Anders Hoveland

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/004972.html

A New York Times panel looked at 21 alternatives to incandescents and found nearly all of the compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) disgusting. But they did like some of the LED and halogen choices.

Dan Neil of the Los Angeles Times shares Rosenbaum's lack of enthusiasm for fluorescents and also thinks LED lights are not good substitutes either.

I put the LED bulb in the bathroom, and did more comparisons with different wattages of incandescent bulbs.

The 18 Watt LED bulb seems only about as good as lighting the bathroom as a 75 Watt incandescent bulb.

Again, 18 Watts is about the brightest type of LED bulb available. That claim that it is a "110 Watt equivalent" just does not seem to be substantiated by actual observation.

For all those who think that LED bulbs offer a good alternative, I have done a test, with dissappointing results.

I was initially very optimistic about LED bulbs, besides the big problem of their much higher cost. But after actually doing a comparison, I now realise that the light output of LED bulbs has severe disadvantages.

You can see pictures and an explanation of the comparison here:

https://sites.google.com/site/unusualchemistry/incandescent-vs-led-light-output

The other big problem is that LED bulbs do not fit into most types of lamps because of the wide size of the heat radiating fins.

The murky politics of the lightbulb ban, how lobbyists seek to increase corporate profits:

http://www.ceolas.net/

blog on why CFL's are not as good as the claims, and why consumers deserve the freedom to choose:

http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/

Even in many offices, we are seeing employees turn off the fluorescent ceiling lights and bring in incandescent lamps. Obviously some people are very unhappy with the quality of fluorescent light.

There are higher-efficency bulbs which are incandescent. Incandescent bulbs are available, thus they are not being banned.

No, there are no "higher-efficiency" incandescent bulbs that will be available. They are essentially being banned. Like I mentioned, you have failed show that these alleged bulbs even exist, much less where we can buy them.

Here is an exerpt from the above link:

The "Similar bulbs will still be allowed" deceit

Consumers are deceived in many ways with the light bulb policy they are told will be so good for them. However, one should particularly note the main defence tactic that will be employed by American politicians and agencies, exactly like in Europe and Australia, when the governments there were faced with concerned citizens...

"We don't wan't to have to use the dim unsafe mercury-containing squiggly bulbs with their unnatural light!"

"Don't worry! Energy efficient incandescent light bulbs, similar to ordinary incandescent light bulbs, will still be allowed!"

To begin with,

Replacement Halogens have a whiter light type and like all replacement incandescents have constructional differences with simple regular bulbs, apart from costing much more for relatively small energy savings, which is why neither consumers or governments like them, since they have been around for a while now without being sold much.

Thereby that in the USA, as in the EU, all currently known incandescent replacement bulbs, Halogen or otherwise, will only temporarily be allowed - as in the regulation references above. [see in the site]

Only if they become as energy efficient as CFLs and LEDs would they be allowed:

Not just unlikely, but if it did occur, it would involve constructional compromise and cost that made them even more different from simple regular bulbs - notwithstanding that any such lighting, like all lighting, would of course have its own advantage too.

Moreover, in post-ban 2011 Europe (as in UK, Ireland, Scandinavia, Germany and Italy) and Australia, replacement energy efficient incandescents are only available in limited replacement range, regarding sizes and wattages compared to the pre-ban range of simple regular cheap bulbs.

Also, they are hardly available in general stores and supermarkets, which push CFL sales:

Replacement Halogen types are usually only available in specialist shops, and since LEDS are unsuitable as replacements for regular bulbs (too high a price, especially for omni-directional bright replacements), what is seen in supermarkets and general stores is not just the almost sole availability of CFLs, but also the in-store enticement to buy them, marketed as as "saving consumers a lot of money".

Replacement incandescents, like Halogens, will also be banned in the USA and EU.

Post-ban EU already lacks touted Halogen availability, CFL retail sales being pushed.

Privacy will become increasingly difficult in a world with the internet, and large businesses sharing customer information with eachother.

But I think most people would feel very uncomfortable if there was a little camera watching them in the bathroom.

Privacy is also a potential protection against excessive powers of the government. All too often, the Progressives seem to want to micro-manage people's lives. I do not want to live in a nanny-state.

I think it comes down to ideological differences. Conservatives emphasise reliance on the individual, whereas progressives emphasise the role of the government. No wonder that conservatives value privacy more than progressives.

But now that an intelligent life form has finally evolved, evolution has the potential to go in a different direction.

Much like the Cambrian explosion, the arrival of science will lead to rapid transition.

The development of human intelligence allows for the possibility of consciously selecting the course of evolution - essentially eugenics.

If Barack Obama is Christian, then why does he support gay marriage?

Maybe it is his whacky church preacher, Reverend Wright.

Here you can see him preaching to the congregation that Jesus was a Black man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM

Now before you completely dismiss him as just some rogue preacher, you should now a few little facts. Jeremiah Wright was the reverend at the Trinity United Church of Christ, which Barack Obama was an active member of for two decades, Obama was even baptized there, and married to his wife Michelle by Reverend Wright. Wright also baptized their two daughters and is even credited by Obama for the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope."

NAMBLA is the latest front in the gay rights movement. This should really not be surprising. It's a slippery slope...

No doubt in 50 years it will be considered a hate crime for a man to attack a pedophile that has "consentually" had sex with his little daughter. All the children will be reading in their school history books about how pedophiles were "oppressed". We can already see this happening with Harvey Milk being celebrated in California public schools.

Gays can do whatever they want, but they should not expect the government to recognise it. But it is also wrong to give special legal rights and tax exemptions to normal married people.

As to whether gays should be allowed to adopt, perhaps the best solution is what adoption agencies are already doing: just give them the crack babies!

