Entropy of vaporization Puns

I’m in an R&D role tasked with determining by-products/safety risks associated with induction brazing with some nasty alloys. A customer wants us to use an alloy that contains cadmium, among other nasty stuff, and I’d like to set up an experiment to record/document any fumes or dust created; and if possible find some sort of info on how much heat/for how long we can sustain the process before volatility occurs. Say we braze at the lowest temperature(X) needed to make the bond, I need to determine the time(Y) we can use that setting before there’s a chance our operators are at risk of exposure. This sounds really basic to me, but is there some kind of math we can do to determine that energy limit based on application of a given heat over a given amount of time? I’m stumped and didn’t have the opportunity to take thermodynamics, thanks for any help!

So another lab has informed mine that any sort of vaporization of 3HOPCP results in the release of cyanide like compounds. The same lab reported that this was not the case with 3HOPCE. Can anyone else confirm this report, or have any guesses, theories? My lab will not be doing this test unless it is certain of the safety of the test, rest assured.

In a 4 stroke engine, during the compression stroke, a gasoline/air mixture is compressed inside the combustion chamber. This decrease in volume leads to an increase in pressure which in turn leads to an increase in temperature. I understand that the increased temperature leads to better fuel vaporization (for the same reason that boiling a pot of water will increase the vaporization of that water.) However, the pressure is also increasing - doesn't that work against the goal of increasing the fuel vaporization? In other words, doesn't the increased pressure work to condense the fuel out of vapor and into droplets?

Maybe both of these forces are acting on the fuel, but the temperature increase has a larger effect and "wins out" causing more vaporization to occur than the pressure increase causes condensation. How is the amount of vaporization even measured?

I've been trying to figure out exactly how a compression stroke in an engine increases the engine's efficiency. I've found many articles/posts about the effect of the increase in temperature, but nothing mentioning the condensing effects of increased pressure.

As a tangent, if I take a sealed disposable water bottle with a few droplets of water in it, and I twist it (like this) to increase the pressure inside, the temperature will increase. If I then leave the bottle untouched for a while, so that the heat dissipates and it returns to room temperature then there will be fewer water molecules in a gaseous state compared to before I twisted the bottle. Is that correct?

is it true that the most effective method of consumption for crack is to vaporize it instead of smoking it.

Apparently when smoking, burning causes a great loss of active cocaine freebase molecules.

The objective when vaporize is to avoid combustion and stop at the sublimation phase by rising to the temperature of 92 ° C and not to exceed it (or much less than with a lighter)

Have you tried with an electronic cigarette or pressurized vaporizator ?

First of all, this is not a homework problem, just a question. I have seen that there are two popular enthalpy of vaporization for water: 44kj or 40.62kj. I know that the second one is the standard value ( water at 298K),but what makes they differ? I thought the difference happened because we first need to heat the water to 373K, bur using the formula Q = mc∆T and Q = m*L I have got an enthalpy of 46kj. So what makes the difference? I don't want any calculation, I am looking foward to understanding what happens.

I honestly don't get on how to answer it in a biological significance answer... can you guys help me out. My answer is in the lines of ice caps melting so by knowing that the water is 100C we could lessen the melting of ice caps. I think that answer is wrong, any help please. Thank you

In thermodynamics entropy seems to be a measurement of stored enery per volume(or mass? or per system?) and in infromation theroy entropy is a measurement of information density. Both formulas seem to be very similar(an intergal/sum of all posible states) but ive never bee able to make the connection in meaning. Thermodynamic enropy incrases over time, can the same be said about informational entropy or is there an analogy in information theory for this increase?

Guys,I've had really bad luck with vaping in oil burners

1. I can get the a-php to vaporize decently if its a pure crystal
2. The Hexen powder just sticks to the bowl and never liquidizes
3. The same thing with 3FMP
4. When the hexen and 3fmp don't liquidize, I just hold the lighter to them until the bowl tuns black but at least I get some smoke out of them.

I hold my flame about 1/2 from the burner with a BIC lighter and rotate it back and forth for about 30 seconds until I see see vapor (but this only happens with the a-php. What am I doing wrong or do I need to use a different kind of lighter?

I followed the instruction manuals on how to smoke meth correctly, but these tips only work for the a-php crystals.

My pipe was very dirty. Is it important to clean it after each use to get the best vaporization?

Thanks guys!

TL;DR: Genetic entropy is not supported by data and commits the "The Atheist Jesus" fallacy to promote its validity.

Hi folks,

I have been discussing the principle tenets of an allele-frequency hypothesis called “Genetic Entropy” with a proponent. Many of you have seen this hypothesis floating around on the sub before and many of you have given it critical feedback. I’m hoping to add to that conversation by highlighting some of the scientific and technical reasons why this hypothesis is unsupported. I’m mostly going to focus on the data and not on the downstream conclusions about creationism or word choices like “entropy.”

