DrP

surely that is just about taking a volume of the earth subtracted from the volume of the earth were it an extra 44 inches in diameter no? V = 3/4 pi r3 The earths radius according to google is on average 6371km. sorry - you said highest elevation.... so 'over' mount Everest? - add the height of Everest to r for the larger sphere for a rough check.

ahh - that would explain the name of the European company I have dealt with called 'Leuna Tenside'... which I now know means surfactant. Must be either a German or a general European thing meaning surfactant. It would explain why I have never heard of it... I never bought any surfactants from then - just polymers and solvents. well - the internet suggests 8.2mM at 25C for sodium lauryl sulphate in pure water - that will give you a ballpark to start then. Will need that graph for an exact measurement I would assume for your system. What are the units here? - mM? Is that supposed to mean mols per litre?

Awesome book yea? I never got that from his book at all. Can you quote me the chapter and page number where he said that please - I'll look it up.

What country are you working in? Sodium Dodecyl Sulphate? "The critical micelle concentration (CMC) in pure water at 25 °C is 8.2 mM" - for Sodium Lauryl Sulphate on wiki after searching for CMC of Sodium Dodecyl Sulphate on google. It would depend on your solvent and the concentration of what is in it and what it is too. It is usually trial and error with surfactants - there is no equation to work it out as far as I know (and if there is I'm not sure it is practical).

I think you have to plot a graph with a few points on it and look for the knee. Plot surface tension or something else dependent upon surfactant concentration vs surfactant loading - a few low concs and a few higher concs and fine the knee in the curve. I don't know if you can calculate it or not from an equation. I had to look up what a 'tenside' molecule was - another way of describing a surfactant. Is this an American term?

If it exonerates him then why hide anything? If it exonerates him as claimed then it won't contain 'un provable' allegations will it? If they had been aloud to investigate properly rather than only being restricted to interviewing certain people maybe they could have 'proved' the allegations false or true or whatever the natural run of a fair investigation would have throw up. If you are going to cover it all up then it just looks like a farce... especially when you look at their track record for straight out lying.

She's a fine looking hooker. ;-)

Quadruple simultaneous post madness!!!

Did you read the above posts? 3rd law explains it.

It would depend on how you choose to define a 'perfect' computer - I do not know but it has nothing to do with infinity unless you constrict it with the made up definition of a perfect computer. Your association of infinity with 'perfection' is made up woo I think.

I am getting more and more confused as to what people consider natural and un-natural. If an intelligent mind has evolved naturally... then, naturally that intelligent mind would create new things and make new things. How is something manmade not natural? If we have our intelligence 'naturally' and our intelligence leads to what some call 'un-natural' things then surely that is a mistake in understanding? It IS natural for these things that seem un-natural to occur, because naturally, an intelligent mind would invent such things. Is Rum and Raisin ice cream natural? This is obviously off topic - sorry - I might open a new thread if anyone wants to discuss it.

How does this thing compare to the feelings people get when they do Tai Chi?

Not to any definition I've seen of it. No offence taken - it is just wrong. Where did you get these definitions from? Did you make this up? I see where you are coming from when you say 'a perfect chip houses infinite number of component...' but a could say that a perfect chip doesn't NEED an infinite amount. Where did you get the definition of this perfect chip from? Made up?

not sure anyone really claims it did... depends on how you define 'nothing' as mentioned above.

of course it is real (if rare) - it's just not classed as an allergy (even though it sometimes gets called one - wiki - " It is sometimes described as an allergy, although it is not a true histamine-releasing allergic reaction like other forms of urticarial").

...and George Pell is a big one. The belief in an invisible all seeing all caring all hiding creator that loves us but is going to send us for an eternity in hell for being as he made us unless we disband all powers of reason to believe in him over no other without any proof whatsoever of him ever doing anything at all that can't be explained in far more reasonable and believable ways is another. I am not exaggerating. What credibility do they even have these days and how much do you think they deserve?

'Macromolecules' cover a huge range of materials that have 'large molecules'. It is too broad a term to assign any specific property to. If you have a specific macromolecule in mind or a type then maybe we can give typical properties for such a molecule. It's like asking 'what are the properties of polymers'? - The range is too broad and the properties will also have a broad range. (as Strange has said above - it depends on the specific molecule).

What is there to debate? The point I and others were making is that it is another nail in the coffin for their credibility. I admitted above that my initial comment was emotionally driven. What is the rules lapse here? Lets get back to the topic and sum it up then. George Pell is a convicted paedophile rapist and is evidence that the catholic church as an organisation is total nonce-sence. I and many others do not see why it should be given any credibility at all. Report this if you think it is offensive or breaking rules.

So what? What is your point? It is such a rare occurrence and clearly not understood yet - what of it? Even doctors can be wrong about the conclusions they come to - if she is allergic then why isn't she reacting to the water in her body that is there all the time? Also - you seem to be ignoring that the only stuff you have showed us is from the Murdock empire. What say you to that? If you are so sucked into believing everything that comes out of the lowest tabloids then carry on misunderstanding the world and getting excited about non issues. I expect it isn't a non issue for the poor girl - but for pretty much the rest of the world it isn't an issue... it's a very rare condition. None of us here are experts on the topic. Some of us are good at finding things out and understanding things.... the real explanations never come from Fox news, CNN, The Sun or Mirror newspapers. Believe what you like. It is very sad for the poor girl, but not much we can do about it.

Why not anyway? A society that claims absolute divine infallabilty rapes and abuses children and has a reputation for doing so for man many decades.... they deserve no respect from me or anyone else. Who cares - bash away. That is exactly what I am saying - no respect or credit due from anyone. Where was it a rule? OK - It has changed on a couple of small issues... TOO SLOW. Get them to the point - in fact - just get them out - we are sick of their lies. ... and being honest - they are dammed either way.... by admitting the bible is wrong and changing their tenants (although admirable) it throws all credibility of their confidence in their bible out of the window. It is a totally outdated institution built on lies and superstition and ignorance and should be disbanded/rebuilt into a social service rather than a suppose divine authority. Bollocks to them.

.... from an article on a site from Rupert Murdock's Mirror group. Are you saying we take every word from Fox News and Sky and The Mail and The Sun and The Mirror as scientific fact? Whatever - we are going in circles now. Bye. The news papers get stuff incorrect all the time and ham them up to make them more shocking and readable. What is your point here anyway? She has a bad reaction to water due to her aquagenic urticarial - what's your point?

Then she isn't 'allergic' to water then is she? As we have pointed out - 'news' papers aren't sources of scientific reference. She has aquagenic urticarial - which isn't an allergy as said before.

Rupert Murdock 'news' paper articles.

And this one is from the Mirror group - more from Rupert Murdock's propaganda machine. Maybe it's another - 'science can't explain it - the experts don't know what they are talking about' anti science hypernormalisation of bullshit. I don't know. But the whole - 'allergy to water' thing seems like media hype over whatever her condition actually is. From semen? From Gold? Are you serious? You are 70% water and will die very quickly without it - as would this girl.