Origin_of_Mind
Origin_of_Mind t1_ja6hsnb wrote
Reply to If the fuel that goes in car engines is extracted from hydrocarbons, which consist of only Hydrogen and Carbon, and those hydrocarbons react with Oxygen in the air (combustion reaction), to produce CO2 and H2O, why do we get a bad smell from car exhaust fumes if both gases are odorless? by Protoflare
When you start the car, the engine is cold. In this situation, there is much more unburned fuel which passes into exhaust. The catalytic converter is also still too cold to do anything. This is called cold-start emissions.
What you smell particularly strongly at that time is aromatic compounds from the gasoline. In chemistry, they were named "aromatic" precisely because they smell. A representative aromatic compound that is responsible for the exhaust smell during the cold start is benzene, although many of its derivatives are also present.
Incidentally, in many countries gasoline is called benzin/benzine.
Origin_of_Mind t1_j355ent wrote
In practice, this is done by numerical optimization, using ready-made optimization software.
A theory which was applied for designing the trajectory for the first "civilian" US space rocket "Vanguard", was presented in an article "Satellite launching vehicle trajectories" by Joseph W. Siry, published in 1959. The article was published in "Orbit Theory, Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium in Applied Mathematics", which unfortunately is slightly difficult to get a hold of.
More recent publications are easy to find, from lecture slides, to NASA technical reports, to various academic publications.
Origin_of_Mind t1_j12yeoh wrote
Reply to comment by Game_Minds in Could being submersed in a sealed tank of fluid help humans survive heavy G acceleration in outer space? by cheeze_whiz_shampoo
Human ability to withstand acceleration is not a limiting factor in long range space travel.
With the astronauts experiencing just the ordinary 1g of acceleration all the time they would be able to get to anywhere in the visible universe and get back to Earth in just 100 years (from the point of view of the astronauts themselves.)
But even accelerating the rocket at 1g for more than a few tens of minutes is already beyond our present technology.
Origin_of_Mind t1_j117dk8 wrote
Reply to comment by cheeze_whiz_shampoo in Could being submersed in a sealed tank of fluid help humans survive heavy G acceleration in outer space? by cheeze_whiz_shampoo
Suspending an organism in a density matched fluid could be used to increase the survivable acceleration, but the gain is limited, because different constituents of the body have different density. For example, fat is 0.9 g/cm^(3), while cortical bone is 1.9 g/cm^(3). If the average density were matched by the fluid, the internal stresses due to differences in density of individual parts will remain unchanged, and these differences are of the same order of magnitude as the difference between air and body density.
So, yes, it would work, but the payoff is not too great.
Origin_of_Mind t1_is20b1a wrote
Reply to comment by dirtyuncleron69 in Does air sink in water at the bottom of challenger deep? by Cedar-
Nice plots!
​
>by 10,000 bar air will be more dense than water at around 20C
Why do you think so?
At 10,000 bar and close to the room temperature, the plot for the density of air gives 1.16 g/cm3.
But if we extrapolate the plot for water beyond the shown 200 MPa, it hints at the densities around 1.2-1.4 g/cm^(3) (the correct value from NIST tables (pdf) is 1.23 g/cm^(3)).
​
As far as compressibility of stuff goes, water is fairly compressible -- its bulk modulus (2 GPa) is similar to the compressibility of wood along the grain. It is a hundred times more compressible than steel, but even steel is compressed several-fold at megabar pressures in explosions.
Origin_of_Mind t1_is1v94h wrote
Reply to comment by mfb- in Does air sink in water at the bottom of challenger deep? by Cedar-
NIST has tables of thermodynamic properties of gasses over a wide range of parameters. (Here is a large pdf for nitrogen up to 900 MPa.) The data proves that you are 100% correct -- even at circa 9000 times the atmospheric pressure, the density of nitrogen is still only 1.07 g/cm^(3) (at room temperature).
Origin_of_Mind t1_jbn2m6d wrote
Reply to [D] Why are so many tokens needed to train large language models? by blacklemon67
If you look at the studies of how children acquire language, for example "First verbs" by Michael Tomasello, the gist is that children understand quite a bit in their daily routine and actively participate in it -- well before they begin to understand and produce language. The language acquisition in children occurs in an already very capable nervous system, which "gets" a lot of stuff going on around it. Language gets tied into all that.
Our artificial neural networks do not have anything comparable. So, to use extremely simple architectures, we have to constrain them with super-human amount of input, to allow them by simple statistics to converge on interesting machinery which also to some extent "gets" not just the surface of language but discovers some of the deeper connections. Multi-modal systems should be able to see even more of the relevant underlying structure of the world, getting one step closer to what humans do.