CaptainPanic

There is no buildup of moisture, there is a redistribution, as is evident from the fact that these fries actually go soggy.

Intro While most people posting on this forum describe themselves as atheists, determinists or some other form of non-believer, I would be surprised if many don't have some secret superstitions. Personally, I wrote my exams with a lucky pen. I know others think they can influence the outcome of a football game by either watching or not watching. I want to talk about any possible scientific explanation why superstition might work - or why it can be proven to be bogus. Obviously, since this is posted in The Lounge, if you just want to tell us your silly superstition, or a funny anecdote, that's welcome too. The lucky pen I believe that my lucky pen must have boosted my confidence and reduced my nervousness... but I am not sure I have enough data points to make a good correlation (with small enough error) to say it actually worked. But it might have actually improved my results at exams. All superstition regarding sports This one annoys me. Since the butterfly effect is sort-of accepted science, any action at any distance from the actual stadium can influence the game, although probably very marginally. So, yes, I really think you can influence the game. But by how much? And can you change it in favor of your team? I don't see how. But if you reverse it: can I prove that it does not work? I don't see how. Does anyone have any other silly superstitions, or do you want to explain why it's all bogus? This is the thread.

There is no clear definition to "what is a rainforest", so also there is no single number that says how much there is. Secondly, it is very difficult to measure how big such a forest is. I know that sounds silly (it's a forest - quite hard to miss). Satellites can measure how big a forest is... but how can they distinguish between a palm oil plantation and a forest? The methods aren't perfect, and this increases the error. There are probably more arguments why this number is so vague. Maybe there are people that deliberately falsify data. Maybe there's a speck of spacedust on a satellite. Science is all about measuring - and then accepting that a measurement isn't perfect. So, you should choose a number, mention the source for that... and if you can find out, also some assumptions (what did the researchers who found that number mean with "rainforest"? Is that only the pristine untouched rainforest? Or all area covered in trees in the tropics?) You're welcome. Don't worry. We have friendly moderators who will happily move the post.

KEEP. Even if you know where you can get similar books. Those books are more valuable than similar books on the same topic. You learned chemistry/math/physics/etc. from that particular book. It means you can easily find something - and it will be explained in exactly the words you expect and understand. Also, formulas and texts use the symbols and notations that you know already. If you take another book on the same topic, it will have different notations, different symbols, and the chapters might be different too. It will mean that you need more time to look up the same thing. I keep mine on a bookshelf somewhere. I hardly ever read them, but if I have to, I am happy they are the familiar books that I know well.

I suggest that you read up on Boltzman's theory of mixing stuff, also known as his formula for entropy. I admit that I used popular words to describe entropy - words so popular that it would probably make Mr. Boltzman angry - but stuff really does want to mix (at a molecular level).

I agree. CO2 in water will become carbonic acid (it's an equilibrium). That gives a hint that the CO2 will affect the pH. The carbonic acid can also form carbonates. Again, it's an equilibrium reaction. Because the solubility of CO2 is a function of temperature and pressure, this equilibium as a whole is a function of temperature and pressure. What I meant in my earlier post is that in order to absorb the CO2 cheaply, and also desorb it cheaply, you don't want to add any other chemicals. So, it is desirable if you (as an owner of a CO2 aborption factory) don't have to change the pH by constantly adding acids and bases to absorb and desorb the CO2 or something.

D H, Good post. So far, it's the best answer to my initial question. Thanks. I hadn't realized that furniture (esp. expensive things like a piano) are also affected. Still, I think the costs of the required energy to evaporate the water shouldn't be ignored. But since you also addressed that point, I think I must admit that this is more subjective. I think that 50 euro in energy costs is not negligible. Again, that's an opinion rather than a fact. [edit] p.s. also the link to the article regarding the influenza in december/january was informative. Thanks for that too.

I know that - but good to point it out again. I think that at some point in the previous century we should have renamed it to "fossil oil chemistry". Plant material is not often used as a source for chemicals - especially not at large scale applications. Plant material is obviously still used a lot - food, wood, paper, to name a few - but often it is left largely intact.

