How much do LPs weigh?

[Tom]

And xane (as I'm sure you know), if both icecaps melted, there would be a net rise in sea levels, as most of the ice on the south pole is above land.

 

[leggy]

No. There exists in the battery, say, 100 electons. When charged, 99 of those electrons are in one chemical, the other 1 is on the other side. When discharged, the reverse is true.

To get them all back in place, you induce a reverse current flow, which restores the previous balance. During the lifetime of a battery, the chemicals which allow this process degrade, and become contaminated (by the other internal components), and thus the battery life degrades. There will always be the same number of electrons present, they just won't be arranged in quite the same configuration.

Fusion power is achieved from heat, and not electron flow.

I said COLD fusion Tom (which doesn't exist and is impossible) and it was a joke. It was merely an energy analogy. Like I said earlier I admit that there are the same number of electrons.

 

[xane]

So an old battery weighs more/less than a new one ?

 

[Lazarus]

And xane (as I'm sure you know), if both icecaps melted, there would be a net rise in sea levels, as most of the ice on the south pole is above land.

and you assume that this melted ice would flow into the sea and not create a inland sea on the south pole?

 

[Tom]

So an old battery weighs more/less than a new one ?

It would lose mass, because of friction, but would gain an equal amount of mass, because of attached sweat

 

[Tom]

and you assume that this melted ice would flow into the sea and not create a inland sea on the south pole?

That would be one heck of a deep sea

 

[Lazarus]

That would be one heck of a deep sea

so - you are not discounting the possibility?

 

[Tom]

I am, because I know something of the terrain of the South Pole, and such a sea would not be sufficient to contain the amount of water at the South Pole. If it were, then you wouldn't have mile thick layers of ice covering Antarctica.

 

[RandomBastard]

Actually, you're correct, but being pedantic I'd have to correct you by saying that any vinyl album/record only has 1 groove per side.

I only used grooves as i didnt want to use pits to describe the things in the groove the needle goes up and down on.

 

[Tom]

Those would be 'oscillations'

 

[Lazarus]

Those would be 'oscillations'

but they dont actually (physically) move up and down

 

[xane]

I am, because I know something of the terrain of the South Pole, and such a sea would not be sufficient to contain the amount of water at the South Pole. If it were, then you wouldn't have mile thick layers of ice covering Antarctica.

The ice would have less volume of melted, as the terrain currently contains the ice, then it must be able to contain a lower volume of water.

 

[Tom]

The ice actually sits on top of the terrain, and is not contained, as can be demonstrated by the depth of certain ice sheets, and the numerous glaciers.

 

[xane]

It sits "on top" because it is solid, a liquid would behave differently and sink down.

 

[Tom]

Yes, but the ice must first have been liquid to sit there. In which case, the original liquid would remain mostly in-situ while frozen?

 

[xane]

But thats the whole argument, the original liquid was there in-situ, got frozen and expanded, so if it melts it stays put

No, I don't believe this either.

 

[Will]

About the batteries, leggy is right. Though the amount would be so tiny that it couldn't be measured.

I can't be arsed explaining it in any greater detail than leggy did.

 

[Trem]

Granny always starts these uber argumentative threads, hes a bastard and should be banned

 

[Lazarus]

I can't be arsed explaining it in any greater detail than leggy did.

Just as well - i never read leggy's either (TLDR)

 

[RandomBastard]

I'm going to side with tom on the batteries argument. As batteries do not loose electrons (energy can neither be created or destroyed, merely converted) electrical energy in batteries comes from a chemical reaction. Its not going to loose any electrons cause they have to return to the positive terminal.

So all batteries are doing are converting potential energy into electrical energy (which is put there in the first place by electrical energy in the case of rechargable batteries).

 

[leggy]

I'm going to side with tom on the batteries argument. As batteries do not loose electrons (energy can neither be created or destroyed, merely converted) electrical energy in batteries comes from a chemical reaction. Its not going to loose any electrons cause they have to return to the positive terminal.

So all batteries are doing are converting potential energy into electrical energy (which is put there in the first place by electrical energy in the case of rechargable batteries).

But there has to be some sort of energy transfer. And like I said energy does have a mass (even if it is almost unmeasurable).

If you had read the other posts you'd have seen that I have backed down on the lose electrons argument. What tom is essentially describing is a PN junction and is not technically the same thing as a battery.

Even so, If a battery transfers energy to another medium it has to be replaced. (Don't think about it as physical particles moving about). Therefore it has lost it's original energy potential and has subsequently lost some mass.

Like you said energy cannot be created or destroyed therefore it has been transfered (no longer with the original cell).

 

[Tom]

heh, well, I'm not going to change my view on this one, I'm just glad it didn't turn into a flaming row

 

[Will]

Its all about wave-particle duality, which is very nerdy. More excited electrons have more energy, which means there is slightly more mass. We are talking a very very small increase, but it will be there. Theoretically.

 

[RandomBastard]

The mass of a battery depends on the number of atoms. As there is no electron loss, and the protons and neutrons arnt going anywhere it doesnt change in mass. Ive never seen it written anywhere that energy has mass tho, although im not prepared to argue that as my physics education ended at alevel.

 

[leggy]

heh, well, I'm not going to change my view on this one, I'm just glad it didn't turn into a flaming row

heh, that's the point of an argument though. No one changes their opinion they just repeat it over and over again

 

[Tom]

Whats needed here is for somebody to find a boffin forum, and we can all be corrected.

 

[Doh_boy]

The mass of a battery depends on the number of atoms. As there is no electron loss, and the protons and neutrons arnt going anywhere it doesnt change in mass. Ive never seen it written anywhere that energy has mass tho, although im not prepared to argue that as my physics education ended at alevel.

As far as I was aware energy and mass are the same thing. It comes from E-MC^2. Since it's an equation then both sides have to be the same thing and sinec the speed of light is assumed to be a constant it's a direct comparison.

As for the definitve answer you could try New Scientist, I've two books named 'The final word' which is a compilation of all the weird/interesting questions answered. Only one I can remember is why bananas go brown.

/edit It's on the web-site, I can't find the question so I'll ask.

 

[Will]

I was just about to post E=mc^2 as proof. Though Special Relativity is a load of shite* tbh.


*Well, it's a bit simplified, rather than a load of shite.

 

[RandomBastard]

as far as i was aware, E=MC^2 gave you energy required to reach the speed of light. I.e. energy to accelerate a mass to C.

 

[Doh_boy]

as far as i was aware, E=MC^2 gave you energy required to reach the speed of light. I.e. energy to accelerate a mass to C.

I dunno that much but for the equation to work one of it's assumptions is that energy and mass are the same thing. But then I don't trust my understanding of relativity that much.