Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
AP's 269th book of science-- Biology's 10% Rule which 90% of scientists wrongly interpret and understand// biology & logic by Archimedes Plutonium 6m views
31 views
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 23, 2023, 11:58:26 PM12/23/23
to
AP's 269th book of science-- Biology's 10% Rule which 90% of scientists wrongly interpret and understand// biology & logic by Archimedes Plutonium
6m views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
7:23 PM (4 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Whilst writing my 268th book of science on a TV show of Nature showing sea wolf behavior of laying out salmon on land, and researching this, found me on this 10% Rule of biology. And I quickly understood that such a idea was "rife" for total misunderstanding of what the rule is about and what the rule is trying to say. So I wisely realized I should write a book on this Rule and to alleviate its mistake traps, for the rule is covered in misconception and application and enormous error. It takes a logical scientific mind to lay straight, clear and plain what this rule is. Just up AP's alley for it is logic that is AP's forte.
AP's 268th book of science--Rewriting NATURE: "Canada: Surviving the Wild North"
5m views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 21, 2023, 4:32:48 PM (2 days ago)
This will be AP's 268th published book of science. Looking up the medical data and it is called
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 22, 2023, 3:47:43 AM (yesterday)
Now there is another parasite to note here, called Anisakis a nematode. It is likely that the NATURE
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
5:17 PM (2 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
While researching wolf eating salmon, I ran across another science trap that causes huge misunderstanding.
--- quoting a Google search on 10 percent energy rule ---
Food Chain with 10% Energy Rule
NetLogo Modeling Commons
https://modelingcommons.org › browse › one_model
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from modelingcommons.org
In food chains, the predator only gains about ten percent of the prey's energy. This pyramid effect leads to lower populations of upper-trophic-level predators.
People also ask
What is the 10% rule in ecology?
What is 10 percent law of energy flow?
On average only 10 percent of energy available at one trophic level is passed on to the next. This is known as the 10 percent rule, and it limits the number of trophic levels an ecosystem can support.
Energy Flow and the 10 Percent Rule - National Geographic Education
nationalgeographic.org
https://education.nationalgeographic.org › resource › ene...
Search for: What is 10 percent law of energy flow?
Why is only 10 percent of energy transferred to the next trophic level?
How much energy do predators get?
Why only 10 of energy is passed from prey to predator?
Why is the 10% rule important?
Feedback
Life on the Food Chain
Northern Arizona University
https://www2.nau.edu › lrm22 › lessons › food_chain
Recent studies suggest that only ~10% of energy is converted to biomass from one trophic level to the next! The Food Chain: The answer has to do with trophic ...
Missing: tier
energy flow and trophic levels - Students
Britannica Kids
https://kids.britannica.com › students › assembly › view
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from kids.britannica.com
As little as 10 percent of the energy at any trophic level is transferred to the next level; the rest is lost largely through metabolic processes as heat. If a ...
Missing: wolf tier
Wolf Food Chain | Overview, Diet & Predators
Study.com
https://study.com › academy › lesson › wolf-food-chain
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from study.com
Energy is transferred from producers to consumers, but only about 10% of the available energy is passed from one level to the next. The other 90% of ...
Missing: tier percent
Wolf Predator vs Feral Predator?
Reddit · r/predator
280+ comments · 1 year ago
... Wolf doesn't waste energy or over-perform. They both have physical feats on the same tier, but Feral enjoys the violence and tends to overdo it.
Apex predators of Africa tier list : r/Tierzoo
Feb 18, 2021
Is Wolf The Smartest Predator So Far That We've Seen?
Feb 3, 2023
predator strength tier list
Aug 11, 2022
What's your Predator Tier List? : r/HuntingGrounds
Oct 28, 2022
More results from www.reddit.com
Apex predator
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Apex_predator
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from en.wikipedia.org
The wolf is both an apex predator and a keystone species, affecting its prey's behaviour and the wider ecosystem. Because apex predators have powerful effects ...
Wolverines: Behind the Myth
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (.gov)
https://www.adfg.alaska.gov › ...
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from www.adfg.alaska.gov
They're not as fast as wolves, and they don't work in packs, but they can be more predator than scavenger if the situation allows for it.” Wolverines hunt ...
Images
Legendary Tier List - Wolf Game the Wild Kingdom [NOV2022 List]
Legendary Tier List - Wolf Game the Wild Kingdom [NOV2022 List]
YouTube
Legendary Tier List - Wolf Game the Wild Kingdom [NOV2022 List]
Legendary Tier List - Wolf Game the Wild Kingdom [NOV2022 List]
YouTube
UNLOCK HIGH TIER WOLVES! Wolf Game The Wild Kingdom Troop Tiers! [Part VI]
UNLOCK HIGH TIER WOLVES! Wolf Game The Wild Kingdom Troop Tiers! [Part VI]
YouTube
Feedback
6 more images
Web results
HUNTING GROUNDS 2023 ! FULL BREAKDOWN ANALYSIS
YouTube · Samhain13
2.8K+ views · 10 months ago
47:34
... TIER 28:06 - B TIER 30 ... RANKING ALL PREDATOR CLASSES ON PREDATOR: HUNTING GROUNDS 2023 ! FULL BREAKDOWN ANALYSIS. 2.8K views · 10 months ago ..
7 key moments
in this video
Missing: wolf energy percent
Food Chain
National Geographic Society
https://www.nationalgeographic.org › encyclopedia
Oct 19, 2023 — At each step up the food chain, only 10 percent of the energy is passed on to the next level, while approximately 90 percent of the energy is ...
People also ask
What is the 10 percent rule of energy flow quizlet?
What is the 10% rule in second law of thermodynamics?
What law of thermodynamics is the 10% rule?
What is the 10% rule of energy transfer quizlet?
Feedback
Related searches
Wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent reddit
what happens to the energy that is not transferred to the next level in an energy pyramid?
how much energy is transferred from one trophic level to the next
tertiary consumer
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
5:28 PM (2 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Biology's 10% rule turns out to be a Error Trap for most every scientist of biology
According to the 10% law of the food chain, top carnivores receive the least amount of energy compared to all other trophic levels, then how are these organisms the strongest among all?
All related (34)
Motilal Singh
Biology Professor (1992–present)4y
As we know that the sun is ultimate source of energy, this solar energy is trapped by green plants by means of photosynthesis.
All living organisms directly or indirectly depend on the photosynthetic products produced and stored in the forms of root, stem, leaves, fruits, flowers etc. and are consumed as food.
Obviously it is correct that
According to the 10% food chain law, the solar energy trapped by autotrophs can not be transferred as 100 % from one trophic level to the other trophic level because 90% energy is emitted / thrown out into the environment at each and every trophic level as excretory products and by means of radiations etc. But perhaps you are confused here that the flow of nutrients in trophic levels are cyclic and not in unidirectional as the energy flows there.
It is also important to keep in mind that there are different types of nutrients required for body to perform different functions like :-
1) Carbohydrates - energy supplying nutrients.
2)Fats and lipids - high energy supplying nutrients.
3) Proteins - Body builder and secondary energy supplying nutrients.
4) Vitamins and minerals - immune promoters.
Considerably it is also important that the top carnivores take their full diet with having enriched proteins and fats, which built and strengthen their body and muscles.
The 10% law of the food chain doesn't describe that top carnivores fail to get their full diet but it describes a comparative flow of energy in the ecosystem.
I hope that you find this answer helpful.
Thank you.
AP writes: I think the biology professor has it correct. And it is a tough rule to understand.
Quora
Maddy White
Studied wolf behavioral books/reports for past 3 years5y
Not many creatures eat wolves. You see there is a scientific reason as to why food chains collapse after you reach only 3 levels.
When energy is transferred from one organism to another, (through consumption) only 10 percent of the original energy is transferred. Plants hold the most and make up the base of the food chain, and so herbivores get 10 percent of the energy when eating plants.
Then wolves, or any carnivore for that matter, consume the herbivores and get 10 percent of that 10 percent of energy, making it 1 percent gained by the wolf.
If an another animal were to consume a wolf at this point, they would only be getting 0.1 percent of that original energy, making the wolf an unideal source of energy.
Besides just that simple fact, hunting wolves isn't exactly easy either. They are fast, intelligent, and run in packs, making it impossible to pick one off without first isolating it.
Overall animals have just learned not to mess with wolves.
Wolves however may be hunted/preyed on by animals such as:
-Other wolves
-Bears
-Mountain lions
-Humans
However, they usually do not kill wolves for the purpose of eating, as for the reasons explained above. Wolves are preyed on by humans and other animals for the purposes of: obtaining fur, eliminating them as a pest, for territorial reasons, or to protect resources like food from being stolen. There is also the purpose of defense, such as a bear killing a wolf to insure the safety of their own cub from being picked off by the wolf.
1.6K viewsView upvotes
AP
Very crude dot picture of 5f6 magnetosphere of 231Pu Atom Totality
A torus shape doing the Faraday Law inside of each and every atom.
____
.-' `-.
.' ::\ ::|:: /:: `.
/ ::\::|::/:: \
; _ _ ;
| ___( O )___ |
; - - ;
\ ::/::|::\:: /
`. ::/ ::|:: \:: .'
`- _____ .-'
One of those dots in the magnetosphere is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy. The O is the Cosmic nucleus and
certainly not as dense as what Old Physics thought because in New Physics
the interior of atoms has the Faraday law going on.
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, govt-police drag net spam,off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
AP's 269th book of science-- Biology's 10% Rule which 90% of scientists wrongly interpret and understand// biology & logic by Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
8:46 PM (2 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Actually this is going to be a very tough logic book to write. Where I have to align the Statement of the 10% Rule with the laws of Physics Electromagnetic Theory, and that is a tough tough task. So, no wonder few biologists have a handle on the Rule, for few Physicists have a handle on the rule.
Quora
According to the 10% law of the food chain, top carnivores receive the least amount of energy compared to all other trophic levels, then how are these organisms the strongest among all?
