Ask Mr.Rose any Science/Maths/Engineering/Chemistry/Physics Question.

**Mr.Rose** · 09-21-2010, 08:14 PM

I'll do it again, but i think i screwed up to. I Think S is the source, which means S would be S'' from my diagram... so i have to shift everything over, this changes refraction time and everything.

Hmmm, let me know exactly what you are having problems with so i can work on that specifically, im still trying to work out how they want the time graph displayed. I will redo it again, and post a new one and fix that blurry one too.

**xlxBigSexyxlx** · 09-21-2010, 09:10 PM

I'm working on it now with some people. For B, we got what you did, or close. We are stuck on C and D. The up dipping shit

**xlxBigSexyxlx** · 09-21-2010, 11:06 PM

I need D....shit

**Mr.Rose** · 09-21-2010, 11:24 PM

D as in the lengh of d? the same d in my diagram?

Ok is S on the diagram you posted with the question, is that the source point aka s" or is that the sensor? Is A suppost to be where D lines up to. So is my diagram correct?

**xlxBigSexyxlx** · 09-22-2010, 12:10 AM

D as in the travel time for refracted waves in the up dip. S is the source.

**xlxBigSexyxlx** · 09-22-2010, 06:11 PM

Its in. Thanks.

**Mr.Rose** · 09-27-2010, 05:14 AM

I feel like i didn't help at all.

. Sorry man, got caught up hard in my exams!

. i'm on holidays now well since Friday), do you need any help with anything else?

**xlxBigSexyxlx** · 09-27-2010, 06:29 AM

You did help somewhat, but no worries man. There will be more questions coming within a couple weeks or so.

**Brewster** · 09-29-2010, 06:48 PM

Hey,
I am having a debate with someone in this forum over this.

Lets say you have your finished product. Test Prop for example.

its in a 100ml bottle. You want to tranfer it into 10 x 10ml bottles.

You pour it into an open vial, seal and then crimp it.
Is it incorrect to do this? It was my understanding that something happens to the BA when its exposed to air for to long.

**xlxBigSexyxlx** · 10-05-2010, 10:31 AM

Here ya go.

**Hazard** · 10-05-2010, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Brewster

Hey,
I am having a debate with someone in this forum over this.

Lets say you have your finished product. Test Prop for example.

its in a 100ml bottle. You want to tranfer it into 10 x 10ml bottles.

You pour it into an open vial, seal and then crimp it.
Is it incorrect to do this? It was my understanding that something happens to the BA when its exposed to air for to long.

This is just me..... but i'd buy sterile vials and transfer the oil through a filter - into a sterile vial. Don't forget to stick another pin in the top to allow some air to push out.

~Haz~

**big_ron** · 10-05-2010, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by Hazard

This is just me..... but i'd buy sterile vials and transfer the oil through a filter - into a sterile vial. Don't forget to stick another pin in the top to allow some air to push out.

~Haz~

Ive also done this, i am waiting for my crimper to arrive so i can do it that way, looks more professional to me.

I dont see an issues just pouring it into new vials, i dont think theres a reason to filter again, but im no expert lol

**stevey_6t9** · 10-05-2010, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by Brewster

Hey,
I am having a debate with someone in this forum over this.

Lets say you have your finished product. Test Prop for example.

its in a 100ml bottle. You want to tranfer it into 10 x 10ml bottles.

You pour it into an open vial, seal and then crimp it.
Is it incorrect to do this? It was my understanding that something happens to the BA when its exposed to air for to long.

pretty sure you have to sterile the shit out of the open vials if you were to use it, with an autoclave or something. better to get sealed sterile vials and just pit in.

but then again i am no expert either lol.

**big_ron** · 10-05-2010, 11:45 PM

Of course the new vials should be sterilized

**Mr.Rose** · 10-12-2010, 09:21 AM

I had a spare hour today and i tried the question and, Hmm, I'm either using the wrong formula's or there is an error with my triple integration.

What I am trying to do is:

So basically, find the volume of the cone (1/3 * pi * r^2 * h) which is in m^3

Which is 43633231.3m^3

Now we need to use tripple integration to find the Gravitational attraction of the x component. So you draw a 3D cone, pick a source point, or origin, whichever you call it and set up the axis there.

I'm using this formula

where G = gravitational constant, x = height of cone, crillic is the radius of the cone, and l = distance from source, and then density (g) is just density (which is p in your notes)

However whenever i integrate it and inpt the values, it gives me an insanely large number. Which leads me to believe that i am using the wrong formula. Gravitational attraction is in N right, if so then no way can this mass have a gravitational attraction of 10^6 N.

