CaptainPanic

Hmm. Good point. If all the members of the civilization are part of the government, for example because there are no representatives, but every decision is made by the entire population through a referendum or even a collective mind, that is still a government.

I don't think that a government is essential for the formation of a civilization. It is indeed essential for humans, but not perhaps for other life forms. The incredibly complex hierarchy is really not strictly necessary for a civilization to form. What is necessary is a method to make decisions which influence the entire group of life forms (alien or human)... but which particular method is used to achieve this (government, or something else) is not important.

Apparently sulfasion is a process that damages batteries when they are not used. But the whole idea of a battery is that you can store energy and use it later... so I am still a bit lost.

Agreed. It is one of the government's tasks to inform us. But my problem is not with the information they give. To use the same analogy as before: it's ok to tell people that meteorites occasionally fall from the sky. It's a different thing altogether to remind people on a daily to weekly basis that meteorites kill people, and to make it sound like an actual and realistic threat. I would be pleased if the governments and media would sometimes relativise the articles regarding terrorism. I am completely missing the relation how terrorism stands in relation to other actual threats. It's is the lack of that information that pisses me off. Now that you mention the warnings for "using the toaster near water", I realize that people in the UK, USA and Canada are much more used to warnings than myself. There are significantly fewer warning stickers on products and in public areas in the Netherlands than in those countries. For example, the yellow "slippery floor" warning symbol, placed on wet floors has only been around here for a few years, and in most places people are still expected to recognize a wet floor without the warning symbol. Terrorism is one of the few issues that we get warned about - and get warned about constantly - as if it's the biggest threat of them all. If you get constantly "spammed" about everything, perhaps you don't take warnings so serious anymore. Yet, something tells me that many governments worldwide make terrorism bigger than it actually is.

What is sulfasion? I've never heard of it. I must admit that I was never very good at electrochemistry, but generally speaking I at least recognize keywords that I saw before. If I understand you correctly, then you plan to use the old fashioned lead acid battery, also used in cars? But cars are able to stop without their batteries going flat.

Can anyone tell me if I can still see a list of my posts that received some reputation from others? I'm curious which posts are appreciated by the members... We used to get a report about this (in the old version), but either that was cancelled, or I cannot find it anymore.

When you show a chemical reaction to students, you MUST focus on safety. I know it sounds boring... but it is paramount that you, as a teacher, do that. I also agree with Mr Skeptic that you must realize that students will think this is "cool", and will attempt to repeat it at home. No need to tell you that students usually think that "bigger = better" and will undoubtedly attempt to create the Mother Of All Smoke Bombs (MOASB)... That said, a smoke bomb is most definitely a chemical reaction. The substances left afterwards are not the same as before the reaction. What level are your students?

If your government told you to be careful of meteorites falling from the sky, would you cross the street looking up for meteorites, or sideways looking for traffic?? My point is that there may be a threat of terrorism (there's always a plot against the West, according to the agencies), but that threat is negligible compared to traffic accidents and other threats to tourists and the rest of the population in any country (except perhaps Afghanistan, Iraq and a few more unsafe countries). It would be more wise from your government to warn for bad quality food, or the Brittish and Irish driving their cars on the other side of the road! I know I just repeated my own statements - sorry for not adding much new to the discussion.

As a chemical engineer, I would use a shovel or a rake to disfigure a face (not that I would ever want to do that). My second choice would be to find some smouldering pieces, and build up the fire again, and use that. I am not sure how effective the chlorine is. The other components seem rather harmless.

Your free keyword of today is parabolic reflector.

