Jihad needs scientists

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:47:16 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
<nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:

krw wrote:
In article <f340f$45fe9f31$4fe7374$11990@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
nonsense@unsettled.com says...

krw wrote:


In article <etm1vk$8qk_002@s869.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...


In article <MPG.2068539f2552666d98a17d@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:


In article <b6hsv2thiah5p2a2ja06jlfgc105ra694p@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...


On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:04:19 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:



Keith


Fuck off, KeithTard.


Aw, now Dimbulb. That's not very nice. All I did is repeat your
stupidity so the folks over in sci.physics could get in on the fun.

All right. Now I got a question. If I wanted to test your
statement, how would I go about doing it? The restriction is
that my kitchen is my lab.


Test what?

A. Dimbulb doesn't believe a gun will fire in space?

If you can't hear it fire, it didn't fire!


Did someone say "FIRE"?

B. Dimbulb is an idiot?
C. Dimbulb isn't being very nice?
D. I repeated Dimbulb's stupidity so you folks would get in on
the fun?
E. Gunpowder doesn't need oxygen?

P.S. I don't advise playing with gunpowder in the kitchen. ;-)

Awwwww. You're no fun. It is fine so long as you don't contain
it (restrict expansion).


My wife gets pissed when I make messes in her kitchen. It's a female
thing, right BAH? ;-)

You mean you can't convince her to do the experiment
for you?

As long as it doesn't stop her from getting my beer in a timely and
consistent manner.

 

[MooseFET]

On Mar 19, 7:26 am, "nonse...@unsettled.com" <nonse...@unsettled.com>
wrote:

MooseFET wrote:
On Mar 18, 11:03 am, "nonse...@unsettled.com" <nonse...@unsettled.com
wrote:
[....]

I think you misunderstand the situation. BAH made
claims which I took to be all honest rememberances
of the situation in the past.

All that doesn't mean you don't get caught up in chasing
a few ghosts along the way.

If by ghosts you mean misrememberances, then yes, I knew going into it
that there was a chance that I was seeing an error in BAH's memory. I
find that theory less satisfactory now because she has had time to
examine what she said and what she really remembered.

Among these was an error.

You'd have to have the entire specification in front of
you at one time, understand the specification as well
as what the customer(s) expected, the corporate culture,
the technology of the day, and more, in order to determine
whether there was an error in what she's been telling you.

No, I would not have to have the specification. She made statements
that were contradictions of each other and statements about the
operation of the tape drive and the theory of checksums. None of
these required any knowledge of the specification to see as false.

She said that the TAPE.DIR had to be the directory of what was on the
tape and that it was the first file on the tape. This would mean that
it was made by looking at the very same tape as it was on. This is
posible to do. She later admitted that this is not what was really
the case because the TAPE.DIR was not actually a file and that it was
in fact created by looking at some other tape that contained what she
intended to put onto the tape. She had protested that the TAPE.DIR
could not be made from what was intended to be put onto the tape when
I tried to explain things in terms of what was intended to be put onto
the tape.

She said that putting the correct checksum into TAPE.DIR would always
change the checksum of TAPE.DIR preventing the checksum from ever
being right. I pointeed out that htis exact thing has been done for
years. It does not require any hand editing BTW.

 

[MooseFET]

On Mar 19, 7:43 am, "nonse...@unsettled.com" <nonse...@unsettled.com>
wrote:

MooseFET wrote:
[....]
For those ignorant who claim that CO2 has oxygen present in
it, the experiment becomes just a bit more complicated. The
easiest approach is to procure an argon cylinder and displace
the air in your container with argon.
Argon is easy to get from a welding supply house. It will work a
little better than N2 because it is heavier.

The "argon" used in welding is usually mixed with CO2.
They call it argon because it is mostly argon.

I wasn't going to spill the beans.

You can get under 50Tor with water as the working material. A steam
filled container placed in the freezer would get down to quite low
pressures:

P = ( (T-Tmelt)/(Tboil-Tmelt) )^4

True, but....

Actually not really true in a freezer. Pressures less than zero
rarely happen.

To get a vacuum you have to have containment.

No, you only really need to keep stuff out not in. A stopper can be
held in by the vacuume.
The amount of gun powder needed to prove that it will explode is very
near zero.

