exchemist

Agreed. They don’t really behave like currencies - or not like good ones.

That suggests maybe I should try the bike shed - at least while the cool weather persists. Or maybe try a different supplier: possibly Sainsbury's keeps them too long in the supply chain, so they are already about to germinate by the time I buy them.

At this time of year they start to sprout after only a week. Do you think if I kept them somewhere warmer and drier, i.e. in the kitchen, that would stop them sprouting? Or should I keep them somewhere even cooler, e.g. the bike shed?

Probably.

There are plenty of houses left with solid fuel fires that rely on the chimney draught principle. I remember my mother used to hold a sheet of newspaper across the fireplace when starting the fire, to help it draw at the bottom. Once the suction was so great the newspaper slipped from her palms and went up the chimney, alight, where it started a chimney fire. That was in Edinburgh in the 1950s, before the Clean Air Act put a stop to such things.

I don't believe Sainsbury's coats its raw Maris Piper spuds in pyrophosphate. And if they did, this would not lead to a batch to batch variation, which is the issue here.

Joking apart, those don't change in value by 50% in a matter of days. I have had some hundreds of thousands of pounds in Sterling savings for over 20 years now and I am not concerned that they may suddenly halve in value. Ditto USD and € savings.

That will be the second item in the table. So 1 g of that hypochlorite (the solid substance) is equivalent in bleaching power to 0.593g of chlorine. If you had a different hypochlorite, the figure would be different. Chlorine is a gas, whereas these materials are solid salts. So they are all different substances, but all of them release "active" chlorine atoms in the same way so they bleach things in the same way as chlorine does.

Read the link. There is even a table of various hypochlorites that shows you what the chlorine equivalent of each one is. From this you will see it is not possible to answer your question unless you say which hypochlorite you are talking about. That's because the molecular weights of the various hypochlorites are different, so the chlorine equivalent by weight of each will differ.

Read the link I gave you.

Whereas one of principal jobs of a currency is to be a "stable store of value", if I recall correctly. No thanks.

This sounds like a question you should direct to a medical fertility specialist. If you both have been having tests, I presume you are in contact with such a professional. What do they say about it?

Hypochlorite, ClO-, ions have bleaching power just as free chlorine does. As there are several types of hypochlorite it is convenient to express their bleaching power in terms of the active chlorine equivalent, in order to have a common standard for their efficacy as bleaches. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percent_active_chlorine

Are you Theorist?

The error is in thinking that different gears produce different power. They don't. They produce different torque at different (angular) speeds. Power is torque x speed. If you start with one gear and then switch to another with double the speed, it delivers only half the torque. So the power transmitted is unchanged.

It looks to me as if the answers to your many questions can easily be found, just by a bit of reading, if you really want to know the answers. However, my rather jaundiced experience of those who describe scientifically literate people as "evolutionists" is that they actually don't want to know the answers, as the answers don't fit their (naive) religious beliefs. I hope you are not one of those. Assuming pro tem that you are not, brief answers to some of your questions would be as follows:- Bees: pollination by insects is just one of many ways that it takes place. So insects were not always necessary. The flowering plants evolved to take advantage of insect pollination, after the insects appeared. Mouth: One of the most important steps in the evolution of animals was the evolution of the mouth. This occurred some time in the pre-Cambrian and was followed fairly quickly by the evolution of shells, as a means of protecting some creatures from being eaten by others. If you know a bit about food chains you should know there is no clean division into predators and prey. Many animals that are predators are themselves prey for others. Fruit: Fruits are one means of seed dispersal, making use of animals. There are plenty of other methods, though. Fruits are formed by flowering plants, which only evolved long after animals had colonised the land so, as with pollination, they were able to take advantage of an existing situation. Minerals: There is no reason to suppose the abundance of minerals on the Earth is radically different from what it would be on similar rocky planets. So your comment about "only" the Earth having these properties is misconceived. Fossils: You need to stop and think a bit. Consider how rare it is for a dead organism to be fossilised. Then consider how rare it is for a fossil to be exposed once more at the surface of the Earth, after it is formed. Then consider how rare it is for such a fossil to be found. It is not at all surprising that the fossil record consists of sets of dots, that we have to join in order to see the pattern. Evolution: It is surprising you find this unconvincing, unless you have deliberately set out to find it so. Plant and animal breeders have known since the dawn of civilisation that populations of creatures contain variations and that by selecting variants with certain traits and breeding from them, big changes can be made, over a matter of many generations. Just look at breeds of dogs, for example. All Darwin did was suggest that the natural environment can do the same, because some traits will make it more likely that the creature breeds successfully in that environment. It's hardly rocket science. Moreover, we see it daily in the news. Where do you think these variants of Covid, that everyone worries about, come from? Variation eventually produces a version that reproduces (by infection) more rapidly - and so that one becomes dominant. It's evolution at work in real time.

