Your video, Slow Motion Lithium Combustion, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

"the formation of an oxide (Li2O) and peroxide (Li2O2) when burnt in O2" - wiki

Lithium oxide?

So, what's leftover when you burn a chunk of pure lithium?

Yea there is also a similar method



you may hear cops refer to it as the "Shake and Bake" method

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
644;▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
;▬▬▬▬▬
Materials : 1 box of pseudo-ephedrine pills, 1 Cold-Compress pack, a bottle of lye crystals, 2 AA energizer lithium batteries, Coleman fuel, Iodized salt, sulfuric acid or Muriatic acid, 2 20oz bottles, coffee filters, a clear hose about 6 - 12" long, funnel, 2 Pint Mason jars, and lineman pliers.

first off, make sure your working in a clean and safe area. Clean both of the 20oz bottles with some paper towels and a clothes hanger, rinse with Coleman fuel, and repeat. You want the bottles to be clean as possible to make clean dope.

After you clean one bottle, use your funnel and one coffee filter and put 8 oz of Coleman fuel in the bottle. Then, using your lineman pliers, obtain the lithium metal from the batteries, tear them small balls and put them in your fuel. After you get both your lithium strips in, add 3 tablespoons of crushed Ammonia nitrate from the cold compress pack, and 3 tablespoons of lye crystals. Shake the bottle and get a reaction going. After you get a good reaction add your crushed pseudo-ephedrine and let it cook for 45 minutes to an hour. Burping the bottle when it get tight. refrain from shaking the bottle in the during the last 15 minutes of the cook.

Their should be a good amount of copper "b.b.s" floating with your lithium strips. this is a good sign your cook is close to finished. Clean out the mason jar you have ready, and use 3-4 filters to filter off your cook into the mason jar.

Now its time to make a smoke bottle, either using sulfuric acid or Muriatic acid. Clean the 20oz bottle like before, and make a hole in the cap big enough for your hose. if your using sulfuric acid, add 1 tablespoon of salt to the bottle and just a couple drops of sulfuric acid. If your using Muriatic acid, put 3-4 balls of aluminum foil in the bottle and a couple drops of Muriatic acid. Put the hose right above your fuel in the mason jar and watch the dope drop.

Hit it with the smoke a couple times and stir it up until it doesn't drop anymore, then filter this into another mason jar, and you got your first pull in the filter. dry it out and test it. then take the fuel you poured off and put it back in the cook bottle. cook it for about 30 minutes and try for a second pull.

You should yield about a gram, to a gram and a half of Methamphetamine.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
644;▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
;▬▬▬▬▬▬



That's the shake and bake for easy meth in a bottle, you can make it in an old soda bottle.

You're confusing the philosophy of "empiricism" with "empirical data". The two are semantically related, but the former derives its name from the latter, not the other way around, just as stoic people are not necessarily stoicists, nor all humans humanitarian, nor all who exist existentialist.

The scientific method is founded upon empiricism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

I'll let some physics majors sort you out on this one:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-184699.html

Science is based on no philosophy. The scientific method can be derived entirely from logic, which Craig just told us is a rational thing to believe in (I agree). It happens that the scientific method can only be applied to empirical data (which is separate from the philosophy of empiricism), which is defined simply as information gathered from the senses. This has nothing to do with beliefs about what is knowable. Nothing in science suggests any opinion on what else is knowable or not, just what appears to be or not to be a candidate for experiment. Science is incapable of determining whether abortion is morally wrong, and it takes no stance on whether that information is knowable. That's a question for philosophers and such.

I think you're forgetting that scientists are not objective, and must interpret the data, which can have as much to do with philosophy and belief as anything else. Check this out:

http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/sci/sm6.htm

I can also give you an example. At www.cosmologystatement.org there is an open letter to the scientific community, which is signed by over 500 scientists who doubt the big bang theory. These aren't creationists, btw. An excerpt:

"big bang relies on a growing number of never observed entities. inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc, it cant survive without these fudge factors..in no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by the astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. so discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.

this reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry."

This was published in New Scientist magazine in 2004.

Are you still dubious of science, or just empiricism now? If you still are, can you point to any faulty information or conclusions science has arrived at that you are dubious about? Or if I've improperly worded the question to best get at your issues with science, please provide some specifics about science's methods, conclusions, or whatever that give you discomfort.

