studiot

Nor am I a biologist, but why does the genetic information have to increase? Why can't it simply change but stay the same quantity? Or heresy even, diminish if a trait is lost or dying out? BTW how does one measure the quantity of genetic information?

I like miracles. +1

Actually I'm very much against Hinkley C - it is a complete and enormous waste of public money, when there are much better options available, whcih are also 24/7. However the point about both solar and available wind is that they represent low density energy with substantial off periods. (With apologies to those in the Americas and Asia suffering from more powerful winds) You are close enough to Cruachan to understand the obvious implications of what to do about that.

Not on the solar panels I am familiar with, and not when there is no Moon to speak of.

I have it! There are (or used to be) certain radio /TV call-in shows where the presenters made a specific point of insullting or brow-beating the callers. The OP has escaped from radio GAGA where he was trained in these darkside arts. May The Force be with you all

Does anyone know what happened to Mitch? Seems strange that he would ask a question and not bother to come back for the answer.

I find it very comforting at night when I want to turn the lights on, cook my dinner and watch the BBC, that nuclear is constant, unlike solar.

So far you seem to think that there are three possibilities (though not mutually exclusive as with your chlorophyll example) when light approaches something. Transmission, reflection or absorbtion. That is not the case. Do you think that the radio wave is transmitted through the solid copper bar of the aerial? We have just agreed that the wave appears on the downstream side of the bar (it is not blocked by it) Having agreed that an aerial is frequency selective, do you understand how one works? I suggest you forget photons here. I have already suggested that for the purposes of this thread and your on topic question classical wave theory is adequate. I agree that there are many additional observable effects that require alternative theories, but they are not on topic here. Directionality is a not function of the wave alone, it is also dependent upon the source. The issue of a propagation medium is off topic here, but I would just observe that Faraday's notion that the wave generates its own medium as is goes along is adequate here. Finally your response to my observation that waves are larger than the obstruction leaves much to be desired. If the waves are propagating in the z direction then they are enormous in the x and y directions since they are so far from the source they are effectively plane waves. The 'waves' of light from the Sun are vastly bigger than the Earth itself. Hopefully you understand this much.

You have more faith in electronics than is warranted by my (passenger) experience of controlled rail systems think is warranted. There is a wonderful scen in the Norman Wisdom comedy where the hero is put into a centrifuge to practice Hi-gee. He is shown the safety cut out button to press if the stress gets too much. When they finally decide to stop the machine and drag him from it, they ask "Whys didn't you press the safety button?" He holds out the button with its connecting lead broken off. "I did" As to efficiency the figures were in the last post. The eurostar hauls around a ton of metal or more per passenger. Trams are no different. You can get 4 or more people in to a car that weights 1/4 to 1/2 ton That is one of many reasons why they are more efficient. The tractive effort of tyres on the road are also inherently more efficient than steel on steel. And of course you have to allow for the inefficiencies of generating that electricity for the tram motor.

Taken as a whole, trams (and other rail systems) are considerably less efficient than small IC engine cars. The price of lowering pollution is a reduction in efficiency. They are not necessarily safer either. The recent incident of the crashed Croydon tram on its side amply demonstrates that they can have bigger accidents. A few facts and figures: A single Eurostar train takes 800 passengers It weight 800 tonnes Putting all those passengers in cars would occupy 800 yards of the M25 London orbital motorwaY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roads_Must_Roll

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Shorter-English-Dictionary-William-Trumble/dp/0198605757 Only £63

That is the shorter version, note the page number for the letter m. But is really is a good book. No I would not use a hyphen like that, although Americans do and it makes spell checkers a real pain. I might use the hyphen to separate two vowels say in re-edit, but not in remagnetization, it serves no pupose there.

