John Cuthber

OK, does ordinary air behave very differently from, for example, the air at the bottom of a deep salt mine where the ionisation is less due to screening from cosmic radiation. For glasses the typical "transition" is where the viscosity reaches 10^12 poise (IIRC- but it's some arbitrary number) How ionised does a gas have to be before it's counted as a plasma?

"but an issue may surface on removing the ammonia from the copper complex." Unless you know enough chemistry to realise that, if you leave a solution of copper salts dissolved in ammonia to dry out the ammonia evaporates and you get left with essentially copper hydroxide. Boiling off the ammonia achieves the same effect. Of course, you can try oxidation with ozone if you like, but it certainly isn't the easy way to do it.

What I'd like to know is why people thing plasma is a different state of matter? The air we are breathing is ionised - not much- but there are certainly ions produced by cosmic rays etc. Anyone who has seen a cloud chamber can verify this. No gas is ever entirely ionised. So, where on the scale from totally not ionised (which we never see) to totally ionised( which we also never see) does it magically convert from one state of matter to another?

Once more, you seem to be talking hogwash. Oxalic acid decomposes on heating to form a bunch of gases which may shoot stuff out of the test tube. (Especially since it's commonly encountered as the hydrate) On the other hand, sulphuric acid can be boiled in a test tube (albeit carefully). Oxalic and sulphuric acids can both be bought over the counter in the UK so describing them as "not available" is rather misleading. However, perhaps the most serious error in your earlier post is that it simply won't work. the reaction of oxalic acid and a chlorate doesn't give chloric acid. It gives chlorine dioxide. It's one of the standard methods for preparing that gas. http://chemicals.etacude.com/c/chlorine_dioxide.php Next time you are going to post something, perhaps you should consider not bothering unless you have learned a lot more chemistry. Even if it had worked (and, of course it gives you a toxic explosive gas instead of working) it doesn't give the product that the OP was asking for so , to summarise. Your suggestion was Inappropriate since it didn't give the product asked for. Inaccurate, since it didn't do what you said it would do and Bloody dangerous as it gives rise to a rather treacherous product instead.. Next time you are going to post something, perhaps you should consider not bothering unless you have learned a lot more chemistry.

LOL You already have, but you don't know about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_consumption_by_youth_in_the_United_States#Alcohol_access_by_minors

The only mystery is why some people believe such utter nonsense.

"Could these videos be considered evidence of time travel?" No.

A colleague of mine buys cocaine on a fairly regular basis. It's part of a contract for supply. It's perfectly enforceable in principle. On a less polite note, I suspect that if you agree to buy cocaine on the black market (unlike my colleague who works for a lab that tests for drugs of abuse and buys standards) you will find that failure to honour the contract is dealt with by some pretty serious "enforcers". The lack of anyone who has the time to enforce the law makes it, at least practically, unenforceable: in any event, it was not enforced. By the way, This is England. We do not carry ID cards.

Heating strong oxidants like sodium chlorate with strong reductants like oxalic acid is a recipe for disaster. It's the sort of thing that proves the adage that a little learning is a dangerous thing.

And yet the law was not enforced: I drank and so did most of those I knew.

Or it could be a candle flame.

It's unenforceable because nobody cares very much about it. If I saw a burglary, I'd report it to the police. If I see a teenager in a bar, as long as they seemed to be coping, I'd not report it.

It means that the position of the alkyl group (o, m, or p) isn't specified

When I was 17 it was not legal for me to drink. I did. the law was not enforced. Has anything changed? "As you mention, the black market suppliers of alcohol are friends and family, the very people who should be supervising these young drinkers." Not in my case it wasn't. The suppliers were bars a liquor stores happy to take money and not ask. They were selling a drug illegally. To me, that is illegal drug dealing. The disparity between how those barkeepers and a cannabis dealer would be treated is part of the very strange attitude to alcohol.

and...?

Next time I see a blind person with a stick I will ask what the battery life is like.

Whiplash? Head sheared off between ground and the edge of the armour? The sad truth is that there are lots of ways to die.

It seems that, at least on one side of the debate, it is true that "Obamacare hypocrisy knows no bounds"

5000 years? You can count tree rings twice as far back as that, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology so it's plainly wrong. What I wonder is why would anyone publish such obvious nonsense.

"Do you guys think this would provide the same seperation as hplc?" No, that's why people use HPLC. But it might be a very good pre-purification step.

But you said "My opinion is that if Obamacare is going to hurt anyone, it should hurt government employees the most." Do you think everyone employed by the government works in congress? Even the army? My what a strange view you have. Seriously, what have soldiers done to deserve this?

It is certainly possible to get fraction collectors for HPLC which monitor the output signal from the detector and move on to the next tube based on that signal. GC is great for separating things but they have to be volatile and it really can't cope with anything but very small quantities of materials so I don't think it would be much good for making usable amounts of plant (or fungi) extracts. HPLC does a better job with involatile things and it can be scaled up more readily. You would probably still need some sort of pre-purification.

Ammonia solution won't eat through sterling silver. It will dissolve silver chloride but I remain sceptical about the production of much silver chloride by corrosion by salt. I'm also sceptical about a quote from the silversmiths saying "take it to a silversmith". BTW, the last silver (plated) salt cellar I looked at had a glass liner. A coat of suitable varnish would achieve the same effect.

Why? Most of them had no more than you did, to do with the decision to introduce it. What did they do to deserve your punishment?

Get a red marker pen and draw on a piece of flat glass. Wait till the ink dries then look at the reflection of a white light source (a lamp or the sun) in the red dye. it looks greenish. In front of me on the table is a filter from a digital camera. it's job was to block infra red light. If I look at the reflection of the lamp in this filter (using it like a mirror) it is red. On the other hand, if I look through it, the filter looks green. So red and green are the same if you look from different points of view. I could, on the other hand, witter on about qualia and reduce the value of the thread. Instead I will, as asked, mark the OP down. It's now back to zero.