Leaderboard

The attachement from the international libraries association is self explanatory. Although not specifically for scientific matters I thought it was particularly well presented and a good candidate as a sticky on this site.

1) they are not necessary, but depending on t quality of your sample prep it can help reduce contamination, and improve signal quality however, 2) depending on the volume of your zip tips (10 vs 100 ul, for example) and the sensitivity of your instrument as well as you should have enough to see something. But if whether you see enough depends on your sample and application. Generally I see significant loss of protein digests (up to 70%) and that may or may not be an issue for you. You often also lose e.g. very hydrophilic or very hydrophobic peptides along the way. If you have a very well defined and/or low complexity sample, I would use them, especially in conjunction with a nano-LC to keep your system happy. If purity is an issue, I would also use them. However, if sample loss is the dominant issue, then it may not be the best way. 3) I would not do it. Theoretically you could try to regenerate the material, but you will like get cross-contamination and the capacity might degrade. 4) can't think of any papers off the top of my head. Most that describe their use have some weird modifications which presumably help with sample prep, but in real applications rarely had any impact (in my experience).

The video was of a battery pack deliberately set on fire. I agree there is a very high risk of catching fire under such circumstances... I had a look for info on EV fires and failed to find support for high incidence. Whilst I will take Elon Musk's claim that ICE vehicles are 11 times more likely to catch fire than a Tesla with a grain of salt - there are other factors involved including average age of vehicles - it did appear based on real statistics that haven't been disputed, 5 fires per billion miles vs 55 per billion for ICE. Over what period wasn't clear. Mostly I found experts unwilling to give definitive answers to whether the fire risk is higher or lower - mostly because not enough data - but they are NOT saying there is any evidence of extreme risk, which they would if crashes have a high incidence of fires. This is not referring to recent and is specifically referencing fatal crashes - I expect fire risk to be less than this in more modern electric vehicles, due to better design - ( https://www.counterpointresearch.com/electric-vehicles-safe/ ) - Don't EV's go through crash testing? Such a vulnerability would be impossible to disguise under such circumstances and would surely earn a zero star rating. I thought my comment was reasonable. I questioned a very strong statement you made that does not appear to have a sound basis. I asked if you had evidence but a video of setting fire to a battery pack isn't evidence and laptop/mobile phone battery fires seems tangential to fire risk of EV's in accidents - did they catch fire when something collided with them?

! Moderator Note The topic was how to pray. It was not an invitation to bash beliefs

Coincidentally, my total praying time = amount of time I talk to my mother when I'm in trouble.

Related to that here is an interesting article that highlights that rebuttals might be effective in combating science deniers. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02152-y Actual performance varies by audience, I am sure. Though we had good experience with folks who actually came individually to information sessions. Whereas if a bunch of connected folks appeared, they seemed to reinforce their beliefs. One thing that is also somewhat concerning is that quite a few folks were citing youtube videos as source. That makes it (by design, I would say) more difficult for folks to figure out where these folks get their "info" from.

I had hesitated about introducing group theory, but now you have gone and done it. +1 I doubt there is much group theory in Engineering, but the following development of your linear transformations may be accessible to Caruthers. Note that linear transformations (in the sense of Linear Analysis or Linear Algebra) are the simplest but not the only possible transformations. Linear transformations work so some texts say we need a transformation so we will start with the simplest a linear transformation and leave it at that. However @Caruthers you may be familiar with (linear) rotations in mech eng theory so I will link to them as follows. If we change the coordinates from x, y, z, τ to x', y' z', θ τ' by rotating an angle the coordinate axes in the plane (x, τ) through an angle θ from τ towards x, where τ = ict - it is common and convenient to introduce the new variable tau as ict here (Again I am moving the axes this time, not the position vector so moving the axes from tau towards x is equivalent to moving the vector from x towards tau) then the transformation becomes x' = xcosθ - τsinθ τ' = τcosθ + xsinθ y' = y z' = z Using the familiar circular trig functions but in 4D. Comparing these with the Lorenz version in xyzt and x'y'z't' (ie ordinary time) [math]x' = \frac{{x - vt}}{{\sqrt {1 - \frac{{{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}} }}[/math] [math]t' = \frac{{x - \frac{{vx}}{{{c^2}}}}}{{\sqrt {1 - \frac{{{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}} }}[/math] [math]y' = y[/math] [math]z' = z[/math] we see that [math]\cos \theta = \sqrt {1 - \frac{{{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}} [/math] and [math]\sin \theta = \frac{{ - iv}}{{c\sqrt {1 - \frac{{{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}} }}[/math] so theta is an imaginary angle since cosθ is greater than 1 and sinθ recovers the imaginary symbol i. If you are familiar with hyperbolic trig functions you will immediately recognise that this can also be done with hyperbolic sine and cosine (sinh and cosh) and real angles. These are all the different approaches you will find in the texts. Good luck with your bedtime reading with your candle in your boat cabin.

We don't know what the inside of a BH actually looks like. The simplest solution predicts a singularity, and that's unphysical. Geometrically speaking, yes, it has a center. The simplest case should also have spherical symmetry.

Single crystals grow best along a gradient. Temperature, pressure, what have you.

Would DI/distilled water help as well?

I think that part of the reason they use ferrocyanide is that it alters the crystal growth leading to a change in caking behaviour and also perhaps crystal form. Adding a little copper sulphate solution to the salt solution will form an insoluble copper ferrocyanide precipitate which you can filter off. People are still doing work on this sort of thing https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/cg201661y?mobileUi=0 It's a good idea to filter solutions before letting them crystallise, even if the best you can do it so filter through a paper tissue. However, I think the problem you have there is capillary creep. A couple of drops of cooking oil on the string above the level of the liquid may help keep the solution where it is meant to be.

