John Cuthber

The torque is zero unless you want to rotate the rod. If you do then the torque depends on how fast you want to change the rotational speed of the rod. there's also a contribution from the bearings but that might be small enough to ignore.

When all is said and done, the answer to the original question is still no. Your assertion that " if you want to sterilize something its only a mater of how fast and how cold -200C will kill almost all forms of life" is still wrong. Freezing isn't a reliable way to sterilise things .

Could be worse.

A couple of things, firstly what happened to this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence Secondly, the American and British soldiers went to Iraq and Afghanistan. Who was looking for trouble? (And the answer to that is certainly not the dead Sept 11 murderers - they got their trouble: they died. but since they were Saudis it hardly matters what they did in this context.) Which Iraqis or Afghans went to the US or UK looking for trouble? BTW, this topic seems to have drifted rather from what Romney and Ryan might do to save us anything. It seems that one of the things we need to be saved from is the aftermath of what Bush started.

Pippo, do you really thinks that all the water in your pond is in contact with the air, even the water stuck in the mud at the bottom? Or are you trying to cover for the fact that you were shown to be wrong?

What is wrong with the picture described in the first post is that it's simply not true. This bit "look inside the box. You will see that the inside of the box is a dark red" is wrong. It won't look red, it will look pretty much like the sun i.e. white hot. The inside of the box will look like a better approximation to black body radiation than the outside because the effect of multiple reflections makes it a better absorber and therefore a better reflector.

If you add a little NH4Cl before you add the NaOH then any Zn ,Cu, Ni and a few others will stay in solution so you will end up with purer Fe(OH)3

Well, I posed the question on a public discussion forum, albeit that I directed the question to Rigney. In principle, I might have got a reply from Mitt Romney. As I said, I'd have accepted a reply from anyone but nobody seemed able to give one.

Yes, but the variations would be very small I think it's this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson%E2%80%93Nyquist_noise but, from my point of view it's half past two in the morning.

OK so " posts like rigney's make people think that right-wing people are like that. " Fair enough, it's probably true that right wing people post stuff and it leads people to believe that right wing people thing that way. Given the evidence of things like Romney's 533 lies and the absurd version of human reproductive biology that one of his colleagues came up with, what should people think? It's not Rigney in isolation that brings people to this conclusion. I have clearly expressed the desire that right wing people should explain their point of view. I had to ask the same question a bunch of times before Rigney remembered that it was polite to answer (and also a feature of the site's rules). but I'd have accepted a reply from another right winger. The issue isn't Rigney. It's that the right wing seem to be utterly unable to justify their point of view. With due respect to Rigney I don't think anyone is judging the whole of the "Right wing" by his actions. I think they are judged by people who look at the rest of the behaviour of that political group and think " What the fuck?" Simple, question, why do you think the rest of the right wing are different from Rigney? (and, since it's me, you might want to answer that question sooner, rather than later)

"but if your just looking to purify water the best way to do it is steam condensation, followed closely reverse osmosis, then by carbon filtration," Or you could do it in the right order. Microbiological specimens that are frozen for storage are placed in long thin packages called straws and plunged into liquid nitrogen. That's so they get frozen as fast as possible and that is because its the way to get the greatest survival rates. So this assertion "-200C will kill almost all forms of life if you get there fast enough" is still plain wrong. "i have water that has [something horrible] in it and it will survive an autoclave/can not be autoclaved" So it's really going to love 7000C

Another, some would say more reasonable way to look at that is that all the Conservatives couldn't cope with rules that obliged them not to lie, to back up teir assertions with evidence and to answer points put to them. What's shameful is that they either couldn't do that, or they chose not to. If they chose not to then their cowardice should debar them from office. If they couldn't do it then their dishonesty should do so. In any event, as you have said, since you, quite rightly, despise liars here's a hint Don't ever vote for Romney and Ryan. They lie- a lot. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/29/mitt-romney-tells-533-lies-in-30-weeks-steve-benen-documents-them/ Feel free not to vote for Obama if you don't like him or his views, or his policies- but don't give power to people who you should loathe.

OK, so wars tend to increase state employment. Fair enough but the September 11 attacks don't (and didn't) make sense as a provocation of that war. The bombers weren't from Iraq, so why attack Iraq in response to them? What you have shown is that Bush was prepared to start a war for reasons that are unclear, even though it would increase state employment. Why do you think others like him might not do the same? Oh, btw it's bad manners to ignore questions here. What bad manners on my part were you talking about?

Yes. Gruesome isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildew

Rigney, Is there any chance you will shut up about Obama for a minute and actually answer my question? At the very least, stop posting laughable bad editing. Once again I remind you that, since it is asking about the previous right wing government and a possible future one, it has nothing to do with Obama. Got that? OK, here;'s the question again (in case you have forgotten, it's about the pay rates in the public sector). Why do you think that a new right wing government would do anything more about it than the last one? And it's remarkable what bad editing can do. There is a lot of crap pulled from many ass holes, but every word uttered here is Obama's and is hacked or chopped from something he has voiced. I didn't make this up. You might ask how I know when Obama is lying? It's when I see his mouth move. And snopes! It's owned and operated as a left wing rag. Personally I could care less if he’s a Muslim or not. My concern is that half this nation thinks he’s the best thing since sliced bread. Now, to me that’s scary, “By God”.

Rigney, Is there any chance you will shut up about Obama for a minute and actually answer my question? At the very least, stop posting laughable bad editing. Once again I remind you that, since it is asking about the previous right wing government and a possible future one, it has nothing to do with Obama. Got that? OK, here;'s the question again (in case you have forgotten, it's about the pay rates in the public sector). Why do you think that a new right wing government would do anything more about it than the last one?

Rigney, My dad's birth certificate says Kenya. The place did exist and there is independent evidence of it doing so. I pointed out that evidence. Misunderstanding what it says in Wiki doesn't make you look any better- but it does suggest that you are very selective while looking at evidence and only see what you want to see. Now answer the question. Why do you think that a new right wing government would do anything more about it than the last one? (Your previous response made no sense as an answer to this question because it talked about Obama. Obama was not part of the last right wing government.)

Rigney, I had a look at the site you linked to. They think that Kenya didn't exist before 1963. That would be news to my dad who was born there about 30 years earlier. Here is a picture of a bunch of people who would also be slightly put out to find that the country they served didn't exist. http://www.oldcambrians.com/Photos-KenyaRegiment1961.html However, your decision to link to more baseless crap is beside the point. Here, once again, is the question you were asked. Why do you think that a new right wing government would do anything more about it than the last one? Please show some respect for the rules of the site by answering it.

"The more energy a particle has the more radiation it emits." There's a lot more to it than that. The excess energy of a uranium nucleus is a lot higher than the excess energy of, to pick an example, the excited singlet state of oxygen. But one lasts for billions of years and the other doesn't. So, in a typical week, which one emits more radiation?

Your first link says "Heat may be defined as energy in transit " Wiki says "Heat is energy transferred from one system to another by thermal interaction" That's not the same as "Heat is the TRANSFER OF energy:"

If he turned up here and now and started trolling, he would be a troll.

The teacher /student relationship is different from that between people on a discussion board so the question is a bit meaningless. It's like asking if a rose is a weed: it depends if you find it in a rose garden or a cabbage field. Trolling is a term defined in respect of web communities. Socrates wasn't on the web so he wasn't a troll. (Unless he hid under a bridge and ate billy goats)

"What if the entire universe were moving at near light speed" From the point of view of a beta particle, it is. So?

If more people actually read the bible, more people would stop believing in it.