• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Reply to: The great unwashed

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "The great unwashed"

Collapse

  • Peoplesoft bloke
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    Only if everyone breaths in at once.
    Or even breathes.

    Leave a comment:


  • TimberWolf
    replied
    Originally posted by Spacecadet View Post
    The energy isn't coming from within the nucleous, it is being released from the chemical bonds between the atoms.
    I don't believe there should be any mass lost as per the constant mass law of chemical reactions (although i'm not sure if that law includes the sort of miniscule amounts you refer to)
    The loss of mass in chemical reactions is tiny (M=E/c^2). Even spinning an object increases its mass by an amount probably too small to be measured. The earth also gains mass from being heated by the Sun.

    Leave a comment:


  • TimberWolf
    replied
    Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
    Biochemistry then. That's a good question for the congregation; how many average human turds would be required to keep a 100w light bulb running for one hour?
    Use one of these to find the calorific content, but replace the bean shaped object with poo.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doggy Styles
    replied
    Originally posted by zeitghost
    So the earth gets heavier coz of all the energy in the sunlight falling on it?
    Only if everyone breaths in at once.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mich the Tester
    replied
    Originally posted by Spacecadet View Post
    more biology... unless you want to use your turds for a biomass powered generator
    Biochemistry then. That's a good question for the congregation; how many average human turds would be required to keep a 100w light bulb running for one hour?

    Leave a comment:


  • Spacecadet
    replied
    Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
    Yes, but within two pages it'll become a debate about turds, which is I suppose still chemistry.
    more biology... unless you want to use your turds for a biomass powered generator

    Leave a comment:


  • Mich the Tester
    replied
    Originally posted by DiscoStu View Post
    This is why I love CUK. You start a thread on dimwitted scousers and it turns into a chemistry debate
    Yes, but within two pages it'll become a debate about turds, which is I suppose still chemistry.

    Leave a comment:


  • DiscoStu
    replied
    This is why I love CUK. You start a thread on dimwitted scousers and it turns into a chemistry debate

    Leave a comment:


  • Spacecadet
    replied
    Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
    Er, he isn't. Energy is equivalent to mass, and on that basis normal combustion will reduce the mass of the constituents (by a miniscule amount).
    The energy isn't coming from within the nucleous, it is being released from the chemical bonds between the atoms.
    I don't believe there should be any mass lost as per the constant mass law of chemical reactions (although i'm not sure if that law includes the sort of miniscule amounts you refer to)

    Leave a comment:


  • expat
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    Does that mean that chemical equations like...

    C + O2 -> CO2

    ...are not accurate? What bit of mass is lost? All the nuclear particles and electrons are still there.

    Is it a Higgs Boson?
    They are accurate. The mass of the CO2 is less than the sum of the masses of the C + the O2. No "bit" of anything is lost, but the constituents do not have as much energy when they form CO2 as when they form C + O2. Therefore, they do not have as much mass as before.

    Or to be precise, a photon is emitted: this carries the "missing" mass. This photon is not a "thing" for chemistry, so it is not included in the formula.
    Last edited by expat; 13 January 2009, 15:33.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doggy Styles
    replied
    Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
    Er, he isn't. Energy is equivalent to mass, and on that basis normal combustion will reduce the mass of the constituents (by a miniscule amount).
    Does that mean that chemical equations like...

    C + O2 -> CO2

    ...are not accurate? What bit of mass is lost? All the nuclear particles and electrons are still there.

    Is it a Higgs Boson?

    Leave a comment:


  • OwlHoot
    replied
    Originally posted by Spacecadet View Post
    You're confusing nuclear fission with burning
    Er, he isn't. Energy is equivalent to mass, and on that basis normal combustion will reduce the mass of the constituents (by a miniscule amount).

    Leave a comment:


  • Spacecadet
    replied
    Originally posted by gingerjedi View Post
    She may have a point... surely when you burn oil some of the energy and therefore mass is lost beyond the atmosphere as it radiates heat?
    You're confusing nuclear fission with burning

    Leave a comment:


  • OwlHoot
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    I'll never forget the euro debates on another well-known contractor's forum beginning with P. There were contractors there (who you'd assume had some modicum of intelligence) who were pro-euro because they could "buy a latte in both Madrid and Helsinki with the same currency".

    I think the euro was a way of expressing their man-of-the-world credentials.
    Yes, there's someone like that here. His name's Milan.

    Leave a comment:


  • Olly
    replied
    I don't like champagne....so strawberries and lager is the next best comparison.

    Thanks for the Benidorm tip though...will check out the travel offers in the back of the Sun

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X