exchemist

I think the troll has now been banned, but the mods haven't yet dreamt up a suitably humorous post to record it for posterity. But what a twat, eh?

If such allergies affected a significant proportion of the population and involves enough of the foodstuffs consumed then it would generate evolutionary pressure, I'm sure. But as it affects only a small fringe of people, I suppose it's possible that the rate at which allergies arise is in balance with the rate of extinction of them. There are examples of food intolerance modifying a population, for instance the ability of adult N Europeans to consume animal milk without trouble, whereas lactose intolerance in adults is the default in many populations originating outside N Europe.

Yes of course they do - though people argue about how to interpret QM. By the way, "common sense" is a lousy guide to either QM or GR. Both were developed by rigorously following the observations, without preconceptions.

Yes, yes, but we're all waiting for you to start spamming. Then we'll ban you. 😆

Mechanical energy can be converted into non-mechanical forms of energy, e.g. chemical or electrical energy. So it is obvious that mechanical energy is not conserved.

Yes, it's curious. It rather looks to me as if he wants to get banned, perhaps (I speculate) in order to reinforce a worldview of victimisation by woke atheists, or some such Trumpy paranoia. At least, that's what comes across. Either that or he's just a random loony with "issues". Anyway, I expect he'll get his wish eventually.

Yes exactly. The spectrum of any element or compound is usually a series of lines (atoms) or bands (molecules) of absorption or emission at characteristic wavelengths, corresponding to the various natural excitations that are possible in the species in question. With a complex mixture it can be quite tricky disentangling them and assigning them to whatever is responsible. One generally looks first for certain strong lines or bands that are not often overlain by something else, or in the case of water certain features like the broad blob of absorption it gives in the IR. Once you know it is there, you can allow for what it may be doing elsewhere, to obscure other things that may also be present, hidden behind it.

I think you've nailed it. I did not know there was such a thing, but here is one commercial range of them: https://www.olympus-ims.com/en/xrf-xrd/xrf-handheld/

Well, what can one say but "Oh Christ!"😁

Who's the guy with the charlatanic sideburns? 😆

So she went into the garden to cut a cabbage leaf, to make an apple pie; and at the same time a great she-bear coming up the street, pops its head into the shop. 'What! no soap?' So he died, and she very imprudently married the barber; and there were present the Picninnies, and the Joblillies, and the Garyulies, and the grand Panjandrum himself, with the little round button at top; and they all fell to playing the game of catch as catch can, till the gunpowder ran out at the heels of their boots.

The only Travis Trenton I can find is some kind of marketing manager with T-Mobile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/trentontravis?original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fduckduckgo.com%2F Is that who you mean?

According to this source there are both magnetic and non-magnetic grades of stainless steel and the magnetic grades have poorer corrosion resistance: https://www.eclipsemagnetics.com/resources/are-all-stainless-steels-magnetic/

There could easily be a huge market for it. Hydrogen would be close to a drop-in replacement for methane in domestic heating (you can put up to 25% into the supply today without even changing burners). Also I believe hydrogen is thought to be a good candidate for heavy duty truck transport, for which batteries would be very large and heavy. We already have hydrogen buses in some places. It needs something to kick-start it though - probably government. I don't think, myself, that trying to totally decarbonise shipping is a top priority. Switch to lower carbon liquid fuels in the medium term while you go for other sectors with more impact on total emissions.

IR radiation is of the right order of frequency to set up vibration in molecules which have a dipole (partial charge separation), giving up its energy to the molecule in the process. So this is what makes a molecule absorb in the IR. What you are seeing is absorption due to different modes of vibration of the molecule. CO2 can stretch or it can bend. I rather think the left hand band is the stretch and the right hand one is the bend. So it's not several different species. It's all CO2. In general, the IR spectrum of a given molecule has a number of absorption regions, not just one.

Neither.

No. Woo (or woo-woo), is pseudoscience believed by gullible and ignorant people: quackery. Woo-hoo is the sound emitted by people of a sensitive disposition that have read too many of your silly posts. 😁

I think it would be stored as a cryogenic liquid, much as is done on LNG carriers, but I agree there are hazards, e.g. if there is a total loss of power. This is probably why ammonia is being considered - though even that is pretty nasty if there is a leak.

....and, er, here endeth the rant?😁

I don't understand this at all, I'm afraid.

Why are you now talking about aviation fuel?

Why are you doing this? It sounds bonkers.

Specific energy is energy per unit mass, whereas energy density is energy per unit volume: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_energy I'm assuming they are comparing RFO with cryogenic liquid hydrogen.

I really don't think you can do that calculation. We do not know what the cost of hydrogen produced on this scale will be. That depends on such variables as the cost of electricity, which is notoriously variable and will change as the economy decarbonises, the efficiency of the technologies for hydrogen production, of which there are at least two: green hydrogen from electrolysis, and blue hydrogen from steam reforming of methane plus CCS, and the demand for hydrogen from the various applications that could potentially use it, some of which I listed in my previous post. So neither manufacturing cost nor supply and demand balance can be readily estimated - though I feel sure people investing in the business, like Shell, will have some models. As for the ships themselves, a lot may depend on whether they would burn hydrogen in a heat engine as today or whether a move to fuel cells proves feasible. None of the likely costs of these changes is yet known.

Like @studiot, I'm having some trouble following what you are saying. You can't "negotiate" with electrochemistry or physics. Do you mean "optimising", by reducing losses or something? Also there is nothing fundamental about any of the formulae in this thread so far. All we have covered is the arithmetic to work out a % efficiency, given certain measured inputs and outputs. I think you need to be a bit careful what is meant by efficiency in the context of charging and discharging a battery. I see that @studiot has used it to mean the efficiency with which a given electricity supply, as input to a charging system, results in actual charge entering the battery. So that's the efficiency of the charging process. However the figure of 80-90% I was quoting is the efficiency with which the battery itself stores charge, i.e. the amount of charge you get back out for the amount you put in. This is the charge/discharge efficiency. What is the formula you are referring to?