exchemist

Yeah, it will be a "framework" for sure. 😁

Actually, I and others went to considerable lengths to identify exactly where, in the operating cycle of that machine, the input work was required , even though we also told you that we knew in advance, just from the laws of thermodynamics, it would not produce any net energy gain. And of course we were right.

Individual atoms don’t carry information about their previous environment.

Nice enough picture but what is the discussion topic?

E=mc2 is not about converting mass into energy.

I’m not opening that file. You need to present its contents here.

This rings a bell. I think you may have mentioned it before. Maybe it was in the context of @Prajna ’s machine with magnets, the one he tried to make before AI drove him bonkers.

What a pity this description is such lazily written crap. I was looking forward to a nice perpetual motion machine to analyse. It seems to be traditional at Christmas. 🙂

I’ll add this to my list of Questions-To-Which-The-Answer-Is-“No”.

When the weight pulls the lever down, the centre of gravity of the counterweight rises. Work done is force x distance through which it is applied. In this case that will be the weight of your little weight x the vertical distance it drops as it pulls the device over. That will be equal to the weight of the counterweight x the vertical distance by which its centre of gravity rises. What you done is trade gravitational potential energy (GPE) of the weight for an equal amount of GPE of the counterweight. The force the lever exerts on the sled will depend on how far up the lever the string is attached. The higher up this is the weaker the force, because it swings through a longer arc , i.e. a longer distance. Again the principle is that the energy (GPE) to do work will equal force x distance, so the greater the distance the less the force it exerts. You can fix the string low down to get more force, but then it will move through a smaller distance. That’s the trade-off. This is the principle of anything involving leverage, whether a simple lever or a gear set. It is hard to work out the position of the centre of gravity of the counterweight and the amount by which it rises, but you don’t need to. You just need to measure the height of the point of attachment of the string and take the ratio of that to the distance to the top, where your weight was hung. For example if the string is attached halfway up, the force it exerts on the sled will be double the weight of the weight. If it is 1/3 the way up, the force will be 3x. And so on.

OK I see. I had overlooked the borehole aspect.

How would this relate to the temperature fluctuations of a large river?

I think the point being made is that you can't use Feynman diagrams to model thermodynamics. Where there are dissipative processes, you have intrinsic irreversibility.

Good point. And, thinking a bit harder about this, climate change is expected not just to warm the climate on average but also create greater extremes. And of course it will be during extreme cold that the demand for heat will be greatest - and thus the cooling effect on the river as well. So one would probably need to limit heat extraction projects based on the cooling effect at extremely low temperatures in winter.

The article I read claims it will only chill the river by 0.1C. (Which in view of global warming would if anything fractionally hold temperatures closer to previous values, but only to a pretty negligible extent. They are growing pinot noir now quite successfully along the Rhine, I understand (spätburgunder). I've got a couple of bottles in the cellar but have not yet tried them.

The Russians have quite an operation going using fakery and bots to sow civil discord in "western" countries. I have little doubt they will be piling in on this with all sorts of crap, to crank up both antisemitism and islamophobia and to distract governments with domestic strife. As with aircraft crashes I suspect it pays to wait for an authoritative story to emerge.

Obviously a joke - or at least facetious. "Culinary theology", "symbolic botany" etc.

And do I detect yet another bot-inspired “framework”? 🙄

I don’t understand the question. Can you provide some background and more detail?

All of which is to say that indeed a scientific theory cannot be patented. All this AI slop of yours is saying, in characteristically prolix style, is that it is only physical embodiments of some kind, i.e. inventions, that rely on a theory, which are patentable. The theory itself cannot be.

No, because measurement involves interaction with the particle, which affects its state, changing the outcome of subsequent measurements. This inability (usually) to measure without affecting the thing being measured is known as the "observer effect". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

OK thanks, I’ll dig around and see if I’ve pressed a button by accident at some point. So site settings is what I need to look for. Anyway, stand down , just a goose, eh? 😁

Why would it do that just for one website?

Yeah, it's curious. I find that nothing "downloads" when I access the site via the iPad. It's only on the laptop. And if I enter the web address manually on the laptop, it asks me if I want to authorise a download from the site. I don't get this with other websites. Maybe I should clear the cookies and see if that gets rid of it.

Hmm, that’s good. Perhaps it’s my laptop that is on the blink. I’ll investigate with other sites and check.