All related (34)
Motilal Singh
Biology Professor (1992–present)4y
As we know that the sun is ultimate source of energy, this solar energy is trapped by green plants by means of photosynthesis.
All living organisms directly or indirectly depend on the photosynthetic products produced and stored in the forms of root, stem, leaves, fruits, flowers etc. and are consumed as food.
Obviously it is correct that
According to the 10% food chain law, the solar energy trapped by autotrophs can not be transferred as 100 % from one trophic level to the other trophic level because 90% energy is emitted / thrown out into the environment at each and every trophic level as excretory products and by means of radiations etc. But perhaps you are confused here that the flow of nutrients in trophic levels are cyclic and not in unidirectional as the energy flows there.
It is also important to keep in mind that there are different types of nutrients required for body to perform different functions like :-
1) Carbohydrates - energy supplying nutrients.
2)Fats and lipids - high energy supplying nutrients.
3) Proteins - Body builder and secondary energy supplying nutrients.
4) Vitamins and minerals - immune promoters.
Considerably it is also important that the top carnivores take their full diet with having enriched proteins and fats, which built and strengthen their body and muscles.
The 10% law of the food chain doesn't describe that top carnivores fail to get their full diet but it describes a comparative flow of energy in the ecosystem.
I hope that you find this answer helpful.
Thank you.
AP writes: I think the biology professor has it correct. And it is a tough rule to understand.
Quora
Maddy White
Studied wolf behavioral books/reports for past 3 years5y
Not many creatures eat wolves. You see there is a scientific reason as to why food chains collapse after you reach only 3 levels.
When energy is transferred from one organism to another, (through consumption) only 10 percent of the original energy is transferred. Plants hold the most and make up the base of the food chain, and so herbivores get 10 percent of the energy when eating plants.
Then wolves, or any carnivore for that matter, consume the herbivores and get 10 percent of that 10 percent of energy, making it 1 percent gained by the wolf.
If an another animal were to consume a wolf at this point, they would only be getting 0.1 percent of that original energy, making the wolf an unideal source of energy.
Besides just that simple fact, hunting wolves isn't exactly easy either. They are fast, intelligent, and run in packs, making it impossible to pick one off without first isolating it.
Overall animals have just learned not to mess with wolves.
Wolves however may be hunted/preyed on by animals such as:
-Other wolves
-Bears
-Mountain lions
-Humans
However, they usually do not kill wolves for the purpose of eating, as for the reasons explained above. Wolves are preyed on by humans and other animals for the purposes of: obtaining fur, eliminating them as a pest, for territorial reasons, or to protect resources like food from being stolen. There is also the purpose of defense, such as a bear killing a wolf to insure the safety of their own cub from being picked off by the wolf.
1.6K viewsView upvotes
AP
Very crude dot picture of 5f6 magnetosphere of 231Pu Atom Totality
A torus shape doing the Faraday Law inside of each and every atom.
____
.-' `-.
.' ::\ ::|:: /:: `.
/ ::\::|::/:: \
; _ _ ;
| ___( O )___ |
; - - ;
\ ::/::|::\:: /
`. ::/ ::|:: \:: .'
`- _____ .-'
One of those dots in the magnetosphere is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy. The O is the Cosmic nucleus and
certainly not as dense as what Old Physics thought because in New Physics
the interior of atoms has the Faraday law going on.
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, govt-police drag net spam,off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
AP's 269th book of science-- Biology's 10% Rule which 90% of scientists wrongly interpret and understand// biology & logic by Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
10:19 PM (1 hour ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Under a Google search of "10 percent rule food web" the first two hits are these. Where the first one is clear except for "trophic level" and the second hit is very vague for it is contrary to the first and even contradictory.
About 60,000,000 results (0.47 seconds)
Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
10% Rule of Energy Transfer | Definition & Pyramid Percentages Video
The ten percent rule states that each trophic level can only give 10% of its energy to the next level. The other 90% is used to live, grow, reproduce and is lost to the environment as heat. All energy pyramids start with energy from the Sun which is transferred to the first trophic level of producers.
10% Rule of Energy Transfer | Definition & Pyramid Percentages
Study.com
https://study.com › the-10-energy-rule-in-a-food-chain
About featured snippets
•
Feedback
People also ask
What is the 10 rule in a food chain example?
The 10% Rule
For example, a plant will use 90% of the energy it gets from the sun for its own growth and reproduction. When it is eaten by a consumer, only 10% of its energy will go to the animal that eats it. That consumer will use 90% of that energy and only 10% will go on to the animal that eats it.
The 10% Rule
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
10:33 PM (20 minutes ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
Ecological pyramid
A pyramid of energy represents how much energy, initially from the sun, is retained or stored in the form of new biomass at each trophic level in an ecosystem. Typically, about 10% of the energy is transferred from one trophic level to the next, thus preventing a large number of trophic levels. Energy pyramids are necessarily upright in healthy ecosystems, that is, there must always be more energy available at a given level of the pyramid to support the energy and biomass requirement of the next trophic level.
An ecological pyramid (also trophic pyramid, Eltonian pyramid, energy pyramid, or sometimes food pyramid) is a graphical representation designed to show the biomass or bioproductivity at each trophic level in an ecosystem.
--- end quoting ---
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
10:53 PM (now)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I do not recall this in High School biology back in mid 1960s. I do recall that when an animal eats grass, they have to eat so much more in grass weight, than a predator animal that eats meat. So say you have a meat burger weighing 10 grams then you need 10 x 10 = 100 grams of grass to make up for the meat burger. I remember that in High School. So is the 10% rule just a more vague statement of mine above 10 gram meat is equal to 100 grams of grass, only inverted. If that be the case, well I certainly would have clarified the 10% rule by a thousand times more clarity.
--- Quoting Britannica on trophic pyramid ---
trophic pyramid, the basic structure of interaction in all biological communities characterized by the manner in which food energy is passed from one trophic level to the next along the food chain. The base of the pyramid is composed of species called autotrophs, the primary producers of the ecosystem. All other organisms in the ecosystem are consumers called heterotrophs, which either directly or indirectly depend on the primary producers for food energy.
trophic pyramid
trophic pyramid
Energy flow, heat loss, and the relative amount of biomass occurring at various trophic levels within a generalized land ecosystem.
Within all biological communities, energy at each trophic level is lost in the form of heat (as much as 80 to 90 percent), as organisms expend energy for metabolic processes such as staying warm and digesting food (see biosphere: The organism and the environment: Resources of the biosphere: The flow of energy). The higher the organism is on the trophic pyramid, the lower the amount of available energy. For example, plants and other autotrophs (primary producers) convert only a fraction of the enormous amount of solar energy they have access to into food energy. Herbivores and detritivores (primary consumers) take in less available energy because they are limited by the biomass of the plants they devour. It follows that the carnivores (secondary consumers) that feed on herbivores and detritivores and those that eat other carnivores (tertiary consumers) have the lowest amount of energy available to them.
--- end quoting Britannica trophic pyramid ---
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
6m views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
7:23 PM (4 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Whilst writing my 268th book of science on a TV show of Nature showing sea wolf behavior of laying out salmon on land, and researching this, found me on this 10% Rule of biology. And I quickly understood that such a idea was "rife" for total misunderstanding of what the rule is about and what the rule is trying to say. So I wisely realized I should write a book on this Rule and to alleviate its mistake traps, for the rule is covered in misconception and application and enormous error. It takes a logical scientific mind to lay straight, clear and plain what this rule is. Just up AP's alley for it is logic that is AP's forte.
AP's 268th book of science--Rewriting NATURE: "Canada: Surviving the Wild North"
5m views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 21, 2023, 4:32:48 PM (2 days ago)
This will be AP's 268th published book of science. Looking up the medical data and it is called
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 22, 2023, 3:47:43 AM (yesterday)
Now there is another parasite to note here, called Anisakis a nematode. It is likely that the NATURE
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
5:17 PM (2 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
While researching wolf eating salmon, I ran across another science trap that causes huge misunderstanding.
--- quoting a Google search on 10 percent energy rule ---
Food Chain with 10% Energy Rule
NetLogo Modeling Commons
https://modelingcommons.org › browse › one_model
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from modelingcommons.org
In food chains, the predator only gains about ten percent of the prey's energy. This pyramid effect leads to lower populations of upper-trophic-level predators.
People also ask
What is the 10% rule in ecology?
What is 10 percent law of energy flow?
On average only 10 percent of energy available at one trophic level is passed on to the next. This is known as the 10 percent rule, and it limits the number of trophic levels an ecosystem can support.
Energy Flow and the 10 Percent Rule - National Geographic Education
nationalgeographic.org
https://education.nationalgeographic.org › resource › ene...
Search for: What is 10 percent law of energy flow?
Why is only 10 percent of energy transferred to the next trophic level?
How much energy do predators get?
Why only 10 of energy is passed from prey to predator?
Why is the 10% rule important?
Feedback
Life on the Food Chain
Northern Arizona University
https://www2.nau.edu › lrm22 › lessons › food_chain
Recent studies suggest that only ~10% of energy is converted to biomass from one trophic level to the next! The Food Chain: The answer has to do with trophic ...
Missing: tier
energy flow and trophic levels - Students
Britannica Kids
https://kids.britannica.com › students › assembly › view
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from kids.britannica.com
As little as 10 percent of the energy at any trophic level is transferred to the next level; the rest is lost largely through metabolic processes as heat. If a ...
Missing: wolf tier
Wolf Food Chain | Overview, Diet & Predators
Study.com
https://study.com › academy › lesson › wolf-food-chain
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from study.com
Energy is transferred from producers to consumers, but only about 10% of the available energy is passed from one level to the next. The other 90% of ...
Missing: tier percent
Wolf Predator vs Feral Predator?
Reddit · r/predator
280+ comments · 1 year ago
... Wolf doesn't waste energy or over-perform. They both have physical feats on the same tier, but Feral enjoys the violence and tends to overdo it.
Apex predators of Africa tier list : r/Tierzoo
Feb 18, 2021
Is Wolf The Smartest Predator So Far That We've Seen?
