chilled_fluorine
-
Posts
239 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by chilled_fluorine
-
-
My best guess would be to dissolve the percarbonate in lukewarm water, then chill overnight. Filter the insoluble contaminants, and you've got a slightly stronger, somewhat alkaline solution of H2O2.
Well, that's odd. Bacquacil is apparently Polymeric Biguanide Hydrochloride, which has nothing to do with H2O2. It's an oxidising agent nonetheless, but no mention of H2O2 anywhere in the MSDS.
I think I saw what you are talking about as well, but the bacquacil OXIDIZER is 27% h2o2, apparently with stabilizers. They also have algae removers and other pool chemicals, but I'm positive the oxidizer is h2o2. Said so right on the website. I'm sure there's another method to make the peroxide, they could never sell a product that would make peroxide that dangerous if someone accidentally dissolved it in water. Your method sounds like it could get <10%, but I'm looking for stronger. I thought it had something to do with a vacuum... Anyways, you have anything else about the bacquacil?
How do you think they make the percarbonate?
Ummm... H2O2 and sodium carbonate? Care to explain how that question is useful?
0 -
Oh come on, we've been over this part too. "Potential for life" isn't a good enough reason to deny women the right to abortion. Imagine I used some of my cellular material to clone myself. I've started the process, so the cellular material (which always represented the potential for life anyway) is now viable and developing. Cloning is really little different than a single egg splitting into twins, and you can't say it's unnatural because humans are part of nature, as is everything we can devise.
Are you going to tell me I don't have the right to stop the development of that clone? That somehow it has personhood and rights that supersede my own? And if I do have that right, then all your reasoning about abortion is nothing more than a Puritanical attitude towards sex and reproduction, trying to condemn women as sluts for enjoying sex while pretending it's all about responsible male integrity.
You, sound really pissed off. I'm going to start off by saying human cloning is just fiction with today's science. Your idea of nature sounds pretty messed up to me. I'll revise my statement to say that if something is naturally conceived and will develop into life on its own, it has the potential for life. Except maybe a pregnancy clinic, but people naturally masturbate. The clone wouldn't develop into sentient life if left to it's own anyways, it would require constant unnatural support, but I think the clone should get a chance to live, if it is more than just a couple cells in a petri dish. One could argue that this particular piece of DNA already exists in an organism, but that would result in some pretty angry identical twins. I would be okay with killing the clone, IF it was never intended to be grown into a sentient human, and IF it wasn't anywhere close to looking like a baby. A scientific experiment is simply different than a naturally conceived baby. Your cellular material would NOT develop into another sentient being if it was simply left as it was, and then to natural processes. Btw, I'm fine with sluts, as long as they use birth control properly and regularly. Ooh, I'm a puritant now? I can't remember the last time I heard that word. It's funny how nerds talk, when they're pissed off. But it's not funny how hurtful their insults are... :sobs: Don't be such a bully. I might have to hang myself because I'm so depressed now. Lol.
-2 -
...
Yeah, I haven't had a 'real' earthquake in my lifetime. Lots of drills, though.
I did a quick search on Sciencemadness and found the following:
15% H2O2 is 'typical' for me by the freezing method but 20% is doable. Example, 2 large bottles of 3% peroxide: Open and drain half the contents of each bottle into 2 other STERILE and clean bottles of similar capacity. If possible, just use 2 empty peroxide bottles. Stick the 4 half-filled bottles in the freezer and leave for at least 12-24 hours. After the contents are COMPLETELY frozen solid, turn them upside down (in the freezer). Make sure they're capped well and don't let them warm up (leaving the freezer door open too long, etc.). Have a clean, sterile plastic or glass bottle handy with a small funnel. Every hour or so, quickly remove one bottle at a time from the freezer but keep them upside down. Carefully uncap and pour the contents of the cap into your container. You'll typically only get a few drops at a time.Read up on hydrogen peroxide safety! WEAR GLOVES AND GOGGLES. Make sure everyone in your house knows what you're up to. That way, the Mrs. or kids don't knock the containers over or get 'stung'. DO NOT PLACE THE FULL BOTTLES IN THE FREEZER.
I also ran across a few sources on the hundreds of forums about H2O2 that said heating gently under vacuum can get you to ~17%. I wish either of these methods got to 30%, but don't we all.
