exchemist

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.

Oh sure. Some of my best friends are................😁 I don't suggest - of course - that all electrical engineers are cranks, that would be absurd. In fact one of the best contributors on another forum I belong to is one. It is merely that science forum cranks are often, in my experience, electrical engineers. As to why, I have a hypothesis, but it is just speculation.

And the electrons liberated by the photoelectric effect go where, then? Either they attach to molecules in the air, forming anions, or they drop back into the substance they came from, in which case they don't help explain where your extra grounded electrons go.

But the electrons don't disappear even then. They convert some of the atoms and molecules in the earth to anions, that's all. But I see, depressingly, that you are yourself an electrical engineer. I seem always to be coming across electrical engineers on these forums with crank ideas about science. My heart sinks now when I learn some poster is an electrical engineer, because I wonder what nonsense may be coming. This ballocks of yours about there being no -ve ions is a vintage example of the genre.

How would it work for NaCl, then? What direction(s) would the bonds go in? Would you have diatomic molecules of Na-Cl? Ot a giant covalent structure like quartz or diamond? How would it dissolve in water? How would the solution conduct electricity and release chlorine at the anode? How could there be a covalent bond if there is no electron density between Na and Cl?

Crikey, looks like the Ed 209 from Robocop. "Just a glitch, Sir!"

Ah yes of course, it is the charge that causes the condensation.

Well, it's great that you are willing to learn, at least. As for experiments detecting -ve ions, I've already mentioned several pieces of evidence for ionic bonding in my previous post. One of the most simple, perhaps, is the production of the element at the anode of an electrochemical cell. If you dissolve common salt in water and electrolyse it with a torch battery, you can smell the chlorine gas evolved at the anode (the +ve electrode). This is evidence that Cl⁻ ions are present, which are neutralised by giving up an electron to the electrode, to form elemental chlorine. You can't do this with a covalently bonded compound. Secondly, Cl forms a single covalent bond in a wide range of compounds. (It can occasionally form covalent compounds with 3, 5 or 7 bonds, by bringing its 3d orbitals into play, but these compounds tend to be unstable or highly reactive.) However if you look at X-ray diffraction models of NaCl - which is highly stable of course - you will see that each chlorine "atom" is surrounded by 6 Na ions in an octahedral arrangement. And if you look at caesium chloride it is 8-coordinate. This does not correspond to any covalent bonding scheme for Cl. So the bonding must be non-directional, unlike covalent bonding. Thirdly, if you get an electron density map for these compounds, the electron density is a minimum between Cl and Na. This is in contrast to covalent bonding, where the electron density is especially high along the direction of the bonds. So it must be electrostatic in nature. Fourthly, metal chlorides are generally very soluble in polar solvents such as water. This is because the partial +ve charge on the hydrogen atoms can stabilise the -ve charge on the chloride ion (the part -ve charge on the oxygen atom does the same for the Na ion), enabling these compounds to dissolve readily in water, in spite of the strength of the bonding in the solid (as shown by the high melting point).