CaptainPanic

If you just want to train your muscles, you can do that (as booker said) by strapping weights to you. Assuming you are 70 kg, to simulate 5G, you need to carry a total of 350 kg. So, you need to strap an additional 280 kg to your body. Good luck!

It all has to do with electronegativity, as you already knew. The order of electronegativity is important: F, O, N, Cl, Br, I, S, C, H. The stronger the bond between the H and any other atom, the weaker the acid (takes more energy to break the bond). In HF, the electron pair that makes the bond is practically stuck to F, due to its high electronegativity... so it will not take a lot to completely break the bond, and create a H+ ion, leaving all electrons on the F... With electronegativity, you can reason where electrons will be drawn to. If they are drawn to the H more, it’s a weak acid. If they are drawn to the other atom, then it is a strong acid. Example: Cl3COOH vs. Cl2HCOOH Please look at the picture below. In the 1st structure, I have filled in with triangles all the electronegativities that you can just fill in straight away if you know the F, O, N, Cl, Br, I, S, C, H list. The big question is: what will the C-C bond do? I must admit that this is a guess, but the direction is in fact irrelevant… so I kept it “neutral” (meaning that the chlorides on one side and the oxygens on the other side pull equally hard). Now, in the 2nd structure, the H on the left side is replaced by another Cl. There are now 3 chloride atoms on the left side. These pull harder on the carbon’s electrons than the two chlorides in the first picture. Therefore, relatively to the 1st structure, the left carbon will be more negative. This also means that the left carbon will start pulling a bit on the right carbon’s electrons. And that in turn means that the oxygen to which the Hydrogen is attached will attract the electrons less… meaning that this time the oxygen is just a little more positive… and it is able to attract the electrons between itself and the hydrogen just a bit harder. This means that in the 2nd structure, the hydrogen should come off easier. And it does. The pKz of both acids: Cl3C-COOH: pKz = 0.70; Kz = 2.0E-1 Cl2HC-COOH: pKz = 1.3; Kz = 5.0E-2 p.s. Reactive, I'd appreciate the use of normal font and color, and the use of the enter-button, creating paragraphs. Thanks!

Don't eyes create some random noise in the signal to the brain? (Or perhaps the noise is created somewhere else, not in the eyes). In the pitch dark I can see some dots too, but when there is plenty of light I guess I filter it out (automatically). [disclaimer] I am no expert in this field. This post is merely a suggestion, and should be doublechecked. (Before I get flamed )

Little friction slows down planets, which means they get a lower orbit? I'm not sure it can even be measured though.

adriaan, It would help if you would just provide more background in stead of trying to change all the people who post on this forum. There are a lot of people with scientific backgrounds, and we all think in the same way: nothing wrong with funny ideas, but after you get an idea, it's time to test it and see if you can shoot holes in it... or better: proof it is true. Since you already gave the idea in your 1st post, all that remains for us to do here is to see if we can shoot holes in your idea, or to prove it. Seems most of us find it easier to disprove it, and you're not helping in the defense of your own idea either.

Well, our hobby distiller here might be planning on doing some distillation with flammable liquids (like ethanol), and perhaps he is not as careful as you, because it will be his first time! I will stick to standard safety regulations, and that's the end of it. If people want to take a risk, of course, they can go ahead. But I prefer not to advise someone some risky experiment, especially if there is a relatively cheap and simple solution. "A room with an explosive atmosphere?" Lol... sorry, but that somehow doesn't seem like a natural environment for human beings. What were the components, and were you in it, or just close to it? My mom always told me never to enter atmospheres that are explosive.

Woo yay! That's cool

Quickly then: The world's largest tanker would most certainly be bigger than 565000 kg. How about 565000000 kg? (Somebody probably mixed up kg and tons, ships are often measured in tons). That brings the force to about 2000 N. With a mass of 565000000 kg, the acceleration will be an impressive 4E-6 m/s2. Not in the mood to calculate how long it takes to travel 100 meters, because the acceleration will increase when they get closer (luckily for the poor researchers hanging around there with a stopwatch and a tape measure).

You will need a heater. Never ever use open fire. In stead, use a water bath (that's basically a pan of hot water) and get electrical heating (for safety reasons). Special lab heating plates are probably the best way to go, but it's probably cheaper to get a simple electrical kitchen stove. If you need temperatures above 100 deg C, put vegetable oil in a pan, and put that on the electric stove. Make sure you measure the temperature (so get a thermometer capable of measuring temperatures up to where you need to work), and never exceed 160-180 deg C, or your oil might catch fire. Wikipedia pretty much shows how to build your distillation setup. edit: I had a look at those electrical heatings I mentioned: Here are the ones I meant. They're actually much too powerful (1.5 kW!) for your little setup... so you might as well ignore that comment. Sorry. Just to give you an idea: this is quite like what I've used in the lab (but that might be too expensive for home use).

