exchemist

16 minutes ago, guidoLamoto said:

ALA is found in meat, particularly beef. Beef also contains high amounts of cardiolipin-- another cardioprotective agent and the subject of several studies showing its beneficial effects in treating acute MI.

In regards fish oil and the cholesterol  problem in general-- a grossly over-stated problem exploited for the financial benefits of thpse emphasizing it. If you review the data & stats on the benfits of fish oil and the risks of  trans-fats, it's a pretty flimsy argument....The risk cholesterol poses on CAD is about as strong as the risks imposed by  serum Fe levels. How come nobody is recommending periodic phlebotomy to combat CAD?

If you want to signifcantly improve your cardiovascular status, don't smoke, exercise regularly and chose your parents wisely. Nothing else helps much.

Yes it seems the fat of grass-fed animals contains some ALA. 

51 minutes ago, Jon A said:

Attached is my Newtonian research into building a new type of flight transportation system. 

I am using Newtonian principles such as the scientific method, Plasma Cosmology, and Pilot-Wave Theory. 

Anyone who "trolls" my design - or claims it doesn't take relativity or space-time into account - will be ignored.  

It involves a new methodology for making graphene/silicene.

The design also potentially includes a way to generate non-thermal hydrogen plasma as a sheath around the entire device.

Have a look - it includes about 50 construction & CAD pictures.  There is a 1-page summary attached. 

The entirety of the research notes can be found at my GDrive:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-3TDKlwpr2n6tQp0ypg-qxa6P_vOIytA

Executive Summary.pdf 2.18 MB · 0 downloads

The hypothesis is that a bubble made of graphene/silicene/hydrogen plasma - is potentially buoyant.

Buoyant in what medium? Or do you just mean lighter than air at sea level pressure?

1 hour ago, OptimisticCynic said:

You are wrong. What you missed is the shapes of the masses and the initial and changing angles of the forces. From the start, your masses m1, m2, and E are all pulling towards each other's center of mass in straight lines. From center to center to center the lines form a triangle. As m1 moves towards m2, the direction of the pull of E changes. The angle between the two lines of force from the center of E to m1 and m2 reduces. The linear distance from m1 to center of E, and from m2 to center of E remains equal as they accelerate. The line from m1 to m2 remains tangential to sphere E throughout. 

Watching the triangle, on the plane of the triangle, as the masses move, the triangle tilts and grows narrower while remaining isosceles. Both m1 and m2 are always the same distance from the center of E at every moment of falling no matter how disproportionately they accelerate towards each other. Their paths on the plane will be different in length, but as long as m1 and m2 are equal diameter spheres, they will always reach a spherical  E simultaneously. If E was flat, they would reach the surface at different times. Are you living on a flat Earth? 🤔

Who is wrong?

5 minutes ago, joigus said:

Pardon me. I thought you were trying to make sense.

On the contrary.😉

1 hour ago, marcin said:

How should I start this transformation to get product?

I haven't played these synthetic games since university, nearly 50 years ago now, but it seems to me a start can perhaps be made by recognising the class of of molecule you have on the left. It's a particular kind of aldehyde, which undergoes particular reactions. Have you identified what it is? 

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

Apparently air source heat pumps are available that can work down to minus 15^o C. If I read it right, 100% of the heating at double efficiency, that I take to mean heat delivered for electricity used. Down to about minus 20 (minus 5^o F) has been a stated goal of a joint US Canada R&D program; maybe not always and forever pretty crap.

If I understand correctly, some already commercially available -

https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-announces-breakthrough-residential-cold-climate-heat-pump-technology

Yes, the killer at present for heat pumps is their high cost and the cost of adapting existing heating systems to the lower temperature heat they put out. For new housing not such an issue, but in a country like the UK, with a lot of housing stock more than a century old, it is a big barrier to adoption.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Elizabeth David ?

 

I believe they originally had a ham joint with the bone in.
Of course you can't get them in England today.

 

 

One very useful tip concerns the roast.
Traditionally cleaning the roasting dish is a chore,

But we take the dish as is the following day, and use it to start off some lentils and vegetables, then some stock and finally a left over worst bits of the meat.
This either becomes a curry or plainer dish or even pea soup base.

