exchemist

Why don't we start by you engaging your brain and thinking about the fact that (i) there are numerous different types of fabric, (ii) there are these things called dyes and (iii) there are just one or two mechanical processes to convert raw materials into fabric and then fabric into clothes? After you've done that and can formulate a sensible question instead of a silly one, maybe it will be worth going to the trouble of answering it.

That's crazy. The whole world needs Li for EVs, never mind storage for a renewable-based power grid, where batteries are just one (partial) solution.

Yes, I think the UK would do better to target the help at lower income groups and use a windfall tax of wider scope to help fund it. At present it is not only the fossil fuel companies that are making money way in excess of what their investment plans were based on, but also the electricity generators that do not use fossil fuel (renewables, nuclear), because the market price for electricity is set by the gas-based generators. I have read in the FT that some of the renewable operators would actually welcome moving to a different pricing system that gave them more predictable revenues, even if they would make less money at a time of shortage like the present. A more constant revenue stream removes risk, and risk always costs a premium when it comes to business investment, as well as reducing the number of interested participants. Truss is trying to be a papier mâché Thatcher wannabe, to follow the papier mâché Churchill wannabe that we have just got rid of. But that's decades out of date. I think fuel prices and electricity bills are already high enough to make everyone want to economise and think about alternatives. Going even higher would for some people mean dying of cold or starving. So targeted government help, at least, seems unavoidable to me.

Yes, I read an article in the Financial Times this week by Fatih Birol, the (very experienced) head of the International Energy Agency, in which he described the notion that the renewables push is responsible for high energy prices as "absurd". The high prices are of course due to the war in Ukraine, and both Russia and the EU's reaction to that. Also, OPEC has refused to fill the gap in fossil fuel supply, no doubt realising that the world is moving away from fossil fuel and they might as well get as much for it as they can, while they can. High energy prices should be accelerating the move to renewables. Anyone who thinks the answer is to carry on relying on fossil fuel at these prices, which OPEC shows every sign of wanting to maintain, is an idiot. Regarding Australia, it is sitting on much of the world's supply of lithium, which is vital for batteries and hence will be a strategically critical resource in years to come. I should have thought Australia's mining industry should be transitioning to that, away from coal, at top speed, to secure export revenues for the coming decades. At the moment, China does all the processing of Li. Not great, strategically : they could be the next Russia. Maybe Australia should take a look at Li processing, i.e. a spot of vertical integration. They'd have plenty of support for that from the rest of the world, I'm sure. Could probably charge a premium for the added security of supply.

But that is fainting, not headaches.

Ballocks. Participles belong to verbs. There is no verb to intricate, or to be intricated.

No idea whatsoever.

If the solution is clear, i.e. not turbid, then the sugar is fully dissolved. But you raise a nice point. If the g/l figure you have been given was determined as the mass of sugar that was added to a known volume of pure water, when the solution was made up, then you can use the density of water. If it is the mass of sugar per unit volume of solution, then you will need to use the density of the solution. So you will have to get out a hydrometer to measure that, I suppose. Can you determine on which basis the g/l figure is derived?

True, but Bozo lying to the Queen was one of the black marks that ultimately led to him being branded a serial liar - which got him chucked out as leader by his own party. It went down very badly with a lot of people.

I told you that. A few atomic radii in.

Combustion by definition involves oxygen, but this can be in the form of an oxygenated compound, e.g. NH4NO3, or even internally within the molecule, e.g. nitroglycerine. There are various solid propellant systems for rockets that use these principles. But all of them need to be ignited, i.e. initial energy has to be supplied to start the reaction off. I can't think, offhand, of two solids that spontaneously inflame when brought into contact, though. One problem is that solids can only form a contact along a surface, limiting the extent of reaction. One would probably have to pulverise one or both to increase the surface area.

Oh I think the monarchy will last. It would take a revolution to get rid of it and we're not going to do that unless we get a really bad monarch at some point. As for the role of the monarchy, the more I look at recent US politics the more value I see in separating the roles of head of state and head of government. Many republics in fact do this, not just the (fairly numerous) monarchies of Europe. Even a merely ceremonial head of state provides an alternative centre of power to the that of the government: power based on national psychology and personal loyalty. That division of power is a good thing in my view. We can (and often do) despise the various heads of government and the political factions that come and go under our democratic process, but the king or queen sits above all that and can provide continuity and a focus of unity for the country. When I contemplate the Trump years in the USA, I think our constitutional monarchy may not be such a bad system after all. The challenge Charles III faces is modernising the monarchy in a way that enables it to continue to command respect and loyalty from British citizens. I think he may be quite a good king, but he won't have long to make his mark, as he's already in his 70s.

You had already found the British Common Cold Study according your very first post. So now you "thank" @studiot for drawing your attention to something you are already aware of? And you still can't be bothered to follow up for yourself any of the associated references.

