John Cuthber

The lack of salt or water will kill you. So?

Salt can get "recycled" from oceans to land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_flat

We would be getting more out of it if it were was.

Ignoring the absurdity of pretending that the biggest Christian group in teh world isn't Christian... When I said "As I have pointed out in another of your threads. Society and science did start off with the notion that the scriptures were true. And then we found that they were wrong." I thought I made it quite clear who the "we" involved is. It's "Society and science". OK, lets make it slightly clearer Society started off by trying to include the scriptures- but they would not fit because they did not tally with the way in which the world works. The old books did not agree with all the other (consistent) evidence. Something had to "give". Science decided that evidence should stay and scripture should go. It has produced many marvellous things since doing so. Religion decided that the scriptures should stay, and the evidence should go. It has mainly produced arguments and wars.

Yes, because sometimes I'm not an employee. And have you read the MSDS for salt? Also, while I'm not a big fan of "animal rights" I do see the sense in the Reach method which expects the manufacturers to get together and only test a given compound once, rather than have each manufacturer kill another batch of rats. (incidentally, that's what makes REACH cheaper in a lot of instances)

"Reading are taken once every two minutes so I don't see that it is a software problem. " I don't see it as a software problem either. But I still wonder if you have an aliasing error. Did you write the S/W that's making the measurements? If so, could you humour me and have it randomly add or subtract a fraction of a second to the interval from one sample to the next?

Well, this is the sketch I had in mind.

And now for something completely different...

As I have pointed out in another of your threads. Society and science did start off with the notion that the scriptures were true. And then we found that they were wrong. Why do you think we should deliberately reintroduce something which we know to give the wrong answer?

Did you read the bit about an exemption for testing/R+D purposes before you wrote all that? " I have written the new style SDS's myself... when I called their helpline with questions the only answer I got was "we run a SDS writing service for £5k per sheet!"... " What were the questions? (I don't charge £5K per page) "it has come to light that the French want to ban TiO2" Where? Or are you muddling up a general observation that nano particulates are often more toxic than larger particles with the fact that much white paint is TiO2?

On a related note, here's the physics behind "dense is good" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_depth Of course if the stuff is dense enough you won't get as fast a muzzle velocity for a given set of launch conditions- it's a whole lot of trade offs.

It would be an odd choice for armour piercing- it's too light. But it has one interesting property, if fired through steel it will come out as a shower of sparks and cause damage inside whatever was armoured.

Am I the only one who thought that a thread called "M&M calc?" was going to be about the probability of pulling multi coloured sweets out of a bag?

It may be worth a mention; if you use a flask on a ring stand with a burner/ flame of any sort you, are likely to crack the glass, even if it is borosilicate. http://www.metallacycle.com/chemistry/laboratory/equipment/#r

Throughout the part of the video near the end, they always say that they pause to add ore, flux and charcoal. They make that from wood, but it's not wood that they use as their smelting fuel. The energy content of wood is utterly irrelevant. Getting hold of the wood is a lot of work, but they have got access to it. Getting hold of polished sheet metal isn't really an option. "You should make experiment making your own charcoal, then measure energy density, to be able answer how much energy it could release per second in the last stage of our calcs." I could, but why bother? I already allowed for the fact that charcoal isn't pure carbon: it's just that you didn't notice. Imagine that the charcoal is a mixture of , for example, 90% carbon and 10% "sand" or "ash". A gram of it would only need as much air to burn as 0.9 grams of pure carbon. (and, equivalently, 1 litre of air would burn 1.11 times as much charcoal as it would pure carbon. So, by calculating the heat output from the volume of air, rather than the (unknown anyway) mass of fuel, I can avoid the issue of not knowing the carbon content of the charcoal. There will be an error because of other combustible material in the charcoal, but I'm assuming they are good at their job so that error will be small. What I assumed was that all the oxygen in the air would react. Well, that's a plausible assumption- it's an iron smelting furnace.The conditions are (by design) very strongly reducing. It's fair to say that not a lot of oxygen will make it through unreacted. If you want to argue a point about incomplete reactions, the fact that, initially, the charcoal is oxidised only to CO might be more viable thought some of the heat from the burning flare gases will also be retained by the furnace (it's a good design that way).. Regarding the oxygen density, and your claim that "you used air density instead of just pure Oxygen density" No, I didn't- but we can always rely on you for inaccurate data. You have used the value for NTP while I used the value for STP. Did you see frost on the ground in the video? If not, why have you assumed that they are at 0 Celsius? (the number I got was from here) http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gas-density-d_158.html Arguably the value for- lets take a guess at 30o C would be more appropriate, but considering that the volume is pretty much a guess in the first place, we are into your fixation on producing spurious accuracy again. Thanks for pointing out the error in my calculation of the rate of carbon use. It shows- as you say- that they used roughly half as much again as I thought. That means that , relatively speaking, the influence of any solar heating they would get was only 2/3 of what I thought. So the metal reflectors, which they don't have, would need to be 50% bigger and thus less practical.

