|
Dr von Zarkov
|
 |
« Reply #25 on: October 04, 2007, 02:35:10 am » |
|
I don't smoke and thankfully I fixed my sparking problem last week ... Which reminds one ... "Do you smoke after s*x?" "I don't know; I haven't looked." I once worked in a shop where everything we made was composed of scrap ABS... welded with methyl ethyl ketone (MEK, nasty stuff, my liver is probably screaming for help right now). If you want to destroy your liver, may I suggest ways which afford more enjoyment?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The fact that I wear the protective coloration of sedate citizenship is a ruse of the fox — I learned it long ago." – Loren Eiseley
|
|
|
|
Offlogic
|
 |
« Reply #26 on: October 04, 2007, 03:05:26 am » |
|
If you want to destroy your liver, may I suggest ways which afford more enjoyment?
Let me count the ways.... Got that covered, thanks. Nuclear power is very safe, especially given that the reactors are decades old. Do you wanna bet (non-politically speaking) on nuclear NOT being a net energy loss? I'll take the 'yes' end of the bet, okay? I bake great cookies, and I'll wager several dozen. 'Yucca Flats' being positioned over a geologic fault (after $20 BILLION gone "down the hole" at last count) all aside, just how much energy is actually delivered to consumers vs. the energy required to mine, process and deliver nuclear energy to consumers (minus all the "incidental" costs)? Total energy consumed MINUS total energy delivered is a (non-political) "sorry you married my X-wife, dude" situation. Correct me if I'm wrong (after the math is done). "Nuclear" is a short term and very local solution, but they all are. So " Caveat suckers!!!!", and " Follow the money, Jack!". In all fairness, if the CEOs and his/her family, as well as a majority of stockholders live on-site (like the rest of us in the area), I'd almost give them the benefit of the doubt, seriously & non-politically because we need ENERGY, and fossil carbon is limited (empirically speaking). Otherwise, they are "Chernobility-in waiting", and I'll stick to nasty old COAL by preference: we can all suffer together. I don't fear nucleons (a la NIMBY) as much as I do the corporations that have spent so much money selling them and their haphazard releases to the populace as "completely safe, what could possibly go wro-" (at a subsidized markup). 'Global Warming' (true or false), finite resources are a problem, and it gets worse by the microsecond.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 04, 2007, 03:31:53 am by Offlogic »
|
Logged
|
HST: Gonzo but not forgotten
|
|
|
|
zircher
|
 |
« Reply #27 on: October 04, 2007, 03:18:02 am » |
|
DO NOT USE Fusion paint unless you have a uniform material underneath. Any differing materials such a fillers or even different color plastic will show through the final coat of paint, even if you use a neutral primer. That's exactly what I have, different colors and different densities of plastic. I'll take Fuzion paint off of the to-ponder list. Thanks for conforming my paranoia.  -- TAZ
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jake of All Trades
|
 |
« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2007, 03:25:50 am » |
|
Nuclear power is very safe, especially given that the reactors are decades old. There isn't any chance of doing face casts with the ABS clay is there?
Mmm, probably a rather bad idea. Safety-wise, I wouldn't want any of that anywhere near my eyes or mouth until it's well hardened. All that aside, it really wouldn't be conducive to such a use anyhow. That is, unless, you want to spend 20-some hours flat on your back with drying goop on your face...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"...it's a form of fiction, and as such, while there may be times when it's considered a worthy vehicle for pointing out some of society and individual flaws - I still want a side that will let there be lighthearted adventures in the clouds, on mars, or under the sea." --Tinkergirl
|
|
|
|
Commissar Swoosh
|
 |
« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2007, 03:27:36 am » |
|
It really is safe, the waste is the most dangerous part and that is easily swept under the rug. Tey seriously are safe. no jokes, Don't equate Hiroshima to nuclear energy in your head...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If God thought The Doors were better than Cream, Jim Morrison would be able to defend his band today. Either this disproves God, or proves Clapton is the real god.
|
|
|
|
Offlogic
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: October 04, 2007, 03:36:23 am » |
|
Sweep something under the rug for 14,000 years, okay. Swoosh, we've got a serious non-political disagreement.
