[chiralSPO]

When you face the history of chemistry then I will consider your point of view as being valid. As it is you just cannot discuss the possibility of an alternate explanation without getting defensive. Do not get me wrong, when you live in a glass house and we all do, everyone is afraid of touching anything. We all know our stuff is in disarray.

There is no point discussing alternatives when the current reality is firmly established. You know, back in *my* day, gravity used to pull up. It's only in recent convention that it pulls down. That's why we all used to have hooks on our shoes... The whole point of science is to challenge the status quo, and broaden our understanding of reality, but we will get no where if we cannot trust what has been established before us (then every generation would always be asking the same question)

I have stated thoroughly that I have a limited understanding of chemistry. Especially since they changed the formulas on substances that were in my chemistry lab. Everything from ammonia, sodium azide, ammonium nitrate, nitric acid, nitric oxide and a lot more, were taught to me differently than they are labeled now. The company that manufactured them was a pioneer in chemistry Mallinckrodt, try to find a sixties, seventies or early eighties bottle of Mallinckrodt ammonia. In my area every chemistry class had one. The formula was NO2 and it was called anhydrous because exposing it to air created a potent brown gas, and heat. It was very hungry for water. However it was stable enough that it only created a small amount of pressure that we had to relieve with the bottle upright before opening it. I would not consider it strong ammonium hydroxide this stuff was potent and in search of water unlike what we call ammonium hydroxide . However it was not pure ammonia. Pure ammonia under heat and pressure can slice an arm or leg off in under a second. So we used the reagent grade ammonia from Mallinckrodt to experiment with in the lab. It was understood it was not pure ammonia even though it was called anhydrous ammonia. In reactions it could yield pure ammonia.

To give you an idea of how crazy this subject is, I have had a doctor and an FBI agent that went to school in my area, pass out, as they recalled chemistry class and what we were taught the formula for ammonia was. I warned the FBI agent after the doctor went down, but he dared me to explain it to him, and down he went. His partner said to shut up. I realized later that many people in my area remembered the formula for ammonia as NO2 and when I told them that it is now NH3 some went down and out. Some passed out when they realized they remembered it both ways which is just a form of crazy.

I am quite familiar with Mallinckrodt. And I have studied the history of chemistry. Ammonia used to be called ammonaic, but it has always been used to refer to the same compound, which was proven to be NH₃. The older professors in my department have been doing chemistry since the 50s, and have no recollection of this change in nomenclature between ammonia and nitric oxide. You are obviously confused or trolling.

When we were kids we had calcium carbide canons for fun. We knew that you can use acetylene or naphtha to create massive detonations nearing the strength of atomic weapons or toping them depending on volume. The volume of the usually hemispherical core of the explosion is too great to dissipate through the limited surface area of the hemispherical core or spherical core. Causing near atomic detonation when accidents occur, and atomic detonation when experts detonate them. Yet chemists often claim that calcium carbide is only mildly dangerous. And acetylene only a flammable gas. It has been the cause of lab accidents many times over the years. Yet it is always a surprise to the chemist. The recent explosion in China which I have been warning people about for years and years, was not only foreseen it was just a matter of time before it happened. Why? Because chemists deny reality from my own personal interaction with them. The army used to train a ten man team to go into a country and use industrial and farm supplies to create weapons of mass destruction right in the country. In case our country had been the target of a first strike nuclear war. At least we could even the playing field. Acetylene can be used to create explosions much more powerful than Hiroshima. Yet many people will often mindlessly use it because the chemist does not face it.

Hate to break it to you, but kids these days still make carbide cannons, and they are just as powerful as they used to be. And, no it's no where close to an "atomic detonation." Detonation? yes. Atomic? no. You're off by several orders of magnitude in terms of energy density.

Perhaps you are suffering from Alzheimer's, which has clouded you memory and reasoning. Maybe you have always been confused. I don't know. However, your insistence to cling to such fiction leads me to believe that further discussion will not be fruitful.

You are welcome to contribute to this forum, but be warned that if you post such nonsensical chemical explanations in any section other than "New Theories" or "That CAN'T be True", your posts will quickly be moved there.

Good day.

[Bored chemist]

"When you face the history of chemistry then I will consider your point of view as being valid."
Not a problem then.
I initially learned chemistry from my dad's old textbooks- and those were printed on tatty paper because there was a war on. So, my understanding of chemistry goes back a decade or two before your magic bottles from Mallinckrodt with the wrong formulae on them.
The formula of ammonia was well established (and had to be so) before Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch invented the process for making it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

So there's absolutely no way that the bottle could have been labelled as NO2 except by a gross mistake.
This
"Everything from ammonia, sodium azide, ammonium nitrate, nitric acid, nitric oxide and a lot more, were taught to me differently than they are labeled now." just does not make sense.

