The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can lavender Potassium Permanganate be used as a radiation antidote?  (Read 2695 times)

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
" However you did not comment on potassium permanganate being used as a method of decontamination for radioactive contamination of the skin."
Would you like me to?
OK
 potassium is radioactive.
It would border on madness to use it to seek to remove radioactivity.
Also, permanganate is rather corrosive to skin (Not to mention staining it brown/ black).

It's possible that they might once have used it.
So what?
That does not mean that it works.
It certainly does not mean that it forms a pale  hydrate.

"I am fighting a knowledge blackout, you on the other hand are just quoting common sources. "
It is unfortunate that your knowledge has blacked out.
However the reason I'm citing common sources is that they are easy to cite.
What I am actually relying on is a vast experience of chemistry. I have been playing this game professionally for 28 years: I studied it at Oxford for  4 years before that and at school for many years before that- as I said- starting at home with my dad's old text books.

So, what I cite here isn't really the point.
When I point out that you must be wrong about a pale permanganate- because permanganates are not pale, it is simple logic.

"That always omit the history of the chemistry or chemical compound. "
Chemicals do not remember history.
What you are purporting to claim is that "way back" we somehow knew more chemistry than we do now.
How is that possible?
If the old books don't agree with the new observations, guess which one is wrong?

You have this
"The fact that solid sodium hydroxide contains free water as well as sodium oxide tells me that it is not a stable compound we are looking at." completely the wrong way round
It is a stable compound and it does not contain the oxide.
You are misunderstanding a proximate analysis in that old book you cited.
So when you say "It is a transitioning mix and partial crystallization. According to your definitions. ", again, you are completely wrong.
Sodium hydroxide is a single chemical compound; it is not a hydrate of the oxide.

"I ordered some potassium permanganate and I will see if I can produce some lavender crystals of potassium permanganate using controlled temperature and a vacuum pump. I imagine the oral does must have been very small to create a lavender crystal. "
Have fun.
You will of course fail.

that's because it's impossible.
If it was something that pharmacists did  in order to make some preparation then it would be written down.
I'd be able to find it on line- so would you.
I'd be able to find it in my old pharmacopoeias. I have paper copies because I collect that sort of data.
It's not there.

If this stuff was some sort of patent medicine then (the hint is in the name) there would be a patent.


The best reason for it to only be in your head is that you dreamed it.


And, once you start introducing stuff about
"we know that air burns if hot enough"
(It does not)
"usually because it is separated to its individual atoms"
(No it isn't.)
"early submarine launched rockets"
"So yea we knew things that others to this day by way of the "laws" of conservation claim could not have existed. " (Those conservation laws are mathematically proven to be true)
"This was in the fifties,"
"My point is the Habor process is a fusion reaction"
"That works much like a ramjet"
"if you have looked at taxation ..."
"I believe the ramjet that detonated air, started to create high voltage from the pressure differential created by the Venturi, that in turn created a plasma that expanded the air violently. "
"I have electrically created plasma in pure nitrogen, and oxygen. Both react rather violently. "

and other such ramblings, you look like Grandpa Simpson.



because it's got nothing to do with permanganates.

If you believe that there is no perpetual motion, explain how a liquid filled planet like earth could spin. It takes a massive amount of horse power to spin a molten mass the size of earths molten core. For a proof spin a raw chicken egg and a hard boiled chicken egg on a hard flat surface. Note the way that the raw egg refuses to spin like the hard boiled egg.

Originally in school once real science was put away they had claimed that the earth spun because it was in a vacuum of space. Now not so much, because they figured out the volute pattern the molten liquid must follow and the friction that pattern creates. That is when they started saying the sun will burn out so that they could claim it was using up matter to exist and create energy. Throw in a bunch of imaginary sub-matter particles and you have the chaos we live in.

The infrastructures of our cities are failing, and there are not many up to the challenges of repairing much less planning new ones. New buildings go up today and the work and rework never stops on them. They all suffer from shortcomings and poor engineering. I am supposed to believe that you have somehow kept chemistry pure and pristine in all of this?

Here in my country they put it right on the table. They said they will use our military to destroy our homes if we continued to display real science.

Most people were told something about this threat but rather than to side with rebellious sorts, they sided with the government. It was less scary. That is the real world.

My uncle a Navy officer took me to West Point to see the duplicate of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, it weighed 886 pounds. He had heard that the display was being disassembled and in fact they were planing to remove it the next day. It was a couple hour trip and he wanted his children and me to see it before it was gone. That same bomb made it to public television after the secrecy act made all records public in the U.S.. It showed women making the bombs in shower caps. Pretty funny if you think about it. The bomb is initiated by a 25 pound spherical ammonium nitrate charge, in a thin metal wall container, that has many high voltage initiating blasting caps, aimed at the center of the core. Each set of wires length from the blasting cap, is cut exactly like every other, or there would be a mistiming. The sphere is suspended by chain and grounding cables, in a heavy wall bomb casing that was filled with oil. The spherical ammonium nitrate core when detonated reached 35,000 degrees Fahrenheit, separating the oil that does not shatter like a solid bomb casing would, into pure hydrogen. That is a lot of hydrogen to be freeing up at once. The oil does not allow a breach of the high pressure. The bonds of the oil are actually strengthened as the core expands. Because the oil is moving across the face of the sphere, it does not break and allow the pressure within out, this violent movement of the oil also creates friction and heat. At this time ammonium nitrate was NO5 in my area in my school.

