Many, if not most, finely divided metals are spontaneously flammable in air. Clusters would be even more reactive.
Cleaving a bunch of atoms from the bulk would take more energy than taking a single atom. The vapour pressure is so low that we know the number of atoms coming off a metal is practically zero. The number of clusters would be even less.
Some metals like selenium, arsenic and osmium have strong smelling oxides that are fairly readily formed in air and would explain the odour associated with them.
There's a definite smell associated with working aluminium. It is due to things like arsine and phosphine formed by reduction of the metals present as impurities in the Al in the presence of atmospheric water.
The odour of iron and copper has been explained as due to decomposition products of skin oils formed in the presence of air and the finely divided metal.
Why do metals smell?
-
Doug Coulter
- Posts: 1312
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:18 pm
- Real name: Doug Coulter
- Location: Floyd, VA, USA
- Contact:
Re: Why do metals smell?
While Frank is correct that a lot of things are (mostly fortunately) odorless to us, that's far from the whole story, and in fact, smell can detect levels bordering on a single molecule. That is fact, well proved, in many sorts of animals (and non animals) that have some sensitivity of which humans are just one of the samples, and we're not the best at this by far in the living kingdom.
In the '70's, when I was an engineer for a beltway bandit (ENSCO), we worked on a project for the forerunner of DHS (FBI and the DOD security crew) that used rats to detect high explosives. Yes, really. At the time, the only thing that could match a rat's nose for sensitivity was a combination of GC and mass spectrometry, and it took best of breed of both together to rival a rat's nose. Neither portable or quick enough for the requirement.
You could train them to get excited when they smelled TNT etc by the usual methods every experimental psych student learns, but there turned out to be a glitch. They were so sensitive that you could only use the same cage, or even lab just once!
We were using EEGs to detect their excitement when they sniffed a TNT sample, and at first it worked pretty well. The Air Force (Rome labs) then contracted out for bulk rat training since the experiment/prototype had been so successful. Well, the next trainers weren't quite as careful, and couldn't get rats trained correctly, as they contaminated their own lab with ~ fraction of a milligram of TNT and from then on, the rats they tried to train *always* smelled TNT and so learned to cue off other things in the experimental procedure that were irrelevant in the field where the rat was in a dark suitcase with a little vent fan and a Z80 processor and analog amps. This was proved when we went back to the original, more careful lab for another try (they were using techniques similar to serious bio-hazard or chem warfare as their norm) and it all started working again.
Needless to say, something so hard to do and fairly impractical didn't make it into mainstream use, but it's a true story just the same. Rats (and some other more high maintenance animals) are so sensitive *and* selective (for some things) that it becomes the problem rather than the solution.
Feynman had some good words on rats everyone should look at that kind of show the problems.
I can provide text of the lecture to any interested.
Humans aren't as good, and we don't train ourselves (mostly) as well as a being who may depend on the skill for survival moment by moment more than we do, but that doesn't make the fact that you (and a lot of people) *can* smell metals and even tell which sort bunk -- the proof lies right here and in a lot of other places.
The fact that it tends to happen most when the metal has just been made really clean indicates that the well known fact that super-clean surfaces are highly reactive takes part in this. Remember, it only takes a few molecules, as in a single-digit number, if it is something you are sensitive to. So all the usual arguments about low vapor pressure, non-reactivity have to be viewed in that light. Could be that clean metal reacts with some rare air component (say a sulfur or chlorine atom) and then does have a higher vapor pressure, for example. Some people can smell the difference between clean and dirty copper, there must be a reason, because IT EXISTS. Calling it bunk does not make it go away.
I can detect fusion even if only a tiny fraction of the D's in there get involved, too -- with the right gear, and that gear is mostly less sensitive than the nose is in terms of input particles per successful detection. See many of Carl's posts for detector sensitivities that work out to big negative exponents that still work fine for us. What's so different here? Nothing at all. We are simply debating the mechanism, not the existence of the effect.
