Soda Maker: How long does it take carbon dioxide to diffuse

[Danny D.]

Anyone know if saturation by carbon dioxide has a time constant?
http://i.imgur.com/MSm72Tp.jpg

Swirling seems to work with these 2L bottles, where I mix 4 degrees C (or
about) water under 30 psi CO2 pressure (or about) for about 10 minutes per
bottle (give or take) because I assume "diffusion" is slow; but is
diffusion slow, or is it (nearly) instantaneous?
http://i.imgur.com/gUJnLk3.jpg

Anyone have experience with how long it should take for carbon dioxide to
diffuse into the surface layer of water, and then to diffuse deeper if I
don't swirl?

If I just plug it in for a few minutes, the water isn't bubbly enough.

If I leave it for an hour, two things that are bad happen:
1. I lose CO2 because my connections are imperfect, but worse,
2. The water warms up (meaning it will hold less C02).

If you don't know whether the diffusion "should" be instantaneous or if
there is some kind of pragmatic coefficient, that's OK. It works.

I just don't know what I'm doing and why.
Do you?

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

The Troll is back. Please do not feed the troll.

 

On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 8:11:13 PM UTC-4, Danny D. wrote:

Anyone know if saturation by carbon dioxide has a time constant?
http://i.imgur.com/MSm72Tp.jpg

Swirling seems to work with these 2L bottles, where I mix 4 degrees C (or
about) water under 30 psi CO2 pressure (or about) for about 10 minutes per
bottle (give or take) because I assume "diffusion" is slow; but is
diffusion slow, or is it (nearly) instantaneous?
http://i.imgur.com/gUJnLk3.jpg

Anyone have experience with how long it should take for carbon dioxide to
diffuse into the surface layer of water, and then to diffuse deeper if I
don't swirl?

If I just plug it in for a few minutes, the water isn't bubbly enough.

If I leave it for an hour, two things that are bad happen:
1. I lose CO2 because my connections are imperfect, but worse,
2. The water warms up (meaning it will hold less C02).

If you don't know whether the diffusion "should" be instantaneous or if
there is some kind of pragmatic coefficient, that's OK. It works.

I just don't know what I'm doing and why.
Do you?

Diffusion is slow*. You can calculate it. There is probably some
thermally driven currents in water that will mix things faster.
To get an idea of speed put a drop of food coloring into water.

George H.
(*I'm not sure about water, but I mixed up my own tanks
of gas for a CO2 laser and it took weeks to diffuse...
surprised the hell out of me.)

 

[rickman]

ggherold@gmail.com wrote on 9/8/2017 8:58 AM:

On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 8:11:13 PM UTC-4, Danny D. wrote:
Anyone know if saturation by carbon dioxide has a time constant?
http://i.imgur.com/MSm72Tp.jpg

Swirling seems to work with these 2L bottles, where I mix 4 degrees C (or
about) water under 30 psi CO2 pressure (or about) for about 10 minutes per
bottle (give or take) because I assume "diffusion" is slow; but is
diffusion slow, or is it (nearly) instantaneous?
http://i.imgur.com/gUJnLk3.jpg

Anyone have experience with how long it should take for carbon dioxide to
diffuse into the surface layer of water, and then to diffuse deeper if I
don't swirl?

If I just plug it in for a few minutes, the water isn't bubbly enough.

If I leave it for an hour, two things that are bad happen:
1. I lose CO2 because my connections are imperfect, but worse,
2. The water warms up (meaning it will hold less C02).

If you don't know whether the diffusion "should" be instantaneous or if
there is some kind of pragmatic coefficient, that's OK. It works.

I just don't know what I'm doing and why.
Do you?

Diffusion is slow*. You can calculate it. There is probably some
thermally driven currents in water that will mix things faster.
To get an idea of speed put a drop of food coloring into water.

George H.
(*I'm not sure about water, but I mixed up my own tanks
of gas for a CO2 laser and it took weeks to diffuse...
surprised the hell out of me.)

