studiot

If you can derive the equation you will know that it follows the Hamiltonian approach to mechanics, but introducing the quantum interpretation of momentum. This leads to a differential equation in the variation of a quantity we call [math]\Psi [/math] in space and time. Now, [math]\Psi [/math] is a complex quantity it is not real so has no physical reality. To obtain significance in the real world we multiply [math]\Psi [/math] by its complex conjugate and take the square root. This leads to a real number. If we normalise this by equating the integral over the entire space to 1 we obtain ajb's quantity such that we can interpret it as the probability of finding a particle between x and (x+dx) in one dimension. note [math]|\Psi | = \sqrt {\Psi {\Psi ^*}} [/math]

I am not sure what you mean by this question. Do you mean the potential energy? Do you mean that the potential energy is different for two particles that have no charge and two that do? Do you mean the potential or total or kinetic energy changes if two charged particles mocve towards each other? or What?

In Bohr's original theory there was only one quantum number and orbits were considered circular. Later models introduced three more quantum numbers to account for the angular momentum, spin and the fact that the orbits should be considered elliptical. This was called the vector model.

Pretty useless, to tell the truth. I see now that you are out to waste my time since you avoid specific questions. In the absence of these specific answers I will have to withdraw from the thread. As to formulate counter arguments, not a bit of it. I have insufficient information as to veracity. Nor have I made any secret that I wish to find out what your assumptions are and test them against each other for logical consistency. Edit To make things crystal clear I asked for two specific pieces of information in post140 and again in post 144 where I explained why I considered these important, that of the number of dimensions of a TEW and also how far you consider it extends in space. Both times your answers avoided these particular questions.

There may be a difference between US and UK law but there is a bit of a chicken and egg situation here. If an individual suffers harm as a result of the malicious or negligent actions of another he can seek legal redress from that person. If the harm is as a result of incitement by a third party, This party may also be liable for redress. In this case the liability of the 'middle party' then becomes a question of should the person or organisation directly causing the harm known better, ie what checks should they have carried out before acting and did they carry these out with due diligence? The chicken and egg is that the injured party has to suffer and show actual harm, before he can seek redress. He can also seek a restraining order if he can show good cause to believe he is under threat of harm.

I like Ophiolite's analysis. Dinner is the midday meal eaten at school by English schoolchildren. It is served by English dinner ladies. Strangely if the children take their own they take packed lunches in lunchboxes.

I should start by deciding the mass of KOH in 1.2L of 0.6M solution. Then see if you can write an equation connecting this to the mass of KOH in the impure source. Does the inclusion of water make any difference? Why did they tell you it was 16%?

Ask any mobile dog user about Newspeak.

My understanding of the word debate is One side promotes a proposition and defends it. The other side attacks and attempts to discredit it, perhaps offering an alternative proposition. I have used the word 'discussion' where both sides contribute and jointly reach some conclusion that may well be a modification of both contributors efforts, because I hope out interchanges more reflect this word. To this end I would urge you (yet again) to please answer simple unambiguous questions with simple unambiguous answers. My questions are, after all, intended to further 'discussion'. I am trying to develop a picture of the mechanics of TEW waves and asked some particular questions to help. My question about the number of dimensions is relevent to the statement that a wave travels or propagates (which do you prefer?) from point A to point B. My question about how far do you consider a particular wave reaching in space, beyond A and B is relevent to me at least and also I think to the markers you speak of. So please answer these. Some further relevant questions. Can two (or more) TEW waves occupy the same space at the same time? How many 'markers' can a particular TEW carry at once? You say that these markers are "unique to that mass". In what way do they depend upon mass? Do you mean they can distinguish between say individual adjacent silicon atoms or would you get the same marker from any silicon atom or what?

One of the most influential books of the 20th century was '1984', in which 'Newspeak' was introduced. It is interesting that most of the ideas in 1984 have come to pass but by popular will of the people and created by private enterprise, not by authoritarian governments.

