John Cuthber

Most anti-aircraft weapons are based on a lot of luck. The ratio of bullets fired to bullets that hit is pretty big.

When did "burglarized" become a word for burgled? Anyway, telling people that they didn't have an adequate coping strategy is telling them it's their fault.

Just needs a bigger bullet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

This is called "victim blaming".

The biggest reason is this. Mass of the sun: 1.989 × 10^30 kg Power output 3.86 x 1026 Watts about 0.2 milliwatts per kilo Mass of me 70Kg Power output of me about 2500 Kcal per day, i.e. about 125 Watts. About 2 watts per kilo I generate about ten thousand times more heat than the sun (on a mass for mass basis). The sun produces about as much heat as a compost heap. (Or so I'm told) The link is probably fine. Forgetting about the hours isn't.

How? Why? Units...

Interestingly the same thing would make them more vulnerable to a bullet that was simply hanging on a string. That's how barrage balloons worked.

It's often the biggest area of exposed skin.

If you plan to use them for electrical conductors you should heed Chenbeier's warning. If you just want them clean, then sandpaper or vinegar are good options. If (it's a long shot) you plan to make sculptures from them then you might also want to anneal them. Doing that involves heating them red hot and will generally leave them covered with a black oxide layer. But if you drop the wires into a jar containing alcohol while they are still hot, the vapour will reduce the oxide back to the metal. Obviously, be careful not to set the alcohol on fire.

Do you mean scraping or scrapping?

Then answer when people seek clarification like this What is that meant to mean?

What is that meant to mean? Anyway, the power supply grid connects many generators together. They have to make sure the frequency and phase are correct, as well as the voltage. But small errors don't matter much. One generator will act as a motor if it's running to slow. Not good, but not the end of the world.

I can't see why.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/135122947367?

Just before this thread gets ditched, can I just ask how many of our transatlantic cousins are aware of this?

Sugar also absorbs water. The boiling point of a saturated sugar solution is a lot higher than 100C. So saturated steam at 100C would condense onto sugar (at 100C) and dissolve it

There's not a lot in a microwave oven that's much hotter than boiling water (except maybe oil) to heat by contact and the microwaves are the wrong wavelength to heat steam by radiation..

Children's ages are not generally integers.

And every test of relativity has shown it to be consistent with observed reality. So your result is incompatible with reality. Or "wrong" as we would usually describe it. Thank you for saving me teh trouble of even opening, never mind reading, it.

Dig a little (a few grams) of the clay from the lake and weigh it. Shake it with distilled water + let it settle. Pour off that water and add some more distilled water and shake it up again and let it settle. Add a pH indicator and see what the pH is. Add acid until the pH indicator just changes, making a note of how much acid you add. Shake it again and let it settle. See if the pH has returned to the alkaline value. If it has then repeat this until you find out how much acid you need to add in order to neutralise the available alkalinity in the clay. From that you will be able to work out how much acid you will need to add to the lake. An alternative would be to do a "back titration". Take a known mass of clay and add a known excess of acid, then measure (by titration) how much acid is left. The difference is how much gets used up by the clay. It's worth remembering that rocks are not very soluble. Neutralising the alkalinity in the water will require neutralising the tiny fraction of the rock which is in solution but keeping the water neutral will require adding enough acid to react with all the alkali that is available from the sediments . That might be a lot.

Why?

I live far enough above sea level that the boiling point of pure water would be somewhere near 99.6C But the things that I microwave are not pure water. I gather sea water containing about 3.5 % salt has a (standard, sea level) boiling point of about 102 C because of the salt present in it. To a good approximation, the boiling point of sea water here would be about 101.6C And I suspect that the salinity of "water" in much of my food is about 0.9% To a fair approximation, the effect of altitude on boiling point will be cancelled our by the presence of dissolved material.

As far as I can tell from looking at spectra on-line, water vapour does not absorb the 2.4 GHz EM radiation typically used in µwave ovens. I don't think liquid water has any resonances there either- the heating is dielectric heating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_heating Once the food in an oven gets heated to about 100C any additional energy is used to produce steam (and a vanishingly small amount to drive chemical reactions which we call cooking). Absorption spectra in the vapour phase consist of fairly fine lines. The crude power supplies etc of a microwave oven will mean that the emission is relatively broad. Only a small part of the emission could overlap. So the coupling to the gas would be very poor. At least some dielectric heating of fats will happen (penetration depths are of the order of 100 mm) and their higher boiling point means that they could (locally) be heated well above 100C. Steam in contact with them may become superheated.

Yes, but in the wrong direction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier's_principle

From https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.221601 (with my emphasis) "The distinct plateau indicates ∂𝜆𝑀T≈0, as we would expect since the full amplitude is independent of 𝜆."