John Cuthber

It is easy. Why not? You can heat the dead vegetation is some sort of container. Volatile material- mainly water but lots of other stuff will come off. Cool that and let the water + tar condense + then use the tar etc for fire the furnace. Even if you need to use some of the charcoal as fuel you can still get net carbon capture. This was done on a large scale with coal; why not with scrubby vegetation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas

When you have finished reading the solubility curves etc there still will not be any borax in salt.

You seem to be missing an understanding of the procedure. Almond oil isn't volatile enough to steam distil. Rose oil is volatile and will distil, but there isn't much of it so, unless you have a lot of roses, you are not going to see the oil- you should be able to smell it. From wiki "It takes a large amount of rose petals to distil a small amount of essential oil. Depending on extraction method and plant species, the typical yield can be approximately 1:3,000" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_oil To get a gram of oil you need about 3 kilos of petals.

And a string of 100 lights would need 3000 wires.

Not really. Burning sugar gives (ideally) carbon dioxide and water. The reaction with sulphuric acid gives carbon and water. In principle, growing plants, extracting sugar and then dehydrating it with acid to carbon would remove CO2 from the air. But it's more practical to grow plants and make them into charcoal.

It would be easy enough to hold the wire up with a helium balloon, but there's just not enough power to make it worthwhile.

The usual answer is called "differential pumping" Essentially you have a box between the vacuum system and the gas system connected to a big vacuum pump. Gas leaks into it from the gas chamber, but it's pumped out before it reaches the vacuum chamber.

I think you have the arithmetic wrong. You would need 3000 wires to light the Xmas tree.

If you blow air through petrol then at least some of it will evaporate. In order to do so, the molecules must be separated from the liquid and that takes energy. In the absence of any other energy source the energy will be taken from the thermal energy of the material- and it will get cold. After a while, it will be so cold that very little evaporates and so there will not be enough to run the engine. Providing heat from somewhere- like the exhaust manifold- would help. The problem would be controlling the temperature. The "lead" in the petrol isn't going to make much difference here. Incidentally, there's a difference between petroleum and petrol (also known as "petroleum spirit" or gasoline). Petroleum is crude oil and you couldn't really run an internal combustion engine on it.

If I have three objects, for example a red ball, a blue ball and a green ball, there are 3! ways I can arrange them. RGB RBG BRG BGR GBR GRB With just two objects there are 2! ways RG GR And with 1 object there's only 1! way to arrange it G There's only 1 way to arrange zero objects And that's why 0! =1 It's adopted as a convention so the maths gives sensible answers for things like probability.

Hi. You just met another one. I can't help wondering how you judge the intentions of the atheists you have met- especially in the light of your apparent failure to listen to people. Could you explain that for me please?

As far as I can tell that only ever came from you... Can you cite some other source?

You have got those answers, but are doing your best to ignore them. Why do you do that?

That's easy to deal with. Put the "second Earth" above the North or South pole. Obviously, that's going to screw up the Earth's orbit and so on. But, since this thread is in cloud cuckoo land already, that hardly matters. This is a rather odd example of a general problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point

Er... No. All the phase information would be lost for a start, and, of course, the light gets emitted in pretty much random directions. it would be like looking through fog- you could tell what colour things were, but that's about all

The next World Cup is sooner than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_World_Cup_of_Golf

sillage siːˈjɑːʒ/ noun the degree to which a perfume's fragrance lingers in the air when worn. "neither scent has a very strong sillage" If I was looking for some way to spread the smell of coconut, I'd look at the things they use to add scent to electronic cigarette liquids (without the nicotine- of course). This sort of thing https://www.specialingredients.co.uk/coconut-flavour-drop-30ml-2?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlci-zZi33AIV6b3tCh1W_w_UEAYYASABEgKAZfD_BwE

It "sticks" for a very short time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_phase_change And while it is too quick to see the effect of rotation on reflection, you can see it in other transitions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence_anisotropy

It's possible that mechanical damage caused by the bubbles is at least part of the issue. All the gold leaf I have seen was (practically) 24 carat. Adding any impurity makes it much harder to form into such thin sheets.

Yes, but it might not actually do the job. It's not a linguistic problem.

If you use tools with non-porous surfaces- glass, metal, plastic- then they are much easier to clean and can be sterilised with ordinary bleach.

Two minutes with google; not strictly Olympic, but World championships gold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detlef_Michel

In all 3 languages I tried? Do you have any evidence for that? (And I'd like to know what happens in any other languages people can check)

And...

An image search for "Trotter" (I gather that' s roughly the German for "moron") gives 3 pictures of Trump in the first 10 hits. There's a few pictures of Trump in the first page of hits for "imbécile". I'm not sure it's a joke. It would be if someone had "rigged" google to do this, but it's just a fact.