John Cuthber

There's nothing wrong with forming your own opinions. The problem is that you seem to want to make your own facts. Also, if you had any respect for us you would actually answer the questions we ask so, here it is again. Why do you think that a new right wing government would do anything more about it than the last one?

For much, if not most of humanity's history we had no money. It is, therefore, clear that people do not need money to survive. However, they do need food.

Wrong in almost every way. Plenty of things survive being frozen. Bacteria and viruses are generally preserved by freezing, rather than killed. Slow cooling does more damage than fast freezing. 200 degrees will kill a lot of things. 7000 is just a waste of time and energy. In particular, at 7000 degrees a lot of the water will dissociate so strictly speaking you won't have sterile water any more. "burn it with fire" OK- it's water so how do you burn it?

Spanners do not have (significant) north and south poles. Another hint would be that I quoted your specification of the mobile bar magnet. Here's a picture of the forces supplied by the two poles of the bar magnet and their sum. It's badly drawn, but you can see that the sum of the red vector and the blue vector passes through their common origin.

The tall tale about public sector employees getting better paid keeps being put about in the UK by our current government. It's a convenient half truth. It's true that a straight comparison shows that the average of one group is higher than the average of the other. But the two groups are not the same For example the demographics are different. Public sector employees are, on average, older- so they get paid better. Public sector employees have, on average, been in their jobs longer- so they get paid better. There are other similar factors which are ignored by simplistic analyses like the one cited. If it was true then, since the public sector hasn't suddenly got a whole new pay structure, it must have been equally true under the last right wing government. Why do you think that a new right wing government would do anything more about it than the last one? Also, Don Loper doesn't seem to live in the same world that I do.

Unless a little excess NaCl is going to upset things, the easy way is to add dilute HCl to ordinary bleach. 2 NaOCl + 4 HCl --> Cl2 +2 H2O +2NaCl

Pippo, For a start, before you go on about what science can and cannot do, you need to specify your units "ppm" is meaningless without a qualification What I said was that water would typically dissolve about 8ppm w/w in pure oxygen at 1 atm. (and, BTW, Captain- it's fairly clear from the value I cited what temperature I was referring to) In air you would get about a fifth of that. "About 2ppm" (units unspecified) is about a a fifth of 8ppm (w/w) So - at least as far as anyone can tell (given that you have not said what units you are using) what I said agrees with what you measured. What did you think you were arguing about?

Charcoal should work.

I think the false data is this "heat is nothing more than EM radiation given off by excited atoms." Heat is more generally considered to be the kinetic energy carried by the atoms than the EM radiation from them. Perhaps we should stop this thread disseminating any more such false data.

According to this http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/oxygen-solubility-water-d_841.html 8ppm (m/m) looks about right for pure oxygen Water saturated with air will contain about a fifth of that.

"It is an electrified gas, not a "hot" gas. Don't forget to mention the easiest way to strip electrons from an atom is electrical." Bollocks. For millennia the only way to generate a plasma was to light a fire. (Granted that thy didn't know they were doing that). It's a fairly trivial experiment to demonstrate that a candle flame conducts electricity.

"Lastly, you said that there is symmetry in the design, but I disagree - if the mobile bar magnet was oriented vertically, then the system would be symmetrical. Symmetry is broken because the north and south poles straddle the line of symmetry. Thus forces are not necessarily symmetrical." You may have a point in principle, in practice it doesn't matter for two reasons. Firstly the forces are symmetrical (strictlt antisymmetrical because they act in opposite directions- but the symmetry of the system is what I was referring to). Secondly, and more importantly, it doesn't matter if they are or not. The two forces point along radii of the wheel. So does their sum. (think about that one for a minute + draw the diagram if you think it helps). The only net force acting acts along a radius of the wheel. So it does not create a torque about the axis. I don't see how you can sensibly disagree with that.

oops! Should have been GJ Well spotted.

Here's something else thy can "save" us from. http://hereisthecity.com/2012/09/10/guess-which-president-has-been-best-for-stocks/?fb_action_ids=10151137289269373&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151137289269373%22%3A143969935745686%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151137289269373%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

"At no point have I claimed that this machine will do anything." Apart from when you claimed that "Ignoring material strength, friction, eddy currents and whatever, there's nothing to stop it accelerating." which makes it a perpetual motion machine. "But for me to find out why, I need more than "I am right" for a lesson." Did you miss the other bits? You actually got quite a lot more than that. " I need to be shown why with at least some degree of mathematical and scientific rigour. " This is a website not a learned journal. The most you are likely to get is the sort of response you have already had. However, appeal to the law of conservation of energy is scientifically rigorous. "This is the subject of our debate right now, and you have claimed to be right without any justification." No, once again, you seem to have missed the explanations I gave. They are a justification. "You went from an analogy that I did not understand " If you want to blame someone for that there are at least two other possible candidates apart from me. One is God- I'm sorry He didn't do a better job. The other is whoever introduced the analogy of the nuts on a car wheel. Would you like to look back and see who that was? "to a complete dismissal of the problem at hand." Actually, that's what I am about to do. The problem isn't physics- it's that you don't understand. "no method other than analogy to support your claim of being right." Nope, I cited the conservation laws. I also gave an explanation. Here it is again. Anyway, now you have realised that you can't spin a wheel by pushing on the pivot I guess we are making progress. Do you accept that the only other thing that can push the wheel is the point where it's bolted to the nut? If you were to cut that bolt so the nut as no longer attached to the wheel the two forces (100N up and 100N down) wouldn't make the nut go up or down they would just spin it about its axis. So (apart from falling under gravity) the nut doesn't move up or down. Since it doesn't move up or down when it's not bolted to the wheel, it also doesn't move up or down when it is bolted to the wheel. So it doesn't push the wheel round. Another way to prove the bleeding obvious is to consider the force acting on each pole of the small magnet in turn. Each of the is subject to a force which acts along a line through the centre pivot. Their sum, by symmetry also does so. That force, since it acts along a line through the pivot, can't cause a rotation about the pivot.

