i was not at all enlightened by this article and took most of the points as basic common sense everyone should have (but unfortunately everyone does not). the fact that the author had to come to these conclusions 'over time' means he's susceptible to being just another damn fool in the first place.
wtf is 'brand engagement'? does that mean likes and comments on a post? it would be great if either article spelled that out because if companies are just chasing eyes and clicks, that seems like a stupid game to play that could lose value as brand realize it doesn't necessarily mean conversions.
Simply Measured Engineer here! To clear up your question, we define Brand Engagement as:
"The total number of likes, comments, and shares on Brand Posts that occurred during the reporting period." -- SM Help Docs
I'm guessing that it wasn't spelled out in the post because Contently and our original article are primarily aimed at Social Media Marketers, and the definition is fairly well established.
While the definition is established, we've published some articles that dig deeper into engagement:
Warning: This is highly simplified and thus not exactly correct.
The temperature at which a substance freezes, melts, condenses, or boils is not fixed, but varies with pressure.
When a liquid crosses the "critical temperature" (at atmospheric pressure), it boils and becomes a gas with an obvious transition.
Less well known, when a liquid is subjected to pressure above the "critical pressure" (at a fixed temperature), it can actually become a compressible liquid.
The location on the graph where "critical temperature" and "critical pressure" meet is the "critical point" and that's where you can become supercritical. In that region, there is no difference between liquid and gas; there is no "boiling" or "condensing", because the substance effectively behaves like both at the same time. It has no surface tension, yet can dissolve things like a liquid solvent, but it can also diffuse through tiny holes like a gas.
Tiny variations in temperature or pressure can radically alter the density, allowing you to adjust for the exact behavior you want. Above the critical temperature, no amount of pressure can force the substance into liquid form, you can only solidify it. Some substances refuse to be made liquid or solid due to crazy critical temperature or pressure values required. Mixtures are another matter entirely, for example high pressure may force one component of a mixture to solidify and drop out of solution.
We think of matter as having "normal" properties because that's how it behaves at the earth's atmospheric pressure and temperature ranges but in reality the way we experience matter is just one of many different and just as crazy states.
To bring it back down to earth, the point of mentioning "supercritical steam" is that it means they can heat the water well above boiling by keeping it under high pressure. If they didn't, additional heat added to the water would just create more steam, not heat the water any further (and steam is vastly less efficient at absorbing heat than liquid water).
If you heat water under a high enough pressure, when you release the pressure it instantly becomes stream.
Normally, when you boil water the vapourisation happens piecemeal. That's why you see bubbles rising to the surface. For supercritically heated water, the vapourisation is a runaway chain reaction, triggered by a reduction in pressure, so the whole body of water flashes into stream.
---
Edit: added note about reduction in pressure being the trigger.
You can note in this diagram that what you are describing is true whether or not the system is supercritical, and can be seen in how water will boil into steam when the pressure is decreased from atmospheric as well.
What you are describing is how higher pressures allow you to add energy to the water while it remains liquid, and how if you add enough energy it will overcome the enthalpy of vaporization and cause it to convert to steam as the pressure is reduced.
As I understand it, a container of boiling water will have liquid in the bottom half and steam in the top half. As the pressure and temperature rise, the steam/water goes supercritial, meaning the water/steam boundary disappears and the whole container becomes a homogenous mush of supercritical fluid.
Am I right in thinking that this supercritical fluid can flash into steam faster than a combination of water and steam? My thinking is that for a water/steam combination to convert into steam, the water molecules have to take the time to break their bonds and separate into a gas. For a supercritical fluid it's faster because there are no bonds to be broken?
I'd be grateful if you can correct the above, as I can learn something here.
There aren't really formal bonds being broken transitioning from liquid to gas, but I suppose it is fair to say that the supercritical state will transition more quickly to steam than a subcritical liquid with enough energy to become steam at atmospheric pressure.
The reason for that would be that there is a nucleation process in forming gas from liquid, which does take some time. Or at least more than not needing to do so.
There is some terminology you're using that bothers me, like "flash into steam" isn't really a good way to describe it. At that point you'd be better off describing it as "super pressurized steam" converting to "normal pressure steam" or something. It's just expanding, but there is no flash (which to implies a sudden change). It's gradually and continuously decreasing in density.
I think part of this may be confusion over how we overload the word "water" to mean "liquid water" as well as "water the chemical". I am meaning "water the chemical" which can be a solid, liquid, or gas. Steam is water that is a gas.
With a supercritical system, you can take liquid water, stay in the liquid state until the water becomes supercritical (where the liquid and gas phases are indistinguishable), and then move across a boundary from "liquid like" to "gas like", go back into a sub-critical state as gas, and never formally boil/flash/etc.
Layman's - stuff like water it made of molecules, H2O in this case and the H has a positive charge and the O a negative charge (the electrons head over to the O atom due to quantum effects). These charges tend to make the molecules attract and stick together (the -ve are attracted to the + charges). The temperature of anything corresponds roughly to the kinetic energy of the bits of stuff it's made of. At 0K everything is still. At 373K (== 100C) the water molecules have enough energy at normal pressure for the molecules to fly apart and have your kettle boil. You can raise this temperature by putting the water in a pressure cooker to physically push the molecules back together - this works to about 120C in a normal pressure cooker. At some temperature however, no matter how much pressure you put on, the molecules do not stick to each other to form a liquid because they have too much kinetic energy and keep flying apart. This happens at around 647K in water. Above that the steam/liquid is called supercritical. This is important in power generation because you can squish it as hard as you like without worrying about it condensing.
Weird Chemistry happens at a certain temperature. At above a certain pressure (above 217.755 atmospheres) and above a certain temperature (705 Fahrenheit or 373 C), water is neither a liquid nor a gas.
Physicists have made special engines that operate on this "super-critical" fluid, that only works above this temperature / pressure combination. For the first time ever, a solar-panel has achieved this critical mass of temperature and pressure, allowing solar-energy (in very hot regions) to take advantage of the same technology that makes conventional fossil fuels so efficient.
The critical point is displayed on the phase diagrams on the triple point page. I linked to the Triple Point page because it might be more familiar, not to suggest it is the same thing as a critical point. Your link is probably better, though.
exactly, another profitable avenue might be to sell out to the government to make bitcoin unstable. what's puzzled me most about bitcoin proponents is they think the US gov would sit idly by and just give up centralized control of the most powerful thing on earth.
here's how you promote it: focus on a very narrow market first because your current market is very broad and hard to attack. come up with one specific use case for this bad boy like invoices, and then narrow it even further, custom invoices for paypal, and then you have a tangible market you can start to attack, not an abstract one. my examples aren't probably the best, but you get the idea. excited for you!
the thing is to get some experience and momentum in getting a customer, which is very different than engineering code. lots of good will come out of it, and it will take you in directions you can't anticipate or imagine.
Agreed. Solid idea. Well executed. Demand Exists. But you need to narrow scope, at least initially. It would be very difficult to just focus on "invoices." Going up against some strong SEO competition there. Like jwheeler79 suggests, focusing on a very narrow market segment may be easier to gain some traction. There a tons of small sellers on Amazon, Ebay, etc., that may have very specific document needs that are not being met. They are probably using clunky, unprofessional solutions or trying to do it themselves. Find out what those needs are and very specifically market to them.
"freaking genius" and "total no brainer" sound kind of funny together, but yes - "genius" meaning great idea, and "no brainer" meaning the point is very clear on the landing page.
