imp

For those of you not so remotely located as to be unaware of the recent government raid on the "polygamist compound" in Texas, here are a few thoughts. Of 400+ minors (children) removed to "protective custody", one can assume many were not very young, but rather young adults still technically minors. These young people grew up in an out-of-societal existence, probably were free to roam the 1700 acre compound at will, go fishing or biking, swim, play games, and generally be a part of a family, whether that family be considered "normal" by traditional definition. These children now will experience, no matter how carefully and orchestrated their "captors" are, being essentially imprisoned like convicts. What are your thoughts regarding these children, and their ultimate final development into useful parts of society? imp

Simply remember this: Voltage (potential difference) exists BETWEEN TWO POINTS. It does NOT "turn into kinetic energy". EXISTENCE of voltage CAUSES movement of charge (current). Voltage is only "constant" in the case of a voltage source having unlimited energy- zero internal resistance- an impossibility. imp

Various cobalt-based alloys, as used for internal combustion engine valve seats. Inconel Inconel X

Glows in the dark. Years back, wristwatches could be bought with dials illuminated by it. Night sights on firearms also use it. imp

See, I told you I studied Science in the dark ages! BTW, is not "heavy" the implication of "weight per unit volume", hence, density? imp

Hey, I went to school so long ago, that my Physics Text actually said Uranium is the heaviest naturally-occuring substance. I asked the teacher about that, after a bit of checking. There is a naturally-occuring element heavier than Uranium, know what it is? imp (hint: NOT gold)

Thank you! More specifically, my question hinges about the fact that certain everyday reactions are so extremely involved and complex, fermentation, for example, or take one of several possible routes depending on uncontrolled variables, that perhaps the end products are not always predictable? Nitrogen Triodide might dissociate into its component elements, always. But will that process be true for, say, fulminating mercury, or glyceryl trinitrate? Will they form new compounds during dissociation? imp

What DO Engineers sound like, anyway? imp Edit: I CAN think of a case eluding you as above, but as an Engineer, shall not reveal it.

I concede that, yes, atoms are made up of largely empty space (relatively large distance between atoms). However, this has no bearing on the fact that solid materials, as opposed to gases, are very incompressible, so much so, that in hydraulics, for example, oil compresses a fraction of a percent at several thousand psi. (forgive the use of antiquated units, I am old-school). Metals, like Plutonium, are even less compressible. The fact that a bomb's core might be a hollow shere also has no bearing: it is the TOTAL VOLUME of material which must be compressed to bring it's MASS to criticality, yes? My next question would be what order of magnitude of pressure applied is necessary to sufficiently compress to criticality? The process is probably impossible by conventional mechanical means, like squeezing in a press of some sort. So, high explosives create a very high over-pressure wave, that must still be focussed and directed toward the core from all directions. Practically, this does not appear to me to be an easy task. imp

Can anyone satisfy my curiosity about the way in which certain unstable compounds dissociate? For example, many nitrated compounds "explode" under appropriate circumstances. Are the results of such dissociation for a given compound always the same, or can differing results occur given varying physical conditions such as temperature, pressure, exposure to light energy, etc.?

No one has considered: Are the temperatures of the two "waters" identical? imp

As time is used to argue and apply the "policies", so goes the world around us. imp

If no pressure exists, NO MOVEMENT of air can take place, eh? Pressure makes fluids move. If they are constrained, that is, cannot move, then they are compressed by the pressure. Hence, a "monkey-wrench" has been thrown into the mix. imp

No. Acceleration and deceleration are ignored, as is friction. Not realistic, but interesting proposition nevertheless. imp

What plantlife can exist given the repeated inundation with saltwater, that could provide a basis for sustaining animal life? imp

A thought occurred to me long ago, I asked opinions at work and of friends, but got little back of solid substance, so I will humbly seek your input: First, tires contain nasty substances, in addition to rubber. It has become illegal to throw tires away, burn them, even store used tires in some locales. Yet, millions upon millions of pounds of tire material must be annually worn away by the roadways of the world, probably, I surmise, deposited thereon and therein of the rough interstices of pavement. Relatively chemically stable, this "tire dust" must be washed away by rains, and blown away by winds. Do you suppose this contribution of finely divided rubber dust adversely affects the condition of the environment? imp

