exchemist

Oh Christ it's bloody "Gaiagirl" (Faceurchin, Sarah Ellard, Frank Baker, etc) back again. Oh and now Caronynx: https://www.sciforums.com/threads/florida-man-claims-a-plesiosaur-killed-his-friends-his-son-is-interviewed.166458/. The man strangled by his own thymus gland was my favourite of these stupid stories this person spams around the internet periodically.

I am old enough to remember when we replaced sulphurised sperm whale oil with a synthetic substitute, in a lubricant for the bronze bushes on old-fashioned, journal bearing, railway wagons. Of course they have all been rolling element bearings for decades now, so grease-lubricated.

OK thanks for the description. I think I understand what they are doing. Electrochemistry is not my strong suit but I can see that the anode can generate oxygen and hydronium ions: 2H₂O -> O₂ + 4 H+ + 4e- https://www.chemguide.co.uk/inorganic/electrolysis/solutions.html while the cathode generates hydrogen and hydroxide: 4H₂O +4e- -> 2H₂ +4OH- However what I struggle with is that the implication of the clay pot setup as described seems to be that you would end up with a charge separation, with surplus H+ inside the pot, with no counterion to neutralise the +ve charge, and similarly surplus OH- outside, also with nothing to neutralise the -ve charge. If this started to happen the potential produced would rapidly stop current flowing, bringing the process to a halt. Or, if the permeability of the pot were sufficient to allow the metal cation and SO₄²⁻ to diffuse through it to preserve electrical neutrality, why would it not also allow H+ and OH- to diffuse through, preventing the accumulation of acidity and alkalinity on either side? So at the moment I have difficulty seeing how this setup can produce the effect claimed. But maybe someone with more electrochemical knowledge will comment. On the separate matter of substituting Na₂SO₄ for MgSO₄, I should not think the change of cation will make any difference. As both elements have an electrode potential, E₀ considerably more -ve than hydrogen, it will in both cases be H₂ that is generated at the cathode, the metal cation being unaffected.

I would put this in the general category of: "Let's give parents something else to be pointlessly anxious about". On the whole, if there is nothing wrong with your child, I think you should not spend your time poring over genetics. If there is something wrong, or you yourself have a known genetic condition that might be passed on, then you should be in contact with health professionals.

As a matter of fact biodegradable lubricants, often made from biological sources, have been on the market for many years now. They tend not to be suitable for engine oil, but then as we won't be running IC engines, that problem will go away in any case. As @Sensei says, a wide range of organic chemicals, including polymers, can in principle be made using such things as ethanol or methanol as a feedstock, or starch or cellulose (carbohydrates). So when, probably well over a century from now, the last oil refineries and natural gas synthesis plants ceases to be economic to run, there are options. There is a Royal Society of Chemistry paper reviewing petroleum-derived and biomass-derived options here: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2023/su/d2su00014h .

We will probably continue to use oil or gas for lubricants (lubricants are already made from gas via gas-to-liquids synthesis today) and petrochemicals for another century at least. But as that does not involve CO2 emission, that’s OK.

I’m not going to trawl through the crap on YouTube to find what may or may not be what you are referring to. Can you not describe the process in your own words? I presume you must have a fairly clear idea of it, if you propose to copy or adapt it.

Crowdstrike certainly seems like nominative determinism.

What process are you referring to, involving clay pots and MgSO4?

Not to mention being the closest living relative of the whale..............which sort of makes sense, once you have been told this.............

There is another element to the far right methodology we have not mentioned yet which is the cult of personality. Just look at these idiots: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cldy39vpv4qo This behaviour is like something out of Stalin's USSR. I'm reminded of the scene in A Man for All Seasons, in which Henry VIII jumps from a boat, accidentally into thick mud. Everyone is speechless with fear, wondering how he will react. Then he looks at them, sizing them up, decides to treat it as a joke, laughs and they all feel the need to jump into the mud themselves to copy him.

.....at an altitude of up to 6 inches....😄

Can you give examples of things you have difficulty with? Is your post a Trojan Horse for creationism, for example?

OK I'm now putting you Ignore. Go and see a health professional.