Phase changes such as melting are the nearest we can get to a reversible process in real life. And this is pretty close. Melt 1kg of ice you get 1kg of water. Freeze 1kg of water you get 1kg of ice. The blocks of ice may not look the same but that is not a thermodynamic issue. To the best of normal measurements the heat used to melt the ice = the heat evolved (extracted) when it freezes. I am going to take this as a reversible process for all practical purposes. The latent heat of fusion for water is 333,000 Joules per kilogram So first to calculate the enthalpy change dH, note that the pressure remains constant since the container is open to atmosphere. We are given to ignore the small change in volume so no work is done w = d(PV) = 0 Thus dH = dU = 333000J q + w = 333000J q = 333000J Thus dS = q/T = 333000/273.2 = 1218.9 J per kg per degree K I have asked several time why we are justified in using this equation ? That is the first part and yes integration is needed for the second part. I did ask if you are OK with calculus.

You really do need to understand this calculation to make progress, because this is about the simplest possible case for a thermodynamic calculation. You also need to make sure you are correctly quoting formulae. Engineering is about attention to detail. Compare post#3 with your statement, what formula are you quoting? What temperature scale do we normally use for formulae in thermodynamics? So what is the thermodynamic temperature of melting ice? Now try the calculation again. You should be able to get the entropy change for melting or fusion. Why on earth do you think this process is irreversible? What happens if you cool it down again? This is about the simplest possible case for a thermodynamic calculation.

There is 1kg of ice that you melt. Yes you need the latent heat of fusion so you can calculate the heat flow to melt it. This gives you entropy of fusion. Can you say why? Then you heat it up to 20C by adding more heat. Again calculate the enthalpy and entropy of this second change.

To help you understand the difference between entropy and enthalpy I suggest you perform the following calculations for yourself. 1kg of pure water as is sitting in an open container as ice. The ice is heated until it is all melted and then heated until its temperature is raised to 20C Calculate the entropy and enthalpy changes for the melting and for the heating of the liquid. Ignore volume changes and specific heat variation as insignificant. What is the difference in each case?

Not really. The compressor will not be 100% efficient so some of the energy used to run it will remain in the surroundings and not be transferred across the system boundary. Only energy transferred across the system boundary counts in the First Law. A further consideration is that when you compress the gas, it will warm up so some heat will leak back to the surroundings. If this happens this heat will also need to be taken into account in a First Law calculation. Success in thermodynamics often boils down to correctly drawing the system boundary. That is properly identifying the system and its surroundings. This is where people often get into difficulty.

Yes you can devise processes eg const pressure, where the enthalpy change equals the heat transferred. This fact is much used by chemists investigating bond energies in calorimetry. For a particular amount of substance or a particular system Enthalpy has the units of energy. Entropy has the units of energy per degree K.

Good morning, davcams and welcome to SF. Your question relates to the first law, not the second. Do you know the first law, it is normally studied before the second. Thermodynamic analysis divides the universe into two parts, separated by a boundary and specifies a process. So you have 1) The system 2) The rest of the universe, called the surroundings. 3) The system boundary between 1 and 2 4The system process The First Law relates to processes which transfer energy across the system boundary. It states a sort of system piggy bank for energy where all forms of system energy are stored. This is called internal energy. All transfers from the surroundings into the system go into this piggy bank - they increase the internal energy. Similarly all transfers from the system to the surroundings decrease the system internal energy. The internal energy of the surroundings is considered to be infinite. Remember that work is a form of energy transferred so is counted as a form of energy transferred in the First Law. Now for your question, the compression of a container of gas. The volume of the gas decreases and the volume of the surroundings increases. There is only one lot of energy transferred. We say work is done on the system by the surroundings. It does not matter whether we consider the work done by the surroundings or the work done on the system. It is the same lot of work. When we come to calculate the amount of this work we can either consider the system or the surroundings, the result is the same. Sometimes one calculation is much easier than the other and so that is the one we go for. Work is pressure times volume change. Does this help?

