John Cuthber

I think the title needs changing. I'm not interested in knowing what turns Obama on. I might be interested in hearing that the environmentalists had turned against him. Also I think most environmentalists are realistic enough to accept that you can't stop a runaway train in a hurry without doing a lot of damage.

I thought that was sodium acetate and the YT videos about Ca acetate would be gelling alcohol. Anyway, given time, even carbonic acid will dissolve limestone. That's the process that makes some caves.

"it is exactly what I expected. Your reply made me realise that there is a minimum number of neutrons (required to prevent collapse) and a maximum number of neutrons that can be contained by the inner field electrons." Wrong again I'm afraid. You can alter the electron density at the centre of the atom. In most cases it dpooesn't influence nuclear stability. The inner field electrons (whatever they mad be) don't have anything to do with stabillity. Incidentally you seem to have missed the poiint I made earlier. If the neutrons are responsible for atomic radii then how come the radii don't change when you change the number of neutrons? If your next post doesn't give a clear, valid answer to that question then give up on this idea.

What does p stand for? In my book it's probability. With your rather limiting use of the word the list doesn't make sense. Clearly we are using the word probability in the more general sense of "p" rather than for p>=50% And I'm still waiting for you to answer my question.

I wouldn't expect the first pair to react. If you heated it up until it did then you would get an unholy mess of products.

Dry cleaning is probably the best bet. Overalls are also a good bet, but you might need a time machines as well.

"I have answered the only part of his statement I can find a reference to:" No you have not. That hasn't anything to do with isotope separation. Strange as it may seem to Elas, I can't find a table of atomic radii for different isotopes because they are practically identical. What I can find is a quote from my old copy of Sidgewick's Chemical elements and their compounds "The molecular volume of is scarcely affected by replacing H by D; the lengths of the H-X and D-X bonds are practically the same." The small differences are well explained by differences in zero point energy.

This statement "He should not have give up because he was on the right direction. " does not tally with this one "he later proved it false himself by experiment" This experiment "Here is the simple experiment: Remove the compass needle, then tie the needle, at the middle with thread to hang in balance, then rub the tip of south pointing needle with magnet. As you hold up the other end of thread on which hanged the needle, the south pointing needle, instead of pointing south, will point downward toward the center of earth. " will show you about the angel of dip, but not anything important about gravity. It will give the opposite effect in the other hemisphere too. This was explained by William Gilbert in the Elizibethan era. Anyone who thinks you can make a monopole by cutting a magnet in half just doesn't have the basic understanding of electromagnetism to have a hope of making any progress on unification theories.

If atomic (or ionic) radii depended on the isotope then simple crystalisation would separate isotopes completely. It doesn't so your "theory" is wrong. Your "theory" doesn't need improving so much as rubbing out and starting again. As for "This debate is about the way in which the cause of the radii values is determined", Why bother? The current theory explains it quite well (and it doesn't involve the nuclei).

What's with all the "d"s

I have seen the same thing. It's different fro my left and right eyes and I think it stays the same if I look to the side of the light (so the image falls on a different bit of the retina) it's hard to be certain. I guess it's to do with the imperfections in the lens

"The e:N line is smooth indicating that it determines atomic radii" Some elements like tin have a hatfull of stable isotopes and, therefore, different numbers of neutrons. These isotopes have the same atomic radii. The radii are therefore not determined by anything to do with the neutrons. If this statement "In conclusion it can be stated that in the proposed balanced field model it can be shown the neutrons play a part in determining atomic radii" is true then the model is wrong. You cited another thread; here's a quote from it "yeah, he'll post some of his crap, disappear for a few weeks and then return spouting the same old rubbish. i'm surprised he hasn't been given his marching orders already.".

While you are thinking about that, could you please let me know what the advantage of having more than one army would be?

The easiest way to dry toluene (provided that you are in a lab environment and have the kit) is to distill some of it. The water comes off as an azeotrope at a lower temperature than toluene. This gets it dry enough for most things, it doesn't add any potential impurities (like benzophenone) it avoids using sodium (which is fun to play with but should be avoided where you can). Of course, once you have distilled out the water you can change the receiver and produce freshly distilled toluene. Since toluene only dissolves about 0.05% water it's often dry enough anyway.

I can't remember the details but I have seen somewhere that about 70% alcohol is more effective as a bactericide than 100% alcohol. If I remember it was because the 100% stuff causes some bacteria to form spores that are resistant.

Evidence. That's the difference between science and faith. If it were an article of my faith that CO2 was responsible for global warming then I'd probably never change my mind. Since it's my scientific opinion then, if there were some strong evidence suddenly found that contradicted all the stuff that has gone before (and it would need to be strong evidence) then I would change my opinion.

And he used to enjoy world-wide popularity.

There are some things that really are natural monopolies- the army is usually accepted as being one. There are also things that are close to being monopolies without government intervention. Which government do you think licensed OPEC? Why are there anti trust laws if all monopolies are unstable? My guess is that even if they are unstable in the long term, they can rip off the customers in the short term, and that's not considered acceptable.

"As it involves the same kind of reasoning, I guess you would probably say everybody would be paid nothing without minimium wages, instead of their marginal productivity, because of the undefeatable domiant power the capitalists have over the labourers. " Why? After all, I keep trying to explain that water is different from other commodities. "but nobody is forcing you to use public water." Count the pipes again. It is utterly impractical for me to see to arrange my own water supply because the ecconomies of scale mean that it would be (relatively) horribly expensive. I am stuck with that supply. It seems that the Cap'n understands the problem of natural monopolies. Why do the rest of you seem to be struggling.

The allegation is in a nationally published newspaper. How difficult is it to prove that? In this case Singh made the allegation that the some of the chiropractors are quacks. There's no question that he made the allegation. There's no question that an allegation of quackery is normally defamatory. The only complication is that, according to the evidence, it's true. They were taking money to "treat" a disease even though they knew the treatment had no effect. Singh described this as unprofessional which is fair comment. Telling the truth about someone isn't defamation under UK law. The problem is that for some reason the judge came to a different conclusion. The law isn't the problem here. Perhaps the legal system isn't the right forum to make such a decision. Perhaps that way Singh wouldnt have to pay damages for telling the truth.

Intersting point. From this site here (thanks to Google) http://abchomeopathy.com/homeopathy.htm "Homeopathic remedies (also called homeopathics) are a system of medicine based on three principles: Like cures like For example, if the symptoms of your cold are similar to poisoning by mercury, then mercury would be your homeopathic remedy. Minimal Dose The remedy is taken in an extremely dilute form; normally one part of the remedy to around 1,000,000,000,000 parts of water. " According to this site http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/NWF-3-26-04.pdf rainwater already contains about 10 ng per litre which (if I have counted the zeros correctly) is about 10 times as much as the homeopathic "remedy". I wonder what the dilute their stuff with. Incidentally, "Also, in the UK electricity and gas has been privatised for a long time." I know; 3 monopolies. I still have one pipe connected to my house and no choice about whether or not it's fluoridated by lobbying the company directly because they know that I can't withdraw my custom. I might be able to get the government to force them to change- if enough of us did then the gorenment would change the law and the water company would respond to the demands of their customers. Without such intervention, the water companies could do as they pleased.

Kermit.

Pointing out that car makerss are different from water companies isn't particularly emotional. It's simply true. "you clearly have not justified how you classify water or any other good as an a priori monopoly good." No, but I have pointed out that it is a de facto monopoly supply. "Water is a monopoly because it is a good whose provision is controlled by governments who set impossible entrance barriers for competition. " The government isn't what stops me, for example, laying a very long pipeline to anouther area and buying water from someone else. The fact that it's ridiculously impractical does that. Water supply is one area where economies of scale make it essentially impossible to break into the market. "If they departed from this they would have to be prepared to pay the price of losing market share." To whom? There isn't another supplier with a pipe running to my house. " I have only 1 gas pipe supplying my house. I have only 1 powerline supplying my house. Neither of the services supplied by these are provisioned by government controlled monopolies. " Are they, by any chance run by private monopolies regulated by government?

Did any city you lived in fluoridate the water? If your teeth show evidence of high levels of fluoride and you got that from city water then there's no way it would have been added. The fact that what is actually added to the water is fluorosilicate (as the free acid or as the Na salt) is true, but a red herring. The stuff is derived from fertiliser manufacture and it might well contain traces of other materials. However the overall content of potentially toxic materials in water is strictly regulated. If you add a ppm or so of H2SF6 to the water and it contains a fraction of a percent of, for example, mercury, then you are adding something like a few part per billion of mercury to the water. So what? It's still got to meet the standards for mercury and so there's not going to be enough mercury to cause a problem. It's also a lovely bit of "spin" to label it as a toxic waste product. Na2SF6 isn't very toxic it would take something like 10 grams to kill you. It's not a waste product- it's a by product. Do you think platinum is a waste product? There are no platinum mines; all of it is recovered as a "waste" product from the extraction of other metals. There's a couple of serious differences between water and cars. I don't need (or own) a car; without water I would be dead fairly soon. I can buy a car from any number of suppliers and from a fairly large number of manufacturers. There is precisely 1 water pipe feeding my house. All that stuff about the free market doesn't work when there's a monopoly. Water is a monopoly. That's why it needs government intervention to stop them ripping off the consumers. I'm slightly worried that you don't sem to have thought of that disparity.

Hermanntrude's post refers to the fact that methanol is a lot less toxic in the presence of ethanol. Unless you plan to distill theses wipes and drink the product or you plan to spend all day every day swabbing stuff with them you don't have anything to worry about.