explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-23T21:52:40Z

172.70.207.42: clarify 2023

Shouldn't Rankine say "0ºR is set to absolute zero"? {{unsigned ip|172.70.230.29|22:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)}}
:Yep. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.253|162.158.186.253]] 04:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

yo,i thought comic 3000 was anticlimactic so randall would make this one COOL but sadly not
Same. Hope he does something cool for 3072.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.225|172.69.134.225]] 23:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

really he didn't do anything special for this either? come ON randall if you don't do something cool for comic 3072 i will come to your house personally and yell at you [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 23:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 
What's random about Fahrenheit? (Answer: nothing.) 0F is the freezing point of brine, 100F (or 98.7) is the human body temperature. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.65|172.68.54.65]] 00:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:What concentration of brine? (And which specific salt... No, not NaCl, as you might presume but NH4Cl!)
:And body temperature varies a lot ('typically' 36.5–37.5°C or 97.7–99.5°F, though even this range is thought to be too small), across genders, individuals, time of day ''and'' which orifices/surfaces you try to measure it from. (Originally, it was set so that '''90°F''' was to be the 'best guess' of human body temperature. It gradually changed, including via various {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|compounded misunderstandings}} so that the best you can say is that 100°F is arbitrarily ''slightly above'' most afebrile human body temperature measurements.)
:Celsius might be a bit off (arguments about triple-point or STP freezing, etc), but it still has far more physical logic to it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Randall, for my comfort, Fahrenheit is the least cursed. It's the best scale to use for my personal use, especially when hearing the weather report and deciding what to wear outdoors: temp in the 80's - no jacket. temp in 70's - maybe a windbreaker if it's breezy. 60's - sweater weather. 50's - medium weight coat. 40's - winter coat. 30'3 - winter coat with scarf and gloves. 20's - multiple layers. teens - stay indoors. None of the other scales provide such convenient distinctions for my daily life. Kelvin is great for astro physics or super conductivity, but useless for any common uses. Celsius is great for hanging out with the Euro crowd but still not so useful to scale my home thermostat. I judge Fahrenheit as 1.0 for cursedness. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 14:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I conveniently use Celsius in tens, also. Negative °C: Cold; 0-10°C: Nippy; 10-20°C: Generally pleasant; 20-30°C: Too warm to exert oneself; 30°C+: ''Definitely'' too warm. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.205|172.70.86.205]] 15:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm most disappointed that {{w|Delisle scale}} was not represented... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: I was so hoping for a {{w|Planck temperature}} quip. Like: "Water freezing point: 0; Water boiling point: 0; Notes: 1 = highest possible temperature (1.4E32K) where thermal radiation creates black holes; Cursedness: 0/0" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.164.184|162.158.164.184]] 01:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Same here. Freezing is 0.000000000000000000000000000001928 and boiling is 0.0000000000000000000000000000026338. [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] ([[User talk:DanielLC|talk]]) 03:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: Wow, those are even smaller than the IEEE floating point representations of 1-1.0/3*3! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.109|162.158.90.109]] 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: The Planck temperature quip is definitely well deserved. Good catch! [[User:Mumingpo|Mumingpo]] ([[User talk:Mumingpo|talk]]) 17:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I guess I was wrong in my comment on the last comic. sigh. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 01:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It's actually spelled {{w|Wedgwood scale}}, not Wedgewood. [[User:Wilh3lm|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm|talk]]) 01:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I still call the modern version of the "Celsius" scale "centigrade", but if people start nitpicking, I'm happy to switch to "Carolus" to avoid ambiguity. For some reason that tends to annoy people more though. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.191|172.68.22.191]] 01:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Every temperature scale is equally "random" as every other scale. People always say that Celsius is so much better because it's defined by the phase changes of water. Okay, cool...why should THAT of all things be what we use as the base for a system of temperature measurement? And, who cares? I'm a ''Homo sapiens'', not a water molecule. If anything we should use the freezing and melting points of humans as our two reference points for temperature (which, I must say, Fahrenheit approximates better than Celsius, assuming 0 and 100 are your points "A" and "B"). [[User:Pie Guy|Pie Guy]] ([[User talk:Pie Guy|talk]]) 03:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: Every temperature scale is arbitrary, but since boiling and freezing water is a thing humans have a lot of experience with it makes sense to use that as the reference point. At least it makes more sense than whatever the coldest recorded temperature in Fahrenheit's home town was, because he didn't like negative numbers [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.23|172.70.250.23]] 03:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Planck temperature (as above) is probably the least arbitrary, and some would say it is to some extent free from arbitrariness. However, it's completely impractical for everyday use (as above.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.138|172.69.34.138]] 04:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Do the physics of black holes or neutron stars involve Planck temperatures greater than 0.0000001? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Chat Gippity told me:

:::::Black holes and neutron stars do not typically involve temperatures reaching the Planck scale. While both objects exhibit extreme physical conditions, their temperatures are far below the Planck temperature, even though they can be incredibly high compared to everyday phenomena.

::::: - **Neutron stars** have surface temperatures in the range of millions of Kelvin, and the core can reach even higher, possibly up to a few billion Kelvin. These temperatures are still vastly lower than the Planck temperature.

::::: - **Black holes**, especially the smaller ones, can emit Hawking radiation, with temperatures inversely proportional to their mass. However, the temperature of even a very small black hole is still far below the Planck temperature. Hawking radiation is not expected to reach temperatures close to the Planck scale under normal circumstances.

::::: The Planck temperature (TP=1) represents an energy scale so extreme that no known physical models, including those describing black holes and neutron stars, operate near or above this threshold. Temperatures reaching **0.0000001 TP** (or 1.416 × 10^26 K) would still be beyond current observational and theoretical frameworks related to these cosmic objects. A quantum theory of gravity would be required to describe physics at or near the Planck temperature, which remains speculative and is far beyond the conditions found in black holes or neutron stars.

