So farewell then, slashdot.

At one time this wouldn't be worthy
of a comment

let alone
a submission.

under the previous owner you were good
or was it the one before that?

We don't have one in our lab! My company makes functionalised materials (so solid state) but most of the synthesis and research we do is standard organic chem. GCMS, NMR and ICP do us just fine. We did test a reflectance IR instrument but never managed to get any useful data - in fairness that's probably partly due to lack of expertise.

Interesting that you mention IR not being suitable for reaction monitoring: Mettler's ReactIR has generated quite a bit of hype (well, perhaps 5-10 years ago) and is really quite a nice bit of kit. Easily good enough for reactions on the ten-minutes to hours timescale.

OK, perhaps that was unfair: for certain tasks it can be useful, and can give information that other techniques can't like bond strengths (and angles/strain perhaps?), but only with nice, pure samples. For routine organic synthesis though all the information you need can be got much more simply and intuitively (albeit expensively!) with NMR. You can get half-decent desktop NMR now, about the size of a PC.

I would be amazed if it could. With a sufficiently large database to draw from, and clever processing, I can imagine being able to identify the bulk constituent, but anything else would be lost in the noise. It might be able to tell you if your apple is waxed or not, but not if it's got ppm levels of pesticides. TBH, I'll be pretty impressed if this could identify different plastics or other relatively pure materials. It is certainly a nice idea though.

There's a reason IR spectroscopy has fallen by the wayside in chemistry - it doesn't give you enough information, and just hasn't kept up with other techniques. It's used for specific tasks, such as monitoring a reaction, but it's not a go-to analysis technique any more.

So the cleaners can plug in their equipment. When the train is stationary, and doesn't have wild voltage fluctuations due to the circuitry not having regulators designed to cope with the variation in line voltage between when the train's accelerating and decelerating (i.e. pumping power back into the line).

THF itself isn't particularly risky,* I imagine it's the implications to the authorities that would be a concern. THF is an important solvent in making various amphetamine-type drugs - I'm not sure where, but I'd hazard a guess it's to do a Birch reduction on the imine

* Well, it does have a tendency to form explosive peroxides like most ether solvents, but it's not usually a problem unless you're distilling pure (no inhibitors) THF which has been left under air for a long time. Oh, and it's a suspected carcinogen, but not so bad healthwise as DCM, toluene, etc..

Amazed ADoM (adom.de) hasn't been mentioned yet. I've been playing it for about 15 years on and off (and actually won for the first time this year!). It lacks the stupid stuff you can only learn from spoilers that Nethack has, and it's got a more consistent universe - no stupid Sokoban, no flash cameras and credit cards...

DCSS seems pretty nice too, not played much

Ah, that reminds me of one lunchtime debate with a colleague when this factoid came up:

Me: ... yeah, I don't think they use live ones
Him: Nah, they use frozen chickens
Me: Defrosted though I'd think?
Him: No - at that altitude, they *would* be frozen
Me: ......

I'm no doctor, but I think the cause of death is less likely to have been "[taking] part in an ice bucket challenge" than subsequently "leaping into [shallow] water from 25-metre high cliffs."

Ontopic, I think everyone who has ever used LN2 will have dipped their hand into it. You get a couple of seconds of feeling perfectly fine, then a very sudden searing cold burn. Where I work we were given felt gloves to use when dispensing it until I pointed out that if you actually get LN2 on them (rather than just handling cold metal) it will soak in and be right next to your skin. Now we just use standard marigolds.

The prototype TGV was powered by dinosaur juice - I believe they swapped to electric mainly because of an increase in oil prices. Maintenance was probably also an issue (the prototype was gas turbine-electric which has a terrible record in the rail industry).

But yeah, electrification is the only sensible option - you're fixed to the route of the track anyway (or if not you've got bigger worries than where your power's coming from) so why not stick some OHLE alongside.

This "train" (debatable if it's a train if it's only one vehicle) would only hold the record for the fastest conventional wheeled train in the US anyway.

The record for the fastest railed vehicle in the US - hey, even the world - is more than an order of magnitude faster. I'll pass on having a ride though.

1% is too steep for a 10000 tonne freight train, it's nothing for an electrified passenger line. High speed lines commonly have gradients of 3 or 4%. For comparison, in the UK the maximum gradient guidance for a motorway is 3% (the steepest is 5.6%). Curvature is the main constraint with HSR requiring curve radii of ~3 miles compared to 0.5 miles for motorways.

Tunnelling is actually not a massive cost these days - to the point where nearly half of the planned HS2 line here in the UK will be tunnelled, not due to geology but to avoid land grab and spoiling the countryside (in some rich areas, obviously). Alternatively you can do as the Chinese and build elevated lines which both avoids geography to an extent and reduces the land grab - in China it was cheaper to build viaduct than on the ground for land purchase reasons alone.