PC RANT

David Martin said:

There is however a case for making the kids stand back a bit further and
wear appropriate PPE.

Won't that just make them take greater risks?

:-)

James

Richard said:

David Martin wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Better drowned than duffers if not duffers won't drown"

But what are "duffers if not duffers"?

Someone didn't go to grammar school...

James

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:12:01 +0100, "wafflycat"

wafflesATv21netDOTcoDOTuk said:

"John Hearns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thinking back on this, had some twit put their hand in it or something
I think the safety officer would have taken a dim view.

I expect he or she might have been shattered.

Contrary to popular belief your hand won't freeze and shatter if you
put it in liquid nitrogen, I've done it and still got all my fingers.
An insulating layer of nitrogen gas forms and keeps your hand warm,
comon sense tells you when you really should take it out. Touching
solid objects cooled by liquid nitrogen is a different matter
entirely.

"RJ Webb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My favourite recollection of grammar school chemistry was when one of the
lads in class set fire to the workbench during the experiment of
distillation of crude oil

Quoted message said:

Not allowed to do that now...

Use a made up concoction of ethanol, lubricating oil , white spirit
and various other things.....

Boring.............

Hah.....

I blew the bottom of a sink out.....not telling how....

My pal, who ended up at Cambridge doing Chemistry, repainted the ceiling
with an organic reflux distillation that went wrong.
I spotted the stopper in his vertical condensor and didn't have the heart to
tell him that the instruction, 'don't let any vapour
escape', meant regulate the bunsen burner and not 'bung up the works' :-)

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Michael

MacClancy (') said:

wafflycat said:

"Michael MacClancy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

> ... and not because you're one of those snooty grammar school snobs?
> ;-)
>
I do believe you've been watching too much "Tricia", you read into
things what is not there.

Oh, I wouldn't agree with that. The word 'grammar' was there and I
assume
that it had a purpose. You could have referred to 'school chemistry'
or even 'secondary school chemistry', each of which would have been
more egalitarian than 'grammar school chemistry'.

Have you had that chip valued? It's the most remarkable example I think
I've ever seen.

I do believe you've been watching too much "Tricia", you read into things
what is not there.
--
Michael MacClancy

Richard Bates said:

Michael MacClancy said:

wafflycat said:

"Michael MacClancy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

>
> ... and not because you're one of those snooty grammar school snobs? ;-)
>
I do believe you've been watching too much "Tricia", you read into things
what is not there.

Oh, I wouldn't agree with that. The word 'grammar' was there and I assume
that it had a purpose. You could have referred to 'school chemistry' or
even 'secondary school chemistry', each of which would have been more
egalitarian than 'grammar school chemistry'.

I only picked up on it because it's not the first time I've noticed this
usage of yours.

Have you tried drinking Banks' Bitter?

I can't say that I have.
--
Michael MacClancy

David Martin said:

Sodium. AN inch cube in a fire bucket was quite sufficient (outside in the
car park with everyone standing well back) to demonstrate a vigorous
exothermic reaction.

The cubic millimetre of potassium in concentrated nitric acid was enough to
blow a hole in the bottom of the glass beaker it was in (which was itself in
a large perspex vessel of water), indicating the oxidative effect of certain
acids.

We had the inch cube and bucket in the car park. Did for the bucket.
Curiously, potassium being that much /more/ reactive didn't appear to
get the same "head of steam" behind the reaction, though the teacher
didn't try it with an inch cube. A small amount jetted about happily on
the water powered by a jet of reaction gas, where a similar amount of Na
seemed to save itself up for a bangette.

Quoted message said:

Why does nobody remember any chemistry except what went bang?

I would tell you, but I can't remember...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Danny Colyer said:

Just zis Guy said:

If it worked.

Chemistry should work.

Remember the rules:
It it wriggles it's biology.
If it stinks it's chemistry.
If it doesn't work it's physics.

....and if it doesn't work until you kick it its engineering ;-)

Tony

wafflycat said:

"Michael MacClancy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I only picked up on it because it's not the first time I've noticed this
usage of yours.

Oh! I have a stalker!

No, all you have is a habit of referring to your secondary school as
'grammar school'. I find that unusual. People I know who went to public
schools don't refer to their 'public school chemistry' and I've never heard
anyone refer to their 'comprehensive school chemistry'. I merely asked why
you do it. My comment about grammar school snobs was meant to be tongue in
cheek and therefore was followed by a smiley. Apologies if you felt it was
offensive.

Quoted message said:

Really, Michael, you shouldn't try to be a psychologist as you are very,
very bad at it.

That's something on which we'll have to differ.

--
Michael MacClancy

Michael MacClancy said:

I do believe you've been watching too much "Tricia", you read into things
what is not there.

So you went to the same grammar school as Helen!

"...."Tricia"; you read into things that which is not there"

Sigh!

Tony

On 31/3/05 12:33 am, in article
[email hidden], "James Annan"

Quoted message said:

Richard said:

David Martin wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Better drowned than duffers if not duffers won't drown"

But what are "duffers if not duffers"?

Someone didn't go to grammar school...

Someone who didn't spot the quotes indicating that this was a quotation, in
this case from a childrens story. The text is from a telegram sent by
Captain Walker RN to Mrs walker regarding their four children on holiday.

Ob cycling, in which of the books in the series is a crime solved (in part)
by identifying the make of a bicycle tyre from it's tread.