::::[[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If the °X scale is based on the temperatures of Earth from all time (for some definition of "Earth"), then the scale is very hard to define and highly impractical. The earth appears to have gotten to more than 2,300 Kelvin (hot enough to melt steel and platinum and to boil lead) and while I can't find any sources for the lowest temperature, I imagine it is lower than -100°C. The recorded minimum, maximum and average temperatures appear to be around -89.2 °C, 56.7 °C and 15 °C respectively. This would make the scale somewhat useful, but this would make typical values between 41 °X (cold winter's day) and 68 °X (hot summers day) which I think is pretty cursed. I recommend the clearly superior °Y, based around average temp at 0 °Y, low at -100 °Y and high at 100 °Y. These would be measured by the yearly high, low and mean temperatures averaged per person. Then saying "It's 2 times colder than yesterday" would have some reasonable meaning. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.147|198.41.236.147]] 04:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:"''Record'' ... surface temperature" implies it was recorded. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.9|172.68.22.9]] 04:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

How do you all feel about adding an additional column for room temperature 22C/72F?
{| class=wikitable style="text-align:right;"
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Room temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22
|-
| Kelvin || 295
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72
|-
| Réaumur || 18
|-
| Rømer || 18
|-
| Rankine || 531
|-
| Newton || 7
|-
| Wedgwood || -7
|-
| Galen || 0
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78
|-
| °X || 58
|}

Or 0.00000000000000000000000000000208 °Planck, lol. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.211|108.162.245.211]] 05:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I feel like decigalens would be the most practical unit. Who's with me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.5|162.158.186.5]] 06:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's interesting; calculating the equilibrium temperature (with 2.05 and 4.24 being used for the heat capacities of ice and boiling water) gives 67... If I use water that's about to freeze and steam, I get 31. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 07:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Would you please explain in more detail? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: The equilibrium temperature of a mixture (?) of equal quantities of ice at 0 C and water at 100 C (with the heat capacities 2.05 and 4.24) is 67 C; if I use the data for water at 0 C and steam, I get 31 C. Additionally, if I use equal volumes, I get 68 (which isn't much different.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 17:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: One can obtain 0 = 22 C by setting the heat capacity of ice to be 39 and that of water to be 11. For any particular "normal temperature" ''R'' °C (that is, the temperature at 0 is ''R'',), I find that ''x'' °C = 50''R''(''x''+4)/(''x''(''R''-50)+200). In particular, for ''R'' = 22, we get (1100+275''x'')/(50-7''x''). [[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.163|198.41.236.163]] 05:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding the X scale - when it‘s defined by *three* (somewhat, implying average is real and not just calculated by (max-min)/2)) independent points, how will linearity be achieved? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.76|162.158.155.76]] 05:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
[[File:Explanation length.png|right|thumb|Or click "[Expand]" in the bottom right table cell Derivation.]]
:Please see [[2701: Change in Slope]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.179|172.70.206.179]] 05:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:Sure, "a linear scale between each point":
[[File:XvsC.png|thumb|left|Here you go. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 06:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)]]
{{clear}}

The reference for the average surface temperature, https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html, suggests it has increased above 15°C. What value should we use in late 2024? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The [https://wmo.int/media/news/earth-experiences-warmest-day-recent-history World Meteorological Organization], [https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2024-now-very-likely-to-be-warmest-year-on-record/ Carbon Brief], and [https://climate.copernicus.eu/new-record-daily-global-average-temperature-reached-july-2024 Copernicus Climate Change Service] suggest 17.16°C. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Updated water temperatures, Derivation, and graph. So we've already had more than the +2°C warming we were trying to avoid in 2019? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: The +2°C (or +1.5°C that we were originally supposed to be avoiding) is over some (undefined) number of years, though, which allows us to ignore the fact that we're cooking ourselves by repeatedly saying 'Oh, but it doesn't count ''yet''.' [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.62|172.70.91.62]] 11:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3001%3A_Temperature_Scales&type=revision&diff=353635&oldid=353632], are the average surface temperatures from the sources supposed to be yearly or overall averages? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:According to https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature the global average near-surface temperature in 2023 was 14.4 + 0.4 = 14.8°C. (see Figure 1 and click "Increase above: [1991–2020 reference period].") [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.8|172.68.22.8]] 21:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

where is the interactive epic 3000 comic we should've gotten? This one's cool but 1000 seemed to have more effort in it and 2000 was at least tangetially related. Does Randall just not like making these anymore and is only making more comics as a business? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.185|108.162.238.185]] 12:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The comic is free on the website and it doesn't have ads; although the comic is part of his "brand" there are many more profitable things he could be doing with his time, and yet he continues to update it every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. I just don't like the idea of claiming that a creative person "should" produce any particular thing to satisfy their fans. He's a busy guy! Maybe he's working on a book, or a Scientific American article, or a TV show. He's under no obligation to give us anything, and maybe one day he'll stop making xkcd altogether; that's his choice. Sorry to single you out; I know a lot of people feel the same way as you do, but to me it doesn't make sense. He's not a content machine--he's a guy who started posting sketches on the internet. [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry if I sounded overly brash, I wasn't trying to imply "wahhh no special entry wahhh", I was just wondering if Randall still likes to make these or if he doesn't, mainly because he just didn't do anything special, which feels like he just didn't care. I wasn't trying to imply Randall should just do it for the fans[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.80|108.162.238.80]] 17:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::It ''could'' be that 3000 (or even 3001) ''was'' going to be special but, as fairly frequently with April Fool 'specials', it just wasn't doable on time. (If it's still considered fixablez it might pop up sometime before 3020 or so. Or, if transferable to another occasion (rebranding the obvious "3000!"ness), held over until Haloween, Christmas, April or 4000, perhaps with additional perfections.)
:::Hard to know, unless Randall (or his technical collaborators) say anything. And it's probably not worth doing so right now. Maybe "Hey guys, this ''was'' going to be #3000!" might accompany its eventual emergence, but also maybe not. Does it really matter? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.139|172.70.85.139]] 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this the first list-style comic where every single entry is real? (Usually he has several joke entries.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.182|172.70.114.182]] 14:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Where would [[1923: Felsius|Felsius]] go on this list?

