CaptainPanic

The rest of the world doesn't.

I've seen lots of sporters with those tapes on their bodies during the Olympics. I've recently also seen some football players (that's soccer for the yanks) with it.

Big surface area. A chemical engineer can only improve and optimize a system when he knows the design criteria and boundary conditions. Are you sure this exists? Oxides are usually not stable in solution. They react to form hydroxides in water. So, I am in doubt whether step 1 will even work (making that oxide-hydroxide in a solution). The reaction is an acid/base equilibrium. If you look at the table of acid/base strength, then the reaction of hydroxide to oxide is even below the bottom one on that list, meaning the equilibrium is completely at the hydroxide. Using oxygen will not create an oxide. You need to get two electrons from somewhere... it's a redox reaction. You probably need an oxidizing agent instead. But assuming this will actually work with oxygen, in solution, I still completely fail to see why you cannot either bubble some oxygen through the mixture... or at least stir it. Your oxygen will get transported quicker if the liquid moves. That is achieved by pumping it around, or by stirring. And you need a large surface area to get enough oxygen into the liquid, which you normally do by bubbling. Probably not. If the water is stagnant, all you have is diffusion. That is a pretty slow process. Depending on your design, it might even be possible that differences in density prevent it from spreading at all... like when you drop some sugar into a glass of water. The sugar dissolves into the bottom bit, but does not really reach all the liquid unless you stir it. But your strange behavior probably means that you are either doing something illegal, or you think you're about to make a major breakthrough which will make you rich, famous and get you a nobel prize, which you are afraid of losing. Whichever it is, I struggle to help and my motivation is going down rapidly. So, good luck! I'm not sure I am interested anymore.

I stand corrected. These are valid points. The shelf life is one I had not even thought of. I feel a little stupid now... it's so obvious.

All microorganisms that decay all living things into their original nutrients (i.e. fungi) could pose a major challenge to aliens. Without defense, they'd rot as quickly as a piece of dead meat. If they only observed from up there, they might not be aware how small life can be. They might simply not have recognized the majority of life on earth until it was too late. I think that YemSalat made a good comment there. It might not be entirely plausible, but it would explain that movie. ... Sunk into the largest incubator on the planet: the ocean. Fixed that for them.

I agree with Dekan that the packaging has everything to do with marketing. Also, you should realize that the packaging of pharmaceutical products accounts for a very (very!!) tiny part of the total production costs. I mean, the packaging is no more expensive than for chewing gum, which also comes in blister packaging. We're talking cents per pack, not more. They can easily spend some money on the packaging when the actual costs are the patent costs, research and testing. And no, there is hardly any engineering involved. Also, I don't think it is very different from other packaging methods.

I think that the burden of proof is on your side. Also, you might as well give us a workable proposal how to continue if there is no matter. How to measure it, how to describe the universe. Because right now we have a pretty cool system of theories, which seem to work quite well. And they include the concept of matter.

Two words: Geothermal energy! (Link goes to wikipedia page about Geothermal energy)

Grow up! (That's a biology topic ).

Dutch universities have organized public lectures for several decades now. As far as I know, all Dutch universities organize these. The lectures and workshops tend to be public: open to everyone, even though the majority of attendants are students. And in a few occasions they are held in pubs. But usually there are simply too many people to fit in a small pub, and they need to go to larger venues.

! Moderator Note eyesOpened, You still continue your logical fallacies. You're putting words into people's mouths, you are twisting facts and you ignore valid arguments. In short, you are just not participating in this discussion properly. Your style of posting resembles trolling more than it resembles a scientific discussion. We are a very patient bunch of mods here, but our patience is running thin. Consider this your last warning.

Welcome to all new people. As Phi for All said (4 posts up from here), we've already started the party. In fact, the Scienceforums.net is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year!! W00t!

! Moderator Note Thread closed pending review. Seems nothing but an advertisement for a blog (url was already removed).

! Moderator Note All links were removed by a moderator. This thread seems to be created to draw traffic to a blog, and not to have a nice discussion here on our forum. This is against the forum rules. Please read our rules, section 2.7 The thread is closed pending review.

The Henry Constant of oxygen in water at 20 degrees Celsius is 4.06*10^9 Pa. Since P = H*x (where P is partial pressure of oxygen in Pa, x is the mole fraction in water), we calculate that: x = P/H = 0.2*101325 / 4.06*10^9 = 5 * 10^-6, or 5 ppm (mol). The Henry coefficient of oxygen in water is a very strong function of temperature. At zero Celsius, it is 2.58*10^9 Pa, and at 100 Celsius, it is 7.10*10^9 Pa. In other words, the concentration of oxygen in water varies by about a factor 3 between 0 and 100 degrees Celsius. I'm afraid I cannot link to these numbers, because they're printed on paper. But it is a decent engineering source, and the values correspond to other sources mentioned here in this discussion by John Cuthber and louis wu, although both failed to specify at what temperature. To pippo and louis wu: It would help if you state what kind of ppm you talk about. Weight/weight, mol/mol or volume/volume are three quite different things. If you do not specify it, you cannot argue which is right. John Cuthber does it the correct way. He stated it is weight/weight. His 8 ppm (w/w) is about the same as my 5 ppm (mol/mol). Also, it would help if you all specified what temperature you are talking about. Finally pippo, your pond had fish in it. Fish breathe oxygen, so the concentration would never reach equilibrium. I doubt that louis wu was talking about a pond. Any water is just water, without living things in it.