We should remember that there are many conservatives who do not believe Fox news is conservative enough, or even believe it is not a "real" conservative program. And similarly there are Communists who lament that no TV program gives air to their views. In many ways, the televission programs self-sensor themselves. Segments of the public are actually far more polarized than the differences seen between the conservative and liberal news programs.

There is probably going to be a whole field of research to develop materials that resist laser attacks. This materials must be able to withstand high temperatures, must minimise absorbtion of the wavelength of laser used, and must be able to degrade into decomposition products that will not themselves absorb. As an example, when trying to burn a piece of paper with a magnifying glass, you will find that it is initially difficult to get the paper to burn. But as soon as a little char appears, it immediately becomes much easier. The cellulose is decomposed to carbon, which then acts as a strong absorber of light, having a catalytic effect on the burning of the paper. Similarly, many reflective ceramics will begin to absorb microwave/infrared when they begin to melt.

I think technology will need to improve much more before lasers become practical as a weapon. Precision parts will need to be produced at much lower cost, and the lasers will need to have higher energy densities.

I can see this thread is filled with plenty of liberalism.

I strongly care about the environment and believe the government should have the responsibility to protect it.

But I am also in favor of freedom, an individuals right to choose. I generally think it is wrong to tell people what products they can and cannot use.

I think scientists got enough scientific data out of those lakes. The irony is that in the very quest to save lakes, these scientists horribly polluted the research lakes. How much is the cleanup for their little project going to cost? The conservatives are just cutting funding for these scientists because they just keep churning out study after study for the environmentalists to use to complain about the policies of the Conservatives. What do you expect?

The development of fighter jets can also help advance science. Research needs to be done, particularly on aerodynamics and new metal alloys. There is also a burgeoning field of energetic chemistry seeking to find better explosives for the military. Some of this energetic research has already had civilian applications, protective car airbags for example.

The law basically has the effect of banning normal light bulbs, for all practical purposes. Surely you are not disagreeing with that?

I am not aware of the existence of any "higher-efficiency" incandescent light bulbs that will be allowed under the law. If you know where I can buy incandescent bulbs with an efficiency over 45 lumens/Watt, please tell us all where to find them.

As for those "other options" you claim, what exactly are they? I certainly do not think it is realistic to expect normal people to swith over to LED lighting. It is just too expensive. Sure you can buy an LED night light for a few dollars, but how bright is it? Not bright enough for much. Please, if you feel I am mistaken, tell us all where we buy an affordable LED bulb that puts out the equivalent light of a 100 Watt incandescent (by affordable, I mean under 70 dollars for 1 bulb)

And what other lighting option do we have? Candles? Kerosene lamps?

No, for those of us who do not have stockpiles of the old bulbs, the only other practical option is buying those wretched CFL's.

Stop getting into technicalities. It is a ban! It seems obvious to me that you are one of the people in favor of the law, and want to force CFL's onto everyone else, whether they like it or not.

You would not be the first. There are plenty of other lies and misleading claims that have appeared in the media and even on government sites. People were even going around on the internet saying that it was all just a false rumor, that Americans would still be able to buy incandescent bulbs. After the 100 Watt bulbs dissappeared from store shelves in the first phase in the law, the nazi-environmentalists claimed normal incandescents would be banned, but halogen bulbs would still be available. Now the 70 Watt bulbs have dissappeared, and those halogen bulbs we were promised are nowhere to be found (except for the very dim ones, which will soon also be banned).

Incandescent bulbs have not been banned in the US, it's just that the ones that can now be sold must meet efficiency standards.

 

You can get high-efficiency incandescent bulbs.

http://www.nrdc.org/energy/lightbulbs/

These are both essentially LIES !!!

Incandescent bulbs are already in the process of becoming banned. The law, already passed, will demand regular fixture light bulbs must meet at least 45 lumens per Watt. It is practically impossible for incandescent, even halogen hulbs to meet this. A quartz halogen bulb (high-efficiency incandescent) typically produces 24 lumens per Watt, while even the high temperature halogen bulbs (which are not commonly available) only reach 35 lumens per Watt. So regular incandescent bulbs are essentially being banned.

If you do not believe me, go to your store and try to find any 100 Watt normal incandescent light for sale. The 70 Watt incandescent bulbs are already dissappearing from the shelves, and soon the 45 Watt ones will be banned also.

I am tired of people falsely claiming the bulbs will not be banned. The exact language of the law is extremely complicated and misleading, and it does not specifically mention that incandescents will be banned, but that is the effect of the law. Now whether the federal government actually has the authority to regulate lighting efficiency standards is a different matter, it is possible the Supreme Court may restrict the enforcement of the law if it feels the federal government is overstretching the authority granted to it through the commerce clause in the Constitution. But most stores and factories are not going to want to risk legal trouble.

This is a nonsensical statement.

Correct, my mistake. Perhaps the figure is 1.7 kiloJoules ? That would be the equivalent of 1000 hours of use.

Manufacturers usually claim that their CFL's have a lifetime of 5000 hours, but this is often a lie. Many of the cheaper CFL's have a lifetimes as low has 2500 hours. I am surprised there has not been any class action lawsuits against these companies yet. Many of these companies are using inferior electronic parts that cause the bulb to fail early, not just because it is cheaper, but also because they can sell more bulbs that way. Remember, all these bulbs are made in Chinese factories, and we all know Chinese companies have much lower ethical standards.

One source I found stated that producing a compact fluorescent bulb consumes about five times as much energy as it takes to make an incandescent bulb.

Here is one comment made by James Rhyner at St. Cloud University:

"I have been trying CFL's for several years and have yet to have one that lasts longer than an incandescent bulb. Again the politicians are trying to run our lives. As another writer mentions, the costs of producing and disposing of the CFL's are probably much greater than the operating and disposal costs of incandescents. Of course no one wants to analyze that as the politicians will lose their kick backs from the Chinese manufacturers (I despise congress and don't trust them)"

(December 15, 2011)

"I have a combination of incandescent and CFL bulbs. ... My home was built in 1999, and all the bulbs in it are 60-watt bulbs. Just in the last year they started to burn out. 11 years for an incandescent bult is pretty darn good. I have replaced some of these with CFL's and NONE of them have lasted more than 3 years."

