studiot

Thank you for your reply. I am really wondering if big business should be allowe to overturn the long held maxim "There are no unsafe roads only unsafe drivers" The idea that no matter how difficult the conditions and configuration of a particular section of road, there is a safe precedure set down in the driving regulations for negotiating it. The responsibility lies fairly and squarely with the driver (and other road users of course) to follow that procedure. Automated vehicles take away (some of) the drivers ability to follow that maxim.

Should car manufacturers blame road design and construction or themselves if their technology fails to account for all road types ? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-55571080

swansont said much of what I was going to say, but I think the question was a good one and deserves encouragement so +1. Firstly no nuclear reaction produces or generates electricity. So by themselves nuclear reactors (ie plant and equipment where controlled nuclear reactions take place) need further plant and machinery to generate the electricity. Nuclear reactions generate heat (and fission products of course) - lots of it. So much of it that much is wasted. However this released heat is used to heat coolants by a series of heat exchangers to drive turbines that drive the generators. But the reactor is designed to run 'up slowly'. In theory it may be run down very quickly for emergency purposes by moderators. The issue then becomes how to use the spare heat to meet a sudden increase in demand. One way is to have standby generators that can be brought online very quickly. These would be needed in any case for maintenance purposes. Another way would be to divert more steam to driving turbines, but that would mean they were working at less than full capacity before. Another way would be electricity or heat storage, neither being very practical in marine environments, though a buffer of either could help overcome a short term increase in demand. Electricity storage would be better for this. In any event the whole power plant comprises more than just the nuclear reactor.

I can assure you from practical experience that this method doesn't work. An indirect heat exhanger is necessary.

Yes the Glycemic index of coconut flour is around 50. But the GI is not directly related to the % of carbohydrates of any description. It is a time thing. Here are some useful links explaing it. https://www.diabetes.org.uk/guide-to-diabetes/enjoy-food/carbohydrates-and-diabetes/glycaemic-index-and-diabetes https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/food-and-diet/what-is-the-glycaemic-index-gi/

+1 I'm only suprised no one has already started a thread on this subject.

Something rather is happening with the notifications. Just logged on and looked at a string of notifications. At the top is on from 'Charles', claiming to be 10 hours ago but was actually from November 2020. I am pretty sure I have also seen the other listed notifications as well. I have seen this several times recently.

Can I request that DanMP's discussion be split off as totally off topic and not to do with quantum mechanics. This is not a complaint as his issue is possibly also interesting and certainly deserves a thread of its own and there now seems to be two separate discussions going on at once and becoming intertwined.

Thank you for this. OK so it is 'false colour imaging' So it is not a true photographic picture of what is there but a generated 'image', rather as Xray diffraction picture 'can measure' a lattice spacing. Very clever work nonetheless. I still maintain that this was not made clear at the outset.

I can't find anywhere in the procedures in the article that anything was burned. I know that the English is not good and there appears to be a mistake in the Abstract list of % since polysaccarides referred to in a later list is missing, but both lists state explicitly that the ash is present in the flour ie before burning of any sort.

An electric jet ??? Whatever next. Just reading the intro calls into question the credibility of the source. No offence meant CL, you sometimes post some very interesting finds.

Enough is Enough ! I have tried to be helpful but you seem to be wandering all over the shop without properly understanding anything. I am particularly worried about continued references to spectroscopy in relation to 'imaging'. Your idea of imaging seems quite different from mine. Imaging to me refers to creating some sort of pictures of the spatial disposition of the objects being imaged. Raman spectroscopy is conducted on the randomly scattered light at near right angles to the beam and looses all of this spatial information. You have not responded to my offering onphotogrammetry, which is what I thought you wanted. If this is not the case please make clear what you are seeking before I can post again.

I was wondering about the significant amount of 'ash' reported in the SriLankan coconut flour in the article I linked to. I am not sure what this is or where it comes from.

Apples and bees huh ? Welcome. My suggestion would be to decide what area of Science interests you and try some activity/experiments, rather than going directly to thinking in the abstract. Electronics ? Build and modify few simple circuits to find out how they work. Life Sciences ? Do some gardening, get a microcscope dissect some things. Chemistry ? Find out some common chemicals and do some experiments. Ask yourself why things are the colour they are etc. Physics ? Get hold of The Book of Experiments by Leonardo De Vries. Fantastic fun. Let us know where your interest lies so we can suggest some more activities.

SR most certainly predicts no such thing.

