John Cuthber

I'm relieved to see that this state of affairs has not altered since I mentioned it back in May.

News flash from 1821 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Johann_Seebeck discovers thermoelectric effect. Old alloys convert heat to electricity too.

Like farting in a lift, this thread's opening is wrong on many levels. "Can temperature produce a Molecular Structual change?" Yes, the commonest example is usually called cooking "What can be done to one liquid can be done to any liquid" I can set fire to alcohol but I can't do it to water. Did you not realise that you were talking nonsense? "Lets say it is possible to apply any temperature to any liquid" And while we are at it, let's say that goldfish can sing Mozart arias. You seem to have separated gasoline into two fractions, one of which is more volatile than the other. So what? Gasoline is a mixture of many components so there's no surprise in separating them a bit. I take it that this is the youtube vid you mean In it you say you need "someone of influence " to see it. Well I agree; but that someone has to influence you. They need to explain that you haven't done anything special. When you say that some gasoline is not flammable. I simply don't believe you. All hydrocarbons are combustible. While I'm at it, the idea that your "white gasoline" doesn't contain hydrocarbons is laughable; what do you think it's made of, pixie dust? If you can be bothered to produce a transcript of your video then I will see if I can find time to rebut it point by point. (and, in case anyone is wondering, I have seen this "discussion" on other fora and it's pointless science-free nonsense. I don't want it cluttering up this site)

"So what could it have been worth to Gaddafi to have a fake ceasefire which would have been effective for only a day or two?" Like I said. If he called for a ceasefire, used the lull to redeploy troops and gather intelligence...

"So the claim that intelligence begets intelligence is about where the reproduction process (which is technology well beyond that of human comprehension in all of it's details at the present time) originate from? Mindless natural processes? Or an intelligence capable of engineering something like that? I'd go with the latter." That's an argument from incredulity. There is an observed mechanism by which mindless natural processes can do things like this. On the other hand there is no evidence for the existence of the "intelligence" which you postulate. "Any visual clarity problems are solved via the existence of special cells which act like optical light fibres to conduct light through the maze of blood vessels." Could you point them out for me please? Here's a diagram. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gray881.png

The gas flame will give more heat ( per Kg of fuel) but the heat will largely be carried away by convection. Also, the calculated adiabatic flame temperature is higher for the coal than for the gas. It's possible that the soot in the coal flame will make it so much more effective as an emitter that it will give out more radiant heat than the gas flame. On the other hand, it might not. There are lot's of other parameters. You would need to do the experiment to be certain.

The coal flame will be sooty and the hot soot will emit lots of IR. The methane flame will only emit IR from the CO2 and H2O which might not be so effective so it's certainly possible that the coal flame will give out more IR. "thermal radiation" isn't a really well defined term so it was hard to answer the original question but, for radiant heat I think the coal flame will produce more. Why do you ask?

If it's sold as honey then it would be fraud for it to be anything but honey. There are tests for adulteration of honey by other (cheaper) sugar sources and the consumer protection agencies occasionally use them. By and large, honey is honey.

By abstaining rather than vetoing the decision, China and Russia supported it; abstaining gives them a cover for not spending their money or sending their troops.

Won't work or, at best, will work badly. The powdered Al, if any were produced, would react with the water.

"In some countries, like Mexico, a pharmacist can do much of what only a doctor can do in the US, such as dispense prescription drugs, but the pharmacist's salary doesn't reflect this incorporation of part of the doctor's duties." my emphasis.

I take it you realised that it does under pressure.

With ordinary salt you will only reduce the humidity if it starts above (about) 75% which would be rather odd for indoor humidity in the UK. You would do much better with CaCl2 which is why they sell it as a dehumidifier. The points about making sure lots of air comes into contact with the solid are also still valid.

