best!
"Experience with a barrel" was not a single. Fireballs hit the tanks, cans and other containers are always accompanied by boiling liquids contained therein. Just "experience with a barrel of" authentically described by Professor BL Goodlet, most scientists analyzed in detail.
American researcher Harold W. Lewis suggested that if the volume of ball lightning was filled with napalm or jelly gasoline, the energy napalm ball would be equal to the energy of the ball lightning. However, the energy density in this case is several times smaller - about 50 MJ / kg, but in general it is very much!
Of the many attempts to explain the nature of ball lightning while none received final recognition. To me, the most interesting shows two opposing hypotheses. According to the first, put forward in the nineteenth century by the famous French scientist Dominique Arago, ball lightning - a special compound of nitrogen and oxygen, and that the interaction energy is spent on the creation of ball lightning. The same view is taken French astronomer and physicist Mathias, who believed that the energy of the ball lightning - "lightning matter" - four times more than the energy of the same bowl filled with nitroglycerin.
Unfortunately, these compounds chemists have not been able to establish, though, as can be judged according to some reports, it hopes they do not lose. Assure that the burning artificial "thunderstorm matter" in its effect will be little different from the explosion of ball lightning.
The famous Soviet physicist Frenkel, a supporter of the first hypothesis, considered fireball spheroid swirl mixture of particles of dust or fumes from reactive (due to electrical discharge) gases. A ball-vortex, scientists insist, is capable of independent existence for a long period. Indeed, according to the observations of ball lightning occurs mainly in the electric discharge in a dusty air and leaves behind a haze with a sharp odor.
Scientists recently discovered phenomenon of chemiluminescence again aroused interest in the first hypothesis of occurrence of ball lightning. Some researchers argues that ball lightning is not nothing but a chemiluminescent education (Chloe), which is also observed in the dusty air.
One way or another, but this hypothesis, according to which all the energy of the ball lightning is within the system itself, I liked more than others. Maybe because it allows us to consider a fireball energy storage.
Quite the opposite point of view on the origin of ball lightning was Academician Kapitsa. First of all, it considers unacceptable the first hypothesis, since it allegedly contradicts the law of conservation of energy. "If in nature - writes Kapitza, - there are no sources of energy, yet unknown to us, on the basis of the law of conservation of energy we have to accept that at the time of ball lightning glow continuously supplied energy, and we have to look for this source of energy is volume of ball lightning. "
At the same time, Kapitza refers to the so-called "flashing", ie termination radiance of ball lightning. Decay time shining the ball is directly proportional to its diameter. Experimental nuclear explosions showed that fiery cloud diameter of 150 m is displayed for about 10 seconds. Consequently, the fireball diameter of 10 cm (most likely its size) will be displayed in just 0.01 seconds!
Based on this, Kapitza believes that fireball, the existing thousands of times longer than the estimated time, nourish the radio waves coming from outside, mainly in length from 35 to 70 cm. The explosion of ball lightning is explained by the sudden cessation of supply of energy (for example, if the frequency changes dramatically electromagnetic waves) and is a simple "collapse" of thin air.
Although the hypothesis Kapitza found an ardent supporter, much of it does not match the observations. Firstly, the radio waves in the range of 35-70 cm, appearing as a result of atmospheric discharges modern radios are not fixed. Secondly, this theory does not correspond to "experience with a barrel", described by Professor BL Goodlet. The fact that water is almost insurmountable obstacle for radio waves. Even if their energy is transferred to the water instantly, it did not cause any significant heating it.
The problem is obtained and with the explosion of ball lightning. It is well known that this explosion can cause great destruction. Thunderball easily breaketh in contact a thick log, dragged along the ground heavy objects, turns the tractor makes other "power" tricks. The explosion of lightning, often deafening, able to smash to pieces of solid objects. There was even a case where the fireball "plunged" into the river and exploded there, holding up a huge water fountain. "Collapse" is a fireball in its effect would be like most sound bursting rubber balloon.
As for the highlight, which is cited as the main argument of the critics of the hypothesis of the internal energy of ball lightning, the duration it is not contrary to the law of conservation of energy on the assumption that the energy is transferred to the glow immediately, but gradually. If the internal energy of ball lightning as the battery is released slowly, the glow can last long enough. For example, light gas acetylene, taken in a volume of 1 liter, is burned in the air for several tens of seconds, thus forming bright luminescence intensity is commensurate with the power of light fireball. But the substance of ball lightning can conceal energy and a hundred times more. Therefore seemed to me more plausible first

Answer 10

wow omg! u are an awesome writing omg! medal medal for youuuuuuuuuuuuu

Answer 11

thx

Answer 12

Very well written, good job :)

Answer 13

you already read this all?