Feb 3, 2023
predator strength tier list
Aug 11, 2022
What's your Predator Tier List? : r/HuntingGrounds
Oct 28, 2022
More results from www.reddit.com
Apex predator
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Apex_predator
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from en.wikipedia.org
The wolf is both an apex predator and a keystone species, affecting its prey's behaviour and the wider ecosystem. Because apex predators have powerful effects ...
Wolverines: Behind the Myth
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (.gov)
https://www.adfg.alaska.gov › ...
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from www.adfg.alaska.gov
They're not as fast as wolves, and they don't work in packs, but they can be more predator than scavenger if the situation allows for it.” Wolverines hunt ...
Images
Legendary Tier List - Wolf Game the Wild Kingdom [NOV2022 List]
Legendary Tier List - Wolf Game the Wild Kingdom [NOV2022 List]
YouTube
Legendary Tier List - Wolf Game the Wild Kingdom [NOV2022 List]
Legendary Tier List - Wolf Game the Wild Kingdom [NOV2022 List]
YouTube
UNLOCK HIGH TIER WOLVES! Wolf Game The Wild Kingdom Troop Tiers! [Part VI]
UNLOCK HIGH TIER WOLVES! Wolf Game The Wild Kingdom Troop Tiers! [Part VI]
YouTube
Feedback
6 more images
Web results
HUNTING GROUNDS 2023 ! FULL BREAKDOWN ANALYSIS
YouTube · Samhain13
2.8K+ views · 10 months ago
47:34
... TIER 28:06 - B TIER 30 ... RANKING ALL PREDATOR CLASSES ON PREDATOR: HUNTING GROUNDS 2023 ! FULL BREAKDOWN ANALYSIS. 2.8K views · 10 months ago ..
7 key moments
in this video
Missing: wolf energy percent
Food Chain
National Geographic Society
https://www.nationalgeographic.org › encyclopedia
Oct 19, 2023 — At each step up the food chain, only 10 percent of the energy is passed on to the next level, while approximately 90 percent of the energy is ...
People also ask
What is the 10 percent rule of energy flow quizlet?
What is the 10% rule in second law of thermodynamics?
What law of thermodynamics is the 10% rule?
What is the 10% rule of energy transfer quizlet?
Feedback
Related searches
Wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent reddit
what happens to the energy that is not transferred to the next level in an energy pyramid?
how much energy is transferred from one trophic level to the next
tertiary consumer
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
5:28 PM (2 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Biology's 10% rule turns out to be a Error Trap for most every scientist of biology
According to the 10% law of the food chain, top carnivores receive the least amount of energy compared to all other trophic levels, then how are these organisms the strongest among all?
All related (34)
Motilal Singh
Biology Professor (1992–present)4y
As we know that the sun is ultimate source of energy, this solar energy is trapped by green plants by means of photosynthesis.
All living organisms directly or indirectly depend on the photosynthetic products produced and stored in the forms of root, stem, leaves, fruits, flowers etc. and are consumed as food.
Obviously it is correct that
According to the 10% food chain law, the solar energy trapped by autotrophs can not be transferred as 100 % from one trophic level to the other trophic level because 90% energy is emitted / thrown out into the environment at each and every trophic level as excretory products and by means of radiations etc. But perhaps you are confused here that the flow of nutrients in trophic levels are cyclic and not in unidirectional as the energy flows there.
It is also important to keep in mind that there are different types of nutrients required for body to perform different functions like :-
1) Carbohydrates - energy supplying nutrients.
2)Fats and lipids - high energy supplying nutrients.
3) Proteins - Body builder and secondary energy supplying nutrients.
4) Vitamins and minerals - immune promoters.
Considerably it is also important that the top carnivores take their full diet with having enriched proteins and fats, which built and strengthen their body and muscles.
The 10% law of the food chain doesn't describe that top carnivores fail to get their full diet but it describes a comparative flow of energy in the ecosystem.
I hope that you find this answer helpful.
Thank you.
AP writes: I think the biology professor has it correct. And it is a tough rule to understand.
Quora
Maddy White
Studied wolf behavioral books/reports for past 3 years5y
Not many creatures eat wolves. You see there is a scientific reason as to why food chains collapse after you reach only 3 levels.
When energy is transferred from one organism to another, (through consumption) only 10 percent of the original energy is transferred. Plants hold the most and make up the base of the food chain, and so herbivores get 10 percent of the energy when eating plants.
Then wolves, or any carnivore for that matter, consume the herbivores and get 10 percent of that 10 percent of energy, making it 1 percent gained by the wolf.
If an another animal were to consume a wolf at this point, they would only be getting 0.1 percent of that original energy, making the wolf an unideal source of energy.
Besides just that simple fact, hunting wolves isn't exactly easy either. They are fast, intelligent, and run in packs, making it impossible to pick one off without first isolating it.
Overall animals have just learned not to mess with wolves.
Wolves however may be hunted/preyed on by animals such as:
-Other wolves
-Bears
-Mountain lions
-Humans
However, they usually do not kill wolves for the purpose of eating, as for the reasons explained above. Wolves are preyed on by humans and other animals for the purposes of: obtaining fur, eliminating them as a pest, for territorial reasons, or to protect resources like food from being stolen. There is also the purpose of defense, such as a bear killing a wolf to insure the safety of their own cub from being picked off by the wolf.
1.6K viewsView upvotes
AP
Very crude dot picture of 5f6 magnetosphere of 231Pu Atom Totality
A torus shape doing the Faraday Law inside of each and every atom.
____
.-' `-.
.' ::\ ::|:: /:: `.
/ ::\::|::/:: \
; _ _ ;
| ___( O )___ |
; - - ;
\ ::/::|::\:: /
`. ::/ ::|:: \:: .'
`- _____ .-'
One of those dots in the magnetosphere is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy. The O is the Cosmic nucleus and
certainly not as dense as what Old Physics thought because in New Physics
the interior of atoms has the Faraday law going on.
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, govt-police drag net spam,off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
AP's 269th book of science-- Biology's 10% Rule which 90% of scientists wrongly interpret and understand// biology & logic by Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
8:46 PM (2 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Actually this is going to be a very tough logic book to write. Where I have to align the Statement of the 10% Rule with the laws of Physics Electromagnetic Theory, and that is a tough tough task. So, no wonder few biologists have a handle on the Rule, for few Physicists have a handle on the rule.
Quora
According to the 10% law of the food chain, top carnivores receive the least amount of energy compared to all other trophic levels, then how are these organisms the strongest among all?
All related (34)
Motilal Singh
Biology Professor (1992–present)4y
As we know that the sun is ultimate source of energy, this solar energy is trapped by green plants by means of photosynthesis.
All living organisms directly or indirectly depend on the photosynthetic products produced and stored in the forms of root, stem, leaves, fruits, flowers etc. and are consumed as food.
Obviously it is correct that
According to the 10% food chain law, the solar energy trapped by autotrophs can not be transferred as 100 % from one trophic level to the other trophic level because 90% energy is emitted / thrown out into the environment at each and every trophic level as excretory products and by means of radiations etc. But perhaps you are confused here that the flow of nutrients in trophic levels are cyclic and not in unidirectional as the energy flows there.
It is also important to keep in mind that there are different types of nutrients required for body to perform different functions like :-
1) Carbohydrates - energy supplying nutrients.
2)Fats and lipids - high energy supplying nutrients.
3) Proteins - Body builder and secondary energy supplying nutrients.
4) Vitamins and minerals - immune promoters.
Considerably it is also important that the top carnivores take their full diet with having enriched proteins and fats, which built and strengthen their body and muscles.
The 10% law of the food chain doesn't describe that top carnivores fail to get their full diet but it describes a comparative flow of energy in the ecosystem.
I hope that you find this answer helpful.
Thank you.
AP writes: I think the biology professor has it correct. And it is a tough rule to understand.
Quora
Maddy White
Studied wolf behavioral books/reports for past 3 years5y
Not many creatures eat wolves. You see there is a scientific reason as to why food chains collapse after you reach only 3 levels.
When energy is transferred from one organism to another, (through consumption) only 10 percent of the original energy is transferred. Plants hold the most and make up the base of the food chain, and so herbivores get 10 percent of the energy when eating plants.
Then wolves, or any carnivore for that matter, consume the herbivores and get 10 percent of that 10 percent of energy, making it 1 percent gained by the wolf.
If an another animal were to consume a wolf at this point, they would only be getting 0.1 percent of that original energy, making the wolf an unideal source of energy.
Besides just that simple fact, hunting wolves isn't exactly easy either. They are fast, intelligent, and run in packs, making it impossible to pick one off without first isolating it.
Overall animals have just learned not to mess with wolves.
Wolves however may be hunted/preyed on by animals such as:
-Other wolves
-Bears
-Mountain lions
-Humans
However, they usually do not kill wolves for the purpose of eating, as for the reasons explained above. Wolves are preyed on by humans and other animals for the purposes of: obtaining fur, eliminating them as a pest, for territorial reasons, or to protect resources like food from being stolen. There is also the purpose of defense, such as a bear killing a wolf to insure the safety of their own cub from being picked off by the wolf.
1.6K viewsView upvotes
AP
Very crude dot picture of 5f6 magnetosphere of 231Pu Atom Totality
A torus shape doing the Faraday Law inside of each and every atom.
____
.-' `-.
.' ::\ ::|:: /:: `.
/ ::\::|::/:: \
; _ _ ;
| ___( O )___ |
; - - ;
\ ::/::|::\:: /
`. ::/ ::|:: \:: .'
`- _____ .-'
One of those dots in the magnetosphere is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy. The O is the Cosmic nucleus and
certainly not as dense as what Old Physics thought because in New Physics
the interior of atoms has the Faraday law going on.
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, govt-police drag net spam,off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
AP's 269th book of science-- Biology's 10% Rule which 90% of scientists wrongly interpret and understand// biology & logic by Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
10:19 PM (1 hour ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Under a Google search of "10 percent rule food web" the first two hits are these. Where the first one is clear except for "trophic level" and the second hit is very vague for it is contrary to the first and even contradictory.
