studiot

Just to reinforce this. Sound waves affect molecules considered as point particles acting on the entire mass of the molecules as one to creating pressure waves (the sound). The upper limit of such activity is a couple of hundred kilohertz in normal circumstances. EM radiation affects the relationship between the individual parts of the molecule (ie its constituent atoms). The best way to imagine this (It's too late tonight for me to draw the vibrational modes of molecules, you will have to look them up) is to imagine the (much lighter) atoms as balls with mass connected by springs. As such they perform various dances known as waggling, twisting, stretching and so on. Edit there are also modes of absorbtion and emission due to interaction with the subatomic parts of molecules, particularly the electrons for the present purposes. The frequencies of these motions are 10 to 100 gigahertz for IR and 100 to a few thousand gighertz for visible light. Many order of magnitude different from the sound vibrations.

Hello James, and welcome to Science Forums. Yes this is an engineering question, and I suppose you are an amateur engineer from your description of the problem. I am a little worried about the safety aspects of handling an exhaust gas at 400oC so perhaps you would explain in more detail what exactly you are trying to achieve. Such devices have been made, but the devil is in the detail so Do you really want to boil the water or evaporate it? Is this clean water or does it contain chemicals or other material that would need residue removal? What do you want to happen to the evaporated water and is it being replenished as it evaporates?? You have said 3500 litres of water, but given no indication of the quantity or nature of of the exhaust gases. (You do realise that you can't extract all the energy from the gas as it need some to clear the flue? Some manufacturers of condensing boilers have been embarrassed by this and other oversights)

I don't know if you saw my previous post in the recent flurry but here is a true story I was looking at yesterday. In my part of the world it is hilly and often rainy. A man refurbishing a cottage wanted fancy oak faced flooring in the hallway. That is a deliberate design by an intelligence (I'm not saying great or small intelligence, just some intelligence) Unfortunately he also wanted fancy entrance doors flush with the outside. Yesterday it rained heavily and the water gushed down the hill behind the entrance, flooding into the hall and damaging all that expensive flooring beyond repair. Please comment on the intelligence of that design.

I think you are arguing at cross purposes with the public in general and members here in particular. Science often takes a common word and imparts a specific restricted meaning to it for the purposes of scientific analysis/discussion. To me, and to most others, Intelligent Design is associated with some sort of motivation or intention. Everything is a 'design', adding the word Intelligent adds this motivation leading to the structure of that design The opposite is, of course, non intelligent design which does not necessarily mean unintelligent (ie stupid or unsuccessful) design. Remember that Science in general does not address motivation. It can tell us how to get to the Moon and something of what we might expect when we get there, but not should we go or do we want to go. So I understand Intelligent Design to mean that something (or someone) desires it so. That presupposes the something or someone acting as stage director. As regards to your request for an example, Are you prepared to discuss the response of living animals to a sudden, unresolvable and extended food crisis?

No the uncertainty does not arise for random reasons. There are two different ways that probability arises in both quantum and classical mechanics (the same in both) Probability assigned to/ associated with time and position which is the result of a continuous variable Probability assigned to/ associated with discrete energy states which are the result of a discrete variable. Which do you want to understand? The 'uncertainty' of Heisenberg arises for a different reason, do yo uknow what a double integral (area integral) is?

Once again, thank you for responding and clearing up my question. You are new here, did you read the rules? You posted a hypothesis and provided a link to Wikipedia for background. You then specifically asked us to check your calculations in English that made me suspect that this is not your first language. By itself, that would be just fine but, You then supplied some images of partial calculations in English and a link to Facebook. The images look as if they may be ancient or new i.e. a quote from someone else or your own. Again either is fine so long as it is clear. For your information, I don't do Facebook and it is against the rules of this site to expect me to look there for the full treatment. As I said, I glanced through them and this phrase caught my eye "c = Celerity of light at the absolute reference frame" So my first question is What do you mean by this? It is definitely non standard usage.

This is a very complicated question. Pollutants come in different forms, some have increased some have decreased over the last century and a half. Pollutants also have different sources over geological timescales, so the aerial dust from some volcanic eruptions definitely significantly reduced the insolation of the Earth's surface for several years after the event. A century ago the smoke from steam engines probably did so on a smaller scale. More recently these heavy soot particles have declined but diesel generated 'particulates', which are much smaller, are reported to affect human health. This is a big subject.

