xkcd: Physics Safety Tip
https://xkcd.com/2662/

Physicists tend to build things massing in tons. So, yes, when the
physicists get excited, run away !

Explained at:
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2662:_Physics_Safety_Tip

Lynn

On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 5:44:22 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> xkcd: Physics Safety Tip
> https://xkcd.com/2662/
>
> Physicists tend to build things massing in tons. So, yes, when the
> physicists get excited, run away !

In the 80's there was a joke that physicists did not believe that cold fusion worked but used plenty of shielding
testing it and chemists believed it worked but barely protected themselves.

On 8/25/2022 8:07 PM, artyw2@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 5:44:22 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> xkcd: Physics Safety Tip
>> https://xkcd.com/2662/
>>
>> Physicists tend to build things massing in tons. So, yes, when the
>> physicists get excited, run away !
>
> In the 80's there was a joke that physicists did not believe that cold fusion worked but used plenty of shielding
> testing it and chemists believed it worked but barely protected themselves.

So, is Madame Curie viewed a physicist or a chemist ?

Lynn

On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:15:41 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 8/25/2022 8:07 PM, art...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 5:44:22 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> xkcd: Physics Safety Tip
> >> https://xkcd.com/2662/
> >>
> >> Physicists tend to build things massing in tons. So, yes, when the
> >> physicists get excited, run away !
> >
> > In the 80's there was a joke that physicists did not believe that cold fusion worked but used plenty of shielding
> > testing it and chemists believed it worked but barely protected themselves.
> So, is Madame Curie viewed a physicist or a chemist ?
>

She was a fraud, because exposure to all that radiation
should have given her super-powers!

--
Kevin R

On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 14:20:46 UTC+12, Kevrob wrote:

> > So, is Madame Curie viewed a physicist or a chemist ?
> >
> She was a fraud, because exposure to all that radiation
> should have given her super-powers!
> --
> Kevin R

2 Nobel prizes is some kind of super-power.
Aplastic anemia on the other hand ... that's a shit-show.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 05:12:27 -0700 (PDT), Peter Huebner
<peter.huebner@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 14:20:46 UTC+12, Kevrob wrote:
>
>> > So, is Madame Curie viewed a physicist or a chemist ?
>> >
>> She was a fraud, because exposure to all that radiation
>> should have given her super-powers!
>
>> --
>> Kevin R
>
>2 Nobel prizes is some kind of super-power.
>Aplastic anemia on the other hand ... that's a shit-show.

It would, however, suggest "chemist" as the answer to the question
posed.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:15:41 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 8/25/2022 8:07 PM, art...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 5:44:22 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> xkcd: Physics Safety Tip
> >> https://xkcd.com/2662/
> >>
> >> Physicists tend to build things massing in tons. So, yes, when the
> >> physicists get excited, run away !
> >
> > In the 80's there was a joke that physicists did not believe that cold fusion worked but used plenty of shielding
> > testing it and chemists believed it worked but barely protected themselves.
> So, is Madame Curie viewed a physicist or a chemist ?

I'd say yes.

Things were not so clear then. Today we consider work on the nucleus to be physics. But for his work on the nucleus Rutherford received the Nobel in chemistry. I almost suspect the Nobel committee of having a sense of humour, given Rutherford's attitude to sciences that were not physics.

William Hyde

On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 8:12:30 AM UTC-4, Peter Huebner wrote:
> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 14:20:46 UTC+12, Kevrob wrote:
>
> > > So, is Madame Curie viewed a physicist or a chemist ?
> > >
> > She was a fraud, because exposure to all that radiation
> > should have given her super-powers!

> 2 Nobel prizes is some kind of super-power.
> Aplastic anemia on the other hand ... that's a shit-show.

