CaptainPanic

You start with a false claim: because your previous thread did not draw any discouraging words does not mean it's all true. It's like my thermodynamics professor who would always end his lectures with the question: "Any questions"? (silence) He then followed with the claim: "Ok, you have no questions, so you all understood". That last claim couldn't have been further from the truth. We were all so confused that we couldn't formulate a proper question. This is a very common mistake. Meanwhile, I don't understand which claim is made here in this thead. But I took time to reply to the previous thread, which contains some mistakes.

Thus far, I agree with all that you say... although I think you shouldn't see the rainwater in the interior as neutral. The charge is still there, and is relevant for the interior. Water splits into a proton and a hydroxide ion, not in an electron and the remaining water-ion. [ce]H2O --> H+ + OH-[/ce] Or, more correctly, the proton immediately joins another water molecule. So, the actual reaction is: [ce]2 H2O --> H3O+ + OH-[/ce] Yes, but no. The electron would travel to the positive outside, where it would recombine with a positive ion, and become neutral. Meanwhile, you already said yourself that: So, the positive charge which was "left behind" will move straight to the outside surface as well... and in fact, it will replace the one that just got neutralized. The net effect will be zero: no change, which is what you'd expect from a bucket of water that just stands there. then you continue with: Nope, it would seek the outside, for reasons you already mentioned yourself. The separation of the electron from its positive ion need a lot of energy. Regardless of the distance between them, energy is spent to remove them even further. A continuous splitting of charges and moving one type one way, and the other type the other way, costs energy. Since that energy isn't available in a bucket of water, it won't happen. Devices exist that split electrons from their atoms. Old TV's for example seem to be quite good at it.

Today, a Sunni group attacked the Iranian army, and killed at least 5 commanders of the Revolutionary Guards units and dozens of civilians. Iran already said it will strike back on the terrorists, and it claimed that the terrorists are backed up by the USA and UK. The rebels/terrorists (Jundallah) claim to have no ties at all with Al-Quaida or Taliban. Iran is under attack from the same region where Pakistan, Afghanistan and all western allies are fighting their war against extremist Muslim groups (mostly Al-Quaida and Taliban, but also other groups)... And all those groups seem Sunni's (I might be wrong?). Iranians are mostly Shia. Why are the Iranians and Americans not fighting side-by-side? Makes more sense to me than the current hostile diplomatic relations. In the Bush rhetorics, one phrase was often used: "If you're not with us, you're against us", but another one seems more fitting here: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"... We're fighting a war against terrorism, right? I know it'll be hard to sell in the USA and Iran (both countries have a nice propaganda machine going on about each other)... In addition, the Iranians stop a lot of opium products from Afghanistan. And they'd probably be grateful if the allies in Afghanistan would assist in stopping those products... again, a combined operation and shared intelligence would make sense there, also because a lot of those opium products (heroin) don't stop in Iran, but continue westward into Europe.

Here's a better link to the 1st post. I found that the link in the OP is lagging a lot. Very funny

You might be right that he's a spammer. He posted the exact same post on about 85 (!!) other places. Funny thing is that there seems to be no commercial incentive... or, at least, there are no links to books we must buy or something.

According to my thermodynamics book (Smith, van Ness & Abbott), chapter 14, the term "lower consolute temperature" is the same as "lower critical solution temperature". Also, the "higher consolute temperature" is the same as "higher critical solution temperature". See this wikipedia link for an explanation of both. The two points (lower and higher) are the points where the first phase split occurs. Between those two points, two liquid phases can exist. Note that it is not necessary to have both points - it may be that only a higher or lower point exist.

Ok, nice post... if I understood it correctly. I had to read it 10 times before I understood it. It took me a long time to figure out the point you try to make... and I believe that it is: Philosophy should not regard the mind as a separate thing, separate from the body. But instead, it should regard the human as a whole. Correct? Essential background info: definition of dichotomy, philosophy and the mind. I think you should explain why you think that philosophy makes that split. I always understood that philosophy regards the human as a whole. It may have attributed some types of behavior to the conscious mind, while it was actually the unconscious part of the mind that caused it... but I don't understand why you use the word "dichotomy".

Lipases are enzymes - proteins essentially. As far as I know, a change in pH can change the solubility of proteins a lot. If they are soluble, you might convert it into insoluble, and use a filter. Alternatively, you might try a real extraction, with a solvent (any water-insoluble solvent might work). But in a biological medium, any solvent will extract a lot more than just your enzyme... and it might kill your microorganisms. Can't you somehow immobilize the enzymes while they're still in your medium? I know there are tricks to immobilize enzymes, but I am not familiar with the techniques. p.s. (1) I'm a chemical engineer - therefore only half-qualified to give you advise. p.s. (2) have a look in our other sub-forums too. We also have a Biochemistry and Molecular Biology forum that might interest you.