One can find a smooth function for °X, namely, (477879''x''-17634840)/(3341''x''+197700), which takes °X and returns °C. The inverse is (-197700''x''-17634840)/(3341''x''-477879). Should this be included in the wiki article? Or maybe another way of fitting it (like exponential) should be used. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.165|172.69.0.165]] 06:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:It says "a linear scale between each point". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.130|172.70.210.130]] 21:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Should it be noted that in the first _What If?_ book, there's a reference to units and how much Randall loathes rankine? Someone can go take the book and cite it; it's in one of the early pages [[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.10|172.64.236.10]] 08:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I remember it being drummed into us in school physics (admittedly over 50 years ago) that 0 Celsius is defined as the melting point of ice, not the freezing point of water (presumably because of supercooling). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.189|172.70.160.189]] 08:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems he wrote "Earths'" (plural possessive) instead of "Earth's". [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.151|141.101.98.151]] 08:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What? No gas mark? It's linear for temperatures over 275°F but inverse powers of 2 below That's pretty cursed, but I still put it in my unit conversion app. It's only used in gas stoves in a few countries, so it doesn't come up very often. By the way, boiling is 1/5.7358 and freezing/melting is 1/843.3572. Interestingly, France has it's own stove temperature scale that seems to be based on °F.

Also, my understanding is that 7.5 and 32 aren't random. Both Romer and Fahrenheit put numbers on things so that freezing/melting of water and "Normal human body temperature", which was thought to be standard at the time, would be some number X (15 for Romer and 64 for Fahrenheit) and the water thing would be to be X/2 and NHBT would be X/2+X. Pretty nerdy. Sadly, the calibration was off and 212 degrees for boiling was found to be less cursed. But I could be wrong.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.138|172.68.54.138]] 20:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Re: water/ice point 'random number', I think it's more that it wasn't considered "special", such that "On my scale, that will be zero" (or whatever choice of handily round number, including zero, some scale-setters allocated to the BP of water).
:After all the other messing about ("my zero will be that of brine!", etc), obviously then the ~0°C equivalent would ''have'' a number, and ''perhaps'' there would then be a slight change to make it a ''whole'' (or easy-fraction) number for convenience's sake, but (before the concept of binary computers) there's not much special about landing on the number 32, for what is actually a temperature that is quite significant to the human experience, and less so with 7-''and-a-half''.
:Maybe landing on 90°F (at one time) for body temperature (and 180 F° ''between'' MP and BP) was considered useful as the analogue to angular-degrees where 90 (and 180) indeed features significantly, but I don't think there'd have been too much fuss if the value would have turned out to be 60(/120), also with plenty of handy factors to divide by, 70(/140), without so much, or whatever number(s) happened to depict one realistic real-world measurement that (overall) has no reason to have a factor-based relationship with various quite separate phenomenon measurements.
:''And'' it went through several {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|'corrective' iterations}} so that even its handy relationship with 'about 100°F' can be said to be an incidental accident, at best, unless we do something like Randall's °X scale and actively triple-tie the central value of the slope(s) to be exactly something useful by using the "currently accepted mean human body temperature (given various complicated caveats)".
:It's pretty much all random, in the same way that only because of anthropocentric choices of 'standard' time and distance measurements is the speed of light 'pretty much' 3×10⁸ m/s (a handily round value that works well enough for most purposes, even after back-standardising its component SI measurements to make "actually, precisely 299792458" the ''proper'' answer, and [https://conversion.org/speed/speed-of-light/furlong-per-fortnight it could be far worse...]). Avagadro's number never had it so good (6.022(+change)×1023...? ...where's the handily mnemonic value in that?), and Pi (in this universe's system of fundemental mathematics) clearly never ever had a chance! And, on {{w|Mount Everest#19th century|at least one occasion}}, such happenstance numeric roundedness in its exactitude (29''',000''' ft) was considered actually quite awkward... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.90|172.70.91.90]] 21:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-22T04:12:02Z

172.70.207.42: /* Explanation */ homogenize

{{comic
| number = 3001
| date = October 21, 2024
| title = Temperature Scales
| image = temperature_scales_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x535px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an EXPONENTIAL TEMPERATURE SYSTEM - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

There are many different temperature scales. Most of the world uses {{w|Celsius}} for everyday temperature measurements, as it is part of the {{w|metric system}} that has been widely adopted as at least the more officially favored civil measurement. However, the United States and Liberia retain the US customary (or 'imperial') system, where the unit is {{w|Fahrenheit}}. There are also many more temperature scales. Most notable is {{w|Kelvin}}, using the 'separation' of Celsius degrees but rooted upon {{w|absolute zero}} (as {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} does with Fahrenheit degrees), which is more directly useful for the purposes of scientific calculation. This comic showcases all these, as well as a lot of mostly unused scales.

