Recent content by Suni

hello could someone please help me out with proving the following: |z1|^2/|z2|^2 = |z1/z2|^2 ...with complex numbers sorry I am not familiar with the coding here yet so i can't write that properly

I think none of this really goes into the deep purpose of moments in rigid bodies.. I was never really satisified by the explanations people gave me until I read parts of "Principles of Mechanics" by Synge & Griffith. It depends on the context of 'moments' as to which part needs deriving...

Thanks for the replies guys! Yes cogito² i think you're right.. I've mistaken this IST business with the hyperreal set and its implications. It actually looks like the whole process is undertaken in the Real set itself. Looks like i have a lot of reading to do. The first half of the...

Hi all I've seen the term 'unlimited' and 'infinity' used interchangeably in non-standard analysis. However when reading a scientific american magazine (Nov 1994 - "Resolving Zeno's Paradoxes") the author says this: I am slightly confused. Which is it? I can't see why the inverse of an...

it still holds for very low pressures and temperatures of gases (see z-factor chart) well its still important because it still IS part of the picture with real gases.. just with other added variables

Then can you explain why this total energy function does not include PV? Seems almost a contradiction on their own site. Again i would only find enthalpy useful in its changes i.e. h1-h2. (you were commonly making use of this when using PdV.. if we're just looking at the original enthalpy...

ohhh OK the quote is implying the addition of its ORIGINAL internal energy.. my mistake. makes total sense then.

If we're looking at a gas flow across a valve or something then yeah the energy does remain in the gas.. just not as internal energy anymore (it'd be converted to KE or PE or something - all assuming no heat loss). Agreed? I think that gets back to the rate form of the 1st law of thermo u were...

OK that makes sense.. thanks very much guys

The word "negated" would really only apply to a system undergoing expansion. "Converted" i agree is more correct because during compression you are indeed doing work ON the system.. (rather than the system doing work during expansion) This "thermal AND pressure energy" thing is totally wrong...

Q_Goest: I don't see how a system can possesses "pressure energy". My interpretation of enthalpy is that the PV term simply accounts for work done in expansion, and this energy is itself negated from the internal energy of the system. Does anyone else agree/disagree with this?

Thanks for the link mate.. very helpful.. wasn't aware of that So it is then right to say that a system like that can stay in equilibrium so long as it isn't touched/bumped etc? I guess that makes sense!

Hi all Just a quick (relatively simple) question.. As high school physics/chem tought, a liquid of lower density will float uopn that of a higher density. This makes sense in most situations because of the pressure gradient in the higher-density liquid pushing the other fluid upwards. But...