Years ago race shops filmed crankshafts through plexiglass oil pans. At around 10,000 rpm motor oil would stick to the crank and defy centrifuge forces. Above 15,000 rpm the engine would detonate with unexplained violence. The solution was a simple piece of metal called an oil scrapper that is installed on all race engines to not only increase horse power by removing the stuck oil, but to also protect the driver and spectators. 

http://www.rockwelder.com/history/Hiroshima/Hiroshima.html

For me I know what took place I lived it. Most in my position would have hung up. I am different. Haha. I knew Roy Grumman personally and I can assure you there are only a few men on the planet at any given time that can actually face reality. Roy was one of them.

These little bits and pieces of history are getting scarce. Below is the whole article.

http://www.rockwelder.com/explosives/Halfton.pdf

I am sure chemistry is in disarray.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
" However you did not comment on potassium permanganate being used as a method of decontamination for radioactive contamination of the skin."
Would you like me to?
OK
 potassium is radioactive.
It would border on madness to use it to seek to remove radioactivity.
Also, permanganate is rather corrosive to skin (Not to mention staining it brown/ black).

It's possible that they might once have used it.
So what?
That does not mean that it works.
It certainly does not mean that it forms a pale  hydrate.

"I am fighting a knowledge blackout, you on the other hand are just quoting common sources. "
It is unfortunate that your knowledge has blacked out.
However the reason I'm citing common sources is that they are easy to cite.
What I am actually relying on is a vast experience of chemistry. I have been playing this game professionally for 28 years: I studied it at Oxford for  4 years before that and at school for many years before that- as I said- starting at home with my dad's old text books.

So, what I cite here isn't really the point.
When I point out that you must be wrong about a pale permanganate- because permanganates are not pale, it is simple logic.

"That always omit the history of the chemistry or chemical compound. "
Chemicals do not remember history.
What you are purporting to claim is that "way back" we somehow knew more chemistry than we do now.
How is that possible?
If the old books don't agree with the new observations, guess which one is wrong?

You have this
"The fact that solid sodium hydroxide contains free water as well as sodium oxide tells me that it is not a stable compound we are looking at." completely the wrong way round
It is a stable compound and it does not contain the oxide.
You are misunderstanding a proximate analysis in that old book you cited.
So when you say "It is a transitioning mix and partial crystallization. According to your definitions. ", again, you are completely wrong.
Sodium hydroxide is a single chemical compound; it is not a hydrate of the oxide.

"I ordered some potassium permanganate and I will see if I can produce some lavender crystals of potassium permanganate using controlled temperature and a vacuum pump. I imagine the oral does must have been very small to create a lavender crystal. "
Have fun.
You will of course fail.

that's because it's impossible.
If it was something that pharmacists did  in order to make some preparation then it would be written down.
I'd be able to find it on line- so would you.
I'd be able to find it in my old pharmacopoeias. I have paper copies because I collect that sort of data.
It's not there.

If this stuff was some sort of patent medicine then (the hint is in the name) there would be a patent.


The best reason for it to only be in your head is that you dreamed it.


And, once you start introducing stuff about
"we know that air burns if hot enough"
(It does not)
"usually because it is separated to its individual atoms"
(No it isn't.)
"early submarine launched rockets"
"So yea we knew things that others to this day by way of the "laws" of conservation claim could not have existed. " (Those conservation laws are mathematically proven to be true)
"This was in the fifties,"
"My point is the Habor process is a fusion reaction"
"That works much like a ramjet"
"if you have looked at taxation ..."
"I believe the ramjet that detonated air, started to create high voltage from the pressure differential created by the Venturi, that in turn created a plasma that expanded the air violently. "
"I have electrically created plasma in pure nitrogen, and oxygen. Both react rather violently. "

and other such ramblings, you look like Grandpa Simpson.



because it's got nothing to do with permanganates.


Consider that potassium is potassium and if it is radioactive then it has picked up a radio active element and is not pure. This is what World War Two was about. Germany had warned that if we keep polluting the world with radioactive substances all our chemicals will be tainted.

There is no such thing as potassium-40 what you have is a radioactive element mixed in with the potassium. I would bet that centrifuge could remove such contamination.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
This is a link about potassium permanganate from my government.

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/plantox/detail.cfm?id=11866

I was not aware it could cancel out alcohol in the stomach. But then again it is from the government, haha.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
OK, it's going to be a long list of wrongness if I correct all of that so I will just get a few of teh more eye-catching ones
"If you believe that there is no perpetual motion, explain how a liquid filled planet like earth could spin. It takes a massive amount of horse power to spin a molten mass the size of earths molten core. For a proof spin a raw chicken egg and a hard boiled chicken egg on a hard flat surface. Note the way that the raw egg refuses to spin like the hard boiled egg. "
Try it in zero gravity- like the Earth is.
The forces acing on the egg arise from a number of effects, but teh competition between bits of the egg trying to sink and bits trying to spin is one of the issues.
Also, you are ignoring the frictional forces that occur between the egg and the table or whatever.
Those have no counterpart in the case of a planet.