About 60,000,000 results (0.47 seconds)
Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
10% Rule of Energy Transfer | Definition & Pyramid Percentages Video
The ten percent rule states that each trophic level can only give 10% of its energy to the next level. The other 90% is used to live, grow, reproduce and is lost to the environment as heat. All energy pyramids start with energy from the Sun which is transferred to the first trophic level of producers.
10% Rule of Energy Transfer | Definition & Pyramid Percentages
Study.com
https://study.com › the-10-energy-rule-in-a-food-chain
About featured snippets
•
Feedback
People also ask
What is the 10 rule in a food chain example?
The 10% Rule
For example, a plant will use 90% of the energy it gets from the sun for its own growth and reproduction. When it is eaten by a consumer, only 10% of its energy will go to the animal that eats it. That consumer will use 90% of that energy and only 10% will go on to the animal that eats it.
The 10% Rule
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
10:33 PM (20 minutes ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
Ecological pyramid
A pyramid of energy represents how much energy, initially from the sun, is retained or stored in the form of new biomass at each trophic level in an ecosystem. Typically, about 10% of the energy is transferred from one trophic level to the next, thus preventing a large number of trophic levels. Energy pyramids are necessarily upright in healthy ecosystems, that is, there must always be more energy available at a given level of the pyramid to support the energy and biomass requirement of the next trophic level.
An ecological pyramid (also trophic pyramid, Eltonian pyramid, energy pyramid, or sometimes food pyramid) is a graphical representation designed to show the biomass or bioproductivity at each trophic level in an ecosystem.
--- end quoting ---
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
10:53 PM (now)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I do not recall this in High School biology back in mid 1960s. I do recall that when an animal eats grass, they have to eat so much more in grass weight, than a predator animal that eats meat. So say you have a meat burger weighing 10 grams then you need 10 x 10 = 100 grams of grass to make up for the meat burger. I remember that in High School. So is the 10% rule just a more vague statement of mine above 10 gram meat is equal to 100 grams of grass, only inverted. If that be the case, well I certainly would have clarified the 10% rule by a thousand times more clarity.
--- Quoting Britannica on trophic pyramid ---
trophic pyramid, the basic structure of interaction in all biological communities characterized by the manner in which food energy is passed from one trophic level to the next along the food chain. The base of the pyramid is composed of species called autotrophs, the primary producers of the ecosystem. All other organisms in the ecosystem are consumers called heterotrophs, which either directly or indirectly depend on the primary producers for food energy.
trophic pyramid
trophic pyramid
Energy flow, heat loss, and the relative amount of biomass occurring at various trophic levels within a generalized land ecosystem.
Within all biological communities, energy at each trophic level is lost in the form of heat (as much as 80 to 90 percent), as organisms expend energy for metabolic processes such as staying warm and digesting food (see biosphere: The organism and the environment: Resources of the biosphere: The flow of energy). The higher the organism is on the trophic pyramid, the lower the amount of available energy. For example, plants and other autotrophs (primary producers) convert only a fraction of the enormous amount of solar energy they have access to into food energy. Herbivores and detritivores (primary consumers) take in less available energy because they are limited by the biomass of the plants they devour. It follows that the carnivores (secondary consumers) that feed on herbivores and detritivores and those that eat other carnivores (tertiary consumers) have the lowest amount of energy available to them.
--- end quoting Britannica trophic pyramid ---
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 24, 2023, 1:50:19 PM12/24/23
to
Alright, I should change the title to be this.
AP's 269th book of science-- Biology's 10% Rule in which 99% of scientists do not understand and make mistakes // biology & logic by Archimedes Plutonium
The error is that of Inverse when no inverse is allowed.
Call it the error of Mistaken Inverse.
Math gives and exquisite example of Mistaken Inverse. We know the Pythagorean Theorem and the smallest integer P-triple is 3-4-5 since 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2. Now we can multiply by any number and retain the equality, for example 6-8-10 is multiply by 2 and still we keep equality 6^2 + 8^2 = 10^2. Multiply by a fraction and we retain equality 1-4/3-5/3 where we multiplied by 1/3. For 1^2 + (4/3)^2 = (5/3)^2 which is 9/9 + 16/9 = 25/9.
But, what you cannot do is invert and keep equality. You cannot have (1/3)^2 + (1/4)^2 = (1/5)^2 for that is not equal. This is just a plain fact of math algebra that the inverse does not retain equality.
But let us see how far off that is. 1/9 + 1/16 =/= 1/25. Let us put 1/16 on the other side as if we added it to 1/25. And so we have 1/9 and on the other side have 1/25 + 1/16. The expression 1/25 + 1/16 is 41/400. And immediately we see that if we have a false Pythagorean Theorem by inverse of P-triples that we get close to the 10% expression that Biology Ecology gets in its Energy-Food-Pyramid.
So, this tells me that the 10% Rule is a fakery of science and the fakery is a sham inverse.
What we do have in Biology-Ecology is not a pyramid for Food but a three tier Rectangle, where we have plants compose most of the rectangle. Then we have plant eaters herbivores and then we have meat eaters. And instead of 10% going from plants to herbivores and another 10% going from herbivores to meat eaters, we have 10X, that is 10 times going from plants to herbivores and 10 times going from herbivores to meat eaters.
Let us analyze that statement in terms of weight-mass. A 1 gram of meat packs 10 times the energy that 1 gram of plants packs. So you need 10 times more mass of plants to be equivalent to meat in energy. The typical example is a person who eats a steak has ten times more energy than the person who eats a vegetable salad of the same weight.
And the cow who eats a gram of plant food, has 10 times more energy from that food than the single plant soaking in the Sunshine for Photosynthesis. Which leads to the difference between plants as CO2 intake and O2 output, while animals are O2 intake and CO2 output and Dissociation Energy.
The food pyramid is mockery science, false science. It is a dualistic mechanism of food energy.
Photosynthesis is sun energy that splits water, splits the hydrogen from the oxygen and releasing energy. This energy thus is used to split the carbon from oxygen in animal-CO2.
Dissociation energy of splitting hydrogen from water is 498 kJ/mole.
Meat eating is respiration where carbon is split from carbon by the oxygen and releasing energy. Dissociation energy of splitting carbon from carbon is 607 kJ/mole.
Dissociation energy of splitting O2 is 498kJ/mole, which is 5.15 eV the same as splitting oxygen from hydrogen. And of N2 is 945kJ/mole which is 9.79 eV.
So we have in photosynthesis 5.15 eV to split water, and we have in respiration of meat eating 5.15 eV in splitting oxygen from oxygen.
AP
AP's 269th book of science-- Biology's 10% Rule in which 99% of scientists do not understand and make mistakes // biology & logic by Archimedes Plutonium
The error is that of Inverse when no inverse is allowed.
Call it the error of Mistaken Inverse.
Math gives and exquisite example of Mistaken Inverse. We know the Pythagorean Theorem and the smallest integer P-triple is 3-4-5 since 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2. Now we can multiply by any number and retain the equality, for example 6-8-10 is multiply by 2 and still we keep equality 6^2 + 8^2 = 10^2. Multiply by a fraction and we retain equality 1-4/3-5/3 where we multiplied by 1/3. For 1^2 + (4/3)^2 = (5/3)^2 which is 9/9 + 16/9 = 25/9.
But, what you cannot do is invert and keep equality. You cannot have (1/3)^2 + (1/4)^2 = (1/5)^2 for that is not equal. This is just a plain fact of math algebra that the inverse does not retain equality.
But let us see how far off that is. 1/9 + 1/16 =/= 1/25. Let us put 1/16 on the other side as if we added it to 1/25. And so we have 1/9 and on the other side have 1/25 + 1/16. The expression 1/25 + 1/16 is 41/400. And immediately we see that if we have a false Pythagorean Theorem by inverse of P-triples that we get close to the 10% expression that Biology Ecology gets in its Energy-Food-Pyramid.
So, this tells me that the 10% Rule is a fakery of science and the fakery is a sham inverse.
What we do have in Biology-Ecology is not a pyramid for Food but a three tier Rectangle, where we have plants compose most of the rectangle. Then we have plant eaters herbivores and then we have meat eaters. And instead of 10% going from plants to herbivores and another 10% going from herbivores to meat eaters, we have 10X, that is 10 times going from plants to herbivores and 10 times going from herbivores to meat eaters.
Let us analyze that statement in terms of weight-mass. A 1 gram of meat packs 10 times the energy that 1 gram of plants packs. So you need 10 times more mass of plants to be equivalent to meat in energy. The typical example is a person who eats a steak has ten times more energy than the person who eats a vegetable salad of the same weight.
And the cow who eats a gram of plant food, has 10 times more energy from that food than the single plant soaking in the Sunshine for Photosynthesis. Which leads to the difference between plants as CO2 intake and O2 output, while animals are O2 intake and CO2 output and Dissociation Energy.
The food pyramid is mockery science, false science. It is a dualistic mechanism of food energy.
Photosynthesis is sun energy that splits water, splits the hydrogen from the oxygen and releasing energy. This energy thus is used to split the carbon from oxygen in animal-CO2.
Dissociation energy of splitting hydrogen from water is 498 kJ/mole.
Meat eating is respiration where carbon is split from carbon by the oxygen and releasing energy. Dissociation energy of splitting carbon from carbon is 607 kJ/mole.
Dissociation energy of splitting O2 is 498kJ/mole, which is 5.15 eV the same as splitting oxygen from hydrogen. And of N2 is 945kJ/mole which is 9.79 eV.
