Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


A chemical compound does not weigh QUITE the same as its elements
taken separately.

A physicist doesn't confuse mass with weight BTW.

You can see the effect described and IIRC tested in terms of light
pressure on a sail ..photons - things with no rest mass at all, are
emitted by even chemical reactions, and can exert momentum changes
on things.

Light pressure has nowt to do with the mass of photons.
The little paddles driven around when you shine a light on them are
not driven by the momentum of photons at all as anyone with an
O'level in physics should be able to tell you.



I wasn't talking about those devices.

No, the question is whether you know what you're talking about at all.
The answer is, I do, and you don't.

J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:49:45 +0100, brightside S9 wrote:

Where do you get all this crap from? It sounds to me your physics teacher
(if you ever had one) was a chemist or a biologiost.

That is a unwarranted slur against chemists and biologists.

Its perfectly obvious whoever 'taught' him, and I use the word
advisedly, thought that Newtonian equations were exact, and relativity
ONLY applied to other stuff like nuclear reactions.

This does not surprise me at all. The standard of science education is
and has been falling for some time, and very few people even now really
understand Newtonian mechanics, let alone relativistic.

There are people out there with science and mathematics qualifications
who don't even understand what a vector is.

Viz a rough precis of a conversation on the net last month

'how much kinetic energy does a car travelling at 70mph have'
'kinetic energy with respect to what? Kineti9c energy is a function of
the vectors sums of *oow* velocities..'
'energy is a scalar, so it doesn't matter'


sigh.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On the Wiki page you mentioned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor
Note the section headed:
-Importance of power factor in distribution systems-

I often wondered if a domestic user could reduce the power factor of
the supply and hence reduce the bill.


Well I'm wondering if I should have been worrying about that too.
(I assume you mean '...the power factor of his load...' )

What about the inductive loads like the washing machine motor and 'wallwart
transformers'?
Should I be investing in power factor correction?

I don't recall any of those 'energy efficiency labels' on washing machines
quoting a power factor value!

Roger R

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:21:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

'how much kinetic energy does a car travelling at 70mph have' 'kinetic
energy with respect to what? Kineti9c energy is a function of the
vectors sums of *oow* velocities..' 'energy is a scalar, so it doesn't
matter'

And no doubt forgetting that if you know exactly how much energy the car
has, you will not be able to determine exactly where the car is located

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:

Steve Thackery wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

sigh

Education today.

Norman, you are making yourself look a prat. You need to do a little
reading about mass-energy equivalence. Then you will understand.

Energy and mass are _not_ freely interconvertible. You require
absolutely
extreme conditions for it to happen. On earth, you will only find it
happening in nuclear reactions.

Do you accept that an object increases in mass as it approaches light
speed?

Yes.

Looks like a perfect demonstration of mass/energy equivalence to me.
Kinetic
energy, which is itself a relative phenonemum appears to manifest as
increased mass. Where's the problem?

Lets take a rechargeable battery..

you claim that the bonds made while charging it store energy because the
subatomic particles move faster and hence absorb the energy.
So when I discharge the battery the bonds change and the particles slow down
and release the energy.
Now explain why the battery gets hot when you discharge it and where the
energy is coming from as you (or claim to be) are putting all the particles
into a lower energy state to reduce their mass.

Lets not get to stored energy in pumped hydro electric plants where you
think there is less mass of water at the bottom than there is at the top
following the release of the stored energy.

J G Miller coughed up some electrons that declared:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:21:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

'how much kinetic energy does a car travelling at 70mph have' 'kinetic
energy with respect to what? Kineti9c energy is a function of the
vectors sums of *oow* velocities..' 'energy is a scalar, so it doesn't
matter'

And no doubt forgetting that if you know exactly how much energy the car
has, you will not be able to determine exactly where the car is located

On that basis, my car should have infinite energy everytime I park it in the
multistory!

"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:53:01 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

You require absolutely extreme conditions for it to happen.

No you do not.

