You know what would have won the humour? If there was a way to mix Nitrous oxide with Helium.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
>> ^Crake:
^Gunpowder contains its own oxidizer I believe, otherwise excellent questions.
Modern weapons will fire underwater and it's a sealed environment anyhow, the casing is air-tight and the whole reaction sends gas outwards so there would be no opportunity for oxygen or any other gas to get to the source of the explosion anyhow.


A barrel full of water means the gun does bugger all though.

>> ^Crake:
^Gunpowder contains its own oxidizer I believe, otherwise excellent questions.


Modern weapons will fire underwater and it's a sealed environment anyhow, the casing is air-tight and the whole reaction sends gas outwards so there would be no opportunity for oxygen or any other gas to get to the source of the explosion anyhow.

^Gunpowder contains its own oxidizer I believe, otherwise excellent questions.

ima kinda thinking its a nitrous oxide b00st

That's impossible - I just saw him in a commercial this morning!

The Oxi-Clean Man will now Oxidize in Peace - OIP Mr. Mays (RIP)

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^Gabe_b:
Doesn't pure Aluminum react violently with air? I vaguely remember from highschool science my teacher say that Aluminum you find in common use is covered by an oxidized layer, but if you can ever get a fresh piece, thats been stored in a medium like oil or turps, as soon as you pull it out it will burst into flames. I think he may have even demonstrated. The way it's burning after the flare up kind of suggest that reaction might be going on.


No, aluminium is a lot more stable than that. Other metals will react with air and moisture like potassium.

There's a very easy test of this. Get something aluminium and scratch the surface, revealing non-oxidised aluminium underneath. Watch for the flames...

Your video, Breathing Xenon: like sulphur hexafluoride + nitrous oxide, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Doesn't pure Aluminum react violently with air? I vaguely remember from highschool science my teacher say that Aluminum you find in common use is covered by an oxidized layer, but if you can ever get a fresh piece, thats been stored in a medium like oil or turps, as soon as you pull it out it will burst into flames. I think he may have even demonstrated. The way it's burning after the flare up kind of suggest that reaction might be going on.

>> ^RhesusMonk:
So, ahhh, that's just rust and aluminum? Like rust and aluminum? Like a rusty soda can? Somehow, this does not compute.


Iron (Fe) is less reactive than Aluminium (Al), so with enough starting energy, you can persuade Aluminium to steal the oxygen from rust, Iron Oxide (Fe2O3), to make Aluminium Oxide (Al203) and pure molten Iron. The equation is:

Fe2O3 + 2Al -> 2Fe + Al2O3 + Heat
Rust + Aluminium -> Iron + Aluminium Oxide + Heat

And yes, it's very easy to make some of this out of everyday materials - if you can find a way of finely powdering an Aluminium can or baseball bat and mixing it up with some powdered rust you have the ability to cut through Steel =)

Actually, all he would need is a simple fan blowing out the window (or more advanced, a gas hood) and he'd be fine, elemental mercury (quicksilver) does not absorb well through the skin although it does produce toxic vapours in low concentrations.

Mecury Oxide powder or fluro tube inner coatings are far more dangerous because their ease of inhalation.

I'm merely quoting my quantum physics professor.

Yes its a very LOW probability, but the probability exists. Quantum mechanics also says that if you run full speed into a wall enough times, one of those times you will pass right through it.

QM states that all particles exist in a statistical "distribution" rather than at a particular location. It is only when you measure the particle that the location becomes fixed in space-time. This principle allows electrons to "tunnel" through a thin oxide (high probability with applied voltage bias and/or temperature), and it also allows all the particles in your body to "tunnel" through a wall at the same time (infinitely low probability).

Likewise, there exists a probability that all the particles which form a "cat" could be measured in such an arrangement (because each particle exists as a statistical distribution) that they form a "horse," if only for a fleeting moment. Again INFINITELY low probability, but it does exist.

Mindf*ck eh? And I'm asserting that evolution is even harder to truly comprehend than this!


"And no, quantum mechanics doesn't say anything about cats transforming into horses. Quantum mechanics says that quantum particles exist in all possible states at all times unless they are observed. You'll be nominated for a golden crocoduck yourself if you keep saying things like that."

Just like pipp3355, I see that there are some major problems with this "experiment."

The subject even admitted that he had a more difficult time and he had to make an effort to concentrate harder.
The host admitted that the study was in NO WAY scientific or empirical.

Even though there wasn't much of any science in the video, you can find some science below:

According to the FDA, 249 medical marijuana patients were killed between 1/1/97 - 6/30/05. Marijuana, cannibis, and other Cannabinoids are listed as the secondary cause of death. It is unclear in the study how many people were prescribed marijuana between those dates.

From Wikipedia: "...a recent study by the Canadian government found cannabis contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke. It contained 20 times more ammonia, (a carcinogen), five times more hydrogen cyanide (which can cause heart disease) and nitrous oxides, (which can cause lung damage) than tobacco smoke.

Cannabis use has been linked to exacerbating the effects of psychosis, schizophrenia, bronchitis, and emphysema by several peer-reviewed studies for those who are vulnerable to such illnesses based on personal or family history.

In July 2007, British medical journal The Lancet published a study that indicates that cannabis users have, on average, a 41% greater risk of developing psychosis than non-users. The risk was most pronounced in cases with an existing risk of psychotic disorder, and was said to grow up to 200% for the most-frequent users.

While the long term and heavy use of cannabis is not linked to the severe or grossly debilitating cerebral effects associated with chronic heavy alcohol abuse, it has been LINKED to more subtle IMPAIRMENT associated with MEMORY, ATTENTION, AND COGNITIVE FUNCTION.

These mental impairments are likely the cause of the delusions that many marijuana users have about themselves while high. It's baffling that they can think for a minute that they have greater cognative abilities and sharper reflexes while under the influence of a drug that causes depressant and hallucinogenic side effects. The fact that cannibus use lowers blood pressure, impairs psychomotor coordination, hinders one's ability to concentrate, and negatively effects short-term memory is not up for debate. These things have been proven time and time again.


If it doesn't kill you, it will most certainly make you as dumb as a bag of nails.

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^jwray:
Methane doesn't last long in the atmosphere because of the excess oxygen. It's not a major long-term threat because of it's effective half-life of 8 years.

It is short-lived, but a given amount of methane also produces about 25x the warming as the same amount of carbon dioxide over a span of 100 years (I think it's 72x for 20 years).
Methane also tends to oxidize into carbon dioxide.

It may not be an issue, but it definitely could be. A period of 8 years is more than enough time to warm the planet enough to release more methane, further warming the earth and continuing the cycle.
I'm certainly not an expert in the field, but I have found enough info about it to be concerned.


Sudden warming events have happened many times in geological history without causing positive feedback that leads to any runaway warming effect. That's not to say it's impossible, but you're certainly overlooking forms of negative feedback.