John Cuthber

They didn't make adaptive optics because they wanted to upset the programmers. On a good day the best detectors can detect single photons; but they don't know if that photon is real or noise. Also the quantum efficiency of the best detectors is not 100% (some photons essentially bounce off or are degraded to heat) so you can't ever hope to get a perfect image. The human eye isn't quite that good My recollection is that you need about 10 photons to turn up in quick succession to cause the nerve to fire. Essentially, by having poor focus, you throw away data on where the photon came from. losing information in that way is irrevocable- there's nothing the software can do about it.

Specifically, the microbes that survive in sulphuric acid at a few hundred centigrade. Ironically, if I was looking for bugs that survive in those conditions, one place I might look is err, Venus.

A lot of the time astronomers are looking at stars and those are so small that, even with the biggest telescopes, the image of the star should be a single pixel (with an Airy disk for those who want to be fussy). If the distortions lead that light to be spread out onto, for example, a bunch of 4 pixels or 9, then each of them only gets a quarter or a ninth of the light. So if you have a very dim star you can have a state where, unless it's focussed properly onto just one pixel, it's not bright enough to see at all (for any given exposure time). there simply isn't a signal to process- it's lost in the background noise.

Fire is a process by which fuel combines with the atmosphere to produce heat, light etc. Flames may be different colours for different reasons.

You need to look into the world of bias in experimental design. When you say "We just need to get in touch with court reporters and ask them to take note of which re-trials expose the second jury to the fact that there was a previous conviction. " you ignore the fact that the decision to tell them or not isn't going to be random. Imagine that, in every case where it was clear that the prosecution had left out some exhortating detail, the defence made sure that this fact was pointed out to the jury but, where it was some "technicality" like the copper wasn't in uniform when he read the defendant his rights because he hadn't got his hat on they didn't point this out to the jury. It's clear that in the first case the defendant isn't guilty - so the evidence that was used by the prosecution can't have been all that convincing (after all, it was wrong). On the other hand, in the second case the evidence might be very convincing. Wouldn't you expect a difference in outcomes because of that? Well,, unless the two groups are assigned randomly (i.e. someone flips a coin, in advance, to decide whether or not to tell the jury, you are not comparing two similar groups so the outcomes may be different- but not for the reason you are looking at. Like I said, it's not a legitimate way to test your original hypothesis. if you don't do it properly, you might as well set fire to $250 per month.

I doubt that statistics have been compiled. even if they were, it wouldn't be a randomised allocation to the two groups so it's not a legitimate tests. It's not really semantics. There were, in fact, two hearing which discussed the case, prior to the second trial. It might be interesting to see if a university psychology department would investigate this (it doesn't need to be real trials and, unless you have a lot of money, you are not going to get real lawyers etc.)

Good question. If I was on the jury and knew that it was a re-trial I might think "this guy's conviction was overturned so the evidence against him must have been 'dodgy` in some way. If the evidence against him wasn't sound, that suggests he's innocent". I'm not in a position to say which view would be more common. Would they think he's guilty because he was found guilty; or innocent because the conviction was unjustified? In a way, its not a second trial, but (to an extent) a third. The first was the original trial. The second was the hearing where they decided the evidence was flawed and then he's on to a third "day in court" with a record of lost one :won one.

Most pH sensors are rather sensitive to temperature as well as pH so make sure that you are measuring the pH at the same temp. Also, as long as the sensors are stable you can produce a calibration table; you just need some solutions with known pH.* Depending on your resources, that might be easier than getting a better meter. * that's not a "catch 22". http://delloyd.50megs.com/moreinfo/buffers2.html Not only does the sensor change with temperature, so does the pH of a solution. The pH of pure water is near 7 at room temp, but near 6 when it's boiling so the difference between a pH at 20C where you calibrate the probe and 37C in a fermenter might be more than 0.1 pH units.

Unless it doesn't. The word is ambiguous,but the meaning is clear from context.

LOL

Why climb Everest?

Almost certainly reacting with oxygen.

A few points. The VdeG works. The way in which it works is often poorly explained. The way in which it works is well understood by science. It's not got a lot to do with triboelectricity (I agree that triboelectricity isn't very well explained- but that's not the point). The biggest single misunderstanding you seem to have is that you have not realised that the motor does work on the belt because it is pushing (for example) a positive charge towards the positively charged top of the generator. In dong so, it moves a charge to a point here the potential is greater. that's how it makes a higher voltage. So the assertion in that pdf "Instead of spraying the charge on the belt, and after that the charge is again collected from the belt and moved on a sphere, a greater yield and a higher potential can be achieved if the sphere is removed from VDG and the charge is sprayed directly on the sphere as in fig. 14." doesn't make sense. BTW, are you the same guy who didn't understand physics here? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/35321-electric-current-and-electrolysis

OK, glad that's sorted. Now consider heating some water in a pan to boil it. At the point where the water is boiling, heat must be transferred from the pan to the water and the water is at 100C. How hot must the pan be? (Hint, it's not consistent with the assertion you made earlier that it can't be more than 100C). Next question. Does steam have to be at 100C to scald?

You are welcome to disagree with me, but you might want to think it through a bit. Your comment about a kettle is correct,but irrelevant. Put a metal roasting pan in an oven at 250C for a while and you will see that it gets hotter than 100C. This is true, even if there's a joint of meat in it. If your story were true then the splashes of food that get "baked" onto the sides of the pan would be a lot easier to wash off. .

