John Cuthber

And I simply ask why you didn't look up the meaning of autoxidation before posting about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoxidation Or, having been told what the reaction really is, why you didn't look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disproportionation

""Premise 4: So, may power is greater than the universe's. Conclusion: I can use movielike magic powers on a whim successfully." is nonsense, It's like saying that I can beat someone at chess so I can beat them at football. Having greater "power" in one sense doesn't say that you can do everything. That's just silly. And, when you have finished discussing it, the conservation of energy will remain proven, contingent only on the stability of the laws of nature over time. It will remain so, because t has been proven mathematically.

Well, I guess the Republicans are "owned" by big businesses. Who "owns" the democrats? If that's also big businesses then it confirms the image that the rest of the world has of US politics. You have two Right-wing parties, but you think one of them is Left-wing.

Do you think that helped in any way?

OK, I was already getting bored of the pointless scraps of information, but this one is a lot worse. It's just wrong. Auto oxidation is a completely different process. and this Cl2 + H2O → HCl + HOCl is a disproportionation reaction.

Well, you are right. There is not enough information to answer the question. Are you sure you have copied it correctly? If you have then someone else has made a mistake.

You say that as if it matters.

Would it be possible for you to demonstrate less understanding of the topic?

You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?

The dust doesn't affect the original outcome. The dust particle should be hot enough to glow because it would be surrounded in all directions by stars. Given infinite time and exposure to infinitely many stars, it would be as hot as the surface of a star.

Well, good luck to them all. Remember, just as soon as his great grandmother dies, and his grandfather dies, and his dad dies, he will have a job.

"Consistency" a la Republican http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUzEJiFpmsQ

" If you fix the most powerful telescope on a "black" area of space, you will find faint galaxies are there." Yes, you will, and in those galaxies, between the stars, there are dark bits. If the universe were infinite in space and time, then whatever line you pointed your telescope along, there would be a star. The dark bits prove that the universe is, in some sense, finite (or that there's something very odd about the local bit of it. It could be infinitely big and infinitely old- if there were only stars in our local bit of it and all of the whole of it's infinite expanse was empty. I rather doubt that is how it works)

"when is a strawberry dead?" Shortly after the Women's' institute gets hold of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jam_%26_Jerusalem

"The Galileo affair had more to do with politics than it did with doctrine" Possibly, but It was Catholic politics that led to him being tried for heresy, found guilty and arrested. ​That might not be a clash between science and Christianity per se, but it's a clash with Catholicism. "geocentrism has never been a Catholic doctrine." Odd, the Bible is plainly geocentric. As I said before, has Catholicism renounced the Bible? Also, according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture That's the inquisition report into the matter. It was the Catholic stance on the matter at the time. "The death of Savita Halappanavar had even less to do with doctrine than did the Galileo affair." OK, how come she would have (very probably) lived, had she been born in England? Doesn't addressing theses questions add a load which could be avoided if you gave up trying to square the Bible with reality?

"I did my own experiments with batteries, wires, and a multimeter. My fan disappeared, and I think my LED just died, though." You really think that saying that helps your case? "In what world is sending numerous science experiments, and perhaps claims, to be checked and reviewed in a science journal wrong?" This one. Because the experiments are poorly planned an undertaken, the claims are not based on anything real (in particular, they can't be based on the experiments, because the experiments were too deeply flawed), "If it's not real, they should at least tell me why my experiments got the results they did or something that's enough like why." Not really. Editors are busy people. They have enough to do dealing with papers which might actually provide progress in science. It's not their job to explain to you why you have no idea. You seem to have mistaken them for science teachers. I strongly suggest that you bother the right group next time. ( don't forget to offer to pay them)