So we have in photosynthesis 5.15 eV to split water, and we have in respiration of meat eating 5.15 eV in splitting oxygen from oxygen.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 25, 2023, 12:20:31 AM12/25/23
to
Alright, I am finally coming to grips with how ecology came up with their 10% rule. Apparently they have field researchers who take a prescribed region and measure the dry weight (kg/meter^2) of that region of its trophic levels primary producer, primary consumer, secondary consumer, top consumer. Using my photo of journals of ecology with their data showing primary producer of 809kg/m^2, then primary consumer of 37kg/m^2, then secondary consumer of 11kg/m^2, and top consumer of 1.5kg/m^2. Only the second then top tiers follows the 10% rule with any accuracy. But what is important is how the Rule is derived in Old Biology Ecology. Apparently it is an Inventory of a region. And weight is measured of plants and animals found in trophic levels.
I suppose a vast quantity of these inventories pointed to a 10% rule from one level to the next level.
So this rule is really a Inventory of mass to area.
But is it real science? Here I would say no, for the splitting up of tiers as trophic levels is vague and science abhors vagueness. Where do insects fit in? Where does a spider fit in? What about omnivores like humans that eat both plants and animals. One site puts humans as trophic level 2.2 while placing foxes and wolves in level 3. This is a mess.
And a rule of science itself-- it predicts. Does trophic levels of energy predict something or in worst case-- predict something that turns out not to be the case? Well as I wrote earlier the experiment of Scott versus Amundsen to explore the South Pole, where Scott takes horses and Amundsen takes dogs. One could well imagine that if Scott and Amundsen consulted scientists for advice, then the 10% rule biologists would say take horses, but the AP rule of 10 times would say the best choice is dogs.
So, in my esteem, evidence is beginning science, is data collection, but not science per se. And it is fine to determine a number such as 10% provided these trophic levels are clear and well defined, which they are not. And so this whole idea of food energy pyramid of 10% Rule is anti-science. A waste of time and destructive on young students. Fine if the class makes an inventory, but then, how to well define each trophic level? Apparently the idea of trophic level is the most anti-science in this topic.
Compare that with AP's 10 times rule, here we drop to dissociation energy and put every organism either as a plant eater or a meat eater. And we can have in-betweens of omnivores. We ask how many leafy vegetables must be eaten to equal the energy in food of a 300 gram meat steak. Do we have to eat 3000 grams of leafy vegetables to equal the energy of that one steak? The same ideas going through the minds of Scott as he prepares his horses for Antarctic and how many bales of hay or feed sacks of grain for his horses while Amundsen calculates how many meat steaks for his sled dogs.
AP believes that the food pyramid and 10% rule is idle fake science, invented for amusement but is no more than a sad waste of time in classrooms.
AP
I suppose a vast quantity of these inventories pointed to a 10% rule from one level to the next level.
So this rule is really a Inventory of mass to area.
But is it real science? Here I would say no, for the splitting up of tiers as trophic levels is vague and science abhors vagueness. Where do insects fit in? Where does a spider fit in? What about omnivores like humans that eat both plants and animals. One site puts humans as trophic level 2.2 while placing foxes and wolves in level 3. This is a mess.
And a rule of science itself-- it predicts. Does trophic levels of energy predict something or in worst case-- predict something that turns out not to be the case? Well as I wrote earlier the experiment of Scott versus Amundsen to explore the South Pole, where Scott takes horses and Amundsen takes dogs. One could well imagine that if Scott and Amundsen consulted scientists for advice, then the 10% rule biologists would say take horses, but the AP rule of 10 times would say the best choice is dogs.
So, in my esteem, evidence is beginning science, is data collection, but not science per se. And it is fine to determine a number such as 10% provided these trophic levels are clear and well defined, which they are not. And so this whole idea of food energy pyramid of 10% Rule is anti-science. A waste of time and destructive on young students. Fine if the class makes an inventory, but then, how to well define each trophic level? Apparently the idea of trophic level is the most anti-science in this topic.
Compare that with AP's 10 times rule, here we drop to dissociation energy and put every organism either as a plant eater or a meat eater. And we can have in-betweens of omnivores. We ask how many leafy vegetables must be eaten to equal the energy in food of a 300 gram meat steak. Do we have to eat 3000 grams of leafy vegetables to equal the energy of that one steak? The same ideas going through the minds of Scott as he prepares his horses for Antarctic and how many bales of hay or feed sacks of grain for his horses while Amundsen calculates how many meat steaks for his sled dogs.
AP believes that the food pyramid and 10% rule is idle fake science, invented for amusement but is no more than a sad waste of time in classrooms.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 25, 2023, 12:40:15 AM12/25/23
to
And, speaking in terms of the AP 10 times rule which is further supported by the facts of Nature, a predator sized up its prey, for a cat is not going to chase after a rabbit for kilometers. For it would lose more energy in pursuit than the reward in food. So a cat knows it has to get within a certain distance as shown in the NATURE show "Canada: Surviving the Wild North". The lynx had to get within so many meters of the snowshoe-hare to stand a chance of capturing it. So that AP's 10 times the energy of meat food gives the cat the energy to race and capture the hare, as opposed to the idea of 10% of the energy for hare trophic level and then the higher trophic level of lynx.
You see, the 10% rule is the reverse, the inverse of what needs to be focused upon-- energy density of meat versus eating plants. For Amundsen's dog took little time in eating meat to get them to the South Pole and back, whereas Scott's horses took a long time to eat their grain or hay and which is not a concentrated food and required 10 times more in weight.
AP
You see, the 10% rule is the reverse, the inverse of what needs to be focused upon-- energy density of meat versus eating plants. For Amundsen's dog took little time in eating meat to get them to the South Pole and back, whereas Scott's horses took a long time to eat their grain or hay and which is not a concentrated food and required 10 times more in weight.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 25, 2023, 8:56:32 PM12/25/23
to
Title of this book has once again changed. Actually no physicist of Old Physics ever understood the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So if no physicist understood the 2nd law, stands to reason no-one in biology or ecology using the 2nd law as an explanation is going to have a science statement, but rather science fiction or anti-science. The 10% Rule of Old Biology and Old Ecology is pure rubbish.
---Quoting Wikipedia on many of the resistance of materials ---
Note: I have yet to fill in all the exponent symbols of "^", in the copy paste.
Resistivity, conductivity, and temperature coefficient for several materials
Material Resistivity, ρ,
at 20 °C (Ω·m) Conductivity, σ,
at 20 °C (S/m) Temperature
coefficient (K−1)
Silver 1.59×10^−8 6.30×10^7 3.80×10^−3
Copper 1.68×10^−8 5.96×10^7 4.04×10^−3
Annealed copper 1.72×10−8 5.80×107 3.93×10−3
Gold 2.44×10−8 4.11×10^7 3.40×10−3
Aluminium 2.65×10^−8 3.77×10^7 3.90×10^−3
Brass (5% Zn) 3.00×10−8 3.34×107
Calcium 3.36×10−8 2.98×107 4.10×10−3
Rhodium 4.33×10−8 2.31×107
Tungsten 5.60×10−8 1.79×107 4.50×10−3
Zinc 5.90×10−8 1.69×107 3.70×10−3
Brass (30% Zn) 5.99×10−8 1.67×10^7
Cobalt 6.24×10−8 1.60×107 7.00×10−3
Nickel 6.99×10−8 1.43×107 6.00×10−3
Ruthenium 7.10×10−8 1.41×107
Lithium 9.28×10−8 1.08×107 6.00×10−3
Iron 9.70×10^−8 1.03×10^7 5.00×10−3
Platinum 10.6×10−8 9.43×106 3.92×10−3
Tin 10.9×10−8 9.17×106 4.50×10−3
Phosphor Bronze (0.2% P / 5% Sn) 11.2×10−8 8.94×106
Gallium 14.0×10−8 7.10×106 4.00×10−3
Niobium 14.0×10−8 7.00×106
Carbon steel (1010) 14.3×10−8 6.99×106
Lead 22.0×10−8 4.55×106 3.90×10−3
Galinstan 28.9×10−8 3.46×10^6
Titanium 42.0×10−8 2.38×106 3.80×10−3
Grain oriented electrical steel 46.0×10−8 2.17×10^6
Manganin 48.2×10−8 2.07×106 0.002×10−3
Constantan 49.0×10−8 2.04×106 0.008×10−3
Stainless steel 69.0×10−8 1.45×106 0.94×10−3
Mercury 98.0×10−8 1.02×106 0.90×10−3
Bismuth 129×10−8 7.75×105
Manganese 144×10−8 6.94×105
Plutonium (0 °C) 146×10−8 6.85×105
Nichrome 110×10−8 6.70×105
Carbon (graphite)
parallel to basal plane 250×10−8 to 500×10−8 2×105 to 3×105
Carbon (amorphous) 0.5×10−3 to 0.8×10−3 1.25×103 to 2.00×103 −0.50×10−3 [21][40]
Carbon (graphite)
perpendicular to basal plane 3.0×10−3 3.3×102 [4]
GaAs 10−3 to 10^8
Germanium 4.6×10^−1 2.17 −48.0×10^−3
Sea water 2.1×10−1 4.8
Swimming pool water 3.3×10−1 to 4.0×10−1 0.25 to 0.30
Drinking water 2×101 to 2×103 5×10−4 to 5×10−2
Silicon[m] 2.3×103 4.35×10−4 −75.0×10−3
Wood (damp) 103 to 104 10−4 to 10−3
Deionized water[q] 1.8×105 4.2×10−5
Ultrapure water 1.82×109 5.49×10−10
Glass 1011 to 1015 10−15 to 10−11
Carbon (diamond) 1012 ~10−13
Hard rubber 1013 10−14
Air 109 to 1015 ~10−15 to 10−9
Wood (oven dry) 1014 to 1016 10−16 to 10−14
Sulfur 1015 10−16
Fused quartz 7.5×1017 1.3×10−18
PET 1021 10−21
PTFE (teflon) 10^23 to 10^25 10^−25 to 10^−23
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
So now, notice that copper is 10 times greater a conductor than is iron, or said in reverse (inverse) that iron is only 10% the conductor that copper is.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is bundled up in the physics equation of Voltage = current (magnetic field x electric field). This is also the same equation as Voltage = current x Resistance, only we made more clear what resistance is-- for it is (magnetic field x electric field).