Thank you for your more detailed descriptions. Yes it would seem we both know in our hearts what a field is in the context of physics. I would observe that the Wiki statement could be taken to mean the 'something' must have physical reality. This is clearly not true as for instance a velocity field places an abstract noun or concept at each and every place. I would, however, observe that placing one of your TEW waves at every point would meet the above agreed definition. Further such a distribution would admit of a mathematical description, even perhaps a 'field equation'. Anyway to these TEW waves. I have to admit that when I was younger I thought particle physics the bees knees. However now that I have grown up I cannot get very interested in neutron beams. Your light bulb in a room is much more interesting. You describe TEW waves travelling from the walls to the light bulb. You also tell me that they do not stop or start, in space. Are you asserting that they pass through the light bulb and continue to infinity? and are you further asserting that they continue backwards from the walls to infinity in the other direction? Please note that I am not arguing that they do or do not, I am simply trying to elicit information. You mentioned sine curves before. A true sine curve goes to infinity in both directions. You also describe these TEW waves as capable of 'guiding' particles. In fact you further assert that it can impart an acceleration to a particle with mass (the electron). This is the necessary consequence of guiding an electron along a wrap around path. You further describe the TEW waves as possessing a frequency and a wavelength. I was going to ask, but you saved me the bother. Do they also possess an amplitude and are they one, two or three dimensional? I could go for more, but progress seems better in small doses.

There were lots of independent pioneers to colour photography ion the early years. Those interested who come to the UK should visit the Fox-Talbot museum at Lacock. Recently the first ever moving pictures were reconstructed by computer and found to be in colour. These we by a Yorkshire man, whose name escapes me at the moment. Interestingly the first TV was also in colour, although the (Baird) system never caught on. But those images in the links are stunning for the date. thanks +1

They also say Yesterday has gone departed, And tomorrow has not started, All that matters is right now. or tomorrow never comes go well And the language of this forum is proper English. Oh, and what did you not understand about my previous post? Please explain?

Sorry what language are you speaking; It doesn't seem to be English? Are you a time traveller?

No. You arrive when you arrive period. Different observers may disagree on when that is. But every observer will report the same events at the point of arrival. So if you arrive and tread on a snail, every observer will report that snail as squashed. You cannot have some observers observing your foot arriving early or late and missing the snail's passage. You should also be careful of your meaning of the words 'time travel'. Every object has a duration on the time axis, just as it has an extent on the spaces axes. If we talk of moving the object in space we mean the whole extent ie the whole object, not just a cross section from one point in space. Similarly if you talk of time travel do you mean moving one time point or the whole duration?

Yes force and distance are 'observables'; you can directly measure them. We take these observables for granted. From this we deduce that there is a physical quantity we call work that we can calculate from the observables. You cannot directly measure entropy, but you can directly measure both (edit: the components of) work done and heat transferred and temperature. So in post 3 we 'deduce' a physical quantity we call entropy that we can calculate from observables. You can't work the definition given in post#3 both ways round. The heat flow is used to define entropy, not entropy to define heat flow. That would be be a circular argument! I have not asked before but if temperature varies we have to perform an integration to get the entropy. Are you OK with calculus? We deduce another physical quantity we call enthalpy from these same observables, can you recall the equation? edit: It contains more than just heat transferred. You started this thread asking why adiabatic expansion is also called isentropic. Is there an enthalpy change during an adiabatic expansion?

I'm sure there are many, but here are two that might be useful. Both cover a very wide scope and introduce all the main areas of chemistry, explaining what they mean and providing the necessary background information to progress in each. 'Chemistry' by Lewis and Evans. This book has an associated website and is claimed to be (I agree) suitable for "Chemistry students, particular those without a strong mathematical or chemistry background" This book is somewhere between GCSE and A level in standard. *********************************** General Chemistry by Petrucci This is a larger, heavier book than Lewis and Evans and contains more detail that would get you through A level from first principles. go well

I really don't see why the position is difficult, this is good lively discussion. I do not know of any (travelling) wave that does not transport energy. You are offering the proposition that your TEW achieves this so we will go with that proposition and see where it leads. Since it does not transport energy, how does it interact with matter? Other waves interact by energy transfer. We started an unfinished discussion earlier about starting and stopping these waves. I meant both in space and time. So what happens? I think I have made my point that there are many things you can discuss about these waves, without getting mathematical if you do not wish to. Where shall we go with this? Well It pretty much confirms my comment that a field refers to place, although would you not agree that your 'non mathematics' is getting heavier and heavier, I mean tensors, spinors and whatnot.