John Cuthber

oops! I misread your post. You are right- in a double boiler/ bain marie like that the temperature will be limited to about 100C.

In particular, this "This way, as long as the pan doesn't boil dry, the solution will never exceed 100oC and melt the ammonium nitrate." is simply wrong.

The data for "how much heat does it take to warm up some ice" is available http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ice-thermal-properties-d_576.html Other comparable data are also available.

Re "Possibly caused by crystallisation of molten iron to solid iron? " Nope. The temperature is wrong.

Have you forgotten that it's over four years since the accident? People have been studying the ecosystem (singular, unless you can show how the different parts of it are isolated from one another and don't interact) and there's not been much evidence of lasting damage. So, it's not a "presumption" any more, it's an observation.

"If energy is a constant" From the point of view of a body, it isn't because you can bring energy in by eating it (or sunbathing) and you can also lose energy (by doing work, like liftimng stuff, or by dissipating heat to your surroundings). " would the mind/soul be only energy harnessed by the body" ​No, the body harnesses a lot of energy- overwhelmingly most of it from food) The mind exists and it's not unreasonable to say it uses a lot of energy (the brain uses far more than it's share of the body's energy- given its size) But, since there's no reason to believe that a soul exists, there's no way to justify saying that it's the energy used by the body. Wel know that practically all the energy used by the body ends up as heat. "This energy that is harnessed would have a certain frequency" Why? "and a certain frequency when the body dies" Why? If one could focus on this energy frequency, " How do you focus on something when there is no reason to believe it even exists? "couldn't this prove that there is a chance that some form of if you will "life" after death exists?" No. It's like saying "If unicorns are pink does that show that there's an afterlife?" There are two problems. No unicorns have been shown to exist and, even if they did, their colour wouldn't be any reason to believe in an afterlife.

If you have a look here you can see what the analysis of whiskey shows you about how complicated it is. http://www.chromatographyonline.com/advances-ageing-chemistry-distilled-spirits-matured-oak-barrels-0?id=&sk=&date=&%0A%09%09%09&pageID=2 Why would you think that none of those compounds is amphiphilic?

Sounds like an emulsion to me.

But getting medical help doesn't mean going to college, it means going to a doctor.

As far as I'm aware, biology doesn't "do" silicon carbide. But it does some beautiful things with the oxide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatom On the related question of bone creation, this sort of thing might help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphosphonate but essentially, I think the best you can get from plants will be something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equisetum#/media/File:Microscopic_view_of_Equisetum_in_Japan_one_20thmm_graduation.jpg which is a long way from being a city Also, you seem to have overlooked just how good bone is. It's vastly tougher that a simple calcium phosphate But the real problem with what you want will be getting plants to make cities.

So, still no evidence of harm to the Pacific's eco-system. Until that changes, perhaps you are the one who should try silence.

If they didn't do the fracking, they wouldn't have to get rid of the waste water by pumping it into the earthquake zone.

There are lots of things you can fill a thermometer with, but relatively few that do a good job in lamps. Perhaps you would like to explain why that's got anything to do with the topic.

Actually there is an answer to that, but it's just about the last thing that most capital investors think about. Investment in workplace health and safety often brings an exceptionally good return. This example actually calculates the ROI as near 50%. http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB_DC24348.pdf Similarly, most of the case studies here indicate a payback time of less than 4 years indicating a return of very roughly 25% or better. https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/reports/the-business-case-for-safety-and-health-cost-benefit-analyses-of-interventions-in-small-and-medium-sized-enterprises

While you are learning some chemistry, please learn som basic physics.. Re. "The danger with Hg comes from its vapor which thank god is heavier then air and sinks to the ground in most cases" Guess again. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter#The_four_fundamental_states " A gas has no definite shape or volume, but occupies the entire container in which it is confined. " So, the mercury concentration may be slightly higher at the bottom of a container, but it doesn't sink to the ground. If that sort of thing happened in the real world (rather than just your imagination) we would be unable to breathe because all the dense CO2 would settle to the bottom of the atmosphere and displace the oxygen. On a vaguely related not, glass is still brittle, even when it's thick. That's why mercury was commonly kept in steel containers.