I have plenty of experience in explaining something from biology into its physics components, helping me and others understand physics better by the biology involved. For example, in explaining how huge Dragonflies evolved in Devonian geological time period helped explain the physics of radioactive decay and growth of a physics of the Growing Earth theory. In this case-- explaining the 10% Rule of Ecology, will ultimately help explain what the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is all about, and for once, Old Physics can understand what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says and what it means.
AP, King of Science
---Quoting Wikipedia on many of the resistance of materials ---
Note: I have yet to fill in all the exponent symbols of "^", in the copy paste.
Resistivity, conductivity, and temperature coefficient for several materials
Material Resistivity, ρ,
at 20 °C (Ω·m) Conductivity, σ,
at 20 °C (S/m) Temperature
coefficient (K−1)
Silver 1.59×10^−8 6.30×10^7 3.80×10^−3
Copper 1.68×10^−8 5.96×10^7 4.04×10^−3
Annealed copper 1.72×10−8 5.80×107 3.93×10−3
Gold 2.44×10−8 4.11×10^7 3.40×10−3
Aluminium 2.65×10^−8 3.77×10^7 3.90×10^−3
Brass (5% Zn) 3.00×10−8 3.34×107
Calcium 3.36×10−8 2.98×107 4.10×10−3
Rhodium 4.33×10−8 2.31×107
Tungsten 5.60×10−8 1.79×107 4.50×10−3
Zinc 5.90×10−8 1.69×107 3.70×10−3
Brass (30% Zn) 5.99×10−8 1.67×10^7
Cobalt 6.24×10−8 1.60×107 7.00×10−3
Nickel 6.99×10−8 1.43×107 6.00×10−3
Ruthenium 7.10×10−8 1.41×107
Lithium 9.28×10−8 1.08×107 6.00×10−3
Iron 9.70×10^−8 1.03×10^7 5.00×10−3
Platinum 10.6×10−8 9.43×106 3.92×10−3
Tin 10.9×10−8 9.17×106 4.50×10−3
Phosphor Bronze (0.2% P / 5% Sn) 11.2×10−8 8.94×106
Gallium 14.0×10−8 7.10×106 4.00×10−3
Niobium 14.0×10−8 7.00×106
Carbon steel (1010) 14.3×10−8 6.99×106
Lead 22.0×10−8 4.55×106 3.90×10−3
Galinstan 28.9×10−8 3.46×10^6
Titanium 42.0×10−8 2.38×106 3.80×10−3
Grain oriented electrical steel 46.0×10−8 2.17×10^6
Manganin 48.2×10−8 2.07×106 0.002×10−3
Constantan 49.0×10−8 2.04×106 0.008×10−3
Stainless steel 69.0×10−8 1.45×106 0.94×10−3
Mercury 98.0×10−8 1.02×106 0.90×10−3
Bismuth 129×10−8 7.75×105
Manganese 144×10−8 6.94×105
Plutonium (0 °C) 146×10−8 6.85×105
Nichrome 110×10−8 6.70×105
Carbon (graphite)
parallel to basal plane 250×10−8 to 500×10−8 2×105 to 3×105
Carbon (amorphous) 0.5×10−3 to 0.8×10−3 1.25×103 to 2.00×103 −0.50×10−3 [21][40]
Carbon (graphite)
perpendicular to basal plane 3.0×10−3 3.3×102 [4]
GaAs 10−3 to 10^8
Germanium 4.6×10^−1 2.17 −48.0×10^−3
Sea water 2.1×10−1 4.8
Swimming pool water 3.3×10−1 to 4.0×10−1 0.25 to 0.30
Drinking water 2×101 to 2×103 5×10−4 to 5×10−2
Silicon[m] 2.3×103 4.35×10−4 −75.0×10−3
Wood (damp) 103 to 104 10−4 to 10−3
Deionized water[q] 1.8×105 4.2×10−5
Ultrapure water 1.82×109 5.49×10−10
Glass 1011 to 1015 10−15 to 10−11
Carbon (diamond) 1012 ~10−13
Hard rubber 1013 10−14
Air 109 to 1015 ~10−15 to 10−9
Wood (oven dry) 1014 to 1016 10−16 to 10−14
Sulfur 1015 10−16
Fused quartz 7.5×1017 1.3×10−18
PET 1021 10−21
PTFE (teflon) 10^23 to 10^25 10^−25 to 10^−23
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
So now, notice that copper is 10 times greater a conductor than is iron, or said in reverse (inverse) that iron is only 10% the conductor that copper is.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is bundled up in the physics equation of Voltage = current (magnetic field x electric field). This is also the same equation as Voltage = current x Resistance, only we made more clear what resistance is-- for it is (magnetic field x electric field).
I have plenty of experience in explaining something from biology into its physics components, helping me and others understand physics better by the biology involved. For example, in explaining how huge Dragonflies evolved in Devonian geological time period helped explain the physics of radioactive decay and growth of a physics of the Growing Earth theory. In this case-- explaining the 10% Rule of Ecology, will ultimately help explain what the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is all about, and for once, Old Physics can understand what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says and what it means.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 26, 2023, 12:08:10 AM12/26/23
to
A huge problem of biology-ecology science is their love of making up ideas and then giving silly names to those ideas and they love to attach numbers as to make it look "being scientific". In this case we have "trophic levels" and we have 10% from one level to the next level.
In science, not just biology-ecology but physics astronomy mathematics you are judged by how many articles you publish in journals, and that leads to a higher pay scale in your career, plus to honors in that science. But here is the rub. The pressure to publish in journals requires "new and true ideas" and those are hard to come by. So to skip and outflank this requirement, we have people in biology-ecology making up terms and terminology such as the silly trophic levels, or the reverse altruism, or the "survival of the fittest" or the "keystone species". This is not science but word games, for the purpose of promotion in that science to get more pay and honors. But this leaves a mess in that science for someone to have to clean it up and install the true science.
There is no 10% Rule in Ecology food pyramid as there is no concept of a trophic level.
In science one must learn that there are Laws and there are Rules.
Laws are science and a collection of laws goes to compose a Theory of Science.
Rules are not laws, but some rules capture much of what is going on in true science.
Ohm's law when it first was discovered was thought to be a law of physics but it was soon found that at high current or high voltage it failed to be Voltage = current x Resistance.
Darwin's theory of evolution is not a theory of science nor even a law of science, for when Quantum Mechanics using the Bell Inequality found that Superdeterminism governs the world, a world where free will cannot exist, meant that Darwin Evolution is demoted to being Rule of biology. A rule that captures some true things going on, but not all true things.
A Law of science has no exceptions.
A Rule of science has many exceptions and thus is not a law.
So, let us go back to when biologists-ecologists wanted to explain energy flow of food eating and the trophic levels and what they call a food pyramid.
They see at the base of this pyramid as plants and next level they see herbivores such as cattle and higher up level they see humans who eat the cattle meat, or milk. And they claim the energy of the plant level is reduced at the cattle level by a loss of 90% with only 10% remaining. And they see another 90% loss with only 10% remaining as the human eats the cattle. And the biologist-ecologist blames this 90% loss on 2nd law of thermodynamics. Are they correct???
The answer is that they are wrong. And easily shown by anyone eating a steak versus the a plant salad. The energy concentration in a meat steak compared to a salad is 10 times more energy in the meat. So if anything the 10% Rule of food pyramid is reversed around and wrong.
And the trouble with this reversal of the truth, is that no-one in physics or biology-ecology ever understood the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
A food pyramid exists with only three levels, plants at bottom and the largest group, herbivores next and finally meat eaters.
And it is a pyramid of 10 times, not of 10%, because meat is concentrated food energy worth ten times more in energy than plant food.
So the mistake is to think you have numerous trophic levels when you have just 3-- plants, herbivores and meat eaters.
What should have been done for the food pyramid is start where all farmers and ranchers know to start. How many cattle can I raise on a 1 hectare of land? And can 1 human live on that cattle raised on that 1 hectare? This is not a 10% rule, but a 10 times rule in recognition that meat is 10 times more concentrated food energy than is a salad bowl.
AP
In science, not just biology-ecology but physics astronomy mathematics you are judged by how many articles you publish in journals, and that leads to a higher pay scale in your career, plus to honors in that science. But here is the rub. The pressure to publish in journals requires "new and true ideas" and those are hard to come by. So to skip and outflank this requirement, we have people in biology-ecology making up terms and terminology such as the silly trophic levels, or the reverse altruism, or the "survival of the fittest" or the "keystone species". This is not science but word games, for the purpose of promotion in that science to get more pay and honors. But this leaves a mess in that science for someone to have to clean it up and install the true science.
There is no 10% Rule in Ecology food pyramid as there is no concept of a trophic level.
In science one must learn that there are Laws and there are Rules.
Laws are science and a collection of laws goes to compose a Theory of Science.
Rules are not laws, but some rules capture much of what is going on in true science.
Ohm's law when it first was discovered was thought to be a law of physics but it was soon found that at high current or high voltage it failed to be Voltage = current x Resistance.
Darwin's theory of evolution is not a theory of science nor even a law of science, for when Quantum Mechanics using the Bell Inequality found that Superdeterminism governs the world, a world where free will cannot exist, meant that Darwin Evolution is demoted to being Rule of biology. A rule that captures some true things going on, but not all true things.
A Law of science has no exceptions.
A Rule of science has many exceptions and thus is not a law.
So, let us go back to when biologists-ecologists wanted to explain energy flow of food eating and the trophic levels and what they call a food pyramid.
They see at the base of this pyramid as plants and next level they see herbivores such as cattle and higher up level they see humans who eat the cattle meat, or milk. And they claim the energy of the plant level is reduced at the cattle level by a loss of 90% with only 10% remaining. And they see another 90% loss with only 10% remaining as the human eats the cattle. And the biologist-ecologist blames this 90% loss on 2nd law of thermodynamics. Are they correct???