In the '70's, when I was an engineer for a beltway bandit (ENSCO), we worked on a project for the forerunner of DHS (FBI and the DOD security crew) that used rats to detect high explosives. Yes, really. At the time, the only thing that could match a rat's nose for sensitivity was a combination of GC and mass spectrometry, and it took best of breed of both together to rival a rat's nose. Neither portable or quick enough for the requirement.
You could train them to get excited when they smelled TNT etc by the usual methods every experimental psych student learns, but there turned out to be a glitch. They were so sensitive that you could only use the same cage, or even lab just once!
We were using EEGs to detect their excitement when they sniffed a TNT sample, and at first it worked pretty well. The Air Force (Rome labs) then contracted out for bulk rat training since the experiment/prototype had been so successful. Well, the next trainers weren't quite as careful, and couldn't get rats trained correctly, as they contaminated their own lab with ~ fraction of a milligram of TNT and from then on, the rats they tried to train *always* smelled TNT and so learned to cue off other things in the experimental procedure that were irrelevant in the field where the rat was in a dark suitcase with a little vent fan and a Z80 processor and analog amps. This was proved when we went back to the original, more careful lab for another try (they were using techniques similar to serious bio-hazard or chem warfare as their norm) and it all started working again.
Needless to say, something so hard to do and fairly impractical didn't make it into mainstream use, but it's a true story just the same. Rats (and some other more high maintenance animals) are so sensitive *and* selective (for some things) that it becomes the problem rather than the solution.
Feynman had some good words on rats everyone should look at that kind of show the problems.
I can provide text of the lecture to any interested.
Humans aren't as good, and we don't train ourselves (mostly) as well as a being who may depend on the skill for survival moment by moment more than we do, but that doesn't make the fact that you (and a lot of people) *can* smell metals and even tell which sort bunk -- the proof lies right here and in a lot of other places.
The fact that it tends to happen most when the metal has just been made really clean indicates that the well known fact that super-clean surfaces are highly reactive takes part in this. Remember, it only takes a few molecules, as in a single-digit number, if it is something you are sensitive to. So all the usual arguments about low vapor pressure, non-reactivity have to be viewed in that light. Could be that clean metal reacts with some rare air component (say a sulfur or chlorine atom) and then does have a higher vapor pressure, for example. Some people can smell the difference between clean and dirty copper, there must be a reason, because IT EXISTS. Calling it bunk does not make it go away.
I can detect fusion even if only a tiny fraction of the D's in there get involved, too -- with the right gear, and that gear is mostly less sensitive than the nose is in terms of input particles per successful detection. See many of Carl's posts for detector sensitivities that work out to big negative exponents that still work fine for us. What's so different here? Nothing at all. We are simply debating the mechanism, not the existence of the effect.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
-
JohnCuthbert
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 4:30 pm
- Real name:
Re: Why do metals smell?
Can you cite evidence for the "single digit" molecules for odour detection in humans?
Also, since it's documented that, for example, dogs have at least 10 fold better sense of smell, does this mean that they can detect a few tenths of a molecule?
Also, since it's documented that, for example, dogs have at least 10 fold better sense of smell, does this mean that they can detect a few tenths of a molecule?
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Why do metals smell?
Maybe there's a little hearsay in this thread but, hey, when did dogs ever smelt lead tin and copper? Maybe it's an evolutionary thing - if you could sniff a prehistoric smelting site and head towards it, then you were destined to evolve into modern man, whereas the neanderthals who did not smell it died out. Maybe it's just that the human nose has evolved to smell metals, as they have been so important to us? Just a thought!
-
Frank Sanns
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
- Real name: Frank Sanns
Re: Why do metals smell?
John,
The way I see it, a single atom could produce an reaction at an olifactory center if the atom finds its way to the exact proper location. If it falls near but not near enough then no productive reaction so statistic are in full play here.
Even if the atom or cluster of atoms do find a single smell detecting nerve, I see no reason why we would detect the "smell". Nerves experience noise just like any detectors that we may use. The body learns to ignore the background nerve firing so to get a meaningful stimulus, many neurons need to be involved which means many atoms or molecules or clusters.
