studiot

Here you go, some data above 300C it rises dramatically. If you are still interested I will look further.

No one was getting at you personally, but folks who are disappointed when the laws of electricity or other physics don't confrm to their guesswork are going to be doubly disappointed.

Excellent question +1

Hello Alan, I meant to add in tha last post. I hope you take my comments as genuine testing of the methodology, not attempts to discredit the study. The subject is genuinely intriguing.

Conservation laws and system definition can often be tricky. What conservation means for momentum is not necessarily suitable for energy. Consider the following system. You have a totally empty box. (Posh term = control volume) and a source of moving particles of momentum M such that the transit time of one particle through the box is 2 seconds. If t is time then So at t = -1 the total mometum in the box is zero. If at t = 0 a particle enters the box the total momentum in the box at t =1 is M. At t = 2 the total momentum in the box is again zero. So to consider conservation you need to take time into account. Another situation, considering space, this time (pun intended) What is the momentum of a stationary object? So how does conservation apply at a stagnation point in a flowing fluid?

Another methodology query, Alan. I can be reasonably sure that the BGS report of quakes is accurate. For 'riots' I am less sure about the reporting accuracy. Who reported them to whom Who assessed what the definition of a riot is and whether each report met this definition. How confident can you be that before quake when there may have been little to fill the news space riots were not over reported and after a newsworthy event they were not under-reported.T These factors may not account for the near 3:1 ratio you have presented, but have you considered them? Can I commend to you Standard Deviations by Gary Smith? In particular the discovery of the causes of cholera by methods such as you are employing

Whilst I'm not suprised to hear this, I was more interested in its corollary. There should therefore be a lower than average incidence during periods of inclement weather. You often find freak (inclement) weather associated with/following quake activity. This suggests a pattern (to be investigated) quake [math] \to [/math] freak weather [math] \to [/math] increased/decreased riot activity or perhaps all three can stem from a common cause.

Molecules don't 'become hard', whatever that means. Hardness (or softness) is a characteristic of a solid, but it is what is known as a 'bulk property'. You need to distinguish carefully between properties that belong to individual particles and properties that belong to (and only arise with) vast collections of individual particles. Bulk properties arise when particles act together to produce properties they cannot have individually. (Something like that also applies to humans and some animals)

We understand all too well and we really are trying to help So tell us what you mean by 'freeze' If you say turn solid then please explain what you understand a solid to be.

Yay and post it here as well like today's post 42 in this old (2005) thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/8139-momentum-vs-work/page-3 Update Thank you to swansont for dealing with this one. The post referred can now be found here; post42 no longer exists as above. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/94932-necro-hijack-from-momentum-vs-work/

korfezli, you probably won't like this but it needs to be said. It is clear from your answers that you are suffering from some basic and fundamental misunderstandings about the elementary science of matter, whether you call it Chemistry, Physics or Materials Science. Thank you for telling us your objective, that is very useful. Using your imagination to think about what you already know is great and to be encouraged. But it will take you in the wrong direction if you are using the wrong signposts. You need a better understanding of what atoms, molecules states of matter really are, because yours are unfortunately all mixed up. Also you need to be clear about the meaning of 'splitting the atom' No chemical process will accomplish this splitting. Ionisation is not a route to this goal. Splitting the atom means splitting the nucleus, which is an entirely different thing. That results in new atoms that did not exist before the splitting. So listening to John and Sensei (they are experts in this area) will help you correct this and move on. I don't know if they can recommend some source material at the appropriate level for you but get that under your belt and you can carry on dreaming, perhaps successfully next time.

Sure they will. You can contact freeze water vapour to ice or carry out the reverse process sublime ice directly to vapour. But there are no ions involved. Water is a poor example because it does not readily form ions. There are a few, but the concetration is very very low and oxygen forms negative, not positive ions. I'm sure you have a purpose behing the question so why not just explain what you are trying to do? I am going to bed now but Sensei knows a great deal more physics and chemistry than you and will help I'm sure when we know exactly where you are trying to get to.

Once again, how would you do that? You also need to be clear in your own mind what you mean by freezing. The freezing point of sodium chloride is very different from the freezing point of water. If you have sodium ions and chloride ions dissolved in water and freeze the block as Sensei suggested then do you have frozen ions? Or do you have ions trapped in a frozen block of water?

