studiot

Here is a very rough quick sketch, from which I hope you will catch the drift.

Good observation +1 As imatfaal says the iron particles line up so they are touching as continuous chains of tine induced magnets. Why? Well this is a good example of a system seeking to minimise its energy. Without the filings the magnetic lines are 'evenly' distributed in space with no gaps. Even is not exactly right since obviously the field strength diminishes with distance from the pole to pole centreline, but I think you know what I mean. Just as with a transformer or motor core, the field lines (want to) congregate in a ferrous material ie they are drawn into it, leaving few lines in the free space not occupied by the ferrous material. But these paths have to be continuous through the core. Cores are not free to move, fine particles are. So the system can rearrange itself when fine particles are introduced. And yes, indeed there are few lines in the spaces and a concentration of lines in the chains of ferrous particles. If you were to plot some lines at right angles to the chains you would find repulsive (N-N and S-S) forces in action, which is why you get spread out lines rather than a block in the middle.

As a start reluctance motors fall into two types. The first type employes some form of permanent magnet. The second type has its poles magnetised by induction. Of this second type synchronous reluctance motors (eg old fashioned electric clocks) are run up to speed unmagnetised and then the poles are magnetised.

Chemically, solutions are best fresh and not stored for long periods. But fresh is a relative term, which depends upon the stabiltiy of the compunds in solution and their reaction with things light light. I do not think you have any such problems here. So I would suggest you could easily mix up a week's worth at a time. Mixing is not difficult, just churn the powders in, to the cold water.Heat should be unnecessary. The only safety issues would be to avoid breathing dust (face mask if powder is fine). I do not know the quantities involved, or the source of your water. Neutralisation is an interesting point. Natural aquifer water may be slightly alkaline or acid depending upon the source rocks, but soilwater is usually acid. I understand from horticulturalists that flowers like more acid water than vegetables, as plants, but know nothing of cut flowers' requirements. Suspended organic material may grow in the sugar solution.

I'm sorry you have taken umbrage with my post. It was not meant to be mocking, perhaps you might like to consider the old adage Act in haste, repent at leisure. Not only did John Cuthber originally try to help your balancing efforts, but he also tried to calm less temperate comments. He also told you exactly what was wrong with your balance and what needs to be done to correct this. Though his replies are often very concise. Actually a compliment, this is not basic or elementary chemistry. But balancing a chemical equation is basic. Since John had already told you how, I took the trouble to find a reference to a similar if not identical reaction (your original desciption was not entirely clear) to help further.

I have never found any benefit from the 'Friends' system in any forum that I have been involved with. Such systems seem to be mandated by the annoyance division of the 'Forum Software Writers Association' and comes with all forum software. I avoid any involvement in forum 'Friends' processes. The reputation system has merits, however. Personally I have only issued negative points twice (I think) in the three years I have been a member here. Certainly I condemn the practice of piling on the red as Ant Sinclair reported here. Surely if someone has done something annoying, 1 red mark is enough to make the point? I use the green points less sparingly to encourage what I consider good practice or to express admiration for a point well put or well argued. I also agree with the OP that if something is worth making a note about, good or bad, it is worth stating that note.

Sucrose is ordinary white sugar, so no problem there. Both Aluminium suphate and calcium nitrate include what is known as 'water of crystallisation', when in crystal form. The aluminium sulphate has 18 molecules of water per molecule of supphate and the calcium nitrate 4 molecules per molecule of nitrate. The weight of this water (if present) must be taken into consideration when weighing out for solution. The good news is that both are highly soluble (not too many calcium compounds are) and non toxic. Calcium nitrate occurs naturally in soil and is also manufactured for use in fertiliser, Aluminium sulphate is used as a scavenger to 'clarify' water another form - alum can also be used. So the first and most important question is for you to find out what form your salts are in. Are they without the water of crystallisation (the called the anhydride form) or Are they crystalline?

How does that play with financial experts advice and their stock disclaimer "past performance is no guide to future gains or losses"

There have been many examples of deaths around the world due to the dogmatic approach offered by posters here. In general the dogmatic approach has, IMHO, more to do with apportioning blame and ass covering than achieving satisfactory results. The safety 'expert' says there should be fire exits. The security 'expert' says all doors should be locked. Result? Tragedy. Experts can disagree. What then One expert's 'solution' may be excessively costly or onerous. One 'expert' may tell you that margarine is better for you than butter. Another may tell you the opposite. What then?

