studiot

But the air doesn't usually surround the surface. Water for instance does not condense on the top surface of the same polythene. Take a piece of plastic that nowhere near covers or tents a region of air and see just how far you have to cool it to creat condensation on either top or undersurface.. So however you cause the evaporation it is also important that the resulting higher humidity is not allowed to escape. And yes the 'desert still' (also effective in the open ocean) is the ultimate version of this. To go to forced cooling, you would be talking about desalination plant, which I don't think is the purpose here.

I long suspected this, but thank you for confirming your ability. Is it something to do with that contraption on your head?

Shouldn't this be in Homework Help if it's for a project? It's slightly more complicated than that, because the surrounding air is often very (very) dry so your apparatus would have to be very very cold to reach dewpoint. The purpose of the plastic tent is to evaporate some of the liquid water and concetrate it just under the tent. This greatly raises the humidity of the air just under the tent. So this tent does not have to be so cold, in fact you can often see condensation under polythene sheeting.

I should have said there was no visible action other than the box falling over. And there were no hidden jacks poking the box over the table was an ordinary classroom table. As far as I am aware, DE Bono never revealed the mechanism, which must have been inside the box.

Whilst I can see the need for a limited supply of certain types of gun in a country like the USA, I can't see the need for widespread availability of military automatic weapons. Proper control of these would be a very good start.

Hint do you need to oxidise or reduce the ferrous ion to ferric ?

Can't see any of us falling out over this so long as the new troll stays out of this thread. I described a situation in which I was deliberately tricking you by pretending to lug the ball. You can't do this in Mathematics 'proofs', only Science ones. There was also a hint in the De Bono reference and the thread title was taken from his book 'A Five Day Course in Thinking' https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=edward+de+bono&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=w2HSWbDHEpyq4gTeq6xY One of De Bono's demonstrations went thus: In front of the lecturer was a table. On the table was a nearly cubical opaque box. (I can't remember if he brought it in or it was there at the start) The box was ignored by the lecturer, but partway through it toppled over onto its side on the table with a loud bang and just laid there. The lecturer continued to ignore the box until the end of the lecture when he said "You all saw what happened. Why did the box topple over?" One of his books goes through in excruciating detail the why mechanisms proposed by many famous physicists could not produce the observed action.

This is what I mean by thinking. +1 (This harps back to an Edward De Bono demonstration)

This thread was inspired by the recent long philosopy thread and by Edward De Bono. The discussion is about the difference between mathematical proof and scientific proof. One form of proof that is available in Mathematics but best avoided in Science is that of showing the negation of a proposition leads to a contradiction vis-a-vis some more basic statement. For example the proposition that gravity causes objects to fall to the ground is false. I struggle up a podium lugging a large ball. I stretch, holding the ball out and shout to an assistant standing below "Catch" I then drop the ball But instead of falling the ball shoots upwards. Therefore gravity is false.

In what way are you suggesting that this invalidates the synthesis process itself or the efforts of those who employ it correctly? I am not convinced by this statement. Accidental discoveries for instance. Or tests between opposing hypothesis.

Since no one else want to answer this here goes. When the piston initially starts to move it will generate a pressure pulse immediately in front of it. This pulse will move away from the piston at the speed of sound in the gas and eventually expel a pulse of air at the open end. If the piston continues to move smoothly and evenly it will generate a succession of such pulses which will coalesce into a region of increased pressure air between the travelling initial pulse and the piston face. So once the air has commenced exiting the open end the pressure between the piston and the open end will be increased all the way but will not rise further. Waves or pulses will only be generated if the piston moves jerkily. Edit As a matter of interest you cannot apply Bernoulli's theorem directly here as there is an energy input to the fluid. The setup is effectively the inside of a pump.

Not sure if that was a response to my post, but it was not what I meant.

This doesn't preclude the possibility of 'flat spots' in systems with gravity as I already noted.

Thanks for that excellent list, dubbelosix. +1 You are now officially dubbeloseven

I haven't been following this thread, but thought I'd take a look and, after all that analysis, this last line caught my fancy. The opposite of analysis is synthesis, rather than creation which is different again. So many terms and a full study process will probably involve all three these days. Deployment of synthesis and or creation is more difficult than analysis in my experience.

