Saturday, November 30, 2019

organic chemistry - Alkane, alkene, alkyne boiling point comparison


Which of the following has higher boiling points? Alkanes, alkenes, or alkynes? And why?




Answer



Disclaimer: All of this "jazz" will be about reaching a mere rule-of-thumb. You can't just compare whole families of organic compounds with each other. There are more factors to consider than below, mostly based on isomerism notions. However, as most of the A grade exams emphasize on the lighter aliphatic compounds, we can understand each other here. :)






Polarizability is the ability for a molecule to be polarized.



When determining (aka comparing) the boiling points of different molecular substances, intermolecular forces known as London Dispersion Forces are at work here. Which means, these are the forces that are overcome when the boiling occurs. (See here for example)



Source



London forces get stronger with an increase in volume, and that's because the polarizability of the molecule increases. (See the answer to this recent question)


Alkanes vs. Alkenes


In their simplest form (where no substitution etc. has occurred) alkanes tend to have very close boiling points to alkenes.



The boiling point of each alkene is very similar to that of the alkane with the same number of carbon atoms. Ethene, propene and the various butenes are gases at room temperature. All the rest that you are likely to come across are liquids.


Boiling points of alkenes depends on more molecular mass (chain length). The more intermolecular mass is added, the higher the boiling point. Intermolecular forces of alkenes gets stronger with increase in the size of the molecules.


\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline \text{Compound} & \text{Boiling point / }^\circ\mathrm{C} \\ \hline \text{Ethene} & -104 \\ \hline \text{Propene} & -47 \\ \hline \textit{trans}\text{-2-Butene} & 0.9 \\ \hline \textit{cis}\text{-2-Butene} & 3.7 \\ \hline \textit{trans}\text{-1,2-dichlorobutene} & 155 \\ \hline \textit{cis}\text{-1,2-dichlorobutene} & 152 \\ \hline \text{1-Pentene} & 30 \\ \hline \textit{trans}\text{-2-Pentene} & 36 \\ \hline \textit{cis}\text{-2-Pentene} & 37 \\ \hline \text{1-Heptene} & 115 \\ \hline \text{3-Octene} & 122 \\ \hline \text{3-Nonene} & 147 \\ \hline \text{5-Decene} & 170 \\ \hline \end{array} In each case, the alkene has a boiling point which is a small number of degrees lower than the corresponding alkane. The only attractions involved are Van der Waals dispersion forces, and these depend on the shape of the molecule and the number of electrons it contains. Each alkene has 2 fewer electrons than the alkane with the same number of carbons.



Alkanes vs. Alkynes


As explained, since there is a bigger volume to an alkane than its corresponding alkyne (i.e. with the same number of carbons) the alkane should have a higher boiling point. However, there's something else in play here:



Alkynes, have a TRIPLE bond!


I currently can think of two things that happen as a result of this:




  • London Dispersion Forces are in relation with distance. Usually, this relation is $r^{-6}$. (See here) The triple bond allows two alkynes to get closer. The closer they are, the more the electron densities are polarised, and thus the stronger the forces are.




  • Electrons in $\pi$ bonds are more polarizable$^{10}$.





These two factors overcome the slight difference of volume here. As a result, you have higher boiling points for alkynes than alkanes, generally.


\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline \text{Compound} & \text{Boiling point / }^\circ\mathrm{C} \\ \hline \text{Ethyne} & -84^{[1]} \\ \hline \text{Propyne} & -23.2^{[2]} \\ \hline \text{2-Butyne} & 27^{[3]} \\ \hline \text{1,4-Dichloro-2-butyne} & 165.5^{[4]} \\ \hline \text{1-Pentyne} & 40.2^{[5]} \\ \hline \text{2-Heptyne} & 112\text{–}113^{[6]} \\ \hline \text{3-Octyne} & 133^{[7]} \\ \hline \text{3-Nonyne} & 157.1^{[8]} \\ \hline \text{5-Decyne} & 177\text{–}178^{[9]} \\ \hline \end{array} 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetylene
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propyne
3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-Butyne
4: http://www.lookchem.com/1-4-Dichloro-2-butyne/
5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Pentyne
6: http://www.chemsynthesis.com/base/chemical-structure-17405.html
7: http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.76541.html
8: http://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/data/rw1120961.html
9: http://www.chemsynthesis.com/base/chemical-structure-3310.html

10: https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/27531/5026




Conclusion: We can't fully determine the boiling points of the whole class of alkanes, alkenes and alkynes. However, for the lighter hydrocarbons, comparing the boiling points, you get: $$\text{Alkynes > Alkanes > Alkenes}$$


product recommendation - Dealing with anger


What is a good sefer or even book that helps people with a problem with getting angry?



Answer




I recall a sefer called (I think) Erech Apaim. In addition, working on middos such as ga'ava and bitachon would be useful.


I didn't think of it as a Hebrewbooks type of sefer, but here it is.


comment: actually. there is an english translation here: http://dafyomireview.com/article.php?docid=247


talmud bavli - The names of Gehinnom


Babylonian Talmud, ‘Erubin 19a' Joshua b. Levi said: The Gehenna/Gehinnom has seven names; Sheol, Abaddon, Beer Shahat, Tit ha-Yawen, Sha’are Mawet, Sha’are Zalmawet, and Gehenna.



What exactly is ment by Gehinnom (I know that its name was borrowed from that of a real valley mentioned in the Tenach, and I know what it serves for; a cleansing process) and what are its seven names refer to (just looking for the meanings since some of these names are used in verses like Mishlei 15:11 and I wonder if they have more meaning behind it)?




grammar - What's the difference between 歩んでいった and 歩んできた?



私はまっすぐな人生を歩んできた。


私はまっすぐな人生を歩んでいった。



Could someone explain to me the difference between the two? Thanks a lot!


Edit: I still find ていった confusing even after reading the other post.



So まっすぐな人生を歩んで行った would have the meaning walking a straight forward life until some time before the present?


So if I wanted to say: Tom used to walk a straight forward life (He doesn't nowadays). I would say:



トムはまっすぐな人生を歩んで行った。



I asked native speakers about the sentence I made and they said ていった would not be used when referring to yourself. If you were referring to yourself, you would use てきた.



僕はまっすぐな人生を歩んでいった。とは、言いませんよ。


彼はまっすぐな人生を歩んでいった。なら言えます。主語(Subject)が自分のときは「てきた」を使います。




This would be correct instead:



はまっすぐな人生を歩んで行った



Why is that?



Answer



I think I don't have enough English vocabulary to express this nuance. So please let me try to explain this visually.


 


「~てきた」


First of all, 「~てきた」 expresses something in the past.



Figure 1:「〜てきた」


If the speaker at present says 「~てきた」, s/he is talking about something which started sometime in the past and continued until now. Like the sentence,



「([今]{いま}まで)[私]{わたし}はまっすぐな[人生]{じんせい}を[歩]{あゆ}んできた」



 


I said "until now", however, actually, it can be "until sometime in the past".


Figure 2:「〜てきた」


For example, the sentence can be modified like this.




「[高校]{こうこう}を[卒業]{そつぎょう}するまで、[私]{わたし}はまっすぐな[人生]{じんせい}を[歩]{あゆ}んできた」



 


The speaker's point of view can be positioned anywhere in the timeline.


If the point of view is sometime in the future, the present tense of 「~てきた」, which is 「~てくる」, is appropriate to use.


Figure 3:「〜てくる」


For example,



「うちの[家系]{かけい}は、[母方]{ははかた}の[祖父]{そふ}も、[父方]{ちちかた}の[祖父]{そふ}も、[ハゲ]{はげ}ている。もちろん[父]{ちち}もだ。[早]{はや}ければ[数年]{すうねん}[以内]{いない}に、[私]{わたし}もハゲてくると[思]{おも}う」




 


「~ていった」


「~ていく」 means something which starts now or after now and will have been going for a period of time.


Figure 4:「〜ていく」


「~ていく」 is about the future. 「~ていった」 is the past tense of 「~ていく」. So, 「~ていった」 is also about a kind of future, but, the start point is sometime in the past.


Figure 5:「〜ていった」


Please don't forget that the speaker is still at present. But the point of view in her/his mind is in the distant past, and s/he talks about the future from the point of view.


Here is an example of 「~ていった」 then 「~てきた」 and 「~ていく」.



「[高校]{こうこう}[卒業]{そつぎょう}[後]{ご}も、[私]{わたし}は[サッカー]{さっかー}[一筋]{ひとすじ}のまっすぐな[人生]{じんせい}を[歩]{あゆ}んでいった。だが、あの[事故]{じこ}により、すべてが[一変]{いっぺん}してしまう。[動]{うご}かなくなった[右脚]{みぎあし}を[前]{まえ}に、私は[絶望]{ぜつぼう}に[飲]{の}まれ、[死]{し}ぬことばかり[考]{かんが}えるようになった。そんなとき、[彼]{かれ}と[出会]{であ}った。いつの[間]{ま}にか私は、死ぬことなど考えなくなった。彼と[一緒]{いっしょ}に[歩]{あゆ}んできた[人生]{じんせい}、そして、これから彼と一緒に歩んでいく人生こそ、[今]{いま}の私には[何]{なに}よりもかけがえのない[宝物]{たからもの}だから。」(written Japanese)




「~ていった」 can be used with 私は or 僕は if the speaker make it clear when it happened or when it started.


If the speaker doesn't mention when, the listener thinks that the speaker is talking about now thing, or before-now thing, or after-now thing. In other words, the listener thinks that the speaker's point of view is "now".