(Darryl Buss, comment left on Popular Mechanics website)

Exaggerated lifespan

Real-world reports from the home front show that the claimed extended lifespan of CFLs is often greatly exaggerated. There is ample data indicating that the frequent switching on and off of CFLs greatly shortens their life. A study by H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and co-author Amanda Berg concludes:

“Unfortunately, except under a fairly narrow range of circumstances, CFLs are less efficient than advertised. Manufacturers claim the average life span of a CFL bulb is 10,000 hours. However, in many applications the life and energy savings of a CFL are significantly lower. Applications in which lighting is used only briefly (such as closets, bathrooms, motion detectors and so forth) will cause CFL bulbs to burn out as quickly as regular incandescent bulbs . . . When initially switched on, CFLs may provide as little as 50 percent to 80 percent of their rated light output and can take up to three minutes to reach full brightness.”

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba637/

http://www.huffingto...s_n_895133.html

http://articles.lati...-bulbs-20110713

The USA has already passed legislation that is already in the process of making the sale or manufacture of normal incandescent lightbulbs illegal. Several congressmen attempted to overturn the ban, but failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority.

As of this time, both 100 Watt and 70 Watt incandescent bulbs have dissappeared from the shelves in American stores. The 45 Watt bulb will also be banned in a few years.

Good incandescent lightbulbs that have a long history of success

This is completely ridiculous, the government telling people what products they are not allowed to use. There is nothing wrong with incandescent bulbs. The government should not have any right to force people to use a different product just because they want to force people to use less energy! Someone who is careful to turn off their incandescent lights when they are not in the room is still using less energy than someone with "energy-saving" lights who leaves all the lights in their house on. What is next, is the government going to force Americans to install motion detectors to automatically turn off lights when no one is in the room?

I absolutely HATE fluorescent lights that the government is trying to push on everyone. The light has an eery tint, and it is more difficult for me to concentrate because there is actually high frequency flickering, although most people are unable to consciously discern this. And of course, some people with pets or small children are concerned about the mercury vapor that could be released if the lightbulb breaks (and it typically does break when put in the trash, realistically not many people are going to properly dispose of these new bulbs).

The only alternative, LED lighting, is even more efficient than fluorescent, but is unfortunately ridiculously expensive (60 dollars for a bulb that would match the light output of a 75 Watt incandescent bulb).

I imagine this lightbulb ban could spawn a thriving black market in the USA. Perhaps we will even see violence associated with organised light bulb crime!

The argument about saving energy is not a particularly good one. Household lighting only composes a very small fraction of the total energy consumed. In a typical household, normal incandescent lighting consumes only 15% of the home's electric power use. In fact, home heating consumes around HALF of a typical household's electricity use. Most of the American population lives in in the north half of the country, where the climate tends to be cooler. For a house with its heater on, "energy saving" CF bulbs will NOT actually save any energy. All types of lighting are actually 100% "efficient", it is just a matter of how much energy is converted into light and how much into heat. Forcing households in Minnessota or New York to convert to fluorescent bulbs is completely senseless.

I think the liberal environmental mantra says it all: "Live more simply so that all may live". If the impact of my using incandescent bulbs is too intolerable on the environment, I say perhaps there are just TOO MANY PEOPLE on the earth. These environmentalists should start focusing on population control instead of the regulation invassion on my home.

http://freedomlightb...ight-bulbs.html

a particular rundown of why the society energy savings are not there

http://ceolas.net/#li171x

video:

http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

Here are the relevent excerpts from the abominable law:

(ii) INTERMEDIATE BASE INCANDESCENT LAMPS.—

An intermediate base incandescent lamp shall not

exceed 40 rated watts.

(v) BACKSTOP REQUIREMENT.—

[. . . ]

if the final rule does not

produce savings that are greater than or equal to the

savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45

lumens per watt, effective beginning January 1, 2020,

the Secretary shall prohibit the sale of any general

service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy

standard of 45 lumens per watt.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Title III: Energy Savings Though Improved Standards for Appliance and Lighting,

B. Lighting Energy Efficiency

I have tried to read the whole Act, but the wording is so obtuse, and the law ridiculously complex. I believe these two excerpts are the primary references affecting normal incandescent light bulbs.

video:

http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

Admittingly, there is plenty of very misleading information being thrown out by both sides. Unfortunately that Energy Independence and Security Act actually allocated funding for public educating about "energy saving". Essentially the taxpayer is subsidizing millions of dollars in propaganda in favor of CFL's. Even on the official government website there were several blatent lies about CFL's.

Several countries in the world are currently in the process of making ordinary incandescent light bulbs illegal. The USA, Australia, and the UK, have all already had laws come into effect that limit the manufacture or sale of certain wattages of the bulbs. Argentina has already made the sale of incandescent bulbs illegal. In the USA, manufacture of the 100 and 70 watt bulbs are already illegal, and manufacture of both the 60 and 40 watts will, under the current law, be also be illegal in 2014.

The whole intention of these laws are to reduce the consumption of energy. But does this really make sense? There are, for example, other ways to reduce energy consumption, such as just taxing electricity.