The good bit is at the end because all the water added cleans the roasting dish almost as well as our retriever (when we had one) so washing it up is a treat.

Thanks and +1 to both for your input.

 

Eh? No, Elizabeth David wasn't Italian. It comes from a book called Polpo, named after a Venetian-style restaurant in London, which I got as a present some years ago.

But jambon persillée is something you see at the charcuterie counter in many French supermarkets. It's actually not as good as the Polpo version, but it's the same general idea. The recipe in fact calls for a shank, so you get some gelatine from the connective tissue, but I just use a supermarket bloc of smoked ham, which works fine. But it did take me several tries to titrate the ratio of gelatine to stock so that it sets to the right consistency.  

(If you have some stock and gelatine mixture left over, you can let it set in small glasses and serve it as a savoury jelly appetiser, to eat with a teaspoon. It's rather good actually. I've toyed with the idea of embedding a quail's egg in it, to make it more chi-chi, but I'm not quite cheffy enough to have got round to it. )

1 hour ago, studiot said:

What are your (favourite) recipes for cooking ham ?

 

My family had used the following for generations and most folks we feed the result to seem to think offers significant improvement of the standard method.

 

Use smoked or plain ham to preference.
First prepare you ham by making small slits in opposite sides or ends with a very sharp knife.
Then insert a sliver of fresh garlic clove into each slit, as deeply as practicable.
Follow this up by inserting one or two cloves into each slit, tailend inwards. These are removed after cooking.
Place the treated ham in a pot deep enough to cover with cold water and place on stove.
Add a rounded desert spoon of soft brown sugar to the water.
Bring to the boil and simmer for 1 hour per kg.
Do not over cook.

Once cooked the ham can be removed to stand.
The ham water can be used to add extra flavour to vegetables such as cabbages, carrots and so on.
Most folks are pleasnatly suprised when they come across this last bit.

 

The use of ham stock in soups etc is fairly standard. This seems to be an extension of that principle.

My favourite ham recipe is a ham and parsley terrine, in which smoked ham is simmered with carrot, onion, leek, celery and parsley stalks, allowed to cool and cut and torn into small chunks. These are mixed with mustard, a chopped raw shallot, some vinegar and quite a lot of chopped parsley and put in a terrine dish. One then strains and seasons the stock in which the ham was cooked, adds gelatine and pours over the ham mixture. This is allowed to set. It can be cut into slices to serve but the tricky bit is getting enough gelatine so it does not fall to pieces, without it becoming too rubbery. Best cut when cold from the fridge, but should be allowed to come to room temp before eating so the flavour can develop.

The French call it jambon persillée. But my recipe comes from an Italian recipe book.

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

Earlier this year I watched the BBC Earth series, presented by Chris Packham.

One new theory was presented of many years of almost continuous rain on the early basalt eruption surfaces, leading to chemical weathering of the basalt removing significant quantities of acid greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, from the atmoushphere and chemically 'fixing' it into the ground.

Last Sunday the BBC Countryfile programme had an article about trail replication of this process by spreading the waste products of the aggregate industry (ground up basalt) onto farmland.
The greatly increased active surface of such basalt powder not only reacts quite quickly (ie at human timescales) not only fixing the carbon but also releasing new nutrients to the soil, thereby reducing fertiliser demand.

It is too early to tell just how good this since trials have been going on for little more than a year but apparantly early results are 'encouraging'.

******************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Then I see that someone has done something about waste plastic from laboratories, formerly just burned (5.5 million tonnes in the annually), to make recycling possible.

 

Well done Helen. Nice to see up and coming graduates succeeding like this.

 

Interesting. I think I recall an article proposing to use ground up slag from cement kilns and blast furnaces for this. But the snag there is both are intensive CO2-generating processes in the first place, so a bit of Pyrrhic victory.

But what exactly does the aggregate industry comprise and how is it that ground up basalt is a byproduct? This does not sound obvious. 

23 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

@exchemistPlease elaborate. I am very interested to read the Lenz's Law or Le Chatelier's Principle of the mind

More generally known as the principle of cussedness: these are laws by which nature opposes an attempt to change to the system.   

