Tetrahedrite

I think I know what you are trying to ask, and the answer (nearly always) has to do with thermodynamics. The iron will always react so that it has the lowest possible energy. When you heat iron (or it's alloys) up to certain temperatures, it will rearrange itself to give a lower lattice energy. If it did not do this, it would not be in thermodynamic equilibrium. To put it another way....... You'll probably find that the reaction from from BCC iron to FCC iron is endothermic, and when you heat the system up, it reacts in such a way to try and counteract that heat (stress) ie it reacts in the endothermic direction, BCC to FCC. This is not at all dis-similar to Le Chatelier's principle.

No offence D H, but if you think that the (American) Democrats are "far left", then you have a lot to learn about politics.

Funny, 'cause its true.......

I am vehemently against the death penalty, for anyone, so I can't agree with the verdict. However, what disgusts me the most is that my government (and the UK government), whose respective positions are officially against capital murder, have come out to support the punishment. The hypocrasy is mind-boggling!!!! Our government is currently campaigning for the death sentences of several Australian citizens to be commuted in Indonesia. It makes me so angry that people put revenge and blood-lust above justice!!

I've done quite a bit of work with LREE compounds and even the analytical grade material (extremely expensive I might add) contains traces nearly all of the other REE's. I would suggest that finding which particular impurity is causing the yellow colour might be very hard as there are so many possibilities.

I can give an explanation for the "rhombic" crystals. The key here is that crystal system an crystal morphology are not necessarily the same. Many compounds with cubic unit cells will form the "pair of square based pyramids stuck together" (better known as octahedral crystals) that you descibe. In mineralogy the octahedral shape for cubic minerals is quite common and is observed in species such as fluorite (CaF2), galena (PbS), cuprite (Cu2O) and even that great mineral tetrahedrite (Cu12Sb4S13) As for the hexagonal crystals, I am not sure. Is it possible that you have a hydrate that has a different crystal system?

Or cause an arms race?

I whole heartedly agree with both of your sentiments. Even though I have posted regularly in a large number of the other forums (especially chemistry and general science), I think I will not frequent the site as much now that the P & R forum has been removed. I suspect that this will be the case for many people. I also believe that setting up a P & R forum on another site is really of no use, because it a)there are hundreds of other religion forums on the net, and b) it will not have the same authority to keep discussions logical (and dare I say scientific) that the forum in its now redundant state. Just my 2 cents

In Australia, you are not allowed to grow your own because the tobacco is taxed so heavily. Therefore if you grow your own you can sell it at a rediculous price because the value of the tobacco is artificially inflated by the amount of tax on it. It is probably similar in the States.

I lost most of my respect for the democrats when they sold out over the "never-ever" GST. Maybe this has contributed to their almost complete anihilatation, the party seems to be in it's death throws. It is a shame about Donn Chip though, the party he founded has done a fairly good job of "keeping the bastards honest" over the years

That may be the case in the USA or the UK, but in Australia we have a history of supporting public schools. I myself was educated at a public school and I am presently completing a PhD. The four other PhD candidates here are also all public school educated. This clearly suggests that public school education is not necessarily bad. It is a matter of how much the government of the day wants to support it. The Labor Party in Australia has historically strongly supported a good education for all, while the conservative party (especially the present one) seems to prefer a "those who can pay get the best education" approach. I believe it is one of the marks of a truely civilised society: universal free education, universal free health care, and support for those who can not look after themselves, and a completely secular government.

Mooeypoo, I agree with most of what you say, I was responding to Bettina's comment that "Hezbollah didn't win anything that they didn't already have", which IMO is simply not true. I definitely agree that both sies lost a lot, but I also think there is a big difference in what each side lost. And once again please don't assume criticism of Israel = support for Hezbollah, because this is simply not the case.

Completely agree with Aardvark. It's not like a conservative government is going to be any more keen to spend money on public hospitals. The very word public is seen as evil to conservatives, isn't it?

Bettina, There is a diference between you not wanting to admit that Hezbollah gained something, and reality. It is quite clear (even from those who believe Israel came out on top in this conflict) that both Israel and Hezbollah have mutually advanced their causes, at least in some small way. Flat out denying it won't make it true. On a seperate note, I think the real losers here are the Lebanese people who do not support Hezbollah. Their economy and infrastructure has been destroyed, many have lost their homes, and some have even lost their lives. All because they live in a democracy that allows groups like hezbollah to be voted into their government, which in the eyes of Israel makes their whole country a legitimate target. A real shame for those people.