Also,
"35% is available in nursery stores and greenhouses for use in hydroponics... It's kinda expensive, at least where I am, but I bet it would still end up cheaper than freezing 3%.. Also search for "bacquacil""
http://www.sciencema...d.php?tid=15881 is another good forum to read.
You can test the strength of the peroxide by measuring how much pain you feel when pouring it on your fingers! XP
But seriously, don't try that.
I've heard of the freezing and heating methods before, but I can get VERY cheap percarbonate and would really like to try that method. Largely out of curiosity, but still. Concentrations that high are just too tempting... Once we made 85-ish percent with my highschool buds. I really wish I could remember how, as scary as it is. Do you have any info on the percarb method, ignoring wether or not there are better ways? I wasn't able to find anything. The bacquacil looked like very interesting stuff. A gallon of 27 for 15 dollars... Do you know anything else about it? Stabilizers, if any? Hazmat fees? What stores I could buy it at? Right now, it looks like my best option...
0 -
You don't get that by outlawing abortion. That point has been beaten to death.
And what constitutes a valid reason. This is far too arbitrary.
The vast majority of what PP does is distribute and educate on contraceptives and STI testing.
an aborted fetus has no potential for future life, whether aborting by natural causes or human caused.
Rape, incest, and potential harm to the mother or child are valid reasons. I agree PP almost always does contraceptives, but they do occasionally do an abortion for a reason I don't find valid. I think something has the potential for life, when IF LEFT TO NATURE, it would become a sentient human. An aborted fetus was not left to nature. An aborted fetus was ABORTED when it DID fit my description of having the potential for life, which is why I find it wrong.
No one plans abortion, chilled_fluorine. We went over this.
And 'potential for life' would mean that whenever a man ejaculates, he commits genocide.
Actually, it's even worse than them women; see, women's bodies are designed to expel the egg if it has not fulfilled its intended potential every month. Men's bodies are not designd with this function -- whenever a man ejaculates outside a woman's womb, it is his choice, and he commits murder.
Are you against masturbation?
Oh, and check out page 2 in this document: http://www.plannedpa...PP_Services.pdf
Abortions are a really tiny tiny tteeeeeeenny tiny percent of what Planned Parentood is *actually* doing. Another point of dogmatic propaganda won for some anti-women's-rights party.
Agreed, no one plans abortion BEFORE a pregnancy. But they certainly might plan it AFTER the pregnancy has begun. If you let a jar of semen sit there for any length of time, will it become a sentient human being? If the answer is no, then I don't think it has the "potential for life". Likewise for an egg. Sex should be 99.999% as bad then, because all but two of what you call potential lives eventually die. Personally, I find masturbation disgusting, but who am I to tell people to stop? It doesn't harm anyone, so I'm okay with people doing it. Btw, I knew a lot of women who masturbated in high school. Planned parenthood is great, but they need to work on cutting down that "really tiny tiny tteeeeeeeeny tiny percent". It's sort of funny how you talk to me like I know nothing of the topic of procreation. I did take biology in school, although I have forgotten some of the more trivial facts about things the average person doesn't know exist.
Whatever your opinion on abortion is, these statistics are quite shocking.
There doesn't seem to be much 'bad-luck' in abortions (indicated by only 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use), the statistics clearly show that abortion is primarily used as a primary form of birth control, most don't seem bothered in trying to have consistent 'safe sex'.
AMEN! If you don't use the f****** birth control correctly, you're going to get pregnant!!! I disagree that they are using it as primary BC, but it definitely is becoming a safety net for some people. What jeskill said is true in my opinion.
0 -
Don't bother on my account. I've lost interest in trying to have a reasonable conversation with you.
I was talking about the other people's questions, not yours. Now if you'll excuse me, the meat is almost done.
0 -
He has been conveniently hiding from that question the entire thread. This is the third time he's been asked to define what constitutes a valid reason.
And it seems like the fifth time I've answered it... Rape, incest, potential physical harm to the mother or child, maybe a few others.Sorry, I'm currently short for time, so I'll have to answer the other questions later.
0 -
Alright, that explains your position better, thank you.
Now another question: what do you think of the "Abortion Pill"? This can only be used up to 9-weeks in (about 60 days) in a period of time where the blastocyst is, scientifically speaking, not even remotely close to anything resembling a human.
