And this appears to work. I'm sure some not-rtfa'ing people above me will have got in with a quick "making lime generates carbon dioxide hur hur" but the process already takes this into account. By increasing the pH of the seawater, they claim that it will absorb two moles of CO2 for every mole released in the manufacture of lime. I'm not an environmental chemist so I can't comment on the adsorption gradient of seawater, but if they think it'll work then it'll work.
Carbon dioxide dissolves in water:
CO2 + H2O H(+) + HCO3(-)
As does Calcium Oxide (lime)
CaO + H2O Ca(2+) + 2 * OH(-)
Hydroxide and protons naturally combine to form water - it's another equilibrium but the constant is something like 10**-7 (that 7 is the pH of water)
H(+) + OH(-) H2O
i.e. at pH 7, there will be ten million times as much water as either of the other two.
I'd imagine that various equilibrium constants shift around to prove that there's a net increase in the absorption of carbon dioxide from air. It's pretty elementary science - so elementary, I've forgotten how to do it. by simply ascribing a token amount of competence to the scientific background of the people in TFA, it can be shown that they probably know what the hell they're talking about.
Also, there's no doomsday scenario where a drop of lime juice makes the ocean boil pure CO2 and kill us all. As far as I can see.
It's nice to have principles but at the end of the day my friends come first. I can always (ad)block adverts. Oh no, what if they wheedle into my subconcious or the ToS change? Then I'll occasionally make a marginally worse purchasing decision. It's not like i never do that anyway.
I totally agree with you about how having friends on facebook is highly offensive and joining it will lead to identity theft and involuntary permanent incarceration in guantanamo bay. My neighbour tried to give facebook fake details, and mark zuckerberg showed up and stabbed him in the eye.
Ooh, I can air a pet niggle with people who know what I'm talking about.
There are projects out there, on the web, that use this in a simple way - "I'm psychic, I can guess what tv program you're thinking of!" with the inevitable tree expansion if you out-think it. Problem is, trees built from scratch this way are really really really inefficiently arranged. "is the protagonist yellow?" -> no -> "is the protagonist called peter griffin?" -> no -> "do the protagonists travel through a wormhole to other planets?" -> etc etc etc.
So? That 5% is still going to get more expensive along with the rest of oil, but it's not as easily replaceable. The most economical thing to do would be to use alternative energy sources for fuel, and keep oil for chemicals.
It's not just plastics, lots of things depend on ground-sourced chemicals that are extremely uneconomical to make from plants. I always stay out of oil debates because there's a temptation to repeatedly scream "OIL IS NOT JUST FOR CARS!". I'm biased though, being a pharmaceutical chemist. Everything I handle every day is sourced from oil, and it's only going to get more expensive. Ethyl acetate would be a rare exception, but for the fact that it's made from inorganically-sourced ethanol! How's that for irony.
Let's say we have two situations. In one, non-christians who become scholars don't really concern themselves with the life of Jesus, but focus on someone else with more evidence. Christians who become scholars largely concern themselves with bigging up the evidence for jesus.
In another, non-christian scholars start to actually study the evidence for the existence of the historical jesus. They then mostly become christians because of what they find out.
rhetorical question, how would you distinguish between the two possibilities?
Disclaimers: Occams razor favours A. Yes, I'm a christian. No, I don't have statistics. No, I don't think either of these is more likely than the other.
In all fairness, the frequency distribution of stars do vary already in our universe, and it happens that ours is in the right region for life based on carbon-carbon bonds being stable but not immutable. If constants were different, life *as we know it* wouldn't exist. But it's all about temperature, scale, and timing. As baxter eloquently illustrates in, yes, a scifi book, the life that burns a billion times hotter burns for a billionth as long.
Bluff. Even paracetamol and ibuprofen were patented back in the day. Maybe you're thinking of aspirin, but everything else I can think of was originally profited from by the people who discovered it. I'd be interested to know what natural molecules and folk remedies you successfully self-medicate with.
In the case where the universe continues to expand, cooling at a slower rate then the black holes, eventually the black holes will absorb all of the CMB photons. Or, it could get to the point where the wavelength of a photon is larger than the radius of a black hole and capture becomes unlikely.
