interesting description
Dry Water
161–170 of 192 posts
Re: Dry Water
#162Re: Dry Water
#163Re: Dry Water
#164Apparently one can make dry water with a blender - mix fine silica powder and water in a 1:19 ratio (by mass) and put it in a blender for a few minutes. I'm not going to risk my blender to try it, so who's first?
I've actually tried this, but due to long-chain reactions in the molecular bonds I ended up with a mixture that was around 20% Bumcivilian by volume. I couldn't hear a thing for 20 minutes, so be careful.
Re: Dry Water
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blenders can be replaced. I would worry more about silicosis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicosis
Or pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. Been waiting for 25 years to use that word seriously. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilico...
Supercalifragilisticpneumonoultramicroscopics?
Re: Dry Water
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. Been waiting for 25 years to use that word seriously. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilico...
This made my day, sir. The wikipedia article was interesting but this . . . chef fingers
Glad to see the fun police are still out in force here.
Re: Dry Water
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
This made my day, sir. The wikipedia article was interesting but this . . . chef fingers
Glad to see the fun police are still out in force here.
My guess would be the "sir" is what triggers. It reads very weird, has a bad link to the stereotypes who would use the word today, and the assuming of gender.
Re: Dry Water
#168Re: Dry Water
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
This made my day, sir. The wikipedia article was interesting but this . . . chef fingers
Glad to see the fun police are still out in force here.
if useless quips are fun then maybe the appropriate venue is elsewhere?
Pointless quips add something else we have to scroll past to learn anything or find something interesting. The goal is more wheat not more chaff.
"this was interesting" can be accomplished by upvoting.
Re: Dry Water
#170This reads like a joke wikipedia article. Does anyone know if this is legitimate?
The article does have some good sources. So I think it is legitimate.
Why are there no references to the original discovery, the patent(s), or the "snatching" by "cosmetic companies"?
The link to the Daily Telegraph is broken ( https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7964109/Sci... instead of https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/796410... )
If it was rediscovered at a university in 2006, why are there no publications from that year?
At least the ACS is an authoratative source, perhaps that deserves a link?
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/20...