Thank you for bringing this system to our attention. +1 I just expect that it would be far too expensive to run without enormous state subsidies. All the UK new tram projects have lost tens to hundreds of millions and been curtailed because they are so cumbersome. Personally I have heard from mechanical engineers that Robert Heinlein's 'rolling roads' are a more achievable proposition. We already have the beginnings of this in airports and shopping malls.

According to the bible (Oxford English Dictionary - OED) both are correct, but z would be the more common. That is certainly the case in my straw poll of British scientific authors in that field, especially post 1970.

No talking to you isn't all that bad, in fact you seem to be progressing towards proper discussion. I try very hard to read and address the contents of the posts of others inlcuding yourself. But when I asked for your comments on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, you responded by talking about solid carbon dioxide. Which I hope you will agree is frustratingly irrelevant. But this last time you seem to be actually responding to what I wrote, so let us start again, without preconceptions. I think you seek a mechanism to explain how EM waves can pass by, or be absorbed by, or reflected by objects in their path. Ideally this mechanism should offer the conditions when each possibility will happen and concur with the results of real world observations. Please confirm that this is the case because I am trying to explain this to you. I also said that the easist explanation for this is wave theory. By this I meant classical wave theory, which in my opinion is sufficient to discuss the matter. My starting premises, based on real world observations, are: The structures of aerials for TV and radio broadcasts allow the broadcast waves to pass by and are sometimes reflected by these structures, but only extract the energy (ie absob at least some waves) for certain specific wavelengths which they are said to be tuned to. For simplicity I will take the simplest possible aerial, a length of conductor such as a straight aluminium or copper tube or wire. It is an observational fact that the wavelengths this aerial is tuned to depend upon its length in much the same way as and organ pipe can be tuned to a particular sound wavelength. Please confirm that you consider there observational facts. I am saying it like this because you chose to simply quibble by ignoring various helpful comments I made to enliven and enrich the discussion. I propose the development and extension of this theory to atmospheric carbon dioxide molecules. Working together this can be achieved. Continuing to work in seoparate compartments, it is unlikely the discussion can progress. The choice is yours.

J.C.MacSwell Since the OP hasn't thanked you for such a clear and complete answer I will. +1

Despite your unappreciative/unhelpful remarks in your last reply to me I will try one more time to help. The reason is best found in the wave theory of light and is the same reason we cannot see atoms or electrons with a light microscope. The wavelength of visible light is just too long by several orders of magnitude to resolve distance this small. The radius of an electron is of the order of 10-16 metres The radius of a carbon or oxygen atom is of the order of 10-10 metres The wavelength of visible light is of the order of 10-7 metres Since you like sound analogies, it is the same reason low frequency sound can diffract round objects, whilst higher frequencies sounds are blocked. In your sketch you have shown the wave being much smaller than the CO2 molecule. In fact it is the other way round. A visible light wave is ten thousand times larger.

This is where the engineering decisions and trial calculations come in. Yes the water could be pressurised to raise the temperature, or the transfer fluid could be steam or oil or a commercial high temperature 'refrigerant' such as you find in heat pumps. Yes a suitable piping loop could evaporate 3500 litres, but what is the recharge time? That would determine if it was fast enough.

Come on, are we talking sense or not? I asked why we could see through a carbon dioxide atmosphere, either as dilute as the Earth's atmosphere or pure, if carbon dioxide reflects visible light. Your answer apppears to be that we can't see a suspension of water droplets (clouds or fog) which is true but irrelevant. One of the important characteristics of wave motion is that reflection occurs at a boundary. The boundary is not at the atomic scale but water doplets provide an ideal boundary to disperse the light rays by reflection. I didn't notice much solid carbon dioxide around when I got up this morning either, so what is the relevance of the transparancy or opacity of the stuff?