{| class=wikitable
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Water Freezing Point
! scope="col" | Water Boiling Point
! scope="col" | Notes
! scope="col" | Cursedness
! scope="col" | Explanation
|-
| {{w|Celsius}} || 0 || 100 || Used in most of the world || 2/10 || All but a handful of countries use degrees Celsius as their default measurement of temperature, and most of those use Celsius in conjunction with another scale. Celsius is defined (indirectly, these days, by way of comparison to Kelvin) so that the freezing and boiling points of pure water at standard atmospheric pressure are 0 and 100 degrees respectively. This (along with Kelvin) is considered the least cursed temperature system (at least from those where the ranking values make any sense), likely due to Randall's background. Notably it is still considered a 2/10, implying an inherent degree of cursedness for all systems.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin is a scientific unit of measure invented by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} that intends to use the same base metric as degrees Celsius, but zero is set to absolute zero and (by way of using the {{w|Boltzmann constant}}, as of 2019) the melting point of ice (0°C) is considered to be 273.15K. Immediately prior to this, the {{w|Triple point#Triple point of water|triple-point of water}} was precisely 273.16K (and 0.01°C), and the conversion remains commonly considered that ''°C = K - 273.15'', within any useful degree of precision.
|-
| {{w|Fahrenheit}} || 32 || 212 || Outdoors in most places is between 0-100 || 3/10 || Fahrenheit is a system officially used in only 5 countries in the world (Liberia, the USA and its three associated free states in the Pacific), and unofficially in several countries across the globe, mostly those with ties to the UK or the US, alongside Celsius. It was originally defined with 0 degrees as the freezing point of a particular solution of brine (salt water) and 90 degrees being an (inaccurate) guess of standard human body temperature. Despite being in common use in Randall's home country, due to being defined by such arbitrary fixed points (and Randall's scientific education) it is ranked as slightly more cursed than Celsius.
|-
| {{w|Réaumur scale|Réaumur}} || 0 || 80 || Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100 || 3/8 || A historical French system used in some places until the early 20th century. In modern times mostly used in cheesemaking. The rating (3/8) is a joke on the boiling point of water in standard atmosphere being 80 instead of 100 as it is in Celsius.
|-
| {{w|Rømer scale|Rømer}} || 7.5 || 60 || Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design || 4/10 || Created by the Danish astronomer Ole Christensen Rømer in around 1702, while the Fahrenheit scale was proposed in 1724.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero || 6/10 || Randall has shown disdain for this before, like in [[2292: Thermometer]].
|-
| {{w|Newton scale|Newton}} || 0 || 33-ish || Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in" || 7-ish/10 || Created by Isaac Newton, measuring "degrees of heat". The rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition.
|-
| {{w|Wedgwood scale|Wedgwood}} || -8 || -6.7 || Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about || 9/10 || Created by potter Josiah Wedgwood in the 18th century. The measurement was based on the shrinking of clay when heated above red heat, but was found to be very inaccurate. Randall has a typo, as the scale is called Wedgwood (''without the e'').
|-
| Galen || -4? || 4?? || Runs from -4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?) || 4/-4 || Galen, in his medical writings, is said to have proposed a standard "neutral" temperature made up of equal quantities of boiling water and ice; on either side of this temperature were four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold, respectively. The rating (4/-4) is a joke about the scale being defined between positive and negative 4, and could be interpretted as -100% cursedness.
|-
| {{w|Celsius#History|''Real'' Celsius}} || 100 || 0 || In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it || 10/0 || As most scales' temperatures can be indefinitely large but there exists an absolute minimum temperature, defining the scale in this way (giving an absolute maximum but allowing indefinitely negative values) is indeed cursed, as nearly all possible temperatures will be negative. The rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. This might be interreted as "infinitely cursed", or else just {{w|NaN|Not a Number}}.
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a column of mercury at the temperature of boiling water, and further measurements then made of the amount it ''reduced'' in height under cooler conditions. This direction 'survives' in the historic {{w|Delisle scale}}, which predates (and arguably helped greatly inspire, though with a different factor) the classic version of °C. The version originally used by Anders was only 'corrected' posthumously, but nobody seemed bothered enough to do the same with Delisle's scale.
|-
| [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/459851/john-daltons-temperature-scale#459863 Dalton] || 0 || 100 || A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton || 53.9/50 || A nonlinear scale of temperature (which is typically measured linearly) is indeed very cursed. The rating (53.9/50) is a joke about the unit, as 53.9 Dalton would be 50 degrees Celsius — i.e. the cursedness could be understood as 50/50 (or 10/10, entirely cursed), but perhaps instead as 107.8% (even more than entirely cursed).
|-
| °X ([[Randall]]'s new temperature scale as defined in the title text) || 42.8 °X || 152 °X || The title text states: "In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed." || About ∞ || The record lowest surface temperature on Earth as of 2024 is -89.2°C (-128.6°F), recorded at the Vostok Research Station in Antarctica on July 21, 1983. The average surface temperature of the Earth is approximately 15°C (59°F.){{fact}} The record highest surface temperature on Earth is 56.7°C (134.1°F), recorded on July 10, 1913 at Furnace Creek Ranch in Death Valley, California, USA.

{{cot|Derivation}}
To break the scale into two linear parts (below and above 15°C), we define two separate equations for each range:

1. Below 15°C (from -89.2°C to 15°C):
* 0 °X corresponds to -89.2°C
* 50 °X corresponds to 15°C

We calculate the slope m₁:

m₁ = (50 - 0) / (15 - (-89.2)) = 50 / (15 + 89.2) = 50 / 104.2 ≈ 0.48

Now, using the point (15°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₁:

50 = 0.48 × 15 + b₁

50 = 7.2 + b₁

b₁ = 50 - 7.2 = 42.8

Thus, the equation for temperatures below 15°C is:

X = 0.48 × C + 42.8

2. Above 15°C (from 15°C to 56.7°C):
* 50 °X corresponds to 15°C
* 100 °X corresponds to 56.7°C

We calculate the slope m₂:

m₂ = (100 - 50) / (56.7 - 15) = 50 / 41.7 ≈ 1.2

Now, using the point (15°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₂:

50 = 1.2 × 15 + b₂

50 = 18 + b₂

b₂ = 50 - 18 = 32

Thus, the equation for temperatures above 15°C is:

X = 1.2 × C + 32

Freezing and Boiling Points

1. Freezing point of water (0°C):
* Since 0°C is below 15°C, we use the equation X = 0.48 × C + 42.8:

X = 0.48 × 0 + 42.8 = 42.8

So, the freezing point is 42.8 °X.

2. Boiling point of water (100°C):
* Since 100°C is above 15°C, we use the equation X = 1.2 × C + 32:

X = 1.2 × 100 + 32 = 120 + 32 = 152

So, the boiling point is 152 °X.

Final Results:
* Freezing point of water: 42.8 °X
* Boiling point of water: 152 °X
{{cob}}
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[Header:]
:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns. The columns are labelled: Unit, water freezing point, water boiling point, notes, cursedness. There are eleven rows below the labels.]
:[Row 1:] Celsius. 0. 100. Used in most of the world. 2/10.
:[Row 2:] Kelvin. 273.15. 373.15. 0K is absolute zero. 2/10.
:[Row 3:] Fahrenheit. 32. 212. Outdoors in most places is between 0-100. 3/10.
:[Row 4:] Réaumur. 0. 80. Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100. 3/8.
:[Row 5:] Rømer. 7.5. 60. Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design. 4/10.
:[Row 6:] Rankine. 491.7. 671.7. Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero. 6/10.
:[Row 7:] Newton. 0. 33-ish. Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in". 7-ish/10.
:[Row 8:] Wedgewood. -8. -6.7. Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about. 9/10.
:[Row 9:] Galen. -4?. 4??. runs from -4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?). 4/-4.
:[Row 10:] ''Real'' Celsius. 100. 0. in Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it. 10/0.
:[Row 11:] Dalton. 0. 100. A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton. 53.9/50.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Science]]