Very roughly, C12 H22 O11 + KNO3 ---> K2CO3 + CO2 +N2 +H2O Well, that equation is a pig, so I'm going to pretend that the reaction happens in two steps (it's not utterly unrealistic, there will certainly be several steps, and I'm only using it as a handy accounting trick.) First I assume that the sugar decomposes to carbon and water. C12H22O11 ---> 12 C + 11 H2O (I like carbohydrates-that equation is easy to balance) Now I will pretend that the carbon reacts with the nitrate cleanly to give potassium carbonate, co2 and water so here's the unbalanced equation. C + KNO3 --> K2CO3 + CO2 + N2 The potassium and oxygen are not likely to change their oxidation state. So the redox rection involves just the C and the N The N gains 5 electrons per atom and the carbon loses 4 So there must be 4 nitrogens for each 5 carbons (so that 20 electrons are lost and 20 are gained) 5C + 4KNO3 --> K2CO3 + CO2 + N2 The oxygens end up in two places, and so do the carbons so they are a bit hard to tally at the moment. Still, it's clear that the potassium atoms have to balance. 5C + 4KNO3 --> 2 K2CO3 + CO2 + N2 So we start with 12 Oxygens and 6 end up in the carbonate so the other 6 must be in the CO2: 2 oxygens each tells me there must be 3 CO2 5C + 4KNO3 --> 2 K2CO3 + 3 CO2 + N2 Tidy up the nitrogens (I could have done that earlier if I had liked) 4 Nitrogens on the left so there must be 2 nitrogen molecules on the right 5C + 4KNO3 --> 2 K2CO3 + 3 CO2 + 2 N2 Good! it all works out. So, I need to use 4 KNO3 molecules for every 5 carbon atoms And the sucrose provides me with 12 atoms of carbon. Ugh! Ok, it's a bit like finding lowest common denominators. If I have 60 carbon atoms I can share them out in bunches of 5 or 12. So, Multiply the second equation 5C + 4KNO3 --> 2 K2CO3 + 3 CO2 + 2 N2 by 12 to give 60 C + 48 KNO3 ---> 24 K2CO3 + 36 CO2 + 24 N2 And the first equation C12 H22 O11 ---> 12 C + 11 H2O multiplied by 5 gives me 5 C12H22O11 ---> 60C +55 H2O Add the two together, cancel out the carbons, and get 5 C12H22O11 + 48 KNO3 ---> 24 K2CO3 + 36 CO2 + 24 N2 +55 H2O Beurgh! Best check it balances Carbons 12*5 = 24*2+36 check Potassium 48 =24*2 Check Nitrogen 48 =24*2 hydrogen 22*5 = 55*2 Oxygen 11*5 =55 Thank [deity of choice] for that OK so we now have a balanced equation. 5 C12H22O11 + 48 KNO3 ---> 24 K2CO3 + 36 CO2 + 24 N2 +55 H2O Next question- does anyone actually believe that all the dozens of atoms involved all behave nicely and swap partners in accordance with that equation? Well, if they did the smoke would be white- because it would just be K2CO3 So, at best , it's going to be an approximation but never mind- it might not be too bad. 5 moles of sugar weighs 5 x 342.3 grams i.e. 1.71 Kg And 48 moles of potassium nitrate weighs 48 * 101.1 grams i.e. 4.85 Kg The ratio is about 2.8 to 1 The usual recipe (about 3 to 2 or 1.5 to 1) is quite a long way from stoichiometry - but that's because some of the nitrate doesn't get reduced all the way to nitrogen, it only gets converted to nitrite (KNO2). Odd as it may seem, I don't feel like going through all that calculation again. I'm going to cheat a bit. Firstly, I don't care what the products weigh. I just need the relative proportions of the two reactants. Remember the bit about counting the electrons transfered? Now, the change in oxidation state for the nitrogen is 2 (it goes from 5 to 3) And the change in oxidation for the carbon is still 4 (zero to 4) So there must be twice as many nitrogens as carbons So the reaction must be something like C + 2 KNO3 ---> something and so 12 grams of carbon react with 2*101.1 grams of KNO3 so each gram of nitrate reacts with 202.2/12 grams of carbon about 16.8 grams of nitrate per gram of carbon similarly, each sucrose decomposes to give 12 atoms of carbon 342 grams gives 144 grams 28.5 grams of sugar per gram of carbon so you can cancel the carbons and get 28.5 grams of sugar for 16.8 grams of nitrate. That's about 1.7 to 1: fairly close to 1.5 to 1, or 3:2 The moral of this story is that the 1.5 to 1 is a rough approximation to one possible course for the reaction. It's almost certainly been produced by trial and error. Also, it's quite possible that it melts more easily than the "proper" mixtures.

