CaptainPanic

The heat of evaporation of CO2 is 0.57*10^6 J/kg at atmospheric pressure at the boiling point (-78.5 °C). Note that the heat capacity of the solid (54.55 J/(mol K) at 189.78 K) is quite different from the heat capacity of the gas (33.89 J/(mol K) at –75°C).

Your book seems to suggest that it is somehow really important to know how many particles you have in solution (or not). I'm a chemical engineer - and all I care about it grams (or preferably: tons) of material. I would suggest that the whole point is an opinion that moles/liter are the relevant parameter instead of grams/liter nothing more. I think I can argue that the solubility of glucose is greater for 2 reasons (it's a subjective argument, just like the book): 1. The dissolved mass per liter of water is greater 2. The glucose has multiple hydrogen bonds per molecule with water molecules. This interaction explains its solubility. And I think I can argue with the writer of that book for quite a long time, and nobody would be any the wiser. Let me finish by saying that there is one thing in the book that I STRONGLY disagree with, to a point where I would say it's just plain wrong: saccharose molecules are not non-polar. Every molecule has 8 -OH groups, and 3 C-O-C groups, which are all (locally) quite polar. It's not ionized, but it's certainly polar, which explains its high solubility in water!

Screenshot, and then MS paint.

If your goal is to be able to locate a thread while speed-scrolling, then an animated avatar seems counter-productive to me. The picture changes, therefore it might be more difficult to recognize. For such a purpose I would suggest a clear logo made of some basic colors. This is incidentally also why none of the logos of larger companies are ever moving (also not on the internet, or on TV, where technology would allow it). They are always simple, and easy to recognize. You're allowed to click on the green + button to give your +1 to me.

Requires its own thread (because it's totally off topic, and because it's possibly more important than the birth of stars)... but your statement of the local max seems to fit my own experiences quite well. I wonder if there aren't multiple maximums though. I seem to have one in the morning, and another somewhere in the afternoon. However, since some people pay me to drink coffee (and afterwards work) I end up posting on the forum while not optimally caffeinated so that I can work efficiently when sufficiently caffeinated. I shall however refrain from posting without any coffee at all from now on (I hope I remember!).

Good point. You should be older than 18 to travel without parents, and possibly even older to go alone. (Well, at least your destination should be in line with your age). If you travel for the 1st time, I would definitely recommend to travel with at least 1 other friend that you can trust.

On a sidenote - most animated avatars are annoying. The majority are really catching too much attention, where the actual attention should be focussed on your interesting posts! Like with people who write in all CAPS, have screaming signatures, or choose another font than the default to catch more attention: the result on me is that I may skip the post altogether. I like the information on my screen to be on topic, and I want my eyes to look at information which is on topic - and your avatar is by default not on the topic of the thread. The comment is slightly off topic, but I felt it necessary to say that an animated avatar can have the opposite effect from what you want.

You seem to contradict yourself a little. Medical research takes place in the lab. Yet, you say you do not want that. One thing which seems always open is to use your knowledge of the biochemistry, but move into the management/commercial side of the business. There are probably some masters out there which focus on the economic side of the industry. Other opportunities to keep you out of the lab are to focus on the engineering side of the biochemisty. Search for biochemical engineering. Not sure if you have all the right courses to be allowed in such a master though. Only one way to find out: contact the technical universities! I'm guessing that most German / Dutch / English / Belgian universities offer Masters in English? At least the universities in the Netherlands do. And they have English websites. Just [Google for biochemistry university Netherlands]. Your own university might have some office that can give you some advice as well!

Why would you not be able to travel? I can only think of a few reasons: 1. Money. Can usually be solved by saving or getting a job. But also by traveling cheaply. Campings can be as little as 10 euro per night. A hostel night should cost only 20 euro (compared to hotels being at least double that). Bus tickets can get you 1000 kilometers for 50 euro, if you search carefully. Interrail (Europe) can get you 10 days of unlimited train in a 22 day period for just 250 euro. Even budget airlines can get you pretty far for little money. Only intercontinental flights are expensive. But a 1000 euro budget should be enough for proper backpacking holiday of a month. 2. Time We're working under the assumption that you have time. 3. Paperwork Let's assume you're in a free country, and that you're able to get a Visa without trouble... or that you don't even need one. Btw, this too can be solved. 4. Initiative This is really up to you. Just go.

In my opinion, people who are single just do not attempt to find a mate often enough. Yes, you will fail, and yes, it will feel uncomfortable. But you got to try. (Note that I'm not being arrogant - I share all your frustrations). But to put it bluntly: Guys who only talk to other guys will not find a girlfriend. And girls who only hang out with other girls won't find a boyfriend. One problem for people in exact sciences is that these professions have a high percentage of men. Logically, the resulting social networks have a high percentage of men. So, if you want a girlfriend, you just have to get out of that social group more often. Society is certainly changing, and it affects the success rate of finding a suitable partner. - Social networks are extended over much larger areas. Where previously people interacted mostly in their local area, we now regularly travel far away. Finding someone far away is incredibly impractical. - Because if digital social networks, people already have to maintain a social network of hundreds of people. Sometimes, relations just fail because people honestly do not have the time (or don't want to make the time). - We're more busy because of work. But mostly, I think that people just don't try hard enough. People make themselves unavailable...