On earth, you will only find it happening in nuclear reactions.

Not true. Just you repeating it ad nauseam does not make it so.

You have been given examples of how it happens outside of nuclear
reactions, and even a link to a government sponsored science site
where it states categorically that a car with increasing velocity,
and thus increasing kinetic energy, increases in mass.

If I sit on the moon, the car will have increased mass on one side of the
orbit to the other, that doesn't mean it actually changes its mass as anyone
standing next to it will be able to confirm.

dennis@home wrote:


"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:

Steve Thackery wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

sigh

Education today.

Norman, you are making yourself look a prat. You need to do a little
reading about mass-energy equivalence. Then you will understand.

Energy and mass are _not_ freely interconvertible. You require
absolutely
extreme conditions for it to happen. On earth, you will only find it
happening in nuclear reactions.

Do you accept that an object increases in mass as it approaches light
speed?

Yes.

Looks like a perfect demonstration of mass/energy equivalence to me.
Kinetic
energy, which is itself a relative phenonemum appears to manifest as
increased mass. Where's the problem?

Lets take a rechargeable battery..

you claim that the bonds made while charging it store energy because the
subatomic particles move faster and hence absorb the energy.
So when I discharge the battery the bonds change and the particles slow
down and release the energy.
Now explain why the battery gets hot when you discharge it

It has internal resistance. A completely different effect.


and where the
energy is coming from as you (or claim to be) are putting all the
particles into a lower energy state to reduce their mass.


Well you have just said it. That is where all the energy is coming
from. Both to drive the load and make the battery hot.

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:

Atmospheric extraction is totally unfeasible.

That one's been already cracked. It's called a tree.

Or even grass..

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Tim S wrote:

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.

I wind up my cuckoo clock. The driving weight (not the pendulum) rises
a metre. Has its mass increased due to the increase in potential
energy?


I think so, yes.

E=mc^2 only kicks in if the body is *radiating* away energy (eg. light,
heat radiation, gamma rays, etc.) or absorbing radiated electromagnetic
energy.

I don't think so, no.

Any release of chemical energy as either heat or electricity is
accompanied by weight loss.

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Dave Farrance wrote:

This is not directed at any one person. Dave's message was merely the
most appropriate to hang my reply from.

Interesting discussion. Here's some food for thought:

If a sealed container does *not* allow particles to pass its walls but
*does* allow loss of energy via exchange of thermal radiation with its
outer environment, then a chemical reaction within that container could
increase the temperature within that container, and as it returns to its
original temperature it would lose energy and hence mass due to the
relativistic effect of slowing down the vibration (speed) of particles
within that container.

Thermal energy is based on motion, so is subject to special relativity.
Once the temperature returns to its initial value, the mass is the same
as initially.

On the other hand, consider potential energy. A mass at "rest" at
height does not mass any more or less when it's at "rest" having
produced work in descending. (We're neglecting the rotation of the
earth and other similar effects here, and assuming that there is no
measurable difference in the gravity gradient between the two points,
otherwise general relativity kicks in.)

What about a battery? It's a matter of definitions as to what you
consider an ideal battery to be. You *could* argue that an *ideal* battery
is sealed to prevent whole atoms from passing through its walls but is
allowed to exchange energy with its environment via more than one method.

Electrons go out; the same number of electrons come in, having done
work in the circuit. Net effect: no difference in mass.

But work is done accelerating them to get them to move.. if you like.

The mobile electrons thereby acquire extra mass.


Depending on the chemical reaction and the internal resistance of the
cell, there may be heat involved. That's a secondary issue. If you were
measuring the mass when experimenting, you'd allow the cell to return
to its initial temperature before taking the measurement.

Incidentally, good luck on measuring a 50kg car battery down to the
nearest nanogram.

well, exactly. Local variations in gravity like the Moon going by, would
be more measurable.

Nevertheless it happens. Its just that for all practical purposes it is
so slight as to be utterly irrelevant: hence all these claims that it
doesn't happen. Relativity says it MUST happen, maths shows that you
wont be able to measure it when it does.

