Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Please read the forum rules before posting.



Check if you are posting in the correct category.



The Off Topic section is not meant for discussing Cookie Clicker.

Material Upgrade

MrMonkey7thMrMonkey7th Member Posts: 1,214 ✭✭✭
You are exploring an abandoned lot when you find an amazing machine which turns your stuff into better stuff! While, it turns it into better stuff some of the time. Sometimes, it seems to malfunction and spit out junk :-( But you use it anyways :-)

You start with some items, which I will tell you when you join. Then, each turn you can put up to three items into the machine, or add one of your items onto the machine to make it better if it is at least Epic rarity.

Then the machine will either give you some new items, if you put some in, or get better if you added an item to it.

Rarities:

Worthless (Can't be put in the machine)
Scrap
Junk
Basic
Common (1% shift)
Uncommon (2% shift)
Rare (3% shift)
Very Rare (4% shift)
Epic (5% shift)
Legendary (6% shift)
Mythic (7% shift)
Fantastical (8% shift)
Godlike (9% shift)
Perfect I (10% shift)
Perfect II (10% shift)
Perfect III (10% shift)
Perfect IV (10% shift)
Perfect V (10% shift)
etc...

Probabilities:
1 item one tier worse 40%
1 item one better 30%
2 items one tier worse 13%
1 item two tiers better* 8%
2 items of the same tier 5%
3 items one tier worse 3%
2 items one tier better* 1%

*Re-roll if new item(s) are mythic or better

For every tier above basic, 1 point of probability is shifted from "one tier better" to "one tier worse", up to a maximum of a 10% shift at Perfect I. Therefor, when you put an uncommon item in the machine, "one tier better" would have a 28% chance of occurring, and "one tier worse" would a have 42% chance of occurring

You can choose to start with either 3 Scrap items, 2 Junk items, or 1 Basic item

Final notes:

If you have two or more items that you think would fit together to create a new real world item, then you could do that. For example, if you had a stick, a spool of thread, and a hook, you could make a fishing rod. The tier of the new item would be up to me, but it would certainly be an improvement.

Bonus points for style! I can and possibly will veto a roll if I think you deserve better.

Items you find around you will automatically be worthless, and can't be put in the machine, so you can't just grab a stick of the ground and throw it in.

If you used to play Material Worth before I killed it, and wish to keep some of your items from that game, that can be arranged, and though the exact rarities won't be kept, bonuses may be given.
e^i*π=-1
«1

Comments

  • YosukeHanamuraYosukeHanamura Member Posts: 183 ✭✭
    I don't quite understand this forum game. Can you explain it to me?
    In modern physics, antimatter is defined as a material composed of the antiparticle (or "partners") to the corresponding particles of ordinary matter.

    In theory, a particle and its anti-particle have the same mass as one another, but opposite electric charge, and other differences in quantum numbers. For example, a proton has positive charge while an antiproton has negative charge. A collision between any particle and its anti-particle partner is known to lead to their mutual annihilation, giving rise to various proportions of intense photons (gamma rays), neutrinos, and sometimes less-massive particle–antiparticle pairs.

    Annihilation usually results in a release of energy that becomes available for heat or work. The amount of the released energy is usually proportional to the total mass of the collided matter and antimatter, in accord with the mass–energy equivalence equation, E = mc2.

    Antimatter particles bind with one another to form antimatter, just as ordinary particles bind to form normal matter. For example, a positron (the antiparticle of the electron) and an antiproton (the antiparticle of the proton) can form an antihydrogen atom. Physical principles indicate that complex antimatter atomic nuclei are possible, as well as anti-atoms corresponding to the known chemical elements.

    There is considerable speculation as to why the observable universe is composed almost entirely of ordinary matter, as opposed to an equal mixture of matter and antimatter. This asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the great unsolved problems in physics. The process by which this inequality between matter and antimatter particles developed is called baryogenesis.

    Antimatter in the form of anti-atoms is one of the most difficult materials to produce. Individual antimatter particles, however, are commonly produced by particle accelerators and in some types of radioactive decay. The nuclei of antihelium have been artificially produced with difficulty. These are the most complex anti-nuclei so far observed.

    Formally, antimatter particles can be defined by their negative baryon number or lepton number, while "normal" (non-antimatter) matter particles have a positive baryon or lepton number. These two classes of particles are the antiparticle partners of one another.

    The idea of negative matter appears in past theories of matter that have now been abandoned. Using the once popular vortex theory of gravity, the possibility of matter with negative gravity was discussed by William Hicks in the 1880s. Between the 1880s and the 1890s, Karl Pearson proposed the existence of "squirts" and sinks of the flow of aether. The squirts represented normal matter and the sinks represented negative matter. Pearson's theory required a fourth dimension for the aether to flow from and into.

    The term antimatter was first used by Arthur Schuster in two rather whimsical letters to Nature in 1898, in which he coined the term. He hypothesized antiatoms, as well as whole antimatter solar systems, and discussed the possibility of matter and antimatter annihilating each other. Schuster's ideas were not a serious theoretical proposal, merely speculation, and like the previous ideas, differed from the modern concept of antimatter in that it possessed negative gravity.

