John Cuthber

Almost certainly. The reactants are calcium hydroxide and hydrogen peroxide. The products are initially going to be calcium peroxide and water, but I don't think the peroxide is very stable. The final products will be calcium hydroxide, oxygen and water. It will certainly give off heat. If it goes the whole way to give oxygen and calcium hydroxide it will certainly give off more heat than the reaction of calcium oxide with water. Why do you ask?

I presume it's the 20 to 30 mA he referred to earlier.

Whereas if it isn't water you might still be able to distil off the liquid azeotropically. In fact, if it's not water then there's a poor to fair chance it forms an azeotrope with water. Incidentally, if the substance is air stable then he could have left the stuff to dry by now. It wouldn't have lost all the solvent but it might have been concentrated enough to start to crystallise. One advantage to working significantly below the melting point is that, in the latter stages, you have a solid suspended in a small amount of solution. If you filter that solid off it's likely to be rather purer than the stuff left behind. Also the saturated solution of the stuff , in eqm with the solid has a definite vapour pressure of solvent above it. In a vacuumt will lose that solvent until all the solvent has gone. However if the stuff is warm enough to be molten you have a mixture of two liquids. The partial vapour pressure of solvent will fall as its mole fraction falls. For any given pressure there will always be some solvent left in the mixture. So, by working under vacuum you can get a purer product.

Scale does not matter because they both behave in the same way as you change the distance. If you look at the force between, for example, two protons, there is an attractive force due to gravity and a repulsive force due to the electromagnetic force. One of them is (IIRC) about 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times bigger than the other no matter what the separation because, in both cases the force falls as the square of the distance. Saying that something is weaker when it's 10^39 times bigger is so wrong it's funny.

The point can be observed at 100 root 2 metres from the observer.

In many countries, like mine, the government pays for healthcare for the elderly. If it could avoid that very large bill, it would. So the answer to the question in the title of the thread is "Yes, definitely"

No It's nothing to do with practicality. It's a matter of principle. That's the whole point of incomensurability. They cannot be measured on the same scale. The diagonal of a square is not a rational fraction of the length of the side. If I take my ruler and try to measure the diagonal of the square I find it's between the 1 and the two. If I divide that space into ten I find the diagonal is between 1.4 and 1.5 Another division tells me it's between 1.41 and 1.42 If I divide that gap into ten again I find the length of the diagonal is between 1.414 and 1.415 But no matter how finely I divide the scale (and no matter what fraction I divide it into, so it still won't work if I try dividing the scale in thirds or halves) I will never put a mark exactly on root two because it's decimal expansion doesn't terminate. It's trivial to construct the line, but it's impossible to measure it exactly- not for any practical reason, but because the line won't tally with any marking on the ruler. You can say it's more than ... but less than ... but you can't say it's exactly "here" on the scale. If I measure a line that 1.34 inches long (exactly) then it exactly lines up with the 1.34 inch mark- that's what rulers do. No ruler calibrated in inches can measure the diagonal of a one inch square.

So, on the basis of a one-off flawed measurement and some odd phenomena for which there are perfectly rational explanations, someone is suggesting the existence of angels. Which makes this statement about me all the more worrying " you, and those who think like you, don't make up a majority of the world's population". Incidentally, on a Friday evening it is quite common for my left hand to be a good few degrees warmer than my right. Some people may ascribe this to supernatural phenomena. I think it's because I hold my drink in my right hand and, if I'm talking to my tobacco smoking friends outside the pub, only my left hand is in my pocket.

Only half of it. The other half was legitimate (and ironic). Anyway, as far as I can see the OP was nearly science-free. No experimental details and no prospect of repeating the experiment.

Yes, but it wouldn't correspond to any other mark on the ruler- which is the point of ruling marks in the first place.

I think the assertion that magnetism is weaker than, for example, gravity needs looking at in a bit more detail: then laughing at. The electromagnetic force between, for example, two protons is something like 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times bigger than the gravitational attraction. Or, to put it another way, the magnet on my fridge can hold up it's own weight in spite of the fact that there is an entire planet worth of mass underneath, trying to pull t down. And, for the record, no, I wasn't on about some bollocks from star trek. I was talking about science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_current#Repulsive_effects_and_levitation

I can, in principle, measure out any rational distance with a ruler. I cannot, even in principle, do that with an irrational distance. That's the difference. You can use any base unit you like, but you still can't find the point on your ruler marked "root two".