Sounds more like (horizontal) photogrammetry to me. Have you heard of it ? https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=U-H0X9HwN-eOlwSx8JiQDA&q=photogrammetry&oq=photogramm&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQARgAMggIABCxAxDJAzICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADoFCAAQsQM6CAgAELEDEIMBOggILhCxAxCDAToICC4QxwEQowI6CwguELEDEMcBEKMCOgsILhCxAxDHARCvAToCCC46BQguELEDOgsILhCxAxDJAxCTAjoICC4QxwEQrwE6BAgAEApQpAdYki9gokJoAnAAeAGAAdIHiAG0GJIBCTEuOC4xLjYtMpgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXo&sclient=psy-ab I see you spotted the tiny individual generators. Did you understand what I mean by in phase ?

Thank you for this extra information, But this is now the third time I have asked what would be the count on each clock if you had left clock A at the given 'location' and moved the rest of the universe in motion somewhere and then back to the given location ?

Clocks or taps it makes no difference. You are describing a version of the 'Twins Paradox' but leaving half the details out. How do you explain the other half of the experiment. This is the second time I have asked you this so I am reporting your post for failure to engage.

But you have specified that one clock is moving relative to the other.

So far as I know, magnetrons are not coherent. They produce microwaves continuously in a process that does not lend itself to coherent production> The radiating particles that generate the microwaves are free electrons. Magnetrons produce directed radiation because of the focusing effect of their geometry. But focused or directed is not the same as coherent. Coherent radiation is produced when lots of tiny individual generators all act to produce their little wave packets so the packets are in phase with each other. This can either be a pulsed or a continuous effect. Laser and maser radiation is coherent. Magnetron radiation may be turned on and off, but is continuous whilst on. The coherence in a laser or maser comes from the fact that the generating particles are excited atoms or ions that can be 'triggered' to return to a lower state in unison, establishing the coherence of the emitted radiation that results from de-excitation. Of course the part of the atom that is excited and de-excited is an electron, but these are bound electrons, not free electrons.

That's good, so please start your own thread. +1 It should be noted that Markus is talking about spacetime ,not separate space and time. What he is also referring to is the invariant quadratic [math]{{{\left( {\Delta x} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\Delta y} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\Delta z} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\Delta ict} \right)}^2}}[/math] or its square root which is called 'the interval' and is what is rotated in the Lorenz transformation rotations. [math]\sqrt {{{\left( {\Delta x} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\Delta y} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\Delta z} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\Delta ict} \right)}^2}} [/math] What he means is that the projection of this invariant length onto each axis changes with the rotation.

Please note my interest in Chemistry is and always has been Physical Chemistry. Obviously I need to have some knowledge of the rest of Chemistry for this but I rely on other experts for detailed matters. Here is a study on the composition of coconut flour from such experts. https://www.pgia.ac.lk/files/Annual_congress/journel/v18/12.pdf

Yes that is a point I have been trying to make. There are two different set of labelling laws in play in the UK. Thank you for putting it more clearly. +1 Tim, when it comes to biochemistry CharonY is way ahead of me so well worth listening to. A little bit of history is in order however. The 'list of ingredients' required information has been in force in the UK longer than the EU has been in existence, let alone since we joined and left. I call it "The cast in order of appearance", borrowed from the theatre, although the fit is not quite exact it demonstrates the meaning. When these UK regulations were first drafted, fibres were not considered digestible or of nutritional value. In fact the official term was "inedible waste" (in the first edition of the manual of nutrition)! Subsequently it was discoverd that some fibres are digestible and some are not and later editions of 'the manual' reflect this. In relation to your question, there are two principle vegetable polysaccarides cellulose and lignin. Neither are digestible but either are edible in that they can be eaten and will not harm you. Generally it is other minor chemicals in plants that are harmful. Going back to the carbohydrate general formula (C.H2O)n , these are open or non cyclic or chain molecules. There are also cyclic molecules with the same formula. I do not know if any of these are harmful, but I would not be suprised if that were the case. Perhaps CharonY , Sensei or Chenbeier has more information here ?

Since you have directly referred to time and the slowing of time, I take it you now accept the existence of time. I know I said you made a fair summary of (special) relativity, but this statement shows a misunderstanding of the most fundamental point of SR. There are at least two frames of reference involved, in this case one for each clock. An observer with each clock would see the other clock slowing down. This is because each clock designates its own frame (including time) in which it does not see itself as slowing down. SR answers the question "How does each clock view circumstances for the other clock?" This is probably the most difficult part of SR to grasp and has been responsible for countless misunderstandings and arguments over more than a century. Perhaps Markus (+1) or swansont can explain it better than I can for you, if you will let them.

I could point out that the Uk is not a member of the EU or necessarily subject to the E-numbers system. But yes, the E-numbers table certainly contains a lot of compact (hidden from the public ?) information. But E-numbers refer to additives not basic ingredients.