But not all truckers are obese, yet they all have the same job and are, therefore, subject to those "requirements". So the causal link can't be right. You might also want to consider how both automation and obesity have changed over the years. Broadly jobs are becoming more automated and people are becoming fatter so it's clear that, at best, automation doesn't stop people gaining weight as much as something else is making them do so. A credible causal link is that automation makes people fat.

A wet (or damp) towel is a really bad idea. The water boils when it hits the hot pan and you get scalded by the steam. Essentially you would be making one of these to carry the heat to your hand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pipe

I'd assess the risk/ benefit analysis of climbing the tree. For a cat I might not bother. (AFAIK no cat skeleton has ever been found in a tree). For the child of the pretty widow who lives down the road, I 'd take the risk. Since I don't own a ladder that would get into a tree, I'd probably call the RSPCA or maybe the fire service. They have the equipment and training. Yes, it was the right scaffold- not least because putting up the wrong one would be illegal. No, I didn't use a fall arrest harness, but I did use a rock climbing one. Since it's the water that does the scrubbing in the first instance, carbonate (not bicarbonate which would also work, but be more expensive) would work just as well and be safer.

"When was the last time he did some work on his roof ? Does he have an engineered anchor to tie off his fall suppression harness to ?" A few years back And, because I know about that sort of thing, the job was scaffolded and, yes, it was tied properly. My employer doesn't like me to talk about work on what might get called "social media" so I can't say who it is, but the lab I work in does some interesting stuff. ​The local fire services on record as saying that, in the event of a fire they will seek to rescue anyone and then " stand back and watch the fireworks". I'm a trade union safety rep and I have been for a couple of decades or more. Among other things that means I'm fairly well aware of the law here. And the hswa etc act does explicitly protect those individuals put at risk,whether they are employees or not. And it does apply to individuals if they are self employed (though our insane Prime minister has decided to do away with that.) As for "occupational health and safety, and the right to refuse unsafe work, doesn't even apply to firefighters and policemen )" It does here in the UK. http://www.hse.gov.uk/services/police/application.htm But, again, it's nothing to do with the case. It's pretty unlikely that we are talking about anything but a small business. (it would be useful if the OP let us know about that) But it hardly matters. While there are occasions where PPE is the only option (the first option with deep sea divers or astronauts is to see if you actually need to send a person rather than a robot), it's still not the first thing you should consider. PPE is a very much weaker solution than engineering the problem out (and it's just swapping one problem for a whole series of other problems like suitability,maintenance compliance etc). Of course, unless you believe that this guy is working on the moon or for the armed forces, it's a complete red herring. (Though I did do some interesting work for the police/ forensic science techs- I was checking to see what chemical hazards they could be exposed to if they were collecting evidence in clandestine drug manufacturing labs- the first thing I did was a lot of searching for "meth cook" recipes. There are tons of them) It also doesn't matter if it's a multi million dollar factory or two blokes in a shed; the first thing you need to do is assess the risk and take precautions commensurate with that risk. So, let's have another look at what you said "Both North and Scott have organic/acid acid cartridges for respirators." Yes those suppliers (and others) provide some good kit. But it's not possible to say for certain if it's the right response. A respirator is great for putting on in a hurry so you have a few minutes to turn off the power and open the windows (or turn it on and close them - depending on the circumstances*) before you walk away. But it's a crappy way to deal with day-today exposure to acid gases. So, unless you think the OP has a catastrophe on his hands and has decided to address it by posting a question on a web site, it's probably not the right approach. And you seem to have forgotten to mention face-fit testing so, there's no way of knowing if the kit would work. Shucks! you didn't even ask the OP if they have a beard. "If an engineering solution rather than PPE is more desirable, " An engineering solution is practically always more desirable- to the extent that some legislative systems we know about mandate that approach as the first choice for dealing with a hazard you can't eliminate. "then a scrubbing system that sucks away the vapours and passes them through a NaOH solution would be the way to go." No it's not. ​You don't use NaOH if you can use something less hazardous- like Na2CO3 (which also has the merit of being cheaper). * according to the documented procedures for the type of incident you are dealing with- if the event isn't covered by the risk assessment- you already failed before you started.

Note that the 1974 health and safety at work etc act does not just refer to companies. That's what the etc bit is about. but it's hardly the point, the OP talks about "we work with these substances" ad so on implying that there's several of them, not just an individual. And, even if it was just a bloke doing it for kicks and giggles in his back yard, miles from anyone else, the advice is still sound. It's still a good idea to reduce the cause of the problem if you can. It's still better to control it at the source rather than to try to use PPE and, if you are stuck without an alternative, you still need care in choosing the protective gear. Why do you think that's not good advice for an individual? Do you think individuals are more expendable or something?

I would guess they were mole percent.

"In a human body are billions of tiny lights. What do you think they are called? " imaginary. Seriously, if you think that's true, you should see a doctor. Also, when someone answers your joke with another joke, it's not helpful to call them a stupid fool- it rather looks as if you judgement is slipping.

Most people use the weight of an apple as a rough indication of the magnitude of a newton, but... Regarding your assertion that "My idea is not an idea it is law. Number is relative to the observer. This can not be denied." I can trivially demonstrate its falsehood I deny your assertion. Also, I suspect you may be heading for a record for negative rep points as a function of number of posts. I also predict that you won't get a chance to improve those stats because you will be banned. We won't miss your juvenile and uninformed posting.

LOL.

Power corrupts...