[krw]

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:08:41 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:37:05 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 03:10:55 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:30:33 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

It's hard to research, at least quickly, because silver oxide is
usually dismissed as "an insulator."

That must be why they use it for battery anodes in silver oxide
batteries. D'oh!

You are dismissed as being insulated from rational thought, based on
your "always wrong" baby bull****.

As if this means more than doped or electrolyte-soaked-porous silver
oxide being "reasonably conductive"?

Is this supposed to be any support for your claim that silver oxide is
more conductive than pure silver?

Some of the audiophool sites claim that silver oxide conducts better
than silver, and cite the battery thing as proof. That's probably
where he picked up the notion.

So, why aren't they making their cables out of silver oxide?


Wouldn't it be a little bit on the brittle side?

Thanks,
Rich

Do you guys literally guess at EVERYTHING?

In mommy's sock drawer again, eh Dimbulb?

--
Keith

[JosephKK]

Don Klipstein posted to sci.electronics.design:

In article ,
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:30:33 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

It's hard to research, at least quickly, because silver oxide is
usually dismissed as "an insulator."

That must be why they use it for battery anodes in silver oxide
batteries. D'oh!

You are dismissed as being insulated from rational thought, based
on
your "always wrong" baby bull****.

As if this means more than doped or electrolyte-soaked-porous
silver
oxide being "reasonably conductive"?

Is this supposed to be any support for your claim that silver
oxide is
more conductive than pure silver?

- Don Klipstein )

See the Wikipedia entry on silver - oxide (redox reactions) battery.
Monomolecular films involved in the redox reactions do not need to be
normally conductive as it is a reaction location.

[Arny Krueger]

"Martin Brown" wrote in
message
ups.com
On Oct 2, 9:33 pm, John Larkin
wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:20:18 GMT, Rich Grise
wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:38:52 +0000, Paul Stamler wrote:

Dihydrogen oxide is a fairly good conductor.

Actually, in its pure form it's a fairly good insulator.

Agreed.

Although it doesn't stay pure for very long in a closed
circuit in contact with most common metals used for heat
sinks. You need the right surface passivators in it to
avoid rapid corrosion. Ultra pure water is surprisingly
corrosive towards most metals - something which has
caught people out in the past.

Pure water is about the closest thing to a universal solvent there is on
earth.

Yup. You can water-cool the anode of a transmitting
tube, 20KV off ground or so, with pure water flowing
through plastic tubes.

So long as the water is kept pure and the right corrosion
inhibitors are used.

Nevertheless, most people seem to take the time to figure out how to keep
the tube's anodes at chassis ground.

[Phildo]

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...
Oddly enough, Hagerman (presumably the designer of this gadget) has made
some more-than-decent, well-designed and cost-effective phono preamp
designs
over the years. Wonder what happened.

He realised there were an awful lot of gullible audiophools out there that
had money to spend?

Phildo

[David Brown]

ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:53:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Pure water is about the closest thing to a universal solvent there is on
earth.


Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most of the
work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the water.

The soap also breaks down fat molecules, so that they can then dissolve
in water (or at least emulsify in the water). That's why soap is
crucial for hygiene - it destroys the fatty cell walls of bacteria. I
always think it's amusing to see "anti-bacterial soap" - if it's not
anti-bacterial, it's not soap.

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:29:02 +0200, David Brown wrote:
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:53:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Pure water is about the closest thing to a universal solvent there is on
earth.

Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most of the
work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the water.

The soap also breaks down fat molecules, so that they can then dissolve
in water (or at least emulsify in the water). That's why soap is
crucial for hygiene - it destroys the fatty cell walls of bacteria. I
always think it's amusing to see "anti-bacterial soap" - if it's not
anti-bacterial, it's not soap.

Didn't they once make soap out of ashes and animal fat?

Thanks,
Rich

[David Brown]

Rich Grise wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:29:02 +0200, David Brown wrote:
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:53:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Pure water is about the closest thing to a universal solvent there is on
earth.
Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most of the
work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the water.
The soap also breaks down fat molecules, so that they can then dissolve
in water (or at least emulsify in the water). That's why soap is
crucial for hygiene - it destroys the fatty cell walls of bacteria. I
always think it's amusing to see "anti-bacterial soap" - if it's not
anti-bacterial, it's not soap.

Didn't they once make soap out of ashes and animal fat?


Yes. It was one of the major products from whale hunting.

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

[Dave Platt]

In article ,
David Brown wrote:

Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most of the
work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the water.