! Moderator Note eyesOpened, This is an official warning. You are breaking forum rules with personal attacks, logical fallacies and off-topic posts. We do not care about the discussion on the other forum. This is the Scienceforums.net, and we have our own forum rules. I suggest you read these rules, because you have broken them already too often in this thread. I have seen personal attacks, logical fallacies and off topic posts. All of that stops now. As a start, I suggest you forget about the discussion on that other forum altogether. Any mention of it will be seen as off-topic and as a violation of our rules. Any mention of paganism will also be seen as off topic in this thread. If you wish to discuss paganism, you can do so in another thread, in our religion forum. The religion forum has its own set of additional rules. You will either discuss the science of genetics, or you will not post at all in this thread. Our forum is not a place to finish a fight that you couldn't end somewhere else. MattyG and everybody else, you too shall stop referring to that other forum, and in this thread to paganism. Do not reply to this moderator note. If you have a problem with it, use the report button.

! Moderator Note No, he does not. I listened, and he is not pointing out anything. That Archbishop is making a suggestion, but admitting he has no good data. Changing a suggestion from someone else into a fact is a fallacy, and against the rules. Slurs and prejudices against groups of people are also against the rules. --- After discussion among the staff (i.e. this is not just my decision) we decided to close this thread. Thread closed.

Companies like Sigma Aldrich will sell it. Search for 'labware'... that's a better keyword than what you're using now.

I think that the picture in the link in the opening post is faked. But the other two are naturally occurring phenomena. Any idea how often we notice curious shapes here on earth? (Answer: really often).

! Moderator Note Please provide a link or a source for your suggestion, or this thread will be closed. Discrimination or random prejudices will not be tolerated here.

Could it be that this is related to being left or right handedness? Studies indicate that up to 70% of the world is right handed. Other studies indicate a majority of the people are right hand claspers, with the right thumb on top. I can spot a correlation. But in this thread we are testing whether a majority of scientists would be right hand claspers. But our sample group is almost exclusively scientific... so if we are distributed just about average (i.e. a majority clasps right thumb up), it would confirm the hypothesis. This is not a good test. We could only hope to find sufficient left claspers, so we can disprove it. But we cannot confirm it. I am left handed, and my hands and fingers close the other way. The artist's way. But I'm an engineer, and I do know a thing or two about the exact sciences.

1 kg of Aluminium will be 21 MJ or about 6 kWh, or about 60 cents 1 ton of Aluminium will be 21 GJ or about 6 MWh, or about 600 euro or dollar. That's obviously at 100% efficiency. It's the theoretical maximum. In practice, it will be less. Also, you have probably not even figured out how to control the reaction speed, so you don't blow every fuse in the neighborhood when you explode all that electricity onto the grid. If you have pure aluminium, just sell it to a scrapyard. They will recycle it, which is best for the environment, as well as for your bank account.

! Moderator Note Moontanman, eric555 cannot answer your question, because he was banned for continuously not making any sense.

Do you think I'm "trying to synthesize an illicit substance" ? No, but I am clueless what you try to do, and without any further knowledge of the problem, I cannot help. You come here asking expert advice, but you don't explain the problem. Of course. Microorganisms just LOVE to live in mercury. LOL You said that the oxygen was being consumed (post #5). Solutions of salt in water usually do not consume oxygen. Microorganisms do. Anyway, almost all practical experience with getting oxygen into water is from bio-tech, so whether you like it or not, you are gonna have to learn a thing or two about those reactors... Unless you want to tell us what you are actually doing , this is the best advice. Bubbling is not an option. Increasing surface area was my original thought. The problem is, there must be a low surface area, bulky central container. The idea is to have tubes leaving to a high surface area tray of salt water to oxygenate quickly. It doesn't need to reach equilibrium. Any ideas on the design? Maybe I should have posted this in the engineering section... I'm guessing that also here you do not want any circulation system (no pumps?). That salt solution is not going to move around from that high surface area to the bulky container by itself. And the oxygen will diffuse really slowly. But as long as I have no clue what you're going to do, or what chemical reaction you want to achieve, I have no way to determine whether the system is diffusion limited or whether you're fine.

I have some issues with videos: 1. I cannot quote a section of the movie, with a beginning and an end, although it is possible to pause a movie, and then link to that moment in the movie... 2. Especially when I am on the move (train/airports) my connection is bad. Waiting until a movie starts to play is annoying. Text loads almost instantaneous. Also, it requires that I use ear plugs so I do not annoy other people. 3. It is just another external website. I do not see the difference between a youtube movie and a blog (or even commercial website). Our rules, section 2.7 are clear, and prohibit it. Videos are great as a source of background information, but should never form the core of any argument, because it is not always possible for me to listen to it.