exchemist

Gibberish.

No you need to discuss your ideas here, in words. If you have been changing the appearance of copper coins, that sounds like chemistry rather than astronomy and cosmology. Is there a reason why you chose to post under this heading?

Most people will use a bin if there is one handy that doesn’t look revolting. In nearly every location I have seen where is litter, there are no bins to be seen anywhere. The exception is deliberate fly-tipping of rubbish, which happens a lot. I suspect the solution there is surveillance cameras.

Provide plenty of litter bins, in the places where people need them, and keep them regularly emptied and looking clean.

As so often in chemistry, it's not a black and white situation. You don't have either "a bond" or "no bond", but bonds, sometimes "partial" in character, that can vary in strength and completeness. BF3 is indeed the weakest Lewis acid of the various trihalides, which is attributed to F providing more effective π overlap than its congeners. This would be because it would involve 2p subshells on both atoms, which are of similar size: overlap between orbitals of different shells is commonly not so effective. But there is still a gain in stability in going from BF3 with 3 partial π-bonds to 4 full σ-bonds in an sp3 hybridised adduct with NH3. In part this will be because the back-donation from F requires a degree of polarisation against the electronegativity of the atoms, i.e. with a δ- on B and a δ+ on F. So the extra stability from the extra bonding won't be that great. The above is all a bit handwavy, I know. There is a more advanced discussion of this issue using Molecular Orbital theory here: https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/80247/molecular-orbital-diagram-for-bf3. which is really a more proper way to analyse it. (I'm afraid I've forgotten my Group Theory, so I can't guide you all the way through this.) But you will see there is a low-lying antibonding LUMO (Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital) into which a pair of electrons can be accepted, at the expense only of reversing out the π-bonding contribution. You will see from that that it is a quite a complicated story, so your question is by no means a trivial one.

That seems a rather peculiar statement. Can you explain it? Because most articles I have read say the key is confinement of the plasma, in a dense enough state for fusion to occur.

The one a bit to the left of the other.

You mean you are suddenly wondering about this in your fifties? (It was the reference to your mother - and the rather basic nature of the questions - that made me think you were at school.) Yes words mean things, but you are also expected to engage your brain a bit. I did that when I saw your question and came up with an answer for you. Did it seem reasonable?

It depends on your neurological reference frame.

OK but regarding nudity in society today, please also see my response to your original thread on this, in September.

The whole story is an allegory of loss of innocence, exemplified by development of self-consciousness about exposing one's private parts. We consider the animals innocent - doing what they do without hangups about right and wrong. Small children ditto. Whereas adult human beings are moral creatures, with a responsibility to act morally. Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is symbolic of this double-edged transition: the gain of adult knowledge involves sacrificing childlike innocence. The story is clear that it is Adam and Eve themselves who decided they needed to hide their private parts, due to loss of innocence. So there is no suggestion that flashing your genitals is evil. That was a hangup they introduced for themselves.

We had a thread eerily similar to this one in September: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127885-hi-everyone-my-husband-and-myself-are-going-to-try-to-share-this-profile-and-we-will-see-how-that-works/ Are you a sock of we2? If not, you will find the issue has been discussed at some length already in that thread.

Interesting. I think that would be because they teach all the relevant biology stuff ab initio but don't want to be diverted into trying to teach chemistry to people that can't cope with it. A lot of people don't find chemistry easy.

An excellent editorial that expresses very clearly and concisely the reservations some of us have been trying to articulate about this announcement: - the huge gap between laser beam energy input and the power needed to run the lasers, - the huge and yet-to-be addressed challenges in capturing the energy released and converting it into steam to run a turbine, - the issue, once all that is solved, of bringing the costs down to a scale that enable the technology to become economic, - and finally, given that all the above will take decades of further work with a still uncertain prospect of success, the risk the paper clearly sees of people taking fusion as yet another excuse for procrastinating on the urgent issue of decarbonising the world's economy as soon as we possibly can, using the renewable energy technologies that we have in our hands already.

In a nutshell, biology comprises the scientific study of living things. It therefore seems to make perfect sense to start a course on human biology with a description of what "living" means, and then proceed to the anatomy and physiology of the human body. Cell biology concerns the structure and biological and biochemical processes that go on in various sorts of cell, so what one might think of as micro-scale biology, whereas anatomy and physiology concern organs, the functions they perform, how they interact, where they are located and how they are connected etc., i.e. the macro-scale biology. As fas heart rates go, I'd imagine smaller human beings will tend to have a faster heart rate than larger ones. So boys' hearts will beat a bit faster than those of full-grown men. But why not ask your teacher? It's an intelligent enough question. You could even ask why this should be so, which could lead to an interesting discussion.

And, for some reason, you think this stuff from over a century ago constitutes news, do you? What I said was the BBC is one of the most trustworthy news sources. News. Do you understand what news is?

The BBC is one of the most trustworthy news sources around. (That news item is from February, by the way.)