Interestingly, if the universe does get really really cold and all the supermassive black holes boil off, the radiation they give out will be eaten by other black holes. I wonder if there's an equilibrium. Eventually, though, all black holes in the universe would merge into one, which would then only be able to feed off itself if spacetime was positively curved.
I take it you mean below, so any black hole above a certain size threshold won't decay until they eat all the background radiation in the universe. This size, presumeably, is above the lower limit for black hole creation in a supernova.
Substituting generic drugs is a damn good way to save money for, say, helping more people not die. Once something goes off-patent, the drugs companies are relying on the stupid and uninformed "but the expensive one just worked for me before" public to continue sales (or, say, reformulations and repackaging, putting 2% caffiene in paracetamol, etc). But, here's the secret, the generics are the same molecules with the same pharmacology, the same pharmacokinetics, the same efficacy, the same side-effects and the same metabolic byproducts. They're just being sold at the cost it takes to manufacture the expensive ones!
I Am A Medicinal Scientist.
Disclaimer: I think patents and high profits are necessary in order to pay for the initial research. We also got a good thing going with the patent expiry times, it guarantees that medicine will be universally accessible within a generation. This does not represent the opinion of my employer etc etc.
You're in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it's crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't, not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?
Actually, my first response when I read that line was "His PR team are trying to look hip." Like when you see TV ads that try to use street jargon, and miss the mark. Of course, I'm probably being a bit harsh, the truth will be somewhere between the two.
When you affirm your belief in gravity, there's the implicit rider that "if I see a rock fall up, then I'll sit down and rethink it". But if it happened, it doesn't mean that you no longer believe in when you saw rocks fall yesterday.
Top gear did it. Driving through the deep south in a pickup with "hillary for president", "nascar sucks", and "man-love rules OK" written on the side. You can probably imagine what happened next.
Slashdot Mirror
And this appears to work. I'm sure some not-rtfa'ing people above me will have got in with a quick "making lime generates carbon dioxide hur hur" but the process already takes this into account. By increasing the pH of the seawater, they claim that it will absorb two moles of CO2 for every mole released in the manufacture of lime. I'm not an environmental chemist so I can't comment on the adsorption gradient of seawater, but if they think it'll work then it'll work.
Carbon dioxide dissolves in water:
CO2 + H2O H(+) + HCO3(-)
As does Calcium Oxide (lime)
CaO + H2O Ca(2+) + 2 * OH(-)
Hydroxide and protons naturally combine to form water - it's another equilibrium but the constant is something like 10**-7 (that 7 is the pH of water)
H(+) + OH(-) H2O
i.e. at pH 7, there will be ten million times as much water as either of the other two.
I'd imagine that various equilibrium constants shift around to prove that there's a net increase in the absorption of carbon dioxide from air. It's pretty elementary science - so elementary, I've forgotten how to do it. by simply ascribing a token amount of competence to the scientific background of the people in TFA, it can be shown that they probably know what the hell they're talking about.
Also, there's no doomsday scenario where a drop of lime juice makes the ocean boil pure CO2 and kill us all. As far as I can see.
It's nice to have principles but at the end of the day my friends come first. I can always (ad)block adverts. Oh no, what if they wheedle into my subconcious or the ToS change? Then I'll occasionally make a marginally worse purchasing decision. It's not like i never do that anyway.
I totally agree with you about how having friends on facebook is highly offensive and joining it will lead to identity theft and involuntary permanent incarceration in guantanamo bay. My neighbour tried to give facebook fake details, and mark zuckerberg showed up and stabbed him in the eye.
Ooh, I can air a pet niggle with people who know what I'm talking about.
There are projects out there, on the web, that use this in a simple way - "I'm psychic, I can guess what tv program you're thinking of!" with the inevitable tree expansion if you out-think it. Problem is, trees built from scratch this way are really really really inefficiently arranged. "is the protagonist yellow?" -> no -> "is the protagonist called peter griffin?" -> no -> "do the protagonists travel through a wormhole to other planets?" -> etc etc etc.
I guess animals would work a bit better.
Hmm, I suppose when I think about it, even winchesters of chromatography solvents are ~5 times as expensive per volume as petrol.