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

MooseFET wrote:

On Mar 19, 7:43 am, "nonse...@unsettled.com" <nonse...@unsettled.com
wrote:

MooseFET wrote:

[....]

For those ignorant who claim that CO2 has oxygen present in
it, the experiment becomes just a bit more complicated. The
easiest approach is to procure an argon cylinder and displace
the air in your container with argon.

Argon is easy to get from a welding supply house. It will work a
little better than N2 because it is heavier.

The "argon" used in welding is usually mixed with CO2.
They call it argon because it is mostly argon.


I wasn't going to spill the beans.


You can get under 50Tor with water as the working material. A steam
filled container placed in the freezer would get down to quite low
pressures:

P = ( (T-Tmelt)/(Tboil-Tmelt) )^4

True, but....


Actually not really true in a freezer. Pressures less than zero
rarely happen.

If we're into corrections then start with your misspelling
of Torr. I assumed you were willing to go lower than the
"normal" 0 Fahrenheit. Rather ordinary lab freezers go to
-86C while cooling using expansion of nitrogen gets much
lower. You're going to haw to redefine freezer to get
to the 50 Torr you proposed.

To get a vacuum you have to have containment.

No, you only really need to keep stuff out not in. A stopper can be
held in by the vacuume.

Vacuum.

The operative word is can. Through a longer thermal
cycle from ambient to some low temperature most stoppers
will leak.

The amount of gun powder needed to prove that it will explode is very
near zero.

And then, in a "stoppered" container you're left with
the problem of introducing ignition.

This has gone waaaaaayyyyy out of the domestic kitchen
league.

 

In article <1174313536.512242.172850@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

On Mar 19, 4:26 am, jmfbah...@aol.com wrote:
In article <etjolv$3g...@blue.rahul.net>,
kensm...@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:



In article <1174221298.287074.230...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On Mar 16, 2:55 pm, kensm...@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <1173976773.203668.217...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Unhinged is wrong though - the problem is onlyselfreferential.

I'm going to disagree with you slightly on this. Read the following
statement carefully:

This statement is incorrect.

Now imagine BAH saying "the statement is incorrectso therefor it
must be correct so it must be incorrect ......." and so on in a higher
and
higher voice and then exploding like always happens in bad scifi. This
I
think you would agree makes the situation a problem with recursion.

Yes. But it is an avoidable recursion. It only recurses if you are
dumb enough to let it.

The whole point here is that anyone with a half decent computer
science education should know exactly how to construct the TAPE.DIR
file so that the checksum/CRC is right first time (or at worst know
where to look it up).

You are agreeing with my point. I think you now are starting to see what
has really happened with BAH's agrument. She has made an incorrect
statement and was left with the choice of admitting the error or ignoring
the path to the solution. She simply won't step outside the problem.

I wasn't paid to step outside the problem. I was paid to solve the
problem and I did in a manner that didn't cost money nor waste time.

You haven't understood the teerm "step outside the problem". That term
applies to where your own thinking has gotten trapped within

My thinking was determined by actual experiment.

<snip>

/BAH

 

In article <c325f$45fe94fd$4fe7374$11707@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <MPG.2068539f2552666d98a17d@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <b6hsv2thiah5p2a2ja06jlfgc105ra694p@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:04:19 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:


Keith


Fuck off, KeithTard.


Aw, now Dimbulb. That's not very nice. All I did is repeat your
stupidity so the folks over in sci.physics could get in on the fun.


All right. Now I got a question. If I wanted to test your
statement, how would I go about doing it? The restriction is
that my kitchen is my lab.

That all depends on who you're trying to convince.

Nobody. I just got curious and started thinking about
how I demonstrate the statement.

<snip>

Using a tall Pyrex bowl or similar container, cover a glow
coil (a furnace hot surface igniter will do) with the
gunpowder of choice. For the educated, it will be sufficient
to suspend dry ice above till all the air is displaced and
a burning match lowered into the space extinguishes, showing
there's no air (or free oxygen) present. Apply power to
the glow coil and watch the gunpowder burn.

Ah!!! Great. Thanks .

