insane_alien

yeah. do you know which rule tells you how to figure it out?

ahhh. it wants to know whether 1-bromopropane or 2-bromopropane will be most abundant amoung the products of the reaction.

jonourd, declining birth rate does not equal no birth rate. as long as there are some births there will be a long term.

used to but i no longer have a sufficiently powerful machine that doesn't consume a metric assload of power to do precicely bog all with it. and i'm trying to power my computers independantly of the mains. so far i can get the laptop going 24/7(average load, not full load) but the PC can only be used for a couple of hours.

more specifically, the lid expands more than the jar which makes it looser.

more specifically, the lid expands more than the jar which makes it looser.

usually when i see that phrase it is talking about to simultaneous competeing reactions and wants to know which reaction is favoured. i would need to see the context to be sure as it could conceivable apply to equilibria as well.

you've got a sign wrong somewhere the x^3's should cancel.

simple. longer life is a result of medical advances. medical advances are a result of technological and scientific advances. the technological advances are also the cause of the increased number of complex electromagnetic fields as we have used electromagnetism as the most conveinient form of communication. corelation does not equal causation.

so, your saying that this lab produced sugar i have here that has never contacted a living thing won't make me hyper if i eat it?

that is pretty much the phrase that is common to all 'iron sun' theories. your right in that sometimes it is not iron. they spout but 99.99% of the time it is. and remember it is not just NASA analysing the data it is every astorphysicist who has an interest in the sun. if there was something they missed that involved a solid layer of the sun and was real some lucky guy would have picked up a nobel prixe for it already.

yet again you spout wild speculation as if it were a fact known and acepted for thousands of years like 'things fall down'

wait, you want to make ammonia(i assume from the thread title) but you want to make it by starting off with ammonia and turning it into something different? what? i really can't make sense of this. what exactly is it that you want to do?

Fraud investigation perhaps?

okay, seeing as you are in highschool, you'll probably want to keep it simple. which means your not going to be playing about with anything combustible enough to make a rocket. especially not a liquid fuel. i think that you would be better going for the water rocket approach and experiment on what gives better performance. like pressure in the bottle and amount of water in the bottle. i don't know your math level but if you have done a bit of calculus it should be fairly easy to derive some of the more simple equations of rocketry as they apply equally to water rockets and saturn V's it may not be as exciting as building a rocket from scratch but it'll be safer for you and not illegal. as long as you do a proper investigation on the thing it should be fine. and remember, its okay if it 'accidentally' falls over on lift off and soaks your teacher

well i think the reactions effectiveness will be measured in terms of how much TiCl4 is created out of an amount of TiO2 so either carbon or chlorine would be in excess. C is both cheaper and less dangerous than the Cl so it would make sense to bump up the amount of C. an excess of Cl2 might also result in unwanted side reactions as it is so reactive as well.

yep. power released at the core is equal to the power radiated at the surface as well as the power of the particle emissions.

john, basic equilibrium chemistry, increase on of the reactants to excess and you will force the equilibrium to favour the products. can't for the life of me remember the name it is given. i keep thinking hess's law but thats for reaction pathways.

yeah but humans aren't particularly conductive so inductive potential will be minimal. we can survive EMP's easily which are exactly that.

not going to have any effect on you if you stand next to them. though it might get a bit chilly with all the liquid N2 around. oh and if you had a pacemaker it probably wouldn't be very good for you(but that is a result of magnetic forces acting on the pacemaker and not you)

why couldn't it keep on chugging for a few thousand million years. a volume the size of mars with only a few million tonnes being used up every second is going to last a fair bit of time. especially since the density is somewhere around 150 times that of water. i think it is that you just haven't comprehended the vast quantities of energy and matter present. eventually, the sun will go to helium fusion but that will be when it explodes.

i appear to be a communist libertarian. not sure if thats a good thing or not.-8.-8 though some questions i didn't understand and the lack of a 'no opinion' button influenced my descisions somewhat. some of the questions i neither agreed with nor disagreed with.

note to anyone who may be reading this, there is no significant evidence that magnetic fields have anything but themost minor effects on the body. this is why we can stand next to an MRI machine with no effects whatsoever despite a field millions of times stronger than the earths. magnetic fields start becoming a problem at higher field strengths because of the diamagnetic effect which is present in all substances. beyond that it will rip your body appart. appart from these known physical effects there is no known biological effect, at all.

what makes you think the speed of fusion in stars is slow? there is a volume about the size of mars where it happens in our sun and a couple of million tonnes of hydrogen fuses every second. that releases a LOT of energy. the tzar bomba came close to 1% of this output for a few nanoseconds. it is by far enough to keep the sun shining.

well zule, your interpretation would appear to be right from a linguistical(to do with language) though it doesn't make any sort of sense from a physical point of view.