1

Question of the Week / Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?

« on: 02/10/2016 21:35:38 »

That is how hard they make it, they consistently remove evidence about the past. I fight with the conspiracy theorists .... I fight with with people who claim to be scientists, ... When does reality win? I fight with UFO believers...

You fight everybody.
If you had evidence, you would win the fight.
You make absurd claims about science the, when you are called to account, you wander off into nonsense.

You seem unable to understand that you are simply wrong.

How do you explain the observation that you think that science was better years ago- but nobody else thinks that?

If you think you are the only one who is right- well, let's just say there are words for that.

Lastly, I'm not going to let this (repeated) bit of dangerous nonsense pass.
You say"During hydronic pipe freezing operations using very pure liquid CO2, being poured onto a hot water pipe that was leaking, I was in a cloud of CO2 and water vapor for some time with no ill effect."

Well, if there was no air, you would be dead.
Also, liquid CO2 does not exist at atmospheric pressure. your stupidly dangerous claim to have been pouring it is physically impossible.
http://www.chemicalogic.com/Documents/co2_phase_diagram.pdf


It's not impurities in the gas that make the difference. It's the volume and how much air it gets mixed with.
Your statement clearly belongs in the "that can't be true" forum.
Others will judge on the issue of who is a fool- but anyone who implies they don't need air to breathe looks that way to me.

You are playing dangerous word games. You claim that my understanding that basic science was better years ago, is only understood by me, and that some large body of amazingly intelligent sorts that account for everyone else do not feel that way. Well if this large body of geniuses exist they should try building something of quality. Or some of the things we built in the 50's.

As far as needing a medium to remove carbonic acid from your lungs you certainly do. As far as needing 21 percent oxygen, some deep sea sub experiments put that into serious question.

Cowardice and intelligence are on two different ends of the spectrum.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

2

Question of the Week / Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?

« on: 02/10/2016 21:19:28 »

That is how hard they make it, they consistently remove evidence about the past. I fight with the conspiracy theorists .... I fight with with people who claim to be scientists, ... When does reality win? I fight with UFO believers...

You fight everybody.
If you had evidence, you would win the fight.
You make absurd claims about science the, when you are called to account, you wander off into nonsense.

You seem unable to understand that you are simply wrong.

How do you explain the observation that you think that science was better years ago- but nobody else thinks that?

If you think you are the only one who is right- well, let's just say there are words for that.

Lastly, I'm not going to let this (repeated) bit of dangerous nonsense pass.
You say"During hydronic pipe freezing operations using very pure liquid CO2, being poured onto a hot water pipe that was leaking, I was in a cloud of CO2 and water vapor for some time with no ill effect."

Well, if there was no air, you would be dead.
Also, liquid CO2 does not exist at atmospheric pressure. your stupidly dangerous claim to have been pouring it is physically impossible.
http://www.chemicalogic.com/Documents/co2_phase_diagram.pdf


It's not impurities in the gas that make the difference. It's the volume and how much air it gets mixed with.
Your statement clearly belongs in the "that can't be true" forum.
Others will judge on the issue of who is a fool- but anyone who implies they don't need air to breathe looks that way to me.

If you are aware of pipe freezing apparatus, you know that there is a siphon tube in the liquid CO2 container, that brings liquid to the collar through a hose, that is applied to the pipe that you wish to freeze. There it evaporates absorbing heat from the pipe, just like in refrigeration systems. I do not know where you get your information from, I personally do this stuff. You can buy the equipment to do this stuff commercially from large manufacturers. So I do see any need to prove myself.

As far as liquid CO2 coming out, it is liquid I have gotten it on me several times it is cold. There is a certain amount of pressure and a certain lowered ambient temperature created by the release of liquid CO2. Again if you have doubts try google.

If you are worried about danger you would warn of oxides on the surface of metals. And other contaminates. When you remove the surface of what most would call a clean or totally sanitary stainless steel surface, there is a lot of oxidation present. That is how the metal exists. Without the oxidation there would be no metal. It would react to nothing.

The tank the pure liquid noble gases are put in have contaminants, however the liquid product, will expand exponentially creating a ratio of noble gas to tank surface contaminant that is extremely high. Much higher than a cylinder with the same contaminants and a small amount of pure gas input. The amount of contaminants in gaseous cylinders has surprised highly trained experts.

You should acknowledge oxides and other contaminants on the walls of all metal cylinders, that can save lives.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

3

Question of the Week / Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?

« on: 02/10/2016 19:51:43 »

It takes about a second and a half to establish a beam of light to earth from the moon. However it takes no time at all to see that someone has blocked the laser from the moon. .........

