Jump to content

John Cuthber

Resident Experts
  • Posts

    18389
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    52

Everything posted by John Cuthber

  1. You have missed two points. The first is that you can't get gravity to supply work in this way. You are wasting your time. The second is that you have said "I have come up with an idea that will change the world. But I'm not telling anything about it" and you don't realise that it is like me saying "I have made you a medal as a reward for your work. But I'm not telling you anything about it.
  2. And my point was that ground glass is roughly as toxic as sand- ie not very. (Actually it's slightly less toxic) Incidentally, does the story tell you what sort of gas masks they wore while they ground the stuff (and, indeed, why their enemies didn't have that option)?
  3. So the "Christian" objections to homosexuality are essentially the same as the objections to eating shellfish. It looks like there's a presidential precedent. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2510&dat=20070703&id=hVU1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=gCUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2953,1126787
  4. I don't see a difference.
  5. That's the second illustration of why you should stop. You did not know what you were doing. Playing with explosives when you don't know what you are doing is bad idea. Thinking that "What I did was perfectly safe" when, by your own admission, you didn't know what you were doing is another bad idea. People whoo get killed playing with these sorts of things think "What I did was perfectly safe", right up until it's too late.
  6. Sand is not the same as glass. Crystaline silica is a known (but rather weak) human carcinogen. Glass isn't. However I'm going to pretend that the difference is small (and, for acute toxicity, that's a reasonable assumption. How many people would you kill with a bucket of sand? My guess is practically zero. Grinding it wouldn't help a lot. There's a fair amount of silica already present in dust (have a look at the composition of the earth's crust) and yet most of us are not dead. Smoke from a bucket of burning sulphur would probably have more effect.
  7. OK, How does "This Paper" explain spontaneous endothermic reactions? Also, don't pretend that telling me to read it answers the question. Answer the question here in this thread.
  8. "A two inch cube of polonium-210 would emit 140kW" That's about 600 ml of volume. The density is about 9 so It would weigh about 6. Kg 1 mg is about 4 curies So you have 24 MCi of radioactive material About 50mCi killed someone and that dose is estimated as about 200 times the lethal dose. So the lethal dose is about 250µCi So 24,000,000 Ci is about 100,000,000,000 times the lethal dose for a human. And, in the event of the spacecraft exploding... And don't forget that with 210 Po the generator has a half life of about 6 months (data from wiki, but any errors in maths are my own responsibility.
  9. Why? What's the point of telling you again? You plainly didn't pay attention when DJBruce told you in the second post in this thread. You ignored it again when Janus pointed it out. Still, just in case the thrid repetition gets the message through to you: Division by zero is not defined.
  10. Whereas you are only wrong on one level. The fact that division by zero is not defined and so your "explanation" of the universe has no meaning.
  11. I'm not a big bible scholar. I know that Leviticus had stuff to say about homosexuality but as far as I know Obama didn't ever say he was a "Leviticusian." What does the bible say that Christ actually said on the issue?
  12. The idea is like trying to put a pin into a balloon to let just a bit of the air out.
  13. Well, I can't answer for Mississippichem, but I think it's random symbols.
  14. It might be possible to get this to work, but I'd give some serious thought to the risk of generating a mixture of oxygen and gas.
  15. You cannot expect to be taken seriously if you pretend that spontaneous endothermic reactions are irrelevant to a discussion of entropy. Answer the question.
  16. I suspect the difference in terminology arose the other way round. When people first studied animal behaviour (and the things you talk about are not restricted to primates) they knew perfectly well that those behaviours were also found in humans. But it wouldn't have looked very good in the learned journals to describe the animals as "out on the pull" or whatever.
  17. No it isn't. but perhaps you should start ( as the rules require) by answering the question put to you earlier. How do you explain spontaneous endothermic reactions?
  18. If I see a man in the street then what actually happens is that I receive radiation reflected from him. There's a small lag because it takes time for the light to reach my eyes. Would you then say "if you want to make up a story about how that came from something in the past (a man in the street) that was never observed, it is taken by faith that it happened if you believe it"? Why do you think there's a difference?
  19. Do you realise that you are not making sense. I pointed out that I have directly observed the radiation from the big bang. Your reply is " it was never observed ". Plain wrong. It has been observed many times in a whole variety of ways. Just plain denying the truth doesn't help you here.
  20. ""a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe," did anyone see/observe with an electron microscope/ohm meter/hplc etc etc the "big bang"" Nope, I saw it with my television set. A good part of the "snow" you see between channels on a tv is the cosmic background radiation- the afterglow of the big bang. What did you think your point was? Anyway, perhaps more importantly. In the dame way that all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles. All religions are sets of beliefs, but not all sets of beliefs are religions. The difference is faith- if you believe something without evidence then it's most probably a religion. That's especially likely if you are going to carry on believing it, even when it's shown to be wrong.
  21. You need to do a lot more research before you carry on playing with explosives.
  22. Some time ago in the lab I spilled some trimethyl-pentane on the bench. It evaporated quite quickly- much more so than water would have done. This is because, at room temperature the water has a much lower vapour pressure. The two liquids have pretty much the same boiling points. Why do you think the gradient of the vapour pressure vs temperature curve is so much steeper for isooctane than for water?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.