2989: Physics Lab Thermostat

2024-09-26T17:25:42Z

172.70.207.42: /* Explanation */ simplify

{{comic
| number = 2989
| date = September 23, 2024
| title = Physics Lab Thermostat
| image = physics_lab_thermostat_2x.png
| imagesize = 264x296px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Hopefully the HVAC people set it to only affect the AIR in the room.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by ChatGPT, an actual bot, with the help of human copyeditors and critics as found on the talk page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is about a thermostat in a physics lab which, instead of directly controlling the air temperature, adjusts the {{w|Boltzmann constant}} in the immediate area. This value links our measure of temperature in gas against the energy that physics reveals courses through it. It is equal to 1.38×10−23 J/K, where J is {{w|joule}}s, a unit of energy, and K is {{w|kelvin}}, a unit of temperature. The dial shows different values for the constant, implying that it can be changed, which is absurd because the Boltzmann constant is a fundamental number that (as implied by the name) is supposed to stay the same throughout the universe. In reality, there is no known way to change the Boltzmann constant (and certainly not within an arbitrary zone), so the comic is making fun of the idea of a scientist casually adjusting a fixed law of physics as if it were something simple like room temperature.

If the Boltzmann constant could be changed, it would directly affect how we experience temperature. The constant determines how much energy particles have at a certain temperature. Adjusting the constant would disassociate the measurable temperature from the heat energy. What this practically means is hard to know, since it is not possible to test, but there is no reason to believe that this would act to heat (or cool) the room in any way. It may just require all thermometers to be recalibrated, unless it also effects the thresholds between kinetic energy and the physical states of matter (changes of state or thermal expansion).

The equivalent energy range relative to the actual Boltzmann constant might correspond to temperatures of 15°C (59°F) on the left, to 29°C (84°F) on the right (since raising the value of the constant decreases the temperature for a given energy level). The dial appears to be set to approximately 23°C (73°F), a not untypical desired room temperature within a fairly standard range of thermostat-style choice.  There have previously been control panels for properties of the universe in [[1620: Christmas Settings]] and [[1763: Catcalling]]. A thermometer including units compatible with this thermostat (after dividing by 2/3) is shown in [[2292: Thermometer]].

The title text builds on the absurdity of being able to adjust the Boltzmann constant. It suggests that if the constant could be changed, hopefully it would only affect the air in the room and not other substances. Imagining that this strange version of an HVAC ({{w|heating, ventilation, and air conditioning}}) system could contain such a change to ''just'' the room's air shows the ridiculousness of trying to isolate the effects of altering a universal constant.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[A black circular dial is shown with a white indicator line at the upper right. The label above the dial, enclosed in a rectangular box, says:]
:Local Boltzmann Constant
:[The two extremes of the dial are labeled as follows, the first value on the left and the second value on the right:]
:1.418×10-23 J/K
:1.351×10-23 J/K
:[The indicator line is pointing to a position on the dial somewhere around 1.375×10-23 J/K (between the 12th and 13th large ticks clockwise out of 19 total).]
:[Caption below the panel:]
:Physics Lab Thermostat

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:2990: Late Cenozoic

2024-09-26T17:23:39Z

172.70.207.42: ugh

first explanation, probably bad [[User:Sci09273.15|Sci09273.15]] ([[User talk:Sci09273.15|talk]]) 19:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:It's a fine starting point. Welcome! [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It would have been so cute if Randall had given the lecturer alien some features of Miss Lenhart. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Luckily for future paleontologists, our infrastructure and earthmoving projects are sturdy enough that they should still look kinda funny in a hundred million years. They might not assume that there was a technological civilization until they identified the Manhattan Iron Deposits as ancient vehicles or found similar proof, but they would know SOMETHING weird was going on. [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 21:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

: Researchers have successfully detected and reconstructed the foundations of mud huts, and track down the fossilized trash heaps of humans and [https://www.usgs.gov/centers/geosciences-and-environmental-change-science-center/science/usgs-north-american-packrat animals]. Hard for me to imagine a circumstance in which the fossil exhibits of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Museum_of_Natural_History AMNH] (to name one) were preserved largely intact, that did not also preserve the AMNH itself in a recognizable form. The aliens might then be left to meditate on how a civilization that could create an AMNH [https://www.dude-n-dude.com/2021/05/02/amoebas-lorica-sanded/ fell over]. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.196|172.71.150.196]] 15:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The gap in the fossil record between their extinction and sudden resurgence will be explained by a chance discovery of a prestine copy of the documentary Jurassic Park.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.208.183|172.69.208.183]] 23:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I made this same exact joke (offline) over 20 years ago! I believe that means [[827: My Business Idea|I am entitled to compensation]]. [[User:183231bcb|183231bcb]] ([[User talk:183231bcb|talk]]) 01:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

-Thinking emoji- pretty sure the typical museum dino skeleton is 100% fossil free. I might recall the dino (and similar rareness of fossils) skeletons on display as cast plaster (of paris?). SDT [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.17|172.70.38.17]] 03:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
: As usual, the answer to the question "how much of a displayed dinosaur skeleton is composed of authentic fossil bones" is "it depends". See [https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/which-dinosaur-bones-are-real this article] from Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History for intel. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.146|172.71.147.146]] 05:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I would be willing to suffer the fate of {{w|Tithonus}} for a chance to see those aliens try to figure out the Cenozoic biogeography of Hawai‘i - where, for instance, the (presumably fossilized remains of the) backyard birds would include, inter alia, the northern cardinal (North America), the Java finch (Indonesia), the saffron finch (Brazil), the English sparrow (western Europe), the zebra dove (Malaysia), the warbling white-eye (Japan), the common waxbill (South Africa), the common myna (India) ... [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.151|172.68.23.151]] 05:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I love the fact that we have a perfectly reasonable five sentence, three paragraph explanation with 5x as much text here on the talk page, especially after the disaster with Monday's (the previous) comic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.24|162.158.90.24]] 07:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:Haven't counted the sentences, but it's now four paragraphs. That's with a single (rendering-ignored) line-feed having been made into two (forcing a paragraph-break), when maybe someone should have contracted it instead.
:I just extracted a rather spaghetti-like inclusion of the nature(s?) of the future-beings from the flow, to streamline it. Readded that (further expounded, now with a bit of excusable elbow-room) as Trivia, to retain the speculative nature of that interesting but incidental bit of analysis. Hope this works for people. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.37|172.71.26.37]] 10:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:Must have been nice while it lasted. "Dinosaurs, particularly velociraptors, eating humans is a recurring fear of Randall's." Good grief. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.42|172.70.207.42]] 17:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Should we make a category for comics including these alien guys? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.155.35|172.71.155.35]] 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