    The modern theory of antimatter began in 1928, with a paper by Paul Dirac. Dirac realised that his relativistic version of the Schrödinger wave equation for electrons predicted the possibility of antielectrons. These were discovered by Carl D. Anderson in 1932 and named positrons (a portmanteau of "positive electron"). Although Dirac did not himself use the term antimatter, its use follows on naturally enough from antielectrons, antiprotons, etc. A complete periodic table of antimatter was envisaged by Charles Janet in 1929.

    The Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation states that antimatter and antiparticles are regular particles traveling backward in time.

    There are compelling theoretical reasons to believe that, aside from the fact that antiparticles have different signs on all charges (such as electric charge and spin), matter and antimatter have exactly the same properties. This means a particle and its corresponding antiparticle must have identical masses and decay lifetimes (if unstable). It also implies that, for example, a star made up of antimatter (an "antistar") will shine just like an ordinary star. This idea was tested experimentally in 2016 by the ALPHA experiment, which measured the transition between the two lowest energy states of antihydrogen. The results, which are identical to that of hydrogen, confirmed the validity of quantum mechanics for antimatter.

    Positrons were reported in November 2008 to have been generated by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in larger numbers than by any previous synthetic process. A laser drove electrons through a gold target's nuclei, which caused the incoming electrons to emit energy quanta that decayed into both matter and antimatter. Positrons were detected at a higher rate and in greater density than ever previously detected in a laboratory. Previous experiments made smaller quantities of positrons using lasers and paper-thin targets; however, new simulations showed that short, ultra-intense lasers and millimeter-thick gold are a far more effective source.

    Antimatter cannot be stored in a container made of ordinary matter because antimatter reacts with any matter it touches, annihilating itself and an equal amount of the container. Antimatter in the form of charged particles can be contained by a combination of electric and magnetic fields, in a device called a Penning trap. This device cannot, however, contain antimatter that consists of uncharged particles, for which atomic traps are used. In particular, such a trap may use the dipole moment (electric or magnetic) of the trapped particles. At high vacuum, the matter or antimatter particles can be trapped and cooled with slightly off-resonant laser radiation using a magneto-optical trap or magnetic trap. Small particles can also be suspended with optical tweezers, using a highly focused laser beam.

    In 2011, CERN scientists were able to preserve antihydrogen for approximately 17 minutes.

    Scientists claim that antimatter is the costliest material to make. In 2006, Gerald Smith estimated $250 million could produce 10 milligrams of positrons (equivalent to $25 billion per gram); in 1999, NASA gave a figure of $62.5 trillion per gram of antihydrogen. This is because production is difficult (only very few antiprotons are produced in reactions in particle accelerators), and because there is higher demand for other uses of particle accelerators. According to CERN, it has cost a few hundred million Swiss francs to produce about 1 billionth of a gram (the amount used so far for particle/antiparticle collisions). In comparison, to produce the first atomic weapon, the cost of the Manhattan Project was estimated at $23 billion with inflation during 2007.

    Several studies funded by the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts are exploring whether it might be possible to use magnetic scoops to collect the antimatter that occurs naturally in the Van Allen belt of the Earth, and ultimately, the belts of gas giants, like Jupiter, hopefully at a lower cost per gram.

    Matter–antimatter reactions have practical applications in medical imaging, such as positron emission tomography (PET). In positive beta decay, a nuclide loses surplus positive charge by emitting a positron (in the same event, a proton becomes a neutron, and a neutrino is also emitted). Nuclides with surplus positive charge are easily made in a cyclotron and are widely generated for medical use. Antiprotons have also been shown within laboratory experiments to have the potential to treat certain cancers, in a similar method currently used for ion (proton) therapy.

    Antimatter has been considered as a trigger mechanism for nuclear weapons. A major obstacle is the difficulty of producing antimatter in large enough quantities, and there is no evidence that it will ever be feasible. However, the U.S. Air Force funded studies of the physics of antimatter in the Cold War, and began considering its possible use in weapons, not just as a trigger, but as the explosive itself.
  • ScribbliumScribblium Member Posts: 271 ✭✭
    edited December 2017
    SCP 914 isn't happy about this.
    I'm gonna join. 2 Basic items.
    Post edited by Scribblium on
    Relationship Status: 30i (Imaginary)
  • SphealSpheal Member Posts: 59 ✭✭
    Joining 2 junk items
  • MrMonkey7thMrMonkey7th Member Posts: 1,214 ✭✭✭
    @YosukeHanamura

    On your turn, put stuff into the machine, get (hopefully) better stuff back, repeat ad infinitum.
    -----
    @Scribblium

    You can't get 2 basic items. The options are 3 Scrap items, 2 Junk items, or 1 Basic item.
    -----
    @Spheal

    You get a Rusty Razor Blade (Junk), and a Ripped Sock (Junk). Remember, you can put up to three items into the machine per turn, and style is appreciated.