The answer is that they are wrong. And easily shown by anyone eating a steak versus the a plant salad. The energy concentration in a meat steak compared to a salad is 10 times more energy in the meat. So if anything the 10% Rule of food pyramid is reversed around and wrong.
And the trouble with this reversal of the truth, is that no-one in physics or biology-ecology ever understood the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
A food pyramid exists with only three levels, plants at bottom and the largest group, herbivores next and finally meat eaters.
And it is a pyramid of 10 times, not of 10%, because meat is concentrated food energy worth ten times more in energy than plant food.
So the mistake is to think you have numerous trophic levels when you have just 3-- plants, herbivores and meat eaters.
What should have been done for the food pyramid is start where all farmers and ranchers know to start. How many cattle can I raise on a 1 hectare of land? And can 1 human live on that cattle raised on that 1 hectare? This is not a 10% rule, but a 10 times rule in recognition that meat is 10 times more concentrated food energy than is a salad bowl.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 26, 2023, 2:44:46 PM12/26/23
to
Strange to me how I end up solving 2nd law of Thermodynamics from doing biology-ecology. I suppose it is that biology can focus the mind like few examples can focus the mind. It was the large sized Dragonfly in Devonian geological period that focused my mind on solving the mathematics-physics of a Growing Earth theory of Dirac's new radioactivity.
So, why not let Biology solve the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Looking through my 269 published books of science, I seem to have missing a book on Superconductivity.
I am ready to write that book now on Superconductivity and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics solved. Let it be my 270th book of science.
Apparently the below post was my last writings on Superconductivity.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics comes directly out of New-Ohm's law of Voltage = current *(magnetic field * electric field) represented as V = C*B*E where * is a generalized multiplication that can be dot product or vector product or scalar product.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics when we say it is "Heat flows from hot to cold and never the reverse" is equivalent to the EM statement "Electric current obeys the Right Hand Law". Now in physics they call it the "right-hand rule" but it is in fact a law of physics. Difference between a rule and law is that a rule has exceptions and is never a law of science. A law of science has no exceptions.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics when we say that "we lose some energy in the Carnot cycle" is equivalent in the EM theory of physics to the fact that V = C*B*E where we combine B*E to be Resistance and thus Voltage = C*R. So that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has now become Resistance in electromagnetic theory.
But Superconductivity is also embedded in the term Resistance. When we have B*E, the magnetic field multiply in general with electric field we can get B*E = 1 where we have superconductivity. All the electric current C that flows in flows out with no loss.
So the term B*E whether vector cross product or dot product is 1 in Resistance for superconductivity. If some of the energy of electric current is lost by flowing in and then flowing out, the term B*E is a number between 0 and 1 excluding 1. So silver, copper and gold has Resistance of about 0.75 (I am guessing) and iron has resistance of 0.5 (another guess) and a nonconductor has resistance near that of 0.
The title of my 270th book of science should be somewhat like this. "2nd Law of Thermodynamics is connected to Superconductivity Explained as New Ohm's Law".
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 12:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: page48, 6-4 advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell theory/ textbook, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:43:28 +0000
page48, 6-4 advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell theory/ textbook, 8th ed.
Bismuth superconducts at 5/10000 K supporting evidence that Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity
Last December I wrote the below, not knowing that only a few days away in the 24December2016 issue of SCIENCE NEWS would be a report on bismuth superconducting, when Bismuth is not supposed to superconduct under the old clownish Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer theory of superconductivity-- electrons pairing up.
But under the Capacitor with Standing Electric Current theory, all elements superconduct, by simply recognizing that superconductivity is a material made into a capacitor. Call it electricity by Capacitor flow.
And, under the revelation that the real-electron is the muon, and that the 0.5MeV particle is the magnepole, the monopole of magnetism, the idea of a capacitor current is all the more made clear.
Advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell theory
I cannot tell you how many times in the past, from 1995 onwards, that I had a theory of how superconductivity actually works. Some memorable speculations was that it was neutrinos as carriers of electricity instead of photons, because neutrinos go through matter with ease and no interference, thus, no resistance. Then I thought the Malus law was superconductivity.
But recently, I realized capacitors were superconductors. I realized there are two types of electricity current. The running current as in our homes and then the Standing Current such as a capacitor stores a standing current, not a running current. And that the reason superconductors other than ordinary capacitors needed cold temperatures, is because coldness creates a dielectric sandwiched between sheets of conductors. So the world already has room-temperature-and-above, superconductors--they are capacitors.
I hope this is the final theory on how superconductivity works.
Now we are beginning to see experimental proof of the above assertions.
Bismuth is never supposed to be superconducting due to the Bardeen silly theory and the authors of SCIENCE NEWS, 24DEC2016, page 14 "At low temps, bismuth superconducts, despite few free electrons, element loses electrical resistance," by Emily Conover.
"Consequently, the prevailing theory of superconductivity doesn't apply. New ideas-- either a different theory or a tweak to the standard one-- are needed to explain busmuth's superconductivity, says , , Marvin Cohen, UC Berkeley. It might lead us to a better theory of superconductivity with more details."
Well, I am happy to inform the new theory is already here-- Capacitors are superconductors in that they hold a Standing Electric Current with no resistance. It explains why bismuth can superconduct.
Obviously capacitors exist at room temperatures and higher, so there is no need to look for high temperature superconductors-- they already exist.
DC current only Re: experiments to tell if capacitor electricity vice wire electricity
Truly wonderous that no physicist dared to assimilate capacitor with DC to come up with current. Probably because current physics has so much fakery-- Higgs, gravity waves, black holes, Doppler light shift, Bardeen superconductivity--so much phony physics-- so much distraction no-one has time for real physics.
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:05:30 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>why Old Physics was so feeble Re: DC current only Re: experiments to tell if capacitor electricity >vice wire electricity
>
>So, in Old Physics they had Conductors like copper wire and they had capacitors that released a >electric current. So did not a single one of them ever have the idea that a wire and capacitor can >be the same conductor?
>
>Of course, it means that you have to have two types of current-- Running current in wire and >Standing current in capacitor.
>
But under the Capacitor with Standing Electric Current theory, all elements superconduct, by simply recognizing that superconductivity is a material made into a capacitor.
Today I was reading the same report from SCIENCE, 6 January, 2017, page 52 titled Evidence for bulk superconductivity in pure bismuth single crystals at ambient pressure.
The authors say that the Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer model fails because bismuth is not supposed to superconduct in that model.
So, what my theory is, is that superconductivity is Capacitor creation of a material, and that superconductivity is the ordering of the molecular structure into a parallel plate capacitor, with a dielectric sandwiched in between the plates. This would suggest all materials would be superconductivity provided they formed into a capacitor.
Suggests that superconductivity is DC only, never AC
Suggests doping helps because it keeps the plates apart as a dielectric substance.
Suggests that silver, gold extremely good regular conductors have the hardest time of being a superconductor, since it is extremely difficult to turn gold and silver into parallel plates with dielectric.
>On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 1:16:03 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>Sr2RuO4 Re: Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity + Standing Electric Current
>
>The news keeps coming in and coming in, that the Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer model is phony >baloney, their pairing of electrons fails to explain bismuth superconductivity and now Sr2RuO4.
>
>In SCIENCE, 13 January 2017 page 148 describes Superconductivity in Sr2RuO4 under a >uniaxial pressure by A. Steppke et al.
>
>By applying pressure, the superconduction is enhanced by a factor of 2.3 higher.
>
>So, the AP theory of superconductivity is that superconduction is merely Capacitor Conduction, where a material is transformed into being a capacitor. Apparently Sr2RuO4 is easily turned into a capacitor, and when we apply pressure upon a capacitor-- two sheets of aluminum with dielectric in between and applying pressure via a phone book pressing on the sheets delivers greater capacitance, from 3 microfarads to 6 microfarads in one experiment of mine.
>
>Pressure in the Bardeen model is nonsensical.
>
>On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 6:51:10 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
>Sr2RuO4 Re: Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity + Standing Electric Current
>
>So here we link the simple observation of pressure on a capacitor increases capacitance with >pressure on superconductor increases conductivity.
>On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 4:51:23 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>Re: Sr2RuO4 Re: Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity + Standing Electric Current
Nice to see truth and reality alarms written in science news journals where they keep saying Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer superconductivity model is utterly phony and cannot explain these results.
Nice to see scientists admit the truth.
But it would also be nice to see them say-- The Capacitor model explains superconductivity far better than anything by Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer.
>On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:03:55 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
>Why superconductivity is never AC, because it is Capacitor flow, the coldness turns the material >into a capacitor.
>On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:04:42 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>Has anyone ever experimented with taking a Capacitor, cooling it, and see if the electricity is improved?
Alright, some exciting more news to the story of superconductivity. That I discovered the Real Electron is the muon at 105 MeV and the particle we had always thought was the electron of 0.5 MeV was not an electron but was a photon with a charge energy of 0.5MeV, called a magnepole, or monopole. Each magnet has two poles, and each pole is a charged monopole of 0.5MeV.
This changes our ideas of capacitors, and superconductivity to a large degree. And so, a review is in order, for the Standing Current I spoke of, would be this 0.5 MeV Monopoles being a standing current.
Commentary--
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 17:37:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: why most atoms are metals
PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE/8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 01:37:45 +0000
>
>
Now let me make some more remarks about the table of periodic elements when the real electron = muon.
>
The electrons of atoms tell you what element it is just as the number of protons. Because, electrons = muons has electrons staying pretty much inside that atom as its protons. In other words, stability stability stability. And really that is how the world should be. Whereas a world where the 0.5 MeV was the electron spells constant large changes inside all atoms. But, as we see this 0.5 MeV as a interloper particle like food eaten by an animal, and not changing the body but augmenting, squares away with the reality we see.
