EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

OT: Liquid water is composed of 150-unit branching polymers

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: Liquid water is composed of 150-unit branching polymers

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Martin Brown
Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:45 am   



On 08/02/2019 20:29, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 17:09:11 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


Though sometimes people play around with computer models of universes
that don't exist. When I was an undergraduate ideal 2D conductive
materials were popular for theoretical games but we never dreamt that
one day someone with nothing more than sellotape would make real ones.

Likewise for buckeyballs which mystified astronomers dust spectra.

Digikey will sell you graphite sheets that have phenominal thermal
conductivity in the plane of the sheet. Unfortunately, the heat
usually flows in the third axis.


Applying a little bit of torque and a lot of pressure they have been
able to make bilayer graphenes superconductive. Recent report:

https://physicsworld.com/a/magic-angle-graphene-is-an-unconventional-superconductor/
Quote:

They will float above a magnet.


I remember seeing a demo of an early space shuttle tile where it was
still red hot at the edges but cool enough to touch in the middle of the
main surfaces only a short time after coming out of a furnace.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown


Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:45 pm   



On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 6:53:14 PM UTC+11, Jeff Layman wrote:
Quote:
On 09/02/19 00:57, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:

Hypotheses are a central part of science. If you haven't got a hypothesis to test, you aren't in the science business.

They are, but isn't your conclusion a step too far? Before you can have
a hypothesis, you have to observe. Surely before the "how" comes the
"why". "Why" is the observation; "how" the hypothesis. Both are
essential parts of science. Where would Newton have been without the apple?


People were observing for a long time before there was any science, and religion can be seen as forming hypotheses about what had been observed, except that the hypotheses are presented as revealed truths Testing religious hypotheses is doubting a revealed truth, which is to say, heresy.

Science involves the process of doubting and testing the hypotheses.

Quote:
John Larkin is actually a creationist - he believes that some God invented the world to provide us with intellectual puzzles to tease out. Reality is less constrained.

But at the extremes it all becomes blurred. I don't think that anyone
put it better than Asimov - a scientist with an unusual way of looking
at things.
https://www.multivax.com/last_question.html


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov

Not really his best work. He may have liked it but Arthur C. Clarke's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Billion_Names_of_God

is a whole lot better.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

John Larkin
Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:45 pm   



On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 09:37:04 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:
On 08/02/2019 20:29, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 17:09:11 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


Though sometimes people play around with computer models of universes
that don't exist. When I was an undergraduate ideal 2D conductive
materials were popular for theoretical games but we never dreamt that
one day someone with nothing more than sellotape would make real ones.

Likewise for buckeyballs which mystified astronomers dust spectra.

Digikey will sell you graphite sheets that have phenominal thermal
conductivity in the plane of the sheet. Unfortunately, the heat
usually flows in the third axis.

Applying a little bit of torque and a lot of pressure they have been
able to make bilayer graphenes superconductive. Recent report:

https://physicsworld.com/a/magic-angle-graphene-is-an-unconventional-superconductor/

They will float above a magnet.

I remember seeing a demo of an early space shuttle tile where it was
still red hot at the edges but cool enough to touch in the middle of the
main surfaces only a short time after coming out of a furnace.


The shuttle was crazy. Tiles killed one crew, o-rings killed another.

My wife is reading a book by an ex ISS astronaut. It involves a lot of
very bad smells and vomit and such. I don't want to read it.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

John Larkin
Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:45 pm   



On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 07:53:08 +0000, Jeff Layman
<jmlayman_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

Quote:
On 09/02/19 00:57, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:

Hypotheses are a central part of science. If you haven't got a hypothesis to test, you aren't in the science business.

They are, but isn't your conclusion a step too far? Before you can have
a hypothesis, you have to observe. Surely before the "how" comes the
"why". "Why" is the observation; "how" the hypothesis. Both are
essential parts of science. Where would Newton have been without the apple?


Exactly. Science is almost always driven by a need to explain observed
curiosities, not by original thought.

Civilians and engineers often get ahead of scientists; use "the
science" first. Construction, plant and animal breeding, water
management, steam power, telegraphs and telephones, happened before
there was useful theory.

Maxwell's work was pretty original.

Quote:

John Larkin is actually a creationist - he believes that some God invented the world to provide us with intellectual puzzles to tease out. Reality is less constrained.


Sloman is obsessed with me. He follows me around like some crazed
Chihuahua trying to bite my ankles. That's pretty weird.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics


Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:45 pm   



On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 10:39:11 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:

Sloman is obsessed with me. He follows me around like some crazed
Chihuahua trying to bite my ankles. That's pretty weird.


Yes, Sloman is pretty strange, but he is not alone as long as you are here. His obsession with you is about your inability to see your own flaws or to even consider the possibility that you have limitations... many, huge limitations.

Rick C.