Yes, it can be slow compared to many uses of the word "slow". I've brewed
tea in glass and watched the tea diffuse. Since the water is hot the
diffusion is faster and the cooling causes some current, so you can actually
watch the tea colored water fall out of the tea bag. At 3 °C diffusion will
be much slower. Stirring mixes up the water to bring fresh to the surface.
Better yet is to push the gas through the water as tiny bubbles which is
what they do at a soda fountain. Nearly instantaneous diffusion.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

 

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 00:11:09 -0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
<dannydiamico@gmail.com> wrote:

Anyone know if saturation by carbon dioxide has a time constant?
http://i.imgur.com/MSm72Tp.jpg

Swirling seems to work with these 2L bottles, where I mix 4 degrees C (or
about) water under 30 psi CO2 pressure (or about) for about 10 minutes per
bottle (give or take) because I assume "diffusion" is slow; but is
diffusion slow, or is it (nearly) instantaneous?
http://i.imgur.com/gUJnLk3.jpg

Anyone have experience with how long it should take for carbon dioxide to
diffuse into the surface layer of water, and then to diffuse deeper if I
don't swirl?

If I just plug it in for a few minutes, the water isn't bubbly enough.

If I leave it for an hour, two things that are bad happen:
1. I lose CO2 because my connections are imperfect, but worse,
2. The water warms up (meaning it will hold less C02).

If you don't know whether the diffusion "should" be instantaneous or if
there is some kind of pragmatic coefficient, that's OK. It works.

I just don't know what I'm doing and why.
Do you?

I can't tell you how fast it will diffuse if the gas is just exposed
to the one surface of the liquid when the container is upright. But I
can tell you that gentle agitation will greatly shorten the time for
the gas to dissolve into the liquid. A friend of mine, who owns a
brewery, told me how he carbonates beer sometimes in a "Corny" keg.
These are the small diameter kegs seen at portable soda fountains. The
ones he carbonates at home are the 5 gallon size. He fills 'em with
the liquid, pressurizes 'em, then lays them on the floor and rolls
them back and forth for about 1/2 hour while watching TV.
Eric

 

[Mike Coon]

In article <oouoo5$vlg$1@dont-email.me>, gnuarm@gmail.com says...

Yes, it can be slow compared to many uses of the word "slow". I've
brewed
tea in glass and watched the tea diffuse. Since the water is hot the
diffusion is faster and the cooling causes some current, so you can actually
watch the tea colored water fall out of the tea bag. At 3 °C diffusion will
be much slower. Stirring mixes up the water to bring fresh to the surface.
Better yet is to push the gas through the water as tiny bubbles which is
what they do at a soda fountain. Nearly instantaneous diffusion.

I think a major area where agitation makes a big difference is in the
absorption of CO2 in sea water. O2 too, for that matter!

Mike.

 

[rickman]

Mike Coon wrote on 9/8/2017 5:02 PM:

In article <oouoo5$vlg$1@dont-email.me>, gnuarm@gmail.com says...

Yes, it can be slow compared to many uses of the word "slow". I've
brewed
tea in glass and watched the tea diffuse. Since the water is hot the
diffusion is faster and the cooling causes some current, so you can actually
watch the tea colored water fall out of the tea bag. At 3 °C diffusion will
be much slower. Stirring mixes up the water to bring fresh to the surface.
Better yet is to push the gas through the water as tiny bubbles which is
what they do at a soda fountain. Nearly instantaneous diffusion.

I think a major area where agitation makes a big difference is in the
absorption of CO2 in sea water. O2 too, for that matter!

The agitation helps through the creation of tiny bubbles greatly increasing
the surface area. If you think about it the agitation itself would do
nothing. Shake a soda bottle that is 100% full and it won't change the
pressure appreciably. Shake a soda bottle that has some air space and the
increase in pressure from the CO2 coming out of solution will be large.

