John Cuthber

There are a number of reasons why that's a bad idea. Are you aware of the pill?

Work is done when a force moves through a distance. Energy is the capacity to do work. Those are the high school physics definitions, and they are not circular. Your imaginary teacher just wasn't very good; that's not a physics problem.

Isn't the use of "excessive" here a bit of a tautology? If you use a lot of words because they are all needed then it's not verbose. The same is true for "criticism is conducted for ulterior motives, or delivered vindictively." Surely vindictiveness is an ulterior motive? And those tautologies make the sentence longer than it needs to be, so issue about verbosity applies.

"I was looking at the question from a different perspective - from the perspective of harm reduction." Well, that's neither the title's nor the OP's question, so... What's dishonest is using a quote "The general medical position is that nicotine itself poses few health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups." as if it refutes someone's point, when it doesn't. The only bit of the quote that you highlighted is the bit that says I'm right- the stuff is bad for you. Yet you presented it in such a way as to seek to make it look like a refutation. That's dishonest. Would you have been happier if I'd changed it thus "The general medical position is that nicotine itself poses few health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups." and pointed out that few <> zero? The difference between what I did originally, and what I did there was to start with your quote rather than the original. Essentially in both cases I just flipped the bolding on one word to make my point.

What's the point? If the people operating the scanners see a big black blob on their screen they will just ask you to open the "magic Xray proof" box so they can see what's in it. All you would do would be to draw attention to what you were trying to hide.

OK, so, I point out that something (which is - on a weight for weight basis- roughly as toxic as hydrogen cyanide) is "bad for you" and , when you try to refute that, I call you out. Your reply is that I'm dishonest. In citing that line out of context, and tacitly implying that it suggested my statement was anything other than true, you were flatly ignoring reality. I have no qualms about showing up your foolishness by changing your bolding.

You seem to have bolded the wrong bit The general medical position is that nicotine itself poses few health risks, I accept that it's less harmful to inhale nicotine than to inhale nicotine plus a whole pile of **** that we know is carcinogenic but that's not relevant to the question posed in the title. "-is-vaping-bad-for-health" to which he answer is, unequivocally, yes. Of course, if you hear that, but don't want to accept it, that's fine (Your heat and brain, not mine)- but don't try post anything that suggests that nicotine is anything other than bad for you on a science web site.

Nicotine is bad for you so...

So what?

There is no point calibrating for something that you will not get. You will not get K2O in ash- it will react with something. Generally it will react with CO2 so you will get K2CO3. You can calibrate with that. In some cases you will get potassium silicates as well. You can see how much difference that makes to the calibration by fusing a mixture of K2CO3 and silica and comparing the instrument response to the mixture with the response to K2CO3 Incidentally, it will make it easier for English speakers if you refer to the metal as platinum. Words like Alumina, silica and magnesia refer to the oxides in English.

"A new perspective on Overbalanced Wheel" Well, the old perspective was that the wheel doesn't work, and the new perspective is that it still won't. Why is this thread still open?

You say that like you think that's a bad thing. Most of the folk here are scientists and we read thousand page textbooks for kicks + giggles. Our ability to read and comprehend isn't the problem. The fact that you have provided no single shred of an explanation is the issue here.

If it was real then it would be all over the scientific press by now.

So, you are sticking with the numerology bullshit, rather than explaining your method. Is that because you know it won't stand up to scrutiny?

Would you like to cite examples?

If you have to lie about what is a quote to make your point, then your point is invalid.

Is the XRF ever going to be used to measure metallic potassium? If not, there's no real advantage to using it as a calibration. Why not use something like potassium chloride?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation

"soluble" and "insoluble" are not yes/ no things. How soluble are they?

Why not just keep it until you find a use for it?

Ignore the HCl for a minute. Consider dissolving the two organic acids in water.

Well, it's not the Nobel committee, but you could try submitting it to the conference referred to here. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/99870-nonsensical-paper-accepted-for-conference/ and I imagine they would accept it.

It's a non-story, except as a lab curiosity.(as a chemist, I think it's very interesting). We have been making ethanol from CO2 since we learned to make beer or wine. However in order to do it you need lots of energy (and the minimum energy requirement is the same whatever process you use). For beer/wine the energy is supplied by sunshine on the plants. In that news article, it's supplied by electricity. But it still needs lots of concentrated energy- and we don't have that to spare.