John Cuthber

One simple approach is that the food we eat is combined with oxygen to produce energy. The plants get energy from the Sun + make oxygen and "food". We get through something like 2400 Calories a day. That's roughly 100 Watts. So the plants need to get at least 100 Watts to be able to provide us with O2 (and, coincidentally, food). The Sun provides something like 1000 Watts per square metre so, it looks like you need to stuff a tenth of a square meter of "plant filled solar panel" up your nose to provide the energy and O2. But, for a start the reaction's nothing like 100% efficient. " results in an overall photosynthetic efficiency of 3 to 6% of total solar radiation" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency Call it 5% efficient- you now need two square meters- that's pretty big unbrella. And most of us spend most of our time indoors where the light levels are much lower. That's another factor of 10 or 100. And then there's night- time which, at best, halves the energy you can get. So, you can see why (as pointed out before) you need roughly a tree's worth of greenery to supply you with oxygen. Good luck sticking it up your nose.

He said N Korea was bad and he said N Korea was good. It's likely that one of those is right.

In what (if any) language do you solve a Rubik's cube? If you need a language to think in, how do you learn a first language?

Isn't that a bit like giving away who the murderer was in a mystery story?

Why?

OK, When you form a molecule of chlorophyll from atoms of Mg, H, C, and N, the "electron shells" of the individual atoms link up to form molecular orbitals. These have energy levels in much the same way as those of atoms but generally with more complex patterns of absorption and emission. In particular those of chlorophyll absorb red light and blue light. Fig 1 here http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/local/projects/steer/chloro.htm shows a graph of the percentage of light absorbed vs wavelength. (the details of the spectrum depend on the solvent, concentration, and so on, but the idea is the same. To a rough approximation you can say that a leaf is made of cellulose, water and chlorophyll. Water is colourless- it doesn't (significantly) absorb visible light over a distance as small as the thickness of a leaf. Cellulose- the stuff cotton and paper are made of also don't absorb much visible light, but the light is bounced off the surface to some extent. So, if you stripped the chlorophyll out of a leaf it would look a bit like wet paper. It's grey. If you hold it up to the light, some light gets through. On the other hand, some is reflected. Now imagine putting the chlorophyll back. Well, the green light in sunlight isn't absorbed by the chlorophyll so it's partly reflected and partly transmitted- just like before. But the red light and blue light are absorbed by the chlorophyll. So, only the green light is either reflected or transmitted. That's why leaves look green.

Thanks for confirming that I was right. You do not know what you are talking about. Go and learn. Here's a start https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_orbital Magnesium glycinate contains the same types of atoms as are present in chlorophyll. But it is white. So it is clear that the colours of compounds don't come from atoms. What you found in the CRC book is the emission spectrum of the O++ ion which does not exist in any chemical compound. The header in the book tells you what the I, II III etc signify. It's just that you are too lazy to read.

I suggest that you learn some science and some humility. The atoms in chlorophyll are carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, magnesium and hydrogen. None of those is green. So looking at it on an atomic level you would think that chlorophyll isn't green. But it is. So, that way of looking at it is obviously the wrong way to look at it. So, your viewpoint is obviously wrong. I suggest that you change it.

If it had a short i then it shod be spelled with a double p: trippod However, English has more exceptions than rules.

Occasionally, the energy absorbed by chlorophyll is re-emitted as red light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophyll_fluorescence Obviously, in a leaf the whole point is that the energy goes into converting carbon dioxide and water into sugars and oxygen. So leaves don't fluoresce well.

So does a forum full of drossy posts,

If you try breathing it, you will rapidly find that it is a 2100% difference. Corrosion rates will behave like your lungs in those terms.

Who cares? The point is that you can only choose what's on offer.

It rather depends on what product you extracted.

What if you choose to use nitrogen, but the service station doesn't have it?

You start to teach kids the fundamentals of finance when you say to a 2 year old that their food is "all gone".

https://xkcd.com/285/ Also, re. "Race and IQ" You will need to start by defining race and iltelligence.

Samantha's choice of vocabulary might be condemned, but her point is valid (Ivanka's outlook on life leaves much to be desired). Rosanne's choice of language may be better calculated, but the underlying assertion is false (I didn't bother to check exactly what she said, but racist claims are unsupported in reality. Essentially, the liar got sacked. Is that a problem?

Maybe this? https://eurovacuum.eu/oil-grease/turbo-pump-oil/

No.

There's also the simple "with a belly full of water there's less room for food" effect.

You need to be careful about scaling up reactions.

I'm fairly sure that the end of a dream- vivid or otherwise would be a consequence of the death of the dreamer, rather than the other way round.

I just wonder how the OP (and his kids) stand on the issue of tomatoes.