John Cuthber

"To say someone is ignorant is not insulting, to say they are stupid is how ever insulting. Ignorance can be cured, stupidity implies something that cannot be changed due to a real defect in the person or that the person refuses to learn." From my point of view, as a staunch atheist, the believers refuse to learn that there is no God. Am I allowed to describe that as stupid?

AN is a perfectly adequate explosive at least in the presence of impurities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AZF However it is normally difficult to initiate an explosion in it.

There seem to be any number of ideas about am. nitrate. The stuff is slightly hygroscopic. It's a useful (and fairly cheap) nitrogen source so it gts used as a fertiliser. Unfortunately, as a powder, it gets damp then forms into solid lumps that are difficult to handle. So someone came up with the idea of coating prilled AN with wax. The wax stops the grains sticking together. Even more unfortunately this was found to accidentally generate a fairly good explosive (albeit, one that's quite hard to detonate). Further refinements of this gave rise to the low density prill based ANFO used as an explosive. Since the decomposition of AN is exothermic, it's easy to see how the reaction could get out of control. In particyular, the reaction is catalysed by impurities so, as the AN decomposes and leaves the tube (as H2O/N2O) any impurities left behind get more amd more concentrated. This would increase the effective reaction rate. That raises the temperature. I guess you can all see the punchline now.

Webster's calls itself a dictionary of the English language- but it's a dictionary of the American language. Since it got its own title wrong I'm not suprised that it doesn't know what analyze means.

That's easy. The word analyse comes from the same route as electrolyse and hydrolyse and it should be spelt with an s. For words like deputise or deputize both spellings are acceptable. The word "analyze" means to make something anal.

No they are not, and can you please cite your source. Incidentally, I'm sure that something can be invisible and yellow; I saw it on this website somewhere. Individual pollen grains are invisible and yellow. Here's a picture of one You can't see it, but everyone knows pollen is yellow.

Since many elements show multiple oxidation states the table is ambiguous. If it's meant to me highest oxidation states then copper is wrong; if it's meant to be most common then iron is wrong. If the asignment is arbitrary then it's all wrong. It also fails to convey any information about the underlying reason for the periodic nature. It springs from the arangement of the electrons in what for simplicity's sake are usually called shells.