John Cuthber

I presume he blames the Jews.

An inflated balloon is a vessel, and is under pressure. It is a pressure vessel. It falls outside the scope of the regulations for our discussion here because it is not work related. If you were using one at work (and you might- for example to store low pressure gas in a lab) then it would fall outside the regs because the pressure is (usually) too low. Your agreement or otherwise is subordinate to the evidence which shows that balloons are vessels under pressure. HSE has a view on kids playing conkers. And, as I said

The Pressure Vessel Regulations are regulations under the health + safety at work etc act 1974. Since that act only applies to people at work ( or those affected by such work) and the people blowing stuff up are not "at work" as defined in the act, the regulations don't apply. So, what you are saying is that balloons wouldn't be a pressure vessel if they were part of someone's occupation. Well, nobody said they were. So, not only were your comments irrelevant, they were also technically wrong. HSE also does not regulate children playing conkers.

If it walks like a duck... The views expressed by these "extremists" are the same as those expressed by the goddamned president. Those in power have always used censorship. Are you saying it doesn't work?

Thanks for taking the time + effort to research all of that. Beecee's post was still wrong. You seem not to have noticed that, while he said it was a quote, he didn't say from whom. Einstein said something similar- but since he got the grammar right that can't be who Beecee quoted. With all due respect to Einstein; he's dead. It doesn't matter exactly how he said it, or even if he didn't. I am reminded of my boss checking a report I wrote and commenting "this is very complicated". I pointed out that it was for a peer reviewed journal in analytical chemistry- not a "Janet and John" book. It was perfectly reasonable for me to assume considerable knowledge on the part of the reader. There's a difference between "I can explain this to a schoolkid" and "I must explain this as if a schoolkid is reading it"

Should be "as simply as possible". Which brings me to another issue. I know analytical chemistry quite well. But I can't explain it to the majority of people in the world. They don't understand English. Even some English people don't have the vocabulary needed to explain , say, relativity, without teaching them some new words. And then there's the maths, which some folk don't know.

It only takes one...

So, what are you waiting for?

There Is a pretty big difference in solubility. http://www.wiredchemist.com/chemistry/data/solubility-product-constants Why is anyone paying attention to the tables of data which relate to completely the wrong temperature? I'm far from convinced that all the Fe in the basalt is there as FeO rather than a silicate. There also seems to be a failure to understand the importance of the partial pressure of hydrogen. The only sensible way to find out would b by experiment

Homosexuality has been found in every species where it was looked for. Homophobia has only been observed in one species. Which one is "normal"?

If we deleted, for example, every reference to petrol bombs, how long would it be before someone "rediscovered" them? How long before someone realised that you could take the explosives from ammunition and repurpose it?

Because Fe(OH)3 is almost insoluble, the concentration of free Fe+++ is very small. It is precisely because the precipitation of nearly all the Fe+++ that this reaction is driven to the right, producing H2 2 Fe2+ + 2 H+ =>2 Fe3+ + H2

"is homosexuality unnatural?" No. Because it occurs in nature. "Can it be cured?" No. Because it is not an illness. Was there anything else, or can we just close the thread now?

If they don't agree with it, why are they so happy to be seen with her? Why has Trump not rushed to condemn her? And, meanwhile, back at the topic. I love the way that people think that "professional people" who know how to make bombs wouldn't use them . We have armies. The people in armies know (and have to know) how to kill people. So we have a large population of people who know how to kill people- by various means. Do you plan to lock them away to stop their knowledge getting out? Do you know that the same piss-poor arguments were used when Caxton invented the printing press?

And saying that a placard (which you never saw in real life) looks like it's the wrong colour is... a long way from scientific. Meanwhile, back at the topic. I worked with explosives. I needed to know how to make a bomb- if only to avoid doing it by accident.

What you believe will not influence the rocks. It's plausible, but I see a couple of factors. To get the reaction to take place at any useful rate you need to raise the temperature. That affects both the oxidation potential, and it's rate f change with pH. So the data you have simply don't apply. It's true that, with Ca(OH)2 you can just about get the pH to near 14. Ba(OH)2 might be a better bet. However, the only practical way to get the Ca(OH)2 is by heating limestone. And that generates CO2. So, does the energy recovered as H2 save CO2 overall, once you account for that?

Not sufficiently upset to be unable to distinguish killers from writers.

Would you like to expand on that? I thought everyone and their dog had a driving license in the US, apart from the very poor (who typically get deprived of voting rights by other means- as discussed)

Most of the world gets on just fine without the 24th amendment. But we usually have driving tests. I thought it applied to having to "pay to vote" and that other things like "being the right colour to vote" were covered elsewhere (14th + 15th?) . Of course, they often amounted to the same thing. BTW, it was passed, rather than past.

Yes we do. People with mental health problems are often not allowed to vote. People whose judgement is not good enough to drive safely don't get a license. It would be good if we got a bit more consistent about it.

Drinking + smoking typically cause much more harm to the individual than to those around them. We don't actually allow individuals the right to have sex. We allow them the right to seek consent from another. Again, it's not just one person's decision. (There's also the practicallity of stopping them). Driving isn't that complex in terms of decision making- we can pretty much get computers to do it. The issue isn't that driving's very difficult- we all know people who can barely read, write or string a sentence together, but can drive OK. We don't let kids do it because they don't fully understand the idea that other people are important too. In my view, at least part of the reason we don't let felons vote isn't "punitive", any more than we "punish" those with mental health problems by not letting them vote. It's just that we don't feel we can trust their judgement. If we know they can't tell right from wrong WRT criminality, why would we give them the choice to screw up right + wrong WRT government?

She is almost certainly correct. However, it's debatable if the vape heater gets that hot and cigarettes generate quite a lot of formaldehyde as well as lots of other toxic tary + trash. Vaping is the less bad option. I'd not call it "safe".

"The state" isn't denying them the right to vote. They did that to themselves. They didn't have to commit a crime, and they should have considered the consequences. If we are talking about people who are unable to consider the outcomes of their actions, I'm not sure we should let them vote anyway. That's (in part) why we don't let children vote. (And I say that, knowing that most people disenfranchised in this way would probably vote the same way I would)

You could, in principle, collect the data. You might even be able to "draw" it- with lots of colours on a 3D shape or something- but just think how many of them you would need. With a dozen solvents you need to record the data for 12 things. With pairs of solvents you have 72 to deal with. I'm not sure, but I think you get (12^3)/3 = 573 ternary mixtures and about 5000 quaternary ones. For each of those combinations you need to sample the behaviour at a reasonable number of points. For a binary mixture 10 or so is probably OK, (0% a,10%a, 20%a 30%a...and so on up to 100%a) for a ternary one I think you need something like 100 points on the surface to get a good indication of what happens. For ternary mixtures you need to consider 1000 and for quaternary ones it takes about 10,000 points to sample the search space. So, a book listing the properties of the mixtures of 12 solvents would need something like 50,000,000 experiments.And it would need something like 5000 pages showing an incomprehensible diagram. Good luck getting someone to do all that work.

It's unrealistic to try to calculate it. You would need to measure it. About the best you can say is mainly ethanol/ water, and not much heptane.