Background:

What is genetic entropy (GE)? GE is a hypothesis proposed by Dr. John Sanford which predicts that functionally deleterious single-nucleotide mutations are inherited with each generation and accumulate in the organism/population. The accumulation of these mutations is then hypothesized to result in the progressive loss of integrity (hence the “entropy”) in a genome causing increased disease prevalence and ultimately death of the organism. It is then argued that if GE occurs, evolution is not possible since the organism is progressively experiencing a degradation in fitness which is not surmounted by positive selection. Essentially this hypothesis is an extreme form of Error Catastrophe which postulates that all life on earth operates past the critical mutation rate threshold.

These are the four basic premises that must be true for functionally deleterious mutations to accumulate:

1. Nearly all mutations have some effect on the organism—there are essentially no truly neutral mutations
2. Most mutations are very small in effect
3. The vast majority of mutations are damaging
4. Very small mutations are not subject to natural selection

What are mutations?

Mutation: a variant or change in the heritable material of an organism. Normally, we refer to mutations as “variants” because of all the different forms and effects they can take on—substitution, deletion, duplication, insertion, inversion, conversion, frame shift, extension, synonymous, non-synonymous, DNA/RNA, transposons, linear, circular, coding, non-coding, imprinting, methylation, base adducts, structural, non-structural, pathogenic, clinical, loss of function, gain of function, etc.

When referring to a mutation, it’s important to adequately describe the type of mutation occurring. I primarily study human genetics and so I use the nomenclature proposed by t

Looking to mix coconut oil into my E-juice. But PG and vegetable glycol do not have high lipid solubility. So I was looking for a surfactant that i can add to help dissolve it. Any suggestions?

I made a video about the history of this equation but as it is *very* long, I am including the cliff notes of what happened:

In 1877, Boltzmann did come up with equations for determining the probability of energy states, that he labeled W and said was related to the entropy. However, Boltzmann did not say how it was related to entropy nor did include any constant. Planck did not like this idea as he felt that, “the principle of the increase of entropy as no less immutably valid than the principle of the conservation of energy itself, whereas Boltzmann treated the former merely as a low of probabilities[1]” and for that reason “I was not only indifferent but to a certain extent even hostile to the atomic theory which was the foundation of his entire research.[2]” However, in 1900, Planck was trying to derive an equation for blackbody radiation from fundamental principles, and in “an act of desperation” used Boltzmann’s probability method. Because he was using Boltzmann’s idea, he wrote in 1900 that he was “introducing probability considerations, the importance of which for the second law of thermodynamics was first of all discovered by Mr. Boltzmann.[3]” It was this paper that introduced the constant k, equation S = klogW, the constant h *and* the equation e = hf! Not only that, but Planck found values of Planck’s constant and Boltzmann’s constant that are within 2% of the currently accepted values!!

Anyway, Planck’s line about “probability considerations [being] first of all discovered by Mr. Boltzmann” caused many people (including a very young Albert Einstein[4]) to erroneously think that Boltzmann made the equation first. In 1914, English scientists Ernest and Ezer Griffiths published a very long paper about the specific heat of metals at low temperatures which had an overview of Quantum theory (with a lot of references to Einstein). This paper was, as far as I can tell, the first time anyone labeled the constant k “Boltzmann’s constant.[5]” By 1920, Planck was complaining that k was “often referred to as Boltzmann’s constant” which he found to be “a peculiar state of affairs” as “to my knowledge, Boltzmann himself never introduced it.[6]”

Boltzmann died in 1906 and his original grave was nondescript. However, in 1935, the alderman of Vienna decided to “find a burial place worthy of him[7]” and for that reason they moved Boltzmann’s body to a place of honor and created a white marble bust of Boltzmann and a local scientist named H

What are your thoughts on DAY6's latest release now that you've had time to digest it? What are the standout tracks? How has your opinion changed since release? What are your thoughts on the sales numbers and chart positions? How did the release stack up to your expectations?

###Overview

 

Album Discussion Thread

##Poll: Which track is your favorite?

###Physical Sales

*As of October 31

###Digital Charts

####01. Deep in Love:

Did not chart on Gaon

####02. Sweet Chaos:

Still charting two weeks later on Bugs

####03. Emergency:

Did not chart on Gaon

####04. Rescue Me:

Did not chart on Gaon

####05. 365247:

Did not chart on Gaon

####06. 지금쯤 (About Now):

Did not chart on Gaon

“Sure. Let me tell you, it isn’t what it used to be.”

What's the deal. Sodium carbonate?

I'm agnostic/atheist and still have a hard time wrapping my brain around this.