But in wintertime, you have to provide energy to evaporate water (the heat from outside cannot be used, like in summer). At 20 deg C (room temperature), at 100% humidity, you have about 15 g of water per m3 of air (approximation, not an exact calculation). So, if your house is merely 100 m3 (which is a small house!), you need 1.5 kg of water in the air, which costs 3.4 MJ (which is approximately a kWh). Basically, on an annual base, you spend a hundred $ or euro just to get some humidity, assuming quite minimal ventilation. Is it really that bad to get a spark that it's worth 100 $ to avoid it? (And do people know how much energy a humidifier costs?).

Yep. Entropy. To say it in scientific words: Stuff just wants to mix. Although other phenomena might work too (achieving hte same redistribution), like capillary action.

As said before, it is not homogeneous to start with: just after frying, moisture is found only at the center of the fries, not the outside... If you give it time (like a few hours), it will distribute itself also to the outside. And that's exactly why they become weak, and lose the crunchiness.

True. If you want to suck the fries vacuum (and completely remove all air), in a vacuum sealed bag, the water will not form a vapor phase, as the temperature is below the boiling point, and there is no room to evaporate into. However, I'm sure it will still re-distriute itself in the fries. I would be surprised if this solves anything. Also, since the fries are full of gas (they are porous!), you might collapse the fries themselves into a much thinner and more dense piece of potato. If anyone wants to try to put fries into a vacuum bag, and suck all air out, I would like to see a youtube of that. I think it could be funny (and educational). However, JustinW, I disagree with your explanation. Water at room temperature has a vapor pressure, so given any volume to evaporate into, some water will be in the vapor phase. Air is irrelevant to it. It's the lack of any volume to evaporate into that stops the evaporation... not the lack of air. If you would heat up your fries to 100 degrees, while still in that vacuum bag (sealed), it would blow up like a balloon - with only steam inside. Cool it down again, and it would collapse again, because the water would concense (probably also on the outside of the fries, btw).

More importantly, how do the other computers pick it up? What do you mean by "streaming"?? With streaming, I understand something like playing a youtube movie. You send data, which can go directly into a player, which decodes it into a video and/or audio. Don't you simply mean the network access?

I know it says "memorize". But I use memos for memorizing.

Ah, yes, I think I see in the other threads that veproject1 just builds contraptions that other people claim should work. That's quite cool, actually. I thought he claimed that the one in the video (see opening post) should actually be a perpetual motion machine. veproject1, maybe you should give a little time on the introduction in the post. There are so many people who claim to have invented the next real PMM, that on this forum we automatically see if we can explain what's wrong this time. The laws of thermodynamics are always valid.

Ok, I admit that I exaggerated. A bit. A lot. I figured that the numbers were so big, that it wouldn't matter if I was a few orders of magnitude off. Still, it's quite common to measure up to 30 different elements in plant material, and that's for untreated wood from unpolluted land. If you get it from the real world, and you add pollution and you obtain the material from some secondary source (waste wood or something), it gets a more complicated. Also, if you buy wood or something in bulk, it also contains soil (rocks and sand). Still, some elements are so rare and have such a short half-life that they are hardly ever found. And I also never heard of noble gases in plants. My statement was obviously wrong anyway. I never meant to be serious. Regarding the reactions: I was talking both about the biochemistry (enzymatic reactions etc), and also about the reactions that you can do in chemical reactors, possibly at higher temperature and with some catalysts, using plant material as reactant. [edited because I wasn't happy when I read my post again]

Since you already have a finished setup, did you try to keep it running for 24 hrs or 48 hrs without touching it? I want to see it running for 24 hrs, without anyone touching it... a PMM can run without outside help, can't it? I mean, what you show in your movie, I can imitate on my bicycle. I can lift the wheel, and turn the wheel, and it keeps going for at least 30 seconds, and you don't notice that it slows down. I want a long, really really long (and boring) youtube video of this thing - preferably in a controlled environment (not your own home) - where it just keeps going and going. [edited to fix a typo, and add another comment]

You cannot get bored. If you organic chemists are done playing with your ideal reactions that start with purified reactants, you can finally get started on the world. Here's a picture of what the real world looks like: It looks so simple, but it is not. A plant contains the entire periodic table, and probably also all types of bonds that are every written down in an organic chemistry book. Plant chemistry is so un-boring that I would even call it exciting. What you get then is your 1029 components all in 1 reactor, doing some funky reactions to each other. Logically that should give you 102929 possible reactions to explore. No new chemicals maybe, but plenty of action.