.......Once the beam is created it takes no time at all to transmit effects across the already established beam. But you do need that start up time.

William
What you have stated above is incorrect, or to give it the benefit of the doubt a New Theory. We have discussed this issue at length with the Box in other threads.

You are getting a reputation as someone who provides unreliable, incorrect, misleading and sometimes dangerous information.
The moderators do not have the time to monitor and move all your threads so we will ask you to confine your posts to the New Theories and That Can't Be True sections of the forum until further notice.

thank you

When you are searching for truth in a known disingenuous environment run by known disingenuous sorts. It would be foolhardy to assume that knowledge approved by such sorts and systems would be totally accurate. Because knowledge stamps out ignorance knowledge is certainly not in abundance around us.

As far as suggesting dangerous behavior it was other members who did so. And then denied that the inside of metal cylinders are coated with an oxide. If that is not dangerous and life threatening then it really matters not what I say or what actions you take against me. These are real accidents that have happened in scuba shops, self contained breathing apparatus gear, and in the work place. The amounts of oxide on the surface of just about any metal are actually great in volume and weight. That is why the gas added to those tanks can be so corrupted. It is the weight of the gas added compared to the weight of the contaminant on the walls of the tank. If this can be disputed it will not be disputed by knowledge.

I have warned a lot of people that use the scientific grade gases in gas cylinders that the gas put in although totally pure is not what comes out. I have personally used scientific grade gas and it is much better than the next lowest grade, that is much better than the welding grade. However towards the end of the bottle there are strange odors created by the last gases in the tank. This does not occur ever when using liquid Argon or Liquid helium.

These contaminants are not my imagination. If you go to a large manufacturer of liquified gases, and scientific grade pressurized cylinders of gas, they will tell you the same, if you tell them you want very pure gas for your research. They will only recommend liquified product. Because of the oxides or chlorates or carbon in the walls of the tanks. The very pure gases absorb these contaminants from the walls of the tank. I was just warning people of this.

And all I did to help them understand how I know there is a difference between the two gasses is mention that while working in plants that fill the liquid containers, and the pressurized cylinders, that I was exposed to the very pure evaporating gases of nitrogen and CO2. That I at first thought would be life threatening. But as the workers stood there in massive clouds of the stuff working as usual I started to become more comfortable with it. I then learned that the liquid product is certainly not immediately life threatening under the conditions I experienced it in. Even though I would have thought it would have been. Yet small amounts of gas in pressurized gas cylinder form were immediately life threatening by actual experience. From the pressurized cylinder there was an immediate burning of the respiratory tract. This is not the case of the pure evaporating liquid.

During hydronic pipe freezing operations using very pure liquid CO2, being poured onto a hot water pipe that was leaking, I was in a cloud of CO2 and water vapor for some time with no ill effect. Now I am in no way suggesting people do this for fun. I am just relaying what you might see or do if you perform those duties. Yet I was almost made unconscious by CO2 from a fire extinguisher in a confined space with no fire present. And also CO2 from very small cylinders had this same effect.

The CO2 in welding cylinders is also not pleasant to inhale and can irritate the respiratory tract and surely suffocate in confined spaces quickly. This is real stuff done by real people. I do not know how you can claim I am ordering people to do dangerous things. I am in fact warning them of the actual dangers of pressurized gas cylinders, the surface of said cylinders do contain oxygen and other contaminants. These contaminants are absorbed into the pure gases.

If that belongs in the this can't be true area, I am not the fool.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

4

Question of the Week / Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?

« on: 02/10/2016 19:02:34 »

It takes about a second and a half to establish a beam of light to earth from the moon. However it takes no time at all to see that someone has blocked the laser from the moon. That was the experiment they did from the moon. And broadcast it all over the world, I dare you to find those tapes.

No, once again you have misunderstood.

You are the one making outlandish claims so it's your job to supply the evidence.
YOU have to find the tapes- not us.

That is how hard they make it, they consistently remove evidence about the past. I fight with the conspiracy theorists that also heard what I mentioned about the 1.5 second radio turn around rule, and claim we did not go to the moon, we did. I fight with with people who claim to be scientists, and deny that there are particles faster than light when there certainly are. When does reality win? I fight with UFO believers that showed footage from the fifties of a hovering flaming UFO, just a few feet above the ground, claiming it was proof aliens were amongst us. It was beautiful footage with sound. It was actually my fathers boss's hobby moon rock collector. They used to show that all the time on the history channel. When I tried to get a hold of it, it too vanished.

