DrP

RDM - think about it... what is given off in a fission reaction? What is radiation made off?..... Now look at your question again. # - sorry - this was in reply to post#20.... before I read page 2 of this thread.

I too am just as fascinated with what's going on in the world as I was when younger.... more so in fact I reckon. I'd like life to be longer... perhaps I am just greedy. I am only just beginning to be able to do some of the things I would have loved to have been able to do when I was younger.. like play decent jazz guitar and break par at golf. Imagine how good we'd become on our chosen instruments or at skills we hone if we had 4 or 5 times as many decades to practice them! Alas - I think we are born in too primitive times to avoid the aging and dying process... better just accept it and be happy..

I read a New Scientist article a few years back that pointed towards pain thresholds being different. To sum it up it said that men complain about small amounts of pain more than women do (thus - man flu)... but when it comes to something REALLY painful, like being shot, a man will be more likely to 'man up, to ride through it rather than die. The woman though actually FEEL the pain more. It basically suggested than men were pussies when it came to small amounts of pain and complain more... but can grit through severe pain better (probably because the woman feels it more?). Although obviously a woman going through child birth would probably rip your head off for suggesting this... it seemed to be true from what was written in The New Scientist a few years back. Stab a man with a pin and he'll scream like a girl... whereas a girl will just say 'ow'... Stab them with a knife and the girl will fall and wait for medical treatment but the man might turn nasty and fight you. As with all of these studies I think that the results are based on mass generalisations and I would think there are plenty of men and women that would break this mould or just not fit into it.... but it was the statistical finding of the study.

"...and winning money on the lottery" At least that is a statistical possibility.

Whatever the reason for the error in processing - the light did not go through your body. That much is obvious.

I get that long corridor thing... I went on a couple of internet dates where that happened - twice I could tell from the facial features and the body language of my dates that they wanted to run off before even talking to me. The long approach did not make it any easier at all. I am still friends with one of them and regularly chat on facebook. The other was quite rude, opening with "oh God! this is a mistake!"... At least she was clear about it I suppose - lol. I was quite short with that one and insisted that we sat and had a 5 min chat over coffee before she ran off. She did warm to my personality, but just did not like the look of me or something.

I am pretty sure the light did not 'come through your body' - it is much more likely to be a processing error or something to do with the device using 2 cameras, like most modern phones.

I can't see what you are seeing on my screen... Don't a lot of these modern phones use 2 cameras for focusing things up front and also behind? Maybe it is something to do with that or the way it is processed?

The UV breaks bonds in and along the polymer which causes radicals... which then react (crosslinking reactions, unzipping or chain scissions depending on the chemistry of the polymer). As I said - I am fairly confident that the number of radicals produces will be constant regardless of temperature. The reactions taking place due to these radicals are what might be effected by temperature, but I would guess this would be slight. Sample density could effect the amount of incident UV that gets absorbed and forms radicals. A dense block will likely absorb more of the UV than a thin sheet (where a lot will pass straight through). As long as all samples are identical sizes, thickness and density it should be comparable. My guess is that temperature (unless hundreds or 1000C or something silly) will not effect the level of degradation in the samples over the 10 days beyond what will be seen at room temperature due to the UV anyway. Please let us know the results - I would like to know how the results turn out for personal interest. Regards, P.

To sum up - I would assume that the number of incidents per dosage will be the same regardless of temperature. It is the speed of chemical reactions AFTER the formation of radicals caused by the incident UV that will be sped up by a temperature increase. (Sorry - cross post with swasont).

yea - sorry I can't be of more help. I guess that the detrimental effects of UV on rubber come from the scission rather than the crosslinking type reactions.As I suggested above I doubt this will be speed up by a slight increase in temperature. How would you test for the number of chemical incidents per rad dose between the 2 samples? You can have one hot and one cold rubber sheet exposed to the same amount of UV dosage.... but how to test the sheet after to tell number of actions that took place for the dose you applied? Solubility change? Integrity/strength? I don't think that the number of incidents will change between the 2 samples anyway... it has to be down to the exposure dosage, not the temperature imo.... but the resultant chemical reactions that take place AFTER the UV has cause radicals to occur could well be faster at higher temperature... I would assume this because most other chemical reactions are faster at higher temperature.

SPECULATION: The colour change happens after the quanta of UV has hit the sample I think... that well might be faster at a higher temperature. The breaking of bonds in chain scission due to incident UV light happens instantly I think... so would not be effected by temperature. With crosslinking, however, the incident UV light creates a radical on the chain or functional group somewhere along the polymer which then reacts with nearby chains to cross link. As this is a chemical reaction I would not be surprised if the speed of this reaction is influenced by temperature... even if only very slightly. I would guess (as there is nothing reported about it from what we can tell) that the effect would be very slight.