I mean the ecosystem that could be affected by the events at Fukushima. Again, I apologise for failing to spell out for you something that I though (and others seem to have found to be) obvious. Since most of it's in the pacific, it is clearly relevant to the thread. And, while I agree that the deep oceans are poorly studied, I still think that people would have noticed any catastrophic changes there. Part of the reason I think that is that there are pages on the web explicitly dedicated to research in that field. for example https://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/fukushima-radiation Were you not aware of this? So, when I say the ecosystem is still there I mean that people have checked, and it's still there. And that, in turn, means it's reasonable for me to ask of actual evidence of harm before I worry about it. Perhaps you would like to finally "come to Jesus" and provide that evidence?

Lets face it, anyone with a legitimate need for P2P can buy it (or buy acetic anhydride).

I guess I just have to hope for a miracle so that you get a chance to address a group of psychologists. Anyway, Sorry if I caused any offence by the way i phrased it. What I meant was that , if you said that in front of a bunch of psychologists, I suspect that rather a lot of them would point out that they run experiments based on the premise that the scientific method does work on experience. And the scientific method does work on things like cancer epidemiology. There are repetitions of experiments- they call it meta-analysis- but whatever the name they choose, the fact that they can do it tells you that the experiments are repeated. Of course, one could argue (rather pointlessly) that no experiment is ever repeated- if I do the same experiment with the stack of blocks today as I did yesterday then the different position of the moon will have an effect (if my experiment is sensitive enough).

If someone used acetic anhydride they probably needed it. What do you want phenylacetone for (and why do you think it's difficult to get acetic anhydride)?

There is a way to measure cyanide using picric acid, but it seems you also need a spectrometer. http://www.infomine.com/publications/docs/CyanideMethodPicricAcid2.pdf You also need a known solution of cyanide to act as a calibration. No school should let you play with cyanides. However the prussian blue test gives a clearly visible blue/green colour if cyanide is present and the more cyanide you have, the deeper the blue so you might be able to use this sort of test http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jvv53a99/pdf;jsessionid=C6F5899A4B4AFA8FB8E724B054788528.tobacco03

Well, the OP quotes Einstein, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -Albert Einstein and yet says "If we are to base our entire scientific view on a few iterations of a single experiment, then we should examine that experiment closely and hold it to a higher standard" Well, Einstein's the one who got it right.You only need one experiment to prove a theory wrong. That experiment is the diffraction of particles passing through slits. So the OP's "theory" (that particles don't refract and that therefore light can't be particulate) is proven wrong. Since the OP's own post shows itself to be wrong, there's nothing more to add here. Perhaps some passing mod might like to close the thread.

There's a fundamental problem with the way that Newton used prisms. Unless you use other bits of equipment (lenses and slits) you get overlapping images. If you take the trouble to eliminate those overlaps then you get yellow light that's genuinely yellow from the sun. It won't be split into red and green by a prism.

If numbers don't exist then how do these work? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodical_cicadas And how did they choose primes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming says " Focus on quantity: This rule is a means of enhancing divergent production, aiming to facilitate problem solving through the maxim quantity breeds quality. The assumption is that the greater the number of ideas generated, the greater the chance of producing a radical and effective solution. Withhold criticism: In brainstorming, criticism of ideas generated should be put 'on hold'. Instead, participants should focus on extending or adding to ideas, reserving criticism for a later 'critical stage' of the process. By suspending judgment, participants will feel free to generate unusual ideas. Welcome unusual ideas: To get a good and long list of ideas, unusual ideas are welcomed. They can be generated by looking from new perspectives and suspending assumptions. These new ways of thinking may provide better solutions. Combine and improve ideas: Good ideas may be combined to form a single better good idea, as suggested by the slogan "1+1=3". It is believed to stimulate the building of ideas by a process of association.[3] I'm not sure you are doing most of those.