Upload
Login or register

rainbowtacos

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:11/17/2011
Last Login:12/03/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#2555
Highest Content Rank:#3235
Highest Comment Rank:#464
Content Thumbs: 901 total,  1104 ,  203
Comment Thumbs: 19283 total,  21358 ,  2075
Content Level Progress: 50% (5/10)
Level 89 Content: Srs Business → Level 90 Content: Srs Business
Comment Level Progress: 54.4% (544/1000)
Level 318 Comments: Wizard → Level 319 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:1
Content Views:127047
Times Content Favorited:112 times
Total Comments Made:3624
FJ Points:19401

latest user's comments

#27 - Sure, helium is just the cheapest (probably) and non-volatile,…  [+] (2 replies) 09/26/2016 on "Because they're cool"... 0
User avatar
#28 - leonhardt (09/26/2016) [-]
So how viable would you say using helium filled zeppelins would be in this day and age?
User avatar
#29 - rainbowtacos (09/26/2016) [-]
Compared to what, really? Planes? Planes are fast, zeppelins are slow. There's not really a big need for zeppelins in this day and age because of how much we've refined planes, but in older days they would have been pretty fantastic (if we weren't all scared by the Hindenburg). Zeppelins do have some things going for them, but planes are just all around better nowadays.
#25 - It's actually a common misconception that we're running out of…  [+] (10 replies) 09/26/2016 on "Because they're cool"... +14
User avatar
#165 - TheBobby (09/27/2016) [-]
If there is so much helium on Earth, then why is the Earth not floating away? Your logic just got destroyed.
#67 - lexoheight (09/27/2016) [-]
Moon mining here we come
User avatar
#26 - leonhardt (09/26/2016) [-]
Aren't there other lighter than air gasses we could use?
User avatar
#138 - ninjaroo (09/27/2016) [-]
Short answer, not really. Long answer:

The two properties we really want are light and safe. To be safe, it needs to be non reactive, which makes the noble gasses a great option. However, only helium and neon are lighter than air, and neon is both harder to get Actually, the only viable source is air, which given it makes up about 0.0182% of air it's not surprising that it's expensive and about five times heavier than helium.

Obviously, there are other options. Steam is one, but water takes a ridiculous amount of energy to heat up. Methane is common, but highly reactive. Hot air would work for small things. Ammonia would work, but would need to be diluted to avoid being caustic.

There might be other options as of yet undiscovered, but I'd wager not many. The reason for that being that the required characteristics are that it has to be stable and simple Complicated gasses involving lots of elements are naturally heavier . Stuff that is both stable and simple is either very common or very easily created, so should already have been ound.
#36 - aajowa (09/26/2016) [-]
Hydrogen and helium are the biggies. Everything else is too expensive, just as flammable as hydrogen without the lift, corrosive as heck or just plain not lifty-enough.


Low pressure steam in an insulated, temperature-controlled bag is novel, but extremely cheap and works (Look up the flying kettle project). An additional up to 13% hydrogen or thereabouts (not sure the exact number) boosts lifting capacity and cannot ignite in any circumstance.
User avatar
#64 - vorarephilia (09/27/2016) [-]
Steam blimps?

I can hear steampunk fan orgasms from here
#69 - aajowa (09/27/2016) [-]
Steam as the lifting gas, not for deriving any mechanical power. I made a tiny, insulated balloon and filled it with 'steam', though I had no way to fully prevent it becoming water vapour because of its scale (<1m2 volume).

Even without the steam proper, attaching the parcel to my hand via rope still produced notable upward pull, and i'd love to build something larger one day, along the lines of quadcopter size.
User avatar
#27 - rainbowtacos (09/26/2016) [-]
Sure, helium is just the cheapest (probably) and non-volatile, thus very safe. Not a huge reason to use something else until helium becomes more expensive.
User avatar
#28 - leonhardt (09/26/2016) [-]
So how viable would you say using helium filled zeppelins would be in this day and age?
User avatar
#29 - rainbowtacos (09/26/2016) [-]
Compared to what, really? Planes? Planes are fast, zeppelins are slow. There's not really a big need for zeppelins in this day and age because of how much we've refined planes, but in older days they would have been pretty fantastic (if we weren't all scared by the Hindenburg). Zeppelins do have some things going for them, but planes are just all around better nowadays.
#2 - It's a wonder woman possessed by Trigon (Raven's father). It's…  [+] (1 reply) 09/26/2016 on Fetish +33
User avatar
#3 - burlytangerine (09/27/2016) [-]
actually its 1 of trigons minions theres 4 of them and are related to raven so i assume he did it with some demons and those r thedemon love babys i just assume cus in the movie they call raven sister and all that
#11 - Spreadsheet, arguably not the best way to do calculus haha.  [+] (1 reply) 09/25/2016 on Curse that math 0
User avatar
#12 - notwalkingwaffles (09/26/2016) [-]
Fair enough
#9 - At 48 weeks, there's 0.3 people, so if the question wants a wh…  [+] (6 replies) 09/25/2016 on Curse that math +4
User avatar
#29 - cravemate (09/26/2016) [-]
Is it not 50 weeks for everyone to be gone? The initial population is 676 at 0 weeks in, after one week is 650, etc, until the 49th week, where P>0 (P=0.3), and the 50th week P<0 (P= -0.25)
Am I mistaken, or is your initial population at one week in the way you did it? Like P1=676 instead of P0=676?
User avatar
#10 - notwalkingwaffles (09/25/2016) [-]
dP/dt=-P^½
Integration[P^-½ dP]=integration[-1 dt]
=2*P^½=c-t
for constant c, giving us
P=1/4*(c-t)^2
at time 0 the curse is uttered:
P(0)=676=1/4*c^2 so c=sqrt(4*676)= 52 weeks
for P=0=1/4(c-t)^2 => c-t=0 => t =c = 52 weeks.

