Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;NorthKorea, post: 1300268, member: 29643&quot;]Kasia, do you have a copy of the actual paper? The preview basically says nothing. I&#039;m curious (but not $10 curious) to see what the specified conditions were for the &quot;fresh water stream,&quot; as well as the specific definitions of &quot;dark&quot; and exposure. If they&#039;re saying daytime/nighttime and using a run-off stream, that could be tidal influenced, in addition to the presence of light.</p><p><br /></p><p>I know the preview says it was done under laboratory conditions, but it doesn&#039;t explain the stream. Are they using stream to mean a unidirectional flow, as opposed to a tidal current?</p><p><br /></p><p>In any event, the preview merely indicates a loss of weight in the metals. It doesn&#039;t singularly indicate that the loss was due to the presence of UV light. In fact, it seems to indicate that UV light was a catalyst in a photoelectric reaction using a substrate created from the interactivity of the water and whatever oxidation coated the metals. While true that UV light (whether originating from sunlight or incandescent sources) may cause reactions in the coining metals, it seems the presence of water is the key. Without the water present to release the oxidized/excited metal from the surface, we can&#039;t say with any level of certainty that the metal doesn&#039;t merely return to a non-excited state upon removal of the UV source.</p><p><br /></p><p>So, FWIW, did you actually pay the $10 to read the entire article?</p><p><br /></p><p>As for the locality of the windowsill in question, I don&#039;t think the &quot;SoCal&quot; suburb is a good enough explanation. SoCal suburbia could indicate oceanfront property, inland empire, near desert locale, metro-LA, metro-SD or OC... lots of VERY different environmental conditions.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in