studiot

I like the way you have hardened up on facts, I was getting worried this thread was getting wishy-washy, handy-wavy rather than logical. and yet and yet if your board is made of suitable paper, water will run uphill in/on it. This is a direct consequence of statistics and is amenable to statistical mathematical theory. and yet the theory of evolution is a direct counterexample to Cladking's "against all odds", if indeed one was needed because that is a logically self defeating statement since as you have already points out, all odds must include the odds of something not happening as well as happening. I say again I agree that your grey area is enormous and that most things happen for statistical reasons in this grey area. And further that much of that statistics is amenable to proper mathematical analysis and quantification. Take for instance chemical activity, which is going on all the time in the world around us. Its scientific analysis based on two aspects of mahtematics. Firstly the deterministic laws of macro-thermodynamics tell us if such and such a reaction can happen. But the statistical laws of reaction kinetics (which are based on the chance meeting of the relevant molecules) tell us how fast it will happen. So once again, don't sell your idea short.

Feel free to demonstrate your claim by proving that every one of the dozen to a dozen and a half statements in the article are false.

Tar, you seem to be remarkably argumentative towards someone who not only agrees with your basic original premise but is trying to offer support (examples) towards it. In a nutshell your original premise identified zero probability, a probability of 1 and a 'large grey area' being all the numbers between. The nuke example refers to the difficulties with probabilities of zero and one. The Limit State example refers to the grey area. Perhaps I did not put a big enough gap between them, as you seem determined to link them.

No what? As I understand the rules of this forum I shouldn't have to go offsite to find out what you are saying, particularly to a page which has no less than 23 'see also' pages as well as an extensive reference base.

Yes, good questions, but Limit State (or any other method) design is a big subject and I didn't elaborate. Thank your lucky star that bridge engineering is a lot more reliable than software engineering. LSD defines many limit states, one of which is collapse which is the ultimate failure. Another important one is called 'serviceability' so a bridge that could still carry a train, but would shake loose car crushing size chunks of concrete would pass the collapse state but fail the serviceability state. There are many more. In general, building design is controlled by serviceability states, the limit of which will be reached long before the ultimate limit state (of collapse). For example ceilings and floors will bend unacceptably, long before they will break. Associated with each limit state are a number of what are termed partial safety factors, which govern the design values assigned to that component. For example steel manufacture is more tightly controlled and predictable than concrete, so the partial safety factor applied to the strength value of steel is higher than the one for concrete. Even the actual loads are not exempt, there is a safety factor to be applied in the design in case some fool overloads all the trucks in the train or whatever. The answer to the NYC nuke is that you need Bayesian statistics for your analysis. You cannot preprogram this and I doubt even an AI would help. You need a process similar to Limit State to create the seed data.

I assume this is homework/coursework. Did you look up bonding in solid (cyclo) alkanes? How do you think covalent bonding would work? There's plenty about. http://www.chemguide.co.uk/organicprops/alkanes/background.html The solid to liquid transition is breaking the bonds of a regular array of some sort. The liquid to gas transition is simply freeing nearly non polarised molecules from short term random liasons.

Look at the bonding in the solid phase. Can cycloalkanes form covalent or ionic crystals?

Good morning tar, and thank you for your response. You are selling your idea short. Bridge engineering and indeed engineering in general is a really good example of your idea in action. (I was a bridge engineer for 10 years). I smiled at the 100 years quote and offered a humerous comment because the bridge has the longest design life of anything made or built by Man, at 120 years. Of course, this does not mean that every bridge lasts 120 years or that they all fail straight after, many are still going after centuries and even a few after millenia. Talking of (engineering) design bring me to the modern statistical approach. Limit State Design. When I learned this, it was stressed that We do not expect a zero probability of failure, just that we can establish a known and acceptably low probability of failure. Although the method of probability assessment is quite sophisticated, it is largely derived from empircal data. It cannot be fully theoretically assessesd. A final comment, the probabilities 0 and 1 are special. They have multiple meanings depending upon circumstance. What is the probability of a large nuclear bomb destroying New York? I expect that you and I would agree it is pretty close to a 'sure thing'. That is a probability of 1. Yet it has never happened, so the only probability we can assign in strict classical statistics is zero. Edit Re your last paragraph. Yes matters of definition are not usually probabilistic.