Well... to be honest, I've never actually tried this. It would be worth an
experiment if I had any soda on hand. I have heard of a simple drop causing
a soda bottle to explode. Perhaps that is from both the shock to the bottle
and an increase in pressure from released CO2. To be sure the soda bottle
would need to be 100% full. Shake vigorously or even drop it on the floor
and then open it... well... or maybe a pressure gauge can be attached... lol

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

 

[Bob F]

On 9/7/2017 5:11 PM, Danny D. wrote:

Anyone know if saturation by carbon dioxide has a time constant?
http://i.imgur.com/MSm72Tp.jpg

Swirling seems to work with these 2L bottles, where I mix 4 degrees C
(or about) water under 30 psi CO2 pressure (or about) for about 10
minutes per bottle (give or take) because I assume "diffusion" is slow;
but is diffusion slow, or is it (nearly) instantaneous?
http://i.imgur.com/gUJnLk3.jpg

Anyone have experience with how long it should take for carbon dioxide
to diffuse into the surface layer of water, and then to diffuse deeper
if I don't swirl?

If I just plug it in for a few minutes, the water isn't bubbly enough.

If I leave it for an hour, two things that are bad happen:
1. I lose CO2 because my connections are imperfect, but worse, 2. The
water warms up (meaning it will hold less C02).

If you don't know whether the diffusion "should" be instantaneous or if
there is some kind of pragmatic coefficient, that's OK. It works.
I just don't know what I'm doing and why.
Do you?

I have read that that using a micro aerator introducing the CO2 in very
small bubbles at the bottom of the receiving container will increwase
the rate of diffusion into the water. Shaking or splashing the water to
increase CO2/H2O contact also helps. With my corny kegs, I can hear the
gas flow in when I shake the top of the keg back and forth. Stop
shaking, and the gas flow quickly tapers down to very slow.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 00:11:09 -0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
<dannydiamico@gmail.com> wrote:

>I just don't know what I'm doing and why.

Then do some remedial reading on the topic.
<http://www.truetex.com/carbonation.htm>
There should be sufficient theory and numbers in the article to
provide whatever it is you're asking.

Ummmm... what problem are you trying to solve? I probably don't have
an answer, but I'm curious.

>Do you?

Nope. You'll get no advice from me unless you're a masochist and into
Learn By Destroying(tm).

I built my own carbonation contraption from junk in about 1973. I did
just about everything wrong, hit all the pitfalls, and didn't listen
to anyones advice. My best fizz water had a carbonic acid taste
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid>
and lacerated my tongue because I used too much pressure. I also
tried to use room temperature water, into which CO2 refuses to
diffuse, or if I'm lucky, takes a few days with agitation. I was
fortunate and didn't produce a simulated CO2 powered water rocket, but
did manage to build credible CO2/water sprayer which might make a
usable fire extinguisher.

In 1973 the 2L bottle was just becoming available in the stores. I
had just returned from Israel, where the only economical way to buy
Coca Cola was in 2L bottles. They were everywhere. When I returned
to the USA, I temporarily switched from Coca Cola to Pepsi which was
the only drink at the time available in 2L bottles. Eventually, I
accumulated a supply of 2L bottles (which barely fit in the tiny
refrigerators of the day).

One of my few successes was to copy the common seltzer bottle and
install a siphon tube in the 2 liter PET bottle. The siphon tube
allowed me to bubble agitate the liquid from the bottom of the bottle,
thus dramatically increasing the surface area of the water, and
therefore also increasing the CO2 diffusion rate. Filling the bottle
horizontally, with a bent siphon tube, was even better. However, I
made a fundamental mistake. I had not purged the air from the top of
the 2L bottle before pressurizing, resulting in a fizzy mix of
compressed air and CO2 in carbonic acid. It's easy to tell if you've
made this mistake because the resulting fizz water tastes and smells
horrible. I also attached a gas flow meter and aquarium bubble
counter to check the CO2 flow. The flow meter range was too high and
barely moved the ball. The bubble counter range was too low causing
the initial blast of CO2 to empty the glass vial. Can't win.

