studiot

Maybe, but was is smoky's work or a miscalculation by the bandit ? +1

Anyone remember Compton Mackenzie's Whisky Galore ? Here is an update. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62990366

That's the whole point, the video doesn't make this claim or even address that situation. Yet it claims to explain Bernoulli. I'm sorry if my method of pointing this out was a bit dramatic. The standard simple version of Bernoulli contains three terms. Two of these are independent of velocity and solely determine what happens when the fluid is not moving (ie v = 0) @sethoflagos introduced one of these, though he perhaps didn't explain it very clearly. So the video information is pretty deficient as it attributes everything to flow. I also note that @jfoldbar seems to have lost interest in the subject.

This looks like homework/coursework and should be placed in that section. You should start by reading the instructions. The clue is in the instructions. What trigonometric functions do you know that have an maximum and a minimum (and for the sake of learning which ones do not) ? They must be pretty simple ones since you are only told the max and min. You must have been told something else about the timing as you will need the time difference between high and low tide to match the angular distance to the time distance on your trigonometric model.

Some years ago ? It say you joined 3 hours ago. Mellor died in 1938. See the attachments for more recent history of the development of ferrocene theory including the 1973 Nobel. Apologies for the poor quality of the scans but Greenwood and Earnshaw is a very thick book.

The quote from Eddington was a discussion of why the general quadratic is not used in relativity. For those who want a modern accessible mathematical treatment I recommend MacComb. Since I see that there has been some discussion about light cones and causality and relativity diagrams that are simple here is his version. The book is great as it goes right the way through from Gaileo, Newton, Lorenz, Einstein, FourVectors, Simple GR geometry and curved triangulation, yet is rigerous enough. Some fun relativistic calculations include the relativistic Compton Effect and "When Photon meets Proton head on".

Please remember the large number of insincere would be wizz kids that post untenable meanderings on this forum, usually wihtout any giving the ir chosen subject any real thought at all. If you want to send something privately you can attach it to the site private messaging system (PM) - - It is a really good one. As regards 'The Problem' and the quote allegedly attributed to Einstein. Actually this question has been done quantitavely. Read section 2 of this extract from Eddington's The Mathematical Theory of Relativity. Incidnetally this idea of 'simplest formal structures' is not as easy as it first seems. Occam's famous razor is actually rather blunted by the fact that any eperienced physical scientist or engineer will know very well. To use another famous phrase, "There is more than one way to skin a cat". In fact there are often many ways to perform a desired calculation and usually it depends upon circumstances which one is 'the simplest' For instance in the loading and bending of beams and structures you can choose from slope-deflection; area-moment; force-displacement; Macaulay; virtual work; unit impulse; and several other assorted methods. Here is another commnent on 'Natural Order'. In elementary Physics, a force is a 'push or a pull'. Did you know that our bodies have no muscles that can push ? In order to push our bodies employ a complicated internal mechancal arrangement. I often recommend this book https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cats-Paws-Catapults-Mechanical-Worlds/dp/0393319903 The price seem to have gone up by a factor of 10x since my Penguin copy, so look for an s/h one.

This is a good balanced article https://vpnoverview.com/privacy/anonymous-browsing/duckduckgo/

I don't see the chloro unit in your picture ?

Even though you haven't acknowled it, I actually answered you question. However since I also really appreciate this quip +1 , I would also like to note that reactions in general expel photons and particles often at high speed. The expulsion KE of massive particles is variable. So be careful what is meant by the energy generated.

I'm suprised that you would actually reach 4. +1 I always thought 3.7 was the maximum. By the way picric acid is far less dangerous and much more fun.

Both.

Since you were kind enough to respond to my last post the way you did I will add to Bufofrog's excellent link (+1) for as advertised it is easy to understand. But it is not the whole story of the energy.

I thought the nazis were the National Socialists.

Hey Ho the Democrats have won the election (just about). But in Sweden the Democrats are a right wing party. How cool is that ? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62908902

A great post in an otherwise dull thread. +1

Good question +1 Pity Ned avoided answering it.

These are vary bare details to work with. I don't see where AI comes into it for instance. Analog computing is far from dead in the real world and there are many combined analog/digital systems in use. Often these days users demand a digital display/presentation of output, audio recording and reproduction being the stand out exception. I had a quick google for pneumatic proportional controllers which are a prime example of analog system, perhaps with a digital readout. So yes crack on with your paper, what is the setting for it? Educational, professional, a journal article ?

Thank you for the clarification. Kay and Layby list one important such reaction, but theya re rather hard to find.

I suppose it depends what he means by 'a particle'. The 'particle' must contain all the necessary sub atomic particles to balance the reaction.

Folks seem to pick up certain words as 'buzz words' without fully going into their meaning. In another thread we have someone misusing 'eignestates'. Be sure you are not misusing 'singularity' here. Cambridge Texts in Applied Mathematics. Singularities: Formation, Structure and Formation. Eggers and Fontelos 2015 By the way you should have an email.

No you are obviously not a math person. So why not leave it to those who are ? And please, you not only mentioned voltage but specified high voltage. The answer to my question what current will flow is that the only flowing current will be displacement current, until the air breaks down. This requires that the voltage source be alternating. +1 to the @TheVat

I asked you about the voltage and you haven't replied. I asked you why you think there will be any current to 'control' and you don't seem to know perhaps because you don't know enough to answer my voltage question. Here is a hint. The breakdown voltage of dry air is about 3000 kilovolts per metre.

What does that mean ? Remember it is your 'experiment'. You have yet to demonstrate that there will be any current at all.