John Cuthber

I don't. I didn't. I won't. And, as I said The first and second laws of thermodynamics are not my "opinion". Now that I have exposed that pointless straw man, could you explain why you are still defending the idea that we should keep on wasting time? Why don't you accept that it's time to cut your losses?

Meh! I live near this place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penistone

It is impossible to say without knowing more about the fertiliser. Why do you want to make it less acid?

You are right. If I look at a hot object, cooling down it is clear that its energy is not conserved and its entropy changes. That's not a problem with conservation, it's a problem with not choosing the system correctly. For a closed system delta S is zero for a reversible change, but positive for an irreversible one (as Bignose said) When you look at melting ice it is isothermal it's reversible (as long as it's slow) and, it's not isentropic so it looks like it's an exception to the delta S rule. But the process doesn't happen in a closed system. A (perfect) thermos flask of ice water doesn't melt. It will melt if you add heat to it. But something has to happen to create that heat. Once you let heat into the thermos flask, it's no longer a closed system and you have to consider the whole system which includes whatever is producing that heat. For the system as a whole, the change in entropy is positive.and the overall outcome isn't reversible.

I don't' think they happen in a closed system so you would have to consider the entropy changes of whatever is driving the change of state as it's part of the system too..

It's contesting the fact that the hole is repairing itself because you said it in rebuttal of my observation that the hole is repairing itself. Re. "This not only indicates he feels his opinion is the only one relevant," The first and second laws of thermodynamics are not my "opinion". "but shuts out possible ideas from a young Tesla type genius of our time." Tesla would have realised that you can't get something for nothing and abandoned the idea. Re. "My entire entry and point in this thread is that discussion should not become criminal just because someone thinks they know it all." Ophiolite summed up what is "criminal" when he said "let's rapidly reject the possibilities that are impractical by several orders of magnitude. To continue investing time and effort in considering them is not just a waste of time and effort it is - metaphorically at least - a criminal, anti-social - waste of time and effort." So, why do you carry on defending such action?

And here is where you contested it. And nobody was claiming there's only one solution. I just pointed out that making ozone isn't a solution, because it's impractical and the time, money and effort would be better spent elsewhere.

That still needs work as a form of communication.

I'm sure I have read of a research paper in maths which asks [ some question incomprehensible to a layman like me] and the abstract simply says "No."

Does this "theory" lead to anything testable?

My best guess would be "below the limit of detection". That;s certainly the practical limit for some regulations. You set a legal limit of "zero" but there's obviously no way you can measure down to that limit (As I said, you can't measure a single molecule). So the enforcement limit is practically the detection limit of the test. Do you have any evidence that it matters, i.e that the limit is set too high?

Adding the lime will reduce acidity, but that might not help much. If the fertiliser contains urea or an ammonium salt (and lots do) you will produce lots of ammonia (and you probably don't want that)

I suspect that it doesn't matter if I say yes or no, someone will have the opposite opinion.

Two problems, firstly, there's no certainty about the universe being infinite. There's also an issue with the definition of knowledge here. It's only knowledge if it is known. So, ignorance is (at least nearly) infinite. There are many (perhaps infinite) rocks on distant worlds. But knowledge is confined to the things that are known and since there seem to be a finite number of those, knowledge is finite. People's heads are not collectively infinitely big (even if you include extra terrestrial "people").

Well, each ml will contain 0.35 mg of the fumarate. The maths is the same as in studiot's post, but with all the 3s replaced by 2s. However I rather doubt this bit "If you want to know why the 0.025% and 0.035%, fumaric acid is diprotic and the salt is some mixture of ketotifen hydrogen fumarate and ketotifen fumarate that makes 250 microgrms of it equivalent to 350 micrograms of pure fumarate." The molar mass of the ketotifen is 309.4 The molar mass of the fumaric acid is 116 So the mass of the salt is 425.4 So each gram of the salt contains the equivalent of 309.4/425.4 =0.727 grams of ketotifen. So 0.35 mg of the salt contains 0.254 mg of the actual ketotifen and someone has rounded that off to 0.25mg. The difference between the numbers is that one is the mass of the active part of the drug and the other includes that fumarate which is there because it makes the stuff easier to work with. (for example, the fumarate salt might be more readily soluble in water or it might be easier to purify by recrystallisation or something like that)

"So is your ozone recipe the same as everyone's?" No, but the energy required by that recipe is. That's called the conservation of energy. "If I lay a mirror on the ground on a sunny day would that not create ozone without electricity even if on a tiny scale." No. By the time the light gets to the ground, almost any radiation that could b absorbed by the air, has been. "Energy may become more expensive, but it may also become cheaper" Well, I doubt it, but that's the sort of thing we should focus on, rather than things which are currently impossible. Just think, if you had spent time trying to solve the energy shortage, rather than pointlessly ignoring the conservation of energy as it applies to the cost of ozone production, you might have solved it and the world would be a better place.

As a philosophical point, how can you say that a photon with a different wavelength and (in some cases) polarisation is not "new"? (Also, learn to spell fluorescence).

What 400 bn? Are you talking about the difference between 7.2 bn people multiplied by 200$ and a trillion dollars? I invite you to look up the meaning of the word "about". With numbers that big, it's the order of magnitude that makes the difference, not the second significant figure. Anyway, you may remember that I originally said "Feel free to do the arithmetic. You need to know the energy needed to make ozone, how much you need, and how much you can expect to pay (wholesale) for electricity. I'm sure you can find those on-line somewhere." I said that so that anyone who could be bothered could calculate the lower bound to the cost. There's no way to reduce the cost of producing ozone below the cost of producing the energy to produce that ozone. And that energy cost is of roughly the same order as the whole world's electricity bill. We simply don't have the resources so it's not possible. So, as you say "It is the easiest thing in the world to think of reasons you can't do something." yes, and sometimes that's the point at which you realise you should focus on something else.

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? As I said, "Why are you still even thinking about this?". I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss the ozone hole and the issues that arise from it. I'm saying we shouldn't waste time on an idea that a few moments with a calculator will confirm is a pipe dream.

You say it is guesswork to point out that people's heads are not infinitely big. Can you substantiate that?

OK, Here's the evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#mediaviewer/File:Min_ozone.jpg The depletion has stopped and there's a slight (as yet) upwards trend.

And you think those are relevant to the OP's discussion of open carry in Texas?

Do you realise that, because of work already done, that's not gong to happen?

And again... Fine, let's deal in facts. The sages are factually wrong for the reasons I gave earlier and so you should not have brought them into the discussion.

You are now arguing against yourself. You say "the sages tell us that all knowledge is possible for us" and you say "...you realise that you don't actually know...." Perhaps you should stop now, because it's clear that nobody will gain a lot of knowledge from reading your self-contradictory posts.