No. It's weakness that fails to fight a disease. But it is the disease that finally kills you. You can be weak, but if nothing comes along that is lethal to you, you will live.

Nobody here seems to understand the problem. The main problem is not how to remove moisture. It's something different altogether: Problems: 1. Fries contain lots of moisture. It is already inside the fries - just not on the outside, only on the inside. 2. Fries taste different without the moisture. Fried fries are 1/3rd water. Potato contains 2/3rd water before it went into the deep fryer, and 1/3rd when they come out. Source: (.pdf article, see table on 2nd page) I know that they feel solid enough, but food always contains loads of water. That's because plants are made of a lot of water. You can try to remove all that water, but that means you drastically change your fries. Fries without any water are called crisps. If you want to eat that, why not buy crisps in the shop??? The clear answer is NO. I disargee with everything you say... Sorry. I'll explain. First of all: I DID answer the question (there is no solution, other than eating the fries when they are still fresh). Somehow it seems to get ignored. Pity. Makes me wonder why I bother answering. That's true for the weather systems in the atmosphere. This is a lunchbox, not a planet. I think the moisture will always redistribute itself in your fries. The only thing that will help is to fry them right before you eat them. There is a reason you cannot microwave fries. You must heat them from the outside to make them crunchy. Water on the outside evaporates, but the inside remains moist. You don't need air for condensation. You need water. And in a vacuum, water can still evaporate (which means that it doesn't remain a vacuum, but you get extremely low pressure steam). They can remove ALL moisture yes. But they will not give you good, tasty, fries. You get bone-dry crisps in the shape of fries. Also, you need a good handful of those packs for each and every lunch, to absorb the moisture.

Yeah, I thought of that too. But I was assuming that the solid is present in a relatively high concentration in the solvent (the solid affects the vapor pressure of the solvent, which no longer wants to boil at lower temperatures). That tells me that the solid has an affinity for the solvent, (like salts or sugar in water, or naphthalene in non-polar solvents). So, when the solid has more affinity for the current solvent than any extraction liquid, you will need loads and loads of this extraction liquid. Eventually you will get the solid out, but I wonder if that doesn't just increase your problem. That said, it might actually work, and it is worth a try. I can't tell from where I'm sitting.

It may be just 1% of the people. But those people represent 15-20% of all the money. 15-20% is enough to include them in any economic plans. You cannot ignore such a large part of the economy when you make any new plans.

You can also attempt steam distillation to remove a little more of your solvent. Using steam to remove the solvent will allow you to use a lower temperature, and still remove the solvent. You won't easily recover the solvent (it's mixed in steam in a low concentration), so only use this if you don't care about your solvent. If a vacuum distillation does not remove any more liquid, and steam distillation also fails, then I would try crystalization next (ok, it's not evaporating the liquid, as in your assignment). If nothing happens at room temperature yet, cool it down, and see if any solids appear. Remove the solids, and cool further. With a bit of luck, your solid material is a pure component. Question: do you need to figure out a method to do the separation? Or do you also need to perform the separation with a high recovery of the solid material (i.e. do you have a target of, say, 90% that you need to recover in pure form)?

Nobody dies of aging. But as you age, other stuff starts to fail more often, and you will get ill more often. You grow weaker, basically. But in the end, some disease, accident or a failure of your body will kill you.

Before my 1st coffee, I don't care what's in it. After my coffee, it's too late anyway. But given the fact that, as a rule of thumb, I survive my cup of coffee, I think there's no phosgene in it (*). Why do you ask? And how far off topic shall we take this thread (which is already dead for 4 years)? (*) edit, at least not in hazardous amounts... I know that the entire periodic table will be present in a cup of coffee, and the number of different organic molecules probably too much to measure.