exchemist

Alles klar.

Not interesting ones perhaps, but chemistry is always undergoing revisions to terminology. What used to be carbonium ions when I was at university are now carbocations. The numbering of groups in the Periodic Table has changed. Lots of little things like that. But it was ever thus. I remember my grandfather teasing me, when I was studying for A Level, that I did not even know what muriate of potash was. It turned out to be potassium chloride, KCl, - muriatic acid being an Edwardian-era name for hydrochloric acid (my Grandfather had been born in 1901!). But as for trying to build significance into a particular word translated from early c.19th French, that strikes me as a real fool's errand.

OK, if you are just calculating radiation intensity, your numbers look good to me. (I used these NASA distance numbers.https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/pdfs/scaless_reference.pdf )

That old walrus again? I thought he had disappeared along with the Project for the New American Century. (What a laugh that has turned out be.)

Agreed. However the trouble with cranks, as some of us know to our cost from previous encounters, is that getting us to accept strange and potentially misleading terminology is quite often a rhetorical ruse to promote their crank ideas. In this case it is likely to be, in some way yet to be disclosed, his notion that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is false or can be broken. (This individual has spent over a decade, off and on, on various forums, obsessing about this.) This is why we are wary of agreeing with his peculiar statement without qualifying it. We would not be nearly so cautious if the poster had a track record of posting in good faith.

It's not clear what you have done. Are those diameter measurements?

I can still cycle to Wimbledon and back, up and down the hills, to buy bread, as I did before I went on statins, so I'm not worried about muscle weakness. And don't worry, I like olive oil too much to cut it back a great deal.

Except that the quantity of heat that produced the ΔT cannot be all transformed into work, only part of it.

But you don't understand: confusion is the object of the exercise. 😄

None of this quibbling about words gets us anywhere. In the particular case of Carnot, you are reading a translation from early c.19th French. Assuming the original of "destroyed" was "détruit", that could be translated as destroyed, demolished, done away with, effaced, suppressed.... The idea is that (some of) the heat has gone and is no longer there. This is true, it has gone - into work.

Could be worth considering the territories it passed over on its way. Taiwan? Japan? N/S Korea? Perhaps there could have been other motives besides spying on the USA.

It is a reference to my metaphor, in your previous thread, for your behaviour on this forum. I said you were trying to playing the victim while wandering about with a huge "Kick me" sign strapped to your arse. And that that is why you get kicked, by me and others. Now perhaps, in turn, you can enlighten us as to why you are so preoccupied with the precise word one uses to describe the conversion of heat into work. (I note that you have not been able to turn up a reference to heat being "destroyed" or "destroyed utterly", and I bet that is not for want of trying.)

"Destroyed utterly" is a misleading phrase, as it suggests the heat vanishes without trace which, of course, does not happen. Energy, being conserved, is converted into other forms of energy. It is never destroyed. In this case some of the internal energy in heat has been converted into work. So yes, the total amount of heat has been reduced. Your question is such a basic one, and your choice of terms so peculiar, that I can only assume this is a disingenuous question on your part, preparing the ground for another chapter of your stubborn - and increasingly tedious - crankery (KICK 😁).

Haha. However I don't think this general quite meant that. I think he was trying to stop being dragged into speculation by the line of questioning of a reporter and tried to close it down by saying he would not rule anything out until he had the intelligence reports. Unfortunately that included not ruling out little green men. So now everyone has jumped - either stupidly or disingenuously - on that, to claim "Aha, he thinks it could be little green men!"

Hmm, that suggests that although we have a better understanding of the complexity of the processes, the net result is we are more in the dark than before regarding what doctors should tell their patients! But thanks for the explanation. I think it could well account for why the advice I've been getting from my doctor has changed - for the worse. I had thought that my adherence, much of the time, to a fairly Mediterranean diet was a good thing. Perhaps it still is, but it looks as if I might need to be less liberal with the olive oil. I may try to find out more about this, now that I know a bit more what to look for.

The service I am performing to science here is to call out egregious ballocks when I see it.

Why do you consider it necessary to duplicate this gibberish?

An air conditioner is a heat engine running backwards, you moron (KICK 😁). You put mechanical work in, via the electric motor, and it creates a hot side and a cold side.

What a stupid, disingenuous rant. A heat engine running backwards is a heat pump, as I think you know perfectly well. And don't try the Galileo Gambit here. I've told you before, several times (KICK 😁), you are not going to overturn 150 years of engineering experience and thermodynamic theory with some badly done Mickey Mouse experiments in your garage.

Yes, it does seem all rather uncertain. I was told for years that even though my total LDL+HDL+triglycerides was high, it was OK because the ratio of LDL:HDL was low. But recently I've been told, thanks to some new algorithm used by UK doctors, the total itself comes into the calculation of risk and so I've been put on statins. But perhaps you can clear up one point. Neither LDL nor HDL are actually cholesterol. They are colloquially called "cholesterol" because of something to do with the way these molecules bind, transport and deposit cholesterol in the body, I think. But it is rather hard to find a clear description of what goes on, on the internet. Can you summarise how this works?

I think @swansont's idea of rate of change of momentum is the simplest way to think about wind exerting a force of a wall. You have a stream of air molecules hitting the wall and rebounding. The harder the wind blows, the more of these you have in unit time. F = ma is also F = d (mv) /dt i.e. rate of change of momentum with time. So faster wind means more momentum change in unit time, which means greater force. Pressure is just force per unit area.

I have the same feeling. There are the hallmarks of crankdom all right (principal ≠ principle, affect ≠ effect, "the 3rd dimension" ≠ 3 dimensions, etc.) plus of course the nonsensical notion of entropy being conserved. But I can't yet place it. What do you mean by "electron valence" and what is meant preferring a lower value of this, whatever it is? If - hazarding a wild guess - you mean what determines the preferred oxidation states of elements, this has nothing to do with energy conservation. (It has more to do with entropy, actually.)

OK fair enough, what I meant was photon scattering off the nucleus bit. The video uses the Bohr atom of course to visualise atoms, which is misleading and no doubt part of the problem with the animation. If it had shown blobs it would have been better. The guy's been a lecturer at Notre Dame and does research at Fermilab, so he will no doubt understand it properly himself. But this just shows how hard it is to give an explanation without walls of Greek and bracket notation etc.

He obviously can't mean that and he does not say that. It will be just a defect of the animation in the video, which certainly does seem to be suboptimal. But @joigus's point about forced oscillations having the same frequency as the forcing is a far more serious objection to his explanation, it seems to me.

The key thing to watch is not cholesterol, which the body makes for itself anyway, but lipoproteins which carry it in the blood, in particular LDLs, low density lipoproteins. Eggs are not high in those.