studiot

The trouble with having foreign electricians rewiring your house is the difference of standards. I do believe that the Australian wiring regs are based on those of Old Blighty where it is illegal to connect the domestic neutral to ground. Of course where iNow hails from it is illegal not to.

Not at all. I recently photographed an 'give way' sign that was illuminated by an overhead lamp similar to that used for paintings on walls. When the sign became redundant the triangle was removed, but the pole aqnd its light were left up for nearly two years. Our council paid the electricity bill for a further two years after there was no sign on the post. I call that gross inefficiency, not safety. How about discussing the more technical parts of my post? Incandescents can be made to last as long as or longer than CFL sources. Or the available sizes of CFL sources?

So many discussions seem to take place on the basis of entrenched biased opinions, rather than by presenting facts and using them to arrive at useful conclusions. I can make comparisons between CFL and Incandescent come out to pretty well any ratio I like by careful selection of the representatives of their respective corners. Older members will surely remember how long a light bulb lasted in the 1950s, 1960s 1970s? Anecdotal, but I am sure they were not replaced as often as more recent incandescent varieties. When CFL technology simply did not exist there were many designs to extend the life of filaments through both materials and configuration (eg the 'coiled coil'). Certainly some lasted much longer than others. Of course there were the really long life bulbs as used in mines and other inaccessible places. They had lifetimes of at least 10 times normal. So it was possible. However I think many have noted how the life of bulbs seems to reduce steadily from the 1980s onwards. Of course, CFL is more efficient at converting input energy to visible radiant energy so there is indeed an energy saving to be had. However why were the manufacturers so stingy? To my eyes and to the eyes of all the visitors I have received the 'equivalent wattages' are dingy compared to the bulbs they replaced. I cannot buy CFL sources of equivalent apparent output, they are just not available. My kitchen used to have a 150 watt incandescent as a work area that required high lighting levels. The largest CFL on offer is 27 watts and of noticeable less output. If I could get a 30 or 35 watt one I would still be saving a huge amount of energy. Talking of saving I notice that whilst our government is exhorting us to use less electricity for lighting, the amount used for illumination of street signs, floodlighting car parks, and other places is growing rapidly. Everyone should ask their local council how much electricity was used for this purpose in 1970, 1980 and now. they would be very suprised by the answer.

Yes well spotted there should be a minus sign. I blame the arthritis in the typing finger.

Yes as well as not tesching much (if any) coordinate geometry these days they don't teach properties of quadratic equations. There are two the other one being [math]{\rm{sum}}\,{\rm{of}}\,{\rm{roots = }}\frac{{{\rm{coefficient}}\,{\rm{of}}\,{\rm{x}}}}{{{\rm{coefficient}}\,{\rm{of}}\,{{\rm{x}}^{\rm{2}}}}}[/math] At one time, beofe the formula became popular, this used to be the way solve quadratic equations. The above two properties are still useful in agebraic manipulation as here, however. go well

When someone else quotes a (possibly) inaccurate figure they are lies. When you quote one it is a mere human mistake. That approach will not win friends an influence people. Furthermore you have made at least one more 'mistake' LED, flourescent and incandescent are not the only forms of lighting. The shame is that I actually agree that choice should be maintained in the type of lightsource available.

Forgive me but what does that question have to do with Chemistry?

Did you not see my post or do you not want to hold a discussion?

Well I have commenced replacing incandescent light sources with LEDs. Unfortunately these are also largely made in the Far East.

It's a question of sensitivity. Why do you think search coils in metal and other detectors are oriented with their axes at right angles to your drawing?

Why would significant flux pass through the rail. Surely your coils need reorienting? The detector design need improvement as well. What is the distance between the wheel centres and the rail?

Do these help?

