John Cuthber

Resistivity may be a tensor, but resistance isn't the same thing. One is the property of a material and the other is a property of an object.

I doubt that (m)any wines are basic enough for significant bicarbonate to be present.

The new growth happens just under the bark.

My word, what a lot of things the original post isn't about . Anyway, this might help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law

I have wondered about the idea of vacuum baloon before too. It clearly needs a rigid shell. I also wondered if you could make the rigid shell by putting two balloons together one inside the other, tying the two together with (radial) threads then inflating the space between the 2 "skins". I think that all designs of balloons become more efficient as they get larger (the weight of the "skin" gets bigger as the square of the radius but the lift ges bigger as the cube, so the net lifting power increases with the size). If that's right then, for a big enough balloon, it should work.

Are we talking about monkeys, some of which are not that bright (however you measure that) or apes, some of which are possibly bright enough to have an opinion on the matter?

"I don't have any charts or diagrams to make colourful. " For God's sake add some or your audience will die of boredom. Even if your topic would save the human race, cure diseases, remove the excess CO2 from the air... nobody will read a block of text if they can help it. Pictures don't need to be very relevant, a picture of the building you work in is better than nothing.

"Normally, glass is somewhat hydrophilic, which is annoying because water droplets can form on it, and stick to it." The problem is that the glass isn't normally hydrophilic enough, not least because it gets dirty. The titania coatings work quite well, I guess they aren't popular because they are expensive or not durable. Silanising glass with things like dichlorodimethylsilane solution makes them very hydrophobic. That might be what the products DrDNA refers to use.

There are probably an infionite number of ways to split people into categories. Rich or poor, splits them two ways. Human or non-human doesn't split them at all. Personally I think the population falls naturally into about 6billion groups. The important question is "do any of the categorisations help anyone?"

I suspect that what we are talking about isn't Tx or Rx, but BS. Incidentally, in the spirit of YT2095's idea, I should point out that if you can't get a frequency doubler, then a trebler or higher multiplier would work equally well.

I don't generally take advice from someone who; 1 Specifies the anode as the electrode that bubbles less. In an ideal world it wouldn't bubble at all. Anyway, it's the one connected to the positive terminal of the supply. 2 Doesn't realise that the platinum isn't used up so it's not a waste. 3 Thinks this "Spinal Cobalt Oxide" is anything but laughable. 4 Thinks that the symbol for chlorine is CI 5 Doesn't mention, or perhaps know, that the reaction of chlorate with H2SO4 is potentially dangerously explosive.

I think the biggest problem with the moon is that things keep hitting it. Even a relatively small meteorite would jolt it enough to upset the measurements.

"What's the benefit of having ANY dog then? Ban one, ban them all because they are all "useless." The American Pit Bull Terrier's "usefulness" can match -and exceed- that of just about any dog. Pit Bull uses in Therapy, Service and other work" Thank you for answering your own question. No, the elimination of a particularly hazardous breed of dog does not lead logically to the elimination of all dogs. As you say plenty of dogs (some of the pit bulls) own their keep. Now, unless you can find an example where the pit bull does a massively better job than another breed (sufficiently much better to offset the additional risk), you still have yet to answer the question. (And I know that someone posted before that it's not a relevant question. Yes it is, and if you don't see that, then you need to think about it some more. It's called cost/benefit analysis). "The problem, however, is how you are seeking to legislate your personal preferences for the rest of us." My personal preference is that I don't want to be threatened by a dog that was bred for killing and that has a propensity to do so. It happens that, in the UK the government felt (perhaps wrongly; there was no referendum) that this personal preference was shared by the majority and banned the dogs. It's called democracy. Feel free to come over and start the "right to own dangerous dogs party" and see how far you get. Frankly I give up. It has been pointed out before that it isn't the dogs' fault, the problem isn't the dogs, it's the owners. OK Let's ban the people who own the dogs.