Looking at the bellows they are driving something of the order of a few litres of air per second into the furnace. (each "cylinder" must have a volume of about 10 litres, something like a third of that is displaced with each pus and one or the other is pushed about each second.) So there's about 3 litres a second of air run through the furnace containing about 0.6 litres of oxygen. That's about 0.8 grams of oxygen each second which reacts with about 0.22 grams of carbon That's something of the order of 0.22 grams of charcoal burning each second releasing about 7KW of heat. So, adding heat from the sun is just about worthwhile energetically - half a dozen square metres or so of sunlight would add as much heat, I guess what stops them is that they don't have access to big sheets of polished metal but they have lots of manpower and lots of charcoal.

You said. "I would analyze compounds of these metals, to find one which is soluble in some solvent, while the other one is barely soluble." Yet it is known that there are no such compounds (at least- not so far discovered) And then you go on about a technique that relies on both compounds being soluble in a solvent. So, having said you would do something that's well known to be, at least very nearly, impossible, and being called out on it, you pick out a patent on crude chromatography. Even the patent you cite shows that your original plan was daft where it says "The two metals, however, are so very similar in their chemical properties that it has been extremely difficult to separate the hafnium from the zirconium. " So, if you want to show that I'm the one writing nonsense you have to show that you can do what you said you would. You need to "analyze compounds of these metals, to find one which is soluble in some solvent, while the other one is barely soluble." well, get on with trying to do so. Find such compounds. (as far as I can tell from what's available on-line, the tetra chlorides of both metals are soluble in ethanol- so your reported separation doesn't count; I rather suspect it's an error. It's a pity they didn't include a reference so we could check.) When you discover it's not possible, perhaps you will accept that I was right to say what I did. In the mean tine you should "Concentrate on talking about things that you know."

"I would analyze compounds of these metals, to find one which is soluble in some solvent, while the other one is barely soluble." Thank you for making it clear that you do not know what you are talking about. Did it really no occur to you that, if it was that easy, Enthalpy wouldn't have even raised the issue? Why did you even post here?

Proverbs 6 16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: ... Proverbs 6 19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

How are you measuring the voltage? If you have a computer set up to measure the current regularly, and there's any mains hum on that signal you could end up with an aliasing error that reflects the drift in mains frequency with power use and thus time of day. Is it possible to run the system that's providing teh bias from a battery? If you are doing, is it possible to run as near as possible, everything from batteries and screen the system.

Good question. Where did you come across this idea that this might actually exist, rather than being something from a bad sci-fi story?

No I would not say it's an anomaly. What I would say is that I doubt I'm the only one who is tried of your persistent attempts to use logical fallacies to make your point. This time round, it's a false dichotomy.

"Is theism inherently mentalistic" Do you mean does it arise in the mind? if so I think the answer is yes, because it's difficult to see how it might arise in the liver or the elbow or whatever..

There are two ways to look at this question. I'm quite sure that the answers given relate to the intended meaning. But I think the other meaning is more interesting. Is our "sense of beauty " inherited? Is there an evolutionary advantage to recognising the beauty of inanimate objects? It's clear that there has to be some sort of "mate selection" and that's one side of beauty. But is there a heritable reason why I think a flower or a landscape is beautiful?

Another, more telling, approach would be to divide by the corresponding figures for civilised countries. UK: zero France zero Germany:zero Australia Zero and so on. Feel free to use per capita numbers if you prefer No, The upshots of the Japanese contempt for criminality are that they have a low crime rate and harsh prisons.