The manufacture of the bulb itself consumes energy. It takes several times as much energy to produce a compact fluorescent bulb as an incandescent bulb. Furthermore, because of the use of potentially toxic mercury in fluorescent bulbs and the stringent environmental regulations, manufacturers in the USA are unnable to compete with Chinese manufacturers. So whereas around half the old incandescent bulbs are still produced in the USA, all of the new compact fluorescent lights are produced in China. The energy consumption for manufacturing in China is much more wasteful and less efficient than in the USA. The fact that the Chinese government subsidizes the prices of electric power does not help. 68.7% of the electric power in China is produced from coal power plants, which are often much less efficient more polluting than those in the USA. Indeed, China is the largest consumer of coal in the world. The coal power plants in China use bituminous coal which, while cheaper than other grades of coal, also has a much higher sulfur content leading to acid rain.

The mere production of the new compact fluorescent bulbs consumes 1.7 kiloWatts of power per bulb. This is not electric power from the USA, but rather electric power from China that results in much more pollution and carbon dioxide emissions. So the new laws are not only resulting in more pollution, but also the loss of more American jobs.

Then there is cost. A typical compact fluorescent bulb costs three times as much as an incandescent bulb. While suppossedly fluorescent bulbs can last 8 times longer than the old incandescent bulbs, in practice most of the compact fluorescent bulbs coming from China are of inferior quality, and it is my experience that they only tend to last between 1.5 to 3 times as long. Their rated lifespans will be reduced even more if put on a dimmer switch. If you go to the store and find that compact fluorescent bulbs are the same price as the old incandescent bulbs, it is not because they are actually cheaper. Rather, the taxpayers are indirectly subsidizing the difference of cost through grants to local utility companies. Compact fluorescent bulbs also are intended to be specially disposed of, because of their mercury content. Taking the trouble to properly recycle the bulbs and prevent the glass from breaking also adds cost, trouble, and indirectly consumes more energy.

Now to bring up the subject of energy efficiency. It is widely claimed that compact fluorescent bulbs use 70% less energy than ordinary incandescent bulbs. But this is only in terms of light output. It actuality, incandescent bulbs are essentially 100% efficient. It is just that most of the energy output is in the form of heat rather than light. Because of geographic distribution, most American households use more energy heating their homes than air conditioning. So it makes little sense to be using fluorescent lighting for most of these households. Why go to the trouble of trying to avoid electric power from being converted to heat in the lighting while simultaneously separately consuming electric power to generate heat? It makes no sense. Even in warmer locations, lights are typically used most in the night time, when it also happens to be colder. Even most homes in the "sun belt" have their heaters turned on at night in the winter. So compact fluroescent bulbs, in many situations, will not reduce the consumption of energy. They will produce less heat, and people will just turn up the setting on their heaters to compensate.

just found this from a pro-CFL cite:

Myth: CFLs don't save money because my heating system has to work harder to produce the lost heat I would have received from my regular incandescent.

Reality: The heat lost when switching from an incandescent to a CFL has a negligible effect on your heating system.The heat that emanates from incandescent bulbs tends to hang up near the ceiling, and has little effect on your thermostat.

What a lame defense! Looks like they are really trying hard to counter the anti-CFL movement. Even if the effect truely is "negligible", one could logically argue that the potential energy saving themselves from CFL are also "negligible" compared to the energy consumption of the heating system. In any case, this does nothing to adress the original argument itself: that it is pointless to try to prevent electric power from being converted to heat while one is also using energy to heat the home at the same time. I suppose an argument could be made if only using a wood burning fireplace to heat the home (biofuel), but how many commonly people do that? All heat tends to rise upward toward the ceilling. A heating system typically has a fan that pushes the air around. This movement of air will also push around the air towards the ceilling. And if the air near the ceilling is already warm, it will just prevent more of the warm air from the heater from also similarly rising and being "wasted".

We know that rest mass is a form of energy, and that matter holds huge quantities of energy locked away. However, it is not yet known how to release all this energy.

I propose that the energy associated with rest mass is actually the potential gravitional energy of all the matter in the universe falling together.

This could explain where rest mass comes from. If the two are directly related, it should even be possible to calculate the ammount of total mass that exists in the universe, using known constants of gravitational attraction and energies of rest mass.

Think of it this way: There cannot be more than a certain limit on the total mass in the universe. If there was, there would be exponentially more potential gravitional energy, and all this potential energy would add mass somewhere, probably in the individual particles themselves.

And I further propose that if, or when at some distant future point in time, all the mass in the universe falls together into a "singularity", the mass will be entirely converted into energy. All that potential energy will have been realised, and there will not be any mass left. This energy will be in the form of pure electromagnetic radiation, at it is likely that in the absence of any mass, all the electromagnetic radiation in the universe will suddenly collapse (because of coherence) into a single wave-form.

This would also explain why there is more matter than anti-matter in the universe. Such a view suggests (but does not require) that anti-matter feels a repulsive force from ordinary gravity. Although most physicists assume that anti-gravity would experience an attractive force under earth's gravity like normal matter, amazingly an experiment has NEVER been carried out to demonstrate this. For technical reasons, it is difficult to cool anti-matter or anti-protons to a level where the effects of gravity can be observed.

I think it would be morally wrong not to use eugenics.

We owe it to our children to make them physically attractive and intelligent. The technology is here; we should use it.

William Shockley, the man who also coincidentally invented the transistor, argued that the higher rate of reproduction among the less intelligent was having a dysgenic effect, and that a drop in average intelligence would ultimately lead to a decline in civilization. Shockley advocated that the scientific community should seriously investigate questions of heredity, intelligence, and demographic trends, and suggest policy changes if he was proven right. He proposed that individuals with IQs below 100 be paid to undergo voluntary sterilization.

Most striking, William Shockley, later in his life, described his work into the genetic future of the human species as "the most important work of his career"! This from a man that had already invented the transistor, been appointed Director of the Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory at Beckman Instruments, and had been awarded the Noble prize. Shockley Semiconductor and the companies formed by Shockley's former employees would go on to form the nucleus of what became Silicon Valley, leading to the world-wide computer revolution.