For those ignorant who claim that CO2 has oxygen present in
it, the experiment becomes just a bit more complicated. The
easiest approach is to procure an argon cylinder and displace
the air in your container with argon.

I would have not assumed this one because people die when CO_2
is present.

/BAH

 

In article <MPG.20686614150361ab98a183@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <etm1vk$8qk_002@s869.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
In article <MPG.2068539f2552666d98a17d@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <b6hsv2thiah5p2a2ja06jlfgc105ra694p@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:04:19 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

Keith


Fuck off, KeithTard.

Aw, now Dimbulb. That's not very nice. All I did is repeat your
stupidity so the folks over in sci.physics could get in on the fun.

All right. Now I got a question. If I wanted to test your
statement, how would I go about doing it? The restriction is
that my kitchen is my lab.

Test what?

A. Dimbulb doesn't believe a gun will fire in space?
B. Dimbulb is an idiot?
C. Dimbulb isn't being very nice?
D. I repeated Dimbulb's stupidity so you folks would get in on
the fun?
E. Gunpowder doesn't need oxygen?

E.

P.S. I don't advise playing with gunpowder in the kitchen. ;-)

Oh, I don't intend to do this one. I just got curious and couldn't
figure out how. What's wrong with gunpowder in the kitchen?

What table do you think my Dad used when he worked on his guns?

/BAH

 

In article <f340f$45fe9f31$4fe7374$11990@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:

krw wrote:

In article <etm1vk$8qk_002@s869.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

In article <MPG.2068539f2552666d98a17d@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <b6hsv2thiah5p2a2ja06jlfgc105ra694p@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:04:19 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:


Keith


Fuck off, KeithTard.


Aw, now Dimbulb. That's not very nice. All I did is repeat your
stupidity so the folks over in sci.physics could get in on the fun.

All right. Now I got a question. If I wanted to test your
statement, how would I go about doing it? The restriction is
that my kitchen is my lab.


Test what?

A. Dimbulb doesn't believe a gun will fire in space?

If you can't hear it fire, it didn't fire!

B. Dimbulb is an idiot?
C. Dimbulb isn't being very nice?
D. I repeated Dimbulb's stupidity so you folks would get in on
the fun?
E. Gunpowder doesn't need oxygen?

P.S. I don't advise playing with gunpowder in the kitchen. ;-)

Awwwww. You're no fun. It is fine so long as you don't contain
it (restrict expansion).

I thought about that. Is there a way to determine a ratio of
volume vs. mass of gunpowerder so you would have a room left
over (or vital body parts) to cook supper?

/BAH

 

In article <MPG.206876ef1fe3c43d98a18b@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <f340f$45fe9f31$4fe7374$11990@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
nonsense@unsettled.com says...
krw wrote:

In article <etm1vk$8qk_002@s869.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

In article <MPG.2068539f2552666d98a17d@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <b6hsv2thiah5p2a2ja06jlfgc105ra694p@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:04:19 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:


Keith


Fuck off, KeithTard.


Aw, now Dimbulb. That's not very nice. All I did is repeat your
stupidity so the folks over in sci.physics could get in on the fun.

All right. Now I got a question. If I wanted to test your
statement, how would I go about doing it? The restriction is
that my kitchen is my lab.


Test what?

A. Dimbulb doesn't believe a gun will fire in space?

If you can't hear it fire, it didn't fire!

Did someone say "FIRE"?

B. Dimbulb is an idiot?
C. Dimbulb isn't being very nice?
D. I repeated Dimbulb's stupidity so you folks would get in on
the fun?
E. Gunpowder doesn't need oxygen?

P.S. I don't advise playing with gunpowder in the kitchen. ;-)

Awwwww. You're no fun. It is fine so long as you don't contain
it (restrict expansion).

My wife gets pissed when I make messes in her kitchen. It's a female
thing, right BAH? ;-)

Nah, city slicker thing. We used to gut and clean chickens on
our table. Dad would clean his guns on the kitchen table.

/BAH

 

In article <5ibuv25cov3e5avskeprlfdnuebgur5hdb@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:47:16 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:

krw wrote:
In article <f340f$45fe9f31$4fe7374$11990@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
nonsense@unsettled.com says...

krw wrote:


In article <etm1vk$8qk_002@s869.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...