58 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

Chapter 1: The standard model of the mind
The standard model of the mind starts with the factors of the standard model of physics, which are mass and energy. So what is the mass and energy of the mind? Mass is the talent, which is to say talent to read people or talent to read and comprehend written material. Energy is the personality factor in question. The personality factors in question could be the bad factors, the neutral factors, and the good factors. The bad factors are the dark tetrad of personality, namely greed, violence, manipulation, and apathy. The neutral factors are extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience. The good factors are Kantianism, faith in humanity, and humanism.

 

Chapter 2: General relativity of the mind to understand
The general relativity of the mind to understand comes from the force of truth and the force of understanding. The force of truth bends the space while the force of understanding connects the expert to the audience and the audience with reality.

 

Chapter 3: General relativity of the mind to act and change the world for the better
The general relativity of the mind to change the world for the better is then described by the forces of kindness and beauty. The force of kindness bends the space while the force of beauty connects the giver and the receiver.

 

Chapter 4: Special relativity of the mind
Special relativity of the mind holds the speed of the heart as the primary determiner. As the speed of the heart slows, perception of time slows. As the speed of the heart increases, perception of time speeds up.

 

Chapter 5: Electromagnetism of the mind
In electromagnetism, unlike charges repel each other. In electromagnetism of the mind, the reverse of the force repels the force. For example, cruelty repels kindness, cruelty makes kindness difficult. Cruelty is ugly and not beautiful and so it pushes people apart instead of together. Falsehood is repelled by the truth. People who tell falsehoods run from the truth-tellers. Falsehoods are also misunderstandings and misunderstandings can create a connection between speaker and listener but the speaker is no expert and the misunderstanding creates a distance between the audience and reality.

 

Chapter 6: Nuclear strong force of the mind
The nuclear strong force of the mind is the unity of a group or people when everyone agrees that the heart should lead and the head optimizes what the heart wants and the heart is one where most people in society agrees on. The ultimate heart goes something along the lines of “There is beauty in taking pain and in sacrifice to be stronger and for a better world. Once you see the beauty that pain and sacrifice can achieve in this world, all you need to see left is that it is wrong to forsake someone who honestly did wrong because they could not understand. We must stop the madness, but stopping their hearts must be a last resort” and “I believe we are brought down here to defeat the undeserving and then through our just deserts, be kind to those that deserve our blessed talents.” The nuclear strong force of the mind binds people in society together to meet challenges that plague the society in question.

 

Chapter 7: The nuclear weak force of the mind
The nuclear weak force in physics is about the decay of the atom. The nuclear weak force of the mind is about the decay of society. Societies can go through cycles of rise, stagnation, and ultimately decay. When a people forgets the vision of the founders or the vision of the founders no longer apply, society may decay.

 

I, by contrast, am an advocate of the Lenz's Law or, if you prefer, Le Chatelier's Principle, of the mind. 😁

49 minutes ago, johnsri said:

Hello

How to nerve multiply

By using your neurological reference frame.😄

1 hour ago, johnsri said:

_Hello

_{How 12x3 = 10x3=30}

                     _{+2x3 = 6}

₃₆       

 

 

how brain multiply 12x3

We learn multiplication tables.

2 hours ago, kenny1999 said:

Plenty of such information if you simply do a search on Google with keywords, "water absorption rate polypropylene".

One example:

https://omnexus.specialchem.com/polymer-properties/properties/water-absorption-24-hours#Values

 

Ah OK, but for materials like polyethylene and polypropylene these are very low values, 0.01% or so. 

The reasons for some solvents to be able to get into the structure of polymers is because they are generally not fully crystalline, due to things like irregular chain branching that make it impossible to get perfect packing of the chains in the structure. So you get some voids, into which small molecules can go. There is more abut it here: https://eng.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Materials_Science/Supplemental_Modules_(Materials_Science)/Polymer_Chemistry/Polymer_Chemistry%3A_Morphology/Polymer_Chemistry%3A_Polymer_Crystallinity   

1 hour ago, kenny1999 said:

Nope, I am not talking about cracks or imperfect surface, I mean scientifically there is also a very low absorption rate for kinds of impermeable materials e.g. polypropylene, glass, even if it's made and finished perfectly. How could that happen?

You state this as if it were a fact. What is your source for this idea? 