"Throw in a bunch of imaginary sub-matter particles and you have the chaos we live in. "
So 'imaginary' that you can see them.
http://video.mit.edu/watch/cloud-chamber-4058/

"Here in my country they put it right on the table. They said they will use our military to destroy our homes if we continued to display real science. "
I presume that you have no evidence of that.



"There is no such thing as potassium-40 what you have is a radioactive element mixed in with the potassium. I would bet that centrifuge could remove such contamination. "

Nope, but a mass spectroscope can be used to prove that the stuff with a mass of 40 is the radioactive bit.
You could try it easily enough- all you need is some "lo salt", a centrifuge, and a Geiger counter.

Of course, if a centrifuge is a problem (and I can see it would be awkward) why not just show that the radioactivity  drops when you recrystallise the stuff.

Let me know how that goes.

 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
OK, it's going to be a long list of wrongness if I correct all of that so I will just get a few of teh more eye-catching ones
"If you believe that there is no perpetual motion, explain how a liquid filled planet like earth could spin. It takes a massive amount of horse power to spin a molten mass the size of earths molten core. For a proof spin a raw chicken egg and a hard boiled chicken egg on a hard flat surface. Note the way that the raw egg refuses to spin like the hard boiled egg. "
Try it in zero gravity- like the Earth is.
The forces acing on the egg arise from a number of effects, but teh competition between bits of the egg trying to sink and bits trying to spin is one of the issues.
Also, you are ignoring the frictional forces that occur between the egg and the table or whatever.
Those have no counterpart in the case of a planet.


"Throw in a bunch of imaginary sub-matter particles and you have the chaos we live in. "
So 'imaginary' that you can see them.
http://video.mit.edu/watch/cloud-chamber-4058/

"Here in my country they put it right on the table. They said they will use our military to destroy our homes if we continued to display real science. "
I presume that you have no evidence of that.



"There is no such thing as potassium-40 what you have is a radioactive element mixed in with the potassium. I would bet that centrifuge could remove such contamination. "

Nope, but a mass spectroscope can be used to prove that the stuff with a mass of 40 is the radioactive bit.
You could try it easily enough- all you need is some "lo salt", a centrifuge, and a Geiger counter.

Of course, if a centrifuge is a problem (and I can see it would be awkward) why not just show that the radioactivity  drops when you recrystallise the stuff.

Let me know how that goes.

The two nearly identical chicken eggs one raw, one hard boiled, both laid on a hard flat surface, and then spun on the same surface rule out the surface as a variable. If you actually do the experiment you will see that the liquid filled or gelatin filled raw egg does not spin willingly. While the solid hard boiled egg spins like a top. The soft boiled egg when you attempt to spin it stops itself.

The reason is that in order to spin it, a volute pattern is developed within the raw egg. The pattern is actually nearing the thickness of the atoms that make up the raw egg. Each layer in the volute pattern must rub against the next layer underlying it. This creates friction. This is what stops the egg. The countertop is not a variable we need to explain away to prove the above.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
OK, it's going to be a long list of wrongness if I correct all of that so I will just get a few of teh more eye-catching ones
"If you believe that there is no perpetual motion, explain how a liquid filled planet like earth could spin. It takes a massive amount of horse power to spin a molten mass the size of earths molten core. For a proof spin a raw chicken egg and a hard boiled chicken egg on a hard flat surface. Note the way that the raw egg refuses to spin like the hard boiled egg. "
Try it in zero gravity- like the Earth is.
The forces acing on the egg arise from a number of effects, but teh competition between bits of the egg trying to sink and bits trying to spin is one of the issues.
Also, you are ignoring the frictional forces that occur between the egg and the table or whatever.
Those have no counterpart in the case of a planet.


"Throw in a bunch of imaginary sub-matter particles and you have the chaos we live in. "
So 'imaginary' that you can see them.
http://video.mit.edu/watch/cloud-chamber-4058/

"Here in my country they put it right on the table. They said they will use our military to destroy our homes if we continued to display real science. "
I presume that you have no evidence of that.



"There is no such thing as potassium-40 what you have is a radioactive element mixed in with the potassium. I would bet that centrifuge could remove such contamination. "

Nope, but a mass spectroscope can be used to prove that the stuff with a mass of 40 is the radioactive bit.
You could try it easily enough- all you need is some "lo salt", a centrifuge, and a Geiger counter.

Of course, if a centrifuge is a problem (and I can see it would be awkward) why not just show that the radioactivity  drops when you recrystallise the stuff.

Let me know how that goes.