    Items:
    Rusty Razor Blade (Junk)
    Ripped Sock (Junk)
    e^i*π=-1
  • ScribbliumScribblium Member Posts: 271 ✭✭
    *1 Basic
    Relationship Status: 30i (Imaginary)
  • YosukeHanamuraYosukeHanamura Member Posts: 183 ✭✭
    2 Junk Items
    In modern physics, antimatter is defined as a material composed of the antiparticle (or "partners") to the corresponding particles of ordinary matter.

    In theory, a particle and its anti-particle have the same mass as one another, but opposite electric charge, and other differences in quantum numbers. For example, a proton has positive charge while an antiproton has negative charge. A collision between any particle and its anti-particle partner is known to lead to their mutual annihilation, giving rise to various proportions of intense photons (gamma rays), neutrinos, and sometimes less-massive particle–antiparticle pairs.

    Annihilation usually results in a release of energy that becomes available for heat or work. The amount of the released energy is usually proportional to the total mass of the collided matter and antimatter, in accord with the mass–energy equivalence equation, E = mc2.

    Antimatter particles bind with one another to form antimatter, just as ordinary particles bind to form normal matter. For example, a positron (the antiparticle of the electron) and an antiproton (the antiparticle of the proton) can form an antihydrogen atom. Physical principles indicate that complex antimatter atomic nuclei are possible, as well as anti-atoms corresponding to the known chemical elements.

    There is considerable speculation as to why the observable universe is composed almost entirely of ordinary matter, as opposed to an equal mixture of matter and antimatter. This asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the great unsolved problems in physics. The process by which this inequality between matter and antimatter particles developed is called baryogenesis.

    Antimatter in the form of anti-atoms is one of the most difficult materials to produce. Individual antimatter particles, however, are commonly produced by particle accelerators and in some types of radioactive decay. The nuclei of antihelium have been artificially produced with difficulty. These are the most complex anti-nuclei so far observed.

    Formally, antimatter particles can be defined by their negative baryon number or lepton number, while "normal" (non-antimatter) matter particles have a positive baryon or lepton number. These two classes of particles are the antiparticle partners of one another.

    The idea of negative matter appears in past theories of matter that have now been abandoned. Using the once popular vortex theory of gravity, the possibility of matter with negative gravity was discussed by William Hicks in the 1880s. Between the 1880s and the 1890s, Karl Pearson proposed the existence of "squirts" and sinks of the flow of aether. The squirts represented normal matter and the sinks represented negative matter. Pearson's theory required a fourth dimension for the aether to flow from and into.

    The term antimatter was first used by Arthur Schuster in two rather whimsical letters to Nature in 1898, in which he coined the term. He hypothesized antiatoms, as well as whole antimatter solar systems, and discussed the possibility of matter and antimatter annihilating each other. Schuster's ideas were not a serious theoretical proposal, merely speculation, and like the previous ideas, differed from the modern concept of antimatter in that it possessed negative gravity.

    The modern theory of antimatter began in 1928, with a paper by Paul Dirac. Dirac realised that his relativistic version of the Schrödinger wave equation for electrons predicted the possibility of antielectrons. These were discovered by Carl D. Anderson in 1932 and named positrons (a portmanteau of "positive electron"). Although Dirac did not himself use the term antimatter, its use follows on naturally enough from antielectrons, antiprotons, etc. A complete periodic table of antimatter was envisaged by Charles Janet in 1929.

    The Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation states that antimatter and antiparticles are regular particles traveling backward in time.

    There are compelling theoretical reasons to believe that, aside from the fact that antiparticles have different signs on all charges (such as electric charge and spin), matter and antimatter have exactly the same properties. This means a particle and its corresponding antiparticle must have identical masses and decay lifetimes (if unstable). It also implies that, for example, a star made up of antimatter (an "antistar") will shine just like an ordinary star. This idea was tested experimentally in 2016 by the ALPHA experiment, which measured the transition between the two lowest energy states of antihydrogen. The results, which are identical to that of hydrogen, confirmed the validity of quantum mechanics for antimatter.

    Positrons were reported in November 2008 to have been generated by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in larger numbers than by any previous synthetic process. A laser drove electrons through a gold target's nuclei, which caused the incoming electrons to emit energy quanta that decayed into both matter and antimatter. Positrons were detected at a higher rate and in greater density than ever previously detected in a laboratory. Previous experiments made smaller quantities of positrons using lasers and paper-thin targets; however, new simulations showed that short, ultra-intense lasers and millimeter-thick gold are a far more effective source.

    Antimatter cannot be stored in a container made of ordinary matter because antimatter reacts with any matter it touches, annihilating itself and an equal amount of the container. Antimatter in the form of charged particles can be contained by a combination of electric and magnetic fields, in a device called a Penning trap. This device cannot, however, contain antimatter that consists of uncharged particles, for which atomic traps are used. In particular, such a trap may use the dipole moment (electric or magnetic) of the trapped particles. At high vacuum, the matter or antimatter particles can be trapped and cooled with slightly off-resonant laser radiation using a magneto-optical trap or magnetic trap. Small particles can also be suspended with optical tweezers, using a highly focused laser beam.