Not only that, but the pill is blocking the hormone "Progesterone" - this prevents the lining of the uterus from forming to support a blastocyst, so the "potential life" has no time to become potential (let alone form into something we can call 'life'). In many ways, there's no difference between this pill and birth control, which does something very similar in process, the only difference being that the hormones are constantly present in the body and not just taken as a precautionary method after something might've gone wrong (say, a condom ripped).
What's your view on this?
Also, as a continued question - since this was a huge huge deal with the republican party not too long ago -- are you for removing Planned Parenthood from having a federal budget?
People should be proactive about "birth control". I find it much better to avoid the pregnancy than to end it. If people used proper contraception, but it failed, I guess I'm okay with it. If they didn't, well, I would very much prefer it wasn't used. Unless they have a valid reason. Planned parenthood is a great program, but I believe their method of prevention should be contraceptives. Abortion shouldn't be "planned", or even considered as a viable alternative, until it is deemed absolutely necessary. Btw, I believe something to have the "potential for life" when it would, if left to it's natural course, become a human life.
0 -
Home-made abortions are deadly.
Women seek abortion when they require one (note, "REQUIRE", not "want") whether they are legal or not.
When abortions are legal, they are generally safer.
If you hold the stance that "If women are going to get abortions, I would very much prefer them to do it safely." as you quoted above, then I don't quite see how you could be against legalizing abortions.
If you still are against legalizing abortions, please explain how that holds with this logic.
~mooey
Even Mitt Romney thinks that abortions should be legal in the case of rape, incest, or the possibility of serious physical harm to the mother or child. Abortions should definitely be legal in those cases, and maybe a few others. I've already explained why people "want" to do what is "required", and I now see there will be no swaying of anyone's opinion.
It shows: specifically it explains why you don't understand it.
The real definitions of the second and the metre do not form a circular argument. (Obviously- they couldn't be, they wouldn't work)
The ones about God and the bible are a circular argument so they are not valid.
The point you made is simply not a valid point.
Would you like to try again?
Perhaps this time you should stick to things you understand.
The point is, we don't really know anything for sure. We can only explain things with things we already know, and those things as well require explanation by things already known. How would you explain a meter? It will probably be based on units we can only define with other units. The one about god was purposely a circular argument, it was just a very simplified version of his explaining opinions with even MORE opinions. I understand, don't get me wrong, but I don't need to know anything more than the stick tells me. Perhaps you would like to try again.
0 -
chilled_fluorine, are you supporting the republican party just because you can't stand the thought of supporting the other party, or do you support the republican party because you really believe in their ideals? Because the way you keep making excuses to why they claim X or Y or claim to believe in X or Y seems like it's more the former than it is the latter.
And if that's the case, I'm not entirely sure what it is you're trying to argue at all...?
I've taken a few of those online tests, and I usually come up as believing in 80-90% of what the republicans do. If I couldn't be a republican, I would probably become a libertarian. They still believe more of what I do than the democrats.
Obama was elected in Jan 2009 According to this data
http://www.google.co...unemployment+us
that's just before the unemployment figures stop rising (October 2009) and start to fall.
The best yo can do is accuse him of taking a few months to get started on reducing it.
And so, once again we are back to the question of "If you have to say things that are not true to support your position is it because your position is wrong?
I have to say it looks like the rate started to spike right when he took office.
0 -
I understand why you would say that, but there isn't indication I have seen that they have a better plan, or a true plan at all for that matter.
I was just making sure. It's hard to tell when a statement like that is a joke by just reading it.
Also after a quick google search it seems over 50% of catholics believe in evolution:
I'm going to hope they have a better plan...You couldn't tell that was a joke? How could anyone be that ignorant? Especially someone who denounces religion in their signature. I definitely believe in evolution.That stat surprises me. Maybe the ones I talked to just felt pressured because they were surrounded by other Catholics. Huh.
0 -
Where, exactly, did the logic fail? They purposefully blocked a bill that would stimulate job growth without offering valid alternatives. That is purposefully harming the country, not trying to harm the country. Even if they did have a better idea, why not pass the bill to stimulate job growth and then introduce their bill to stimulate it even more.
[/size]
Would you like to cite evidence that no Catholics believe in evolution, because I have quite a bit of anecdotal evidence suggesting otherwise. Also, I truly hope that quip about evolution is a joke.
