John Cuthber

Because you didn't just ask that. You also said " so that I can test this device in that software for all possible permutations and combinations to get a positive result before start building a actual prototype." It's not unreasonable for us to point out that no software will let you design such a prototype. I wish I knew of such software (perhaps others will- it's really not my field). With such software you might convince yourself of the truth- that you are on a wild goose chase- and stop wasting your time.

If you had done that rather than saying "I suspect you are misreading that line and that you didn't read the study. Those amounts you quote reflect the ratio of THC to the gross weed weight. What were you carrying when you posted" the thread would have been a lot less sidetracked. And, if you had got the quote correctly from the original document in the first place there wouldn't have been an issue to discuss. Don't blame me for pointing out your factual errors on a science web site. BTW, you might want to look up the meaning of "hyperbole".

Well, it could just be a lousy illustration, but they seem to be showing a mixture of hydrogen CO and oxygen coming out of the converter. The clear implication is that the converter is very hot- that's what solar concentrators do. The problem is that a hot mixture of CO, H2 and O2 will, of course, catch fire. I'm not buying shares in this idea any time soon.

Inventors can't break physical laws. That's the point of recognising those laws. They tell you what is impossible. We don't need to use software to test your idea. It has been shown to be mathematically impossible (the maths I cited earlier). Don't waste your time trying to build a prototype; it will never work.

Will you stop saying "a single photon way smaller than an atom"? Any photons you are going to use are a lot bigger than an atom. There are "smaller" photons, but they carry so much energy they would ionise the atoma and they carry so much momentum they would knock it out of place. Do you understand that? Also, if (though it's impossible, I will ignore that for the minute) you managed to make a hole just one atom wide through something, perhaps a metal foil, and you shone light through it, you would not get a beam of light one atom wide coming out of the other side. Do you understand that? Each photon would reach the end of the tunnel and shoot off in some pretty much random direction by diffraction. The beam would not be thin and parallel. It would be essentially a "point source". Do you understand that?

No we are not. We are saying (because it's true) that a single photon of that energy would ionise that atom (possibly, multiply ionise it) and would knock it out of place. And you really need to look up how diffraction works.

"At least I tried to answer "how to make NaOH at home". Your answer was "go to shop and buy".." And so did you- it was one of the few things you said that was correct. "Really easier is to buy it" "In post #3 I just described "home version" of Chloralkali process in easy to understand words" A version that wouldn't work. "Rethink once again what was initial quantity of salt and water. 59-60 g of NaCl and 18 g of H2O" It doesn't matter who thinks about it, nor how often. The stuff still won't dissolve. "2 Cl- on positive electrode are joining together and neutral gaseous Cl2" Still ignoring the oxygen then? Do you realise that, as the reaction goes on there's less Cl- so there's less Cl2 production? Eventually, you end up making oxygen. "So we will have: NaCl, NaCl, HCl, HClO." Will you please stop pretending that you will end up with acids like HCl in the presence of NaOH? And the problem of reaction of Cl2 and NaOH still remains whatever shape the electrodes are- because they still have to be in the solution. You need something to keep them separate. That kind of seems to be totally and utterly missing from your so called ""home version" of Chloralkali process" So, when it comes down to it you gave a method that (without a whole lot of details, which you missed out) won't actually work. Anyway, buying the stuff is the simple method and adding slaked lime to washing soda solution may well be the most practical home chemistry version.

"Do you believe prayer should be allowed before a meeting of government officials?" If they like, but they shouldn't be paid for their time while they do so. "In fact, I encourage prayer if it results in a positive outcome for that person doing it." It's a government meeting. I want them to get the right answer, and there's no reason to suppose that prayer helps that. I'm not paying for "a positive outcome for that person doing it."

Among a whole lot of wrongness If you are using a high voltage, you are just wasting power. The excess heat will contribute to shifting the product from hypochlorite to chlorate and so on, but I think it's fair to say that the killer brain fart is where you say "Right. But whole point of this setup is to produce Chlorine gas." Do you want someone to read the title of the thread for you? Another remarkable bit of evidence of a lack of clear thinking is where you say "If gaseous Cl2 dissolved in solution (which is undesired), there will be also HCl present." Well, if the system generates any NaOH (and I accept it will produce a bit of the stuff with a lot of impurities) then the concentration of HCl is going to damn all isn't it? I realise you didn't mention copper. What you said was "some electrodes that don't react with neither HCl nor NaOH" Need I remind you that copper doesn't react with HCl or NaOH? So, while you didn't mention it by name, it should work according to your woefully inept procedure. Most amateur scientists probably did the "two copper wires a battery and a jar of salt water" experiment as a kid. Most of us remember that the wires corroded. Would you like to try again?

