John Cuthber

OK, so it makes sense to calibrate with a silicate matrix in this case. If you were burning scrap wood then you would be looking at a different matrix. The point is that you won't get metallic potassium.

You can't spend the same money twice.

Two problems; firstly, yes some idiots do try to use it to treat things that are serious and secondly, I'm a taxpayer and I don't want my money wasted on utter shit. The set of circumstances where homeopathy is valid is the same as the set of circumstances where it works. Both sets are empty. The only good thing about it is the supply of jokes it provides http://xkcd.com/765/ Incidentally, this has little or nothing to do with the OP's question

"I always think of the homeopathic doctors in terms of not doing harm simply because they don't do anything." I think of them in these terms And they are doing harm by diverting resources from something more useful.

"is there any way to predict the anode product before the experiment." Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nernst_equation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_electrode_potential and http://www.physchem.co.za/data/electrode_potentials.htm and some other bits of stuff too. It's possible, but not easy. The simple answer is that you get whichever product is easiest to make and that's whichever product (on the left hand side of the eqn) is furthest up the table in the 3rd link (so, you practically never get lithium metal and it's much easier to get iodine than chlorine.)

I should damned well hope so- that should be what all the previous generations were working towards. However there are aspects of the current generation that could learn lessons from past ones.

I stopped reading there, because it's clear that you do not know the meaning of the words you use.

Giving someone the answer is "too much": If I tell you the answer you won't learn. And the real problem is you are wrong. It's possible- often necessary- to understand it before you do it. Showing them how to get the answer is appropriate help. It's as if you are the only one who doesn't understand the meaning.

Tom, we are still waiting for you to explain your method. Imagine, for example, that I have just found volume 2 of the manuscript, and that we can assume the author used the same encryption. How do I read it?.

To stop the greater evil winning.

I don't. Unless you need a silver layer between the Pt and the Ti, which is possible.

Yes, I have heard of it. Would you like to explain why you think it is relevant? In the mean time re "Is there a sound reason for refusing to help too much with homework?". Yes there is. The definition of "too much" is the reason why you shouldn't do it.

If that pile of horse feathers is an indication of what your book is like then you won't get many buyers. More importantly, you are not allowed to set up a thread just to advertise your book. Here's a more reliable prediction than anything from the manuscript: This thread will die soon.

Yep.

ZX81 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX81 Essentially the problem with this thread is "technically-if-you-count-from-1-to-infinity"... but you can't.

In the bad old days I had a computer that was a bit rubbish. It had just 1 K of memory (That's not a typo) and since the screen used quite a bit of it, I was left with about 700 bytes to work with. That's an absurdly small computer. 700 bytes is 5600 bits and so the number of ways I could fill the memory of that "toy" computer is 2^5600 That's about 10 ^1686 possible combinations. There isn't enough space in the universe to store that.

The two are not mutually exclusive; that's my point.

" to test Einstein's assertion you need to be able to compare the self-symmetry of the proportion of atomic nucleus radii and their covalent bond radii, as well as star radii and their astrosphere radii." Why?

LOL This is the web; nothing is real, it's all just ones and zeroes. How can you be sure that I'm not President Obama writing under a pseudonym?

And it takes quite a lot of power to make it happen. The energy is supplied by the man's hand.

These four "There are legitimate concerns regarding the Obama administration. They include, NSA surveillance, deportations, benefiting from citizens united, and the drone program. " Well, surveillance s nothing new not specific to Obama http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/george-bush-snooper-in-chief/ The issue of "deportations" seems to be an administrative details. Bush chucked more people out, but labelled them as removals, rather than deportations https://newrepublic.com/article/117412/deportations-under-obama-vs-bush-who-deported-more-immigrants I guess you are referring to this Citizens United event, (but let me know if I'm mistaken) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC where a group of Right wingers wanted to show a film- and they were allowed to Obama is a politician: is he not expected to make the bast use he can of events? Wouldn't any president have done the same. Indeed, as far s I can tell, he would have been happier if the decision had gone the other way. Hardly a suggestion of undue influence The drone program is a product of its time. It would have happened no matter who was president.

Should this be in the "Religion" sub-forum?

You have both made valid points, but neither of you has answered the question. Sensei has pointed out that it's easier to separate the molecules of acetone from the bulk liquid. The implication is that the forces holding the molecules together are stronger in alcohol. Sriman Dutta has pointed out that surface tension is related to the forces between molecules; in general, if those forces are large you will get a high surface tension. So you would expect alcohol to have a higher surface tension because the forces holding the molecules together are stronger ( as witnessed by the lower volatility). But, as the OP points out: that's the wrong answer. Alcohol has a lower surface tension than acetone. I admit, I am not sure why, but just telling the OP what the heat of evaporation is, or quoting the nature of surface tension doesn't actually help. Does anyone know why alcohol molecules stick together better than acetone when judged by volatility, but worse when judged by surface tension? Part of the answer must be related to what substance the surface tension is measured with- they commonly use glass plates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelmy_plate If glass does a good job of sticking to alcohol (and it has a very polar surface, so that's plausible) then the measured surface tension of alcohol would be higher. Anyway, to look at the second question Also, since acetone does have a higher surface tension than ethanol, does that mean that a drop of acetone has a higher height and smaller width than a drop of ethanol? The answer is that it would- if the densities were the same, and they are pretty similar. It also depends on the nature of the surface.

The annoying answer is that we don't know. Nobody has been doing it for long enough to find out. However the initial indications seem to be that it's a lot less harmful than smoking tobacco. At first glance I'd be more worried about acrolein than diacetyl.