studiot

I am going to say +1 for encouragement about the emboldened and underlined bit. You show definite improvement. The rest is, I'm afraid, a cheeky bit of misunderstanding. Yes a good question "If I'm subject to constant acceleration why am I not moving at some colossal velocity?" Standing on the surface of the Earth, the only acceleration you are subject to is the acceleration due to the Earth's (and your)rotation which is constantly changing your direction of motion. You are not accelerating along the line from you to the centre of the Earth because you are subject to the balance of two forces, whose net sum is zero. The resulting acceleration due to a zero (sum) is, of course, zero. The two forces are the body force due to gravity downwards and the reaction between you and the surface upwards. Meanwhile I see swans has replied, perhaps he can type more quickly than I can.

Two things should be noted. The economics of commercial construction will be very different from the economics of DIY, where labour cost is not usually counted. The proposed flitch beam can never act like an I beam or RSJ. The webs in such beams carry almost all the (vertical) shear stress, whilst the flanges carry almost all the bending stress. The proposed design has no webs, which is why I asked for some facts and figures.

Are the countless others watching from the sidelines or are they just passing through? They can't be members since the membership is finite Are they actually following a thread or just visiting the once? If they choose to remain non members do they merit consideration? Since you have been here much longer than I, can you offer evidence for these assertions?

This type of construction is known as a Flitch Beam. Yes they are a traditional way to strengthen wooden beams. https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&source=hp&q=flitch+beam&oq=flitch&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l4.1264.2745.0.5141.6.6.0.0.0.0.183.1030.0j6.6.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.6.1020...0i131k1.gFzds4YGAuw Success in its working relies on substantial close (shear) connection between the wood and the metal, over the length of the beam. This means many through bolts, tightened up over large area bearing plate washers. Post some facts and figures for better design info, courtesy SF design services.

Sensei did copy my workaround - to add spaces either side of the stolen letters. Hopefully everyone, particularly those involved in Chemistry, now appreciate the message and understand that I am not just being awkward.

No that is not osmosis that is diffusion. When you refer to balancing, the correct term to use is concentration. Diffusion occurs because of a difference of concentration of some substance or particles such as electrons between one place and another. The particles of the substance tend to move from higher towards lower concentration. When there is an opening as you describe this diffusion can take place freely. If there is some sort of barrier then a pressure or potential is set up where the particles want to move (diffuse) but can only do so if they can pass the barrier. In the case of osmosis the barrier is a semi-permeable membrane. In the case of a PN junction the barrier is electrical. Can you see how the electron concentration is different in the P and N regions? A lattice contains atoms with the ionic central cores in a fixed array and some of the atoms electrons free to roam the lattice, but these electrons are still there. So the net charge on a lattice is zero. So it is electrically neutral. It is vital that you understand neutrality to understand PN junctions. Why are you making things difficult for me by not answering my questions? They are simply there to help make a better explanatory post.

Note that the editor deletes certain content. Have you ever written a chemical rate equation, involving concentration? Here is the original of the previous post. Note what is there that is missing from the previous post.

and?

So the IT crowd are trying to steal the international symbol for Boron, written in a valid chemical equation. Does this also apply to the symbols for Uranium and Sulphur and that chemists can no longer use these elements? I thought that I would not be allowed to write [ B ] any more when I woke up this morning.

I have it on good authority (bimbo36 in your more science thread) that religion is more fun than science or the technologically best solutions, which are apparently not fun.

d/dt [C] = k [A]ab Edit The text at the top is how it comes out The screenshot extract below is how it should look and how it does look before posting

In this thread the damn stupid editor, which was most definitely not WISIWYG, changed my typing in an equation so I can't type it in correctly and false information is presented in the posts. I tried it three times, it was correct in the typing box, but changed as soon as I posted. The edit typing box does not allow access to the super/subscript icons either. So I can't change it back.

.Damn stupid editor changed my typing d/dt [C] = k [A]ab

My apologies the last post was a victim of forum timeouts. The equations should have been Chemical equation A + B = C since you mention only one product I assume it is not a dissociation reaction. With rate equation

Of course not. Either There is sufficient (local) warping for things to be different, then they are different, by definition. or There is insufficient (local) warping for things to be different in which case they are not. Either way nothing is changed, everything is the way it is.