If you contact MENSA they can probably offer as reliable an on-line test as anyone. But what will it tell you? Say the answer comes back as 136. What use is that number? If you had measured your IQ before the injury then you might be able to make the inference that you lost x points from your IQ. Again, what are you going to do with that information? I think your doctor has a point. Still, if it makes you feel better, take a bunch of on-line tests and see what the scatter is like. That should give you a reasonable estimate and some idea of how good that estimate actually is. Then all you need to do is work out what an IQ actually means in the real world.

Yes, but not nearly so well. The CO2 or freon in a tin of "canned air" is a liquid and when the pressure is released it boils. To do so it takes heat from the surroundings and gets very cold. For air the effect of expanding is much smaller. (And for a few gases like helium and hydrogen, they actually get hotter when you let the compressed gas escape). This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule%E2%80%93Thomson_effect probably tells you more about that than you want to know.

It would work with most gases; CO2 should work quite well. The interesting problem is that the material might freeze to "dry ice".

Mr Seater, the bloke who took a leak in the first place, seems to be the only one talking sense here.

Marat, Saying "Although Gaddafi a while ago offered a ceasefire which would have immediately brought to an end all possibility of further civilian casualties on either side, which the NATO-backed rebels refused to accept, thus making them logically solely responsible for all future civilian casualties." seems a little one-sided. For a start his troops opened fire on (relatively) peaceful protesters in the first place. Also, did you consider the idea that he may have lied? If he called for a ceasefire, used the lull to redeploy troops and gather intelligence then, on some pretext or other, restarted the gunfire wouldn't the rebels be responsible for letting him do that and, in turn, increasing the death toll? Also, unless I'm mistaken the security council voted for this action. So what you are describing as "NATO backed" could also be called "China Backed" or "Russia Backed"

The BBC is a long way from the states and stories can get corrupted in transmission. I still can't understand why they would bother to treat water, then leave it "out in the rain" before sending it to consumers.

I can't believe that, even in the US, they let birds etc. foul the water just before it is sent out. If they did then they should get sued by anyone who gets a tummy bug, and also (for reckless endangerment) by those who don't.

Great! Do they drain it every time a bird cr*ps in it?

THE OS probably decided to refresh the outputs in the "wrong" order.

The simple answer is that he would get fat. If he were doing enough exercise that he burned off the "junk food" calories then they wouldn't be "junk"- he would be in trouble without that extra fat etc. Being overweight is known to be associated with poor health.

OK, outbreak of serious pedantry warning. They didn't say "per second" they said "every second", and they are probably right. It was true the second they wrote it, it was true during the second when you read it and it will be true at the second when you read this reply. It's redundant, and potentially confusing, but it's not wrong (at least until the flow changes). It's like saying "2+2= 4 every day". Now, would you like to get into a discussion of the muddling of speed and velocity? (At least they say it's "the equivalent") How about a clear definition of what "In a process that almost defies adjectives and analogies," actually means in a context where the next thing they do is add some analogies?

To be fair, though I'm solidly convinced of AGW, I remember that back in the 70s there were really articles and even adverts about the "coming ice age" in things like Scientific American. (I know that's not much more peer reviewed than Newsweek) So what? That was then, this is now. This proves that science is not dogma; nothing else. They made a prediction based on the data available at the time ( the records of ice ages) and the prediction was that, since there had been ice ages in the past, there would be others in the future. That's not an unreasonable prediction. The press probably blew it out of proportion because that's what sells papers. What else would they have done? Since then those studying the climate have done another 40 years of work on the issue and have found another major factor- the greenhouse effect. They now include that effect in their models. The improved models now show, at least in the relatively short term, a different behaviour. There may well be another ice age on the way, but before that there will be warming which won't make things better for our species and that warming is essentially down to us. What I don't understand is why those who don't accept AGW keep banging on about something which is very old news. Is it the best they can come up with? It reminds me of the story of the old schoolteacher musing on the fact that a lot of his students had failed exams because they didn't remember something which turned out not to be true anyway.