exchemist

Here is an example I found on line to illustrate how it is done: "Once you have process the spectrum with software like Demetra, ISIS or Vspec, it must look like the one below (case of a galaxy with a redshift z = 0.06). The noise level of the spectrum depends on the total exposure time on the target. We obtain a spectrum strongly shifted in the red with easily identifiable lines and very broad Balmer lines : H Alpha line is thus shifted to red at 6970 Å while its value “at rest” is 6563 Å. " So this is saying this Hα line in the hydrogen spectrum is found at a wavelength of 6563 Angstroms if measured in the lab here on Earth. But with this distant object the same line appears at a wavelength of 6970. It has been shifted towards the red by 6970-6563 = 407 Angstroms.

The spectrometer tells you the wavelength or frequency of each line. So you just compare the reading for hydrogen in the star with the standard reading for the same spectral line in a lab here on Earth.

That's what I'm talking about. Here is an article with a picture of some of the lines from hydrogen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmer_series The "visible" hydrogen emission spectrum lines in the Balmer series. H-alpha is the red line at the right. Four lines (counting from the right) are formally in the visible range. Lines five and six can be seen with the naked eye, but are considered to be ultraviolet as they have wavelengths less than 400 nm. Now, if the star emitting these lines is red shifted, the whole set of these lines will be moved a bit from their normal positions towards the red (lower frequency, longer wavelength) end of the spectrum. But they are all still there and so is the spacing between them. So you can still identify that it is hydrogen emission you are looking at.

Because the lines in the spectrum, which are characteristic of the elements of which it is composed, are all still there, just moved along a bit, to lower frequency. So you get the same pattern of lines, which can easily be recognised by a spectroscopist. Once you have found one element and determined from that how big the red shift is for that object, you then immediately know by how much all the lines for other elements will be shifted, and so you can assign them to the elements responsible. P.S. One thing you may possibly not be aware of is that each element emits (or absorbs) not just a single line but a whole series, corresponding to electrons making transitions between different atomic orbitals in the atoms of that element. So it's a whole pattern you are looking for, not just a single line. I agree that if it were only a single line per element, you would not be able to do it.

OK, generally I don’t, but I admit I did find this one funny so I made an exception. Point taken about the link - I hadn’t thought about that.

At neutral pH, glycine in solution is mainly present as a zwitterion: NH3⁺-COO⁻. So I think what will happen when you dissolve the glycinate: NH2-COO⁻, is it will pick up 2 protons from citric acid to form NH3⁺-COOH, leaving you with citrate and/or hydrogen citrates, depending on the relative amounts of citrate and glycinate (Citric acid is tribasic so it can release up to 3 protons, depending on the relative pKa s - or pKb s if you prefer - of both it and the other species around.) Mg²⁺ in solution will be present as a solvated cation anyway, so it won't be affected by any of this.

This is quite funny. The spambot correctly says you need nuclear fusion to create elements - but then goes on, serenely, to warn you to use appropriate PPE and ensure lab ventilation when doing so!

Because I have some understanding of basic physics. - The energy in the sound waves from a human voice is tiny: at 60dB it is about 10⁻⁶ W/m². So for a cooking pot of 10cm radius and thus a surface area of 0.3m², it will intercept one third of a millionth of a watt of energy from the sound. - This energy will be converted to heat when it is absorbed, so all it will do is serve to heat up the contents - infinitesimally.

It was that crap about humming and "energy" while you cook, plus your implausible claim to detect short-term effects on atherosclerosis in your own body, that made my crank detector go off.😁 But thanks for the links on pesticides. Apparently, if you eat home-grown eggs shipped in from Jordan and you don't hard boil them, then you may be at risk of ingesting certain pesticides above safe limits. Nothing in these links suggests that commercially produced eggs in other countries contain unsafe levels of pesticides. The study itself concludes: "PRACTICAL APPLICATION: Home-grown eggs could be exposed to pesticides more than commercial eggs as free-range hens interact directly with the environment and ingest soil or materials on/in the soil that might be contaminated with pesticides used in home gardens or farms. Exploring pesticides residues in home-grown eggs and effect of refrigerated storage and heat treatment (boiling and frying) on residue levels would be useful to consumers and health authorities."

