John Cuthber

What is puzzling?

Well, given that coke is mainly made of carbon, I guess that, since you don't believe it's graphite, you must think it's diamond or buckyballs. Can I sell you some? Anyway, if you think graphite does not burn, perhaps you should warn these people that they are wrong. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010218097002149 And this lot http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00853982 and rather a lot of others, as you can confirm with a quick search of the web.

OK let's cut to the chase. There is "censorship" on this site. I can't say "All the (group of people) are (derogatory term)." without offering valid proof of that statement. But that's not what you seem to be talking about, What are you saying that we are not allowed to say? What is "forbidden"?

Well, I can disagree. What evidence is there for any "cause" other than "it just happened"? Also, if that "cause" is abstract enough then it doesn't fulfil the requirements of what "God" usually means. As far as I'm aware, all the established definitions of God require that He has intent. If there is a cause without intent, it's not really a God. Of course, you can define God as rice pudding, in which case He certainly exists, but it doesn't get you very far.

It is difficult to distil water in such a way that you prevent CO2 from the air dissolving in it. That will significantly increase the conductivity.

Well, strictly speaking I'm in the wrong country to comment personally on the FDA, but I can vouch for the safety of lots of vaccines because I have had plenty of jabs in my time so when you say "There are no studies, no data" You are clearly wrong. I am the data. Also, I guess this story may not have been covered in the US since it happened in the UK but there are tests and studies done. Here's a recent one concerning a potential Ebola vaccine. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/17/ruth-atkins-first-british-volunteer-injected-trial-ebola-vaccine-oxford and, of course there have been similar trials for all vaccines. So why do you say things that are simply not true? "Fact: Formaldehyde is a carcinogen. Why list formaldehyde as an excipient in the vaccine package insert, if it has disappeared, as you claim?" Because it's one of the things they add, so they have to list it. Would you be happier if they lied? If not, why do you ask the question? That doesn't mean it's still there. In particular, for freeze dried vaccines (and I think that's a lot of them) any formaldehyde would be removed along with the water. Also, "The body produces formaldehyde, and it has evolved to deal with what it produces. Injected formaldehyde is a different story." Why is it different? How does the body "Know" where a formaldehyde molecule has come from? Or is that just some bollocks you invented? "Cobra venom is well tolerated when taken orally. Would you take it with your breakfast cereal?" I'd need to be very hungry, but I'd recognise it as a potentially valuable source of protein. (N.B- if anyone is thinking of trying this, be aware that it's a rather risky way to check if you have ulcers) " If you break a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) in your house, you are supposed to evacuate the house and ventilate it to avoid breathing the mercury vapors." Who supposes that? Did they know what they were talking about? More importantly, why are you ignoring the other side of the equation? Vaccines save millions of lives. ​That is the datum that most people are likely to find useful- yet you miss it out.

It's simple. Someone has kindly set out the details here http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/letter-to-daily-mail-gives-excellent-explanation-of-war-with-isis--lkdXgHvQrg

Could it be an indication of more people with digital cameras and internet access?

I suspect that we won't hear from Vincent Lee again but, just in case, Has this been addressed yet? "Scientists are being urged to boycott a major international chemistry conference after its preliminary list of invited speakers and chairs featured no women." from http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/02/chemists-call-for-boycott-over-all-male-speaker-line-up.html

You say "I already know how to get rid of natural gas and oil, my dilemma is coal." How? We could do without coal- as long as we had plenty of oil. Similarly, if we had coal we can do without oil. The real problem is that we need energy Incidentally, Enthalpy seems unaware that you can burn coke, made by heating coal until practically all the hydrogen (among other things) has been driven out leaving essentially carbon (and some ash). The other, more volatile, materials make coal easier to light but it burns without them. Enthalpy, did you work at Windscale in 1957?

Re. "Polysorbate 80 contains vegetable oils. Depending on the type of vegetable oil used, it can cause the development of allergies to various food items - food allergies. http://www.sciencefo...gen-regulation/" You failed, in that thread, to show the validity of the assertion which you now claim that it makes. Re. "Mercury is a well known toxin for which there is no safe amount."That's a matter of definition- there are certainly well supported data for amounts that are well tolerated and the vaccines don't contain that much. Re. "Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen but your body creates a small amount of it too." Yep, and any which was present in a vaccine would react with the protein present- so, by the time it is injected there is no formaldehyde present. Did you mention it just as a scaremongering tactic? "Triton X-100 can damage cells." And water is toxic too. So what? Do you realise that any valid case you might have for raising concerns about other materials in vaccines is going to be lost in among all that bull?