Thanks folks. You are all clearly brighter than me (at least at this sort of thing). I'm still wondering how little information the traveller has to impart to cause an effect. It seems that "I see blue eyes" has an effect, and as far as I can work out "I see brown eyes" has a comparable effect. What happens if he turns up and says "I see eyes which have a defined colour but I am not stating what that colour is"? In particular, what happens in the case where the islanders know (as part of their creed), that all eyes are either blue or brown? Similarly (I think) what if he says "I see a pair of eyes and their colour is ..." and then dies of a heart attack? As far as I can tell the islanders think "he was going to say blue or he was going to say brown" and they consider each possibility.

Because root 2 is irrational I can't, even in principle, measure out a line 100√2m long. It's not an issue of experimental error, or the size of the Planck distance. It's impossible. However I can construct that line perfectly easily- it's the diagonal of a square that's 100 m each side. The issue here is one of incomensurability not impossibility. This part of the OP is incorrect "This distance can only be approximated. " because, in principle, it can be drawn.

OK, so I failed to add " hereabouts" or "on this site" or whatever because I thought it was implicit. You extrapolated that to the population of the world and so I'm arrogant. Well, I guess it's one point of view. BTW, advice not advise: whom not who and world's not worlds.

The electrodes probably start off identical, but once one gets a bit scratched it's not the same any more. That would be my first guess. But it is possible to set up a cell where the only difference between the electrodes is the concentration of one of the components. In a freshly opened bottle of pop the CO2 concentration, and hence the H+ ion concentration, will differ from one part of the solution to another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_cell

Well, according to WIKI's article on friction "Coefficients of friction range from near zero to greater than one – under good conditions, a tire on concrete may have a coefficient of friction of 1.7" and if we assume that your shoes have soles made from the same rubber as the tyre and that the bridge is concrete then the limiting angle is about 69 degrees. Higher values of the coefficient are not impossible.

I'm not certain, but I think the numbers are counted from the "methyl" end of the chain and the elongase adds to the carboxylate end so you are mistaken about step 4 but I may be mistaken. I'm not familiar with the notations used in this field (because it's not my area). Could you draw diagrams of the products in each of the first 4 or 5 steps please?

I think you need to do a lot more basic research.

Reduction of potassium hydroxide looks like a good root to the metal but, as you say, the material is going to be damp. Even lab grade KOH is typically only about 87% KOH- the rest is water. So 100 grams of it has about 1.6 moles of KOH and 0.72 moles of water. That's a lot of extra stuff you need to reduce and a lot of hydrogen to get rid of. Yes, I really do mean stuff like hedge trimmings. All plants do a very good job of extracting potassium from the soil and they do a pretty good job of leaving any sodium behind. I don't understand how anyone could think that it's difficult or expensive to get ash. You don't need to use hardwood- most of the stuff I used when I did this was this stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyland_Cypress which grows like a weed and burns well too. Though I actually used that because I have to keep my hedge trimmed anyway, rather than because it's especially good. If you are after permanganate I'm fairly sure you can use the carbonate rather than the hydroxide but the melting point is a lot higher. It might be easier to make NaMnO4 and then ppt the K salt with K2CO3 or possibly even KCl (which is fairly easy to get from low sodium "salt").

"It is normally believed that angels enter human bodies from the right shoulder" No. It is normally believed that angels don't exist. There are any number of possible explanations of Logical's experience that don't involve fairy tales. The most obvious being that the effect is psychosomatic, however since one other possibility is that the symptom is caused by some sort of health problem it's probably a good idea to see a doctor.

The "official" answer is to distil off the solvent under reduced pressure (so it boils well below 50C). The practical answer might be just leave the solution in an open dish with the lid off so the solvent evaporates.

Yesterday, as I was waiting for a bus I saw the moon and two planets lined up (I'm guessing Venus and Jupiter). I had plenty of time to look at them and I noticed that the whole of the moon was visible, even though it's only a crescent moon at the moment. I wanted to be sure it wasn't an optical illusions. To do that I moved myself so the bright part of the moon was hidden behind a chimney and roof. I could still see the "dark" bit of the moon. Today I saw the same scene from the same place as I went out to get a takeaway. It looked the same but the alignment was missing- they were no longer in a line. But they were the same size so, as far as I can tell, the moon today looked just the same size as it did yesterday.

Oops! Sorry about that, though I think the point still stands.

Which is all very well, but hasn't got a lot to do with the OP. Compared to trying to sort out that mixture, the ashes look like a good idea. Why not just buy KOH? As I said, it depends on why you are doing all this.