John Cuthber

As far as I can tell, he hasn't even got as far as correlation yet. He doesn't seem to have collected data on "nice people"- whatever that may mean. So he might, for example notice that "bad people" often have beards.OK, for a start noticing it might be confirmation bias. It might be a bias in favour of women; perhaps he doesn't feel threatened by them so he always sees them as "nice" (there may be other reasons...). And since women seldom have beards, he's going to form the conclusion that bad people have beards. He's still going to come to that conclusion, even if all the angelically wonderful people in the world have bears. And, even then there's the fact that "bad people have beards" is not the same as "bearded people are bad" Essentially the only thing he has got right is questioning his own judgement.

Why have you cited a reaction that won't work? And also , where do you imagine it's getting the P4 from, Aldrich, eBay?

There were pandemics before there were humans. There are still pandemics that sweep through the non-human animals and we don't usually notice them (we did spot a few recently- frogs, bats and, at least locally, dolphins). Nothing that humans do will stop pandemics. What we can do is recognise this fact and plan accordingly For example, we can choose political leaders who don't try to pretend that they pandemics do not exist. And we can support those politicians who recognise the importance of national and international cooperation.

People got anxious about those things before science was in widespread use. So science can't be the cause of the anxiety.

As a minimum, government should start by not being one of the biggest producers of lies. Clearly, that's not going to happen until there's a change in President.

Speaking of high temperatures; the sellers suggest storage of the thiol in the fridge. Nobody seems to have measured the boiling point. These facts suggest that it's not very stable at high temperatures. How can you be sure that the material would survive the process? It's slightly absurd to say that there will be more Pt and Mo than Zn and Fe. The thiol doesn't choose the most valuable metal. It will largely react with the most common metals present. Come to think of it, I can't see why pyrithione should dissolve gold.; it's not an oxidising agent. You need to add an oxidant- in the paper they use peroxide. But peroxides (and oxidants in general) destroy the thiol. And the mix of metals and metal oxides (and sulphides etc) will also destroy peroxide (and any other oxidant). Fundamentally, gold is pretty unreactive. Almost anything else will react with any reagent more readily than gold does. So, until you have washed all the metalliferous minerals out of the rocks and are left with clean silica, the gold won't dissolve.

But zinc is already cheaper then the thiol, and you are bound to lose some of that expensive reagent. Overall, this will probably lose money.

Well... there's this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere#Heliopause which is sort of

It depends on what's being kept constant. If I happen to have some cable rated for 10 amps and 1100 V I can use it to wire up a 200V 2KW heater because the current is still only 10A. But, if I was buying cable for that job, I would choose cable rated for 200V at 10A- because it would be cheaper. Still better to check with an electrician.

The best description i can think of for that sort of thing is this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

Take all the time you need.

You need to be able to prove that, rather than just claiming it. Otherwise you are not doing science. Then you should have no difficulty giving us an example. Please do so.

The current rating is pretty much independent of the voltage. If the current is too high, the wire overheats and the insulation melts. If the wire is on the surface of the wall (unenclosed) then the heat can escape and the cable will carry more current before it overheats. If the cable is in an enclosed space like a conduit, there's less chance for heat to escape so, to stop it overheating, you have to ensure that the current is lower. As Swansont has pointed out, the derating can be complicated. It's best (In most places, it's a legal requirement) to ask an electrician.

I think the best guess is attack by P4O10 vapour on the graphite. Homolytic thermolysis to give smaller molecules- notable P4O3 -is probably a feature too. But I doubt anyone really knows.

Me. I would like you to change your posting style to one that isn't full of tosh. Thanks for asking.

I'm now wondering what the least "hyped" version of putting that in context might be. How about "very expensive laser pulse dissipates as much energy as I do while sitting on the sofa for a minute or two."? Maybe "laser pulse equivalent to about half a teaspoonful of petrol"

Laser pulse with "the energy from about 3 peanuts"* doesn't make quite the same impact. To me ,the impressive thing isn't the energy, but switching it on and off so quickly. * or something like that.

Yes, but it works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retr0bright I suspect that may be due to loss of plasticisers (by evaporation) and it would be practically impossible to reverse it. Also, rubbers are very susceptible to oxidation. I wouldn't try the peroxide trick on them unless I didn't care about making the problem worse. (In a "nothing to lose" scenario)

To rhyme with rubles I presume... There's a reason why rubble has a double B. It's absurd; they are all bad attempts to reinvent this wheel;. ˈtrʌb(ə)l On the other hand, I gather that spelling contests are only national TV in anglophone countries... It's quite entertaining to get anyone- particularly a well educated native English speaker- to read this out loud. "I take it you already know Of tough and bough and cough and dough Others may stumble, but not you On hiccough, thorough, laugh, and through. And cork and work and card and ward And font and front and word and sword Well done! And now you wish, perhaps To learn of less familiar traps, Beware of heard, a dreadful word That looks like beard and sounds like bird. And dead: it’s said like bed, not bead– For goodness sakes don’t call it deed. Watch out for meat and great and threat, They rhyme with suite and straight and debt. A moth is not a moth in mother, Nor both in bother, broth in brother. And here is not a match for there, And dear and fear for bear and pear. And then there’s dose and rose and lose– Just look them up–and goose and choose, And do and go, then thwart and cart. Come, come, I’ve hardly made a start! A dreadful language? Man alive! I’d mastered it when I was five." We also have route pronounced the way Americans pronounce route and the two bits of equipment, a router and a router with different pronunciations. It depends if it's a modem like thingy where it's pronounced like roux; or a woodworking tool where it's pronounced like row.

Well, if you carved the word from glass and polished it, then it would be clear. Or did you not realise that the word "clear" had two meanings? If you don't like Greek- fine; don't use it. It's absurd to complain that they didn't have a word for "energy"; nor did anyone else. Because there was no requirement for such a word. For some other words, like electron or entropy, we even know who coined the word. But - if they happened to be native Greek speakers, they could equally well have invented the word in Greek. The idea gets even sillier when you recognise that most of these new science words were actually invented in Latin. I doubt that your average roman soldier or Catholic priest had much call for a word for quantum in the technical sense it now has.

if I was building a power company... But I'm building heaters. It's a bit like using a heat pump to heat the room- the "wasted" heat is still used so it isn't wasted and the overall efficiency is over 100% Though I have to admit the CoP is not as good as a conventional air source heat pump (by about 9 orders of magnitude) You don't need to explain things I already know. You need to explain to yourself what I'm seeking to achieve.

Well, yes... One of them is impossible because mass/ energy is a conserved quantity. But, if you want to run a power station, what you need is a net release of heat. Burning coal is a net producer of heat, but the energy was already there as chemical energy- stored up from when it was solar energy

OK. We need to sort something out. A single fusion event releases energy. Without the fusor, you wouldn't have that energy.. So, any fusor is a net producer of heat. If all you want to do is heat your house then, by using a fusor, you can put about 1KW of power in and get about 1.0000000001 KW of heat out of it. Obviously, that's not terribly economical- especially given the cost of heavy water. It's only really a very expensive toy. But it's a net producer. Presumably D T fusion.

What's the evidence that it's not just some random numbers you (or someone) wrote down?

Then you need to see a doctor, rather than asking questions about pH online.