Ok, enough anecdotes. Follow the instructions in the above URL or at
least double check your existing setup to see what you've missed. Good
luck.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

Next time, please do not feed the troll.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:58:46 -0700 (PDT), "pfjw@aol.com"
<pfjw@aol.com> wrote:

>Next time, please do not feed the troll.

But, but, but, what should I do for entertainment value? The best I
can find in sci.electronics.repair is punching reset on a refrigerator
and painting stripes on resistors. Lacking anything more interesting,
feeding an off topic carbonation question will keep me entertained and
out of trouble for at least for a few days.

There once was a usenet troll.
Who thought he was on a roll.
He often did send,
some post without end,
while waiting for bells that toll.

We return you now to whatever you should be doing.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Mike Coon]

In article <8nsdrcdbg1n686llmr2nf6marlbo3ahhpd@4ax.com>,
jeffl@cruzio.com says...

We return you now to whatever you should be doing.

To fulfil some higher purpose? Now there's a whole new topic for debate
(if I could be bothered...)!

Mike.

 

On 9/7/2017 5:11 PM, Danny D. wrote:

Anyone know if saturation by carbon dioxide has a time constant?
http://i.imgur.com/MSm72Tp.jpg

Swirling seems to work with these 2L bottles, where I mix 4 degrees C
(or about) water under 30 psi CO2 pressure (or about) for about 10
minutes per bottle (give or take) because I assume "diffusion" is slow;
but is diffusion slow, or is it (nearly) instantaneous?
http://i.imgur.com/gUJnLk3.jpg

Anyone have experience with how long it should take for carbon dioxide
to diffuse into the surface layer of water, and then to diffuse deeper
if I don't swirl?

If I just plug it in for a few minutes, the water isn't bubbly enough.

If I leave it for an hour, two things that are bad happen:
1. I lose CO2 because my connections are imperfect, but worse, 2. The
water warms up (meaning it will hold less C02).

If you don't know whether the diffusion "should" be instantaneous or if
there is some kind of pragmatic coefficient, that's OK. It works.
I just don't know what I'm doing and why.
Do you?

Either way, its nothing that a chemistry book can't fix. (They don't actually bite)

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 08:51:15 +0100, Mike Coon
<gravity@mjcoon.plus.com> wrote:

In article <8nsdrcdbg1n686llmr2nf6marlbo3ahhpd@4ax.com>,
jeffl@cruzio.com says...
We return you now to whatever you should be doing.

To fulfil some higher purpose? Now there's a whole new topic for debate
(if I could be bothered...)!
Mike.

Of course. There is no higher purpose than to delay the inevitable
demise of civilization from being buried in the debris left by
unrepaired products. Post apocolyptic movies feature mountains of
non-functional junk laying around for the actors to hide behind as
they shoot at each other. What higher purpose can there be than the
repair of everything civilization can produce so that the actors have
nothing to hide behind? Without repair, every product would come with
an expiration data after which it would self destruct. Without
repair, the landfills will overflow with dead devices. Without
repair, everyone would be forced to pay full list price as used,
refurbished, and reconditioned will cease to exist. As long as we
strive to repair, we can be certain that our efforts are for the
greater good of mankind, which will end in a utopian society where
nothing is wasted and everything lasts forever. No civilization has
yet repaired its way to greatness, but we could be the first.

<https://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto>



--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 10:47:34 AM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 08:51:15 +0100, Mike Coon
gravity@mjcoon.plus.com> wrote:

In article <8nsdrcdbg1n686llmr2nf6marlbo3ahhpd@4ax.com>,
jeffl@cruzio.com says...
We return you now to whatever you should be doing.

To fulfil some higher purpose? Now there's a whole new topic for debate
(if I could be bothered...)!
Mike.

