exchemist

OK, give it a try then and let us know how it goes.

I don't think CaCl2 is too bad a health hazard, compared to alternatives. I can't help you with particle size of the CaCl2 as this will depend on where you get it from. As soon as it starts to absorb water from the air I think the particles will clump, suppressing any dust. But I wonder how effective your dehumidifier will be. The moisture of saturated air at 20C is 17g/m³, so in a room that is, say, a 3m cube you have about 450g (1 lb) water present. if the relative humidity is 100%. That will need quite a lot of CaCl2 to remove. You won't be able to collect any water, as what it does is absorb the water. As it is deliquescent, you will eventually have a concentrated liquid solution of CaCl2.

Yes I ignored that detail. (I too have done those courses, at my time on the refinery......)

A few things seem not to stack up here:- - If absorption were to increase "by logarithmic reciprocal", the absorption would get less with increasing concentration (partial pressure). That does not make sense. Can you post the formula you are referring to and provide a source for it? - According to my admittedly limited understanding of this subject, the CO2 slows down the rate of IR radiation loss to space by absorbing and re-emitting IR radiation as it ascends from the surface of the earth. If you double the partial pressure of CO2 I would think you would double the average number of absorption and re-emission events an IR photon encounters on its path to space. So the CO2 would trap double the amount of radiation. - The statement that CO2 will be a poison before it becomes a serious threat due to heat seems to fly in the face of everything that modern climate science is telling us. If you are asserting everybody is wrong and you are right about this, you have an uphill struggle on your hands to convince people. You will need to provide a very sound rationale. - While there are many gases in the atmosphere, we do know its composition pretty accurately and we know the IR absorption characteristics of all the components present. The challenge is in the complexity of the meteorological processes, e.g. interactions between atmosphere and oceans, clouds formation, icecaps etc, not the composition of the atmosphere. Nobody has ever pretended any of the models is "definitive" but they do all show the same basic trend - and we are seeing the predictions coming true. This is not about anyone "selling" anything. It is science.

What point are you making here?

I must say I see little value in this. By the way Quetta is a city in Pakistan.

No idea. Why don't you check it for corrosion?

They are the same, because rotation around a single bond is possible - unless there are specific steric hindrances from very large substituents, which a methyl group is not. Don't forget that the bonds in an sp3 hybridised C atom project in 3D, towards the corners of a tetrahedron. They don't stick out at 90 degrees in a plane, as shown in typical 2D representations like those in your example. If there were a double bond between C2 and C3 then rotation would not be possible and you could then speak of cis and trans isomers, depending on whether the substituents were on the same side or on opposite sides. In an sp2 hybridised C. atom, there are 3 bonds at 120degrees to each other in a plane, one or more of the bonds having some double bond character.

Petroleum jelly is the classic way, I believe.

Thanks for the explanation. I have to confess I have not used this stuff for about 40 years so I'm very rusty on the maths of it all, now, but the concepts intrigue me still. But I see @joigustakes issue with what you have said, so I'll sit back now and watch the debate. I don't know about editing equations on the forum. On the rare occasions I post one, I just do the best I can with regular text and the symbols library on my laptop.

So according to your link, CIA reports now take the form of handwritten bullet points that have no explanation and make no sense. For some reason the image of a hovercraft full of eels comes to mind...........

Hmm. I had understood it is the time-independent version that is an eigenvalue equation, which corresponds to a wave equation for standing waves, so it is not surprising that its eigenstates are purely oscillatory. Whereas it is the more general, time-dependent version that has the attributes of a diffusion equation. Well, not quite just electrons in atoms and molecules, but also molecules in vibration or rotation - and not forgetting the angular momentum of atomic nuclei, too. But mostly stationary states, it is true, though we do concern ourselves with the perturbation of the these states by EM fields and radiation, as in spectroscopic transitions and phenomena such as refractive index and magnetic properties of substances.