John Cuthber, Next time, I promise to drink another coffee before posting my 1st post of the day here You have a fair point, and I should probably have searched for another article for such a rant.

Wikipedia says: Does that answer the question?

Before I start ranting, I'd like to say that it's actually an interesting article. I liked to read it. But it contains 1 mistake. from the article: I hate it when scientific writers get this wrong. A flow is already volume/time, so the extra addition of 'every second' is just wrong. The flow of water in the star is a hundred million times more than that of the Amazon. Period. Unless they mean to say that the flow of water in the jets (which, as is later explained could last 1 year) is equal to 100*10^6 times that of the amazon per second. If you put a 'per time' on both sides of the equation (per second and per year), it has the correct dimensions again. But that would result in the jets being only 100*10^6 / (365*24*3600) = 3.2 times larger than the flow of the Amazon, which I really doubt. This happens most often with energy vs. power. I have lost count of the times I have seen articles say stuff like 'power per second'. People should do a dimensional analysis. Or just not write. (And no, this is not pedantic, you also would not accept it if I mixed up a velocity and an acceleration of a car? That's the same thing: one additional 'per second' changes a velocity into an acceleration).

Men just get bellies. It is the natural place to store fat. And the BMI is not a perfect index. Some people are just a little skinnier, and some people are naturally 'big boned'. So, while on the BMI you might be perfect, it's completely possible to have a bit of a belly.

If you drink a lot of alcohol every day, you can build up a tolerance, and survive more. I'm not sure what the mechanism is behind it... but there are multiple news reports of people who had so much alcohol in their blood, that they should be dead twice. Please note: drinking that much might mean you can survive a lot of alcohol, and that sounds cool... but it will also destroy your brain.

Yes, although I am not sure if you need protection against radiation of the sun. Cold: Spacecraft often use a heating system and insulation. Just a fancy version of any heating. Heat: heat can be a problem for processors, which is why computers have a cooling fan (or multiple). In space, you need a radiator, and possibly a way to transport the heat to the radiator. In other words, you need a cooling liquid, just like the water cooling of some cars. Against heat, reflective materials are the best. Against cold, just a very fancy lightweight insulation. Not sure what those are called. (There's really no need to write this - it's against forum regulations to be too much off topic).

Nobody says that CO2 is the "primary" driver of climate. Our average temperature on earth is 15°C, or 288 K. CO2 accounts for only a few degrees of all those 288 degrees. But it only takes a few to change so much. Of course the sun provides the heat, and accounts for a huge majority of the heat balance. And although water is somehow largely kept out of all the discussions on the internet, I don't think any climate scientist would say that water is not at least as important as CO2 for our climate. The water circulation on earth transports huge amounts of heat. It's a typical argument for this discussion that you use there... but I think it's false. I think you put words in the mouth of the climate sciences, and then refute the words that you put in there yourself. I think that's called a straw man. I never heard any climate scientist say that the climate is a constant value. I think this argument is false as well, because you put words in the mouth of others. I think that's another straw man. What climate sciences say is that climate is changing faster than ever - so, they say there is an acceleration on top of the natural changes. And that's probably because of us, because of the CO2 we put in the atmosphere. This is also disputed, I know, and some say the sun accounts for ALL the change of the climate. Some say that the CO2 gas, which is able to absorb heat, is not in the balance at all. As a chemical engineer, I think that's weird to say the least. It's like saying that double glazing will not provide a better insulation for a house compared to single. Do I understand that you claim that even the most basic climate models are changing? I mean: the coriolis effect is at least undisputed, or isn't it? If we can agree that the coriolis effect is a constant factor, then we can agree that the dominant winds on earth will be relatively constant too. Anyway, do you have any theory, paper or link to back up your statement? I think it's fine to be a skeptic, but please tell me what the basis is of your theory that wind patterns will change. I've just told you why I think they don't. Totally disagree. I think your example is flawed. For two reasons: Firstly: the chance that a meteorite hits earth is simply incredibly small, while climate change is here. The big meteorites hit earth perhaps every so many million years or so... Secondly: the proposed solution is not the same either. There is no practical use for the 'massive nuclear weaponisation of space'. It actually is a threat, and has negative effects too because it can be abused. So, it costs money, has no purpose other than protection, and is potentially dangerous. Let's compare that to sustainable energy: Sustainable energy is not the "ultimate evil" as portrayed by some. It is economically interesting. China invests in it a lot, and China isn't your lobbyist heaven where you can misguide the leaders through some plays in the media. China today is an economic powerhouse that chooses its investments carefully. Germany and Japan also invest in sustainable energy a lot. Again, it's not your fluffy silly economies. It's the 3rd and 4th economy in the world. So, some seem to think that the 'medicine' against global warming is actually a good businessplan. In fact, out of the top-4 economies, only the USA is not investing so much in sustainable energy. So, if meteorites would wipe out life as we know it every 100 years, I am pretty sure we would invest heavily in the weapons needed to deflect them. But the fact is that the climate change poses a far bigger risk, and the medicine isn't so bad. Anyway, I still think it's a good idea to also invest in detection and possible deflection technology against asteroids/meteorites. And we actually do invest in it (albeit not so much). Are you suggesting that the majority of the coal is burnt in the mines rather than in a powerplant? Or that the majority of the forests are burnt on the spot rather than cut down for lumber and only then burnt either as a fuel or as a wastewood? Our annual CO2 production is nearly 29 billion metric tons. That's something that you can just calculate from the energy consumption. Due to unknown factors, this value might be higher, but not lower. That CO2 goes into the atmposphere, and possibly into the ocean. And regarding the volcanoes, I think this is a decent argument: despite fluctuations in intensity of the activity of a volcano, the CO2 measurement stations right on top of volcanoes just follow the global CO2 trend. How much more understanding do you want?

