According to your link, this is actually used in big plants:
Vacuum distillation is often used in large industrial plants as an efficient way to remove salt from ocean water, in order to produce fresh water. This is known as desalination. The ocean water is placed under a vacuum to lower its boiling point and has a heat source applied, allowing the fresh water to boil off and be condensed.
Honestly there is never any shame about sharing what you’ve learned. I didn’t ever think about this and now I’ve learned something. Keep asking questions and searching for answers!
I’m not an expert, but I clicked on the link to the studies and got this jargle:
At PAIST (ProxiHealthcare Advanced Institute for Science and Technology), our in-house research laboratory, we continuously expand our research on…
Emphasis mine. This is a huge red flag. Additionally, they don’t have basic links to the studies in reputable journals. You have to email them to get the studies, which makes me suspicious that it has any kind of objective peer review.
I did find this 2016 paper, however. No idea if Science Direct is reputable. The notable section is this:
For the biofilm treatment, an electric signal with increased total electrical energy, 0.25 V amplitude sinusoidal signal at 10 MHz with a 0.25 V DC offset, was applied in combination with low doses of the antibiotic gentamicin (10 μg/mL) for the BE.
They’re essentially trying to do the same thing here, with Fluoride being their analogous antibiotic. The electricity at that frequency is supposed to break up a protective “biofilm” the bacteria produces, ostensibly allowing the fluoride to do its work.
However, I fail to see how it’s significantly better than just brushing your teeth, which is what the brushing is supposed to do. Furthermore, what happens to plaque? Or the dead bacteria? Does it just stay on your teeth?
The inventor is a PhD Electrical Engineer, so this just seems like an over-engineered toothbrush to me.
Thanks; I appreciate your thoughts on this! I did miss the ‘in-house’ part in my initial read, and I agree that is the major red flag! Essentially, enough to end the discussion IMHO.
Using bioelectric microcurrent waves to disturb the biological metabolic reaction and structure of bacteria that forms an impenetrable biofilm
Well, it certainly sounds like jargon designed to obfuscate the actual process. At a minimum they’re relying on scientific opacity to render a buyer “convinced because it sounds smart”.
I’m always skeptical of these things. Anything that can truly destroy the biological elements that make up plaque bacteria will also likely destroy the cells in your gums. So you’re left with either a very mild human-cells safe process that is so mild that it also does little to nothing to the other things, or you actually have a dangerous process that is also dangerous to your human cells. Like drinking bleach to cure COVID… I’d rather that, if they are doing anything at all here, it’s entirely placebo (beyond the usual brushing effects).
… That’s actually a good point. I’m guessing since the digestive tract is flexible and isn’t held open to the outside all the time, it wouldn’t cause problems with things deep inside. I also think it’s inevitable that if you did shit yourself in it, suction would kick in at some point and make it all a bit more dramatic. And then it would boil-freeze off into space, and be icy cold. That might still be better than pooping a sealed space suit, though.
Your body IS being constantly pressurized by the atmosphere, and your various sphincters are used to that. Presuming the suit doesn’t pressurize your body beyond what it’s used to (at which point breathing would be difficult), there should be no unexpected anal excretions due to the suit.
But the pressure from the atmosphere applies to both sides of the sphincter, resulting in zero net pressure. Unless the suit actually does press against the outside of the sphincter like it does the rest of the body, I think OP’s concern about the suit squeezing you like a tube of toothpaste is valid.
Maybe the suit only applies a few PSI instead of the full 14.7, which it seems like one’s sphincters would be able to withstand.
I think it’s like a third of an atmosphere or something. Enough to comfortably achieve the same partial pressure of oxygen as normal Earth air, by providing it pure.
In terms of engineering, it does. Micro meteorite protection and heat management can both be provided by normal garments. UV protection is obviously easy enough too. Breathing gas is a bit less convenient, but still not as tricky as making a suit that’s both rigid enough to reliably hold several PSI in and flexible enough to comfortably work in. That’s why the elastic suits are being researched like they are.
I’m guessing it’s an aluminum oxide abrasive? The abrasive is flourescing due to the little bit of uv coming out of the LEDs.
You might find this interesting, if you are grinding iron or steel then the grinding surface may not flouresce due to the iron bonding with the aluminum oxide.
This seems like a perfectly reasonable answer. OP! You could probably test this by changing the type of light you’re using. Try a red laser pointer as a control, and a black light wand (the sort they use to detect counterfiet bills), and see what happens.
