John Cuthber

There have been toxic nanoparticles since the first forest fire- probably since the first volcano. We don't seem to be dead yet. Not grounds for complacency but certainly an argument against panic.

Interestingly that idea would mean that life could never get started because all the stuff started out as "inorganic". Another possible conclusion is that the assertion is simply false. Since I'm here and alive I know what I'm going to believe.

Remember all the fuss the WHO made about smallpox? What was the point of that? Nobody gets smallpox anymore. I think that was a similar screwup by the WHO. (Yes, I am using irony here) Seriously, just because the flu pandemic hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it won't.

I'm quite certain that colds sometimes kill people, that's why I put the word "usually" in my post. A few visuses are known to cause cancer but I don't think the cold is one of them.

I think it's Le Chatelier's principle and I'm familliar enough with it. However, while an excess of one reactant will drive a reaction to completion there is still the question of which one you use in excess. They could chose more C or more TiO2

Part of the reason we can't cure the common cold is that it isn't worth it. It makes more sense to put medical resources into things that kill rather than annoy as the cold usually does.

Just for the record I looked up how they make the stuff. They use an excess of carbon and generate CO as the by product. I don't know why they do it that way but I guess C is cheap and they want to convert all the titania to titanic chloride.

Until they reach terminal velocity, then they stay at the same distance.

It seems to be a matter of definition. After all, since we all die, nobody gets saved by science. It's unlikely that anyone dies from bubonic plague after lab accidents simply because it's treatable with antibiotics. Even in the case of the atom bomb it's hard to say it killed anyone insofar as a much larger number of people might (and by many accounts would) have been killed if the war hadn't been essentially ended by the bomb.

"Just out of curiosity, how nasty is COCl2?" Well, it makes the equation diffcult to balance and it was used as a war gas. That's 2 sorts of nasty. Actually, titanic chloride is pretty unpleasant too (and I didn't make up the name). I'd guess it is comparable with COCl2. Since the whole point would be to capture the TiCl4 to process into titanium they would probabaly keep the COCl2 under control too. If it were my plant I'd probably try to keep the excess of carbon small so as not to waste it (though C is cheap) and to avioid dealing with CO which is not just toxic, but flammable too.

Just to make things worse, CO reacts with Cl2 to give phosgene COCl2

Good point, hot CO2 will oxidise C to CO.

Several monts on I think it's fair to say the OP has handed in his assignment by now. The fact that he forgot to put the charges on the ions in his equations probably doesn't matter any more.

What happens at 100C is that the vapour pressure (and that is vapour in spite of what miguel says) reaches 1 atmosphere. There seem to be 2 conflicting ideas about the distinction between water vapour and steam. As far as science is concerned, the clouds are an aerosol of liquid water in air. The stuff you can see is liquid. Water vapour is not visible- nor is the vapour from acetone or most other things). The problem arises because we have all seen the steam comming out of a boiling kettle and we know that steam drives the pistons in steam engines. Unfortunately, these aren't the same thing.

What does discrimination against people who take canabis have to do with genetics? You could filter THC out of urine fairly specifically but it would take quite a lot of R and D to get it to work. You would be talking about molecular imprinting of polymers or some such. Even if you culd get that technology sorted out there would still be the practical problem of explaining "hang on while I filter my urine sample through this suspiciuos gadget" when you gave the sample. It migt be easier to stay within the law.

It won't win any prizes for accuracy, but you could measure the NaOH taken to titrate the pH back to 4.77 as a measure of the acid produced. A better way would be to distill over the acetic acid- most of the other acids present won't be volatile, then titrate it.

The bicarbonate will decompose to the carbonate quite easilly. This carbonate is alkaline enough to feel soapy. The carbonate is said to melt at about 850C so presumably, it needs to be hotter than that to decompose it at any sensible rate. Not only would Al melt before that temperature was reached but it would react with any NaOH produced. I doubt you will get any usefull decomposition of Na2CO3 in home laboratory conditions and it's easy to just buy washing soda.

There are possibly a number of different acids of different strengths, each gives a small step in the pH curve but they get added together to form a more or less straight line.

You might want to try a brasss or copper screw; stainles steels are rather susceptible to corrosion by halides. Also try covering the connection with petroleum jelly.

RF heating seems a much better idea to me than light. Also, He is quite a good conductor, could you just heat the container and let the He carry the heat to whatever?

Why mode lock the laser? Anyway, if someone can be bothered to do the arithmetic on the stefan radiation law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law then they can see if a 2 inch square at 800C radiates more than 1KW (I suspect it might). If it does then you have no chance with just 1KW.

Wills get overturned by the courts. The laws of libel, as another example, don't apply to the dead. Anyway if you want the simple moral answer it's easy. There is no reasone why anyone should ask for consent. You have finished with your organs when you are dead; how could you justify not donating them? Of course when the religious issues raisse their ugly heads it's another matter.

I think the simple answer is that legally, when you are dead, you have no rights. It's also fair to say that the surviving family's desire not to use your organs to help others who can be helped (as oposed to you who cannot) may not be rational, but if it is their sincere belief, then you can hardly blame them for acting in accordance with their own beliefs.

Lets face it; it wouldn't be a battery but it might make a decent hand warmer.

Many soft drinks are acid enough to corrode a clean aluminium surface.