Of course. There is no higher purpose than to delay the inevitable
demise of civilization from being buried in the debris left by
unrepaired products. Post apocolyptic movies feature mountains of
non-functional junk laying around for the actors to hide behind as
they shoot at each other. What higher purpose can there be than the
repair of everything civilization can produce so that the actors have
nothing to hide behind? Without repair, every product would come with
an expiration data after which it would self destruct. Without
repair, the landfills will overflow with dead devices. Without
repair, everyone would be forced to pay full list price as used,
refurbished, and reconditioned will cease to exist. As long as we
strive to repair, we can be certain that our efforts are for the
greater good of mankind, which will end in a utopian society where
nothing is wasted and everything lasts forever. No civilization has
yet repaired its way to greatness, but we could be the first.

https://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto

Hmm and yet I feel we are fighting in a 'security screw'
arms race. I've got my ~100 piece set from harbor freight,
https://www.harborfreight.com/100-pc-security-bit-set-with-case-68457.html
When I went to take apart my latest coffee maker, I found that the
tripoint screw was down a long narrow tunnel, such that the screw driver
bit holder was to wide to fit. Curses!
Fortunately I fixed the no hot water problem, by running vinegar through
the machine several times. But still it does not bode well for future
failures.

George H.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

As far as the life of the planet is concerned, there is little we can do as individuals or as a species that will affect the planet in any material way. All we can do is hasten/impede the next whatisit that comes along following on our heels. But, follow it will despite all our efforts.

Charles Addams had a cartoon: Nuclear Holocaust - last two living creatures on earth (single-cell) look at each other deciding whether to start over or not. One says to the other: "Only, this time, no brains".

Keep in mind that the moment humans became involved with the survival of other humans, evolution (within the human species) effectively stopped dead in its tracks. Evolution has the singular goal to to produce *more*, not necessarily *better* exemplars of any given species - that being the singular definition of "fittest". "Units" that age past the ability to reproduce are impediments to 'more'. Therefore diseases relating to aging are irrelevant to the survival of the species. Diseases that affect reproduction in any negative way at all are impediments to survival. Habits that reduce reproduction are impediments to survival.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 1:28, King James

The purpose of the human (any) species is to reproduce itself - per Evolution in any case. Again, evolution has ceased in any meaningful way. Like a shark, either a species improves (moves), or it dies. We are moribund, the only matter for discussion is how long it will take.

Finally, on a planetary scale, even that amount of time will be momentary.

Carpe Diem (Horace)

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 1:57:15 PM UTC-4, gghe...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 10:47:34 AM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 08:51:15 +0100, Mike Coon
gravity@mjcoon.plus.com> wrote:

In article <8nsdrcdbg1n686llmr2nf6marlbo3ahhpd@4ax.com>,
jeffl@cruzio.com says...
We return you now to whatever you should be doing.

To fulfil some higher purpose? Now there's a whole new topic for debate
(if I could be bothered...)!
Mike.

Of course. There is no higher purpose than to delay the inevitable
demise of civilization from being buried in the debris left by
unrepaired products. Post apocolyptic movies feature mountains of
non-functional junk laying around for the actors to hide behind as
they shoot at each other. What higher purpose can there be than the
repair of everything civilization can produce so that the actors have
nothing to hide behind? Without repair, every product would come with
an expiration data after which it would self destruct. Without
repair, the landfills will overflow with dead devices. Without
repair, everyone would be forced to pay full list price as used,
refurbished, and reconditioned will cease to exist. As long as we
strive to repair, we can be certain that our efforts are for the
greater good of mankind, which will end in a utopian society where
nothing is wasted and everything lasts forever. No civilization has
yet repaired its way to greatness, but we could be the first.

https://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto

Hmm and yet I feel we are fighting in a 'security screw'
arms race. I've got my ~100 piece set from harbor freight,
https://www.harborfreight.com/100-pc-security-bit-set-with-case-68457.html
When I went to take apart my latest coffee maker, I found that the
tripoint screw was down a long narrow tunnel, such that the screw driver
bit holder was to wide to fit. Curses!
Fortunately I fixed the no hot water problem, by running vinegar through
the machine several times. But still it does not bode well for future
failures.