The purpose of a political party is to do what is in the best interest of it's country. Maybe they thought the liberal plan would interfere with their own...I'm sure some Catholics believe in evolution, just not the majority, by far. If you had ever read the bible, to know what you don't believe in, you would know that Genesis 1 says the moon was created and bright before the sun even existed. Without the sun's light, the moon wouldn't be bright. There wouldn't have been the gravity needed to form the Earth, so that it could in turn form the moon. It was a joke. I was being sarcastic and saying evolution was silly by comparing it to something incredibly silly, like the statements of Genesis 1. I think a doh emoticon is needed, no offense, of course.
0 -
Which is why that is not even remotely close to proving or claiming that God exists.
That is a strawman, since that's not QUITE how a meter was declared or how asecond was verified, but even if it wasn't, that's a good example of failed logic.
.... which is a great example for how your OWN arguments have so far failed the logic.
Now that we're on the same page, I think we will be waiting for your next more logical claim.
Also, my nice little visual claim (about women dying) was so far unanswered. It's a big point. Even if you abolish "pro life" you are not going to stop abortions, which clearly shows that women didn't just say to themselves "oh, yeepy, abortion is allowed and easy to get, I want me some!" and hence, clearly, women don't just "want" one. Sometimes, they need one, and clearly as history shows, they might do anything they can to get it.
If you're truly "pro life", should you not support clear and proper regulations, so women who need this treatment can get it safely?
~mooey
I really don't care how the meter was declared. The stick in my garage tells me more than good enough what it is. I didn't say that it was the definition of a meter, but the statements I made were true according to the definition. If women are going to get abortions, I would very much prefer them to do it safely. I'm still not quite sure what this big unanswered question is. A visual claim about women dying? That isn't lifting the fog...
0 -
The Catholic church has accepted evolution as valid for 16 years already.
Officially, yes, they accept it, but none of them actually believe it. After all, evolution is almost as silly as the moon being bright before the sun existed. Right?
0 -
I can't really agree with this statement. If someone is having a colonoscopy, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was probably medically necessary, which does not make it a want (assuming they enjoying being alive). Having a breast augmentation done is a medical want. Having a procedure to determine if you have a life threatening illness is not.
That would be like saying having an appendectomy so you don't bleed to death internally is something you wanted to do.
I've already explained, people want to stay alive, and to stay alive, people will willingly do unpleasant things. Things you wouldn't want to do if you didn't receive the benefit of staying alive. We just have different ways of looking at things. This is not a response to a mod note, nor a message to the mod, but a comment. I'd like to point out the irony of how much prejudice I've seen here towards others and myself, or groups I am involved in, and with no mod comments.
That's just the way i talk.
Therefore the sanction against you i can justify is limited. As is sanction against women to terminate pregnancy. The autonomy of women to terminate pregnancy, on the other hand, can be well justified.
OK,OK, try this: assume moral relativism.
A principle moral 'faculty' (might not be such a good way to put it, but, onward) is that of fairness. So in any circumstance in which sanction is considered on a moral basis, that sanction must be justified in order to be fair sanction.
The quality of a justification is a philosophical issue and not a moral one, so moral relativism needn't apply in selecting our framework for justification, but fairness should dictate that we pick the framework best suited to arbitrating moral differences. Obviously reason is better than gut-reaction in this.
I suppose since moral relativism is assumed you could still simply say fairness isn't all that important to you, but you definitely do have that faculty so would be a dodge.
Okay...
"How do we know God exists?"
"The bible says so."
"Well, how do we know the Bible is true?"
"It's inspired by God, and anything inspired by Him must be righteous and true." (said hitlers supporters, btw)
Okay...
"Exactly how long is a meter?"
"The distance light travels travels en vacuo in 1/299792458 of a second." "Well, exactly how much time is a second?"
"The time it takes for light to travel en vacuo 299792458 meters."
Okay...Nothing can really be defined. Only in relation can anything have understandable meaning.
0 -
But we were talking about Congressional Republicans blocking Obama's job creation bill. Both Romney and Congressional Republicans claim they want to create jobs for Americans, but when they had a chance to prove it earlier this year, they decided to obstruct instead.
What's wrong with giving a tax break to companies that want to hire Americans, and denying the deductions business gets for relocating overseas? It sounds pretty ideal to me. It would have been a great incentive, just the right amount of carrot and stick.