My personal experience is that the fence itself is good enough to pee against. If I have to go, my motivation for climbing fences is nearly zero. I just want to pee. But beer has different effects on different people, so your point of view can be just as valid in this discussion. If they all climbed the fence to drink beer at an illegal place, then that's the offense. It's simply breaking into private property.

Why does a 21-year-old guy have access to a drinking water reservoir when he's drunk? Why isn't there a fence around it, if this isn't allowed? In the link of the OP, there's another link (this one) which states that the officials also fish out dead animals and other feces. I'm sorry, but dead animals are a LOT more dangerous, and can carry a LOT more diseases than urine. What the hell are they thinking over there in Oregon? That urine is dangerous, but rotting meat is just fine for drinking water??? And if dead animals are indeed found in the reservoir, then it's obviously treated before it's sent to the tap of the people... otherwise, we'd be seeing a lot more diseases in the area. So, this is all a big media show. Rather sad, really.

The paper clips are shaken into a relatively dense packing in a small container (in other words: many paperclips, not much space). If you shake them up yourself, you might not achieve the same density as in the box. The density of the paperclips will result in more direct contact between paperclips, which will lead to an entangled mess. If they are actually linked together, like in a chain, then I don't really know... are the paperclips 'open' or does it take some physical effort to open up the paperclip to slide the 2nd paperclip into it? Mighty interesting question. Perhaps we should open up a subforum of 'paperclip science'? Sorry, only joking... it's actually a fun subject, and everybody can experiment at home.

The usefulness of traveling only become obvious when you've done it a couple of times. The benefit of traveling is "life experience"... and it's incredibly hard to quantify. I can understand that you would prefer a summer job, which gets you a very quantifiable amount of money on your bank account. Or study, which gets you a quantifiable thing called a degree or a driving license. But I really urge you to consider traveling, even though the benefit of it doesn't seem obvious at all. My experience is that it's nice to travel especially in the summer because (1) you actually have the time for it and (2) a lot of other people are traveling, which means you can meet some people in the hostels you stay in (hostels are cheaper and better than hotels, and often enable you to meet other backpackers in the living room / social areas of the hostel - and it's always nice to share experiences). Generally speaking, I maximize traveling. I'm away as much as possible, limited only by my free time and money. And I really think it really expanded my horizons (literally and metaphorically).

A phenolic resin is a mixture of different chemicals (so it doesn't have another name than 'phenolic resin'). Once it has reacted, it forms a branched polymer which could also react with the stuff arount it - in this case the fabric or something. I think it will react with almost any -OH group. So, it becomes a very complicated molecule which doesn't have an official chemical name. My suggestion is that you either keep the name as you have it now: phenolic resins for laundry ink, or alternatively, look for a brand name (the name of the product and the name of the manufacturer).

Job opportunities for chemical engineers are excellent. And the pay isn't bad. It's not the best, but certainly not the worst either. Petrochemistry probably pays more than other fields of chemical industry... but it's also a very established industry without too many challenges (in my opinion). And I consider it dirty. I'm sure others (who work in petrochemical companies) disagree with me.

Travel. Go backpacking. Find out whatever is the cheapest way to make many kilometers, and get get the hell out of there for a couple of weeks. Cross some borders if you can.

Meh, The simulator does not seem to take sea walls or other defense against high water into account. It just maps a blue color over the average height of the land, which is completely inaccurate especially for low countries like the Netherlands. It predicts that a 2 meter high wave would swamp the Netherlands up to 50 km inland... but we regularly survive storms (albeit not tsunamis) which raise the water by way more than 2 meters... and not a single drop of water floods into the country. We have proper protection against high sea levels. In fact, the primary sea defense should be so sturdy that even the heaviest storms of the millenium should not be able to flood the country. The primary sea defense is about 12 meters high. Secondary dikes that are built inland can still be 2-3 meters high. The entire country is divided into areas which are surrounded by dikes and canals. Land around rivers is also protected by dikes and the entire country is full of secondary, ternary, etc. dikes. We can even close off the port of Rotterdam completely. The result is that your simulation is very inaccurate - or, I could also say that the result is that it's really difficult to model flooding in the Netherlands... Sorry to be so harsh.