[William McC]

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

[Bored chemist]

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

I take it that you don't understand how to read a phase diagram like the one I cited.
Liquid CO2 does not exist at atmospheric pressure.
On the other hand, I have used one of those pipe freezer kits.
It was based on freon.
http://www.free-instruction-manuals.com/pdf/p3071591.pdf

That's my point; you simply keep getting stuff wrong and introducing irrelevancies like hyperbaric conditions in an attempt to cover up for your mistakes.

For the record re. "If you are worried about danger you would warn of oxides on the surface of metals."
Metal oxides are generally not volatile and will stay stuck to the wall of the tank. The other dominant contaminants are water - which isn't toxic and grease which tend to stay put (like the oxides).
I'm willing to be that  you have never had occasion to analyse the inside of a gas cylinder. I have.


Re."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.
"

I presume that, since you think science was better in the 1950s you are using a 1950s computer to type this.
Or do you accept that, in fact, we do science better now.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

Magnets gentlemans, magnets...

 I got a question, if it's possible to use a secundary magnetic field, wich the magnets are in motion (spining), in order to use this secundary magnetic field in order to interact with another static one, in consideration the static field I'm refering is compost by two por more equal magnets locked on so that their fields are constantly repeling one the other, use the secundary field that is spining to disturbing it's balance, shaping and redirecting  it?

 I'm imaging two repelant magnetic field as forming partial waves like when two rocks fall on a lake, if so, could another field exerce disturbance enought to reshape such waves into a spining, perhaps conic flat surface (Field)?

 Like if the lake had no depth, and the rock instead of falling on it more like hovering the lake, producing the same effect but with motion, would this create some sort of spiral over the lake surface?
 Or magneticfields only seems to behave like spherical fields, how do a magnetic field really looks like on a practical model?