Hal.

ZombieSquirrel , maybe you should have posted in Physics or in Engineering and a few more electrically minded people would probably have given an opinion . I think coil guns are far from amateur science . Don't be an amateur with anything electrical .

Swansont , We've had a moving of the thread from politics to the lounge , I've reworded and for the purpose of clarity I will say the following , I'm talking about people who have entered retail establishments for the alleged purpose of Larceny / Burglary , unless you would like to interpret this as rioting , which I would think it isn't . With this in mind , I'll repeat , Recently crowds of people decided to go relieve shops of their stock in London shopping areas obviously with no intention of paying and asking for a receipt , contrary to accepted practice in any civilised society . So , in a world where brains allows people to earn money to pay for goods and brawn allows people to pass this system and take whatever they want , who is right and who is wrong ?

In the Lounge , Swansont , can we proceed as follows ? Recently crowds of people decided to go relieve shops of their stock in London shopping areas obviously with no intention of paying and asking for a receipt , contrary to accepted practice in any civilised society . So , in a world where brains allows people to earn money to pay for goods and brawn allows people to pass this system and take whatever they want , who is right and who is wrong ?

Recently crowds of people decided to go shopping in London shopping areas , obviously with no intention of paying and asking for a receipt . So , in a world where brains allows people to earn money to pay for goods and brawn allows people to pass this system and take whatever they want , who is right and who is wrong ?

Doc. Josh , as you get older you may find you could get old and grey , crinkly and cranky on your own . You could also meet a fine woman and have 11 kids and be so busy you're not going to have time to think of the boring oul days . Enjoy your time with your friends , change little by little if need be , you will wonder where the time has gone soon enough .

A reference I found indicates that at 25 degrees celsius the solubility of NaCl is 0.36 Kg of NaCl per 1 Kg of Water . If there was a mixture of 1 Kg of Water and 0.36 Kg of NaCl at 25 degrees celsius and I stirred into this a small amount of Sugar ( 20 grams ) what would happen to the levels of NaCl and sugar ? Let's assume everything is at 25 degrees celsius , I only provided the numbers for clarity , it is more of the concept that is of interest .

AndrewSr , I think it is a great piece of software , allows graphs for co-ordinate geometry to be drawn very easily , it's a good tool , what you use it to do is as complicated as you want to make it ! Also , If you have a great idea , tell only your mum !

John Cuthber , My view is clear on melting and on fusion . A ' Halite ' would agree with the views of ' Hal ' just like a ' Brownite ' would agree with the views of a man named ' Brown ' and a ' Johnsonite ' would agree with the views of a man named ' Johnson ' . Any dictionary will include words that have multiple meanings and the term ' Halite ' is already one such word . If you agreed with me we could then conclude the equality of being a ' Cuthberite ' and a ' Halite ' in some instances .

I could contend it is in error and I could also contend it isn't in error , like a debate where one person is given one side and another another of an argument . I can be quite clear what I think this means without having to contend one or other side of a debate though . The definition is termed , ' Melting ' . It is a phase transition of a solid to a liquid . The opposite phase transition is termed , ' Freezing ' . They are reverse processes .

John Cuthber , acknowledged , nitty gritty , do you agree ? It is much more natural to observe that when a piece of ice is frozen and when it melts there is no reverse process of freezing to see before concluding the ice has melted . Billions of people do this every time they see something melting with no presumed reference to the reversible action . It is much more natural to observe that when you see a solid piece of steel and afterwards put 200 amps through it to make it melt into a drop which falls into a puddle that it is melted with no presumed reference to the reversible action . You could call me a Halite , an addition to the current possible meanings of Halite , which I would call a person who has this view . Are you a Halite John ?

The question is John Cuthber , In it's unusual meaning do you agree ?

Do you ever get that feeling you shouldn't have pressed that send button or maybe the opposite , that you should , when making a post before you deleted it ? Would you like to be asked , " are you sure ? " , or even have an optional setting of being asked , " are you sure ? " .

Nearly ............................................ The End ! Let's for instance take the property of Mass . The Mass of an ice cube could be taken before and after two phase changes and if they are the same then there is Conservation of Mass . Any definition based on this Mass would be dependent on the Reversibility of Mass . If a definition was only based on the Mass before and after the first phase change this definition would not then be dependent on the Reversibility of Mass due to two phase changes , it would be Independent of the Reversibility of Mass .

CaptainPanic , For clarity , Melting is independent of reversibility and need not rely on reversibility for it's proof . CaptainPanic , Do you agree ?

CaptainPanic , You're problem with what you say is that you seem to think that I am arguing that melting is not reversible . This is not the case and if you think I do you really should say where it is that I say melting is not reversible , which you won't find because I didn't say that . I can only state it again , that melting is independent of reversibility and need not rely on reversibility for it's proof . If you disagree , say so . You're trying to tell me I'm wrong about something I don't ascert and I'm trying to tell you I'm speaking of something else . For clarity , Hal. contends , melting is independent of reversibility and need not rely on reversibility for it's proof . For clarity , do you agree CaptainPanic ?

Thanks Ringer , interesting reading and it's skillful , sometimes trying to understand information from a book is difficult so , grow a few things , you will realise how a lot of information is then applicable .

Mechanism of a scroll compressor . From the folks over at the Wiki . Click on the image for motion . Wiki for the scroll compressor click here !

I don't know anything about this sort of thing , unless what I do know is applicable . I had heard that tomato plants can be grown indoors but they need the wind to spread whatever it is they spread , so would you think two different types of tomato plants left near to each other in the wind might create something new in the seeds in the fruit in a generation or two ?

How do two plants that are closely related make a hybrid , Ringer ?

Is it possible to cross a Rose plant with a Tomato plant ?

CaptainPanic , I'm not going to tell you the inner workings of Poly(2-Vinylpyridine) , on quickly gathering a first insight about it I have noted that some people say they can melt a substance with this name above 200 degrees Celsius and others say a substance with this name decomposes at a temperature which they didn't say . As they surely have better equipment than I will ever have , I find their conclusions interesting especially when the said material is an ingredient in medical implants . That doesn't prevent me from observing that to the best of my knowledge , which means I don't think it is untruthful that , when I see that an ice cube is solid and it goes from being solid at -5 degrees Celsius to being liquid at 5 degrees Celsius , part of what I am observing is melting , if you believe it has not melted , say so . If you should rely upon even one instance of melting which does not have reversibility as it's proof , then you will be relying on a definition I talk of . doG , I don't think so , I don't think I did say so and if anybody would like to say they did I'm sure that will be interesting . Isn't it implied in the term reversibility that you wouldn't get a different composition , if you did that wouldn't be reversibility . John Cuthber , As I thought John , if you want to make the circumstances fit the rules , make the rules fit the circumstances .

CaptainPanic , I suppose that the way people have tried to teach me Science in the past is a way where , if I didn't understand the phenomenon in discussion through the example being given , then the example being given would be changed to hopefully give a better understanding of the phenomenon in discussion . I , CaptainPanic , think you need no further description of my view as you know exactly what I am talking about . Reversibility is not needed to show that melting has taken place . I also think it is natural to think of melting without reversibility . When the ice cream on a cone melts and falls to the ground a kid doesn't stop to ponder the merits of reversibility when declaring , " my ice cream has melted " . Take a tennis ball and throw it from you to another person standing 20 metres away with one bounce as it goes , do you need to show the second parabola has happened after the first , when it is only the intention to show the first has happened , without taking into consideration that it is always taken as proven that all instances of the first parabola will be accompanied by another instance of a second parabola ?