What you are seeing there in the cloud chamber are not single particles in my opinion. More than likely you are watching, the effect some unknown amount of particles had on atoms in the chamber. In any case the simplicity of understanding that it takes a lot of particles to effect an atom enough to create light, is something they understood a long time ago. The science community conceded a long time ago that the universe does not permit us to see a sub-matter particle, ever. It is just the scale and the actual workings of the universe that make this notion impossible. Real scientists moved on years ago. Crazy people in my opinion pursue the dream. As some that do not understand time think time changes in one frame as opposed to another.

Time is only the observation of moving objects in the universe, compared to other moving objects in the universe. Time is relative to the observer. So if one person lived on a planet that spun faster, and they did all the things that needed to be done in a day in less time, than a person living on a slower rotating planet. After a while the guy on the faster planet would be moving faster. The guy on the faster planet might age more because he is working harder doing more work in the same amount of time. But only because his days are shorter. Time if measured against a third relatively unchanging clock would only show that each of the two planets days are of different length.



Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1875
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
The major difference between the Earth and your spinning egg-zample is that the Earth is *already* spinning.

Sure, it's harder to get a raw egg to start spinning that to get a boiled egg to start spinning. But once you've gotten them spinning, it's also harder to *stop* the raw egg from spinning (for the exact same reason!)
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1875
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
What you are seeing there in the cloud chamber are not single particles in my opinion. More than likely you are watching, the effect some unknown amount of particles had on atoms in the chamber. In any case the simplicity of understanding that it takes a lot of particles to effect an atom enough to create light, is something they understood a long time ago. The science community conceded a long time ago that the universe does not permit us to see a sub-matter particle, ever. It is just the scale and the actual workings of the universe that make this notion impossible. Real scientists moved on years ago. Crazy people in my opinion pursue the dream. As some that do not understand time think time changes in one frame as opposed to another.

Then your opinion does not align with observations. Cloud chambers are excellent ways of visualizing subatomic particles. It was never established that subatomic particles cannot be seen, because people SAW them before they knew what they were...

Time is only the observation of moving objects in the universe, compared to other moving objects in the universe. Time is relative to the observer. So if one person lived on a planet that spun faster, and they did all the things that needed to be done in a day in less time, than a person living on a slower rotating planet. After a while the guy on the faster planet would be moving faster. The guy on the faster planet might age more because he is working harder doing more work in the same amount of time. But only because his days are shorter. Time if measured against a third relatively unchanging clock would only show that each of the two planets days are of different length.

You must be TheBox's teacher. The rotation of the planet has very little to do with the perceived time at the surface of the planet (and certainly not in the way you suggest). Yes, time is relative, but not in such a cartoonish way.

Now, having chimed in with this info, I must accept defeat. It is likely that you will never have a grasp of chemistry or physics, so I will stop responding to your posts, as hard as it may be...
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
The major difference between the Earth and your spinning egg-zample is that the Earth is *already* spinning.

Sure, it's harder to get a raw egg to start spinning that to get a boiled egg to start spinning. But once you've gotten them spinning, it's also harder to *stop* the raw egg from spinning (for the exact same reason!)

You obviously have not done the experiment. This is a must do experiment.

The surface of our molten core under the equator of our planet is moving at the speed of some hand gun rounds once fired. Yet the center of the core, must rotate only once in 24 hours. This creates a volute patterned swirl within the magma. It causes massive friction continuously.

The core never "gets going" it always wants to stop. Sure with any object in motion, it wishes to stay in motion and for a short time with power removed a certain continued movement will be sustained. However to spin a liquid filled container requires constant horse power above that of a container filled with a solid, of the same proportions and weight. Both will wish to come to rest however the liquid container has atomic brakes. Which you can demonstrate if you have the courage to spin a raw egg and hard boiled egg on a hard flat surface.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile

Then your opinion does not align with observations. Cloud chambers are excellent ways of visualizing subatomic particles. It was never established that subatomic particles cannot be seen, because people SAW them before they knew what they were...


Your observation skills are askew. I saw no particle whatsoever at any time in the cloud chamber. If you looked up in the sky and saw a white streak of a cloud like trail would you assume that a plane made it without seeing the plane. You may be correct however sometimes those trails are created naturally, or by meteorite. Not having seen the plane could you identify what type of plane it was or that it was a plane? I think not.

Since we can never see the unseen plane, or the particle in our case of our cloud chamber we would be making massive assumptions about what created the streak. True scientists years ago had proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we will never see a single particle or even a single atom ever. It is just the way the universe is made up. Sorry. The government loves that scientists attention is on such nonsense. It keeps them out of the failing countries infrastructure and sciences. True science is the only enemy lying disingenuous rulers have.

Look at a bolt of lightning according to your observational rules, that could be created by a plane too.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile


The two nearly identical chicken eggs one raw, one hard boiled, both laid on a hard flat surface, and then spun on the same surface rule out the surface as a variable. If you actually do the experiment you will see that the liquid filled or gelatin filled raw egg does not spin willingly. While the solid hard boiled egg spins like a top. The soft boiled egg when you attempt to spin it stops itself.

