Damn, I don't this thread and board to die, but both seem dead af :c

>>112 Yes, this thread is dead.

In 'Foundations Of Geometry' (attached) there is an axiom which states that for any two points on a straight line, there is a point on the line between them, and then on page 11 it states a theorem that there are infinitely many points between any two points, presumably the proof of this is that between any distinct points A and B the axiom is applied to this to get another point, C, which lies between A and B, then the axiom is applied to the points A and C to get D lying between them (D lies between A and C) and so on forever. This proves that there are countably infinite points between any two as the points are proven one after another (D is proven after C and so on) so there is a bijection between them and the natural numbers (C to 1, D to 2, and so on), however normally a straight line is thought to be represented by an interval of real numbers with the length of that interval being the line's length and every distinct point in that interval is a distinct point on the line, but there are uncountably infinite elements in that interval and so uncountably many points on a straight line, yet the proof only gives countably infinite points. The book doesn't even give a proof, only stating it is 'obvious' and the proof is one I came up with, so am I missing something or is this a serious deficiency in the Foundations Of Geometry?

In general or specifically this car? In general: > determine the radius of the fender > calculate with a factor (1.1 or something?) the radius of the wheel > determine the width of the wheel You know the turning point of the wheel, which is the point at which it connects to the axle. Follow standard trig functions to determine the position of the segment of wheel at a certain radius, according to the diagram in my image. The front of the rim theoretically stays an ellipse, but if you need to start fucking around with Beziér curves you might as well simulate it in blender or something. What are you trying to do?

How can you not draw a wheel? It's the easiest machine to make in the entire universe. Even planets are round, it's that generic. Basic drawing software has a circle tool. Start there.

>>91 it dont explain enough in 3d..but looks right. boy, 2021 huh >>106 yours look wrong.

>>1 Are off topic topics allowed or do we have to post in the specific general

>>88 What do you want to discuss? If you have a thread-worthy question just start one.

>>62 >>66 I took over the board. The rules are a bit different but that shouldn't affect most posters who actually want to talk about science.

>>5 >I have no mouth, and I must squeak.

>>49 Truly the stuff of nightmares.

This seems interesting, could you post paper/study/documental , I wanna know how the rat perceives the world and how the receptors work. Also scarry as fuck

Dried the catalyst and tested it. Currently waiting for the results but the cat itself looks great. Also made a modified version; 90% yield and excellent purity. Very productive week so far. Might try and analyze some plastic and the yellowing of the old Nintendo consoles since I have the ability anyways. Could be a fun side project; I posted this a while ago in the Infinity magazine thread but that anon vanished I think.

Shit's going awesome - nearly done with my final product. If it's a success, I can basically call it a day and just try different reagents. Nope, not at all. So much optimization to be done - but that's just sooth sailing from there on, just a fuckload more of testing. Hardware is also on the way, can't wait to give it a spin.

Since I am now writing my thesis + the whole site drama, I'll be gone from the board for a few weeks. Not that there is anyone here, but still.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih20l3pJoeU Here ya go!If you just need one line, it's fairly simple. Just apply everything in this video to your line and you're done.

Doubtful of this generator thing but also want to try it

>>75 Where are you from and how did you find this place?

>>76 im from Asia. what do you mean find this place? wikipedia?

>>74 I was the board owner on the old site when it got shut down. It was somewhat active, although admittedly a lot of that activity was political spam or schizo posting.

>>29 Going off on a tangent here but, is there some sort of free and open source program that lets me edit text collaboratively with people? Maybe with features making LaTeX edition easier? I know there's Google Docs, Overleaf which you mention here and maybe a few more propietary/SaaS options, but I want something open. I think VS Code has an extension that allows this, but the distribution terms are murky, and it's developed by Microsoft. I also recall hearing that Atom had something similar, but as you might know, that was developed by GitHub, and GitHub was bought by Microsoft, so it's probably very dead by now.

>>52 LyX is a thing apparently? It uses Git, so it should be open source. I have never seen an out-of-the-box solution for what you are referring to though, since you'd need a central server anyways.

>>53 Well, I mean something more like Google Docs, where changes to a document are recieved and seen by the user in real time. You don't need a central server though, I think Etherpad or some such is P2P. Atom as well.

Disregard the two banners in the OP, I fucked up.

>>34 Added

>>34 The nitrogens are still nearly invisible, but I can't be fucked at the moment. Had a long day in the lab. Have another banner I made because I had some inspiration.

>>35 It's entirely possible that he thought future conspiracy theorists will try to come up on him and claim "he had a patent for it, so he must've been on to something." Like people do now.

Are LENR a meme?

>>39 Yes, except muon-catalyzed fusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion If you mean "meme" as in "will not break even" then maybe muon-catalyzed isn't for you. It does let you fuse atoms at much lower temperatures, but you need to make muons first, which isn't trivial, and they decay quickly. This Wikipedia article says some methods have promise, but I bet you my ass that those methods are waaaay more immature than conventional fusion techniques, theoretical studies, actual experiments on the matter (heh), etc.