CO2 (solid) and nitrogen (liquid) are typically things a university's chemistry lab will have available. Whether they are willing to give you several kilograms of it to cool your 15-20 liters of oil, I don't know. Whether they have facilities to cool that much (15-20 liters), I also don't know. Industrial coolings have no lower limits by the way... how do you think that the liquid nitrogen is made in the first place? It arrives at the university already cooled. Universities generally don't have liquid-nitrogen-machines... just storages. Anyway, I've worked with a cooling machine that could reach -60 deg C. It was just a massive gas compressor, just like your refrigerator has (only bigger). But that's quite an investment for a single experiment. Why are you so determined to freeze your 15-20 liters of oil? What's the purpose of the experiment? If you're interested to study the temperature where it becomes solid, then you need to cool slowly, so forget about liquid nitrogen.

I'm so naive, but I always hope governments will take responsibility. In the Netherlands we have several taxes that are "environmental" (there's additional tax on gas/diesel and on electricity too I think - there is tax for disposal of all kinds of machines you use in the household - there's of course road tax and general waste tax and water tax. And I must have forgotten a few more). Unfortunately, I don't really see any of that money going back to the environment. (Brainstorming a solution to it:) How difficult can it be to make some trawlers with a fine maze, and filter out everything (eeh, yes, that probably includes our marine friends too). From the (previously linked) wikipedia of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch: "The study found concentrations of plastics of 3.34 pieces with a mean mass of 5.1 milligrams per square meter." That means 17.034 mg/square meter (not per m3??). A 5.1 mg piece of plastic, if spherical, has a volume of 5.1 ul (microliter), or 5.1E-9 m3. Its diameter is 1.1 mm... which means to filter out most of that crap, we'd need a mesh of something like 0.5 mm (that's small!). Tomorrow's exercise: calculate how much power is needed to pull along a large mesh of 0.5 mm to filter stuff, and if the plastic (when combusted) gives enough energy to power this trawler

I'm not so sure about phosphorous and chlorine, because I am not certain which compound will form (there is more than 1 answer). It probably depends on the conditions you use (temperature, pressure and concentrations of reactants)... but have you looked up Phosphorus pentachloride already? I got some answers on the wikipedia website... The other option is here. Na2O2 is the normal product of O2 and Na. It's not stable in presence of water (and water is also present in air), so you will certainly never find it in nature. Here's some info about Na2O2. And here about Na2O (sodium oxide). The natural form of a combination of sodium and oxygen is actually NaOH (sodium hydroxide)... this forms in nature because water is everywhere on earth. And yes, sulphur and oxygen also have more than 1 product. The most common one, SO2 originates from combustion (for example in engines)... but if you were to look up some info about cleaning exhaust gases, then you'll find that the sulphur compounds are grouped as SOx, meaning that more than 1 type of sulphur oxide is formed. The same goes for NOx in exhausts. The "worst" category is probably that of all compounds carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen can form together. These 4 make up most of all living matter, so you can see that they are able to form millions of different compounds

It does sublime, because "sublimation" is just the process of solid turning into vapor. In a closed system with sufficient I2 present, it will not completely sublime, that is true. But for example ice also sublimes at -5 deg C, which has little to do with its boiling point. If by "standard vapor pressure" you mean "the vapor pressure at 298K", then no liquid will form. But at 113 deg C, it melts. The vapor pressure of I2 at its melting point is about 130 mbar. It boils at 184 deg C, and (by definition of boiling point) its vapor pressure is then 1 atmosphere (1.01325 bar). I've attached some data so we can talk about CO2 again, and leave the iodine. Here's the CO2 phase diagram And the vapor pressure of I2 at different temperatures is found below:

They have a massive income from oil, but no functioning services yet, so little expenses. It's not actually a surplus the way we know it. It's a lack of expenses... and it's quite serious.

Hmm... yes. Not very common though. I didn't know it even existed Plasmas are still neutral. It's individual particles that are charged, but the overall charge does not change. Plasmas consist of ions (both positive and negative) and some free electrons... and some neutral particles too. Earlier, I simplified things a bit, I admit. The type of questions here suggested to me that it would be wise to start slowly. So, yes, in a plasma you can have even free electrons, which are not classified as ions. For each electron, there is also a positive charge on a nucleus (the core of an atom)... and if you add all the positive and negative particles together, the net charge will be zero. Still, you should realize that the amount of excess charge in any material will never even approach the number of atoms... even if you apply external potentials (connect it to a massive battery). Only in boundary layers on for example electrodes there is a clear charge separation that might approach this... But I don't think this thread is the right place to expand on that topic.

Gotta admit that the subtitle of the story is "Some almost random thoughts."... (At least, if you click the link provided). At least he's not claiming this is science.

I posted an answer on the other thread you started ("Ions and I"): http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34269 Simply said: you cannot have only positive or only negative charges. They always come together. There is a possibility to create a small charge, but that means that for example the positive particles outnumber the negative ones by 0.0001% or so. (No massive difference).

