User talk:Wolfkeeper/Archive Nov 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Nitrous Oxide explosions

Greetings, could you add some specific references for Nitrous Oxide explosions? Thanks. Charles 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference provided by Wolfkeeper on 29-Jul-07 does not appear relevant to the question. The reference does not describe any accidents involving explosion of N2O, nor any issues regarding contamination by fuels. Charles 01:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Vaseline should not ignite at room temperature when exposed to N2O. Below 300 C, N2O is essentially non-reactive. I would like to see a more detailed accident report, can you provide a reference? Thanks. Charles 02:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Adiabatic compression of air to ~50 bar. It's easy to show that the adiabatic temperature of the air is then about 690C. Ignition temperature of vaseline is 290C. Boom.WolfKeeper

So the explosion is a result of air and vaseline, not the N2O ? In that case the WP page for N2O needs to be amended to rmeove the references to N2O explosions, agreed ?Charles 13:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That's just the ignition source. And the ultimate ignition source is the pressure of the nitrous; which is determined by the physical properties of the nitrous.WolfKeeper 20:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In order for N2O to decompose it must reach a temperature fo 1200 C (650 C with a catalyst). Are you saying that deisling gets it this hot? Is there a catalyst involved in the incidents you describe?Charles 14:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Look, the hydrocarbons get dieseled up to 690C, autoignite (290C for vaseline for example) in the compressed air, producing flame temperatures which would be 1500C or more. This then exothermically decomposes the Nitrous. Additionally the decomposition temperature of nitrous seems to depend on pressure (as low as 325C at 21.4 bar): [1]WolfKeeper 23:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Net Neutrality Reverts

Censorship and net neutrality may not be mutually exclusive, but they are also subatantially different issues. Net neutrality is not the defining feature of China's censorship, so including this here only confuses the issues. The same is even more true for instances of copyright or child abuse -- getting shut down for breaking the law is not the same thing as being discriminated against.

Depends whether you think that network neutrality is about what happens to the bits, or who does it. I think it's more about what happens to the bits- I think I would consider many network failures to be failures of network neutrality also; and that view is in accordance with the definitions of NN. So, while I certainly don't have a problem with websites of very dubious morality being blackholed, it does seem to me to be a network non neutrality.WolfKeeper 18:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I also do not understand the inclusion of the Craigslist claim. As even the article notes, it was erroneous. It doesn't add to understanding about the topic.

The point is that it was claimed to be a network neutrality issue, and was notable as being claimed. The fact that it does not seem to have been deliberate, doesn't make it not notable. And if you accept that network failures are non neutralities also, then it clearly should stay.WolfKeeper 18:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically, this section is a mess, full of rumors. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to break these out into Claims in the U.S. and Claims outside the U.S. I'm going to revert back to my edits, but I look forward to continuing this discussion further. --Loudon clear 18:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's OK to include rumours provided they are well referenced, and provided they are notable.WolfKeeper 18:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)