John Cuthber

To me it seems like a plant. They are quite good at it.

My comment was that we know why it is unfair and we should hold those who are responsible to account for destruction of fairness.

Russia had to announce the desire for peace. Think about that. One woman getting a job isn't significant, but this might be http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-assault-lgbtq-equality_us_58275a17e4b02d21bbc8ff9b Just not true http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-male-trump-supporter-punched-a-woman-eating-dinner-in-the-face_us_582b2c86e4b060adb5704c25 The Dow Jones reacted to the removal of uncertainty, that's not an endorsement of the president- just a sigh of relief that the fight is over. It was doing very nicely under Obama- I think it was 78 consecutive months of economic growth. Do you think Trump's going to match that? Again, one immigrant - especially one picked for her looks- getting a good job isn't a significant step in immigrant equality . So, it may be "jumping the shark" but the point is that the Hitler comparison is actually valid, and yours isn't. Did you think we wouldn't notice?

" To me creating chemical energy ATP and extracting Rubisco enzyme from plant does not seem like that hard of a work, but if it happens to be, you are free to point it out. " Consider it to be pointed out. This "ATP is essentially ADP+phosphate, " is like saying "timber is essentially ash + smoke ". To a degree, it's true (the atoms are the same) , but you can't make timber that way

Should we start with a morality course?

It's not just the enzyme you need to make ATP; where do you plan to get the energy from?

How did she get such a poor "brand" Was it that people who oppose her kept on lying? Nobody seems to have come up with anything she did that's as stupid as, for example Trump's wall, or as dishonest as his claim that he'd build it, followed by his retraction. How come Trump's "brand" survives the fact that he's currently due in court to face rape allegations? Is it related to the fact that, for example, Fox news the other day, described Trump's fellow racist nutter from he UK (Nigel Farage) as "the leader of the opposition"- even though he's actually the defunct leader of a party with no power? That "branding issue." has a reason- and the reason is election rigging by her opponents.

Well, first off, lets just remind you that you need to get to grips with your spurious accuracy problem http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93083-making-nitrocellulose/?p=904853 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95788-how-humans-discovered-the-use-of-metals/?p=926511 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87510-sulfuric-acid-in-ppm/?p=850221 And now, back to the topic in hand. Have you not noticed that electrolysis is different from fire? The fact that different sources give different answers should tell you a lot. What you are actually talking about is a high temperature reaction so the combustion energy is the right energy change to use. So you are right to say "286 kJ/mol (2.96 eV) is per H2not per H." and since we are talking bout the formation of a molecule of water which takes two hydrogens, two hydrogens is the right number of hydrogens to take. The reaction is well documented. The heat of combustion of hydrogen- as with many fuels- is well known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion So, why use the cell voltage from a completely unrealistic experiment when you can use the right, measured, value? And it doesn't help when you tell lies like this "According to your "explanation" what happened in this video would require temperature ~6600 C.." What I actually said was "The big reason for the explosion is that the vapour is created faster than it can escape- " that will happen a little bit above the boiling point of water- perhaps as high as 150C or something. Why are you pretending I said it would take 6600C? For what it's worth, that is roughly the temperature of a reversible hydrogen flame, which is what this daft idea of "the water gets cracked to hydrogen" is sort of related to. If you want to dissociate water by heating you need to get to a temperature in that ballpark. So what? That's not what happens (not least because it simply isn't hot enough). There's a more fundamental problem with the "it's so hot the water gets split into hydrogen and oxygen". That splitting reaction is enormously endothermic- it would cool the system down. And when they recombined, the gases would get back to exactly the same temperature they started from- what else could they do? It's the conservation of energy. BTW, this "To create free protons that could react with Oxygen you need just 1.23 eV/1.48 eV per single water molecule.." is also massively wrong unless you do the experiment under water. For example, dissociation of HO–H bond of a water molecule (H2O) requires 493.4 kJ/mol. The dissociation of the remaining hydroxyl radical requires 424.4 kJ/mol. The bond energy of the covalent O–H bonds in water is said to be 458.9 kJ/mol, the average of these values" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond-dissociation_energy Once you have split off teh hydrogen atom, you need to take the electron off it to get a proton. That takes about 13.6 electron volts of energy. Free protons don't get out much in chemistry.

It takes two to tango. In an atmosphere of hydrogen, oxygen is flammable.

