Erina

@exchemist: Although secondary level, unto its natural conclusion, obviously leads to potential tertiary, my focus is strictly on secondary. My personal views on tertiary level education is that it is now at the point of being recognised as having lost its value, so discouragement is probably a wiser option for many as only the top ten to fifteen per cent should really be eligible.

I could have done better to illustrate my original position that the state system could copy the more successful elements from the private sector, not to wholeheartedly emulate them. These entities have an entrance exam and so can expect a certain level of academic performance from their intake, of which the comprehensive system sought to abolish and is thus weighed down by it.

My view is that fee paying schools in the private sector are generally specialist, that is what the customer (parents) are paying for, if they fit. It's give and take. So, why not reflect this in the state system where ninety three per cent of the market is. Some schools would be more disciplinarian e.g. Gordonstoun, others more florid in the arts e.g. Steiner Schools.

Along with parental input, as they know their own genetics, they too will understand the behaviour displayed in their own children, should be able to work with the school to best give the child what they need. The present matter of studying an expensive course at tertiary level, with no hope of paying that loan back, is only building up trouble later on. This has to stop. It is ultimately unfair on the child, if you want to take it down that road.

Surely academic potential can be sought in private time, at the desire of those in pursuit of it ?

@Phi for All: You being by introducing the concept of an "average parent" (to which I take no exception) and that their decision not necessarily the wisest. Fine. I accept that. However, such schools I propose would not be the default, as Free Schools clearly show today. In fact, the concept of crowdsourcing to create an environment under that banner is just the kind that would likely push to that extreme.

Is it not symptomatic of the general approach of comprehensives that parents seem to lean toward a more desirable fit in a more restrictive environment ? That the experiment from the early seventies has not outshone the system that predated it. The argument of parents using public funds is nonsensical as that money is theirs, only up front, but will obviously be paid off through general taxation.

The problem in education today is that everybody is considered the same, which is absurd. All children have different abilities and will only ever possess them, respectfully. Once understood, then a system streamlining that talent is where the real gains can be had, as society is not so rigid and would not work if anybody but Grammar material could succeed.

The language I use is often a sticking point, where emotional arguments seem to run wild. However, the child is the product and the school the factory, nothing will change that. The words maybe, but nothing of substance. The issue of abuse comes down to the misallocation of resources in a such a large system. In the UK the average child is worth £5,500 to a school in the public sector, topped up by an extra £1,000 by the local authority, if such funds exist. So there is no matching the private sector with that sum, which means that more must be done with less, ergo some things need to be cut.

The parent being the customer and the guardian of the adolescent, is trusted in all matters, yet not the education their child receives. This, by contrast is farmed out to a stranger, whom is somewhat familiar will dozens of other children. How can a teacher know more than the parent ? Forget not that such a school would have been created by the parents, selecting the teachers and therefore the more pro-active in society, not the default.

It seems then that there is no real advantage to a segregated system as they would both need to be treated.

I dare say there are a few teachers on this forum (specifically secondary level and perhaps sixth form) best placed to provide realistic feedback on my proposal.

The idea being that whilst the public understand that education (for minors) is not free; specifically with fee paying schools in the private sector, that the same applies to the public arena. I could be wrong, as Free School and Academies (basically chicken and egg) address this to a point, but not on the relationship with the parents, as the local authority still behaves as the proxy, if only for the financing.

With the understanding that the pupil is the product and the school is the factory, the parent then becomes the customer, were it not for the proxy between them. This of course only works in a free market environment, of which barriers still exist i.e. catchment areas (excluding grammas schools and private).

Were parents given access to the budget directly (in token form, not cash) for their child, they could then dictate to the school how that money would be spent. With STEM subjects non-negotiable, schools would become more specialised, of which would stretch the child father, emulating the success found in the private sector i.e. each subject would be a Kickstarter campaign, if you will.

A subject like History will require a teacher, classroom space, materials and likely excursions. All of this would have to be budgeted for. However, not every parent believes this important to their child, so not all of them will have their child attend. The obvious result will be a more dedicated group of focused children, in an environment that works to further them in that field of interest. It happens today, as children specialise, but everybody needs to pay, which drains resources from elsewhere.

The difference in this system is that the school can only spend the money (aside from admin and maintenance) with the agreement of the customer/investor i.e. the parents.

I would like to know where the separation of storm drains are from household lines, to find out how well this works. Are there any such examples with in the UK ?

An important matter of trust is needed to make such a system effective, if the storm drainage is not treated e.g. full of detergents from car washes.

I would like to know how well a segregated system works and the practicality of retrofitting developed areas with such a system would therefore be.

Thames Water (London) have decided to continue with their combined system with a significant investment called Tideway Tunnel, so I was wondering if a segregated system really was better ?

In case anybody didn't catch the article in the British Telegraph newspaper, there was an advertorial piece from Boots for a marketable product off the cumulative back of fifteen years of research, that eventually could lead to the body sending signals to the skin to trigger scarred tissue to regenerate.

It all goes above my head, but after five peer reviewed articles, throughout fifteen cumulative years of research into such matters, their research has the attention of Honorary Research Associate at the University of Manchester (and Senior Bioinformatics data scientist at Wellome Sanger institute) one Dr Matiss Ozols.

Apparently hinging on synthesising peptide combinations (pal-GPKG and pal-LSVD) the serum seems to promise what the likes of more invasive technology offers e.g. laser treatment.

