John Cuthber

OK, Since Barfbag seems very concerned that I wrote "why would we carry on talking about something else which is never going to work?" perhaps I should remind people of the context. What I wrote was OK, should we discuss shouting at clouds as a way to repair the ozone layer? If, after some consideration, we realise that such shouting won't ever help, should we carry on discussing it, or should we turn our attention to other matters- possibly other solutions (like axing CFC use), or possibly other uses to which you could productively dedicate a trillion dollars? By the same token, why would we carry on talking about something else which is never going to work? and I think it's clear from that I meant we shouldn't waste time on things like C/W multipliers, shouting at clouds, or mirrors because they are never going to work. Discussion of things that might possibly work (like, as I said, axing the use of CFCs) is obviously not a waste of time, but, so far, nobody here has come up with one. Incidentally, if one of the mods could remove the interesting, but irrelevant stuff about algae farming to another thread, that might make things clearer. (1) OK, for the record, I already explained why the mirror idea wouldn't work in post 21. The "shooting UVc from ground level won't work for two reasons- firstly the cost of the energy involved and secondly because they would generate ozone near ground level where it's acutely poisonous to us and to all other living things. (2) No, I am talking about the energy needed to create ozone. If you can find a way to do it that doesn't take as much energy as is released when the ozone is decomposed then you have done two things, you have broken the law of conservation of energy and you have solved all the world's energy problems. However, because the law is a law, you can't do it. That's why I talked about thermodynamics. (3) Nobody here (apart from you) cares about your CV (4) No, it won't. There's essentially no hard UV in the sunlight when it reaches the ground- partly because organic stuff in the air (from plants etc) absorbs it. I already pointed that out (post 21), how come you couldn't grasp it? (5) I think you have that the wrong way round. According to this http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#Does_climate_change_have_an_impact_on_th "temperatures in the lower stratosphere are decreasing as a result of increased carbon and other heat-trapping emissions" "Cooling of the lower polar stratosphere enhances PSC [polar stratosphere cloud] formation, and thus contributes to ozone loss." (6) Since that's already in place it's not a new solution, But, perhaps I can remind you of what you previously said about it in post 14 "Work already done? Like what; realizing it wasn't hairspray doing the damage?" (7) you also seem to have forgotten that they can't work. (8) Oh no you didn't. (9) I already did. Funding would be an issue if they would work. They won't. (10) There's only a little CO2 in the air (about 0.04%). So, even converting the whole of it to CO2 (which isn't possible- because all the plants would die) wouldn't significantly increase the amount of oxygen (roughly 20.8% to 20.84%) and so any change in the ozone concentration (Perhaps a 0.2% increase) would be too small to matter. (11) You are deluding yourself if you think you have saved anything there. (12) LOL All the rest of the stuff talking about algae is hogwash for the reason given in 10

This, from wiki, might explain the difference in terminology. "In classical mechanics In nonrelativistic classical mechanics, a closed system is a physical system which doesn't exchange any matter with its surroundings, and isn't subject to any force whose source is external to the system.A closed system in classical mechanics would be considered an isolated system in thermodynamics." Now, can you address this please would you like to explain the sense in which entropy is undefined as you asserted when you said "So entropy is undefined, since you have defined neither k nor w, from first principles."? Obviously, it may not be defined in this thread, but nor are most of the words used here. Or do you accept that you were simply wrong to make that assertion since the definitions are readily found?

People found evidence that the world was round. Have you got any actual evidence for your assertions? And your "infinite man" is clearly talking nonsense. Do you not realise that this "because every action has an equal and opposite reaction." isn't actually a valid answer to this "But how can somethign both fail and succeed?" At best, the infinite man doing this http://xkcd.com/169/

Sorry, I must have missed it. What's the evidence for this bit "Corporation's ultra pure injection grade process results in enough allergen concentration to elicit allergic reactions." Also re. "injecting oleic acid is also known to cause lung injury." Granted, I'm not injecting it, but every time I eat anything with ft in I end up with oleic acid in my bloodstream and gets to the lungs, just the same as if I injected it. How come I'm still breathing? Could it be because I'm not a sheep?