I think it's a bit unfortunate that we don't have a lot of information about it,but that's only to be expected in the circumstances. However, the vehicle, the nature of the beam steering and whether it's a a solid state laser or not don't make a difference. Once the beam has left the truck, what stops it getting scattered every which way by the fog and rain? We can make a few reasonable deductions, given the power of the laser it's probably IR. It's more difficult to get high output power for shorter wavelengths. Also, since the power is being focussed onto a small enough spot to do damage, the wavelength cant be more than 1 cm or so. The scattering depends on wavelength, refractive index and the size of the droplets. Well they can't choose the droplets. For any given wavelength, the scattering will be what the weather God gives them. They also can't change the refractive index of water. So, all they can do is choose a wavelength where the scattering is lowest. The simple way to do that it to see where the refractive index of water is most similar to that of air. Since the index for air will always be much lower than for water, that's a matter of finding the wavelength where water has the lowest RI. Well, here's the data http://refractiveindex.info/legacy/?group=LIQUIDS&material=Water There are a couple of promising looking troughs at about 2 microns and 12 microns (or so- it's hard to read from the log scale). But those correspond to absorption peaks so they are no use- the light isn't scattered, but soaked up. The "hot spot" on the curve seems to be near 1.5, 4 or 8 microns, At any of those wavelengths the RI is about 1.3 That's pretty near the same as it is at visible wavelengths. So, from that point of view the reflectance of the water will be pretty close to what it is for visible light. For most angles, that's about 2 or 3 %. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflectivity#mediaviewer/File:Water_reflectivity.jpg You don't need to scatter 3% very often before most of the beam is "lost.

OK, so what's the difference between "I will eat" and "I shall eat" ?

It's a nice video with all the pictures taken on a nice sunny day with no fog or rain. So it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Shall.

Well, you could use microwaves to evaporate the water but, because of their large wavelength (compared to light) you can't focus them into such a narrow beam. So, instead of trying to boil all the water in a 5 mm diameter beam you would be trying to boil the water in something like a 50 mm wide beam (probably more). That's a hundred times more water so you need rather more power. The 2.8 KW needed to clear the fog from a 5 mm beam was already a problem. It just got a lot worse. I still think this is a bluff.

Who is "we" in this context? The Scots nearly voted to get rid of Cameron. I was not aware there was ever any evidence they "bottled in" in the first place. They made a decision; what has"bottle" to do with it? Well, since Cameron was massively in favour of a "no" vote he would have been proven incompetent by a "yes" vote. That would have been grounds for resignation. The vote showed that he had (in this matter) correctly judged the mood of the people (only just). And, at least he can claim that he gave the Scots the chance to choose- which is democracy in action. What did you see as a problem there? (Personally, I think Cameron should resign for a whole lot of other reasons but the outcome of the vote isn't one of them)

Try reading both words. " An obvious example is a cultural Jew"

I thought the bookies were the only ones who made money, whoever wins. It will be interesting to see how much of that power ever materialises.

You have also invented the pound, the stone, the inch and the foot. Mainly wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurement_in_France_before_the_French_Revolution Well, one option would be to redefine the word country. Another option would be to use the word "state" when you mean a state. The origins of the word country are well documented- and irrelevant. We are writing in English here. " if you click on the wikipedia link for "country", it will show a map in which the UK is a single color" Wiki is not God. Please feel free to correct it. The UK adopted the metric system decades ago. That's not very close to relevant is it? The decision on EU membership is yet to be looked at in detail. Whoever, perhaps you might like to think about a related question- what countries in the UK (for instance) have been stripped of their cultural identity through joining the UK? Well, Wales and Scotland. http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/society/language_education.shtml OK the English failed- but it wasn't for want of trying. I, on the other hand, am willing and able to point out your errors, in order that you might learn. "Being currently all part of the UK is how I used the word 'country'. Something I'd have thought reasonable and obvious." It may be reasonable and obvious to you but there is no way round the fact that there are 4 countries in the UK and you are wrong. No matter how often you try to repeat you view it won't get to being any less wrong. "; but I was replying to comments on passports, and as far as passports are concerned I understand it's viewed as one with free movement," Yes, and, in just the same way that you don't need a passport to get from Norway to Iceland (neither is in the EU), you may or may not end up needing a passport to get from England to Scotland. On the other hand, if I want to go to France, I need a passport even though I live in the UK and the UK is part of the EU. It has bugger all to do with the EU. So, you were plainly factually wrong again. It's a matter for negotiation if they Scots vote "yes"; maybe the border will be closed (I doubt it) maybe not. "But perhaps I need to submit comments to my lawyer before submitting!" Are you unable to check facts for yourself? " But I suggest it's nothing more than a diversionary tactic." Nope, you failed to count the countries in the UK. Correcting that error is not a diversionary tactic- it's essentially the point of a discussion page. You muddled up what the EU means for passport control and assumed that there would be a frankly daft decision (a requirement for passports at the border). That's a strawman and, as such, a lot closer to being a diversionary tactic.