George H.

Hey what happens if I take a drill to the plastic hole.
I bust the whole thing up, get the screw out,
and then need some longer 'nice' screw to put
it back together. It won't look as nice from the back.

If the plastic is thick enough I might make the hole
big enough to get the bit holder down it, without breaking.

I need some big jig, to hold things on my drill press.

George H.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 10:57:11 -0700 (PDT), ggherold@gmail.com wrote:

Hmm and yet I feel we are fighting in a 'security screw'
arms race.

What? You don't feel more secure with security screws in place? Just
think of all the bad things that can happen to the company if one of
their screws is not properly secured. Obviously, something must be
done to prevent screws from "accidentally" falling out.

I've got my ~100 piece set from harbor freight,
https://www.harborfreight.com/100-pc-security-bit-set-with-case-68457.html

I have two of the same kits. Far too many duplicate bits.

>When I went to take apart my latest coffee maker,

Latest? I deduce that your coffee makers are exhibiting a rather
short half life. Have you considered buying something more durable?
Oh wait... I forgot that you can no longer buy quality appliances at
any price. Never mind.

I found that the
tripoint screw was down a long narrow tunnel, such that the screw driver
bit holder was to wide to fit. Curses!

Yeah, that's a common problem. I have a few assorted long round shank
screwdrivers that have been modified on my bench grinder and Dremel
tool to fit various security screws. If I'm desperate, I'll cut off
the top, and braze it to a steel rod. If you're lazy, take a Dremel
cutoff disk and cut a notch in the base of the bit to fit an
screwdriver blade.

Perhaps this set of extra long security bits?
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/263093504682>

Fortunately I fixed the no hot water problem, by running vinegar through
the machine several times. But still it does not bode well for future
failures.

As long as there is lime (calcium carbonate and oxide) dissolved in
your coffee water, you're going to have the problem. The trick is to
clean the coffee maker BEFORE it totally clogs and won't pass any
vinegar. Unless you like drinking distilled water (it tastes "flat")
or you buy a water softener, you're stuck with an occasional vinegar
flush.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:22:16 -0700 (PDT), "pfjw@aol.com"
<pfjw@aol.com> wrote:

As far as the life of the planet is concerned, there is little we can do
as individuals or as a species that will affect the planet in any material
way. All we can do is hasten/impede the next whatisit that comes along
following on our heels. But, follow it will despite all our efforts.

Humans have been around for about 80,000 generations. That's not
really enough time for a whatisit to appear and take over.

I have no interest in saving the human race, which may be impossible.
My only interest is to slow down the trend towards non-repairable
products and filling the landfills with devices that can be repaired.
We may well meet our well deserved collective demise from our own
inventions, but at least with repairable products, the end might be
delayed somewhat.

The purpose of the human (any) species is to reproduce itself - per
Evolution in any case.

Keep it simple. Your purpose in life is to consume, pollute, and
over-populate. Failing to perform any of these assigned tasks is
severely punished by society. Once you understand that, the rest of
the puzzle falls into place without much effort.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 03:08:01 -0700 (PDT), bruce2bowser@gmail.com
wrote:

>Either way, its nothing that a chemistry book can't fix. (They don't actually bite)

Book? This is the 21st century. Today, we do web pages, blogs,
forums, wikis, YouTube tutorials, online courses, and online reading.
Books are an anachronism. I tried to read a reference book a few days
ago and couldn't find what I wanted. Then, I remembered that there
was a table of contents and an index, both of which proved to be
useless. I want my search tools, not a word list and pointers to
multiple pages. Used in the traditional manner, books can bite if you
can't find what you need. I suggest you modernize your suggestion and
offer something online instead.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558