The reason is that in order to spin it, a volute pattern is developed within the raw egg. The pattern is actually nearing the thickness of the atoms that make up the raw egg. Each layer in the volute pattern must rub against the next layer underlying it. This creates friction. This is what stops the egg. The countertop is not a variable we need to explain away to prove the above.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
The conservation of angular momentum is unusual in physics in that it has been proven to be true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
There's no way it's wrong-  so you must be.
The counter-top is important because  that's what the angular momentum is transferred to. There isn't an equivalent in the case of the spinning Earth.


"The science community conceded a long time ago that the universe does not permit us to see a sub-matter particle, ever. "

and yet we do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinthariscope
and the scientific community knows it. Why don't you?
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile


The two nearly identical chicken eggs one raw, one hard boiled, both laid on a hard flat surface, and then spun on the same surface rule out the surface as a variable. If you actually do the experiment you will see that the liquid filled or gelatin filled raw egg does not spin willingly. While the solid hard boiled egg spins like a top. The soft boiled egg when you attempt to spin it stops itself.

The reason is that in order to spin it, a volute pattern is developed within the raw egg. The pattern is actually nearing the thickness of the atoms that make up the raw egg. Each layer in the volute pattern must rub against the next layer underlying it. This creates friction. This is what stops the egg. The countertop is not a variable we need to explain away to prove the above.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
The conservation of angular momentum is unusual in physics in that it has been proven to be true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
There's no way it's wrong-  so you must be.
The counter-top is important because  that's what the angular momentum is transferred to. There isn't an equivalent in the case of the spinning Earth.


"The science community conceded a long time ago that the universe does not permit us to see a sub-matter particle, ever. "

and yet we do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinthariscope
and the scientific community knows it. Why don't you?

Once again we never see a particle. We see some effect. Look at lightning, perhaps that is the effect of one particle too according to your think on it.

As far as spinning a high viscosity liquid it requires horsepower, constant horsepower, whether it is in space or whether it is on your countertop at home. What you posted has nothing to do with the subject we are talking about. If you are claiming that gravity causes this effect, only upon the liquid and not the solid that is another theory that I have never heard of nor do I see any possibility of its existence.

Both the eggs at the same temperature, both eggs made of similar substances, spinning on the same surface, should spin exactly the same. However if you actually perform this experiment as I have many times you will see that there is a frictional force, created against the rotational movement of a high viscosity liquid. It is so substantial that it is almost unbelievable as you try to spin the raw egg. While the hard boiled egg spins like a quality top. I will post a video of it later.

Sincerely,

William McCormick


 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
It used to be common knowledge taught in grade school that a liquid because it is not solid, can never transfer the force created against its outer most surface to its inner most volume. It just can never happen. There is always going to be slip, and slip means friction. Constant friction for all eternity. I will admit when my aunt showed me this little raw and boiled egg trick some forty years ago, I was impressed.

I am attempting a video now and I was looking for some other ways to show the effect of a liquids internal slip over a longer time period,  so that I could measure perhaps the extra milliamps necessary to turn the raw egg by electric motor compared to the boiled egg. This would take away the countertop from the equation, the experiment as well.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoVldYP9uo8

This is a short video of the two eggs being spun. Demonstrating the forces of centrifuge action, on individual un-fixed particles of liquid being rotated around an axis. They attempt to maintain a tangent path to the axis. This requires energy for lack of a better term.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoVldYP9uo8

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Did anyone download the short video of the spinning eggs? More importantly did anyone actually try it for themselves?

You have got to feel the force impeding the raw eggs movement. It is similar to a fan belt that is not properly tightened and slipping slightly. It will often cause a motor designed for the task to overheat, draw too much current, or in the case of single phase motors never disengage the start winding.


Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Nobody is disputing what happens when you spin an egg.
So providing a video will not change anything.
Why are you proposing to waste time and bandwidth on it?

Angular momentum is a conserved quantity.
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Nobody is disputing what happens when you spin an egg.
So providing a video will not change anything.
Why are you proposing to waste time and bandwidth on it?

Angular momentum is a conserved quantity.

The great force required to spin a high viscosity liquid is real. It does not matter if it is floating or on a countertop. Each individual particle in a liquid is trying to continue in a tangent path to the axis. Unlike a solid object where the particles are trapped in one location within the solid objects geometry.

The particles in a liquid are moved randomly when a liquid mass is rotated, within the geometry they are contained, causing friction. If you can dispute that then perhaps I am wrong. The "energy" of rotating a liquid is converted to heat, rather than a spinning movement. So although no energy is lost, if you wish a liquid body to spin you must continue applying force, or it will stop spinning and making heat. These are laws Newton understood. Unless you freeze a liquid, rotating it will cause mixing, and mixing causes friction, so to conserve the energy lost to friction, one must apply continued power to a liquid to make it spin.



Sincerely,

William McCormick   

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"The great force required to spin a high viscosity liquid is real"
Not really

Why do you keep saying stuff that's not true?

 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
"The great force required to spin a high viscosity liquid is real"
Not really

Why do you keep saying stuff that's not true?

I cannot get your movie, it displays a black screen. I tried it on multiple platforms and still nothing. That is why I post the address to my videos. 

