exchemist

But you are not using muon catalysis, are you?

That’s interesting. Mind you, 32C is not very warm for a heater. Though I suppose you could use with a heat pump to jack it up to 50C or so.

If something is toxic it plainly is not inert. However silver sulphide is pretty insoluble in water and I wouldn’t expect saline solution to be different. But if there any other metals around you could set up an electrochemical cell with metallic silver. It sounds like a risky idea to me.

This reads like a variant of the “cold fusion” idea - which went nowhere. The Coulomb barrier is too high and too thick for tunnelling of vibrational modes. I presume no experiments have been done to test the idea.

The operation of differentiation results in a derivative. d/dx (x²) represents the operation of differentiating x² and the result, 2x, is the derivative.

The vent in a central heating system involves a long pipe up with a U shape at the top. The hot water does not percolate up this pipe, so the water surface exposed to the atmosphere is at ambient. It is also a very small surface. Combining these factors, the evaporative loss from it will be practically nil. You can reduce it even more by arranging the vent to come from the bottom of the vessel, where the coldest water is. The only important thing is that there is a vent, so that expansion can be accommodated without stressing the vessel.

The evaporation issue can be fixed by the simple expedient of closing the container, provided a suitable expansion vent is incorporated, as in any domestic heating system. Water has a high specific heat, so can absorb a lot of heat with only modest rise in temperature. You will struggle to find many readily available materials with a higher specific heat than this. If you use oil you will get a higher temperature for a given amount of heat stored, because its specific heat is lower. At what temperature do you want the stored heat to be delivered?

Hmm. For some reason, neurological reference frames come to mind.

I suppose you realise that "Prove me wrong" has been the cry of the crank, down the ages. 🙄 It's not up to us to prove you wrong. It's up to you to show your theory has advantages over the current model. But I'm losing interest in you rapidly now.

OK that's fine if you don't want to say your age. But I repeat, atoms only vibrate when bound to something else by a bond that allows motion about a central position. In such cases the vibration frequency is determined by the characteristics of the bond, which is in turn determined by molecular QM. Free atoms don't vibrate. There is no Hz of the atom. String theory is something else entirely - and by the way it isn't really even a proper theory so far, as it makes no testable predictions.

But surely for any given value of x, y has a defined value, doesn't it?

If you want to study electrons in atoms you need quantum theory, not string theory. I highly recommend quantum theory, once you can do calculus. I studied molecular quantum mechanics as part of my chemistry degree and it was the best thing I ever did. Atoms constantly vibrate if they are in a chemically bound state, because there is always some energy (zero point energy) in the bonding. If they are not bound, e.g. in a monatomic gas such as argon or helium, they do not vibrate. By the way, if you don't mind me asking, how old are you?

Try the internet. But I too don't see how it can help to have a picture of atoms. String theory is not concerned with the motion of atoms. All you need for that is simple kinetic theory - and some QM if they are bound by chemical bonds.

Is there bipolar disorder elsewhere in your family, or among your ancestors?

For a new hypothesis, the first thing to look at is how it differs from any currently accepted hypotheses and what advantages it offers in comparison to them. How would you compare your hypothesis to the current view of the causes, for instance as described in the Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder, which ascribes 70-90% of the causes to genetic factors and the remainder to psychosocial factors, often involving some experience of traumatic events earlier in life? Are you rejecting that view and if so why?

Sure. It's funny: when I was at university in the 1970s, the older dons were recommending anyone aspiring to do research to learn German, since that was still considered by them to be the lingua franca of physical science. But it was already becoming an obsolete view. I did however learn my first proper quantum theory, in my first term, from Gerhard Herzberg's "Atomic Spectra and Atomic Structure", in a translation made in 1937. Herzberg emigrated to Canada in 1935 because............he had a Jewish wife - and consequently lost his job as a lecturer. Another one. I still have that book, a little paperback. It was a classic in its day and I would not be surprised if it is still used by undergraduates today. I see from Amazon it is still in print.

Oh sure. But from Hitler's point of view they were Jewish and therefore they had to get out. He described QM as "Jewish physics", and he was, er, sort of right, actually! But then he and the party tried to stop it being studied. Heisenberg carried on, but was hassled so much that his mother had to call Himmler's mother (!) to get the SS dogs called off. The film did not include the British contribution to the bomb project, which was called Tube Alloys. In fact at the start of the war Britain was ahead of the US. It was two British scientists that worked out you could make a bomb (i.e. achieve critical mass) with only kg quantities of U235. But they were emigrés who has taken out British citizenship and were called Rudolf Peierls and Otto Robert Frisch and they of course.....Jewish, by ancestry, and thus at risk. It was quite clearly an intellectual disaster for northern Europe to lose so much talent - and not only in the field of science.

I saw it at last weekend. Very interesting, though to me somewhat annoying in the format used (lots of short, intercut scenes from different points of time, and relentless, hammering music). I'm told that's just Nolan though. I had no idea so many well-known names were involved or what a large proportion of them were Jewish. Of course, that was partly because the original impetus was to defeat Nazi Germany by getting a bomb before they did and partly because a huge proportion of the quantum physicists of that era were in fact Jewish: Oppenheimer, Bohr, Schrödinger, Born, Teller, Pauli, Wigner...... I had no idea Oppenheimer's postwar career was screwed by this guy called Lewis Strauss, out of personal spite.

Also, carrying a sculling boat on your head, as I used to do in my younger days. And driving open topped sports cars, which I also did..... Or maybe it was just the testosterone levels implicit in both activities that is responsible....

You are confusing the labels with the entities that the words represent. If you carry on doing that it will be pointless trying to converse with you.

Incidentally, I had not previously realised rapunzel is the name of a plant, a bellflower once grown in Continental Europe for its leaves and root, but which also has pretty flowers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campanula_rapunculus

But words “are” not more words. What they are is labels for objects, actions, ideas etc. that allow us to share our experience and thought with others. While all, or almost all, words are serious, certain combinations of them can be silly.

Hahaha. “Pubg Name Generator” is something of a giveaway.😀

Grimm J & Grimm W : Rapunzel .