DrP

Not legally. What slaves are you talking about in the UK? Sounds like rubbish to me. I read a few years back that some gypsies had taken some immigrants into forced labor so they could get better profits from their building companies. They'd use the immigrants that were here illegally and feed them enough to stay alive and then housed them in a shed or something and forced them to work for nothing building driveways and things in exchange for being fed, sheltered and protection from being beaten. They were not allowed to leave and were essentially slaves. You get horrific shit in every country of the world, but slavery in the UK? Pretty sure it isn't wide spread enough to state that we are 'full of slaves' - any sources for that?

Thanks Koti - you know I hadn't really noticed. lol. I just assumed my status was still molecule - I've never really given it much thought or attention. Thanks for the promotion H_I.

I still do not see how what we have is wrong - it measures up to experimental investigation. Energy is conserved and in free fall the gravitational potential energy gets transferred to KE energy and this is measurable. The faster you go the more energy you need to continue at the same rate of acceleration. We had this confusion in that last thread where Karleson was pushing the object or with gravity pushing the object the amount of energy to increase your speed by the same amount is the same - it increases exponentially and this can be measured. Breaking from 40 mph for instance requires 4 times the work from the breaks than stopping from 20 mph (sorry the units are probably wrong, but you get the idea about the inverse square relationship). KE = 1/2mv^2

I'll second that - it is just rearrangement of the same algebraic expression. s x s is s squared. m/s/s = m/ sxs

I reckon a standard borosilicate 5L round bottomed flask would do. The condenser will also be fairly standard - get a larger condenser maybe if you are drawing the stuff off quickly - you 'can' stick 2 together but it will look a mess. Doubt it matters. You will probably have to play with your set up to perfect it. For a 5 L flask I would assume that the heater would be one of those electric heating mantles. I have seen them in use for 2L flasks. For smaller one offs we'd use an oil bath and heater, but for a permanent set up I think a dedicated heating mantle sized to fit your flask would suit. I am sure there are several ways to achieve the result you are looking for. You might not need a chiller, the condenser might be enough - but otherwise you can submerge your collection vessel into a cold bath. A basin of IPA with a few handfuls of dry ice in it can work well for this. For a more permanent set I do not know what to use. Have you considered drawing a vacuum? It will distil across a lot faster and at a lower temperature. There are usually pressure/temperature charts in the back of chem catalogues or easy to find on the net that will show you what temperatures you will be aiming at for a given pressure compared to the boiling point of your liquid. Use clamps to secure your whole set up to some sort of frame on the bench. Clamp the condenser, clamp the flask, clamp everything to the frame (this will take the weight of each piece of kit off of the joints in the glass and just keep the whole thing more stable). You can get little clips also to help hold the glass joints together. Maybe grease the joints lightly with silicone grease. Even clamp the tubes that carry the water through the condenser to keep it all tidy. Use wire tightened around the fitting of the tube to the condenser to stop it coming off and causing a flood when you are not looking. Keep a fire extinguisher near... but that is standard lab kit anyway. even those electric heating mantles can short out and cause a fire. I've put one out myself - naked flames licking up around the flask and reflux condenser full of solvents at their boiling point. Scary. Anyway - I'm not an expert - these are just my first thoughts based on doing distillations in the past - take or leave what I have said - feel free to ask any questions. GL.

OK - Sorry - the FORCE is constant... but the distance over which the force is applied for is greater - so more work is done. To double the speed 4 times the energy is required. How about this - if carleson was a motor using fuel - he would need to use more fuel each step to increase the constant acceleration. This can be measured by looking at the fuel intake increase on his journey. Thanks - maybe I got confused by the inverse square law (goes from centre of masses? - So free falling r is considered constant due to negligible change in r) - The KE is increasing exponentially though as V doubles KE quadruples yea? This is easily tested via fuel consumption.

I don't think they are identical because KE = 1/2 MV^2 - so the faster you go the more energy required to accelerate. In the case of gravity the force increases as you get closer to the ground as force is directly proportional to the inverse of the separation distance SQUARED. You must know this though - what am missing now?

The force from gravity increases the closer the objects get via an inverse square law. The KE of the object is 4 times the amount it had when it had half the velocity. So it requires more energy the faster it goes... thus more force to keep the same rate of acceleration. KE = 1/2 MV^2 Please hit me with -ve if I am wrong here - I am getting this from my head rather than looking it up. The force between 2 objects falls off via an inverse square law with distance. F = G.M1M2 / Cr^2 where C here is something like 4pi x Epsilon(0) or something like that. G is gravitational constant.

