druS

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Neutral

About druS

  • Rank
    Meson

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Quantum

Recent Profile Visitors

1695 profile views
  1. Studio, apologies but I'm busy in study at the moment. Thanks for your insight. As usual, will come back to this as time permits.
  2. Studiot, you'll have to be patient with me. Very. I have a long way to go before I am grappling with this math. I can tell you that I need to work on inequalities. OTOH These conversations are most definitely having an impact on my choices in study. I have a building list of topics I require to be covered that sits actually quite outside the standard study choices. Thanks for this. Dru
  3. Apologies for re-awakening this thread, especially as it is likely to be a short input. My studies have progressed. I understand the relevance of Plack's constant now, though I am a long way from pulling Fourier transform into my mathematical understanding. And I have tested in my education when I will offered the transforms - it will take time. I stand by that last statement. There is a lot of talk of "aha" moments when you choose to study STEM subjects. I'm not talking "aha", I am talking literal beauty. Like Mozart or Rembrandt. God I envy those who do understand it. It will take me years, all I can say is that I am on the journey.
  4. I would have thought that energy of the photon determines whether or not it excites electrons in the element. Not how much it penetrates. Interested in responses here.
  5. druS

    De Broglie relation

    Thank you. I will get there with the language of science. In time.
  6. druS

    De Broglie relation

    For goodness sake look at the DSE again, the evidence is all before you. Particles go through one by one. the over time the pattern is a wave interference. It's nothing to do with philosophy and totally to do with science. It was unexpected (well it was over 100 years ago) but that doesn't mean it isn't science. Some of the best science has come from the unexpected. Maybe most of the best stuff actually.
  7. druS

    Motion of an electron

    And sometimes things need to be handled at a conceptual level. TBF as someone going through education on these matters, they don't leave a starting student with the impression that the Bohr is "it". The Bohr model is certainly didactic, but we were firmly moved on to de Broglie (loose rough conceptual basis only). SJ - the Educationists get better with each generation.
  8. All the best Ken. I've been inn raining burning leaves" (about 50k from the fire front) and completely understand the sobering nature. All the best.bloke.
  9. druS

    Motion of an electron

    You've got to be talking apples v oranges here. Beta radiation which can be considered a beam of electrons has the electrons moving in a circular motion because the magnetic force occurs perpendicular to the direction of the charged particle. This creates a centripetal force(this is classical mechanics not modern theoretical physics) and the particle must move in a circular motion. Which has nothing to do with orbital movement.
  10. Thanks swansont, we hit my (knowledge) limit again - though if my quick google skills suffice it shows a factor in the order of 10-3 smaller for the molecular bind. The chemical properties clearly not really involved.
  11. Hi John. Nod thanks for the post. If I have this right when the Radium nucleus emit an Alpha particle 22688Ra -> 22286Rn + 42He I'm presuming the Rn atom thereby has two spare electrons (annd that this would occur with all alpha particle emissions?). So the previous Ra3N2 molecule has become unstable - I don't think there is such a thing as Ra2RnN2 so wouldn't nitrogen return to it's elemental form, ditto Rn? It's easy to follow the numbers and suggest that the alpha particle becomes He with the spare electrons, but there are obviously many other molecules hanging around to pick them up.
  12. druS

    Math question

    Studiot you have me intrigued as this is basic enough math that I should be able to handle it. I dont want to blow it for the OP and actually dont know I'm right. But I start by multiplying by -1/-1 Is it the right direction?
  13. druS

    Emmy Noether on BBC Radio

    Every now and then on this forum I feel a need to say "thank you". Thank you.
  14. Thanks for that. So why not a shift with how we apply ground link? Does it HAVE to be heat rejection, only? No. Once we get down deep enough we get to a reasonably stable annual temp. Why cant this be used to cool or stabilise the temperature in a building? Run the ground cooled water through the building structure, a kind of tromb wall (OK I'm mixing systems), and air intakes could be through a labarynth system to cool/stabilise temp to make up and fresh air. The only energy used is the pump. You'll never control temperature to the accuracies or consistency we are used to, but you could control it. Temper anyway. Summer and winter.
  15. I tried reading all the above including some of the math but it just made my head hurt. Look, here are a few thoughts from a person who works in air-conditioning, a lot. Unless you are talking a system I don't know, the ground link is effectively the heat rejection component of the refrigeration cycle. And that's it really. The heat rejection component works equally as well as heat providing - if the temps work and if your refrigeration equipment is reversible. You'll still need a three pipe system if you want heating and cooling at the same time. The ground link would usually presume a heat rejection ground source at approx 16 degrees C. And it can return heat at the same temp personally I'd add a gas boiler but that's a personal choice - For winter cycle I'd like a heat rejection supply temp at say 30 degrees C. But that's just me.