John Cuthber

The reason that "odd" characters sometimes cause problems is that they are recognised as commands. I'm not really a programmer but I have't seen that character used in code so it' almost certainly not a command, and thus not a threat.

The conductivity of pure water is quite well documented. For example https://us.mt.com/us/en/home/supportive_content/know_how/Paper-THOR-Fundamentals-Cond-Res-08-2004/jcr:content/download/file/file.res/Fundamental_Conductivity_and_Resistivity_of_Water_Oct09.pdf Pure water contains H+ and OH - ions- each at a concentration of about 10^-7 molar. These give rise to a resistivity of about 18 Mohm cm near room temperature.

You are not going to do it anyway; it's too expensive.

This is your idea of acceptance? http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/16/us/texas-student-ahmed-muslim-clock-bomb/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/05/07/ivy-league-economist-interrogated-for-doing-math-on-american-airlines-flight/ Now, where's this persecution of Christians then? Let's see some evidence.

Water conducts (unless you freeze it)

Guess again https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19800502&id=G4opAAAAIBAJ&sjid=92oDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4987,413069&hl=en

The 3 d version looks quite similar to the 2 d version. Obviously it's a bit harder to get a picture. you can't just put some salt on it, but you can get the same effect by bouncing light off it. Fig 5 here https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys193/lecture_notes/matthew_fisher_ncur_paper_c4_handbell_vibration_modes.pdf shows the same sort of patterns for a hand bell.

If you leave the quackery aside, Bedini doesn't seem to bring anything.

Meanwhile, the actual evidence shows that assertion not to be true- no matter how often you say it.

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

Did you spot the quote marks I used round the word "vibrate"?

No, I think that you are misrepresenting them- and that behaviour opposes them. It is more difficult for unions to do their jobs while people are making up bad things about them and saying stuff like "Communism is a lot like labor unions, they both tend to produce the lowest common denominator.". Since you have not yet withdrawn that assertion in spite of the evidence, you are deliberately misrepresenting them. You are deliberately undermining the TU movement. So, either you are opposed to them, or you are an idiot- and we know you aren't an idiot.

It "vibrates" at a collection of frequencies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series

"Well, tell you what. I haven't heard of a single scientist who successfully proved that there could be no God." That's because we have more sense than to try to prove a negative. It rather misses the point that it's the God squad making the extraordinary claim- that there's a God- so it their job to prove that He does exist. Did you think you had made a point there? "Its incredibly hard to even prove that things in the bible don't add up. Considering it WAS written over a LONG period of time, its unlikely that EVERYTHING in there would add up, but it does. " Nope, it does not add up. http://bibviz.com/

