John Cuthber

Resident Experts
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by John Cuthber

  1. It's complicated.
  2. WTF? Bicarbonate of soda reacts with potassium bitartrate to produce potassium sodium tartrate (known as Rochelle salt) carbon dioxide and water.
  3. These days there's a reasonable chance that I'd take a picture of the object and a ruler at the same time (and at the same distance) and then measure the distances on the screen.
  4. "Not farage's views" is more popular. It's also important to recognise that the Brexit party has been elected to the EU parliament. There are 751 MEPs 29 of those are now Brexit party MEPs. They can't possibly win a vote, so... 3.8% is not a landslide.
  5. I did count them. Well, I counted half of them- on the basis of the available evidence which said that, at the Referendum about half of them voted each way. Do you have better data? If so, I'd love to see it. Can you have a landslide minority in a PR election? I am. But that's only based on the available facts, and the votes and polls since 2016 What's the basis of your conviction? Do you feel that a 4% majority in a 2 horse race is insurmountable or do you think that people have not taken account of the new information (post referendum) and changed their minds? However, even if I'm mistaken, it has to be worth a try. What do we have to lose?
  6. Not very... I'm trying to work out if it's a bad joke or a mistake. Anyway, as is often the case when the question is "What eats...?", the answer is "humans though personally, I will stick to black pudding.
  7. I guess you didn't read this bit. Getting them to stop lying may be impossible, but, at least, we can get them to stop cheating.
  8. Perhaps we should have a referendum to sort it out (but this time, get the Leave camp to obey the rules).
  9. OK. You have pointed out that some of the Conservatives (9.1% of teh votes) would be pro brexit. And you have ignored the fact that some of the Labour voters (14.1% of the votes) would be anti brexit. So, let's try looking at it as scientists. The first thing to do is accept that we have poor, incomplete data. Any outcome will be an estimate. We do, however have additional data. For example, we know that, at the referendum, roughly 2/3 of Labour voters voted to remain. We also know that roughly half of Conservative voters voted for remain. Most people won't have changed their minds (there's data about that too, if you want to look for it). So we can, very roughly, allocate 2/3 of the 14.1% to Remain Remain gains 9.4% and Leave gains the other third i.e. 4.7% and very roughly 1/2 of the 9.1% to Remain which is about 4.5% and the other 4.5% goes to Leave. Pro Brexit goes up to 36.8 + 4.5 + 4.7 46% Pro Leave goes up to 38 + 4.5 + 9.4 51.9% Now, consider the original result was 52:48 in favour of Leave and then consider this assertion, brought about by only counting Tories as pro without counting Labour as anti. And contemplate the irony of
  10. On a related note. Anyway, I'm delighted to see the fall in support of Brexit. At the referendum they had 52% of a 72% turnout which meant that 37% of the population voted for them. In the MEP elections they got about 32% of a roughly 40% turnout so that's 12.8% Roughly a third as many voted for the Brexit party this time as voted for brexit at the referendum. If you look at the other parties, the picture is the same. Pro remain parties got more votes than pro leave. And, the icing on the cake is that "Tommy Robinson" lost his deposit. Now, let's see how the media portrays this swing to remain.
  11. Please cite the outright lies of the Remain campaign. Also, do you recognise just how much the Leave campaign cheated? Lots of people are talking about Boris as the next PM. It is entirely possible that he will be prosecuted.
  12. Democracy may be many things, but brexit is the result of lying and cheating. Lying was writing on the side of a bus that we would gain £350 million a week to spend on the NHS. Cheating was not admitting that the bus cost money and should be included in the election budget. If this had been a football match and someone had cheated, we would be demanding a rematch. Shouldn't we hold politics to the same standards?
  13. No Possibly, by quenching, rather than absorption.
  14. Do you understand that "Man bites dog" does not mean the same as "Dog bites man"?
  15. Like circularly polarised light?
  16. I wonder if anyone has ever set up a chain of frequency multipliers (doublers or whatever) to convert the very accurate 60 KHz signal used by radio controlled clocks up to something in the MHz region for calibration/ checking of frequency meters. You can get multipliers designed for this but they are PLL based. A sequence of accurate 60, 120, 180... KHz test frequencies might be useful. A trippler gives you 180 KHz and a quintupler gives you 300 KHz Any thoughts?
  17. Yes. Because dioxin, with a vapour pressure near 10-^-9 mmHg is practically involatile so it isn't a vapour hazard. Any dioxin "in the air" is almost certain to be stuck to dust. Any filter that strips the dust will also remove practically all the dioxins. Why bother with activated charcoal? Yes. In the case of ozone , it reacts to give carbon monoxide . Charcoal will remove the other compounds- until the filter is saturated. It is difficult to be sure if the filter is saturated. Some materials are more strongly retained than others and you can have a situation where one material displaces another.
  18. I'm fairly sure that what you propose is a breach of the laws of thermodynamics.
  19. Hot copper oxide is used in classical chemical analysis to convert organic compounds to carbon dioxide and water. What mixture of products you get will depend on temperature, contact time, proportions and other stuff. Passing methanol vapour over hot copper (metal- not oxide) will produce formaldehyde. The commercial synthesis uses silver, rather than copper.
  20. Iron does not dissolve in mercury.
  21. No. Six divided by four is 1.5 ! Moderator Note This was a reply to a spammer so may seem to lack context!
  22. To a good approximation; nothing ever fails in straight compression. You may find this next equation helpful. The (average) force exerted by an object when it comes to a halt is equal to the (average) force used to accelerate it times the ratio of the distance it was accelerated to the distance over which it stops. So, if I drop a rock that weighs 1 newton off a table that's a metre high and it comes to a halt when it hits the carpet which is 1 cm thick, the average force on the floor is 100N. It's also important to recognise that the "strength" (however you measure it) of the object which strikes a target isn't as important as people think. You can cut steel with water if the water is moving fast enough.
  23. Would you like to try that again, but with more rational explanation and less dross?