|
On April 14 2008 02:33 Lemonwalrus wrote:
And gusbear, there was a time when anybody with basic scientific knowledge would have said that the world was flat, some times expected results do not match actual results...all I am saying.
I haven't watched the video and don't know what this is about but that's a stupid argument...
As if this show or whatever left the realm of what's been scientifically explored. 
|
Have you scientifically explored the effects of peanut butter, coke and toothpaste on scratched cd's? I will give you that my argument is extreme, as I wanted it to be to show my point, but I don't think it is stupid. He was simply looking at several things and saying, when combined, the results should be obvious, although they have rarely if ever been combined before...much like it would be hard to believe that two explosively flammable gases, hydrogen and oxygen, could combine to form an inflammable liquid, but they do. Meh, I didn't want to get into a debate or whatever, but calling that stupid is kinda harsh.
EDIT: Any prickishness gathered from this post is entirely unintended. :p
|
On April 14 2008 02:36 CDRdude wrote:
The best way to fix CD's and DVD's is with 2 apples, some sawdust, and a table saw. Really, it works perfectly, even on Blu-ray discs.
Instead of a table saw I use military grade anti-personnel lasers.
|
Yeah i rather just but the gaurteeded cleaners and pay for eletric bills over all that work
|
onion + gatorade battery made me lol
The best part was when they just jammed the USB plug into it.
|
So uh how do you remove scratches with toothpaste? Just rub it around?
|
LOL peanut butter and toothpaste, and COKE ROFL
so does it matter if you use crunchy peanut butter!? cuz i like crunchy peanut butter
edit: MY BAD DIET SODA cuz like theres a BIG DIFFERENCE
I'M GANNA GO TRY THIS NOW!
+ Show Spoiler [edit2] +and LOL at the Coke Bottle with the notes hahahahahaha
i loved how you couldn't even read what it said at the end lmao
|
On April 14 2008 03:48 DamageControL wrote:
So uh how do you remove scratches with toothpaste? Just rub it around?
I also want to know.
|
On April 14 2008 02:52 Lemonwalrus wrote:
much like it would be hard to believe that two explosively flammable gases, hydrogen and oxygen, could combine to form an inflammable liquid, but they do.
I'm not sure where to start on this one.
First off, "inflammable" means "flammable", not "nonflammable". That's a dangerous mistake to make, and too dangerous to let slide.
Oxygen isn't flammable. Burning is a reaction with oxygen. Oxygen doesn't react explosively with oxygen.
By definition, nothing is flammable after it has burned completely.
So, okay, if you knew nothing of hydrogen or water, it might be a little surprising if its combustion product was a liquid. Of course, the immediate product of combustion is actually water vapour, a gas. Like most compounds, water can exist in solid, liquid, or gas form depending on the temperature and pressure.
So really, without having any specific knowledge of hydrogen or water aside from their most obvious physical properties, there is nothing surprising about hydrogen combustion producing water, which is nonflammable and is a gas at combustion temperatures, but turns out to be liquid at room temperature and sea level pressure.
These videos exist to make fun of you for not understanding things like this.
I know you want to clap yourself on the back for your openmindedness, but openmindedness is often born of ignorance. If you knew more science, you'd be able to laugh these things off.
You don't need to make a specific experiment to see that water won't burn, or that jamming a USB plug into the side of an onion soaked in gatorade won't power it (in this case, it's not even knowledge of chemistry you need, but of the simplest principles of forming an electric circuit).
|
Alright, I give up. I was just responding to the fact that gusbear or w/e said that with a little scientific knowledge you should know that those 4 things, when combined, could in no way repair a scratched cd. I never defended it, or even said that it would work, I just wanted to point out that without either testing it or having vast knowledge of the substances involved and their chemistry, you can't just callously say that you would have to be an idiot to believe even for a second that it could work, thus calling several posters in this thread idiots in the process for not immediately tossing it out. Was I wrong? Did somebody change the scientific method?
And as for the inflammable thing, my bad, I honestly thought inflammable meant non-flammable. (Like indestructible = not able to be destroyed.) And I also admit that I used the improper adjectives to describe oxygen, although I think at this point you are being a bit nit-picky. And, as shrouded as it was, just fyi, I did pick up on the underhanded jab hidden in your openmindedness sentence. I am relatively sure that all of these videos are complete crap, but...meh, whatever, I'm done, thanks for being respectful while calling me a dunce, at least. 
|
How do you measure the polarity of an onion
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammability
The word "inflammable" came from Latin inflammāre = "to set fire to", where the prefix in- means "in" as in "inside" (compare English "in flames"). But there have been instances of people thinking that this "in-" prefix means "not" as in "invisible" and "incombustible" etc, and thus wrongly thinking that "inflammable" means "cannot burn". To avoid this safety hazard, the shortened word "flammable" has come into use in recent years.
At this point the word "inflammable, due to its confusing prefix, pretty much means non-flammable. Funchucks, I wouldn't say it was that dangerous of a mistake now days, when the word flammable has basically replaced it. Next time you're driving by a gas truck look for any markings, guaranteed somewhere it will have a picture of fire and the word "flammable"
|
On April 14 2008 04:48 HeadBangaa wrote:
How do you measure the polarity of an onion
Look through it at sunlight reflecting off of water and turn it.