Try rotating liquid in a container. There is friction generated within the fluid that does not move like a solid does, as a single object. Liquid swirls. As soon as you rotate a liquid mass, there is internal friction generated. No one can say anything differently and not be a fool. As soon as friction is generated there is a loss of energy between the energy applied to rotate the liquid and the heat generated. Newton had proven this.



Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
"The great force required to spin a high viscosity liquid is real"
Not really

Why do you keep saying stuff that's not true?

I looked at the information in the webpage and I believe I found the movie about glass blowing that you meant to post.

Molten glass is not necessarily melted fluid glass. Glass that comes out of a large molten liquid vat is melted glass. Glass blowing uses a form of glass that is in transition, some areas are more liquid or fluid like than others. However the glass used for glass blowing is not melted liquid glass. Molten liquid glass pours almost like chocolate milk.

The core of the earth is molten liquid magma. It is fluid deep in the earth and it becomes a semi fluid material upon cooling near the surface.

Why are you playing word games when challenged with science questions and scientific information? While claiming I am somehow being disingenuous. Before I get to insulting people I make sure my science is spot on.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
" However you did not comment on potassium permanganate being used as a method of decontamination for radioactive contamination of the skin."
Would you like me to?
OK
 potassium is radioactive.
It would border on madness to use it to seek to remove radioactivity.
Also, permanganate is rather corrosive to skin (Not to mention staining it brown/ black).

It's possible that they might once have used it.
So what?
That does not mean that it works.
It certainly does not mean that it forms a pale  hydrate.

"I am fighting a knowledge blackout, you on the other hand are just quoting common sources. "
It is unfortunate that your knowledge has blacked out.
However the reason I'm citing common sources is that they are easy to cite.
What I am actually relying on is a vast experience of chemistry. I have been playing this game professionally for 28 years: I studied it at Oxford for  4 years before that and at school for many years before that- as I said- starting at home with my dad's old text books.

So, what I cite here isn't really the point.
When I point out that you must be wrong about a pale permanganate- because permanganates are not pale, it is simple logic.

"That always omit the history of the chemistry or chemical compound. "
Chemicals do not remember history.
What you are purporting to claim is that "way back" we somehow knew more chemistry than we do now.
How is that possible?
If the old books don't agree with the new observations, guess which one is wrong?

You have this
"The fact that solid sodium hydroxide contains free water as well as sodium oxide tells me that it is not a stable compound we are looking at." completely the wrong way round
It is a stable compound and it does not contain the oxide.
You are misunderstanding a proximate analysis in that old book you cited.
So when you say "It is a transitioning mix and partial crystallization. According to your definitions. ", again, you are completely wrong.
Sodium hydroxide is a single chemical compound; it is not a hydrate of the oxide.

"I ordered some potassium permanganate and I will see if I can produce some lavender crystals of potassium permanganate using controlled temperature and a vacuum pump. I imagine the oral does must have been very small to create a lavender crystal. "
Have fun.
You will of course fail.

that's because it's impossible.
If it was something that pharmacists did  in order to make some preparation then it would be written down.
I'd be able to find it on line- so would you.
I'd be able to find it in my old pharmacopoeias. I have paper copies because I collect that sort of data.
It's not there.

If this stuff was some sort of patent medicine then (the hint is in the name) there would be a patent.


The best reason for it to only be in your head is that you dreamed it.


And, once you start introducing stuff about
"we know that air burns if hot enough"
(It does not)
"usually because it is separated to its individual atoms"
(No it isn't.)
"early submarine launched rockets"
"So yea we knew things that others to this day by way of the "laws" of conservation claim could not have existed. " (Those conservation laws are mathematically proven to be true)
"This was in the fifties,"
"My point is the Habor process is a fusion reaction"
"That works much like a ramjet"
"if you have looked at taxation ..."
"I believe the ramjet that detonated air, started to create high voltage from the pressure differential created by the Venturi, that in turn created a plasma that expanded the air violently. "
"I have electrically created plasma in pure nitrogen, and oxygen. Both react rather violently. "

and other such ramblings, you look like Grandpa Simpson.



because it's got nothing to do with permanganates.


I received very pure potassium permanganate the other day. It is not at all radio active. Dry Green Tea from Japan is outputting many times the radiation of potassium permanganate.

It turns out the lavender solution does not stain the skin or anything else for that matter. And it works extremely effectively at disinfecting the skin. Even deep infections soaked for a few minutes in a lavender solution of potassium permanganate totally cures the infection. An infection that iodine could not stop. The solution turns brown when it is pretty well used up. However the skin is unchanged. It will not even stain cloth if rinsed out of the cloth.

Only a few specs of the black potassium permanganate powder which is almost invisible on a white background will create a quart of lavender solution. It is extremely potent.


Sincerely,

William McCormick


 
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"Molten glass is not necessarily melted fluid glass."
Nor is egg white.
Molten glass is a lot more similar to the molten rock of the Earth's core.

"Newton had proven this."
Citation please.

Incidentally, you rather miss the point that, sitting here on Earth, I don't see the Earth's core rotating.

