exchemist

That's rather interesting though, isn't it? Tidal interactions dissipate kinetic energy as heat. In some cases, e.g. ocean tides on Earth, that dissipation is due to friction. Though I suppose that tidal distortion of solid bodies is mainly not due to friction.

Friction is a distraction here. The basic point is @Ken Fabian's one, that any attempt to extract energy from the system will cause it to slow down and eventually stop. The energy you are trying to harness from the spinning flywheel is kinetic energy. If you remove kinetic energy from something, it slows down. The flywheel contains a finite amount of kinetic energy and that is the maximum energy you can obtain from it.

SCIRP appears on Beal's List of possibly predatory journals: https://predatoryjournals.com/publishers/ More about its questionable nature here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing And you are a spammer.

No. Not recreational. Biologically necessary. These were semi-substantial alien beings in this sci fi novel, in which there were 3 sexes. All 3 were needed in the procreational act. The 3 sexes were designated male, female and parent, as it was the parent sex that did most of the caring for the offspring. I've forgotten a lot of it, but I do remember the quote from Schiller at the opening, which gave the book its title: " Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Gotter selbst vergebens." "Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain."

Yes: it's all nonsense. I don't know where you got this from, but it's full of arbitrary statements requiring explanation, from beginning to end. To take a few at random: - What does a "faster" rotation rate mean? Faster than what? - Why would centrifugal force suspend dust that is floating at the same height as the water surface and not the water as well? - Why would there be more D2O in the past than today? Deuterium is stable. - Why would higher density of water, whether in conjunction with centrifugal force or not, affect in any way the "stability" of Pangaea? - Why would the rotation slow? And then it gets worse. Hopeless rubbish, really.

Not really. The XXY and XYY can be seen to arise from defective splitting of the pairs of chromosomes when sex cells are formed. The extra copies perform no function in gene mixing, which remains a process involving the merging of two sets, one from each of two parents. So there is no way they define additional sexes from a functional point of view. A third sex would imply some process like the 3 sexes in Asimov's "The Gods Themselves", in which it took a merging of Odeen, Dua and Tritt (Russian for one, two and three) in order to procreate.

Not really. XXY and XYY are merely defects. They don't define a 3rd and 4th sex in any biological sense.

The sex chromosomes you have, surely? You can be XY or XX. Or, in rare cases of genetic malfunction, you can be XXY or XYY. So far as I'm aware, all organisms that reproduce sexually, do so relying on 2 (two) sexes pooling genetic material.

I'm not sure that the sodium ferricyanide will interfere to that extent. @John Cuthbermay know better. But as I recall, to grow a nice cuboid crystal you need to suspend a "seed" crystal, tied with a cotton thread or something, in a supersaturated solution and let it grow slowly and undisturbed for several days. What you want is for just one crystal to grow slowly, rather than a mass, suddenly. Maybe if you have some coarse salt you can select one grain and use that. Important that there are no other crystals or particles in the supersaturated solution or these will also be nuclei for crystallisation.

This being a science forum, I doubt you will find many people here who subscribe to a literal Second Coming of Christ.

My hovercraft is full of eels.

Yes, more or less. I'm doing what you suggested and counting the carbon atoms, then applying the normal organic chemistry convention that all unwritten bonds to carbon are occupied by H. So a zigzag line will be a chain of -CH₂- units, for example, with a methyl group on the end because of the extra bond.

OK, what's the mechanism in acid conditions? If we can see that it may be possible to work out how it would go in basic conditions.

The cross thing is a tertiary butyl group: (CH₃)₃C-. The leg thing is an n-propyl group: -CH₂-CH₂-CH₃. As for how you synthesise them, that rather depends on what you are starting from. You can buy things like t-butyl alcohol or t-butylamine, or n-propanol etc. From your question, it seems as if you have part of the molecule already and you want to bolt these groups on. If so, what is the part of the molecule you have got?

I suspect this was all just a piece of drive-by spamvertising. I'll be mildly surprised if our poster will be back to argue his corner.

Ah yes, theologians who are also scientists might well do, but in their capacity as scientists I presume, rather than in their capacity as theologians. Or does Polkinghorne for example employ the concept of energy in his theology?

Eh? Can you provide an example of a theologian expressing a view on "how energy functions"?