My ears were burning. Enthalpy's calculation looks about right. Most of the alkali present may be carbonate and silicate rather than hydroxide. Good luck with getting good mixing on that scale. Since you can't be sure what the stuff you are trying to neutralise actually is, the calculation is a bit suspect. I'd try adding 6 litres of 33% HCl and stirring it, waiting a day or so and then measuring the pH again. It's perfectly possible that the pH will still be about 11 That's because the water will dissolve some silicates and carbonates from the concrete and that will raise the pH again. Essentially, whatever calculations we come up with, you are going to have to do the experiment with the actual tank full of water.. It might be easier to try with 1 litre of the water and titrate that with the acid - say 1 ml at a time- until it's near neutral. That will give you a good idea of where to start. Do you, by any chance, have a plastic lined pond you can put the stuff in, rather than the concrete? If you can, then at least you won't be trying to neutralise all the concrete. Even working 1 tonne at a time in an IBC might be a better bet than trying to work on the whole pond full.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation "A black hole of one solar mass has a temperature of only 60 nanokelvin (60 billionths of a kelvin)" and "The electromagnetic radiation is as if it were emitted by a black body with a temperature that is inversely proportional to the black hole's mass." So I can (if I could be bothered) calculate the mass of a black hole such that its temperature is 20 C (71F) Also, it's my understanding that, as you fell through the event horizon of a big enough black hole, you wouldn't actually notice anything special (locally)- at least not at first. So this candidate for "super solid" doesn't seem to work.

OK, lets hold them accountable. for a start, lets have a policy of more than x lies and you are out. That would help a lot. Now, have a look here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/29/mitt-romney-tells-533-lies-in-30-weeks-steve-benen-documents-them/ for any value of x less than 533 the republicans need a new candidate. Can we hold them to account for fruitloopery too? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind/?hl=%2Bromney+%2Blies#entry697573 (And I'm not sure the guy who believes in dragons iss much different from the one who has magic underwear.) What about apparent gerymandering? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69938-youve-got-to-be-kidding-me/?hl=%2Bromney+%2Blies#entry709600 And your definition of consistency seems to include proposing an idea, then voting against it when the other side say they think it's good too. Mine doesn't, and I don't think the dictionary's does either.

It's also noteworthy that most of Europe has healthcare systems that look like "Obamacare Plus" and they work quite well.

The problem is that Windevoid doesn't realise that the editor is part of the peer review process. Editors are also scientific peers, perfectly capable of reviewing some papers- including spotting unevinced dross.

Obamacare is pretty much indistinguishable form a republican idea. http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182 "Well how many Obamacare wavers and implementation postponements need to be mentioned? Are these wavers and postponments not lies? " Interesting question. If they are not happening because they were prevented by someone else's actions then they were not lies. So, for example, if they are not implemented because the Republicans were buggering then up then no. Is there any evidence for that sort of behaviour? Why yes! there is, in the first post. Come on, your post was only number 6. Can't you even look back five posts? It seems to me that the hypocrites are those who came up with it but are now hindering it just to make the government look bad. Now, would you like to actually comment on the points I made or are you going to try to distract attention from them again?

If you put clean water in a glass bottle and leave it, the water becomes alkaline as silicates leach out of the glass.

I'm not walking down the street, I'm sat on a chair typing so, what you have described as "technically correct", isn't remotely correct. It's, as you put it, absurdly wrong. This " Saying "From my point of view the ground actually is static [as I walk]" is absurdly factually wrong. In your frame, you are static. From your POV, you are static and the street moves."is , therefore, yet another strawman. Why do you keep doing that? In this case, you actually had to put extra words into the purported quote to try to make your point. Did you really think people wouldn't notice?