The white race will not even be around in 200 years, let alone 4 billion years. Why exactly should I care again?

In mixtures of hydrochloric acid with nitric acid there is an equilibrium, which will shift to the right in more concentrated solutions.

3 HCl + HNO3 <==> NOCl + H2O + Cl2

NOCl + H2O --> HNO2 + HCl

2 HNO2 <==> H2O + NO + NO2

(the exact equilibrium reactions are actually even more complicated)

From one perspective, it is actually the chlorine itself which is responsible for dissolving the gold. Indeed, even aqueous solutions of elemental bromine will attack gold.

"The use of bromine in the extraction of gold was proposed by R. Wagner (Dingler's Journal, 218, p253)"

Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 4 p633

The attack of gold by iodine is somewhat more complicated:

"Action of Iodine on Gold.

At ordinary temperatures pure dry iodine is without action on gold ; between 50° C. and the melting point of iodine combination takes place with the formation of amorphous iodide; above that temperature crystalline aurous iodide is formed. The direct reaction is always limited by the inverse decomposition of the iodide formed, but in the presence of excess of iodide pure aurous iodide may be obtained; this in excess is then best removed by subliming the mixture at a temperature of 30° ... In the presence of water, gold and iodine react in a closed vessel to form aurous iodide, but the reaction is limited, and, at normal temperatures, if the iodine can escape, the iodide is entirely decomposed. F. Meyer (Comptes rend., 1904, 139, 733)."

Pharmaceutical journal; A weekly record of pharmacy and allied sciences, Volume LXXIV, Great Britain, 1905

For more information about the chemistry of iodine and gold, see "Hand-book of chemistry", Leopold Gmelin, Volume 6, p211

Although this mix of nitric and hydrochloric acids, known as "aqua regia", is the typical acid combination for dissolving gold, there is also another very different mix of acids that can be used, and the interesting thing about this reaction is that the metallic gold will actually reappear after the dissolved solution of gold is diluted in water! This reaction, however, involves much more concentrated acids, and the procedure is much more dangerous. So I do not suggest you try this reaction unless you have a good chemistry background and know about the proper safety precautions. This post is more for information purposes.

Dissolving Gold with Concentrated Nitric and Sulfuric Acids

A hot mixture of concentrated nitric and sulfuric acids can dissolve gold, with lower oxides of nitrogen forming. Addition of water caused the gold to precipitate back out in metallic form, but if a solution of permanganate is used instead, the gold remains dissolved.

Reynolds, later by Spiller

Chemical engineering, Volume 2, p316

The text also mentions that even concentrated mixtures of nitric and phosphoric acid attacks gold at room temperature, although the reaction is very slow unless heated.

The reaction is probably:

(3)Au + (3)NO3[-] + (18)H[+] --> (3)Au[+3] + (3)NO[+] + (6)H3O[+]

The nitrosyl ion, NO[+], exists in the form of nitrosyl sulfuric acid, ONOSO3H.

The nitronium cations, NO2[+], which form in equilibrium in concentrated nitric acid solutions, probably initially attack the gold, creating nitrogen dioxide. Basically,

Au + (3)NO2[+] --> Au[+3] + (3)NO2

The nitrogen dioxide produced would likely remain in the concentrated acid,

(2)NO2 + (3)H2SO4 --> NO[+]HSO4[-] + NO2[+]HSO4[-] + H3O[+]HSO4[-]

and the nitronium ions formed from the NO2 would then attack more gold.

Excess sulfuric acid needs to be used. This is an equilibrium reaction, and the gold is not going to dissolve easily. The mixture needs to be extremely acidic. Even a 1:1 ratio of 70% HNO3 to 95% H2SO4 is not going to be concentrated enough. For good results, use a 1:10 rato of 70% nitric acid to 98.5% concentrated sulfuric. Essentially, there can be no water in the reaction!

Even in the hot boiling mixed acids, the gold takes several minutes to dissolve.

The NO[+] ion hydrolyzes (reacts with) water to form nitrous acid.

NO[+] + (2)H2O --> HNO2 + H3O[+]

Nitrous acid is fairly reactive, and can act as either a reducing or an oxidizing agent. It will reduce the dissolved gold (Au+3) to elemental form (Au). This explains why the gold precipitates back out when the reaction is diluted with water.

(2)Au[+3] + (3)H2O (3)HNO2aq --> (2)Au + (6)H[+]aq + (3)HNO3aq

(note that "aq", which stands for "aqueous", means it is dissolved in water)

If fuming nitric acid is added to the reaction containing the dissolved gold, the gold will solidify out as a purple solid. The gold is probably still in its elemental form, but small particle sizes of gold are known to exhibit strong colorations, from red to purple.

Nitrous acid is unstable, and only exists in the form of solutions which gradually degrade after several minutes. Solutions of nitrous acid exist in equilibrium with nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxide, the latter of which is an unstable radical which can either react with the oxygen in air to form more nitrogen dioxide, or if left on its own will disproportionate into nitrogen dioxide and nitrous oxide after several minutes.

(2)HNO2 <==> H2O + NO2 + NO

(3)NO --> N2O + NO2

In the reaction,

(2)Au + (3)NO3[-] + (18)H[+] --> (2)Au[+3] + (3)NO[+] + (6)H3O[+],

sulfate ions are not shown because they do not directly take place in the reaction. The literature even states that phosphoric acid can be used in place of the sulfuric acid.

The above reaction is in ionic form. Some of you may prefer to see it in the form:

(2)Au + (3)HNO3 + (15)H2SO4 --> (2)Au(SO4H)3 + (3)NOSO4H + (6)H2SO4*H2O

Note that the "Au(SO4H)3" only exists in the solution, it cannot be isolated. Gold trinitrate, if it even exists, would also be nearly impossible to obtain as a pure solid. Gold trinitrate only exists in highly concentrated solutions of nitric acid. When these solutions are diluted with water, auric oxide precipitates out. Similarly, auric oxide only only dissolves in very concentrated acids, since it is only very weakly basic.