"Before I get to insulting people I make sure my science is spot on. "
Your science is practically non-existent in this case.
You claimed that "The great force required to spin a high viscosity liquid is real"
I posted a link (sorry this site corrupted it) to a you tube video of someone who was spinning a liquid with no great force.
That proves you are wrong.
No "word games" just evidential proof of the falsity of your assertion.

"I received very pure potassium permanganate the other day. It is not at all radio active. "
Then it is either a very unusual (and insanely expensive) isotopically  enriched  product, or it's not potassium permanganate.
However I suspect that the real problem is that you don't understand how to make a proper measurement of radioactivity.

Potassium is mainly a beta emitter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-40
Those same beta particles are easily blocked so, if you have the potassium in the presence of a relatively high atomic number element like manganese, the manganese will block a lot of the radiation.
If, on the other hand, you have some tea leaves then (1) there will be other radioisotopes emoting radiation and (2) there will be a lot less "heavy" elements blocking that radiation.

How did you calibrate for self-absorption in the measurements you made?
Or did you not understand enough about the subject to realise that you needed to make that correction?
(That is, of course, part of getting the science "spot on".)

"It turns out the lavender solution does not stain the skin or anything else for that matter."
Really? Did you try running it slowly through a filter paper?

"And it works extremely effectively at disinfecting the skin. "
Is that "spot on" science where you actually did the experiment- or did you make it up?
You seem to have forgotten that I already acknowledged that it kills bugs- so that's not worth further discussion as such, but I'd like to know how you quantified it.

Ditto "Even deep infections soaked for a few minutes in a lavender solution of potassium permanganate totally cures the infection. An infection that iodine could not stop. The solution turns brown when it is pretty well used up. "
Got any evidence?
Could it be that the very dilute solution did nothing, but, unlike iodine, it didn't damage the tissue so the body's immune system could take out the infection?
Where are the clinical trial data?
That's pretty much the minimum for "spot on" science, surely?


And finally, you seem to be trying to make my point for me.
You say "Only a few specs of the black potassium permanganate powder which is almost invisible on a white background will create a quart of lavender solution. It is extremely potent. "
and yes, I agree.
It only takes traces of permanganate to make a material lavender coloured. I pointed that out  while back - I said that even a 1% solution is very dark.

And yet you were originally claiming that this tiny trace was enough to bind the water together to make a crystal.
Had you forgotten that the thread was about that absurd claim of yours.
You know that anything more than a trace of permanganate will make the mixture very dark- yet you say that even less than that will hold it together as a crystal.

Is that another bit of "spot on" scientific reasoning?
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
"Molten glass is not necessarily melted fluid glass."
Nor is egg white.
Molten glass is a lot more similar to the molten rock of the Earth's core.

"Newton had proven this."
Citation please.

Incidentally, you rather miss the point that, sitting here on Earth, I don't see the Earth's core rotating.

"Before I get to insulting people I make sure my science is spot on. "
Your science is practically non-existent in this case.
You claimed that "The great force required to spin a high viscosity liquid is real"
I posted a link (sorry this site corrupted it) to a you tube video of someone who was spinning a liquid with no great force.
That proves you are wrong.
No "word games" just evidential proof of the falsity of your assertion.

"I received very pure potassium permanganate the other day. It is not at all radio active. "
Then it is either a very unusual (and insanely expensive) isotopically  enriched  product, or it's not potassium permanganate.
However I suspect that the real problem is that you don't understand how to make a proper measurement of radioactivity.

Potassium is mainly a beta emitter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-40
Those same beta particles are easily blocked so, if you have the potassium in the presence of a relatively high atomic number element like manganese, the manganese will block a lot of the radiation.
If, on the other hand, you have some tea leaves then (1) there will be other radioisotopes emoting radiation and (2) there will be a lot less "heavy" elements blocking that radiation.

How did you calibrate for self-absorption in the measurements you made?
Or did you not understand enough about the subject to realise that you needed to make that correction?
(That is, of course, part of getting the science "spot on".)

"It turns out the lavender solution does not stain the skin or anything else for that matter."
Really? Did you try running it slowly through a filter paper?

"And it works extremely effectively at disinfecting the skin. "
Is that "spot on" science where you actually did the experiment- or did you make it up?
You seem to have forgotten that I already acknowledged that it kills bugs- so that's not worth further discussion as such, but I'd like to know how you quantified it.

Ditto "Even deep infections soaked for a few minutes in a lavender solution of potassium permanganate totally cures the infection. An infection that iodine could not stop. The solution turns brown when it is pretty well used up. "
Got any evidence?
Could it be that the very dilute solution did nothing, but, unlike iodine, it didn't damage the tissue so the body's immune system could take out the infection?
Where are the clinical trial data?
That's pretty much the minimum for "spot on" science, surely?


And finally, you seem to be trying to make my point for me.
You say "Only a few specs of the black potassium permanganate powder which is almost invisible on a white background will create a quart of lavender solution. It is extremely potent. "
and yes, I agree.
It only takes traces of permanganate to make a material lavender coloured. I pointed that out  while back - I said that even a 1% solution is very dark.