The soap also breaks down fat molecules, so that they can then dissolve
in water (or at least emulsify in the water). That's why soap is
crucial for hygiene - it destroys the fatty cell walls of bacteria. I
always think it's amusing to see "anti-bacterial soap" - if it's not
anti-bacterial, it's not soap.

Apparently soap also has anti-viral benefits, in at least some cases.
It's important to wash out animal-bite wounds with soap and water, as
the soap will help denature any rabies virus which may be present.
Using a topical antiseptic may not have the same benefit.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

[Richard Henry]

On Oct 4, 1:05 pm, David Brown
wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:29:02 +0200, David Brown wrote:
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:53:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Pure water is about the closest thing to a universal solvent there is on
earth.
Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most of the
work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the water.
The soap also breaks down fat molecules, so that they can then dissolve
in water (or at least emulsify in the water). That's why soap is
crucial for hygiene - it destroys the fatty cell walls of bacteria. I
always think it's amusing to see "anti-bacterial soap" - if it's not
anti-bacterial, it's not soap.

Didn't they once make soap out of ashes and animal fat?

Yes. It was one of the major products from whale hunting.

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

The word "whale" does not appear in the wikipedia article you cited.

[Richard Crowley]

"Rich Grise" wrote ...
David Brown wrote:
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Pure water is about the closest thing to a universal solvent there is
on
earth.

Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most of
the
work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the water.

The soap also breaks down fat molecules, so that they can then dissolve
in water (or at least emulsify in the water). That's why soap is
crucial for hygiene - it destroys the fatty cell walls of bacteria. I
always think it's amusing to see "anti-bacterial soap" - if it's not
anti-bacterial, it's not soap.

Didn't they once make soap out of ashes and animal fat?

But the strong alkalies in the ashes chemically changed the
fat by a process called "saponification". At least that is my
understanding since I know nothing about organic chemistry.
http://www.cleaning101.com/cleaning/chemistry/
http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/blsapon.htm

[William Sommerwerck]

ACTUALLY, the soap reduces the surface tension of the water so
that it can undermine the dirt wherever it resides. THEN it can be
put into suspension. If it were not for the water, there would be
no cleaning, and nothing to suspend.

Are you ever wrong. Try washing your hands with GoJo or a similar product.

[krw]

In article , says...
In article ,
David Brown wrote:

Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most of the
work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the water.

The soap also breaks down fat molecules, so that they can then dissolve
in water (or at least emulsify in the water). That's why soap is
crucial for hygiene - it destroys the fatty cell walls of bacteria. I
always think it's amusing to see "anti-bacterial soap" - if it's not
anti-bacterial, it's not soap.

Apparently soap also has anti-viral benefits, in at least some cases.
It's important to wash out animal-bite wounds with soap and water, as
the soap will help denature any rabies virus which may be present.
Using a topical antiseptic may not have the same benefit.

I thought the idea was to wash away the virus, rather than "killing"
it. ...same with bacteria.


--
Keith

[Dave Platt]

In article ,
krw wrote:

Apparently soap also has anti-viral benefits, in at least some cases.
It's important to wash out animal-bite wounds with soap and water, as
the soap will help denature any rabies virus which may be present.
Using a topical antiseptic may not have the same benefit.

I thought the idea was to wash away the virus, rather than "killing"
it. ...same with bacteria.

Both effects are beneficial, of course. I believe that soapy water
provides both forms of protection... it'll help remove much of the
virus load, and denature much of what's left on the skin.

I saw a news item recently which gave soap-and-water washes strong
points over simple disinfection (i.e. alcohol-based gels) in another
case... in cases where bacteria with spore-forming abilities are
present. Seems that alcohol doesn't work terribly well against the
spores (since they're dehydration-resistant, and that's alcohol's
primary way of killing bacteria).

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

[Lumpy]

Dave Platt wrote:
Both effects are beneficial, of course. I believe that soapy water
provides both forms of protection... it'll help remove much of the
virus load, and denature much of what's left on the skin.

The primary means of disenfecting the hands of surgeons
and nurses scrubbing in the OR is the physical act of
"scrubbing" and "flooding" with water.

Lumpy

You were the "OPERATION" game voice?
Yes. Take out wrenched ankle.

www.LumpyVoice.com

[JosephKK]

ChairmanOfTheBored posted to
sci.electronics.design:

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 04:17:18 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:53:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Pure water is about the closest thing to a universal solvent
there is on earth.

Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most
of the
work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the
water.

