HegelBot153

My favorite bond is the bond between friends!

@BrandyBoy72 Yo I think I messed this one up so bad. It was nice knowing you, sorry I could not help you more. My only regret is not being a good person. Farewell, walk free...

Wow they turned RPG fishing into a real thing!

@krdavis18 You are the physics duchess!

As the nature of electricity was investigated into the eighteenth century through static electricity and to a certain extent the triboelectric effect, it was only natural that the discovery of electric charge and capacitance would follow. Independently, three scientists named Ewald Georg von Kleist, Pieter van Musschenbroek and Andreas Cunaeus. A machine of sorts, one that would supply charge through triboelectric electric effect by friction, would transfer the charge to two conducting, metallic foils that act as electrodes, generated a disparity in charge and electric potential. The plates are on the inside and the outside of a glass jar, the glass acting as a semiconductor and because of the electric field, electric potential is created across the glass. This glass would "hold" the charge in a sense. You see, the mystery at the time was the exact nature of electricity. Many believe electricity was some invisible fluid-like thing. Electricity could only be observed from sparks, repulsion and other natural phenomenon so at the time humans were working with an incomplete theory of electricity. However the later two scientists Pieter van Musschenbroek and Andreas Cunaeus identified the mechanism of action that we now know today. The idea is that the inside and outside surfaces of the glass became charged by the foils, equally and oppositely, causing a potential difference across the glass itself as a dielectric. The discovery of capacitance has lead to the advent of a variety of useful modern technologies like computers and circuitry which I hope to investigate at a later time.

I wonder what causes this? IMFs or maybe solution saturation. Anyways waffles are way more convenient than pancakes. Waffles stay crisp while pancakes absorb the syrup and become ooze-like in consistency.

He's not. Like a cult, Elon Musk makes false promises to followers and he gets grants from our government for doing nothing. Render this illusion and seek what is yours, the truth.

The triboelectric effect manifests from frictional contact between materials resulting in contact electrification but why? Why are things like this? Why do we live? Why do we die? But anyways here the things we have to know. People have been using this effect like a play thing, charging objects to repel another or zapping frogs apparently (thank you) and I believe it was quite important to our discovery of electromagnetism, especially in the ancient world. If your childhood was at all interesting, you have tried building some sort of potential difference on your person by sliding around on a rug and feeling the power crackle at your fingertips, jolting some poor door knob or family member. That visible stroke of electricity, the spark, indicates to us that there was some level of discharge and depending on the conductivity of the air, it becomes easier to achieve. So when two materials contact they may make a small amount of chemical bonds where one is more likely to receive a negative charge and the other a positive charge due to the inter-molecular forces at play, this is the triboelectric effect. Now that there is some polarity, potential difference is developed and this discovery has had quite an effect in the advancement of the field of physics. Join me for part two: The Leyden Jar in this series.

Mantis Shrimp can see many more colors than us. STAY WOKE.

But what odes this have to do with physics?

Wow. I appreciate the honesty. I vibe.

Yes, the inter-molecular forces are keeping water whole however I wonder does the lack of gravity mean a lack of pressure which in turn would cause the water to vaporize?

You know its just nice to be here, blogging with my physics fellows and learning new things in a great class environment but real talk, before the second quarter closes on all of my fat head, I just wanted to say that I think that these physics blogs are great, an excellent creative opportunity to connect the dots, so to speak, on the physics topics we've learned. However I feel that not everybody is getting enough out of them for their own sake. These blogs while not necessarily throwaways can be taken to their creative limits. This is not English class so I can say "I" and begin sentences with "and" and not get my knuckles rapped with a two-by-four. Blogging can be very social with all the extra features and comment system and these blogs, while requiring a bit of thought, are not going to be scrutinized by anyone outside of the class room so there is not too much pressure to be meticulously detailed and factual, though it is appreciated. My point is these are fun and I wish I heard about them more. One can talk about science fiction theories or how they think the earth doesn't spin (I'm only joking). These really can be what you make of it in the end.

Wow OK, Mr. Armstrong.

I was watching this video of a man slapping a molten stream of metal. Let there be no doubt that this fiery stream was beyond glistering, the scathe of flesh and branches, such that man has never seen. Anyways it was bizarre because his hand passed through unscathed, leaving nary a mark. Perplexed, I began to think and when I could not find any bulletproof conclusions I searched the vast corners of cyberspace to discover the existence of what is called the Leidenfrost effect, there before my eyes. In short, when a liquid contacts a surface of far greater heat than its self, the outermost layer of the liquid will boil into naught but a layer of vapor, insulating the whole from heat. The man must have had some sweat or the like on the surface of his skin and when they came in contact with the hot metal the vapor formed a vapor and under the aegis he was not harmed. This phenomenon can be observed when dropping water on a hot pan, they scatter because of this vapor.

Where do elements get their physical properties? Well the short answer is inter-molecular forces and that's really all the time I have to spare before the second quarter. Several inter-molecular forces keep an element at a certain phase of matter. The tenacity of these forces depends a great deal on the circumstances of pressure and temperature but for blog purposes, it is safe to think of these at standard pressure and temperate so it is easily visualized. These so-called inter-molecular forces exist in four main types. The first is dipole-dipole bonding which includes hydrogen bonding. This type entails the attraction of oppositely charged particles which are already included in chemical and typically organizes the molecules into some sort of crystalline solid. Secondly, network covalent bonding is where atoms are never truly singular compounds and bond with themselves continuously in a relatively massive "macromolecular" network. An example of this is diamond, a typical example with hardness and high melting point. The third is metallic bonding. For metals, the electrons that occupy their outermost energy level are distant from the positive nucleus and are so feebly attracted that they can transfer from the radius of one nucleus to a neighboring positive charge. In a sense, their electrons are in constant flux which allows metal to conduct electricity. The final are the London dispersion forces. If one could imagine the electrons surrounding the nucleus as a mobile cloud, then the electron of neighboring molecules would repel each other and also be attracted to the positive nucleus. This is a very mild force and often falls by the way side but it it is the reason why gases sometimes freeze at extremely low temperature, that ever-present weak force.

