Yes I did read this wrong. No one said blood was the same as starch, obviously you bypassed the issue of TDS. Blood has far less dissolved solid material in it than cornstarch mixed with water. Directly comparing it to blood is meaningless. of course your body can't have cornstarch as blood. I think we realise that. Your body also cannot pump blood either if the TDS ratio goes up too high as the blood will obviously thicken, I am wondering if you increase the total dissolved solids in blood will it then change behaviour and respond to incremental force the same way as cornstarch? All I was actually doing was wondering of total dissolved solids can explain the different between NFFs and NNFFs because otherwise the only distinction between them as far as Newton is concerned is one fits his constant coefficient and the other does not. it does not explain the physical difference, just the physical effects of interaction I am thinking here rather than just pasting stuff from pages as my knowledge
you can simply do an experiment. You can super saturate water with salt by putting the salt in when water is hot and cooling it off to room temperature. then see if it exhibits such properties. I think not myself. I'm sure some of the effect is not only solid levels but also the length of fibres and molecules in the corn starch. When making milk products people basically dry the stuff unitl they extract all the powders... at 20% solids and even 60% solids you can still pump the stuff. I've been in paper mills too and you can move and agitate paper pulp solutions. The molecules must not slip over each other all that well in non newtonian fluids. they need more force to get past each other and if you hit them like custard (apparently) they lock up newtonian fluids basically slide past each others molecules faster and are less viscous the best way of putting it is newton came up with a simple linear way of describing flow but these other materials don't flow the same way, some act completely different to the others.
I am not sure with the fluids that reduce resistance, I was mainly talking of the physics of custard and cornstarch and how they physically react to incremental pressure over a certain rate of time, and the rate and amount of incremental pressure applied is definitely related to the rate at which the fluid can disperse the energy with it's own motion. Where with a NF like water, a wave will form, custard or cornstarch mass at the point of physical interaction. It could be TDS,, or not, or it could be the type of dissolved solids, and uniformity of the matter, as in Cornstarch mix solids is all uniform as the TDS is all the same matter. Blood has a variety of different stuff in it so I wonder if that makes the difference, the actual physical difference in the media are what I am thinking of too. Not nailing it down to the pasted Newtonian explanation. Emphasis on "thinking". Most of what I know about NNF is regurgitated like most of the posts here, the rest of what I say is waffling to pass the time and curiosity You raised this topic and I get blamed for "contentious science"
Royal Madrid palace. The glass is so old it's changed shape, literally looks like water effect, if it moves constantly, however slowly that means it is a fluid does it not? Just wondering though is there an external influence that changes the glass shape or is the glass doing it itself over time, the former would be NOT FLUID and the latter FLUID please log in to view this image
could say blood has everything a lot smaller particls and molecules. same for salt, very tiny regular particles. might say corn starch has longer fluffy fibres... i dunno.. have a look under micro scope.
do we know if that panel was always like that though. as i said the method of manufacture for old big panes like this was to blow and roll a cylinder of glass then crack one side and flatten out its interesting to see them do it and its totally different that today so the ripples comes from the original process.. that pane could be flowing or coudl always bee like that... or could have distorted in hot weather for all i really know.
its like these guys please log in to view this image anyone who doesn't know the storyline in this one can phook off and look it up. ahead of its time social commentary.
fair point, possibly I dont know myself. I read this "Glass, however, is actually neither a liquid—supercooled or otherwise—nor a solid. It is an amorphous solid—a state somewhere between those two states of matter." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-fiction-glass-liquid/
if iron could be cooled such that it was such an amorphous solid without a crystalline structure it was out 1000s of times stronger than it is. its the boundaries between crystals that create weaknesses
yes, he was a great character. All the villians in the 70s batman were quite well played... they could ham it up and be good. batman himself was dodgy as **** and fat too riddler, catwomen, pengiun, joker... all well done in it.