The whole thrust of Relativity is that energy IS mass. If you take it
from a system, that system loses mass.

dennis@home wrote:


"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:53:01 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

You require absolutely extreme conditions for it to happen.

No you do not.

On earth, you will only find it happening in nuclear reactions.

Not true. Just you repeating it ad nauseam does not make it so.

You have been given examples of how it happens outside of nuclear
reactions, and even a link to a government sponsored science site
where it states categorically that a car with increasing velocity,
and thus increasing kinetic energy, increases in mass.

If I sit on the moon, the car will have increased mass on one side of
the orbit to the other, that doesn't mean it actually changes its mass
as anyone standing next to it will be able to confirm.



That's because they are stationary with respect to the car. If they were
measuring from somewhere else, it would.

You dont understand vectors either..

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:58:33 +0100, Tim S wrote:

On that basis, my car should have infinite energy everytime I park it in
the multistory!

Not quite.

It will not have infinite energy, but you will be able to determine
exactly how much energy it does have.

dennis@home coughed up some electrons that declared:



"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:53:01 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

You require absolutely extreme conditions for it to happen.

No you do not.

On earth, you will only find it happening in nuclear reactions.

Not true. Just you repeating it ad nauseam does not make it so.

You have been given examples of how it happens outside of nuclear
reactions, and even a link to a government sponsored science site
where it states categorically that a car with increasing velocity,
and thus increasing kinetic energy, increases in mass.

If I sit on the moon, the car will have increased mass on one side of the
orbit to the other, that doesn't mean it actually changes its mass as
anyone standing next to it will be able to confirm.

Special relativity does not apply unaided as acceleration is involved. You'd
need to consider General Relativity for that and I will admit GR is well
beyond me (horrible maths!)

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
dennis@home coughed up some electrons that declared:



"Tim S" wrote in message
...

Do you have a degree in physics then?

I have one from imperial college.

That's better than me (York) but I did work at Imperial for some years in
the Dept of Computing, so next door to your old bit. When were you there?

mid '70s.

Have a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2...gy_equivalence

Specifically:

"In relativity, removing energy is removing mass, and the formula m =
E/c2 tells you how much mass is lost when energy is removed. In a
chemical or nuclear reaction, the mass of the atoms that come out is
less
than the mass
of the atoms that go in, and the difference in mass shows up as heat and
light with the same relativistic mass.

It may well be true of a nuclear reaction, however you haven't posted
anything convincing about chemical reactions or explained where the
energy
is converted to mass when you lift a weight up and increase its potential
energy, or even wind a clock spring up. It does not require an increase
in
mass to store energy.

My teaching was that the energy/mass equivalence theory was fundamental -
it
required no explicit mechanism. It's an effect more than a "requirement".

But it is consistent with the theory that observed mass increases with
relative speed.

Its not consistent at all, if it were you could explain where the extra mass
is in a spring.

Einstein's biggest problem was that relativity doesn't work at atomic levels
which is why quantum mechanics exists.

Quantum mechanics tries to explain small stuff, Newtonian physics explains
most stuff and relativity attempts to explain the rest.
None work under all circumstances.
String theory is an attempt to create a theory that works at all known
levels.

You just can't apply relativity to chemical reactions and expect to get the
correct answer, its as simple as that.

As an example, if you cooled some TNT to near absolute zero would there be
any explosive energy left?
How about cooling uranium to absolute zero, can you still fission it?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Tim S wrote:

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.

I wind up my cuckoo clock. The driving weight (not the pendulum)
rises a metre. Has its mass increased due to the increase in
potential energy?


I think so, yes.

So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or what?

And when it falls, it regains those electrons, neutrons or whole atoms?
Conveniently in exactly the same form as when they were lost? How's that
work then?


E=mc^2 only kicks in if the body is *radiating* away energy (eg.
light, heat radiation, gamma rays, etc.) or absorbing radiated
electromagnetic energy.