So let me ask what would and wouldn't be within your definitions. If I sit on the train and watch the scenery going past I will see perhaps a factory, a field, a river... Now this is one thing followed by another so this is this change? I can say this change occurs in time since I can give specific time coordinates for these views. However, considering the unreliability of the train service, these coordinates will vary from journey to journey, as will the time differences between these different views. I could also measure the changes by distance along the track with a better expectation of repeatability. Now the above example definitely involves a time change. But what about a steady state phenomenon? Say the specific energy curve for a fluid flowing steadily in a channel? The specific energy will change from location to location, but remain constant in time at any one location.

I know you mentioned 5% sulphuric acid, but mixing acid and water presents a serious safety hazard so be warned. http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistrystudentfaqs/f/sulfuricwater.htm As regards the calculation of quantities what have you worked out so far?

How does this theory, based on Larmors equation account for the mass of the neutron?

If the fluid is as viscous as you say, you can drop marbles or ball bearing into a graduated tube (plastic is safer) about 300 mm tall and time the fall between marks with a stopwatch or good wristwatch. You should be able to calibrate the tube (or its twin) with standard two stroke oil its viscoscity is tightly controlled. That shouldn't cost too much.

The method you refer to is known as the falling sphere method and is fully described in BS188. However for liquids as thin as water the sphere falls too quickly to time accurately so a falling piston fitting the graduated tube more closely is used as this drops more slowly.

Has anyone read Godel or studied fuzzy logic or the colouring problem with cellular automata lately?

I still don't like the use of the word 'condition'. In engineering there is a term 'condition factor' which is just one of many ponderables in the modern method of design known as 'Limit State Design'. You may not be aware of this, I would be happy to elaborate. I still haven't finished reading your article so there may be more to come. Here is one typo paragraph 5 current supercomputers have no enough memory : correction not

So we have the same idea. I hadn't fully read that far in your article, perhaps I will read more now. I think it is useful, important even, to identify the fact that a system may have one, several, many or even an infinite number of states available, but can only occupy one at a time. Obviously the separate elements of an aggregate can individually occupy different states as I have already noted.

music, was there something wrong with my last post?

Suggest a better alternative would be A scientific state is any single? uniquely identifiable? condition in which a scientific system can exist. This then allows you to usher in discussion about the probabilities of any given state and partition functions etc. Whilst I have no problem understanding what you mean, like John Cutherber I don't like the term scientific very much. I don't see that its use adds anything. I also realise that defining 'state' succinctly is a difficult task and that any resonable definition is likely to end up rambling on. I think replacing it with a near synonym like 'condition' is not good either. 'Condition' really means something slightly different. To me the state or list of states available to a system is composed of a list containing a value or the range of values attainable by parameters or properties of interest. These properties may be directly observable or deducable from observables. I hope this helps and I hope this thread does not degenerate like others recently. This is an open invitation to all to cooperate rather than confront.

Let us leave it that Physics is the most highly mathematical of all sciences (after maths itself of course).

Which means both Science and Physics in my book. In fact the full question was Only = exclusively. To which your reply was Since that post was a direct reply to my question aboveI took the emboldened part to mean yes.

I did say necessary. Of course measurement add much to the description but necessary? Let us go through them. rock Geologically rock is all the material that makes up the earth below the atmosphere, even water is a 'rock'. You have hard rocks and soft rocks, rocks tha flow and so on and so forth. leaf Well I'm not a biologist but I do believe there is something to do with ' an outgrowth of a stem of a plant which engages in transpiration and photsynthesis' concrete A mixture of aggregates that form a structural shape due to particle interlock, held together by a binding medium. support Well I don't need a single measurement to note that a table supports a book resting on it. foam A gas entrained in a liquid. I think that suggesting physics is only measurement is a bit like suggesting that Euclids geometry is only the five axioms or postulates. With Euclid there are 23 definitions and a further five 'common notions' So it is with other sciences. I have suggested several abstract 'common notions' such as sequencing and interlock which also play a part in science and even physics. I am sure ther are many more. Finally I return again to sequencing or ordering as it is directly relevent to Greg's question.