As kids we watched the entire moon landing, hundreds of hours of video. They appear to be almost all gone now. But I can watch black and white footage from before World War Two. Believe what you like I have more than enough reality for myself.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

5

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can lavender Potassium Permanganate be used as a radiation antidote?

« on: 02/10/2016 18:43:43 »

I was surprised at how little copper sulfate it took to oversaturate the solution. And I was even more surprised by the huge crystal I saw the next morning in class when I went to examine the experiment. So I am keeping an open mind about the potassium permanganate. I expect to see a purple crystal in pristine water. That when broken up will produce lavender crystals.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

As I said, reality and this thread have clearly parted company.
You seem to say that it takes a little copper sulphate to make a saturated solution- but you get a lot of copper sulphate back from that solution.
Where does the additional copper sulphate come from? Do unicorns bring it?
Also re "I expect to see a purple crystal in pristine water."
How?
If I put a little permanganate into water I get a very dark solution. I can then add more to get a saturated solution. I can even look up in tables like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_table
how much permanganate will dissolve.  Near room temperature it will be about 4 or 5 %.

If I leave it and let the water evaporate (or if I started with a hot solution and let it cool) then I will end up with fresh crystals of permanganate.
And they will be in water.
And-if by some magic- that water was "pristine"- rather than nearly black with permanganate then they would dissolve.

There's a massive issue with your idea of "pristine"  or  "pure clear water with no blue tint" (for copper sulphate).

How does it know which to do?
How does the water know that- because the crystals are forming- the water should be pure, but when they are dissolving it should dissolve 4% or so?

Are you invoking some insane suggestion that the water has a memory- or that it mystically knows whether you are making crystals or making a solution?
In particular, how do the bits of the solution on the other side of the beaker "know"? What communication method could they use?

So, as I said, you have completely left reality behind in an attempt to avoid admitting that you were simply mistaken.
Meanwhile, back at the topic,
Perhaps you could explain who a tiny trace of permanganate holds together a huge amount of water in a crystal.

(BTW, powdered potassium permanganate is practically black. I used to make lots of it when I was a kid. I imagine you can guess why but it's not a topic to discuss here since it's neither relevant, nor safe)

I agree with your logic entirely, about the pristine water, and blue crystal sitting in the pristine water. It made no sense to me either. However the teacher said that when crystallization occurs, with more than enough water present, that the hydrate wishes no more water and stays apart from the water. If you crush it up it will then mix with water again. However the initial reaction leaves the huge single crystal and pristine water not wanting any part of one another. I know the teacher left the classroom windows open the heat off in the fall and asked the janitor to also do the same. I believe he was going for that 40 degree Fahrenheit maximum density of water, and a slow cool over night to cause crystallization. It was cold in the classroom the next morning.

I march to the trumpets that never sound retreat, so I stay on something until I have proof for myself. I am waiting patiently for my beakers to come. The effect and mental picture of the blue crystal in pristine water inside that clear beaker, makes for such memory. I cannot get that picture out of my mind, I am actually very excited about this experiment. I might do the copper sulphate first, and then experiment with the potassium permanganate second. The camera I wish to use is getting old and the lithium batteries are getting old too. So I do not know if I will be able to capture it on time lapse. But I will try. Worse comes to worse I will get some pictures.

I was looking at time lapse apps for the iPhone 7 just incase, but I am not sure if they will do what I wish to do. I am thinking a picture every 2 minutes. I am going to look into those apps now.

My teacher took great care in the temperature of the solution, the amount of copper sulphate mixed into the solution. He knew it would take over night to crystalize. He said it had to be left alone and not bothered, over night. As soon as we finished mixing it, he had us all back away from it and he locked up the classroom.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

6

Question of the Week / Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?

« on: 02/10/2016 16:20:20 »

70 years ago radio communication via moon bounce was all the rage, when Prof Lovell first got his large steerable dish in operation he demonstrated on TV its high gain by installing a taxi radio system on it , directing it onto the moon and received his hallo 2.5 seconds later.
The people who use the reflectors installed on the for ranging use a high powered laser and get very little signal back.

It takes about a second and a half to establish a beam of light to earth from the moon. However it takes no time at all to see that someone has blocked the laser from the moon. That was the experiment they did from the moon. And broadcast it all over the world, I dare you to find those tapes.