She's buried in the Pantheon in Paris. Her cofffin is lined
with nearly an inch of lead.

https://www.businessinsider.com/marie-curie-radioactive-papers-2015-8

Pt

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 05:12:27 -0700 (PDT), Peter Huebner
<peter.huebner@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 14:20:46 UTC+12, Kevrob wrote:
>
>> > So, is Madame Curie viewed a physicist or a chemist ?
>> >
>> She was a fraud, because exposure to all that radiation
>> should have given her super-powers!
>
>> --
>> Kevin R
>
>2 Nobel prizes is some kind of super-power.
>Aplastic anemia on the other hand ... that's a shit-show.

This immediately brought to mind Bart Simpson's imagined
interpretation of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw4A97V8mhM

--
Jerry Brown

A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)

Whereas if it is labelled "Warning: ignites glass, sand, research chemists",
run really really fast.... :)

In article <6b4b1d27-e083-4936-9a72-6cdee1a74fe2n@googlegroups.com>,
Jonathan Harston <jgh@mdfs.net> wrote:
>Whereas if it is labelled "Warning: ignites glass, sand, research chemists",
>run really really fast.... :)

(Hal Heydt)
Sounds like the description of a Titanium fire. In air, you get
20% Titanium Oxide and 80% Titanium Nitride. Try CO2 and you get
an additional cloud of soot. Try water and you get an additional
Hydrogen fire. Not sure if it would actually strip the Oxygen out
of Silicon Dioxide, though.

The other sort of fire to watch out for is anything you need a
Class D fire extinguisher for.

In article <rHCrI5.vyE@kithrup.com>,
djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

> In article <6b4b1d27-e083-4936-9a72-6cdee1a74fe2n@googlegroups.com>,
> Jonathan Harston <jgh@mdfs.net> wrote:
> >Whereas if it is labelled "Warning: ignites glass, sand, research chemists",
> >run really really fast.... :)
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> Sounds like the description of a Titanium fire. In air, you get
> 20% Titanium Oxide and 80% Titanium Nitride. Try CO2 and you get
> an additional cloud of soot. Try water and you get an additional
> Hydrogen fire. Not sure if it would actually strip the Oxygen out
> of Silicon Dioxide, though.
>
Jonathan appears to be paraphrasing a sentence in John D. Clark's
_Ignition!_ discussing the perils of dealing with Chlorine Trifluoride.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
�-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On 2022-08-29, Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:

>>Whereas if it is labelled "Warning: ignites glass, sand, research chemists",
>>run really really fast.... :)
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> Sounds like the description of a Titanium fire.

I think I've seen that quote or something very similar to it in one
of Derek Lowe's old "Things I Won't Work With" blog posts, and it
referred to either chlorine trifluoride, chlorine pentafluoride,
or elemental fluorine.

Titanium fires are also nasty as I was told by a guy who was
supervising some chemical process--we have the world's largest
chemical plant in town--when a titanium heat exchanger carrying hot
nitric acid somehow caught fire and even the specially trained
company firefighters eventually gave up and just let it burn itself
out.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

In article <slrntgp4t3.137p.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>,
Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
>On 2022-08-29, Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
>>>Whereas if it is labelled "Warning: ignites glass, sand, research chemists",
>>>run really really fast.... :)
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Sounds like the description of a Titanium fire.
>
>I think I've seen that quote or something very similar to it in one
>of Derek Lowe's old "Things I Won't Work With" blog posts, and it
>referred to either chlorine trifluoride, chlorine pentafluoride,
>or elemental fluorine.
>
>Titanium fires are also nasty as I was told by a guy who was
>supervising some chemical process--we have the world's largest
>chemical plant in town--when a titanium heat exchanger carrying hot
>nitric acid somehow caught fire and even the specially trained
>company firefighters eventually gave up and just let it burn itself
>out.

(Hal Heydt)
As I understand it, that's what one does with a Titanium fire.
Encourage the Titanium to finish burning so that the rest of the
fire can be dealt with.