So, if you just say 「私はまっすぐな人生を歩んでいった」, people might think "your actual point of view is now because you don't specify when, but your sentence's point of view is sometime in the past, so the sentence you made must be wrong."


The solution for this kind of misunderstanding is to give listeners more information about when your point of view is. Here are examples.



「[彼]{かれ}と[別]{わか}れた[私]{わたし}はそれから、[夢]{ゆめ}に[向]{む}かって、まっすぐな[人生]{じんせい}を[歩]{あゆ}んでいった」






「[入院]{にゅういん}[中]{ちゅう}に[届]{とど}いた[沢山]{たくさん}のお[手紙]{てがみ}に、[私]{わたし}は[退院]{たいいん}[後]{ご}、ひとつひとつお[返事]{へんじ}を[書]{か}いていった」





「その[日]{ひ}その[映画]{えいが}を[観]{み}ながら、私の[気持]{きも}ちは[次第]{しだい}に[晴]{は}れていった」



There are situations in which, instead of 「〜ていった」, other words might be better to use. In some cases, people tend to use other words which have a clearer meaning, sophisticated impression, or more matching use with context. These are other words examples.



「[高校]{こうこう}[卒業]{そつぎょう}[後]{ご}も、[私]{わたし}は[サッカー]{さっかー}[一筋]{ひとすじ}のまっすぐな[人生]{じんせい}を[歩]{あゆ}み[続]{つづ}けた」






「高校卒業後、私は[新]{あたら}しい人生を歩み[始]{はじ}めた」



Please note that what I'm explaining here is 「~てきた」 and 「~ていった」 which mean time transition (from a time to another). When people use 「~てきた」 or 「~ていった」 to describe transfer from one place to another, the usage and function of these words might be a little different.


 


「~てきた」+


Just one more thing. I said that 「~てきた」 is about the past. However, if 「~てきた」 is used with a verb which means condition or state of something (like weather condition, health, etc), the nuance becomes a little different.



「[雨]{あめ}が[降]{ふ}ってきた」






「お[腹]{なか}が[痛]{いた}くなってきた」



are like this.


Figure 6:「〜てきた」


The rain started sometime in the recent past, and now the speaker noticed it and says 「雨が降ってきた」. 「~てきた」 is used to express changing condition.


 




「[雨]{あめ}がやんできた」





「[腹痛]{ふくつう}が[治]{おさ}まってきた」



Figure 7:「〜てきた」


In this case, the speaker also notices and says that the condition is changing now. The rain or pain is likely to stop in the near future. This type 「~てきた」 doesn't mean the completion of something. So "now", it's still raining a little, or the speaker still has a little pain.


By the way, this↓ kind of thing happens sometimes.


Figure 8:「〜てきた」



It's okay. Nobody knows the future actually. The speaker doesn't have to be sure about the future when using 「~てきた」. The point is what the speaker finds right now or found before now.


verbs - Is 食べてたい correct?


The following sentence was written by a Japanese.



最近のお気に入りケーキ🍰💕 毎日食べてたい



Is 食べてたい just a typo, or is it a short form of something, like 食べておきたい or 食べていただきたい?



Answer



“食べてたい” is a colloquial and contracted form of - ”食べていたい - I want to keep eating.”



Likewise, “寝てたい – I want to stay in bed,” “起きてたい ‐ I want to stay up (all night),” and “(一晩中)喋ってたい - I want to keep chatting (all night)” are used in place of “寝ていたい,” “起きていたい,” and “喋っていたい.”


“…てたい” is colloquially spoken by both young and older people today, but to me it sounds like a childish turn of phrase. I don’t recommend you use this expression in the written form or in formal occasions.


grammar - Particles after time expressions like "三週間"


I am a beginner in Japanese so I was trying to write some simple sentences to practice my vocabulary and grammar.


I wanted to write the sentence:




My friend is in Japan for three weeks.



as:



私の友達が 三週間 日本に います。



I am unsure if I should put any particle after 三週間 and whether this sentence is grammatically correct at all.




Frequency response equivalent to characterise transient response (to sinusoidal inputs)?


I am interested in characterising the time-dependent response of a system to a sinusoidal input.


The steady state response of the system is also sinusoidal, however I wonder if there is a standard way to represent the information in a manner that is more detailed than the Frequency Response Function to capture the transient information too (as a function of frequency input)?


E.g. The system where input: $s(t) = \sin(\omega t), 0 \le t < \infty $ gives output: $y(t) = (1+e^{-t}) \sin(\omega t), 0 \le t < \infty$.


The frequency response would be unity, and the impulse response could not be used to capture the transient behaviour?



Answer



As already pointed out in Hilmar's answer, a linear time-invariant (LTI) system is completely described by its impulse response, or - equivalently - by its frequency response, which is the Fourier transform of its impulse response. I think that there is a misunderstanding concerning the Fourier transform, namely that it can only be used to describe steady-state responses to infinitely long sinusoidal input signals, but this is definitely not the case. I think it's illustrative to look at an example:



Let's assume we have a causal real-valued LTI system with frequency response


$$H(\omega)=A(\omega)+jB(\omega)$$


where $A(\omega)$ and $B(\omega)$ are the real and imaginary parts of $H(\omega)$, respectively. Now let's define an input signal to this system:


$$x(t)=u(t)\sin(\omega_0t)$$


Its Fourier transform is


$$X(\omega)=\frac{\pi}{2j}[\delta(\omega-\omega_0)-\delta(\omega+\omega_0)] +\frac{\omega_0}{\omega_0^2-\omega^2}$$


Using $A(\omega)$ and $B(\omega)$, the imaginary part of the Fourier transform of the output signal $y(t)$ can be written as


$$\Im\{Y(\omega)\}=-\frac{\pi}{2}[A(\omega_0)\delta(\omega-\omega_0)-A(-\omega_0)\delta(\omega+\omega_0)]-\frac{\omega_0B(\omega)}{\omega^2-\omega_0^2}\tag{1}$$


Since $y(t)=0$ for $t<0$ (because this is true for $x(t)$ and because the system is causal), it is fully described by the imaginary part of its Fourier transform:


$$y(t)=-\frac{2}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}\Im\{Y(\omega)\}\sin\omega t\; d\omega,\quad t>0\tag{2}$$



From (1) and (2) we get


$$y(t) = A(\omega_0)\sin\omega_0t+\frac{2\omega_0}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{B(\omega)}{\omega^2-\omega_0^2}\sin\omega t\;d\omega,\quad t>0\tag{3}$$


Equation (3) fully describes the response of the LTI system to the causal input signal $x(t)=u(t)\sin\omega_0 t$, including transients. This example is supposed to show that the frequency response (or the impulse response) is sufficient for a complete description of the system's response to arbitrary input signals.


EDIT: Derivation of Equation (2):


Let $Y(\omega)=Y_R(\omega)+jY_I(\omega)$ be the Fourier transform of $y(t)$. We need the following basic properties of the Fourier transform (see here):


$$y(t)\textrm{ real-valued}\Longrightarrow Y(\omega)=Y^*(-\omega)$$ from which follows $$Y_R(\omega)=Y_R(-\omega)\textrm{ and }Y_I(\omega)=-Y_I(-\omega)$$


If $y_e(t)=0.5[y(t)+y(-t)]$ is the even part of $y(t)$ and $y_o(t)=0.5[y(t)-y(-t)]$ is the odd part of $y(t)$ then


$$y_e(t)\Longleftrightarrow Y_R(\omega)\\ y_o(t)\Longleftrightarrow jY_I(\omega)$$ These relation can be found in the link above.


If $y(t)$ is real-valued the inverse transform can be written as


$$y(t)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}Y(\omega)e^{j\omega t}d\omega= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\Re\{Y(\omega)e^{j\omega t}\}d\omega=\\ =\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}[Y_R(\omega)\cos(\omega t)-Y_I(\omega)\sin(\omega t)]d\omega=\\ =\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}[Y_R(\omega)\cos(\omega t)-Y_I(\omega)\sin(\omega t)]d\omega$$



where the last equality follows from the fact that the integrand is an even function of $\omega$. Consequently we have


$$y_e(t)=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}Y_R(\omega)\cos(\omega t)d\omega\\ y_o(t)=-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}Y_I(\omega)\sin(\omega t)d\omega$$


With these preliminaries we can finally state the result using the fact that for causal $y(t)$ the following holds for $t>0$ (because $y(-t)=0$ for $t>0$): $$y(t)=2y_e(t)=2y_o(t),\quad t>0$$


This means


$$y(t)=\frac{2}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}Y_R(\omega)\cos(\omega t)d\omega=\\ =-\frac{2}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}Y_I(\omega)\sin(\omega t)d\omega,\quad t>0$$


The last equality is the same as Equation (2) above.


organic chemistry - What is the order of the following compounds based on polarity?



What is the order of the following compounds from more polar to less polar?




  • Hydrochloric acid,

  • Methanol,

  • Hexane,

  • Petroleum benzene



I know that $\ce{HCl}$ has the largest polarity. Hexane I guess has the less. I guess the order should be like:
$\ce{HCl}$ > Methanol > Petroleum benzene > Hexane


Is this correct? I'm not sure of the place of petroleum benzene.





Friday, November 29, 2019

word choice - What is the difference between ですから, だから, それで、 それでは?


I think they have the same meaning: therefore.


But my teacher told me they were slightly different.


So can you help me distinguish them and how to use please?