Once the beam is created it takes no time at all to transmit effects across the already established beam. But you do need that start up time. So if you bounce radio off the moon, you have to establish two beams one to the moon and one from the moon to the earth. What they did during the Apollo missions was create a radio beam between two dishes, and then basically transmit by shutting off power intermittently, that actually raises voltage a bit, back to the unfathomable voltage of natural ambient radiation, which transmitted instantly. They kept having to warn the astronauts to remember the 1.5 second turn around rule. That is why some thought  the mission was a hoax, because many times the astronauts would instantly reply, with camera men on the ground recording the mission control operators, you could see on TV, the mission control fellow, making a communication to the Apollo crew, and getting an instant reply from space. It was the radio system though, not a hoax.

If you have ever done any electrical wiring you know that you go to the old wiring guide to pick the right piece of wire. Well that works 95 percent of the time. They created that little guide because of horrific accidents created by the misunderstanding of the actuality. Circular mills, annealed copper verses hardened copper, can alter the outcome of your project drastically. So they created a 90 percent over all electrical guide that will take 90 percent of the people who use it to success. Unfortunately some of those guides leave out length of run, which is actually calculated at about 75 feet. In the old days this worked 95 percent of the time. Where it did not work usually in mansions or commercial applications an experienced electrician knew what needed to be done in most cases and threw away the book. So it always seemed to work. Today with everyone wanting to just do some wiring we have more and more accidents.

My point is that the real universe as it is, was too much for most to fathom. In the real universe there are no actual shortages of materials including gold. There are no real wars only political agendas. There is no real food shortage rather manufactured shortages. The scientists with total understanding of the universe had a hard time restraining them selves and their tongues about such matters. Since most could not face the real universe they created a play set of rules that will get you through most of the day to day things we do. Radio, x-rays, heat, have all been packaged into formula that are somewhat effective. However if you ask a businessman that is in the business politely, for the right reason, he will confide that they had to tweak and rework many theories thought as solid.  Some theories "laws" we hold high are just garbage.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

7

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can lavender Potassium Permanganate be used as a radiation antidote?

« on: 02/10/2016 06:58:30 »

If you agree there is nothing negative about a particle of electricity, then it should not be labeled with a (-) symbol. That labeling makes as much sense as raise it down and lower it up.

Stubborn egotistical colleges cannot repair their errors. Especially after they insulted a dead mans work by saying he could not have known the direction of electricity, and took a guess about the polarity of electricity. When in fact colleges took a guess or purposely mislabeled electricity. Benjamin Franklin created the test in his basement with a wire from his roof during a lightning storm. Using a pointed and flat electrode which shows the direction of electricity. 

You asked how can you make a computer without understanding electricity? You do not even need electricity to make a computer. First you need to understand the computer then electricity, then make the computer. It looks like neither is understood yet. 

As I mentioned after a few years of kids learning in school and calling the sky purple we would believe the sky was purple. That is what has happened with electricity. The problem is that we did not change up to down and down to up, positive to mean negative and negative to mean positive across the board yet. So perhaps we can just fix the labeling on electricity and move on. Then we can fix chemistry and science. Since we live in a universe built solely out of particles of electricity according to my schooling, I would think we should get that in order before doing anything important. Our computers are barely, reliable. I am not saying that they are not complex, and often fun and useful however they are unnecessarily complex in most cases. Unstable in all cases.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

 

You seem to have given up any attempt at sense.

perhaps you could explain who a tiny trace of permanganate holds together a huge amount of water in a crystal.

I was surprised at how little copper sulfate it took to oversaturate the solution. And I was even more surprised by the huge crystal I saw the next morning in class when I went to examine the experiment. So I am keeping an open mind about the potassium permanganate. I expect to see a purple crystal in pristine water. That when broken up will produce lavender crystals.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

8

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Re: How much steel can a kilogram of fluoroantimonic acid burn through?

« on: 02/10/2016 06:47:09 »

The solid aluminum oxide is no longer aluminum oxide and is washed away from the aluminum, it is now a liquid and part of a sulphur compound that you can use to deposit aluminum easily. That is what reduction meant the separation of the oxygen from a metal or an oxidizing compound like chlorine from a metal. Which that reaction does. You can make up a whole bunch of rules and definitions however they will quickly turn on themselves.

The history of reduction is the removal of oxygen or chlorine from a metal. Which this reaction does. The oxygen is replaced by the salt of sulfuric acid the sulphate. It was called reduction because it removes massive quantities of oxidized material from metal, or an ore, which is always an oxide of the metal. It often does this in seconds. That is the reason for the term reduction.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

Nonsense.
Apart from a lot of other things, the sulphate part of the molecule doesn't get involved.
The aluminium oxide is neither reduced nor oxidised.
Reduction is fundamentally a transfer of electrons. None takes place here.

