CaptainPanic

Say please. I use SI units... I hope you do too... otherwise you need to convert everything. P = pressure in the pipe (Pascal) V = the physical dimensions of the container - in this case the pipe. V is constant in this case. (m3) n = amount of moles of gas in the container - if you have a leak, this is NOT constant!! (moles) R = 8.3145 J/(mol K) - the gas constant. If you do stuff in English units, it's a different value. (J/(mol K)) T = temperature (in Kelvin!). Probably constant. (K) So: P*V = n*R*T Or: P/n = R*T/V = constant (P/n)initial = (P/n)final In short: a change in pressure is linearly dependent on the amount of moles of air entering, (n). And, since you want to know the amount of air entering your pipe, n is exactly what you need! And you're measuring P! You're good to go then. Good luck!

A titration is a measurement to determine a concentration. Those can be done offline (meaning they take a sample and then do the titration in a lab - exactly the same as you do it). It can also be done online (meaning that the titration is automatic and takes the sample automatically and continuously - see also this link to a commercial website that sells them (note: I have no personal interest in that website - this isn't spam)). Often however, the concentrations of materials are determined in a different way (pH, gas chromatography, hplc, etc)... and if a factory is simple, then a good design means that there is no need to do too many checks. Quality control at the end of the production line is sufficient then. Standard solutions are just a matter of blending stuff. What's the problem? They mix it. Check it to the standard. Correct it. Check it again... repeat until the solution is within specifications.

Why would boiled water freeze faster? Because of those few ppm of N2 and O2 that were boiled out? I find it hard to believe that it's of any significance.

First of all, piping may withstand high pressure, but may not withstand vacuum. You can use PV=nRT to calculate how much air is entering or escaping if you know the change in pressure (and temperature, if that's relevant). You have to give a little more information - right now it's difficult to understand what you try to do. What's wrong with your data? What data do you measure? Pressure? Could there be a reaction with air? Can air dissolve into a liquid (like water)?

Don't pretend that "transparency" is something like rocket science. It's just a matter of telling the people what the government is doing, and why it's doing that. The government in a democracy represents the people - so logically, transparency is essential, since it's the people that make the decisions (or choose the parties based on information) in a true democracy. If a government is fair and honest, then it's very easy to be transparent. And there are enough media to facilitate the transparency.

That's because you try to invent things that already exist. The idea to use waste heat is already very popular in industry. The problem is most of the time one of the following: 1. It's too expensive. The investment is too high and the payback time is too long. 2. It's too complicated, which results in an investment that is too expensive (see: 1.) 3. The temperature of the waste heat is too low. 4. It interferes with the process. 5. Management thinks it's not worth the risk. I'm afraid that using waste heat in a steel factory is mostly a problem with 1. and 2. because the hot material that needs to cool down is mostly gas or a solid. Gases have a very poor heat transfer coefficient, resulting in very large heat exchangers (expensive!). Solids are just a nightmare in general for heat exchanging. So many practical problems (result: too expensive). But do not be discouraged because you have ideas that are not new. All engineers start like that. You're training the technical creativity that you need later. Keep it up!

LOL. Really? 1.9 liter is larger than most bottles in the supermarkets here. Those are normally 1.5 liter (or 51 US fluid ounces). There is the odd brand that sells in a 2 liter bottle... and that's the biggest we have. To get 1.9 liter in a fastfood chain. LOL. That's just ridiculous. Are people supposed to finish that while they sit in the restaurant? Or is the whole point that you drink some, then refill, and take the rest home (and wouldn't a bottle be easier then?)? One of those mega-drinks means you get enough liquid for the whole day. People must be spending a lot of time in the toilet to get rid of all that water again

I always take a 0.5 liter (that's the "large" in the Netherlands). I know that "large" has different definitions in different countries. For any meal at home, a simple glass of water (0.2 or 0.3 liter) is more than enough. But at the fastfood chains I get more thirsty... probably because of the overdose of salt on fries or something. Often I am still thirsty after that large drink. Funny thing. Anyway, I hardly ever go there. It's emergency food as far as I'm concerned. Only when I am very hungry and nothing else is open. I think Kebab is much better, cheaper and healthier... and often just as fast... and then a regular can (0.3 liter) of soft drink is more than enough. [edit] p.s. refills are not free here.

True. Most incinerators that I know of have a massive recycling and separation system before the incinerator. But the best way to go is to reduce waste production (reduce consumption).