If you have a real argument that makes it sound like the Republicans didn't purposely harm the American economy in order to get Romney elected, I'd love to hear it. "Romney isn't a congressman" is very weak, imo.
I personally think it is a good idea. I'm going to assume the republicans have a better idea. If there was anything behind that argument, it probably would be in an ad right now... But then, maybe not. What you said is logical, except for republicans trying to harm America.
1 Not if you are a competent speaker. Remember you don't need to get everyone to believe you. You need to get more than half the votes. If you can't convince most people by telling the truth then it's because either you are incompetent at explaining or your ideas are wrong.
Both of those should debar you from office.
2 yes, and the issue seems to be that they do it a lot. Much more than their opponents, and their lies are also much more outrageous. Why is that?
3 No he did not. However,a as has been pointed out elsewhere, that''s not a lie. It's a failure and there are reasons for it. Calling it a lie is a lie.
4 No, I didn't see it. Is it relevant? Did they debate the number of lies in each other's campaigns? If not, are you just trying to distract attention away from the lies the US right wing tells?
5 how many incidences of not knowing what you are talking about is considered excessive? I'd say 1 was enough to show that you are insincere or a lousy speaker.
6 yes, we know. The question is why? I content that their position is intrinsically untenable so they have to lie to defend it. Do you have either a counterpoint to that explanation or even an alternative?
If you want to offer an explanation centred on the idea that the right wing in the US are all on morphine that's "interesting". I rather doubt the validity of the assumption.
BTW, I didn't see the debate but it seems to have left Obama with a clear lead in the slightly longer run- once the facts came out. Perhaps the US public doesn't like being lied to.
Teaching evolution to Catholics? That's near impossible to do.Rich people are sometimes crazy...He said he'd lower the debt, and decrease the unemployment rate, but he didn't. 5 trillion dollars and 3% disagree with you.People either didn't see him lie, or don't care. Or they like him better than Obama anyways. I'm not trying to distract the attention from it.I don't know why he did it...Rich people often get so egotistic they think they can say whatever they want. Still, most hold their tongues. The morphine was a joke, but sometimes I wondered if McCain was on it...
-1 -
We have them, I'm not sure where they are. The right wing stance is usually a religious one. There really is no scientific basis that can guide a ban on abortion. It would be stupid, as stupid as Prohibition was. When you have something so necessary to society that so many people will do it whether it's legal or not, arguing against it is pointless. And unlike alcohol, abortion has some extremely compelling reasons why it should be allowed.
I wonder where they are... Agreed, prohibition was stupid. My 98 year old great aunt told me all about prohibition. Her brother was a moonshiner, but then, who wasn't? I don't drink, so it doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but it was still incredibly stupid.
0 -
The Bring Jobs Home Act would've only impacted businesses that were continuing to send our jobs overseas and taking deductions for it. Again, if what you say is true, either someone is lying or someone isn't really interested in helping fix our unemployment problems:
http://www.cnn.com/2...cked/index.html
Romney isn't a congressman.
0 -
On job creation?! Who in the world would have predicted the GOP would block initiatives aimed at "onshoring" jobs for Americans? Isn't that exactly what Mitt says he really wants to do?
Doesn't that mean that either Mitt is lying again, or the GOP is willing to harm the country to get back in power?
The republicans didn't like his idea. Surely they must have liked the idea of job creation, just not the way he proposed they do it. If you don't like how Obama does things, no, it does not mean that, as long as you have a better idea.
http://www.rollingst...t-lies-20121004
http://blog.nj.com/n...omney_or_o.html
You really think he should have predicted them obstructing him not on any merits of the proposals, but only on the fact that the proposals were his?
Thanks for the links.
0 -
The puppy-eating issue seems to fall largely in the context of purity or sanctity, which is probably the most from-the-gut moral faculty hence relative to indivduals and cultures (i don't eat veal BTW; not an ethical position, i just can't get it down). But i don't think moral relativism is particularly applicable in other moral contexts, such as harm or autonomy.
I suppose you could argue that insisting on grounding morality in reason and evidence is unessential, therefore relative. But then you've wandered out of moral relativism and into metaphysical relativism, and you run into the contradiction that if relativism then all postulates not true therefore relativism not true.
Anyway, i think morality is most usefully defined and debated whithin the framework of reason and evidence, and moral relativism has validity in some but only some contexts.