Complete tangent, but alumina, aka aluminum oxide, is usually considered the second hardest naturally occurring material. When it is found in nature, it is given the mineral name corundum and is clear. But if there are some impurities in it, you can get colours. Red corundum is called Ruby, and blue is called Sapphire. In the beauty industry, the same material (mixed with magnetite) is called emery, and lends its name to emery board, and is used in nail files. In the tech industry, it’s used to make the extremely scratch resistant coating on most modern phone screens (basically nothing but diamond will scratch it).
You have subscribed to alumina facts. I’m sorry, the cat facts guy was busy.
We also use emery paper to smooth out rough surface finishes on machined parts. None of my tools but some of the tools the other guys have in the shop use little Ruby beads as reference surfaces. Our wire EDM also uses Ruby for some critical parts.
You’ve been subscribed to machine facts, strap in it’s a bumpy ride
Is there a machining community active somewhere on lemmy (yet)? I only dabble, but I like to sneak peaks at real folks fucking up, err, showing off their projects.
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !machinist
Plasma is so low density, so the total heat capacity will be quite low. You’d need a lot of cold plasma to chill a very small amount of liquid water through freezing.
Remember that a plasma is an ionic gas, so it doesn’t have a specific temperature associated with it. It’s just a bunch of free charges (ions, electrons, protons). Assuming the bulk charge of the plasma is effectively neutral, then you have some limits on density. If they get too close to each other, they start binding to one another. At cold temperatures, it is much easier to collide and stick than at hot temperatures, so cold plasmas tend to be even lower density than hot plasmas.
Which means, it cannot absorb much energy, because there isn’t a lot of matter in it. Sure, you could cool something with it, but it would take a lot.
As I’m also a non-professional, I’d like to use your your comment to add my experience with studying quantum mechanics:
From all my studies of both math and lab experiments, intuitively and likely in reality, matter at the quantum level is made of vibrations, oscillations and standing waves of “SpaceTime.” The amplitude, frequency, position, magnetic moment (spin/charge), temperature, pressure and other properties are what we measure and thus describe particles and emergent phenomena like phonons and other quasi-particles.
So this all seems simple enough, we have mathematical descriptions and tools to measure with, what’s this whole issue with “observation” and how how far do we need to take it?
My simple answer is: whenever you see “observer”, translate it to interaction. This can be anything, so long as it interacts with the quantum system being “observed.” But what does this really mean, why does it matter so much? Go back to our wave properties and understand that anything quantum that interacts with anything else quantum is actually introducing their own wave properties and thus, allowing quantum interactions. That is, it’s likely impossible to use something with quantum wave properties (which everything has) to precisely measure something else with quantum wave properties and not have some level of wave disruptions - in other words, we cannot have precise measurements because the closer your quantum measuring tool tries to measure another object’s quantum property, the more the interactions influence the results. The Copenhagen perspective, as I’ve come to orient my understanding, is a question of: does the math reflecting these wave interactions/measurements of them, only mathematically describe it, or do we take the math literally and call it reality?
There are those in both camps and especially as a non-professional, I join the camp that says it only mathematically describes reality. Keep in mind, relativity of all objects makes it so even the very conditions of the experiment can skew results; the quantum level is extremely sensitive to its wave environment and even in a vacuum, the zero-point energy field exists. Also, keep in mind that just because you can’t precisely measure a given property doesn’t mean that you can’t have very good measurements of most/all properties; it’s only a matter of how badly you need to precisely know any given property.
There’s obviously more nuance, but I think the key thing that I want to impart is not to take quantum mathematics to literally, but it’s the best description and predicting tool that we have for that level of physics.
Most experimental research in matter under extreme pressures is concerned with recreating conditions within the interiors of planets and stars (this falls under the field of high energy density physics). The temperatures involved therefore tend to be very high. However, there’s no inherent conflict between high pressures and low temperatures, it’s just that temperature tends to increase when you compress something. Compress an ideal gas, for example, and it will heat up. Let it sit in its compressed state for a while though, and it will cool back down despite remaining under high pressure.
This is true for solids and liquids too (putting any phase transitions aside), though they are much less compressible. The core of the Earth will eventually cool too, though it’s currently kept at high temperature by the radioactive decay of heavy elements. Diamond anvil cells, however, can reach pressures exceeding those at the center of the earth in a laboratory setting, and some DACs can even be cooled to cryogenic temperatures. This figure on Wikipedia suggests cryo-DACs can be used to reach pressures up to 350 GPa at cryogenic temperatures. As an example, a quick search turns up a paper (arxiv version) that makes use of a DAC to study media at liquid nitrogen temperatures and pressures up to 10 GPa (~3% the pressure at the center of the Earth). Search around and I’m sure you can find others.
You might be interested in supercritical fluids, which are fluids at high enough pressures and low enough temperatures (but not high enough pressures or low enough temperatures to solidify) that they act as both a liquid and a gas: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_fluid
askscience
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.