Recent comments in /f/science

billsil t1_j99epup wrote

Reply to comment by manicdee33 in ‘We found the Artemis-I noise level at 5 km had a crackling quality about 40 million times greater than a bowl of Rice Krispies.’ — Maximum noise measured during Artemis-I launch on 16 Nov. 2022 was higher than predicted by marketrent

Depends how much it pops.

136 dB is really loud. Also Bels are not really a unit. You take the logarithm of a pressure relative to 20 microPascals (the threshold of human hearing), so it's unitless. Deci-bels are 1/10 as large as a Bel and just make the numbers easier. Otherwise, we'd be talking about 13.6 Bels.

Beyond that I understand part of it. An octave is a power of 2, so 20 Hz to 40 Hz. The 1/3 octave part means that between 2 octaves, you have 3 bands. So for 20 Hz, the range of interest is 20/2^1/3 to 20*2^1/3 (or 15.9 to 25.2 Hz).

The USA is best known as the country that will do anything to avoid using the metric system.

That quote is metric and English friendly.

11

ReasonablyBadass t1_j99eja2 wrote

Reply to comment by Herbert-Quain in Scientists create carbon nanotubes out of plastic waste using an energy-efficient, low-cost, low-emissions process. Compared to commercial methods for carbon nanotube production that are being used right now, ours uses about 90% less energy and generates 90%-94% less carbon dioxide by Wagamaga

Efficiency has nothing to do with how much energy you need. It's about the ration between resource use and end product.

If other processes need less heat but produce a lot of unusable waste, they are less efficient.

Edit: also,flashing, afaik, means for only a very short amount of time. Might not be all that mich energy overall, actually

5

Xaendeau t1_j99ef1u wrote

Reply to comment by bripi in Physicists nail down the most precise value yet of the electron magnetic moment. A newly measured value of an electron’s magnetic moment — a property of its spin and charge — is twice as precise as the one physicists have used for the past 14 years. by MistWeaver80

Literally all those things you listed are less important than if the money was put into science. Every penny spent in scientific research is investing in the future of humanity.

This goes to show how unaware you are about how science works. Pure, fundamental research is the basis of what technological advancements in applied science and engineering are built from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_research.

My dude, just like, read the Wikipedia article and become educated about the matter. If you need examples, I got about a dozen I can think of off the top of my head.

1

SerialStateLineXer t1_j99apep wrote

Reply to comment by Educational-Stock708 in Females' propensity to deposit more fat in places like their hips, buttocks and the backs of their arms, so-called subcutaneous fat, is protective against brain inflammation, which can result in problems like dementia and stroke, at least until menopause, scientists report. by QualityWork_

As I understand it, the claim here is not that subcutaneous fat is protective, but that visceral fat is extra harmful, and that, holding total fat constant, a tendency to store fat subcutaneously is protective because the alternative is storing it viscerally.

6

Primary_Skill3749 t1_j999970 wrote

Reply to comment by unpluggedcord in ‘We found the Artemis-I noise level at 5 km had a crackling quality about 40 million times greater than a bowl of Rice Krispies.’ — Maximum noise measured during Artemis-I launch on 16 Nov. 2022 was higher than predicted by marketrent

I don’t think that’s completely accurate as many scientific industries like medicine use metric as a standard in the U.S. Even nasa was using metric well before the 1970s.

3

bripi t1_j9994d1 wrote

Reply to comment by Xaendeau in Physicists nail down the most precise value yet of the electron magnetic moment. A newly measured value of an electron’s magnetic moment — a property of its spin and charge — is twice as precise as the one physicists have used for the past 14 years. by MistWeaver80

How about housing the homeless? Feeding people? Improving infrastructures? So many other useful things that actually have tangible, real-world benefits.

1

iam666 t1_j998qdm wrote

Reply to comment by Alastor_Hawking in Scientists create carbon nanotubes out of plastic waste using an energy-efficient, low-cost, low-emissions process. Compared to commercial methods for carbon nanotube production that are being used right now, ours uses about 90% less energy and generates 90%-94% less carbon dioxide by Wagamaga

Yeah but making this meso-structured carbon is still a very effective way to improve material properties, and seems to be a better alternative to carbon fiber rather than carbon nanotubes.

6

iam666 t1_j998cpc wrote

Reply to comment by jonesaffrou in Scientists create carbon nanotubes out of plastic waste using an energy-efficient, low-cost, low-emissions process. Compared to commercial methods for carbon nanotube production that are being used right now, ours uses about 90% less energy and generates 90%-94% less carbon dioxide by Wagamaga

I’m not sure, it may just be “carbon fiber”, which is much more common and easier to produce since it’s only micro-structured and not nano-. This material seems like it would be good in that application, though.

2