I don't think so, no.

Any release of chemical energy as either heat or electricity is
accompanied by weight loss.

And the proof of that is where exactly?

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:43:43 +0100, "Jerry"
wrote:

: The Natural Philosopher wrote:
:
: I personally think all fat stupid people should be shot., and
used to
: make heating oil. Is there a name for that?
:
: Extraordinary rendition, isn't it?

I'm larding by head off at that 'joke'... Please don't give the
ultra-right in the USA ideas. :~(

That would be a little like turkeys voting for Christmas. (*cough*
Rush Limbaugh. *Cough*.)

--

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nevertheless it happens. Its just that for all practical purposes it
is so slight as to be utterly irrelevant: hence all these claims that
it doesn't happen. Relativity says it MUST happen, maths shows that
you wont be able to measure it when it does.

The whole thrust of Relativity is that energy IS mass. If you take it
from a system, that system loses mass.

The trouble is, you've taken a theory that explains away certain phenomena
that occur in really extreme circumstances only, for example at velocities
close to that of light, or in nuclear reactions, and have fallen into the
trap of believing that it therefore applies under all conditions as a
general principle. Well, I'm sorry, but it doesn't. Matter is not
converted into energy, nor vice versa, _at all_ except at the extremes. All
energy changes outside of those extremes occur through exchange of one form
of energy for another, kinetic energy into heat for example. They involve
no change of mass whatsoever, not even infinitessimally.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

As regards the plot, though, it's fiction

Of course it's fiction!! What on earth are you talking about? Nobody has
said it's a documentary!

The "China
Syndrome" was a casual term used in the US nuclear industry at that
time to refer to a meltdown

Got any proof of that?

Here's a quote for you from Wikipedia:

"In 1971, nuclear physicist Ralph Lapp used the term "China syndrome" to
describe the burn-through of the reactor vessel, the penetration of the
concrete below it, and the emergence of a mass of hot fuel into the soil
below the reactor. He based his statements on the report of a task force of
nuclear physicists headed by Dr. W.K. Ergen, published in 1967.[3] The
dangers of such a hypothetical accident were publicized by the 1979 film,
The China Syndrome."

If you (conveniently) don't trust Wikipedia, there are lots more references
around. Look it up for yourself.

It certainly illustrates how the producers' drive for profit can make the
title of a film blatantly compromise the truth.

Norman, you are losing the plot!! It's just a drama about a failure mode
referred to in the nuclear industry by the term "China Syndrome", and the
fundamental theme of the film (indeed, the ONLY theme) is that the
commercial drive for profits may compromise nuclear safety, possibly even
leading to a meltdown.

That's all. Norman, I think you need to chill out a bit!

SteveT

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:52:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or what?

Nothing, but that is not the point.

An electron which moves from a lower energy state to a higher energy
state gains mass, and similarly for the other particles.

That one's been already cracked. It's called a tree.

Nope, doesn't work, and one of the greatest green myths of all time.
Everybody knows that trees absorb CO2 when they grow, converting it into
plant mass.

Unfortunately, every living tree eventually dies, rotting away. As it rots,
it releases all the CO2 back into the atmosphere again. The same is true if
you burn it, of course.

The only way a tree can make a lasting contribution to CO2 reduction is if
we cut it down when it is fully grown, and then either store it in such a
way it can never rot, or drop it into a subduction zone so that it releases
the carbon so deep in the earth it can never escape again.

Of course, planting more trees will act as a temporary buffer as they grow,
but that's all. They have no nett CO2 reduction effect when considered over
their whole life.

SteveT

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:02:56 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
The trouble is, you've taken a theory that explains away certain
phenomena that occur in really extreme circumstances only

And you overlook the fact that matter is composed of particles which
exist in "extreme circumstances", and individually do not behave in
the same manner as the total assembly of those particles.

Just consider two like charged objects -- move them together and they
will repel each other, even if you hold them close together.