My trouble with empiricism is really more of a philosophical issue. I know empiricism can get results which are trustworthy, although the conclusions that people draw from them are a different story. I really just a have problem with things which aren't science; ie, theories or practices which have no hard evidence, which cannot be been tested or observed. I'll list them:

Big Bang Cosmology
Radiometric Dating
Uniformitarian Geology
Macro Evolution

>> ^messenger

Totally true. If we are the most advanced, and the universe is indeed full of life, that signifies one of two things:

1. Other civilzations have been more advanced before us, and died out.
or
2. We are the first to reach this level of advancement

Either proposition is kinda scary to me.

I kinda dig this latest news bit about the star just found to be way off in the expected levels of lithium. One of the proposed explanations is that some advanced civilization sucked all the lithium out of the star, either to make use of it as a resource, or to use it as a signal of their presence.

>> ^brycewi19:

If NdT wants to imagine that there intelligent life out in the cosmos whose intelligence is greater than humans, then I would hope that he might also lay awake at night and imagine the possibility that humans might be the highest level of intelligence in the universe, too.
I'm just saying, if you want to posit theories on the premise that humans might pale in intelligence on the spectrum of intelligent beings, I think it would be equally as wise to question the possibility that we might be at the top of that spectrum. You have to at least rule it out.
Science: consider all hypotheses before running away with a conclusion.

Comes with the Dildo slipper and lithium batteries.

The discovery channel clip was slightly wrong in that most of the planetary accretion occurs before hydrogen fusion begins in the star. The radiation from a T Tauri star (which derives its energy mainly from gravity, but also from lithium/deuterium in later stages) dissipates the unbound gas/dust in the circumstellar disk long before hydrogen fusion begins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_Tauri_star

>> ^RedSky:

I like how religious people can never decide if God intervenes or not.


Well, we all know he doesn't! That would negate free will!

You just need to read the Great Bible he gave us to make our decisions. I'm going to go take my lithium and read "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe". Toodaloo!

/Yes, it's actually "tout a l'heure", us silly Americans.

^I ain't the forgivin' type.

As I write this it looks like Repubs will take control of the House and the Dems will retain control of the Senate. So you won't be able to have your wish fulfilled in its entirety, @blankfist, because now we'll only be able to loathe one legislative chamber. We'll all probably become manic-depressive because of it, so make sure to take your lithium.

But let's try to be positive. Let it comfort you to know that in 2012 we'll have another crop of losers to vote for. Feel better?

>> ^Xaielao:

There are certain diamond outlets that guarantee that their precious metals and gems do not come from conflict. I'm not sure which ones but I do know they are out there. A few google searches could probably tell ya.
On the topic this happens every day around the world. The rich and powerful bleeding third world countries dry for their resources. For example, you think Afghanistan is a terrible war now? They just discovered some of the largest deposits of gold and other precious metals like lithium there, at least a trillion dollars worth. So Afghanistan's war today will be the oppression and slaughter of millions over the next many years as rich mega-corps that care nothing for the people vie for the riches. And because Afghanistan is a broken, unorganized third world country, they won't become richer, they will become even more squalid as a nation.


Isn't that a rather oversimplified explanation though? Doesn't consumer demand drive the price of commodities and metals higher? And doesn't the increase in money for poor, relatively backwards countries encourage warlords? How could you guarantee something like that? Metal and diamonds are fungible, so it seems like any guarantee would be paper thin. Aren't the warlords ultimately failures of the governments of those countries more than corporations and demand for goods? Isn't the demand of goods from a poor country one of the only ways to break out of extreme poverty? If we aren't going to buy their goods, what hope do they ever have or raising the funds to combat local warlords?

I think the problem exists because the world is far less simple than you suppose. There is an interesting capitalist third world economist that talks about one of the real problems of poor countries is their lack of governments defining what private property means. This results in might makes right type of situations. Many third world countries need revolutions in ideas before they will ever achieve modern economic prosperity.

There are certain diamond outlets that guarantee that their precious metals and gems do not come from conflict. I'm not sure which ones but I do know they are out there. A few google searches could probably tell ya.

On the topic this happens every day around the world. The rich and powerful bleeding third world countries dry for their resources. For example, you think Afghanistan is a terrible war now? They just discovered some of the largest deposits of gold and other precious metals like lithium there, at least a trillion dollars worth. So Afghanistan's war today will be the oppression and slaughter of millions over the next many years as rich mega-corps that care nothing for the people vie for the riches. And because Afghanistan is a broken, unorganized third world country, they won't become richer, they will become even more squalid as a nation.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'grundge rock, rip kurt cobain' to 'nirvana, lithium, nevermind, grunge, rip kurt cobain' - edited by kronosposeidon

i wont be happy until its lithium rechargeable and .001% of them burst into flames