insane_alien

don't just give away the answer. this is part of the rules you agreed to when you signed up to these forums.

more catalyst just means more active sites which allows more reactants to adsorb to the surface and undergo reaction at the same time. this only really makes a difference in continuous processes. batch processes will be sped up by an ever decreasing amount(doubling the catalyst will not reduce reaction times by half)

then yes, it will be fine. you'll want to have some sort of temperature control on the heating element though because the heat transfer will be greater when you are whisking than if it is just lying on a work surface. a thermistor would do.

say you go up 1000km and fall. you would have a certain amount of kinetic energy. if you go up double the distance you will maybe only have 1.9 times the kinetic energy when you hit the ground. double the distance again and it is 2.7. at infinity you will have a finite energy when you hit the ground. these numbers in noway reflect the gravitational pull of earth, they are merely an example. the velocity gained from falling is asymptotic to the escape velocity. this is due to gravity following an inverse square law with distance.

as long as it never has to exceed 177*C

8. under the new internationally agreed upon definition of a planet, pluto doesn't qualify.

say your element puts out 100W of heat, it will do this whether insulated or not. all it means is that at equilibrium the core temperature will be higher. you could have 3 miles of insulation bout it will still put out the same 100W. also, ceramics can be good conductors of heat approaching that of metals. not only that but if the only purpose is electrical insulation then it doesn't need to be all that thick either. the thermal resistance will be low whatever you use, you just need to make sure it can withstand the temperature.

underground facilities don't mean the end of the world. can you tell us what you mean by OHE? also, all of the 'theories' about how the world will end have been disproven. my particular favourite in this are is the jupiter sized planet thats going to sneak up on earth. we would see it by now if it was coming for us.

no, the world will not end. nor will life on earth end. its all made up based on the fact that the mayan calendar ends in 2012. it really is quite silly.

rofl

well you could insulate the wires with another material(probably a ceramic) so that touching wires is not an issue.

they already exist http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F4059527%2F4059868%2F04059937.pdf&authDecision=-203 and to be classed as an inventor you actually have to build something new. not just think of something that already exists.

not completely irrelevant, useful in explaining the core concept of an idea in simpler terms to help somebody who is having great difficulty understanding it. it was never meant to be perfect.

i know, we are using the earth as an analogy to explain to you why it won't work. you do understand what an analogy is don't you?

no, because to do that you would need to leave space-time and that is impossible. if we think of the surface of the earth as space-time and you are an ant on the surface with noway to leave the surface then how can you compensate for the curvature of the earth? although in the ants case it is a technological problem. but in what you propose it is a reality problem

theories are not the same as facts. a fact is an observation, a theory isa proposition about how the phenomenon of the observations works.

so you saying if we just completely ignore reality and leave space behind as per your obviously over-simplistic view of topology and space-time then we'll encounter something with another side. i'm sorry but you really should read up on your science as you're making elementary mistakes.

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=lego+DNA&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=C2iJSqfFH5-NjAfawumiCw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4 there are some images you could base a design off of. doesn't look to hard to build.

DNA molecule made of LEGO?

there is no CO2 produced in the cooling cycle. the only place the CO2 can possibly come from is the generation of the electricity to drive the pump. this electricity likely comes from the main distribution grid and what actually produces this electricity depends a lot on where you live. if it was near me then it would come from either a nuclear power plant or one of the windfarms near here. and there would be no CO2 produced. if it was operating near a fossil fuel power plant then CO2 would be produced there. or if it was powered by a diesel generator then CO2 would be produced there. any reduction in CO2 production will come from the power source rather than the pump.

yep pretty much. and you did actually state that zinc was more reactive in your post it was the other guy who made the claim iron was more reactive.

no, using an HCFC coolant will not result inan emission of carbon dioxide. the coolant would be contained in a loop and not be discharged to the atmosphere. and even then there would be no CO2 unless you burned the hcfc which is a highly unlikely scenario as they tend not to burn. perhaps if you put it through a furnace but again, what would be the point? whithout further knowledge of the power source we cannot derive the CO2 ouput per kwh

a scroll compressor won't produce CO2 on its own. do you mean CO2 production from the power source or what?

what did you call me? yeah thats right.

the answer to yours is methane but your answer to mine is wrong. try again.