Antares was correct in that he specified a half open set - the positive integers. This does indeed have a least or first member - unity. Edit I see I cross posted.

Good thinking +1

This is not caused by reaching maximum velocity. It is when the downward acceleration equals the acceleration due to gravity (this is what free fall means). The definition of free fall is the motion of a body that has only gravity acting on it. This is independent of the nature of that gravity. Welcome Diamante, can you tell us in short form, the purpose of your thread please?

Infomatics, Computer Science, Computing Technology, Information Technology, ............... just plain Computing. I think that the subject goes under many banners - the list is long. I am also sure there is a large amount of overlap between syllabuses, although no two university courses will be exactly the same. But I am also sure that no one course will include everything. So a BA in Computing will include a good deal of respectable material, whatever it is called. So why quibble over the name, any of them will (should) command respect?

CONTINUED Field (B) - the direction field - however cannot be used to store energy, as energy is not a viable function of direction. Now the statement is often made 'A particle is just a disturbance in the Field' and often accompanied by some wooly waving which means 'but I'm not sure how'. So let us use these fluid examples to display classical disturbances that can be localised and therefore have some particle like properties. Suppose there are some submerged rocks in the stream. The stream fields will change in response. Whirlpools will develop in the vicinity of the rocks. The direction field will show the whirlpools, the magnitude field will show something else. In the whirlpools the velocity will diminish and, as we have seen, some kinetic energy will be transferred to potential energy. Eventually a fairly stable flow regime will establish itself where the whirlpools represent 'particles' which for instance deflect passing small objects floating in the water, just like forces between massive bodies. OK so classical Physics an develop particle like entities in its Fields, what about Quantum Physics? The Classical Fields developed its 'particles' by interaction between the Field and its environment. This also happens in the Quantum Field. The variable property in the Quantum Field is the Wave Function. This is quite different from the classical point functions we saw in the stream. Without interaction it is non localised - that is it extends in theory over all space, although it is usual to restrict it to that region where the contribution is significant.

This thread was inspired by a question asked in a thread about stored energy where the question was asked if energy could be stored in a Field. Since this was really a bit off topic in that thread and an important subject people are always asking about this and the nature of Fields in general here is a thread for folks to discuss the subject and ask their questions. For reference I described a Field this way in that thread. So the quick answer to the first question is yes if the field property is suitable, no if the field property is not. In order to illustrate this and another important question - What are the differences and similarities between classical and quantum fields here is a comparison. Consisder a stream running in its channel. At every point in the stream we can assign (and even observe) a velocity vector. The region is obviously the stream channel and chosen fields could be A) The magnitude of the velocity. B) Just the direction of the velocity. Both Fields are purely classical. Field (A) can be used to calculate the kinetic energy of the water, if we know its density. So Field (A) can be used to describe energy and indeed if the water is halted this energy is transferred elsewhere. For instance if the water encounters a dam and builds up, the up implies an increase in potential energy, which is exactly what happens. This energy is 'stored'. TO BE CONTINUED.

Bayes theorem allows you to calculate a probability in the absence of any data. See Mcgrayne on the subject, (The theory that would not die) She offers many examples.

Very odd, the quote post function worked perfectly here but not in another recent one. +1 for casting your magic MacSpell over it. (Couldn't resist that but I like the comment as well)

I have just encountered your difficulty, the quote button is misbehaving when you try to quote the full post. Thus: Which is all I get when I click on 'the Quote at the bottom of your post. Selecting a aprt of the post and using the pop-up 'quotethis' still works correctly. Also if you do get a blank frame you can remove it holding down the CTRL key and hitting the letter Z (shortcut for undo) but only immediately after. Back to the thread, If you look back at my original this was a question to koti, not you, so no I did not answer it, but thanks koti for yours.

Which statement the inspirational one or mine? Some uses correspond to this but I was trying to emphasize usage that has meaning in many sciences and the wide range of such usage. Try placing the cursor at the top of your second quote frame and use the back arrow (by the += key).