exchemist

I vill not buy zees tobacconist, it eez scratched.

That's nothing. What about this? Why are they hiding the truth from us? :-

Thanks very much for that. I have found this reference: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nazi-sun-gun-space-mirror_n_3015475. So my scepticism was misplaced. It seems this story goes back to a Life magazine article in 1945. I can't find anything more authoritative, but it does seem the Germans entertained a number of highly speculative ideas and impractical technical ideas around that time. All rather reminiscent of that James Bond film "Diamonds Are Forever", chiefly notable for Charles Grey as Blofeld and the rather gorgeous Jill St. John as Tiffany Case.

The first satellite was only launched over 10yrs after the end of WW2. So it sounds to me like nonsense. Where did you hear this story?

I won't. The thread is discussing the separation of mixtures of materials into different layers, in the early planets etc. It was actually you that used the term "differential" in this context, in an earlier post. Don't play games by switching to an unrelated context. If you want to know why differential calculus is so named, start a thread on it.

No you can't infer that. The process of differentiation relies on difference in density, which only makes denser objects sink, relative to lighter ones, in the presence of gravity and the absence of other factors that would counteract this. As for energy transformations, these can occur, since phase changes will take place at some point, which absorb or release Latent Heat. In fact there is a hypothesis that one source of heat in the interior of the Earth is due to phase changes which progressively release heat and thus slow down the rate of cooling. When Latent Heat is released or absorbed, there is an interconversion between internal kinetic energy of atoms and molecules and the energy of chemical bonds. However heat being converted to cold makes no sense. "Cold" is just a relative absence of heat.

As @MigL says, no energy is needed, or at any rate no input of energy is needed. This is implied by Newton's First Law of Motion: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100232420 If, however, you are thinking about the specific scenario of periodic motion in a gravitational field, e.g. a planet orbiting the sun, or a pendulum in a clock, then gravity certainly affects how much kinetic energy the object will need to have, in order to follow a given trajectory. But again no input of energy is needed, once it has been initially set in motion.

Here is an example to get you started. It's one of my favourite pieces of a cappella polyphony, one I very much enjoyed singing over ten years ago now, when I was with an early music chamber choir in The Hague. The video accompanying it represents the 4 vocal lines. I think the way they have done it is beautiful. It also actually helps the listener disentangle the intertwined lines of the music:

Fair point, in reality a number of photons will be reflected, and those in the appropriate frequency bands in the UV and IR will be partly absorbed by the glass. What I was trying to focus (😁) our poster on is the concept of concentrating the radiation, as opposed to the incorrect notion of amplifying or "multiplying" it.

OK this confirms what some of us suspected: you do not understand the principle of conservation of energy. A magnifying glass does not increase the amount of energy, it just intercepts energy from a wide are and focuses it (concentrates it) on a small area. That enables you to produce high temperatures, high enough to burn something, but only within a tiny area. The amount of energy flux in this small hot area is the same as the energy flux intercepted by the lens of the magnifying glass. The amount of the sun's energy you intercept is determined by the area of the capturing device. Nothing you do with it subsequently can increase the amount of energy you have. You are not "multiplying" anything.

The problem I see with using solar power to move a vehicle is that the flux of incident radiation per unit area is fixed by the radiant power of the sun, so the available energy is determined by the surface area on your vehicle used to capture it. Unless you are talking of an energy storage system that accumulates energy over time before use, I suppose. How much power are you expecting to need for propulsion of your vehicle?

Have you actually bothered to read your own link?

I think most of the denser material ended up closer to the sun, though someone may correct me. But, while the gas giants are farther away, they also have rocky/metallic cores, I think, and I don't know the relative size of the cores compared to the rocky planets further in. But as far as precious metals are concerned it seems to be only of academic interest, since I understand that mining them on another planet and transferring them to Earth would be uneconomic, due to the change in orbital velocity required.

