Video scenes shots:
Watch the video:
| URL: | |
| Embed: |
Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment
Other videos by this author:
 |
Doctor Who: The Eternity Clock Launch Trailer Posted by: BBCWorldwide
Video duration: 120 seconds Related: N/A Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment |
Further Reading: Global Warming - Climate Change - Energy - Recycling - Pollution
Latest articles: Facts about solar energy ~ Pros and cons of solar energy ~ How does solar energy work ~ Solar energy advantages disadvantages ~ Types of energy ~ Advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy ~ Who are the world's 1 renewable energy site? ~ How does recycling affect the environment? ~ Why is recycling so important? ~ Interesting recycling facts ~ Natural causes of global warming ~ Is global warming real? ~ Safe and clean energy ~ Effects of water pollution ~ Types of water pollution ~ Land pollution ~ Poems about pollution ~ Definition of climate change ~ Fiji social capital community meetings climate change
Latest comments made on this video:
By: Anthonyk312. on 24 May 12, 05:28:30
because it costs? more than its worth.
By: i7887. on 17 May 12, 17:58:00
Bose-Einstein condensates are very odd things in general. The temperature of the atoms are cold enough for their wavelengths to be large enough for the particles to start behaving quantum mechanically. All their waves cross with? each others and they all "sense" the other atoms. This causes them all to behave as if they were a single atom.
By: BornAgainEngineer. on 17 May 12, 01:52:48
Bizarre, if you type it into the search bar it 404s, but if you type it into Google it comes up the with article with exactly the same address. Anyone, light can? be stationary, just something that blew my mind.
By: i7887. on 16 May 12, 01:07:19
Obviously they dont always travel at c, that is why rainbows happens. They do not have mass, but they do have momentum.? Read a little more, this a huge misconception from the layperson. Your link 404'd by the way
By: BornAgainEngineer. on 15 May 12, 01:02:30
Hey Physics guy. So I was reading up on particle physics and Light. Apparently Light (photons) can be stopped still and can be frozen in place. Photons don't always travel at the speed of light and they must have a mass... because if they are massless while stationary, they can't constitute as energy. E=MC2 ... right? Wikipedia says Photons have ZERO mass... I think it's wrong. Here's the article I? was reading: news(dot)bbc(dot)co(dot)uk/2/hi/science/nature/1124540(dot)stm
By: digital111x. on 14 May 12, 19:21:37
anyone know? the name of the song around 1:00 ? please
By: BornAgainEngineer. on 11 May 12, 13:53:45
Fourier's Law (q = k A ?T / s) I believe is the explanation I'm looking for. Tin has a conductive heat transferability? rating of 67 W/(m.K), a conductor, when Styrofoam has a rating of 0.033W/(m.K), an insulator. Factored in as value K, the time required is significant even for? 1 degree kelvin water temperature change. Fourier's law doesn't take into consideration light permeability of of the given material though.
By: i7887. on 11 May 12, 12:13:51
The fact that it would be so small,? the water is only being heated by 1 K.
By: BornAgainEngineer. on 11 May 12, 10:19:41
2. Photon energy converting into heat doesn't make any sense. Photons are massless yet somehow can? exhibit force, yet they are not particles, but behave both like particles and waves. You're right... it doesn't make sense. Lets steer clear of particle physics. 3. Surely the change (initial - final) temperature of liquid contained by foam would be significantly different than temperature change within tin. What factor makes it negligible?
By: i7887. on 09 May 12, 21:33:42
2. They transfer their energy to the water, not make new particles. You might be thinking of cosmic rays. If visible light did this, a bubble chamber wouldn't work. The quarks and other charged particles being created would make it useless. 3. The differences are negligible in this case. 4. Just stir the water...the ratio doesn't matter, the surface? area cancels out in the end and you are left with mass.
