metabolism

Bill <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Nodey said:

But it's impossible for it just to be a few
kg of material - the critical mass for uranium is 50kg and plutonium
is 10kg. I don't remember what it used for fission, but the entire
bomb was more than 10000kg

That isn't what I was taught in grade school in the 50's, but that
might have been intentional mis-information back then. I heard that
about 2 Kg could go critical and that 2 or 3 workers on the Manhattan
project were killed by a radiation flash when they got 2 pieces of
enriched Uranium together.

The most often quoted value is 50-60 kg for U-235
(http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/overview/technical2.asp), but I did
find smaller numbers, so I refer to Serber's "The Los Alamos Primer", the
original now-unclassified "guide" for the Manhattan Project. Apparently,
the 50-60kg estimate is theoretically correct, for a simple ball of the
stuff, but when you're trying build a bomb:

"The most effective way of reducing the critical mass is to keep those
neutrons at the edge of the mass from straying, to redirect them back into
the chain reaction. This calls for a "tamper," a thick casing of a dense
metal, like U-238 or gold... the new critical mass: fifteen kilograms of U-
235."

But 2 kg is extremely unlikely to be correct.

Quoted message said:

The 2 guys that were doing it died within
about 24 hours and the only other guy in the room about 30 feet away
died within the week.

That sounds like radiation poisoning, and it doesn't require critical mass
to generate a lot of radiation. It just requires _some_ nuclear reaction
until a significant amount of radiactive isotopes result.

--
Nodey

Nodey said:

Bill <[email hidden]> wrote in news:e00ih.24244$wc5.15166
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

Quoted message said:

I said 6C (USABLE), as in ready to burn.

Actually, that's quite wrong, because the "broken down" and "burning" view
of things is much too simplified to explain metabolism.

Remember that chemical energy lies in the bonds, and not "in" the atoms.
You don't get energy from "carbon", you get energy from breaking up the
(strong) carbon-oxygen bonds and leave the atoms with weaker bonds, or no
bond at all. There is where you extract energy - the leftover energy from
making a strong bond into a weak bond.

So in the metabolic process, never is "carbon" used. Instead, the citric
acid cycle (also called Krebs cycle, http://www.sp.uconn.edu/
~bi107vc/images/mol/krebs_cycle.gif) and the electron transport chain
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Etc2.png) extracts energy from all the
high-energy electrons.

After the energy stripping, the waste product are CO2 and H2O. Never did
you have carbons coming off and getting used.

Quoted message said:

When we metabolize, the H2O
merely gets exhaled and the Carbon used.

On the contrary, CO2 is usually simply exhaled, while water can be reused
by the body.

Nodey

Though you're mostly correct, there is significant water vapor being
exhaled.

Set<@setnet.com> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:32:20 +0000 (UTC), Nodey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On the contrary, CO2 is usually simply exhaled, while water can be
reused by the body.

Nodey

Though you're mostly correct, there is significant water vapor being
exhaled.

Definitely. And evaporated as sweat, and expelled as urine. That's why I
said that it _can_ be reused, not that all of it will. Especially hard to
determine, since you also drink a large amount of water daily, and that
needs to be expelled.

--
Nodey

Tom Keats said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill said:

I also remember some tidbit about the Soviets setting off the largest
bomb ever at about 75 Megatons but that would have made for a 50,000Kg
bomb and blown the snot out of most of Siberia or wherever they did it.

That was the Czar Bomba, and I think it was more like 50 megatons.
At any rate, IIRC, it turned a bunch of Soviet underwear into
fudge repositories when they realized what kind of geopolitical
environment they were creating, and inspired them to think about
signing non-proliferation and test-limiting treaties.

