studiot

Exactly. Personally I am uncomfortable with the idea that the stated grease is 10% 'silica' , an known carcinogen.

I just don't get your point.

I've not seen that analogy before, +1

I'm sorry, this is not a proper discussion. I am reading what you say, and addressing your points, a few of which I agree with a few I disagree with and some are just plain wrong by observation. You are simply writing longer and longer versions of the false assumptions without answering my questions about observations on reality. Another plain wrong statement would be If this is an answer to my comment about circuit theory then it is just plain wrong. The sign convention for charge (and current) is opposite to that of voltage (potential). Please answer the questions I have asked instead of ploughing on as if they had not been asked.

How is this any sort of answer to my points? In fact all you have done is reiterated my point about the difference between charge and current. A further question, to emphasis the point raised by swansont. Every day, throughout the universe, electrons are taking part in chemical reactions, many of which give of photons. Those atoms concerned along with their electrons, will go on to take part in more chemical reactions up to an enormous number. If each time this happens how come the charge on the electron does not diminish by the charges you claim now reside in the electric fied of the photons ? In other words how come the charge on all electrons is not decaying over time in the whole universe ? Or do you not accept the principle of conservation of charge ?

Not in the case of an EM field it doesn't. An electron in an atom can emit a photon in the ionisation process and then be destroyed by a subsequent nulcear reaction. Yet the photon will remain forever or until it is absorbed somewhere else, which ever comes sooner. What about answers to my questions ?

A very disappointing response to my polite and pertinent question. I have another pertinent observation/question. The assignation/term positive or negative refer to different properties for charge and electric fields. This is reflected in the fact, often missed, that in electric circuit theory (where we have current not charge) there are two (not one) sign conventions in play. As a mechanical engineer you should have a good understanding of sign conventions and their implications. Charge is a scalar. the electric field is constructed from vectors and the sign convention lies in the vector in the latter and the scalar in the former.

No I have never seen explicit reference to those invoked.

External intervention, deliberate or otherwise.

Two things about bots. This piece of business news Apparantly NYT allege that ChatGPT was trained on many writings that are their copyright and is now regurgitating them, without permission. and my own recent experience with Google. I have noticed that when googling a question especially a technical calculation, the top reference is sometimes to a ChatGPT reply and this gradually getting more frequent. I will post a screeshot next time I get an example

I am sorry to rain on your parade, but such theory already exists (and has done since Newton's forward and backward difference formulae) Iterative methods are also called recursive methods in Analysis and Calculus and come in two flavours : Linear and Non linear recursion. There are also iterated integrals (Fubinis Theorem) and iterated series.

Please note what it says on the website. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Btech+applied+science+unit+14A&sca_esv=594049696&source=hp&ei=eGqMZcbKCLnWhbIPrra4gAo&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZYx4iBjvsOtDmoB1KoM0zZkkk8SVAYP3&ved=0ahUKEwjG5t6cnbCDAxU5a0EAHS4bDqAQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=Btech+applied+science+unit+14A&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ih5CdGVjaCBhcHBsaWVkIHNjaWVuY2UgdW5pdCAxNEEyBxAhGKABGAoyBxAhGKABGApI10NQAFj6QHAAeACQAQCYAbYBoAGcGKoBBTE1LjE1uAEDyAEA-AEBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAhEQLhiABBiKBRixAxiDARjUAsICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYxwEY0QPCAggQABiABBixA8ICDRAAGIAEGLEDGIMBGArCAgoQABiABBixAxgKwgIFEAAYgATCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICBxAAGIAEGArCAg4QLhiABBjHARivARiOBcICBxAuGIAEGArCAgcQABiABBgNwgIIEAAYFhgeGArCAgYQABgWGB7CAgsQABiABBiKBRiGAw&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1 This stuff is University level, definitely above A level, it was not even on my S level all those years ago. So you have have quite a few prerequisites in Chemistry before attempting it. As exchemist said you don't solve chemical equations they are nothing like mathematical ones. And they don't have terms they have species - reagents and products. In fact they are more like a recipe in cookery. Eggs + flour + water = egg noodles Eggs + flour + water = bread Should should we really be starting by finding out what the question you were asked really said, because it said nothing about solving ?

Show us that you have done some work on this before seeking help. Do you understand what the substances are, can you write formulae for any of them ?

I don't agree. So an electric field is generayed by a charged particle, say an electron. But once the field has left the electron what destroys it, or why can't it exist without the electron ? What in Maxwell's or other equations prevents this ?