I'm allergic to recursion, you insensitive sailboat!
So? That 5% is still going to get more expensive along with the rest of oil, but it's not as easily replaceable. The most economical thing to do would be to use alternative energy sources for fuel, and keep oil for chemicals.
Might I risk a troll and speculate that, in fact, it was your SoC project that got rejected?
It's not just plastics, lots of things depend on ground-sourced chemicals that are extremely uneconomical to make from plants. I always stay out of oil debates because there's a temptation to repeatedly scream "OIL IS NOT JUST FOR CARS!". I'm biased though, being a pharmaceutical chemist. Everything I handle every day is sourced from oil, and it's only going to get more expensive. Ethyl acetate would be a rare exception, but for the fact that it's made from inorganically-sourced ethanol! How's that for irony.
Let's say we have two situations. In one, non-christians who become scholars don't really concern themselves with the life of Jesus, but focus on someone else with more evidence. Christians who become scholars largely concern themselves with bigging up the evidence for jesus.
In another, non-christian scholars start to actually study the evidence for the existence of the historical jesus. They then mostly become christians because of what they find out.
rhetorical question, how would you distinguish between the two possibilities?
Disclaimers: Occams razor favours A. Yes, I'm a christian. No, I don't have statistics. No, I don't think either of these is more likely than the other.
In all fairness, the frequency distribution of stars do vary already in our universe, and it happens that ours is in the right region for life based on carbon-carbon bonds being stable but not immutable. If constants were different, life *as we know it* wouldn't exist. But it's all about temperature, scale, and timing. As baxter eloquently illustrates in, yes, a scifi book, the life that burns a billion times hotter burns for a billionth as long.
Pfft, go all the way. Keyswordtar hero!
As it turns out, space is big
You may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
Bluff. Even paracetamol and ibuprofen were patented back in the day. Maybe you're thinking of aspirin, but everything else I can think of was originally profited from by the people who discovered it. I'd be interested to know what natural molecules and folk remedies you successfully self-medicate with.
Without drug patents, most of us would be dead or ill.
In the case where the universe continues to expand, cooling at a slower rate then the black holes, eventually the black holes will absorb all of the CMB photons. Or, it could get to the point where the wavelength of a photon is larger than the radius of a black hole and capture becomes unlikely.
Interestingly, if the universe does get really really cold and all the supermassive black holes boil off, the radiation they give out will be eaten by other black holes. I wonder if there's an equilibrium. Eventually, though, all black holes in the universe would merge into one, which would then only be able to feed off itself if spacetime was positively curved.
I take it you mean below, so any black hole above a certain size threshold won't decay until they eat all the background radiation in the universe. This size, presumeably, is above the lower limit for black hole creation in a supernova.
Substituting generic drugs is a damn good way to save money for, say, helping more people not die. Once something goes off-patent, the drugs companies are relying on the stupid and uninformed "but the expensive one just worked for me before" public to continue sales (or, say, reformulations and repackaging, putting 2% caffiene in paracetamol, etc).
But, here's the secret, the generics are the same molecules with the same pharmacology, the same pharmacokinetics, the same efficacy, the same side-effects and the same metabolic byproducts. They're just being sold at the cost it takes to manufacture the expensive ones!
I Am A Medicinal Scientist.
Disclaimer: I think patents and high profits are necessary in order to pay for the initial research. We also got a good thing going with the patent expiry times, it guarantees that medicine will be universally accessible within a generation. This does not represent the opinion of my employer etc etc.
You're in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it's crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't, not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?
Actually, my first response when I read that line was "His PR team are trying to look hip." Like when you see TV ads that try to use street jargon, and miss the mark. Of course, I'm probably being a bit harsh, the truth will be somewhere between the two.
My language of choice is PHP. Recurse that!
When you affirm your belief in gravity, there's the implicit rider that "if I see a rock fall up, then I'll sit down and rethink it". But if it happened, it doesn't mean that you no longer believe in when you saw rocks fall yesterday.
Man, I know what you need! I saw an ad for an "idiot filter" when I was watching chess on tv.
Top gear did it. Driving through the deep south in a pickup with "hillary for president", "nascar sucks", and "man-love rules OK" written on the side. You can probably imagine what happened next.