Thank you for replying to my question. Except that it was not a reply to my question. You told me a lot of things I didn't ask for. But you did not tell me the one and only thing I did ask about. I skimmed through the images you posted and asked who wrote them before I read them in detail and comment on them. Is that too much to ask?

You have posted 5 photos of handwritten script without any explanation. Whose script is this and where did it come from please?

What charge does an anion and a cation have? Surely you will get An anionic vacancy if you lower the negative charge (eg by removing an anion) A cationic vacancy if you lower the positive charge (eg by removing a cation) You also need to consider the lattice structure. MgO has an NaCl structure with 6:6 coordination.

Still no answer to this important question.

Well I tried to delete my last post since it is no longer relevant, but that didn't work and I can no longer edit it. Please ignore (or preferably delete) my last post.

Why is it that when a member asks a classical question about a classical physics law, placing it in a forum dedicated to classical physics, some insist on discussing "Ah but there are some non classical exceptions" ?

Classically the the conservation laws (both mass and energy) apply to open, closed and isolated systems, but differently applied. Much of Engineering Science deals with open systems and incorporates a discipline known as Transport Phenomena, which is particularly about applying the conservation laws in open systems. A simplified soundbyte version is Input = Output + Accumulation. Examples of systems would be A refrigeration system is a closed system, refrigerant mass is conserved but energy enters and leaves the system. A working fermentation vessel that is neither heated nor cooled is an example of an isolated system. A hydroelectricity plant is an example of an open system. Both mass an energy enter and leave the system. As regards the Universe and Cosmology, we simply don't know enough to confidently apply these tightly specified Classical laws. Modern Physics only offers tnetative hypotheses that are constantly being revised in the light of new information. We don't even know enough to confirm if the Universe is open, closed or isolated.

I too like Strange's analogy +1 I also note some unnamed member voted me a -1 for giving two other members positive feedback. Stand up and be counter Sir or Madam.

Classical Physics (and other Science such as Chemistry) does not explain or treat creation or annihilation. Classical Science is concerned with finite term interactions or process and the statements you embolden refer to these. Questions involving infinite time space or matter are left unresolved, apart from potential theory. Some forms of creation/ annihilation and some aspects of infinity are treated by what is called Modern Physics. Within the context of classical Science five types of system are distinguished, open, closed isolated and quasi. An open system allows both mass and energy to enter or leave the system during the process. A closed system allows energy, but not mass to enter or leave the system during the process.* An isolated system allows neither mass nor energy to enter or leave the system during the process. An quasi system allows either mass or energy to enter and leave the system during the process, with the proviso that the amounts entering must equal the amounts leaving. * Can you see why we can't have a system that allows mass but not energy to enter or leave a system?

Perhaps you should spend your time on a minecraft forum. What is contradictory about it? The fact that you can't understand such a simple concept that a kid on a bicycle riding to school can reveals your lack of raw intelligence. LMAO! Post reported.

Before wasting your time on lengthy typing sessions I suggest you clean up and clarify this premise statement since it appears self contradictory to me as it stands.

This would be the first time I have noticed this chain of reasoning in your posts. I am not saying you did not post it before, but that if you did I missed it. So thank you for making your position clear. However I see two problems with this chain. Firstly you use of the phrase 'every single observation we make' which is too all embracing and trivially falsified. In general all embracing staments contain the seeds of their own destruction. And it is quite unnecessary since one single observation of a non artificially occurring phenomenon that can be definitely attributed to an 'intelligent arrangement' could be used as evidence of some form of intellignet design. Second and more important you clearly have insufficient knowledge of the mathematics of arrangements as your conclusion does not follow from your premise. There are those here who would be happy to explain such amthemaics to you if you were prepared to listen. One question, are you familiar with the First Law of Thermodynamics?

But you haven't proven anything. All you have done is made some further exaggerated statements and one plainly false one. You should read Russell "Why I am not a Christian"

Actually, no. All I have done so far is examine the consistency of your assertions with your premises and found the chain of reasoning wanting. So I consistently pointed out this lack of coherent reasoning. So far, I have not ventured my own personal; world view.

That presupposes it was 'designed' at all. Can you prove that?

I would honestly say that far from seeking to silence you, a great deal of patience has been expended on your behalf, waiting to see if you had anything coherent to say.

+1 Does this thread have a point?

Preaching is unwelcome here, most especially in a section entitled Modern and Theoretical Physics.