Your argument suggests that the niece just has to work harder to be able to buy more clothes. You also suggest that the niece cannot handle money. Both things are not proven by the simple fact that the niece has less money than the uncle... You also suggest that democracy works like an angry mob: the majority will rob those rich people blind. Again, this is not true. Democracy in combination with capitalism has allowed the greatest accumulation of wealth in history. My point has been, and still is, that the rich are in a position to enrich themselves even more - which they constantly do. And it's perhaps not a bad thing to limit this. No problem with differences in wealth, it is probably a good motivation for people to work hard. But as far as I'm concerned the problem in this world is that some people are literally a BILLION times as rich as other people... And even in Western countries, the billionaires earn 10,000 - 100,000 times as much as the average working people. Don't you all think that's a little excessive? Once again, I do not suggest we loot the uncle. I do not suggest violence, or revolution. Just a higher tax for the very rich will do...

I believe there are several reasons (just to name a few that come to mind): 1. The abbreviations (gr8, lol, omg, etc.) are, in many cases, emotional. Science often is not. Instead, it is based on facts... therefore these abbreviations are not used so much. 2. Posts are written using keyboards, not using a phone's pad... so a few extra characters take just a fraction of a second. 3. The speed with which a reply is written is not important: nobody is waiting on the other end of the line, like in a chat session. 4. In science it is often necessary to write slightly longer sentences to express complex concepts... why save a few characters when you're already typing hundreds? 5. An excess of internet abbreviations will result in a remark from one of the members to write complete sentences... thereby teaching the newbie never to do that again ... and finally: 6. Because not everybody knows all the abbreviations? ZOMG!

I was thinking: is it acceptable if the pressure behind the train (the air that pushes the train) is lost when the train enters a station? (I'm not talking about safety: the possible hurricane wind forces in the station if a complete tunnel at higher pressure empties itself into the atmosphere, through the station!). The pressure behind the train must be higher than the pressure in front of it... Take a 100 ton train. Assume an acceleration if 1 m/s2. Assume a snug fit in a pipe of a diameter of 5 meter. F = m*a = 100,000 * 1 = 100,000 N F = P*A => P = F/A = 100,000 / (2.5^2*pi) = 5092 Pa, or 51 mbar. Now, we assume a tunnel of a length of 100 km W = P1 * V1 * ln(P2/P1) W = P1 * length*(0.5*diameter^2*pi) * ln(P2/P1) W = 100,000 * 100,000 * (pi*2.5^2) * ln (105092/100,000) = 9.8 GJ. If that tube segment receives just 1 train in 1 hour (3600 seconds) then the power requirement is 2.7 MW. That's about the same as a modern electric locomotive for regular trains... Other issues: - The air itself also moves, causing turbulence, and increasing energy demand - The energy consumption goes up with every train (more trains in a tunnel means a higher pressure is required) - The energy consumption goes up linearly with the length of the tunnel sections - Even if all the problems are solved, there will still be a massive number of compressors... because tunnels will continuously be compressed and evacuated... and it all sounds just a bit complicated for Personally, I see more future in complete vacuum tubes. Insert the train through an airlock, and make it run like a maglev. It's complex to build, but at least the energy requirements are only for the kinetic energy of the train, and not for massive compressors... and the energy consumption does not go up linear with the length of the tracks!

The water level in the tube and the water-container would be at the same level... but then you can heat the water in the tube, and evaporate it to run a turbine. It would work, yes. Your lens should focus sunlight onto the tube. It does not have to be more concentrated than the tube (no need to focus it on a single point - just an area with the same width as the tube tube is enough). You must now choose: 1. The power you like to get (expressed in Watts) 2. The surface area of sunlight that you need to focus on the tube (note: "insolation" is your keyword)... note: you cannot convert 100% of the sun's energy... You're lucky to convert 30%. 3. Find a way to focus all that light (it's probably a larger area than most cheap lenses can focus) 4. Realize that mirrors can work too! (Huzzah!) 5. Proceed to develop something very much similar to this: idea... only a little smaller. Good luck!

