exchemist

That's because French dinners are social occasions. They don't eat that much, generally. In fact, one benefit of that style is that there is plenty of time for one's system to react and send a signal when you have had enough. (My late wife was French, so I have some experience of family gatherings.) I understand that one factor in obesity can be the bad habit of wolfing down food very quickly, as it takes time for the body to react to the amount of food consumed and send a "full" signal. So if one eats fast, one runs the risk of overeating. A slow succession of small courses, in which ones chooses how much of each to take, is far better from that point of view. I doubt that anyone in France (apart, perhaps from Obelix, who is no role model) would drink a whole litre of milk in a few minutes. It would be thought rather barbarous, I suspect. The French are a lot slimmer than the Americans - or the British.

I did not know what these were until I read your post but, having looked at a few references, e.g. this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094114X15001937. my understanding is the balls move so as to take up positions at which their mass tends to bring the axis of the total moment of inertia closer to the axis of rotation. They thus don't just damp the out of balance forces, but actually reduce them by shifting the CoG. Secondly, by doing this they reduce the lateral accelerations (i.e. vibration normal to the axis of rotation), not changes in angular velocity. At least, that would be my reading of how they work.

I don't know but I imagine it is that such an engine might be rather impractical for doing useful amounts of work. A Stirling cycle has pseudo-isothermal heat addition and removal, but then there's the thermodynamically complex issue of the heat regenerator.

OK but that would just heat the air up, surely?

Except it would not, as has been explained to you. Very little, if any C14 would be produced and the subsequent decay into N14 would take thousands of years. "Kinetically charged" is meaningless, by the way. What do you mean by kinetic charge, and what is it that you think would be "kinetically charged"?

Yes, I'm very rusty on this but I think you raise quite a subtle point, actually. Setting aside the electrochemistry angle, which gets in the way of the essential issue slightly, this is a general feature of the equation for Gibbs free energy, as a reaction proceeds: ΔG = ΔG⁰ + RT lnQ, Q being the reaction quotient, i.e. [products]/[reactants]. At the start, Q=0, so ln Q is undefined. Note however that this does not predict infinite Gibbs free energy or anything bonkers like that, as it is delta G i.e. dG/dξ, (using ξ to denote the reaction coordinate). So what this is saying is that the gradient of G, when graphed vs. extent of reaction, tends to infinity at the extremes. There is a discussion of this here: https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/115634/calculating-Δg-at-the-extremes-of-reaction-extent/115701?noredirect=1#comment218308_115701 Returning to electrochemistry, since ΔG = -zFE, you do indeed seem to get a theoretically infinite E, at the theoretical extremes in which the activities of products or reactants are mathematically zero. In practice there are a number of catches to that, however, since firstly such extremes are never quite realised in practice and secondly in practice kinetic effects are important, e.g. in your pure water example you have virtually no ionisation to allow the electrochemical reaction to get going. But I had to think quite hard about this and I may have got it a bit wrong after all these years, so I'd quite welcome comments from others.

That does not address my query, which was about how you imagine you would generate C14, as opposed to what it decays into, which is indeed well-known. I can't find anything to suggest that irradiating C12 with neutrons will produce C14, as you seem to think it may. Where do you get that idea from?

Yes and there are antiquarks. An antiproton is composed of 3 antiquarks, for instance. So whether you consider hadrons or the quarks that make them up, it comes to the same thing: they can annihilate with the appropriate antiparticle.

I presume your idea is to generate C14, which decays to N14 by β-emission. I'm not an expert on this but I'm not sure you can readily convert C12 to C14 by neutron bombardment. Have you checked whether there is a pathway for that? (C13 is stable, I gather, so even if you could produce that it would not help.)

I do not believe anyone can identify you merely from the username “therammo”. Nothing else in this list of yours would appear to be applicable.

Read the link. It suggests an association.