In article <MPG.2068539f2552666d98a17d@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:


In article <b6hsv2thiah5p2a2ja06jlfgc105ra694p@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...


On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:04:19 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:



Keith


Fuck off, KeithTard.


Aw, now Dimbulb. That's not very nice. All I did is repeat your
stupidity so the folks over in sci.physics could get in on the fun.

All right. Now I got a question. If I wanted to test your
statement, how would I go about doing it? The restriction is
that my kitchen is my lab.


Test what?

A. Dimbulb doesn't believe a gun will fire in space?

If you can't hear it fire, it didn't fire!


Did someone say "FIRE"?

B. Dimbulb is an idiot?
C. Dimbulb isn't being very nice?
D. I repeated Dimbulb's stupidity so you folks would get in on
the fun?
E. Gunpowder doesn't need oxygen?

P.S. I don't advise playing with gunpowder in the kitchen. ;-)

Awwwww. You're no fun. It is fine so long as you don't contain
it (restrict expansion).


My wife gets pissed when I make messes in her kitchen. It's a female
thing, right BAH? ;-)

You mean you can't convince her to do the experiment
for you?


As long as it doesn't stop her from getting my beer in a timely and
consistent manner.

If I had to get your beer, all you'ld receive is an empty can.

/BAH

 

[krw]

In article <etoi8n$8ss_006@s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

In article <5ibuv25cov3e5avskeprlfdnuebgur5hdb@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:47:16 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:

krw wrote:
In article <f340f$45fe9f31$4fe7374$11990@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
nonsense@unsettled.com says...

krw wrote:


In article <etm1vk$8qk_002@s869.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...


In article <MPG.2068539f2552666d98a17d@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:


In article <b6hsv2thiah5p2a2ja06jlfgc105ra694p@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...


On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:04:19 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:



Keith


Fuck off, KeithTard.


Aw, now Dimbulb. That's not very nice. All I did is repeat your
stupidity so the folks over in sci.physics could get in on the fun.

All right. Now I got a question. If I wanted to test your
statement, how would I go about doing it? The restriction is
that my kitchen is my lab.


Test what?

A. Dimbulb doesn't believe a gun will fire in space?

If you can't hear it fire, it didn't fire!


Did someone say "FIRE"?

B. Dimbulb is an idiot?
C. Dimbulb isn't being very nice?
D. I repeated Dimbulb's stupidity so you folks would get in on
the fun?
E. Gunpowder doesn't need oxygen?

P.S. I don't advise playing with gunpowder in the kitchen. ;-)

Awwwww. You're no fun. It is fine so long as you don't contain
it (restrict expansion).


My wife gets pissed when I make messes in her kitchen. It's a female
thing, right BAH? ;-)

You mean you can't convince her to do the experiment
for you?


As long as it doesn't stop her from getting my beer in a timely and
consistent manner.

If I had to get your beer, all you'ld receive is an empty can.

If it weren't empty *I* ain't drinking out of it!

--
Keith

 

[krw]

In article <etohvn$8ss_003@s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

In article <MPG.20686614150361ab98a183@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <etm1vk$8qk_002@s869.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
In article <MPG.2068539f2552666d98a17d@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <b6hsv2thiah5p2a2ja06jlfgc105ra694p@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:04:19 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

Keith


Fuck off, KeithTard.

Aw, now Dimbulb. That's not very nice. All I did is repeat your
stupidity so the folks over in sci.physics could get in on the fun.

All right. Now I got a question. If I wanted to test your
statement, how would I go about doing it? The restriction is
that my kitchen is my lab.

Test what?

A. Dimbulb doesn't believe a gun will fire in space?
B. Dimbulb is an idiot?
C. Dimbulb isn't being very nice?
D. I repeated Dimbulb's stupidity so you folks would get in on
the fun?
E. Gunpowder doesn't need oxygen?

E.


P.S. I don't advise playing with gunpowder in the kitchen. ;-)

Oh, I don't intend to do this one. I just got curious and couldn't
figure out how. What's wrong with gunpowder in the kitchen?

Fire and explosions are frowned upon in my house. Gunpowder must
remain in the bullets.

What table do you think my Dad used when he worked on his guns?

