Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Atomic Weight of Naquadah

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 7
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
    #16
    Originally posted by Mr Prophet

    Finally, remember that naquadah makes a tragic mockery of about 90% of conventional physical laws.
    And we all remember what Narim had to say about our grasp of physics.
    Gracie

    A Cherokee elder sitting with his grandchildren told them,
    "In every life there is a terrible fight – a fight between two wolves.
    One is evil: he is fear, anger, envy, greed, arrogance, self-pity,
    resentment, and deceit. The other is good: joy, serenity, humility,
    confidence, generosity, truth, gentleness, and compassion."
    A child asked, "Grandfather, which wolf will win?"
    The elder looked the child in the eye. "The one you feed."

    Comment

      #17
      Originally posted by DelTrax1
      I wonder what an actual deposit would look like. And why would earth not have any?
      Naquada in its raw form was shown in Stargate the movie when O'Neil & Jackson encountered the Abydonians.

      Comment

        #18
        Originally posted by Chyndonax
        Maybe in the series they are using refining differently than you are here. They may just mean removing the other substances that were taken out of the ground while mining the naquada? That would not be using the term correctly for the SG fellows but it would explain the contradiction and it wouldn't be the first time terminology has been misused.
        Well, "refining" anything doesn't mean _changeing_ it; it means taking all the impurities out of it. "Raw" anything (that is, as it is found in nature--in the ground, air, water, etc.) has to have all the other stuff taken out of it. Take gold, for example. In nature, it is found in solid chunks mixed with rocks. You refine it to get rid of the rock, so all you have left is the gold. Uranium is like that as well--to get reactor-quality uranium, you have to refine it and take all the other stuff out of it. In fact, almost all elements have to be refined and purified, if you find them in their natural states. So, yes, the way it has been used in Stargate until now is the correct terminology.
        My LiveJournal.

        If you can find a path with no obstacles, it probably doesn't lead anywhere.
        -Frank A. Clark

        An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
        -Michel de Saint-Pierre

        Now, there's this about cynicism. It's the universe's most supine moral position. Real comfortable. If nothing can be done, then you're not some kind of **** for not doing it, and you can lie there and stink to yourself in perfect peace.
        -Lois McMaster Bujold, "The Borders of Infinity"

        Comment

          #19
          Originally posted by qasimjavid
          as naquadah and naquadria exist I think they might be referring to a compound.
          Nope, not necessarily. Besides the fact that Nh is referred to numerous times as an element, Naquadriah could very well be an unstable isotope of it. (Or it could be some form of compound, but an unstable isotope seems more likely to me.) As an isotope, it could have its own name (and even chemical symbol); Deuterium (a hydrogen isotope; D) does, after all. Howabout Nh for naquadah, and Nq for Naquadria?
          My LiveJournal.

          If you can find a path with no obstacles, it probably doesn't lead anywhere.
          -Frank A. Clark

          An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
          -Michel de Saint-Pierre

          Now, there's this about cynicism. It's the universe's most supine moral position. Real comfortable. If nothing can be done, then you're not some kind of **** for not doing it, and you can lie there and stink to yourself in perfect peace.
          -Lois McMaster Bujold, "The Borders of Infinity"

          Comment

            #20
            What's wrong with Nq as Naquadah and Nr as Naquadriah?

            Comment

              #21
              I could go with that. Nq and Nr it is. Unless someone else has an objection?
              My LiveJournal.

              If you can find a path with no obstacles, it probably doesn't lead anywhere.
              -Frank A. Clark

              An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
              -Michel de Saint-Pierre

              Now, there's this about cynicism. It's the universe's most supine moral position. Real comfortable. If nothing can be done, then you're not some kind of **** for not doing it, and you can lie there and stink to yourself in perfect peace.
              -Lois McMaster Bujold, "The Borders of Infinity"

              Comment

                #22
                Originally posted by aAnubiSs
                What's wrong with Nq as Naquadah and Nr as Naquadriah?
                I can go with that. Nq and Nr it is. Unless someone else has an objection?
                My LiveJournal.

                If you can find a path with no obstacles, it probably doesn't lead anywhere.
                -Frank A. Clark

                An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
                -Michel de Saint-Pierre

                Now, there's this about cynicism. It's the universe's most supine moral position. Real comfortable. If nothing can be done, then you're not some kind of **** for not doing it, and you can lie there and stink to yourself in perfect peace.
                -Lois McMaster Bujold, "The Borders of Infinity"

                Comment

                  #23
                  Originally posted by Beatrice
                  I can go with that. Nq and Nr it is. Unless someone else has an objection?
                  I like it


                  Comment

                    #24
                    I cannot believe how nerdy you people are!