Blue light from IT devices is said to be bad at bed time: . https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/blue-light-has-a-dark-side. but I don't think anyone says it is generally harmful. Some forms of blue light from LEDs contain a UV component. There are concerns that this can be harmful: https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2020/05000/Light_Emitting_Diodes__LEDS___Implications_for.6.aspx But I'm not sure whether definitive conclusions have been reached as to whether the risk in commercially available LEDs is significant or not. Maybe someone here will know.

There is also the opioid crisis in the US, which I understand results in suicides. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/messages/2019/suicide-deaths-are-a-major-component-of-the-opioid-crisis-that-must-be-addressed But I can't account for the seasonality. On looking into it briefly, I am unable to substantiate what I had previously understood about a suicide peak in winter in N Europe. It may be that that is just a popular myth.

I’ve heard the same, for N Europe, I think. But that graph looks as if it may be for the US. Possibly the pressures are seasonally different there.

Hmm, interesting. I had come to suspect as much but it's nice to see it confirmed. Sometimes I will respond to a post I am a bit suspicious of, on the basis of giving the benefit of the doubt and, in the process, trying to gain evidence one way or the other. Quite often, the reaction, or lack of it, does indeed lead me to a more decisive view on the nature of the poster. It's a bit of a dilemma, though. One shouldn't react to obvious spam but there is a bit of a grey area when this type of "sleeper bot" behaviour may be occurring. (In the present case I was hoping for an amused or indignant reply, averring that the poster is real and not a bot.)

Well obviously there can't be, or cosmic expansion would have been blown up as be a failed model, long since. So it's a question of what you don't understand, rather than a contradiction in the model. But it looks as if you are in dialogue with the right people, so I'll get back to being an interested spectator.

Please note I was careful NOT to say there are no viable alternative models. I said it seems there are currently no serious alternatives. But if wavelength alters and frequency does not, then surely the speed must change. Do you want to develop a model in which c has changed over time, or something? I'm just a chemist, not a GR specialist. I've never worked with tensors. @Mordred seems to be one, however. If you are bothered that space and time are treated differently from the viewpoint of expansion you will have to listen to him.

I did wonder. The fact that the text is highlighted with a blue background indicates it has been copy-pasted from somewhere. And the poster's one previous post is similarly a little lecture that nobody had really asked for. But one can jump at shadows these days.

That's funny, you sound just like a bot. 😁

You don't say what quantitative measurement of a molecule you have in mind, so that can't be answered. One molecule is not visible to the naked eye. Incidentally, regardless of how good your eyes are, light cannot resolve objects smaller than the wavelength of the light, because it will just diffract round them instead of being reflected. The wavelength of visible light is in the range 380-750nm, whereas a single water molecule is about 0.2nm across. Taking one tsp to be 5ml, 1/8 tsp contains approx 2 x 10²² molecules. In words that is twenty thousand billion billion. There is no reason why there should not be single molecules of water floating around in all sorts of places, but we would find it very hard to detect individual molecules as they are so small. So evidence of water, which is what you ask about, generally relies on an aggregation of molecules of some kind.

Just on this small point, the relationship between speed, c, frequency, ν, and wavelength, λ, is c = νλ. This is true of any wave (light, sound, water etc). So, given that for light c is constant, as observed by us (that being the basic premise from which relativity starts), once you have said its wavelength increases there is no need to say frequency decreases: the relationship is automatic. Everyone knows this, so that's why you don't see it mentioned. I'm not sure anyone would claim that it is the only interpretation. In science one never formally closes the door to other hypotheses. Surely the claim of science is that it is the leading interpretation, to the extent that there are currently no serious alternatives? I have read about the "tired light" hypothesis for example. This was tried by some people for a while but soon blew up, as it implied predictions that were not borne out by observation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light So the reason @Genady is asking you to put forward an alternative is that there are no viable alternatives that anyone knows about, at least not at the moment.

What do you mean by help? I suppose we might be able to help you with items in your revision topics that you find difficult. Obviously nobody is going to help you cheat in the exam itself.

Google it and revert with questions if necessary. There’s no point us reinventing the wheel for you by reciting basic information that is widely available.

Word salad.