That was just before the Cuba missile thing (which was a Soviet
response to the Turkey missile thing.)

cheers,
Tom

Well,
At least I got a laugh out of your description of the Soviet realization
of what they were getting into. What would have been next, us making a
150 Megaton bomb just to prove we could make one bigger? Where would we
test such a beast? Turn Cuba into a 90 mile crater and deafen everyone
on the East coast? I think they redefined 'overkill' at that point.
Bill Baka

Nodey said:

Bill <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Nodey said:

But it's impossible for it just to be a few
kg of material - the critical mass for uranium is 50kg and plutonium
is 10kg. I don't remember what it used for fission, but the entire
bomb was more than 10000kg

That isn't what I was taught in grade school in the 50's, but that
might have been intentional mis-information back then. I heard that
about 2 Kg could go critical and that 2 or 3 workers on the Manhattan
project were killed by a radiation flash when they got 2 pieces of
enriched Uranium together.

The most often quoted value is 50-60 kg for U-235
(http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/overview/technical2.asp), but I did
find smaller numbers, so I refer to Serber's "The Los Alamos Primer", the
original now-unclassified "guide" for the Manhattan Project. Apparently,
the 50-60kg estimate is theoretically correct, for a simple ball of the
stuff, but when you're trying build a bomb:

"The most effective way of reducing the critical mass is to keep those
neutrons at the edge of the mass from straying, to redirect them back into
the chain reaction. This calls for a "tamper," a thick casing of a dense
metal, like U-238 or gold... the new critical mass: fifteen kilograms of U-
235."

But 2 kg is extremely unlikely to be correct.

Like I said, I could have been intentionally mis-informed in public
school in the 50's. The government and people were really paranoid back
then and many of my school mates had bomb shelters under the driveway
that they got to play in. It was kind of cool but kind of weird to live
back then.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The 2 guys that were doing it died within
about 24 hours and the only other guy in the room about 30 feet away
died within the week.

That sounds like radiation poisoning, and it doesn't require critical mass
to generate a lot of radiation. It just requires _some_ nuclear reaction
until a significant amount of radiactive isotopes result.

It was described as a visible flash that lit up the whole room like a
flash bulb and they all kind of went "Whoa" then "Oh [censored], we're dead".,
and they were in fact dead. The article described the two pieces as
being about a Kilo each, but being in the days of everything classified,
I can't verify any of it.
Bill Baka

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill said:

Tom Keats said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill said:

I also remember some tidbit about the Soviets setting off the largest
bomb ever at about 75 Megatons but that would have made for a 50,000Kg
bomb and blown the snot out of most of Siberia or wherever they did it.

That was the Czar Bomba, and I think it was more like 50 megatons.
At any rate, IIRC, it turned a bunch of Soviet underwear into
fudge repositories when they realized what kind of geopolitical
environment they were creating, and inspired them to think about
signing non-proliferation and test-limiting treaties.

That was just before the Cuba missile thing (which was a Soviet
response to the Turkey missile thing.)

Quoted message said:

150 Megaton bomb just to prove we could make one bigger? Where would we
test such a beast?

That indeed is the question.

Speaking of escalation, I note Rumsfeld's successor
is falling into that trap. And bringing the rest
of yez down with him.

Gotta be Top Dog, right? Anything less is
unconscionably unAmerican.

Achilles.

There's a prophetic tune by the Screaming Blue Messiahs.
It's called "I Can Speak American."

It would be scientifically interesting to develop a
thermonuclear device that fuses helium instead of
mere hydrogen. Maybe Dr. Teller has one stowed
under his basement stairs?

cheers,
Tom

Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Tom Keats said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill said:

150 Megaton bomb just to prove we could make one bigger? Where would we
test such a beast?

That indeed is the question.

Speaking of escalation, I note Rumsfeld's successor
is falling into that trap. And bringing the rest
of yez down with him.

He has to impress Herr Bush.

Quoted message said:

Gotta be Top Dog, right? Anything less is
unconscionably unAmerican.

Achilles.

There's a prophetic tune by the Screaming Blue Messiahs.
It's called "I Can Speak American."

It would be scientifically interesting to develop a
thermonuclear device that fuses helium instead of
mere hydrogen. Maybe Dr. Teller has one stowed
under his basement stairs?