Actually, the soap/detergent molecules surround the shmutz, making
it easier to "float the dirt right down the drain".

ACTUALLY, the soap reduces the surface tension of the water so
that it
can undermine the dirt wherever it resides. THEN it can be put into
suspension. If it were not for the water, there would be no
cleaning, and nothing to suspend.

Nonsense. Almost any carrier liquid will do, such as alcohols, oils,
HCFC's, ethers, DMSO, and many others. Surely you have heard of "dry
cleaning"; no water used.

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:39:59 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:

ACTUALLY, the soap reduces the surface tension of the water so
that it can undermine the dirt wherever it resides. THEN it can be
put into suspension. If it were not for the water, there would be
no cleaning, and nothing to suspend.

Are you ever wrong. Try washing your hands with GoJo or a similar product.

I never use that kind of crap. I just hate for my hands to feel greasier
after I wash them than they did before.

If my hands get really grubby (which they do when your office opens
onto a fab shop) I use cleanser. ;-)

Thanks,
Rich

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:11:18 -0700, Lumpy wrote:
Dave Platt wrote:
Both effects are beneficial, of course. I believe that soapy water
provides both forms of protection... it'll help remove much of the
virus load, and denature much of what's left on the skin.

The primary means of disenfecting the hands of surgeons
and nurses scrubbing in the OR is the physical act of
"scrubbing" and "flooding" with water.


I wonder if they use ordinary tap water, or if their hand-washing
water is specially sterilized?

Thanks,
Rich

[William Sommerwerck]

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:11:18 -0700, Lumpy wrote:
Dave Platt wrote:

Both effects are beneficial, of course. I believe that soapy
water provides both forms of protection... it'll help remove
much of the virus load, and denature much of what's left
on the skin.

The primary means of disenfecting the hands of surgeons
and nurses scrubbing in the OR is the physical act of
"scrubbing" and "flooding" with water.

There was a time when surgeons washed with pHisohex. The hexachlorophene
(supposedly) sticks to the skin and provides residual, continuing
antibacterial action.

[Phildo]

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:11:18 -0700, Lumpy wrote:
Dave Platt wrote:
Both effects are beneficial, of course. I believe that soapy water
provides both forms of protection... it'll help remove much of the
virus load, and denature much of what's left on the skin.

The primary means of disenfecting the hands of surgeons
and nurses scrubbing in the OR is the physical act of
"scrubbing" and "flooding" with water.


I wonder if they use ordinary tap water, or if their hand-washing
water is specially sterilized?

I know at the hospital where I had my surgery it was sterilised.

Phildo

[David Brown]

Richard Henry wrote:
On Oct 4, 1:05 pm, David Brown
wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:29:02 +0200, David Brown wrote:
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:53:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
Pure water is about the closest thing to a universal solvent there is on
earth.
Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most of the
work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the water.
The soap also breaks down fat molecules, so that they can then dissolve
in water (or at least emulsify in the water). That's why soap is
crucial for hygiene - it destroys the fatty cell walls of bacteria. I
always think it's amusing to see "anti-bacterial soap" - if it's not
anti-bacterial, it's not soap.
Didn't they once make soap out of ashes and animal fat?
Yes. It was one of the major products from whale hunting.

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

The word "whale" does not appear in the wikipedia article you cited.


I know - the two lines of my reply are independent. I added the
wikipedia reference to give people more information about how soap
works. I think it's a little strange that the wikipedia article does
not mention whales - at the peak of the whaling industries in Scotland
and Canada, I believe most high-quality soap came from whale oil.

[David Brown]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Didn't they once make soap out of ashes and animal fat?

Yes. It was one of the major products from whale hunting.

I don't think that's correct. Whale fat was rendered for lamp oil, among
other things. There'd be no point in using it for soap, when other animal
fats were so readily available.



http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-641432/whale-oil

There is no doubt that whale oil was made into soap, although I'm
beginning to doubt my claim that it was a "major" product - I haven't
found many references on the net. Perhaps it was a more local
phenomenon that I thought, and was more restricted to whaling nations
rather than exported.

[David Brown]

Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,
David Brown wrote:

Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most of the
work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the water.
The soap also breaks down fat molecules, so that they can then dissolve
in water (or at least emulsify in the water). That's why soap is
crucial for hygiene - it destroys the fatty cell walls of bacteria. I
always think it's amusing to see "anti-bacterial soap" - if it's not
anti-bacterial, it's not soap.

