Spirituality
30 Dec 11
31 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI have a degree in Physics and I am sure I am suitably qualified to make that judgement.
I have studied Physics and know the laws of thermodynamics probably
better than anyone on this website. So I think I will be able to judge
if he has a misunderstanding of them or not myself once I get the book.
If the book is very funny, as you claim, then it will not be a total loss of
money and time. 😉
31 Dec 11
Originally posted by lauseyHere is a simple Thermodynamics problem for you. second LAW.
I have a degree in Physics and I am sure I am suitably qualified to make that judgement.
A crane is operated by a 15 hp gas engine. Taking into account the heat
lost by friction in the crane, THE EFFICIENCY OF THE ENGINE IS 20%. If
the combustion value of the gas is 600 BTU per cubic foot, how many
cubic feet of gas must be used to lift 3000 pounds through a height of
60 feet?
31 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWell I suppose it is a genuine reference book in the sense that it's a book you can refer to, but rather like that Forbidden Archaeology book that Dasa was peddling it is totally unscientific. It doesn't try to weigh up the evidence, it doesn't look objectively at any of the issues raised, it just takes a tiny proportion of the data available in order to attempt to support an entirely unwarranted conclusion.
How do you know it is not genuine reference material?
Dr. Batten is a genuine scientist.
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/batten-d.html
I had a quick look at the chapter on radiometric dating, and it confirmed my expectations. All of the issues he raises regarding supposed 'flaws' in various radiometric dating methods have been long since satisfactorily resolved. To take those issues and conclude, as he does, that the world is only a few thousand years old is just facile.
As for your claim that he is a genuine scientist, you're right up to a point. He does have a genuine qualification in plant physiology and the work he has done in this field appears to be valid and, as far as I can judge, worthwhile.
Incidentally, this book in it's entirety is available free as PDFs at:
http://creation.com/the-creation-answers-book-index
31 Dec 11
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsDon't have time to do all the calculations for now, but quickly, 1hp (assuming metric) = 735.499 watts.
Here is a simple Thermodynamics problem for you. second LAW.
A crane is operated by a 15 hp gas engine. Taking into account the heat
lost by friction in the crane, THE EFFICIENCY OF THE ENGINE IS 20%. If
the combustion value of the gas is 600 BTU per cubic foot, how many
cubic feet of gas must be used to lift 3000 pounds through a height of
60 feet?
1 watt = 1 J s^-1
Note: ^ in this context is to the power of.
Therefore, this gas engine has a maximum power of 15 x 735.499 = 11.032 kW
Need to then convert pounds to metric (kg) and to work out the height, feet to meters and the potential energy required to lift:
P.E. = mgh
Where g = 9.81 ms^-2
Then work out how much energy from the cubic feet of gas, and take into account the 20% energy. Will come back to you about that but need to visit my parents for new years. 😛
This is something I can do EASILY 15 years after completing my degree.
Also, what is the point?
31 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by lauseyI wanted to know if I should take you seriously. However, I am an American
Don't have time to do all the calculations for now, but quickly, 1hp (assuming metric) = 735.499 watts.
1 watt = 1 J s^-1
Note: ^ in this context is to the power of.
Therefore, this gas engine has a maximum power of 15 x 735.499 = 11.032 kW
Need to then convert pounds to metric (kg) and to work out the height, feet to meters and the potential ener ...[text shortened]... s is something I can do EASILY 15 years after completing my degree.
Also, what is the point?
so there is no need to convert it to metric, you can just give me the answer
in cubic feet as I asked using the British Thermal Unit (BTU) I gave you.
Very simple calculation that way.
31 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsCome over to the chess forum and you can talk us through a couple of your games. I want to know if i can take your chess seriously?!
I wanted to know if I should take you seriously. However, I am an American
so there is no need to convert it to metric, you can just give me the answer
in cubic feet as I asked using the British Thermal Unit (BTU) I gave you.
Very simple calculation that way.
31 Dec 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobI am not interested in you taking me seriously in Chess. But I wished
Come over to the chess forum and you can talk us through a couple of your games. I want to know if i can take your chess seriously?!
you lived here close to me, so I could beat your butt over-the-board
playing real tournament chess. Then we could see who is serious.
31 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI don't take you seriously full stop Ron, let alone in chess. I don't doubt you can play a good game, the question is how good a game?
I am not interested in you taking me seriously in Chess. But I wished
you lived here close to me, so I could beat your butt over-the-board
playing real tournament chess. Then we could see who is serious.
31 Dec 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobI am getting old now and will be 68 in March. But I hope to join the
I don't take you seriously full stop Ron, let alone in chess. I don't doubt you can play a good game, the question is how good a game?
USCF again and play over-the board rated games. I am definitely
not a master, but I believe I can bring my old 1817 rating up to
at least the expert rating. We will just have to wait and see, for then
I want be able to move the peices around before I make a move in
the over-the-board play with the clocks.
31 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsAt my parents now.
I wanted to know if I should take you seriously. However, I am an American
so there is no need to convert it to metric, you can just give me the answer
in cubic feet as I asked using the British Thermal Unit (BTU) I gave you.
Very simple calculation that way.
I convert to metric because that is the internationally recognised SI units (which will be metres, kg, Joules, Watts) that I am used to. Physicists work with SI units all the time and I am not as familiar with imperial units. It is normal for a physicist to convert all units to SI before doing their calculations. Even in the US, physicists will work with SI units.
I guess you got the problem from some engineering book or source which are specific to this kind of work and it is normal to work with BTU, pounds and cubic feet and certainly the standard formulae normally used will be simple with those units. However, with my background that is very unusual to me.
I certainly can calculate the answer in SI (in cubic metres) and convert that to cubic feet.
Although this is digressing as the argument is whether Don Batten (whose speciality is actually plant physiology) really understands thermodynamics.
Entropy does have overall increase in a closed system (i.e. the entire universe, assuming there isn't influence from other systems). In subsystems, while there will be pockets of increasing entropy, others can lose entropy.
31 Dec 11
Originally posted by lauseyI took my courses in physics before U.S. converted to teaching science
At my parents now.
I convert to metric because that is the internationally recognised SI units (which will be metres, kg, Joules, Watts) that I am used to. Physicists work with SI units all the time and I am not as familiar with imperial units. It is normal for a physicist to convert all units to SI before doing their calculations. Even in the US, physicis ...[text shortened]... ms). In subsystems, while there will be pockets of increasing entropy, others can lose entropy.
using the metric system although we did do conversions at that time.
I am an old fart of 67.