John Cuthber

4 minutes ago, Alysdexic said:

So why don't you answer them

Because it is impossible to give a meaningful answer to the OP's question.
 

4 minutes ago, Alysdexic said:

instead of replying to me?

Because it is potentially helpful to you if we point out that your reply, while well intended, was wrong.
 

58 minutes ago, Sensei said:

I've started writing a Firefox/Chrome plug-in that will find and remove "video" tags from websites I view..

You could sell that.
But... how would you advertise it?

If you get this wrong, what happens to the dog?

Tar is a mixture of many materials. If you didn't add anything to the stuff you distilled from wood then it's pure tar.
How could you purify something that's pure to begin with?


 

If you can avoid the use of a solvent then you avoid teh problem of having to remove it, so warming the material up is good- if it works.
If you add an alcohol it will probably act as an emulsifying agent which makes things harder.
(The ammonium salts mat do this to some degree anyway.)


What are you seeking to achieve?

3 hours ago, chenbeier said:

But how a amine should be removed by dilution. Lighter  fuel  will dissolve more hydrocarbons as polar amines.

It wouldn't.
But if the tar is viscous then dilute acid will also fail to extract the amines from it.

You dilute the tar, extract the amines and then remove the solvent.

How viscous is the tar?
It might be easier if you dilute it with a solvent that you can remove later.
Maybe cigarette lighter fuel.

14 hours ago, iNow said:

Carefully?

Come to think of it...
https://www.simplymedsonline.co.uk/cardiovascular/glyceryl-trinitrate-500mcg-tablets-gtn.html
Other suppliers of volatile liquids in pill form are also available.
 

1 hour ago, Externet said:

Next time, please, have a gulp of wine and come back with observations. 

It's quite commonly what causes the problem in the first place.

 

59 minutes ago, iNow said:

Many people take apple cider vinegar pills

How do you put a fairly volatile liquid in a pill?
 

The ball is a capacitor- that's what it's for.
 

45 minutes ago, exchemist said:

If it all discharges in a microsecond, ten the instantaneous current could be high, I suppose.

And; fast as lightning, you worked out what the issue is.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Surely the operation of something like a Van de Graaf generator would explain why this isn't entirely a myth? High voltage, but very little charge, so you get a shock but little current and no danger.  

What evidence do you have that the current is low?
What would limit it?

On 6/3/2023 at 10:31 PM, exchemist said:

A rule of thumb is it's the amps that kill you not the volts.

As a rule those are not independent variables.
Ohms law tells you how to calculate on from the other.

Does anyone know why this myth persists?

On 6/3/2023 at 11:19 PM, TheVat said:

But don't try it with a high amperage battery, like a car battery. 

Why not?
Twelve volts is twelve volts.
 

Eventually, you will end up with the big tank full of gas at the vapour pressure of the liquid in the small tank.
So you can't transfer all of it, but you can get very close.

On the other hand, getting very close would need you to use liquid nitrogen or something to cool the small tank.
Not only is that uneconomical,but you risk embrittling the steel.

11 hours ago, kenny1999 said:

Plastic is obviously not organic,

What's obvious is that only one of us is a chemist.

But, back at the topic; iron rusts perfectly well in the dark, but not in the absence of oxygen.
The ultimate reason why things degrade is entropy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daedalus

Sunlight is pretty good at damaging organic materials, but doesn't usually harm metals (which reflect it- that helps) and inorganic materials.

20 hours ago, exchemist said:

Disappointing. I had hoped it would be something to do with chocolate. 

Tobler formulated two laws, the second one (relevant to this topic) concerns geology and is sometimes referred to as "Tobler two" in the same way that

the acceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables - the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object such that f=ma .
is sometimes referred to as "Newton two".
You seem to be thinking about Tobler one.
That's older than Tobler two, so it's not  relevant to this thread. 

:-)
 

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

Thanks. What you're talking about there is over-filling. The cylinders have a rated weight of contents printed on the outside. What people do is to weigh the cylinder empty, and then refill it, while it is suspended from a spring balance, and stop when the target weight is reached. You have to let some CO2 out, if you accidentally exceed  the target full weight, although with care, you should be able to stop when just under. 

I know that.
You know that.
The next guy reading the thread may not know that.

 

12 hours ago, mistermack said:

So I'm still wondering if when you've only got 10% of the mass of CO2 left in the big bottle, does that mean you can only charge the small one to 10% of it's capacity by weight?

No
You can essentially "distill" the CO2 into the smaller bottle if you cool it and/ or warm the big one.
In principle you can shift almost all the CO2 that way.

Do not fill a gas cylinder with liquid.

When it warms up, and the liquid expands, it will burst the tank (or the pressure relief if you are lucky).

https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/technical-resources/55771/calculation-and-verification-filling-ratios-liquified-gases.pdf

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That doesn't negate Turin's hypothesis, even an automated loom/anthill surpasses a human on some level; strictly speaking a TM only has to pass, a human test... 

You seem to be conflating two different things; Turing's test and a Turing machine.
As far as I know, no Turing machine would pass Turing's test.

2 hours ago, Jez said:

I might argue that I have a better view, precisely because I am a neutral outside observer and not overly influenced by a lifetime of social influences that I can't tease apart from logical thought.

You might argue that.
But I don't think many would accept the validity of the argument.

 

8 hours ago, HawkII said:

imagine modifying this machine to turn CO2 into C & O2

Under the right conditions you can get CO to decompose into CO2 and C.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudouard_reaction
Re-electrolyse the CO2 and, eventually,you will convert it all to C and O2.

The problem is (as ever) where to get the energy from.
 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Really  ?

Yes, really.
We really are not speaking French.
And, from WIKI,
"It is based at the Pavillon de Breteuil in Saint-Cloud, France, a 4.35 ha (10.7-acre) site (originally 2.52 ha or 6.2 acres)^[5] granted to the Bureau by the French Government in 1876. Since 1969 the site has been considered international territory"
So it's really not in France  diplomatically speaking, It is surrounded by France

And "The Bureau International des Poids et Measures is not French, though its official language is?"
is particularly ironic.
England left the EU.
The EU's principle official language is still English.
It's a bit like Eurovision song contest winners; The UK loses, but English usually wins.
The Catholic church is world-wide, but its official language is Latin.
 

42 minutes ago, Genady said:

You are right. 

At least, it is agreed that it is incorrect to say, degrees Kelvin, isn't it?

I think we all agree on that.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

The relevant body here is the French Authority responsible for Systeme Internationale, whose unit the kelvin is.

The authority isn't French, it's BIPM. The I stands for international. Diplomatically speaking, it's not even in France.

Plus important encore, nous ne parlons pas français

Interestingly, Wiki doesn't follow that reliably.
e.g
This increases the density and temperature of the core until it reaches approximately 100 million kelvin, 
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_flash

Presumably because nobody would say it is 25 Celsiuses or 90 Fahrenheits outside

12 hours ago, Genady said:

I was taught that the correct phrase is "100 million kelvins" rather than "100 million degrees Kelvin."

"100 million kelvins" is a very big  room full of scientists.

"100 million kelvin" is a temperature.

On 5/29/2023 at 9:05 PM, Trurl said:

I found a journal article on the subject but it didn’t get interesting till the last paragraph.

I disagree.
The whole paper seems to be an interesting exercise in confirmation bias.