Apparently soap also has anti-viral benefits, in at least some cases.
It's important to wash out animal-bite wounds with soap and water, as
the soap will help denature any rabies virus which may be present.
Using a topical antiseptic may not have the same benefit.


I think that's more a matter of hot soap and water being a good general
cleaner - you wash the virus particles off the wound. That's different
from with bacteria, as the soap will kill the bacteria by destroying
their cell walls. Viruses have a protein shell, rather than a fatty
wall, and are not directly affected by the soap.

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:25:18 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:05:13 +0200, David Brown
wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:29:02 +0200, David Brown wrote:
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:53:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Pure water is about the closest thing to a universal solvent there is on
earth.
Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most of the
work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the water.
The soap also breaks down fat molecules, so that they can then dissolve
in water (or at least emulsify in the water). That's why soap is
crucial for hygiene - it destroys the fatty cell walls of bacteria. I
always think it's amusing to see "anti-bacterial soap" - if it's not
anti-bacterial, it's not soap.

Didn't they once make soap out of ashes and animal fat?


Yes. It was one of the major products from whale hunting.

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

It was actually most often made from beef tallow here in the US.

Whale product that was and still is the most sought after is whale oil
for use in race car differential gear housings.

Any gyro bearings in inertial guidance systems.

John

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:09:37 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Rich Grise" wrote in message
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:11:18 -0700, Lumpy wrote:
Dave Platt wrote:

Both effects are beneficial, of course. I believe that soapy
water provides both forms of protection... it'll help remove
much of the virus load, and denature much of what's left
on the skin.

The primary means of disenfecting the hands of surgeons
and nurses scrubbing in the OR is the physical act of
"scrubbing" and "flooding" with water.

There was a time when surgeons washed with pHisohex. The hexachlorophene
(supposedly) sticks to the skin and provides residual, continuing
antibacterial action.

I was once at the medical hobby shop[1] on some air base, and some
guy came in and asked for some Phisohex; the nurse guy at the
counter said, "Oh, that's just hexachlorophene; it's the same
thing used in some OTC "deodorant" soap that I don't remember
the name of."

Cheers!
Rich
[1] That's the popular term on air bases for the base hospital -
all the workers there are GIs too, you know. ;-)

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

"Phildo" wrote:

Hint -
I live across the pond on the island that originally invented your country
until you took it and f*cked it up. They have no idea where their country
and language originated.

Where did the population and language of that island originate?

Where did your family originate ?


And why isn't it speaking German today?

Because the Germans lost the Battle of Britain.

Graham

[Eeyore]

ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:

Even over there, the proper word is STERILIZED.

Your ignorance, arrogance and stupidity apparently know no bounds. Typical
American in fact.

Graham

[William Sommerwerck]

"GoldIntermetallicEmbrittlement"
g wrote in message
...

[Hexachlorophene] is also the same **** that was banned
for decades due to carcinogenic fears.

No, it was banned because it was considered a poison. Some babies in France
died after inhaling (?) baby powder containing hexachlorophene. Everybody
got scared. Instead of banning specific products, all consumer OTC use was
banned.

I used pHisohex when I had acne. I still have a bottle or two of pHisoderm
to wash my hands when they're unusually dirty, or need a bit of
moisturizing.

[David Brown]

ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:06:53 +0200, David Brown
wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Didn't they once make soap out of ashes and animal fat?
Yes. It was one of the major products from whale hunting.
I don't think that's correct. Whale fat was rendered for lamp oil, among
other things. There'd be no point in using it for soap, when other animal
fats were so readily available.


http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-641432/whale-oil

There is no doubt that whale oil was made into soap,

Bull****. Whale TALLOW MAYBE, but whale oil was far more profitable to
utilize in other areas.


You didn't try the link, did you?

It seems that whale fat was converted into oil, and whale oil into fat,
depending on what had the greatest market demand at the time. So whale
oil *was* made into soap (after first hydrogenating it to a fat), but
most whale soap was made directly from whale fat.

[William Sommerwerck]

"David Brown" wrote in message
...

It seems that whale fat was converted into oil, and whale oil into
fat, depending on what had the greatest market demand at the
time. So whale oil *was* made into soap (after first hydrogenating
it to a fat), but most whale soap was made directly from whale fat.

I'm a bit confused here. Whale oil was (AFAIK) derived from blubber by
rendering it. I wouldn't call this "conversion", but rather extraction. (One
does not "convert" peanuts into peanut oil, other than in the metaphorical
sense -- "He converted his stock holdings into cash".)