You say " The company that manufactured them was a pioneer in chemistry Mallinckrodt, try to find a sixties, seventies or early eighties bottle of Mallinckrodt ammonia. In my area every chemistry class had one. The formula was NO2 and it was called anhydrous because exposing it to air created a potent brown gas, and heat.."
Well, ammonia just does not do that.
On the other hand nitric oxide does- but nitric oxide is a gas so there's no way you would keep it in a bottle.

But a bottle of conc nitric acid will generate small amounts of nitric oxide- enough to make brown fumes in air.

So it looks to me as if you are muddling stuff up.

" Pure ammonia under heat and pressure can slice an arm or leg off in under a second. "
True- so can water or air.
So what?

"To give you an idea of how crazy this subject is, I have had a doctor and an FBI agent that went to school in my area, pass out, as they recalled chemistry class and what we were taught the formula for ammonia was. I warned the FBI agent after the doctor went down, but he dared me to explain it to him, and down he went. His partner said to shut up. I realized later that many people in my area remembered the formula for ammonia as NO2 and when I told them that it is now NH3 some went down and out. Some passed out when they realized they remembered it both ways which is just a form of crazy. "

That's either poor memory or poor teaching.

"You have to understand on my Island we were at the cutting edge of everything"
no you were not.

"As far as potassium permanganate being a neurotic, where do you get this stuff from?
"
I said it was neurotoxic- please learn the difference.
Anyway, it's a well documented property of the stuff, and it has been for near 200 years.- so much for the idea that you were at the cutting edge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganism


"It has been used in drinking water"
Yes- it has. You add permanganate to impure water. The impurities get oxidised - which tends to kill bugs- and the manganese in the permanganate is reduced to MnO2 which you filter off before you send the water on to the pipes.

You don't have significant quantities of manganese left in the water. (On an emergency basis you can just about get away without filtering it. But it's risky. Boiling the water would be a better bet.)

" it is an absorbent in military gas masks or was."
Yes, it is- but they don't expect you to eat the gas mask. The air gets passed over the KMnO4 and the impurities in it get "burned". But the Mn never leaves the gas mask's filter.
Why did you think that was relevant?




" It was as I stated sold by pharmacists, in oral dose form for radiation poisoning. "
Possibly- but  if it was then that was fraud.

"Potassium with a radio active catalyst will yield argon when subjected to an ARC.  "

No it will not (and I have a feeling that you lost that argument before somewhere on this site)

"We knew that you can use acetylene or naphtha to create massive detonations nearing the strength of atomic weapons or toping them depending on volume. "
No it will not

"Yet chemists often claim that calcium carbide is only mildly dangerous. And acetylene only a flammable gas."
It's well documented that acetylene is explosive. No competent chemist would say otherwise.


"Acetylene can be used to create explosions much more powerful than Hiroshima."
Hypothetically- if you got enough of it.
The same is true of petrol

Are you aware that all this stuff you are posting makes you sound like Grandpa Simpson?

[William McC (OP)]

"When you face the history of chemistry then I will consider your point of view as being valid."
Not a problem then.
I initially learned chemistry from my dad's old textbooks- and those were printed on tatty paper because there was a war on. So, my understanding of chemistry goes back a decade or two before your magic bottles from Mallinckrodt with the wrong formulae on them.
The formula of ammonia was well established (and had to be so) before Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch invented the process for making it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

So there's absolutely no way that the bottle could have been labelled as NO2 except by a gross mistake.
This
"Everything from ammonia, sodium azide, ammonium nitrate, nitric acid, nitric oxide and a lot more, were taught to me differently than they are labeled now." just does not make sense.

You say " The company that manufactured them was a pioneer in chemistry Mallinckrodt, try to find a sixties, seventies or early eighties bottle of Mallinckrodt ammonia. In my area every chemistry class had one. The formula was NO2 and it was called anhydrous because exposing it to air created a potent brown gas, and heat.."
Well, ammonia just does not do that.
On the other hand nitric oxide does- but nitric oxide is a gas so there's no way you would keep it in a bottle.

But a bottle of conc nitric acid will generate small amounts of nitric oxide- enough to make brown fumes in air.

So it looks to me as if you are muddling stuff up.

" Pure ammonia under heat and pressure can slice an arm or leg off in under a second. "
True- so can water or air.
So what?

"To give you an idea of how crazy this subject is, I have had a doctor and an FBI agent that went to school in my area, pass out, as they recalled chemistry class and what we were taught the formula for ammonia was. I warned the FBI agent after the doctor went down, but he dared me to explain it to him, and down he went. His partner said to shut up. I realized later that many people in my area remembered the formula for ammonia as NO2 and when I told them that it is now NH3 some went down and out. Some passed out when they realized they remembered it both ways which is just a form of crazy. "

That's either poor memory or poor teaching.

