studiot

If you watch an oscillator starting ie before it 'settles' (settling time is an important feature of oscillators) you will see an initial non oscillatory output, which is fedback by a regenerative path this inturn boosts the ouput, which regenerates more until the oscillator is operating correctly. So the cause of output lies in part at any rate in the presence of feedback. But you can't have something to feed back until there is an output.

Feedback?

Does the heavily coloured picture in post#3 come with any explanation?

I have to say that I understand and agree with the sentiment expressed here, although I find the exposition a trifle short. I remember at school getting into trouble following a BBC educational programme aabout bouyancy. The official explanation was "Object float if they are lighter than water and sink if they are heavier" and I was censured for daring to suggest that in fact objects denser than water sank. Roll on a few years after I left school and some astronomy had enetered the physics curriculum; pupils are now taught that a given object weighs more on Earth than the Moon. The heavier than water explanation is still common use, especially in primary schools however. I come back to that victorian puzzle Which weighs more a pound of feathers or a pound of lead? Which has more mass? Weight varies with location, mass does not. So no, I would not define heavy as having mass.

Of course light can be and is stored. Ask any (pussy)cat for details. The problem is the process is not efficient, certainly not as efficient as you envisage, but it does work.

Not being a whatever speaker I don't understand dimreaper's comment and request a translation if there is a joke involved. However, more seriously, I endorse his choice of extract as it highlights what I (following my history teacher from years ago) see as a misconception. Let us try some examples Please translate electric power generator from English into (Roman) Latin? Please translate the Saxon word for cow into the Norman word? I think there are differences between languages and a proper linguist could no doubt come up with a myriad of untranslatable concepts. How many words do the Eskimo have for snow and how many do we?

It's actually stronger than this. Einstein's relativity and to some extent earlier ones, can be raced to the desire to declare the homogenity and isotropy of the fundamental axes. Earlier relativities could say that the (3) fundamental axes of space (What Mordred calls volume) could have isotropic and homogeneous properties - The same everywhere in all directions but still allow these properties to be different at different times. This was possible because time was thought to be a completely independent variable in earlier relativities. However following Einstein and the introduction of spacetime this is no longer tenable since time and space axes are no longer independent. So not only do we no have to say isotropy and homogeny include everywhere but also everywhen.

Yes there is a difference between perpetual motion, which is required by Newton's First Law, and a perpetual motion machine. +1 (PMM) Also there are types of perpetual motion machine. Your description refers to PMM of the first kind which is forbidden by the First Law of Thermodynamics or conservation of energy as you say. There is another, trickier, type of PMM called a PMM of the second kind, which is forbidden by yup you guessed it the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Probably the most relevant enunciation here is that due to Clausius. It is impossible to transfer heat from a colder body to a warmer one without net changes in other bodies. This forbids what amounts to a double first law machine being used as a PMM (that's the tricky bit)

Almost let's see Let P be any point on the straight tunnel AB and O be the right bisector of AB, through Earth centre C. Then the geometrical relationships are as shown in the first sketch. The acceleration due to gravity at P is g' and acts towards C as shown in the second sketch. This therefore has a component acting along APOB, given by the triangle as also shown in the second sketch. Substitution shows that this acceleration component is proportional to the distance of P along AB from O and by definition must be directed towards O. This is the definition of simple harmonic motion. So the ball executes SHM between A and B with a period [math]2\pi \sqrt {\frac{a}{g}} [/math] Travel time from A to B is half this or [math]\pi \sqrt {\frac{{4000*5280}}{{32}}} = 100\sqrt {66} {\rm{seconds}}[/math] or about 42.5 minutes. Note that this is like the pendulum, independent of the Amplitude, (ie the distance along y) but depends upon the movement arm. Perhaps you can also see why the use of a, the distance to the Earth's centre is better than the depth, d. That is the High School derivation, if you really want to do a double integration then the equation of motion is [math]\frac{{{d^2}y}}{{d{t^2}}} + \frac{g}{a}y = 0[/math]

Here is a translation of your citation, in pdf. http://fpmt.org/wp-content/uploads/teachers/zopa/advice/amitayus_long_life_sutra_c5.pdf?x33127 I read enough to know that the answer to the OP is a resounding NO.