And blow a sizable chunk of the earth into the atmosphere causing
another Dinosaur extinction scenario? We would be the Dinosaurs this
time. Sometimes enough really is enough. Building something just because
we can does have limits. Of course some idiot politician might build it
anyway, and we do still have the weed in the White House for 2 more years.
Bill Baka

Quoted message said:

cheers,
Tom

Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill said:

Tom Keats said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill said:

150 Megaton bomb just to prove we could make one bigger? Where would we
test such a beast?

That indeed is the question.

Speaking of escalation, I note Rumsfeld's successor
is falling into that trap. And bringing the rest
of yez down with him.

He has to impress Herr Bush.

Quoted message said:

Gotta be Top Dog, right? Anything less is
unconscionably unAmerican.

Achilles.

There's a prophetic tune by the Screaming Blue Messiahs.
It's called "I Can Speak American."

It would be scientifically interesting to develop a
thermonuclear device that fuses helium instead of
mere hydrogen. Maybe Dr. Teller has one stowed
under his basement stairs?

And blow a sizable chunk of the earth into the atmosphere causing
another Dinosaur extinction scenario? We would be the Dinosaurs this
time. Sometimes enough really is enough. Building something just because
we can does have limits. Of course some idiot politician might build it
anyway,

Maybe it's already been done, but we just don't hear about it.
After all, possession of a Doomsday Device isn't exactly something
a gov't would want to worry its citizenry about.

There's some conspiracy theory fodder for ya to ruminate on.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Tom Keats said:

Bill said:

And blow a sizable chunk of the earth into the atmosphere causing
another Dinosaur extinction scenario? We would be the Dinosaurs this
time. Sometimes enough really is enough. Building something just because
we can does have limits. Of course some idiot politician might build it
anyway,

Maybe it's already been done, but we just don't hear about it.
After all, possession of a Doomsday Device isn't exactly something
a gov't would want to worry its citizenry about.

Dr. Strangelove: Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is
lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?

Ambassador de Sadesky: It was to be announced at the Party Congress on
Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.

Quoted message said:

There's some conspiracy theory fodder for ya to ruminate on.

My personal problem is the current conspiracy to bring chocolate and all
manner of fattening things to work my co-workers are currently engaging
in. Looks like I'm taking the longer (middling longer) way home from
work today.

--
Dane Buson - [email hidden]
It is by Perl alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the regex of Larry
that the code acquires flexibility, the flexibility enables obscurity, the
obscurity generates a warning. It is by Perl alone I set my mind in motion.
Calle Dybedahl, in the Scary Devil Monastery

(Tom Keats) said:

Maybe it's already been done, but we just don't hear about it.
After all, possession of a Doomsday Device isn't exactly something
a gov't would want to worry its citizenry about.

"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you
*keep* it a *secret*!"
--
terry morse - Undiscovered Country Tours - http://www.udctours.com/

Tom Keats said:

Maybe it's already been done, but we just don't hear about it.
After all, possession of a Doomsday Device isn't exactly something
a gov't would want to worry its citizenry about.

There's some conspiracy theory fodder for ya to ruminate on.

cheers,
Tom

Just what I need for Christmas cheer, thinking of Bush and Cheney at the
switch. It could sure fix Iraq in a few hundred microseconds though.
Bill Baka

Dane Buson said:

Tom Keats said:

Bill said:

And blow a sizable chunk of the earth into the atmosphere causing
another Dinosaur extinction scenario? We would be the Dinosaurs this
time. Sometimes enough really is enough. Building something just because
we can does have limits. Of course some idiot politician might build it
anyway,

Maybe it's already been done, but we just don't hear about it.
After all, possession of a Doomsday Device isn't exactly something
a gov't would want to worry its citizenry about.

Dr. Strangelove: Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is
lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?

Ambassador de Sadesky: It was to be announced at the Party Congress on
Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.

Quoted message said:

There's some conspiracy theory fodder for ya to ruminate on.

