John Cuthber

As has been pointed out, whether a gas is poisonous or not depends on your point of view.

And, since those days they have continued with the idea of crop rotation. But, for the most part, they have abandoned the 7 year cycle (which is what Acme actually said). The "mouldy old book" gives the wrong number of years; I strongly suspect that they chose 7 for the same reasons that Newton "found" 7 colours in the rainbow. It's mystic hogwash and, for crop rotation, it gives the wrong answer. Alternatively, those who didn't slavishly follow the old book got better results with shorter cycles. for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agricultural_Revolution#Crop_rotation

"If we do it correctly, we will be able to extract the real cooling time!" May be, maybe not. How do you plan to account for the heat produced by radioactive decay? In particular, how do you plan to estimat , for example, the mass of uranium in the earth's core? It's not as if anyone has been there to check.

Why? Do you realise that redoing the calculation with both terms will not necessarily give you a more accurate answer? Do you understand that there are other approximations in that calculation that will make more difference? For example, the assumption is made that the emissivity is exactly 1 (i.e. that it's a perfectly black body). Well I don't know how well that applies to the early earth, but at the moment the figure is probably more like 0.61 (based on data from the name of a Vangelis album). If the cooling earth resembled the moon then the emissivity might be nearer 1. So there's an easy way to find errors that are something like 10% , or even 40%. What do you think you gain from worrying bout that error that we know is less than 1%? Even if you carefully account for all the factors, it' irrelevant. The radiative age of the earth isn't its age by a factor of many thousands.

there is no paradox. It's perfectly simple. 1/T(final)3 – 1/T(hot)3 is the difference between two parts 1/T(final)3 and 1/T(hot)3 So, if T(hot) is big then T(hot)^3 is very big so 1/T(hot)3 is very small So, subtracting it from 1/T(final)3 doesn't really change 1/T(final)3 much. And, compared to the other approximations made in the calculation, it's just not worth doing the extra maths.

The simple answer is yes. You can dissolve Li in some solvents, the most commonly used is liquid ammonia. dittto for sodium The solutions are nt very stable and slowly convert to the amide and hydrogen.

Hearsay isn't evidence.

Has anyone?

Did you read the first page you cited? "It is reasonable to assume that the term involving the early hot temperature of the Earth can be neglected. If the hot temperature is more than 3.16 times the final temperature, then the contribution of the high temperature term is less than 1%. For example,"

I hope that's an April fool joke.

It's not a huge amount, there is very little of it. Problem solved.

re. the 74126: The output isn't indeterminate, it's a high impedance state. The point is that it makes some sorts of interfacing easier. these chips are only used when all the outputs of several chips are directly connected together and where the logic ensures that one of the outputs will be driven. So the output of what actually gets used is determined by the inputs. In fact there is a model of the output; it's disconnected in the 3rd state and drifts with whatever else drives it. A very simple model compared to the output impedance when it's in one of the other two states where you have to worry about things like fan out.

"Lastly, how is it reasonable that high energy protons (hydrogen ions) entering an atmosphere of 20% oxygen, is not being oxidised on contact, and the process concentrated as Aurora Australis and sprites? " Do you realise that the solar wind is, from most points of view, a very good vacuum? "What mechanics explains tidal locking?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

Not to mention his swarm of grounded bumble bees.

Overtone, Please note that, as soon as those organisms die they Cs will start to redistribute back into the ocean. Any effect you are looking at is short term. So, my posting that the Cs ends up in solution because there are no insoluble compounds is actually reasonable. Your labelling it as " nothing but errors in reasoning" says more about your understanding than about mine.

"Well I can’t show you the complete solution. " Then there's nothing here to discuss. And the failure of your efforts in your previous posting may impact the morality of asking for money.

Even if there was liquid water in the bottom of the cylinder there would be very little in the gas phase after it expanded- far too little to condense out at any sensible temperature. That water yo see is almost certainly from the air, which suggests that there's a leak somewhere.

Is anyone here able to rule out this as the basis for a good working definition of a miracle? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

I'm fairly sure that paramagnetism is a quantum effect and that Maxwell's equations are classical so you can't explain magnetism with Maxwell's equations.

No, or at least very nearly none. On the other hand, there's quite a lot of water in the air.

You seem to have solved your own problem: "Since I can't vote up, I have to say thank you to all in this post." You can even add a qualifier to say why you liked it; penmanship, knowledge, whatever..

Salt water is bad for most plants so you would still need to wash it away when you had finished.

Please show us how you would factor 14209 using your method. [it's 13 times 1093, but that's not the point. Please show us your working.]

Peroxide will certainly destroy bleach,and fairly cleanly too. ( the products are salt water and oxygen.) But the reaction is vigorous- possibly dangerous on anything but a very small scale. Also, the easiest way to destroy hypochlorite is simply to wait. It decomposes to salt water and oxygen (though it takes a few years)

There are lots of ozone generators, so it is impossible to know what is wrong with yours.