Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by EL

  1. Did any of you try: Potassium Nitrate + Dry Glycerol + Potassium Permanganate? OR: Sodium Chlorate + Lamp Black + Sodium Permanganate? If you did not try it, then do not try it.
  2. YT2095, do you know the composition of metal polishing compounds?
  3. Carbon tetrachloride is extremely volatile and was banned when classified as a refrigeration material from industrial applications. I doubt that hospitals still use it as a local superficial anaesthetic and antiseptic, but you may try to find it in drugstores. If you do, it will be a colourless liquid in a glass shell that looks like a sealed test tube, but not sure if there was aluminium shells as well. You must know however, that such a mixture of carbon disulfide, and carbon tetrachloride will not burn in air because it is already an oxidized form of carbon, and that the evaporation will affect the local ambient temperature dropping it below all known room temperature flash points.
  4. Well, theoretically speaking, pure lamp-carbon-soot has the highest combustion temperature (over 4000 degrees C). Edison tried his first filaments out of thin graphite "wires". Tungsten proved to be superior though, for its metallic properties, even though it melts at lower temperatures than carbon. If you are looking for the metal of brightest combustion temperature, brightness, etc then it is carbon as in carbon arcs. Carbon arcs were used long ago in movie theatres before modern high intensity light projector filaments were technically available, and fire accidents were also quite common. As for aluminium, although inferior to carbon, it was used in the old days in the form of aluminium-wool, ignited by an electric current in sealed cubes full of oxygen as a camera flash, which makes it rather a handy source for intensive brightness for a very short period of time. Since you are under 18 Y.O., I advise you to be very careful with your hobby and use a handy material to ignite in air by passing a car-battery current into it as a short circuit to vaporize the pure interior that readily oxidizes in air's oxygen. This makes Aluminium wool or foil your best choice because aluminium oxide is less toxic than any other thinkable alternative within this context. Carbon arcs produce carbon dioxide, which is a natural gas found in air and in human exhale, hence normally safe. The shape of the metal is also very critical because using sharp pointing contacts will maximize the effect and very thin wires are better than thick wires. Good luck.
  5. EL