Martin Brown
Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:45 pm   



On 09/02/2019 15:30, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 09:37:04 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/02/2019 20:29, John Larkin wrote:

Digikey will sell you graphite sheets that have phenominal thermal
conductivity in the plane of the sheet. Unfortunately, the heat
usually flows in the third axis.

Applying a little bit of torque and a lot of pressure they have been
able to make bilayer graphenes superconductive. Recent report:

https://physicsworld.com/a/magic-angle-graphene-is-an-unconventional-superconductor/

They will float above a magnet.

I remember seeing a demo of an early space shuttle tile where it was
still red hot at the edges but cool enough to touch in the middle of the
main surfaces only a short time after coming out of a furnace.

The shuttle was crazy. Tiles killed one crew, o-rings killed another.


Actually suits overriding engineers to put on a good show was the main
cause of the first disaster and an over confidence in the tile impact
damage model led to the second one. Both were tragic losses of life.

You have to admire the cutting edge technology that went into it though.
There were just too many dangerous single point failure modes.

Wernher von Braun was right when he said you should never strap men onto
oversized fireworks (SRBs) - liquid fuels are a more controllable burn.

Space flight is dangerous whichever way you look at it. I had the chance
to see the capsule British astronaut Tim Peake returned to Earth in. It
was tiny and had three men in. I would have been too tall for the couch.

Quote:
My wife is reading a book by an ex ISS astronaut. It involves a lot of
very bad smells and vomit and such. I don't want to read it.


Space flight is definitely not for the faint hearted. The parabolic
flight zero g training plane isn't called the vomit comet for nothing.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown


Guest

Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:45 am   



On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 2:39:11 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 07:53:08 +0000, Jeff Layman
jmlayman_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 09/02/19 00:57, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:

Hypotheses are a central part of science. If you haven't got a hypothesis to test, you aren't in the science business.

They are, but isn't your conclusion a step too far? Before you can have
a hypothesis, you have to observe. Surely before the "how" comes the
"why". "Why" is the observation; "how" the hypothesis. Both are
essential parts of science. Where would Newton have been without the apple?

Exactly. Science is almost always driven by a need to explain observed
curiosities, not by original thought.

Civilians and engineers often get ahead of scientists; use "the
science" first. Construction, plant and animal breeding, water
management, steam power, telegraphs and telephones, happened before
there was useful theory.

Maxwell's work was pretty original.


John Larkin is actually a creationist - he believes that some God invented the world to provide us with intellectual puzzles to tease out. Reality is less constrained.

Sloman is obsessed with me. He follows me around like some crazed
Chihuahua trying to bite my ankles. That's pretty weird.


I'm taller than John Larkin, and I've got a couple of patents, and a couple of published and cited papers. He's the chihuahua here.

John Larkin's persistent enthusiasm for republishing denialist propaganda does strike me as rather like the yapping of a crazed chihuahua - the people in one of the pent-house flats at the top of our building seem to have four or five of them, but their's aren't crazed and don't yap all that often.

People do keep on swapping persistent sources of irritating noise, even when they know that the gesture is futile

Maybe John needs a course of anti-rabies vaccine.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

whit3rd
Guest

Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:45 am   



On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 7:39:11 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Quote:
EScience is almost always driven by a need to explain observed
curiosities, not by original thought.


That's just as true if you say 'sometimes' instead of 'almost always';
Democritus came up with the atomic theory without any observed
curiosities that I'm aware of. Boltzman found the t**4
dependence of thermal radiation by pure reason.

Theoretician and experimenter/observer are both valuable harvesters of
the science field, but the pair in cooperation generally glean most effectively.


Guest

Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:45 am   



On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 9:42:09 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 2:39:11 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 07:53:08 +0000, Jeff Layman
jmlayman_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 09/02/19 00:57, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:

Hypotheses are a central part of science. If you haven't got a hypothesis to test, you aren't in the science business.

They are, but isn't your conclusion a step too far? Before you can have
a hypothesis, you have to observe. Surely before the "how" comes the
"why". "Why" is the observation; "how" the hypothesis. Both are
essential parts of science. Where would Newton have been without the apple?

Exactly. Science is almost always driven by a need to explain observed
curiosities, not by original thought.

Civilians and engineers often get ahead of scientists; use "the
science" first. Construction, plant and animal breeding, water
management, steam power, telegraphs and telephones, happened before
there was useful theory.

Maxwell's work was pretty original.


John Larkin is actually a creationist - he believes that some God invented the world to provide us with intellectual puzzles to tease out. Reality is less constrained.

Sloman is obsessed with me. He follows me around like some crazed
Chihuahua trying to bite my ankles. That's pretty weird.

I'm taller than John Larkin, and I've got a couple of patents, and a couple of published and cited papers. He's the chihuahua here.

