swansont

A problem with shooting an unguided projectile is ensuring you hit the balloon, and not they payload. It also means getting fairly close, and you have a large closing speed. Even if an F-22 could get to 66,000 feet and maneuver well*, it would need to fire and then veer off. * it can’t, according to https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/history/f-22.html They say ~10 miles, which is ~52,000 feet. But I would imagine the actual value is classified They are facing up, meaning the balloon would be blocking the sun to a large extent Unless you used the system to heat the batteries.

Room for expansion work, whatever you mean by that, is not a variable. The capacity for work increased, since it was zero and then it had some value. Who said anything about caloric? There’s more heat flow. Curious that it depends on the temperature difference. If there’s no heat flow, then the ice shouldn’t melt because of the hot water. Are you willing to make that argument? I’d say it’s running the wrong tests. You’re not running the tests that would falsify your conjecture.

The unit we use on our side of the pond is the Scaramucci According to this it’s the Giant Sunda Rat, as sethoflagos mentioned https://a-z-animals.com/blog/8-shortest-living-animals-in-the-world/ “In the wild, longevity averaged about half a year” http://www.genomics.senescence.info/species/entry.php?species=Sundamys_muelleri

Always gives me gas.

! Moderator Note Can you share the theory that permits this?

There is no cut between you putting the first engine on the boiling water and starting it up. The cut is before that. You take the engine off, show the water, and put it back on. So it’s cooling off for about 10 seconds, but has no problem starting up after. Your video documents things that are irrelevant and fails to document things that are. You’re not showing the engines under the same conditions and not explaining these details until someone calls you out on the inconsistencies in your narrative.

I’m not talking about the first engine. That’s not the one that repeatedly stops, that you claimed didn’t stop. ”There’s no obvious cut as you transition from one system to the other. It looks like it’s all one take.” is clearly not talking about the lead-in to the first engine.

That’s interesting, because the heater is clearly on and there are bubbles, as if it’s just about to boil, just as it was when you stopped the uninsulated engine and removed it and showed the water. The first engine started right up. There’s no obvious cut as you transition from one system to the other. It looks like it’s all one take.

Your experiments are not described particularly well, and I was describing what I observed. I will ask yet again: have these quantities been measured? If not, you can’t make this claim. I finally watched the beginning of the video in the OP. You don’t explain what you are doing and there are no measurements, but you show the water (close to) boiling and when there’s no insulation, the engine runs well. When the insulation is in place, it stops. You ask in the OP why it doesn’t stop, but it clearly stops! You don’t comment on this at all.

It would be nice to clarify if you’ve ever measured the heat inflow and work done by the engine. And the pressure and volume values.

The flavor eigenstates are not mass eigenstates, correct. This is an example of a mixing angle between the two, like happens with quarks (and I only recall this because that’s the Cabbibo angle, and I gave a lab tour to Cabbibo, not knowing who he was, because it’s not my area of physics. Only found out later from some jealous colleagues, who were more familiar with that area of physics)

These represent the 3 mass state. Each named neutrino is not a pure state, as originally thought. Each is in a superposition of the three states.

The center of mass of the object, or collection of atoms, doesn’t move (or doesn’t have to). We all agree on this. So why are you railing against the notion of the atoms going somewhere, when nobody is saying that this happens?

Note that the earth, to a very large extent, is sufficiently fluid. The solid earth deforms from tidal effects of the sun and moon, the surface deviation from smooth is quite small - some km-scale bumps and valleys on a ~6400 km radius, and planet deforms because it is spinning.

Referring to the electron, muon and tau neutrinos.

Thermodynamics addresses this. Heat is not simply a form of kinetic energy You have to realize that heat transfer covers more than heat engines. You can have heat transfer under a number if different situations; whatever analysis you do has to work in general - not just for the one situation. If you’re extracting all of the heat being supplied into work, why does the engine not run without the cold reservoir? Why does the heat supplied increase as you drop the cold reservoir temperature? Have ever actually measured the heat supplied and the work done? You persist in this strawman. Nobody today is claiming that heat is a substance that moves around - that was abandoned long ago. The heat flow is not due to that atoms moving anywhere. It’s the energy that moves around. One can look at a system where there is no liquid or gas, so there should be no temptation to appeal to that notion. Two solid blocks at different temperatures. The can touch and the temperatures will equalize from conduction, or even if not touching, they will radiate, even in a vacuum. No gas molecules. No flow to invoke. And there isn’t, so why do you keep beating this dead horse? Energy is transferred. Heat is the transfer of energy. That’s what is “flowing”

Personal theories must be backed up with evidence and you should expect to be challenged. “hostile agenda” has to be more than your say-so There isn’t one; it was not directed at an individual.

It could be real danger, though the risk level may be inflated because the child understands risk even worse than adults do. If you are e.g. afraid of heights because you fell out of a tree as a kid and broke your arm, I’d consider that to be natural. I would consider unnatural danger to be purely mental, instilled by people conditioning you. If you’re afraid of heights because somebody convinced you that you’ll fall and break your neck I’d agree that’s probably irrational.

Who said heat is not passing through to the ice? Certainly not me. That’s the only variable that changed. And work increased from zero to some nonzero value, so there is no arguing about the increase in efficiency There is more heat flow. Fourier’s law of conduction, Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation and the equation for convective heat transfer all depend on temperature differences. Though it’s interesting you continue to describe this in terms of fluid behavior.

What if you were traumatized by something as a child? You might harbor an irrational fear, and it would be of an organic orgin.

! Moderator Note The subject needs to be discussed without such personal conjecture

That’s not what he says. He says that neutrino mass is the combination of 3 masses - the electron, muon and tau neutrino masses. He does not say type of mass or kind of mass.

I recall trying to run my stirling engine on a hot day. I put it on a mug of hot water and it would barely run - too much friction. When I put ice cubes on the top plate, it ran pretty well. Since the source of heat was the same, the only way this could be the case is if I was converting more heat to work - the efficiency increased.

Yes. So why do you keep bringing it up? Nobody else has used caloric in their explanations. The thing is, while caloric was abandoned, the thermodynamic principles it attempted to explain are still there. Heat is transferred. Some of it can be converted to work. It just isn’t because of caloric moving about. Yes, I just explained that. Physicists do idealized systems all the time when discussing theory. Why? There is no real engine that follows the Carnot cycle. You just agreed to that. Fill up with heat? I would think someone railing against caloric theory would avoid treating heat as a substance.

They don’t fission to form the same isotopes. The shell model explains why the fission yield curve has two peaks