I don't understand the distinction between fats and oils. Aren't oils fats?
I doubt whalers were making their own Crisco on-board (though I'm sure some
would have appreciated its lubricating ahem properties). If you believe
the Wikipedia article, commercial hydrogenation did not occur before 1905.

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

The Wikipedia article on Crisco states that it was first produced in 1911.
The name is derived from "crystallized cottonseed oil". It was originally
intended for candles!

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

When I think of Crisco, I can't help but think of Bob & Ray's spoofs --
"It's so digestible!"

[David Brown]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"David Brown" wrote in message
...

It seems that whale fat was converted into oil, and whale oil into
fat, depending on what had the greatest market demand at the
time. So whale oil *was* made into soap (after first hydrogenating
it to a fat), but most whale soap was made directly from whale fat.

I'm a bit confused here. Whale oil was (AFAIK) derived from blubber by
rendering it. I wouldn't call this "conversion", but rather extraction. (One
does not "convert" peanuts into peanut oil, other than in the metaphorical
sense -- "He converted his stock holdings into cash".)


I'm afraid I can't help you out of your confusion - I don't know the
details myself. All I know about the subject is that one of the
products from whales was soap, and beyond that what I've read in the
Wikipedia and Britanica articles mentioned, which imply (amongst other
things) that whale oil was hydrogenated to fat. I'd agree that this
sounds a bit odd if the oil itself came first from the blubber (which
is, after all, fat).

As far as the distinction between oils and fats goes, I think they are
basically the same thing but with different chain lengths (and hence
different physical properties such as melting points) depending on the
addition or subtraction of hydrogen. But again, I can't say I know a
lot about this, so I'm happy to be corrected.

mvh.,

David


I don't understand the distinction between fats and oils. Aren't oils fats?
I doubt whalers were making their own Crisco on-board (though I'm sure some
would have appreciated its lubricating ahem properties). If you believe
the Wikipedia article, commercial hydrogenation did not occur before 1905.

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

The Wikipedia article on Crisco states that it was first produced in 1911.
The name is derived from "crystallized cottonseed oil". It was originally
intended for candles!

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

When I think of Crisco, I can't help but think of Bob & Ray's spoofs --
"It's so digestible!"

[Don Klipstein]

In article , David Brown wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"David Brown" wrote in message
...

It seems that whale fat was converted into oil, and whale oil into
fat, depending on what had the greatest market demand at the
time. So whale oil *was* made into soap (after first hydrogenating
it to a fat), but most whale soap was made directly from whale fat.

I'm a bit confused here. Whale oil was (AFAIK) derived from blubber by
rendering it. I wouldn't call this "conversion", but rather extraction. (One
does not "convert" peanuts into peanut oil, other than in the metaphorical
sense -- "He converted his stock holdings into cash".)


I'm afraid I can't help you out of your confusion - I don't know the
details myself. All I know about the subject is that one of the
products from whales was soap, and beyond that what I've read in the
Wikipedia and Britanica articles mentioned, which imply (amongst other
things) that whale oil was hydrogenated to fat. I'd agree that this
sounds a bit odd if the oil itself came first from the blubber (which
is, after all, fat).

Oils of the kind that are glyceryl esters of fatty acids are classified
as fats, no matter how liquid they are, at least as food substance
classification if you are going to eat food having these.

They also work for making soap, though vegetable oils may well make
soaps less desirable than those made from animal fats.

Meanwhile, sperm whales have some oil reservoir within themselves which
contain "spermaceti" or "sperm oil", separate from blubber, which was
particularly desirable for some reasons but it was still both dietarily
an animal fat and chemically a fat.

As far as the distinction between oils and fats goes, I think they are
basically the same thing but with different chain lengths (and hence
different physical properties such as melting points) depending on the
addition or subtraction of hydrogen. But again, I can't say I know a
lot about this, so I'm happy to be corrected.

Another thing: Cis/trans versions of chain orientation about double
bonds. One example: Oleic acid vs. elaidic acid (along with glyceryl
esters of these). Both are C18 monounsaturated fatty acids with the
double bond in the same position (I somewhat remember "#9", as in between
the 9th and 10th carbon atoms down the chain if the carbon atom in the
carboxylic end is counted as #1). The only difference is that oleic is
"cis" and elaidic is "trans". Oleic acid and elaidic acid have very
different melting points (elaidic is solid even at human body
temperature).

Most trans fatty acids and glyceryl esters thereof in the average
American diet come from partial hydrogenation of polyunsaturated fats in
vegetable oils.