 Since my school, the defense plant I was part of growing up, and all the crazy business owners that I met, all taught or relayed to me that electrons are not orbiting or transferred, I would stick with my definition of reduction.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

9

New Theories / Re: Luminiferous Aether

« on: 01/10/2016 19:25:02 »

Been exploring the concept in my head.  Seems to me, many of us argue (within ourselves) about the need for a medium of space. 

Like myself, many suspect there must be a medium for light and/or gravity waves to propagate through space, but we cannot see it.  We can neither prove, nor disprove such quality, it has no tangible quality, other than taking/making up space.

The Michaleson Morely experiment (MME) is the most prominent example of the search for a definitive answer.  But the experiment was limited to being performed at the surface of the earth.

I postulate atomic structure (mass) displace aether.

If that postulation is correct, I conclude that solid mass displace most aether, followed by liquids then gas.  From the core of the earth to the outer most reaches of the atmosphere, it would be something of a sliding scale.

I’ve been struggling to contrive a method to detect it, but I’m coming up blank.

Even if there is such a quality, can we assume it doesn’t interact with mass/matter?

Best I’ve got:  Its everywhere there isn’t atoms, there is aether.  If there is aether around the sun and we’re orbiting the sun within it…  It stands to reason the aether would flow in a similar path around the sun, as the Earth.

–

That’s explains to me, why MME and others fail to detect any aether quality of space.

"Space" is filled with hydrogen gas. That is how light, and gravity travel, through matter. But technically space is nothing it is a place for matter to exist.

Ambient radiation (particles of electricity) race through spherically shaped balls of or particles of electricity we call hydrogen atoms. All elements are just structures of hydrogen atoms, thus the hydrogen bomb. Each matter and ambient radiation respectfully, cannot exist without the other. There would be no movement of particles of electricity to create ambient radiation if there was no matter. And matter would disperse harmlessly without event, if ambient radiation stopped.

Time is the comparison of moving objects by a living observer who determines how much time has passed.

Matter even Tungsten is 90 percent space. We live in an electrical illusion. Ambient radiation is racing through matter from all directions at all times.

A bomb is just an area too abundant with particles of electricity, it has been proven but paranoid sorts hide it. But it is easily proven if you would like to know. A bomb is spread out dispersed or it would consume the entire universe. The dispersing of the bomb is what some find unpleasant. We live in a good simple universe, all the nonsense they teach you is to keep you from wielding said universe.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

10

Question of the Week / Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?

« on: 01/10/2016 19:10:59 »

I m not a smart guy but I do have imagination. I believe that we will soon be capable to travel on space time “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” .by Albert Einstein 
I think that the humanity is like a piece of metal on a large magnet, where, we are being pull down by gravity. The same way with our planet Earth that it being pull dawn by the gravity of the Sun and the Sun by another superior gravitational force.
When, we get to the point in which we are capable of building and space ship that could create a gravitational force strong enough to push the Earth gravitational force, the same way the earth pushes the Sun we are going to be traveling on space time. (Sun’s gravity +( - ( + Earth gravity)) +( - ( + artificial gravitational force  + mc˛)) )…A magnet its capable to create + and - witch it creates a gravitational force in a small scale.

We had the capabilities to go to other solar systems in a couple of years time back in the late sixties and early seventies, but no one was interested. We sent a ship, and it made it.  No one ever questions the speed of light because no one has a light speed meter or an experiment to prove it. Although I have heard some people that know, have shinned a laser to the moon, and when they blocked the laser on earth it instantly shut off on the moon.

There is no such thing as space time, space is nothing, an empty place for matter, and time is the comparison by the observer of moving objects to determine how much time has passed.

Atomic clocks can be effected by multiple harmless almost undetectable rays, to give inaccurate readings while sitting on a test bench.

We have no scientific limitations. We do have the crazy dreams of people that are trying to do the impossible rather than the possible. Which leads them to sit and spew crazy notions as fact. They even write books about those facts, and then sell them to schools. They do not realize that money comes from the printing press. If you want money so badly print it. You cannot get money anywhere else other than the printing press. I have seen people become physically ill for a few moments as they grasp that reality.

Sincerely ,

William McCormick

11

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Re: How much steel can a kilogram of fluoroantimonic acid burn through?

« on: 01/10/2016 17:48:07 »

Aluminum oxide is reduced by the hot sulfuric acid, then raw exposed aluminum reduces the sulfuric acid. Back and forth back and forth.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

It doesn't stop being wrong just because you repeat it.

