Just realised I’m 51 cartoons out of date.
Just realised I’m 51 cartoons out of date.
637 to 643 – hydrogen excess – explaining why only plants can get fat.
Moll -> chat thread please?
Spiny Norman said:
Moll -> chat thread please?
You’ve seen number 650 before, but not in a cartoon.
mollwollfumble said:
Nothing of interest in chat thread
Sure, but I want to ask you something about high-speed flight that you might find of interest.
Okay I’ll try to get you a bit interested.
I think I might have found a way to reduce the sonic boom overpressure on supersonic aircraft by a useful amount.
Spiny Norman said:
mollwollfumble said:Nothing of interest in chat thread
Sure, but I want to ask you something about high-speed flight that you might find of interest.
Okay I’ll try to get you a bit interested.
I think I might have found a way to reduce the sonic boom overpressure on supersonic aircraft by a useful amount.
If it does anything to reduce the noise generated by a sonic boom then I’m very interested. I wonder if Uni Qld Mech Eng department still has their hypersonic wind tunnel. I think I heard somewhere that they were dismantling it. :-(
They were still handling the design and construction of the Australian Scramjet engine as recently as last year. So it may still be around to test your idea.
Good Scientist Cartoon to 651 to 660. Somewhat random.
Not sure whether the top toon is meant to be satirical but
A) plant biomass has been turned into lipid in real life
B) the body turns carbohydrates into fat through de novi lipogenesis. Under normal conditions it is a minor process but it is always happeninf.
^ a b Acheson KJ, et al. Glycogen storage capacity and de novo lipogenesis during massive carbohydrate overfeeding in man . Am J Clin Nutr. (1988)
The one about weight loss is something I was wondering about
I decided to lose some weight to help my sleep apnea and general health
Losing 1kg a week due to reducing my food to about 1/3 of what I had before and cutting out nearly all sugar and junk food.
Less energy in and more out plus exercise to help use more energy works.
It seems simple but we have a huge industry devoted to dieting, why ?
Do people cheat on food, underestimate the calories involved and how much exercise burns vs food you ate
Or can you actually mess up your body so it becomes extremely hard to loose weight
Cymek said:
Do people cheat on food, underestimate the calories involved and how much exercise burns vs food you ate
Yes.
poikilotherm said:
Cymek said:Do people cheat on food, underestimate the calories involved and how much exercise burns vs food you ate
Yes.
So it is that simple, it’s just lack of knowledge and will power
dv said:
Not sure whether the top toon is meant to be satirical butA) plant biomass has been turned into lipid in real life
B) the body turns carbohydrates into fat through de novi lipogenesis. Under normal conditions it is a minor process but it is always happeninf.
^ a b Acheson KJ, et al. Glycogen storage capacity and de novo lipogenesis during massive carbohydrate overfeeding in man . Am J Clin Nutr. (1988)
Ta, will look that one up.
mollwollfumble said:
dv said:
Not sure whether the top toon is meant to be satirical butA) plant biomass has been turned into lipid in real life
B) the body turns carbohydrates into fat through de novi lipogenesis. Under normal conditions it is a minor process but it is always happeninf.
^ a b Acheson KJ, et al. Glycogen storage capacity and de novo lipogenesis during massive carbohydrate overfeeding in man . Am J Clin Nutr. (1988)
Ta, will look that one up.
Is #658 only for the Northern hemisphere?
Tamb said:
Is #658 only for the Northern hemisphere?
Good question!
No, the weather (low & high pressure system) moves from west to east in both hemispheres.
The next three you’ve seen before – but not on a Cartoon thread. Thanks again to The Rev Dodgson and Transition.
Dang it, lost Number 668, will have to redraw it. In preparation, if you were to name yourself after a cartilaginous fish, which name would you chose?
mollwollfumble said:
In the Beeswax? thread, I explained why this is incorrect:
mollwollfumble said:
You can’t get fat from eating carbohydrates. I explain why in a Good Scientist cartoon that you haven’t seen yet. It’s because carbohydrates are high in oxygen and low in hydrogen, whereas fats are low in oxygen and high in hydrogen.
This is certainly not true. Glycolysis converts glucose to pyruvate. As this is a net oxidation, NADH is also produced. Under anaerobic conditions, pyruvate is reduced to lactate, which is at the same oxidation level as glucose. However, under aerobic conditions, pyruvate is oxidised and decarboxylated to acetyl-CoA, which may enter the citric acid cycle to be completely oxidised to carbon dioxide, or it may be used to synthesise fatty acids via a series of what are essentially Claisen condensation reactions followed by reduction with NADPH.