But protons are positively charged and they happily exist very close
to each other in the nucleus even though their is an electrostatic
repulsion between them.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:58:33 +0100, Tim S wrote:

And no doubt forgetting that if you know exactly how much energy
the
car has, you will not be able to determine exactly where the car
is
located

On that basis, my car should have infinite energy everytime I park it in
the multistory!

How do you *know* that it doesn't. Quantum mechanics is seriously
weird.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Norman Wells wrote:

The trouble is, you've taken a theory that explains away certain phenomena
that occur in really extreme circumstances only, for example at velocities
close to that of light, or in nuclear reactions, and have fallen into the
trap of believing that it therefore applies under all conditions as a
general principle. Well, I'm sorry, but it doesn't. Matter is not
converted into energy, nor vice versa, _at all_ except at the extremes.
All energy changes outside of those extremes occur through exchange of one
form
of energy for another, kinetic energy into heat for example. They involve
no change of mass whatsoever, not even infinitessimally.

Forget about relativity.
Do you apply your philosophy to gravitational attraction?
Is there no gravitational attraction between small objects,
"not even infinitessimally"?

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Roger R wrote:

I don't recall any of those 'energy efficiency labels' on washing machines
quoting a power factor value!

Surely the power factor doesn't make a washing machine
any more or less efficient?

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:18:38 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

They have no nett CO2 reduction effect when considered over their
whole life.

Unless the practice of the ancients is followed and the wood converted
to charcoal and then added to the soil, which of course, enriches it
for growing more plants.

http://www.ecogeek.ORG/agriculture/2173

This practice was extensively employed in the Amazon region to turn
the very poor soil into sustainable crop producing land to feed millions
of people.

http://news.mongabay.COM/2005/1017-amazon.html

On Sep 18, 2:18*pm, "Steve Thackery" wrote:
That one's been already cracked. It's called a tree.

Nope, doesn't work, and one of the greatest green myths of all time.
Everybody knows that trees absorb CO2 when they grow, converting it into
plant mass.

Unfortunately, every living tree eventually dies, rotting away. *As it rots,
it releases all the CO2 back into the atmosphere again.

So you're saying all the CO2 is released and burning the remains of
dead trees after a few million years doesn't release any further CO2.

So there's no problem!

MBQ

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:18:38 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

That one's been already cracked. It's called a tree.

Nope, doesn't work, and one of the greatest green myths of all time.
Everybody knows that trees absorb CO2 when they grow, converting it into
plant mass.

Unfortunately, every living tree eventually dies, rotting away. As it rots,
it releases all the CO2 back into the atmosphere again. The same is true if
you burn it, of course.

The only way a tree can make a lasting contribution to CO2 reduction is if
we cut it down when it is fully grown, and then either store it in such a
way it can never rot, or drop it into a subduction zone so that it releases
the carbon so deep in the earth it can never escape again.

Of course, planting more trees will act as a temporary buffer as they grow,
but that's all. They have no nett CO2 reduction effect when considered over
their whole life.

SteveT

Well, sort of: coal. Left alone, that stores CO2 captured by trees for
quite a few years - until some idiot comes along and digs it up and burns
it.
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Tim S wrote:

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.

I wind up my cuckoo clock. The driving weight (not the pendulum)
rises a metre. Has its mass increased due to the increase in
potential energy?


I think so, yes.

So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or what?

Mass.

The constituents all weigh a bit less, even taking into account they are
further away from the center of the earth..


And when it falls, it regains those electrons, neutrons or whole atoms?
Conveniently in exactly the same form as when they were lost? How's
that work then?


All those items do not have fixed masses.


E=mc^2 only kicks in if the body is *radiating* away energy (eg.
light, heat radiation, gamma rays, etc.) or absorbing radiated
electromagnetic energy.

I don't think so, no.

Any release of chemical energy as either heat or electricity is
accompanied by weight loss.

And the proof of that is where exactly?