To the thread topic, the pro-life position falls in the context of sanctity, and arguments for autonomy don't supercede those of sanctity on this issue when it comes to my personal morality. When it comes to legality, i have it the other way around, any position based on sanctity is a highly relative gut response whereas autonomy can be objectively grounded and considered universal even with dissenters. The dissenters are just wrong.
Seem, suppose, think, I have it... All these support that this is a matter of opinion. Your opinion is just that, and you don't need to ask me for approval. Likewise for myself. We share some ideas, others not. That's pretty much all there is to say. Can anyone here explain why it isn't okay to eat puppies? Without claiming they are sentient? Sentience is, once again, a matter of opinion in this case. No one can know for sure if puppies are sentient, except, of course, a sentient puppy.
0 -
That's because you keep refusing to answer that last part, and out of attempting to be patient, I keep repeating it.
So as we can see, you're absolutely not interested in any form of actual debate. You think that what you think is truth regardless of evidence or proper logical succession of claims, and no one can even suggesting to attempt to hint that you may be convinced otherwise. That, beyond being a pointless base for any debate, is also borderline trolling, which is against our rules.
And yes, I will keep repeat this fact until you change your way or get kicked out for refusing to follow the rules, so that no one can even suggest we didn't warn you.
So, until that happens, it seems there's no real reason to waste time here any longer.
You don't make the rules here, and moderators do not act alone.
Phi might have been the one who pushed the button and posted the note, but it was a staff decision which you don't get to argue, not even as a method to shift the argument again trying to hide the fact you have no clue what you're talking about, and don't quite care to check.
That ain't a-workin'.
~mooey
"...and no one can even suggesting to attempt to hint that you may be...""...I will keep repeat this fact..."
This, is exactly the kind of gibberish that is confusing me.So would you tell me what the question is? You just keep assuming I know what you're talking about. Well, I don't. I honestly would like to answer your question. Would you please stop accusing me of argument-shifting? Why should I feel obliged to tell everyone what I want to do with iron iodide? If I don't, is that really reason enough to lock the thread? It sounds like I don't know what I'm talking about because I have no idea what we are talking about. Maybe I could sound more informed if I knew what the topic was...
0 -
If you promise to feed your neighbor's dog for a week, and I hit you with my car putting you in a coma before you even feed it at all, are you a liar?
So, we're ignoring that Romney averaged almost a lie a minute?
I was only half paying attention. Would you care to point out the other lies?
Yeah, it's not like there was an obstructionist Congress or anything....
Shouldn't he have predicted that congress would obstruct him?
0 -
If you promise to feed your neighbor's dog for a week, and I hit you with my car putting you in a coma before you even feed it at all, are you a liar?
Yes, but it wouldn't have been my fault. What do you think made this the case for Obama?
0 -
So you insist you are right and it is not just a difference of opinion. No, you are indeed naive. You aren't able to see things from another's point of view. It is not necessarily important to agree with another but it is important to understand their perspective. If you don't try you will not grow.
I understand your perspective, but I still think it's wrong. To come up with my previous answer, I had to look at things from your perspective to convince you I was right. It seems that I failed. My idea is backed by the logic of "people want to do what is in their best interest", but I failed to see any logic from your perspective. If you would point it out, in a non-opinionized way, I might be more ready to accept your ideas as a valid alternative to my own. Care to share?
-1 -
So you count making optimistic predictions and not being able to achieve them and being knowingly deceitful as equal?
If you promise to do something, and then you don't, then you are a liar. An optimistic prediction is not a promise. A promise is what he made.
0
Stearic acid?
in Organic Chemistry
Posted
Anybody know how I could make at least 10 grams of stearic acid? Somewhere else on this forum it said you could cool vegetable oil and filter it out. Apparently, vegetable oil is 5-ish% stearic acid. Could I make it from vegetable oil? Help would be appreciated.In advance:No, I don't plan to make drugs, bombs, poison, or anything DEA controlled with it.I plan on making non-spiky ferrofluid with it. I'm a boss at making ferrofluid, so all of mine spikes excellently, but now I need some that doesn't. No, I can't use oleic acid for the ferrofluid. All my oleic fluids spike, no matter what I do. Apparently, stearic results in a slightly more viscous fluid. I also got a few mills of non spiky from it once, but now I'm out of stearic acid.