Some years ago, I visited my (rich) uncle who had a large garage. I noticed some medicine bottles hanging by strings from the roof joists. Upon enquiry I learned that it was his high tech solution to his problem. Each bottle represented the exact position his car, my aunt's car and my cousin's car needed to be in o fit in the garage. So each car was driven in until the bottle just touched the windscreen at the correct point in relation to the drivers mirror. Also easy to reset for a different car. You could substitute a soft weighted bag.

test ended 2100 Scottish time Edit So login maintained for 30 minutes will test again for 45 minutes.

test started 2030 Scottish time

Thanks, I will try this during the evening while something good like the Lone Ranger is on the box and report back. There are plenty of religious users I would like to render inactive. Then I might be able to find some actual Science on this forum. There are some 2 or 3 hour periods when all that happened was religious nonsense today.

Thanks for the interest. Resources are currently limited since I am in the remote north of Scotland, but I don't think it is dictated by the ISP. The internet is a subcontractor to British Telecom Fibre and runs television etc just fine over the broadband. This PC is just a small acer aspire one netbook with Windows 7. I don't normally login here until I need to respond to something. This morning I logged in specifically to type in the response in the outlier thread and I found out that I was logged out by the time I had finished it. So yes, this is a different IP from the one in Somerset normally used, but that is not a fixed IP. Happily the typing was not lost after I logged back in again but it was a nuisance. Edit this post took 10 - 15 minutes because I had to answer the phone midway, but did not drop me.

It can take me 20 minutes or more to compose/enter a proper and sensible post such as the one I just made in the 'outliers' thread. By the time it is ready I find myself logged out, which is very annoying. This also used to happen with the old system but the dropout time was longer. Can the dropout time be reset upwards?

Before rushing off to repeat the experiment (and perhaps the mistakes) you should consider the method very carefully .Firstly the mechanics of doing the trials. Are the trials carried out in six different flasks at the same time or is a trial repeated in one flask six times? Are the flasks clean? Especially if you repeat in the same flask which risks cross contamination. How are you measuring product concentration? How long does it take to make a concentration determination? You are recording instantaneous concentrations. How would a 15 second error in timing make to the 2min, 10min and 20min marks? The recorded concentration is only valid if the reaction mixture is homogeneous. Is it stirred? or how else do you ensure this? How temperature sensitive is this reaction? How much heat is evolved? Are you monitoring to see if all the trials have the same conditions? How are you noting down the results? I presume that each column in your table of results is meant to represent a single trial. If so the result 14,8,22 indicates some sort of recording error. If you can't sort this out looking back then this trial needs to be discarded - it is worse than an outlier. Secondly the reaction itself You say it is a catalysed reaction. Is it autocatalysed or are you adding a catalyst? Assume the reaction is [A] + = [C] Is either [A] or very large compared to the other so effectively constant? How about [C] ? is this always small or does the reaction approach completion? What reaction rate equation are you assuming to give the figures you have stated - 8, 16, 20 g/L

Well this looks like a typical rate of reaction determination to me, but I'm sorry to say rather sloppily recorded. In the first place we have 24 not 18 data points since at time zero there should be no product in each of the 6 reaction flasks. ie all the curves must pass through the origin. Secondly the results are stated as quantities of product, but are recorded as concentrations. Thirdly, as I have already pointed out, the readings are tabulated in an odd, seemingly impossible, manner. If this last issue were sorted out so each reading could be properly attributed to one or other flask of reactants, then I'm sure the curves (they look like a power law to me) would appear more sensible. We could then propose a rate law and deduce the deviations of each trial from this for statistical analysis. Since this is about chemical calculations which are rather specialised, perhaps this thread should be drawn to the attention of our chemistry experts.

That's better, but I would start by plotting the course of 6 individual trials of the reaction. That is rearrange your data properly so it doesn't look as if you have mixed up the reading from flask 1 with flask 3 etc. I say this because the in first entry 2 minute row is 14.1 Yet the first entry in the 10 minute row is 8 suggesting the reaction went backwards.

A first class answer. +1 I would add that your description needs to identify these data points properly so the appropriate modelling distribution and sidedness can be chosen.