One MIGHT reasonably wonder how much water is shipped along with the fuel by the supplier! Since there is no air in the storage tank (only fuel-gas vapor above liquified fuel), condensation of water out of contained air is not a problem, as it is so often in fuel oil storage tanks which contain air above the oil, often at atmospheric pressure. imp

Please enlighten me as to the source of the above information..... we are not talking about plastic deformation here, but rather actual change in volume of the original hunk of metal. Perhaps the means used for your example could be notched-up a bit more, and simply compress the core so small, that it disappears? imp

As a Plant Engineer, I learned, the hard way, that fuel suppliers often ship a MIX of liquified butane and propane, selling it as "propane", because butane is sometimes less costly. Overnight temperature plummeted, the plant's boilers shut down, and I found the "propane" had frozen enroute to the building from two 30,000 gallon tanks. The supplier had missed the weather forecast, failed to ship the non-mix (propane only), and we were stuck. Butane "freezes" at a higher temperature than does propane. I wonder if others have encountered such fun? imp

I'm grateful for this clarification, as it answers, finally, a nagging question which has prevailed in my mind since College Chemistry (in 1971!) My text says ethylene can ADD chlorine atoms, and is therefore called an UNsaturated compound. Ethane reacts with chlorine by SUBSTITUTION ONLY, and is therefore called a SATurated compound. Since the diagrams shown for ethylene dichloride and dichloroethane are identical, I have often wondered whether one diagram was mis-printed. Finally, clarity is established!! imp

Supposing the critical mass of a fissionable material is Mc, what do you suppose the "starting" mass would be in one of the stock-piled devices of the privileged nations? 0.8 Mc, 0.9 Mc? Too close, it gets a little hairy, too far away it can't be "squeezed" enough. IOW, does anyone know just how much can the mass of a ball of metal be increased, practically, by subjecting it to enormously high pressure? imp

Away from Chem. a long time- I was calling a single pair of electrons joining 2 carbons together a "double bond", and thusly ethylene has 2 "double bonds", which I meant to mean 2 PAIRS of electrons. So, having clarified my poor terminology, the question remains unanswered: a molecule of ethylene will combine with 2 chlorine atoms, forming ethylene dichloride, but the structure then contains only a SINGLE bond (2 electrons) between the 2 carbons, thusly making it IDENTICAL to dichloroethane in structure, no? Or am I still missing the boat? imp

An article came to my attention recently showing a man holding a suitcase-sized supposed nuclear bomb. It seems that some drop-out from former KGB times emigrated to the U.S. and claims the Soviets developed operable bombs carryable by one person, and secreted many of them in various hidden places within the U.S., and is now awaiting the appropriate time to begin using leverage over us with them. Anyone else hear of this; what do you think of this? imp

FWIW, this is why "pure water" is such a misnomer. I am "into" live steam locomotive modelling, and the literature all says distilled water is acidic, and therefore corrosive to steam boilers. My chemistry texts all say distilled water is pure water, and has a Ph of 7.0. Nonetheless, if you buy some distilled water, or make some yourself, you will find upon measuring, it's Ph will be less than 7.0. As soon as even a minor surface area of distilled water is exposed to air, it gobbles up CO2 and becomes Ph < 7.0. H2CO3 in solution contributes those H+ ions, making it acidic. Strictly speaking, gaseous CO2 is not "acidic" since it contains no H+ atoms. imp

Help! My Chem. text shows ethylene with it's 2 double bonds between the 2 carbon atoms, and 4 normally bonded hydrogen atoms, and says "ethylene readily combines with 2 atoms of chlorine, forming ethylene dichloride". What's troubling me is that the diagram showing ethylene dichloride has only ONE double bond joining the carbons. Now, is that not di-chloroethane? How does one know, or differentiate between ethylene dichloride which was derived from ethylene, and dichloroethane, which was not? In other words, are ethylene dichloride and dichloroethane the exact SAME COMPOUND? imp