    In 2011, CERN scientists were able to preserve antihydrogen for approximately 17 minutes.

    Scientists claim that antimatter is the costliest material to make. In 2006, Gerald Smith estimated $250 million could produce 10 milligrams of positrons (equivalent to $25 billion per gram); in 1999, NASA gave a figure of $62.5 trillion per gram of antihydrogen. This is because production is difficult (only very few antiprotons are produced in reactions in particle accelerators), and because there is higher demand for other uses of particle accelerators. According to CERN, it has cost a few hundred million Swiss francs to produce about 1 billionth of a gram (the amount used so far for particle/antiparticle collisions). In comparison, to produce the first atomic weapon, the cost of the Manhattan Project was estimated at $23 billion with inflation during 2007.

    Several studies funded by the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts are exploring whether it might be possible to use magnetic scoops to collect the antimatter that occurs naturally in the Van Allen belt of the Earth, and ultimately, the belts of gas giants, like Jupiter, hopefully at a lower cost per gram.

    Matter–antimatter reactions have practical applications in medical imaging, such as positron emission tomography (PET). In positive beta decay, a nuclide loses surplus positive charge by emitting a positron (in the same event, a proton becomes a neutron, and a neutrino is also emitted). Nuclides with surplus positive charge are easily made in a cyclotron and are widely generated for medical use. Antiprotons have also been shown within laboratory experiments to have the potential to treat certain cancers, in a similar method currently used for ion (proton) therapy.

    Antimatter has been considered as a trigger mechanism for nuclear weapons. A major obstacle is the difficulty of producing antimatter in large enough quantities, and there is no evidence that it will ever be feasible. However, the U.S. Air Force funded studies of the physics of antimatter in the Cold War, and began considering its possible use in weapons, not just as a trigger, but as the explosive itself.
  • SphealSpheal Member Posts: 59 ✭✭
    I put in the rusty razor blade and the sock
  • MrMonkey7thMrMonkey7th Member Posts: 1,214 ✭✭✭
    @Scribblium

    You get a Knitted Winter Glove (Basic)

    Items:
    Knitted Winter Glove (Basic)
    -----
    @YosukeHanamura

    You get Tattered Rug (Junk), and a Cracked Jar (Junk)

    Items:
    Tattered Rug (Junk)
    Cracked Jar (Junk)
    -----
    @Spheal

    You put your items into the machine, and the razor blade turns into Shards of Glass (Scrap). The sock turns into a Half Eaten Muffin (Junk), and a Stained Shirt (Junk)

    Items:
    Shards of Glass (Scrap)
    Half Eaten Muffin (Junk)
    Stained Shirt (Junk)
    -----
    For my reference:

    1 item one tier worse 40% 1-40
    1 item one better 30% 41-70
    2 items one tier worse 13% 71-83
    1 item two tiers better* 8% 84-91
    2 items of the same tier 5% 92-96
    3 items one tier worse 3% 97-99
    2 items one tier better* 1% 100
    e^i*π=-1
  • SphealSpheal Member Posts: 59 ✭✭
    I put in all my items
  • ScribbliumScribblium Member Posts: 271 ✭✭
    Input my item
    Relationship Status: 30i (Imaginary)
  • MrMonkey7thMrMonkey7th Member Posts: 1,214 ✭✭✭
    @Spheal

    Remember, I will improve your roll if you do more than just "I put it into the machine".

    Items:
    Chipped Cup (Junk)
    Extra Sharp Chainsaw (Common)
    Ripped Rags (Scrap)
    -----
    @Scribblium

    Remember, I will improve your roll if you do more than just "I put it into the machine".

    Items:
    Torn Winter Glove (Junk)
    -----
    For my reference:

    1 item one tier worse 40% 1-40
    1 item one better 30% 41-70
    2 items one tier worse 13% 71-83
    1 item two tiers better* 8% 84-91
    2 items of the same tier 5% 92-96
    3 items one tier worse 3% 97-99
    2 items one tier better* 1% 100
    e^i*π=-1
  • tommo1993tommo1993 Member Posts: 374 ✭✭
    I'd like to start with 3 scrap items.
    Nope! Nothing here!
  • SphealSpheal Member Posts: 59 ✭✭
    (ohhh i see how this works)
    Deciding to keep the chainsaw, I throw the rest of the item into the machine, which gobbles it up greedilyl
  • MrMonkey7thMrMonkey7th Member Posts: 1,214 ✭✭✭
    @tommo1993

    Items:
    Smashed Vase (Scrap)
    Ripped Paper (Scrap)
    Pile of Ash (Scrap)
    -----
    @Spheal

    There you go! You got a 32 turned into a 42!

