Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dry Water

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 192 posts

Re: Dry Water

#151

Post by _emacsomancer_ »

CaptainJustin wrote: post #72
tylerchilds wrote: post #13

The patent getting snatched up by cosmetics and then re-discovered almost 50 years later makes me wonder how many cool advancements have been lost to industries that couldn't find any value from them.

That reminds me. There is a great talk from someone at Mozilla (Something about making an org that lasts 1000 years?). In the talk the idea is presented that things kept secret are eventually lost. This was fascinating to think about. It's been few years since I heard that talk and I now have seen a few examples of this around me.

Was it someone from Mozilla, or the Long Now Foundation?

Re: Dry Water

#152

Post by tmh88j »

brownbat wrote: post #148
tmh88j wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They both give pretty compelling arguments. Until someone can find a definition of "wet" from a respectable source that states an object cannot be fully submerged in a liquid, the guy sitting down has no argument. He seems to be trying to make the argument that to be wet means a liquid is clinging to you, rather that you occupying the liquid's space. Anyone?

Yup. Don't argue about defining terms, just ask the defining terms people. Merriam-Webster: a : consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water) American Heritage: 1. Covered or soaked with a liquid, such as water: a wet towel. OED: 1. Covered or saturated with water or another liquid. Ironically, most dictionaries have fish and submarines easily wet, but don't do a great job of handling…

He laid out what he believes to be the defining term/condition of wet in his mind, and that's what I'm saying is bogus. He's saying completely submerging something means it's not wet. That makes no sense and there is not a single definition I could find that supports that assertion.

Re: Dry Water

#153

Post by ttamslam »

dsnuh wrote: post #131
orf wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is amazing. They both give pretty compelling arguments. Can anyone else throw anything else into the ring? Is a fish wet?

I've seen arguments that water is a form of ash, since it is already oxidized and cannot be combusted (I guess in pure flourine it can). So I guess one could argue that fish are covered in ashes.

More - https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-water-is-a-form-of-ash...

Re: Dry Water

#154

Post by brownbat »

tmh88j wrote: post #152
brownbat wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Don't argue about defining terms, just ask the defining terms people. Merriam-Webster: a : consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water) American Heritage: 1. Covered or soaked with a liquid, such as water: a wet towel. OED: 1. Covered or saturated with water or another liquid. Ironically, most dictionaries have fish and submarines easily wet, but don't do a great job of handling…

He laid out what he believes to be the defining term/condition of wet in his mind, and that's what I'm saying is bogus. He's saying completely submerging something means it's not wet. That makes no sense and there is not a single definition I could find that supports that assertion.

I was agreeing with you. :)

Re: Dry Water

#155

Post by [deleted] »

brownbat wrote: post #154
tmh88j wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He laid out what he believes to be the defining term/condition of wet in his mind, and that's what I'm saying is bogus. He's saying completely submerging something means it's not wet. That makes no sense and there is not a single definition I could find that supports that assertion.

I was agreeing with you. :)

[deleted]

Re: Dry Water

#156

Post by ryanmarsh »

Gormisdomai wrote: post #119
daferna wrote: post #83

Throwback to the greatest debate of all time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPDdRrMVEnA

To really see why this stuff is cool you should watch the videos of people sticking their fingers in water mixed with dry water and not getting their hands wet: https://chemistscorner.com/have-you-formulated-with-dry-wate...

Mildly NSFW

Re: Dry Water

#157

Post by semi-extrinsic »

Timmah wrote: post #109
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of literature on this; Wikipedia has a decent starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration#Geologica... TL;DR: if you compress CO2 to above 73 bar, it becomes supercritical fluid, which has a density almost like water and which does not mix with water. If we inject this fluid into underground saline aquifers, we can trap it indefinitely. Basically exactly the reverse of producing o…

How is it contained in the earth? Wouldn't the pressure eventually escape, either by rupturing its container or seeping through the earth?

Same way as oil and gas has been contained for hundreds of millions of years: there is an impermeable caprock that contains the reservoir/aquifer.

In many cases, aquifers are so huge that injecting even a few million tonnes of CO2 makes only a small difference in pressure. And if the pressure did increase too much, we would drill a well deep at the aquifer bottom and take out some of the water.

Re: Dry Water

#158

Post by jhabdas »

Backpacker arrested in the middle east in an anpparent attempt to smuggle beauty products once thought to contain explosive substances through a security checkpoint at the Qatar airport.

Re: Dry Water

#159

Post by yesenadam »

CaptainJustin wrote: post #72
tylerchilds wrote: post #13

The patent getting snatched up by cosmetics and then re-discovered almost 50 years later makes me wonder how many cool advancements have been lost to industries that couldn't find any value from them.

That reminds me. There is a great talk from someone at Mozilla (Something about making an org that lasts 1000 years?). In the talk the idea is presented that things kept secret are eventually lost. This was fascinating to think about. It's been few years since I heard that talk and I now have seen a few examples of this around me.

So readers may be surprised to find that this story does indeed explain a number of secrets, some of the important techniques that have been used by magicians onstage. Perhaps I may be considered guilty of breaking ranks and betraying trust. Actually, there’s a long, important tradition of magic being recorded and published. As my good friend Jay Marshall...has said for many years, "If you want to keep something a secret, publish it." Once in print, information is often filed, forgotten, or dismissed. Publishing a secret takes away its cachet and causes it to be overlooked. Every illusion that I’ve discussed in this book has already been explained in books. – Jim Steinmeyer, Hiding the Elephant

Human life is so far a game of cross-purposes. If we wish a thing to be kept secret, it is sure to be transpire: if we wish it to be known, not a syllable is breathed about it. This is not meant; but it happens from mere simplicity and thoughtlessness. – Hazlitt, On Depth and Superficiality

Post reply on HN