John Cuthber

Yes they are http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

Thank you for the graph which confirms that gold is gold, while silver is silver.

Oh yes it is.

On its own, it doesn't work as an investigative tool anyway. They could analyse all the interactions and they would find, for example, that I regularly call about 4 people and occasionally call some others. Most people's data would look more or less similar. Some people would call larger numbers, and some fewer. It's only helpful if you know that one of the people is a crook, then you can see whom he talked to. But they could always get a warrant to do that anyway. So this lets them look at my phone usage where they couldn't do so before. And I'm not a crook. So, what investigation does it help? Also, the crooks presumably watch CSI and they know that phone calls are not secure, so they use disposable mobile phones (or stolen or cloned ones). So, I don't see what illegal activity they can monitor now which they couldn't before. On the other hand, they can now monitor my activity. Perhaps that's why they couldn't sell this idea to the man in the street- he's also bright enough to work out what I just worked out.

The NSA are not listening to phone calls. In effect, they are reading your itemised phone bill. They know who you called, when and for how long. Whether that's an evil thing or not, they seem to have arranged to do it in such a way that most people didn't realise that they were doing so. It's not that they actually lied, they just told the fewest possible people. They announced it to congress in a briefing, knowing that "Very few lawmakers avail themselves of such briefings" The question is why, if the case for doing this is strong enough to overrule the privacy concerns, did they not just explain what they wanted to do, get the public on- board, and do it clearly in plain sight? Perhaps they were not sure that they could convince the man in the street that this is a good idea. Well, if the man in the street doesn't think it's a good idea, (and the protests seem to suggest that he doesn't) but you introduce it anyway, is that democracy?

What irrational beliefs are you ascribing to me,and on what basis? And, I remind you that, unlike the "free" citizens in Texas, I'm allowed to own a 3 necked flask. My country's "anti-science, anti-technology" government hasn't banned them. Did you ignore the possibility that the Europeans may be simply better educated in the field of science? (There's still room for improvement, but...) http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx I realise that I'd have difficulty getting a license for anything but a shotgun, however killing and destroying things isn't what floats my boat so I don't mind much.

The typical amount of nitrogen present as nitrite is less than 1 ppm. http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/nitrite.cfm So, call it 0.5ppm, just to have a figure to work with. You give the solubility of NO as 0.0056 g/100 ml, whic is 0.056 g/l which is 56 ppm So, all the gas that might be produced will dissolve. So would ten times more So would a hundred times more. Now, can you please stop being silly.

So, Europe, with twice the population of the states and an even more disjointed sense of "nation" should be less informed than the US. I think it might be more to do with a wilful blindness which lets them carry on wasting resources.

Even if you ignore global warming, and you shouldn't, we are perfectly capable of causing world wide damage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

"You bring up a good point. How many people need to be enlightened on a subject, in order for it to be worthwhile, or a step forward." Why assume it's a step forward, just because lots of people are enlightened on it? Plenty of people were aware of tyranny. Does that make it worthwhile?

"On point 7, I would add NO pending exposure to sufficient oxygen" I wouldn't. That's because I looked up the solubility of nitric oxide. "Also, NH3 and HNO2 can co-exist, at least until they react, as my reference provided previously cites the creation of ammonium nitrite by the action of ammonia on Nitrous acid: HNO2 + NH3•H2O --> NH4NO2 + H2O" It's precisely because they react that they can't co exist.

Do we have past experience of what Texas would do about someone destroying the environment on the basis of, at best, dubious science? Come to think of it, they might elect him. Seriously, if we report him, we set a precedent.

"By the way, there is no 'my chemistry' here, as I have given, for the most part, peer reviewed published work." In the real world, you don't get ammonia and nitrous acid in the same solution. If the sun heats the vessel enough to initiate an explosion then the expansion / vapour pressure of water is going to be putting a serious strain on the tank without any chemistry. Points 3 and 4 are almost contradictory. If the water has been chlorinated there won't be bugs or H2S As I said, you need to look at the chemistry. point 6 is likely to be significant. Old tanks fail. Re. point 7 gases that don't dissolve well in water may accumulate. You may note that I have already pointed out methane and hydrogen as potential contributors. Now, could you please explain what you thought you meant by "Personally attacking me, based on how I have, on many occasions embarassed a super moderator at SC who thinks, because he has a longer career as a practicing organic (not inorganic) chemist isn't a basis for a scientific assessment of my arguments." and "but claiming that all the incidents and investigations thereof, are all nonsense is really closed minded,"

At or near pH 7 nitrous acid (which has a pKa of about 3) will be about 99.99 % dissociated So, of the bugger all nitrous acid present, almost all is not available. We are now talking about sub part per billion concentrations of nitrous acid- difficult to detect or measure. And you are saying that they cause explosions. Are you sure you are serious? ". Sciencemadness (in spite of its name) refuses to acknowledge that there is a rare event, in spite of reported pressure eruptions in the media." Simply not true. Nobody has said the events don't happen. They just say that your "explanations" are absurd. "If anyone has new theories, please present them," I did: hydrogen, unburned fuel gas from the torch , bacterially produced methane. "but claiming that all the incidents and investigations thereof, are all nonsense is really closed minded," It would be closed minded to say that all explanations are nonsense. But saying that your explanations are nonsense is just good science. "Personally attacking me, based on how I have, on many occasions embarassed a super moderator at SC who thinks, because he has a longer career as a practicing organic (not inorganic) chemist isn't a basis for a scientific assessment of my arguments." Where did that come from? You seem not to have noticed. I'm the one who is pointing out your mistakes and dreams. I'm not, and I never was, a mod here (or on any other forum). "I am attempting to adress a serious issue involving significant property damage and loss of life." Start by learning some science.

I think he's been sniffing the mercury. I hope his review of this forum includes a link to this thread. Those reading the review might find it very informative. If he comes back he might realise that a plasma has + and - charged species so the magnetic field from moving one is exactly cancelled out by the field from moving the other. Who knows, he might even answer the questions posed earlier.

Is it possible for someone to change the tile to this thread because it's plainly misleading. Who is shocked? Who is panicking?

Are you serious? Do you not realise that you have been talking nonsense throughout this thread? Ammonia won't be released unless the conditions are alkaline. HNO2 won't be produced unless the conditions are acid. And neither is present at high concentrations in an aquarium because it would kill the fish.

Good, because it also applies to nitrites, NO, NO2 and all the other weird ideas you have put forward. BTW, do you realise that the reactions you have cited 2 NO + O2 --> 2 NO2 2 NO2 + H2O --> HNO3 + HNO2 give rise to a reduction in gas volume and pressure?

"I have witness the nitrite based nitrogen gas formation reaction." So have I, but I wouldn't waste time trying to demonstrate it with a solution that only contained a part in a million of nitrite. "Using accelerators like H2O2, overnight a pressure detonation (use a plastic container for safety) is easily obtainable." Not if you are using a 1 ppm solution. "The argument for adding ammonia to the input list appears reasonable as in high NH3/Urea environment (an aquarium, for example)" Aquaria are generally vented so no gas would build up. Also, ammonia is quite toxic so they don't permit it to accumulate in aquaria.

Not that it matters, I think you mean dOdecahedron.

I think it understates the issues.

So, once again, here are the important questions What coil? How does a plasma create a "magnetic solenoid" "this provides thrust" How does it do that? What interaction is taking place? The issues with the temperature of the plasma reflect the fact that "temperature" isn't as well defined as people usually think. Stop worrying about that, and answer the questions. If you can't answer them it may be because the ideas behind those questions are wrong and the system simply won't work.

Baked beans are off.