1
Physiology & Medicine / Re: Is There Any Safe Amount Of Smoking?
« on: Yesterday at 19:19:41 »Sure, 1 cigarette a day wouldn't hurt you.Unless it does.
As I explained, it's a statistical thing.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
As I explained, it's a statistical thing.
2
Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Could we eat wood?
« on: Yesterday at 19:17:05 »
On my planet the reactive oxides of nitrogen in a nuclear winter will be short-lived because they will be reduced by organic stuff in smoke.
The N2O might survive for a while, but I don't think it will achieve a lot.
The N2O might survive for a while, but I don't think it will achieve a lot.
3
Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Could we eat wood?
« on: Yesterday at 13:20:02 »
Wood has a nitrogen content of about 0.1% or less.
Proteins are about 14% nitrogen.
So wood is about 1% protein.
But, if the fungus "eats" the wood, oxidises the cellulose and lignin for energy and keeps hold of the nitrogen then it can accumulate enough nitrogen to make its proteins from.
And, in principle, we can eat that protein.
Mushrooms are about 3% protein.
That's not bad.
But by the simple expedient of feeding the mushrooms to pigs, we can get bacon (36% protein)
The question is how much effort is that compared to growing beans?
OK, in a nuclear winter, that's not easy.
But, if we still have a society, we can still burn oil, run the generators and run the grow lights.
We know how to do that so it might be the easy option.
How about taking teh wood, treating it with dilute acid, neutralising it with chalk and then fermenting it to alcohol and distilling that off.
The nitrogen is left behind.
Add slaked lime and redistill it and you will get ammonia.
You can react that with acid and feed that "fixed nitrogen" to ruminants like cattle and sheep (which can probably digest sawdust- though I doubt they would be happy or healthy).
The best thing to do is not vote for people like Putin, or those who praise/ admire him.
It's all fun and games until the energy runs out. Everything else can be recycled.
Proteins are about 14% nitrogen.
So wood is about 1% protein.
But, if the fungus "eats" the wood, oxidises the cellulose and lignin for energy and keeps hold of the nitrogen then it can accumulate enough nitrogen to make its proteins from.
And, in principle, we can eat that protein.
Mushrooms are about 3% protein.
That's not bad.
But by the simple expedient of feeding the mushrooms to pigs, we can get bacon (36% protein)
The question is how much effort is that compared to growing beans?
OK, in a nuclear winter, that's not easy.
But, if we still have a society, we can still burn oil, run the generators and run the grow lights.
We know how to do that so it might be the easy option.
How about taking teh wood, treating it with dilute acid, neutralising it with chalk and then fermenting it to alcohol and distilling that off.
The nitrogen is left behind.
Add slaked lime and redistill it and you will get ammonia.
You can react that with acid and feed that "fixed nitrogen" to ruminants like cattle and sheep (which can probably digest sawdust- though I doubt they would be happy or healthy).
The best thing to do is not vote for people like Putin, or those who praise/ admire him.
It's all fun and games until the energy runs out. Everything else can be recycled.
4
New Theories / Re: what is temperature?
« on: 30/09/2024 10:32:16 »Temperature isn't well defined. The state of the system is well defined.You might not think they are well enough defined.You are the one who said that the temperature wasn't well defined.
But, as I said, the rest of us do.
This is not meant to be difficult.
You really should stop wasting time here and go and learn some physics.
5
General Science / Re: Is There A Pattern In The Number Pi?
« on: 29/09/2024 12:14:08 »
It's generally believed (but not proven) that pi is a "normal" number in the technical sense that there are equal numbers of 1s 2s 3s etc in the decimal expansion of it.
That rules out numbers of the sort you constructed which has a lot more 0s than 1s and none of any other digit.
Other patterns might be possible.
Good luck finding one.
That rules out numbers of the sort you constructed which has a lot more 0s than 1s and none of any other digit.
Other patterns might be possible.
Good luck finding one.
6
New Theories / Re: what is temperature?
« on: 29/09/2024 12:08:03 »It's still, as I said, the conservation of energy.What makes you think that equipartition theory is still valid to conclude that energy of thermal neutrons at room temperature is the same as electrons?Previously, you concluded that energy of thermal neutrons at room temperature is the same as electrons because you thought that equipartition theory is still valid in this case. You thought that its validity is a consequence of the conservation of energy.The type of error that you have made here is comparable with assuming that, since all poodles are dogs, all dogs must be poodles.
