StringJunky

Try posting here, in an involved way more often, and consciously think about how you are being received by the style and content of responses. Online writing gives you the opportunity to reflect and analyse recorded conversations you've had. This should, eventually, have a positive impact on your spoken dialogue with people. It's about learning to get a reciprocal flow going in exchanges with people, that seems to have its own momentum. Speak in such a way that it requires a response from the other person i.e. leave your spoken words open to be added to by them. Speaking in monosyllabic answers and closed sentences is very hard for the other person to keep adding to. Also, remember it takes two to Tango, so, it's not always your fault when conversation dries up.

...he says lifting up his belly.

In principle, you could have the same signal content going on the amplitude and frequency parts. AM is good for distance and FM is good for lower noise and quality, so, you could have a more seamless transmission/reception in a wider variety of terrains, environments and distances.

I think the steam would have to be superheated to force sufficient oxygen out but then you'd be cooked before you suffocated.

Common sense is not always right, so, it's always worth asking if you don't know.

The problem with emergent effects, like consciousness, is there's no real way to deduce the fundamental components that comprise it. I think I saw somewhere that emergence is equivalent to 2+2=5.

First question I would ask myself is: Am I of any possible interest to security sevices? The way you are writing is how an amphetamine addict thinks, when they've done too much; paranoia. Your mind is perfectly capable making things seem real when they are not.

I think the trick to facilitating evaporation, like JC said, is maximising the suface/volume ratio. Boiling point of cooking oil exceeds the melting point of Ammonium Nitrate, so, you'd definitely need thermostatic control for the oil temperature. It might be slower, using water. but it is easy and will likely suffice to satisfy the OP's curiosity and needs.

Intransigent sceptics as opposed to thoughtful sceptics.

Being emphatic improves the strength of ones argument... Duh! It's a bit unorthodox, but what's wrong with it?

Yes,.Cheers.

Yes, that's what I meant. A thought occurred to me though: presumably, the B.P. of Ammonium Nitrate solution is higher than that of water. Would a plain water bain-marie be hot enough to boil off the water in the solution?

Why? The water in the pan sets the maximum temperature.

Yes, that was my first thought until fiveworlds put me right.

TBH, I think fracking is literally scraping the barrel. If we look at it like that, as a visibly diminishing resource, should we not be thinking about using it only for things that can't be done by any other way? I think we have a responsibility to consider the material needs of those that are yet to be born, as well as climate change.

Right, thanks. Yep. Got it. Ta. MTW Gravitation is on my to-do-before-I-die list. Just got to beef up my maths... a touch.

IE11 spellchecks for me, in British as well.

Right, OK. I wondered if it was the surface because G is at minima in the centre, isn't it?

I'm using FF. I right-clicked in the text box and selected Add dictionary > British English. Sorted. Thank you.

I meant for in the SFN reply boxes. I don't know why, after 5 years posting here, but it's annoying me a bit now that it wants me to spell the US way.

It melts at 169.6oC and boils at 210oC, so, as long you keep the temperature about B.P. of water to evaporate it you should be left with the solid. Probably the safest way to do it would be to put that solution in suitable heat proof container and then put that in a larger pan of water, and then simmer it until the water has gone out of the solution. Make sure the boiling pan doesn't boil dry. This way, as long as the pan doesn't boil dry, the solution will never exceed 100oC and melt the ammonium nitrate.

It's excellent news. After centuries, coal mucking up the North, Londoners can now do their share.

Is there such an option somewhere?

So, you always use the centre, and not the outer boundary, for the starting calculations?

I don't know if this is a sensible question. but would the gravitational gradient be steeper around a denser object relative to another object of the same mass but lower density?