You seem to have rather ignored the fact that the proteins will be destroyed before they get to the vaccine. Now, I accept that for allergies to eggs, gelatine and other things that are actually present in the vaccine, there may be a problem. But they don't seem to have much to do with this thread.

I have no idea what the climate is like in Connecticut, but dandelions grow like weeds in most places. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131028114547.htm What do you want isoprene for?

Nope, about 15% more than that. The density of 32% HCl is about 1.15 and the concentration of the acid is calculated by weight. So, you have about 1.15 kg of liquid containing about 368 grams of HCl. (Which makes Sensei's comment about "You should first learn how to calculate in moles, how to convert to grams, how to calculate concentration etc. etc." a little ironic.)

Probably about 15% more than you expect.

Have a look at the bottom of this page. The predictions are not perfect (for example 6 valent oxygen doesn't happen) but they are a very good start. http://www.chemprofessor.com/ptable.htm

There are two problems here- the safety issue which can be addressed by carefully diluting the reactants. The fact that we don't know what the impurities are or what the product is to be used for. Having said that, a common impurity in HCl is iron. It's easy enough to remove it in this case by adding a slight excess of KOH which will precipitate the iron as the hydroxide which can be filtered off. Also, the commonest impurity in the KOH is probably water which won't matter much. You can purify the product quite well by recrystallisation so it is probably possible to use this process to get KCl that's pure enough for most things. However, just buying the stuff will be easier. Note that many of the "salt substitutes" on sale are a mixture of NaCl and KCl so you will need to separate those.

OK, so who made it personal? "So entropy is undefined, since you..." "Further it is incomplete because I..." Also, re. "At least I am prepared to admit my limitations." "Well I don't agree with this interpretation." "Bignose's definition should have read for a cyclic process." nope. It didn't. "C'mon what you said was neither mathematical, nor correct," Wrong on both counts. Now, as I said, I'm not sure, but I think that the question of reversibility depends on other factors, notably closedness, so the overall definition needs to include those . If I'm right in thinking that, then there's no way to address the problem you raise when you say "it is incomplete because I choose to examine non closed systems" Even if I'm wrong, hopelessly rude and condescending, I backed up the assertions I made as fact, with a wiki page. I also clearly labeled my beliefs as such, for example, I said "I suspect that if the system is open" . Now, would you like to explain the sense in which entropy is undefined as you asserted when you said "So entropy is undefined, since you have defined neither k nor w, from first principles."? Obviously, it may not be defined in this thread, but nor are most of the words used here. Or do you accept that you were simply wrong to make that assertion since the definitions are readily found?

It may be more practical to collect the polymer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rubber

But the tree you are heading for is imaginary. As far as anyone can tell, it might be like seeing the dogs, drawing a "magic" pentagram round yourself to stop them and then waiting contentedly.

"Some of the maths have been calculated in one particular sleep telepathy study as 75 000 000:1 odds in favour of telepathy. Because of my involvement in the field I was privy to some film (they used film back then) of the experiments and they were often "uncanny". They were also double blind. The sender was locked in a room before opening the picture to be broadcast." Repeat the experiments and win a million dollars (as well as massive international recognition) http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-faq.html What do you stand to lose?

So, "undefined", "first" and "principles" are undefined since you have defined none of them. I think you will find that Boltzmann's constant is quite well defined. The number of microstates is less well known, but still well enough defined. So, the problem is not the lack of a definition, it's the lack of your background knowledge. Does this help? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann%27s_entropy_formula I suspect that if the system is open, the question of reversibility is undefined so a universal definition will never happen.

I don't know if you are being ironic or not.

