John Cuthber

Are football fields flat? Is the bullet fast enough to go into orbit?

For a given sample of acid, calcium carbonate generates exactly as much fizz as sodium carbonate.

Unless this is in very shallow water there's going to be a complication from the water pressure. You fill the baloon with enough gas to get the contraption to rise. Then the gas expands and, if you didn't take account of this, it bursts the balloon. The contraption sinks again.

Never take advice from someone who can't spell fluorine. "Flourine gas has the potential to replace chlorine and bromine and iodine because it is a stonger oxidizing agent."

First; be very careful with this. Aqua Regia decomposes in solution to produce chlorine among other things. There have been explosions in the past caused by storing the stuff in closed bottles. The stuff generates gas which bursts the bottle- nasty. Secondly I think mixing it with water to dilute it before you do anything else is probably a wise move. Thirdly KOH will react fairly violently with water, nevermind that acid. I'd buy washing soda instead (and be carefull about all the foaming when you mix them). Take the stuff outside. Open it very carefully. Pour the acid into a few times its volume of cold water in a big plastic bucket then add washing soda slowly while stiring it with a stick. Gloves are pretty much a neccessity here. A face mask and apron aren't a bad idea. If you have any reason to believe that the bottle is pressurised then you might want to leave this to the hazmat experts.

Just a thought, isn't it your patriotic duty to drill for the oil then run huge SUVs on it to make sure the commies don't get it?

" I think young people will soon think "sod that" to taking drugs when these morons start dropping dead or coughing their guts/lungs up on stage." Yeah! just like they always have. Seriously, I predict an outbreak of photoshopped pictures of Bush and others with huge spliffs. Current politicians off their heads on drugs is a potential problem. Entertainers- pah! who cares?

OK, how fast is proton decay? Anything slower than that might as well be stable.

Since F2 reacts with I2 and Br2, it's hardly a sensible choice for making them.

It might be easier to do the oxidation with H2O2 then boil the solution to remove the excess.

I doubt that the Health and Safety people banned it. http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/ Paranoind shcoolteachers and/ or their lawyers might have put a stop to it. Incidentally, re "that video has been proven to be a hoax." Who proved it and where?

F2 would have been daft. f2 is just plain wrong.

"no, doing the above will make the halide Acid, not the Element itself" Want to bet? You may not get a brilliant yield, but it certainly works. If you want HI or HBr you are better off using phosphoric acid- sulphuric oxidised the halide to the free halogen

My guess is that the OP has handed in his homework by now.

For a given value of "creationism" yes I do believe in it. Since the universe didn't exist a long time ago, but it now does, it must have been created. So what? It's perfectly obviously true. I don't think it was created by any God; other people do. That's hardly important here.

"You're replacing a whole side. " No I'm not. I'm replacing metal, which is a conductor with earth which is also a conductor. Saying I have removed it is the strawman. and I don't see how you can possibly say that this "If I put a piece of metal rod in the ground " is not the same as "having a charged conductor earthed" Let me make this as clear as I can. It is perfectly possible to have a conductor which is connected to earth and which has, at the same time, a net charge on it. So earthing a Faraday cage won't stop it working. (as witnessed by the fact that many if not most of the examples given in the wiki article are earthed).

"The difference is that the charge will NOT be distributed evenly around the edge of a pylon as it will a Faraday cage." Faraday cages work because the charges are not distributed evenly. The charges rearrange themselves unevenly so as to cancel out the external field. ". If you replace one side of a Faraday cage with a 10,000µF capacitor it will no longer be a Faraday cage." So what? That's nothing to do with the question I asked. If I connect an intact faraday cage to a capacitor does it stop working? If not, why should it stiop working when I connect it to the earth? If I put a piece of metal rod in the ground and hold a charged object near it, say a balloon rubbed on my jumper (and for the sake of illustration, let's say it's positively charged), do you think the rod will stay as it is or do you accept that the charge will attract electrons from the earth into the the rod? If you think that it will stay neutral would you like to explain how an electrophorus works? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrophorus

Ok, here's a specific crtiticism of your theory. You have no experimental evidence for this "The CR is packed close together to cause the electrons to bypass the protons at very close open orbital passages to cause the protons to spin at very high spin rates. This causes the protons to have very strong magnetic force fields. These protons will align to attract but an electron is needed in between the two protons to complete the bind. This then creates a 'deuteron' nucleus that acts as a powerful 'bar' magnet with an electron sandwiched in between two protons. So two of these deuteron bar magnets will automatically clamp together to create a helium nucleus." So it's guesswork. Also there's a general problem with "flat universe" theories. We know that the universe is finite in extent or duration or that we are in a very odd bit of it. (we know this because it gets dark at night) . The evidence (something that you seem short of) sugests that the universe started something like 15 billion years ago (let's not quible about the date) because that's consstent with the observed red shift of distant objects. OK to sum up- you have no evidence at all. The evidence sugests that flat (steady state) universe models are wrong (because it goes dark at night) The evidence sugests that the universe is expanding- so it must have started out small. See, no need to atack your character, your "theory" is junk anyway.

It's a conductor so the charge will flow through it until it balances the applied field. The base of the cage is the ground- it's conductive There's nothing magic about the earth- as an isolated sphere it has a capacitance of something like 1,000µF. If I connect a 10,000µF capacitor to a Faraday cage, does it stop working? If I hold a charged body near a thin stream of water from the tap the stream is diverted slightly. However it's a good enough conductor that it's still earthed. This doesn't stop the charge diaplacement. You can still have a charge displacement on an object that's grounded.

If there's a really big difference in boiling points you can do it by simple boiling. For example you can boil nearly all the water out of a dilute sulphuric acid solution (I don't recommend doing this at home). (In practice, I know that sulphuric acid/ water forms an azeotrope)

The veiw might be good from up there. Anyway there doesn't seem to be any requirement for a Faraday cage to be isolated from earth or completely enclosing (hence "cage" rather than "box") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage On a practical basis, if I were in the middle of nowhere when a lightling store brewed up I think that sitting on the ground in the middle of a pylon would be a good place to wait out the storm.

Well, it seems that "New Science's post did achieve something. It inspired Phi for All to say "but they can't stay in sub-fora where people who like theories that are testable and make predictions might accidentally have their shoes ruined." which is one of the best lines I have seen in a while. Incidentally if someone claims "I have studied the subjects mentioned above for 20+ years." yet they haven't learned much, what does that say about them? Is it an appeal that we shouldn't be mean- he can't help being a "slow learner"?

OK, it starts as Fe(II); it gains some random ammount of oxidation as it dries, then you calcine it in the (near) absense of air. How does it know to come out as exactly Fe3O4?

If you wait you have something like a 1 in 3 chance of finding you have more cancer cells than you want.

Acrylamide isn't the sort of stuff you want to play with. http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/forensic-science/mg15020314.700 OTOH it is present in lots of foods so it can't be that bad.