My bet is that he didn't fire them in the house. Much noise, stink,
and things get broken.

--
Keith

--
Keith

 

[MooseFET]

On Mar 20, 2:52 am, "nonse...@unsettled.com" <nonse...@unsettled.com>
wrote:

MooseFET wrote:
[... in a kitchen ....]
You can get under 50Tor with water as the working material. A steam
filled container placed in the freezer would get down to quite low
pressures:

P = ( (T-Tmelt)/(Tboil-Tmelt) )^4

True, but....

Actually not really true in a freezer. Pressures less than zero
rarely happen.

If we're into corrections then start with your misspelling
of Torr. I assumed you were willing to go lower than the
"normal" 0 Fahrenheit. Rather ordinary lab freezers go to
-86C while cooling using expansion of nitrogen gets much
lower. You're going to haw to redefine freezer to get
to the 50 Torr you proposed.

The equation for pressure I gave above is not accurate. It fails
badly when you go down near zero C.

I think you need to recheck your figures on the temperature needed.

To get a vacuum you have to have containment.
No, you only really need to keep stuff out not in. A stopper can be
held in by the vacuume.

Vacuum.

The operative word is can. Through a longer thermal
cycle from ambient to some low temperature most stoppers
will leak.

Not from 212 to 0C they don't seem to.

The amount of gun powder needed to prove that it will explode is very
near zero.

And then, in a "stoppered" container you're left with
the problem of introducing ignition.

This has gone waaaaaayyyyy out of the domestic kitchen
league.

Remember I added the creative use of some plumbing parts. This was
for good reasons,

 

[MassiveProng]

On Tue, 20 Mar 07 11:58:15 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

If I had to get your beer, all you'ld receive is an empty can.

Fat drunken fucktards are way easier to fuck the brains out of.

That MUST be where all of yours went.

 

[krw]

In article <cervv2hd38mrblmr8i02r5mdifds7a1vjv@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Tue, 20 Mar 07 11:58:15 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com Gave us:

If I had to get your beer, all you'ld receive is an empty can.


Fat drunken fucktards are way easier to fuck the brains out of.

Nah. Dimbulbs are far simpler. No brains to start with.

That MUST be where all of yours went.

You? Nah, you don't have any.

--
Keith

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

MooseFET wrote:

On Mar 20, 2:52 am, "nonse...@unsettled.com" <nonse...@unsettled.com
wrote:

MooseFET wrote:

[... in a kitchen ....]

You can get under 50Tor with water as the working material. A steam
filled container placed in the freezer would get down to quite low
pressures:

P = ( (T-Tmelt)/(Tboil-Tmelt) )^4

True, but....

Actually not really true in a freezer. Pressures less than zero
rarely happen.

If we're into corrections then start with your misspelling
of Torr. I assumed you were willing to go lower than the
"normal" 0 Fahrenheit. Rather ordinary lab freezers go to
-86C while cooling using expansion of nitrogen gets much
lower. You're going to haw to redefine freezer to get
to the 50 Torr you proposed.


The equation for pressure I gave above is not accurate. It fails
badly when you go down near zero C.

I think you need to recheck your figures on the temperature needed.

It is your equation. Sounds to me like you
got lost in all this.

To get a vacuum you have to have containment.

No, you only really need to keep stuff out not in. A stopper can be
held in by the vacuume.

Vacuum.

The operative word is can. Through a longer thermal
cycle from ambient to some low temperature most stoppers
will leak.

Not from 212 to 0C they don't seem to.

"don't seem to"? This was your suggestion, and now
it seems to me you're saying it won't work anyway.

The amount of gun powder needed to prove that it will explode is very
near zero.

And then, in a "stoppered" container you're left with
the problem of introducing ignition.

This has gone waaaaaayyyyy out of the domestic kitchen
league.

Remember I added the creative use of some plumbing parts. This was
for good reasons,

Thank you. We'll be in touch.

NEXT!

 

[krw]

In article <etoi3m$8ss_004@s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

In article <f340f$45fe9f31$4fe7374$11990@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
"nonsense@unsettled.com" <nonsense@unsettled.com> wrote:
krw wrote:

In article <etm1vk$8qk_002@s869.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

In article <MPG.2068539f2552666d98a17d@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <b6hsv2thiah5p2a2ja06jlfgc105ra694p@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:04:19 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:


Keith


Fuck off, KeithTard.