Answer 14

in a few seconds?

Answer 15

thx anyways

Answer 16

I've been here for a couple minutes...

Answer 17

well sorry then

Answer 18

haha, all good ;p

Answer 19

looks great well done :D

Answer 20

great job
i didn't read all of that i'll might be finish this after 4 months :D
but good job :)

Answer 21

thx everybody
i want responding b\c i was sussssssssss........

Answer 22

@Loser66 @iambatman @sleepyjess @sammixboo @AnswerMyQuestions

Answer 23

Engines:
But be that as it may, the vast majority of modern heat engines - internal combustion engine. They are in cars and tractors, motorcycles, farm machinery, most ships and you never know where yet, even on airplanes.
How did they arise? Makes many unsuccessful attempts to create an engine, in which fuel is not burned working volume of the machine (cylinder), like the steam engine, and inside it. This was to dramatically increase the efficiency of a heat engine. The first such attempt belongs to the Frenchman Le Bon (1769 (67) - 1804) - inventor of illuminating gas, the engine on which he patented in 1801
But in 1860, the Belgian engineer Jean Lenoir (1822-1900) managed to create a workable and used in an internal combustion engine industry, too, coal gas. Do not be surprised, but at the gas produced by heating wood without air (thermolysis), invented in 1799 Lebon, worked some Soviet trucks 40 - 50-ies. The twentieth century.
Manufactured Lenoir engine resembled a steam engine (Fig. 273). The engine was a spool valve. One of the spools (lower) alternately provided air supply and gas in the cylinder space located on opposite sides of the piston. A second spool (top) served to exhaust. Gas and air before it enters the cylinder is not compressed and the spool is supplied through separate channels. Suction mixture into each cavity to place approximately half way, and then overlaps the inlet port valve, and the mixture is ignited by a spark. The pressure of the burnt mixture increases and act on the piston, producing work of expansion. After closure of the second expansion valve between the cylinder with the exhaust pipe, and exhaust piston displacing gazy.Vraschalsya Lenoir engine with a frequency of about 100-150 revolutions per minute, its thickness was about 0.5 kW. However, the efficiency was only 3%, m. E. Less than the then steam engines. Still, these engines built in France and England about 300, and the exhibition in 1864 Étienne Lenoir was awarded first place.
Nevertheless, after the invention of the motor and N. Otto E. Lang and his demonstration at the Paris exhibition in 1867, the engine Lena-ara was doomed. New engine efficiency was 5 times more and reached 15% - figures while unheard. While these and subsequent N. Otto engines were built on the capacity to 1,000 horsepower, they worked again on gas - illuminating, domain et al., T. E. They had no place on the cars.
But the thing that made Otto N. in engine - is the development in 1877 of the four-cycle engines actions: suction, compression, expansion (stroke), exhaust, which works on most engines today.
Use of internal combustion engines could be a real truck only when the liquid fuel, which can be compactly stored in the tanks. The most convenient, though dangerous fuel gasoline proved - it is easily evaporate into the air and forms a flammable mixture. The first gasoline engine was built in 1884 by Russian engineer Igor Kostovich for the airship. Airship, unfortunately, burned, and the engine capacity of 50 horsepower remained unhurt, as are stored separately from the airship. No it did not used. Wow - build an engine specifically for the airship, as if the car did not exist! And the fate of the engine, possibly would have been happier ...
Ancestor of modern petrol engines in 1885 is considered the engine of the German engineer Gottlieb Daimler (1834-1900) and W. Maybach (1846-1929), developed capacity of 0.5 horsepower for a volume of 0.25 liters and cylinder speed 200 rpm .
The inventors have put it on a wooden bike and got the world's first motorcycle, too, of course, wood. And since the engine could not function effectively without the carburetor fuel mixture is prepared (on the carburettor we mentioned above), the year of the creation of an efficient gasoline engine (Fig. 274) should be considered the year of patenting V. Maybach carburetor - 1893rd. The engine speed is gradually increased and in 1914 amounted to 2,000 revolutions per minute (it is now about 3 times higher).
But ... (Again, this is a "but"! Gasoline engines conquering the world, they were almost all cars, which can be a "but"?) But they were still a little efficiency, which is basically impossible to improve. The fact is that when we started to increase the compression ratio, ie. E., More and more work to compress the mixture in the cylinders is to increase efficiency, a mixture of gasoline vapor and air could not stand the heat and do not explode when it was necessary. Almost like a lighter air of ancient peoples, which we have already said ...