It already exists. There are hundreds (maybe thousands) or large incineration power plants. Waste incinerator <-- click there for wikipedia about the technology of buring waste Gas cleaning --< click there for wikipedia about gas cleaning in incinerators, including specific text about dioxins.

It makes people get along slightly better. It makes it a little easier to start or join a conversation. It motivates people to stick around a little longer. In business, those can be important things. A networking event is often ended with an open bar where many people (but not everybody) will have a drink... (Depends also on how many people came by car). Yet, most people who drink are functioning normally in society. I dare say that in Western countries, the large majority of people drink alcohol... and society is doing quite well. I think it's ridiculous to throw people in jail for drinking alcohol... but if that is the result of a democratically chosen government, then I guess the culture of the country demands that this is done. This shows that culture is very important to the discussion about alcohol. Can I ask you which country you're from? Friends of mine make a good beer. Some local bars produce their own beer. Vineyards make most excellent wines in small-scale traditional processes. There are thousands, perhaps millions of people who make good tasting alcohol. Are you sure you know what you're talking about? For example, beer requires only water, barley and hops. That's water, and two common agricultural products. The barley contains starch (sugar) which forms the alcohol. Hops is for the taste. Wine is made of grapes... also not exactly hard to come by. In fact, any fruit can ferment and form alcohol... the only ingredient for alcohol is sugar. I also challenge your remark that alcohol doesn't taste good. I mean, I think beer tastes great. Pure alcohol does not taste good at all, but as long as it's in a drink in small amounts, it can be very nice. Just like pure spanish peppers taste pretty bad, but I like some in my food. I don't eat a spoonful of salt, but I like a little salt on my food too. In this entire thread, we can assume that alcohol = ethanol. The alcohol in beverages is ethanol. Nobody drinks any other alcohols... and yeast cannot produce any other alcohols (except for fusel oils, which is produced in very small quantities during fermentation. Fusel oil contains a few alcohols). I am sorry to say, but I believe you come from a country where alcohol is outlawed... and that you have so little experience with alcohol that you just don't know what you're talking about.

I put my money on the type of surfactant / detergent. Detergent The detergent (or soap, surfactant) will determine the weight of the liquid part of the bubble. It will probably also determine the size of the bubbles, and how easy they break off... and I think that the latter is your real problem. According to wikipedia, soap generally decreases surface tension, and soap only stabilizes the bubbles (link). I'm not an expert, but luckily it should be relatively easy to try a number of different ones as almost everybody has several types of soap at home (shower gel / shampoo / washing detergent for laundry / dish wash soap etc). The concentration of the detergent also has a large influence on the behavior... In short, you have a number of parameters to play with, and I am sure that at some point you'll get it right. Gas phase Your gas phase is fine. No need for condensers or anything like that. Assuming you keep the temperature somewhere under 40 deg C, the vapor pressure of the water is too low to heavily influence the buoyancy of the gas. (Buoyancy is the difference between the air and the other gas here - while the hydrogen gas will become a lot heavier because of water vapor, the buoyancy will hardly change). For example: Air has a density of about 1.2 kg/m3 Hydrogen has a density of about 0.08 kg/m3 The difference is about 1.12 kg/m3 Now, if we saturate the hydrogen gas with water at 40 deg C, we get 7374.1 Pa (or 0.07 bar) of water. The new density is now about 0.12 kg/m3, because of the added water... it's more than 50% heavier! The difference however is 1.08 kg/m3, and only decreased by about 4%. If your water reaches temperatures of 80 deg C or more, then this becomes a different story altogether. Note that detergents also act differently at different temperatures.

Oops That's a dutch abbreviation (silly me). It stands for central heating, often with water circulation to radiators. Apologies for the confusion.

Screw the whole rape story. This is a political arrest, made by the world's free democracies, and it's a disgrace. It tells people that it's ok to have a democracy, but not all the facts. It tells us that it's important that your government can lie to you, and you never find out. It tells us it's bad to be a good journalist, and try to find out stuff that politicians don't want you to know. It tells us that democratic opposition doesn't need all the facts to be a good opposition because it can do that with only half the story. That's the message we must get. The rape story is just a bogus reason to arrest the guy. If they hadn't found this rape story, Interpol would have been involved in its first ever arrest for illegal parking. It surprises me that the majority of the replies here are about the suspected rape / misbehaviour against women. It's besides the point. Perhaps the guy is guilty, perhaps not. Interpol doesn't have to be involved... it hardly ever gets involved in such simple cases. Doesn't it sound ridiculous to anyone that Interpol, in cooperation with police forces around the world are involved in a case of rape? Interpol, in 2008 was involved in only 718 arrests. Let's just look at statistics: In the US, the amount of rapes is 0.3 per 1000 in 2004. That's 90,000 cases every year. Worldwide, there must be millions. But this guy, who happens to scare the living hell out of all the world's governments is suddenly a target for Interpol, not because he scared the living hell out of all the governments, but because he possibly continued to have sex too long? Makes no sense to me. The hidden message here is that it's bad not to blindly trust your government. And that stinks. Most of the governments of people on this forum are not evil... but they're not exactly saintly either... and it's our right, and our duty, to check on the governments. Especially on this forum, a place where scientists gather (people who dedicate their lives to uncover the truth), we overlook the important part. I'm quite disappointed.

