studiot

Thermodynamics is an experimental science. The OP was doing pretty well until he got to this Not really, as a bit of simple experimentation shows. 1) Breath out through a wide open mouth and compare the thermal effect on your hands and the cup of tea. Pretty ineffective cooling on the tea and heating on the spread open hands. Slight heating on cupped hands. 2) Breath out through pursed lips Effective cooling on both the tea and the spread open hands Effective heating on cupped hands So pursing the lips is not the controlling factor to make the difference. So what is ? Well cupping the hands seems to lead to substantially increased hand heating in all cases so lets deal with this first. Cupping the hands forms a small, if leaky, chamber into which the exhaled air is drive, increasing its pressure. Work is done on the air increasing its internal energy. This work is done by the chest muscles of the body as can be felt during the exhalation. Thie work quickly degrades to heat which transfers to the chamber walls (hands) as the atmospheric pressure is reasserted. So that is what warms the hands . If you blow on the spread hands or the tea, evaporation is enhanced as already noted, which process carries heat away from the natural moisture on the hands or the surface of the tea. This occurs whether the lips are pursed or not. The difference is the cupping of the hands.

You have not analysed your heat engine correctly since you have missing elements. The apparatus to cause this should be included So yes If you allowed the ice to expand in a non destructive way by compressing something, this compression could be partly extracted by causing it to do useful work. But you analysis should include the work input to the freezing apparatus which will be greater than the work recoverable by the compression. Remember also that the classical second law applies to a cyclic process, and may be 'violated' in part of a cycle. A bomb is not a cyclic process.

Ok so I know you said deceleration, but in your calculations you should use a negative acceleration. So again how did you arrive at +2m/s2 ? Did you use the formula v = u + at ?

So how do you explain standing waves ?

I'd say it starts with writing down and understanding the reaction equations, noting that H2sO4 is a diacid. Have you done this at least ?

Yup +1 I say this because all the figures for adverse reactions are out of date by a long way. The number of such reactions has been reducing (quite dramatically although the numbers are very small anyway) because as the vaccine programme has progressed so has the method of vaccination. The UK is well ahead of the curve (apart from Israel which is a special case) because it started early and got on with the job. At the beginning there was little screening and sevaral reaction cases occurred. Subsequently the vaccinators started asking more questions designed to weed out those most likely to present a reaction. There was a marked difference between the screening discussion immediately prior to my first Pfizer shot and my second one 12 weeks later. So yes go for the shots, but make sure you discuss known allergies and other conditions (I take it you are not pregnant) with the medics. Then your chances of something really bad happening will be virtually zero. They just did a survey in the UK and most people (like me) found no reaction to the jab. The commonest reaction was a slightly sore arm for up to a few days.

How can I until you explain exactly what you mean by 'virtual' in Philosophy ? There are many effects in Science that are conveniently handled by prefixing the word virtual, although its meaning may vary from application to application. and that is without properly discussing the meaning of particle and exist. Does the place described by 'What Three Words' exit for the three words virtual, particles and exist ?

I am not sure I would regard any of these as scientists. Engineers yes. This is not meant to detract in any way from their achievements however. Perhaps some better examples of true scientists might be Alfred Nobel or the Wright Brothers. Then again perhaps we should distinguish between career scientists ie those who earned their living from it eg Faraday and those who were already rich enough not to need to make money from their work eg Cavendish or Newton. Career scientists are more the norm these days, but I don't think their remuneration is that spectacular compared to say doctors of medicine. Some have made substantial sums from their work by careful commercial application via a company and a few in publications (books). Sadly quite a few have died penniless or near penniless. The range of circumstaces and outcomes is enormous.

A picture of your apparatus perhaps ? Here is a Royal Society of Chemistry diagram of such a cell, including the requested reactions. Is your air cathode porous carbon of some sort ? The reaction requires oxygen from the air to permeate through it.

Yes Yes How ? I think you need to know the time it takes for this to happen or the distance over which it travels during this time.

That's not as I understood your original description. Both others and myself took these to imply a row of photons which do not move and are therefore stationary. Please discuss this claim.

I don't know if you realise just how small these anvil instruments are, or quite how the 'pressure' is developed. Why do you think this would increase at the bottom of the ocean ? And how much fuel do you think you could generate this way ? I'm sure there are lots of reasons Man wants to put bases into difficult conditions - Antarctica, Lunar, Space etc - so why not the bottom of the ocean ? Having asked all that, full marks for dreaming. +1 Two books you might find interesting. Call Me Joe is a science-fiction novella by Poul Anderson of a 'manned' base on Jupiter. Poul was and hugely imaginative scfi author basing most of his stuff on small extensions to known science. Journey to the Centre of the Earth by David Whitehouse (not the Jules Verne novel) is real science and shows how diamond anvils have revolutionised the study of the structure of the Earth and deep earth materials.

Gosh my head hurts. What do you have against poor old gravity. First you say there is no gravity But you retain terms which only have meaning in the presence of gravity To whit 'up' and 'down' and 'vertical' and 'horizontal'. Then you say you can apparantly switch gravity on and off at will.

Simple and obvious. +1 @John2020 Since you say there are no external forces, is there no gravity on your planet ?

Yes there is often more than one approach to a problem, for instance force methods and energy methods. But in general these arrive at the same conclusion, not different ones, thereby enhancing confidence in the theory. Yours it yet another ptoposal that is at variance with those already existing, in fact it amounts to another aether proposal. Extensive investigations over more than a century now have failed to reveal one single phenomenon that is consistent with an aether, as against the many that are not. As a matter of interest are you suggesting that a block of glass is filled with fixed (stationary) 'photons' that transmit the 'wave' from photon to photon ?

