KJW

Presumably, this means that sodium hydroxide should be added to the tartaric acid first, then potassium hydroxide. I've never seen the dissolution of sodium hydroxide in water be violent, although it does get quite hot. Perhaps adding water to powdered sodium hydroxide is violent, but who uses powdered sodium hydroxide (it's normally in pellet form). Perhaps the KOH (and NaOH) should be assayed by titration.

You could also use hot water. Hot water is better than warm water. 🤪

A difficulty with pool leaks is distinguishing between leaks and evaporation. In my case with a salt-water pool, I replaced the lost water with fresh water until the electrolytic chlorinator stopped full output, indicating a leak and not evaporation (salt doesn't evaporate).

Did you check the waste-water line from the filter (causing loss of water when the pump is on)? This was the first thing the professional checked.

I had a pool leak about a year ago. I called in a professional to locate and fix the leak(s). One of the things he did was to get in the pool under the water and place drops of dye near the places where the leak was most likely to be, carefully observing any movement of the dye that would indicate a leak.

For arbitrary function [math]\psi[/math], and [math]x^\alpha[/math] and [math]\dfrac{\partial}{\partial x^\beta}[/math] as operators: [math]\dfrac{\partial}{\partial x^\beta} \Big(x^\alpha \psi\Big) - x^\alpha \dfrac{\partial}{\partial x^\beta} \psi = \delta^\alpha_\beta\ \psi[/math] Thus: [math]x^\alpha[/math] and [math]\dfrac{\partial}{\partial x^\beta}[/math] are conjugate variables (operators) for [math]\alpha = \beta[/math]. Note that: [math]p_\gamma = -i \hbar \dfrac{\partial}{\partial x^\gamma}[/math] So that: [math][x^\alpha,p_\beta] = x^\alpha p_\beta - p_\beta x^\alpha = i \hbar\ \delta^\alpha_\beta[/math]

No, they are not.

You need to post something here that can be discussed without visiting an external website.

That's "un-American"! And I say "un-American" because I can't think of any other country that thinks like that. Yes, capitalism exists throughout the West, and conservative governments do push for privatisation, but this idea that any hint of socialism is thoroughly evil seems to me to be a uniquely American phenomenon.

I'll concede that point. On the other hand, you did say that "a clue should be the use of 'classical' in the name", indicating that it is obvious that the classical electron radius is not the actual size of the electron, and that it was not necessary to explicitly state this. However, I do think that the classical electron radius is in some sense an effective radius or size scale of a dressed electron. Where would one expect the size of an electron to appear in physics, anyway? It isn't as though the Bohr radius is used in physics that isn't about the size of atoms. The classical electron radius appears in non-relativistic Thomson scattering and the relativistic Klein–Nishina formula.

This may help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table

I'm not an American, so I can't answer this question. However, I did have a rather strong interest in this US election, more than any previous US election (and even more than the recent state election at home). Based on the information I was receiving, it seemed to me that Trump was going to win. Although the political commentators were saying the polls were within the margin of error, the polls were nevertheless pointing to a Trump victory. And many of the "ordinary folk" that I saw interviewed were saying that they were voting for Trump. But I'm no expert and certainly wouldn't have locked in a prediction. Watching the election results come in, it did seem like a foregone conclusion from the start.

The flaw with this is that elections are not random and therefore applying probability is not valid. Some elections are easy to predict the outcome, others not so easy. If some methodology correctly predicts easy elections but gets the hard ones wrong, then that methodology is really quite useless, regardless of how many easy elections are correctly predicted.

The way I see it, different people have different ideas about how their country should be run, and therefore it is not possible to please everyone, regardless of the political system. That's not to say that all political systems are equal in terms of benefiting the population. But to think that one can solve the problems inherent in political systems simply by providing more democracy is misguided due to the fundamental differences within the population. There is such a thing as "tyranny of the majority".

What you said (to which I replied) was that size doesn't apply to fundamental things like an electron, whereas the classical electron radius is a size that does apply to the electron. That it was derived using classical electrodynamics is beside the point. It is not being suggested that the classical electron radius is the actual radius of the electron, but in some sense, it is an "effective" radius of the electron and a physical constant that appears in theories where the size of the electron is relevant. Another size associated with the electron is the Bohr radius. Even though this was derived using an obsolete model, it remains as a physical constant that appears in modern theories regarding the size of an atom. See above. I didn't actually say that the classical electron radius is the actual size of the electron. I referred to a Wikipedia article that describes the classical electron radius as "a combination of fundamental physical quantities that define a length scale for problems involving an electron interacting with electromagnetic radiation".