John Cuthber

There are, according to wiki only about 15000 hippos left. Would chemists be more likely to get involved in their conservation if it were widely explained that the whole earth only holds about an attomole of hippos? What about the yoctomole levels of Pere David's deer etc?

It would still be lethal. What have you got against monkeys?

Or you could click on this link http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37628&highlight=2012 instead and find out that someone forgot to search the site before posting.

The temperature of an object is a measure of the energy it has on a microscopic scale. Water (in the liquid state) has enough energy distributed among it's molecules that, from time to time, they get split into ions. Incidentally, there are two things for which the phrase "zero point energy" gets used and they are both irrelevant in this case.

Lets face it, a thread that starts "This Info come From a Hidden Remote Viewing of A Unknown Library " should never be on a scientific website.

Waiting 4 1/2 years for a reply is slightly less of a waste of time than trying to trisect an angle with a straightedge and compass.

If you show us how you came up with a ridiculously large answer then we can tell you where you went wrong (if you did) or reasssure you that you got it right.

Get a small electric motor and run it in reverse.

I think it might be better if, rather than adding to the list, you added to the explanation. WTF are you on about?

Come to think of it, this is probably a fairly good way to synthesise a bunch of polychlorinated aromatics that you really don't want to have to deal with, even if you survive the explosion. Please don't do this on the planet I have to live on. Thanks

"Essential detoxing of the body to remove the toxin build up must figure prominently in our weekly detox program." Or what? How can you say it "must figure prominently". In my case (and many others too) it simply doesn't figure at all. Your assertion is, therefore, false. This sentence "We see so many allergies in our modern day society it echoes the past. " doesn't actually mean anything that I can see. " Deep cleansing in days gone by was seen as good as going to church as we still do for moral and spiritual guidance." So, as an atheist it's no suprise that I see deep cleansing as a useless waste of time then. "The sweat lodge and saunas were considered a spiritual place and an essential part of the deep cleansing of the body and mind . " And comets were considered a protent from the Gods, but we have generally grown out of that now. Assuming that this "The native american indians held the sweat lodge as a sacred part of there living ." is true, doesn't mean that they were correct, they also thought smoking was a good idea. "And we look at the romans for example an advancing civilisation that grew into an empire , good sanitation , clean water and essential detoxing." Since the Romans are often suspected of having come to grief due to lead poisoning it's not shrewd to put them forward as an advert for detoxing. Also, since they didn't have soap, their sanitation practicies could be said to leave something to be desired. "The ritual bathing consisted of a good pre cleanse with essential oils and a scraping of the body to remove surface toxins followed by a dip pool to remove excess toxins andd then the sauna to deep cleanse induce sweating and remove and assist the body in cleansing deep into the pores ." That ritual might have been a great way to relax. Do you have any evidence at all that it removed toxins (as oposed to just a bit of dirt)? "We take this practice for granted but ," No we don't. So perhaps you will understand that I can't be bothered to parse, never mind reply to "the other essential thing is to use good detoxing substances , red wine for example , the use of herbal tonics even fasting and ridding the body of food but alowing antioxidant fluids to assist the natural detox , it sort of echoes lent , when we get mental conditioning to resist or give up something its that determination thing.". You have to define most of the compound nouns in that before I can really comment on it. Do you realise this is a scientific forum?

Probably a mixture of soot and hydrocarbons. BTW, the reaction can explode if you aren't careful so I'd not bother finding out.

Numerology isn't very interesting.

Buying near half a hundredweight of flammable liquids isn't something to undertake lightly. Make sure you have somewhere apropriate to store them.

As far as I can see this is a lot less useful than a dictionary.

Acetone is sometimes a better solvent than methanol (it obviously depends what you are trying to wash off). IPA isn't a bad solvent, but it's rather viscous so things dissolve slowly in it. Methanol is the solvent we use in the lab as the first attempt- if methanol doesn't work we try something else. It's toxic and flammable but so are most solvents; methanol is cheap.

Call it 2.2 pounds ie a kilogram to make the maths easy. You seem to be planning to use 5 batteries in series which will give you 45 volts. Also you plan to draw 2300 amps from them; they won't do that but never mind. That means that you are planning to run something like 2300 * 45 =100000 w of power. That's about 130 horsepower for those unfamiliar with the kilowatt as it applies to vehicle engines or, in broad terms, this http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/Focus In the first second that would (assunimg perfect energy transfer) deliver 100KJ of energy to the car. That energy would have to be kinetic energy ie 1/2 MV^2 . Now M is roughly 1 KG so the equation is 100000=0.5*1*V^2 so V = about 450 m/s; about Mach 1.4 So this raises a couple of questions. How long is your hallway and Is your car designed for supersonic flight? I say flight because I bet you haven't included spoilers to keep it on the ground. Assuming that the calculation for nine seconds of total stored energy is correct (and I think it's the right ballpark) the car would have a final velocity (and I do mean final) for roughly 3 times that i.e. about 1400m/sec. Your toy car would reach just over 3000 miles per hour-have you contacted NASA about the tiles they use on the space shuttle? Somehow I get the feeling that you have screwed up on the maths somewhere.

I think this might be the sort of thing they aree after. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfleurage A straightforward extraction into alcohol might also work.

Methanol itself isn't very toxic, but it's metabolised to formaldehyde which is. The enzyme that converts methanol for formaldehyde isn't very good at it, given the choice it will spend its time oxidising ethanoil to acetaldehyde rather than methanol for formaldehyde. So, if you have someone who has drunk methanol and you give them ethanol they don't do as good a job of converting the methanol to formaldehyde and so the stuff does less damage. The methanol is excreted via the kidneys and lungs instead of being oxidised.

I'm a Nigerian businessman who needs help getting money out of the country...

Hang on. "the human brain has decrisst in size by 13% " Says who?

Perhaps someone dd it deliberately to be decorative, though I think Glider's ideas are more likely.

The best conductor is silver and it's more or less in the middle of the table. The explanations of conductivity of metals tend to be rather complex.

If this is for a calculus class then it hardly matters what value you use as long as it's not absolutely stupid. It will,I think, be dominated by the heat of combustion of Al. As long as you say you are making that aproximation then the maths is still valid and you should get full marks for it.

The complicated answer is a thing called reflected impedance. The simple answer is you just can't get enough power out of a few duracells to compensate for the huge losses and produce electrolysis. Incidentally, most meters absolutely suck when it comes to measuring pulsed currents and voltages.