John Cuthber

That's not a costume, that's his normal clothes. BTW I bet he meant to say "my daughter and me"

"How Do They Have The Right To Put A Parliment In Control Of The Country" I wasn't aware that they did, in fact I thought I voted in elections to determine who controls the government. I might not be happy with the outcome, but I don't blame the queen for it. The royal family are pretty much a (slightly overpriced) tourist atraction; as a power base they are simply irrelevant. Big business has a lot more power and probably fewer morals.

There's a time and place for free speech and the right to protest. This was just a calculated insult.

"But I see some cases that a person can feel what will happen to their relative at someday in the future (or will happen in the next few hours) ? How do you understand that ?" I just call it coincidence; what's to understand?

Work out the concentration of calcium in all the standard solutions. Plot a graph of the absorbance vs concentration. Look on the graph to find what concentration corresponds to 20.8 then remember that it had been diluted and calculate the original concentration.

"Anhydrous chemicals are usually more expensive " Indeed, but not in this case. I think that stuff sold by the ton is usually less expensive than stuff sold by the gram. Also, the ice melter can be a dreadfully impure product and still work. The handwarmers need to be pretty pure. To answer the other part of the question, yes, it could be used on a big scale but it wouldn't be very practical and I'm not sure about ammonium nitrate but I can't see it working much better.

A beautiful way to teach the fact of evolution.

Where are you and do you have the apropriate license for such actions?

Never forget that for every tormented genius unfairly labeled as a madman, there are a thousand reall madmen acurately labeled as madmen. Anyway, if they are so really so clever why do they talk such nonsense? All I need to do is turn a compass on its side and measure the dip angle and I can prove that in the real world they are wrong. It only takes one false prediction to falsify a theory and I can demonstrate that their diagram is simply not right. If your theory doesn't agreee with reality it's not reality that needs changing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henderson-Hasselbalch_equation

Even without reading the originals I can be sure its bs because they use terms like "Positively charged magnetic energy" which doesn't mean anything.

Dynamite; the Nobel peace prize shouldn't be ironic.

I'd like to thank geodude for that last graph. It shows the point I made earlier. Since (roughly) WWII the sun's activity has been largely constant but the temperature has risen. I think the data since then (broadly) are the most reliable so I think they ought to carry more weight.

There isn't enough information to answer the question.

Uranium glass is very pretty and can be used for measuring xrays (by it's fluorescence) but I doubt it's ever used to block them. Unless the windows were bright orange there wouldn't be enough uranium to do any usefull blocking. Incidentally they don't use lead because it's dense- (it isn't particularly dense silver is roughly as dense even though the atoms it's made from weigh about half as much and even steel is about 2/3 as dense) it's used because it has a high atomic number so it has lots of electrons to scatter the Xrays.

That's hardly the main problem. The chlorine is a strong oxidant and will trash the organic stuff that makes up the surface of your lungs. The HCl won't do any good but it's not the cause of the problem.

Someone ought to tell the aviation world about this "new discovery". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dip

This prep gives a good set of instructions but a practical chemistry textbook would be better. http://www.orgsyn.org/orgsyn/prep.asp?prep=cv3p0016 They do say they have some maintainance scheduled so you may find the site's down. Try again later. Also they may want you to log into their site- don't worry it's pretty painless.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~alanbloor/AnnieHancockSuicide.htm Looks bad enough to me.

OK I took a look at the data in the graph. Since about WWII the solar irradience, as mesured has been constant apart from some cyclic trend. Has the earth's measured temperature been constant over that time? Well, I don't know but I do know that we seem to be setting more weather records than statistics would predict so I doubt it. BTW, who in the 17th century, was measuring solar irradiance and what with?

Unfortunately, what we need and I don't think we have is data on how many pit bulls etc there are. After all if there were only 66 pitbulls in the USA and they were each responsible for a death but 39 million rottweilers were only responsible for an average of a millionth of a death each, then I think we could agree that 66 is statistically signinficant. (incidentally, 66 ! is nearly too big to fit in my calculator). OK we can debate the relative risks of pitbulls and poodles until the cows come home. Perhaps we ought to look at the other side of the equation. What is the benefit in continuing to permit pitbulls to breed? If anyone can come up with a convincing argument in favour of then I'd be interested to hear it.

This version is no more interesting or correct that this one. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29183

Not only is it an odd post, I don't think it's correct. A lot of mixtures give rather odd viscosities when mixed. For example a mixture of methanol and water is rather more viscous than its components. Here is some data for methanol and a few other things, there's a clear maximum. http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/physics/issues/fiz-02-26-3/fiz-26-3-12-0006-28.pdf The components of the mix have nearly the same viscosity (if you don't like the "nearly" bit then use the solution with the same viscosity as water its near 70% mole fraction methanol) so if you were to calculate the "VBI" for each of them you would get the same number for methanol or water, linear combinations of these would also give the same number and reversing the calculation to get back to a viscosity would also give the same answer. In other words the equations above predict that any mixture of methanol and water will have the same viscosity; in fact they don't. I haven't checked; is the rest of his site and/or book equally helpful?

Hydrolysis of benzamide with sodium hydroxide solution will give sodium benzoate and ammonia. This will have a different crystal structure from the acid. There is a procedure for hydrolysis of amides by dissolving them in sulphuric acid then poring the solution into water. I've never tried it but it should make the acid directly.

OK the original question was "Which ones produce more heat then other decay(gamma, alpha, beta), and more importantly that will not hurt me and less risky?" There's a clear indication that he's concerned about the risk. That risk is the reason why he won't get hold of any radioactive material that will meaningfully generate heat. Feel free to say it's not relevant. Also, unless you can prove otherwise I think it's fair to say it's true. You certainly won't get hold of it legally and I don't think this site condones breaking the law. "he didn`t ask that! that`s Twice now I`ve had to call you on this, either answer the question that was ASKED or say nothing." This "Alpha decay is the easiest to block, so that is what I suggest you use. I think it produces the least amount of energy per decay, though. How much heat (watts) do you need to generate?" also doesn't answer the question. Nor does this "okay, i'll quantify that with 'for any specific material the rate of heat produced will be proportional to the decay rate.'" Nor (rather ironicaly) does this "he didn`t ask that! that`s Twice now I`ve had to call you on this, either answer the question that was ASKED or say nothing." All I was doing was pointing out that this thread was (and still is) a wild goose chase. (Obviously, I have heard of the internet. Perhaps someone would like to give me the address of a site selling large amounts of high activity radioisotopes? or perhaps they would like to keep quiet.) Incidentally, "(FYI, I get .114 W/g output for Am-241) " means that a smoke detector has enough Am in it to produce something like 23 nanowatts of power; I wouldn't like to have to measure a heat flux that small.