insane_alien

the only way that holds true if the environment is 100% oxygen, which it won't be even if you are feeding oxygen from a cylinder into the enclosure unless the flowrate is much larger than it needs to be which is going to waste oxygen, and then the only way you can get a low concentration of oxygen is to use a vacuum pump. even a normal concentration of oxygen would require the use of one.

exactly, you are assuming it can't be coincidence. even through mars and jupiter do not follow any 'harmony'. this is numerology. search hard enough for a pattern and you'll find one. there are so many numerical properties associated with the planets that you're likely to find some that match up to other unrelated things. and the ratios are unlikely to be exactly on the harmonic, this is probably handily ignored or considered 'close enough' even if it would sound terrible if played on an instrument.

are you sure it wasn't this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_10 that gave you the idea. i don't know if it specifically mentioned nanobots as the mechanism (it was my wee brother who watched it, not me) but the rest is pretty damn similar.

likely just to rinse off the majority of the remaining solution so the copper is clean when it comes out. the lower heat of evapouration and greater vapour pressure of acetone and ethanol would also allow quicker drying.

pity no-one told delisle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delisle_scale

openoffice calc can do this if the cells containing the times are formatted as containing a time. i imagine excel should do this too, if it can't then it isn't really much of a spreadsheet program as they are commonly used to contain and calculate time based data. try looking in the help.

nobody was saying they were going to give guns to students.

warmest in a century could mean just exactly that. it was the warmest year in a century. thats what i'd take it to mean. just like when they says its the worst storm in a century or whatever. you arguements all come down to perception, this does not affect the science in the slightest. go to the politics forum if you want to discuss the political aspects please.

political reasons are irrelevant to the science. if you want to discuss the politics of climate change then go over to the politics forum, if you want to remain here then take a scientific viewpoint and forget the damn politics.

jryan, you seem to be assuming that the people who study this are completely clueless when it comes to analysing data. they do not think of it in terms of 'hot' and 'cold' but 'hotter' and 'colder' this is evidenced by the fact they work on a relative scale. changing the zero point would not change the conclusions. as for warmest in a century, thats absolute. if its warmer than the previous 100 years then it is the warmest in a century regardless of what came before that. to say otherwise is to be just plain wrong. either you have a poor knowledge of data analysis or you've muddled yourself up by changing the meaning of many common phrases that you think everyone else mst be muddled up too.

you still don't get it, it doesn't matter where the zero point is. what happened was we had a long period of stable temperatures and they are now rising significantly. you are taking relative measurements as absolute measurements. this is just wrong. to give you an example of how wrong this is, is 300K warmer than 27*C ? they use the same relative stepping, but different zeros. they are exactly the same. changing the zero points does not cahnge the conclusions drawn from the climate data, to say otherwise is either foolish or demonstrating a poor understanding of data analysis. EDIT: i just had a brainwave that may explain your behaviour. Do you think that 'anomaly' means the difference in temperature between one year and the year before it? if so then that is wrong. the anomaly value means that the global average temperature was hotter or colder by the anomaly value than the average. a year with anomaly -0.2*C was 0.2*C colder than the zero point whether it was in 1850 or 1050

wow, i didn't realise the daily mail was so bad that even yanks new its was full of bovine excrement. yeah, it doesn't rate much more than the national enquirer on the scale of scientific accuracy. and thats only because the 'aliens stole my baby' stories aren't on the front page.

1961-1991 had good temperature records. so they averaged them and set that as a baseline. the reference point doesn't really matter in particular, they could use absolute zero if they wanted to. and where are you getting 1100 years from? the other graph covers a span of 1000(with 2004 tacked on the end) years. i have to think that you're not really reading what you yourself are posting.

the zero point on that graph is taken as the average temperature from 1961 to 1991. if you are going to talk about the area with positive values and negative vaules the nyou can only consider the points within that time frame, outside that the analysis is invalid. this is merely to be taken as a reference point for the temperature anomaly, they needed a zero value and that was a handy timeframe where accurate data was available. do you understand now? i said 100 years. not 1000. this is waht happens when two graphs representing the same thing (temperature with time)use the same reference point, they agree with each other. funny that. EDIT: i just seen that sherlock got my point so i obviously wasn't being too cryptic there.

19+/- 2 *10^ 18 years according to wiki.

you are making the same mistake. the anomaly is with reference to a specific year, not an average. the average on the graph is a running five year average and is represented by the red line. if an average had actually been chosen... if you take off the last 70 years you need to calculate the new average. i thought this was self evident. obviously not. again, it isn't an average. its based on a reference point.

because you don't understand how averages work? if you lop off the last century the average temperature over the course of a century is on the flatish bit of the graph. not that the scale on the y axis represents above/below averages. it represents the difference between that year and a reference year. use the graphs right, if you don't it just takes the wind out of your arguement and gives the impression you don't really know what you're talking about.

electric, in a fusion reactor you only have a few GRAMS of fuel in the chamber. not kilograms. and while it is very hot, there isn't much heat(dues to the low mass of burning plasma) so it twill be covered by evapouration of the reactor walls when containment is lost.

yes its possible to hypnotise someone, although it does require them to be willing. if you don't want to be hypnotised then you won't be. its just a way of putting someone in a relaxed trance-like state. there isn't really anything magical about it and there are a lot of myths about it.

under normal circumstances, you can probably get it down to 0.1 angstrom or so, for fusion you need something like 0.0001 angstrom. i don't know the actual numbers but its going to be on that sort of scale.

you were given warnings. you didn't heed them. you got banned till you cooled off a bit.

95 degree? bye bye yeast, or are you using an archaic form of temperature scale?

you aren't currently banned. there isn't anyone on the banlist just now.

because the part that is several million K above the surface is very very diffuse. its very hot but doesn't contain much heat. sunspots are denser and cooler because the heat flux into them is slowed by the magnetic field lessening convection currents in the plasma. they still glow brighter than an electric arc, but still dimmer than the rest of the surface.

plasma confinement is hard. not to mention the extreme heat and neutron fluxes make material choice very limited. its also really hard to build small test-scale fusion reactors, the bigger the easier, but also the more investment you need. the high pressures and temperatures are necessary because you need the nuclei to get really really close when they collide. this means they need to be moving FAST. and fast moving atoms is the definition of high temperature.