studiot

Financial? It's all done in brown envelopes.

Many thanks for taking the time to find this and make suggestions. Since, as I said in the OP, I don't have any connection to facebook I have no idea waht you mean by unfollow or any way to actually do it. If I was on their follow list why would it only happen with Chrome and not IE and now not (yet fingers crossed) with Firefox? Surely it must have been something on my computer, as SJ suggested. I consider myself lucky that I 'only' receive about two dozen trashy emails per day, but it is easy to spot the Wells Fargo, Nigerian Prices or Lisa Legs of this world and just delete them. I don't know Hanu and can't find anything useful on Google so I am reluctant to click on a link to an organisation (?) that has already added something unauthorised to my computer. This is no reflection on you, thanks agian for the link it is a step forward. But do you have any detail as to who hanu are and what their apps might be? I hope I have disposed of them, but I am pursuing this so others might benefit from anything dug up. +1 to you and to SJ for contributions.

+1 for introducing me to the word of the week. I have never heard of a cladogram or cladistics, but now I've not found it in any of my science dictionaries I'm sure the knowledge will come in useful someday. Plus some lukewarm praise for Mr Wiki who has at least heard of the words. Don't our biological colleagues have some interesting terms? I'm a strictly mechanical human.

No Chrome is no longer available for Windows XP.

For books of that size (but several times the cost) I would use that description for the Microsoft Press manuals available with every version of Windows. I'm really glad I don't have to buy them any more.

Yes of course, but the light given off from say a light bulb is generated by increased agitation of the tungsten lattice. Not directly by the (passage of) electric current or by the electric current itself. You would see the same light if you heated the wire with a blowtorch and passed no current whatsoever. That is what I meant by indirectly increasing the black body radiation (and its frequency)

I write formulae in MathType and copy/paste. So yes the symbols are available in MathType, but do not paste into this forum. Matrices have to be adjusted as well, but a lot of other stuff works just fine.

I don't know many wires that emit photons directly into the environment from electrical action. The resistance is internal to the wire. I am assuming you mean that due to the increased heating effect of current, as resistance increases the black body radiation from the wire will increase? But photons internal to the wire?

Being a simple soul, I like to look at it this way. n is the dimension of the vector space. n is number; no number is infinite. hence n is finite, however large. This is the old chestnut confusion of the difference between the cardinality of a set and the maximum value (or otherwise) of an element. Nice artwork by the way, it won't display those symbols here for me.

Photons or phonons?

The reasoning is inherent in the way you have set up the problem. You have a termination criterion viz a sequence terminates when 0 is reached, otherwise the process continues indefinitely. Thus all finite sequences terminate. (on 0) and all terminating sequences are finite. By similar reasoning an infinite sequence has not reached 0 and continues indefinitely without reaching 0 But you asked for the probability of reaching zero. I have been trying to offer more than just the answer to this question, but let's get the answer out of the way. So we must consider finite sequences and in particular how many finte sequences are there? Well consider this: In order to reach 0 a process must first reach 1 and then flip a tail on the next throw. The sequence to reach 1 must be finite as just noted above. But we can extend any finite sequence at all that goes ........WXYT, where at Y the sequence is at 1 on the ruler, by simply adding an H between the Y and the T thus WXYHT Which means the sequence is now at 1 on the ruler again after one more step So our new extended sequence is of the same form as before ie a single T off a termination to 0 on the ruler. This proceedure can be repeated indefinitely, each time extending the length of the sequence by one step. Since WXY is completely general, every finite sequence can be extended this way indefinitely. Which leads to conclude that the number of finite sequences can be considered infinite. Which leads to the conclusion that each one has zero probability.

OOps Chrome has gone but I can't now reload it since bigG steadfastly refuses to progress beyond the notice "This computer will no longer receive updates for Chrome" Incidentally I like REvo for uninstalling. That got rid of a deal of registry stuff and a bunch of 14 files (as you said would be left over, mostly appdata) Avast also offered to remove those files. Am using Firefox for now, seems OK so far, but I have had trouble in the past with Fox. One tip when rooting things out. Cleanup with something like ccleaner first. This gets rid of often many Gbytes of dross that your checker woud otherwise have to sort through. When you have finished clean up again with ccleaner. - it often finds leftovers like 'unused file extensions' and other rubbish exposed by the rootout. Thanks again for the help so far.

What is missing from that is the relativity of simultaneity. ROS governs the synchronisation of your 'clock lattice'

Indeed so as the understatement of the year. A field with k independent variables has of the order of [math]{\infty ^{k\infty }}[/math] points each of which could hold at least one qbit. Apologies for this notation, but I am following Penrose (road to reality) where the idea is developed (pages 378 - 380) and applied to quantum computers (page 583)

Just a note on random walks. Yes indeed a good answer to the quote, but this is not a standard random walk. Random walks don't terminate. That is all sequences in a random walk are infinite, as you note and as does the Wiki article wtf refers to. This question has a termination clause in its contract.