Ho Hum. For a start, the salt won't dissolve in that little water. Then there's the problem of oxygen- rather than chlorine being produced at the anode. Add to that the fact that, once there's any NaOH present, it will tend to react with chlorine to produce things like NaClO and NaClO3. Oh, while I'm at it, a copper wire won't react with NaOH or with HCl, but it won't serve as an anode in that cell because it would be oxidised by chlorine. So, in summary, mainly wrong.

Djinj, Please highlight the error in this brilliant piece of mathematics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Example_2:_Conservation_of_center_of_momentum or stfu

Or a good watch http://leapsecond.com/pages/atomic-bill/

There's also the issue of the momentum they carry, it would be like trying to build a detailed model from clay by shooting artillery rockets at it.

And that energy corresponds to a temperature of hundreds of millions of degrees. So you would heat the material instantly to a zillion times its boiling point. Not good for trying to build structures.

Have you considered using some of the videos on youtube and such? This sort of thing

"are you, and others, saying your only talking about the packets of photons" No. Individual photons are bigger than atoms (in any sense in which you can define the size of a photon). "...purposely ignoring about trying to shoot out just a 1-width line of photons?" We are intentionally ignoring something which can not exist, other than to tell you it's impossible (because of the laws of diffraction) because it can't exist. Incidentally, I'm a spectroscopist. That means my job is to understand the interaction between photons and atoms. As far as I can tell, you are a school kid, which means your job is to learn.

You have edited it. it is still wrong. perhaps, rather than editing it again, you might like to answer the questions and points I raised.

"All over the internet is that photons are, smaller than an atom" http://xkcd.com/285/ They don't "come out of an electron"They come from moving an electron. Do you understand that I can take a pen with a nib 1mm across and draw a wave with a wavelength of 10 cm?

No. Why do you continue to ignore the widely available data. The wavelength of visible light (which is as good a measure of the "size" of the photon as any other measure) covers the range from roughly 400 nm (violet) to about 700 nm (red). The size of atoms (as I pointed out earlier) is about 150 pm So that's about 3000 times smaller. Stop ignoring reality.

How many times do we need to tell you? A photon is not smaller than an atom. It's about a thousand times bigger.

"Well obviously the photons shooting out will have to be around exactly the size of an atom or way smaller to" That may be "obvious", but it's wrong. If you are talking about visible light then, compared to an atom, it is huge and clumsy. The fact that you don't seem to like this will not change reality. "It'ss trruue we could have an atomic thing shoot out a line of photons as big or smaller than an atom" Nope, it is not true, and I guess that's why someone felt it warranted negative rep. ".you guys ar'nt explaining why that wont work" Yes we are. The photons are too big. It's like moving an ant about by putting it in a matchbox. You can move the box with as much precision as you like, but you still can't specify the position of the ant better than saying "it's in that box somewhere".

LOL Strictly speaking, the size of a photon is rather poorly defined. Since we are talking about lasers and optical tweezers the wavelength of the photons is of the order of 500 nm The radius of typical atom is about 130 pm http://en.wikipedia....nts_(data_page)

Why not just buy it? Anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_hydroxide#Production

No. The photons are vastly bigger than the atoms (about 1000 fold). It would be like trying to move grains of rice with a bulldozer. (Actually, rather more difficult due to quantum effects which don't trouble rice grains or bulldozers)

Advance, You seem to be missing the point about resolution here. If I asked you to put a nail in a piece of wood, exactly ten centimetres from the top and ten centimetres from the left hand edge, you could probably get the pin in the right place to within a mm or so. But you couldn't do much better than that for two reasons. You can only see things about a tenth of a mm or so across so if you were using a ruler calibrated to , for example, 0.01mm. you wouldn't be able to see the lines on it. You could get round that problem using a magnifying glass. More importantly, the nail is bigger than 1 mm and so you can't really define it's position to within 1 mm. The optical tweezers are simply "too big" for the resolution you want. And, as Swansont has pointed out, asking the question again won't get a different answer.