1. What is the effect on the nitrogen of the absorption? Will it just "heat up" the air? Will it ionize the nitrogen? Will the nitrogen emit light? Note that ionized air, which possibly can react (and for example form NOx) will have a smell far worse than the "classic heater" smell. 2. What is the absorption coefficient? (In other words: how many meters if nitrogen do you need to absorb your beam?) How likely is it that you have enough space in a house? 3. Can the radiation be absorbed by other materials (especially common things like the human body, plastics, wood, concrete, etc)? Will all other materials be reflective to it (quite unlikely)? 4. Your idea uses electricity, which is relatively expensive. I would suggest a standard CV installation. The radiators are below 100 deg C, and cause no smell. It's a system that can possibly run on industrial waste heat, which is an ecologic benefit.

RON = research octane number. I believe it's the same as the octane number (the word "research" doesn't add extra meaning to it). 95 petrol is very common worldwide, and cars shouldn't burst into flames because of it. The problem you describe says more about the quality of the cars (and especially the gas tanks) than the fuel.

General about alcohol Positive: it's a social lubricant. Definitely a helpful thing in forging professional and social networks. Helps to loosen up a bit, which is useful in difficult social situations... in a society where people move around, and often meet new people, this is useful. When used with moderation (e.g. 1 glass of wine per day) some studies even call it healthy. Negative: it's an addictive, unhealthy, high-calory substance that can cause slurred speech, clumsiness, and delayed reflexes. It also has several negative long-term effects. Alcohol causes emotional responses. What if we tried to outlaw alcohol (again) It won't work. It's a natural product, and occurs in nature. Very easy to make at home. There is a large market for alcohol, partially because it's addictive. Only total-control can prevent the manufacturing of alcohol. Also, it is a bulk chemical (used in huge amounts in industry)... banning ethanol would harm our economy in more than 1 way. What if alcohol wouldn't exist Social gatherings would probably be different in Western society. There would be less damage caused by alcohol - but I wonder what has a bigger impact - the social networking, or the damage done by alcohol. I would be surprised if we wouldn't be using some other "stimulant". We would also be researching another biofuel. My opinion I don't think that alcohol does a lot of damage to our society... Or, it actually does a lot of damage, but the benefits outweigh the problems. I think that an enormous majority of users know how to use alcohol with moderation. It's the few problems that get all the attention. Banning alcohol is practically impossible and certainly won't solve anything.

So, already science requires a large effort to get grants/subsidies. In practice this means that of any 10 people working in a research organization, on average there is 1 manager, 1 person for acquisition, 1 for all kinds of services... leaving only 7 for the actual core-business: research... and that's the best-case scenario. Now, this Eroc Cantor suggests that all research organizations also employ someone for marketing too, to explain the value of the science to the masses. It will certainly waste more money than it will save.

That's only true of mutually exclusive options. So, what shall we do? Close the thread, or get back on topic? You may answer that question with "yes" if you don't see that this thread it completely hijacked by pedantry. My original question still stands.

You cannot answer a choice between two options by "yes".

I always struggle to put the music I like into a category... and so do modern artists. For example, , what's that? Her own website says: But I like a lot of other music too.

Infinity is like asking "are we there yet?", and always getting "no" for an answer. The concept doesn't bother me at all.

Best job opportunities: engineering Quickest steps in a career: engineering Most international environment: engineering Highest salary: medicine

Does "abolishing" in this particular case mean "to outlaw" or "to never have existed in the first place"?

Do IQ tests exist that are completely unbiased towards language? And have they been used to generate enough data to make such a claim? If someone just looked at a number of IQ tests from people in different countries, then who can guarantee that the baselines of value 100 are drawn at the same level?