Also in case you were wondering, the density of the water makes no difference to anything, it cancels itself out when taking the vertical component.

Let me know if I am using the right approach, as I do not know the maths involved with geophysics.

**Brewster** · 10-12-2010, 09:27 AM

Maybe you cansolve this one

**Mr.Rose** · 10-12-2010, 09:35 AM

Is that matt damon? haha.

Looks like he is (that picture is massively blurry) comparing the static co-efficients along exponential polar co-ordinates with the sum of the static co-efficients of those co-ordinates.... it makes no sense. why would n=0, not really well thought out. But then again i cant make out half the shit on your picture.

**Brewster** · 10-12-2010, 09:41 AM

ya,
you reminded me of good will hunting

**Mr.Rose** · 10-13-2010, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by Brewster

ya,
you reminded me of good will hunting

bahaha, no i am not good at maths like that. Im am jsut an ordinary student. But see that maths problem it took them 2 years to solve, the one homeomorphic irreducible tree's (where will is drawing those lines on the board), yeh i and my University peers did that in like 15min, haha. Its really easy, but the the movie makes it look hard because obviously the general public have no idea what it is.

**xlxBigSexyxlx** · 10-13-2010, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Mr.Rose

I had a spare hour today and i tried the question and, Hmm, I'm either using the wrong formula's or there is an error with my triple integration.

What I am trying to do is:

So basically, find the volume of the cone (1/3 * pi * r^2 * h) which is in m^3

Which is 43633231.3m^3

Now we need to use tripple integration to find the Gravitational attraction of the x component. So you draw a 3D cone, pick a source point, or origin, whichever you call it and set up the axis there.

I'm using this formula

where G = gravitational constant, x = height of cone, crillic is the radius of the cone, and l = distance from source, and then density (g) is just density (which is p in your notes)

However whenever i integrate it and inpt the values, it gives me an insanely large number. Which leads me to believe that i am using the wrong formula. Gravitational attraction is in N right, if so then no way can this mass have a gravitational attraction of 10^6 N.

Also in case you were wondering, the density of the water makes no difference to anything, it cancels itself out when taking the vertical component.

Let me know if I am using the right approach, as I do not know the maths involved with geophysics.

Hey, I just saw this. lol, My assignment is due in 2 hours.
10^6 can't be right. Thats way too large. I got 1.02x10^-3 cm/sec^2
And from what Im seeing/hearing from others, Im close. Its bullshit because I don't think you even need an integral. I did it two ways and the answers came out pretty damn close. Yeah, that water density kept throwing me off. lol

**Solomon** · 10-15-2010, 12:21 AM

A fluids question, pretty vague...

How do you find the mass flow rate of a given situation when all you are given is:

nozzle cross sectional area
Tank cross sectional area
Time it takes to fill to 50ml
Pressure of water coming from nozzle

It is concerning the impact of jets on a curved vane

**Swifto** · 10-15-2010, 02:09 PM

What's at the "singularity" (black holes)?

Do worm holes exist?

Is it right to say its impossible to travel BACK in time as the time machine didnt exist then? You can only travel back to when the machine was switched "on".

**Swifto** · 10-15-2010, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Brewster

Hey,
I am having a debate with someone in this forum over this.

Lets say you have your finished product. Test Prop for example.

its in a 100ml bottle. You want to tranfer it into 10 x 10ml bottles.

You pour it into an open vial, seal and then crimp it.
Is it incorrect to do this? It was my understanding that something happens to the BA when its exposed to air for to long.

Nothing happens to the BA or BB in that time frame, or at all from what I've read.

I see no problem in sterilising the open vials (keeping them sealed with a septa cap for as long as possible), then pouring the product into the sterile vial and crimping. Done.

Originally Posted by stevey_6t9

pretty sure you have to sterile the shit out of the open vials if you were to use it, with an autoclave or something. better to get sealed sterile vials and just pit in.

but then again i am no expert either lol.

No you're not.

**n00bs** · 04-16-2011, 01:42 AM

your too smart for your own good.

**Times Roman** · 04-16-2011, 02:24 AM

Let's explore quantam entanglement for a moment....

two "obsering" photons
one traveling at the speed of light
the other captured, supercooled to "just this side" of absolute zero

how would the universe be perceived from the vantage point of each photon?
how would they be similar?
how would they be dissimilar?