Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ -¹ ² ³ °
| |
|
|
You are not logged in. #26 2010-06-24 23:04:45
Re: Planet Killer?Theoretically in a perfect model of combustion you would have: But air is not just O2, It contains N,CO2,CO, and the inert gases. Also there are a hundreds of pollutants in it in varying quantities. Some of them would also combust, producing other pollutants. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. 90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics. I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on. #27 2010-06-25 17:26:24
Re: Planet Killer?If the fuel didn't react to air it would've been controllable, though, right? I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy... #28 2010-06-25 17:59:06
Re: Planet Killer?Hi LQ; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. 90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics. I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on. #29 2010-06-26 12:18:12
Re: Planet Killer?if one could purify the air before reaching the hydrogen, I thought? I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy... #30 2010-06-26 13:26:42
Re: Planet Killer?I was just talking theoretically. That is the perfect reaction between pure hydrogen and pure oxygen. Burning hydrogen in the real world is not quite that simple. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. 90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics. I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on. #31 2010-07-14 16:07:49
Re: Planet Killer?Hate to say I told you so, but BP flubs again! How predictable. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. 90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics. I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on. #32 2010-07-15 16:39:06
Re: Planet Killer?
They used to just get Red Adair in, but there is a problem with that. Can feel it coming together.. Slowly but Surely #33 2010-07-15 16:56:28
Re: Planet Killer?Hi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. 90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics. I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on. #34 2010-07-15 21:52:28
Re: Planet Killer?ha ha ha Can feel it coming together.. Slowly but Surely #35 2010-07-15 23:00:20
Re: Planet Killer?Yes, but would yet let that creature , uhh I mean oilman, use your comb? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. 90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics. I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on. #36 2010-07-20 17:42:06
Re: Planet Killer?The good news is that they may have capped it. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. 90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics. I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on. |