I would like to know if laser treatment can rid visible scars from skin and whether this peptide combo idea can actually work ?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/10/boots-skin-cream-medical-breakthrough-heal-burns-scar-no7/#comment

The British sewage network is one of the oldest still in service today, it designed for less heavy usage than today, but ultimately succumbing to the amount of rainwater washed into the system.

Although this rainwater helps to naturally clean the system, there would be no possibility of discharge into natural water supplies, were the network designed to separate the two.

Which countries have taken this route ?

Perhaps in my case, I may be able to manage the problem with Rennie's tablets ?

I may also try making my own onion soup. It could work out well like the Bolognese ?

The thing is that I ate an entire onion in a Bolognese sauce today and was fine.

I don't understand why I recently left bed bound with severe bloat after eating onion soup, but not onions in a Bolognese ?

Let me explain: I purchased a pre-made store bought onion soup from a well known supermarket with the following ingredients:

INGREDIENTS: Water, Onion (30%), White Wine, Cornflour, Butter (Cows' Milk), Yeast Extract, Tomato Purée, Onion Stock (0.5%) (Onion Extract, Black Treacle, Sugar, Water), Vegetable Glace (Sugar, Concentrated Vegetable Juices (Onion, Carrot, Leek, Garlic), Salt, Cornflour, Vegetable Oil (Sunflower, Rapeseed), Water, Nutmeg Extract), White Wine Vinegar, Salt, Thyme, Black Pepper.  

Shortly after eating it I was left bed bound, sleeping for three hours, then another two uninterested in getting up. Right throughout the night I was left bloated, the following day a little also.

However, clear of that, another day I made a Bolognese sauce from scratch with a whole white onion, beef mince, olive oil, canned tomatoes, mushrooms, carrots, garlic granules and seasoning and enjoyed it without issue.

I slowly fried the onions in olive oil, if that makes a difference.

So what's going on ?

Just revisiting this I notice the watermark from the original company was removed, it was from an MIT spinoff called "LiquiGlide".

Developed by Professor Kripa Varanasi and his understudy David Smith, they developed a compound of which is FDA approved and can even be a combination of the actual foodstuffs used to prevent friction to the container's surface.

The company struck recently a deal with Colgate-Palmolive and the technology is currently used in Colgate's "Elixir" product:

And to think that this is marketed to make your teeth white.

Yes, to wash dishes.

I thought that it was basically all the same thing and so I could cut down on my costs.

It does a fairly decent job, but not on vests for some reason ?

I thought that as the concentration was the same that could be discounted. Surf do not detail which ones they use, but there is a page describing what each chemical does: https://smartlabel.henkel-northamerica.com/00072613456765/p/page-1

I assume that they don't have to list them.

Washing my clothes with just dish soap, over a dedicated clothes washing formula, I found that my vests would maintain a stale odour. However, switching back the odour was banished.

Comparing the ingredient list which one(s) made the difference ?

ECOVER (dish soap)

• Anionic Surfactants (5-15%)
• Non-Ionic Surfactants
• Water
• Lactic Acid
• Sodium Chloride
• Alcohol Denat
• Citric Acid
• Sodium Citrate

SURF (clothes washing powder)

• Anionic Surfacants (5~15%)
• Perfume
• Polycarboxylates
• Soap
• Phosphonates
• Oxygen-based bleaching agents
• Optical brighteners
• Enzymes
• Zeolites
• Coumarin
• Hexyl Cinnamal
• Limonene
• Linalool
• Eugenol

The peanut idea is a good one, I'm surprised there isn't a YouTube or TikTok video that went viral on that one.

I didn't want to modify the flavour, if possible.

Feel free to move the topic if its in the wrong place.

Wow, cool experiment !

In the interests of speed what edible chemical could be used to decarbonise a drink in place of a straw with a lot of time on its hands ?

@exchemist: So then, two glasses side by side, if one had a straw inside of it then the drink would lose more CO2 faster ?

Assuming that carbon is the element of which makes something like Fanta or Coca Cola fizzy, is there a way to remove that is a short period of time ?

Such beverages go "flat" after being exposed to oxygen, could I therefore introduce that to achieve the same aim ?

Mathematics is very accommodating like that.

My question though is what is the equivalent of that round figure when eight is the highest, would it be 64,000 ?

I wish I understood your humour.

Maybe it's a human thing, but on an base-5 system like the Romans used it could be 5000, which is V with a bar over the top of it ?

Human beings that I have grown up around like to round numbers up, and fixate on one hundred, or a million, and more more commonly a billion in financial terms. I've never heard anybody say that they want to be a £950,000 thousand-aire, but a millionaire perhaps, yes.

However, this is likely because we in the West use a base-10 system. But what of other base systems.. e.g. the "Yuki" language of California (USA) count the webbing between the digits on their hands and thus use base-8 (octal) system.

In such a system, what would be the equivalent of "I would like to be a millionaire" ?

It was actually for a rechargeable battery in a torch:

https://cyanskylight.com/product/m1r-multifunctional-keychain-light/

I wasn't sure what the video meant by Silicon, it sounds like it's bonded with something else.

Silicon : 2:47

If a 200mAh 3.7V battery (0.74Wh) takes 1.5hrs to charge over USB-C, is there any benefit to charging to one the of available higher standards above 3A (USB-C v1.2) i.e. USB PD v3.0 will charge at 20V/100W/5A.

Many thanks.