You clearly misunderstood. I asked how to freeze an ion (or ions) without neutralising their charge. So the result is truly frozen ions, neutral atoms or molecules that were once ions. And your link offers me a block of frozen neutral hydrogen.

Just how would you freeze the ion and why would it not regain its neutrality by this process? Of course Sensei's question is relevent. It is all too often forgotten that most ions on our planet are in solution, not wandering around freely since as soon as they hit something they tend to loose their charge.

Alan, thank you for sharing this. You seem to have negotiated the proper side of the line in providing enough information in your opening post to justify a link to a much larger paper IMHO. I don't know about the correctness of the hypothesis, I have heard studies of correlations between weather conditions and human (and other life) behaviour and also studies correlating weather conditions with quake activity. So perhaps there are more links to be drawn? An authority who might well be interested is Brian Fagan https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=brian+fagan&hl=en-GB&gbv=2&oq=brian+fagan&gs_l=heirloom-serp.3..0i67j0i7i30l8j0.11781.11781.0.12015.1.1.0.0.0.0.141.141.0j1.1.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-serp..0.1.141.1CHWHcSRVUM

Good analysis sensei +1

I really don't see what that is supposed to mean. You can pass a polynomial of any degree you choose through the points (0,0) and (1,1). This proves that you cannot determine the degree of the polynomial from the values at the points. This is also true of other more general sets of points, but is less easy to see. You have to choose beforehand the polynomial degree you want to fit to a set of data.

Surely you understand that you can't? Here are two examples What polynomial(s) pass(es) through the points (0,0) and (4,4) ? What polynomial(s) pass(es) through the points (0,0) and (2,8) ? Now for the difficult one What polynomial(s) pass(es) through the points (0,0) and (1,1) ?

Of course, but it is now a statistical problem, of curve fitting eg by least squares. Do you know the types of polynomial you can use to fit to a set of data, and do you understand what I meant about spline curves and derivatives? eg Collocating polynomial Minimax polymial Orthogonal polynomials eg Tchebycheff

I didn't say that. I said that you should know that the external impedences are much greater than the winding impedences. So Ohm's Law tells you that most of the applied voltage will be dropped across the these, not the transformer primary. For this to be the other way round your primary impedance has to be much greater than the external ones. This is basic electrical circuit theory. Yes I also thought that your transformer would be very inefficient because 1) For one or two primary turns most of the core material will be external to the primary field. Edit - That was not very well put since the core ring concentrates the field and draws it into itself. What I meant was that the volume of a primary of a few turns is very small compared to the ring core volume. 2) The heavy insulation of the windings increase spacing and reduce flux density.

Since we are using computer the solution of 6 or 10 linear simultaneous equations presents no more difficulty than the solution of two. There are even efficient schemes for partitioning the matrices when the system is too big to fit on the computer in one go. This is often the case in engineering calculations where sets of thousands of such equations have to be solved. However if you have too much data, as you do in your example, your system is overdetermined, so you cannot uniquely find a solution, unless there is linear dependency.

The general first order polynomial has two coefficients. The general second order polynomial has three coefficients. The general third order polynomial has four coefficients. The general fourth order polynomial has five coefficients. The general fifth order polynomial has six coefficients. and so on But straight substitution of the x, y values at the data points you can determine these by solving the set of linear simultaneous equations that produces. I was not wrong. If, as in the question I asked and you did not reply to, you wish to fit derivatives as well then you need more data points, which was why I asked you about cubic splines. In reply to your question My office pc has IE 8, on windows XP. and opened the page, but it was not interactive at all, nor did it offer a 'solution'. The windows10 machine with edge opened the page and displayed the cubic solution, (I assume this was actually correct, I did not check) but retained it when I operated the drop down box and selected other values of polynomial degree to try.

OK Most waves are periodic phenomenon and require a medium in which to propagate. Waves can be combined. Telecommunications waves are actually combinations of two sorts of wave. The signal wave and the carrier wave. We really only want the signal waves and mathematically we can regard the microwave carrier waves as only there to create a medium for the wanted signal to propagate in. Signal waves are generally not periodic and often not even continuous in time. Continuous signals are called analog. Discontinuous signals are called digital. The simplest signal wave was the old Morse code, first on the telegraph wires and then by radio. This was a simple series of on and off pulses. So the first signals were digital. Then came the analog voice signals by telephoen and radio Today we are back to digital signals with mobile phones. Does this help?

If you are jealous of my tailor or my barber I will supply their details for a small large fee.