OK, now I really can't tell who is being ironic. (for the record, no, I'm not kidding)

Entropy has been mathematically perfectly well defined for over a century s = k ln w If, for a closed system* the change in entropy is zero then the process is reversible, otherwise it isn't (and if it's negative time is going backwards) * (the whole system, not just the bits you choose to look at)

Why would one do this? Assuming it's for analysis something like this might help you. http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/technical-documents/articles/reporter-us/radiello-diffusive.html This may well also work. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/mdhs/pdfs/mdhs63-2.pdf

If you just leave the diamonds for long enough they will obliterate themselves. Diamonds are not stable and slowly convert to graphite. The process is far too slow to be observable. The real problem here is that you are mixing up units. Your question is like asking "how many feet is hot enough to boil an egg?" or "how many seconds is wide enough to cross that atlantic?" Force isn't measured in Joules. Also, the force needed to damage something depends on lots of other factors- most importantly the area. For example, I can stand on a plate of steel that is a square, one metre on each side and 12 cm thick (which will weigh about a ton) and my weight will not damage it. But if I made all that steel into a really long thin wire, it wouldn't hold up it's own weight, never mind holding my weight too.

"Polysorbate 80 is derived from vegetable oils and it is therefore impossible to remove food proteins completely from it." Well, for a start, most proteins don't dissolve ewell in oil so filtering it would remove a lot of the protein. Adding a filter aid/ sorbent like fuller's earth would strip out practically all the rest. But it still doesn't matter if there are traces left. You claim "... any protein is injected into the body for the first time in sufficient quantity ...". Well, that may be true, but since it's trivially easy to strip out very nearly all the protein from vegetable oil, it's easy to ensure that the "sufficient quantity" isn't resent. Then there's the fact that we are not injecting the oil. The oil is chemically converted to oleic acid by treatment with either superheated steam, caustic or oiling acid. Those will denature and/ or hydrolyse any proteins still present. Then the oleic acid will be purified again to remove any impurities introduced by the hydrolysis process. And then, it is reacted with the other component- the sorbitol derivative- to male polysorbate. Proteins probably won't survive that process either. So, between the olive and the vial there have been at least 5 processes that would remove proteins. Please learn something about chemistry- it will save you from worrying about this sort of non-existent risk.

A way to look at it is that the electrons have to be somewhere. So, for example, if you have some chlorine gas and some sodium metal, there's a pair of electrons in each chlorine molecule that are shared between the two atoms (making Cl2) because each Cl atom is short of an electron. Also there's some sodium that's able to better accommodate those electrons. The electrons would be in a lower energy state if they were stuck to the chlorines. So they transfer across to give sodium ions and chlorine ions. Even better, those ions can now pack themselves into a nice orderly crystal so the + charges are surrounded by - charges (which is nice, because they are attracted to one another) and the negatively charged Cl- ions are surrounded by the Na+ ions (and again, they attract each other so they are happy with the arrangement). The electrons are something like 2000 to 400,000 times lighter than the ions so it's the electrons that can move easily. They move to the places where they are most stable. The detailed answer to why the electrons are easy to remove from sodium is more complex but this might help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shielding_effect

baothinh I think the problem here is that there are three different things that all get called "lime". Calcium oxide- quicklime Calcium hydroxide - slaked lime and Calcium carbonate- limestone. Only the third of those is present in mountains. Think about it- how long would a quicklime mountain last in the rain?

If you react those without diluting them in water first it will react violently. Please don't.

"Wow! Now you are equating freedom to discuss a topic with Thermodynamics." No, that's another strawman. "How doe thermodynamics even relate to the ozone? Well, if you don't understand that, it may explain why you are still going on about it. It takes energy to convert oxygen into ozone. There's no way round that (if you could, it would be a breach of the first law). So there's a minimum energy needed to produce the ozone and thus there is a minimum cost. (I pointed that out rather early in the thread) And, since that energy cost is far too big for humanity to stomach, there's no way we are going to be making ozone to replace that lost from the atmosphere. . " But if he had his way no other ideas would ever be explored by anyone anywhere. He said, "Why even discuss it?", as if his method was the only one that could ever come to light." Nope, that's yet another straw man. What I have said is let's not waste effort on things we know to be impossible. Of course, it may be that you didn't realise that but, had you read and understood what had been written, not only would you have learned some science, but you might not have dragged this thread out so much. It's not that my method is the only one (as I already said) it's that any method will take vast amounts of energy (which I already said). Also, you have ignored the fact that I explained that the mirror will not work and the fact that I explained why. So, once again, why are you still going on about it?