studiot

So why did you respond by linking to a paper that states explicitly methane is oxidised? I have quoted this once directly from your post but here it is again for your convenience I still think you misunderstood my post and still do. But I am with you on a good deal of your thoughts here.

Seems to me that Your diagram does not show the small block at the top of the wedge , as stated in your words. Why not ? You have not mentioned friction anywhere or conversely smooth contacts. Are we ignoring friction ? What do you understand as the significance of the ratio M/m = k ? Can you describe in words what movements you think could take place ? You should have done this last step before starting force analyses.

Indeed so. That is how a released balloon flies away if the neck is open. But so what, perhaps your rocket is a cylinder of compressed gas. The question still arises how long will the exhaust last ? This proposal of yours reminds me of Edward De Bono's 5 day course in thinking. In his first lecture he has a 1 foot cubical box sitting quietly on a table in front of him, roughly in the middle. About halfway through there is a quiet bang and the box falls over onto its side. The lecturer ignores this, but at the end sets a task to explain how the box fell over by itself during the next four days.

I blame Apple myself (Along with the second deadly sin)

Thank you for your clarifications. On to my next questions. I understand you are firing a rocket engine inside the box. Since no air is allowed to enter what are you using for oxidant ? How much of the 14.6 kilos is fuel and oxidant and how long will that last in time ?

Thanks for the support of my comments. I apologise for the poor spelling in my post. May I respectfully suggest that renovation of governments would be a far better option ? You misunderstand. Oxidation of one molecule of methane (CH4) produces one molecule of carbon dioxide and 4 molecules of water. You misread that somewhere bro. The international CO2 equivalent for methane is 25. However water vapour is the biggest contributor to global warming so producing 4 molecules is bad news. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

I was watching a BBC regualr programme This evening - Countryfile. This week they were visiting England's (and also one of Europe's) largest artificial forest - Kielder Forest. They had some interesting facts to offer. The forest was first planted in 1920 to make the UK independent of foreign timber sources, following the experience of the 1914 - 18 war. Timber currntly being harvested was planted in the 1950s. For every acre harvested they replant 2 acres. The recognise that, young or mature, most of their trees are unsuitable for biodiversity so they employ a specialist team to create alternatives within the forest, for instance nesting boxes for owls that normally nest in natural holes in trees, platforms for Ospreys (naturally returning after 250 years absence) insect, fungi etc being also catered for. Apparantly Kielder supplier 25% of the UK building timber. And they point out that building timber in fixes the carbon content for hundreds of years in roofing, flooring, etc. And then, termite activity is not restricted to old-growth forest; much of it is directly related to human habits and habitats. Surely oxidation of methane meand creating carbon dioxide instead ? Wherever the termites are located how is this better ?

I am not interested in how this 'KE converter' is alleged to work, although I can think of a number of possibilities. I am, however interested in a discussion which involves the correct statement and used of the terminology and laws of both Mechanics and Thermodynamics. Let us start wiht the use of the term 'closed system' Your system is not closed . Energy of one sort or another can pass the system boundary to and from its environment. Closure of a system simply debars the exchange of matter (ie mass) between the system and its environment. If the system were isolated then energy would also be debarred. Having corrected your terminology we come to your statement of the law of conservation of energy. (Top right in your diagram) Before considering this I would appreciate a little more information about your system boundary. From your earlier description I am given to understand that the black rectangular boundary in your diagram represents something like a shoe box or packing crate that will spontaneously move sideways when you press the go button. This behaviour would occur where it is currently located in your back yard, garage or whatever. But would also occur if you picked up the box, drove 1,000 miles into the desert with it and set it on the ground before pressing the go button. Is this a correct description ?

Two things about this. 1) Marine carboniferous rocks are not the only ones formed. Peat, lignite, coal ,oil to name but a few. 2) One beneficiial effect of temporary storage of carbon as vegetation material is much the same as the argument against hard paving over evry one's front gardens. That accelerates the run off which exaggerates the peaks and floods.

