exchemist

What you are now writing seems to have no connection to your original question. A discussion of reaction mechanisms and formal charges seems to have nothing to do with how you can tell that a reaction is complete or not. I can't comment any further unless you can be clearer about what you are trying to do.

I think that will depend on the reaction in question, won't it? Do you have a particular type in mind?

The pictures don't help without a lot more explanation. What are you talking about?

Your premise appears to be false. Renewable generation is now competitive with fossil fuel electricity production: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/cost-renewable-energy-cheaper-coal/

But that process has nothing to do with the one you were asking us to consider. What you were proposing was conversion of ²He into D. That process, which is only followed in <0.01% of cases, is indeed β+ decay, but it is not fusion. The net conversion achieved by your proposal, starting from α-particles, is ⁴He -> D. This is a convoluted fission process, not fusion and, surprise, surprise requires a net input of energy to achieve it.

Yup, so 2/10 of F-all . You think you can run a viable fusion reactor on that basis?

If you consult the table in the link I provided, you will see >99.99% decay into 2 x 1H, i.e. the 2 protons just fly apart. But it doesn't.

No. The half life is apparently << nanosecond: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium According to my understanding there is no Coulomb “barrier” anyway, in the sense of the repulsion diminishing at very short distances. The repulsion goes on up without limit, so far as I know. Nuclear stability relies on the strong interaction outweighing it, which for 2He it apparently doesn’t.

No. A pair of protons with no neutrons would be unstable and fly apart - and you need neutrons in your fusion reaction anyway, to make helium, which is the product of the reaction. Fusion is usually between deuterium and tritium, leading to helium + a neutron that carries away most of the liberated energy. Deuterium is sourced naturally from water while tritium is "bred" by letting the escaping neutrons react with lithium in a "breeding blanket" surrounding the reaction chamber.

I think there is something wrong here. My understanding is that the entropy corresponds to the information needed to fully describe the system that is absent. Or actually a better word might be unavailable. So you can't equate entropy with information, but to its unavailability. There is a discussion of this here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75146/entropy-and-information

Is the journal reputable or is it one of those potentially predatory ones that appear on Beall’s List, for example? You can I think share the name of it if you like. I can’t see why doing so would be a problem.

You are not making any sense at all.

Are you suggesting such people experience a lower air pressure? If not, what relevance does this have to your hypothesis?

On many forums.

Impossible. This was Theorist again. 🤪

Irrelevant to the thread question.

Wind direction is specified according to the direction it comes from, as that is what you feel on your face and how you relate to the wind to set your sails and steer your vessel. I couldn't quickly find a reference to a "northern current", but I imagine it might make sense to refer to that according to the direction in which it causes your vessel to drift.

That's what I had in mind. But let's see if someone jumps in and tells me I'm quite wrong.........

I’m rusty on this but I should have thought you can get work out of a process with -ve change in G. For instance you could have an electrode potential in a suitable electrochemical cell, even if you could not run a heat engine. If you did find a way to extract work, I think the enthalpy change would become even more -ve, to balance the books. But I’m very much open to correction on this.

Fair point. It all seems to be very murky.

I had read he was a merchant trading goods through to the Mediterranean. Seems likely to me he did quite a lot of travelling. But it is all very obscure, certainly.

Not much passed through Mecca though. More likely Mohammed brought ideas back from his travels to the North. (I admit to being attracted to the “revisionist” school of Wansbrough et al, as it seems to me relatively objective and historical, whereas so much of what is presented as the history of Islam is suffused with the tradition of believers, which cannot often be corroborated.)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wansbrough

Yes I know but the religion did not spring, fully formed, from Mohammed.

I think it arose in the c.5th, probably in Mesopotamia, out of the mix of Judaism, Christianity and other influences. I came into contact with it when I lived in the Middle East. It can engender a very attractive, calm and gentle attitude in its adherents (men and women). But of course in its strident militant form it is just as bad as the Puritanism of old in the Christian world, or even worse. So as with most religion, it can have both positive and negative aspects.

I find difficulty making sense of this.