Leylines are just examples of coincidence that have been glorified as having some paranormal significance. I like the following demonstration: Take a sheet of plain white paper. Randomly sprinkle on some black pepper. Take a ruler and observe lots of leylines where the pepperdust particles have fallen. Draw the lines in. Shake the pepperdust off and resprinkle Observe 1) New leylines emerge 2) Many particles fall on the original leylines you drew in 'reinforcing' them A special twist on this if you looked up Wiki on the subject. Leylines gurus don't realise that all maps distort the true shape of the land in some fashion. And this distortion is different for different map projections so straight lines on one projection are not sraight on another. Yet the gurus somehow cheerfully draw in the same straight lines on these different maps.

Hello outrider and welcome. I deliberately left the thread a bit open to see what folks made of it but, You have caught the gist of my post in one. One point, however, concerns your definition of coincidence, which I find too narrow. Even this one is too narrow in my opinion. "A notable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection." My favourite example is more esoteric and concerns leylines.

Debunked ? So which of the statements is not literally true? And what did I say that needs 'debunking'? http://www.snopes.com/history/american/lincoln-kennedy.asp BTW your link doesn't work for me.

So what happens after 100 years? Do tell.

The attachment says it all.

This is known as the Elihu Thomson experiment. I glad to see modern science is still offereing this as the health and safety brigade caused it to be dropped for some years. +1 https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&source=hp&q=elihu+thomson+apparatus&oq=elihu+thom&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0l4.2011.7146.0.9661.10.10.0.0.0.0.103.863.8j2.10.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.10.854...0i131k1.0NR_98ttqsA

You didn't answer my question. What is the magnetic flux change in the coil?

I do like the sentiment of the title so +1. In particular I like the reference to grey areas, and that you have designated it 'very large' IMHO far too many arguments develop simply because two (or more) folks take oppositely polarised positions and cannot admit to that grey area.

What exactly does the underlined bit mean? You realise that the change in the magnetic field means that the number of lines threading the coil must change to generate an EMF? The coil doesn't care which lines thread, it is the total number that count.

You will find a good analysis, with simple calculations, of all these things, including conservation of energy, power dissipated for given coil resistance, what happens if the coil is a superconductor, work done moving the magnet etc etc in Fundamentals of Electricity and Magnetism by Kip. pages 289 to 291 in my second edition Kip is an old standard but it really is a very good book. You should read it.

Yes you jumped in before I finished writing a full and proper answer to the first time you wrote a full and proper post.

OK so I'm back in Somerset. Can you provide some architectural setails to go with the material you put in the first post? Is the roof single or double pitched, hipped or what? How is the side thrust from the rafters resisted ? Six metres is a very long length of structural timber to obtain, I note your builder suggests laminated. What fixing down arrangements are available? What will be seen of the beams and rafters. Are 200 (high?) x 100 (wide) beams the max or could they be bigger? They seem small to me from connection considerations. With the loads discussed, I don't think you need steel. I think suitable beams could be made up on site from laminated facings (that don't have to be 6m long) enclosing spacer blocks of timber. This arrangement would have many advantages. Timber needs spread out connections. It tends to relax under compression and loose some load transference capacity of connecting bolts bearing directly on timber. There might be a difficulty fixing rafters to a timber steel sandwich only 100 wide.

Good morning, Ted and welcome. 83 huh? Well your typing fingers seem much younger. This is in 'speculations' (perhaps it was moved?) but I don't see any speculations as defined here. In particular I don't see a clear 'mission statement', backed up by a chain of reasoning from universally agreed facts. So what exactly is your 'speculation' in condensed form please? Please note some of your reasoning seems sound but you should avoid 'reality' or 'exists' which are metaphysical terms rather than scientific ones as they are imprecise and speculative in themselves.

Can we have that one again. but louder please ? +1

You are quite right the snow loading requirements will be different in Scotland, Somerset and Tenerife. http://www.snow-forecast.com/resorts/Teide/6day/mid That is why correct building load assessment includes a location. Location also affects wind loading.

The 1 and 0 and the letters a and b are just 'dummy' elements or placeholders. There is only one 'field' with 2 elements. Whatever those two elements are, they must be the same type of object and they must conform to the operation tables as shown in the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GF(2) Interesting as this is, I'm sorry but it's now half past one in the morning so I will have to adjourn till the morrow.