By: BornAgainEngineer. on 09 May 12, 07:01:45
Variables: 1. Ambiance: ?q (change in temp). Desert = no cloud = no change in? ambiance. Agree. 2. All energy: Photons collide at the speed of light, destroying themselves into other forms of radiation, quarks, neutrino etc. 3. Materials: If I were to use foam instead of tin, or really thick tin as the transfer medium, the change in temp over time would be different. q=mc?t does not consider this. 4. q=mc?t does not factor in the surface area facing the sun to volume of heated material (m: mass)
By: i7887. on 08 May 12, 22:32:47
Ok to address your above problems: 1. The ambient light is there with and without the umbrella, no issue. 2. Energy being converted to? heat doesn't even make sense if you know the definition of heat. 3. The tin plays no role in the experiment since the Sun is overhead and only shining on the water. 4. See #3 5. About 70% of the suns energy gets through. This was good enough for Herchel to make a rough estimation. 1366*.7=956 And once again, its a TV show, not a publication. He rounds.
By: BornAgainEngineer. on 08 May 12, 08:04:53
... and without this intuition, the experiment is bogus and will give incorrect and varying results? depending on environmental variables.
By: BornAgainEngineer. on 08 May 12, 08:00:43
4?r^2 = surface area of a sphere 1.5e11m = Earth's orbital diameter - Suns? diameter = radius (or distance) between earth and sun. Easily understood. The problem I have is how we arrived at 1366W/m^2. Now the 1366W/m^2 is a huge discrepancy from 1000 W/m^2. The figure 1366W/m^2 was only given after addressing energy attenuation (weakening) though the Earth's atmosphere and factors of ambiance and entropy = what I was intuitively trying to tell you.
By: i7887. on 07 May 12, 22:02:47
I think you need to listen to your advise. and? actually do the problem. But here, ill do it for you. 4*pi*(1.5e11m)^2*1000 W/m^2= 2.8e26 W The accepted value of solar irradiance is 1366 W/m^2 and that gives a luminosity of 3.846e26 W. Obviously he is rounding numbers since the show is made for the layperson and not a physicist.
By: i7887. on 07 May 12, 21:01:56
Nah, seeing as how this was a homework? problem in one of my astronomy classes a few years ago. Maybe you should listen to your last comment.
By: BornAgainEngineer. on 07 May 12, 07:30:53
My? guess is that you accord instead of think.
By: i7887. on 07 May 12, 06:09:30
My guess is? that you have never done the math.
By: BornAgainEngineer. on 07 May 12, 05:27:55
q=mc?t is all well and good for calculating the energy delivered to a body of matter, but the estimate of the Suns "total energy" would be not be remotely? close to accurate because of the variables which have not been considered, stated above. There are not enough variables considered in the equation to arrive at the conclusion of 400,000,000,000,000 watts.
By: i7887. on 07 May 12, 00:23:32
Most of what you said is wrong or irrelevant. You also have to realize that its just a rough estimate made in the late 1700's, but pretty damn close. The math really is as easy as he says. If he told you the mass of the water, how long it took to raise it by 1? degree, and the specific heat of water (4186 j/kg) you could do it yourself. Assuming you know high school geometry and the equation Q=C*m*detla T. As for the Ti-83, Williams Herschel didnt use one, he could do multiplication on paper
By: i7887. on 06 May 12, 23:20:19
Almost correct. Read the comment that I just made to the person you were replying to.?
By: i7887. on 06 May 12, 23:18:56
Your? question doesn't make sense. A watt is a unit of power, not energy, so its units are joules per second (energy per time). So asking how much the power the sun gives off, in a given time period, cancels the time part from watts. This leaves you with only joules, a unit of energy. For example, a 75 watt bulb puts off 75 joules of energy in one second. Its an easy mix up to make and i think its caused from the name "power" company. They sell kilowatt-hours, which is energy, not power.
By: TheMathShaman. on 02 May 12, 13:43:09
Because Capital, Labor, and Means of? Production.