...d

in message <[email hidden]>, Danny Colyer

(') said:

It's presented by a purple dragon and, among others, the droolworthy
Sarah Jane Honeywell.

in message <[email hidden]>, Tim Hall

(') said:

Kathy Sykes does it for me, too......

What is it about a PC Rant that brings us all out in lust?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken. I found a rather battered tube of Araldite
resin in the bottom of the toolbag.

Richard said:

David Martin said:

On 30/3/05 3:15 pm, in article [email hidden], "Colin

Blackburn said:

Pyromancer wrote:

>That's the problem - people elevate "my child!!!" to a status higher
>than society as a whole. This is bad for society.

Yes, bloody selfish parents. If only they'd realise that the death of
their child might be good for society.

"Better drowned than duffers if not duffers won't drown"

But what are "duffers if not duffers"?

Roger.

It's a telegram and makes more sense if some punctuation is added:

"Better drowned than duffers. If not duffers, won't drown."

--
Michael MacClancy

in message <[email hidden]>, James

Annan (') said:

Richard said:

David Martin wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Better drowned than duffers if not duffers won't drown"

But what are "duffers if not duffers"?

Someone didn't go to grammar school...

He does, however, know his literature, and can quote accurately from it.

Simon, tacking back up the field towards Holly Howe.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Anagram: I'm soon broke.

David Martin said:

On 30/3/05 6:49 pm, in article

[email hidden],

Quoted message said:

"Tim Hall" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Kathy Sykes does it for me, too......

But shes a .....

...physicist!

Phwoorrr! Look at that mind!

--
Dave...

wafflycat said:

"Danny Colyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wafflycat said:

Indeedy-doodee, so kant b a grammer snob then!

Kant be a philosophy snob, bain't 'e?

Dunno Phil O'Sofee wernt in my klass. Is he Irish?

Down with skool!

BugBear

Richard Bates said:

Michael MacClancy said:

wafflycat said:

"Michael MacClancy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

>
> ... and not because you're one of those snooty grammar school snobs? ;-)
>
I do believe you've been watching too much "Tricia", you read into things
what is not there.

Oh, I wouldn't agree with that. The word 'grammar' was there and I assume
that it had a purpose. You could have referred to 'school chemistry' or
even 'secondary school chemistry', each of which would have been more
egalitarian than 'grammar school chemistry'.

I only picked up on it because it's not the first time I've noticed this
usage of yours.

Have you tried drinking Banks' Bitter?

BTW, didn't your school teach you that the possessive form of a personal
name ending in s is almost always 's as is Banks's?
--
Michael MacClancy

Tony Raven said:

...and if it doesn't work until you kick it its engineering ;-)

Oi! When I was learning engineering we would never do anything so
crude as kick it. We had a number of precise instruments we could
use to make things work... Ball peen hammer, lump hammer, mallet,
sledge hammer and so on...

Semi-related: http://tinyurl.com/4uzdm

Pete.

Michael MacClancy said:

Quoted message said:

Have you tried drinking Banks' Bitter?

BTW, didn't your school teach you that the possessive form of a personal
name ending in s is almost always 's as is Banks's?

Try telling that to St. Thomas' Hospital.

And there have been letters to the Times about that one.
(Hint - there were two St. Thomases involved)

"Pyromancer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as JLB
<[email hidden]> breathed:

Quoted message said:

There has to be some balance. I enjoyed metalwork at school but I've
got doubts about the occasion (mid 1970's) when we were making things
from cast aluminium; one of my friends dropped a crucible of molten
metal on the concrete floor and, propelled by vapourised moisture from
the floor, the whole class, assembled to watch, was showered with drops
of liquid aluminium. Clothes smouldering, hair burning and an
unfortunate few clutching their faces while stumbling about screaming.
Nobody was blinded. Perhaps it's not worth trying to prevent such
things. If you've got children how would you feel?

That's the problem - people elevate "my child!!!" to a status higher
than society as a whole. This is bad for society.

The problem is that the H&S Nazis are now going too far. They are trying to
eliminate risk and so are reducing the educational worth of any activity.
Risk is good. We have to learn to handle risk. It is when we cannot -- and
I fear we are breeding a generation unable to evaluate and compensate for
risk -- that accidents happen.

The explosions, bangs and evil stinks that were generated in school's chemi
lab (or outside in the middle of the field) were impressive. Much of this
thread is about people having been impressed by responsible teachers taking
limited risks. They were also relatively safe -- because we had teachers
able to assess the risks and design the bang to engender the right mix of
shock and awe.

Burning a 5 mm length of magnesium ribbon is fine. Setting light to a
significant chunk on the other side of the (large) school field in the
gloaming such that the whole bloody place was lit up for several seconds was
much more impressive. Chucking a bit of potassium or sodium in a bucket is
fine -- doing it across the field such that the bucket blew apart makes sure
no one in their right mind would 'try this at home'.

A late '50's penny (1d) banger would have the H&S Nazis rushing for their
risk assessments and modern kids diving for cover. Yet we carried them
round in our pockets and threw them at each other, cats, old biddies etc..
Acceptable risk -- no. It was dangerous and stupid -- too many got hurt.
It is reasonable to control such activities.

I visited a school recently and the kids had safety glasses, rubber gloves,
almost NBC suits on -- for one of those 'nice' chemical reactions where the
liquid changes colour then precipitates out a white sludge. For goodness
sake.

By the way, a '50's 3d banger would have the H&S Nazis diving for cover.
They would probably class them as 'munitions'. They were much more fun :~)