Sign Guestbook Back to The Complete Idiot's Guide to String Theory
| Date | 2009-10-23 |
| Location |  |
| Message | Hi George. I just wanted to say that I really liked the extended metaphor you used in your Nov Sci Am article on quantum entanglement. It was the best explanation I've seen of the basics of QE. David |
Private Message added 2009-09-24 |
| Date | 2009-08-29 |
| Location |  |
| Message | Regarding your 60 second solar blog at Scientific American. I applied a white elastomeric roof coating to my house in Waipahu, Hawaii. My next step is to install Sanyo bifacial HIT photovoltaic panels vertically. Vertical installation reduces the need for cleaning. The bifacial panels allow light to enter from both sides, so output is about 120% of a one-sided panel. The white roof will reflect light onto the panel, so I should get about 2 suns illumination most of the day. solarelectricsupply.com/Solar_Panels/Sanyo/HIP-200DA3.html This website gaisma.com/en/dir/us-country.html shows I should get 4 to 7 kWh/m/d, so the white roof should about double that. I saw vertically installed photovoltaics at the Aichi Expo in Nagoya a few years ago. Hawaii may implement feed-in tariff next year. Let me know if you have any questions about Japan. The LED for household lighting here is really advancing. 40 watt bulb equivalent for 4 watts for 35 dollars, to go to 5 dollars within a few years. Off to order your string theory book from Amazon now. Very truly yours, Joel Muraoka, Ph.D. |
| Date | 2009-08-28 |
| Location | |
| Message | Hi, I'm enjoying your book tremendously, even though I'm not in the target audience, having had quite a bit of formal training in physics and math. Anyway, in the box on page 68 you say that composite particles are heavier than their constituent parts, because of the binding energy, which acts as mass. But it was my understanding that composite particles are *lighter* than their constituent parts; after all, one has to add energy to break the composite particles apart, meaning that afterwards the parts have more energy and therefore more mass. See for instance the HyperPhysics site on nuclear binding energy. Cheers, Axel |
| Date | 2009-08-28 |
| Location | |
| Message | Was listening to your Mensa interview when I heard you say that force and mass may be manifestations of the same thing. Your analogy about how nouns and verbs, object words and action words, can "bleed into each other" reminded of a London School of Economics PhD student from Moscow I meet in 1965 whose dissertation was on English's unique capability to use nouns as verbs and verbs as nouns with change in spelling, a way of "bleeding into each other." Regards, Monnie Anderson Austin, TX |
| Date | 2009-08-24 |
| Location | |
| Message | I just ran across your remembrance of your classmates who died in the Lockerbie explosion. I knew ML Johnson quite well when she lived out here in the Bay Area. She and I worked together in Oakland. She was a darling girl, and a very fun dancer! I'll never forget that angelic, smiling face, and oh, those eyes! I've been thinking about her recently, since the bomber's been released. After all this time, it's still hard to reconcile the ML I knew with anyone dying in such a horrific, senseless disaster. So very wrong...there just aren't words. Her death came six months after my brother's murder in Maryland, and I like to think of them hanging out together wherever good people go when they die. He liked to dance too...I remember talking to him after the crash and asking him to look out for her and, you know, show her the ropes. :**-} Still seems like yesterday to me. Anyway, your remembrance was very nice, and I wanted you to know that she hasn't been forgotten on the West Coast. Have a nice autumn. --Nancy McLaughlin |
Private Message added 2009-07-23 |
| Date | 2009-07-12 |
| Location | |
| Message | Thanks, I just purchased your book after trying to read a couple college level texts on the subject. So, after trying that and feeling like a "complete idiot" I thought your book would be very apropos! Any way, I have a BSEE and some graduate level work in the sciences and a big ego so I thought I might be able to plow through some college level texts on the subject :-( NOT. I'm assuming there's really no math in your book, i.e., targeted at the casual reader, if I'm wrong I apologize. If correct can you point me to any work, material, etc., where "some" or all of the concepts go into the mathematics, etc. so to give the user an appreciation of the details but not expect they are a graduate level student studying in the area (can that be done?). Any way, my hat is off to you to helping the general public to try and understand part of our modern science and technology. God bless  !David Artz |
| Date | 2009-07-07 |
| Location | |
| Message | George, I found you through a search on LinkedIn. I would like to introduce you to Simple Tech – a company that I believe may be of interest to the readers of Scientific American. Simple Tech owns the rights to a novel catalytic material that acts as one of the most efficient energy conversion devices ever created. Simple Tech catalytic materials have a wide range of applications, and have the potential to significantly reduce expense, simplify manufacturing, and improve performance in a wide range of products and processes. This catalyst, made of inexpensive ceramics, exhibits superior catalytic properties to one of the most versatile catalysts – platinum. Simple Tech has chosen a fuel cell as the first application to demonstrate the capabilities of this novel catalyst. To date, only esoteric materials costing hundreds and thousands of dollars per kilo can act as catalysts in fuel cells; our protected materials can do so for a fraction of the. Simple Tech has created a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) that addresses many of the shortcomings of current state-of-the art models. The Simple Tech fuel cell is cheaper, lighter, and simpler, than the most advanced SOFC technology. We would be very interested to discuss Simple Tech with you in greater detail. Please let me know if there is a time that would be convenient for you. We would be happy to answer any questions you may have about Simple Tech prior to the call by email to best utilize your time. Regards, David |
| Date | 2009-05-15 |
| Location |  |
| Message | Hi  If string theory is correct,would gravity still be regarded as one of the 4 fundamental forces? and if not could you explain it to me please why it wouldn't  PS:my collegues and i have been having this "discussion" for a couple of days and we could use the opinion of an expert. |
Page 21 of 23 << First < 18 19 20 21 22 23 >