Yes I was referring to the pedantic aspect of the terminology. Academics appear to be encouraged to be pedantic when asking and answering questions or at least that has been my observation meaning a correct answer can be wrong in their minds or to win an argument.
Yeah I munched the maths but yours is 10 years old!
The 2022 version of that sustainability report puts their annual bought in electricity at 272,610 MWh, 747 MWh per day.
My wonky maths aside, it's amazing how much energy they've saved. In your link, the switch to LEDs alone saw a 20% total power reduction. I'm sure I've seen electric vehicles there so I'm surprised this number is still apparently in freefall. Perhaps they're doing more local generation (eg) PV
While we're doing wacky units for energy instead of the joule, I'd personally prefer roughly 360 DeLorean's per day (assuming the 1.21 gigawatts are required for roughly 10 seconds)
Energy, over a very long period of time. Remember that mass and energy are equivalent.
Hawking temperature is inversely proportional to black hole size, so the bigger the hole the "colder" it is. The largest black holes will start evaporating very slowly once the CMB drops below their temperature.
A tiny micro black hole, if one were created, would evaporate almost instantly converting 100% of its mass into energy, basically a bomb. E.g. a 1kg micro black hole smaller than an electron would have a yield similar to a small hydrogen bomb, most of which would be released as ultra high energy gamma rays.
Black holes are awesome. In some ways they are the most extreme things in the universe, the extreme-est of extreme physics.
The mass-energy density required to create them is so far beyond anything humanly possible that trying to do so with, for example, hydrogen bombs would be not much better than trying to do it by squeezing really hard with your hand. It requires things like the first few milliseconds after the Big Bang (if primordial black holes exist) or collapsing massive stars. To give a sense of this density: a black hole with the mass of the Earth would be about the size of a marble (Schwartzchild radius). Inside of course there's either a true singularity or -- if certain theories of quantum gravity are correct -- a region of some kind of maximum-theoretical-density matter. (Some theories predict that true singularities don't exist.)
If somehow someday it were possible to create or control them, it would be possible to access energies far beyond fusion or even antimatter-driven reactions... think perfect direct mass-energy conversion with near 100% efficiency.
Thanks for the in depth answer. Pretty wild that something that nothing can escape, not even light, can still just evaporate over ridiculous time spans.
We think this is the case, and the math very much says that it is, but in truth we have yet to observe it so we cannot be absolutely 100% certain. If it's not the case it would mean new physics. It happens due to quantum effects at the event horizon.
It's not really whether it makes scientific sense or not, it's just that it's so very highly improbable (really, really improbable) that other explanations make more sense: the video's a fake, it's mass hysteria, or even that we're living in a simulation.
The use of a space as a thousands separator has been around since the 1940s as recommended by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures and it was what we used when I was a kid at school in the UK. They specified it should be a thin (half) space.
No I know, it's also part of the French standard. Just more so commenting on how uncommon it is from Canadian English speakers despite it being the Canadian English "standard" recommend by a Canadian entity similar to the French or German standards bodies.
How can you tell from analysis of the physical circuit what assumptions the designer made about the flow of current? Surely the components (electrolytic capacitors, diodes, transistors, etc) are the same and can only work in one direction. Is it that the ground plane is connected to the positive terminal of the power supply?
They have different magnetic susceptibilities. Gold is diamagnetic (repelled by magnetism); tungsten is paramagnetic (attracted). A strong magnetic field (neodymium magnets) and sensitive scales can tell them apart. I built a small rig a few years ago with parts from Aliexpress that worked for coins and for bars it's just scaling it up.