    Coloured Gases

    You are correct. I like that brilliant idea of using bright LED and water mist because they will be strikingly more photogenic than inhaling a colour haze of gas. I have encountered a miniature Japanese mist machine founded on a piezoelectric ultrasonic frequency vibrator, which happens to include LED for show effects. The whole assembly might fit into a glass of water. The problem is that the battery powered version was ten times more expensive if I correctly recall. This means that you have to evaluate your costs; which is cheaper, the technical device or killing an actor?
  6. Inks have many compositions and you did not tell us if it was a fountain pen ink or a ball-point ink in a tube. Then there is the Japanese black ink. So which type of ink are you talking about? In general, Dilute Sodium Hypochlorite solution (About 5% molar, very roughly) would not harm your wood finish while discolouring the ink; use a wet pad and apply softly several times. The final magic is by applying a saturated aquatic solution of oxalic acid (some use citric), by a wet pad as well. Wash your hands very well and avoid eye contact, as usual, with any chemicals. Your wood finish could be "Arbright", or "Duracil", or nitrocellulose based and such mild treatments should not affect your wood finish.
  7. Aluminium will neither scratch not patch. Now that was a humorous but nasty idea to play on a mother. No, the correct procedure to remedy the problem is to feel the stained area by your thumb and check if it was badly corroded or simply stained. If it was only a superficial surface stain then [math] \cf{NH_4OH}[/math] (ammonium hydroxide) should do the trick. In all cases, you might need a flat grinding stone (1" x 1") grit => 1000 and pumice stone powder to remove roughness. The ultimate remedy is to apologize for the unintentional minor damage or remake the kitchen.
  8. Dear Swansont, I am new on this SFN forum and I would like to begin, nicely. Please check this paper first and then we may proceed. It is not mine, but it has merit. Try to understand it before posting any hasty responses, please. <http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm > EL
  9. [EL] I am not interested in picking on any one. I only care to give a fair chance to every one to express his free opinion first without oppressing her or him. You yourself seem to be full of yourself. Would you care to explain for us the energy-momentum tensor: T_uv (vacuum) = p_v * g_uv And how to express the same equation as a spinor? If not, then would you kindly at least show us a rigorous derivation of Lorentz Transformations and the physical cause behind time-dilation and length-contraction? I will not hold my breath, though. EL
  10. Pseudoscience is defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience However, there is a very dangerous issue about that label. As a retired professor, I know that within the walls of academy, any new discovery or hypothesis that defies older ones is usually looked down on and rejected prejudicially. This means that it would be a weapon in the wrong hands, and motivating the mainstream to call the works of a scientist as pseudoscience becomes a destructive tyranny. Pseudoscience must be earmarked by two things. 1- He who claims a new set of information without empirical and experimental proof, can hardly provide a method to repeat the being claimed by others, which renders the apparent science pseudo. 2- Only a qualified authority may have the qualifications to debunk the claims and show the claiming party where they went wrong, with evidence and reason and logical deductions as well as references and sightations of empirical refutations. It is absolutely not acceptable to classify any opinion whatsoever as "Pseudoscience", even if it was in error, because there is no claim of discovery or invention in sharing opinion. Einstein claimed that Galileo and Newton were in error and no one called his opinion as pseudoscience. If through examining the claims, and the consequences of the claims, illogical deductions or contradictions were exposed, then at best we are entitled to reject such an opinion but we may not label it as Pseudoscience. Kindest regards. EL
  11. [EL] Why? [EL] Then what is that magical cause of that magical shift of that frequency of that Doppler man? Is the frequency shift proportional to the speed of the observer relative to the source? On what physical phenomenon does that relative velocity fall' date=' is it the frequency of light by any chance? How exactly is the frequency of light affected by that relative velocity, is it by casting spells to deform the scales of time and length or could it be for the simplest of all reasons? [EL] You forgot to specify that the interval you mention is a time-interval. Your sentence and your claim was too difficult for you to understand, so how do you expect him to get a point you did not even make? [EL] Why is it wrong? Anyone is free to make whatever assumption they wish as long as it is verified to be true or falsified by proof. Did you post any proof that falsified his assumption? I did not see one' date=' so where? Yes, yes, we know what Professor Einstein had assumed, and perhaps that was what he was precisely arguing to be false. Do you expect him to succumb and genuflect to an assumption he is refuting? Get serious, please. Is this a debate or a circus? [EL] The OP was never given the chance to do that' date=' which he was obviously trying to do. [EL] His fundamental assumption was that the second postulate of SR is unfounded. Then he proceeded by trying to justify his assumption, but no one discussed the intricate details of what he said because of obvious incompetence. I could neither understand his refutation proof nor your refutation of his refutation. You may all proceed with your game, but I see no serious debate here. Maxwell's equations do not go further than modelling the characteristics of a classical Aether, which is in a modern sense taken to be the QFT where Spinors are the best way to describe each and every vector in the set as it evolves. This means that if the source of light remained stationary relative to the histories of the expanding spherical electromagnetic waves, The wave-front must move away from the source such that dr/dt = c. Albert Michelson in his famous experiment designed a most funny device that had the source and the observer stationary in the local frame and co-moving in the non-local frames, which must result in a zero-frequency shift and a zero fringe-shift not 0.4 fringes as predicted erroneously. This means that in that particular case, in which the source and the observer are co-stationary, the speed of light must be only c, homogenously and isometrically. Professor Albert Einstein's assumption was wrongly founded on such empirical results of a stationary state endorsed by Maxwell's calculations. I may not envy the professor for such an error in which the most intelligent may fall. Only the humble, meticulous, pedantic and academic mind can find such an error exactly as the English Language Grammatical Corrector who works for a publisher excels over any gifted writer while revising what was wrote before publishing for grammatical and spelling mistakes. The wrong assumption was that the speed of light, that is constantly "c" in the reference frame of the stationary source, was invariant regardless of the state of motion of the observer, and was not even close to the case of when the source moves relative to the histories of the expanding wave while the observer moves relative to the same. The consequences of such an error was a horrible deformation in the time-scales and the length-scales known as "Time dilation" and "Length contraction", then the consequence of the horrible deformations of scales was known as the twin-paradox, the black-hole, and the big bang. The circus is still on, so do not miss the laughs. EL
  12. My name is EL, as in EL Salvador, and I am not related to any Spanish, Mexican or Portuguese cultures. I hold a Ph. D. in Biochemistry, and fortunately for new generations I have retired. I am extremely meticulous and adhere to hard logic, but when confronted with ridiculousness I turn hilariously funny. Thus, if you cannot do better than Einstein the clown, do not expect anything better than jokes.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.