On 8/29/22 03:23, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2022-08-29, Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
>>> Whereas if it is labelled "Warning: ignites glass, sand, research chemists",
>>> run really really fast.... :)
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Sounds like the description of a Titanium fire.
>
> I think I've seen that quote or something very similar to it in one
> of Derek Lowe's old "Things I Won't Work With" blog posts, and it
> referred to either chlorine trifluoride, chlorine pentafluoride,
> or elemental fluorine.
>
> Titanium fires are also nasty as I was told by a guy who was
> supervising some chemical process--we have the world's largest
> chemical plant in town--when a titanium heat exchanger carrying hot
> nitric acid somehow caught fire and even the specially trained
> company firefighters eventually gave up and just let it burn itself
> out.
>
He was originally referring to F-O-O-F or F2O2, and then discussed many,
many other things of dubious distinction. F2O2 seems to be so unstable
that it will go off if you even look at it or possibly even think about it.

It is worth giving him a read.

Fires involving nasties: The only metal fires I ever responded to
involved magnesium. We did not carry Class D extinguishers since they
were so rarely used e.g. for me only 3 times in 28 years. I have a
pretty good story about one of them I could supply if anyone is
interested. Basically, our procedure for anything like that was to let
the metal burn itself out while, if possible, keeping the surroundings
cool. Titanium would be a rare fire indeed, especially for a rural
department like us. EXCEPT, Lockheed has a test facility (Bonnydoon)
nearby and sometimes drives trucks through carrying God-Knows-What
besides rocket fuel and explosives.

I found the following at
https://www.ehs.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/docs/02-005CombustibleMetals.pdf

Titanium:
Specific gravity, 4.51; melting point, 3040°F (1670°C). At red heat,
1300°F (704°C), the metal actively decomposes steam. Following strong
nitric acid treatment, the metal may explode by the light impact or
friction of handling with tongs. The powder can be ignited in pure
carbon dioxide above 1260°F (682°C), in nitrogen above 1475°F (801°C),
and in air at 626°F (330°C) to 1094°F (590°C). Powdered titanium
immersed in water or wet with water at ordinary temperatures has been
ignited by chemical reaction.

I saw molten steel and aluminum but nothing like titanium or any of the
halogens on fire, except when my Chem professor at Cal threw a chunk of
Sodium into a bowl of water.

--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer - Stellar Solutions (Definitely Retired)

On 8/29/22 13:14, BCFD36 wrote:

>
>
> Titanium:
> Specific gravity, 4.51; melting point, 3040°F (1670°C). At red heat,
> 1300°F (704°C), the metal actively decomposes steam. Following strong
> nitric acid treatment, the metal may explode by the light impact or
> friction of handling with tongs. The powder can be ignited in pure
> carbon dioxide above 1260°F (682°C), in nitrogen above 1475°F (801°C),
> and in air at 626°F (330°C) to 1094°F (590°C). Powdered titanium
> immersed in water or wet with water at ordinary temperatures has been
> ignited by chemical reaction.
>
> I saw molten steel and aluminum but nothing like titanium or any of the
> halogens on fire, except when my Chem professor at Cal threw a chunk of
> Sodium into a bowl of water.
>

I made one mistake in the previous note. I mentioned halogens. It should
have been "Alkali metals".
--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer - Stellar Solutions (Definitely Retired)

In article <tej6n9$76h$1@gioia.aioe.org>, BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> wrote:
>On 8/29/22 03:23, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>Titanium:
>Specific gravity, 4.51; melting point, 3040°F (1670°C). At red heat,
>1300°F (704°C), the metal actively decomposes steam. Following strong
>nitric acid treatment, the metal may explode by the light impact or
>friction of handling with tongs. The powder can be ignited in pure
>carbon dioxide above 1260°F (682°C), in nitrogen above 1475°F (801°C),
>and in air at 626°F (330°C) to 1094°F (590°C). Powdered titanium
>immersed in water or wet with water at ordinary temperatures has been
>ignited by chemical reaction.

(Hal Heydt)
The "classic" way to start a Titanuim fire is with a high current
DC arc. That's what happened in the (manned at the time) Apollo
3 capsule.