Unofficial Tex Murphy

The energy ceases to be energy that you can use. It becomes energy you can't use. It's typically transformed into heat because of friction. So the energy still exists but we can't capture the heat loss and transform it into work.

For example, let's say your car breaks down. You put it into neutral and start pushing it to a gas station. You push on the car and the wheels of the car push back due to the friction between the tires and the road.

Some of the energy that you put into pushing the car causes the car to move forward and some of the energy counteracts the friction from the tires. You've effectively "loss" energy from your point of view. However, from the point of view of the universe, the energy still exists but is just in another form. The friction causes the tires to heat up. The energy went into raising the temperature of the tires. This is energy you can't use.

I've actually thought a lot about that particular subject, that energy that cannot be used. And I believed for the longest time that there should be a way to make use of that energy, or at least benefit in some way from it by laying the groundwork from the start. But I realized in the end that most of that energy is so miniscule in quantity that it's not worth bothering with, most of the time.

-Fred

So I guess you're saying there's two types of energy, usable and non-usable energy. I guess I've always thought of all energy as being usable.

Speaking of which, allow me to harvest your soul. Stand still now. That's it. Thaaaaat's it...

-Fred

Yeah that's one of the facts of life. You can't get perfect energy conversion.

You can do things to improve the efficiency of your energy conversion. You can use lubricants to decrease friction in engines for example. You can alter the shape of a rocket or change the skin material to reduce drag on it when it flies through the air.

That's why there's still lots of work left to do in this field. People are always looking for better ways to improve energy conversion. Sometimes the losses are small but sometimes the losses are significant like 20%. That's why engineers and scientists keep working to do better.

Hey Sam, does this article tickle your fancy?

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-max ... nergy.html

-Fred

Very interesting but I think they fibbed a bit.

They said the virtual wall acts as the demon but in actuality it's the scientists watching the high speed camera that are acting as the demon. The wall is merely the device used by the demon. I think the scientists and electricity used to create the wall is used energy, but this energy was external to the system that the particles flow through in the staircase. So for their closed system experiment it works, but it never works when you consider the real-life scenario of the universe as the system.

Now what they really need to be working on is how to defeat the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle and then they'll definitely get the Nobel Prize in physics.

I love the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It adds mystery to the universe still.

-Fred

Ah a man after my own heart. I'm glad you appreciate the wonder of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Ok one last inquiry for you before I put this thread to rest. Just what are your job responsibilities? If a rocket has a faulty launch and crashes is it your fault?

Haha. It's okay. You can ask whatever questions you want. I don't have a job that requires top secret security clearance. Okay I'll briefly describe the Space Shuttle Program organizational structure.

There are the "Elements": The Orbiter Team, The External Tank Team, and the Solid Rocket Booster Team. Each team is responsible for their part of the Space Shuttle Vehicle.

There is a 4th team known as Integration. We are the guys that are supposed to get the other 3 teams to talk to each other and organize tasks between them. If it wasn't for us, everybody would be in their own world and never talk to each other. The difficulty of this job is that the teams contain people from various Aerospace companies: NASA, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, USA, etc.. Getting people from different companies and different organizations is hard.

My team is subdivided into three major areas: Aerodynamics, Thermal, and Loads. Each team answers questions for all the elements depending on their area.

My team is the Aerodynamics team and we've been tasked with being responsible for analyzing debris that comes off the vehicle which might strike the Orbiter and cause damage. Before the Columbia accident we were a very small team of 2 people. Since the Columbia accident we've grown by leaps and bounds since debris has become such a big concern.

Okay now to my specific responsibilities. I'm actually in charge of doing the analysis to determine how/when/where debris will impact the vehicle. The Elements will tell us they are worried about debris coming from their structure and tell us whether it will be foam, ice, cork, or whatever. I do the actual number crunching using some programs developed by us and NASA to do those computations. I pass this information onto the Orbiter team and they assess if they can handle impacts to those areas or tell us if the Damage will be too severe. If this is the case, we have to go back to the Elements and tell them to fix their crap so stuff doesn't come off during a launch.

During a shuttle launch sometimes I support from Houston and sometimes I support from KSC. For this upcoming launch attempt on December 3rd, I'll be flying to FL. A day before the launch, I'll be at the launch pad inspecting the vehicle up close looking for cracks in the foam insulation or any other potential debris issues. On launch day, I'm in the mission control room watching them fuel up the tanks. This will cause the vehicle to get very cold and potentially form ice. I'll be looking out for ice and helping to determine if that's an okay amount of ice or if it's too big to launch. So yes I'm sitting there watching ice grow. It can get very boring. Then after the launch occurs, I spend a couple of days watching videos of the launch. Since the Columbia accident, there a lot more video cameras aimed at the vehicle and we have to review all the video footage to make sure we didn't see anything funny happening during the launch. After that, I finally get to go home.

As to your question as to who's fault it is when something goes wrong, it's the responsibility of which ever team is in charge of that specific piece of hardware. For example, when foam fell off the External Tank, it was the Tank people's fault. If the rocket motors don't ignite on time or they burn out of control, it's the Rocket motor's team's fault.

So if stuff goes wrong it's usually the fault of a bunch of people and never just one person.

I wasn't talking necessarily talking about you as other people in the board. And it makes sense to me that you all have teams. That way there's a lot of checking and accountibility.

I can't believe you guys had a long thread on thermodynamics and no one posted the following. It is all over the Internet in this form and the “frame story,” including Teresa’s participation at the end, is actually an urban myth. It wasn’t written by a student in response to an exam question, but by a physicist as what you might call thermodynamic humor, and it ultimately did appear in the “Journal of Irreproducible Results.” That journal does exist, or at least used to, and is not an urban myth. And “exothermic” means cooling down.
Harry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The following is supposedly an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.

Subject: Is Hell exothermic?
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.
As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different Religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.
With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my freshman year
that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,� and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A"

Yes I've seen this excerpt before. It's an old joke but a funny one.

I know it's a joke but I found some problems.

1. I'm not sure every religion sends you to hell for not believing in it
2. Even if that's true there's still the possibility of one religion being right sending those believers to Heaven
3. 1. and 2. Leave room for the possibility of all souls not being projected to Hell
4. Teresa was using an expression and like all of us is limited in knowing about the beyond.