E=mC^2"

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nevertheless it happens. Its just that for all practical purposes it
is so slight as to be utterly irrelevant: hence all these claims that
it doesn't happen. Relativity says it MUST happen, maths shows that
you wont be able to measure it when it does.

The whole thrust of Relativity is that energy IS mass. If you take it
from a system, that system loses mass.

The trouble is, you've taken a theory that explains away certain
phenomena that occur in really extreme circumstances only, for example
at velocities close to that of light, or in nuclear reactions, and have
fallen into the trap of believing that it therefore applies under all
conditions as a general principle. Well, I'm sorry, but it doesn't.
Matter is not converted into energy, nor vice versa, _at all_ except at
the extremes. All energy changes outside of those extremes occur
through exchange of one form of energy for another, kinetic energy into
heat for example. They involve no change of mass whatsoever, not even
infinitessimally.



No one said matter was converted into energy: We said MASS was.

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Tim S wrote:

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.
I wind up my cuckoo clock. The driving weight (not the pendulum) rises
a metre. Has its mass increased due to the increase in potential
energy?

I think so, yes.

So you're saying that a body's rest mass increases as it leaves a
gravity well and conversely it decreases as it descends one?


Yes. I think that is so. Or rather its more like any way we have of
determining mass - by acceleration and force, will show a slightly
different result in a gravitational field.



Lets face it, mass is a concept derived from Newtonian mechanics.

As is force, energy and acceleration. All Einstein really said was that
the Newtonian relationships are NOT exact. Merely good approximations.

As I tried to point out in a rather long post yesterday, you have to
drive a stake in the ground somewhere. Newton chose to define mass as
F=mA, time iun terms of the periodic rotation of the earth about its
axis, distance in terms of things that were commonly held to not change
their length. But in fact we know that in a relativistic universe, time,
space length - all these things can vary depending on the relative
velocity of the OBSERVER.
Mas time and distance are not as invariant as Newtone supposed. Einstein
creates a new view, and relates it to the old via E=mC^2.

You can say that what he did was to leave one stake in the ground - the
invariance of one thing, that can either be seen as energy, or mass, or
some combination of the two. If you like there is a quantity of
something, that can be transformed in the mathematical sense, into what
we would recognise as energy, or what we would recognise as mass.

In Newtonian physics, both of those are held to be invariant. But
relativity says they are not, though the variance is so extremely small
that they might as well be. It's well below any hope of detection with
normal instruments in a laboratory on earth.






E=mc^2 only kicks in if the body is *radiating* away energy (eg. light,
heat radiation, gamma rays, etc.) or absorbing radiated electromagnetic
energy.

I don't think so, no.

Any release of chemical energy as either heat or electricity is
accompanied by weight loss.

Could it not be stored in the ionization energies of the atoms
involved?


It doesn't matter where its stored. Energy IS mass IS energy. A hot lump
of iron will accelerate SLIGHTLY slower than a cold one. With a given
force applied etc etc.

Steve Thackery wrote:
That one's been already cracked. It's called a tree.

Nope, doesn't work, and one of the greatest green myths of all time.
Everybody knows that trees absorb CO2 when they grow, converting it into
plant mass.

Unfortunately, every living tree eventually dies, rotting away. As it
rots, it releases all the CO2 back into the atmosphere again.

Not ALL.

Peat for example is carbon rich. That's why it burns..

If you go for I THINK anaerobic decomposition, the carbon in the tree or
plant eventually becomes carbon, or hydrocarbon..typically methane.

That is after all what carbon based fuels are..old swamps. silted over
and left to fester for a few million years.


The same
is true if you burn it, of course.

The only way a tree can make a lasting contribution to CO2 reduction is
if we cut it down when it is fully grown, and then either store it in
such a way it can never rot, or drop it into a subduction zone so that
it releases the carbon so deep in the earth it can never escape again.


No, you can store it where it wont be subject to oxidation, thats all.

Typically underwater.

