Re: More ET foam woes
- From: henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Henry Spencer)
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 00:20:46 GMT
In article <euibp11hmsn91r9o3i2l9s5creqhf9u4e4@xxxxxxx>,
Len Lekx <LFLekx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >...Hydrogen peroxide...
>>Nasty qualities.
>
> Just like other oxidizers. I wouldn't want to get to close to
>nitrogen tetroxide.
Peroxide is mother's milk next to nitrogen tetroxide. Peroxide is, in
fact, about as close as you can get to a harmless strong oxidizer.
> Which is worse - burning your lungs in peroxide vapour, or freezing
>them in a cloud of super-cold oxygen?
The peroxide, definitely. Even very cold oxygen gas is too thin to chill
your lungs all that quickly.
However, this slightly misses the point. Just how do you *get* dangerous
amounts of peroxide vapor to breathe? The stuff isn't significantly
volatile. Unless you heat it, or spray it into the air, handling it isn't
likely to expose you to serious amounts of the vapor.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: More ET foam woes
- From: Len Lekx
- Re: More ET foam woes
- References:
- Re: More ET foam woes
- From: Len Lekx
- Re: More ET foam woes
- From: lifeform1
- Re: More ET foam woes
- From: Len Lekx
- Re: More ET foam woes
- Prev by Date: Re: Record breaking rocket flight. I am surprised
- Next by Date: Re: SpaceX Falcon Ready to Go - Again.
- Previous by thread: Re: More ET foam woes
- Next by thread: Re: More ET foam woes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