No integration is necessary. Perhaps this definition will help as a hint

The mechanism to direct trains along the correct track is called 'points' Here is Wiki and some you tube etc https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=how+do+railway+points+work&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=ZrkcWb6JLc2stgfNzYXAAw

So tell us your thoughts about the subject. It is more than difficult to have a discussion with a video. So more text and less video please.

It would be nice if someone could give us a quick summary of which of Poincare's works is referred to here as Poincare's Relativity. Is it this paper? H Poincare : Recueil de travaux offert par les auters a H A Lorenz : Serie2. Tome5 Arch Neerl 1900 p252 English paper title Lorenz's Theory and Principle of Reaction.

No sweat, "I don't think that the Child's equation was mentioned etc......." So I posted some references.

I don't think that Childs Law or Equation was explicitly mentioned in the book I referenced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_charge http://simion.com/definition/childs_law.html https://www.britannica.com/science/Langmuir-Child-equation

What I am not sure about is are you asking our opinion because you have seen this elsewhere (as have several members here) or are you trying to sell it to us? Taking the best interpretation means I see no call for negative points. So I am adding +1 to what seems to be your latest attempt to discussion the subject reasonably and comply with the rules. However the explanations offered are weak and incomplete. Here is another omission. The metal wheel is a conductor moving in a magnetic field, cutting lines of flux. This motion will generate Faraday eddy currents which will dissipate energy. So the wheel will stop in time from this cause alone. As a matter of interest many machines, especially rotating ones, become a bit magnetised after working for a period of time.

Let me try to clear up some questions. The tunnel is straight. It does not follow the curve of the Earth - it is not at constant depth. It is not intended to pass through the centre of the Earth. If you google the acceleration at depth d you will find the derivation of your choice of this formula eg http://gradestack.com/CBSE-Class-11th-Science/Gravitation/Acceleration-due-to/17543-3563-24279-study-wtw or John Cuthber's correct but OTT link. This is not about the shell theorem all you need is the formula. Now I have amended the usually presented formula ( as in my link) to make things easier. This is simply to replace the depth, d with the distance to the centre, a Obviously a + d = R or a = (R - d) This clearly shows the relationship between g at the surface with g' at any point p inside the Earth. g' acts along the same line SPC as g The shell theorem simply states at any depth d or distance from the centre a, we can remove the shaded annulus and consider gravity as though it were a new sphere of radius a. Hope this helps

17 views, no replies. You will find that folks are more inclined to take the time to help if you take the time to make your original question intelligeable. Any of the actions you mention might increase the reaction rate, but it depends what the reaction is. Do you know what the conditions for each of the actions you mention increasing or decreasing the rate might be? To answer any of these you need to properly (fully) specify the reaction, which would include the conditions. I have now put more effort into beginning an answer than you have into the OP.

I feared interest in this delightful problem had died so thank you. All the necessary information is in the OP and in post#14 I gave function the formula he requested, which is easily goolgable or derivable as John Cuthber said. You will also need this. Is the length of the tunnel or its depth relevant?

One last time (pun intended) There is no such thing as absolute time, which your statement necessitates to be true.

I make k = 0/0427, pretty close to your figure. I make the rate equation Rate = k[H2] ie independent of [P] from the supplied data. I have to admit that I know little about the reactions between Phosphorus and Hydrogen but I would guess that the reason this appears to be a first order reaction is that it is a multistep reaction with the initial dissociation of H2 molecules as the rate determining step.

Surely we should look for common or garden reasons for any observation, before seeking Men in Black at the bottom of the garden. What was wrong with my engineering commonsense comment? The next step would be for someone to devise experiments to eliminate my explanation from enquires. Enter Mr Plod?

You know, I think the cloud is really good. After all when your pc is unbootable/uncontrollable either because of a hard drive crash or malware, all you have to do is get your stuff back from the cloud. Just one small hitch, you need a working pc to effect this. A backup strategy on its own is useless, you also need a recovery strategy. My backup and recovery strategy. 1) Windows and programs live on a system drive. 2) Data is housed on separate data drive or drives. The sytem drive is imaged using REDO when and can be restored either to the old drive after cleaning or a brand new drive. REDO handles all the partition management stuff and runs directly from its own boot medium (CD for me but it could be a flashdrive etc) The DATA is copied to a NAS system and perhaps elsewhere as well. In the event of uncontrollable malware I simply wipe the system and data drives and restore to before the event.

The edge of the universe? This reminds me of a story about Columbus being told he would fall off the edge of the World.