swansont

Merging photons is possible in some materials but it is an inefficient process, and does not work over the entire wavelength range for a given material. I have repeatedly stated that these are not processes for which thermodynamics is applied, seeing as they are not driven by temperature differences. As such, the thermodynamic limit is not particularly relevant, which is supported by the quantum efficiency being around 34% and the Carnot efficiency being 95%. A solar cell is not a heat engine, the mental gymnastics of a few articles notwithstanding. In general you want to apply the best model to a problem, and thermodynamics is not the best model if it's not a heat engine. At best, you can apply thermo to parts of a problem I never said that the process would be 100% efficient No. Some absorptions would create phonons.

Speaking of great covers of well-known songs, one of the better ones IMO came up on my playlist this morning. The Grateful Dead's version of "Good Lovin'" (made famous by the Rascals)

! Moderator Note A problem here is that you are not defining your terminology, and we run into the fallacy of equivocation. (Yes, you can act before you think. There are reflex actions, which require no thought.)

There is no threshold.

Thermodynamics precludes this possibility. You can't convert heat to work with 100% efficiency. You can't swap out work and heat; they are not identical

Energy does not "carry" entropy. Energy is a property of other things, not a substance unto itself. ... And, to the point of some of the other discussion, not all radiation is heat. The linked paper, for example, talks of a "monochromatic sun" which is not physical. A monochromatic source is not thermal; there is no temperature you can assign it, so calculating a Carnot efficiency with that is nonsensical. The thermodynamic treatment of the energy of a monochromatic source would be work, not heat

You still haven't shown anything to indicate that this is true. You are extrapolating from a single data point. if you go here https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/australia/sydney/historic?month=12&year=2019 you'll see that the record high for Dec 19 2019 was set at 2 PM. It wasn't recorded measured at 9 AM. The low was recorded at a different day and time, as were the humidity extremes. These temperatures are recorded when they happen. If the high is recorded at 9 AM it's because that's when the highest temperature happened.

Which is not the discussion I was having. Introscience is proposing locking someone up for life because they might offend again. Or not, because now they say they aren't advocating for that.

You are describing multiple violent crimes after someone has been incarcerated and released on parole, which is not the scenario under discussion. Existing law should be sufficient to put such a person away for a very long time, so I don't see how it's relevant to the situation Intoscience had proposed. So what's the point of discussing it? This part isn't about rights. The victim's rights haven't been violated, unless the perpetrator is a government entity. How is this relevant? Has anyone proposed not having some kind of response/punishment to a crime?

Hindsight is not available at the time of sentencing. Another perpetrator does not do these acts. How do you tell - with 100% certainty (the standard that’s been proposed) - which one is the greater danger? How do you confine them for life without violating their rights?

If it's not a thermodynamic process, you can't apply thermodynamic principles to it. So unless the process of your object falling under the influence of gravity depends on the temperature, I don't see how you bring Carnot efficiency into it. It's not a heat engine. Hydro power is ~90% efficient. There's no Carnot efficiency, since it's not a process driven by heat flow and temperature differences. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/energy/energy-resources/5_things_you_need_to_know_about_hydropower.pdf Not all photons come from thermal sources, or are involved in thermal processes. Photons in a laser, for example, will not have the same properties as the photons coming from a blackbody.

I think legality and illegality figures into whether or not you broke the law. And it's the former I am contending, not the latter.

No, they are merely assertions until you have compelling and rigorous evidence to support them. This means that the evidence does not also support alternate hypotheses. The burden of proof remains with you. In short, there is no "true until proven false" in science.

If you don't know what laws exist, I don't see how you can say you wouldn't break laws. I think you are thinking only of a small subset of the laws, which are the ones you know about, and including intent. And I don't see how pointing to laws you wouldn't break matters to this. If you break one, it doesn't matter that you didn't break the other bazillion laws that are on the books. I affirmed every person, not every crime.

Then your argument is inconsistent, because you also insist on 100% protection " the only guaranteed answer to protect society 100% is by detaining the person for life" Detaining someone for life, if they did not draw a life sentence, is proposing punishing people for crimes they might commit. I never said I thought it applies to all. But if it applies to any of them, then we have this problem. This is a problem we currently have. It's even worse, because you have to e.g. explain to sexual assault victims why their rapist/abuser was never even prosecuted in the first place for previous offenses (and sometimes why they were promoted despite their behavior) Under your system we'd have to give life sentences to a whole host of violent crimes, based on the probability that some people would later commit crimes. (Also knowing that some people sent to jail are actually innocent). That also seems unacceptable (to me at least) Picking and choosing who is dangerous and who is not for otherwise identical crimes and applying your plan doesn't seem like equal application of the law. Also the whole bit about punishing for crimes not committed seems like a violation of other rights that we have in the US, and likely exist elsewhere.

Every person. There are a lot of things that are against the law, that people don't realize. Harvard University professor Harvey Silverglate estimates that daily life in the United States is so over-criminalized, the average American professional commits about three felonies a day. https://ips-dc.org/three-felonies-day/

It would have to be an element that would not be made by the normal processes of the star. Such as a radioactive element, heavier than iron, that has a short enough half-life that it would be essentially gone in the time it takes the star to form. Plutonium isn't a candidate because it can form from Uranium, which has a multi-billion year half-life. And this same neutron-absorption process can make just about anything (including Technetium). So what you would have to have is an unusual composition, such as too much of an isotope, or too little, which can't be accounted for with the processes that naturally occur in a star. edit: one possibility is reactor waste products. But you'd have to dump a lot of that into the star to get it to register. Our sun has almost 10^28 fusion reactions per second. Sending a few hundred tons of radioactive waste into it is a very small blip, but perhaps detectable. Too much Cs-135, for example (half-life of 2.3 million years), or, less specifically, too much of all of the isotopes that one finds in spent fuel rods.

And my rebuttal is the same as previous, because this path and its justification are awful. People shouldn't be punished for crimes they have not committed, but might commit. Everyone might commit a crime.

This has been upgraded to a permanent ban.

Yes. Moving a charge will create a magnetic field, and yes, a change in the field will cause current to flow (or induce a voltage if there isn't a complete loop for current to flow)

You lack the same assurance that someone who has never been convicted won't commit a crime either. The post-trial system is not set up to anticipate future crimes. (Good thing, too, since most of us commit crimes, even if we don't know we have done so. We'd all be in jail if it were to prevent future crimes)

That's not what it says. It says that Tuesday's high was recorded at 9 AM. Nothing more about the time can validly be inferred from that statement. The article I see also says "Posted Tue 24 Aug 2021 at 4:46pm" so "today" refers to Tuesday, not Wednesday.

1. It’s not magic. We notice that charges can attract or repel, and take advantage of that to move charges around. One description is as exchemist notes - a voltage gradient; stored energy being given to the charges. You could also look at in terms of forces, if you investigated at the microscopic level. 2. An energy input is required to get the current to flow, so there is no violation. Electrons flowing is current (in some cases, it could be protons); they are not distinct.

AFAIK the maximum PV cell efficiency is around 34%, so you aren’t describing a PV cell. There is no way to have the light spectrum and bandgap behave as you describe.

A human who invents something in the employ of another might or might not share in the patent. It depends on their arrangement. Further, an inventor can use tools to invent things. I don’t see a reason why an AI would change this.