71–78 of 78 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
If you read the whole conversation it's not as bad as it sounds
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "The destructiveness of the solution is not determined by the acid [...] it is determined by the acid's concentration." I'd say you're at the "know enough to be dangerous" phase. The destructiveness of concentrated H2SO4 (sulfuric acid) to flesh is at least as much due to its extremely exothermic hydrophilic behavior as to its low pH. Hydrofluoric acid is typically weak (pH-wise) as an acid, but is a horrific delay…
I'm struggling to see the relationship between my comment and your response. For example, you emphasize pH heavily, but I don't see that I mentioned it anywhere. Hydrofluoric acid will have all kinds of horrible effects on you, sure, but it can only have those effects if it's there. Whether it's there, and to what degree, is exactly what concentration measures. Aqua regia's ability to dissolve gold is unrelated to it…
For a specified acid, both concentration and pH are fairly good, one-dimensional, metrics of how relatively dangerous/destructive various solutions are. (Or at least "to within household common sense". Anyone competent to cook spaghetti should understand that "10 gallons" or "boiling hot" would make the solution far worse than "3 drops" or "ice cold".)
What set me off was that your comment seemed far too close to "concentration is a good, one-dimensional, measure of how dangerous/destructive acids are." (Without the "specified acid" and "relatively" qualifiers.) That (or a similar statement with "pH" instead of "concentration") is the sort of "logical" simplification that kiddies and idiots can far too easily latch on to, when they're thinking about doing cool & dangerous things.
(So - NO, kiddies. The fact that 5% acetic acid is vinegar, which is safe to splash on your salad, does NOT make (say) 5% hydrofluoric acid safe in any way at all. Stay the hell away from the latter, unless you want to look like a cheap horror movie extra for the rest of your might-be-kinda-short life.)
> What point are you trying to make [...] 99.9% of acids found outside a lab [...] than human vomit [...]
Technically, vomit is (horribly impure) hydrochloric acid. But for household safety purposes? Any good 11-year-old babysitter can safely clean up baby barf, using only routine baby-care supplies. But handling high-molar HCl, let alone dealing with spills of the stuff? That's a completely different world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...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…
It's always been funny to me that cartoon "acid" seems to be more characteristic of a strong oxidizing agent than an acid!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...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
And a really good stage magician can have a random audience member shoot him in the head with a loaded gun, and catch the bullet in his teeth, too. That I've heard, you don't see that trick performed too often. Because sometimes it goes horribly wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...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…
It's always been funny to me that cartoon "acid" seems to be more characteristic of a strong oxidizing agent than an acid!
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).