1 hour ago, kenny1999 said:

I understand, but for the material that we know that they are highly impermeable to water, e.g. plastic, glass, but they still have very low water absorption rate, how do those water molecules penetrate into the material?

Who mentioned water molecules?

21 minutes ago, Externet said:

What is this ?  A marketing joke, an illusion, a trick ?  How does it work, if works at all ?

---> https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/home-products/g27471828/best-cooling-blankets/

and at many other sites 

From what I read it is designed to stop you overheating in hot weather by wicking away sweat. Do it doesn't actively cool you, it just helps avoid getting too hot and sweaty in hot conditions. Seems fairly pointless to me. You can just stick various limbs and even your torso out from the covers if it gets hot. 

2 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Do they say how they think it ended up there?

Good point. I assume either a natural steam reforming of methane: CH4 + H2O <-> 3H2 + CO (endothermic), in which case one might expect to find carbon monoxide associated, or else from natural cracking of hydrocarbons. But as hydrogen molecules are small, they may migrate away from the source of production, complicating efforts to determine how they were generated.

On 11/11/2023 at 8:17 PM, kenny1999 said:

Hi, I thought about starting a new thread but I think it's the best to continue my question and the discussion here because it's very much related.

I just happen to know that everything, even if it's logically considered to be resistant to water, e.g. polypropylene, chances are it would absorb some water over time. In that case, suppose I have got some very dirty water (e.g. filled with all kinds of dirty stuff, rotted food, bacteria, or even urine etc) that stays in a polypropylene container for a very long time, would the container absorb some of those dirty water over time and make it less safe to use even if the container is later on thoroughly cleaned, washed and rinsed with kitchen detergent and water? The same question applies to other commonly used materials for dishware and cookware e.g. ceramic, stainless steel, etc.

No. Bacteria are too large to penetrate into the material. But it may smell, from chemical compounds absorbed or adsorbed on the plastic. I find plastic food containers do pick up a taint if used for anything with strong smell. And colour, sometimes: tomatoes and turmeric especially. 

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

As it should be, of course  

This doesn’t actually rule out MOND, it just means that even if MOND holds true, you still need dark matter to fit all observational data, though presumably in lesser quantities.

Which knackers the whole idea of MOND though, doesn’t it?

29 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Yes, I have my doubts about a stable element at atomic number 164, in fact I was under the impression that the so called island of stability was supposed to be around element 124 and the stability was somewhat less than... stable. 

More important than simply speculating is getting an accurate measurement. However, the margin of error is so great on this one it makes you wonder how such a extreme error could be taken seriously at all. Even if the asteroid was 100% Osmium the density is far and away from anything you would expect from a reasonable measurement. A pure Iron Nickel asteroid should have a density of around 7.8 grams per CC  even a pure Osmium asteroid, 22.59 grams per CC, which is wildly unlikely, wouldn't come close to the claimed measurement of 75 grams per CC.

Lots of unknowns in science, various readings, findings, measurements that do not comport with reality was we think we know it. I think it's important to investigate these things when possible, remeasure when possible, but we shouldn't fall into the trap of assuming something is impossible because we can't explain it.  

Is there some other possibility which would make this measurement a bit closer to reality? 

 

In the circumstances it is reasonable to assume the results are more likely than not wrong. After all, the whole point of science is to be able to predict what we should expect to observe. So the first thing to do when results are far away from that is to try to reproduce them, in order to check them, before devoting a lot of time to exotic speculation. It seems this was done for another asteroid that this experimenter had applied his technique to - and lo and behold it was found he was off by more than a factor of 10.  

To make matter denser than the forces of electromagnetism and the nuclear strong force support, one has to resort to gravitation, in bodies containing enough matter to enable it to outweigh them, e.g as in stars.  

5 hours ago, npts2020 said:

High temperature industrial heat?

Not really. Hydrogen in the context of iron and steel is a reducing agent, for reduction of iron oxide to iron. That's what coke does in today's blast furnaces. It's not just a source of heat.

But I have answered my own question now: I see "Steel" does in fact appear in the category B list on the chart that @Ken Fabian posted.  I must have missed that. 

11 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Maybe there are conditions at times that increase the conditions where denser metals can be separated from less dense. You could have a planet that orbits it's star very closely, making conditions far hotter than we usually observe. Maybe that raises the centrifugal forces within the planet to very high levels, causing more separation. Or you could have a pair of planets close to a star, rotating about each other very rapidly. Or other setups that we don't observe here in the Solar System. 