As for carbohydrates being high in oxygen, it should be noted that in the overall conversion of glucose to a fatty acid, only four of the six carbon atoms of glucose end up in fatty acid, the other two carbon atoms becoming carbon dioxide, which carry away oxygen. But the conversion of acetate to fatty acid still requires reduction (as well as energy). The overall reaction from glucose to fatty acid can be given as:
4 C6H12O6 = C16H32O2 + 8 CO2 + 6 H2O + 4 H+ + 4 e–
Thus, the overall conversion of glucose to fatty acid is an oxidation.
KJW said:
mollwollfumble said:
In the Beeswax? thread, I explained why this is incorrect:
mollwollfumble said:
You can’t get fat from eating carbohydrates. I explain why in a Good Scientist cartoon that you haven’t seen yet. It’s because carbohydrates are high in oxygen and low in hydrogen, whereas fats are low in oxygen and high in hydrogen.
This is certainly not true. Glycolysis converts glucose to pyruvate. As this is a net oxidation, NADH is also produced. Under anaerobic conditions, pyruvate is reduced to lactate, which is at the same oxidation level as glucose. However, under aerobic conditions, pyruvate is oxidised and decarboxylated to acetyl-CoA, which may enter the citric acid cycle to be completely oxidised to carbon dioxide, or it may be used to synthesise fatty acids via a series of what are essentially Claisen condensation reactions followed by reduction with NADPH.
As for carbohydrates being high in oxygen, it should be noted that in the overall conversion of glucose to a fatty acid, only four of the six carbon atoms of glucose end up in fatty acid, the other two carbon atoms becoming carbon dioxide, which carry away oxygen. But the conversion of acetate to fatty acid still requires reduction (as well as energy). The overall reaction from glucose to fatty acid can be given as:
4 C6H12O6 = C16H32O2 + 8 CO2 + 6 H2O + 4 H+ + 4 e–
Thus, the overall conversion of glucose to fatty acid is an oxidation.
OK. Rethinking this. I actually drew these cartoons before the Beeswax thread. Looks like I was wildly wrong, that happens quite often. But I still have to prove that to myself. In particular I also have to look at it in the context of biomass to crude oil.
—————
(I wonder where my 673 vanished to – looks like another lost one that I need to redraw).
Numbers 673 to 675, light fluff.
Then some semi-serious maths in 676 to 681.
I’m getting ahead of myself here, but I’ve been looking for counterexamples to “mollwollfumble’s hypothesis”.
Examples of possible ways to construct a counterexample:
1. The sequence of digits of pi. Does this have a median of 4.5? Or a median of 4 or 5? Or provably no median?
2. Asymptotic series. In classical maths these are oscillating divergent but have a well defined evaluated value. Can an example be found where mollwollfumble’s hypothesis gives the wrong evaluated value?
3. The series sum_(n=0 to ∞) x^n is divergent in classical maths but has the well defined value 1/(1-x). mollwollfumble’s hypothesis gives sensible answers for x<1, x=1 and x=2 (by simply adding a smooth function of infinity to the classical evaluation) but what about x>1 with x≠2 ?
mollwollfumble said:
Numbers 673 to 675, light fluff.
Then some semi-serious maths in 676 to 681.
I’m getting ahead of myself here, but I’ve been looking for counterexamples to “mollwollfumble’s hypothesis”.
Examples of possible ways to construct a counterexample:
1. The sequence of digits of pi. Does this have a median of 4.5? Or a median of 4 or 5? Or provably no median?
2. Asymptotic series. In classical maths these are oscillating divergent but have a well defined evaluated value. Can an example be found where mollwollfumble’s hypothesis gives the wrong evaluated value?
3. The series sum_(n=0 to ∞) x^n is divergent in classical maths but has the well defined value 1/(1-x). mollwollfumble’s hypothesis gives sensible answers for x<1, x=1 and x=2 (by simply adding a smooth function of infinity to the classical evaluation) but what about x>1 with x≠2 ?
False alarm. For number 3, mollwollfumble’s hypothesis gives sensible answers for all x. It simply replaces the classical 1/(1-x) by (1-x^(∞+1))/(1-x) which makes perfect sense. For example it reduces to 1/(1-x) for |x|<1.
Further, since all asymptotic series I’ve found so far are based either on the Bernoulli numbers or on sum_(n=0 to ∞) x^n = 1/(1-x), and because the Bernoulli numbers are oscillating pure fluctuation with mean and median zero, it seems very likely that for number 2, all asymptotic series confirm mollwollfumble’s hypothesis.
Bump. Forgot to finish this. 682 to 687.
mollwollfumble said:
Bump. Forgot to finish this. 682 to 687.
Now I know why I didn’t finish. I was being exceptionally cynical in this period. (Have passed that now. Already have another 20 cartoons drawn since these ones).