This is interesting. As mere chemists, at university we never delved into the significance of it being a diffusion equation. In most chemically relevant applications the time-independent version suffices, so there was perhaps little reason to do so.

GDP is not "buying power". But, apart from these random assertions about economic rankings, what is it you wish to discuss?

How can you be "back" if this is your first post? I don't believe for a moment you are pitching this nonsense to investors next Friday, by the way.

What has that to do with the origin of these two missiles?

Different picture this morning. Seems the trajectory puts it in doubt that the missiles came from Russia, though they may be Russian-made. Could be Ukrainian missiles, attempting to shoot down the Russian ones, that went off course. Even if they did originate from Russia, it is very unlikely this would be deliberate escalation. Far more probable it was guidance error or something. Everyone should keep calm.

It's a long time since I did these, but I suspect the key is the equilibrium constant for the dissociation of the acid. NaOH is a strong base so it will mop up essentially all the H+ it can react with, leaving you with a lot more A- than H+. So that will tell you how much extra A- you have, and you know how much H+ there is from the pH at the end. So by plugging these into the formula for the equilibrium constant, I think you have enough information to construct an equation to solve for the unknown, don't you? But I admit I have not yet got out pen and paper and tried.

Where have you got to before you get stuck?

In fact, is it not the case that the time-independent version of Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation, of the type appropriate to standing waves? I presume that would have been the first application of it (H𝚿 = E𝚿), back in the 1920s, as I think Schrödinger originally applied himself to the question of an electron in a bound state in an atom. If so, it would have been in its original form a special case kind of wave equation. When the time dependence was added to make it more general, that would have been the point at which it became a diffusion equation.

There is almost no land higher than 45 deg south of the equator, apart from Antarctica. Just the tip of S America.

You have a point, I think. As I recall, Schrödinger's equation is not a true wave equation because it only has a single rather than double derivative with respect to time. I think I remember Peter Atkins telling us it is more properly a diffusion equation, rather than a strict wave equation. He went on say, rather enigmatically, that it might be thought more appropriate for a description of the behaviour of matter to be governed by a diffusion equation.............

What corrects individual biases is reliance on collective perception, rather than that of individuals. That is why science relies on reproducible observation rather than individual anecdote. Your next sentence, about elements of the human condition, seems to be a non-sequitur. It is not clear how that relates to anything that either you or I have mentioned up to this point. As for what more an intellectual can ask for, the answer is a coherent idea, clearly expressed and supported by evidence. As others have already pointed out on this thread, you have yet to come forward with anything like that. Referring us off-site to a book is not acceptable here. You need to lay out your ideas here on the forum where we can all see them and discuss them. But I have to reiterate that basing something on a concept like astrology that is well known to be pseudoscience, is not a promising start. This link evaluates astrology against the criteria for science and shows why it is not science but pseudocience: https://www.learnreligions.com/astrology-is-astrology-a-pseudoscience-4079973. I realise you have posted in the Philosophy section but this is a science forum and readers here are unlikely to give credence to ideas that fly in the face of science, even in philosophy.

Somewhat. The UK recommended max. weekly consumption for men is 14 units, a unit being 10g of alcohol. What you describe is 2.7units/day which is a bit over this. I have a particular interest in this as I have a tendency to a heart arrhythmia (A Fib) and so I need to manage my alcohol intake, which I control to ~12 units/week. It is also advisable to ensure you have several days per week when you do not drink alcohol. This gives your liver and other organs a chance to recover from its effects. My practice is to consume 3-3.5 units per night, on Friday Saturday and Sunday (i.e. 1 bottle usually French wine), and then no alcohol Mon-Thur, except sometimes one mid week beer (2 units). Having some nights when you have no alcohol are also beneficial as you tend to get better quality sleep.

We all have biases, sure. However that is not to say that any nonsensical idea can be put forward to account for them. Astrology, in particular, is demonstrably bunk.