Welcome to Open Carnage

A resource for gamers and technology enthusiasts, with unique means of rewarding individual content creation and support. Have a wander to see why we're worth the time!

Krazychic

Metallic hydrogen has been created for the first time

19 posts in this topic
8 hours ago, tarikja said:

What if I have a monitor with a ratio of 160:90 instead of 16:9? Would I have a bigger screen or am I just inflating information?

 

Yeah, 24 FPS is somehow arbitrary but also widely accepted as the lowest value to present motion picture. You could go higher or lower but you can not present motion with just 3 frames. At least not without some heavy editing.

 

 

It's technically 8 frames, playing out at roughly 8 fps. The definition of video is clearly stated above; the broadcast of moving images. My video perfectly fits that description and therefore can be classified as a video. I am showing motion between different frames.

 

Silent Films were shown with frame rates as low as 16. 24 FPS became a standard because of the technology used to display them, for no other reason. 

 

So, to put it as simply as possible; you're wrong.

 

 

002 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dislike the ads? Log in or register to never see them again!

8 hours ago, tarikja said:

What if I have a monitor with a ratio of 160:90 instead of 16:9? Would I have a bigger screen or am I just inflating information?

 

Yeah, 24 FPS is somehow arbitrary but also widely accepted as the lowest value to present motion picture. You could go higher or lower but you can not present motion with just 3 frames. At least not without some heavy editing.

Well technically motion can be perceived much lower than 24 FPS. It just looks worse than 24 FPS. As @DeadHamster pointed out lots of silent films were shot at 16 FPS, and they were still watchable. For a video, I'll still perceive motion, even if it's as low as 10 FPS, but the lower it gets, the worse it gets. For me, personally, to see something without seeing choppiness, it'd have to be played back at a frame rate significantly higher than 24 FPS.

 

Also, 160:90 equals 16:9, but 8 frames is still stored as 8 frames, like how a lot of PCs can render a video game's main menu at 8000 FPS even if there isn't any change between them. A frame is just an image, and the frames themselves aren't moving.

 

Also, pretty much every gif before 2006 was 3 frames or less. I don't know why you're complaining now.


status.png?customhost=ProtonNebula.com:1

status.png?customhost=ProtonNebula.com:2

status.png?customhost=ProtonNebula.com:2

competent.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article acts like this is a possible superconductor we can use in the future. The fact that it's taken 80 years to even think we might have possibly made it makes that the dumbest thing ever. Yeah, you can use nuclear physics to knock out protons, effectively performing alchemy. Doesn't make it a practical option to make gold out of other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, but unlike gold created via transmutation, metallic H has also some practical value as energy storage as mentioned in the article (->rocket propellant).

Tucker933 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2017 at 5:07 AM, tarikja said:

Yea, but unlike gold created via transmutation, metallic H has also some practical value as energy storage as mentioned in the article (->rocket propellant).

But we have things that do that and aren't as difficult to get as metallic hydrogen. possibility =/= viability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ForkSpoonz said:

But we have things that do that and aren't as difficult to get as metallic hydrogen. possibility =/= viability

Good that you know that beforehand. We should then cancel the research at once.

 

I'm just wondering, what is this magic fuel? And why aren't we using it right now?

Because in the article it says:

Quote

The most powerful fuels in use today are characterized by a "specific impulse" - a measure, in seconds, of how fast a propellant is fired from the back of a rocket - of 450 seconds. The specific impulse for metallic hydrogen, by comparison, is theorized to be 1,700 seconds.

 

So, why are we still using a propellant that is only ~1/4 as powerful compared to metallic H instead of this much more viable and possible third fuel option?

 


In general: Research is usually the method to increase the viability (or feasibility) of something.

Tucker933 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drawbacks with a lot of fuels with high specific impulse is that the fuels come at the cost of lower density. Hydrogen is the highest used in spaceflight as far as I'm aware, but kerosene is far more common because your tanks don't have to be as large for the same lift capability. Methane is being pursued as the fuel of the future for spacecraft (it just requires vastly more complex engines).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.