Good morning, James. It looks as though our timezones clash but never mind we will get there. Yes lots of very useful fill-in information. Thanks. No you are not an idiot and you have done exactly the right thing by asking. In fact is is a real pleasure to have a pleasant, intelligent and productive conversation rather than a dispute with some troll. OK let's get the temperature thing cleared up first then see what practical advice can be offered. Temperature is not a measure of the heat quantity in a body, it just tells you which way heat will flow naturally. There is a great deal of heat in the ocean, but not easily accessible because the temperature is low. On the other hand, the temperature of a lighted candle is high, but the heat content is low so you don't burn yourself if you extinguish it by pinching between your fingers. There were two reasons for my question aboyt the exhaust gases. I hope you understood the first one about need to leave some energy for the exit kinetic energy of the gas. As a materials specialist I assume you have covered chemical energetics. The second reason is to do with the safety aspect. Fluing requirements (in the UK at least) are very specific to prevent noxious gases from entering the living environment. There is a substantial minimum flue cross sectional area (aka pipe size) which would not fit well into your tank. Take the cover off a domestic or commercial boiler and look. Further, in order to maximise heat transfer you would need thin walled, thermally conductive duct material. This would contain hot corrosive gases inside and be surrounded by hot water outside and thus difficult to avoid corrosive heat damage. A better arrangement from both the safety and practical point of view might be an indirect heat exchanger system. Piped water (or other fluid) from a small reservoir is heated within the exhaust duct or by being wrapped around it. This water is then passed through the water in an evaporator, rather than a tank, inside sealed heat exchanger piping where it heats the water you want evaporated before returning to the small reservoir. Because the heat exchanger fluid is sealed it can be clean and neither corrode the pipes nor deposit scale within them, preventing degradation of the system. The evaporator basin itself should be as spread out as possible, allowing maximum surface area to the evaporating water. It may be beneficial to blow the water vapour away with a fan to assist speed up evaporation. Electric heating elements can also be deployed in the evaporator to assist if there is not enough energy in the exhaust gas or you are just not running the burner. Since you presumably wish to recover the solids this would be easier from a flat spread out tray than from a tank. Cleaning such a tank is much easier. You can get an idea how much heat might be available by multiplying the calorific value of the fuel gas by the usage rate of the burner. Both will be reasily availble from the manufacturers and should ideally be stated on the equipment. That is the total heat produced as a time rate, ie per second or per minute. Remember power = rate of doing work = energy per second. If your system cooled the exhaust from 400o to say 150o, then the heat available to your evaporator will be up to (400 - 150) * Cexhaust where Cexhaust is the specific heat of the exhaust gas and will be readily available from tables. You do not want to go much below 150o as the one of the exhaust gases will be water, which you want to keep as steam for exhaust purposes. How are we doing?

Then why can I see through it? Even a high pressure tank of CO2 is transparent (apart from the tank itself) For most CO2 molecules the preponderance of all directions is either back to Earth or towards another CO2 molecule above it or to the side of it. I don't think most is lost to space, since most of the CO2 (a heavier gas than air) is beneath the upper atmosphere. Does glass reflect IR? Are you not getting mixed up between reflection and absorbtion? Google has lots of IR absorbtion curves for glass. Of course there is always a question of angle of incidence when it comes to reflection. Greenhouses receive insolation overhead, but the ground radiation averages a flatter incidence.

Sadly it is posts such as these that have prevented us ever getting as far as my beliefs. You can have no idea as to what mine are since I have never expressed them.

I have been remarkably patient with your cavalier attitude towards the rules here, but since you refuse to answer rational questions, courteously put I have no option but to report this behaviour again.

No I was kind enough to ask the same question in three different ways in an attempt to help you understand, since you seem to be having trouble understanding it. Thank you for that clear, if totally false, statement that "Light is electrons" The plain fact is that whilst electrons can in some circumstances emit light, yet in other circumstance remain quite happily dark (without emitting light), there are other sources of light generation besides electrons. Further by your theory, if an electron absorbs some light, one would expect to get more electrons if light were indeed electrons. yet if an electrons or electrons absorb light you have the same number of electrons as before. So it is up to you to explain these facts in terms of your hypothesis