Of course, planting more trees will act as a temporary buffer as they
grow, but that's all. They have no nett CO2 reduction effect when
considered over their whole life.

SteveT

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Steve Thackery wrote:
That one's been already cracked. It's called a tree.

Nope, doesn't work, and one of the greatest green myths of all time.
Everybody knows that trees absorb CO2 when they grow, converting it into
plant mass.

Unfortunately, every living tree eventually dies, rotting away. As it rots,
it releases all the CO2 back into the atmosphere again. The same is true if
you burn it, of course.

The only way a tree can make a lasting contribution to CO2 reduction is if
we cut it down when it is fully grown, and then either store it in such a
way it can never rot, or drop it into a subduction zone so that it releases
the carbon so deep in the earth it can never escape again.

OK, so you store it, just like you store the CO2 captured by other
means, eg. building materials. How much CO2 does roasting limestone for
cement liberate?

I think a lot goes back into it when the cement sets again..

Timothy Murphy wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

The trouble is, you've taken a theory that explains away certain
phenomena that occur in really extreme circumstances only, for
example at velocities close to that of light, or in nuclear
reactions, and have fallen into the trap of believing that it
therefore applies under all conditions as a general principle.
Well, I'm sorry, but it doesn't. Matter is not converted into
energy, nor vice versa, _at all_ except at the extremes. All energy
changes outside of those extremes occur through exchange of one form
of energy for another, kinetic energy into heat for example. They
involve no change of mass whatsoever, not even infinitessimally.

Forget about relativity.
Do you apply your philosophy to gravitational attraction?
Is there no gravitational attraction between small objects,
"not even infinitessimally"?

Yes, there is, but so what?

Timothy Murphy wrote:
Roger R wrote:

I don't recall any of those 'energy efficiency labels' on washing machines
quoting a power factor value!

Surely the power factor doesn't make a washing machine
any more or less efficient?

well it does SLIGHTLY.

lots of inductive loads generate out of phase current, which is fine as
far as it goes, but that out of phase current still results in losses
down resistive transmission lines and wiring.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nevertheless it happens. Its just that for all practical purposes it
is so slight as to be utterly irrelevant: hence all these claims
that it doesn't happen. Relativity says it MUST happen, maths shows
that you wont be able to measure it when it does.

The whole thrust of Relativity is that energy IS mass. If you take
it from a system, that system loses mass.

The trouble is, you've taken a theory that explains away certain
phenomena that occur in really extreme circumstances only, for
example at velocities close to that of light, or in nuclear
reactions, and have fallen into the trap of believing that it
therefore applies under all conditions as a general principle. Well, I'm
sorry, but it doesn't. Matter is not converted into
energy, nor vice versa, _at all_ except at the extremes. All energy
changes outside of those extremes occur through exchange of one form
of energy for another, kinetic energy into heat for example. They
involve no change of mass whatsoever, not even infinitessimally.



No one said matter was converted into energy: We said MASS was.

"mass (Phys) The quantity of matter in a body" - Chambers Dictionary of
Science and Technology.

Care to tell us what abstruse definition you're using, and where it may be
found?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Tim S wrote:

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.
I wind up my cuckoo clock. The driving weight (not the pendulum)
rises a metre. Has its mass increased due to the increase in
potential energy?

I think so, yes.

So you're saying that a body's rest mass increases as it leaves a
gravity well and conversely it decreases as it descends one?


Yes. I think that is so.

Well, prove it. It's your proposition and it's impossible to prove a
negative, so it's down to you.

Or rather its more like any way we have of
determining mass - by acceleration and force, will show a slightly
different result in a gravitational field.

Lets face it, mass is a concept derived from Newtonian mechanics.


No it isn't. Mass is defined as the quantity of matter in a body. That
doesn't depend on Newton or anyone else.