My personal problem is the current conspiracy to bring chocolate and all
manner of fattening things to work my co-workers are currently engaging
in. Looks like I'm taking the longer (middling longer) way home from
work today.

It happened to me every Christmas and I fell for it every Christmas.
If it is chocolate, I eat it, pretty much.
Bill Baka

Nodey said:

Bill <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Nodey said:

Bill <[email hidden]> wrote in news:e00ih.24244$wc5.15166
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

Remember that chemical energy lies in the bonds, and not "in" the
atoms. You don't get energy from "carbon", you get energy from
breaking up the (strong) carbon-oxygen bonds and leave the atoms with
weaker bonds, or no bond at all. There is where you extract energy -
the leftover energy from making a strong bond into a weak bond.

Semi correct. You use energy to break the water away from the Carbon
and gain it from burning the Carbon.

Not even semi-correct. Oxidation by oxygen (burning) is one of the ways
to break bones and release energy, but not nearly the only way.

If bonds aren't the symbolic source of chemical energy, why does this
page exist? What is this "chemical bond energy" business?
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c120/bondel.html

The page has some inaccuracies in it, so even some of the references
need to be proofread. 74 picometers for a Hydrogen atom diameter is OK
but "The C-H bond is thus (37+77) 114 pm." does not agree with the chart
which shows 109 pm.
Starting to see why I say to question everything?
While this page is a good introduction to bonding, mostly the covalent
type, it is not the bible and does need a going over.

Quoted message said:

Or this page?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/boneng.html

Nothing wrong with this page. Not what I was talking about, but then I
hope you knew that before pointing so arrogantly to it.

Quoted message said:

Or this one? http://www.bcpl.net/~kdrews/bonding/bonding.html

Bonds are exothermic, duh.

Quoted message said:

Or explain to me how double-displacement reactions, not involving oxygen,
manage to release heat?
http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/thermo/faq/why-are-metal-
displacements-exothermic.shtml

Too simple. The more powerful bond will chuck the weaker one, making a
stronger bond and releasing the energy difference. That took about 2
brain cells.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If there was a way to derive
energy from separating the Carbon out then why mine coal????

... That is some terrible logic.

It's like saying "What do you mean soap helps clean my hand? I washed my
hand with just water the other day and it got clean. So, soap is
definitely not doing any cleaning."

You are taking an example of a macroscopic phenomenon and saying "there,
that's how everything works".

The fact that coal burns doesn't mean carbon is the only thing that
burns. Refer again to, for example, exothermic double-displacement
reactions listed previously.

YOU might pay attention to the context. My point was that Carbon could
be separated from Carbohydrates like corn stalks leftover after the
harvest and the Carbon sent off to the energy plants to be burned,
basically like coal, minus the Sulfur and other impurities. It might
actually be more efficient than strip mining coal, which we now are
using with high Sulfur content.
Pay attention.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You might
have a trick lab experiment up your sleeve but I was talking real
world and not trying to teach Chemistry or Physics.

The fact that you're trying for a practical interpretation is great, but
that doesn't mean it can be so simplified that it is wrong.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So in the metabolic process, never is "carbon" used. Instead, the
citric acid cycle (also called Krebs cycle, http://www.sp.uconn.edu/
~bi107vc/images/mol/krebs_cycle.gif) and the electron transport chain
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Etc2.png) extracts energy from
all the high-energy electrons.

Quit quoting Wikipedia. Too many people post questionable stuff on it,
and it has caused many comments about that in my primary community of
Electronics. One engineer posted some stuff that was accurate and
somebody else kept changing it to not-accurate.

What, that I have a single picture that's from Wikipedia means that I
have quoted it? Hmm. Why does the other picture come from an .edu?
(which, of course, is not proof of its "absolute correctness", but should
have alerted you to not make hasty assumptions). Never in writing all my
posts have I _ever_ quoted Wikipedia, and I try to write about what I
actually know to be true.