How big can your machine be? Is there any limitation? If there isn't, I'd suggest an airplane or a rocket. A cannon can launch things without moving too much itself. Birds are also capable or transporting eggs over large distances. (I think a little more info is needed... because there are too many options).

I fact, I think we should be heading for those waste dumps with boats, and clean those seas. If it's concentrated, then it can be harvested. (I know concentrated in this case means it's about the same density as the plankton, but that is exactly the reason we should get out there... I consider that hugely concentrated...). We're mining tar sands in Canada too, aren't we? (I speak of "we" since we all burn something fossil).

Please tell us where you found positive oxygen ions? About negative ions of oxygen. They're not all bad. The negative ions are totally common, and are everywhere. When bonded in an ionic bond to a metal, they can be basic (meaning that if you put it in water, or in your own body, it makes the pH go up a lot). I think you should realize that ions are never alone: when you find a positive ion, there is always a negative ion too! So, the oxygen ion ([ce] O^2-[/ce]) will for example be accompanied by an iron ion ([ce] Fe^2+[/ce]), forming [ce] FeO [/ce], which is also known as rust. Two [ce]Al^3+[/ce] and three [ce]O^2-[/ce] form [ce]Al2O3[/ce], also known as aluminium oxide. You see that each time, the charge of the ions balances so that the total charge of the material is zero!

Many questions, no introduction, sounds like homework in a rush to me. "g-force (also G-force, g-load) is a measurement of an object's acceleration expressed in gs." (click for wikipedia!) But... I think you have an answer to your first question if I just rephrase it: Given the fact that gravity acceleration (is a g force, by definition) keeps us firmly stuck to the surface of the earth, how does it inhibit us from going up-up-and-away? (Note: the answer is in the question). You can handle g-forces by sleeping in your bed (experience the 1 G). You can pull up in your car at a traffic light (experience the 1.2 G or so). Perhaps take a roller coaster to find out about the 3 G, or sometimes negative -1 G)... Handling is generally done by just sitting it out. (To be honest, I don't understand the question). For the last question: read the definition (see top of this post)... and then think when astronauts are feeling acceleration... you can answer it yourself I think.

I think egg launchers are a popular thing to build: we've discussed it before. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31615&highlight=egg+launcher http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20931&highlight=egg+launcher http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25462&highlight=egg+launcher http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19680&highlight=egg+launcher If that is not enough, use the search function of the forum. I am sure that there are more "egg launcher" threads... You will need to focus on the maximum acceleration that an egg can withstand. Then find out how long you can accelerate it (what is the distance along which it will accelerate, or how long can you accelerate it?)... and then find out, using standard physics (ballistics) how far it will fly (assume zero air friction, and realize that it will be less far than you calculated... also realize that the egg is not likely to survive). If all else fails, ask the Dreil for advice: "the Dreil focus their efforts in producing a massive powerful egg launcher"... [Disclaimer: the Dreil might be slightly fictional].

You can freeze it by making it cold... but the freezer that you have might not be enough for engine oil... in fact, if your engine oil could become a solid at the -18 deg C that your freezer can reach, it could mean that your car cannot work at such low temperatures... and cars do work in Canada, North Europe and other cold places. Therefore I dare say that engine oil might be viscous, but still liquid at temperatures well below -18 deg C. Engine oils and crude oil too are mixes of many components. They become more and more viscous, but there will be a point when the first parts start to solidify. I would think that certain components in the oil will first solidify (I am not sure if they will crystallize). Then when you make it even colder, other components will solidify, until finally it is one solid block of oil. Then again, perhaps the really high viscosity can prevent partial solidification, and the whole thing just become more and more viscous until it is hard as a rock. You might have to go to really low temperatures though. I gave it a very quick look on Google, but I couldn't find a melting point of lubricants or crude oil... (which is not weird: they are both whole categories of mixtures... and there's not 1 point at which they melt).

I don't think that 100% recycling is feasible: there are too many types of plastic to simply put them together, heat a little, melt the plastics, and re-shape it. The different types of plastics don't blend (mix) very well. The simple recycling is only possible if we'd collect the plastics separately, but there are just too many types. The recycled plastics are generally a bit lower quality products: garbage bags or injection molded garden furniture. Not the high quality iPods or so. The more rigorous recycling (gasify, fischer tropsch, crack, polymerize) is less efficient (my estimate would be that the yield will not be above 70%... although I haven't done any calculations on this). Losses come from the partial oxidation that you need to do in the gasification, and from the chars (which contain carbon) that are formed in the gasifier and cracker.

The 2 kW kettle uses more current (it has more power). More current runs through the cable that connects it. Therefore the cable will heat up a bit more than for the 1.5 kW kettle. This is only a very small effect though... but since you're discussing the heat loss of the kettle during its 1 minute of heating... I thought I should add this small effect too. Of course, the cable is hotter for a shorter period of time... My point: modeling is cool, but measuring is better if it's easy to do!