Yes the "Skulls in the Stars" article seems to deal with it. Good old Ehrenfest, again! So it's false to assume that any accelerating charge must always radiate, apparently: symmetry can trump that general rule.

In the discussion I read elsewhere, there was some talk of whether the electric field, although it does not change beyond the boundary of the sphere, might change in a way consistent with radiation in the region between its greatest and least radial extent. Though, weirdly, such radiation would not, apparently, escape. I'm not enough of a physicist to know if this makes any sense.

There seems to have been some discussion of this topic on the physics stack exchange some years ago, the conundrum being that the electric field lines, beyond the boundary of the sphere, are unaffected by a purely radial change. At least, I think that's what it was all about.

That's part of it. But to my mind the more significant part what would happen assuming the temperature of the liquid butane did drop to -10C. In that case I think the relative rates of diffusion would be determined chiefly by the surface ares of the hole compared to the surface area of the liquid. I've now added chiefly because of one aspect my earlier post did not take into account, which is that as I recall the rate of diffusion is inversely proportional to the square root of the molecular weight. The MW of butane is 48 +8+2 = 58 and that of air is 29 average, exactly half. So the air will diffuse 1.414 time as fast as the butane, per unit area, but the liquid area will be a lot greater than the area of the hole. I actually think there may be another effect too, thinking more about it. As soon as the butane vapour become significantly diluted with air, the partial pressure of butane will drop lower than 1bar and so more butane will evaporate. So there will actually be still a net flow of butane out of the hole, I think.

15 seconds before what, though? Surely the pilot can switch the autopilot off and return to manual control any time he wants to, can't he? No autopilot takes control unless the pilot turns it on, and equally, he can always turn it off. The MCAS system, implicated in the 2 crashes of the 737 Max, is nothing to do with the autopilot. Do you mean the MCAS system rather than the autopilot?

I think this poster is wasting everyone's time, possibly deliberately.

Your logic looks OK to me. I see, consulting my Periodic Table, that the electronegativity of Fe is greater than that of Zn, so it doesn't look as if Fe will give up its electrons to Zn2+. (Also, as I recall, the principle of galvanising relies on Zn being preferentially oxidised and thus protecting the Fe.)

It seems to me that, in practice, with a real metal butane cartridge, so long as some liquid butane remains, there is likely to continue to be a +ve pressure sufficient to prevent air from diffusing against the flow into the cartridge. Unless you insulate the cartridge, the temperature difference between the air at 20C and the colder liquid will most likely keep it above -10C. But supposing that one way or another it does get down to -10C, the pressure equalises and then air diffuses in, then I suppose you eventually end up with a mixture in which the rate of diffusion of butane from the liquid is in competition with the rate of diffusion of air in through the hole. I would imagine that would become a matter of the relative areas of the liquid surface and that of the hole. If that is right, then I should imagine the mixture inside the cartridge would remain principally butane, the excess pressure on closing the hole would be marginal and the risk of reaching the explosion limit would be negligible.

What you leave out, though, is that it can only be the simplest theory that accounts for the observations. Ockham's Razor does not require anyone to throw out a theory just because it is complicated, so long as the complications are necessary to account for observations. (This is why the important qualifier "first" is included in the definition you quote.) And there is the problem. If you want to advance a new, simpler, theory you need to show that it can account for the range of observed phenomena that existing theory can.