Au2O3 + (9)HNO3 <==> (2)Au(NO3)3 + (3)HNO3*H2O

The reaction is more interesting from a chemical perspective than a practical way to refine out gold. Nevertheless, the reaction may be useful to directly dissolve gold-silver alloys, without having to go to the trouble of inquartation, since aqua regia only dissolves such alloys with extreme difficulty.

Procedure and Precautions:

Yes, it is extremely dangerous. The dangers of using concentrated mixed acids are commonly taken for granted among those that frequently perform nitrations. Obviously those unfamiliar with such procedures should think twice before handling such high concentrations of acid.

More details about the reaction. The concentrated acid mix that contains the dissolved gold should be gradually transfered into the larger bowl of water using a 10ml glass transfer pipette. You will also need a rubber pipette suction bulb. For those of you unfamiliar with this tool, it is basically like a turkey baster that is used to suck up a small quantity of liquid, then move it to another container. The pipette can be bought here:

http://www.pelletlab.com/pipette

Using the pipette to slowly add the acid mixture to the water is important for two reasons. First, safety. Water should never be added to concentrated acid, since this can result in the acid spraying up. Neither should the acid be poured into the water, because of the possibility of an accidental spill or splashing, and because it can be hard to control the rate that the liquid is poured in. Adding the acid in too fast can lead to overheating, which could result in boiling/splashing in the water. Second, it is important that each small portion of the acid quickly be diluted with as much excess water as possible. This will help prevent the gaseous nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2) from escaping. Although nitrosylsulfuric acid reacts with excess water to form a solution of nitrous acid, if not enough water is used nitrogen oxides will bubble out instead.

There will inevitibly be some loses of nitrogen oxides, in the form of some bubbling and some brown gas being given off. Unfortunately, when some of the nitrogen oxides escape, there will not be enough nitrous acid to completely reduce the gold. After neutralizing, all the gold will still precipitate out, but a small portion of it will be in the form of hydrated gold oxide, Au2O3. If the gold is going to later be melted, the gold oxide should not pose any problems, as the compound decomposes to the pure metal at 160°C, giving off oxygen gas.

One other note of warning, unless the gold oxide has been completely reduced, it should not be reacted with ammonia, as this will form the dangerous sensitive explosive known as "fulminating gold". In the event that the acid solution was previously boiled with ammonium sulfate to prevent precipitation of the gold, fulminating gold can result upon neutralization if too much ammonium sulfate was added.

More safety information:

Only use small quantities of mixed acids at a time. Be aware that with concentrated acids, even tiny drops can splash out and result in painful burns on exposed skin. To get some understanding of these dangers, try pouring cranberry juice into a glass, wearing a clean white long-sleaved shirt. Even with cautious pouring, you are likely to find one or two tiny little red stains on the sleeves afterwards, even though you were not aware of any splashing while the juice was being poured. If this was concentrated acid, painful burns would have been felt.

You may desire to cover your shoes with a plastic bags and a rubber band, so that if any of the acid spills onto the floor, it will not seap into your shoes. Protective shoe coverings can also be purchased:

http://www.labsafety.com/search/shoe%2Bcovers/

If you choose to wear rubber boots instead, it is advised that the top of the rubber be tied tight around your legs, so that if any of the acid is spilled on you, it will not drip down into the boots and collect in a puddle. If the acid is in contact with your skin for more than a few seconds, the burns will be much more severe. http://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=393294011

A boiling mixture of concentrated nitric and sulfuric acids is extremely dangerous, much more so than 70% concentrated sulfuric acid, for example. The chemistry of this mixture presents several unique hazards. Extremely concentrated sulfuric is a strong dehydrating agent, that will turn anything organic, such as a strip of paper or your skin, into black char immediately on contact. A note about treating concentrated nitric acid burns, after you immediately rinse the affected area with plenty of water, and neutralize with sodium bicarbonate solution, there is special recommendation for concentrated nitric acid burns. Use a swab dipped in chlorine bleach to gently scrub the affected area. Some of the yellow color from the burn should be absorbed onto the cotton swab. Continue to scrubbing with fresh swabs until no more yellow can be absorbed onto the cotton. Then rinse well in soapy water. Doing this will help remove some of the nitro compounds which have formed. These compounds act as allergens and greatly slow the healing process. In fact nitric acid burns take much longer to heal than sulfuric acid of the same concentration. The unique effects of concentrated nitric acid are due to the formation of nitronium ions, NO2[+], in equilibrium in the solution. The addition of highly concentrated sulfuric acid greatly enhances this equilibrium, and so the special burn effect of nitric acid will be greatly exaggerated by the acid mixture. In other words, it would be very important to treat the burns in the way described above, and the healing time is likely to be much longer.

Further Information:

A mixture of concentrated sulfuric and nitric acids is sometimes referred as the "wet ash" method by gold refiners, and indeed dissolves gold if the acids are concentrated enough, although this is usually not a practical method at all.

The extremely concentrated HNO3/H2SO4 mixture might be useful for dissolving gold-silver alloys, without the need for inquartation, since aqua regia only dissolves such alloys with extreme difficulty.

Dissolving Gold with Manganese Dioxide

Mixtures of manganese dioxide and sulfuric acid can also dissolve gold.

The reaction is slower at room temperature, but rapid with heating.

Permanganate and sulfuric acid after a few minutes also dissolve gold.

(Allen 1872)

the reaction with manganese dioxide and sulfuric acid is probably:

(2)Au + (3)MnO2 + (3)H2SO4 --> Au2O3 + Mn(SO4)2 + (2)H2O

where Mn(SO4)2 is manganese sulfate, and the gold oxide dissolves in the sulfuric acid. concentrated sulfuric acid still needs to be used, but it probably does not need to be quite so concentrated as required for the other reaction; a 70% concentration should be suitable.

