John Cuthber

The Soviet Union was anything but socialist. It was, at best a parody of socialism. The "means of production" were owned by a political elite who were a bunch of heartless greedy bastards. While I don't think that true socialism can really work, it's not a fault of the system per se, it's because people are greedy.

I can't see how this "otherwise do not come to my small resort town in the Crimea peninsula – that is deadly dangerous." can be anything other than a threat. The idea that the LHC will destroy the world is daft as the Cap'n pointed out earlier. We get much bigger impacts from cosmic rays. This thread should be heading for the trashcan.

What format is that file in? My pc won't read it.

With beans?

You could probably get by with a couple of identical aquarium pumps and any white filter paper. One would do but you would need some way of making sure that the flow rate through the two filters was identical or you could run the samples at different times but then the weather and such might influence the results. ( of course, you need to find pumps that suck.) For air sampling typical flow rates are from about 0.1 to 10 litres per minute (higher and lower rates are sometimes used). Filters from 10 to 50 mm in diameter are typical. It is common practice to put samplers (pumps and filters) like these on people as they work to measure exposure to chemicals and dust that they are working with. How small a scale do you need? These people are probably the biggest suppliers in the world. http://www.skcinc.com/pumps.asp

Technincally, if I ask an undercover police officer where I can buy cannabis I may not be trying to buy it; but I don't think the jury would see it that way. Incidentally, I'm afraid that Karnage is mistaken- though their input is generally very helpful. You can buy anticoagulants over the counter. They are commonly found labeled as rat poison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfarin

Imagine I have 3 bits of pipe connected in series A thin piece between two wide pieces. If I force water through them the flow rate in ml/m must be very nearly the same because water is practically incompressible. In the thin bit of pipe the flow velocity must be higher but the flow trates are the same througout. With a given pump (or head of water) you would get more flow if you took out the thin bit and replaced it by (another) wide bit. It's not velocity of blood that carries stuff about the body, it's the flow rate.

In principle yes. the yeild will get better as you go towards 167nm. Have fun trying to set this up; air is opaque to those wavelengths.

Hydroquinone? Incidentally it's more or less a myth about the difference between the left and right handed versions of thalidomide. Only one form is teratogenic, but since they interconvert in the body the difference is only of academic interest.

"The flow of blood should increase but this would also mean higher resistance so does the flow increase or not. Normally when we constrict something we expect higher speed don't we." You turn the tap off and expect the water to come out faster?

There isn't enough information to answer the question. Imagine 2 Kg of polystyrene foam hanging from a balance. If you put it in a container of water it would float and aparently weigh nothing.

I doubt there's any direct effect on blood viscosity. Aspirin inhibits platelet binding which is why they give it to prevent heart attacks. I wonder if anyone should be following advice obtained here, rather than from their doctor.

Measuring air pollution is a horribly complicated subject. However there's a fairly simple method that might do the job. Get a couple of pumps and use them to pull air at the same rate through a couple of pieces of filter paper. If one piece of paper ends up much darker than the other then it suggests it was in a more contaminated environment.

Distillation or GC. Do you mean separate or measure?

I found some data. In the gas phase the absorbtion maximum is at about 167nM I can't find any data for the liquid but it's certainly below the UV cutoff of most instruments because air absorbs from about 190 nM.

Bascule, your comment is unfair. Most pre-schoolers are better behaved than that.

Just for a start you would need to define "thinning" blood.

It's not even the BBC's news site.

Water is transparent to UV light sown to at least 190nM so that calculation is wrong.

Yew, Foxglove and the Madagascar periwinkle? The problem with thrying to make money growing these is that someone will ahve beaten you to it.

wtf is NaONH3?

Just a thought or two. "Catching water in a bucket moving at relativistic speeds would result in water vapor and a bucket with a hole in the bottom." All speeds are relativistic- some more so than others. Imagine 2 taps and 2 buckets. One bucket is just below the tap, the other is a zillion miles further down. I turn on both taps and, in the time it takes to fill one of them, the water has yet to fall a zillion miles and reach the other. The higher bucket fills first. On average a bucket moving up and down is higher than one that's at the bottom of the stream. It should fill (marginally) faster.

This ones easy "If ambient temperature is at the initial freezing point of the liquid, how long will it take to completely freeze the contents of the container?" It won't. as soon as some ice forms the salt concentrationin the rest of the water will rise. This will lower the FP. That means that the external temperature is no longer below the FP and no more ice will form. Saying "salt" without specifying which is generally taken to mean NaCl. Also 35g/l is about the salt concentration in sea water and I doubt that's a coincidence. A bit of googling shows that the freeziong point of sea water is about -2C If the abmient temp is just 5C below this (ie about -7C) then the stuff will never freeze solid. As before as the ice forms the salt will be concentrated in the remaining water. It will reduce the freezing point. To get it to freeze solid you would need to cool it to at least -21C (the eutectic point of ice and salt). How long it would take to freeze is a much more complicated problem and there's not enough information given to answer it.

Given what salt does to plants I'd give HCl a miss. IIRC Ammonium sulphate will reduce the pH and supply nitrogen but ,as with all things, you don't want to overdo it. I sugest that you take a known amount, say a litre, of water from your system. Add the acid to that and measure how much it takes to get to the right pH then you can work out how much it will need to sort out the pH of the whole lot. (if it's 5 gallons then it takes 21 times as much acid to get the pH of the bulk of the solution to a given pH as it takes to get 1 litre to the right pH). Add most of that much acid and mix it in and see how close to the right pH you are. It's possible to get to the right pH by overshooting with the acid then adding a base but you don't want to add any more stuff than you need.

I don't know because I wasn't there at the time but I think it might have been started with a combination of heat and pressure. A meteor falling to earth gets hot as it travels through the air. The energy to heat it comes from its kinetic energy and that, in turn, comes from gravitational potential energy. Imagine a big lump of rock in space. Things would be atracted to it by gravity- they would crash into it and warm it up slightly. Imagine that process carrying on until you had a star's worth of material. I think it would be pretty hot before any nuclear reaction started.