Maybe we should talk about thorium reactors in "Off Topic", maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Drew P
|
 |
« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2007, 03:50:04 am » |
|
If acetone was safe then you wouldn't have to use it in a well-ventilated area and if it takes nail polish off,washing your hands in it...a... no. let's play it safe here.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Never ask 'Why?' Always ask 'Why not!?'
|
|
|
|
Jake of All Trades
|
 |
« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2007, 04:18:38 am » |
|
If acetone was safe then you wouldn't have to use it in a well-ventilated area and if it takes nail polish off,washing your hands in it...a... no. let's play it safe here.
Well, "safe" is a relative word. Acetone should definitely be respected, but it should not be feared. Its ability to remove nail polish has no relation to its safety. It's not corrosive like paint stripper where it reacts with the polish, it is merely a solvent--and a rather mild one when compared to paint thinner or petrol. Why? Well, for one thing, it evaporates long before it can be absorbed in the skin. From my reading of safety reports, you'll get plenty of warning in the form of discomfort before any real damage takes place. Really though, you are correct to advise caution. Welcome to the forum!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
zircher
|
 |
« Reply #33 on: October 04, 2007, 04:21:02 am » |
|
Maybe we should talk about thorium reactors in "Off Topic", maybe? Perhaps, but even a nuclear submarine is still steam powered. Hopefully, we can leave case mods for nuclear reactors as an exercise for the advanced student.  -- TAZ
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Commander Obadiah
|
 |
« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2007, 04:26:53 am » |
|
Jake, it sounds crazy but it actually showed some amazing understand about physics from someone who had dropped out of school at 14 and had then become a professional artist, via a gang notorious for drug dealing and gun running. Incidentally, I've seen a few rigs like what you used, Datamancer, and they're so unwieldy. I tend to use an old deodorant can, because there's less pressure so you can get finer lines and more control. Plus, you can have a tinge of red as opposed to straight 50% red 50% blue. Purple is a great colour, but I can never find the right shade of it. So I make my own.
Commander C. Obadiah
Post Script: Nicely put, TAZ. Made me chuckle
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Steampunk code: 'To delicately dismantle the system from within, if it's not too much trouble'
|
|
|
|
Jake of All Trades
|
 |
« Reply #35 on: October 04, 2007, 04:37:10 am » |
|
I did mean the good kind of crazy 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Commander Obadiah
|
 |
« Reply #36 on: October 04, 2007, 05:37:46 am » |
|
Haha, as did I sir, as did I.
Commander C. Obadiah
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
alfa1
|
 |
« Reply #37 on: October 04, 2007, 06:40:39 am » |
|
what caught my eye was a serious seam along the top where the two halves of the device meet. If I want to simulate a smooth metal housing, that seam needs to go.
Model aircraft people have this problem all the time - gaps down the middle where the two halves of the fuselage meet. Any good model shop will stock at least 1 or 2 types of 'plastic putty'. There are also web sites that discuss this issue, of course. Here is a random one found with google... http://www.angelfire.com/oh3/pmodels/putty.html
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
zircher
|
 |
« Reply #38 on: October 04, 2007, 02:16:27 pm » |
|
Thanks for the informative link, it also talks about sanding, materials, and some other tecchniques. It looks like I'll need to pick up some finer grades of sand paper as well. -- TAZ
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
zircher
|
 |
« Reply #39 on: October 05, 2007, 04:41:20 pm » |
|
Just a thought, what about using a hot glue gun as a filler for seams and screw holes? It's not solvent based and it cools to a solid. I mention it because I saw a mini glue gun with a bunch of sticks over in the clearance section at Hobby Lobby and it got the gears turning. -- TAZ
PS. It had three types of glue sticks and one of them was wood glue which I know is fairly easy to sand down.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jake of All Trades
|
 |
« Reply #40 on: October 05, 2007, 09:36:18 pm » |
|
You can try it, but I've never gotten it to work. Even the wood glue tends to be a bit rubbery which makes sanding impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dr von Zarkov
|
 |
« Reply #41 on: October 06, 2007, 12:55:21 am » |
|
Maybe we should talk about thorium reactors in "Off Topic", maybe?