"You have to understand on my Island we were at the cutting edge of everything"
no you were not.

"As far as potassium permanganate being a neurotic, where do you get this stuff from?
"
I said it was neurotoxic- please learn the difference.
Anyway, it's a well documented property of the stuff, and it has been for near 200 years.- so much for the idea that you were at the cutting edge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganism


"It has been used in drinking water"
Yes- it has. You add permanganate to impure water. The impurities get oxidised - which tends to kill bugs- and the manganese in the permanganate is reduced to MnO2 which you filter off before you send the water on to the pipes.

You don't have significant quantities of manganese left in the water. (On an emergency basis you can just about get away without filtering it. But it's risky. Boiling the water would be a better bet.)

" it is an absorbent in military gas masks or was."
Yes, it is- but they don't expect you to eat the gas mask. The air gets passed over the KMnO4 and the impurities in it get "burned". But the Mn never leaves the gas mask's filter.
Why did you think that was relevant?




" It was as I stated sold by pharmacists, in oral dose form for radiation poisoning. "
Possibly- but  if it was then that was fraud.

"Potassium with a radio active catalyst will yield argon when subjected to an ARC.  "

No it will not (and I have a feeling that you lost that argument before somewhere on this site)

"We knew that you can use acetylene or naphtha to create massive detonations nearing the strength of atomic weapons or toping them depending on volume. "
No it will not

"Yet chemists often claim that calcium carbide is only mildly dangerous. And acetylene only a flammable gas."
It's well documented that acetylene is explosive. No competent chemist would say otherwise.


"Acetylene can be used to create explosions much more powerful than Hiroshima."
Hypothetically- if you got enough of it.
The same is true of petrol

Are you aware that all this stuff you are posting makes you sound like Grandpa Simpson?

I do not know Grandpa Simpson, so I cannot say. However you did not comment on potassium permanganate being used as a method of decontamination for radioactive contamination of the skin. I am fighting a knowledge blackout, you on the other hand are just quoting common sources. That always omit the history of the chemistry or chemical compound.

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. It is a transitioning mix and partial crystallization. According to your definitions.

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.

As far as our area being on the cutting edge, we looked at the Apollo missions much like a person jumping the Grand Canyon on a motorcycle. When things like planes and helicopters exist. Our government told us flat out, that technology and science has been cancelled for the duration. During the Apollo missions we had a small craft that could streak to the moon in four hours. It was built by the same people that built the Lunar module. The thought of a payload getting to our capital to wipe out known disingenuous sorts in seconds was a bit too much for them. 

You are bouncing around a bit, we know that air burns if hot enough, usually because it is separated to its individual atoms, that then recombine and or re-burned which releases heat. During the building of some early submarine launched rockets that used a ram jet to burn air, a motor being tested went out of control, when fuel was cut to shut it down. The motor continued to run and actually positively accelerated until its destruction. Killing a man. Although it was cool that you could just create a Venturi basically and compress and burn air, it was too dangerous a system to rely upon. Sudden over pressure from the detonation of ordinance on the ground could shut down or blow up the motor. This was in the fifties, and it was not the best we had then. So yea we knew things that others to this day by way of the "laws" of conservation claim could not have existed.

My point is the Habor process is a fusion reaction. That works much like a ramjet.

http://www.rockwelder.com/military/Rigel.htm

If you have looked at taxation you know that it cannot help a country or produce wealth for a country. Scientifically, mathematically taxes do nothing for a country except circulate money so it can be kept clean by burning and reprinting it. A one penny on the dollar tax would circulate the entire amount of money in circulation. Taxation and lack of printing, or releasing money is how a government regulates a country. Taxes do nothing good and limit the power of the individual. If you take a few minutes to demonstrate money changing hands in your country, as my founding fathers did. When my founding fathers tried to tie money to gold, they realized they were being duped by idiots. Poverty is an abomination created by idiots, and taxation is their weapon of mass destruction. Unfortunately all the sciences are now under the control of this group. People who claim otherwise just do not want to rock the boat.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[William McC (OP)]

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. Whether you would technically call a plasma a burn, I cannot say. However it sure looks like it.

I have electrically created plasma in pure nitrogen, and oxygen. Both react rather violently. They expand and form a white plasma.


Sincerely,


William McCormick

[Bored chemist]

" 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.

[William McC (OP)]

" 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

[William McC (OP)]

" 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

[William McC (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

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.

[William McC (OP)]

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

[William McC (OP)]

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

[chiralSPO]

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!)

[chiralSPO]

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...

[William McC (OP)]

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

[William McC (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

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?

[William McC (OP)]

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

[William McC (OP)]

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

[William McC (OP)]

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

[William McC (OP)]

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