John Cuthber

Well, if this post achieves nothing else, it has informed me of what a fipple is. Sounds like a flute to me.

Well, I hadn't done a lot of research. But, now that I know you believe that, know I am right. You have been suckered. And if your idea of doing an experiment involves trying to use a dead battery as a power source, the best I can say is that you are simply not equipped to do it well.

By whom? Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to address what seems to be a fatal error in your hypothesis That's the third time I have asked about it.

Interesting. In principle the formation of Schiff bases is reversible. So, if the copper forms a really strong complex with the amine it could drag the equilibrium back and form the aldehyde. If you had strictly anhydrous conditions (and anhydrous CuCl2), you might have more luck.

Or you might not. It's a pity that Sensei didn't think it through. Dropping funnels aren't much use for solids like trimethylammonium hydrochloride or aluminium chloride. There are, of course, funnels for adding solids in a comparable way. https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/z212644?lang=en&region=GB But that doesn't really solve the problem, because after you make the stuff, you still need to do something with it. If you really need the material to be anhydrous then there's no practical way round using a glove box. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glovebox If small amounts ow water (from the air) don't matter then it might be as simple as weighing the materials + mixing them in a beaker.

Unlike you, I didn't ask for feedback...

It would be much quicker to use a Taylor series to calculate the square root. So, what's the point of your formula? I cannot imagine any circumstance where replacing "sqrt(2)" by " tan (asin( 2 / (2 + 0.5. 10-36 )) / 1018" or whatever would be an advantage (unless you were trying to hide the fact that you meant root 2.)

"Chemistry" is a good start. We can always move it later.

Because we have moved on in the last 350 years. Learn to spell philosophical (or get a browser that corrects it for you).

It makes it clear that you are more interested in an "ideology" than in science.

And, as has been pointed out already, if they are not here we can't discuss them. However, it's difficult to see how anything you have written will help. Sorry, that simply doesn't make sense

I think it's laughable. I know gay people who are fat and gay people who are thin. I know gay people who are nervous, and gay people who are ebullient. And the same is true of straight people. Ditto vegetarians, vegans etc. The data just doesn't fit the hypothesis. The only interesting question left is, why are you so obsessed with homosexuality that you dream up (and write about and post) this ridiculous idea in spite of the obvious faults in it?

Do you understand that the high levels of aluminium may be because of the autism, rather than the other way round? Also, let's have a look at this OK, a typical brain is about 1.4 Kg Of which, according to this https://water.usgs.gov/edu/propertyyou.html about 73% is water So it's 17% "dry weight"- whatever that may be. That's 378g of "stuff". It's mainly from the frontal lobes (Have a look at the data here https://www.quora.com/Neuroanatomy-How-much-do-the-various-parts-of-the-brain-weigh-on-average-or-approximately-what-proportion-of-the-brain-is-each-part if you don't believe me). They average about 2.3 µg/g So that's 870µg of aluminium in the brain. But a typical vaccine only contains 125µg So, unless every last drop of aluminium in a vaccine is transferred to the brain, it figures that MOST OF THE ALUMINIUM IN THE BRAIN IS FROM SOME OTHER SOURCE; THERE JUST ISN'T ENOUGH IN THE VACCINES. Also, you seem to have ignored the important bit of what I posted. Do you remember that you said "The decline in infectious diseases began before the mass use of vaccines and was rather due to the improved nutrition and sanitation. " and I pointed out that If that was true then stopping vaccinations wouldn't lead to an increase in the incidence of- and harm from- measles. But it has. When reality does not agree with your ideas, it is not because reality has got it wrong. Well, you need to address that. Good luck.

Diffraction means that a "beam" will spread out whatever the medium is. Forcing the light through a small hole makes the beam spread more.

Hi I think there's a translation problem here What do you mean by "distract"? Can you show a web page where there is a picture of what you mean? If we have a picture the language does not matter.

At least some people in the comments section are ripping him apart.

I have only the information on display- and in the soundtrack of- the video. I see them construct a complicated array of bits of wire. And I hear them say they connect one coil to an amplifier (and I also see that there's a signal generator which seems to be driving the amp) and I see that they connect a load- a group of LEDs to the other coil. And I see them light up. There's no indication of the power applied or delivered, so it is impossible to say if it amplifies or not. However the laws of physics say it's impossible for it to do so. You have been suckered.

No Because you can always put the beam through a beam expander. There may be a minimum diameter due to diffraction effects, below which the beam direction is too poorly defined to be a beam.

Part of the issue is that we can see the "damage" done by a species we introduced (deliberately or accidentally) and we feel guilty about doing so. So we seek to "put things right". The OP's question lacks clarity on one vital point. We may seek to eradicate the introduced species from it's new location but we might, at the same time, be supporting it in its original habitat.

OK, without using a calculator (or computer), please calculate the square root of 123456 to 6 digits for me. You will need to work out the tangents + arcsins etc by hand. Let me know how you plan to do that. Do you see why I don't think your method is useful?

True, but irrelevant. Not always. The faster metabolism of children means that in many cases they are less susceptible to toxicity. As a case in point consider aluminium. One way in which the body can avoid damage from aluminium is to sequester it in bones. Babies and children are continuously producing more bone tissue as they grow so they are better placed than adults to trap this element harmlessly in bones. If that was true then stopping vaccinations wouldn't lead to an increase in the incidence of- and harm from- measles. But it has. When reality does not agree with your ideas, it is not because reality has got it wrong. Nobody has shown that it can. If I was the editor of that journal, I'd be embarrassed to publish something so poorly written

Which words didn't you understand? Most of the words are common enough This might trouble some people https://www.mathopenref.com/radical-sign.html To write off the method as "jargon" seems a bit silly. My dad learned it as a schoolkid- so did the rest of his classmates. It has the enormous advantage over your method that you only need a pen and paper. Your method requires an infinite set of trigonometric tables and is thus not any practical use.

The method is sort of interesting, but useless. Not quite that far. My dad knows how to do it and he was born in the 30s It seems the manual method is still available. https://xlinux.nist.gov/dads/HTML/squareRoot.html

I had a look. It's long winded way to make a bad transformer So what?

It's (just about) possible that the LED is packaged with a driver circuit that tries to maintain constant power to the LED itself using a buck/boost converter. In that case, as the available voltage from the battery fell, the current drawn would increase to maintain constant power. It's an idea- but I'd not bet on it. It's also important to recognise that the current available from a nearly flat battery is quite strongly temperature dependent