Posts Tagged ‘Science’

Hydrofluoric acid is awesome

Friday, February 20th, 2009

When you spill hydrofluoric acid (HF) on your skin, this happens;

1. You don’t feel anything. It isn’t corrosive to skin.

2. It seeps through your skin.

3. It seeps through your muscles.

4.

IT DISSOLVES YOUR BONES!!!
IT DISSOLVES YOUR BONES!!!

It’s so very awesome that it can only be described with a crude diagram such as this.

Bones are primarily calcium carbonate. When hydrofluoric acid reacts with it;

2HF(aq) + CaCO3(s) ==> CaF2(s) + H2O(l) + CO2(g)

Calcium fluoride, water and carbon dioxide are all notoriously bad at holding up your body. Basically it replaces your bones with crumbly gunk.

And that’s awesome.

A new theory about bacon

Saturday, February 21st, 2009

This is a theory which came to me while I was at Hunter Singers camp a couple of weeks ago. I’ve only recently been able to piece it all together.

The genesis of this theory came at breakfast. I served myself an inordinate amount of bacon, as one does. But I noticed that the girls at my table (Mechlord leaving Singers has led to a mysterious boost to my social life), where they had chosen bacon, had only acquired a small amount, while the guys had all gotten several pig’s worth. This phenomenon repeated itself at every table. Further questioning revealed that while the girls invariably thought that bacon was “alright,” the guys all thought that it was “excellent” or merely shouted “BAAAAACON!!!” (Some people of both genders started to sing the McDonalds jingle from a few years ago advertising their bacon-containing foodlike substances, which managed to defy Western poetic conventions in new and glorious ways by rhyming “bacon” with “bacon,” but that’s neither here nor there). Idly contemplating this (while eating my bacon), a thought came to me; bacon isn’t actually that tasty. I love it, but it really doesn’t taste that good. How does this work? And then the theory hit me.

The males of some species of pigs are attracted to truffles, because they smell like a female pig on heat. I think that male cats are attracted to catnip for the same reason. I’m willing to bet that men are attracted to bacon because it smells like human female pheromones.

But you may say, “But O Great and Alpieghty God of Pie, humans are not pheromonic creatures, O Great One.” (Hopefully it’ll be a little more sycophantic, but you get the idea). But therein lies the solution! While humans do use pheromones occasionally, it’s mostly become redundant because of the wonders of intelligence. Nowadays, sex is decided primarily by one’s seductive abilities, not by the smells that one produces. I’m generalising a bit, but you get my point. Maybe, once pheromones became redundant, human females stopped producing them in such great quantities — but men are still just as susceptible to them as they were a million years ago. Maybe bacon emits a far larger amount of pheromones than women!

My argument here may be convoluted and ultimately stupid, but there is still some sense behind it.

This explains a few other things as well. Based on personal experience, there are a lot more women who are vegetarians than there are men. If women are immune to bacon, then any woman who believes that meat is murder/cruelty to animals/not very nice can be a vegetarian. But with men, it’s possible for us to think that meat is cruel while still enjoying it, all because of bacon. I know this because I think that meat is cruel, and I would be a vegetarian, were it not for my unreasonable love of bacon. (And chicken. And ham. And… okay, I love all meat. But especially bacon). In order to be a vegetarian, a man must be both against meat in principle, and immune to bacon. (I’m not saying anything against men who are immune to bacon here. Some cats are immune to catnip, after all — it’s just a hereditary thing. I will, however, say “you poor bastards, you don’t know what you’re missing”).

I may be wrong. I may be a bloody moron. In fact, I am a bloody moron. But I challenge you to name one woman who can hold a conversation of any length consisting exclusively of the word “Bacon,” especially when there is no bacon to be found. That is something that only a MANLY man can do*.

Peace oot,

God of Pie.

*Chuck Norris once went for an entire year saying nothing but “bacon.” That’s how MANLY he is.

Bdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbd…

Friday, March 6th, 2009

We in Melbourne have just had a small earthquake a bit less than two hours ago. It happened to us when we were watching “Seventeen Moments of Spring” (look it up on Wikipedia, it’s a film about the final weeks of WWII), just coming to the part where books were being thrown into a fire at the orders of Goebbels. The table (and everything else) started shaking like a maniac; this lasted about 15 seconds. We were not frightened, just intrigued.

