swansont

It’s your proposal, so it’s up to you to work out those details. You’ve been told that you won’t get more energy out than you put in. The 2nd law of thermodynamics prevents it. You’re free to ask about the physics involved in the various steps. But if all you have is insisting that it works without any legitimate argument, then this doesn’t fulfill the requirements for discussion in speculations

How can you claim this without accurate calculations? If your first numbers aren’t correct, why should I have any reason to think subsequent calculations are?

I think it’s rather more than that. You described going for two weeks; that’s a vacation. It suggests you have the means and opportunity to go and do that. A lot of people in the world don’t, so this is a view from privilege. People who lack the money for travel, or can’t afford to step away from the way the put food on the table because they’re barely eking out an existence. Some depend on others and some have others who depend on them; you can’t go off for two weeks and leave your kids alone, or your frail mother, etc. People have obligations, that aren’t always by choice. Lots of people have to live where they live. Whenever there are discussions relating to “why didn’t they just leave?” for whatever event is causing an exodus there’s often disregard for how difficult that actually is, depending on your circumstances, and insisting that it’s not difficult shows a lack of awareness or empathy.

Yes, this was in September, so I imagine it was right before classes started in the fall. It’s not like you spend much time in your room besides sleeping and getting ready to go in the morning. The rest of the time is usually talks/posters, meals and some evening activities.

No, the concept is part of the problem because it’s a personal preference being presented as an objective truth.

2800 watt for 1 sec is 2800 joules PE = mgh = 63 kg x 6.3m x 9.81 m/s^2 is 3890 joules Further if this is at constant speed of 6.3 m/s, the KE is an additional 1250 joules, but the exact number depennds on how it’s done (and some of this could be recovered) So right from the start your math is wrong. There is no doubt that properly done, it will show that output does not exceed input, and there will be losses.

A taxi cab. (badoom tshhh) It was an international symposium on frequency standards and metrology, which are held every ~7 years. Come to think of it, there was a whisky tasting event as part of it, though I was very jet-lagged so I didn’t attend. I did sample some at the bar in the dormitory a few nights later.

The thread is not in the trash. Members cannot make posts there - those threads lock automatically. I explained why this was moved to speculations. IDGAF about any “cancel culture” nonsense - you’re complaining about having the forum rules applying to you, for which I have zero sympathy.

I remember a drive in a cab on my way to St. Andrews when my boss pronounced Laphroaig as “La frog” and the driver corrected him (with a bit of a dismissive tone, which was great)

You do not get a smooth curve of reduction in temperature over time - it’s like a phase transition; when water freezes or boils (or melts/condenses), the temperature is constant for a period of time while it’s happening. IOW, recombination is not a thermal process. The 13.6 eV released is a quantized amount, rather than getting a thermal distribution. I think you misunderstand the situation. Nobody here owes you anything, and having an attitude that we do is off-putting. You have a hypothesis, so you are the one who needs to do the work. I already mentioned it - the ionization energy of hydrogen is 13.6 eV. There is no “moment” of recombination. It did not happen all at once.

Then I guess you have some homework to do. Yes, that’s ~3000 K. You can calculate it using the ionization energy of hydrogen and some other factors

But it’s in a region claimed/controlled by government But your backpack and tools were not fashioned by you, or presumably made by hand, from scratch, by anybody. It actually is. You are claiming people should do things, but if you aren’t able to do them why is it reasonable to expect others to do them? It’s like calling on people to make sacrifices you aren’t willing to make yourself.

But imagining is all this is. Can you identify such a place? And not having the same expectations renders the question moot. I suspect most people view this within the constraints of living within a modern society, rather than some unobtainable idyllic daydream

I recall that Jack Daniels whiskey is not bourbon, even though it’s predominantly corn, owing to not ticking one of the boxes. It’s Tennessee whiskey.

Alternating rows of 8 and 9. It’s a rectangle on a lot of the ones through history.

I wouldn’t. It’s because my area is not cosmology, and not because you’ve not addressed points I’ve brought up, though it would be nice if you did, since “no soapboxing” is another rule we have

We don’t care what happened at another site, over which we have no influence and probably has different rules to enforce. There are sites that do not tolerate non-mainstream science. One of our rules is “stay on-topic”

I never said that it was. Obvious pseudoscience usually gets locked or moved to the trash can.

That’s not an exhaustive list, as the post you drew from notes. “The Speculations forum is provided for those who like to hypothesize new ideas in science” is part of the description of this section. You’re proposing a new idea, as you admit in the OP.

What we found is that you can’t convict a salami sub.

But they do save lives - fewer people die when seatbelts are used. It’s a statistical argument, not a guarantee that wearing one will definitely save your life. Which is why the details matter, and would be present in a detailed summary of the case.

But you can explain the classically as blue light has a higher frequency and interacts more strongly with the dipole (It’s a forced oscillator), and so the light slows down more. The dipole has a resonant frequency but you don’t have to talk about absorption. A part of this is whether you talk about light vs photons. In physics refraction is introduced well before quantum mechanics; it’s just based on classical concepts.

If you explain it classically you don’t use photons. Not sure how you do it with photons without virtual-state absorption. I like the classical wavefront explanation for the bending. Once light slows down the wavefront bends, since the part still moving fast shoots past until it, too, hits the slower medium. The new wavefront in the slower medium has turned toward the normal. You can experience this with a car whose tires go off the road onto a more viscous surface. You get pulled to that side

All bourbon is whiskey, but not all whiskey is bourbon. Bourbon has requirements, like corn content, how it’s aged, what’s added. Each classification requires a minimum percentage of the characteristic grain - e.g. rye, wheat.

Some of the redaction mess might be Musk’s fault https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/epstein-files-redactions-failed-after-funding-cuts-forced-doj-use-basic-adobe-tools-1766051 “as it turns out, failing to redact the Epstein files is not due to incompetence in using Adobe tools. The same user who suggested the feature in Adobe Acrobat found that they were never in the premium subscription in the first place. … a screenshot claiming that the DOJ's contractor, DOGE, had cancelled a £3.3 million ($4.1 million) GSA contract for Adobe Acrobat.“