                    Of course, I just sat here and read this whole thread, so I'm the pot calling the kettle black! (not that pots or kettles are black anymore)

                    Comment

                      #25
                      Naquadah-enhanced pot? gimmie! (there are several meanings)

                      Comment

                        #26
                        Where in the hell are you pulling this SH&! from man... Your right about the atomic number corresponding to the number of protons but it also corresponds to the number of electrons in the neutral atom. Your statement about "the higher the atomic number is the more unstable and radioactive it is" is totally false. Get your facts strait! It's true that the some of the elements that have higher atomic numbers are unstable and some of them decay so rapidly that you could never see them. But the atomic number has nothing to do with the radioactivity. Check out Atomic Number 112 (Ununbium-277)... It consists of bombarded atoms of lead with ions of zinc. This produced an isotope with a half-life of about 0.24 milliseconds (0.00024 seconds). So before you go rambling on about crap because you watched some program on the Science channel go back to school and take a Chemistry class.

                        Comment

                          #27
                          Originally posted by stbede77
                          Where in the hell are you pulling this SH&! from man... Your right about the atomic number corresponding to the number of protons but it also corresponds to the number of electrons in the neutral atom. Your statement about "the higher the atomic number is the more unstable and radioactive it is" is totally false. Get your facts strait! It's true that the some of the elements that have higher atomic numbers are unstable and some of them decay so rapidly that you could never see them. But the atomic number has nothing to do with the radioactivity. Check out Atomic Number 112 (Ununbium-277)... It consists of bombarded atoms of lead with ions of zinc. This produced an isotope with a half-life of about 0.24 milliseconds (0.00024 seconds). So before you go rambling on about crap because you watched some program on the Science channel go back to school and take a Chemistry class.
                          thats a mouthful - are you scientist by any chance?
                          gumboYaYa: you are all beautiful, your words and openness are what make that shine. don't forget how much talent love and beauty you all have.
                          so for now, peace love love love more love and happy, and thank you, thank you, thank you
                          love Torri

                          Comment

                            #28
                            Originally posted by Beatrice
                            I could go with that. Nq and Nr it is. Unless someone else has an objection?
                            I think we've already pointed out an objection. Given the fact that Naquadriah is not a naturally occurering, calling it an isotope of naquada makes sence. Isotopes have the same name as its parent eleament, and is id as a isotope by the number of electrons. So Naquadriah would be id as Nq-156

                            yes, I've had a nuc enginering class.
                            Adam:"I reject your reality and subisute myown."

                            O'Neill:
                            "IN THE MIDDLE OF MY BACKSWING?!"

                            Carter:
                            "It took us 15 years and 3 supercomputers to MacGyver a system for the gate on Earth."

                            CARTER: You made [this]?
                            ORLIN: You wouldn't believe the things you could make from the common simple idems lying around your planet. Which reminds me...you're going to need a new microwave.

                            Weir: You destroyed 3/4 of a solar system!
                            McKay: Actually 5/6, its not an extact science.

                            Slashdot:
                            "Well railguns are neat and all, but I'm still not joining the Army until they invent the respawn point."

                            Comment

                              #29
                              Originally posted by stbede77
                              Where in the hell are you pulling this SH&! from man... Your right about the atomic number corresponding to the number of protons but it also corresponds to the number of electrons in the neutral atom. Your statement about "the higher the atomic number is the more unstable and radioactive it is" is totally false. Get your facts strait! It's true that the some of the elements that have higher atomic numbers are unstable and some of them decay so rapidly that you could never see them. But the atomic number has nothing to do with the radioactivity. Check out Atomic Number 112 (Ununbium-277)... It consists of bombarded atoms of lead with ions of zinc. This produced an isotope with a half-life of about 0.24 milliseconds (0.00024 seconds). So before you go rambling on about crap because you watched some program on the Science channel go back to school and take a Chemistry class.

                              Since you're suggesting that folks get an education, why don't you take a course in good manners?
                              Gracie

                              A Cherokee elder sitting with his grandchildren told them,
                              "In every life there is a terrible fight – a fight between two wolves.
                              One is evil: he is fear, anger, envy, greed, arrogance, self-pity,
                              resentment, and deceit. The other is good: joy, serenity, humility,
                              confidence, generosity, truth, gentleness, and compassion."
                              A child asked, "Grandfather, which wolf will win?"
                              The elder looked the child in the eye. "The one you feed."

                              Comment

                                #30
                                Originally posted by Thor's Pal
                                I think we've already pointed out an objection. Given the fact that Naquadriah is not a naturally occurering, calling it an isotope of naquada makes sence. Isotopes have the same name as its parent eleament, and is id as a isotope by the number of electrons. So Naquadriah would be id as Nq-156

                                yes, I've had a nuc enginering class.
                                Which is more than I've had. But like I mentioned earlier, (and I'm not trying to be a smartass here, I'm genuinely curious), Deuterium is an isotope of Hydrogen, yet has its own name and chemical symbol. So why can't Naquadria have the same? Considering how different it is, and how distinct it is to work with?
                                My LiveJournal.

                                If you can find a path with no obstacles, it probably doesn't lead anywhere.
                                -Frank A. Clark

                                An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
                                -Michel de Saint-Pierre

                                Now, there's this about cynicism. It's the universe's most supine moral position. Real comfortable. If nothing can be done, then you're not some kind of **** for not doing it, and you can lie there and stink to yourself in perfect peace.
                                -Lois McMaster Bujold, "The Borders of Infinity"

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
                                Working...
                                X