Answer



Let's look at some examples:



[彼女]{かのじょ}はめっちゃかわいい。(だから/それで)[男性]{だんせい}に[人気]{にんき}がある。



In the above post, I think you could use either だから or それで. So in some situations they are interchangeable. However, I think the underlying meaning is slightly different. When you use だから, it puts a strong emphasis on the reason why, also it has more of a tendency to be a result of personal opinion. On the other hand, それで can be thought of as "naturally forming" from the reason. Let's try to translate the above sentences which show the difference:



(だから)The reason (I think) she is popular with guys is because she is so cute.


(それで)She is so cute. That's why (it naturally follows that) she is popular with guys.




In my first translation, I emphasized The because だから puts an emphasis on the reason why. Also, I put "I think" in parentheses because だから can also imply that it is your opinion. As for それで, I put "it naturally follows that" in parentheses because it can imply that. However, I should mention that these nuances are much more subtle than how I expressed them.



もう[時間]{じかん}がないんだ。(○だから/×それで)急ごう。


ここは[危]{あぶ}ない。(○だから/×それで)入ってはいけない。



In the above sentences, それで cannot be used. The reason why is because the それで cannot be used with expressions that are commands or put a strong emphasis on the reason why. So, from this, we can infer that だから has a much more broader meaning than それで. However, even though だから has a broader meaning, you may hear それで more often because in Japanese culture people tend to avoid expressions that put a strong emphasis on one's own opinion, etc. (your mileage may vary though).


As for the differences between ですから and だから, です is just a more polite form than だ. However, それで and それでは have completely different meanings. You use それでは (and the more colloquial それじゃ) for the following:




  1. Saying goodbye:




    それではお元気で





  2. Expressing a decision or opinion based usually on something previously mentioned by the person you are talking to:



    Aさん:[風邪]{かぜ}[引]{ひ}いちゃった。Bさん:それじゃいけないね。






  3. When beginning or ending something (like a meeting or something).



    それでは始めます。





(This list is not exhaustive.)


words - Did Aaron's staff turned into a snake or a crocodile?


In exodus 7 it says on verses 8-12:




ח וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר. ט כִּי יְדַבֵּר אֲלֵכֶם פַּרְעֹה לֵאמֹר, תְּנוּ לָכֶם מוֹפֵת; וְאָמַרְתָּ אֶל-אַהֲרֹן, קַח אֶת-מַטְּךָ וְהַשְׁלֵךְ לִפְנֵי-פַרְעֹה--יְהִי לְתַנִּין. י וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, וַיַּעֲשׂוּ כֵן, כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה; וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ אַהֲרֹן אֶת-מַטֵּהוּ, לִפְנֵי פַרְעֹה וְלִפְנֵי עֲבָדָיו--וַיְהִי לְתַנִּין. יא וַיִּקְרָא, גַּם-פַּרְעֹה, לַחֲכָמִים, וְלַמְכַשְּׁפִים; וַיַּעֲשׂוּ גַם-הֵם חַרְטֻמֵּי מִצְרַיִם, בְּלַהֲטֵיהֶם--כֵּן. יב וַיַּשְׁלִיכוּ אִישׁ מַטֵּהוּ, וַיִּהְיוּ לְתַנִּינִם; וַיִּבְלַע מַטֵּה-אַהֲרֹן, אֶת-מַטֹּתָם



Clearly talking about the staffs of both Aaron and the Egyptian sorcerers turning to crocodiles. Yet, later on verse 15 it says:



לֵךְ אֶל-פַּרְעֹה בַּבֹּקֶר, הִנֵּה יֹצֵא הַמַּיְמָה, וְנִצַּבְתָּ לִקְרָאתוֹ, עַל-שְׂפַת הַיְאֹר; וְהַמַּטֶּה אֲשֶׁר-נֶהְפַּךְ לְנָחָשׁ, תִּקַּח בְּיָדֶךָ.



Talking about the staff that turned into a snake. Never before any staff turned into a snake. And the only staff that turned into something before was Aaron's staff, that turned into a crocodile.


What exactly did Aaron's staff turned into? And what is the reason for the difference in the animal?



Answer



Shmos 4:3 When Hashem has Moshe throw his staff down, it turns into a Nachash. Here Aharon throws down his own staff and it turns into a Tanin. At the river, Moshe is told take the staff that originally was turned into a nachash on the mountain (his own staff) and warn Par'o.



Then in sentence 19, Hashem tells Moshe to tell Aharon to take his staff and stretch his hand out over the "waters of Egypt".


It seems that the point is that it does not matter which staff is being used as it is not a matter of a wizard using an object of power (which might be what the Egyptians thought) but Hashem causing the result.


Update:


I see that you also ask about the difference in usage between nachash and tanin.


The meforshim of the mountain miracles (such as Ramban) connect the snake and the tzora'as to the "loshon Hara" of Moshe saying "they won't believe me".


The tanin was considered the symbol of Egypt as shown in Yechezkel 29:3 (haftara of Va'Eira). Thus, what was being shown to Par'o and the court was the symbol of Egypt being under the control of Hashem.


electrochemistry - Voltaic and electrolytic cells


Why more attractive metals will be oxidized? Aren't they being reduced, because they attract and receive electrons from negative polyatomic ions? So they will be anodes, where oxidization occurs. Why anodes are negative in voltaic cells and positive in electrolytic cells? Same for cathodes.



Answer



Metals want to lose electrons and become positively charged. When the metal loses the electron, it is called oxidation. The substance that gets the electron is reduced.


Oxidation could occur at the anode if it takes electrons from a metal (i.e. $Fe^{2+}$ to $Fe^{3+}$).


Anodes are negative in voltaic cells since there are excessive electrons available to power the circuit. Cathodes give electrons away to the solution.


sources mekorot - Where in the TaNa"kh is there a discussion about how to slaughter an animal?



Where in the TaNa"kh is there a discussion about how to slaughter an animal?


When reading various parashot, one sometimes come across about the topic of slaughtering animals, but (the ones I have read, offer) no description about how to do it.




names - Celebrate 5 Iyar; not "Yom HaAtzmaut"?


Do any religious-zionist figures (or anyone else for that matter) advocate the commemoration of 5 Iyar but reject the adoption by the religious community of the name "Yom HaAtzma'ut" - "Independence Day" as a secular concept foreign to Judaism and based on the atheist and humanist values of self-determination on the part of the secular Zionists?




halacha - May one use a computer script or robot to do something specifically on Shabbos/Yom Tov?


May one run a program or machine that will operate on Shabbos, either by setting a timer to activate once Shabbos has started, or by leaving it running continually? What if the action is one that is only meaningful on Shabbos (i.e., it couldn't be accomplished on any day other than Shabbos?) If yes, could one then benefit from that operation on Shabbos, e.g. a coffee-maker or a Roomba?


I read this response (update: the link is dead, but the suggestion was to write a script to visit SE on Shabbos in order to earn the enthusiast and fanatic badges) and while I think that that suggestion may be dishonest, it is an interesting question.



In summary then, there are several questions:



  • May one leave a device, mechanical or computerized, operating continually from Friday into Shabbos? (This is asked in another question (below), but the answer doesn't bring any contemporary sources)

  • What if it doesn't run continually, but rather uses a timer to activate itself once Shabbos has started?

  • What if one benefits from said device on Shabbos itself? (Lights, coffee, TV, Robotic vacuum cleaner?)

  • What if the function performed can only be performed on Shabbos specifically? (Fanatic badge)

  • Is Maaras Ayin* the only concern?


Please include contemporary sources where applicable.


Related: Computer working on Shabbos





*Maaras Ayin is the concern that others will think you are doing/have done something that actually is forbidden, but they will think that because you have done it, it must be alright. In this case, people will think that I have visted the site on Shabbbos (which is forbidden), and will conclude that visiting the site on Shabbos isn't forbidden at all, "after all", they'll say, "HodofHod did it!".




Update: While YDK's answer is very good, I'd like to see someone even more contemporary than R' Moshe address this question, especially regarding computers, which could be different than timers. Also, R' Moshe's teshuva doesn't cover a case where there is no benefit/interaction with the device until after Shabbos.



Answer



From daat.ac.il:


(Non-quoted paragraphs are ones I have summarized from that page.)
The discussion seems to center around the following Halacha (SA 252:1).



It is permitted to start an action on Friday near darkness even though the work cannot be completed on Friday and can only be finished on Shabbat.




The Gemara (Shabbos 18a) records a dispute between Rava and R' Yosef about whether this applies to noisy [i.e., public and obvious] things, like leaving grain in a watermill on Friday. The Mechaber rules leniently, like R' Yosef, while the Rema is stringent.



Based on this stricture of the Ramo, there are some who claim that using a timer on Shabbat should be prohibited when it creates audible or visible action. For example, absent some significant need, both Rabbi Feinstein and Rabbi Auerbach (Minchat Shlomo pp. 68-69) agree that this rule prohibits one from playing a radio on Shabbat even if it is left on for all of Shabbat. Placing a radio on a timer is analogous to putting wheat into a water mill. Both cause noise on Shabbat and arouse suspicion that its owner has violated the laws of Shabbat. Hence, they rule that it is rabbinically prohibited to set a radio on a timer or to let it run the entire Shabbat.



Other rabbonim have given other reasons to forbid it. Some compare it to placing a dish around a sparking flame, which is forbidden due to the concern that one might forget and adjust it, accidentally extinguishing the flame. Others say that one may begin an activity on Friday that continues on Shabbos, provided one does not benefit from it on Shabbos.