- Don Klipstein )

[Phildo]

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
Hint -
I live across the pond on the island that originally invented your country
until you took it and f*cked it up. They have no idea where their country
and language originated.

Where did the population and language of that island originate?

Various places same as every country in the world, especially yours.

And
why isn't it speaking German today?

Because we kicked German butt (with a little help from you guys because you
had no other real choice), even though the grandfather of your current
president saw fit to supply war materials to the Nazis instead.

They have no idea where their country
and language originated.

Absurd.

Sadly true. Come on, people over there actually believe FOX news. While it
is certainly not true of all septics, there is an awful lot of very gullible
and clueless people over there.

Phildo

[Phildo]

"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 01:29:12 +0100, "Phildo" wrote:


"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
. ..
I know at the hospital where I had my surgery it was sterilised.

That's Z for STERILIZED,

Typical septic, cannot comprehend that there is a world outside their own
country and have *******ised the language that they borrowed from us.

It was intentional, ****tard. So much for what you think you know.

Typical septic. Foul-mouthed, ignorant and belligerant.

Hint -

I don't need any hints from a ****tard like you.

Typical septic. Foul-mouthed, ignorant and belligerant

I live across the pond on the island that originally invented your country
until you took it and f*cked it up. They have no idea where their country
and language originated.

So much for what you know about your own word derivatives and origins.

Typical septic. Foul-mouthed, ignorant and belligerant

Yeah right, you ****ing retard. The word STERILE is a British origin
word.

Typical septic. Foul-mouthed, ignorant and belligerant

The word STERILIZE is as well, and dates back to 1695, but there IS NO
word sterilise or sterilised.

Typical septic. Foul-mouthed, ignorant and belligerant

So **** off with your "we're from across the pond" retarded baby
bull****.

Typical septic. Foul-mouthed, ignorant and belligerant

Yes, you are that. You and the other ****ing ASS retard should learn
how to spell.

I can spell just fine. You should learn to recognise it. I'm sorry my
intellect is such that it flies waaaaaay over your head but keep up with the
English lessons and you might get a clue one day.

Phildo

[Phildo]

"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
...
He's a ****ing idiot, and he got it just as wrong as the DonkTard did.
Even over there, the proper word is STERILIZED.

Not according to my sources but then you spetics can never see across your
own borders unless it is to steal oil away from another country under the
pretence of looking for (non-existant) WMDs.

Origin 1695. No entry at all for sterilised.

Source?

Phildo

[Phildo]

"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
...
Your country needs to be sterilized of ****ing scum like you.

Typical septic. Foul-mouthed, ignorant and belligerent

Phildo

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:36:28 +0100, Phildo wrote:
"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
...
Your country needs to be sterilized of ****ing scum like you.

Typical septic. Foul-mouthed, ignorant and belligerent

Oops! For a minute there, I thought you'd said, "skeptic". ;-)

Septic does make much more sense.

Thanks!
Rich

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:28:02 +0100, "Phildo" wrote:



Sadly true. Come on, people over there actually believe FOX news.

Did you learn that from BBC News?

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...business-enter

John

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:19:54 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
wrote:

Because we kicked German butt (with a little help from you guys because you
had no other real choice),


You're a goddamned idiot. We were sending YOU ships FULL of materiel,
which you desperately needed for YOUR war machine, so if it weren't for
us EARLY in YOUR part of the war, you would have fallen to them, and we
THEN would have had to come over and clean up an even bigger pool of
blood than was there when we did go.

Oh, was there a tradition of cleaning up afterwards in those days? One
we could well bring back.

[Phildo]

"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:28:02 +0100, "Phildo" wrote:

Because we kicked German butt (with a little help from you guys because
you
had no other real choice),


You're a goddamned idiot. We were sending YOU ships FULL of materiel,
which you desperately needed for YOUR war machine,

Yeah, which you made us pay through the nose for.

so if it weren't for
us EARLY in YOUR part of the war, you would have fallen to them, and we
THEN would have had to come over and clean up an even bigger pool of
blood than was there when we did go.

You really think the US would allow a facist dictatorship to control most of
Europe?

Get your **** straight, boy.

I suggest you take your own advice. Remember, things were very different
back then than they are today. You seem to see the past through how your
country acts today.

Phildo

[Phildo]

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:28:02 +0100, "Phildo" wrote:



Sadly true. Come on, people over there actually believe FOX news.

Did you learn that from BBC News?

No, from living in the US for 4 years and reading the crap people post on
usenet. Amazing how gullible the majority of the US population is.

Phildo