big314mp

I overheard this bit when my mom was watching the interview. Something along the lines of Gibson asking, "What sort of relevant foreign policy experience do you have?" And Palin answered, "Well...let me tell you what I DO have experience with-" and she went on about the national guard, being a governor, etc. I literally lol'd at it.

Finding proof of god is worth a Nobel prize. Somehow, running a video game "at the speed of light" and then "poking holes in the fabric of spacetime" seems more like tripping out. Nobel prize for Hofmann!

Well, the point that I was trying to make was that some very polarized opinions were presented. Looking at the issue from the other side, this would seem like a rather hostile place to promote book banning. Hence the poll would be a rather poor indicator of actual opinions on the site. Although perhaps the poll was more of a conversation starter, given iNow's careful wording This strikes me as the same argument that gun makers are responsible for gun crimes. The author of the work is being penalized for the potential wrongdoings of unknown people. Punishing one person for someone else's actions is not at all a good foundation for a free society.

Tungsten trioxide is supposedly used as a ceramic coloring agent, so it may be readily available.

A 40:1 transformer would do it. You can probably find one in an electronics store. Amps are controlled by the resistance of the load, not directly by the power supply. You should not attempt to overdraw your power supply, however. 48A will require some very thick wire. For DC, you'd need (a rather large) bridge rectifier, and a very large smoothing capacitor. If you want DC, you may want to look into switch mode power supplies, although you would need a rather large one for 48A. May I ask what it's for? Best of luck with the hurricane. Beat me by 2 minutes...

The only law I see at work is Poe's.

Reading these posts, I'm wondering if some sort of "group polarization" is possible? Perhaps no one will vote for banning books because of the hellfire and damnation they might receive? Just a thought...

This may be an idea more relevant to something like a hotel, where large quantities of relatively homogeneous laundry are done, rather than in the home, where a general purpose detergent may be more appropriate. Would an alcohol rinse remove the microbes? A warm ethanol (since its cheap and common) rinse to destroy the microbes and rinse them out. It could be followed by a water rinse. You may be able to get away with recycling the ethanol, as it's purpose is merely to break down/dissolve the microbes. The water rinse could remove any residues left by the microbes.

Maybe its a street organ

Are there any interesting effects to note with copper? It's another one of those odd ones out, in color at least.

Since when is banning "knowledge" good? Yes, I'd include those messes by Uncle Fester, et al.

that makes sense...thanks!

The one problem I see is that this would only be feasible in areas where the tides are very high. The amount of energy that can be extracted is given by E=mgh, so if h (height) is small, then m (mass) has to be very large to get any substantial energy.

If you felt like living dangerously, you could always give cinnabar a go

I was thinking that (since it was indicated for flash powders) that it either had some sort of "activating" agent the would somehow make it easier to get through the Al2O3 layer on the grains, or perhaps the oxide was somehow different from normal aluminum oxide.

I think the dirt (the SiO2 bit) only really sticks because of various organic compounds like oils and tars. Current detergents don't really "destroy" silica, they just loosen it up from the surface. I should throw in the a fair amount of the dust that clothes are exposed to indoors, consists of dead skin cells, rather than silica. If you had microbes that could eat grass stains, food stains, oils, dead skin cells, and odor compounds, you'd be pretty well set on a detergent replacement. Perhaps a hot water rinse to remove the bacteria? ...and on reading my post again, I'm seeing a problem, as a bacteria that ate cellulose would probably eat cotton shirts as well. There may be a way around that one, but I don't see it.

What is dark aluminum? It appears to be the type used in flash powders, but how is it different from "regular" aluminum? http://www.skylighter.com/mall/chemicals.asp The link has some down a little on the page.

"This still seems more and more like it won't work though. I can't imagine with just potassium, calcium, and chloride ions in water it will make a chlorate." Probably because it won't. Read my post again. You aren't using CaCl2. You are decomposing Ca(ClO)2 to form Ca(ClO3)2 and CaCl2. The Ca(ClO3)2 bit is the relevant part.

I'm not exactly sure what the second premise entails...perhaps you could explain more clearly? The first part is already being realized (sort of) in the form of wave power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power Portugal seems to be making a good amount of headway on it.

Wish you the best of luck. Take care!

To tell the truth, only geniuses have talents beyond an interest in their field of study. You do have to take organic chemistry to get a bio major. That might be a class that you have to struggle through with rote memorization. Math is like that for me. Most colleges will give you credit hours for the intro bio courses (the prerequisites for the actual biology major courses). In short, they expect you to know about as much about a biology major as you did when you set foot in AP bio on the first day of school. If you have an interest in biology, you should try going to the library and reading popular science magazines (like Scientific American, Science News, Science, Discovery, etc.) as these magazines take scientific papers and "translate" them into everyday language. Forgot to mention: You'll have to pass the AP bio test to get those credit hours. Some colleges will require that you pass with a 4 or 5 to give you credit, so study hard!

I drew a picture for #4. The one on the left is the traditional "Earth", where light can leave the surface. The one on the right is the balloon universe, where light is bound to the surface.

1. Interesting point. Someone will have to explain this for me. 2a. That's the general idea behind wormholes. To continue the analogy, it would be like a small hole poked in one side of the balloon, connected by a straw, to a hole on the other side of the balloon. The holes representing black holes, and the straw representing the worm hole. 2b. For the balloon example, there is no "inside" the balloon. This is where the analogy falls apart. It breaks down, because the balloon is a 3D structure. You have to consider the balloon analogy as if you were an ant on the surface of the balloon. To an ant, the question of what is "inside" the balloon is nonsensical, as the ant can't perceive the additional dimension of it's universe. 3. I can't answer this any better than you already did . 4. What you have to consider is that EVERYTHING happens within the plane of the balloons surface. Imagine you are in (I say "in" this time to highlight the fact that you have to ignore the 3D aspect of the balloon for this analogy to work...however don't misinterpret this as being inside the balloon, we are still on the surface) the balloon universe, and you shine a laser pointer off into the distance. To your eye, the laser pointer will go in a perfectly straight line. However, to an outside observer, the laser pointer beam will bend to follow the curve of the balloon (imagine how the prime meridian is a straight line, which still follows the curve of the earth). On Earth, light goes in a straight line independent of the Earth's surface. Thus a ship following the curve of the earth will seem to rise up. If the light were to also follow the curve of the Earth, this effect would not exist. 5. You can examine physics from any reference point. Your premise is based on physics calculated at the half way point between our galaxy and another galaxy. It is simpler to just assume we are stationary and calculate the motions of other galaxy's, than it is to say we are moving, and then calculate the motions of other objects based on that moving perspective.

The first one is just asking for resonance structures. A resonance structure being a different "version" of the molecule, where everything is connected the same, just the electrons are different. I attached an example. Hybridization is determined by how many regions of electron density are around an atom. In CO2 (carbon double bonded to an oxygen on each side), there are 2 regions of electron density (each double bond counts as one). This indicates that 2 orbitals need to hybridize at this atom. Thus the hybridization is sp (one s, and one p orbital). In CH4, there are four regions of electron density, so the hybridization is sp3 (1 s, 3 p's).

This is an interesting premise, as the rusting of iron also releases hydroxide ions. This would suggest, then, that Le Chatelier's principle could be at work, as the oxidation of dichromate releases hydroxide ions as well. Perhaps the dichromate then is a proton sink? The one problem I see with this, is why use dichromate in this application (if this really is the mechanism)? Hexavalent chromium is notoriously toxic, so why use this if it's only purpose is generating hydroxide ions? Why not sodium hydroxide, or Proton Sponge, or some other base?