John Cuthber

Oops! the transfer is still DC. Does anyone know if the UK grid is synchronised with the rest of Europe? If not, that might have been part of the original reason for using DC.

Electrical power is traded between the UK and France- in spite of the fact that we use 50 Hz and they use 60. It's converted to DC for transmission under the channel. It has the side benefit of being more economical to do that for some cases (and this is one of them).

Even in terrestrial biology... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Such_Thing_as_a_Fish#Title

It seems that ashtrays can be made from glass. http://www.ebay.co.uk/bhp/glass-ashtray I doubt that's news to most people.

Stop making up excuses. There are lists of, for example, Nobel prize winners or students who graduate top of their class who can reasonably be assumed to be bright. Look to see if there is really a pattern in their dates of birth, or if it is just something you have imagined. Don't come back until you actually have some objective data. Once you have that there's a good chance someone here will help you analyse it.

Weight has one direction. We call it "down" Messages don't meaningfully have weight.

But plenty of the "fake news" stories are perfectly simple to verify. It's a matter of record that Obama spoke to the widows of those killed in action; the widows say so. His record is a series of lies like " “A reporter for Time magazine — and I have been on their cover 14 or 15 times. I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine.” (Trump was on the cover 11 times and Nixon appeared 55 times.)" Which are perfectly simple to check. So, Trump is known to tell lies- lots of them. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html In cases where it's his word against someone else, why do people believe Trump? I'd not trust him to tell me if it was raining

Solutions barely settle out.

Water. Perhaps with a little soap.

Is there anywhere where that's real, rather than a parody?

That's easy. You can make hydrogen from fossil fuel. C + 2 H2O --> 2 H2 + CO2 The plane doesn't make CO2 (the hydrogen factory makes it). The slight fly in the ointment is that the reaction also needs heat to drive it and that heat has to be supplied by burning additional fuel... Ammonia is one way to transport "hydrogen". Methanol is another. The fundamental problem is where do we get the energy from? As a chemist, if you supply me with energy, I can make just about any fuel you like from things like air, water and CO2.

By whom? After all, he is the president. Are you saying he's justified in lying, because some people will believe it and go on to do things that are bad for them (like the people who voted against their own healthcare funding? Wouldn't it be better if he- well- you know- kind of- told the truth? He's not even prepared to be honest about being honest. The fact that it's a very effective way to get power does not (even "to a point") justify outright lying.

By the time this thread runs out of steam the monkeys will have evolved into some species that writes its own literature.

It tells me that you can fool all of the people some of the time. It also suggests that Republicans are less aligned with the truth than the two other groups.

Is it only me who looked at the last diagrams and thought "Can I have a P please Bob?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbusters_(UK_game_show) Anyway, it's possible to stick things together like that, but how stable are they compared to the DNA we actually see? (especially once you tag the ribose and phosphate bits on them) Also, what if anything, does it achieve?

Will they put the river in jail if it drowns someone?

Yes, and, to do it, you have to feed a thousand times more power into the transformer. So what? You could achieve the same outcome by just connecting a lower resistance to the power supply. (I'd need to check, but I think it's a "square root of 1000" times smaller resistance.) The second option is almost certain to be cheaper.

This vid - showing the lack of smoke- is more intersting that the OP And it shows that rockets don't smoke

So has "Strange"- you need to change your name. Incidentally, as far as I can tell, the word is less often used in the UK- at least as an insult; I doubt it's used "formally" either.

Because it is a mathematical impossibility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem (I don't expect you to understand this, just recognise it for what it is: the proof that you are wrong.)

It doesn't get cheaper than free. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/retard

I looked at it. You are wrong if you think you will violate the conservation of energy. This will remain true, no matter what you write and who looks at it.

If it's a government run school and he's doing this as science homework, does that make him a "scientist working for a government organization on producing new energy sources for the planet" even if he's a teenage student and not very good at it (yet). However, such a description, though technically not "wrong" would be very misleading and thus very bad manners. Incidentally, in principle, gravity is a conservative field so you ought to be able to recover the energy of one satellite coming down, and use that to launch another one up. The principle is the same as using two lifts as counterweights for eachother.

The product in a toothbrush factory is still a toothbrush- even though it has never brushed any teeth.

If smoke was produced- and rocket most engines run far too cleanly to produce much- how would it accumulate in a vacuum? All Reerer has done here is demonstrate that he doesn't know enough to form a reasoned opinion on the matter. That's nothing to be embarrassed about. I'd not be able to form a reasoned opinion about most sporting events. The difference is that I have more sense than to post nonsense on sport discussion sites.