Most recent activity
-
i was admiring No.7 Emily Chappell's comfortable lead over the nearest solo female No.141 Johanna Josten-van Duinkerken, then noticed No.204 Charlotte Dequevauviller is hot on her heels. Has she sprung out of nowhere? Has everyone just forgotten about her because she's part of a pair?
-
I'm wondering:
will the Tory election expenses scandal come home to roost any time soon?
how will UKIP do if we have a general election soon?
-
Apart from all the hatred and lies, i think it's about poverty. People who feel themselves to be on the bottom of things hope they might do better if things are shaken up. On some level the coming chaos is what they want.
-
Because the Canadian inventor of square socket head screws wouldn't sell the patent to Ford, so Robertson screws are only common in Canada, while as an American, Allen had better access to capital and a larger market, and Torx wasn't invented until recently.
-
The ratio is roughly the inverse of the flange to center line distances
-
I think the last paragraph of this accurately summed up the Labour party recently :http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/until-corbyn-led-the-labour-party-we-were-all-wonderfully-polite-a6777416.html
Compared with moderately united opposition parties of the past, Labour's performance at the recent elections wasn't great, but to make that comparison is to ignore Corbyn's entire story. The PLP wanted to keep trying the tory-lite course which was such a failure at the last election, but in a moment of heady idealism they'd accidentally allowed a bit of genuine democracy into the leader selection process, so ended up with someone who has a lot of genuine support outside the westminster bubble. Both the PLP and the media are stuck complaining ever more loudly that Corbyn is doing 'tory-lite' really badly, never daring to even mention what his actual goals might be, get out of Westminster to see what real people might make of them, and judge him on that.
So i can see why people are angry, and it's sad that some of them are misogynists (who i utterly deplore), and i can see why that's the only newsworthy aspect of this when you're looking out from inside the Westminster bubble, or from anywhere on the right. I fear that 'Corbyn supporters are nutters' will become a self-reinforcing media meme that swamps the good and genuine intentions of many who voted for him.
As David Graeber has complained: the right well knows that you have to make space for your extremists because they make space for the moderates. The left turns on its extremists as traitors and so the Overton window shifts ever rightwards and even moderate leftists find themselves in the darkness of media incredulity.
-
So far i like most the 'empty d orbitals' argument from one of the links in your first post. I'm less keen on the 'magnets' explanation because the Curie temperature doesn't line up with the transition to FCC, so what's holding it BCC between the Curie point and the phase transition?
Maybe it's something like this: at low temperature iron's d orbitals favor the BCC structure, but its metalness objects to the poor packing efficiency and the atoms get squashed in closer to each other than they'd really like to be. As it gets hotter the atoms are jiggling so much that the d orbitals aren't lining up enough of the time to claim the energy benefit from it, so close packing wins. Hotter still and the d-orbitals conspire with entropy (which favors things being spread out) to switch back to BCC before it melts.
-
I can't quite tell if you're taking account of FCC unit cells having more atoms per cell than BCC. (8 8ths + 6 halfs = 4 for FCC vs. 8 8ths + 1 = 2 for BCC.) So FCC is denser despite the larger lattice parameter. I did the maths on the nearest neighbor distances from your link above, and got 0.258 nm for FCC and 0.248 nm for BCC. (The BCC number is room temperature, but the 'Steels' book doesn't say what temp the FCC number relates to.)
Still thinking what to make of this all. I fear we'll need to dig deep into how to calculate the phases' free energy to get much further, and that might need both more quantum mechanics and computing time than i have access to.
-
Excellent discussion.
Does FCC really allow more wiggle room per atom? I'd have thought the lower packing efficiency of BCC would do that?
In that case, the wiggle room argument might help to explain the reappearance of BCC at high temperature, while we have to go looking for other effects at low temperature.
I've also seen it said that BCC has smaller spaces for interstitial atoms, which doesn't seem to line up with the lower density either. Is it that BCC has both more space and more spaces (points maximum distance from atoms, counted per atom), so the individual spaces come out smaller?
Why would we want to rush into a deal that preserves our 50 billion euro trade deficit with Germany? Don't you think that imbalance is a bit of a problem?
You do acknowledge that tariffs would change the trade that goes on, but you begin your analysis of their effects from the assumption that they wouldn't, which i think is nuts. The Germans won't much adjust their prices to adsorb the tariffs, so the extra will be paid by UK purchasers, making us all feel poorer. As we export so little to them, they'll barely notice paying extra for our stuff, and our devaluing currency will soften that further.
Actually the trade imbalance has been causing Germany problems too, leading to too much saving - driving down the interest rates for pensions, inflating asset bubbles and generally destabilising their banks and the the weaker eurozone economies. It would be much better for everyone if their trade surplus could be recycled into productive capital investments in the deficit economies. But we've voted ourselves out of the possibility of any such rational arrangements.