The angle where all of the light passes through it is the positive terminal. The angle where none of the light passes through is the negative terminal.
|
On April 14 2008 05:06 sith wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlammabilityShow nested quote +The word "inflammable" came from Latin inflammāre = "to set fire to", where the prefix in- means "in" as in "inside" (compare English "in flames"). But there have been instances of people thinking that this "in-" prefix means "not" as in "invisible" and "incombustible" etc, and thus wrongly thinking that "inflammable" means "cannot burn". To avoid this safety hazard, the shortened word "flammable" has come into use in recent years. At this point the word "inflammable, due to its confusing prefix, pretty much means non-flammable. Funchucks, I wouldn't say it was that dangerous of a mistake now days, when the word flammable has basically replaced it. Next time you're driving by a gas truck look for any markings, guaranteed somewhere it will have a picture of fire and the word "flammable" That's wiki for you! Try a real dictionary.
edit: nvm I read what it said in wiki, you're correct in your own way, my bad
edit@below: hooookay go read the definitions again
i was giving you the benefit of the doubt but you just failed there
inflammable still doesn't mean non-flammable.
|
On April 14 2008 05:13 noobienoob wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2008 05:06 sith wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlammabilityThe word "inflammable" came from Latin inflammāre = "to set fire to", where the prefix in- means "in" as in "inside" (compare English "in flames"). But there have been instances of people thinking that this "in-" prefix means "not" as in "invisible" and "incombustible" etc, and thus wrongly thinking that "inflammable" means "cannot burn". To avoid this safety hazard, the shortened word "flammable" has come into use in recent years. At this point the word "inflammable, due to its confusing prefix, pretty much means non-flammable. Funchucks, I wouldn't say it was that dangerous of a mistake now days, when the word flammable has basically replaced it. Next time you're driving by a gas truck look for any markings, guaranteed somewhere it will have a picture of fire and the word "flammable" That's wiki for you! Try a real dictionary. edit: nvm I read what it said in wiki, you're correct in your own way, my bad
dictionary.com
—Usage note Inflammable and flammable both mean “combustible.” Inflammable is the older by about 200 years. Flammable now has certain technical uses, particularly as a warning on vehicles carrying combustible materials, because of a belief that some might interpret the intensive prefix in- of inflammable as a negative prefix and thus think the word means “noncombustible.” Inflammable is the word more usually used in nontechnical and figurative contexts: The speaker ignited the inflammable emotions of the crowd.
Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary
Inflammable is derived ultimately from the Latin prefix "in-", and the noun "flamma" (flame). There is another prefix in-, however which English also borrowed from Latin, that meants "not", and the word inflammable can be misunderstood as meaning "not capable of burning". In order to eliminate possibly dangerous confusion about the combustibility of various materials, safety officialis in the 20th centery have adopted the term flammable to mean "able to burn".
Wikipedia > You
|
sith, I don't think you're grasping the difference between a common misconception which must be taken into account to avoid confusion, and an accepted meaning.
The word "inflammable" used to be a common one, meaning "flammable." It is still written on many older signs and labels, and in older books, laws, and regulations, always meaning "flammable." It is important to understand this meaning correctly.
Many people are ignorant of this fact, but this does not make their misunderstanding correct.
It is never correct or acceptable to use "inflammable" to mean "nonflammable." It is best to use "flammable" rather than "inflammable" to avoid confusing ignorant people.
There is no conflict between these rules.
|
In case anyone is wondering about the toothpaste trick, yeah you just rub it around the CD in circles until it covers the CD (you don't need much, just enough to cover it. So probably less than a pea sized dollop). Then take a clean cloth or paper towel and just wipe it off completely clean (so you can't see any more toothpaste). As I've said, I have no idea why it works, but you can't really argue with results so =/
In my assumption though (I'm just making shit up and have no scientific facts to base this on so if you want to call bs on this next part, feel free to do so but try not to be demeaning please) I'd guess that something in the toothpaste is able to fill up the cracks while allowing the laser to skim over the section and not get hung up over it. Hence why it works mostly with minor scratches.
As for why all the items in the video might help with more severe scratches, maybe the peanut butter has something in it (natural oils, minerals or something) that along with the toothpaste is able to fill in larger gaps and allow the laser to read it smoothly. While the soda dissolves the top layer (or bottom layer depending on how you choose to see it) making the cracks even less noticeable, and less likely for the laser to get caught on them.
Edit: Also reading through the youtube comments, some people seem to be saying that it's only the toothpaste doing all the work, and all the extra shit is just to make it appear more magical than it actually is.
|
Some kinds of toothpaste are abrasive. You can use them as a polishing paste.
I doubt people are actually polishing the scratches right out with toothpaste, but they're probably at least smoothing the sharp edges off, so they don't affect the light beam as much.
Another thing that helps DVDs is to fill the scratches with wax. Waxy furniture polish is often recommended, but I've had luck just rubbing candles on the scratches.
|
Belgium6786 Posts
Lol @ the flammable vs inflammable debate
Simpsons' dr Nick anyone?
|
The CD one works for sure. I don't know why everyone is so dubious of it just because it's on the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
