exchemist

I suggest you produce a new list of your steps 1-10 but this time you show the energy input or output for each step. But at least this time you seem to be achieving a net conversion of methanol + atmospheric oxygen to water and CO2, which will give you a net energy release. So that's a step in the right diirection. 🙂

Yes I’m sure it is possible in principle to synthesise smells by suitable nerve stimulation. You say this has been done. Can you provide a link to a report of this work, so that we can read about it?

The last sentence is gibberish. Can you rephrase so it means something, or are you just another nutcase?

Exactly. The pope picture was another distraction stunt, too. “Hey, look over there!”……… It all makes it harder for opposition, whether political, media, the courts or the public, to focus and identify what is urgent or most important to resist. Trump has been about disorientation from the beginning, gaslighting the public so they can’t tell fact from fiction. Now the technique is being expanded to confuse damage to vital mechanisms of democracy with a load of other, eye-catching stuff.

If E means energy, p means momentum, m means mass and c means the speed of light, then your formula is dimensionally incorrect, so it must be wrong.

Why don’t you contact Tyson then? He is not a contributor here.

Don’t be silly. There has been centrally issued coinage since at least Roman times. Newton was merely one holder of the office of Master of the Mint in the reign of William III (Mary having died by then). The Royal Mint itself has existed in England from the c.12th.

From your recent posts I think you might speak to a doctor. You do not seem to me to be in a healthy frame of mind. But it is normal practice when walking in the countryside to greet people you encounter, just a simple bonjour and a smile, which you do not do in the city because there are people everywhere.

The problem is there is no net energy release generated by the process. You have to put in energy to electrolyse water into oxygen and hydrogen. And you have to put in more energy to ionise hydrogen into a proton and an electron. The energy released by recombining these into water only recovers the energy you had to provide to split them, and no more. So this device achieves nothing.

I think this idea may only apply to the Abrahamic religions. The Ancient Greek and Roman gods did not exhibit beneficence, or only some of them, some of the time. Also I’m not sure if it is true of the Hindu pantheon. The Abrahamic religions cast God in the role of father. As such, God is disposed to care for his children. A father does not demand anything of his child, but he wants him or her to be happy. I think that’s the general idea, at least.

Notably the abandonment of habeas corpus, which Stephen Miller is now trailing. Get the MAGA idiots all pumped up at the idea of being "tough" by sending "bad guys" to Alcatraz, while denying the rule of law to anyone the Executive dislikes enough to arrest.

No, it doesn’t work like that.

Re yr 1, I would think that yes, since the temperature at the surface is below the boiling point of ethane and acetylene, these compounds will fall out of the atmosphere. As “rain”, maybe? Re yr3, yes methane is a greenhouse gas so will absorb and re-radiate in the infra red. Nitrogen and hydrogen however will be transparent to IR, having no dipole in the molecule.

Encourage the secession of Maryland, you mean?

American, too, though with dual US/Peruvian citizenship. But for another thread.......

Oh I see. Well that is good news certainly. Li extraction is very messy and largely in the hands of China. Do we know what they use as cathode and as electrolyte? The fire issue with Li+ seems to be the use of an inflammable electrolyte and also that oxygen can be released from some components in a fire, making it impossible to smother.

You and I had a brief exchange on this 2 years ago, here: https://scienceforums.net/topic/131641-the-sodium-battery-taking-off-any-expert-opinions-please/#comment-1239819 In which I summarised the principle of operation and challenges for the Na battery, at least as I understood them from quickly reading it up. From your post it isn’t clear what has now changed. It looks like just marketing blurb with nothing about the science. Is there more?

Why not try it then and see how it goes? Doesn't seem too risky to me. I'm actually now intrigued by what partial vapour pressure of water is generated by a 50:50 mixture (presumably by weight) with these hygroscopic glycols. I imagine there will be a -ve deviation from Raoult's Law, i.e. it will be lower than expected on the basis of the mole fractions present. It's just not something I've ever thought about before. In fact there could be something of a catch here. The molecular weight of your dipropylene glycol will be approx double that of simple propylene glycol. So a 50:50 mixture by weight, or by volume, will have about half the number of molecules of the glycol and more water in proportion. So you may find the humidity is higher with the di glycol than with the recommended mono version. But I have no idea how sensitive cigars are to all this. On that, you are the expert, not me.

Yes it sounds like a garbled description of the principle of the lever. But like you, I'm wondering whether this is just a wind-up. Let's see if the poster returns to explain.

All I know about this comes from this Wiki article which I have just read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidor I note this claims that a 50:50 mixture of water and propylene glycol is recommended due to the buffering effect on humidity. Having looked it up, it appears propylene glycol is hygroscopic. This presumably means that if the humidity is high a suitably concentrated mixture of propylene glycol and water can actually pull excess humidity out of the air, hence the buffering effect. The same appears to be true of dipropylene glycol, but I can't find anything that compares the relative degree of hygroscopic behaviour of the two. So it looks to me as if both can work but you would be taking a bit of a chance, in that you would not know at what level of relative humidity dipropylene glycol would buffer the system. Both appear to be non-toxic and odourless, so not problematic from that point of view.

Love it!! 🤣

A-Holiness, surely? 😁

Pfft.

Yep, that's why I always read these posts by newcomers. You never know what bit of extra knowledge you may glean. Even from cranks like Tom Booth! But this looks like a serious enquiry. I had always found SN1 vs. SN2 one of the most boring and hackneyed topics in organic chemistry. Now, 50 years on, I find a new source of interest in it.

Buen dia. Guessing a bit, as I don't speak Spanish but have some French and Latin, the SN1 mechanism is favoured with tertiary carbon atoms because the substituents hinder access by a displacing anion, as it needs to approach from the side opposite to the group to be displaced. So SN2 doesn't work. Details here (using hydroxide as the displacing species and bromine as the species to be displaced : https://www.chemguide.co.uk/mechanisms/nucsub/hydroxidett.html It is also true that tertiary carbocations are somewhat more stable than primary ones: https://www.chemguide.co.uk/mechanisms/eladd/carbonium.html This is actually quite interesting. I was brought up with the "traditional" explanation that alkyl groups were mildly electron-donating, without any compelling explanation as to why this should be. The more modern hyperconjugation explanation described in this link is new to me, but makes sense of it quite elegantly. I hope you can read these explanation in English or, if not, that you can follow the diagrams. 🙂