As is force, energy and acceleration. All Einstein really said was
that the Newtonian relationships are NOT exact. Merely good
approximations.
As I tried to point out in a rather long post yesterday, you have to
drive a stake in the ground somewhere. Newton chose to define mass as
F=mA, time iun terms of the periodic rotation of the earth about its
axis, distance in terms of things that were commonly held to not
change their length. But in fact we know that in a relativistic
universe, time, space length - all these things can vary depending
on the relative velocity of the OBSERVER.
Mas time and distance are not as invariant as Newtone supposed.
Einstein creates a new view, and relates it to the old via E=mC^2.

You can say that what he did was to leave one stake in the ground -
the invariance of one thing, that can either be seen as energy, or
mass, or some combination of the two. If you like there is a quantity
of something, that can be transformed in the mathematical sense, into
what we would recognise as energy, or what we would recognise as mass.

What he gave us was a formula that enables calculation of how energy and
mass are related _if_ a conversion between the two occurs. What he
emphatically did not say is that such conversions invariably occur whenever
energy is expended or absorbed. Your error lies in thinking that he did.

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nevertheless it happens. Its just that for all practical purposes it
is so slight as to be utterly irrelevant: hence all these claims
that it doesn't happen. Relativity says it MUST happen, maths shows
that you wont be able to measure it when it does.

The whole thrust of Relativity is that energy IS mass. If you take
it from a system, that system loses mass.

The trouble is, you've taken a theory that explains away certain
phenomena that occur in really extreme circumstances only, for
example at velocities close to that of light, or in nuclear
reactions, and have fallen into the trap of believing that it
therefore applies under all conditions as a general principle. Well,
I'm sorry, but it doesn't. Matter is not converted into
energy, nor vice versa, _at all_ except at the extremes. All energy
changes outside of those extremes occur through exchange of one form
of energy for another, kinetic energy into heat for example. They
involve no change of mass whatsoever, not even infinitessimally.



No one said matter was converted into energy: We said MASS was.

"mass (Phys) The quantity of matter in a body" - Chambers Dictionary of
Science and Technology.

Care to tell us what abstruse definition you're using, and where it may
be found?

Not really. Chambers dictionary circa 1950 is probably geared towards
laymans usage, not what is used by scientists in pursuit of science.

Steve Thackery wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

As regards the plot, though, it's fiction

Of course it's fiction!! What on earth are you talking about? Nobody has
said it's a documentary!

The "China
Syndrome" was a casual term used in the US nuclear industry at that
time to refer to a meltdown

Got any proof of that?

Here's a quote for you from Wikipedia:

"In 1971, nuclear physicist Ralph Lapp used the term "China syndrome"
to describe the burn-through of the reactor vessel, the penetration
of the concrete below it, and the emergence of a mass of hot fuel
into the soil below the reactor. He based his statements on the
report of a task force of nuclear physicists headed by Dr. W.K.
Ergen, published in 1967.

Then they're all unbelievably stupid, regardless of their qualifications.
Where on earth did they get the idea to which the words China Syndrome are
meant to relate? What were those words meant to convey?



[3] The dangers of such a hypothetical
accident were publicized by the 1979 film, The China Syndrome."

If you (conveniently) don't trust Wikipedia, there are lots more
references around. Look it up for yourself.

It certainly illustrates how the producers' drive for profit can
make the title of a film blatantly compromise the truth.

Norman, you are losing the plot!! It's just a drama about a failure
mode referred to in the nuclear industry by the term "China
Syndrome", and the fundamental theme of the film (indeed, the ONLY
theme) is that the commercial drive for profits may compromise
nuclear safety, possibly even leading to a meltdown.

So, it's fiction, as I said. It bears as little relationship to reality as
the words China Syndrome do. Anyone wanting to rely on it to support their
argument must be pretty desperate.


That's all. Norman, I think you need to chill out a bit!

Thanks for the advice. I don't want to burn right through to New Zealand
now, do I?

J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:52:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or what?

Nothing, but that is not the point.

An electron which moves from a lower energy state to a higher energy
state gains mass, and similarly for the other particles.

A Nobel prize beckons if only you can prove it.