2989: Physics Lab Thermostat

2024-09-26T07:27:45Z

172.70.207.42: /* Explanation */ correct expression

{{comic
| number = 2989
| date = September 23, 2024
| title = Physics Lab Thermostat
| image = physics_lab_thermostat_2x.png
| imagesize = 264x296px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Hopefully the HVAC people set it to only affect the AIR in the room.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ChatGPT - as found on the talk page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is about a "physics lab thermostat," which instead of controlling temperature, it adjusts the {{w|Boltzmann constant}} (a constant that links temperature and energy in physics, equal to 1.38×10−23 J/K, where J is {{w|joule}}s, a unit of energy, and K is {{w|kelvin}}s, a unit of temperature.) The dial shows different values for the constant, implying that it can be changed, which is absurd because the Boltzmann constant is a fundamental number that stays the same throughout the universe. In reality, you can't change the Boltzmann constant, so the comic is making fun of the idea of a scientist casually adjusting a fixed law of physics as if it were something simple like room temperature.

If the Boltzmann constant could be changed, it would directly affect how we experience temperature. The constant determines how much energy particles have at a certain temperature. If the constant were increased, more energy would be associated with the same temperature, so everything would feel hotter even if the temperature stayed the same. On the other hand, if the constant were decreased, less energy would be associated with the same temperature, and everything would feel colder than usual. The thermostat dial would thus make things feel colder if it were turned clockwise, unlike regular thermostats. The equivalent energy at a constant temperature range from 4.2 zeptojoules on the left, corresponding to 29°C (84°F) relative to the actual Boltzmann constant, to 4.0 zJ on the right, corresponding to 15°C (59°F).

Beyond just how we feel, altering the Boltzmann constant would disrupt all sorts of processes that depend on temperature, like how fast chemical reactions happen or how heat moves around. A higher constant would make particles move faster and carry more energy at a given temperature, while a lower constant would slow things down. There have previously been control panels for properties of the universe in [[1620: Christmas Settings]] and [[1763: Catcalling]]. A thermometer including units compatible with this thermostat (after dividing by 2/3) is shown in [[2292: Thermometer]].

The title text builds on the absurdity of being able to adjust the Boltzmann constant. It suggests that if the constant could be changed, hopefully, it would only affect the air in the room and not the entire universe. Imagining that the {{w|heating, ventilation, and air conditioning}} (HVAC) system could contain such a change to just the room's air shows the ridiculousness of trying to isolate the effects of altering a universal constant.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[A black circular dial is shown with a white indicator line at the upper right. The label above the dial, enclosed in a rectangular box, says:]
:Local Boltzmann Constant
:[The two extremes of the dial are labeled as follows, the first value on the left and the second value on the right:]
:1.418×10-23 J/K
:1.351×10-23 J/K
:[The indicator line is pointing to a position on the dial somewhere around 1.375×10-23 J/K (between the 12th and 13th large ticks clockwise out of 19 total).]
:[Caption below the panel:]
:Physics Lab Thermostat

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Physics]]

2982: Water Filtration

2024-09-10T16:54:39Z

172.70.207.42: /* Transcript */ eng too?

{{comic
| number = 2982
| date = September 6, 2024
| title = Water Filtration
| image = water_filtration_2x.png
| imagesize = 593x467px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = You'd think the most expensive part would be the quark-gluon plasma chamber, but it's actually usually the tube to the top of the atmosphere to carry the cosmic rays down.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by WATER. JUST PLAIN WATER. NOTHING DONE TO IT, JUST PLAIN WATER. POSSIBLY DRINKABLE. - Do NOT <s>drink the water</s> delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic seems to be a diagram of how well water is purified, a common procedure done to make said water safe to drink. However, this well water is "purified" through a series of increasingly unnecessary, expensive, and possibly hazardous steps, ending with producing "pure" water synthesized from hydrogen and oxygen (which have each been synthesized from subatomic particles) - before promptly undoing most of the work by re-adding raw well water, and its original minerals and probiotics (which is one way of describing contaminants and biological pathogens) "for taste and to support immune health".