That picture is accurate, but Wikipedia is still in the "Wild West"
stage. The .edu post I trust more, even though it takes a bit more to
visualize.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> When we metabolize, the H2O
> merely gets exhaled and the Carbon used.
On the contrary, CO2 is usually simply exhaled, while water can be
reused by the body.

That is nit picking.

Arguing over accepted definitions is nitpicking. Correcting spelling and
grammar is nitpicking. Arguing over word diction and interpretations is
nitpicking.

When something is _factually wrong_ and I point it out, explain to me how
that is nitpicking?

The fact that separating the C from the H2O is so minor compared to the
combustion of the C is nitpicking. As in a double displacement reaction
there is net energy released and used by the body.
Simple enough without having to make it a chemistry lesson.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, does the above indicate you are an over educated lab rat? I have
dealt with doctorates who could not think outside the box and were
thus useless in the real world.

I don't like to think about myself as a lab rat. Maybe I am; how you
judge me is your choice. But you seem to have come to that conclusion
rather quickly, and through a series of bad logic.

My logic isn't bad for what I intended for this group, but I did seem to
hit one of your hot buttons.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tell me you aren't one of them,
please. Bill Baka
I am copying myself only to remind me to check out the krebs cycle for
authenticity, not go to Mythipedia.

Way to be not to be stubborn and opinionated! You know, the things that
make you better than those stuck-up doctorates?

I might have been one of them once since I was going for multiple
doctorates starting with Nuclear Physics at the University of Illinois
on top of the Manhattan Project until my parents short circuited that by
moving me to California where the educational system sucked, badly, by
comparison. Hence I fell into Electronics. I may have been what I now
despise if I had gathered all those degrees.

Quoted message said:

Hey, I read this other book once, and things in it were wrong! And I read
a couple more, and they all had wrong stuff in it! Let's call all books
shmooks!

No, typos or not, most books have value.
Bill Baka

Bill <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[referring to
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c120/bondel.html]

Quoted message said:

The page has some inaccuracies in it, so even some of the references
need to be proofread. 74 picometers for a Hydrogen atom diameter is OK
but "The C-H bond is thus (37+77) 114 pm." does not agree with the
chart which shows 109 pm.
Starting to see why I say to question everything?

And how have I demonstrated my immutable trust for everything said in
websites?

Quoted message said:

While this page is a good introduction to bonding, mostly the covalent
type, it is not the bible and does need a going over.

Hmm, that seems to have been my stance, not yours. Yours was more similar
to "I saw some EE pages with inaccuracies in them; so, the entirety of
Wikipedia is completely useless."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or this page?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/boneng.html

Nothing wrong with this page. Not what I was talking about, but then I
hope you knew that before pointing so arrogantly to it.

Quoted message said:

Or this one? http://www.bcpl.net/~kdrews/bonding/bonding.html

Bonds are exothermic, duh.

In your previous writings you made it plenty clear that you believed only
by "burning" can you extract energy, and no energy can be extracted from
rearranging bonds. I quote:

"If there was a way to derive energy from separating the Carbon out then
why mine coal????"

Quoted message said:

The fact that separating the C from the H2O is so minor compared to
the combustion of the C is nitpicking. As in a double displacement
reaction there is net energy released and used by the body.
Simple enough without having to make it a chemistry lesson.

Glad to see that you have finally figured out that displacement
reactions, not involving oxygen or burning, can be exothermic!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am copying myself only to remind me to check out the krebs cycle
for authenticity, not go to Mythipedia.

Way to be not to be stubborn and opinionated! You know, the things
that make you better than those stuck-up doctorates?

I might have been one of them once since I was going for multiple
doctorates starting with Nuclear Physics at the University of Illinois

Being new to this group, I would have taken this statement with _some_
significance. But after your laughable and trollish remarks to GaryG, and
I quote:

"You are either a presumptuous idiot or merely trying to support your own
delusions of superiority, so why should I waste my time with you?
I am way smarter than you but choose not to rub it in on this board..."

Yes, no delusions of superiority of your own there.

