John Cuthber

In general, only if you are measuring gases, and even then it's because ppm is typically given in v/v.

Why bother?

We might agree do disagree, but it makes no difference. The forum expects you to answer questions. So answer them. (and our ages obviously have nothing to do with it)

Here's what you said I only answer the questions I like to answer. However it does not mean that I don't have an answer or I want to avoid answering. If I am forced to accept this neg repps [anonymous] I am prepared to accept any Reviewer's opinion particularly if I ask for it. And you know I am not suggesting open disclosure but a confidential cooperative excange of views. You ask me to rate one of your posts Anyway the quick rating need not be taken seriously at all. Perhaps I can do only that if I can not read all connected matter. Still it will give a better inkling and peer review and mutual understanding to say the least. Erasing it won't help. Since we only have one rep system, it must have ben in the same context.e

If you are going to comment on my grasp of English, you might want to learn what an exclamation mark is for first. Our first question was about the use of the abbreviation TBH; it was not addressed to me so I didn't answer it. You said "It is highly deceptive to say the least !" And I asked who you thought was deceiving whom. You didn't answer. You asked this "I gave this fool a neg marking ! Why did that vanish ?" and you have been answered. "Glorious Bleeder ?" and "Why you fool ?" simply don't make sense (which adds to the irony of your comment on my understanding of English) In another thread I pointed out that saying "There is no further continuance of this Relationship from the Logical and Scientific point of view." was simply wrong, and that it was arrogant of you to assume that you could pontificate about the subject, even though you knew little about it. It's much the same as you have done with use of English. It hardly matters whether you accused me or Swansont of using bad language; his previous post said "I judge it to be a legitimate question which you have not addressed. " The point is that you were unable to show that anyone had done so. It's beside the point and that thread is dead now since you refused to actually discuss things. "And apart from giving me so many Neg Clicks what else did you do for me ?" Well, I gave you a clear chance to explain what you are on about when I asked Who do you think is deceiving? Who do you think they deceive? You have not done so. If you are using the word in some idiomatic way then you should expect people to ask you to explain it.

Commander, You seem to have failed to answer my questions.

OK,for a start, who are you calling a fool? Don't you realise that's a breach of the forum's policy on personal attacks? Also, did you not understand that a negative mark could be cancelled out by a positive one? They both seem rather obvious to me. What I did was ask two questions with a view to finding out more about something I didn't understand, that's the sensible thing to do. You are given the opportunity to explain yourself- twice- and yet you failed to do so. That's another breach of the forum's rules. What do you think the outcome would be if there was a poll about which of us is a fool?

We know quite about about Newton and his prisms. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3ngEugMMa9YC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=Newton+prism+bought+fair&source=bl&ots=rD3tSemMnK&sig=rPUc0SPHe2Y-0QM57a5GKfvdwKs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iwcXVZKwMMK0aaDTgrAM&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Newton%20prism%20bought%20fair&f=false Not least, we know that he bought a second in order to do a particular experiment.

Who do you think is deceiving? Who do you think they deceive?

Interesting question; can you provide a link to that sheet please?

You don't know if I can't drink a pint of beer ; therefore I can't. That's not a "simple argument" its just obviously wrong. Seriously, there may be evidence that you are not aware of that makes it clear that we can " dismiss concerns about ecosystem effects of the Fukushima emissions. " Your lack of understanding r knowledge doesn't stop the rest of us. So it's simply not tenable to assert that we can't reject that idea - just because you are ignorant. And, of course, it's reasonable enough for me to say that maybe we can; we simply don't know. Maybe we know something that makes it clear that, in some regard, you are talking bollocks. For example, here's a list of the caesium compounds that are insoluble at the concentrations concerned (radio-caesium in seawater) and would therefore precipitate out and form part of the "sediment drift" that you imagine. it's not a long list, is it? re. "I don't have clue what you guys's problem is with this very simple argument. This is the third or fourth time I have run into this same blind spot on this supposedly "scientific" forum, and it is baffling" Have you considered this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Or maybe it can. We don't know. So, once again, in saying " we take it for granted from now on. " you are still straw manning. Also, in doing that we would be ignoring the data I cited about the relative effects of different radiation types.

FFS! Are we actually looking at the same posts? Because, what I wrote was a comment on how a picture grossly exaggerated the appearance of what is a tiny increase in radioactivity, but you are seeing is something about probability density functions. There just isn't a reasonable path from one of those to the other. Nor is there any way that "Look, try this: try to estimate the probability that a bed of filter feeding organisms the plume has drifted over in the past few months was exposed for ten hours to cesium concentrations in excess of 10,000 times the "worst case" you have accepted from the trolling Cuthber, from any source (sediment drift, concentrated in their filtered food and debris, rained down in feces or debris from surface concentrations, hot pockets of effluent water still concentrated for some reason of salinity or temperature, etc). " is anything but a strawman, because nobody suggested anything like that. Though I will, in passing point out a couple of things. Imagine that for some reason (and you pretty much have to invoke Maxwell's demon to do it) some small patch of ocean was so heavily contaminated that it fried all the life in it. What would happen next is that diffusion would dilute down the local radiation, and life would drift back into that area. that's just the sort of thing life does- it exploits opportunities. The other point is that any such "hot spot" would necessarily be small compared to the plume as a whole- because there's only so much caesium there to radiate. You can concentrate it into a small area- and then the area is small so the overall damage isn't great (unless you are really unlucky) or you can spread it out and then the concentration is small- so the overall damage isn't great. Even if I had made the assumption that you claim I did (but were unable to show where I made it),it's not that bad an assumption, in terms of predicting overall damage. The ecosystem is huge, so it doesn't matter much whether you damage a tiny part of it a lot or a huge part of it by a tiny amount. It's likely to survive.

OK, so here's the evidence for #1 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg #2 is a misunderstanding, an increase by roughly a third isn't trivial. #3 is self evident if the trend continues. You can choose as large a "safe"temperature rise as you wish, but the rising trend would eventually meet it. That just shows that you don't understand the nature of equilibrium. The question you need to ask is, "if you have two glasses of water and bring each of them to equilibrium with air containing different levels of CO2, which one becomes more acid? And the answer is that the one with more CO2 becomes more acidic.

For a start, time isn't infinite yet.It's only something like 14 billion years old.

No.

You can use xor to implement one time pad, which is uncrackable. Or you can choose to xor all your text with "zero", in which case the encrypted text will be exactly the same as the plaintext.

Reality may not be concerned with your opinion.

Exactly the same magnitude as that of the wheel, but in the opposite direction. But why do you think you are in a position to be awarding marks?

And when the pulse is over, and the source voltage falls to zero, it enforces that too.

What do you think happens to milk after you drink it and it meets the acid in your stomach?

If my heart isn't pretty close to 37C I'm not going to be worrying about its electrical properties much. Why do you ask?

If the source impedance is zero it will "enforce" a zero voltage on the inductor. However the system is poorly defined and real world systems just can't do that . It's probably more helpful to model a resistor and inductor in series.

The point is that if he's a "simple carpenter's son" then he's not the Son of God and there won't be much written about him at the time. And there wasn't, because he wasn't. On the other hand, if he had been pulling miracles out of a hat then there would be rather a lot of attention focussed on him, and we would have plenty of records of that