Which is opposed by the socialists who claim that "the big problem with capitalism is that eventually all the money is owned by a very small group of people". We all know that, on the long term, it doesn't work to force rich people to pay for everything. There is nothing wrong with having a rich class. But we also know that this can go over the top, where the rich own everything. The goal of our society should be to find the truth in the middle. And perhaps that would mean that the (extremely) rich start paying more tax? My personal view is that, at this moment in time (2010), the rich could do with a little less, and the poor with a little more.

No, I do not believe that there is any difference. Your remark would be valid if we compared my hometown with your hometown, or to a lesser extent my country with your country or state. In that case, I would have superior knowledge about my place, and I believe I would be able to avoid problems a bit better. But I also travel in Europe - for work and for pleasure. I leave the Netherlands about 6 times per year... and I visit places that I know as well as you do (i.e. I do not know anything). Don't let the bastards scare you... Tourism is always a little risky, and it's normal that parents worry about their kids. But there is no significant threat to tourists in Europe.

I should have mentioned that myself - thanks for adding it. It's not just "some" CO. It's a significant amount: CO is one of the main components in the gas, but the amount depends on the temperature used in the reaction.

I see no differences - it's still where it's supposed to be, and nothing has disappeared.

The text suggests that you will actually tax the rich a single time, in a massive money redistribution system. I personally think that would be a very nice way to get rid of the debt... but economists will undoubtedly find reasons why this is impossible (reasons which most people cannot easily understand), and others will claim that some people simply are billionaires because they worked so hard, and therefore have the right to live in extreme luxury. I would support this, especially if the system would be progressive (as most tax systems are) with the richest of the rich paying the most, both absolute and percentage-wise. My reason to support this idea is that I believe that some people in this world are just excessively rich. They have too much money, and haven't really earned it. They found themselves in the right place at the right time, and just got the money. I do not favor the communist idea of everyone earning exactly the same. Inequality motivates people to work harder. But our modern world has excesses which are over the top. Your title seems to suggest that you move the debt to the rich people (to privatise it) - that would suggest that the general population would continue to pay, but that the people would pay tax to the rich rather than to the government. I think that would be an incredibly bad idea, since you essentially create a private (profit oriented) tax office, which is allowed to keep the tax income to itself...

LOL!! If you are worried about your son backpacking through Europe - then think about me: I am constantly living in Europe, and so are 500 million others!

You can try to make charcoal. Note that the gases you create in that reaction are very flammable and/or explosive.

All posts above assume that the aliens have some form of egocentrism, which then requires social things and a government to form a single organization capable of great feats. That is not strictly necessary in order to have an intelligent civilization. There are life forms on earth which are not structured like humans (although I believe they are not considered intelligent either). - Ants (link to xkcd) have no government, but seem to know exactly what they are doing. They are a little bit like the Borg from star trek. - There are also animals that are strongly individualistic (cats), but could still evolve to become intelligent at some point... although I admit that the evolution of communication (which I consider essential) will be very slow.

Chemical engineers can find work nearly everywhere there is industry... and the demand for engineers has been higher than the availablility for the last years (despite the crisis). I read through most posts above, and there weren't many posts where I thought, "that engineer that is mentioned probably has a chemical engineer as a colleague" (with the exception of electrical engineers). Please note that "chemical engineers" do a lot less chemistry than the word would suggest. In a very generalized way, we design factories, and make sure that they run efficiently. Most of my work consists of things that a highschool kid would call "physics".

It's just distillation. But a particularly stinky one (ammonia vapors are smelly and dangerous! Make sure to read the Ammonia MSDS (click here!) before starting.). So, in the lab, you certainly do it in a fume hood... but you may want to ask for some extra advice. But I wouldn't know any reason why any ordinary distillation setup would not work. NB: the product will not be anhydrous ammonia. It will contain water vapor, but at a lower concentration than in the liquid phase. The bigger question is: what do you need the ammonia gas for? Do you need to store it (I hope not!)?

Sounds like homework to me. What have you tried so far? Do you have a book about separation methods? Which ones are listed?