Conceivably. But you still need some credible process for creating one or more elements with an atomic number way beyond anything found in the solar system to date and moreover, they have to be stable isotopes, which seems highly doubtful for theoretical reasons. 

15 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

All that nickel-iron (never pure iron going by meteorites) is material that was the core of planetoids that got smashed and reformed and smashed and scattered. I don't see how any superheavy elements could remain strongly differentiated (as specific asteroids) yet leave no traces anywhere else. Not if these asteroids (if they actually have such densities) were formed within the solar system.

I am thinking it would have to have origins very different to what occurred in this solar system - supernova remnants or something exotic? - and somehow it never got smashed together with the rest. Yet if such elements were tossed out by supernova - and our solar system includes supernova produced elements - we should find traces everywhere.

Quite so. 

But I've been looking at the paper that prompted this pop-sci article and I think it is really about something else: https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-04454-8?sharing_token=mpXkcFl6UFuZEgh4DYZK0YsPkCdkOxEKPl2JoxdvwqHW9N-hyrzP0f-_h1nqnhXLsBVT4-pBXuVn0gcP16CLQEc-ew_UOQdLD1nth6S52AHTdX0rhTFNttiC-j8pe1CuBqagSArD56jvpd9SuXeiQAMMgZtdthJYevFjXzWBsh0=

The real interest of these researchers seems to be modelling superheavy metals to see what densities they might have. Their key point seems to be that densities are expected to be high for 2 reasons: (i) as Z increases, the ratio of neutrons to protons in the nucleus goes up, as the Coulomb repulsion between protons has to stay within certain bounds if the nucleus  is not to fly apart, and more neutrons help to "dilute" the proton concentration. As a result, the nuclear mass goes up more than linearly with increasing Z. However (ii), the electrons, which determine the effective atomic radius, i.e. the volume the atom occupies, can be accommodated within a greater variety of degenerate orbitals of high angular momentum (f and I suppose maybe even g in some cases) as the principal quantum number goes up, so the atomic radius does not need to expand as fast as Z increases. I suppose what they must have in mind here is overcoming the constraints imposed by the Pauli exclusion principle, rather than electrostatic repulsion between electrons.

I don't see anything stating that a nucleus with a Z of 164 is expected to be actually stable, in fact they admit they don't know. My understanding is that the islands of stability are only relative, i.e. the nuclei are less likely to fly apart than those that are not on or near the island.  But they do refer to something called "CUDOs" (Compact Ultradense Objects) which they seem to think are a thing in astronomy. I tried to look these up but only got a handful of arxiv references, so I wonder if their existence is established or if they are just hypothetical exotica. Perhaps someone like @Janus would know.  

They also introduce another idea for a dense form of matter called "alpha matter". In this, they hypothesise a dense nuclear "gas" of alpha particles, bound (somehow?) in a Bose-Einstein condensate, permeated sufficiently by the electron cloud to reduce the Coulomb repulsions. Not being a nuclear physicist I have no idea whether this can really work or whether they are just playing with the idea.

So quite interesting, but this is about nuclear modelling not astronomy. It looks to me as if they have thrown in the references to CUDOs and 33 Polyhymnia to make their research look as if it could have some practical applications. 

48 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Do super dense asteroids point to the possibility of heavy elements not found on Earth? 33 Polyhymnia is thought to be 3 times as dense as the densest element on the earth Osmium. Osmium is 22.59 grams per cubic centimeter with an atomic number of 76 but 33 Polyhymnia seems to be made of something close to three times as dense as Osmium. This would correspond to an element that has an atomic number of around 164. 

 https://earthsky.org/space/ultradense-asteroids-polyhymnia-cudos-superheavy

Should we be thinking of visiting this asteroid to see if we can obtain samples of this unknown element? 

According to Wiki, the only estimate of its mass was by Benoit Carry, whose results are thought to be most likely wrong, by a factor of 10 or more. The technique depends on the perturbations 33 Polyhymnia causes to other bodies, and this is subject to large uncertainties due to its small size.

My money is on nuclear physics being right and these results being wrong.