Switch off at the socket?

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..

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.