The consensus of the achronim as well as the accepted practice is not in harmony with any of the opinions which prohibit timers [emphasis mine]. As the Encyclopedia Talmudit ("Electricity" 18:679) states:



Many of the achronim permit one to set a Shabbat clock on Friday - and this is the common practice - even those who prohibit creating a sound permit the use of timers... since all know that these timers are set before Shabbat. Essentially, since it has become common practice to use timers, there is no appearance of impropriety when timers are used. This approach has been accepted by most contemporary decisors such as Rabbi Waldenberg, Rabbi Breisch, Rabbi Henkin, Rabbi Auerbach, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the Chazon Ish, Maharam Schick and many others.





There are many relevent footnotes and sources there.


parshanut torah comment - Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 98b: an interpretation in a messianic sense of the figure of the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 52-53?


I’m an Italian noahide. I read in various Jewish sources, and also in this forum at


The suffering servant? Yeshayahu- Isaiah - Chapter 53


that the figure of the "suffering servant" described in Isaiah 52-53 is interpreted in the Jewish tradition as referring to the entire people of Israel and not to an individual figure. But I read the following passage in the Talmud Bavli:



Sanhedrin 98b


Apropos the Messiah, the Gemara asks: What is his name? The school of Rabbi Sheila says: Shiloh is his name, as it is stated: “Until when Shiloh shall come” (Genesis 49:10). The school of Rabbi Yannai says: Yinnon is his name, as it is stated: “May his name endure forever; may his name continue [yinnon] as long as the sun; and may men bless themselves by him” (Psalms 72:17). The school of Rabbi Ḥanina says: Ḥanina is his name, as it is stated: “For I will show you no favor [ḥanina]” (Jeremiah 16:13). And some say that Menaḥem ben Ḥizkiyya is his name, as it is stated: “Because the comforter [menaḥem] that should relieve my soul is far from me” (Lamentations 1:16). And the Rabbis say: The leper of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is his name, as it is stated: “Indeed our illnesses he did bear and our pains he endured; yet we did esteem him injured, stricken by God, and afflicted” (Isaiah 53:4).




It seems to me that the passage above shows that, in addition to a collective interpretation, there is also in the Jewish tradition an individual interpretation, and specifically messianic, of the "suffering servant".


I also read the Italian edition of “Sefer Vikkuah haRamban”, the famous “Barcelona Dispute”, where this great master says:



“It is true that our masters, their memory be blessed, in the books of the Haggadah they refer to the Messiah the interpretation of this passage "(referring to the “suffering servant” in Isaiah 52:13 and later;editor's note). But they never said that the Messiah would die at the hands of the enemies”.



I therefore wonder: why then is this messianic interpretation often not mentioned? It seems to me that it is attested in the Jewish tradition



Answer



A messianic interpretation of the "suffering servant" passages was known in Jewish tradition, as you point out from Sanhedrin 98b. This interpretation is also found in the Targum on the verse, as well as Midrash Tanchuma, Toledot 14. In other words, this has been interpreted as a passage about the Messiah for a long time. This isn't the only place that a traditional interpretation of a controversial passage was displaced (compare Sanhedrin 94a vs. Rashi and Radak to Isaiah 9:5)


The reason why the interpretation of the servant as Israel is mentioned more often as the "Jewish interpretation" is probably because of the medieval Jewish-Christian debates, and the commentaries that arose from them. The Christian side would want the Jew to concede that the passage speaks about the Messiah, then to concede that the Messiah spoken of is Jesus. It's easier for the Jew to deny that the passage mentions the Messiah at all, so as to concede as little as possible in the dispute. This is a tactic in medieval dialectic theory of obligations, and the Ramban seems to have taken advantage of this in his dispute when he said that he didn't believe in aggadot (1, 2).



thermodynamics - What is the difference between ΔG and ΔG "with an o on top"?



What is the difference between $\Delta G$ and $\Delta G^\circ$? I couldn't figure it out.


Ex:



  1. $\Delta G^\circ = -RT\ln K$

  2. $\Delta G = \Delta G^\circ + RT \ln Q$



What is the difference, is it that $\Delta G^\circ$ is the value predicted by the standard free energies and that $\Delta G$ is just the actual value?



Answer



A simple explanation would be that the "o on top" denotes standard state and the one without the "o on top" denotes conditions that are not standard state. However, that may not allow you to "get it" so let's look at the equations.



  1. $\Delta G^{\circ} = -RT\ln K$

  2. $\Delta G = \Delta G^{\circ} + RT \ln Q$


The first one allows us to find the Gibbs free energy at the standard state, as was mentioned. However, it would be useful to review what exactly the standard state is:


For the standard state of formation:




The partial pressure of any gas involved in the reaction is 0.1 MPa. The concentrations of all aqueous solutions are 1 M. Measurements are generally taken at a temperature of 25 °C (298 K). The standard-state free energy of formation is the change in free energy that occurs when a compound is formed from its elements in their most thermodynamically stable states at standard-state conditions. In other words, it is the difference between the free energy of a substance and the free energies of its constituent elements at standard-state conditions.
(source)



Or, very simply:



  • Partial Pressure of gases = 0.1 MPa

  • Concentration of Aqueous solutions are = 1 M (Molar)

  • Temperature usually 298 K



So if it's so nice and well, why would we need the one without "o on top"? Well, if we meet a problem or situation without the concentrations or pressures as stated above, we need to use our handy equation to relate the standard state which may have been given to the actual situation, with perhaps 0.1 M or some other concentration. This is powerful because it allows you to view different states,perhaps with more or less reactants or products, and realize how one can affect equilibrium.


word choice - Usage of 私{わたし} in Informal Situations


I know Japanese males tend to use 俺{おれ}/僕{ぼく} in informal contexts. Is it common to use 私{わたし} too or it makes one sounds overly stiff and aloof?


Edit: What about 自分{じぶん}?




Answer



I think Japanese males don't use watashi in casual conversations but females use it.


If males use it in casual conversations, it may make one sounds overly stiff and aloof as you say.


自分 is often used in Japanese sports community. They has strict age hierarchy in regards to using polite manners, it is called 体育会系. So 自分 includes the meaning of humility. It is rarely used in formal but there are some people using in casual conversations. They are probably 体育会系.


In addition, 自分 also means the second person(that is to say, "you") in Osaka.


How to estimate a transfer function from a magnitude-only frequency response?


Given an arbitrary frequency response, what signal processing methods might exist that could guess, estimate or determine a transfer function (pole and zero constellation) which gives a "reasonably good" approximation (for some given estimation quality criteria) to that given frequency response? What means exist to estimate the number of poles and zeros required for a given transfer function plus a given approximation error allowance? Or how could one determine these constraints can't be met, if possible?


If the given frequency response was actually produced by a known transfer function, will any of these methods converge on that original transfer function? How about if the given frequency response were subject to (assumed Gaussian) measurement errors?


Assume working in the Z-plane with sampled spectrum, although continuous domain answers might also be interesting.


Added: Are the solution methods any different if only the magnitude of the frequency response is given (e.g. a solution with any phase response is allowed)?


Added: The latter problem is what I'm most interested in, given a known magnitude response around the unit circle, but unknown/unmeasured phase response, can the measured system be estimated, and if so under what conditions?





experimental chemistry - Making carbon monoxide gas from formic acid and sulfuric acid?


Can I create carbon monoxide gas by just mixing formic acid and sulphuric acid together? Or do they have to be heated?




physical chemistry - Effect of impurities on enthalpy of fusion of ice


When I freeze water with some impurities (1% NaCl by mass), the mixture seems to have a much lower enthalpy of fusion that pure water. The impurities cause the freezing point to depress to 0.6°C. I only have a simple calorimeter available but it looks like the enthalpy of fusion is dropping by 25%+ compared to pure water (tested by melting the ice into water and measuring the temperature drop).


Additionally, the ice does not have a nice crystal structure. It is "mushy" and easily deformed.


This effect is surprising to me since colligative theory tells us that most properties changes in a pretty small linear way at low concentrations (like the freezing point).


Am I observing a real phenomenon or is there some problem with my testing?


If its a real phenomenon, is there a way to calculate/estimate the effect?



Answer




According to the article An Empirical Correlation between the Enthalpy of Solution of Aqueous Salts and Their Ability to Form Hydrates (Pandelov et al. 2010), your observation of a lower enthalpy is correct:



We have found a correlation between the enthalpy of solution of the salt and its ability to form a hydrate, namely, that the salt’s enthalpy of solution is lower than the standard enthalpy of fusion of ice (6 kJ/mol)



However, the drop in enthalpy you observed of 25%+ seems excessive, as can be seen in the graph below:


enter image description here


Latent heat of fusion comparison between water, $\ce{NaCl}$ solution and ethanol solution.


Image source: Colligative properties of water cited from the original article Formulation of the latent heat of fusion of ice in aqueous solution (Kumano et al. 2009)


KUmano et al. 2009's methodology centred around the use of




Differential scanning calorimetry analysis was performed and the measurements and calculated values compared with respect to the specific enthalpy of the ice/solution mixture.



As for the 'mushy ice' that you observed, it is likely to be a mixture of ice and brine, as per the diagram below:


enter image description here


Image source: Wikipedia


radioactivity - In a sample of radioactive substance all the atoms don't disintegrate simultaneously. Why?


Radioactivity though spontaneous all the atoms don't disintegrate at a time




Thursday, November 28, 2019

Why do atomic orbitals have their unique shapes?


Is there a scientific explanation to why p orbitals are shaped like two balloons, etc. I think it has got to do with electron repulsions. Wikipedia says they are 'characterised by unique values of quantum numbers', of which I don't understand.