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Step
!Real Device?
!Used for water treatment?
!Explanation
|-
|Water softener
|{{Yes|Real}}
|{{Yes}}
|{{w|Water softening}} is the removal of calcium, magnesium, and certain other metal cations in hard water. The resulting soft water requires less soap for the same cleaning effort, as soap is not wasted bonding with calcium ions. Soft water also extends the lifetime of plumbing by reducing or eliminating scale build-up in pipes and fittings. The comic shows the water either being passed through some granulated material (presumably, {{w|ion-exchange resins}}) or into a precipitation chamber for lime (or soda ash) softening.
|-
|Reverse osmosis
|{{Yes|Real}}
|{{Yes}}
|{{w|Reverse osmosis}} is a common step used in modern water-purification systems. It relies on using osmotic membranes and high pressures to separate water molecules from dissolved solutes and biological substances. Interestingly, it would also act as a softening step, rendering the previous step potentially redundant, depending on the goals for each step. It's also overkill for most wells, as groundwater often needs treatment targeted to only a few contaminants, if any treatment at all.
|-
|Ultraviolet Sterilization
|{{Yes|Real}}
|{{Yes}}
|{{w|Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation|Ultraviolet sterilization}} uses UV lamps at short wavelengths to damage the DNA and thereby kill micro-organisms in the water. In the USA, this is an unlikely method of well water sterilization, as the pathogens most likely to be found in well water (as opposed to surface water) are generally much more responsive to chemical disinfection. Many wells don't even need a disinfection step; whether this well needs disinfection or not, this is hardly the most impractical step in this treatment train.
|-
|Autoclave
|{{Yes|Real}}
|{{Yes}}
|{{w|Autoclaves}} are essentially large pressure cookers that sterilize items and liquids through exposing them to a high temperature (~120°C or ~248°F) over tens of minutes in presence of water. By maintaining a high pressure, the boiling point of water goes up. This creates a very hot and humid atmosphere, making efficient heat transfer with all contents and inactivating all biological entities through this heat. They are commonly used in hospital and laboratory settings to sterilize plastics, glassware, equipment and solutions (like bottles of growth medium for bacteria) to be used in a sterile environment. The advantage of this method compared to dry heat (aka putting things in a 150°C-180°C oven until they are sterile) is that most lab plastics survive a passage at 120°C without melting. While difficult to streamline (as this technique is used for batches), it has the advantage over light-based methods that heat gets everywhere, and that instead of just damaging DNA, you also denature the proteins and other structures of microorganisms.
|-
|Condenser
|{{Yes|Real}}
|{{Yes}}
|This step condenses the steam generated by the autoclave back into water. This is a normal part of the process used in "traditional" water purification by distillation.
|-
|Regular osmosis
|{{Yes|Real}}
|{{No}}
|Regular osmosis (also known as "osmosis") is the tendency of a solvent (like water) to flow through a semipermeable membrane towards the side that has a higher concentration of dissolved molecules or ions. Since the water is already highly purified at this point, osmosis would only work if the output water is ''less'' pure, adding dissolved substances to it.
|-
|X-Ray Sterilization
|{{Yes|Real}}
|{{No}}
|While {{w|Sterilization_(microbiology)#Ionizing_radiation_sterilization|x-ray sterilization}} is used to sterilize equipment, it is not normally used for water.
|-
|Carbon Filter
|{{No|Fake}}
|{{No}}
|The water is passed through some volume of carbon - a riff on activated carbon filters, which ''are'' used in water filtration as seen later in the process. The exact {{w|allotropy|allotrope}} of carbon is not mentioned, so this could possibly be a graphite, carbon nanotubes, or even solid diamond "filter".
|-
|Neutron Source
|{{Yes|Real}}
|{{No}}
|A {{w|neutron source}} generates high-energy neutrons. High-energy neutrons are highly penetrating and will cause ionization events to occur due to collision with atoms in the water. This can potentially make the water more radioactive due to the generation of radioactive isotopes.
|-
|Activated Carbon Filter
|{{Yes|Real}}
|{{Yes}}
|{{w|Activated carbon}} is a form of carbon commonly used to filter contaminants from water and air, as it has a large surface area available to adsorb impurities on its surface. While this isn't a strange step to see in a water purification process, Randall makes a pun here with its proximity to the neutron source - the carbon has been '{{w|Neutron activation|activated}}' by the neutron source, and is currently radioactive. Water filtered through this may pick up radioactive isotopes from the filter.
|-
|Gamma Ray Sterilization
|{{Yes|Real}}
|{{No}}
|Similar to x-ray sterilization, this step uses {{w|Sterilization (microbiology)#Ionizing radiation sterilization|gamma rays}} to sterilize the water. Gamma rays can potentially irradiate the water through photodisintegration if their energy is higher than the binding energy of oxygen.
|-
|Cosmic Ray Sterilization
|{{No|Fake}}
|{{No}}
|Similar to the previous step, but this time using high energy {{w|cosmic rays}} to do so. This would be incredibly impractical, as cosmic rays are generally blocked by the atmosphere at high altitudes (as stated in the title text). Furthermore, their extremely high energy (shown to be in the exa-electron volt (EeV, or 1018 eV) range) would cause multiple high-energy particles to be created on impact with the water molecules, irradiating the water significantly.
|-
|Electrolysis
|{{Yes|Real}}
|{{No}}
|The water is broken down into hydrogen and oxygen gas using an electric current. Assuming the gas outputs of this process are pure hydrogen and oxygen gas, this *would* be an extremely effective sterilization tactic, seeing as no known organism or water pollutant is entirely composed out of hydrogen or oxygen gas. Along with the next step, this step may be a misguided attempt to "take the water apart and clean each part individually". The hydrogen is sent to the ionizer, while the oxygen is sent to the oxygen spallation step.
|-
|Oxygen Spallation
|{{No|Fake}}
|{{No}}
|Almost all oxygen in existence was originally created via {{w|stellar nucleosynthesis}}. Now, in this step in the purification, the oxygen is apparently broken down back into hydrogen via a fictional form of {{w|Cosmic_ray_spallation|spallation}}. While spallation can form lighter nuclei from heavier ones, there is no known process to convert oxygen back down to hydrogen. It is unclear what happens to the neutrons present in the oxygen nuclei - whether they are removed, used to create hydrogen isotopes or allowed to decay into protons and electrons (the components of yet more hydrogen, when properly reintroduced). The hydrogen formed here is merged with the rest of the hydrogen before being sent to the ionizer.
|-
|Ionizer
|{{Yes|Real}}
|{{No}}
|The hydrogen output by the previous step is made into a plasma with free electrons and protons (not bound into atoms).
|-
|Quark-Gluon Plasma Chamber
|{{No|Fake}}
|{{No}}
|The plasma output from the previous step is further energized into a {{w|quark–gluon plasma}}, such as the one found just after the Big Bang. This follows the theme of the previous steps, which all serve to break the water down into their elementary components. The incredible energies involved in doing so are unachievable by current technologies (current particle accelerators can form such a plasma for very short periods of time and involve a very small amount of matter), and serve to highlight the impracticality of this setup (as alluded to in the title text). The energies would also result in formation of lepton pairs from energy, which is presumably where the electrons from the previous step ended up.
|-
|Hydrogenation
|style="background:#FFFF9E;vertical-align:middle;text-align:{{{align|center}}};{{{style|}}}" class="table-yes"|Kinda
|{{No}}
|This process converts the quark-gluon plasma output in the previous step into elemental hydrogen, reversing the previous two steps. Presumably, this is done via {{w|hadronization}} and {{w|recombination}}; however, it is unclear how the {{w|baryon asymmetry}} needed to generate matter and not anti-matter is developed. The resulting hydrogen is split into 2 streams leading into the Nucleosynthesis and Reverse Electrolysis steps. In real life, {{w|hydrogenation}} is the process of adding hydrogen to unsaturated hydrocarbons.
|-
|Nucleosynthesis
|{{No|Fake}}
|{{No}}
|Part of the hydrogen produced in the previous step is converted into oxygen via 2 sub-processes. The hydrogen is first converted into helium and carbon through a combination of the {{w|proton-proton chain}} and the {{w|CNO cycle}} as per the labels on the step. The helium and carbon are then converted into oxygen through the {{w|alpha process}}. This step may also involve the {{w|triple-alpha process}}, seeing that the alpha process is typically only applicable to converting carbon into heavier elements owing to the lack of a stable element with eight nucleons. These steps normally occur in the cores of massive stars. It is not known how the oxygen is filtered from the extremely hot plasma of fusion products.
|-
|Reverse Electrolysis
|{{Yes|Real}}
|{{No}}
|This step is essentially a fuel cell, utilizing an electrochemical reaction to convert hydrogen and oxygen back into water and electricity.
|-
|Adding Well Water
|{{Yes|Real}}
|{{Yes}}
|A second pipe is linked to the first that simply feeds untreated well water into the pipes, partially undoing the entire process. Even if the well water is only a small portion of the faucet water, its presence has now made the now incredibly pure water impure. This act of putting well water into the faucet after treating it may be a riff on the cultural interest in "spring water" or "pure glacial water" that is said to have additional minerals or beneficial properties but is oftentimes not meaningfully distinct from properly treated tap water. "Local minerals and probiotics added" may be a reference to Coke's "Dasani" brand drinking water, which is purified by reverse osmosis, and then has a package of minerals added to create the flavor (pure water's actual lack of flavor can be perceived as an unpleasantly 'flat' flavor).