We're having wind force 7 today. Might build up to 8 later. That's on 7-8 the Beaufort scale. Little rain in the morning, but it's dry now, even some sun (no, it's not the eye of the hurricane - it's not that severe). The temperature is a humid 12 degrees (Celsius). We also had the first frost this week - really early! Weather hasn't been even close to the long-term averages for the last years. Soon, we'll have meaningless long-term averages because the standard deviation from the average values will be huge. Have a link to my favorite weather websites: the rain-radar.

If the stock market isn't supported by the actual market (that's what you call "the rest of America") - then I'm afraid that there will be another crash in the (near?) future. They're just setting up another pyramid system which will collapse because they're trading stuff that doesn't exist. I wouldn't call this good news. I think it's extremely bad. Then again, I am proud to say that I understand nothing about economics. My brain is too good at logic for that.

And it is also cheaper to bring extra fuel into orbit

I honestly didn't even read the post. Thought I'd just say so here. The moment I saw the huge bold font, I scrolled down enough so I cannot see it anymore. I am sitting right behind my screen, not on the other side of the room. I have customized the settings in my browser so that the size of most letters is comfortable to read already. But you can probably find the answer in Google. [edit] thanks for reducing font size.

I bet those studies used a model to look at the mass transfer of CO2 into water. And the driving force behind the mass transfer is described by Henry's Law. The deviation from the equilibrium value is the driving force. If you don't know the equilibrium values, you don't know the driving force, and you cannot determine the mass transfer rate (or flux, if you want). It's necessary to consider this, since we are talking about terms like "unprecedented rate". The word "rate" indicates we need to look at time-dependent issues, and Henry's Law is needed for one of those. Apart from that, we might as well ignore the article. I think it's rubbish. Any scientist who describes acidity without the use of the term "pH" cannot be taken seriously. The information in the article was insufficient for a peer review (although the article did not claim to be in a scientific journal).

Catalytic cracking is different from hydro cracking. And thermal cracking is again different. Catalytic cracking is the process of heating up the oil, provide a (heterogeneous = solid) catalyst and breaking up the C-C bonds, and reshuffling the hydrogen atoms. Since a typical alkane is basically: [ce]H3C-CH2-CH2-CH2 - (etc) - CH3[/ce] When you break up a C-C bond you cannot form another alkane - there is simply not enough hydrogen. Somewhere a double bond is needed to make a stable molecule, with less hydrogens than an alkane. So, breaking up a C-C bond, and some reshuffling of hydrogen atoms will give: [ce]H3C-CH=CH2 [/ce] and [ce]CH3 - (etc) - CH3[/ce] In hydro cracking, there is enough hydrogen, so more alkanes are produced. Thermal cracking has about the same products as catalytic cracking, but it needs to be heated to a higher temperature to achieve this.

I had a quick look, and I was surprised to find out two things about BINAS (the Dutch standard reference book): 1. BINAS is available in English 2. A sort of online "trial" version exists (scroll down, click "e-book link") with 28 out of >100 pages of BINAS is available online. No downloads or purchase needed. The free online version has page numbers, so you can see how many pages are actually left out as well. It's really just a scan of the actual book. The paper version of BINAS (English version, ISBN 978-90-01-707316) can be purchased online too... same website as I linked to before. Hope it's alright that I link to a website which is commercial. I assure everybody that I have no commercial interests in linking to it.

Hmm - I never had to memorize these rules. We always had a standard book (BINAS, same book for the whole country) to look up stuff like this. It contains basic info on biology, physics and chemistry. For chemistry, the solubility of some 200 salts were listed (in a matrix of positive and negative ions) and with solubility products (constants). Also, molar masses, acid-base constants, electrode potentials, dissociation constants, solubility of gases, melting and boiling points, bond lengths and angles, heat of reaction etc, etc. For physics it contains formulas, a list of the most important constants, a list of symbols used in formulas (standardized for the country, and corresponding quite well with what I found later in life), and more. I hope I'm not discouraging any students who do have to memorize stuff - but if I would have had to memorize rules like these, I probably would have failed chemistry at high school level (because I have an awful memory). But I eventually made it as far as a MSc in chemical engineering. I still look up lots of little things every day, despite the fact that I am working in chemistry for over a decade now (if you include the time I was a student). Testing the memory of students is a task best done in classes like French, Spanish or English. In real engineering life, I also have time to look things up. p.s. feel free to split this discussion off into a new thread - I know I am going off topic, and I'll even report my own post for it

A warm welcome to all new people! I hope you'll enjoy the forum and I hope you can make some nice contributions, or use the forum to learn and ask questions.

Paper is effectively cellulose. Cellulose will decompose (not melt) at higher temperatures. Those decomposition products are flammable, and if air is present it will burn. If air is not present, it will still decompose. Cellulose is a polymer of glucose. The initial decomposition products will be forming at about 300 degrees C, and will resemble sugar molecules such as glucose. Perhaps some small parts are missing, and some of the molecules will already break up into smaller pieces. Also, some molecules will lump together, and lose mostly the hydrogen and oxygen (forming water). The remaining carbon resembles charcoal. That process is called "Pyrolysis". Then those can react further into smaller chunks of molecules... until eventually you get the very small molecules such as hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). If you go as far as those small molecules, you need to heat to at least 600, but probably 800 deg C. The process is called "Gasification". p.s. I reported the post / thread and told our mods to (please be so kind to) move it.

