studiot

I can't see that the writing in school argument ever gained any traction is British schools.

From Victorian to modern times, classroom layout in relation to windows took juaat about every configuration imaginable.
Many schools were built upon three or four sides of a square principle with a corridor of classrooms along each compass facing.

Also schools were built all over the world encompassing many different aspects, sun entry angles, and architectural features such verandahs or shading canopies.

Many factories were built with so called north light rooves to provide even non direct sunlight to the machinery inside.

This very poor Wikipedia article refers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_light_(architecture)

12 hours ago, npts2020 said:

An interesting discussion about why weights aren't widely used (gravity is weak) that also includes several other methods, including flywheels.------

"You can use dead weights, but you need a huge amount of weight.

For example the biggest pumped hydroelectric system in the world (the Gianelli Hydroelectric Plant in California, USA) uses water stored in a reservoir about 9 miles long by 5 miles wide, lifted through a height of about 300 feet. Even then, it can only supply about 5% of California's electricity usage for less than 2 weeks before running dry - and given the current long term droughts in California, it can't even do that, because there would be no water available to refill it.

Trying to build devices like this for individual homes would be hopelessly uneconomical."

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/305563/why-dont-we-use-weights-to-store-energy

First and foremost your comments suggest you don't understand the difference between weight and momentum.

Secondly to the west of California there is by far the largest water reservoir in the world, called the Pacific Ocean. There is no requirement for pumped storage to be freshwater.

Thirdly energy extraction from flowing water for single properties has been going on since time immemorial. Nor does that energy have to be electrical. In the 15th century the city of Exeter installed
a pumped water supply, driven by a water wheel pump.

Start with the molar mass.

This is determined by the stoichiometry of chemical reactions. That is it depends completely on chemical composition.

A different value for the molar mass may be found when another (usually physical not chemical) method is used to calculate or measure it.

This different value is called the abnormal mass.

The difference arises because some but not all ( eg colligative properties,) physical effects are due to the number of molecules, not their composition.

Changes in composition may arise due to low abnormal molar weight (due to association) or high abnormal mass (due to dissociation).

This is a clear explanation with good examples.

https://www.chemistrystudent.com/ncert-class-12/1-solutions/abnormal-molar-masses.html

Lifespan would also be an important factor.

What is the lifespan of pumped hydro storage?

With a lifespan of 70-100 years, pumped hydro assets also last five times longer than current battery systems. There are many operating examples of pumped hydro projects in Australia and around the world used for water supply and electricity, including the Shoalhaven Scheme in southern NSW.

13 hours ago, Genady said:

Today I learned that there is an entire international subculture of ignorant jerks bent on refuting Cantor.

Every theory that has ever been has eventually come up against its limits.

And every one (from Archimedes on) seems to have a bunch of those hangers on who wish to use those limits to discredit that whole theory,

A few facts and figures for comparison.

It is interesting to Google" the world's largest flywheel."

Key Details on Largest Flywheels:

• Ireland (Largest Single Unit): Located at a former coal-fired plant, this 177-ton, 30 MW synchronous condenser is designed to provide inertia to the power grid, helping integrate renewable energy like wind. It takes 20 minutes to reach maximum speed and is housed in a vacuum to reduce resistance.

• China (Largest System): The Dinglun plant, completed in 2024, uses 120 units, each with high-speed magnetic bearings. It is capable of storing 30 MW of power, sufficient for grid-level frequency regulation.

• Previous Record Holder: Before the Dinglun project, a 20 MW flywheel facility in Stephentown, New York, was considered the largest. 

But flywheels don't directly yield electricity. Your pumped storage 75% is presumably electric pump to water storage and back to electricity.

Just now, exchemist said:

Hmm, I think this may be misunderstanding how diagnostic AI works. These are, to my understanding, not LLMs.

Just now, exchemist said:

Hmm, I think this may be misunderstanding how diagnostic AI works. These are, to my understanding, not LLMs.

Yes that is what I wanted to discuss.

Computer programs are very good at pattern recognition, when asked for a particular configuration to search for.

So for instance they are good for fingrrprints, Xray defects etc.

17 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

... Not an issue apparently, see Flywheel Storage Power System

Reading between the lines, the limited current scale of such installations seems due to a lack of perceived urgency rather than any significant technological limit. And the UK always has Dinorwig - it would take one monster of a flywheel to compete with that.

+1

Dinorwig is in Wales, the are are 6 more pumped storage schemes already working or just started in Scotland.

Pumped storage has another advantage over a flywheel. - Flywheels run down, the pumped water waits quietly untill you need to use it.

Would AI be any better (more likely) to pick this diagnosis error up considering how rare (less likely) the cancer condition was, since AIs are normally programmed to yield the most likely answer ?

Case in point

BBC News

The parents of a teenage girl who died from breast cancer say their only daughter could still be alive now if she had been treated the same as an adult.

Isla Sneddon, from Airdrie, died in March 2025 aged 17, just six months after she was diagnosed with cancer.

Her parents say doctors had downgraded her referral for biopsies to a routine one because of her age, meaning her cancer went undetected until it was too late.

https://chemistryhelpforum.com/t/useful-latex-code-for-chemistry-equations.147266/

For those who might be interested, here is an interesting thread about LaTex / Mathml and MatthJAX in chemistry.

I wonder if there is anything there we could learn for this forum ?

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think the broader point here is that there was a long-term plan in the background, that informed more than a decade in strategic investment to build this infrastructure up.

Indeed I agree that Europe does not have a long tern plan, the UK even less so.

But I also note that China's economics was not disrupted by the Ukraine war like Europe's has been.