"One cannot just disregard a force because it seems not to matter. I agree that its contribution is not clear, but that's no reason to disregard it." I'm not. I'm discounting it because it doesn't matter. "seems not to" doesn't enter into it. How do you get a wheel to turn by applying a force at the pivot (which can't move)? "That's shaky grounds on which to claim you're right" No it's quite a well accepted proof in physics- if something seems to lead to free energy (even as a thought experiment) then it's wrong. So spare us the pop psychology.

The force at P is tending to lift the car, not spin the wheel. You don't spin a wheel by applying a force directly towards or away from the pivot point. there are only two points on the wheel we need to consider P and Q Any force at P can't cause rotation about an axis through P. So that leaves the forces at Q to consider. Imagine the nut is stupidly heavy and so the forces acting on it would take a while to start it turning, even if there were no friction. Now imagine that the friction at the nut disappears because the bolt holding it also vanishes. The nut just rotates about it's axis and doesn't get pulled up or down (OK, it will fall under gravity , but that's not the point here) If the nut isn't moving up or down due to the forces acting on it (from the 2 spanners) then why would it do so if you put the bolt back? Since it doesn't have a net force moving it up or down, how can it push the wheel round? And, in any event, I'm right because anything else is a free energy machine. You could connect a generator to the arm and get free electricity.

Look at the bottom left hand part of that diagram. The wheel has 100N pushing up and 100N pushing down. Both forces act at the same point- the nut- and they cancel out. That's why the wheel doesn't rotate. There is a torque, but, as I said, it's about the nut's axis not the wheel's. It's also why the original proposed system with magnets isn't a perpetual motion machine.

That's because people apply a force, not a torque. Imagine you are trying to loosen the nut on a merry go round, rather than a wheel. There's a picture of the sort of thing I mean here. http://www.footballtransfertavern.com/2010/03/premiership/the-un-merry-go-round-revealed If you are stood on the ground it's likely that the ride will turn as you try to undo the bolts. But if you are stood on the thing you can't make it spin that way. Also, imagine that you are trying to loosen the nut on a car wheel but you have two spanners. You put both on the same nut so that the handles are both horizontal but sticking out in opposite directions. You push down on one and up on the other (equally hard), for example, you could tie a heavy rock to one and a big helium balloon to the other (that way, there's no force acting on the ground to worry about). The wheel won't turn because there's no net torque on it. Ordinarily, you don't bother with the second spanner- you use the wheel and the ground to provide the other force. That's why the wheel spins if it isn't chocked or braked.

Just a though. a layer of gold dots followed by about 10 layers of a monolayer of stearic acid then another layer of dots and so on would give a 1 D lattice of gold dots separated by about their diameter. Ig you used a dipped polymer layer you could get a thicker film between the layers of dote. If you turned that on it's edge and sliced it you would get a set of gold laden stripes on a clear background. I have to say I'm glad I'm not the one trying to do this.

I hate to spoil the fun, but a 20nm gold dot wouldn't be opaque (to visible light). You can see through gold leaf that's 5 times thicker. However the dot would scatter light so you could use it as a point source to check optics with. You could punch a 20nm hole through something thick enough to be opaque but it would need to be a hole that's a lot deeper than its width, which is tricky on that scale.

The point about the biblical flood is that it drowned anyone who might have kept independent records. Also, it covered all the land- including the mountain tops. Even ancient people knew to head for the high ground so the flood must have been deep enough to cover the tops of the mountains. You can't do that on a purely local basis- the water would drain away. It only happens if the whole world is flooded to the top of the highest mountain they knew about. They clearly knew about Mt Ararat which is over 5000 m high. More than half the height of Everest. Because the oceans are shallow compared to the radius of the earth, the volume of water needed is roughly proportional to the depth of the flood. A flood that covers Ararat takes about 58% as much water as would be needed to flood Everest. That's a lot of water. It is, of course impossible. Only the bible says it happened and that can't be thought of as a reputable source since it's not even internally consistent. From this we can conclude that the flood didn't happen.

In principle the best way to do this is to take the Al to an aluminium factory where they electrolyse alumina to produce the metal and ask if you can swap the scrap metal for the equivalent amount of oxide. The electricity saved by not making that ore into metal is the best yield of electricity you will get for the aluminium. (of course, in practice, they won't care about your tiny little bit of scrap- they will probably tell you to take it to a scrap dealer) Let's just see how much electricity you could hope to get. If you have a ton of Al that's 37 Kmol It will give 111 Kmol of electrons 67 E27 electrons 11M Coluombs It will give a couple of volts or so which makes the energy available about 21 MJ About 6000 KwHr Roughly on a par with the electricity needed to produce it according to this http://agmetalminer.com/2009/02/26/power-costs-the-production-primary-aluminum/ That page also answers Jimmy's question "How much electricity goes to produce I kg of aluminium ? A friend and I were discussing aluminium recycling as a method of energy " It's about 15000 KwHr/ton Local electricity prices are a bit variable but a ballpark figure would be 0.1$/KwHr So the electricity you could hope to get from your ton of metal is worth about $600 (assuming that you are happy to use it to power something like LED lighting that can consume the power directly at the rather low voltage it is produced at from a simple battery.) Is it worth the trouble?

It is clear from the facts that you cited that HIV doesn't cause AIDS in the same way, and to the same extent, that it is clear from the facts I stated that sex doesn't lead to pregnancy. Why do you keep ignoring this point?