The alkanes are an infinite set of compounds with hydrogen in them. The perfluoroalkanes are an infinite set without. The monofluoroalkanes are another infinite set with H, the difluoroalkanes..... It's a bit tricky to say which set is an order of magnitude bigger when the sets are infinite. Practically speaking, among those chemicals that have been characterised, there are more with than without.

There are pistons that are always sealed and don't rely on oil as the seal but they have relatively high friction. Imagine getting a length of rubber tubing and putting a piece of wire through it. Tie the wire to the end of the tube and pull it back. This turns part of the tube inside out, inside the other part. Then pull the same end back through- this turns it the right way out again, but still inside the rest of the tube. At this point you have 3 layers of tube inside one another. If you connect a piston to the innermost tube and use the outermost as a cylinder you get a rolling tube seal. The friction's hellish but it's always sealed. If I can find a picture I'l let you know.

"But I have heard of infrared antennas existing and being used in commercial applications." IR transmission and reception are easy, an IR antenna in the usual sense of the word would be news to me. "My professor said that they have problems with microwave ovens, and their frequencies are in the Mhz region. " GHz last time I looked. THz is damned hard, IR, as far as I know, isn't possible. A visible frequency antenna is even more obscure yet and then I see "So I'm wondering if I can make an antenna that will get me to the frequency I want(which is much higher than the visible spectrum)." Unless I have really missed something I don't see this happening. Typically antennae are about the same size as the wavelength of the radiation you are using. Just physically building something on the submicron scale is tricky. If you want to go, say 10 times further up the scale than visible light you need to build stuff that's just 70nm across. Not impossible, but hardly a home experiment, more like the cutting edge of chip making. Then the difficult question, how do you drive it?

While 90% is a good yeild for an organic reaction, it's quite common for inorganic reactions to be practically complete. For example, the reaction between acids and alkalies to produce water goes until there is something like100000000 times more water than acid or alkali. In effect the reaction is 99.9...% complete. Since CO2 dissolves in water to make an acid (albeit a weak one) there's essentially no free hydroxide left.

Across a small enough gap, the answer might be 5V. However there is a requirement for a large enough potential gradient to get a discharge in air. Over any practical size of ozoniser that takes a lot of volts.

There are two factors to consider: 1. Yes, certain breeds were bred for fighting and can more easily be induced to be aggressive, or can act aggressively if accidentally provoked by un-dog-wise behaviour - e.g. by unsupervised or untrained children. 2. Certain aggressive types of humans choose the known "aggressive" breeds because they want to use them as weapons ot tools of intimidation. There's not a lot we can do about 2 because some people are just nasty that way. However point one offers some hope- we could ban children. "Why no outcry over banning bathtubs (since more babies drown in bathtubs each year than pit bulls have killed in the last 20)?" Because bathtubs are useful. Every time I get asked what the benefit of having these dogs is, I get pretty much ignored. I get asked questions about it, but I don't get an answer. As for "final pit-bull solution", and "the safety nazis " isn't there a theory that states that, once you are comparing those taking the other side of the argument to Hitler, it's because you don't have a valid point? You certainly have yet to answer my question so I don't see evidence of the validity of your case.

My best guess is that a chrage transfer complex is formed between the I2 and the alkyl chains of the phospatidylcholine, perhaps particularly with the unsaturated chains.

Mica doesn't burn. Does this stuff?

"and I think you`ll find there are Other countries that are more than equal as "offenders" in that dept too!" I think the obesity levels in the US indicate that, in terms of CO2 emited by animals used as food per capita, there aren't many countries that beat the US.

The people who take cough medicines "know" that they work- this may be the placebo effect. If the manufacturers were to withdraw the product then all those people would be upset. I'm not sure of the ethics of that one.

I note with interest that the reasonable unbiassed temprament testing group say that about 14% or pit bulls (by whatever definition) fail. Roughly the same proprtion of bassets fail too. The difference is that a basset that attacks a human will generally lose the fight whereas a pit bull is likely to win. I'm still waiting to see what people think the benefit of permitting these animals is.

I think the simple answer is that if Einstein hadn't come up with the theory then, by now, someone else would have.