My copy was copyrighted in 2011 (5th printing 2014) but I don't see a second edition as yet, which would include the most recent eruptions, a couple of which have been quite serious.

The position of solar energy in Europe is quite different from that of China.

The Uk position is yet different again.

Most of China's population lives South of the 35th parallel.

Most of Europe's population lives north of the 45th parallel.

By comparison New York is about the 40th parallel.

As to strategic investment in infrastructure, what does that mean ?

China's electricity system is much newer than Europe's as a result of the recent expansion in development that must eventually slow.

Also the balance between 'grid' investment (by the generators and distributors) and the user's investment is also different. I don't yet see the word battery being mentioned.

I think it is vital not to oversimplify the subject.

Oppenheimer devotes several pages to the 1902 disaster and describes the 'pyroclastic currents' which did all the damage. These were also responsible for the same level of damage in Pompeii, in Roman times.

1 hour ago, Genady said:

... about this legendary but entirely unknown to me until now event. A good book, too.

59 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I remember reading an account of this in Arthur Holmes's Principles of Physical Geology, as a teenager in the 1960s. At that time Anak Krakatau was quite small, still. Now, I gather, it has grown to adulthood and has even suffered a collapse rather like that of its parent, though not as dramatic.

40 minutes ago, Genady said:

Did it have an explanation of plate tectonics then?

I have two copies of Holmes classic.

The first written I think written prewar which does not mention plate tectonics (though it did speculatte about continental drift) but it has so much useful information that is still correct that I keep it

The second from the late 60s when Holmes had becme a convert and rewritten many things, including adding early tectoniic material.

A really good modern book by Clive Oppenheimer from Cambridge University Press provides probably the most comprehensive history of eruptions on Earth.

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

If you want to learn, you need to forget AI and work the problem out yourself. It sounds to me as if you have not done that. If you had, you would not be asking this question. Look up Raoult’s Law - then calculate for yourself the first part of the problem and show me how you did that.

Then we can talk about the second part.

I take my hat off to this post and your subsequent persistence. +1

2 hours ago, Genady said:

I never know if math is considered science or not. If it is, then it is full of hard and fast truth.

Plus, regardless of the math question, isn't the statement "Earth is not flat" a hard and fast truth?

Yes I agree there are different view aqbout whqt iw scinece and what is not and this applies to other disciplines as well as maths.

As regards 'flat earth' , like so many things in nature, the issue is neither hard and fast nor clear cut.

As a rule of thumb in surveying and cartography th flat earth model is adopted for patches of the earth of less than 10km radius.

It would also seem that the OP has lost interest.

6 hours ago, ahmet said:

all i can see, there is acceptance of community. I mean that this was too much effective which is also the wrong thing to me.

what I want to underline is that since there are "truths" and even though we scientists are successfull to find / find out those "truths" , they will exist and be effective.The difference will just be that we will not be able to use those truths. I mean that even though we get agreements on something the truths exist in every process regerdless our convention.

So, I wonder (and also should express my surprise that ) the reason why when some effective/known people says something, others follow without questioning.

Firstly I don't understand why you have this in Politics.

Are you talking about the scientific method or the relationship between science and politics or what.
Please also clarify who the 'known' people are abd what their input to science might be.

If you are actuqlly talking about science leaders, then I can't see how you could consider this to be true.

Almost every province of science that I can think of is currently developing at pace, and each province boasts competing hypotheses in frontier areas.
Only the most non controvertial such as well established bodies of facts such as the structure of the alkanes or the way arithmetic works.

Further back in history over the last few hundred years there have been significant arguments over the substance of science, some furious, some even leading to torture or death.
However the further you go back the more a complicating factor intervenes. That factor is communication..
Thousands of years ago it took a long time for new discoveries to reach remote lands. For instance the spread of the modern numbering system from india, to europe.
Besides the distance separation there was also the fact that many workers worked on their own. The huge collaborative projects are a modern development. But even then 'gurus' sometimes held sway, even when they were wrong.

26 minutes ago, PhilGeis said:

The (very) older folks may remember initial polio vaccination in US - 1st the injected Salk and the later, sugar-cubed Sabin. Neither went without issue.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1383764/pdf/0156.pdf

What point are your trying to make ?

Yes I remember the polio vaccines, but the mid 20th century was hardly 'early' ; you have to go back another 150 years for that to Edward Jenner in 1796.

55 minutes ago, DimaMazin said:

a is arc of unit circle in radians. It shown on diagram.

Well even with the crick in my neck I can see that you have mislabled the second digram.

xy/2 is the area of triangle oxy

This area depends upon the radius of the circle.

So no in general xy/2 is not equal to 1.

6 minutes ago, Stephen001 said:

I've asked the LLMs this and they've given me conflicting answers. What they all seem to agree on though is that the combination that is best for legibility isn't the best for eye strain. I'm specifically interested in what causes the least eye strain. I did a superficial Google Scholar search and there's a few studies, but they seem to focus on legibility.

I remember asking at school why Cambridge university exam papers were printed black text on light green paper and being told or reading that they had done a study which found that this particular colour resulted in the least number of candidates having some sort of panic/breakdown upon opening the paper in an exam.

3 hours ago, Sensei said:

Excuse me, but it is 1,1,1,2,3,5...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkane#Isomerism

Yes you are quite right. Thank you +1

I shall have to check my sources more carefully.

Wisconsin professors of mathematics are are evidently unreliable.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Your numbers show differences of connectivity, but not stereochemistry.

No it can't be connectivity, though this plays a part in higher carbon counts as the maximum connectivity is 4 for an individual carbon atom.

18 minutes ago, Genady said:

IOW, a waste of time.

That is what lounges are for.

Thank you for the discussion anyway.