John Larkin's persistent enthusiasm for republishing denialist propaganda does strike me as rather like the yapping of a crazed chihuahua - the people in one of the pent-house flats at the top of our building seem to have four or five of them, but their's aren't crazed and don't yap all that often.

People do keep on swapping persistent sources of irritating noise, even when they know that the gesture is futile

Maybe John needs a course of anti-rabies vaccine.


I wouldn't call him a Chihuahua. He is more of a Bichon Frisé from the French for curly lap dog.

Rick C.

George Herold
Guest

Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:45 pm   



On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 10:21:50 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
Quote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 7:39:11 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

EScience is almost always driven by a need to explain observed
curiosities, not by original thought.

That's just as true if you say 'sometimes' instead of 'almost always';
Democritus came up with the atomic theory without any observed
curiosities that I'm aware of. Boltzman found the t**4
dependence of thermal radiation by pure reason.
Huh, Boltzman and T^4.. is it similar to this derivation.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law#Thermodynamic_derivation_of_the_energy_density

(I always assumed you needed Planks understanding of black bodies.)

George H.
Quote:

Theoretician and experimenter/observer are both valuable harvesters of
the science field, but the pair in cooperation generally glean most effectively.



Guest

Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:45 am   



On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 11:10:49 AM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote:
Quote:
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Today's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has an interesting paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/6/1998.abstract?etoc

The proposition that liquid water consists of 150-unit branching polymer chains, where the hydrogen bonds that hold the individual water molecules together last for about 90.3 femtoseconds, makes every kind of sense, and does explain why water is as odd as it is.

But 90.3fs isn't all that long ...

"hold"??? NUTS!


Robert Baer is nuts. As is pointed out in the article, 90.3fs is about eleven cycles of one the bending vibrational modes of the water molecule, so it is long enough to count.

The bond doesn't break after 90.3fs - it just moves to another water molecule, reconfiguring the polymer, rather than breaking it up.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Robert Baer
Guest

Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:45 am   



bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
Today's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has an interesting paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/6/1998.abstract?etoc

The proposition that liquid water consists of 150-unit branching polymer chains, where the hydrogen bonds that hold the individual water molecules together last for about 90.3 femtoseconds, makes every kind of sense, and does explain why water is as odd as it is.

But 90.3fs isn't all that long ...

"hold"??? NUTS!


whit3rd
Guest

Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:45 am   



On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 5:57:13 AM UTC-8, George Herold wrote:
Quote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 10:21:50 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:

Boltzman found the t**4
dependence of thermal radiation by pure reason.
Huh, Boltzman and T^4.. is it similar to this derivation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law#Thermodynamic_derivation_of_the_energy_density

(I always assumed you needed Planks understanding of black bodies.)


Yep, that's the one. It is striking, just as the Pythagorean Theorem, that simple principles
give the useful (and awesome) result, not as a cause-and-effect, but as a simple
requirement for consistency. It's a theory-driven scientific process.

Kepler's laws of planetary motion were derived from observations (and couldn't have
been formulated from then-extant theory); that's a lovely example of observation-driven science.

George Herold
Guest

Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:45 am   



On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 6:45:53 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
Quote:
On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 5:57:13 AM UTC-8, George Herold wrote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 10:21:50 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:

Boltzman found the t**4
dependence of thermal radiation by pure reason.
Huh, Boltzman and T^4.. is it similar to this derivation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law#Thermodynamic_derivation_of_the_energy_density

(I always assumed you needed Planks understanding of black bodies.)

Yep, that's the one. It is striking, just as the Pythagorean Theorem, that simple principles
give the useful (and awesome) result, not as a cause-and-effect, but as a simple
requirement for consistency. It's a theory-driven scientific process.

Pure Thermo is beautiful for it's simplicity, and should be studied for
no other reason, (usefulness be damned :^)

(As a student, once I heard about Stat. Mech., well thermo
became like Newtonian mech.)

George H.
Quote:

Kepler's laws of planetary motion were derived from observations (and couldn't have
been formulated from then-extant theory); that's a lovely example of observation-driven science.


Cursitor Doom
Guest

Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:45 pm   



On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:10:44 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

Quote:
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Today's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has an
interesting paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/6/1998.abstract?etoc

The proposition that liquid water consists of 150-unit branching
polymer chains, where the hydrogen bonds that hold the individual water
molecules together last for about 90.3 femtoseconds, makes every kind
of sense, and does explain why water is as odd as it is.

But 90.3fs isn't all that long ...

"hold"??? NUTS!


The water molecules each have a dipole so Van der Waals forces tend to
align them up +-+-+-+-+-+ tagging the hydrogen of one to the oxygen of
the next and so on. It's what gives water its physical properties;
tendency to form droplets, boiling point 'n' whatnot.
But I'm guessing you knew that anyway, Phil. Having an off-day are we? ;-)



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: Liquid water is composed of 150-unit branching polymers

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map