Well, that data is presented "per metre" so, the amount of light absorbed is measured for the equivalent of a swimming pool rather than some fog. You cited data saying that fog has something like 0.05 grams of water per m3 Bulk water is 1,000,000 grams per cubic metre so the fog has something like ten million times less water that what they measured in that graph. Very roughly it will absorb ten million times less So 1% absorbed corresponds to 100,000 on that graph (very roughly) That's the hard UV below about 180 or 190 nm and bits of the IR near 10 microns Oxygen in the air will absorb UV in that region and there's more oxygen present than water so it's likely to absorb more of the UV. As I said, "water is pretty transparent to UV more so than air at some wavelengths." Here is a fairly typical illustration of the absorbance as it would be normally seen in a lab (i.e with a 1 cm path-length measured WRT air) https://us.vwr.com/store/catalog/product.jsp?catalog_number=BJAH365-4 It is transparent. A much bigger effect would be due to scattering by water droplets- very little light is absorbed, but something like a tenth of it is reflected from the surface of water. That's why is doesn't go especially dark on a foggy day- most of the light gets through- but you can't see properly- the light doesn't go where you expect it to.

No One degree Celsius = 274.15 Kelvin.

Nope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy Nope, it's an absolute scale . Celsius is not. That's why temperatures are given in degrees Celsius but not in degrees kelvin. The bit about the braile bracelets is probably the best bit here

No I'm making an assumption that what he meant was something which made sense, but he was euphemising it. Are you aware of the vulgar word "crap"? Mainly wrong. For a start there are, in fact, 4 countries in the UK. (Captain, Sorry if that confuses you. They have their own languages*; laws and cultures. Many people outside the UK are not aware of this. Since we invented the word "country" we use it correctly by definition. The word is "logical" because it's correct.) This " Do you not need a passport to enter a country other than the EU?" doesn't make sense because the EU isn't a country. If you meant to ask if there are countries outside the EU where you don't need a passport to cross the border then the answer is yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Passport_Union This "As far as I can see, undoing 300 years of history is exactly what they want." is meaningless- you can't "undo" history- it happened. "Blaming a particular political party is blaming democracy." Yep, and I was using it ironically. I was illustrating the absurdity of blaming the EU by pointing out that, at least the Tories had an influence. Why have you not taken Dekan to task for blaming the EU? *Here, to illustrate the point, is the Lord's prayer in Welsh. It really is not the same as English Ein Tad yn y nefoedd, sancteiddier dy enw; deled dy deyrnas; gwneler dy ewyllys, ar y ddaear fel yn y nef. Dyro inni heddiw ein bara beunyddiol, a maddau inni ein troseddau, fel yr ym ni wedi maddau i'r rhai a droseddodd yn ein herbyn; a phaid â'n dwyn i brawf, ond gwared ni rhag yr Un drwg. Oherwydd eiddot ti yw'r deyrnas a'r gallu a'r gogoniant am byth. Amen. Ditto the Gaelic Ar n-Athair a tha air nèamh, Gu naomhaichear d'ainm. Thigeadh do rìoghachd. Dèanar do thoil air an talamh, mar a nìthear air nèamh. Tabhair dhuinn an-diugh ar n-aran làitheil. Agus maith dhuinn ar fiachan, amhail a mhaitheas sinne dar luchd-fiach. Agus na leig ann am buaireadh sinn; ach saor sinn o olc: oir is leatsa an rìoghachd, agus an cumhachd, agus a' glòir, gu sìorraidh. Amen Incidentally, there may be a reason that they have not yet "decided" on what the currency will be. Here's the simplistic version. The current Westminster government likes oil revenue. So they don't want Scotland to leave. So they make inflammatory comments like " We won't let you use the pound". However, if the Scots vote to leave then exactly the same financial motive will convince Westminster that they might well want the Scots to continue to use Sterling- and of course, it makes all the other vast volume of trade much easier. So what the government says now may not be what it says later. Any decision on whether to use the pound would need to be negotiated between Westminster and Edinburgh. But they can't sensibly start that negotiation until after the vote. So there are 3 "obvious" possibilities for a currency in Scotland. A new "Scottish pound" Sterling or (possibly) The Euro Now the last option might not be realistic- certainly it would take a long time so there would need to be some interim system- but it illustrates the absurdity of the argument that "You can't have independent countries using the same currency". You can. Most of Europe has. That leaves the other two options an new currency or sharing Sterling. The latter would need negotiation and, that negotiation is currently impossible. You say "As for this Scottish business: has the main proponent of independence produced a realistic, practical not to mention possible plan for the currency? It seems to me as an outsider... he hasn't and always sidesteps the issue when questioned." Good. It shows he knows what he's doing. He can't say "we will use sterling" because Westminster would say "no you won't" (even though they might change their tune later) He can't say "We will invent a new currency" because people will point out that it would be very disruptive). So he waits and says nothing. Smart move.

Actually, at 0 Kelvin all atoms turn into petunias. Well, OK that's just a guess- there's no reason to think it's true; but since it's impossible to get to 0 K nobody will ever know.