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

Hydrochloric acid is more complicated than you think

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 78 posts

Re: Hydrochloric acid is more complicated than you think

#41

Post by throwawaylinux »

mattigames wrote: post #34
mabbo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, linguistically speaking, adding the suffix "-less" to a word implies "without", in English. You can be penniless, having not one penny. You can be homeless- not just fewer homes but by golly none at all. You could be endlessly fearless and remain motionless when facing things that aren't harmless. Doubtlessly, I've been tasteless in this reply.

If English followed stricter rules "stainless" would mean "without stain", and to convey "unable to be stained" we would always use "unstainable" instead, a real but rarely used word.

> If English followed stricter rules "stainless" would mean "without stain"

It does mean that (and/or "unable to be stained").

Re: Hydrochloric acid is more complicated than you think

#42

Post by adaml_623 »

mabbo wrote: post #31
ace2358 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember, it’s stain LESS not stain FEEE. It merely stains less than regular steel. Not that it is unable to stain at all. Haha I remember when I first realised that.

Well, linguistically speaking, adding the suffix "-less" to a word implies "without", in English. You can be penniless, having not one penny. You can be homeless- not just fewer homes but by golly none at all. You could be endlessly fearless and remain motionless when facing things that aren't harmless. Doubtlessly, I've been tasteless in this reply.

Since we are on a tangent anyway I've just realised that the current British PM just this week appeared to be using the non-standard definition when talking with a "homeless" man at a soup kitchen over Xmas. I think I'm this case the PM was corrected fairly quickly but the assumption that homeless means having fewer homes explains a lot of government policy

Re: Hydrochloric acid is more complicated than you think

#43

Post by wahern »

zdragnar wrote: post #38
ace2358 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember, it’s stain LESS not stain FEEE. It merely stains less than regular steel. Not that it is unable to stain at all. Haha I remember when I first realised that.

Linguistically wrong, factually correct. There are many grades of stainless steel, and they will in fact develop rust over time. 430 is a mild stainless steel that has decent corrosion resistance, but you're not going to want to test it too hard. 304 is more common, albeit more expensive, and will hold up pretty well under most normal conditions. Any expected prolonged exposure to salt requires 316 or better, though.

Manufacturing quality matters, too. Cheap stainless steel (e.g. basically anything from a Lowes or Home Depot, or elsewhere standards aren't rigorously enforced, like so much exterior cladding, trim, and fasteners on modern construction) will often rust almost immediately in spots as the alloying isn't sufficiently homogenous or pure. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_pig_iron

Re: Hydrochloric acid is more complicated than you think

#44

Post by tmpburning »

aj7 wrote: post #16

Many people have never seen stainless steel rust. I have. At a slightly leaky Swagelok compression fitting on the HCl-containing gas mixture bottle for a XeCl excimer laser. The leaking HCl combines with the room humidity to make an acid that will rust stainless. And it’s brown oxide rust, induced by the stripping of protective oxides by the HCl.

> Many people have never seen stainless steel rust.

that is surprising if true..

Re: Hydrochloric acid is more complicated than you think

#45

Post by melony »

brendank310 wrote: post #19
XMPPwocky wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This video seems to confuse semiconductors with "materials with a negative thermal coefficient of resistivity". Saying "this gets more conductive as you heat it up" does not a semiconductor make, as far as I understand.

Why not? It's not practical for traditional uses of semiconductors, but it has a mechanism to control conductivity.

Put it in a bell jar and pump the air out. Violà, vacuum tube.

Re: Hydrochloric acid is more complicated than you think

#46

Post by mattigames »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #41
mattigames wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If English followed stricter rules "stainless" would mean "without stain", and to convey "unable to be stained" we would always use "unstainable" instead, a real but rarely used word.

> If English followed stricter rules "stainless" would mean "without stain" It does mean that (and/or "unable to be stained").

Sure but I meant without such ambiguity (unable to be stained VS not stained as of now)

Re: Hydrochloric acid is more complicated than you think

#47

Post by jojobas »

bell-cot wrote: post #20
323 wrote: post #5

One thing I always wonder is what exactly does HCl dissolve in the stomach, and how does it not destroy the nutritional value of the food?

> ...and how does it not destroy the nutritional value of the food? Acids destroying whatever they touch is mostly a "kiddie" version of reality. 99.9% of acids found outside of chemistry labs and industrial settings are no more dangerous or destructive ( as acids ) than soda pop, lime juice, or human vomit (all of which are acids). The reason is that some far stronger and/or more dangerous acids occasionally show up…

> "battery acid", splashed on the skin, can cause horrific & life-long damage in seconds

In fact it's not true. For 98% suplhuric acid, you have at least 30 seconds to wash it away with just water and have no consequence at all (eyes is a different story, that's where it's actually seconds), and battery acid is only 35% or less.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyMR08ZVbNY

Re: Hydrochloric acid is more complicated than you think

#48

Post by bee_rider »

zdragnar wrote: post #38
ace2358 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember, it’s stain LESS not stain FEEE. It merely stains less than regular steel. Not that it is unable to stain at all. Haha I remember when I first realised that.

Linguistically wrong, factually correct. There are many grades of stainless steel, and they will in fact develop rust over time. 430 is a mild stainless steel that has decent corrosion resistance, but you're not going to want to test it too hard. 304 is more common, albeit more expensive, and will hold up pretty well under most normal conditions. Any expected prolonged exposure to salt requires 316 or better, though.

What do the numbers mean?(slightly confused because your description of 316 makes it sound generally more badass than 304, but I can’t fit that in sequence with 430 being the worst).

Re: Hydrochloric acid is more complicated than you think

#49

Post by mikewarot »

basementcat wrote: post #9
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think my mind was first blown when our physics teacher asked us if H2O conducts electricity. And naturally we all said yeah[1]. We were naturally wrong, but pure water is amazing in its own right. edit: decided to add an edit just in case someone tries to test this claim [1] https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/sci...

Water ice is a semiconductor and can be doped, like silicon, to make transistors. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o61wtb7dSRA

The idea that pure water then frozen and kept sufficiently cold could be a functional transistor seems improbable, but because of that, someone will eventually get gain out of a water transistor.

Re: Hydrochloric acid is more complicated than you think

#50

Post by jamal-kumar »

adaml_623 wrote: post #42
mabbo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, linguistically speaking, adding the suffix "-less" to a word implies "without", in English. You can be penniless, having not one penny. You can be homeless- not just fewer homes but by golly none at all. You could be endlessly fearless and remain motionless when facing things that aren't harmless. Doubtlessly, I've been tasteless in this reply.

Since we are on a tangent anyway I've just realised that the current British PM just this week appeared to be using the non-standard definition when talking with a "homeless" man at a soup kitchen over Xmas. I think I'm this case the PM was corrected fairly quickly but the assumption that homeless means having fewer homes explains a lot of government policy

No it's worse, he asked the dude if he's in business hahaha

Imagine if the prime minister was LARPing a role in the service industry asked you that when you're living in a cardboard box

Post reply on HN