BlueCosmology

You've got that the wrong way round. Newton's gravitation is instantaneous. General relativity is limited by the speed of light.

I don't think this question could of possibly been any more obvious about the fact that it was talking about working in a lab. If you're working with benzene in the vacuum of space I'd recommend a spacesuit. Not relevant, but hey.

...? Which is exactly why gas masks are an emergency backup.

In a lab that should never happen. That is the whole point of a fume hood. If any substance is escaping the fume hood, your fume hood is not adequate for the purpose.

You really shouldn't be asking a game forum for advice on toxicology precautions. Consult your safety data sheet and the masks manual. If in doubt contact the manufacturer. Don't be basing your handling of toxic chemicals over what anonymous people on a game forum tell you. http://www.cpchem.com/msds/100000068511_SDS_US_EN.PDF Safety data sheet for benzene. "Wear a supplied-air NIOSH approved respirator" so no, since a mcu-2/p gas mask is not air supplied it would not be sufficient. And as already discussed a gas mask is an extra emergency precaution. An adequate fume hood should be your main concern. If you do not think your fume hood is good enough and as such require to wear a respirator, you definitely do not have the facilities to work with toxic chemicals no matter how good your gas mask is. To add to this, if you do not know how to find the answer to this question yourself you are DEFINITELY not qualified to work with toxic chemicals and most certainly should give up on whatever project it is you wish to work on until you are adequately trained.

Ok, I'm tired of arguing with a troll now so this will be my last comment to you. Heavy duty and super heavy duty are specific terms for batteries. They have legal requirements to be specified as one. They are not just advertisement terms. If that was the case why in the world do you think people would advertise them as heavy duty when others are advertising as super heavy duty? Everyone would assume that super heavy duty are superior for energy content (which they are). Also did you honestly just tell someone that refereed to power as watts that power is joules per second. Do you know what the word watt means?

Would you like me to go through every single step with you? I didn't think having to go to the point of showing every multiplication would be necessary but here you are. Apparently explaining it all isn't enough, I have to go through every tiny step of calculation. To melt aluminium requires raising it to its melting point of 600C. Aluminium has a very high specific heat for a metal of 1kJ/kgK, meaning for every degree C it's raised requires 1 kilojoule. Everyday temperature is close to 0C, so 600kJ (600*1) required to raise aluminium to melting point. Then aswell as raising a material to melting point, there is extra energy required to melt it. I'm sure you'll of noticed before that water for instances in a freezer gets very cold much faster than it freezes. This is because of the extra energy needed for a phase change. The latent heat of fusion for aluminium is 500kJ, meaning it takes 500kJ to change solid aluminium at melting point into molten aluminium at melting point. So in total ~1100kJ (that's 600+500, the energy to get the aluminium to melting point plus the energy to melt it) are required to melt aluminium. A heavy duty battery has 26 amp hours, an amp hour is 3.6kJ per volt. 26*4*6=100*6=600kJ contained in one battery two batteries have double the energy, 600kJ*2=1200kJ. So two heavy duty 6 volts batteries contain ~1200kJ.

I assume you're just a troll now, because not only did I not link a forum (I linked google) you then went onto link a different battery. You know heavy duty and super heavy duty are actually terms in the electronics industry right? They mean things. A super heavy duty battery IS NOT a heavy duty battery. There is a reason they have different names. Ironically, everything you are saying is ignorance. Power is entirely irrelevant in this. Again, it almost certainly wouldn't be possible with the power output of 2 lantern batteries either BUT THAT DOES NOT MATTER. The power could be anything, there is not enough energy to melt a kilo of aluminium in two lantern bateries. I have argued it with competence I have not just stated it. Xannari was asked if he used the batteries for the power supply or not and he stated that yes he did.

You're acting like some things just aren't obviously incorrect. There is no way, at all, that this is true. If you don't know enough about physics to tell instantly that it isn't true, fine, but that doesn't mean nobody does. If I told you that I'd just managed to catapult myself to the center of the sun with a spoon and elastic band, would you believe me? Would you think it's reasonably possible that I'm telling the truth? No. And that is no more obviously wrong than this.