The heat of combustion of hydrogen s about 286 KJ/mol corresponding to 2.96 eV which means thermite isn't anywhere near hot enough to seriously reverse the reaction. The standard electrode potentials for H2 and O2 are not relevant here, and so the "standard" cell potential for electrolysis is not the place to start. There may be some hydrogen created from the reaction of Al with water. The big reason for the explosion is that the vapour is created faster than it can escape- because the ice is in the way and the heat isn't dissipated by convection.

If you want to grow something small (unicellular) to make food, algae are much better bet.

It's important to recognise that the real problem with Trump is that he's a member of his party. The individual should hardly matter, so perhaps that's why they get chosen for their looks. Also, there's no clear evidence that Hillary is particularly untrustworthy, yet that's the perception. That suggests that someone is lying about her, and I'm guessing that's not the Democrats. The issue here is one of deliberate deceit.

Lots of people who were in pretty much equally sensitive positions were using the wrong servers. Hillary very clearly didn't cover for Bill. You seem to have missed the fact that he got caught. If she had been covering for him, she would have been prosecuted for perjury. And campaigning that women should be believed- at least to the extent that there is an investigation- is the right thing to do. So, you are calling her a hypocrite for saying something that's true, or are you saying they should not be believed? I'm sure Trump would love the latter option- maybe he will try to write it into law. Let's get back to the time of the attack A reasonable justification for saying that the attack was in response to a fil is that well... that's what the attackers said. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/14/four-media-reports-from-libya-that-linked-the-b/194073 What she actually said was "With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans! Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans?! What difference, at this point, does it make?! It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. " So if people took it to mean what you said, that's because they heard it out of context. I wonder how that happened. Given what she actually said, how do you justify this "Many Americans heard that as 'It worked, Obama won, so "what difference at this point does it make?"'. Well now she knows. " What does she now know?

To be fair, he doesn't need to use maths. Experimental evidence to show that the current theory is wrong would be just as valid. I'm not holding my breath.

I as just considering the fact that you can draw the line wherever you want. Also there have been stories of women being criticised for choices made before conception- the same criticism should be levelled at men; but it isn't. Why not?

Just a thought. If you say "such and such a politician is a crook" on a web page and a dozen people all post replies saying something like "no they are not"; "not as big a crook as ...." and " prove it", do youu consider that to be "ganging up", or do you recognise that it's just that lots of people who do not agree with you are all individually entitled to reply? Also, I may have missed something, but what did Hillary actually do that was so wrong? I know she used the wrong email servers- but so did lots of people. I know her husband couldn't keep his pants on, but that's not her responsibility. I know she was Secretary of State when the Benghazi attacks took place, but her record on that is still a whole lot better than others (Bush, for example) who have not been pilloried for it. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/ So, since you clearly think she's incompetent, perhaps you could explain what she did wrong

"In fact, there is no exact "closed form" expression for the value of this integral over an arbitrary range. " from Integrating The Bell Curve http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath045/kmath045.htm

Just a thought. It takes two to tango. Men's sperm quality- and thus the quality of life of their offspring- is affected by things like smoking, obesity and drinking. To be consistent about the ideas of "protecting the unborn" many or most men would have to live very different lifestyles. Does anyone see that getting enforced? If not, just how one-sided is this debate?

You say "Apparently is an odd function. I found out the long way finding the integral sums to zero" That's interesting. If I wanted to find if it was odd or even I'd split it into two parts. x and e^-x2 y=x is clearly an odd function. and y= e^-x2 is a well known function- give or take a scaling factor- it's the normal distribution and it's symmetrical so it's even Here's the important bit- the product of an even function and an odd function is always odd and that answers the question for you. But I'm more interested in the integration you did. There is no analytic form for the integral of the normal distribution- that's why there are lots of table for it, but you have integrated a very similar function and I'd like to know how.

Have you done any? Did they generate results that don't tally with the current model? If not you have nothing to shout about.

I'm in two minds about that. Sometimes it's when you learn the next thing, or the one after that, that the first lesson really makes sense.

Why wouldn't they? We have 9 pages of stories saying that most of what Trump said was run-of-the-mill for the Republicans anyway. Trump was just a bit less subtle about his biggotry

It seems they have swapped their mind for power.

Would you like to try again, but with an emphasis on making some sort of sense?

Since no meaningful wave function decays to exactly zero in a finite distance, an equally valid question is " can we really not touch anything?" Since we find ourselves equally unable to dismiss either of two contradictory points, maybe we should just write it off as "it depends on your definitions" and not waste a fifth page on this