Good explanation here of the two types of NFFs Pseudoplastics and Dilatants http://dilatantfluids.weebly.com/1-what-are-dilatant-fluids.html Dilatant fluids, also known as shear thickening fluids, are liquids or solutions whose viscosity increases as stress is applied [1]. They are an example of non-Newtonian fluids, as they do not have a linear shear stress versus shear rate rate, which is unique to Newtonian fluids [2] (see graph). This means that some dilatant fluids have the unique property of being able to turn from liquid to a solid just by having stress applied. There are also such things as shear thinning fluids, or pseudoplastics, which display the opposite properties of dilatant materials; as more stress is applied to pseudoplastics the viscosity decreases (or shear rate increases)[2], Natural non-Newtonian fluids A number of non-Newtonian fluids can be found naturally, although most of them are pseudoplastics as opposed to dilatants. A famous example of a non-Newtonian fluid is quicksand. At first it seems solid but as the victim walks onto it, thereby applying stress and causing it to become more viscous (as quicksand is a pseudoplastic), they sink in as they struggle, applying more stress to the quicksand, which then thins causes them to sink faster. Another example of a pseudoplastic is ketchup, which will not flow until it is squeezed or shaken [3]. There are not as many natural dilatants, although certain proportions of sand and water mixed together can display dilatant properties. For example at a beach, if you stand on the wet sand, your feet will sink in slightly, but if you run across the sand (thus applying greater stress to it), it will behave as a solid and your feet will not sink in. A dilatant fluid can easily be made by making a 2:1 mixture of cornflour and water. It is a liquid, but when stirred it becomes thicker and more difficult to stir. If hit with a hammer, it will shatter like a brittle solid; but if left it will return to a liquid[1][3]. Rheopecty Dilatancy is not to be confused with rheopecty, even though both properties have increased viscosity as a result of applied stress. The difference between dilatant and rheopectic materials is that rheopectic materials' viscosity is time dependant and thus increases the longer the stress is applied [4][5], whereas dilatant materials' viscosity increases just with an increase in stress. An example of a substance that displays rheopecty is cream; which becomes stiff only after prolonged beating. __________________________________ Reflecting on the above and reducing it to the custard scenario.. cos I dont know much about other NFFs Quick sand becomes more viscous to surface pressure but thins when internal pressure is applied. Custard would be the same, when you slap it (or apple sudden incremental pressure it cannot dissipate) it becomes more resistant but stick a hand in and move it around with the same force and viscosity decreases. Weird **** so what are the physical difference between the physical interactions and how the media responds? That is the real question. I guess can be seen as slapping the surface as custard with a spoon vs sticking it in and stirring. The latter only needs pressure to decrease viscosity, the former needs incremented pressure in a sufficient time frame to bring more resistance. The kinetic energy is required as it is that energy that provides the resistance in the medium..possibly With the slap, the custard has to dissipate the force throughout the custard, as water dissipates energy from an impact. There is too much dissolved solids for it to do that, or simply it is too thick. So because it cannot disperse the energy, it deflects it back, which is why you can walk on custard. With the stir, there is no energy from sudden incremental force to dissipate and so no equal opposite reaction, well not equal as the custard absorbs some force (which is why you cant just stand on it), you simply apply any pressure and the custard can move freely, because it can absorb that energy and the pressure increases flow which obviously decreases viscosity, ketchup acts the same way, apply pressure only and the flow increases and obviously viscosity decreases too as it is in motion Just pressure decreases viscosity and pressure in less time than the fluid can dissipate the energy is needed, increases viscosity I think consistency of the medium is also a consideration, inconsistent mediums will have the pressure from an external force plus the different pressure from large and small masses, so I assume slapping lumpy custard will cause less resistance compared to completely consistent custard because larger clumps will cause internal pressure thereby decreasing viscosity I've never thought about Custard so much before Could it relate to the ability of a fluid to dissipate kinetic energy #contentious
of course not, you are far too bitter to ever drop a grudge, you couldn't even leave your baggage on the other thread.
We destroy the crystals at varying temps to increase the strength, with tempering. Otherwise it is more flexible and less brittle If Iron is cooled as such, would it not be easier to shatter, the colder something is usually the less it can dissipate energy from impacts or stress, like vibrations for example.?
Also I am pretty sure, not 100% that if you do the same with blood, it will in fact increase viscosity if you put a large amount in a bowl and slap it with something as it cannot dissipate all of the energy due to viscosity. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the more free moving the matter the easier it can dissipate kinetic energy Kevlar works that way, it slows the bullet down very quickly, not stops it dead, does it not?
Interesting but this article contradicts findings already shown. A huge cloud of Hydrogen gas passed by the alleged suppermassive black hole at the centre of our own galaxy and was not affected or consumed. "In 2011, astronomers said they’d discovered a cloud of gas – with several times Earth’s mass – accelerating fast towards the supermassive black hole at the center of our Milky Way. The cloud appeared to be undergoing spaghettification – sometimes called the noodle effect – stretching and elongating as it neared the black hole. It was thought at first the cloud – which came to be called G2 – would meet a fiery end as it passed into the Milky Way’s black hole as early as 2013. It did not, but astronomers now say it passed closest to the hole in northern summer of 2014. Unexpectedly, however, our galaxy’s black hole did not swallow it. Instead, G2 survived! This week (November 3, 2014), UCLA astronomers published a new paper in the journal Astrophysical Journal Letters offering a new explanation as to what G2 is and how it survived its black hole passage." Andrea Ghez, UCLA professor of physics and astronomy, said in a press release: "G2 survived and continues happily on its orbit; a gas cloud would not do that" "G2 was completely unaffected by the black hole. There were no fireworks." http://earthsky.org/space/how-g2-survived-the-black-hole-at-our-milky-ways-heart To explain this they have cooked up binary stars merging, that were never detected... OK sure. When a theory fails to explain something, create something fictional from the theory to explain what your theory cannot explain.. No consideration to the idea that it might not actually be a black hole.