I had a very thought provoking conversation with some fellow students in the spare time of seventh period. The subject of some debate was the true nature of the atomic elements. We are talking of the chemical elements of the periodic table, nothing to do with Avatar: The Last Airbender, one of the greatest animated shows to grace our planet but I digress. Atomic manifest their properties from protons and electrons. A nucleus of protons, positive charges, tends to attract an equivalently charged quantity of electrons, negative charges, that occupy energy levels. Energy levels are stratum of electrons a certain radius from the positive proton nucleus. It follows that a relatively large positive charge would attract a large amount of electrons for multiple energy levels and a wide radius. Only certain discrete amounts of electrons can occupy an energy level but generally those closest. Now that the groundwork has been established, we can discuss how certain period groups have their properties in a part two.

I have thought for a long time about 'truth', what it is and how to know it. Many things have a claim to 'truth' but the honesty of these declarations, all various and in disagreement, speak only on the obscurity of 'truth'. What holds fidelity in all contexts about 'truth' is that it is equivalent to reality and absolute certainty. There is no error in 'truth', it is the absolute security of fact and foundation and seemingly, by notions entirely self evident, Neil deGrasse Tyson holds a piece of the 'certainty' pie. Really, his twitter account speaks a great deal on his ardor for science and scholarship, passion for science fiction and his penchant for relating information. Neil deGrasse Tyson's tweets, nearly each and all, speak of science as a necessary fact or 'truth' to describe our world. But my consternation, my nit-pick, so to speak, is how obnoxious and alienating his media tends to be. As a figure of pop-science, I cannot fathom how, in my sparsely condensed brain cells, anyone would find pedantic, unamusingly pompous and disingenuous diatribe on science trivia to be insightful. If my dreadfully verbose locutions are even indicative of my sarcasm and ornery wrath, using science as a pretense to patronize a generation of presumably young followers is profusely wrong and unhelpful. But hey, I am just a humble student, my say is not to be treated with the same gravity as Carl Sagan's premier astrophysicist and really, this melodrama is all for my student's blog. Still here are examples, courtesy of whosoever took these screenshots. I suppose, for some of us, especially when it seems as if we have much to be thankful for from science, it is somewhat of a second nature to use science to lend credence or 'truth' to ostentatious claims of this or that for validation but these are ultimately missteps. Post Statement: I had a lot of fun coming up with words, being on twitter and doing homework at once. Happy New Year.

Will this affect my grade???

I like the graphic. Followed.

At the time of writing Christmas is over, its before the New Year and the impetus to do anything school related has left my body and soul. Nonetheless I have a smithereen within me crying against the apathy that crowded so densely among my brain cells and I have found it and nourished it and it becomes this blogpost. According to the Wikipedia page, the small angle approximation is a convenient and necessary estimation where in some cases you can replace a trigonometric function of theta(Θ) with theta(Θ) itself. This is almost true as the angle in radians approaches zero, tan(Θ) and sin(Θ) will equal zero and cos(Θ) will equal one and this is approximately true for radian value slightly higher than zero. It seemed pertinent because one of the proofs we did in the last packet used this simplification and I'm certain that whosoever figured that one out thought themselves clever and are within their right to think so!

This is a top quality post. Just really thorough. Merry Christmas.

Wow. I just dieded. It is in the wee hours as I write this. Awooooo

PV = nRT is the written equation for the ideal gas law and I think it would be useful if we could talk about what is really happening in this equation. Now, an ideal gas is described in a theoretical outline that pretty much just says that a gas made of particles would have elastic collisions and no intermolecular forces hampering its expansion to a certain volume. This model is useful because it ignores some of the more delicate issues of gases by making assumptions. Ok so for the PV, the pressure and volume of a gas are proportional that is if all else is kept constant, a decrease in volume, which would force these active gas particles closer together, would increase pressure. Now the other side of the equation is nRT. R is a constant for an amount of pressure which is inversely proportional to the moles in question and temperature, it depends on which metric you are using. Temperature is T, the kinetic energy of molecules, and n is the number of moles and moles are a whole thing, something times Avagrado's number. So the higher the temperature, it would produce higher pressures and volumes for the same quantity of moles. A high amount of moles would have a higher pressure and volume for a fixed temperature.

So many theories, so many people. Sometimes it's scary to think that there's a whole unknown out there. Maybe it's scary even to think that someone could know more than we ever could, run faster, stand taller or something along those lines. Perhaps we should feel nothing at all, grinning coldly at our calculations and hold rationality above all, subordinate to nothing. I would not feign to know everything and I wouldn't say to merely forget these questions because this line of thinking is worth the time. Despite that, I would begin at square one. I think there's a bit of intuition behind everything, a 'priori', that is justified by reasoning alone and then knowledge, a postpriori, justified by experience and conclusions. But it appears that human rationality is limited and we hastily draw through too, too short lives. Really how could we know 'truth'? So I believe a bit of hesitation is in order before we accept any single one of these, frankly dubious YouTube theories.