It hard to say there is a clear winner, but I'd be leaning heavily in favour of Hezbollah. Israel's stated aim was to destroy Hezbollah's ability to attack civilians from the northern border. In that aim, they failed convincingly. Hezbollah continued firing rockets into Israel during the whole of the conflict, and even increased the intensity of attacks over the last couple of weeks. This would suggest that Hezbollah is still largely intact. Add to this Israel has been portrayed as brutal and nasty towards civilians and has gained the condemnation of many international bodies. It has destroyed much of Lebanon's infrastructure and housing, which is sure to alienate much of the population against Israel. And it gives the rest of the Islamic world a perfect recruiting ploy. Getting the UN off side is never good either. IMO the conflict will probably create more terrorists and strengthen the resolve of countries like Iran and Syria.

If your going to accuse me of having a case closed mindset, then you should probably get your facts straight. The current action in Lebanon is against Hezbollah (or Hizbullah), not Hamas. The two are completely separate entities, but you seem to use them interchangably (your not the only one). Hezbollah has not been involved in suicide bombings for at least seven years. To suggest that the present action in Lebanon is to protect themselves against "their schoolbuses and commuter busses(sic) full of CIVILIANS" getting blown up in suicide attacks is a strawman. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Hezbollah (not Hamas) is targeting woman and children in particular, rather than civilians in general. If you can provide some I will gladly stand up to be corrected, otherwise this is just another emotive strawman. Let me get this quite clear, I have never called Israel a "terrorist state" and I have never suggested that I have an answer to the problems in the Middle East. I have never suggested that I support Hezbollah in any way shape or form. This really made me p*ss*d off, and this is where I believe you should of been warned. It is quite clear you are suggesting that Bud. and I support terrorism. I can't speak for Bud., but I do not support terrorism, and have never suggested in this forum that I support terrorism, and never will. It is a logical fallacy to assume that criticism of Israel=support for Hezbollah. I made this quite clear in my post: As for having a case closed mindset, I would suggest to you that you have a similar mindset in reference to Islam, and this may be why you are so vehemently opposed to any criticism of Israel: I would say it is fairly clear who has the case closed mindset.

I tend to agree with budullewraagh's general arguement. I am 99.99% sure that if Israel had intelligence that suggested a Hezbollah militant was hiding in a building full of Jewish civilians, it would not even consider attacking it, but it is completely willing to do the same against Lebanese civilians. This conflict keeps bringing me back to the feeling that some people believe that the lives of civilians in one country are worth less than those in another. I maybe an idealist, but I do not believe a building full of civilians is a legitimate target, under any circumstances, for either side of the conflict. I also strongly agree with budullewraagh's sentiments in that one group committing attrocities does not justify attrocities being committed in retalliation, under any circumstances. One step forward, two steps back, thats all it is.

I think that as the older people in the USA who are most resistant to the metric system start dying out, the imperial system will simply start to die out as well. The metric system is far more efficient to use, and a lot easier to understand, which will become more important in a technology driven society.

This is quite disturbing. If it is true that UN personnel have been purposely targeted, then surely this constitutes a war crime. Source I heard in radio reports this morning that the compound was clearly marked and that the Israeli army had been made aware several times that the UN personnel were at that particular location. I have a feeling that Israel may come under more pressure now from the international community (ex the USA) to stop the attacks.

Yes, it does worry me. But so does the support for terrorism in the Philipines, Indonesia, Pakistan et al. In fact North Korea worries me a lot more than Iran, they probably do have nukes and may soon have the ability to threaten with them (once again, I don't think they would launch them). The support of some of GWB's policies has led to the creation of a massive terrorist problem where there was none before, that worries me. The fact that Israel has nuclear weapons worries me. The fact that two countries with nukes are argueing over Kashmir worries me (this is where I believe there is the greatest risk of nuclear war, not the middle east or North Korea). If Iran is such a big threat to Israel, why are they attacking Lebanon and not Iran? I can't help the feeling of De Ja Vu that is creeping over me with respect to the ramping up of rhetoric over Iran (ie Iraq all over again) It's not that I don't think Iran is bad, I just don't think they are the source of all evil as some people are making out.

No' date=' not secretly. Something like that will not be and cannot be kept secret. I don't happen to think that everyone in Iran is crazy or "evil" (i hate that word, it's been hijacked). I think the [i']threat[/i] of producing a nuclear weapon is more effective for Iran than actually producing one. If they do manage to suitably enrich enough uranium and make a warhead (unlikely, IMO), I find it even less likely they would launch it at Israel (as this would mean Iran's assured destruction by Israel, possible by nuclear retaliation). I accept that I am going to get slammed for my opinion, but it is just that, an opinion. I see Iran as the next "evil" country of choice to distract the voters.

To be fair, what I said, was exactly what I was trying to point out. I did not mean to infer that Israel was purposely targeting civilians, what I meant (and did say) is that Israel is willing to accept the deaths of X number of civilians in order to achieve its aims, and further asked what sort of civilian casualties they are willing to accept. I believe this this is a legitimate question, if not a pleasant one. I perhaps should have been less ambiguous.