Aw, now Dimbulb. That's not very nice. All I did is repeat your
stupidity so the folks over in sci.physics could get in on the fun.

All right. Now I got a question. If I wanted to test your
statement, how would I go about doing it? The restriction is
that my kitchen is my lab.


Test what?

A. Dimbulb doesn't believe a gun will fire in space?

If you can't hear it fire, it didn't fire!

B. Dimbulb is an idiot?
C. Dimbulb isn't being very nice?
D. I repeated Dimbulb's stupidity so you folks would get in on
the fun?
E. Gunpowder doesn't need oxygen?

P.S. I don't advise playing with gunpowder in the kitchen. ;-)

Awwwww. You're no fun. It is fine so long as you don't contain
it (restrict expansion).

I thought about that. Is there a way to determine a ratio of
volume vs. mass of gunpowerder so you would have a room left
over (or vital body parts) to cook supper?

Sure (but I'll likely blow it). Take the chemical formula for
gunpowder and find its molecular weight. Then find the volume of the
gas (Ideal Gas Law).

A simplified Black powder reaction (from Wikipedia):

2 KNO3 + S + 3C => K2S + N2 + 3CO2

So gunpowder is 190g/mole. A mole at STP would be 120L (five
molecules times 22.4l/mole). Find the temperature of the fire and
using the ideal gas law (pV=nRT) one can find the volume of the gas.

Hmm, looks low. Musta flunked first semester chemistry.

--
Keith

 

[MooseFET]

On Mar 20, 6:53 am, "nonse...@unsettled.com" <nonse...@unsettled.com>
wrote:

MooseFET wrote:
On Mar 20, 2:52 am, "nonse...@unsettled.com" <nonse...@unsettled.com
wrote:

MooseFET wrote:

[... in a kitchen ....]

You can get under 50Tor with water as the working material. A steam
filled container placed in the freezer would get down to quite low
pressures:

P = ( (T-Tmelt)/(Tboil-Tmelt) )^4

True, but....

Actually not really true in a freezer. Pressures less than zero
rarely happen.

If we're into corrections then start with your misspelling
of Torr. I assumed you were willing to go lower than the
"normal" 0 Fahrenheit. Rather ordinary lab freezers go to
-86C while cooling using expansion of nitrogen gets much
lower. You're going to haw to redefine freezer to get
to the 50 Torr you proposed.

The equation for pressure I gave above is not accurate. It fails
badly when you go down near zero C.

I think you need to recheck your figures on the temperature needed.

It is your equation. Sounds to me like you
got lost in all this.

A quick review may help you to understand. I posted an equation which
is fairly accurate over the 0C to 100C span.

You introduced the unreasonable suggestion that -86C was needed.

At this point I pointed out that you needed recheck your math if you
came up with that answer and that the equation is not useful below
freezing.

You somehow come to the conclusion that I got lost. This is
interesting.

The operative word is can. Through a longer thermal
cycle from ambient to some low temperature most stoppers
will leak.
Not from 212 to 0C they don't seem to.

"don't seem to"? This was your suggestion, and now
it seems to me you're saying it won't work anyway.

You suggested they leak. I say they don't seem to. You somehow
conclude that this is me saying my method won't work.

I assume you've had a few.

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

MooseFET wrote:

I assume you've had a few.

Nice.

Your participation began a significant decline
when you wrote:

The equation for pressure I gave above is not accurate.

You're on your own.

 

In article <MPG.2069abdf39337b7f98a1a5@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <etohvn$8ss_003@s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
In article <MPG.20686614150361ab98a183@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

<snip>

P.S. I don't advise playing with gunpowder in the kitchen. ;-)

Oh, I don't intend to do this one. I just got curious and couldn't
figure out how. What's wrong with gunpowder in the kitchen?

Fire and explosions are frowned upon in my house. Gunpowder must
remain in the bullets.

What if one of your guns is a powder musket?

What table do you think my Dad used when he worked on his guns?

My bet is that he didn't fire them in the house. Much noise, stink,
and things get broken.

He fired through the window. (He opened it before he fired.)

/BAH