They are. And you have been told where to find this scholarship. So go and look it up and stop wasting our time.

Not robbery, certainly, as you don't seem to have offered anything of value. What I would suggest is radically altering your style of communication: cut out all this useless verbiage and circumlocution, and learn how to summarise ideas succinctly. Doing this may be challenging, but the process will help you get your own thoughts and ideas in order. Get to the point quickly, and stick to it. At the moment you seem to be in a huge muddle. My experience is that people that use a lot of words generally are less insightful, and produce work of less value, than those who are able to express themselves in a concise and focused way. I find, myself, that trying to set down my ideas concisely in print is a good way to make sure I have thought the subject through properly. The other thing you can usefully do is control your ego. You have failed lamentably to express your ideas clearly on this forum, and when people's patience wears thin, you assume it is we who are the idiots, rather than you, and resort to insults. We will draw our own conclusions from that. Nobody owes you a hearing. It is you that needs to convince others that you have something worthwhile to say and show that you can have a civil discussion about it. Unless you are happy to talk only to yourself, of course.

Seeing that skin is chemically speaking a highly complex system, with many hundreds of chemical species, I think it is quite likely that a few atoms or molecules may detach and adhere to the surface of whatever we touch. Also, the water and oil in skin secretions may well dissolve a few atoms or molecules of the object we touch and transfer them to the surface of our skin. The surfaces of substances tend to be less chemically stable than the interior, due to the atoms being incompletely surrounded and thus having unsatisfied valences. So adsorption on surfaces is quite common. But as @StringJunkysays, penetration to any significant depth, i.e. more than a few atomic radii in, is likely to be zero or close to it, except in particular cases.

So this is just an uninformed speculation on your part, then? That's fair enough, but you did put this thread in Biology, in the form of an actual science question. In science, you can't just make stuff up. You can have a wild idea of course, but them you need to support it with evidence, from actual observation of nature. There does not seem to be any evidence that quantum phenomena play a role in neural processes. The last people that went down this road were Hameroff and Penrose, with Orch OR, which in the end went nowhere (i.e. it made predictions that were not borne out by observation).

It’s not “a fundamental issue”. Other people don’t share your preoccupation with this obscure topic. You’ve been given specific references to look up but for some reason you won’t follow them up, as you would if you were genuinely interested. I also notice you have not answered my question about what research you are doing on terrain theory. I’m beginning to wonder if you are posting in good faith, or if you have some undisclosed crank agenda.

OK, I'm now intrigued. How will these studies help you research "Terrain Theory", a.k.a. germ theory denialism? What is there to research, apart from the psychology of the people who affect to believe in it?

No this is incorrect. The ke of electrons in atoms is consistent with a speed <c. In fact, the explanation for the colour of gold is that, with very high nuclear charge in heavy atoms, the notional speed becomes a significant fraction of c, requiring a relativistic correction to the orbital energies. But still <c, obviously. More details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_chemistry So I'm not very interested in your idea, I'm afraid.

This is interesting (especially to some like me with some background in oil chemistry). However as far as a I can see it is not an example of a reaction that is accelerated by a drop in temperature. As far as I can recall, it isn't possible for a chemical reaction rate to increase with a fall in temperature. Reaction rate is governed by the Arrhenius equation: k = A exp(-E/kT) in which E is the activation energy for the reaction. The only way you can get a -ve temperature dependence is if E is -ve. But if that were so, instead of an activation energy you would have an energy minimum at the transition state, so that would be a new stable compound and the reaction would stop there, with the rate being diffusion limited (effectively a zero activation energy). But since the rate of diffusion also increases with temperature, even then it would go faster as the temperature increases. However there are plenty of examples where the thermodynamics are favoured by low temperature. A famous example is the Haber process for ammonia synthesis. The reaction is N2 + 3H2 <->2NH3. The free energy change for this is -ve, making the right hand (ammonia) side favoured at room temperature. However the rate is extremely slow as almost none of the molecules have enough energy to break the N-N triple bond. Raising the temperature overcomes that and speeds it up, BUT that shifts the equilibrium towards the left, so there is less tendency to form ammonia. So to get over that problem, 2 things are done. One is to use a catalyst that makes it easier to break the N-N bond (lowering the activation energy) so not such a high temperature is needed. The other is to increase the pressure, which favours the right hand side because 4 molecules are replaced by only 2.

One meaning of the verb "compromise" is to risk impairing.

I was just trying to offer you a bit of support, actually.

Didn’t Sartre speak of Man being “condemned to be free”? He was using oxymoron, but perhaps our poster is, too.

I've never heard of that. Do you mean terrain theory, the ideas of that crank (and jailbird) Robert O Young, and all that?