Schools are removing analogue clocks from exam halls as teenagers 'cannot tell the time'

Unstable is not a very good approximation to stable.

Hydrogen has one electron in its outer shell, and the first orbital can hold a maximum of 2. When the orbital is full, then the atom is stable. So hydrogen tends to form compounds easily and is found as H2 instead of H because this will make the orbital full (2 electrons instead of 1). In other words, an atom will either get rid of or gain electrons to attempt to fill the outer orbital and become stable.

Neutrons usually act as buffers in nuclei. Protons are positive and repel positive things that are near them. Neutrons, with no charge, thus act as buffers, lessening the amount of repulsive force. The residual strong force keeps protons together too, but that's not what this question is about.

Since neutrons act as buffers for protons (keep in mind the plural), there is no real need for them in Hydrogen, which only has one proton. There is no need for buffering. Hence, a lot of Hydrogen doesn't have any neutrons, since it simply isn't needed for Hydrogen to exist.

Now, Hydrogen can exist with neutrons, though the amount of Hydrogen with neutrons is dwarfed by that without. The most common isotope is Protium, with no neutrons. Then there is Deuterium, with one neutron, and then there is Tritium, with two.

Deuterium contains one neutron and one proton. Deuterium is stable and makes up 0.0156% of naturally occurring hydrogen[2] and is used in industrial processes like nuclear reactors and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance.

Tritium contains two neutrons and one proton and is not stable, decaying with a half-life of 12.32 years. Because of the short half life, tritium does not exist in nature except in trace amounts.

The nucleus of an atom is made up of protons and neutrons. The forces inside the nucleus of a stable atom are balanced because the nucleus contains the proper number of protons and neutrons. These atoms are theoretically resistant to all forms of decay except proton decay, which is a hypothetical form of decay that has never been observed in a laboratory or in nature.

Unstable atoms are radioactive and decay after a certain amount of time. Different unstable atoms decay through different processes, such as the ejection of a proton or a neutron; the conversion of a proton to a neutron or a neutron to a proton; and the emission of the excess energy in the form of photons. In many cases, the resulting atom is still unstable. This atom then decays again to a new atom. The process continues in a decay chain until a stable form is reached.

et al

Try photosyntheses, respiration, solar fusion.

Classical physics can't explain why a hydrogen atom doesn't radiate itself away into oblivion; classical EM and Newtonian physics/classical conservation of angular momentum says that it should.

Yeah, and guess which one is the hardest to do. Clue; the other 2 have technically been done.

I could have sworn all three had been going on for millions or billions of years...

Mike.

At least these people are honest. A darn sight more honest than women who marry men they don't fancy just for the money. Such women are IMO the lowest of the low.

-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

Yes, as a tool in the right hands, it's immensely powerful.

-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

technically been done.

Done by Man, not nature. Fusion has been done, and they can oxygenate blood , but as far as I know they have not yet accomplished photosynthesis. I thi nk they're getting close but when they actually do it you will see it on th e news, even the sheeplevision news.

Used to have half a dozen of the things back in the day. And recently I bought a 1967 British Thornton slide rule! Reason being for translating exchange rate reciprocals; there's simply nothing faster or more convenient.

Same here. I have a set of 6" imperial Mitutoyo DCs that are great for quickly measuring thicknesses down to within the nearest half-thousandth of an inch. Can't beet Mitutoyo. Except perhaps with Moore & Wright. Anyway they're both top makes and totally indespensible. I'm guessing yours are Starrett, right?

Don't be silly, John.

-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

Self delusional as usual.

Rick C.

Huh? You don't really care what o'clock it is, you care how much daylight you have left and that can be seen by looking at the sun in the sky. They told time this way long before anyone carried a watch.

Rick C.

And electrical engineers should be forced to take Physical Chemistry so they actually have some idea what they are talking about when they spout off about other fields they know little about.

Human feelings aren't hard to simulate. It is consciousness that we can't get a grip on. The only thing we know is that we ourselves experience it, but we can never know anything about whether anyone else experiences it.

Rick C.

yeh here sunset is between ~16:00 and ~22:00

nd

or

a few

re,

s me

ome

ter

of person who could swallowing this kind of hand-waving argument.

ons,

When?

Filtering what? To extract what?

You are trying to impose your point of view on a system - or rather a group of systems - that have evolved to do particular jobs in the organisms that evolved them.

Except that if they don't fold into the right wiggly hairball, they don't d o the job that the organism needs them to do to keep the organism alive lon g enough to reproduce. "Interesting" is in the eye of the beholder. There's no "pattern search" going on. Either the protein folds into some thing use ful, or the organism dies.

Perhaps. But they've taken a lot of useful courses that John Larkin clearly hasn't. Ditching any of them in favour of a Signals and System course migh t not be such a good idea.

The fact that the ideas of quantum mechanics can be exploited by snake oil salesmen isn't actually a good thing. If John knew a little more about quan tum mechanics, he might be less susceptible to the snake oil salesmen.

If you are pig ignorant you can imagine anything you like. Fatuous fantasie s can be fun for a short time, and people like Trump and John Larkin seem t o have short attention spans.

e technically been done.

od, but as far as I know they have not yet accomplished photosynthesis. I t hink they're getting close but when they actually do it you will see it on the news, even the sheeplevision news.

Photosynthesis is pretty tricky, but it is well understood.

Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase does the critical bit of wo rk, but C3 and C4 photosynthesis put the enzyme in subtly different environ ments in the plant, and subtle differences in the structure of the enzyme a llow particular versions to work better in C4 plants than in C3 plants.

There may eventually be money to made by moving commercially interesting pl ants over to C4 photosynthesis, but it doesn't seem to have happened yet.

I have the one I used in college, before the HP-45, as a museum piece.

So do I. The one I use most is fractional inch. My electronic calipers always have dead batteries when I need them.

I think you're wrong. There are a higher percentage of people today who know how to do these things than there ever have been.

What, you can't look up?