John Cuthber

That sentence is ambiguous. Do they mean "if it's raining, they are held in the church" Or does it mean "if it's raining, they are not held"

Heat the copper in air and it will oxidise.

English is not the only culprit Un sot avait pour mission de faire parvenir le sceau d'un seigneur à son roi. Il le mit dans un seau et partit à cheval. Le cheval fit un saut et les trois (word) tombèrent. How do you spell the word in brackets which sounds like the English word "so" or, if you like, "sew".

Depending on circumstances, the best bet might be to heat the copper so that it oxidises slightly. Copper (II) oxide is black and, because it is formed on the surface of the metal it should carry heat to it well.

Stick to painting.

I would bet that you are wrong, and so would the entire electricity generating industry.

The usual limit is money.

It isn't represented very well. A set of semi-circles would be a better picture than a set of bars. This has been pointed out to you before. You persistently troll your unrealistic view. Again, that's simply not true. It it was, the designers of NMR machines would have a much easier time. If you think about that, you will realise it is nonsense It can't go from + to - without going through zero And if it is zero in some places, but not others, it is not homogeneous. And, because you don't have a sensible model of what the field is like, your ideas about what would happen if you moved a conductor through that field are also wrong.

On the whole, this is a bad idea- lots of toxic waste for no great purpose. Never bath in Irish Stew, It's the most illogical thing to do, But should you go against my reasoning, Don't fail to add the appropriate seasoning ! Author: Spike Milligan OK so, now we have got that out of the way... You can dissolve mercury in a solution of iodine and potassium iodide. And, if you make that solution alkaline, most metals will not dissolve, so you can filter them off as hydroxides etc. If you then add formaldehyde, it will reduce mercury back to the metal and precipitate it. Some other metals will remain in solution. So that removes most of the metals from the mercury. If you need to ask for details then you don't know enough about it to do it safely- so don't try. Distillation works better but is really not a "home experiment" thing. Electrolytic purification is an interesting idea, but probably too difficult - and generates lots of mercury waste. But the best advice is just don't bother.

Not necessarily. You could have an infinite number of cats spaced every metre on an infinitely long line. Or 1 cat on each of the intersections of an infinite square array Or even on the apexes of an infinite array of intersections of a 1 metre "3D" grid. The cats in in the last scenario would definitely overheat. I think the ones in the first scenario (a line of cats) would be OK on that score. I'm not sure about a planar array of cats. But there's no problem putting a space between the cats to make room for a listener. The big problem would be herding the cats.

Try the experiment, or ask a chemist. My best guess is that they will mix.

Sensei, Did you really read this and think that this was going to help?

How good does it need to be? Is the maths here good enough? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Method

If, as seems likely, their thoughts and ideas were subject to various irrational influences, it's rather likely that the outcome was irrational. At best, this looks like an accidental debate about what "rational" means.

You might want to discuss that with the Jews or the Pagans or the followers of Shinto or... just about anyone. Like...?

Really? How did they avoid the glitches in thinking that we are all susceptible to unless we take care- things like confirmation bias Because those things stop people being rational, even today when we know about them.

Don't you think that that Religion does have a rational foundation? No, plainly I don't. Not sure what the rest of your post was meant to say. It just looks patronising- as if I wouldn't be aware of that sort of thing.. People did not know why the moon appeared + changed. A rational view on that is to say "I do not know why this happens, and perhaps I never will" An irrational view is to say "God must be doing it". The "God" is a made up thing with no actual basis in evidence. Which option is Religion based on?

They measure the energy content of food by burning it in a bit of kit called a bomb calorimeter. There will be some light and sound produced, but those are absorbed in the apparatus and converted to heat. The point is that all energy can be interconverted, and it's (usually) easiest to measure it as heat. One Calorie (Kcal) is also the energy needed to move something 4.2 metres against a force of 1000 Newtons. It's the same thing. If you had a steam engine, you could use the same amount of coal to raise the temperature of the water, or to make the engine lift something.

Let me know if you find any "rational foundations of Religion".

A piece of bread is complicated; can we go with a spoonful of sugar? If you ingest that sugar then a small fraction of it will be used by the bacteria in your gut. Most of it will end up in your bloodstream where via complicated pathways of hydrolysis , cleavage and so on,. it will get converted to carbon dioxide and water. But the conservation of energy tells us that , if the starting point is the same- a spoonful of sugar- and the end points are the same- carbon dioxide and water-, then the energy released must be the same. How much of it is "used" by the body and how much is "wasted" as heat is a separate question. You can look up the reactions and find out how many molecules of ATP you can produce by metabolising each molecule of sugar. And you can also look up the stored energy in a molecule of ATP. And thus you can work out how much of the energy gets "used" in the body- assuming it uses the ATP efficiently. And if you want, you can compare that to how much is released by burning the sugar. It won't be the same, but, when people talk about energy use in the body, that inefficiency, or wasted heat is included in the calculations.

Spoilsport

Yes we are. And some of us are wondering what the OP is doing here. As long as you attribute it properly.

It's possible that some people are deliberately avoiding fox news because they wish to be better informed https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5?r=US&IR=T No study demonstrates the same effect for CNN. So there's a fundamental asymmetry in the OP's question. It's commonly referred to as "Reality has a well known Left wing bias".

I gather ALL is from Manchester. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALL_FM

Nobody said it did.