Never mix concentrated sulfuric acid with permanganate solutions. Explosive dimanganese heptoxide can separate out in oily liquid droplets and spontaneously explode, spraying the dangerous acid up.

It is not just humans. Some baboons kidnap feral dogs and raise them as family pets to ward off other feral dogs and keep watch.

I had an idea. Could titanium alloy be reinforced with a high tensile strength fiber?

Lower melting point titanium alloys:

" Ti15Cu15Ni and the newly developed Ti21Ni14Cu.

Zr-Ti-rich side of the Zr-Ti-Ni(Cu) alloy system were investigated for brazing of titanium alloys. Low-melting ternary and quaternary eutectic alloys with melting temperatures below 800°C were discovered. Using eutectic as well as off-eutectic braze alloys, CP-Ti and Ti-6Al-4V alloys were successfully brazed at 830°C and 850°C."

These alloys show comparable strength to normal high-melting point titanium alloys.

"Aluminum nitride is one of the few materials that is both a good thermal conductor and a good electrical insulator. It is also a high-temperature ceramic, that has a low thermal expansion coefficient, and low dielectric constant. It is also stable to molten metals such as aluminum, has good wear resistance, and good thermal shock resistance.

Various preceramic oligomer and polymer routes to aluminum nitride have been investigated. For example, the reaction of LiAlH4 or AlH3 with ammonia initially yields Al(NH2)3, which loses ammonia and hydrogen during pyrolysis and leaves AlN contaminated by carbon from the initial reaction solvent.

Fibers of aluminum nitride have been produced by the melt-spinning of ethyl-alazanes derived from the reactions of triethylaluminum and ammonia. The spinnable products have compositions such as [(EtAlNH)x(Et2AlNH2)y(Et3Al)z]n which probably consist of linked alazane rings and chain structures. Pyrolysis in ammonia gives aluminum nitride fibers.

Interrante and coworkers reported techniques for the preparation of alloys of SiC and AlN by the copyrolysis of precursors to both silicon carbide and aluminum nitride. The source of the aluminum component was commercially available aluminum alkyls [such a trimethylaluminum] which, when treated with ammonia, initially give cyclic alazanes such as (CH3AlNH2)x, and cross-linked species CH3AlNH by pyrolytic loss of CH4. Further pyrolysis gives a high purity, oxygen- and carbon-free AlN in nearly quantitative yield. … Copyrolysis took place initially at 170 °C , but later at temperatures up to 350 °C under nitrogen, and then up to 2,000 °C to give a homogeneous Si/C/AlN ceramic."

"Inorganic Polymers", James E. Mark, H. R. Allcock, Robert West, p330

"A process for synthesizing aluminium nitride fibres includes such technological steps as mixing microcrystalline aluminium silicate fibres in sillimanite structure with carbon black or graphite, heating to 1500-1750 deg.C in nitrogen atmosphere, keeping the temp for a certain time, and exhausting residual carbon at 550-650 deg.C, and features no strict requirement to purity and Al/Si ratio of raw material, simple process, good operation and repeatability, high output rate of AlN fibres up to 100% and low cost."

Chinese Patent 98103408, year 1998

I predict we'll move off the planet before this becomes a world-wide problem.

Transporting a large number of people into space, and building space colonies that can support decent human standards of living, is going to be much more challenging and expensive than most people realise. While it is theoretically possible, I am not convinced that it will be a practical solution to overpopulation in the future. I question whether human societies even have the capability to send 10 percent of the world population into space and keep them all alive out there.

The human species cannot go on reproducing forever. Eventually it will place a strain on the available land and resources, and will likely lead to deforestation and pollution. Sustainable ways of living are possible, but I fear by the time human societies finally recognise that they have to become sustainable, there will exist far many more people than can be supported by a sustainable way of living, since sustainable sources of resources and energy cannot support as high population densities. In fact, I suspect that overpopulation will become a problem even before this happens, because human society operates within an economic system (which is not perfectly efficient) and there will not be enough jobs or affordable housing for the growing number of people. Is not birth control much preferable to starvation and death by exposure to the cold?

At some point every country may have to resort to the coerced abortion tactics that The Peoples Republic of China is using.

If there is only a limited number of people that can be sustainably supported on the planet, would it not make sense to favor those without severe physical/genetic defects? Is it fair to a child to be born with such severe defects that they cannot live anything resembling normal life? How many children should each person be allowed to have?

Will positive incentives and voluntary use of contraceptives be enough to control birth rates, or will the government have to resort to punishments, or even forced sterilisations? How should society deal with parents that continue to have many children but afford to take care of all of them? Should abortions be part of the early solution, or have we not become that desperate? Perhaps in some ways forced sterilisations are more humane than voluntary abortions? If we can justify that it is just a "clump of cells" that are being killed, surely we can justify taking away a human's ability to reproduce?

As I see it, in the long-term, human rights to reproduction could potentially be incompatible with the human right to life.

Now, in some of the developed countries we have seen declining birth rates, even negetive birth replacement rates. This is encouraging (at least in some ways). But it is by no means a guarantee of controlling population growth. I think reduced birth rates have more to do with increasing urbanisation than increasing living standards. The available open space becomes more limited, families do not want to be stuck in a small house or apartment with so many noisy children. In poor rural areas the children would spend most of the day outside, but in the cities there is not really any open space for them to play in near the place of living. It requires a parent to walk to the park with their children and supervise them, or often the park is not even within easy walking distance so the parent has to drive their children. The types of jobs also become different. As a society becomes more "developed", the price of land goes up. People cannot afford to be farmers, and seek better job opportunities in more crowded cities. People work for employers, rather than for themselves, and the economic structure changes. Women either seek new career opportunities, or become pressured into working to afford rent or mortgage payments. Children no longer become convenient to have. Women are not allowed to take them to work. In summary, much of the reason for people not wanting ot have children has to do with reduced standards of living in certain ways, despite the increased standard of living overall.

