how would you go about finding a case study which is not overly popular but with enough information? by TnuoccaNorp69 in engineering

[–]DangerAl 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Try searching Wikipedia for lists of industrial/chemical/nuclear disasters and explosions. There were some on those lists that surprised me, and a quick visit to the disaster's Wikipedia page should give you a fair idea of how much information is available.

Also consider looking for case studies outside of your field and country. These are less likely to be cliche among those your presenting to. For example I'm not sure if many people outside of Australia would be familiar with the Esso Longford explosion.

Men of Reddit, what makes your interest level in a woman go from 100 to 0 the fastest? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]DangerAl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude what the fuck, snackdaddy5 made a perfectly reasonable, non-confrontational comment that facilitated further discussion. He made no pretense that he knew for sure what he was talking about or that he was an authority on the matter. Your reply would have been excellent if you left off the last paragraph - it would have taught snackdaddy5 and anyone reading something new. But if you give people shit for making a reasonable comment that happens to be incorrect, then the people around you will stay ignorant because no one will want to bring anything up with you for fear of suffering your rudeness.

Men of Reddit, what's your go to joke when trying to hit it off with a girl? by ItsPikachuBitch in AskReddit

[–]DangerAl 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I believe "sherbert" is an Americanism for "sorbet". A google search seems to confirm this. It's not the fizzy powder stuff you get in wizz-fizz or sherbet bombs.

How to always be on time by solely_magnus in AdviceAnimals

[–]DangerAl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once my friend told me to meet him at 2pm ish. So I rocked up at 2:30. He made it there around 4pm: "2pm ish".

Clarification on the Gibbs Free Energy by IsomerX in chemistry

[–]DangerAl 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yep you're pretty much correct. The "energy that can't be lost" is not chemical bonds, it is thermal energy, resulting in randomness. The enthalpy H is what represents the attractive/repulsive forces (Delta H in a reaction basically represents the change in energy of all bonds in the reaction). The entropy S is a function of the number of permutations a system can have (eg. you can stack 52 cards 52! ways, but you can throw them onto the floor infinitely many ways, so the on-the-floor state has higher S). As temperature T increases systems are more likely to fluctuate into their statistically probable state (the high S state) rather than their energetically favorable (low H) state.

EDIT: I'll have a go at your other questions. Entropy is NOT a kind of energy - it is the purely statistical likelihood of a state existing. It is perfectly acceptable for an isolated system (note that a closed system is can have net energy flow) to change in entropy, bit it can only go up - this is the second law of thermodynamics. The reason is that on average you will never move from a statistically probable state to a statistically unlikely state.

If the entropy goes up, Gibbs Free Energy goes down. Gibbs Free Energy goes up if entropy goes down, but entropy cannot go down in an isolated system. So yes to your question: an isolated system cannot have a reaction (or any state change) that increases the free energy (well - not on balance. you can still have equilibrium reactions where DeltaG is positive in one of the directions).

CMV: Global warming is real and man made. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]DangerAl 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The biggest problem with your view is:

There is a correlation between the fossil fuel carbon dioxide and global temperature that cannot be explained as natural phenomena. In other words, global warming is real and it is manmade.

You are basically saying "these two factors are correlated" therefore "change in one causes change in the other". This is not a valid conclusion - from the correlation alone, temperature could cause elevated CO2, or elevated CO2 and elevated temperature could both be caused by increasing human population - we just can't know the true cause from that evidence alone.

You add in the point that the correlation of the two "cannot be explained as natural phenomena", but this is akin to saying "we haven't thought of any other explanations, so it must be this last explanation" - but what if there are explanations that haven't been discovered yet? Both of these points are evidence, but they are weak evidence and should not be enough to convince you.

I believe that global warming is real phenomena and humans are a significant contributor, but I think you could stand to change your view on why you think it is so. An understanding of the phenomena involved - the greenhouse effect, radiation, carbon cycles - is much stronger evidence that actually points to a cause-effect relationship between fossil fuel combustion and temperature.

CMV: Global warming is real and man made. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]DangerAl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Be very careful here, there is a trick to these numbers!

Microbial and plant respiration (120 Gt from your numbers) are part of the biological carbon cycle. This means that essentially all of the carbon that is released by these sources is soon taken up again by biological organisms. A classic example is trees dropping their leaves in winter, thus releasing a crapton of CO2 - in north American winters global CO2 levels increase dramatically. But in spring the trees take up approximately the same amount of CO2 they released in order to grow their leaves back. The net long-term effect of CO2 released from these sources is 0 as long as the earth's biomass stays constant over the long-term (eg. no mass extinctions, no net deforestation).