And yet you were originally claiming that this tiny trace was enough to bind the water together to make a crystal.
Had you forgotten that the thread was about that absurd claim of yours.
You know that anything more than a trace of permanganate will make the mixture very dark- yet you say that even less than that will hold it together as a crystal.

Is that another bit of "spot on" scientific reasoning?

Newtons claim is that energy is neither created or destroyed, just altered. That means perpetual motion.

What that also means is that ambient radiation is altered to create an effect, however no energy is lost because the particles are quickly brought back to full potential, near full velocity. However the effect is created, and in some other area an effect cannot be created while the first effect is taking place. So although we can create effects, nothing is ever consumed or lost.

So if the melted rock in the earths core, is moving around flowing ebbing it is creating friction. That friction the heat, needs to be accounted for. The magnum is melted rock not a semi-solid.

Liquids when moved create friction no way around it. They used to sell a soup machine that used the friction of moving the soup rapidly through compressing type gears to heat a cup of soup, in 20 seconds faster than microwave. But it turned all the veggies into mush.

I just started using my potassium permanganate and I can assure you it so powerful that it must be seen to be believed. The lavender fluid turns brown after you soak flesh in it, mine, in a few minutes time, remarkable stuff really. I will try to make a video of me mixing some, the amounts of potassium permanganate are so infinitesimally small and the batch so large that as I say you must see it to believe it. I was impressed by the amount it produced. I will make a video.

With the water around 60 degrees, even a lavender solution can be witnessed having trouble absorbing more potassium permanganate. I would think dropping the temperature to 40 degrees Fahrenheit, waters most dense state, would be where crystallization would occur.



Sincerely,

William McCormick

 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
"Molten glass is not necessarily melted fluid glass."
Nor is egg white.
Molten glass is a lot more similar to the molten rock of the Earth's core.

"Newton had proven this."
Citation please.

Incidentally, you rather miss the point that, sitting here on Earth, I don't see the Earth's core rotating.

"Before I get to insulting people I make sure my science is spot on. "
Your science is practically non-existent in this case.
You claimed that "The great force required to spin a high viscosity liquid is real"
I posted a link (sorry this site corrupted it) to a you tube video of someone who was spinning a liquid with no great force.
That proves you are wrong.
No "word games" just evidential proof of the falsity of your assertion.

"I received very pure potassium permanganate the other day. It is not at all radio active. "
Then it is either a very unusual (and insanely expensive) isotopically  enriched  product, or it's not potassium permanganate.
However I suspect that the real problem is that you don't understand how to make a proper measurement of radioactivity.

Potassium is mainly a beta emitter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-40
Those same beta particles are easily blocked so, if you have the potassium in the presence of a relatively high atomic number element like manganese, the manganese will block a lot of the radiation.
If, on the other hand, you have some tea leaves then (1) there will be other radioisotopes emoting radiation and (2) there will be a lot less "heavy" elements blocking that radiation.

How did you calibrate for self-absorption in the measurements you made?
Or did you not understand enough about the subject to realise that you needed to make that correction?
(That is, of course, part of getting the science "spot on".)

"It turns out the lavender solution does not stain the skin or anything else for that matter."
Really? Did you try running it slowly through a filter paper?

"And it works extremely effectively at disinfecting the skin. "
Is that "spot on" science where you actually did the experiment- or did you make it up?
You seem to have forgotten that I already acknowledged that it kills bugs- so that's not worth further discussion as such, but I'd like to know how you quantified it.

Ditto "Even deep infections soaked for a few minutes in a lavender solution of potassium permanganate totally cures the infection. An infection that iodine could not stop. The solution turns brown when it is pretty well used up. "
Got any evidence?
Could it be that the very dilute solution did nothing, but, unlike iodine, it didn't damage the tissue so the body's immune system could take out the infection?
Where are the clinical trial data?
That's pretty much the minimum for "spot on" science, surely?


And finally, you seem to be trying to make my point for me.
You say "Only a few specs of the black potassium permanganate powder which is almost invisible on a white background will create a quart of lavender solution. It is extremely potent. "
and yes, I agree.
It only takes traces of permanganate to make a material lavender coloured. I pointed that out  while back - I said that even a 1% solution is very dark.

And yet you were originally claiming that this tiny trace was enough to bind the water together to make a crystal.
Had you forgotten that the thread was about that absurd claim of yours.
You know that anything more than a trace of permanganate will make the mixture very dark- yet you say that even less than that will hold it together as a crystal.

Is that another bit of "spot on" scientific reasoning?

As far as the manganese blocking the potassium I do not concur. I have thoriated tungsten rods that are ten times more radio active than my radioactive green tea. So lets not get too crazy here. My thorium tungsten welding rods can penetrate a half inch of lead, to create a reading on the geiger counter. So I guess I just bought the best darn potassium permanganate 99.97 percent pure. It is dead on my Geiger counter.

Sincerely

William McCormick


 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1875
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Thorium mostly decays by releasing alpha particles, which have very poor penetrating power. There is also some degree of decay releasing gamma radiation (from 228Th), which is very penetrating. If you do not understand the difference between beta (which is what potassium does) and gamma radiation, you shouldn't have access thoriated anything!
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length