What will really happen is that there will be an equilibrium between the atmosphere and the sea. There are 2 (or 3) equilibria that work together. CO2 in air <--> CO2 in water <--> H2CO3 H2CO3 <--> HCO3- + H+ HCO3- <--> CO3(2-) + H+ And since the pH of the oceans is about 8, the carbonate and bicarbonate concentrations are relevant. The first equilibrium (between atmosphere and water) is governed by for example Henry's Law which states that the concentration in the air will linearly correspond with the CO2 concentration in the water. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is about a factor 2 (or perhaps 3 in an extreme case?). Therefore, the concentration in the sea will also double or triple. That in turn will affect the other two equilibria. The main question is now: is it true that this can reduce the pH of the ocean from 8 to below 7? And do shells of sea fish really dissolve already at a pH level of 6.9? At lower pH, when stuff becomes really more acidic the carbonate and bicarbonate concentrations are very low. But in order for the pH to drop an entire point then, the atmospheric concentration must go up 10 times (the pH is a logarithmic scale). Frankly, I don't think that this professor is right (note: I did not yet calculate it). I don't think that a higher CO2 pressure can significantly alter the acid concentration. I think that also between pH of 8 and 7, you need a tenfold increase in partial gas pressure. [edit] deleted my initial post for going off topic - it was some joke about genetically modifying fish to be corrosion resistant

You really need to elaborate on the term "Scientific computer programs". Do you mean: -Programs to look up articles (e.g. http://www.sciencedirect.com, or some other online database for scientific acticles) -math programs (e.g. Excel, matlab, statistics programs) -dedicated software for specific problems (e.g. computational fluid dynamics, a DNA database, a flowsheet program) Because right now you're so vague that (1) almost everybody on this forum will fit your description and (2) nobody will answer... Be more specific. Try to find other projects which resemble what you want to do. Describe the things these projects have in general. Then you're sure not to give away any important information that is not already out there. Without more info, this thread seems quite pointless.

Do you honestly believe that people can acquire intellect simply by choice? You suggest people just grab books, and study. Or just grab a pen, and write. Or just take a wrench and build a car. I think that you completely utterly fail to see that this is what everybody already does. Unfortunately for the world, many of us are interested in glossy magazines, in pointless TV shows and in mindless games. The true point in becoming an intellect is to be curious in the first place. And perhaps also to be able to reduce a problem to its essence... What you are suggesting is nothing more than giving people homework... although you seem to explain (in very long and difficult sentences) the purpose of the homework.

What is the topic of your post? Is it the values of average person living in the USA (as suggested in the 1st part)? Is it some talk about the purpose of life (as suggested in the middle part)? Is it a discussion about the merits of the health care plan (as suggested by the penultimate sentence)? Is it a question about capitalism in the USA? ... I'm just asking because it seems a bit too much to discuss all those in 1 single thread... and you're just asking for people to go off topic.

The solubility rules that I learned say that you just always have to look it up in a book. It is by far the easiest method. You have to test every salt - not every element. You can also calculate the change in Gibbs energy for the dissolution of the salt. That still includes looking up stuff (and a lot more to be honest)... and several courses in thermodynamics... But if you never heard of these words, then I'd just go with the schoolbook method of looking it up in a list and/or wikipedia. There is a theory, and logic behind the solubility of salts. But it's not to be found where you seem to be looking for it. But fear not - there are some trends which you can observe. I find that this website seems to sum them up pretty well. (And this is schoolbook material - so I don't think I am helping too much with the homework)

Scifi stands for science fiction. Fiction means: So, by definition, science fiction is forced to use technology which does not exist. Science fiction writers write about science fiction, just like bus drivers drive a bus. If the writers would make it more realistic, it wouldn't be science fiction, but it would be "science non-fiction", or perhaps "science fact". Of course, writers can choose whatever they want to write. They could also stay a bit closer to reality. Perhaps you could read "Last and First Men", which starts off in 1930, and then moves on into the future. And if writers would only write about existing technology, it would just be a story in a different category. But why writers choose to write as they do is a question only they themselves can answer. So, I believe you ask the wrong question. Perhaps you should ask "why do writers write science fiction?".

Obama has won the Nobel peace price. So, did he win it because of the foreign policies, which did change the way America acts towards other countries in the last 9 months, and admittedly improved the relations with many countries. Or did he win because the nobel prize committee wants to support Obama in a time when he is having a hard time? I think it's quite fast for him to win this prize. He's only been in office for 9 months... I think he should be rewarded after he has finished at least a 4-yera period in office.