John Cuthber

I also think that's what the question is about. You might also want to add something about the pros and cons of the various definitions. Incidentally, I never found "electronegativity" to be a very useful concept. As far as I can see, the definition is pretty much circular. It seems to be something like "Fluorine and oxygen behave in such and such a way because they are electronegative; electronegative elements are the ones that behave in such and such a way." Actually, they behave that way because of the way their electrons are organised and the extent to which they shield the nucleus. If their electrons didn't behave that way, they would be a different element.

Thalidomide isn't a hydrocarbon and doesn't contain any chlorine. No hydrocarbon contains chlorine. Very few drugs are hydrocarbons.

A biochemist walks into a bar and says "I'd like a pint of adenosine triphosphate please. The barman says "Certainly sir, that will be 80p." A mosquito was heard to complain, that a chemist had poisoned his brain. The cause of his sorrow was paradichloro diphenyltrichloroethane.

How much of the power from a diesel engine goes into driving the injection system? If you saved all that power by making the stuff superfluid would you save 20%? Looks like balderdash to me. As for "In fact, refinery fuels, such as diesel fuel and gasoline, are made of many different molecules. They can be regarded as liquid suspensions if we take the large molecules as suspended particles, and the base liquid is made of small molecules. " No, they aren't. If your diesel has lots of volatile stuff (small molecules) in then it's dangerously flammable. If there's too much long chain stuf then it waxes in cold weather. They refine diesel to a fairly narrow range of boiling point (and, therfore molecular size). If you put a field across something you tend to induce charges on it, these seek to align so that they atract one another. The forces involved in liquid viscosity are the atractive forces between molecules, and you may have just made them stronger. A lot of the molecules in diesel oil are long chain hydrocarbons. Under the influence of a field these will straigthen out. The long chans will tangle better than the wound up ones. I really don't think much of this idea.

I think it is fair to say that he has indeed both proved, and disproved, exactly zero.

Comparing anything to the compressive strength of bone is a bit misleading since things (not just bones) seldom fail in straight compression.

By whom?

Perfluorooctane has a higher density than water but a lower refractive index. http://www.chemblink.com/products/307-34-6.htm

I have heard that strychnine poisoning can cause the muscles to contract so vigorously that the bones break. If that's true then the muscles are strong enough to break the bones but the body normally doesn't use that potential.

The last line of that site says "The exact stoichiometry of the reaction, however, can deviate significantly from the last equation, but it always will be a linear combination of the two idealized extremes". It's rather difficult to get pure ClO2 but it's such nasty stuff that diluting it with chlorine might be thought of as a "safety" measure. If you plan to do this be careful. What do you want ClO2 for?

The 2 hydrogens on the carbon between the 2 keto groups are relatively acidic, but not as much so as a carboxylic acid. If you want to make a strong acid you have to make something that loses a proton easily, that will leave it negatively charged (unless it started off positive). Oxygen is very electronegative and doesn't mind having that negative charge, so protons atached to oxygen are usually quite acidic. On the other hand protons atached to carbon are not so acidic because carbon isn't so electronegative. When you take the proton off a carboxylic acid you are left with the carboxylate ion which can share the negative charge directly across 2 oxygens. That's a better bet than having it on a carbon and palming some of it off on 2 oxygens.

Wear your uniform shoes, just take the others to throw. I note that Phi for All's position on shoe throwing is a scientific one, rather than dogmatic because he is prepared to alter it in the light of evidence.

OK, I should have cited a source for the one I posted. Does anyone know who wrote it? Anyway, "Would be a task that would keep me up all night" has 11 syllables and making "Especially, could it not be shite." 10 syllables is pushing it. Some thing like ess pesh a lee could it not be shite would give you the right number on average but I don't think you can get away with an average in this case.

You say "If we say that something has the property of being "physical", then we must accept that something exists which has the property of being "non-physical". " but that's an assertion it isn't supported by evidence and I don't see why it is true. The property "physical" isn't anything special so lets try a different, less esoteric property "not my sister". Everything has the property of being "not my sister" and nothing has the property "not(not my sister)" because I don't have a sister. Just because something exists there is no reason to concede that it's converse exists. It seems your idea is based on an unproven (and aparently false) premise. Also you say "And, if we insist that something "non-physical" can be "dead"... OK, but I don't insist on that, in fact I rather doubt it. The concept of "green and yellow striped" exists but isn't physical. I don't see how "green and yellow striped" can be dead.

There was a young girl from Japan, Whose Limericks never would scan. When they said this was so She replied "Yes I know, but I always try to get as many words into the last line as ever I possibly can".

Do you understand why methanol is a much stronger acid than methane?

Just a thought but here's a possible alternative aproach. I have never been caught in a serious traffic jam while walking (Except once, in Hamley's toy shop, about 2 days before Xmas, 15 years ago). Anyway since humans don't have anything like the lung capacity to "feed" wings the best you could do would be glide.

It won't matter a lot if you plan to cook with the stuff but I suspect that freezing red wine might change its character a bit. As it freezes the water is removed and the other components become more concentrated. One of the reactions involved in the aging of wines is the condensation of polyphenols/tanninss with themselves and with proteins. These reactions might take place faster at the higher concentrations (notwithstanding the low temperature). Also the higher alcohol concentraion in the liquid phase might have an effect of the course of these reactions. In any event, a normal freezer won't freeze the wine, a liquid mixture of alcohol, water and at least some of the other components will be left behind. Whatever agancy is responsible for collecting tax on alcohol in your area might think is the same as distilling and so it may be illegal. I don't seee them bothering to come round to check, but if you happen to get a visit from the authorities about something, they might take a dim view of this.

You can do that, the mirror needs to form a real image so it has to be a concave mirror. The odd thing is that if you take the screen out the system still works, it's the basis of the reflecting telescope, the eyepiece lens is essentially a magnifying glass.

I Find I have with you to disagree, to write this took no time at all you see.

Johnny Rocket, why all that stuff about "impossible"? I didn't use the word. I take it that, because you cannot actually gainsay the points I made, that you have chosen to ridicule 19th C scientists as a smokescreen and go in for a quick ad hom attack.

I think you may find that sperm cells exist quite satisfactoraly outside the body. I think that at least one case has arisen where the biological father of a child was dead before the child was conceived. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1809296.stm 3 years and counting. The process of fertilisation takes place in petri dishes fairly regularly these days too- so called test tube babies are not usually conceived in test tubes. Propagate is exactly what sperm cells do, though not generally on their own. If you had to pick a type of human cell to remove from the body and keep alive and well - sufficiently so to perform its original function- let's say 3 days later with the least intervention, what cell would you choose?

If the "NaCl" laser actually uses the Na+ ion then it would probably be easier to use NaI which is more volatile.

" Big willy"? Seriously though, this is an English class right? You can make stuff up.

I think you will find that round here, it does.