    Items:
    Warm Blanket (Basic)
    Extra Sharp Chainsaw (Common)
    Tattered Curtains (Junk)
    -----
    1 item one tier worse 40% 1-40
    1 item one better 30% 41-70
    2 items one tier worse 13% 71-83
    1 item two tiers better* 8% 84-91
    2 items of the same tier 5% 92-96
    3 items one tier worse 3% 97-99
    2 items one tier better* 1% 100
    e^i*π=-1
  • tommo1993tommo1993 Member Posts: 374 ✭✭
    I throw all items inside the machine
    Nope! Nothing here!
  • SphealSpheal Member Posts: 59 ✭✭
    Bam! I wrap the curtains and blanket into a ball and shoot it into the machine. Three points!
  • MrMonkey7thMrMonkey7th Member Posts: 1,214 ✭✭✭
    @tommo1993

    Remember, I will improve your roll if you do more than just "I put it into the machine".

    You got a 31 and a 25, but your items are already Scrap, so neither applied.

    Items:
    Dented pot (Junk)
    Ripped Paper (Scrap)
    Pile of Ash (Scrap)
    -----
    @Spheal

    I turned a 31 into a 41, just barely making it into the better category, but I couldn't do anything for your poor 5.

    Items:
    Electrically Heated Blanket (Common)
    Extra Sharp Chainsaw (Common)
    Heap of Sawdust (Scrap)
    -----
    1 item one tier worse 40% 1-40
    1 item one better 30% 41-70
    2 items one tier worse 13% 71-83
    1 item two tiers better* 8% 84-91
    2 items of the same tier 5% 92-96
    3 items one tier worse 3% 97-99
    2 items one tier better* 1% 100
    e^i*π=-1
  • tommo1993tommo1993 Member Posts: 374 ✭✭
    I put a pile of ash inside the pot and I cover it with ripped paper. I put that thing inside the machine.
    Nope! Nothing here!
  • YosukeHanamuraYosukeHanamura Member Posts: 183 ✭✭
    I grab the Tattered Rug and the Cracked Jar, put them in a blender, then into the machine.
    In modern physics, antimatter is defined as a material composed of the antiparticle (or "partners") to the corresponding particles of ordinary matter.

    In theory, a particle and its anti-particle have the same mass as one another, but opposite electric charge, and other differences in quantum numbers. For example, a proton has positive charge while an antiproton has negative charge. A collision between any particle and its anti-particle partner is known to lead to their mutual annihilation, giving rise to various proportions of intense photons (gamma rays), neutrinos, and sometimes less-massive particle–antiparticle pairs.

    Annihilation usually results in a release of energy that becomes available for heat or work. The amount of the released energy is usually proportional to the total mass of the collided matter and antimatter, in accord with the mass–energy equivalence equation, E = mc2.

    Antimatter particles bind with one another to form antimatter, just as ordinary particles bind to form normal matter. For example, a positron (the antiparticle of the electron) and an antiproton (the antiparticle of the proton) can form an antihydrogen atom. Physical principles indicate that complex antimatter atomic nuclei are possible, as well as anti-atoms corresponding to the known chemical elements.

    There is considerable speculation as to why the observable universe is composed almost entirely of ordinary matter, as opposed to an equal mixture of matter and antimatter. This asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the great unsolved problems in physics. The process by which this inequality between matter and antimatter particles developed is called baryogenesis.

    Antimatter in the form of anti-atoms is one of the most difficult materials to produce. Individual antimatter particles, however, are commonly produced by particle accelerators and in some types of radioactive decay. The nuclei of antihelium have been artificially produced with difficulty. These are the most complex anti-nuclei so far observed.

    Formally, antimatter particles can be defined by their negative baryon number or lepton number, while "normal" (non-antimatter) matter particles have a positive baryon or lepton number. These two classes of particles are the antiparticle partners of one another.

    The idea of negative matter appears in past theories of matter that have now been abandoned. Using the once popular vortex theory of gravity, the possibility of matter with negative gravity was discussed by William Hicks in the 1880s. Between the 1880s and the 1890s, Karl Pearson proposed the existence of "squirts" and sinks of the flow of aether. The squirts represented normal matter and the sinks represented negative matter. Pearson's theory required a fourth dimension for the aether to flow from and into.

    The term antimatter was first used by Arthur Schuster in two rather whimsical letters to Nature in 1898, in which he coined the term. He hypothesized antiatoms, as well as whole antimatter solar systems, and discussed the possibility of matter and antimatter annihilating each other. Schuster's ideas were not a serious theoretical proposal, merely speculation, and like the previous ideas, differed from the modern concept of antimatter in that it possessed negative gravity.

    The modern theory of antimatter began in 1928, with a paper by Paul Dirac. Dirac realised that his relativistic version of the Schrödinger wave equation for electrons predicted the possibility of antielectrons. These were discovered by Carl D. Anderson in 1932 and named positrons (a portmanteau of "positive electron"). Although Dirac did not himself use the term antimatter, its use follows on naturally enough from antielectrons, antiprotons, etc. A complete periodic table of antimatter was envisaged by Charles Janet in 1929.

    The Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation states that antimatter and antiparticles are regular particles traveling backward in time.

