Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 May 9

= May 9 =

DIY teleprompter glass plate angle
Online many sources say that 45° is the appropriate angle to position the glass used to reflect a screen [in a teleprompter] but I want to know if that's really true and why? Does it make a difference if plastic is used instead of glass (i.e. does the refractive index matter)? Will a different angle reduce the brightness of the reflected light? --78.148.99.149 (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't the text on the teleprompter be elongated or foreshortened if the angle was changed ? You could always compensate for this with the display device, but why not keep it as simple as possible ? StuRat (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The refractive index does not have a direct impact, per the laws of reflection. However, the coefficient of specular reflection, which you want to maximize, will depend both on the material and the angle.
 * Total internal reflection may also be of academic interest (but since the "outside" medium is air, glass/plastic have a higher refractive index, it cannot happen in that case). Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, 45° is generally best, because of the law of reflection. See teleprompter, and look at the arrows in the diagram. If you angle the glass or beam splitter more than a few degrees from 45°, then the blue arrow will shift angle up or down, and the image of the prompted words will go above or below the speaker's head. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't have to be 45 degrees if that screen weren't flat - you could make a sextant out of the thing and shoot the speaker with it (albeit, alas, only navigationally). Wnt (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The refractive index does have a direct impact on the intensity of the image - consider what would happen if the refractive index of the glass was reduced to unity. Also, the image will be polarized - see Brewster's angle. --catslash (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