Sorry, but I know someone on the internet isn't going to manage to break conservation of energy with two batteries and a brick. Not sure why you've put power in quotation marks when referring to what I've claimed, when I have never mentioned power. The power is entirely irrelevant, it could be infinite or it could be close to 0, either case there is not enough energy to melt a kilo of aluminium. I also don't see why you'd claim I made the amp hours of a heavy duty battery up rather than just Google it. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=amp+hours+of+a+6V+heavy+duty+battery&oq=amp+hours+of+a+6V+heavy+duty+battery&aqs=chrome..69i57.1683j0j4&client=ms-android-h3g-gb&sourceid=chrome-mobile&espv=1&ie=UTF-8 First result. Nope, that's another way it's almost definitely not possible with two batteries but it doesn't matter. The energy in two batteries just isn't enough, it doesn't matter if all the energy is released at once or over years. Very simple to show it will not work in the slightest. Anyone with any knowledge in physics knows this will not work. Anyone that accepts conservation of energy, knows that I have shown this cannot work.

No, there's no real advantage to doing so (the only notable case where there would of been an advantage is the failure of that Mars probe) whereas there are a lot of disadvantages. Mainly the cost of replacing signage, and the confusion (and hence damage) that will be caused in the switchover.

True, not relevant at all, but true.

Because there really isn't any debate to be had. He is just blatantly lying, and when presented with undeniable evidence of such his rebuttal is to just tell me to go electrocute myself.

Not true at all. Infact, famously not so. Anyone with any knowledge of metallurgy knows this to be false, aluminium is very famously energetically difficult to melt. Aluminium has a very high specific heat and a high latent heat of fusion for a metal. The melting point of aluminium is ~700C, the specific heat is ~1Kj/kg, the latent heat of fusion is ~500Kj/kg. Meaning for one kg of aluminium it takes 1200Kj to melt. Steel has a higher melting point (1400C) but a much much lower specific heat ~1/2, and a much lower heat of fusion ~200Kj/kg. Meaning for one kg of steel it takes 900Kj to melt

You knew the name of it was an arc furnace, yet you have never heard of it before you invented it yourself. Hmm....

Pretty sure it says zinc, but even so again steel takes considerably less energy to melt than aluminium, roughly half as much. I also find that, while possible, very unlikely. It seems much more likely it's either hooked up to much more than two batteries or to the mains. However while melting steel with that is unlikely, though technically possible with incredibly high energy efficiency, melting aluminium just isn't possible. Again, conservation of energy exists.

It takes over 5 times as much energy to melt aluminium as it does zinc. It plain and simple isn't possible. The energy required to melt aluminium is larger than the energy contained in two 6V heavy duty batteries.

What a great response, really backed up your point well. From that logic then I've melted my entire city with my car battery. Hook yourself up to a car battery then tell me I didn't. Sorry, in reality something called conservation of energy applies locally. Didn't happen. Isn't possible.

Nonsense. The energy required to melt kg of aluminium is ~1100kJ, if there is absolutely no energy loss. A heavy duty battery has 26ah and hence two 6V ones have an energy of ~1100kJ. They would just about manage to melt aluminium if there was absolutely no energy loss. Does your furnace feel hot? Oops, there's a huge amount of energy loss then. Clear lie.

What battery did you use.

Has anyone actually fallen for this absolutely obvious lie of there being someone that had a kilo of gold yet thought it was only worth 30p?

You clearly don't, you've shown very clearly you do not understand them. Here's a question for you to ask yourself, do you know how to derive the Schwarzschild metric or derive the wavefunction of an electron in hydrogen? The answer is clearly, you don't. These are the absolute simplest parts of general relativity and quantum mechanics. If you do not know how to do this you most certainly do not understand them. Why do you think that you do?

Are you just a troll or a massive arrogant idiot?

Seriously? Lol. The aether is much more of a simple explanation as to why the theory of electromagnetism predicts one particular speed for electromagnetic waves. If it was just Ockham's razor Einsteinian relativity would be rejected and the aether accepted, in fact this is one of the reasons Einsteinian relativity took a while to become accepted. You think the fact that light travels the same speed relative to everyone because space and time are not absolute but change depending on motion as well as gravitation being a geometrical property of spacetime rather than a force which is described by a non linear coupled tensor partial differential equation with 256 components (that luckily can be reduced down to 10 independent components) is simpler than "Electromagnetism predicts one speed for light because it travels at one speed through a medium." Really? Aether was rejected because an incredible amount of evidence was found against it, and an incredibly amount of evidence was found for relativity. General relativity is famed for being incredibly non-simple, not the other way around. Hell the kepler problem hasn't even be proved in closed form in general relativity yet.

That isn't true. The uncertainty principle has nothing at all to do with an experimenter taking any action. The quantum system itself is uncertain, it is not in one particular quantum state, it is many at once. The uncertainty principle does not say anything along the lines of "The quantum system is in a state A, but action will cause this state to change so it can not be measured exactly". The uncertainty principle is a quantum system is essentially not in a particular state. It is not that you can not measure the exact configuration of the atoms, it is that the atoms do not have an exact configuration.