    There are compelling theoretical reasons to believe that, aside from the fact that antiparticles have different signs on all charges (such as electric charge and spin), matter and antimatter have exactly the same properties. This means a particle and its corresponding antiparticle must have identical masses and decay lifetimes (if unstable). It also implies that, for example, a star made up of antimatter (an "antistar") will shine just like an ordinary star. This idea was tested experimentally in 2016 by the ALPHA experiment, which measured the transition between the two lowest energy states of antihydrogen. The results, which are identical to that of hydrogen, confirmed the validity of quantum mechanics for antimatter.

    Positrons were reported in November 2008 to have been generated by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in larger numbers than by any previous synthetic process. A laser drove electrons through a gold target's nuclei, which caused the incoming electrons to emit energy quanta that decayed into both matter and antimatter. Positrons were detected at a higher rate and in greater density than ever previously detected in a laboratory. Previous experiments made smaller quantities of positrons using lasers and paper-thin targets; however, new simulations showed that short, ultra-intense lasers and millimeter-thick gold are a far more effective source.

    Antimatter cannot be stored in a container made of ordinary matter because antimatter reacts with any matter it touches, annihilating itself and an equal amount of the container. Antimatter in the form of charged particles can be contained by a combination of electric and magnetic fields, in a device called a Penning trap. This device cannot, however, contain antimatter that consists of uncharged particles, for which atomic traps are used. In particular, such a trap may use the dipole moment (electric or magnetic) of the trapped particles. At high vacuum, the matter or antimatter particles can be trapped and cooled with slightly off-resonant laser radiation using a magneto-optical trap or magnetic trap. Small particles can also be suspended with optical tweezers, using a highly focused laser beam.

    In 2011, CERN scientists were able to preserve antihydrogen for approximately 17 minutes.

    Scientists claim that antimatter is the costliest material to make. In 2006, Gerald Smith estimated $250 million could produce 10 milligrams of positrons (equivalent to $25 billion per gram); in 1999, NASA gave a figure of $62.5 trillion per gram of antihydrogen. This is because production is difficult (only very few antiprotons are produced in reactions in particle accelerators), and because there is higher demand for other uses of particle accelerators. According to CERN, it has cost a few hundred million Swiss francs to produce about 1 billionth of a gram (the amount used so far for particle/antiparticle collisions). In comparison, to produce the first atomic weapon, the cost of the Manhattan Project was estimated at $23 billion with inflation during 2007.

    Several studies funded by the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts are exploring whether it might be possible to use magnetic scoops to collect the antimatter that occurs naturally in the Van Allen belt of the Earth, and ultimately, the belts of gas giants, like Jupiter, hopefully at a lower cost per gram.

    Matter–antimatter reactions have practical applications in medical imaging, such as positron emission tomography (PET). In positive beta decay, a nuclide loses surplus positive charge by emitting a positron (in the same event, a proton becomes a neutron, and a neutrino is also emitted). Nuclides with surplus positive charge are easily made in a cyclotron and are widely generated for medical use. Antiprotons have also been shown within laboratory experiments to have the potential to treat certain cancers, in a similar method currently used for ion (proton) therapy.

    Antimatter has been considered as a trigger mechanism for nuclear weapons. A major obstacle is the difficulty of producing antimatter in large enough quantities, and there is no evidence that it will ever be feasible. However, the U.S. Air Force funded studies of the physics of antimatter in the Cold War, and began considering its possible use in weapons, not just as a trigger, but as the explosive itself.
  • SphealSpheal Member Posts: 59 ✭✭
    (im pulling a blank here)
    I cover up the saw dust with the blanket, turn it on, and drop it into the machine
  • MrMonkey7thMrMonkey7th Member Posts: 1,214 ✭✭✭
    edited January 2
    @tommo1993

    A bonus would not effect any of your rolls, they were already quite good.

    Items:
    Super Soft Beanbag Chair (Common)
    Worn Out Charging Cord (Junk)
    Bent Spoon (Junk)
    -----
    @YosukeHanamura

    You got an 82 turned into a 92, but your poor little 5 couldn't be saved.

    Items:
    Torn Sheets (Junk)
    Bent Nails (Junk)
    Rusted Metal Shards (Scrap)
    Blender (Worthless)
    -----
    @Spheal

    You do that and the heat is actually enough to ignite the sawdust! You have a choice. You could either take this new thing as a Indefinite Fire Ball (Uncommon), or do as you said before and put both items into the machine as individuals.

    Items:
    Depends on your choice...
    -----
    1 item one tier worse 40% 1-40
    1 item one better 30% 41-70
    2 items one tier worse 13% 71-83
    1 item two tiers better* 8% 84-91
    2 items of the same tier 5% 92-96
    3 items one tier worse 3% 97-99
    2 items one tier better* 1% 100
    OP chooses 101-106
    Player chooses 107+
    Post edited by MrMonkey7th on
    e^i*π=-1
  • tommo1993tommo1993 Member Posts: 374 ✭✭
    All in!
    Nope! Nothing here!
  • YosukeHanamuraYosukeHanamura Member Posts: 183 ✭✭
    I put all the items i can put while being rick-rolled
    Me:COME ON! I WANTED TO LEARN HOW TO PLAY A GAME!
    In modern physics, antimatter is defined as a material composed of the antiparticle (or "partners") to the corresponding particles of ordinary matter.