Answer



The pictures that we typically use to represent orbitals are really just graphs showing the 3-dimensional probability of finding an electron (that occupies the orbital being examined) in space. $\ce{\Psi}$ is the wavefunction that describes the electron with a set of specific quantum numbers. $\ce{\Psi^2}$, gives rise to the electron density distribution (the shape of an orbital) plotted in the graph.


How do you use の as a de-facto が particle?


Apparently の can be used as a de-facto が particle. Now this sorta makes sense as in Japanese the line between something defining scope (A は/が B), and some defining association (A の B), is vary thin.


That said, could someone explain to me when exactly you can use の in place of が, like it explains on Jisho.org, as I'm far to curious.



Answer




の and が are interchangeable at least in the following two cases:



aqueous solution - Stability of H⁺ ion



I know that $\ce{H+}$ is not possible in water and it is present as $\ce{H3O+}$. But later on I come to know that even $\ce{H3O+}$ is not possible and that it is present as $\ce{H9O4+}$. Why does this happen? What give that compound so much stability that is not present in $\ce{H3O+}$ or $\ce{H+}$?



Answer



The formation of bonds nearly always leads to a decrease in energy. This is desirable, since less energy $\implies$ stability, so wherever it is possible, bonds tend to form.


$\ce{H+}$ has an empty $s$ orbital. $\ce{H2O{:}}$ has a lone pair. These easily form something akin to a dative bond ($\ce{H2O{:}\bond{->}H+}$), giving $\ce{H3O+}$. Note that there is no single positively charged hydrogen--the charge is distributed over the entire molecule. Distribution of charge leads to more stability.


Now, $\ce{H9O4+}$ (called the "Eigen cation") is even stranger. You can imagine it like this: Three $\ce{H2O}$ molecules approach $\ce{H3O+}$ (remember, this cation is positively charged and water has a lone pair which is attracted to positive charge). Basically, charge-dipole attraction. Of course, the lone pair will "point" towards the hydronium.


Now, these charge-dipole attraction "bonds" resonate. The hydrogens of the central hydronium "detach" from the main molecule and attach to the peripheral ones. In reality, the electron cloud is delocalised and we have partial bonds.


resonance structures of the Eigen cation


Now, the charge is distributed even more. We can have other species like $\ce{H7O3+}$, $\ce{H15O7+}$, etc. Note that there are crowding issues as well - this is why $\ce{H_{103}O_{51}+}$ probably doesn't exist.




Basically, the "original" $\ce{H+}$ is being solvated. The solvation delocalises the charge and forms extra bonds, reducing the net potential energy and increasing stability. That's basically it. It's similar to what happens when you dissolve any ionic compound in water.



Parshas Korach: What Was Korach Thinking?


The Medrash Tanchuma asks a question regarding the motives of Korach. "Korach was a clever man; what did he see that brought him to such foolishness? The medrash answers "His eyes misled him, for he saw a great chain of descendants emerging from him: Shmuel Hanavi, who was as important as Moshe and Aharon, as it says in Tehillim (99:6) 'Moshe and Aharon were among His priests and Shmuel was among those who invoke His name.'" Korach saw from the fact that Shmuel is mentioned in the same sentence as Moshe and Aharon, that Shmuel is just as important as them.


Korach's line of reasoning is very difficult to understand. He feels that he is justified in replacing Moshe and Aharon as leader because he saw that one of his descendants will be a very important person. How does his offspring prove that he is fitting to be a leader? If Shmuel himself was leading this rebellion, then the argument would make sense: Shmuel is just as important as Moshe and Aharon, so perhaps he could be fitting to lead in their place. But what does Shmuel's greatness say about Korach's own worthiness?


Furthermore, this thought process only proves the very opposite of Korach's entire goal! Inherent in his line of reasoning is the assumption that Moshe and Aharon are men of spiritual greatness. Korach deduces that since Shmuel is just as important as them, Korach himself deserves to lead. But yet, he claims that Moshe and Aharon are unwitting to be leaders but that they are fabricating the will of HaShem! How can they be great enough to prove his own greatness, yet not great enough to be the rightful leaders?



How can Korach make such an illogical and foolish argument?




women - What are the most commonly-held positions regarding Kol Isha?


As a woman, I am mindful of the need to avoid putting Jewish men in inevitable situations of kol isha (hearing a woman's singing voice). However, I have heard many interpretations of this law, and I don't know which one(s) people actually follow.


Are the majority of mainstream Orthodox men machmir about a) hearing groups of (3+) women; b) hearing women in recordings...or both, or neither? In the interests of avoiding the serious aveira of lifnei iver, should women always assume they are (or should be) machmir about both?




Answer



Depends where on the Orthodox spectrum.


I'd say the vast majority of college-educated men will be lenient on recorded music, at least if stuck in such a situation. (R' Ovadiah Yosef zt'l also explicitly ruled leniently on recorded music, unless it's someone you know personally.)


As for groups of women singing -- the Seridei Aish defended the practice that had been common in Berlin of women joining in with the singing of Zemiros at the shabbos table. If it was a group of only women singing (e.g. at a shabbos kallah), my impression is a lot more people would be uncomfortable with that.


Here's a very rough sociological rule of thumb among shomer shabbos men:



  • College degree? Probably okay with recorded kol isha.

  • Wears a wedding band all the time? Probably okay with women singing along at the shabbos table, or in shul.

  • Wife doesn't cover her hair? Probably okay going to musicals or the opera.



word choice - Another example where I don't know if 欲しい or 欲しがる is right



私の祖母は私が欲しい以上のものをくれた


私の祖母は私が欲しがる以上のものをくれた




I want the meaning to be "my grandmother gave me more then I wanted." Is the second sentence right and the first sentence wrong?


I learned 欲しがる for the third person, but I found the second example as a first person example. Which is correct?



Answer



The generalization that がる is used only for third person is wrong. Both of your examples are grammatical, but only the first one means what you want.



私の祖母は私が欲しい以上のものをくれた
'My grandmother gave me more than what I wanted.'


私の祖母は私が欲しがる以上のものをくれた
'My grandmother gave me more than what I expressed that I wanted.'




word choice - 神 compared to 神様


When the Abrahamic God is referred to in Japanese, 神様 is very common, but on occasion I simply see 神 on its own. This even applies when they are clearly speaking reverentially, using words such as 御心{みこころ}. The one thing I've noticed is that 神 often appears in more 'serious' contexts, so would I be correct in assuming that 神様 is more colloquial?



Answer




Yes I thinks so. 神様 is fine when ordinary people call their god(s) with respect, but it's difficult for me to imagine a professional Christian priest use 神様 in their public lectures at church. (I may be stereotyped since I rarely go to church.)


The same goes for イエス様 and イエス・キリスト — the former sounds more "friendly" to me, while the latter sounds more dignified and formal.


様 is certainly the most respectful suffix in our daily life. But there are even more stronger and proper suffixes for really high people, such as 陛下, 閣下, 殿下. Calling such people like 将軍様, お殿様, 王様, or 姫様 sounds to me rather "friendly" or "colloquial" than proper.


This may be obvious, but 神様 is virtually never used in academic fields.


history - Why is the Shulchan Aruch definitive?


Why do we (almost all Jews) consider the Shulchan Arukh, not written until the 16th century, to be the final word on halakha?


Our halakha is derived from Torah Shebikhtav and She'be'al Peh. SA attempts to summarize those, and others summarize SA, interacting with it in the same way that it interacts with Torah, assuming that halakha from SA is correct interpretation. What is special about the SA compared to other compilations of Law?


Will we always follow the SA, or will some other volume eventually replace it?



Answer



The Shulchan Aruch came about, because its author, Rav Yosef Karo, declared that the era of the Rishonim has ended, and one can no longer make halachic decisions based on one's interpretations of the Gemara, but rather on the basis of the interpretations and rulings of the Rishonim (the Halachic authorities of the several hundred years before his time). Thus, Rav Yosef Karo developed a system of compiling the different opinions of the Rishonim, and of how to rule in cases of disputes between them. While his specific guidelines of how to rule in cases of disagreements amongst the Rishonim, as well as many of his rulings, were highly disputed by the Remma and later commentaries of the Shulchan Aruch, the basic idea that we should analyze the different opinions in the Rishonim and strive to reach an halachic ruling on that basis, was accepted. Thus when we say the Shulchan Aruch was accepted, we mean the Shulchan Aruch with all of its commentaries was accepted. This is because it is the basic premise of the Shulchan Aruch that was accepted and the many Halachic works surrounding it, and not necessarily all the specific rulings in the Shulchan Aruch. Thus, even though Halachic works continue to be published, even as separate books and not as commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch, they are all based on the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries, which in turn are based on the Rishonim, which in turn are based on Chazal.



history - Sefer Besamim Rosh


Who wrote the Sefer Besamim Rosh?




thermodynamics - Is there a chemical reaction which could give off enough heat underwater to cook something?


The mer-people demand cooked food. They don't want to go on land to make it.


Is there a chemical reaction they could use which would create enough heat to cook their food underwater in a safe manner?



Answer



Interesting prompt!



There are plenty of reactions which could be performed underwater to release a large amount of energy. In fact, many substances react vigorously with water itself. You may have heard about how alkali metals such as sodium are not compatible with water, and there's a good reason for it!


Explosive reactions aren't particularly suited to cooking food, though, and a sustained flame would be much more useful. Interestingly enough, there was legitimate research performed on making underwater flames, for a very specific purpose: the Olympic torch!