This is a Gish Gallop. There is a whole series of points and assertions here that are not connected. If you were serious about your ideas you would pick one point at a time, and follow it through rigorously in all its implications. By hurling a series of different ideas, all at once, you make it impossible to respond properly. Gish used to do this deliberately, as a rhetorical technique to make his opponents appear unable to reply coherently and thus score a "victory" in the eyes of uninformed listeners. What is the point in trying to do that here on a science forum? I will pick one easy point to respond to. A photon, or a "light ray" if you want to be classical about it, is reflected from a frosted glass surface according to the angle at which it strikes a particular point on the surface. Since the surface is not flat, that angle depends on exactly where on the surface it strikes. This explanation does not depend on whether one assumes a wave or a corpuscular model for light. I suggest you stop flailing around and focus on the photo-electric effect alone, since that is regarded as the definitive evidence for the quantisation of light. And don't get hung up on the word "particle". Light is shown to be quantised. Nobody argues it behaves like a little steel ball.

The reaction is 2H₂ + O₂ <-> 2H₂O, with a heat of combustion of 142MJ/kg of hydrogen. So for every kg you burn, you get 142megajoules (=39.4kWh) of heat out. If you want to recover the hydrogen to use again, as you propose, you have to run this reaction backwards. That's what electrolysis of water does, for example. But that requires you to put in 142MJ of energy per kg of hydrogen produced. So you get back to exactly where you started, with no net energy gain. (Conservation of energy means you cannot get something for nothing.) This is why, when people propose using hydrogen as fuel, what they envisage is using hydrogen as an energy storage medium. A cylinder of hydrogen is a lot lighter than a battery with the same energy content. But you need to make the hydrogen in the first place, which requires energy input, e.g. from renewably produced electricity, just as you do to charge up a battery. Though you can also make hydrogen by thermal cracking of natural gas: CH₄ + heat -> 2H₂ + C, in which case you get hydrogen from fossil fuel and produce a lot of solid carbon as a byproduct. This is not widely commercialised yet. I'm not sure what one does with all the carbon. I suppose one could make it into bricks as a building material, or something. The one thing you must not do with it of course is burn it!

From across the Atlantic it certainly looks like it. The thing that frightens me the most is that one of the major political parties, commanding >40% of the vote, has given up on the democratic system. To have that proportion of people being constantly told that the last election was stolen, when it quite obviously wasn't, looks like a prelude to ignoring their outcome in future. What then? Civil war? Autocracy? Yikes!

Yup, that's what I meant by the QM analogue of motion: perhaps I should have spelled out that I meant the QM representation of what would in classical physics involve motion. I realise of course there are no trajectories in QM, even though there are still properties associated with motion (e.g. momentum).

Yes. My understanding is that you need the QM analogue of periodic motion to get quantisation. So the notional "particle" is reflected repeatedly from the ends of the box, or in rotating systems, e.g molecules, it revolves repeatedly, in both cases as a result of some form of constraint on the motion. With no constraint you get a continuum without quantisation, e.g as in ionisation limits in spectra.

Atkins wasn't yet a prof when I was there. He was a fellow at one of the colleges, Lincoln, I think, where he had a bit of a reputation as a tartar to his undergraduates. But he was a charismatic lecturer, amazingly, on quantum chemistry, the most abstract and mathematical supplementary option available on the course. My maths and QM tutor told me Atkins would get really worked up and nervous before he went on to give a lecture, just like any actor before curtain up. He had a certain bone-dry wit, which he somehow managed to introduce somewhere in every lecture. But we digress.............

Re entanglement, yes, I suppose bond formation could be an example of a process by which two unentangled entities become entangled. Good one. Re absorption, I think referring to the link I posted on transition dipole moments may help. My understanding is that during the process, (speaking in crude, semiclassical terms) the electron's state becomes coupled to the electric vector and oscillates between the ground and excited states. The energy of the photon will oscillate between the photon and the electron, too. Whether this process finishes in the excited state with absorption of the photon, or in the ground state with continuation of the photon seems to be a matter of the transition probability. (If I'm remembering Peter Atkins' lectures correctly, 45 years on, which I may not be.) As I understand it (from those lectures), absorption is the limiting case of the process that that causes dispersion (in the sense of change of refractive index with frequency) at frequency ranges not too far from an absorption band. This is often described by a coupling of the electric vector of the light to the electrons in the medium, which " borrow" energy from it and give it back, altering the phase velocity of the light in the process. The dispersion of glass, for example is due to an absorption in the UV being not too far away from the frequencies of visible light. Glass with higher refractive index has a UV absorption closer to the visible than lower refractive index varieties. The light needs to be in a frequency range close enough to the absorption transition to to begin to mix the excited state into the electrons' state, temporarily, as the light passes.

I really think you need to consider more anti-psychotic treatment. I'm no doctor, but some of what you are posting seems to me to have the hallmarks of mental disturbance, e.g. the irrelevant and implausible statement about people withholding money to starve you.