John Cuthber

Stable isotopes do not decay.

If I had a litre of liquid helium in a beaker at 2K (let's assume I'm somewhere really cold), how thick would the 3He layer be?

" It decays through neutron emission with a half-life of (1.39 ± 0.10) × 10−22 seconds" So, where do you plan to get it from?

There isn't a 4H so, no it 100% won't work. Go and learn something before posting more nonsense.

Neutrons still do not do what you want them to. This bit will work 2H2O---electrolysis--->O2 + 2H2 but the rest won't.

Sorry, I seem not to have made myself clear. the word "realise" doesn't only mean "to make real", it also means to understand". You still need to understand 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

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?