In addition, drinking only {{w|Tonicity|extremely hypotonic}} liquid intake can induce the body to expel more water than it took in (taking with it some essential minerals that are not being replaced) to try to maintain equilibrium of concentrations. This effect is not directly dangerous, but could exacerbate other bodily deficiencies in the long term and have the issues of greater than necessary liquid throughput than with 'normal' drinking water. The tendency for {{w|Sports drink#Categories|many 'sports' or 'health' drinks}} to hype the term 'isotonic' is based upon the idea that an ideal concentration of solutes can be added, in-between the opposing problems of having either too many ''or'' too few 'impurities'. The process does not include adding untreated (and probably also untested/unquantified) ground water, which could carry pathogenic organisms and chemicals, and appears to have no mechanism for ensuring what ''might'' be an acceptable level of re-blending for the circumstances.

Alternatively, it may be that the level of purity achieved by this setup is so overkill, and the cost per liter processed so high, that it's simply more efficient to treat just enough of the water to dilute the rest of the water to acceptable levels of contaminants. For example, it's common to use a partial bypass to supply water to the shower, since shower water does not need to be potable. Also, some well water systems are clean enough to not need any treatment at all and can be used straight from the well, and some water systems are only slightly high in a single chemical contaminant that can be addressed by blending the water, either with treated water or another source (treated or untreated). Perhaps the treatment process led to enough radioactivity that blending with the original source was required to address radiological contamination (either gross alpha radiation or specific radionuclides).
|}

The title text briefly covers the cost implications of the components. Various 'real' filter elements will have material or energy costs or both, in operation or to replenish their effectiveness, and the high energy input needed to disassociate hadrons into raw quark–gluon plasma (at bulk levels) would seem to require the most in terms of running the equipment. But it is pointed out that to ''ensure'' enough cosmic rays reach that particular phase of sterilization, there would have to be a pipe (not shown) leading out to the edge of the atmosphere to optimistically carry down such particles (due to also containing ''no'' air, i.e., keeping it out to negate the normal {{w|Air shower (physics)|shielding and dissipating effect}} of the atmosphere on cosmic rays).

Whether a one-off cost or needing regular replacement, the setting up of such a tubular structure (a vertical air-proof pipe perhaps somewhere between 100 and 10000 kilometers high) would be technically challenging and has not ever been actually accomplished. The conditions for a quark–gluon plasma, albeit in limited quantities, at least have been fulfilled at {{w|CERN}}, with its 27 kilometer airless pipe that goes round within a vast circular tunnel.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[Header:]
:How Water Filtration Works

:[A system of various devices between water pipes is shown.]
:[Input:]
:Well water
:[Labels of various devices:]
:Water softener
:Reverse osmosis
:Ultraviolet sterilization
:Autoclave
:Condenser
:Regular osmosis
:X-ray sterilization
:Carbon filter
:Neutron source
:Activated carbon filter
:Gamma ray sterilization
:Cosmic ray sterilization [On the device: "EeV γ"]
:Electrolysis [H2O split into O and H]
:Oxygen spallation [O becomes H]
:Ionizer [H split into + and -]
:Quark-gluon plasma chamber [+ and - become QGP]
:Hydrogenation [QGP becomes H]
:Nucleosynthesis [H goes through "P-P CNO" and becomes He and C, then through "Alpha" and becomes O]
:Reverse electrolysis
:[Output after devices:]
:Pure water
:[Second input, mixed with pure water:]
:Well water
:[Label:]
:Local minerals and probiotics added for taste and to support immune health
:[Final output:]
:To faucet

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Engineering]]

2983: Monocaster

2024-09-10T16:53:34Z

172.70.207.42: /* Transcript */ charts

{{comic
| number = 2983
| date = September 9, 2024
| title = Monocaster
| image = monocaster_2x.png
| imagesize = 536x673px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = My competitors say the tiny single tiny caster is unsafe, unstable, and offers no advantages over traditional designs, to which I say: wow, why are you guys so mean? I thought we were friends!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a LAPTOP-CONTROLLED HAMSTER BALL - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
A caster, also spelled castor, is a small unpowered wheel attached to a swiveling base. They are typically found on carts and heavy appliances that need to be pushed around by people on a regular basis.

Randall has proposed a variant of the skateboard with only one caster on the bottom, the titular "monocaster." He claims this fills an untapped hole in the market, which is filled with plenty of vehicles with one large wheel like unicycles, or multiple small wheels like roller skates, but none with only a single small wheel.

The joke depends on the caster's obvious impractically in this role: the hole in the market was open ''for a reason''. A single caster is effectively useless, forcing all the weight of a person on a single swiveling point. The rider has no way to propel themselves besides pushing off the ground, and will almost certainly lose their balance immediately upon trying. The other designs on the market were all designed specifically to solve this problem: the unicycle's larger wheel and pedal drive make balancing in motion much less dangerous, while multi-wheeled vehicles give more points of contact with the ground.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[A chart picturing many wheeled vehicles.]
:My new monocaster board fills a key gap in the wheeled vehicle market.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]