>
And as we view the Table overall one fact sticks out prominently. The fact that nearly all chemical elements are metals. And this fact alone should tell us the underlying theory of not only atoms but subatomic particles. The fact that most atoms are metal means the underlying laws of physics are EM laws-- Maxwell-AP equations in that metals produce magnetism, produce electricity. And so the protons and neutrons have to be the thrusting bar magnet while the electrons=muons have to be the closed loop of wire as composing a Faraday law. But, the proton in turn is composed of 8 muons arranged in such a way as to be another Faraday law inside the proton on a level further down from the atom level.
>
So in essence the subatomic particles and laws of EM theory are one and the same. And the reason most atoms are metals is because electricity and magnetism is metal behavior.
>
AP, King of Science
my 270th book of science should be somewhat like this. "2nd Law of Thermodynamics is connected to Superconductivity Explained as New Ohm's Law" by Archimedes Plutonium
So, why not let Biology solve the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Looking through my 269 published books of science, I seem to have missing a book on Superconductivity.
I am ready to write that book now on Superconductivity and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics solved. Let it be my 270th book of science.
Apparently the below post was my last writings on Superconductivity.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics comes directly out of New-Ohm's law of Voltage = current *(magnetic field * electric field) represented as V = C*B*E where * is a generalized multiplication that can be dot product or vector product or scalar product.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics when we say it is "Heat flows from hot to cold and never the reverse" is equivalent to the EM statement "Electric current obeys the Right Hand Law". Now in physics they call it the "right-hand rule" but it is in fact a law of physics. Difference between a rule and law is that a rule has exceptions and is never a law of science. A law of science has no exceptions.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics when we say that "we lose some energy in the Carnot cycle" is equivalent in the EM theory of physics to the fact that V = C*B*E where we combine B*E to be Resistance and thus Voltage = C*R. So that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has now become Resistance in electromagnetic theory.
But Superconductivity is also embedded in the term Resistance. When we have B*E, the magnetic field multiply in general with electric field we can get B*E = 1 where we have superconductivity. All the electric current C that flows in flows out with no loss.
So the term B*E whether vector cross product or dot product is 1 in Resistance for superconductivity. If some of the energy of electric current is lost by flowing in and then flowing out, the term B*E is a number between 0 and 1 excluding 1. So silver, copper and gold has Resistance of about 0.75 (I am guessing) and iron has resistance of 0.5 (another guess) and a nonconductor has resistance near that of 0.
The title of my 270th book of science should be somewhat like this. "2nd Law of Thermodynamics is connected to Superconductivity Explained as New Ohm's Law".
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 12:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: page48, 6-4 advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell theory/ textbook, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:43:28 +0000
page48, 6-4 advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell theory/ textbook, 8th ed.
Bismuth superconducts at 5/10000 K supporting evidence that Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity
Last December I wrote the below, not knowing that only a few days away in the 24December2016 issue of SCIENCE NEWS would be a report on bismuth superconducting, when Bismuth is not supposed to superconduct under the old clownish Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer theory of superconductivity-- electrons pairing up.
But under the Capacitor with Standing Electric Current theory, all elements superconduct, by simply recognizing that superconductivity is a material made into a capacitor. Call it electricity by Capacitor flow.
And, under the revelation that the real-electron is the muon, and that the 0.5MeV particle is the magnepole, the monopole of magnetism, the idea of a capacitor current is all the more made clear.
Advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell theory
I cannot tell you how many times in the past, from 1995 onwards, that I had a theory of how superconductivity actually works. Some memorable speculations was that it was neutrinos as carriers of electricity instead of photons, because neutrinos go through matter with ease and no interference, thus, no resistance. Then I thought the Malus law was superconductivity.
But recently, I realized capacitors were superconductors. I realized there are two types of electricity current. The running current as in our homes and then the Standing Current such as a capacitor stores a standing current, not a running current. And that the reason superconductors other than ordinary capacitors needed cold temperatures, is because coldness creates a dielectric sandwiched between sheets of conductors. So the world already has room-temperature-and-above, superconductors--they are capacitors.
I hope this is the final theory on how superconductivity works.
Now we are beginning to see experimental proof of the above assertions.
Bismuth is never supposed to be superconducting due to the Bardeen silly theory and the authors of SCIENCE NEWS, 24DEC2016, page 14 "At low temps, bismuth superconducts, despite few free electrons, element loses electrical resistance," by Emily Conover.
"Consequently, the prevailing theory of superconductivity doesn't apply. New ideas-- either a different theory or a tweak to the standard one-- are needed to explain busmuth's superconductivity, says , , Marvin Cohen, UC Berkeley. It might lead us to a better theory of superconductivity with more details."
Well, I am happy to inform the new theory is already here-- Capacitors are superconductors in that they hold a Standing Electric Current with no resistance. It explains why bismuth can superconduct.
Obviously capacitors exist at room temperatures and higher, so there is no need to look for high temperature superconductors-- they already exist.
DC current only Re: experiments to tell if capacitor electricity vice wire electricity
Truly wonderous that no physicist dared to assimilate capacitor with DC to come up with current. Probably because current physics has so much fakery-- Higgs, gravity waves, black holes, Doppler light shift, Bardeen superconductivity--so much phony physics-- so much distraction no-one has time for real physics.
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:05:30 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>why Old Physics was so feeble Re: DC current only Re: experiments to tell if capacitor electricity >vice wire electricity
>
>So, in Old Physics they had Conductors like copper wire and they had capacitors that released a >electric current. So did not a single one of them ever have the idea that a wire and capacitor can >be the same conductor?
>
>Of course, it means that you have to have two types of current-- Running current in wire and >Standing current in capacitor.
>
But under the Capacitor with Standing Electric Current theory, all elements superconduct, by simply recognizing that superconductivity is a material made into a capacitor.
Today I was reading the same report from SCIENCE, 6 January, 2017, page 52 titled Evidence for bulk superconductivity in pure bismuth single crystals at ambient pressure.
The authors say that the Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer model fails because bismuth is not supposed to superconduct in that model.
So, what my theory is, is that superconductivity is Capacitor creation of a material, and that superconductivity is the ordering of the molecular structure into a parallel plate capacitor, with a dielectric sandwiched in between the plates. This would suggest all materials would be superconductivity provided they formed into a capacitor.
Suggests that superconductivity is DC only, never AC
Suggests doping helps because it keeps the plates apart as a dielectric substance.
Suggests that silver, gold extremely good regular conductors have the hardest time of being a superconductor, since it is extremely difficult to turn gold and silver into parallel plates with dielectric.
>On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 1:16:03 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>Sr2RuO4 Re: Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity + Standing Electric Current
>
>The news keeps coming in and coming in, that the Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer model is phony >baloney, their pairing of electrons fails to explain bismuth superconductivity and now Sr2RuO4.
>
>In SCIENCE, 13 January 2017 page 148 describes Superconductivity in Sr2RuO4 under a >uniaxial pressure by A. Steppke et al.
>
>By applying pressure, the superconduction is enhanced by a factor of 2.3 higher.
>
>So, the AP theory of superconductivity is that superconduction is merely Capacitor Conduction, where a material is transformed into being a capacitor. Apparently Sr2RuO4 is easily turned into a capacitor, and when we apply pressure upon a capacitor-- two sheets of aluminum with dielectric in between and applying pressure via a phone book pressing on the sheets delivers greater capacitance, from 3 microfarads to 6 microfarads in one experiment of mine.
>
>Pressure in the Bardeen model is nonsensical.
>
>On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 6:51:10 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
>Sr2RuO4 Re: Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity + Standing Electric Current
>
>So here we link the simple observation of pressure on a capacitor increases capacitance with >pressure on superconductor increases conductivity.
>On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 4:51:23 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>Re: Sr2RuO4 Re: Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity + Standing Electric Current
Nice to see truth and reality alarms written in science news journals where they keep saying Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer superconductivity model is utterly phony and cannot explain these results.
Nice to see scientists admit the truth.
But it would also be nice to see them say-- The Capacitor model explains superconductivity far better than anything by Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer.
>On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:03:55 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
>Why superconductivity is never AC, because it is Capacitor flow, the coldness turns the material >into a capacitor.
>On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:04:42 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>Has anyone ever experimented with taking a Capacitor, cooling it, and see if the electricity is improved?
Alright, some exciting more news to the story of superconductivity. That I discovered the Real Electron is the muon at 105 MeV and the particle we had always thought was the electron of 0.5 MeV was not an electron but was a photon with a charge energy of 0.5MeV, called a magnepole, or monopole. Each magnet has two poles, and each pole is a charged monopole of 0.5MeV.
This changes our ideas of capacitors, and superconductivity to a large degree. And so, a review is in order, for the Standing Current I spoke of, would be this 0.5 MeV Monopoles being a standing current.
Commentary--
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 17:37:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: why most atoms are metals
PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE/8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 01:37:45 +0000
>
>
Now let me make some more remarks about the table of periodic elements when the real electron = muon.
>
The electrons of atoms tell you what element it is just as the number of protons. Because, electrons = muons has electrons staying pretty much inside that atom as its protons. In other words, stability stability stability. And really that is how the world should be. Whereas a world where the 0.5 MeV was the electron spells constant large changes inside all atoms. But, as we see this 0.5 MeV as a interloper particle like food eaten by an animal, and not changing the body but augmenting, squares away with the reality we see.
>
And as we view the Table overall one fact sticks out prominently. The fact that nearly all chemical elements are metals. And this fact alone should tell us the underlying theory of not only atoms but subatomic particles. The fact that most atoms are metal means the underlying laws of physics are EM laws-- Maxwell-AP equations in that metals produce magnetism, produce electricity. And so the protons and neutrons have to be the thrusting bar magnet while the electrons=muons have to be the closed loop of wire as composing a Faraday law. But, the proton in turn is composed of 8 muons arranged in such a way as to be another Faraday law inside the proton on a level further down from the atom level.
>
So in essence the subatomic particles and laws of EM theory are one and the same. And the reason most atoms are metals is because electricity and magnetism is metal behavior.
>
AP, King of Science
my 270th book of science should be somewhat like this. "2nd Law of Thermodynamics is connected to Superconductivity Explained as New Ohm's Law" by Archimedes Plutonium
0 new messages