I'm not sure that the sodium ferricyanide will interfere to that extent. @John Cuthbermay know better. But as I recall, to grow a nice cuboid crystal you need to suspend a "seed" crystal, tied with a cotton thread or something, in a supersaturated solution and let it grow slowly and undisturbed for several days. What you want is for just one crystal to grow slowly, rather than a mass, suddenly. Maybe if you have some coarse salt you can select one grain and use that. Important that there are no other crystals or particles in the supersaturated solution or these will also be nuclei for crystallisation.

They should get created in such events as e.g. neutron star mergers - we just can't look for them. This has several reasons: First, transuranes are terribly unstable, with half-life in the millisecond range. (see below for some more...). Then, these unstable superheavy nuclei would decay into lighter nuclei, eventually ending up in one of the four possible decay series. (One of these, the Neptunium cascade, is technically extinct in earths natural element composition, as the half-life of its most stable isotope is in the million-years-range - while Earth has a few billion years of age) So, unless you're thinking REALLY big, no chance that these nuclei are stable... (...and thinking really big means atomic weights in the 10^57 range - Chandrasekar * Avogadro... ...and these "atoms" are commonly known as "neutron stars". White dwarfs still have discernible elemental compositions AFAIK.) Nuclear physics, however, predicts that at certain nucleic weigths with appropriate proton numbers, the nuclei should again be more stable. The best known is the element 110 island of stability. The wikipedia entry concerning that is quite good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability. As of now, we don't yet have the techniques to get those isotopes with the sufficent neutron numbers, though, but the less-stable isotopes that were generated did AFAIK mostly behave as predicted. The question where trans-irons come from - after all, nuclear fusion kinda "stops" at iron - has been partially answered / demonstrated: The merger of neutron stars mentioned above. https://www.science.org/content/article/neutron-star-mergers-may-create-much-universe-s-gold But beware, that case isn't closed yet, there's much ongoing debate: Look here for a more differentiated take: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2026110118. Still, we know that NS mergers do generate heavy elements, and there's no reason that there should be a cap at somewhere around 100 Da. That superheavy stuff just tends to decay really, really fast...

A friend of mine once said "never go to the next lesson, until you've understood the last"; IOW don't rush it, you can only build on a solid foundation...

This is about accumulated human knowledge, and learning it in the proper order to make YOUR best use of it. A successful curriculum is what schools offer students, and access to immediate human resources when there's something you don't understand. Think of school and what you learn there as your "toolbox", the basic information you need to make informed decisions. And self-learning is great too! Using other sources (Khan Academy leaps to mind, always) on top of what you're learning in school is a great way to challenge yourself and find areas of interest in your studies. We've had other threads about online study if you want to do a Search. Discussing specifics about a subject with other interested folks is a great way to learn as well. We specialize in science discussion here, and I would encourage you to ask questions if there's anything you want more knowledge about. The members here are amazing in their diverse knowledge, and more than willing to help everyone involved in the conversations sharpen their reasoning tools.

$10,000 quadrillion asteroid Psyche? By the way, you can’t (at present) put a true price on objects such as asteroids. But many have tried to estimate the worth of asteroid Psyche, with its metal-rich composition. One estimate suggests the massive, metal-rich object is worth $10,000 quadrillion (that’s 15 more zeroes), more than the entire economy of Earth. https://earthsky.org/space/asteroid-psyche-metal-or-rubble-pile/

Somewhere on the evolutionary tree, we had a common ancestor(s) that carried those common traits and then the respective lineages diverged to what they are today..

To get this effect, all it takes is for an EV to collide with someone else on the road.. "Do you have any evidence to support this claim"? Petrol fuels burn when there is ready access to Oxygen (and it's limiting speed of fire), and only vapors.. EV has no such requirements.. Reread my post, I said about catching fire after accident (aka "car crash" when things disintegrate). Not when everything works smoothly.. It's not even about capacity of energy. But speed in which that energy can be released. ICE car fuel tank burning speed is limited by access to Oxygen.. To have potential fire with accumulator, you just need to plug + to - with plain wire (i.e. "metal piece which accidentally joined them in a crash").. Don't misinterpret my words, by mistake, or premeditation.. I am fan of EV, unlike ICE.. ..which is irrelevant to our current position.. I always thought, you're reasonable member of this forum.. Lost confidence about you, after your today comment.. There are even airplanes which were destroyed by laptop batteries: https://www.google.com/search?q=airplane+destroyed+by+laptop+battery http://www.forfyre.com/the-lithium-safe-battery-bag-for-the-fire-protection-of-lithium-ion-batteries-that-catches-fire-due-to-thermal-runaway/?lang=en "A total of 171 incidents between 1991 and 2016 was recorded involving batterys carried as baggage or cargo on airplanes. (recorded by the US Federal Aviation Administration)" (without any crash, or damage)

The urban driving speed in my country is currently 50 km/h, which is only +5 km/h more than 30 miles/hour. Who uses an electric car for longer trips when when you can't easily find plugs/unsure they are in place where you want to go.. ? ps. Many such speed regulations make no sense and have no real impact on road safety.. They are pushed by politicians who have no idea what they are doing, to pretend that they are doing something.. Electric cars, thanks to the energy stored in their batteries (which is good, if everything is OK), burn like they are "made of paper" after even a basic accident..

Fake news look at CNN there is nothing more than fake news from there.