Because of this, I am not sure that what has worked for the Western countries can work for all the rest of the world. India, for example, is not having much success controlling its overpopulation, despite a rapid rate of development. And the longer we wait to control world population growth, the more difficult it will be to bring all the people into a "developed" state of living, to reduce population growth. Because of the prospect of future immigration across borders, this is a world problem. If we only concern ourselves with our own country, our country could still be faced with insurmountable problems in the future. It only takes a single big country to ruin it for all the other countries. For example, all the other countries could reduce fertility levels to only replacement levels, but still be subject to population growth if they continued to take in immigrants from India, which has high fertility rates and a rapidly multiplying population. I suppose a country could reduce its fertility rates to even lower than the replacement rate, to accomodate immigration (and the higher fertility rtes of the recently arrived immigrants themselves), but this could lead to potential ethical, social, and political controversy, as it would essentially be the coerced replacement of one ethnicity by another.

One more thing. Human evolution also plays a role, and certain aspects of it can become evident much faster than many people realise due to simple natural selection over a few generations. If humans are "encouraged" to have fewer offspring, the ones that are more "resistant" to being encouraged will tend ot have more offspring. The gene pool will then tend ot accumulate progressively more genes that favor higher fertility rates in spite of actions by the government. In many ways genetics can have a strong influence on behavioral propensities. If for example condoms are given to all the men, the ones who do not like to use them, or are less responsible and do not always use them, will potentially father more children. Over several generations, the male sexual organ could become less sensitive, to the point that use of a condom would not allow as much sexual pleasure. More men would prefer not to use condoms. This is just one example, and there are countless other potential ways natural selection could become counterproductive to population control efforts.

So is the human ability to reproduce a right or a privilege?

outbreeding depression refers to cases where offspring from crosses between two different different populations have a lower level of fitness than offspring from crosses between individuals from the same population.

One of the ways that outbreeding depression can occur is by the breakdown of biochemical or physiological compatibilities between genes in the different breeding populations. Within local, isolated breeding populations, alleles are selected for their positive, overall effects in complementary combination with other specific alleles. Due to nonadditive gene action, the same genes may have rather different effects in different genetic backgrounds--hence, the potential evolution of locally coadapted gene complexes.

Examples in Switchgrass

These effects can be observed in switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). While actually a single species, switchgrass comes in many different varieties, with striking differences between the different types. This genetic diversity reflects the divergent evolution and adaptation to a wide range of different environments. The different varieties of switchgrass can generally be grouped into two distinct forms: the lowland cultivars and the upland cultivars.

The lowland variety tends to produce more biomass, and grow up to 2.7 meters high in favorable environments. The upland variety is generally of more northern origin, and is more cold-tolerant. Upland switchgrass types are generally shorter, less than 2.4 meters in height, and less coarse than lowland types. The upland types tend to have more vigorous rhizomes so they tend to be more sod-forming, whereas the the lowland cultivars may appear to have a bunchgrass habit. Lowland cultivars appear more plastic in their morphology, produce larger plants if stands become thin or when planted in wide rows, and they seem to be more sensitive to moisture stress than upland cultivars.

One study mentions potential negetive effects on native varieties on switchgrass caused by outbreeding depression, which could be a cause for concern.

"Gene flow matters in switchgrass, a potential widespread biofuel feedstock", Charles Kwit, C. Neal Stewart. Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee; and BioEnergy Science Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

"The potential for genetic pollution has been investigated in switchgrass..."

"Appropriate Use of Genetic Manipulation for the Development of Restoration Plant Materials", T. A. Jones, J. G. Robins, Progress in Botany, Volume 72, Part 5, p 249-264, 2011

Examples in Humans?

Different groups of humans have been separately evolving for tens of thousands of years. There has been plenty of genetic divergence over this long period of time. Could it be possible that each of these separate groups of people have achieved, through natural selection, a fine-tuned balance of hormones and subtle gene expression, which could become upset by sudden change?

Herbert Spencer and the Harvard geneticist Edward East, a pioneer in hybrid corn research, proposed that genetic crossing would disrupt the smooth operation of the physical and mental qualities which have been established in each race over hundreds of generations by natural selection.

Carleton Coon, former professor at Harvard and president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, wrote: "Genes that form part of a cell nucleus possess an internal equilibrium as a group, just as do the members of social institutions. Genes in a population are in equilibrium if the population is living a healthy life as a corporate entity. Racial intermixture can upset the genetic as well as the social equilibrium of a group."

An analysis of more than 3 million respondents revealed the average pay was $15.74 per hour for people of mixed race, $17.39 for black people and $22.04 for white people. This was despite the fact that 18 per cent of mixed-race people had college degrees, compared with 11 per cent of black people and 28 per cent of white people.

"Can the 'one-drop rule' tell us anything about racial discrimination? New evidence from the multiple race question on the 2000 Census", Robert W. Fairlie

University of California, Santa Cruz

A study by J. Richard Udry’s National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which sampled a random, nationally representative school-based sample of U.S. adolescents in grades 7 through 12, during 1994-1995, showed an increase in behavioral problems amongst mixed-race children, as well as significantly higher rates of asthma, and generally poorer health. Another interesting finding was that mixed children that had a black parent were significantly more likely (63% more) to have skin problems.

J. Richard Udry, Janet Hendrickson-Smith, Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2003

Anita Patel,M.D., transplant nephrologist at Henry Ford Hospitalfound that kidney transplants between individuals of the same race had statistically betteroutcomes than transplant across different races.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html