OK, If I name one, you will say, that you never heard about company.. Well, that's possibly true- but hardly relevant. Give me the name of a company that folded because of a Union. " How about two: Gdansk Shipyard, Gdynia Shipyard" Those were hardly "companies" in the usual sense of the word since they were State sponsored entities. You seem to be comparing the success of an state entity that logically couldn't fail- regardless of it's abilities with a pseudo-private entity. Is that the best you can do? OK so, as far as I can tell the second of those was doing well enough to buy the first of them in 1998 The Gdansk yard is still going, and is making ships. It's not making so many as it was- but that's not unusual. Re. "What on Earth are you talking about?" Did the links not work? You seemed to imply that UK coal production had gone down because there were lots of union staff involved. But actually , it went down even though fewer union staff were involved. "I am talking about companies in bad economic situation, which need restructurization (which often means firing people from parts of company that are not absolutely necessary, or selling them. Long before final bankruptcy!)," Yes you are talking about such companies. But you seem unable to actually give meaningful instances (citing one that happened in the former USSR is a bit ironic). "and unions obviously refuse to do such restructurization" I have news for you. The Trade Union movement is not about stopping change. The Tolpuddle martyrs did not campaign to retain the status quo. (You might also want to stop inventing words like "restructurization") Unions are usually keen to be involved in restructuring. I can say that because I'm a union representative- I have actual evidence. Do you actually have any evidence for your point of view, or is it just based on what Fox news told you? "Unions here even make strikes just because they don't want government to sell company to private investor!" Where is "here"? Is it cloud cuckoo land? Also, is there a valid reason to sell public assets to a private investor? If not then perhaps the Union i actually doing the right thing. Do you have evidence that they are not? " Drop of mined coal in UK is result of shutting down, bankruptcy, of coal mines." ​No, that's simply you regurgitating a lie told by the Right wing. Do better or give up. The mines closed for a number of reasons. one is geology- it is more expensive to mine deep coal than near-surface coal. The big one is that the government made the political decision to close down the mining industry because it was a powerful force in favour of workers, rather then the owners. It's likely that there will be a belated enquiry into that action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orgreave I presume that you were simply ignorant of that fact. There's also the fact that the UK government- unlike the others in Europe- actually followed the legislation and did not subsidise the industry. The effect of that was to make UK produced coal even more expensive. So it broke the industry and put a lot of people out of work. That was Right wing government decision- not anything decided by the Unions. "Want more examples of companies which were destroyed by unions?" How can you say "more"When you have yet to show any? "Search google for companies that had unions and bankrupted (then search about strikes in these companies prior bankruptcy).. You will have your own country companies examples." Actually, you amy ahve missed it, but this is a science site. if you make an assertion, and someone questions it, the responsibility for justifying your claim is yours. It is not my job to show that your claim is false; it is your role to show that it is true. You made the claim, I asked for evidence,and the best you could do was show that a couple of weird plant run by a Communist government fell over whan communism collapsed. That's nothing to do with Unions (well arguably it is, but in the opposite direction you are claiming) "Employment should be accordingly to production. If employed is more people than needed, money are wasted on salary for them, and it's straight route to economic problems in the future years." And...? Are you aware that Unions are significantly involved in training - and retraining- workers ot get jobs in other industries when opportunities shrink in the ones where they currently work? "Does that sound as if I'm opposed to labor unions ?" Well, this does. And I'd like to see you provide some evidence to show that your statement is actually true, rather than libellous. Get back to us when you can show that unions " produce the lowest common denominator." "If I'm unionized, and I can never earn more money, get more time off, or receive better benefits than my fellow employees, " Well, I'm in a Union, in a unionised job- and I can. So- join a better union -or change the one you have. Don't blame the TU movement for the inadequacy of a system that you are in a position to change while the TU movement per se is not. "And I hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction" I'm still waiting for evidence for evidence of your claim that "Communism is a lot like labor unions, they both tend to produce the lowest common denominator." In particular, I'd like to see you provide evidence that overturns that provided by others- but any evidence of the truth of your assertion would be a step forward.

Alas, the Unions are still needed. All of those things, while currently protected, are under grave threat from, for example TTIP internationally; and locally from a government who wants to repeal the human rights act. And it's the Unions, as much as anyone, who organise the opposition to those things. Thanks for offering me the opportunity to point that out. Now, I must have missed a couple of things; the first is where you actually justified your comment and the second is where people were twisting words. Perhaps, you would like to try again. Explain why, in the face of the evidence (as supplied by CharonY) you think the Unions are a bad thing. You can, perhaps, add a side order of how, if they were such a bad thing, anyone ever got talked into joining them. " many companies unions destroyed" Name one. That's the typical way coal mines are ending. UK coal mines decline graph Thanks for posting that graph. Lets have a look at another graph or two http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6309/economics/trade-union-density-in-the-uk/ The Unions have been losing membership density. And the coal industry has been losing output. I know correlation isn't correlation but what the data show is that, as we have a smaller fraction of people in Unions, we dig less coal. You are trying to use that as a reason to say that Unions prevent coal production. How do you explain the reverse correlation?

You made several assertions. I pointed out that one of them simply isn't true. It seems that you are unable to defend it. Perhaps you should withdraw it.