Reduction is the opposite of oxidation. Now to get to the aluminum to oxidize it, you have to reduce the aluminum oxide, so that the acid can get to the pure aluminum and oxidize it. That is the problem in anodizing. Once the aluminum oxide is formed, in most areas it will not allow the acid in to finish off the missed areas. So they use AC current to burn off some of the new anodize coating, and hopefully get to the missed areas. This is somewhat successful.

youtu.be/RLkBzRnICZ4

Here is the reaction, it looks about right to me.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

OK Now I see what it is that you don't understand.
You don't realise that it's possible to remove the oxide by protonation rather than oxidation or reduction (presumably because you didn't read or understand what I told you earlier about oxidation states)

The reaction which dissolves the aluminium oxide is this
Al2O3 +3 H2SO4  --> Al2(SO4)3  + 3  H2O
The aluminium remains in the +3 oxidation state throughout.

So, you are still wrong. The aluminium oxide is not reduced.
It would have been quicker and easier if you had accepted that in the first place and googled a bit af chemistry about oxides and acids

You would have found this sort of thing
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_aqa_pre_2011/ions/acidsbasesrev2.shtml

This is the bit you should have looked for.
acid + metal oxide → salt + water

The solid aluminum oxide is no longer aluminum oxide and is washed away from the aluminum, it is now a liquid and part of a sulphur compound that you can use to deposit aluminum easily. That is what reduction meant the separation of the oxygen from a metal or an oxidizing compound like chlorine from a metal. Which that reaction does. You can make up a whole bunch of rules and definitions however they will quickly turn on themselves.

The history of reduction is the removal of oxygen or chlorine from a metal. Which this reaction does. The oxygen is replaced by the salt of sulfuric acid the sulphate. It was called reduction because it removes massive quantities of oxidized material from metal, or an ore, which is always an oxide of the metal. It often does this in seconds. That is the reason for the term reduction.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

12

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can lavender Potassium Permanganate be used as a radiation antidote?

« on: 01/10/2016 16:56:58 »

"As I have stated there is nothing negative about a particle of electricity."
Nobody said otherwise here.

Would you care to expand on why you think that you are the only person in the world who knows the "truth"- even though it makes no sense and all the other people who are(according to you) totally wrong are doing things like designing computers -like the one you are using.
How come the stuff they design works if they have no idea what's happening?

Re " I am still at a loss as to how it can separate into copper sulphate hydrate and pure clear water with no blue tint. "
That's easy. It doesn't. The crystals form in a deep blue solution. There's no "pure clear water with no blue tint".
It's just you being wrong again.

More importantly, back at the topic.
perhaps you could explain who a tiny trace of permanganate holds together a huge amount of water in a crystal.

Copper sulphate certainly does crystalize into a solid blue crystal and pure water. When mixed with pure heated water not boiling water, to a point of over saturation which happens with very little copper sulphate added. Then left out over night to cool, it forms an amazing solid one piece blue crystal, in clear un-tinted water. I mixed in the copper sulphate myself it was after school. The next day there was the crystal. Could the teacher have put a blue crystal in the beaker sure, but I doubt it highly. He was a man of science. We so carefully mixed in enough coper sulphate only to the point that the solution would not completely absorb anymore. Using a very tiny spoon to do it one spoon at a time.

This teacher in particular raised one cubic foot of water one degree celsius with one BTU of energy, and refused to agree to the laws of conservation.


Sincerely,

William McCormick

13

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can lavender Potassium Permanganate be used as a radiation antidote?

« on: 01/10/2016 16:33:22 »

"As I have stated there is nothing negative about a particle of electricity."
Nobody said otherwise here.

Would you care to expand on why you think that you are the only person in the world who knows the "truth"- even though it makes no sense and all the other people who are(according to you) totally wrong are doing things like designing computers -like the one you are using.
How come the stuff they design works if they have no idea what's happening?

Re " I am still at a loss as to how it can separate into copper sulphate hydrate and pure clear water with no blue tint. "
That's easy. It doesn't. The crystals form in a deep blue solution. There's no "pure clear water with no blue tint".
It's just you being wrong again.

More importantly, back at the topic.
perhaps you could explain who a tiny trace of permanganate holds together a huge amount of water in a crystal.

If you agree there is nothing negative about a particle of electricity, then it should not be labeled with a (-) symbol. That labeling makes as much sense as raise it down and lower it up.

Stubborn egotistical colleges cannot repair their errors. Especially after they insulted a dead mans work by saying he could not have known the direction of electricity, and took a guess about the polarity of electricity. When in fact colleges took a guess or purposely mislabeled electricity. Benjamin Franklin created the test in his basement with a wire from his roof during a lightning storm. Using a pointed and flat electrode which shows the direction of electricity. 