No that is not what I said. Mentioning the most dangerous (to life ingeneral and humans in particular) was my mistake (although others seem also to have followed suit). You question was clear enough. However after I realised my mistake I added the part about finding the answer to your question at the bottom of the oceans. Since this is homework I cannot mention the landform explicitly. But look at the bottom of the oceans for one of the largest landforms on the planet that has been volcanically active for hundreds of millions of years (and still is), yet poses the least threat to humanity.

Good point, +1 However I was not thinking of a single volcano and the question did ask for which landform. I am also assuming that we are discussing an active volcanic landform. There is a particular landform that only occur at the bottom of oceans.

I still maintain the least dangerous will be found at the bottom of the oceans. Did you understand this comment ?

Thank you for your explanation, which is true mathematically. But the way that this is being presented is not, since it hides the fact that the constant of proportionality has units of its own to make the expression of proportion dimensionally correct. Also not being made plain is the fact that this is also the correction for curvature alone. A suitable correction for refraction also need to be made or accounted for in the methodology. The refraction correction is of the opposite sign to the curvature correction. We went over all this extensively in the last thread that was closed and FECORE are repeating their misunderstandings from 2016. +1 I also went over effect this in the last thread, my experience in the Arabian desert being the one where two theodolites were performing reciprocal observations (observing each other) and both recorded a small positive vertical angle, thus suggesting each was 'above' the other.

I seem to remember you are studying Environmental Science ? This is heavy geological stuff for that subject. Certainly explosively eruptive volcanoes offer an immediate candidate, especially the biggest ones. But these are still single point activities and the level of danger must depend upon where they are located. Under Tokyo or Mid Pacific ? Then some eruptions have put so much material into the upper atmosphere that world cooling for several years even to decades have resulted. Accompanied by noxious gases one of these could affect all humans. Finally some eruptions, such as the recent one in Iceland, are just large outflows of basaltic material. But there have been at least two such eruptions in the past that were continent wide in scale. The Deccan and the Siberian traps. Another such eruption from Xianging/Mongolia could wipe out most of Asia. Finally here is a good reference book for you Cambridge University press 2011 I'm very sorry I just re-read the title. You said the least dangerous. My mistake. The least dangerous will probably be found at the bottom of the oceans. I will leave you to investgate further as this is homework help.

Utter mathematical rubbish. It is devaiting with every single micrometre, picometre or attometre. Did you not read or not understand the formula I gave and subsequently worked out for you ? The deviation is measured in length units not area units. That is all there is to it.

What's this nonsense that is confusing everybody ? I already gave the correct formula Radius of Earth = 3959 miles So the offset from a circular curve is [math]\frac{{{{\left( {1mile} \right)}^2}}}{{2*3959}} = \frac{{1*1}}{{2*3959}}miles = \frac{{63360}}{{2*3959}}inches = 8inches[/math] Miles squared are a figment of someone's misunderstanding. Also what's this greatest laser experiment in history stuff ? Surely the first experiment to successfully make a working laser was and always will be the greatest ? +1 John, although I fear that level of sophistication may be beyond FECORE

The standard surveying (perpendicular) offset of a circular curve from its tangent point with a staight line is [math]\frac{{{{\left( {distance\;along\;straight} \right)}^2}}}{{2*Radius}}[/math] This formula is developed by truncating a Maclaurin/Taylor expansion of the geometry.

Glad to hear that you are making headway. 🙄 Superposition has been extremely successful as a method in a wide range of Sciences and Mathematics. Classically 'The Method of Superposition' is to be found in structural engineering, electrical engineering, Zoology and biology, optical engineering, mathematics (differential equations to name a few. So it was quite natural to extend the method to quantum mechanics in the study of chemical bonding. Pretty well all classical applications use what is known as linear superposition. This means that the various parts of the superposition can just be added together (each perhaps modified by a single constant) In fact they actually involve the opposite of superposition ie decomposition into the individual forces, curents, voltages, images etc and the effects of each calculated individually, before recombining them to solve the system The first use of quantum superposition was called the linear combination of atomic orbitals (LCAO) method to describe what happens to the orbitals when two atoms bond together chemically. This is where the subject introduces a joker because the pair of electrons become quantum entangled as they obey the Pauli exclusion principle. Superposition should not be confused with entanglement. Indeed the blue block and the red block I referred to earlier as not in superposition in their box are also entangled (this time classically) since if you remove one you atomatically know which one is left in the box. But remember they were never in superposition. The most modern studies are conducted into non linear superposition, which is a much more difficult subject, that needs full mathematical rigour to progress. There is only one nonlinear differential equation - the Riccati Equation - for which superposition solutions are known. Here is a paper from guys at CERN describing its application to Quantum Theory http://cds.cern.ch/record/347632/files/9802041.pdf If you want an expanded explanation of any of this, just ask.

Thanks for the comment I you want a laugh look at the lengths we went to to try to engage with the Balaton guy (Sandor Szekely) and his laser video. Mercifully this vid was rather shorter than 1 hour. The attempts at the mathematics of the geoid https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98386-laser-curvature-test-on-lake-balaton/comments?ct=1620073192 The last lot of 'failed mathematics' in relation to the geoid spawned another thread all by itself. I look forward to you 'expert' maths in relation to this. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98891-questions-about-the-geoid-split-from-lake-balaton-thread/page/2/?tab=comments