How'd you get 48 and 49?
User avatar
#18 - aestriel (09/26/2016) [-]
Ah, but what about births, it is a year long that it would take so i'd likely say a few more children would have been born by then.
User avatar
#26 - notwalkingwaffles (09/26/2016) [-]
The rate of change of the tribe is -sqrt(P). That's not just the ones that die, that's total with births incoorporated.
User avatar
#11 - rainbowtacos (09/25/2016) [-]
Spreadsheet, arguably not the best way to do calculus haha.
User avatar
#12 - notwalkingwaffles (09/26/2016) [-]
Fair enough
#18 - A country can block access to people within it's borders throu…  [+] (5 replies) 09/25/2016 on Protect the internet +3
User avatar
#20 - huntergriff (09/25/2016) [-]
I think i got this mixed up with something else but related to this. Someone posted something about this a few weeks ago, give me a minute.
#160 - anon (09/26/2016) [-]
Think of it like this
A DNS is just a name, connected to an IP address.
ICANN job is to route that name to the appropriate IP address. They also control the name of the "DNS", the domain name (not exactly, but speaking low term, "kind of"). It's their job to make sure you pay for the domain name, then route that domain name to the domain hoster.

Thats all. The rest is up to ISP's. Blocking websites, etc.
#19 - anon (09/25/2016) [-]
Ah..so why is everyone thinking the Internet is suddenly going full totalitarian then?
User avatar
#21 - rainbowtacos (09/25/2016) [-]
My understanding is that some Republicans (Ted Cruz mainly) don't understand and somehow think we're handing over control of the internet, and a lot of people who also don't understand are just following what they say.
#13 - As a counterpoint... that's not really true. ICANN will no lon…  [+] (10 replies) 09/25/2016 on Protect the internet +15
#51 - anon (09/25/2016) [-]
UN, not EU

And yes it can block acces to sites, just because it wasn't their job doesn't mean it's not gonna be.

The main reason it is going to the UN is because the UN can have greater policing without any backlash.

The UN is basically US, UN does what US wants. So the "key is still gonna be held by them... they are not stupid.
User avatar
#52 - rainbowtacos (09/25/2016) [-]
That was my mistake, I meant UN, not EU. I'm just saying that blocking sites is not what they do, and they could change to doing that under US control, but they likely aren't. The US is still going to be a major controller, just not the primary controller.
#31 - greyblade (09/25/2016) [-]
dns allows you to turn things like www.exampleurl.com into an IP address.

you can't stop someone accessing an IP address, but you can stop them from accessing the URL if you control the DNS systems.

so their is potential for abuse.
#17 - anon (09/25/2016) [-]
Wait so one country can't just shut down a site because it thinks it offensive?
User avatar
#18 - rainbowtacos (09/25/2016) [-]
A country can block access to people within it's borders through its ISPs, not ICANN. ICANN literally just makes sure that if you type a domain with a .ru or .ca at the end it's consistent across the world.
User avatar
#20 - huntergriff (09/25/2016) [-]
I think i got this mixed up with something else but related to this. Someone posted something about this a few weeks ago, give me a minute.
#160 - anon (09/26/2016) [-]
Think of it like this
A DNS is just a name, connected to an IP address.
ICANN job is to route that name to the appropriate IP address. They also control the name of the "DNS", the domain name (not exactly, but speaking low term, "kind of"). It's their job to make sure you pay for the domain name, then route that domain name to the domain hoster.

Thats all. The rest is up to ISP's. Blocking websites, etc.
#19 - anon (09/25/2016) [-]
Ah..so why is everyone thinking the Internet is suddenly going full totalitarian then?
User avatar
#21 - rainbowtacos (09/25/2016) [-]
My understanding is that some Republicans (Ted Cruz mainly) don't understand and somehow think we're handing over control of the internet, and a lot of people who also don't understand are just following what they say.