For the 2000 Summer Olympics in Australia, during the classic Olympic torch relay before the start of the games, the torch was actually carried ablaze underwater for three minutes at the Great Barrier Reef. According to Wikipedia, the usual fuel for the burning torch is a mixture of liquefied propane/butane, which burns using oxygen gas in the air as an oxidizer (more details of a torch's construction can be found here). There is very little dissolved oxygen in ocean water, however, so the fuel/oxidizer mixture had to be changed. From the BBC article:



The special flare was developed after nine months by a team of chemists and engineers at Melbourne pyrotechnics company Pains Wessex.


The company's managing director Charles Tegner said designing the torch was a challenge - not only to produce a flare to burn underwater at such a depth, but to burn like the Olympic torch flame as well.


"It had to be clearly visible," he said. "Such flares don't normally exist."


The flare's chemical composition, pressed into a steel tube, produces sufficient oxygen and nitrogen to maintain a very hot flame.


The flare burns so fiercely at more than 2,000 degrees Celsius that this creates enough pressure to keep the water from entering the tube.


Its intensity is produced by a mix of oxygen-generating chemicals as well as the combustible element magnesium in a finely powdered form




I haven't found the detailed composition of the fuel/oxidizer mixture, but this is already a very good hint. Magnesium is an alkali earth metal which burns vigorously with a bright white flame in many conditions, be it in pure oxygen, air, pure nitrogen, or even pure carbon dioxide, and it will also react with water when hot producing hydrogen gas, much like sodium (this is why reactive metal fires are so hazardous; don't even think about using a $\ce{CO2}$ or water extinguisher on them, that just feeds the fire!). In this case, the pyrotechnicians decided to mix finely pulverized magnesium metal with a solid oxidizer, very likely something such as potassium chlorate, $\ce{KClO3}$, which decomposes under heat releasing oxygen gas. The flame was lit in air until the reaction between the magnesium and solid oxidizer started going, and then it was safe to submerge the torch while the reactants lasted. The stunt has in fact been repeated since.


To add a few more options to this answer, there is a general class of reactions with water called hydrolysis reactions, some of which are quite energetic. Here, the starting material tears apart water molecules directly and uses the fragments to modify its structure to a more stable form. For example, this is what happens when phosphorous pentoxide is allowed to come into contact with water. This avidity for water makes phosphorous pentoxide a useful material in a laboratory, as it is capable of scavenging trace amounts of water from a liquid or gas. However, these types of reactions already tend to release much less energy per gram of reactant, compared to combustion reactions.


Lastly, I'll cite one more thing. Even without any chemical reaction, the dissolution of some solids in water is capable of releasing some heat. This happens when starting material has a weaker attraction to itself than to water molecules. This property can be exploited in disposable heat packs. These types of processes usually release even less heat per gram of starting material than combustion or hydrolysis, but at least the process is conceivably easily reversed, provided energy is given to dry the material again.


Therefore, it is possible to get a lot of heat from reactions underwater, though it is quite a more elaborate process than starting a fire in air.


Edit: Now that I saw the original question at Worldbuilding.SE, I realize part of it wondered about how cooking would be done in earlier stages of technological development. In this case, I'm hard-pressed to think of a chemical reaction which happens using materials found easily underwater and releases a lot of energy. The difficulty is great enough that it has actually been suggested previously as a general argument for why technologically advanced or even sentient life would be unlikely to develop underwater, as any hot thermal processing of food or materials would be severely hindered. Except for incredible strokes of luck, hydrothermal vents on the sea floor sound like the most reliable heat source which could be accessed by a primitive civilization.


halacha - What is the downside to wearing techeiles?


There are many Compelling arguments to support Techelet, although it's not yet universally accepted.


A friend of mine bought P'til Tekhelet Murex techeiles, and went to his rabbi (who I know and respect) to ask for advice on how to tie it, and his rabbi told him "Don't."


While I'm pursuing the answer to the question through other means, what possible reasons are there to say not to wear techeiles? Let's say that Murex is not the chilazon, and we have some strings that have been dyed blue for no reason. What problem could there be in attaching those strings to my tzitzis?




Answer



You ask, "let's say that Murex is not the chilazon, and we have some strings that have been dyed blue for no reason. What's the problem with that?" (my emphasis)


If there really is no reason to dye them blue whatsoever, then doing so would be a violation of the Shulchan Aruch (9:5), who says that careful people use strings of the same color as the garment, and we use a white garment, and the Rama there who notes that the custom is to use white (this is pointed out by R. Elyashiv in his collected teshuvos, 1:2). While the Chazon Ish (3:25) and the Radziner Rebbe (Ein HaTecheiles 1:40:1) don't think that this applies to all of the strings, many poskim seem to assume that all four strings should be white, in the absence of techeiles.


This stringency, however, would not be enough of a reason to say not to use techeiles if there's any reason at all to assume that it might be correct.


Let's assume, then, that it's a matter of doubt, and (the assumption is) that one should be stringent as ספק דאורייתא לחומרא. Why not dye them with the new blue?




  1. A halachik reason: Many (including R. Moshe Shternbach, Teshuvos V'Hanhagos 1:26 and 4:5) have written that placing something extra on tzitzis with the intent to possibly perform a mitzvah, even out of doubt, is violating the prohibition of bal tosif. (This is the indication of the Gemara in Zevachim 81a, and though the Ritva Sukkah 31b says otherwise, there were many poskim throughout history on both sides of this question).





  2. A kabbalistic reason: There are apparently kabbalistic reasons to avoid using real techeiles strings nowadays anyway, which was the objection of R. Yisrael Yehoshua Trunk (Shu"t Yeshuos Malko O.C. 1-3). (It's hard for this to be understood literally as Kabbalah can't uproot a biblical obligation. Rav Asher Weiss suggests the intention might be more along the lines of: kabbalah tells us that the true techeiles has been lost and so anyone who thinks they are wearing it nowadays must be donning a spiritually destructive fake.)




  3. A meta-halachik reason: I've been told by a posek that he was worried that if we come to dye them blue from the murex out of doubt, then future generations might mistakenly believe that there's a tradition that this is the proper chilazon. This is problematic because (1) it is a 'ziyuf hatorah', a misrepresentation of the Torah, which the Maharshal (Yam Shel Shelomo B.K. 4:9) thinks is so terrible as to be worth dying for (2) if Eliyahu does come and provides us with a different snail, things could get very awkward and we might not know what to do.




If you are going to wear it in public, then we can add that R. Shternbach (ibid.) prohibits wearing blue tzitzis in public because of the prohbition of 'lo tisgodedu', of making apparent divisions in halakhic practice among different people.


Of course, the assumption above that there is a formal halachik doubt here is debatable as well. R. Shternbach (ibid.) writes that something without a tradition cannot even be considered a safek. Also, R. Soloveitchik (Shiurim L'Zecher Abba Mori, pg 228) as well as several others quote the Beis Halevi (though there is some debate if he actually said this) as saying that something that has been lost to tradition is equivalent to a tradition that something has been lost; meaning, it's as if there's a mesorah not to use anything as blue until Eliyahu or the like can reinstate it from their own mesorah, not just from arguments.


Additionally, it isn't at all true that the evidence is 'compelling' to everyone that the murex trunculus is the correct fish for dying techeiles. There are good answers to this question, both in terms of archaeological evidence and halakhic literature regarding the identity of the chilazon. Rav Asher Weiss and Rav Shlomo Miller, both widely accepted poskim, do not think that there is enough evidence to even raise a doubt, and discourage the use of techeiles (without really providing an answer to this question). For many people, the fact that these poskim are unconvinced is enough of a reason not to view it as a doubt. (The list of poskim that have discouraged it extends far beyond these, though of course it isn't unanimous, and those who do wear techeiles have answers to the above issues. You asked about the potential downsides).


tefilla - Why does Wednesday's shir shel yom include part of the next perek?


The Shir Shel Yom is (usually) a chapter of Tehillim said at the end of davening, unique to each day. That applies for every day except Wednesday.



In some (many) customs, Wednesday's song is Tehillim 94, plus the first 3 pesukim (verses) of Tehillim 95.


Why are the extra 3 pesukim added?



Answer



Moreshet.co.il reports:



אך האריז"ל הנהיג להוסיף שלשה פסוקים ראשונים ממזמור צ"ה, "לכו נרננה" וכו', כדי לא לסיים בפורענות - "יצמיתם ה' אלקינו", כעין מה שאמרו חז"ל לגבי הפסקה בקריאת התורה: "ואין מפסיקין בקללות", וכן נוהגים בסיום הקריאה של מגילת איכה, שאחרי הפסוק האחרון "כי אם מאס מאתנו" וכו', חוזרים על הפסוק שלפניו: "השיבנו ה' אליך" וכוו, כדי לא לסיים בפורענות.


טעם נוסף לתוספת הפסוקים מתורת החסידות: "ההכנות לשבת, הן הנפשיות והן הגשמיות, צריכות להתחיל ביום רביעי בשבוע, משום כך מוסיפים בשיר של יום רביעי, שלושת הפסוקים הראשונים של המזמור "לכו נרננה", שנאמר בקבלת שבת"  כל טוב ובשורות טובות מקורות לתשובה תמיד פ''ז מ''ד; ר''ה לא ע''א; סופרים פי''ח ה''א; מגילה לא ע''ב; מנהגי חב''ד ילקוט מנהגים עמ' 161. תשובה מאת שמואל פנחס גלברד



My translation:


The Ari z”l introduced the idea of adding the first three pesukim of Tehillim 95 in order not to end the Shir shel yom with punishment “the L-rd our G-d will destroy them”. A similar idea is seen at the end of Eicha, Lamentations.