I don't think the IR will effect the rubber short of warming it. The UV can obviously cause scission of chains or even crosslinking in many plastics... it depends on what plastic it is and what functional groups are on the polymer as to whether they crosslink, break or unzip. I don't think IR hurts many plastics either beyond warming. So, I could be wrong but, unless you have some exotic functional groups or some weird polymer backbone I don't think the IR will harm the material beyond heating. It is usually the UV that can cause chemical changes in these types of polymers and I don't think temperature has any effect on the number of chemical actions per dose of radiation. (Sorry if that's not much help - no-one else has chimed in, so I thought I'd share my take on it - I couldn't find anything on the net either from a brief search so I shared what I know - Please let us know if you find out more!)

I get where you are coming from there John C - readdressed the neg. Basically - Science doesn't need religion - one is empirical measuring and the other is mythology. The non supernatural ones address life philosophies and aren't really science even then.. so, like a fish needing a bike, science needs religion. Religion (the big world ones anyway) totally ignore science or try to explain it through twisting what was written a very long time in their books... this fails and indeed, religion without science is just religion.... as you said in 2 lines. ;-)

Isn't education teaching people how to think? Is it OK to think that you can kill people? Shouldn't 'we' try to help people that think killing is morally OK? If someone is walking towards a cliff will you say "It's ok - I don't want to teach him how to think, let him fall"? There is a line somewhere... where it is will be different for different people. If people believe in those dragons I would feel that the education system had let them down... or someone somewhere has told them a pack of lies. I would be happy to discuss it with them.

Cheynas - People earlier in this thread gave that Matt guy some great advice... Buy a camera and catch them red handed!. Then go to the police. Although I would also go to your doctor if you feel like you are under the influence of the drug and tell them what you think happened.. a camera will prove it all. The police will sort it from there. The doctor will ensure you are safe.

A simple substitution of that 10% solution will give you dilution for a new constitution to achieve your resolution of a 2% solution which seems to be the target of your convolution. Can you just simply dilute some of the 10% stock straight down to 2%? It will be easier to work out and quite simple. Otherwise - break it into first principles and do the algebra required to change the 0.5% into a 2% solution. I normally write it out in pencil on a piece of paper listing what I have, what I want and what I need to get there. PS - I say that diluting some of the 10 % solution might be more accurate as you will be dealing with whole round numbers without having to round off any decimal places. The dilution from 10 to 2 % will be easy with no recurring decimal places to worry about - depends what you need it for I suppose.

Oh, yea, 'Only' 2 black holes merging a billion years ago... what's the point eh? lol Personally I think it's incredible, amazing... words don't describe the wonder even. I am sure we will learn a lot from this.

"..natural mechanism.." What natural mechanism? I think people make the choice. I think it is pretty logical to have more children when a higher percentage of them die. "..is it anticipated that global fertility rates will go down.." - I would think so. Here in the UK it wasn't that long ago that having 6 to 12 kids was not seen as being that unusual. On my mother's side (she is one of 2) her father was one of 7 and his father was one of 12. On my Father's side (he is an only child) his mom was 1 of 6... her parents had more brothers and sisters than her. I don't think it was unusual. I just looked up some data - apparently it was pretty normal to have on average 6 children in the Victorian age (UK)... this dropped to 3 in the early 20th century... latter part it was the classic 2.4... and now we are 1.9 (according to an article I just read).

I don't understand your last paragraph about chocolate unicorns. Basically, imo, (I think I said this earlier) - we are going through a global zeitgeist where we are all dropping religion slowly and turning to science based reasoning rather than irrational superstition. Timeline for completion? No-one could possibly know. The New age spin off from religion is something that will take over from religion imo - those lot don't believe in the current religions... but jump onto pretty much any other supernatural sounding clap trap they can using science buzz words to sound like they know what they are talking about... they believe what they say even though they have no evidence or misinterpreted evidence, or evidence that they jump to wrong conclusions from to support their mystical cosmic debris.

"How did the global population grow to 7 billion.."? Sex - lots of sex. I agree though - why should they balance out? Medicine has improved and life expectancies have increased. People live longer and there are no laws (in this country at least) that limit the amount of children you might have.

He's taking a pretty standard line on Christianity from what I can see. I studied it for years. I suppose it depends on what denomination you are, but pretty all of them take the New Testament as gospel that supercedes/fulfils the old.

So they cut out a piece of your brain yea? Glad you're feeling better anyway! Good luck - hope the positivity continues for you.

I am going to use that alphabet soup one next time someone I know gives me yet another shitty explanation of things I ask him to explain. lol.

We all knew that this was going to be the case before he got in, it was obvious to many... but you still voted him in. What did you expect him to do? As far as I'm concerned he is actually doing things exactly the way he said would pretty much. I assume a lot of Americans that are right of centre in their politics are very happy with him. You got pretty much exactly what you voted for.