By dish soap I presume you mean washing up detergent. I suspect the issue may be to do with what types of anionic surfactant are used in each. There are many different ones. Bear in mind washing up detergent (dish soap) is designed for lifting and emulsifying the oils and fats found on used dishes, while laundry detergent is designed to do some of that that but also to remove a wide range of organic materials produced by the body, many of which are not oil or fat-based, may contain proteins, etc. Hence the bleaching agents, enzymes, polycarboxylates, etc. Laundry detergent has a more complex job, requiring a more complicated formulation. So I think the reason will be to do with some of these other components. I'm not expert on detergent chemistry, though.

Oh sure, but the NIF isn’t intended as a proof of the whole concept, just that laser induced fusion can be made to work. From what I have read, a commercial power station would rely on a steady stream of pellets being ignited in turn by the laser array. But then you have the problems of how to get the energy out in order to run a steam turbine, given that the laser equipment seems to take up all the space, how to exhaust the reaction products before each ignition, how to manufacture a stream of these pellets (which I gather have rather subtle design structure), what the neutron flux does to the chamber walls........ It has to be at least another 30 years away, I feel.

I don't think that's how it is meant to work. I think the concept is a stream of pellets, each one ignited in turn by the laser. So part of the electrical energy generated by each fusing pellet goes towards igniting the next one.

I'm sure that if and when they get a significant fraction of the fuel in these pellets to fuse, they can get back the energy needed and the losses in the laser will seem trivial. But there seem to be so many further steps to be completed in the process, before we get anywhere near a commercial reactor. I recall doomed projects like the British Advanced Passenger Train. Very clever, but too many novel features and not enough focus on developing them through to commercial reliability. It was so full of glitches that the engineering division in Swindon lost patience and designed and built their own, less advanced, High Speed Train, which was a triumph and went on to become the backbone of our diesel expresses for several decades! Once they can produce significant energy gain, how do they get the energy out and how do they convert that to electricity? We had a thread on that once before, but it seemed to me there would be big challenges in getting all that working. At least a further decade. And they've got to have a commercial scale supply of deuterium/tritium pellets to fuel the thing. Will that be simple? I doubt it. And so on. Meanwhile we get these pot-boiling "breakthrough" announcements at regular intervals, reminding me of that line in "The Right Stuff": "Know what makes this bird go up? Funding makes this bird go up." 😁

Hmm, yet more breathless "breakthrough" announcements, of which I remain rather sceptical. I wonder what they mean by net energy gain, in the context of a laser-ignited inertial confinement setup. I copy below the part of the relevant Wiki article, which suggests the definition of "Q" has been altered by the Livermore group to make it seem easier to surpass, whereas, given the very low energy efficiency of lasers, it actually takes quite a lot to emit more energy than the laser needs to run. Although most fusion experiments use some form of magnetic confinement, another major branch is inertial confinement fusion (ICF) that mechanically presses together the fuel mass (the "target") to increase its density. This greatly increases the rate of fusion events and lowers the need to confine the fuel for long periods. This compression is accomplished by heating a lightweight capsule holding the fuel using some form of "driver". There are a variety of proposed drivers, but to date, most experiments have used lasers.[16] Using the traditional definition of Q, Pfus / Pheat, ICF devices have extremely low Q. This is because the laser is extremely inefficient; whereas for the heaters used in magnetic systems might be on the order of 70%, lasers are on the order of 1%. For this reason, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), the leader in ICF research, has proposed another modification of Q that defines Pheat as the energy delivered by the driver to the capsule, as opposed to the energy put into the driver by an external power source. That is, they propose removing the laser's inefficiency from the consideration of gain. This definition produces much higher Q values, and changes the definition of breakeven to be Pfus / Plaser = 1. On occasion, they referred to this definition as "scientific breakeven".[17][18] This term was not universally used; other groups adopted the redefinition of Q but continued to refer to Pfus = Plaser simply as breakeven.[19] On 7 October 2013, LLNL announced that it had achieved scientific breakeven in the National Ignition Facility (NIF) on 29 September.[20][21][22] In this experiment, Pfus was approximately 14 kJ, while the laser output was 1.8 MJ. By their previous definition, this would be a Q of 0.0077. For this press release, they re-defined Q once again, this time equating Pheat to be only the amount energy delivered to "the hottest portion of the fuel", calculating that only 10 kJ of the original laser energy reached the part of the fuel that was undergoing fusion reactions. This release has been heavily criticized in the field.[23][24] On 17 August 2021, the NIF announced that in early August 2021, an experiment had achieved a Q value of 0.7, producing 1.35 MJ of energy from a fuel capsule by focusing 1.9 MJ of laser energy on the capsule. The result was an eight-fold increase over any prior energy output.[25]

Yes I pointed out what that poster does, for the benefit of those who might be tempted to respond, and got my knuckles rapped. I had reported him as soon as I clocked him, and only made a post on the thread when I could see some people were getting sucked into his vortex of nonsense. Each forum has its own policy I guess, depending on how much the mods are willing to tolerate, each time this person returns as a new sockpuppet. Which tolerance he is now exploiting as far as he can.... I'm still learning how things work here.

You understand me perfectly well, Theorist. 😁 And that nonsense equation you have just posted is typical of your style.

Here we go again. This is more time-wasting, by yet another sockpuppet of Theorist.