It was then that the most time to talk about diesel engines, deprived of this drawback. The first patent author German engineer diesel engines relates to Diesel F. 1892 The essence of this engine clear of the claims to the patent (incorporated herein by reduction): "A method of operating an internal combustion engine such that the cylinder is compressed by a piston ... clean air so that the temperature achieved is significantly higher than the ignition temperature of combustible material applied after the intake of the fuel is made gradual, and therefore its combustion ... "
Hence, clean air can be compressed to a pressure several times higher than the compression pressure in petrol engines, without fear that the air, God forbid, will explode. This pressure reaches 30-40 MPa and wherein the temperature is increased to 500-700 ° C. Injected special pumps and nozzles in the compressed hot air and diesel oil immediately lights up and does the work to promote the piston with a much higher efficiency than gasoline engines. And not only diesel fuel and any fuel at a temperature lights, even carbon powder, which initially was going to pour myself into the cylinder diesel.
Be that as it may, the efficiency of the diesel engine (Fig. 275) increased by at least a factor of 1.5 compared with petrol engines, and diesel fuel itself was cheaper than gasoline. That is why diesel engines successfully displace gasoline, primarily on the powerful trucks. During the Great Patriotic War with Germany is our tanks were equipped with diesel engines, which largely determines their advantages in comparison with the German petrol. Here's how diesel - German invention - helped us win the war against Germany.
Currently, in connection with the replacement of the carburetor direct injection position of diesel and gasoline engines converge, that is beneficial to all.
And finally, the "young" internal combustion engine, besides the most compact and lightweight, the most powerful, the most promising. Such engines are used as aircraft and helicopters, and in power stations for generating electricity from the gas. This engine is called a gas turbine or a gas turbine, and it is, as they say, is already on the running of the car. As long as they are fitted with experimental design, but soon he will stand for trucks and buses, as well as, possibly, on cars. Gas turbine - the rotary engine. Its rotor blades on the energy of the gas is converted into mechanical work (Fig. 276). In the compressor 1 and the turbine compressed air is supplied to it by a portion of the work produced by the turbine. Compressed air is a regenerator (heat exchanger) 2, where a little heated in the turbine exhaust hot gases. He then enters through the pipe into the cavity between the double walls of the combustion chamber 3. Here, it is even more heated and sent to a combustion chamber together with the fuel pump 5 through the nozzle delivers the combustion chamber 4. In the gases formed at very high temperature and pressure. They rush through the nozzle to the turbine impeller 6. Having completed work gases leave the installation through the regenerator, heating the air coming from the compressor. Run this turbine starter motor - starter.
Become an automobile engine is already a gas turbine faces two reasons: diseconomies of small motors (a car engine compared to the power plant - a midget) and ... a lot of noise at work. The first drawback has been overcome the development of special heat-resistant ceramic materials for turbines, making the efficiency of the gas turbine engine is not lower than diesel, and the second has successfully overcome the special acoustic measures.
And here was their first Heron - gas turbine, too, because eolipil, although the gas!

Answer 24

I didn't read any of it, but I'm sure It's good. :P

Answer 25

yeah you can read it many days i dont force you toread it all as many as you want

Answer 26

thx

Answer 27

@AnswerMyQuestions same :)

Answer 28

Holy cow dude! You seriously wrote/typed all of that???? lol @Nnesha don't worry, I didn't read all of it either but the first part is good ;)

Answer 29

main ideas are created by Gulia a math and physic russian proffesor

Answer 30

That's pretty cool

Answer 31

yeah he wrote a whole book

Answer 32

How long did this take you???

Answer 33

what the

Answer 34

.

Answer 35

.

Answer 36

nice stuff, but what is a physics journal?

Answer 37

lol i gaved up after the first paragraph lol but it looks good