    In theory, a particle and its anti-particle have the same mass as one another, but opposite electric charge, and other differences in quantum numbers. For example, a proton has positive charge while an antiproton has negative charge. A collision between any particle and its anti-particle partner is known to lead to their mutual annihilation, giving rise to various proportions of intense photons (gamma rays), neutrinos, and sometimes less-massive particle–antiparticle pairs.

    Annihilation usually results in a release of energy that becomes available for heat or work. The amount of the released energy is usually proportional to the total mass of the collided matter and antimatter, in accord with the mass–energy equivalence equation, E = mc2.

    Antimatter particles bind with one another to form antimatter, just as ordinary particles bind to form normal matter. For example, a positron (the antiparticle of the electron) and an antiproton (the antiparticle of the proton) can form an antihydrogen atom. Physical principles indicate that complex antimatter atomic nuclei are possible, as well as anti-atoms corresponding to the known chemical elements.

    There is considerable speculation as to why the observable universe is composed almost entirely of ordinary matter, as opposed to an equal mixture of matter and antimatter. This asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the great unsolved problems in physics. The process by which this inequality between matter and antimatter particles developed is called baryogenesis.

    Antimatter in the form of anti-atoms is one of the most difficult materials to produce. Individual antimatter particles, however, are commonly produced by particle accelerators and in some types of radioactive decay. The nuclei of antihelium have been artificially produced with difficulty. These are the most complex anti-nuclei so far observed.

    Formally, antimatter particles can be defined by their negative baryon number or lepton number, while "normal" (non-antimatter) matter particles have a positive baryon or lepton number. These two classes of particles are the antiparticle partners of one another.

    The idea of negative matter appears in past theories of matter that have now been abandoned. Using the once popular vortex theory of gravity, the possibility of matter with negative gravity was discussed by William Hicks in the 1880s. Between the 1880s and the 1890s, Karl Pearson proposed the existence of "squirts" and sinks of the flow of aether. The squirts represented normal matter and the sinks represented negative matter. Pearson's theory required a fourth dimension for the aether to flow from and into.

    The term antimatter was first used by Arthur Schuster in two rather whimsical letters to Nature in 1898, in which he coined the term. He hypothesized antiatoms, as well as whole antimatter solar systems, and discussed the possibility of matter and antimatter annihilating each other. Schuster's ideas were not a serious theoretical proposal, merely speculation, and like the previous ideas, differed from the modern concept of antimatter in that it possessed negative gravity.

    The modern theory of antimatter began in 1928, with a paper by Paul Dirac. Dirac realised that his relativistic version of the Schrödinger wave equation for electrons predicted the possibility of antielectrons. These were discovered by Carl D. Anderson in 1932 and named positrons (a portmanteau of "positive electron"). Although Dirac did not himself use the term antimatter, its use follows on naturally enough from antielectrons, antiprotons, etc. A complete periodic table of antimatter was envisaged by Charles Janet in 1929.

    The Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation states that antimatter and antiparticles are regular particles traveling backward in time.

    There are compelling theoretical reasons to believe that, aside from the fact that antiparticles have different signs on all charges (such as electric charge and spin), matter and antimatter have exactly the same properties. This means a particle and its corresponding antiparticle must have identical masses and decay lifetimes (if unstable). It also implies that, for example, a star made up of antimatter (an "antistar") will shine just like an ordinary star. This idea was tested experimentally in 2016 by the ALPHA experiment, which measured the transition between the two lowest energy states of antihydrogen. The results, which are identical to that of hydrogen, confirmed the validity of quantum mechanics for antimatter.

    Positrons were reported in November 2008 to have been generated by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in larger numbers than by any previous synthetic process. A laser drove electrons through a gold target's nuclei, which caused the incoming electrons to emit energy quanta that decayed into both matter and antimatter. Positrons were detected at a higher rate and in greater density than ever previously detected in a laboratory. Previous experiments made smaller quantities of positrons using lasers and paper-thin targets; however, new simulations showed that short, ultra-intense lasers and millimeter-thick gold are a far more effective source.

    Antimatter cannot be stored in a container made of ordinary matter because antimatter reacts with any matter it touches, annihilating itself and an equal amount of the container. Antimatter in the form of charged particles can be contained by a combination of electric and magnetic fields, in a device called a Penning trap. This device cannot, however, contain antimatter that consists of uncharged particles, for which atomic traps are used. In particular, such a trap may use the dipole moment (electric or magnetic) of the trapped particles. At high vacuum, the matter or antimatter particles can be trapped and cooled with slightly off-resonant laser radiation using a magneto-optical trap or magnetic trap. Small particles can also be suspended with optical tweezers, using a highly focused laser beam.

    In 2011, CERN scientists were able to preserve antihydrogen for approximately 17 minutes.

    Scientists claim that antimatter is the costliest material to make. In 2006, Gerald Smith estimated $250 million could produce 10 milligrams of positrons (equivalent to $25 billion per gram); in 1999, NASA gave a figure of $62.5 trillion per gram of antihydrogen. This is because production is difficult (only very few antiprotons are produced in reactions in particle accelerators), and because there is higher demand for other uses of particle accelerators. According to CERN, it has cost a few hundred million Swiss francs to produce about 1 billionth of a gram (the amount used so far for particle/antiparticle collisions). In comparison, to produce the first atomic weapon, the cost of the Manhattan Project was estimated at $23 billion with inflation during 2007.

    Several studies funded by the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts are exploring whether it might be possible to use magnetic scoops to collect the antimatter that occurs naturally in the Van Allen belt of the Earth, and ultimately, the belts of gas giants, like Jupiter, hopefully at a lower cost per gram.

    Matter–antimatter reactions have practical applications in medical imaging, such as positron emission tomography (PET). In positive beta decay, a nuclide loses surplus positive charge by emitting a positron (in the same event, a proton becomes a neutron, and a neutrino is also emitted). Nuclides with surplus positive charge are easily made in a cyclotron and are widely generated for medical use. Antiprotons have also been shown within laboratory experiments to have the potential to treat certain cancers, in a similar method currently used for ion (proton) therapy.

    Antimatter has been considered as a trigger mechanism for nuclear weapons. A major obstacle is the difficulty of producing antimatter in large enough quantities, and there is no evidence that it will ever be feasible. However, the U.S. Air Force funded studies of the physics of antimatter in the Cold War, and began considering its possible use in weapons, not just as a trigger, but as the explosive itself.
  • SphealSpheal Member Posts: 59 ✭✭
    FIRE BALL YES (wait how will i pick it up)
  • ScribbliumScribblium Member Posts: 271 ✭✭
    edited January 3
    I tear a strip of cotton from the glove and fold it into a plane. Then I put it in the machine.
    Post edited by Scribblium on
    Relationship Status: 30i (Imaginary)
  • MrMonkey7thMrMonkey7th Member Posts: 1,214 ✭✭✭
    @AllOfYou

    Trading between players is totally allowed, and would probably make it easier to get combinations of items that could be crafted.
    -----
    @tommo1993

    Ouch! 15, 9, and 28. A terrible run...

    Items:
    Armchair (Basic)
    Melted Plastic (Scrap)
    Pieces of Thread (Scrap)
    -----
    @YosukeHanamura

    A bonus wouldn't bring any of your rolls up to the next category.

    Items:
    Splinters (Scrap)
    Pile of Dirt (Scrap)
    Firewood (Basic)
    Rusted Metal Shards (Scrap)
    Blender (Worthless)
    -----
    @Spheal

    I don't know how you're going to pick it up. Not my problem :-)

    Items:
    Indefinite Fire Ball (Uncommon)
    Extra Sharp Chainsaw (Common)
    -----
    @Scribblium

    Back up to Basic.

    Items:
    Handcrafted Winter Glove (Basic)
    -----
    1 item one tier worse 40% 1-40
    1 item one better 30% 41-70
    2 items one tier worse 13% 71-83
    1 item two tiers better* 8% 84-91
    2 items of the same tier 5% 92-96
    3 items one tier worse 3% 97-99
    2 items one tier better* 1% 100
    OP chooses 101-106
    Player chooses 107+
    e^i*π=-1
  • tommo1993tommo1993 Member Posts: 374 ✭✭
    I put melted plastic on that armchair and I put pieces of thread around the melted plastic in a way, that would look good and I put that in the machine.
    Nope! Nothing here!
  • SphealSpheal Member Posts: 59 ✭✭
    I put the fire ball together with the chainsaw for a FLAMING CHAINSAW (if that doesn't work then put them both into the machine i guess)
  • ScribbliumScribblium Member Posts: 271 ✭✭
    Remove the fingers, then input the fingers in the machine.
    Relationship Status: 30i (Imaginary)
  • MrMonkey7thMrMonkey7th Member Posts: 1,214 ✭✭✭
    @tommo1993

    Way better rolls, and the bonus helped to get there.

    Items:
    Diamond Ring (Common)
    Broken Glass (Scrap)
    Mound of Sand (Scrap)
    Raggedy Shirt (Junk)
    -----
    @Spheal

    I like how you think... :-)

    You can either automatically make the rarity of this new item Rare, or you can do a random roll, 50/50 for either Uncommon or Very Rare. It's up to you...

    Items:
    Super Cool Flaming Chainsaw of Doom (Depends)
    -----
    @Scribblium

    Sure, I'll let you make two items out of one, that's creative, but the process of effectively crafting a new item takes your entire turn.

    Items:

    Handcrafted Fingerless Glove (Basic)
    Glove Fingers (Junk)
    -----
    1 item one tier worse 40% 1-40
    1 item one better 30% 41-70
    2 items one tier worse 13% 71-83
    1 item two tiers better* 8% 84-91
    2 items of the same tier 5% 92-96
    3 items one tier worse 3% 97-99
    2 items one tier better* 1% 100
    OP chooses 101-106
    Player chooses 107+
    e^i*π=-1
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.