An additional reason comes from Chassidus. One needs to make spiritual and physical preparations for Shabbos from Wednesday. For this reason we add these three pesukim which are said in the service of Kabbolas Shabbos.


The answer came from Rabbi S P Goldbard.


word choice - When can I exchange くださる for いただく in expressions of gratitude?


Way back when, I remember being taught that when you want to say a really polite "thank you", sentences such as these are basically the same:




文章を訂正していただきましてありがとうございます。


文章を訂正してくださいましてありがとうございます。



But are they really? Does it make a difference if a) I specifically asked for corrections, or b) the corrections were voluntarily offered?


Furthermore, if these were truly the same, why is it you always hear the first of this following pair, but rarely the second?



本日ご来店いただきまして、まことにありがとうございます。


本日ご来店(して)くださいまして、まことにありがとうございます。



Unless you switch things up a bit:




本日ご来店いただいたお客様、まことにありがとうございます。


本日ご来店(して)くださったお客様、まことにありがとうございます。



What is the nuance buried in this pair? In what "thank you" situations can one be used and not the other?



Answer



I had been wondering for years why we hear ~いただきましてありがとうございます more often than ~くださいましてありがとうございます, but now I can make up a plausible explanation, inspired by Boaz’s comment on the question. This is very incomplete, but let me post it as an answer because I hope that it explains a small part of the question.


As a background, as explained in the answers to this question, いただく is to receive and くださる is to give. So the grammatical subject of the first part of the sentence



文章を訂正していただきましてありがとうございます。




is the speaker (who “received” the favor), while the grammatical subject of the first part of the sentence



文章を訂正してくださいましてありがとうございます。



is the listener (who “gave” the favor). Both describe the same fact and the only difference is perspective. I do not think that there is any difference in meaning between the two sentences in each pair, and we can use both sentences no matter whether the favor was offered voluntarily or as a result of asking.




Now why do we hear ~いただきまして more often than ~くださいまして? I do not have a reference at hand, but as I wrote in the answer to the other question, one of the ways to express the politeness in Japanese is by avoiding using the person to be respected as the grammatical subject. This is probably why we hear ~いただきましてありがとうございます more often than ~くださいましてありがとうございます.


Because ~くださいまして is more direct in the sense that it uses the listener as a subject, there might be cases where the sentence using ~くださいまして has a nuance of the favor offered voluntarily, but I cannot get a grip on this. Even if this nuance exists, it is understandable that ~いただきまして is used more often simply because ~いただきまして is more polite.


I have no idea which of ご来店いただいたお客様 and ご来店くださったお客様 is used more often, and if the latter is more common, I do not know the reason for that.



Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Are Japanese "tenses" aspects in disguise?



I read a lot of posts here saying that Japanese has this thing called "aspects". e.g.


Must I use past tense before 後?


ありがとうございます vs. ありがとうございました


I am confused with Japanese tense


Since Japanese is heavily influenced by Chinese, which seems to only have aspects, not tenses, it is only natural for Japanese to have aspects.


However, every English website that teaches Japanese that I have seen mentions nothing about aspects. They always say "食べた is the past tense of 食べる".


Then, I started to wonder whether all these tenses are just a lie to make westerners understand Japanese easier. The websites simplified the aspect system which is unfamiliar to westerners.


Question: Does every verb in た-form actually mean the "completed" aspect (sorry I don't have a better word here)? If you are a Chinese speaker, what I mean is the aspect that 了 denotes. Is my hypothesis correct?



Answer



The real lie is in the assumption that the Japanese language is genetically related to Chinese. There is long cultural contact, and heavy lexical/morphological borrowing, but the underlying structures of the two languages remain distinct.



To answer your question, we need to first define tense and aspect. Tense is a morphological change in verbs to denote when an event took place (past, present, future). Aspect is the addition of morphological elements to denote the manner in which an event took place (to completion, on-going, etc.).


Japanese verbs most certainly have a past tense. It cannot be related to the Chinese 了, because 了 cannot be applied universally to all verbs, whereas every Japanese verb has a ~た form.


Examples:


J: する → した、行く → 行った、頼む → 頼んだ


E: have → had, play → played, pay → paid, drink → drank


C: N/A


Now, consider the following set of sentences (parentheses denote comments):


(1) "I was Thomas" (but not anymore)


(1Ca) *我是了Thomas 'I was Thomas' (ungrammatical)


(1Cb) ?我是Thomas了 'I am already Thomas' (non-past)



(1J) 私がThomasでした。 'I was Thomas'


1Cb fails to show that the event is in the past; and 1Ca illustrates an even more important issue -- the aspective 了 doesn't have to attach to the verb. In order to achieve the preterite sense of 'be' in Chinese, you have to insert a time adverb like 以前 (我以前是Thomas)。


Preterite (simple past tense) た can't exist on its own, like English preterite -ed can't. It's an internal change to the verb form itself that makes the important distinction between tense and aspect. (Hence, technically, English has no future tense, since it employs modal verbs in order to achieve futurity.)


However, you are correct in that the preterite form also tends to subsume a completion interpretation, because of a lack of any other intervening aspects.


'I ate something' (past tense, but also interpreted to mean it's completed)


'I have eaten something' (I tried something, but maybe didn't eat the whole thing)


'I was eating something' (I was in the process of eating -- not finished)


churban destruction - The Kosel is forever


Why is it that Hashem promised never to destroy the Kosel?



Answer




The Shoel U'meishiv answers that this can be understood based on Rashi's and Tosfos' opinions in Sukkah(41a) where it says that the Third Beis Hamikdash will not be built by hand, rather it will decend from Heaven. There is a principal that the blessing does not come on to something that is empty . For example when Eliyahu Hanavi got oil for Ovdiah's wife and children he asked her first "is there anything left in the house?" and she replied "a little oil." From this oil there was blessing and it filled her and all the neighbors containers and jugs. If she would have had nothing it would not have worked as per this principal. This is also the source for people who during Bentching leave some type of crumbs or foodstuff on the table because you can not receive blessing on the food if there is none there. With this principal explained we now know why we require the Kosel to remain in order for Hashem to send down the third temple, for there has to be somthing here - it can't be empty - because a blessing does not come on to something that is empty .


animals - Did the brothers know about the snakes and scorpions in the pit?


Yosef's brothers took him and threw him into a pit (Bereishis 37:24). Chazal tell us that the pit had snakes and scorpions in it (see Rashi there).


Reuvein seems to think he is saving Yosef by throwing him into this pit (Bereishis 37:22). However, the Talmud says that if you see someone fall into a pit filled with snakes and scorpions, you could testify that they died (Berachos 33a)!


Were the brothers aware that they were throwing him into a pit in which there were snakes and scorpions? If so, in what way was this saving Yosef?




counters - Are there native Japanese numbers greater than 10? What use are they?


Most people who've taken a Japanese 101 class know the 10 native Japanese numbers (一つ、二つ・・・十). It's always seemed odd that a system would stop at 10 when so many things in life need larger numbers. Are there in fact native Japanese numbers greater than 10?



Answer




As it turns out, there are Japanese numbers greater than 10!


Getting started, let's review the basics:


1 through 9:



[一つ]{ひとつ}、[二つ]{ふたつ}、[三つ]{みっつ}、[四つ]{よっつ}、[五つ]{いつつ}、[六つ]{むっつ}、[七つ]{ななつ}、[八つ]{やっつ}、[九つ]{ここのつ}



Going above 20, つ changes into そ. Here are the 10s through 90:



[十]{とお}、[二十]{はた}、[三十]{みそ}、[四十]{よそ}、[五十]{いそ}、[六十]{むそ}、[七十]{ななそ}、[八十]{やそ}、[九十]{ここのそ}




Similarly, at the 100s it changes into ほ (which, due to the 1946 simplifications, would be pronounced as お). Here's 100-900:



[百]{もも}、[二百]{ふたほ}、[三百]{みほ}、[四百]{よほ}、[五百]{いほ}、[六百]{むほ}、[七百]{ななほ}、[八百]{やほ}、[九百]{ここのほ}



At the 1000s it changes into ち. Here's 1,000 through 9,000:



[千]{ち}、[二千]{ふたち}、[三千]{みち}、[四千]{よち}、[五千]{いち}、[六千]{むち}、[七千]{ななち}、[八千]{やち}、[九千]{ここのち}



Finally, as with the Chinese number system, Japanese stops adding new units every level at the 10,000 mark, where it becomes よろづ (which, as with ほ above, becomes よろず in modern Japanese). Here's 10,000 through 90,000:




[万]{よろづ}、[二万]{ふたよろづ}、[三万]{みよろづ}、[四万]{よよろづ}、[五万]{いよろづ}、[六万]{むよろづ}、[七万]{ななよろづ}、[八万]{やよろづ}、[九万]{ここのよろづ}



Larger numbers recombine in a similar manner as [十万]{じゅうまん}, [百万]{ひゃくまん}, etc., but more on that in a moment. As it is, we still haven't figured out how to combine what we've already got into something more useful (e.g. 24 or 365).