Ultraviolet catastrophe is a scenario already accounting for average.But, as I said, not for quantisation.
But you don't know which way, for they are not well defined.You might not think they are well enough defined.
But, as I said, the rest of us do.
Why do you keep repeating teh same questions after that have been answered?
Do you have a learning disability?
7
New Theories / Re: what is temperature?
« on: 27/09/2024 12:10:21 »Previously, you concluded that energy of thermal neutrons at room temperature is the same as electrons because you thought that equipartition theory is still valid in this case. You thought that its validity is a consequence of the conservation of energy.The type of error that you have made here is comparable with assuming that, since all poodles are dogs, all dogs must be poodles.
8
New Theories / Re: what is temperature?
« on: 27/09/2024 12:08:39 »It generally flows towards equipartition.How do you predict where the energy will naturally flow between two objects if their temperatures are not well defined?Does it imply that we can't predict where the energy will naturally flow?No.
9
New Theories / Re: what is temperature?
« on: 27/09/2024 12:07:34 »I think you may have failed to spot the word "average" in the definition.Which implies that the em radiation is not equally partitioned.Ultraviolet catastrophe.Was resolved by the quantisation of em radiation- which is implicit in the use of the word "photons".
10
Technology / Re: After reading this, would you let AI drive your car?
« on: 26/09/2024 16:06:58 »The great thing about human drivers is a strong selfpreservation instinctThis is less comforting if you are a pedestrian...
It's one of the things that will be hard to sell about an AI car.
Salesman to buyer "And here's where you sign to say that you accept that, in some circumstances the AI will kill you if that's what's required to save a group of people".
(Also; the AI can not reliably distinguish between a group of people and a bunch of ducks and some litter or whatever.)
11
New Theories / Re: what is temperature?
« on: 26/09/2024 11:52:35 »conservation of energy can still apply even when equipartition theorem doesn't hold.Nobody suggested otherwise.
Ultraviolet catastrophe.Was resolved by the quantisation of em radiation- which is implicit in the use of the word "photons".
Does it imply that we can't predict where the energy will naturally flow?No.
Do you not recognise that this sort of exchange is a very inefficient way of you learning science- especially when you fail to pay attention to important things like equipartition?
12
New Theories / Re: what is temperature?
« on: 26/09/2024 11:00:28 »This only works for black body radiation.Guess what the spectrum looks like if you apply the equipartition principle to photons...
So once again.
If that principle doesn't apply, you don't have a well defined temperature.
Did you not think about that?
Maybe, next time, at the start of your post you should add a line or two that shows that you have considered the effect of equipartition and what the outcome is.
Because I'm frankly getting tired of reminding you about it.
13
New Theories / Re: what is temperature?
« on: 25/09/2024 12:46:54 »We'll need a different theory to explain the works of induction heater, microwave oven, and infrared stoves.You might; the rest of us don't.
14
New Theories / Re: what is temperature?
« on: 25/09/2024 12:46:26 »What makes you think that equipartition theory is still valid to conclude that energy of thermal neutrons at room temperature is the same as electrons?Because it's a consequence of the conservation of energy.
15
New Theories / Re: what is temperature?
« on: 24/09/2024 12:22:31 »
I got them from physics.
E = kT
k = 1.380649 ? 10^-23 m2 kg s-2 K-1
T= 297
E= 4 x 10^-21 J
Strictly speaking I got the number from remembering that the energy of thermal neutrons is about 0.025eV
But that's the joy of the equipartition theory.
I could have done this calculation instead.
The speed of sound in a gas is comparable with the speed of the molecules or atoms in that gas.
I know the speed of sound in air- it's about 330 m/s
And I know that the density of air is abut 1.2 grams per litre
And I know that a mole of gas occupies about 24 litres.
And I know Avogadro's constant is about 6 x 10^23.
So I can work out that the mass of an air molecule is about 5 x 10^26 Kg
So I can calculate the energy from 1/2 M V^2
and get about 5X10^-21 Joules
And I can convert that to eV
0.031 eV.
Close enough.
I can pick any particle with a well defined temperature and if I know its energy, then I know the energy of any other particle at that temperature.
In principle, I can measure the energy of some visible light. (It's a high school expt using the photoelectric effect).
And then I can measure the spectrum of the IR emitted by my floor or wall.