Your claims of might-be and would-have-been are then completely
meritless. Not just to me, mind, but to most who have read that, I'm
quite sure.

Quoted message said:

on top of the Manhattan Project until my parents short circuited that
by moving me to California where the educational system sucked, badly,
by comparison. Hence I fell into Electronics.

Absurd. Yes, the primary and secondary education of California is worse
than the rest of the US, which means that it is absolute [censored].

But at university level? What, Stanford, Caltech, or UC Berkeley not good
enough for you? Or was Los Alamos (http://www.lanl.gov/), or Livermore
(http://www.llnl.gov/), or LBL (http://www.lbl.gov/), or any of the big
names in nuclear physics ever in the northeast?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hey, I read this other book once, and things in it were wrong! And I
read a couple more, and they all had wrong stuff in it! Let's call
all books shmooks!

No, typos or not, most books have value.

Wikipedia has inaccuracies. Wikipedia has no value.
Books have inaccuracies. Books have value.

Nope, no dogmatism and technophobia there.

--
Nodey

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dane Buson said:

Quoted message said:

There's some conspiracy theory fodder for ya to ruminate on.

My personal problem is the current conspiracy to bring chocolate and all
manner of fattening things to work my co-workers are currently engaging
in. Looks like I'm taking the longer (middling longer) way home from
work today.

That reminds me, I recently discovered there's a Godiva
up the street from me, at Oakridge Mall. Gotta check it
out one of these days.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill said:

Tom Keats said:

Maybe it's already been done, but we just don't hear about it.
After all, possession of a Doomsday Device isn't exactly something
a gov't would want to worry its citizenry about.

There's some conspiracy theory fodder for ya to ruminate on.

cheers,
Tom

Just what I need for Christmas cheer, thinking of Bush and Cheney at the
switch. It could sure fix Iraq in a few hundred microseconds though.

Well then, here's an easier one for you to take:
the Blue Man Group is really just Devo.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Nodey said:

Bill <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[referring to
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c120/bondel.html]

Quoted message said:

The page has some inaccuracies in it, so even some of the references
need to be proofread. 74 picometers for a Hydrogen atom diameter is OK
but "The C-H bond is thus (37+77) 114 pm." does not agree with the
chart which shows 109 pm.
Starting to see why I say to question everything?

And how have I demonstrated my immutable trust for everything said in
websites?

You haven't if I found one with inaccuracies in it, but you are getting
closer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

While this page is a good introduction to bonding, mostly the covalent
type, it is not the bible and does need a going over.

Hmm, that seems to have been my stance, not yours. Yours was more similar
to "I saw some EE pages with inaccuracies in them; so, the entirety of
Wikipedia is completely useless."

Wikipedia is not controlled or policed enough so some strange stuff can
get in. It is probably 99.5% accurate but not enough for me to have 100%
confidence yet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or this page?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/boneng.html

Nothing wrong with this page. Not what I was talking about, but then I
hope you knew that before pointing so arrogantly to it.

Quoted message said:

Or this one? http://www.bcpl.net/~kdrews/bonding/bonding.html

Bonds are exothermic, duh.

In your previous writings you made it plenty clear that you believed only
by "burning" can you extract energy, and no energy can be extracted from
rearranging bonds. I quote:

"If there was a way to derive energy from separating the Carbon out then
why mine coal????"

It would be interesting if it could be done at a wind power or solar
power farm and use farm waste. That's all I really meant until you
decided to bend my meaning.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The fact that separating the C from the H2O is so minor compared to
the combustion of the C is nitpicking. As in a double displacement
reaction there is net energy released and used by the body.
Simple enough without having to make it a chemistry lesson.

Glad to see that you have finally figured out that displacement
reactions, not involving oxygen or burning, can be exothermic!

I knew that but just how far should I want to get into a chemistry
debate on a bicycle board.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I am copying myself only to remind me to check out the krebs cycle
> for authenticity, not go to Mythipedia.
Way to be not to be stubborn and opinionated! You know, the things
that make you better than those stuck-up doctorates?