You asked how can you make a computer without understanding electricity? You do not even need electricity to make a computer. First you need to understand the computer then electricity, then make the computer. It looks like neither is understood yet. 

As I mentioned after a few years of kids learning in school and calling the sky purple we would believe the sky was purple. That is what has happened with electricity. The problem is that we did not change up to down and down to up, positive to mean negative and negative to mean positive across the board yet. So perhaps we can just fix the labeling on electricity and move on. Then we can fix chemistry and science. Since we live in a universe built solely out of particles of electricity according to my schooling, I would think we should get that in order before doing anything important. Our computers are barely, reliable. I am not saying that they are not complex, and often fun and useful however they are unnecessarily complex in most cases. Unstable in all cases.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

 

14

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Re: How much steel can a kilogram of fluoroantimonic acid burn through?

« on: 01/10/2016 15:56:05 »

Aluminum oxide is reduced by the hot sulfuric acid, then raw exposed aluminum reduces the sulfuric acid. Back and forth back and forth.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

It doesn't stop being wrong just because you repeat it.

Reduction is the opposite of oxidation. Now to get to the aluminum to oxidize it, you have to reduce the aluminum oxide, so that the acid can get to the pure aluminum and oxidize it. That is the problem in anodizing. Once the aluminum oxide is formed, in most areas it will not allow the acid in to finish off the missed areas. So they use AC current to burn off some of the new anodize coating, and hopefully get to the missed areas. This is somewhat successful.

youtu.be/RLkBzRnICZ4

Here is the reaction, it looks about right to me.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

15

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can lavender Potassium Permanganate be used as a radiation antidote?

« on: 01/10/2016 13:45:06 »

"How do you prove something that is right there, but is not wanted by some to be understood?"

that's the problem- it isn't there.
If you were not talking utter nonsense it would be easy for you to show that someone else, somewhere on the internet also refers to " ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode)"

Well, why haven't you?
And how do you explain the fact that Davy was using the word "arc" before anyone had invented the words "rectifier (in the context of electricity)," "anode" and "cathode"?


And, similarly, if this
" Basically science was more correct over 200 years ago. "
is even close to true you should be able to prove it.

Meanwhile, perhaps you could explain who a tiny trace of permanganate holds together a huge amount of water in a crystal.

I keep asking you to explain stuff and you just don't. Why don't you simply admit that it's because you can't?

As I have stated there is nothing negative about a particle of electricity. It is never attracted to matter or other particles of electricity. It can be pushed to matter or other particles of electricity by an abundance of particles of electricity or by its velocity when it is traveling as ambient radiation x-rays or heat.

So although Benjamin Franklin did correctly label electricity according to the way it flows, and recorded it, colleges decided they knew better. Colleges misunderstood the cathode ray tube, and from their misunderstanding changed the markings on electricity. Twenty years ago colleges were proud of their labeling. Today colleges say "well it is just a convention anyway" rather than expose their misunderstanding of electricity the atom and the universe.

I have a pyrex beaker from Corning coming it should be here tomorrow Sunday. I want to time lapse the crystallization of the potassium permanganate. I have never seen it crystalize I am pretty excited about it.

If you have never seen copper sulphate crystalize you probably would not believe it. I am still at a loss as to how it can separate into copper sulphate hydrate and pure clear water with no blue tint. I might also crystalize a batch of copper sulphate too.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

16

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Re: How much steel can a kilogram of fluoroantimonic acid burn through?

« on: 01/10/2016 13:31:16 »

Hot sulfuric acid does reduce aluminum oxide almost instantly.

No it does not.
The aluminium in the oxide starts off and ends up in a +3 oxidation state no oxidation or reduction takes place and you clearly have no idea what you are on about.
Do you even realise that "reduce" is a technical term in this context?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducing_agent

Aluminum oxide is reduced by the hot sulfuric acid, then raw exposed aluminum reduces the sulfuric acid. Back and forth back and forth.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

17

Question of the Week / Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?

« on: 01/10/2016 13:23:02 »

I can levitate a block of aluminum with an AC electromagnet, and prove it requires energy to levitate it.


Willam McCormick

Why do you think it is helpful to show that you can hold up a block of metal inefficiently?

It is not inefficient to use an electromagnet at all. It is rather efficient, in fact they are using repulsion bearings in motors because it is so efficient. The mechanical bearing uses more energy than the electromagnetic bearing.

If we were talking about the security locks on doors that use steel instead of aluminum for the target of the magnetic field, and I hold up a piece of steel against the force of gravity, as it is used to keep bank security doors closed, because it is rather efficient, would there still be an argument?

