need a comeback.

[forestdruid]

Okay, all you numbers-type people out there. I'm not a physicist... quite obviously. Otherwise, I would have gotten better math grades and would not be asking the following question:

Does Van der Waals = gravity on the nano-scale?

Why or why not? They seem similar to me.

I asked this today and was essentially told I was an idiot. sigh.

Comments

[doomsey]

You are an idiot. Sigh.

[forestdruid]

Yes, but I am damn good at it! =P

[goninzo]

No, it's not, but it's an interesting concept.

The masses involved are too small, the pull by Van der Waals is too great. I would imagine it would be an exponential difference, though I don't feel like doing the math right now.

I wouldn't call you an idiot for thinking of that.

[fuzzyscribble]

No...but assuming a zero impedance source...I can calculate secondary fault-current as reflected on the primary-side of a substation transformer so long as I know the rating of your transformer in kVA...it's impedance and the system phase-to-phase voltage.

Need a circuit-switcher?

[forestdruid]

I probably do need a circuit switcher, but I just don't know it yet.

My transformer is something like 4. Might be 4.5, or it might be 2453... it needs a four in there somewhere anyway. What ya got with a four in it?

=P

Sorry I gotta go with "that doesn't make sense"

[misterweasel]

1. Van der Waals isn't a strict term; there are several different things that make it up.
2. It's very much orientation-based; except for noble gas atoms (which aren't orientable) in any other two things that have Van der Waals attraction; the push/pull is based on what side is facing what.
3. Van der Waals includes a repulsive as well as an attractive force; similar to the repulsive force within a molecule that keeps it from just condensing into soup.

But also, in a "poetic" sense I can see where you're going with it; despite that it's not a single "real" force per se:
1. It's a pretty small force, compared to things like EM
2. It is strongest when closest (although I guess I would say it probably isn't 1/x^2)
3. It's a very tiny thing that adds up to lots of "macro" observable consequences, like geckos climbing on glass and such ;)