I might have been one of them once since I was going for multiple
doctorates starting with Nuclear Physics at the University of Illinois

Being new to this group, I would have taken this statement with _some_
significance. But after your laughable and trollish remarks to GaryG, and
I quote:

"You are either a presumptuous idiot or merely trying to support your own
delusions of superiority, so why should I waste my time with you?
I am way smarter than you but choose not to rub it in on this board..."

Yes, no delusions of superiority of your own there.

They aren't delusions since my proven I.Q. is over 140 and I don't have
the exact (or close) number since I don't want to join Mensa and have no
plans of spending money on their all day test.

Quoted message said:

Your claims of might-be and would-have-been are then completely
meritless. Not just to me, mind, but to most who have read that, I'm
quite sure.

My parents, after my mother whined my dad to move her to Crapifornia's
educational system, still divorced my father in my senior high school
year. Not only did I spend 3 years adjusting down to the kids in
California (cutting to go to the beach was a major), but the community
college sucked too. Not the plans I had in Illinois. If you are so
worried about proof look up my academic record in Arlington Heights High
School for the year 1962-1963 and see what classes I was in (advanced)
and the grades I got in even the advanced classes (where the girls were)
so I was not stupid, even about girls and where to find them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

on top of the Manhattan Project until my parents short circuited that
by moving me to California where the educational system sucked, badly,
by comparison. Hence I fell into Electronics.

Absurd. Yes, the primary and secondary education of California is worse
than the rest of the US, which means that it is absolute [censored].

Was.
I returned to Illinois in 1993 and it has been overwhelmed by the
Mexican influx. That isn't racial, but they were not ready to try to
teach 2 languages, other than French to English speaking students and
German to the same group. Spanish was a 'don't care' language back then
before it was forced on us. Hope you aren't one of them.

Quoted message said:

But at university level? What, Stanford, Caltech, or UC Berkeley not good
enough for you? Or was Los Alamos (http://www.lanl.gov/), or Livermore
(http://www.llnl.gov/), or LBL (http://www.lbl.gov/), or any of the big
names in nuclear physics ever in the northeast?

Way too much money after my parents split and I had no sponsors. I got
99th percentile on all the pre-college tests but that in itself wasn't
enough.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hey, I read this other book once, and things in it were wrong! And I
read a couple more, and they all had wrong stuff in it! Let's call
all books shmooks!

No, typos or not, most books have value.

Wikipedia has inaccuracies. Wikipedia has no value.

Misquote. Wikipedia can point to places that do have value.
The site I found with the inconsistencies was not Wikipedia anyway.
Bill Baka

Quoted message said:

Books have inaccuracies. Books have value.

Nope, no dogmatism and technophobia there.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dane Buson said:

Quoted message said:

There's some conspiracy theory fodder for ya to ruminate on.

My personal problem is the current conspiracy to bring chocolate and all
manner of fattening things to work my co-workers are currently engaging
in. Looks like I'm taking the longer (middling longer) way home from
work today.

That reminds me, I recently discovered there's a Godiva
up the street from me, at Oakridge Mall. Gotta check it
out one of these days.

Just fer laffs & passing interest:

http://www.travestyproductions.com/film_five_cent.html

I remember 5-cent chocolate bars. They were half as
big as the 10-cent ones. Choices were pretty much
limited, though, to Dairy Milk or Jersey Milk.

Then there were 8-oz Cokes (in /glass/ bottles, yet)
@ a penny per ounce. That was a good size -- not too
much, not too little. Bottle caps were crimped on
rather than screwed on, and had real cork liners.
Cars had manual chokes and no-draft windows. A
TV set would take about 21 seconds (an eternity) after
being turned on, to warm up before the picture appeared.
Dr. Dixy Lee Ray was running around in a white lab coat,
terrorizing sea urchins.

"They" say coffee is the Number 2 commodity, after oil.
Maybe chocolate might come in at Number 3.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca