John Cuthber

You still need to realise that, in general, it's impossible to write down a set of equations and say that they will happen just because you want them to

Yes, You also need to realise that, in general, it's impossible to write down a set of equations and say that they will happen just because you want them to. It's just about possible to spall off neutrons but it's a rare event compared to capture.

Indeed, because the scheme won't work. For example, 16O has a reasonable neutron capture cross section and is converted to 17O

You may take some consolation from the fact that other professions have similar difficulty with definitions. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac00085a709?journalCode=ancham

Why do you bother to state the obvious?

No it isn't- or at least not with the usual conventions. pH= -log [H+] is better and, btw, the word is calculate.

Do you think that helped in any way?

My ears were burning. Enthalpy's calculation looks about right. Most of the alkali present may be carbonate and silicate rather than hydroxide. Good luck with getting good mixing on that scale. Since you can't be sure what the stuff you are trying to neutralise actually is, the calculation is a bit suspect. I'd try adding 6 litres of 33% HCl and stirring it, waiting a day or so and then measuring the pH again. It's perfectly possible that the pH will still be about 11 That's because the water will dissolve some silicates and carbonates from the concrete and that will raise the pH again. Essentially, whatever calculations we come up with, you are going to have to do the experiment with the actual tank full of water.. It might be easier to try with 1 litre of the water and titrate that with the acid - say 1 ml at a time- until it's near neutral. That will give you a good idea of where to start. Do you, by any chance, have a plastic lined pond you can put the stuff in, rather than the concrete? If you can, then at least you won't be trying to neutralise all the concrete. Even working 1 tonne at a time in an IBC might be a better bet than trying to work on the whole pond full.

Arc, since the OP is asking about temperatures near 200C, why are you suggesting testing with a blowtorch that will get to nearly 2000? Jelowry, perhaps it would be better if you tell us what you are trying to do?

"Comes to my next thought: There has to be a metal that cools down when it feels heat." No there doesn't.

"I want to shape this product into an oval shape and be able to have it sit on hot 195 degree metal for at least 10 minutes without the bottom getting hot." If you put something on a piece of metal at 195C for ten minutes then it is going to get hot.

As far as I can tell from the wiki article, there was a scare when some cosmetic product was (presumably inadvertently contaminated with Cr and Nd which are potentially harmful as they can cause allergic reactions. OK, someone somwhere crewed up, but that's not a reason to take the product off the market. At best it's a reason to bring in better quality control.

"ok, nobody believes it, but it really happens around me.." What happens? As far as I can tell, it's not against the rule to say which brands you believe are causing problems- provided that you have some sort of evidence which explains why you believe it.

That EWG site is exactly the sort of thing of which the DHMO site is a parody. Lots of things are suspected carcinogens. The fact that, in most cases they are not actually carcinogenic or are so weakly so that you can ignore the risk doesn't get a mention.

The DHMO story is a way of explaining to people that most chemicals are not harmful. The point is that, if you want to, you can make water look so dangerous that it should be banned. The same is true of the chemicals in that skin cream. I'm sure I could find "scare stories" about all of them, but they are pretty nearly harmless. If you ate lots of it you would probably get an upset stomach for a while, but that's all. As for "for example, some products include estrogen/steriod or the like" Well they shouldn't. It would certainly be illegal here in Europe and I don't think it would be acceptable elsewhere. The other thing is that, for example, skin lightning creams are labelled as such. They ought to state what the active ingredient is. They claim to have a real medical effect and, as such should be regulated as drugs. In particular, they should list the possible side effects. If you live somewhere where they are not required to do that then I suggest that you think about telling the politicians.

Yes. That's why I was able to say "Yes, the first ingredient on the list (Aqua) is just a sneaky way of getting dihydrogen monoxide into a product without calling it by that name." I was being ironic, what did you think I meant?

So, why did you ask if it was a harmful ingredient?

Soap and DHMO

Yes, the first ingredient on the list (Aqua) is just a sneaky way of getting dihydrogen monoxide into a product without calling it by that name. http://www.dhmo.org/ Seriously, what possible reason would a cosmetic company have for producing a harmful product?

The idea that people get drunk on beer is sound science. Tolkein's books mention getting drunk. that doesn't mean that elves and goblins are based on science

The peace symbol has the CND logo the wrong way up. So it no longer reads as N D in semaphore but UD or CE. Very careless of them. It's easy to compile a bunch of nonsense but include some real science (like pair creation) then say "it must be true- it has real science in it". Copying a few facts doesn't make it real. Copying an alphabet badly isn't difficult either ; it doesn't prove anything . Wondering about time travel isn't a "new field of research" and it wasn't when HG wells did it. "I like to add that Plejaren scientist named Sejasa took a native earth women Eve and fathered the caucasian race as refered to in the bible 13000 years ago" Well, since the bible says 6000 years ago and reality (you know- actual scientific evidence) says that there were people 200,000 years ago then the idea of 13,000 years being either correct or even WhatItSaysInTheBible is absurdly wrong.

No. Boiling mercury is very dense- it sloshes around and, if/when it bumps, it breaks the glassware. The glass is half way to it's maximum temperature limit and that reduces its strength. Then it runs down into the heater and boils off. The vapour floods out and contaminates the area: that area stays contaminated until someone puts a lot of effort into a clean up. The bromine is much less likely to break the glass. If it does, a fair bit of it will run down onto the heater and will, quite probably react with it. So your heater's dead. Very sad, give it a decent funeral. The remaining bromine is dispersed into the atmosphere and diluted to a point where it's harmless. Seriously, which site would you be happier visiting an hour later, a bromine spill or a mercury spill?

One of them is doing its best to be the market leader. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/08/mitt-romney-616-lies-in-33-weeks/

You know it's not a strawman, it's the message that the creationists are trying to push. Claiming that all they want is "having the teacher quickly mention that "Some people believe that God created all the plants and animals in seven days" ? " is just plain wrong and it's obviously wrong. So, it's a strawman. Why don't you admit it?

"You accuse Republicans of being intolerant and close-minded. " I can't speak for anyone else but I'm accusing them of flat out dishonesty. They say they believe one thing then they say they believe the exact opposite. Either they have no idea what they believe or they are deliberately lying. And I don't think they are too dumb to know what they are saying so that leaves one option. They are liars. Do you think the US president should be elected on the basis of telling lies? How would you know what he will actually do if he were in power? "If some parents feel so strongly about creationism, what is the big deal about having the teacher quickly mention that "Some people believe that God created all the plants and animals in seven days" ? " Nothing. But that's not what they are saying is it? This is what they are saying http://io9.com/5921074/christian-fundamentalist-textbooks-touting-the-loch-ness-monster-as-proof-of-creationism Now, there's a massive difference "Some people believe that God created all the plants and animals in seven days" is true- some people believe that. On the other hand "Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. " is a lie because scientists are not doing that. Now do you really think it's good to tell lies to schoolchildren and present them as truth? Also, strawman arguments are a logical fallacy and, as such, not permitted on this site.