You posted both statements here, just as I used the quote function to place them together in my question. Where you obtained those words is not relevent, exccept you should attribute them if they are someone else's words and be prepared to back them up. I even rephrased that question to ask That asks where the exterior of the Higgs field is if the H field fills all space Since the universe, by definition, comprises all there is, where is this 'exterior' ? You answer does not satisfy this property of the universe as being universal. You are still ignoring my question of what binds uncharged nucleons to other nucleons if the strong force is electromagnetic ? I also asked you what you thought a Field to be and, in fairness, you did reply. But your definition was far to narrow, involving only energy for isntance. Here is my working definition. I don't claim that it is complete. A connected region of any space, whether a real physical space or an artificial theoretical space such as phase space, is said to contain a field of a quantity of interest if a value for that quantity can be assigned to every point in that region. That defines a Field in the way that Physicists use it. A Field in Mathematics is quite a different thing, so be careful which sort you mean. So to specify a field, you need to specify three things. The region, the quantity, the boundary conditions if any, since some Fields have no boundary. Relationships in the form of equations are also useful in analysing the properties of that Field. The last statement about relationships is vitally important because the field of a single isolated source eg gravitational or electrostatic or magnetic, contains no energy. I am fond of the expression "It takes two to tango", which expresses the fact that you need at least a second object to introduce 'energy'.

No problem. I agree that is likely the case. But you don't need to quote me or anyone else to post your thoughts in a thread here. Just post stuff which makes sense like this and you will do well.

Unfortunately you seem to get into a lot of silly arguments at cross purposes over minor points of order, which is a great pity since you sometimes produce thoughts and comments of real worth and substance such as this post I have given +1 for. Some of your other posts in this thread also contain useful comments. I would like to add some additional comments as follows. The last time I heard an authoritative estimate of the % of company cars on the road it was an AA report on the radio and stood at ' over40%' Company car buyers, especially fleet operators, definitely use a different mindset which is much more aligned to your post. At least in the UK, tax rules considerably distort any free market purchase decisions. One result is that many cars are leased, not purchased by their users. I believe that longevity of cars has increased during the latter half of the 20th century, but reliability is a different matter and serviceability is another matter again. In my experience both these last two have not shown any long term trend, rather showing ups and downs over time. The OP is quite right to ask if the large number of electronic components now incorporated will lead to an up or a down in those trends. So I would remember that we should be focusing on the OP question concerning these chips.

Thank you for this answer. Do you not consider the direction field of a fluid flow to be a field then ? I also asked you if you had not contradicted yourself. Since you did not answer perhaps you did not understand so I will rephrase my question. If, as you claim, the Higgs Field pervades the whole of the universe, where is the exterior of this field to be found ? You have also claimed that light accelerates which I why I asked if you had been here before. Since you say not here is a recent discussion thread about that very subject. I will post the one about the strong force and the neutrons when I have found it again, since you seem to be presenting the same arguments as that poster.

I fail to see how this is a reply to my question. Please explain.

How does this claim not contradict the earlier claim ? As a matter of interest what do you think a 'field' is ? That is how do do define a 'field' ?

So how does it bind neutrons ?

The strong nuclear force is not electrostatic in nature. We had a discussion recently about the four fundamental forces of particle physics and also a discussion about light and acceleration. But you are lsited as having just joined. Is there any connection ?

I'm suprised Wiki thinks they were reliable. They were the butt of jokes galore in the rest of Europe, including the UK. And of course the demise of the UK's own car industry amply demonstrates at least some truth in your statement.

A Trabant was the only car available to ordinary citizens of the former East Germany. If you could afford one you bought a Trabant or nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant

How mant Trabants were sold ?

It amazes me how you keep coming up with such clear and simple correct statements and presentations, @Janus, +1

No one has said light obeys Newton's laws of mechanics. I did say But you obviously weren't listening.

You have already stated you don't understand the maths offered and shown no interest in developing that maths either. Maths is a lot more than just formulae. And Physics is something else again. Nature does what it wants regardless of us puny humans and leaves it up to us to figure out how Nature works and report correctly without trying to impose guesswork. A lot of knowledgable folks have already given their time here to try to point you in the right direction.

Light is is not a material object. Only material objects are subject to the effects of forces.

This is your only post where you actually asked for help instead of making stuff up about what you do not understand. When offered some (high school level) help you reverted to trying to impose your guesswork again, even whilst saying I can't see any point continuing this conversation. sorry