EdEarl +1 Or the set task was impossible in the first place. Incidentally I did not specify an absolute 'expert', just someone more so than the promoter. Of course the 'no discussion' approach precludes the expert offering that there may be another (better) way that the 'manager' has not heard of. Or how about this scenario. We wanted a new shrub to go in a particular dry sunny corner of the garden. We settled on a hydrangea. I am really glad we discussed this with the nurseryman as we have never heard of the variety he came up with, but it has certainly thrived there. He also said that most of the more standard varieties we had heard of would struggle in that location.

John Cuthber In principle, no. Of course the level of discussion depends on how much you know about their field of expertise. If there's anything you need to discuss, it's because you didn't specify what you wanted properly. And, if they are the expert, what's the point of the discussion? You are just going to end up agreeing with them because they are the ones who know what they are talking about My experience has been that approach soon leads to spectacular failure.

No it is not OK, but no that is not because it's not an admissions policy. I think imatfaal's point is that in order to come under the ambit of the referred Act, there must be an admissions selections procedure. SF has no recognisable and identifiable selections policy or procedure, therfore does not fall within the ambit of the Act. However that does not relieve SF of complying with all other relevent Acts in its subsequent dealings with members, including dismissal. I do believe there are many other Acts, or even parts of the Act in question, concerning discrimination. It is very common for people to think that because one Act has granted a permission, all other duties to comply with other Acts are abrogated. I can remember constantly explaining to people that, whilst, yes they have successfully been granted Planning Permission to have a driveway, the implementation of that driveway must still be in accordance with the Highways Act and that said Highways Act contains a secon permissions process of its own.

No discussion involved?

Interesting; this way I can learn something every day.

Say you are in charge of some operation and you draft in an expert in some activity that you need performed. The expert may be highly qualified for example a computer consultant, or she may be highly skilled, say an excavator driver. How do you approach the management of those more expert in something (knowledge or skill or both) than yourself?

[math]\left[ B \right][/math] [math][/math] math]\left[ B \right]/math] math]/math] Both seem to work for me with WinXP an IE8 the letter b in square brackets also starts the bold instruction. I wonder if it connected?

Can you tell us more about it and what the relation is to medical science?

Well post the result then.

Gamma (-x2) doesn't look periodic to me.

I didn't actually say (necessarily) run the pipes underground. Firstly and most important would be the proximity of a nearby large body of water. If this were the case this body will be cooler than either the land or the air, and also easier to exchange heat to. If this is not the case then heat needs to be pumped either to air or ground. Also I mentioned a cold store. This is because it would be more efficient to dump heat at night than midday. Also a smaller heatpump would be required than for instantantous cooling. Further a cold store would even out water and cooling flows in time. This is similar to using hot water tanks in cold countries rather than flash boilers.

Good afternoon, Ronald, have you abandoned your other thread? Meanwhile here at water cooling central I think swansont has shown his great depth of physics knowledge in his replies, I had been considering an evaporative solution. I also worried about the water loss needed to remove the heat. So here are some questions: First location, are you on the coast or near a river or lake that you could use as a heatsink? Second what is the source of your water and what is its inlet temperature? You may need to resort to a water storage (re)cycle over two or more days so that the water can be cooled as far as practicable and then returned to use. This could also help isolate your garden against supply interruptions as well as saving water costs. The cold water would need underground storage so the capital cost could be significant. There are several possibilities to cool the water in your cold store, depending upon local site conditions. A heat pump may be part of the solution, but you will not find a magic box that you can just pump significant quantities of water through hot to leave cold.

Underdosing can be as serious as overdosing. The medical profession has done much soul searching since it abandoned what, in my profession we used to call the independent check, and several studies to examine if such a check reduces errors. Unfortunately the management and efficiency types have reduced manning levels so that it is not always possible to find another health professional competent to conduct such a check.

The prescriber rarely administers a drug. I have already noted these errors are administration errors, not a prescription ones.

Unfortunately, it is not the prescriptions that were incorrect, it was the implementation. Someone I know used to have to train and then sign off on the competency of everyone in Somerset, before they were allowed to administer intravenous drugs. She had a 10 question paper they had to pass. Periodically there was an argument with the power-that-be about relaxing her 100% correct requirement in the test. Her answer was to say, "Here is the test. Which of these questions would you allow a candidate to get wrong? Every one of them is a resut of a death by incorrect doage administered." Today we have 'Self certification and such tests have been dropped' Sadly, drug errors have always happened, but they are on the increase.

Alternative try looking for 'Chelated Ericaceous Plant Food'. You can also google just 'Ericaceous plant food' and it will also then include the sulphate versions described in StringJunky's link, along with links to 'how to make your own' sites. I haven't included any links because you are not in England so our links will not be directly useful to you.