1) We had a long thread about a video of the companion 'train in the tunnel' version. I will try to find it unless someone else can. 2) I believe you are referring to 'Thomas precession' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_precession

The first question is Is there a sequence of flips that will lead one back to zero? If so that sequence must have a probability. Second question is there a sequence with probability = 1 that will lead you back to zero? If so then there are no other sequences available. Third question are there other sequences available? If yes then there is no sequence that will lead you back to zero, with probability 1. In terms of the coin flips there is one that is all heads and so it will carry you further and further away from zero. This sequence must have a probability (however low) by hypothesis. Here is where we must distinguish between finite and infinite flips. For finite flips we are done. We have found at least one sequence that terminates without reaching zero. For infinite flips we need to confirm that there are more than one infinite sequences and at least one of them never reaches zero. Well all heads, if carried on without termination will never reach zero. As will two heads followed by one tail (or 10 tails) followed by all heads again. So we are done as well for infinite sequences. Incidentally this shows an example of the fact that it does not matter how many finite terms you add at the beginning of an infinite sequence, it does not affect the eventual convergence (or not) of that sequence.

But your directions of motion are different in different frames and you are switching frames. When you switch frames, the change of direction constitutes a rotation and a rotation is necessarily an acceleration. As Mike observes, this is a double Lorenz transformation and follows different rules. As it happens, Mordred has just posted these rules in another thread. See post#40 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/105118-lorentz-transformations-split-from-why-nothing-c/page-2

Please please post this, I can't wait. +1

Well bumping up the chrome security as per post#2 didn't work it just popped up again as I was logging in here. I'll obviously have to raid Trump's larder arsenal. I usually like combofix, before other cleaners as it strips the nastys' protection bare. I'll keep you all posted.

It is still the same paradox and the issue is the same. You have to reduce the time coordinates to place the corners of either figure at the same time in the same frame. In other words establish the relativity of simultaneity as I said. If the motion is as slow as you now say it is, then both the length and time change effects will be tiny. Both effects are changed by the same factors so if one is small or large, then so is the other.

No disrespect intended, but yours posts seem to me to be a combination of half remembered facts and fancy. So I find it difficult to determine your actual intent. You mention 'current bunching' and in particular electron bunching in a conductor. Do you have a reference? And you seem to want to build an ion generator. What is the connection between the two? I know of space charge limited and retarded current in free space and gases. That is well known and commonly analysed by what is known as the Child's equation. It was very important in electronics the days of valves. You seem to have some understanding of pulse technology but it is all mixed up. You mention rise time, but also frequency. Pulses do not have a frequency. They have a duration and a repetition rate, in addition to rise and fall times. From your posts it is unclear whether you want a single pulse or a pulse train? You believe that by brute force you can pass enough current to create sufficient electric field to cause ionisation. That is certainly the steamroller and nut method. Other methods to achieve this generally focus on lowering the ionisation threshold. For example by heating the gas By seeding the gas with conductive particles eg potassium as in magnetohydrodynamic generators. As to the conductors I stand by what I said about wires. They are inductive. Bifilar winding does not reduce the inductance, it (merely) reduces the external field. This was used in the days of high quality valve (them again) amplifiers to reduce the external field of coupling transformers. So please put up a modest summary of not more than 10 lines in logical order of what you are trying to achieve.

I really don't follow what the aim of your experiment is. That is what are you intending to do with the ionised gas once you have it? Why do you need two wires? And why wires? These have significant inductance at high rise times. Flat strips are better. Rise times are adversely affected by the use of traditional diode-capacitor voltage multipliers, especially for repetitive waveforms. I note you mentioned HV mosfets. If you can get high enough ratings you might like to investigate this article. An amateur might try valves as an alternative. The MOSMAX voltage multiplier Wireless World August 1988 page 748 ff. Everyday Electronics did a constructional article about air ionizers EE Feb 1984 page 82ff I wonder if another approach might be to strip and remodel the EHT supply from an old cathode ray scope. These are more likely to be modular and suitable than a TV EHT. Remember the usual HT/ EHT precautions and keep your other hand in your pocket.

I would add to this a further comment to hopefully prevent a confusion often made. There is a difference between invariant and constant. Invariant means that the quantity concerned is the same in all coordinate or reference systems. So the invariant quantity,s, known as the interval and given by the pythagorean expression s2 = x2 + y2 +z2 - c2t2 works out the same in all frames of reference. But in any given coordinate system there are many possible values of s, depending upon the points it connects. Another example is the line integral around a closed loop works out the same whether you use cartesian or spherical or cylindrical or any other coordinate system. In short an invariant is a system variable that can vary within one system but is the same when transformed to another system. Constant means it does not vary with time or position. So c is the same constant wherever and whenever you are at a point in the universe. In short a constant is the same throughout one system, but may appear different in a different system. So yes, c is both invariant and constant

Hypervalentiodine has offered a very practical reason but there is also a thermal one that is important in other situations as well. The evaporate enters at the bottom and you want maximum cooling at this point. Cooling depends upon temperature difference and this is maximised as the difference between the evaporate at its hottest and the cooling water at its coldest. The principle is used in a different way in hot water cylinders. Hot water rises over cold water and does not mix rapidly with it. So if you put the replacement cold in at the bottom, the water in the top of the cylinder remains hot and you can continue to draw off hot water. Doing it the other way round the cold would fall through the hot and mix somewhat, and you would be drawing of much colder water much sooner.