Just thought you might like to know.

P.S. Now that the monotony has broken, God of Pie, are you satisfied?!

Happy Unlucky Day!!!

Friday, March 13th, 2009

So, it’s Friday the 13th, supposedly the unluckiest day possible (despite the fact that it happens at least once a year, and usually twice). If the 13th of a month is a Friday, then you know that the month started on Sunday. Makes sense when you think about it…

Bdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbd… #2

Wednesday, March 18th, 2009

Yes, it’s happened again.

I was reading The (r)Age on level 7 of the Melbourne Uni Physics Building and drinking my lovely lovely tea when at about 4:25 pm the floor shook briefly. By far not as strong as the previous one though (according to me at least; some people on ABC news reported that it was stronger).

Perhaps it’s time we took some serious action on plate tectonics…

More Fun with Science

Wednesday, May 13th, 2009

Smells.

Smells are awesome.

I learned a fun reaction today;

Acid that smells like cheese + Alcohol that smells like alcohol <=> Stuff that smells like Pineapple + Burning.

It wasn’t meant to smell like burning, but I held my nose right up to it. In retrospect this was NOT A GOOD DECISION.

Even More Fun With Science

Saturday, May 16th, 2009

On Tuesday, I had my last chemistry prac for this semester. Do you know what that means?

That means I had to make a polyiodide salt, crystallise it (pretty metallic-bluey-green flakes) and analytically determine the number of iodine atoms in the molecular formula. We did the redox titration with sodium thiosulfate and starch as the indicator. Sounds like fun? Well, it was more like a delirium – I overshot the mark on the 50mL volumetric flask and had to do the weighing of the crystals again – with half an hour left. I managed to get only 3 titrations done – luckily, two of them were 0.1mL apart (concordant). And then we had to do the washing up and the calculations – on a sheet stained all over with brown iodine solution. Yuck.

Good thing I finished. The formula of my compound turned out to be N(CH3)4I(I2)2. Smashing.

And we got to use methanol. Exciting.

The Climate Changenators

Thursday, July 30th, 2009

I’ve recently done something most, ahem, environmentalists probably did ages ago – bought a copy of The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery. I am currently in the process of reading it (or pretending to), but before doing a proper book review I decided to point out a logical flaw I’ve spotted (at least, I is thinking it a logical flaw is) in its argument.

On page 28, Tim tells us that “CO2 acts as a trigger for that potent greenhouse gas, water vapour. It does this by heating the atmosphere just a little, allowing it to take up and retain more moisture, which then warms the atmosphere further. So a positive feedback loop is created, forcing our planet’s temperature to ever-higher levels.”

The problem is, I don’t quite understand what precisely Tim means by this. He may mean that “CO2 increases temperature, which increases water vapour, which increases temperature, which increases water vapour, etc.”; that is,  the positive feedback is between the temperature and amount of water vapour. If this were so, then there wouldn’t be any need for CO2 – the water vapour present in the atmosphere could carry out the doomsday climate scenario all by itself, through the aforementioned feedback loop. Seeing as this has still not happened, something would seem to be amiss (a limiting factor, perchance).

If Tim means to say “CO2 increases water vapour, which increases CO2, etc.”; then this simply doesn’t make sense. How does H2O increase CO2?

If, however, he means, “Humans produce CO2, which causes warming, which increases H2O, which causes some more warming; humans produce some more CO2, etc.” then this isn’t really a positive feedback loop – more like a chain thingy.

Ah well, I guess it does pay to use ambiguous but scientific-sounding wording when you are trying to win over the opinion of a layman (or laywoman or layhermaphrodite or layzombie…).

By the way, there is a reference at the end of that paragraph, to a book called The Discovery of Global Warming: New Histories of Science, Technology and Medicine by S. R. Weart (Harvard University Press). I reckon I should look that up.

azarov98

P.S. Await also my upcoming extremely long rant about what’s wrong with modern-day environmentalism.