I wonder if there is a language difficulty because you seem to be asking questions (which is good) rather than trying to preach. But I would say that you are posting too much at once. So I am going to start with the first part of your post and begin to answer these questions. Then we can see how we go. So the Moon orbits the Earthonce every 27.3 days which makes it angular speed of 2π / (27.3 x24) radians per hour. This is approximately 0.01 rads/hr.. (It will become clear why I am using these units) The Earth also rotates at an angular speed of 2π/24 radians per hour Which is approximately 0.26 rads/hr. Since both rotations are in the same direction the net rotational difference is their difference or 0.26 - 0.01 = 0.25 rads/hr. The radius of the Earth is 6731 kilometres. So if a static bulge is to keep up with the moon is must travel at 6731 x 0.25 km per hour. This agrees with your calculation. A wave travelling at this speed is the basis of the simple dynamic theory. But this theory is only applicable within the following constraints. If the depth of the water is d in km then waves of wavelength L will propagate witha velocity of v = √(gL/2π) for waves in deep water. Where g is the acceleration due to gravity in km/hr2 which is 127008 km/hr2 This makes the wavelength as (1600*1600*2π) / 127008 or 127 km. However this formulae is only valid for d/L greater than 0.5. Now the average depth of the ocean is around 3.6 km and tha max depth is only 11 km (NOAA) So dl << 0.5 and the condition is not satisfied for the deep water formulae. Which makes the ocean too shallow for a simple resonant system. So instead we must use the shallow water which then includes the effect of the bottom and other topography. The formula for such waves is given by v = √(gd) Which is good to around (1600 * 1600) /127008 km Which is approximately 20km. This emans that the wave equation is no longer homogenous (equal to zero in this case) There is now a forcing term involved as well and the theory is known as forcing. Does this help and do you wish to continue ?

If you are prepared to listen to the explanation and to follow it as it is developed bit by bit then I am happy to discuss your request with you. The above are very reasonable wish to explore in more detail the short statements you have already been offered. So we should start with 2 matters. Firstly the issue of 'work'. Do you know what 'work' is. Without a good understanding of this you will not understand the answer. Secondly I said there are several ways something can have energy so we should start with the simplest, which is also the easiest to relate to 'work'. The simplest type of energy is called Potential Energy and is the energy of configuration. For a simple system, for example when there are only two objects involved, the 'configuration' may be as simple as the distance between them. When that configuration changes the distance between them changes and the potential energy changes. That potential energy is equal to the work done in the change and how we get the statement Energy is the capacity to do work.

There is only one sort of energy. Material objects and fields may posses energy by a variety of different mechanisms. All of energy theory springs from these two facts. Much of that theory is about transferring the energy from one body or field to another; the energy transferred may end up in a different form (ie using a different mechanism). Most of the terminology refers to these mechanisms by which the body or field possess or transfers the energy. Solar energy, electrical energy, nuclear energy etc etc. So when you use such terminology you need to specify not only the energy but also the mechanisms involved.

It is quite difficult to compose a good opening post, to strike the right balance between not including enough information and including too much, whilst yet ensuring that all the significan stuff is there. So is this a casual amateur enquiry, perhaps only a one off, or is it by way of trade of large scale use over a long term period ? Silicone lubricant comes in various formats. Various consistencies of tubs, tubes, and sprays. Any manufacturer wanting specific use certification has to pay a significant cost to obtain that certification. So they will weigh up those costs agains likely sales for that use. They will also probably have a discalimer to the effect that as they do not control the conditions of use or application they can only take responsibility for that certified. Safety sheets, are meant for the safety of the user applying the substance, not necessarily a person down the line. My personal issue with grease is that in a plumber's situation there is considerable danger of the grease becoming contaminated with other material, in particular gritty material. This gritty material may not matter in a thread locking situation, but could destroy the sealing capacity of an O ring.

I know you are having to translate this from the Russian, but you would perhaps be taken more seriously if you didn't mix up established English terms. Tidal movements rarely crash into anything. The 'wave' analysis of tidal phenomena is not about a tidal wave, which is an entirely different phenomenon. Yes vertical water movements due to tides must be accompanied by horizontal water movements. But these are termed tidal streams. They are not ocean currents, which have a different origin and coexist with tidal activity. Actual water movements are always the sum of all influencing factors, wind, topography, river discharge, ocean currents, turbidity curents, occasional earth movements, seasonal distances of the Moon and Sun, to name the principal factors.

Safe, yes but should you be using grease on a sealing O ring ? A dash of washing up liquid will help it on, and then wash awat leaving no interfering residue. O rings are designed to seal under the pressure of the liquid or gas.

I presume this is not David Lapoint the baseball player, but David Allen Lapoint the man who has an application US Patent for a Controlled Fusion Reactor ! https://www.sumobrain.com/patents/wipo/Controlled-fusion-reactor/WO2023172373A2.html

A better example would be lather (voiced) and lath (unvoiced) and lathe (voiced)

Many Thanks. You have a PM about it.

Thanks, please let me know if I can provide any further useful info.

I am not a linguist but it will certainly be interesting to hear the views of others on this as I support the notion of widening the scope of the English Language. I am going to answer in note form so that my post will not be as long as yours. So if details are missing please ask for more. 1) English is not, and never has made any pretence to be phonetic. There are several obstacles to phoneticising. 2) Unlike French and Chinese there is no controlling body for the language. Interestingly English was made the official language of China in the 1950s. 3) When we talk seriously about English we should specify which English ? I agree that @joigus' example is incorrect however how would you describe the following statement The bath ? The first th is pronounced differently from the second and the letter a is pronounced differently depending upon your dialect. If you are going to extend the english alphabet I would suggest that the letter a is a more worthy candidate the the digraph 'th'.