John Cuthber

Hang on a minute. A lot of those numbers don't mean a lot.

Most proteins would denature. Most proteins that eveolved in water with the real value of the strength of the hydrogen bond denature. What about ones that eveolved in this hypothetial "weird water" with a different H bond strength?

"K+becomes kosmotropic"

So biology would have had to evolve to use something other than K+ or it would have evolved to cope with K+ being kosmotropic.

Life would be different- I would have had to learn a different set of amino acids in biology perhps- DNA might have had to rely on another sugar rather than DNA but to say "the impact on life would be devastating." simply fails to take account of reallity. The only one that would matter much is that the maximum density makes life easier for aquatic organisms.

That graph means even less.

Of course the lines all cross zero at the same point, that's how the y axis is scaled.

It's a special thermometer; it starts where you want it to (within the range -10 to 110). It's for measuring small differences like melting point depressions.

Nice piece of kit, but I prefer mine.

A six degree range covers the scale i.e. about 20cm .

I'm not sure how to sort out pictures on this site so if someone feels it need resizing please do.

"Can I use the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation?"

Yes.

"could I plug in (0.200 M C3H5O2- / 0.100 M HC3H5O2) ?"

only if you can explain where you got 0.200M from.

I'm not sure about "the attitude of the writer doesn't support his cause"

His cause is the restriction of rationallity and his attitude seems to have severly restricted rationallity. They seem perfectly well aligned.

I'm not sure that the writer's attitude or content suit this site but that's another question.

Is there any evidence for this comment "The ONLY REASON why the challenge was stopped is because he lost and refused to pay."

Or is it just baseless slander?

If it's the latter (as I suspect) then perhaps it should be removed from this site to avoid legal problems.

I'm not sure about " no reaction". With the right conditions you might get oxidation of the HCl to Cl2.

However, there's no way to get sodium peroxide that way, it's barely stable in water and it's certainly not stable in acids.

Among the "right safety protection stuff" is a good idea of what you are doing. Your best not to try this sort of thing until you have that.

By the time the stuff has turned into black stains on your skin it is metalic silver. Practically inert and harmless (unless it's travelling really fast and you are a werewolf).

This is a long shot; do you mean EDTA?

Otherwise I think you need to give us a bit more background.

Yes, I do.

The question asks for a vapour pressure. The answer will be in units of pressure- say Pa if we are using SI units. There's nothing "per mole" about it.

How likely is a saturated vapour to behave as an ideal gas?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapeyron-Clausius_Equation

"The atmosphere is still pressing in on the expanded and lighter air is it not?"

Yes, at exactly the same pressure as the air inside, otherwise it would escape through the afforementioned bloody great hole.

I used to be conceited; now I'm perfect.

Traditional hot air balloons have a bloody great hole in the bottom.

Does anyone think they contain air at a significantly different pressure from the air outside?

I wouldn't just use the ideal gas equation since it won't work here. (and I'd be anumsed to see what thedarkside thinks you could do with it in this case)

OTOH I seem to remember pointing out the equation you do need.

Unfortunately, rather than doing some actual work, you seem to have just repeated the question.

Perhaps he plans to include it as an example of how not to do it.

Who supposed this?

"I thought I was a genius now I realize I am not."

" I am Galileo in the 21st century"

Feel free to get back to us when you make up your mind.

What was added wasn't spirit, it was a solution of ammonia in water so it was still overwhelmingly water.

Do you understand that cross posting doesn't help?

I have found a perfect solution to the problem. Leave the space station on the ground. Cheap easy gravity- and no overworked hamsters.

"What does wiki say about rhetorical questions? "

This

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

Anyway, Vts's abillity to generate patterns qualifies him as a wallpaper designer, but not as a scientist.

He also seems able to generate oddly phrased sentences that don't mean a lot like this one "I think that those who know next to nothing wouldn't be even surprised."

However what he doesn't seem able to do is explain what inthe name of all that's holy the periodic table has, has had, or ever will have, to do with the properties of nuclei.

Incidentally, if you look at his "new improved" version you will find the inert gas helium listed with the alkaline earth metals (Be- Ra) which shows just how radical (i.e. divorced from reallity) he's prepared to be.

Perhaps the best joke is to look at the tetrahederal numbers. 1,4,10, 20, 50 etc and see if any of them actually figure in any of his results. He helpfully posts a link to his version so I had a look at it. I chose to start at the bottom with the magical group that includes the alkaline earths and an inert gas.

There's a block that's 8 by 2- OK that's twice the first 2 tetrahederal numbers so that's a start. Then there's a block thats 6 by 6 with 2 stuck on the side- Oh dear- the last time I checked neither 6 nor 18 nor 19 is a tetrahederal number. (and the bit stuck on the side probably looses him his walpaper maker's license.) Things get better with the next block , it's 10 by 4. Now it's not clear to me why you had to double the first set of numbers to get tetrahederal ones- but anyway, it seems you don't need to anymore.

The last block dispells the last hope, its 14 by 2.

So what we are talking about here is a reworking of the periodic table that may help with finding something you seldom need to know but does this by putting at least one element in a silly place (and including 2 of the elements twice).

Then it claims to be based on a tetrahederon- well bit's of it are if you squint at it in the right way.

Then it says it's based on the nuclei- which is challenging because it doesn't even distinguish between isotopic nuclei.

Certainly entertaining; equally certainly not science

Just a side- note for those of you accross the pond. There were a lot of local elections here on May 1st. The clear result was that Gordon Brown's "new Labour" party (no longer new and never was Labour IMHO) did badly- the worst results in something like 40 years.

As a result of this he said he was going to listen more.

It seems he didn't mean that he was going to act on what he heard.

There's no real popular mandate for reclassifying canabis- it isn't long since they "downgraded" it. There's no scientific argument for doing so either.

I can't help wondering if he's just trying to distract attention from something else.

" Believe it or not! $3.80 will renew your precious life forever. "

You need to aim higher- under 4 bucks isn't enough to be taken seriously. You need to charge much more than that.

OTOH, well done for your choice of bogus product. There's no way someone is going to come back after they have died and demand a refund.

I thought that sort of selling scam died out with the falling market for nuclear bomb proof shelters. It seems you can't keep a good ripoff down.