Yes I judge you without reading, because I have formed the opinion, based on evidence, that you are ignorant of the things you write about. So yes, there is a way, and I and others have already told you what it is. Learn, first, what the current established theories are, before you start trying to make up ones of your own. Virtually every scientist in history that has made a novel contribution has started by learning the current state of the art first. It's obvious that one has to do that, since otherwise there is the risk of saying something really stupid - as you have done now on more than one occasion - which damages one's credibility. A reader of your posts cannot avoid forming an opinion of you and frankly, the opinion I now have of you is that you are somebody that does not bother to inform yourself about the science that you are trying to challenge. That makes it likely that we will spend our time correcting your basic errors, rather than learning any new insights from you. It is in your hands. Read and learn, first. Lots of us here, including me, will be only too happy to discuss science with you as you learn. You may pose some good and interesting questions in the process: people often do in such discussions. But do not try to make assertions that contradict established science without reading thoroughly beforehand, or you will just look an idiot.

Except that you don't have enough understanding to make suggestions that are worth exploring.

If you read a bit more about how magnetic moment arises within an atom, you will find it is due either to orbital angular momentum of the electron or to "spin" (intrinsic angular momentum), of the electron or nucleus or both. Classically, both would indicate motion of a charge - which would generate a magnetic field. In the QM model it is a bit different, as you are dealing with a wave-particle entity that has no defined classical trajectory, but magnetism remains associated with momentum. As for making your own model for atomic particles, be warned that the QM model science uses today is built up from over a century of experimental evidence, which it accounts for very well. If you try to create your own model it will need to account for all the phenomena that QM can account for. You will need to do a lot of studying before you can hope to accomplish that. Do not imagine that what you have learnt as an electrical engineer will be sufficient.

I imagine KCl will be the electrolyte only. You will also need electrodes of different metals, to create an electrochemical cell. A digital clock is often chosen for the demonstration as it only requires a tiny current, at a voltage of 1V or less, to to work. The classic clock battery of this kind is made by shoving copper and zinc rods into a lemon or a potato. My son did this when he was small (though it evidently did not inspire him much: he's now at uni studying Ancient History!). Usually the electrolyte is liquid as in these two examples. If using KCl, it would need to be at least damp, in order to conduct, I think. You could use an off-cut of a piece of copper pipe to make a copper-sided canister, fill it with wet KCl and put a magnesium or aluminium rod in the centre (making sure it does NOT contact the copper in any way), then connect wires to the rod and copper. There is more on this sort of thing here: https://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/batteries/batteries.html

I think the persulphate may oxidise starch. But it could be tried, at least. Alkali I think can make starch more gelatinous - which could be what is wanted.

That may be for the best. If you are genuine, I suggest you either do some reading, or else ask questions instead of making assertions, when the topic is outside your area of knowledge.

No chance. I'm not risking an infection with a computer virus.

I'm not opening a file from an unknown source. It could contain malware. Also it is a rule of the forum that you present points for discussion without readers needing to go off-site or click on unknown files. I think you have been told this before.

You chose to enter the arena of chemistry by making a ridiculous statement, without supporting evidence, that there are no -ve ions, something that contradicts one of chemistry's most basic concepts, understood by every intelligent schoolchild. I am not going to indulge you by getting into a discussion of the structure of the hydrogen atom. If you really don't know, you can perfectly easily look it up on the internet and revert with questions. But I'm afraid I simply do not believe that someone who can ask questions about the Pauli Exclusion Principle one moment can, at the next, fail to understand something as basic as this. I think you must be trolling.

No. There is nothing in physics - or indeed biology - that would account for the emission of light from the eyes, seeing as eyes are designed not to emit it but to absorb it.

Imagine how I feel, then, having devoted some time to explaining the evidence for ionic bonding to you, several times, only to have you come up now with this ridiculous turd about a hydrogen atom having a proton on one side and the electron on the other.

Now I begin to suspect you are trolling. Only an imbecile would genuinely think the hydrogen atom is a dipole with the proton on one side and the electron on the other.