It depends a lot on the mixing rate. The Niagara river is well mixed throughout its depth. ;)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
It depends a lot on the mixing rate. The Niagara river is well mixed throughout its depth. ;)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 http://electrooptical.net https://hobbs-eo.com
Don't these lakes have vast expanses of shallow water near the shorelines and the ports? Those are the parts the freezing hurts the most.
Prudent. You never know when a salmon will try to shoot its way out.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
winds and copious amounts of snow, rain and ice. This will not turn out we ll, it is wise to prepare for extended outages.
d-snow-totals
n - they get more warming from anthropogenic global warming than anybody el se, due to positive feedback from the reduced snow cover - reduces the ice cover on parts of the Arctic Ocean which makes the northern jet stream more wiggly (when it happens in the right places) and moves cold air further so uth from time to time in the northern winter.
Some of the events that inspired the paper were the extremely cold winters of 1947, and 1962-63.
vel of complication isn't one of John Larkin's strong points (if he has any ).
These vortex things, that seem to be a regular occurrence now, bring warmth from the lower latitudes back up into the arctic.So that doesn't help thei r situation. For North America the vortex deflection is caused by high pres sure warm area off the west coast barging its way into the path of the vort ex, causing the vortex to first deflect north and then dive south on the ea stern side of the intrusion.
Dang fluids, it would be so much easier to calculate if the water was solid. (and dry,
George H.
Sure, but as far as lake effect snow, it's the middle of the lake that matters. (Watertown NY at the east end of lake Ontario gets totally dumped on.)
GH
Right, you need to be particularly careful with sashimi.
I have never Ice sailed and believe it would be cold. But the wind relative to the Ice Boat should be less that the wind relative to a fixed object.
Dan
Have you every gone sail boat sailing? (I've got a little sunfish I drag to local lakes/ Cape Cod.) I get the feeling than when tacking into the wind the relative wind speed is faster than when standing still. (but that's just a feeling.)
And then there are catamarans... those things fly. I think they go faster than the wind.
Oh, this says ice boats go damn fast. 'look ma no friction'.
George H.
DId you watch any of the World Cup on TV. The boats all have hydrofoils and are extremely fast.
I did a fair amount of sailing as a kid, but have not sailed since then. It was always cooler sailing than away from the water. A good thing almost all of the time during the summer in Louisiana.
Dan
"Mentally integrating" the hydrostatic pressure equation makes one notice that the glass holding back the water in like, those modern James Bond casino-scenes where there's a giant fishtank made with CGI is way too thin.
I must have seen some, a sport only for billionaires.
The sunfish is cheap and good fun in the summer. You need someone to help you launch it. At least I do. Well, with a better trailer I could launch it by myself. (It's ~$200/season to get a sticker for launching on Cape Cod, I don't want to calculate my per day cost, ~10 days. :^) I bought an old boat for $400 a few years ago, it needs a new coat of paint on top. I think, 'it needs a new coat of paint on X' is in all the descriptions of all the old stuff I have. :^)
George H. (and then there's all the rusting stuff from the previous owner.)
The Feynman lectures are a treat, now free, in the top ten best books of all time IMHO. Getting the science right in the movies is rare. "The Martin" is the best you can expect.. and even then.
George H.
You're nuts but I'm not telling anyone anything they didn't already know.
Not if you're doing it right: it's not hard to travel faster than the wind.
-- This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software
The one they always get "wrong" are asteroid belts where the asteroids are so close that there are hundreds of visible asteroids on screen and they're bumping into each other stuff. No real universe group of rocks under the influence of gravity could stay in that chaotic state for long without flinging itself apart.
If you were standing on a real asteroid in the densest part of our solar system's asteroid belt I doubt you'd be able to visualize the surface of your nearest neighbor without a high-magnification telescope
There are always sounds during space battles*. The latest Star Wars has a 'space bomber' scene, where the bombers fly 'above' the other space ship and then drop bombs onto it.
George H.
*I think "Firefly" did this right... but Firefly was more of a space western, than a Sci-fi show.
Eh, I give them a pass on that stuff. If there are ever space battles sometime in the future (I hope not) they're likely to be fairly boring from a "sensory experience" perspective. A completely invisible 10,000 terawatt x-ray laser hits your spaceship from a thousand kilometers away. It vaporizes. The End
Some of those giant spacecraft/megastructures in Star Wars look large enough to create their own non-insignificant gravitational fields, though.
Wait, wait, here we go. Even the small spaceships seem to have people walking around upright as if they're on a planet so there must be some kind of magic gravity-generation system. Assuming it behaves otherwise like an ordinary field, gravitational fields extend to infinity so it's outside the hull, too, so that's why you can drop bombs on them, they're falling into the gravity well created by the ship's own life-support system.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.