The second piece you quote is fair enough as far as it goes, but only seems to address the reasons behind European resentment of immigration. That is insufficient to explains whether or not such resentment is the primary cause of the rise of the far-right. Most analysis I have read suggests, on the contrary, that support for far-right parties may be mainly driven by feelings of being "left behind" economically and ignored politically. So at the emotional level it is to do with loss of perceived status. The animus against immigration may be just one expression of that, in that these groups feel new arrivals are given better treatment than the people who have lived there for generations, as expressed for instance in the legislation, and the posturing in the media and in businesses, around protection of ethnic minorities. The far right is good at empowering people to hate something or someone. Immigrants are one target. "Elites" , which by the way will include most members of this forum, as we are mostly highly educated people, are another. The rise of the internet is in my opinion largely responsible for spreading such views rapidly around. 20 years ago, when opinion-formers still tended to be politicians, writers or media commentators, there was a lot more control of the wilder and more stupid and unpleasant ideas. We have all seen how the anonymity of the internet allows many people to shake off the norms of civilised behaviour and indulge their darkest thoughts. Golding's "Lord of the Flies", which was really an exploration of how human nature, freed from civilising constraints, could have led to the rise of the Nazis, is relevant here, I think. As to your final question, 10 years ago it was already clear in Britain that there was a rise of nationalism and suspicion of "elites", fanned by the right wing press. That is what led to Brexit 8 years ago. 20 years ago, in 2004, before the financial crisis or 2007-8, I certainly would not have seen it coming, or not in that form. At that period, a year into the Iraq invasion, my fear was of a swaggering neocon/Likudnik dominance of the USA in foreign affairs. So very right wing, Israel Lobby-driven, Islamophobe politics in the USA, yes, but not a more widespread, grass roots revolt against domestic liberal democracy. One final thought: if you look at the places where right wing nationalism has been put into practice, in the UK with Brexit, Poland with PiS, India with Modi, Brazil with Bolsonaro, Turkey with Erdogan, you see electorates turning against its practitioners. The UK Tories, PiS, and Bolsonaro are out of office, while Modi and Erdogan have had their wings clipped. So I don't think it's a one-way street. But the Big One of course is Trump 2.0.

Yes it looks almost like deliberate deception, to get AI to return his nonsense uncritically, simply because there is nothing out there to criticise the concept. And he can keep it that way, by carefully NOT offering a description that would be sufficient to attract analysis and criticism that the AI program would detect and read when searching on the topic.

Hmm, it certainly doesn't sound very serious. I too did a quick internet search and couldn't find any written description that was not by AI. I also noted a couple of YouTube videos about it - usually a bad sign. It feels as if it may be some sort of perpetual motion crankery. Those can be quite entertaining to take apart to find the error, but without a proper description we can't even do that. I looked at the link you supplied and while it screams wacko, it does not describe the system in a way that allows analysis. Looks like a dead end to me.

My God, cognitive decline! You are right of course and I have misled @Agent Smith by telling him he was wrong when he is perfectly right! Apologies all round. Time for my nap.........😄

On one point, please don't describe the Earth as a closed system. Someone, I forget whom, has already pointed this out on the thread. It may be virtually closed as far as matter is concerned but from the thermodynamic point of view, which is how the term is generally used, it is an open system, absorbing radiation from the sun and itself radiating, in the Infra-red, out into space. This energy flow is itself an important contributor to the state of the planet, as the current climate change issue, which is a classic example of an equilibrium being shifted, demonstrates. Specifically, the temperature of the Earth at which the inflow and outflow of radiation is in balance is changing, upward, due to a slowdown in the rate of escape of radiation from the Earth.

That's interesting. I have a feeling I have read sci-fi novels in which faster-than-light travel takes place, but is only possible once one gets well away from sources of gravitation like the sun. However I'm sure the stories I'm thinking of date from a time before Alcubierre.

How is this “green”, if it generates CO2 as a byproduct? Electrolysis may be currently inefficient, but at least it does not do that. What you are doing, if this scheme works, is produce “blue” hydrogen. This cannot be part of a long term solution for hydrogen production. Secondly, who is “we”? I asked this before and your answer was “we” refers to “our” team. Whose team, then?

Is this a bid for the Write4U Memorial Prize for irrelevance?😆

Now, now, that is pure speculation, and as such not permitted😉. Yes, looking it up it seems it was coined by Jaqueline, to refer to his late presidency in terms of Arthurian romantic mythology.

That’s interesting. I had always thought the Kennedy “Camelot” simply referred his “courtiers” i.e. just the people around him, socially, politically and in government. I had no idea it was a popular movement. Was it really?

Who is “we”?