Maybe we ought not to speak of thorium on this forum. To do so may incur the wrath of the Department of Energy and Hometown Insecurity (USA). Many decades ago I worked for a US government agency involved in nuclear energy. One day we were all called into the auditorium and severely chastised because a member of our research group had mentioned thorium research at a public conference. "Forget that it even exists!" By the following morning, some evil vandals had erased the Th (thorium) symbol from the large periodic table of the elements which hung in the front of the auditorium.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dantes_torment
|
 |
« Reply #42 on: October 06, 2007, 01:08:43 am » |
|
Maybe we should talk about thorium reactors in "Off Topic", maybe?
Maybe we ought not to speak of thorium on this forum. To do so may incur the wrath of the Department of Energy and Hometown Insecurity (USA). Many decades ago I worked for a US government agency involved in nuclear energy. One day we were all called into the auditorium and severely chastised because a member of our research group had mentioned thorium research at a public conference. "Forget that it even exists!" By the following morning, some evil vandals had erased the Th (thorium) symbol from the large periodic table of the elements which hung in the front of the auditorium. What? An atom with 90 protons? such a thing is not possible; nature simply skips from 89 to 91. Better yet, forget everything you learned about Norse gods as well. Don't take any chances.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offlogic
|
 |
« Reply #44 on: October 06, 2007, 02:13:53 am » |
|
Maybe we should talk about thorium reactors in "Off Topic", maybe?
Maybe we ought not to speak of thorium on this forum. To do so may incur the wrath of the Department of Energy and Hometown Insecurity (USA). 'They' would censor Mendeleev's periodic table, can 'They'? C'mon, I haven't wanted to fly anywhere since the late '80s anyway. I guess no mention should be made of tritium, selectable yield warheads, lithium-6-deuteride, explosively pumped electromagnetic munitions, asymmetrical warfare, effective countermeasures for the "Active Denial System", or any other topic of applied physics. Oh, wait, who could it be ringing the door at this hour?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dr von Zarkov
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: October 06, 2007, 02:28:17 am » |
|
I guess no mention should be made of tritium, selectable yield warheads, lithium-6-deuteride, explosively pumped electromagnetic munitions, asymmetrical warfare, effective countermeasures for the "Active Denial System", or any other topic of applied physics.
Nor mention of permissive action links, exploding wires, slappers, actual critical masses, or non-spherical arrangements of "components."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gnome
|
 |
« Reply #46 on: October 06, 2007, 02:32:45 am » |
|
I should point out that there is a lot of potential for some unsavory fumes to be generated with acetone, and one should be careful to work with it only in a well-ventilated area and to leave the worked-upon piece in an area that doesn't vent into your living space while the plastic is setting. Moreover, if you have any pets, remember that they might not be as resilient to fumes as you are.
Please use the greatest of care when working with SCIENCE.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you insist on referring to yourself in the third person, don't be surprised if I start referring to you in the first. SAVE THE AIR KRAKEN! Join the 11th Greenpeace Airborne division!
|
|
|
|
Offlogic
|
 |
« Reply #47 on: October 06, 2007, 03:12:03 am » |
|
Yes, spheres are so two decades ago!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Commissar Swoosh
|
 |
« Reply #48 on: October 06, 2007, 08:59:30 pm » |
|
Please use the greatest of care when working with <echo>SCIENCE</echo>.
Fixed
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
La Bricoleuse
|
 |
« Reply #49 on: October 07, 2007, 01:37:28 am » |
|
When i work with acetone i wear butyl gloves, splash-proof goggles, and a respirator. (I'm not saying everyone should, just that these are the PPEs my employer requires me to wear based on my exposure.) I realize it's in nail polish remover, and generally if you are removing nail polish with it you are using it for like, 5 minutes. I use it in a workplace sometimes for over an hour or more of exposure at a stretch. It's all relative. Any time i work with a solvent (such as acetone), i reread its Material Safety Data Sheet to remind myself what its hazards are. Here's a link to the one for acetone: http://www.bu.edu/es/labsafety/ESMSDSs/MSAcetone.htmlI think any precautions you take are up to the individual (unless like me you are using it for your job, then the employer is responsible for maintaining OSHA standards), so do whatever makes sense to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|