And, from that, I can measure the energy of the radiation in equilibrium with the wall + floor. (It's a simple ratio; if the peak wavelength is 100 times longer then the energy is 100 times lower).
So, I can measure the energy of a typical particle.
And, using that, and the known mass of an air molecule, I can calculate the approximate speed of sound.
Clever, isn't it?
E = kT
k = 1.380649 ? 10^-23 m2 kg s-2 K-1
T= 297
E= 4 x 10^-21 J
Strictly speaking I got the number from remembering that the energy of thermal neutrons is about 0.025eV
But that's the joy of the equipartition theory.
I could have done this calculation instead.
The speed of sound in a gas is comparable with the speed of the molecules or atoms in that gas.
I know the speed of sound in air- it's about 330 m/s
And I know that the density of air is abut 1.2 grams per litre
And I know that a mole of gas occupies about 24 litres.
And I know Avogadro's constant is about 6 x 10^23.
So I can work out that the mass of an air molecule is about 5 x 10^26 Kg
So I can calculate the energy from 1/2 M V^2
and get about 5X10^-21 Joules
And I can convert that to eV
0.031 eV.
Close enough.
I can pick any particle with a well defined temperature and if I know its energy, then I know the energy of any other particle at that temperature.
In principle, I can measure the energy of some visible light. (It's a high school expt using the photoelectric effect).
And then I can measure the spectrum of the IR emitted by my floor or wall.
And, from that, I can measure the energy of the radiation in equilibrium with the wall + floor. (It's a simple ratio; if the peak wavelength is 100 times longer then the energy is 100 times lower).
So, I can measure the energy of a typical particle.
And, using that, and the known mass of an air molecule, I can calculate the approximate speed of sound.
Clever, isn't it?
16
New Theories / Re: Can one switch magnetic flux with a ferromagnetic material?
« on: 23/09/2024 13:37:01 »I'm sure that if some impossibility of a perpetual motion machine was demonstratedI don't think you meant to say that.
The impossibility of perpetual motion WAS demonstrated about a hundred years ago.
Just for the record, the impossibility of breaking the conservation of energy is one of the few laws of nature that's not just experimentally true; it was mathematically proven about a hundred years ago, by Emmy Noether (who should be more famous).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
So the only remaining question is "how many times do we have to tell you this?".
17
Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: What would happen if polar bears and penguins swapped habitats?
« on: 20/09/2024 09:36:44 »There's a conspiracy theory thatConspiracy theories should be discussed under psychology, rather than Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution.
18
Physiology & Medicine / Re: Is There Any Safe Amount Of Smoking?
« on: 19/09/2024 23:40:06 »
Is There Any Safe Amount Of Smoking?
No. (Unless you are already on your death-bed).
In principle a single molecule of some carcinogen like benz alpha pyrene can create a change in a DNA strand which leads to a mutation which causes cancer and kills you.
But the odds on that are pretty thin.
It's also reasonable to say that, if you are already 100 years old when you take up smoking, you won't live long enough for it to give you cancer.
So it's a statistical thing. The slightest exposure is an increased risk- but it's not a big risk.
Have a look at this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort
No. (Unless you are already on your death-bed).
In principle a single molecule of some carcinogen like benz alpha pyrene can create a change in a DNA strand which leads to a mutation which causes cancer and kills you.
But the odds on that are pretty thin.
It's also reasonable to say that, if you are already 100 years old when you take up smoking, you won't live long enough for it to give you cancer.
So it's a statistical thing. The slightest exposure is an increased risk- but it's not a big risk.
Have a look at this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort
19
New Theories / Re: what is temperature?
« on: 19/09/2024 11:50:01 »Does equipartition theorem tell you that the electrons don't have a well defined temperature.These electrons have an energy of a few eV. (We know, because they emit visible light)
The electrons, atoms etc nearby have an energy corresponding to room temperature; about 0.025 eV. (we know, because the plastic doesn't melt).
So we know that it's a (very) non-equilibrium state.
And we know that temperatures are only well defined if the equipartition theory is true
20
Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: What would happen if polar bears and penguins swapped habitats?
« on: 18/09/2024 17:18:35 »
What would happen if polar bears and penguins swapped habitats?
The folk at the antarctic research stations would discover they haven't enough guns.
The folk at the antarctic research stations would discover they haven't enough guns.