OK - but the force will have to increase each step to maintain the 9.8m/ss yea? With gravity it is because the objects are closer - with Karlson it must be because he pushes harder each step. Inverse square yea? So more work is done each step to obtain that constant 4.9m Sorry if I am misunderstanding your point - I'm trying to see where our confusion lies.

I do not know why it did this - but I like to guess at things (to show how dumb I can be)... Could it have gotten damp and then the dampness froze in the recent cold spells causing it to expand? Maybe it 'set' like that with the weak forces involved with the damp particles. - PURE speculation and probably wrong. lol. Does it crumble easily or is it set hard?

So what? The stone has inertia. Spell it out for us because we are clearly missing your point.

The force he applies to keep it accelerating at 9.8m/ss is the same as the gravitational force and will require energy. With gravity it is potential energy being converted to kinetic energy. If he stopped pushing, then yes, of course it will continue on at constant velocity until some external thing slowed it (via friction or plain obstruction). If he keeps the force on the object to achieve 9.8m/ss going then the stone will get faster and it will cost energy. I don't see your point.

But not a measure of time passage. How?

Yes - but it is accelerating due to the force applied. The inertia just keeps it going until another force counters it. What am missing?

Yes that's true - it's biomechanical - not relativity/dilation of time though. No - it effects the rate of the clock - not the passage of time that the clock experiences. Clocks can run fast or slow.... time isn't running faster or slower for those clocks. Whatever those clocks say the number of decays from a block of caesium remains constant. Shrink the caesium block.... does it decay slower? (no).

Don't rush to get it all done in 8 hours. Be safe. Avoid fire sources around your distillation kit. Your set up seems sound for a standard distillation. If you don't really know what you are doing on a small scale then don't scale it up. Maybe people haven't responded because some people use this technique to extract oils from plants that they are not legally allowed to own. Therefore people are probably reluctant to comment. Can I ask - what are you extracting and from which plant?

This is due to the fact that when you were 2 years old.... a year was half of the entirety of life that you had ever experienced - 50% - and it seems to drag. Now (lets say you are 30 yo for arguments sake) a year is only 3.33% of your entire life experience... it makes it 'seem' faster... but it isn't - it is still a year. It's how you perceive it - No dilation there. again - PERCEPTION of time and actual time. The clock on the wall still goes the same speed when he shrinks, it just seems slower. When you get time dilation from travelling close to C the clock actually IS going slower than your one.

But that is just movement - inertia is a resistance to the change - it doesn't apply any force in itself so adds nothing to the acceleration in it self.... is that right? The free fall under gravity has an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 as you pointed out - this is measured, so any perturbation from other influences (if they were there) have been taken into account when it was measured to be 9.8 m/ss. That is the acceleration due to 'gravity' as we have measured it. Maybe I am missing something. Engage with Strange though - he will test your theory for you if you answer his questions. Although, I suspect, that there is nothing wrong with the current theory.

The silver veneer coming off gets my vote.

If it's rust it's more likely coming through the thin mirror veneer. Difficult to say without looking at it, but it is obviously not the mirror itself corroding - so I would say it is either coming through the thin coating on the mirror or specks of the coating pulled off when you rubbed off the sap... some of the coating could have come off with it if it stuck to the sao... you don't have this on your window because it is just glass and the paint work is resistant to it anyway.

Yea - I am not sure I'll get an answer from MS - looking at the last half a dozen threads he has started he just asks a question that has some underlying connection to his beliefs about race and doesn't reply. Shame - I'd be interested to hear what he thinks are the 'cons' of mixed race relations that he stated were there in the OP without explaining. Whatever he come out with I would bet it is going to be horrid and nose scrunchingly offensive.

What 'cons' are you referring too?

I prefer honesty - why pretend you don't find them attractive when you do? - I would want my partner to be honest with their feelings. Surely it's hotter knowing what your partner likes anyway - rather than sticking your head in the sand and living in a fantasy land where they 'only have eyes for you' when really they are bored to tears or just like the aesthetics of others as well as you... it's natural and normal. Maybe the offence people feel is due to the jealousy.... or more likely some throw back to religious days when people they believed that a spouse was god given and couldn't be any thing but perfect. It's about expectation I think - stop thinking/expecting that your partner will only have eyes for you and look and behave the way you want them too, you are lying to yourself - they are complex human beings.

I was wondering if we'd get to here a defense of the Fox news U-turn on their views from any Republicans out there - I'd honestly be interested what they have to say about this.

Seek Ale!