== Feynman Lectures. Exercises PDF. Exercise 1-8 JPG==

MEPhI has given solution only for the 1st part of the exercise. Is there a way to solve 2nd part? In Lecture 44 Feynman says with no proof that Second law of thermodynamics forbids converting heat to work. I wonder if there is a way to understand it assuming all we know is the atomic theory from Lecture 1? I assume the direct process: a steel body (mass = 1 kg; speed = 1 m/sec) glides by horizontal steel surface until stops in 1 sec, heating itself and the surface by 0.5 J. Reverse process: the body consumes the heat and accelerates. I have only one idea - the atoms' motion becomes chaotic and can't be extracted anymore. But at the first moments atoms' motion is more or less ordered in the trajectory direction. Is it correct? Username160611000000 (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This goes back to things like Carnot's theorem (thermodynamics) and the Carnot cycle; statement 2 is actual only correct if properly qualified: you CAN use heat to do work, that's what a heat engine does, and there are probably several such devices within walking distance of you right now. You just can't use heat to do work with 100% efficiency; that is the joules of heat energy input into any heat engine will always exceed the joules of work you can get out.  Also, the key word is reversible above.  Friction is an irreversible process: you can't re-order a system which has become more disordered without expending energy, energy so lost is one perspective on what is meant by entropy, and since systems can become disordered without any input of energy, but require energy to become reordered, that's the basis of the second law of thermodynamics.  -- Jayron 32 18:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What Jayron said. An easy way to visualize this is two clock gears rotating in one direction in a plane.  They create heat, the vibration of the molecules in the cogs as the rub while rotating in one direction.  The heated molecules then vibrate back and forth in three dimensions.  This random motion can not be converted back into one-directional linear motion.  See also Maxwell's demon. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The gear is complicated system. Let's better consider body on horizontal surface. When the body passes it hits atoms of the surface in direction of motion. Atoms vibrate. Since the lattice is periodic these vibrations must repeat. So if we push a body backwards it can be driven by atoms like by a wave. Username160611000000 (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I seriously can't believe that you think two cog wheels is so complicated, but the principle is the same: WORK UNIDIRECTIONAL.  HEAT RANDOM. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You use the trick to prove the random motions -- many changing contact surfaces. Consider one atom within the upper layer of the lattice. Atom is kicked in some direction (e.g. normal to the surface, in z-axis direction). Adjacent atoms are kicked in same z-direction. How will the atom obtain motion in other 2 axes (x, y)? Username160611000000 (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but every collision will not be orthogonal. If we establish the "z axis" along the line of striking of atom "A" to atom "B", and assume that is the overall motion of the larger objects "A" and "B" are part of, then relative to that axis, yes, that one collision will not (by definition) move atoms in the x or y dimensions.  Now, without moving that axis system, look at the positions and relative motions of every other atom in the system.  Almost surely none of them will lie on that "z" axis .  SO every other collision results in particles moving in some other direction, even though the overall motion of the larger objects remains unidirectional.   That's because the position and motion vectors of individual atoms was stochastic to begin with; so the interaction of randomly moving particles (the individual atoms) produces random motions themselves.  Even though the objects rubbing together are moving in a defined direction.  From a statistical thermodynamics point of view, the interactions between two random systems MUST produce more randomness (i.e. there are more states for the system to exist in, because now we have new states introduced by the new interactions).  More states = more entropy (S=k log W) Q.E.D.  -- Jayron 32 14:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jayron. I would not have had the patience to respond to a user who says I am using a "trick" when this is material covered in high school chemistry and physics. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we also have articles on friction and irreversible process that may help OP. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thermodynamics is only right in general. While friction causes microscopical Tension (physics) and Compression (physics) and therefor vibration and therefor heat there are infact machines or mechanical sets that dont cause any friction at all. The Industry offers Linear actuators that work by High-temperature superconductors for some time now for example. Additionally the assumption that energy (force) can not be recuperated from friction is wrong for the field of Piezoelectricity. Btw. to be precise a carnot engine is not really a "heat engine" because it actually just transforms mechanical motion from the expansion and contraction of the medium that is heated on one and cooled on the other side. Just like a steam engine gets its motion from the steam pressure, not the steam heat. --Kharon (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you're just playing games with semantics. Heat is not work, but heat can cause changes to the world that are themselves work.  Saying "Steam pressure is not steam heat" is misleading, yes, it's the pressure that moves the pistons, but the pressure increased because the molecules of water increased in temperature, and that increase in temperature is due to the heat transferred to the water molecules by burning coal.  You're rationale is like saying "John F. Kennedy wasn't killed by a bullet, he was killed by blood loss and brain damage."  No shit, blood loss and brain damage caused by a bullet.  Likewise, steam pressure caused by heating water.  Heat generally is understood to take three forms: conduction, convection, and radiation.  All three of these forms can be used to cause an object to move, the basic definition of Work (physics).  Consider the following three scenarios:
 * Heat is conducted into a metal, and the metal expands. The expanding metal can be used to push an object.  That's Work
 * Two rooms with a doorway between them have air at different temperatures. A fan is placed in the doorway, and convection currents turn the fan blade.  That's Work
 * Radiant light energy strikes a photovoltaic cell which provides electricity to run a motor. That's Work
 * Every one of those examples shows heat causing work to be done. It doesn't matter that it takes one, or two, or three additional steps; energy is changing forms, and it's in the form of heat at an earlier point in the chain of changes than it is in the form of work in a later stage.  That's all that matters.  The reason the second law of thermodynamics works is that heat is always stochastic whereas work is always directional, indeed fundementally that's why when heat is generated, some free energy is always lost, if you're trying to move an object along the X-axis, only particles with some forward motion along the X-axis will strike it in such a way to move it; particles in motion in other directions don't strike the object and move it forward.  That's what Medeis is trying to explain; the process is not reversible because you cannot get back to your original conditions without any input of outside energy.  -- Jayron 32 13:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

What about the static friction? The displacements are reversible, but the mechanism is the same: atoms approach each other and must generate heat. Username160611000000 (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Where's the highest railway? (above the surface, not sea level)
Where's the highest that doesn't kindof cheat by crossing a valley/canyon that's narrower than it's deep or not much wider? Or like a viaduct that's not the highest in the world except for that one bit where there's steep crack or canyon. Or a railroad that happens to go over a cave, seabed or other surface below the surface. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * List of highest bridges (height to bridge deck) and List of tallest bridges (height to top) may have the answer, but not sure if they list which are for trains. StuRat (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The list does indicate whether road or rail, making the Najiehe Railway Bridge the one to look at. Wymspen (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * https://www.google.com/search?num=100&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=highest+railway+bridge+of+world&oq=highest+railway+br&gs_l=hp.3.5.0l10.3883.9316.0.14377.19.15.0.2.2.0.841.3766.2-6j3j0j1j1.11.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..6.12.3534.0..0i131k1.w_GXR7_xCB0#spf=1. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)