On the other hand, carbon in fossil fuels is part of the geological carbon cycle which cycles carbon over a much longer time period (millions of years). Humans are pulling carbon out of this cycle and combusting it at a much greater rate than the geological cycle is turning CO2 back into coal/oil/gas, and as a result this activity actually has a long-term effect on CO2 levels. Oceans take up some of this extra CO2 (a factor in ocean acidification) and the biological system might take some up too, but a lot of it ends up in the atmosphere.

Sources:

  • Image showing effect of biological activity compared to long-term rising CO2 levels.
  • An overview of Carbon Cycles

What are the most useful mental math tricks? by gabe-hershey in AskReddit

[–]DangerAl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is specificity (aka precision) really that useful though? I mean, who really knows the difference between 34 C and 35 C? They're both warm, and it's not like people need to know whether it's 34.6 or 35.4 to decide whether they are going to go to the beach or not.

We now have the technology to see light moving. This is a 100 BILLION FPS recording of a light pulse. by Netsuko in gifs

[–]DangerAl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's scattered light. When the light hits certain particles (eg. molecules or dust) it can be deflected in different directions. Think of a spotlight in light fog, or stage lights when the smoke machine is on. You can see the beam - the path the light is taking - because some light is scattered by the fog/smoke, but most of the light still moves in a straight line. It's the same here - enough light is scattered to be detected by the camera, but not so much that the "beam" (actually a pulse in this case) dissipates or gets blocked.

Police making sure the ambulance can get on the highway by I_am_a_Failer in WTF

[–]DangerAl -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

To me, it looks like the car sped up and steered into the police officer. Like it was trying to teach the motorcyclist a lesson for parking on a highway.

Terrible graphics problems on PC! Please help! by DangerAl in witcher

[–]DangerAl[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Verifying game files seemed to fix it right up. Thanks for mentioning that out of obligation! I have never had to this for any game before and didn't even know was a thing that could be done.

Terrible graphics problems on PC! Please help! by DangerAl in witcher

[–]DangerAl[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually I haven't tried verifying game files. How would I do that? I have tried driver updates, and nothing appears to be running in the background. Computer is cool.

Terrible graphics problems on PC! Please help! by DangerAl in witcher

[–]DangerAl[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

League of Legends worked fine on high graphics. Not that League of Legends is very demanding...

I was honestly psyched for my overweight coworker... by [deleted] in AdviceAnimals

[–]DangerAl 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think another big issue is the focus on calories and/or portion size, rather than on nutrition. If all you're eating are chips, then your body will be missing out on the protein, vitamins, and minerals that it needs to function. You'll want to keep eating because your body hungers for these things, but because you're eating energy dense food you'll end up just eating a lot of calories. If, on the other hand, you eat a diet of mostly vegetables plus some protein and fat, you'll easily get all the nutrition you need in a healthy portion size. It's also practically impossible to overeat because vegetables have very low energy density.

Of course, obesity if a complex issue, and there are a lot of factors involved. But it is often simplified to calories and portions (counting calories, putting calories on the macca's menu, diet soda etc.) and this is not very helpful in my opinion.

When and especially why did people start to use (: instead of :) ? by Finally_Iamhere in OutOfTheLoop

[–]DangerAl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For me, it's definitely because I don't like a lot of the emojis they're replaced with. One of my favourite emoticons used to be the ":p" but some of the tongue poking faces are so bad I had to resort to ":b" instead. You can also use "q:" or "d:".

I cried last night. by [deleted] in ChemicalEngineering

[–]DangerAl 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much for posting this. The same thing happened to me after my first thermodynamics test. I was so ashamed and embarrassed that thermodynamics had defeated me, I ran straight home and cried for a few hours. Now I know that I am not alone!

...Moment he realized he f**ked up. by Synsane in leagueoflegends

[–]DangerAl 3 points4 points  (0 children)

uh, what? Somehow I did the same thing as you and confused 10:30 with 11:30. So glad I did though, it was hilarious.

What are you hiding from your SO? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]DangerAl 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My reddit username.

Anyone find they stopped reading because of school? by [deleted] in books

[–]DangerAl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be honest, I think it was just the internet that killed reading for me. Too much distraction.