I think you should talk to your priest, or perhaps more likely in your case, pastor, as you sound as if you come from the Protestant tradition, about all this. Mainstream Christianity does not oppose the findings of science. Some scientists are religious believers and others are not.

This does not sound right, in a number of respects. The green ring in hard boiled eggs is due to sulphur in the white reacting with iron in the yolk, if the eggs are cooked longer than necessary. There is no reason to think organic vs standard eggs behave any differently in this respect. If you don't want a green ring, boil them for less time and then cool and shell them immediately. (I never get a green ring with hard boiled eggs - and I never buy organic eggs.) Furthermore I can think of no way you could possibly know that one type of eggs allegedly clogs up your arteries while another does not. What makes you think this? As for the "toxins" causing atherosclerosis, this is an interesting claim. I had not heard of this before. Can you provide evidence (e.g. a web link) describing what these "toxins" are, that they do indeed bioaccumulate in standard eggs and that they do cause atherosclerosis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. Actually, forget it. I've now read some of your other posts. I don't think anybody is going to learn anything worthwhile from a discussion of your ideas.

Don't forget to pursue @chenbeier's suggestion as well. If you add a few drops of sulphuric acid you may find the green layer dissipates.

What businesses need to trap grease? Are you thinking of catering businesses?

I don't know but my first guess would be that water may absorb CO2 from the air. You could perhaps be getting some basic copper carbonate (carbonate hydroxide). Perhaps @John Cuthber may know.

I think we definitely need Moonbase though, so long as we can have Gabrielle Drake to run it:

We need a description, not a video.

Oh God, I’d never advise someone to repeat a mission statement. They are always such bland BS. You could talk about your own perception of the company and its activities, personal factors that make it a good fit for you - and best of all, you could perhaps find a way to turn it round and ask the interviewer questions. I was always impressed by candidates who could turn the interview round.

Yes, you must be right about the expansion, I think. I had difficulty seeing why that would have an effect.

On the density of seawater he seem to me to be substantially right. At 4000m depth it is typically 1.046: https://www.britannica.com/science/seawater/Density-of-seawater-and-pressure , due to the compression effect he referred to.

Really? My experience is that @sethoflagos is one of the more rigorous posters on this forum. While you can have legitimate disagreement on the science, It seems to me that accusing him or her of bad faith, as you are doing here, is quite a stretch, to put it politely.

I did not intend to judge your invention, just perhaps think about how you might bring it to market. I repeat, the invention is already in the public domain, as that is what happens when a patent or utility model is granted. But OK, good luck anyway.

I don’t think we can help very much without knowing what this is. As you have a monopoly and the invention has been published by the patent office, it is now public knowledge and you can safely reveal it. Can you provide a link to the published invention? Do you mean they offered to manufacture it for you , if you paid them to do so? So they can make it but don’t want to take on the business risk. That seems rational.

From @chenbeier's link it looks as if NaBH4 reduces one of the carbonyls to a hydroxy group, i.e. form dihydro to tetrahydrouridine. So that does not open the ring. Hydrolysis of the amide with KOH will open the ring of course and, by the look of it, may evolve ammonia and CO2, destroying it completely.

The yellow is fluorescence. The emitted light will be scattered from the beam and will not be coherent. It will be near monochromatic if only one transition is excited in the fluorescence process but will have the line shape of that emission line. In a thin film some of the beam may emerge on the far side but if it does it will be what remains of the original beam, i.e. green.

Ah yes, a "petty patent" or Gebrauchsmuster. I had quite forgotten about those. Well, it's a monopoly on whatever you have invented, for a limited period of time. So to exploit it, you either need to bring your invention to market yourself or licence it to someone who will, for a fee. What is it for?