Combining numbers in the Japanese system involves choosing the appropriate word for each place's value and putting the word あまり (remainder, often shortened to まり) in between each. So, for example:




  • 24 = 20 + 4 = [二十]{はた}まり[四つ]{よっつ}

  • 365 = 300 + 60 + 5 = [三百]{みほ}まり[六十]{むそ}まり[五つ]{いつつ}

  • 1024 = 1000 + 20 + 4 = [千]{ち}まり[二十]{はた}まり[四つ]{よっつ}

  • 12,345 = 10,000 + 2,000 + 300 + 40 + 5 = [万]{よろづ}まり[二千]{ふたち}まり[三百]{みほ}まり[四十]{よそ}まり[五つ]{いつつ}




As you can see, this can get old rather quickly if you're trying to count things. On that level, it's pretty plain to see why it's not in common use above [十]{とお}. Having to say "[hundreds] with a remainder of [tens] with a remainder of [ones]" and so on can get tiresome. Thankfully, you get a slight reprieve from this once you hit 10,000 based on the few examples I've seen of numbers this high:




  • [百万]{ももよろづ} 1,000,000

  • [八百万]{やおよろづ} 8,000,000



As to their uses in modern Japanese, they mostly appear in set phrases or poetry. For example:




  • [二十歳]{はたち} - 20 years of age

  • [二十日]{はつか} - 20th of the month

  • [三十日]{みそか} - 30th of the month (c.f. last day of the month)

  • [大晦日]{おおみそか} - New Year's Eve (by extension of the above, last day of the year)

  • [八十島]{やそしま} - 80 islands (poetic way of referring to the entirety of Japan)

  • [八百屋]{やおや} - Grocery store

  • [万代]{よろづよ} - 10,000 years (poetic way of saying "an eternity")

  • [八百万]{やほよろづ} - 8,000,000 (used to refer to "everything" in a manner similar to 全ての)



real time - Does it make sense to recompute Parks-Mccellan on a per sample basis?


I'm thinking of using Parks-Mccellan for my equalization needs, but since I require that the filter be variable (gain, Q etc.) then does it make sense to recompute Parks-Mccellan on a per sample basis?


Reason for asking is that I'm still confused about whether different algorithms are suited for per sample computation or whether they need longer intervals to make their full effect.


I guess it would still need some sort of pre-buffer (since the filtering uses previous samples)?





My application is Parks-Mccellan style arbitrary magnitude response filtering that's dynamic (i.e. I want to be able to vary the magnitude response over some, even short sample intervals).



Answer



No, the Parks-McClellan algorithm, which is based on the Remez exchange algorithm, is a computationally quite expensive iterative method that is most commonly used for off-line filter designs. It is not at all well-suited for real-time applications, let alone for re-designing a filter each sample interval.


Depending on your application, you might be looking for an adaptive filter based on the LMS (least mean squares) algorithm.


Another approach, again dependent on the application, is to use an appropriate parametrization of the filter, where the parameters could be the gain, center frequency, Q factor, etc. This is easily possible with second order IIR filters.


gentiles - Can a non-Jew perform a kiddush/chillul Hashem?


If a non-Jew does an act which would be considered a kiddush Hashem or chillul Hashem if done by a Jew, does it have the same status?




thermodynamics - how is the relation between Gibbs free energy and cell potential?


First of all what is exactly Gibbs free energy in regards to an electrochemical process? How can we visualise it? How does Gibbs free energy change in an electrochemical reaction? How is it related to the cell potential?


Isn't potential the amount of work done per unit charge to bring it from infinite to that point?


Now the ionisation in cell can be thought of as occurring in multiple steps, for example:


$$\begin{aligned} \ce{Zn(s)} & \ce{->Zn(g)} && (1) \\ \ce{Zn(g)} & \ce{->Zn+(g) + e-} &&(2) \end{aligned}$$


Then the work done to remove the charge should be the change in Gibbs free energy of second reaction and that energy should be equal to potential energy, but we take the combined change in Gibbs free energy as change in electric potential energy of the electron. Why is that so?




halacha - What should you do if you washed and planned to have a meal with bread but realized that the bread went bad?


Say you had in mind to have a regular meal with bread. After washing and saying homotzi lechem min harataz and taking a bite of bread, you realize that the bread is bad.



Now all you have left to eat is mezonot/shechokol/etc.


Do you say an individual bracha for each food category and their respective bracha acharonas or does the single bite of bread cover everything. If the latter, what is the bracha acharona?


Is there a difference if you ate a bite of the spoiled bread (less than a kezayit) or if you ate no bread at at all? Do you have an obligation to take a bite?




grammar - 「を大好き」と「が大好き」の違いは何ですか?


What's the difference in usage and meaning when using を with 大好き or 好き versus using が? I would think that using が is stating that the subject that you are talking about is loved, while using を is suggesting that they are being loved, despite the fact that 好き is an adjective, not a verb. However, I read elsewhere that using を is actually less strong. What's the difference?




talmud gemara - List of all the times the Talmudic principle of "chiddush" is used in Shas



(similar type of question asked about: "svara", "תיקו" "Halachot L'Moshe MiSinai")


The Talmudic principle of "chiddush" is sometimes invoked to explain certain areas of halacha. Namely, there are some rules and foundations that do not follow the usual halakhic rules, and thus their own rules cannot be extrapolated from or to other areas of halacha.


A couple examples of this principle of chiddush are:




  • "Eidim Zomemim"- conspiring witnesses (chiddush: we believe the second set of witnesses instead of the first)




  • "Motzi Shem Ra"- a person who claims his wife committed adultery (chiddush: if wife is guilty she is executed by stoning instead of strangulation)





Is there a comprehensive list of all the places in Shas where the Talmudic principle of chiddush is used?



Answer



The (Hebrew) Wikipedia entry on "chiddush" has a chart that lists 20 such instances in Shas where the principle of "chiddush"is invoked.


NOTE: for English translation of this list, please see below said image


enter image description here


1) חיוב קרבן בשבועת ביטוי - an “oath of expression” about a future or past event (ie NOT an oath of testimony)



  • chiddush- a negative commandment that isn't punishable by kareis requires a korban (see Shevuot 26b with Tosfos)



2) בשר בחלב - meat and milk



  • chiddush-
    a) 2 individually permitted things together are forbidden
    b)the prohibition is just in the cooking of them together- ie if one were to soak meat in milk it would be fine (see Pesachim 44b)


3) גיעולי עובדי כוכבים - purging the vessels of non-Jews with boiling water



  • chiddush- usually a utensil which imparts a bad flavor to food is permitted. However by vessels of non-Jews, even if the vessels impart a bad flavor the food is still prohibited
    (see Pesachim 44b)



4) קנס - paying a penalty



  • chiddush- Paying despite being killed (see Ketubot 38b)


5) נזיר - an instance of accepting a nazirite vow upon oneself



  • chiddush- if a person says he's a nazir from grape seeds (ie accepting a partial nazirite vow upon himself) he's a full nazir (see Nazir 3b-4a)


6) שפחה כנענית לעבד עברי - Canaanite maidservant to a Jewish slave




  • chiddush- a Jewish male is permitted to marry a non-Jewish woman (see Kiddushin 21b with Rashi)


7) אשת יפת תואר - a beautiful woman who was taken captive in war



  • chiddush- a non-Jewish woman is permitted to a Jew (inferred from Kiddushin 21b)


8) עדים זוממים - conspiring witnesses



  • chiddush- we rely on the 2nd set of witnesses (see Sanhedrin 27a)



9) ריבית - charging interest



  • chiddush- the borrower who loses money also violates a prohibition (see Bava Metzia 61a)


10) טומאת שרץ - if a sheretz (creepy crawly creature) imparts "flavor" to a mixture it is still prohibited



  • chiddush- even though it's gross & imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture (and should thus be permitted) it's still forbidden. (see Avodah Zarah 68b)


11) טומאת שכבת זרע - impurity of an emission that's imparted into a mixture is still prohibited




12) זרוע של איל נזיר - the foreleg of the ram offering that a nazirite must bring



  • chiddush- it's permitted to nullify a prohibited item even from the outset (lchatchilah)
    (see Chullin 98b)


13) חלב בהמה טהורה - permissibility of consuming milk from a kosher animal



  • chiddush - milk originates from the blood (akin to ever min hachai) and yet the Torah still permits it (see Bechoros 6a-b)



14) צרעת הבתים - leprosy on houses



15) יבמה - the widow of a childless man who has brothers



  • chiddush- an ervah (ie brother's wife) is permitted (see Yevamos 17b)


16) נבלת עוף טהור - the carcass of a pure bird



  • chiddush- rather than by touching or carrying, one contracts tumah by eating the carcass of a pure-- ie kosher-- bird (see Zevachim 70a)



17) מנחת העומר - the Omer offering



  • chiddush- a korban of barley is brought (inferred from Menachos 5a-b)


18) טומאת בעלי קרי בהר סיני - the impurity of a person who had an emission by Har Sinai



  • chiddush- in this instance the Torah is more stringent with a baal keri than with a zav or a metzora (see Niddah 42a)


19) מזיד בשבועת ביטוי - purposely taking a shevuas bitui




  • chiddush- a person purposely taking a shevuas bitui (ie “oath of expression”- NOT an oath of testimony) is obligated to bring a korban (see Shevuot 37a)


20) מוציא שם רע - a man who claims his wife committed adultery



  • chiddush- if the woman is guilty of the motzi shem ra claim against her she is executed by stoning- despite the fact that if she were to commit the sin in her current state (ie as a regular married woman without a motzi shem ra claim) she would be executed via strangulation
    (see Ketubot 45a)


digital communications - Understanding the Matched Filter

I have a question about matched filtering. Does the matched filter maximise the SNR at the moment of decision only? As far as I understand, ...