Permanent magnets are creating a magnetic field constantly, they are redirecting flows of ambient radiation constantly. If you can flux or pulse the magnetic field of a permanent magnet you can cause continues movement of objects. People have done it but there is just not enough power to make it useful as a device in our lives. Which shows just how efficient AC magnetic fields are.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

18

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can lavender Potassium Permanganate be used as a radiation antidote?

« on: 01/10/2016 02:53:12 »

Lightning is ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode).

Prove it.
Find a single reference anywhere that backs up your claim- (and explains how Davy time-travelled)

Also, please note that nobody asked about copper sulphate. I asked you to explain how a tiny trace of permanganate could hold water together.
You have not done so.
Why not just admit that you are wrong?

How do you prove something that is right there, but is not wanted by some to be understood? ARC is something you can just use your own gathered evidence from life experience, and if your observations are sound you will arrive at my conclusions. I was told by the people that have no scientific limitations or misunderstandings that the books will be tainted by law, not science, many years ago. I thought it was perhaps an exaggeration however looking back they were too submissive about it and underestimated what chaos can do. We have already passed the raise it down and lower it up phase of the basics of science, which if I was a gambling man I would have lost it all because I did not think it would have flown.

If you get enough people together you can call the blue sky purple. But then you cannot call potassium permanganate purple anymore, unless you create some more sub matter particles to explain how that could be. The "rainbow illusion particle" perhaps? Great debates could take place, about the rain is it purple rain or potassium permanganate rain?

I get the fact that most do not want to admit that for over 100 years science has been basically destroyed while moments of amazing scientific achievements actually hide that fact. Basically science was more correct over 200 years ago.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

19

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Re: How much steel can a kilogram of fluoroantimonic acid burn through?

« on: 01/10/2016 02:12:16 »

Hot sulfuric acid does reduce aluminum oxide almost instantly. Cold sulfuric acid does not reduce it as much.

You can only oxidize aluminum so much, then it stops. They use AC current sometimes to anodize, to get deeper into the aluminum with a more uniform coating. If your anodizing tank gets to warm, you cannot anodize a thick layer of oxide on the aluminum, because the sulfuric acid eats it off. Or in some cases depending on the alloy of aluminum it will turn it black. 

The reaction is reduction then oxidation, reduction then oxidation in the hot sulfuric acid bath. That is why if you leave the carburetor body in the hot sulfuric acid for more than a few minutes it will no longer be there. All metal is coated with a layer of oxide, most acids have some other element that allows the acid to react with the oxide, and then allows it to react with the metal.


Sincerely,

William McCormick

20

New Theories / Re: Effect of magnetic field on cable insulation

« on: 30/09/2016 06:22:23 »

"A permanent magnet can allow 120 volt current to breach insulation rated for 600 volts. "
Got any evidence with that?

"A powerful magnet placed near or on an electrical enclosure can cause the internal components to be ruined, shorted, or just mess up the communications. "

Some of the strongest magnets I own are tucked away in the disk drives of my computers. They obviously do not "cause the internal components to be ruined, shorted, or just mess up the communications. "

"People who die of radiation poisoning die because their blood separates out into plasma and whats left of the blood"
No they don't
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_radiation_syndrome

This
"Over a distance from high tension power lines or fluorescent bulbs in a room, your skin does a good job of protecting your internal parts and substances."
just doesn't make sense.

If I open a cabinet of an alarm system and key up a building radio, I will cause relays to engage and disengage in the system. Of this there is not doubt. We have to be very careful. We are usually working in government buildings that are occupied. As far as strong flashlight magnets the same is true, we have to be very careful where we place the magnet of a flashlight. Or we will cause the system to fail.

I have gotten small nuisance shocks from a power cord that I always have my hand next to while machining. I keep my hand by the switch to kill power quickly when i am machining. One day I started getting shocks from the chord, when I went to see what it was, it turned out a magnet I used for testing stainless, was stuck next to the chord just out of sight. I removed it and it stopped, I put it back and it started again. Is this scientific proof I doubt it. However as I learned about magnetic fields it totally understandable. An amp meter turns the field around a wire into voltage. A magnet can do the same thing.

Now if you are not familiar with magnetic fields you may not know that while you are in one, and something like a rubber band breaks, or a small electrochemical reaction takes place that your body can be rather drastically effected. When a start capacitor blows, on a large AC motor, your body can be rather severely effected, by the far reaching magnetic field.

Thorium can cause voltage in the body for sure, it was used many years ago as a cure for some diseases. Did it actually work I cannot say and I would not recommend it. However some claimed it was a miracle cure, others died from it.

Sincerely,

William McCormick