Well, since the OP refuses to say how he got the data, I'm going to guess. I imaging he got the data from someone like the BGS for the dates of the earthquakes. http://earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/ then he looked at the newspapers for two weeks each side of the tremor for some sort of angry group. When he found one he labelled it as a riot. Then he did his analysis and found that every riot was within two weeks or a quake. Just like the Texas sharpshooter. Or maybe he didn't do that, but at least he now realises why he should have told us how he found the riots, and why "J'ai cherché " is the antithesis of science.

Wiki says "Electrolysis of water is the decomposition of water (H2O) into oxygen (O2) and hydrogen gas (H2) due to an electric current being passed through the water. The reaction has a standard potential of -1.23 V, meaning it ideally requires a potential difference of 1.23 volts to split water." The killer is the word "ideally". Well, that number is easy to calculate. You find a table like this http://www.physchem.co.za/data/electrode_potentials.htm and add up the potentials for the decomposition hydroxide ions and hydrogen ions. The one for hydrogen is easy- it is zero by definition. And the other one O2 (g) + 4H+ + 4e- 2H2O is near the bottom of the table. Fine, except that those are standard potentials. The pressure of the gases is 1 atmosphere and the concentration of the ions involved is one molar. But real water doesn't have 1 mole of hydrogen ions per litre: it's about a ten millionth of that. On the other hand, the first traces of oxygen and hydrogen released at the electrodes don't need to exert 1 atmosphere of pressure- they can simply dissolve. And in real water there's usually enough dissolve oxygen that the reaction isn't production of hydrogen- it is the reduction of dissolved oxygen People think that 1.23 volts is some "magical" figure that is correct in all circumstances. it's just not true- it's easy enough to prove it with a meter, two electrolysis cells in series and a single 1.5 volt battery. Since there are two electrolytic cells and the battery only produces 1.5 volts, the cells must each have 0.75 volts across them. Yet a current will still flow- typically a very small one unless you have big electrodes close to eachother. If you wan to calculate the equilibrium voltages you need something like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nernst_equation and it gets even more messy if you want to take into account the effects of a current flow. And all of this has essentially nothing to do with ionisation potentials which are generally measured for single atoms or molecules in the gas phase.

"No. If somebody has no job, will ask government "what job you can offer me?"." Well, as long as the government can take money from the rich, the answer to that is "Building and running the Thing". But if they can't afford to because there's not enough money- well no thing and no public sector employment. I'm not the one saying that's a good thing. You seem to be in two minds about the money supply as witness your assertion that "10 millions dollars for the richest appeared from literally nowhere." and "The first thing, is that income of somebody is expenditure of somebody else. Money must match on both sides of equation." But you also say "Money does not exist." Well, the second idea is more nearly true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money The money does come from nowhere- the government prints it. Actually, the government now lets the banks print it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing This makes the banks very profitable- yet they sometimes manage to run at a loss. And the government then uses the "success" of the banks as an excuse to protect them. now the next issue to address is why the government might not be good for the people- even though the people notionally choose the government's policies. Here's a funny thing, very rich people don't like progressive tax- and they also own the news media. Guess what happens next...

Most people who are clever enough to set up a sock-puppet that's hard to detect, are clever enough not to need to.

So, you don't approve of equal opportunities, weekends, sick pay safety regulations and a whole lot of other things that the unions brought about- or were you just not informed?

Wood is porous and the air spaces drop the average density- wood floats; coal sinks. But also the carbon has a higher heat of combustion- gram for gram- than cellulose. Also the combustion process is the reaction with oxygen. The cellulose already contains oxygen so in a sense it is already partly combusted. Equivalently, you can consider cellulose to be carbon with added water. In burning it, you have to "waste" heat boiling off that water.

The energy from the reaction between sugar and oxygen is exactly the energy that the body does use. There's no separate "electrical" energy that's different. Energy is all equivalent. Guess again. Very briefly, people can produce something like 2000 Watts, and all that energy is carried by the blood.

"so turning to the electrolysis of water i need at least 1.23 volt to start an electrolysis process," No. (The wiki articles is misleading)