I do not have a reference but I think the reason dogs can smell better is simply that they have a much bigger olifactory surface area (bigger detector) than humans. Bigger detector usually means more counts for a given concentration and better signal to noise ratio. I see no reason why physics should change for a biological detector over a non biologic.
Frank Sanns
The way I see it, a single atom could produce an reaction at an olifactory center if the atom finds its way to the exact proper location. If it falls near but not near enough then no productive reaction so statistic are in full play here.
Even if the atom or cluster of atoms do find a single smell detecting nerve, I see no reason why we would detect the "smell". Nerves experience noise just like any detectors that we may use. The body learns to ignore the background nerve firing so to get a meaningful stimulus, many neurons need to be involved which means many atoms or molecules or clusters.
I do not have a reference but I think the reason dogs can smell better is simply that they have a much bigger olifactory surface area (bigger detector) than humans. Bigger detector usually means more counts for a given concentration and better signal to noise ratio. I see no reason why physics should change for a biological detector over a non biologic.
Frank Sanns
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
-
JohnCuthbert
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 4:30 pm
- Real name:
Re: Why do metals smell?
It's perfectly possible that a single molecule or atom of a material landing on a receptor will cause a signal. However that's not the real question.
The question is how much stuff does it take before a person perceives the presence of a smell? (in fact, we are asking for a more difficult job- the identification of a particular smell iron vs. copper vs. Aluminium...).
A bit of Googling indicates that the lowest odour thresholds are about 0.01 ng/litre and these compounds have molecular masses of about 200.
That means we can detect ( given a good healthy sniff of a litre or so) about
30,000,000,000 molecules assuming I have kept track of the zeroes correctly
If anyone really thinks that's "single digit" they should be in advertising.
It's also possible that there are molecules out there that are smellier, but we would know about them.
There's no doubt that metals have a smell associated with them.
That smell is not the metal per se.
Incidentally, TNT has a vapour pressure of about 10 ppb so it's fairly well into the detectable range of odours- it just doesn't smell very strong to us.
Rats, like many animals, have a better sense of smell than ours.
Mankind has not been smelting metals for long enough to affect evolution so the lack of rats that smelt metals is a red herring.
The question is how much stuff does it take before a person perceives the presence of a smell? (in fact, we are asking for a more difficult job- the identification of a particular smell iron vs. copper vs. Aluminium...).
A bit of Googling indicates that the lowest odour thresholds are about 0.01 ng/litre and these compounds have molecular masses of about 200.
That means we can detect ( given a good healthy sniff of a litre or so) about
30,000,000,000 molecules assuming I have kept track of the zeroes correctly
If anyone really thinks that's "single digit" they should be in advertising.
It's also possible that there are molecules out there that are smellier, but we would know about them.
There's no doubt that metals have a smell associated with them.
That smell is not the metal per se.
Incidentally, TNT has a vapour pressure of about 10 ppb so it's fairly well into the detectable range of odours- it just doesn't smell very strong to us.
Rats, like many animals, have a better sense of smell than ours.
Mankind has not been smelting metals for long enough to affect evolution so the lack of rats that smelt metals is a red herring.
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Why do metals smell?
John Cuthbert wrote:
> Mankind has not been smelting metals for long enough to affect evolution so the lack of rats that smelt metals is a red herring.
I don't dispute the possible irrelevance of my observation, but evolution can take place not necessarily through genetic changes but also through selection of existing traits. If some select group of a coastal species senses an earthquake is coming and makes for high ground, whereas the rest do not and drown in a tsunami, then that species will have selected for the complex attribute of 'sensing earthquakes and going for high ground' within a single day.
There is no greater evolutionary event than "not dying"!
A similar thing has been found with lactose intolerance, so I seem to recall. Before domesticated cow milk, lactose intolerance was widespread, but mostly died out, as a general genetic trait, within just a couple of generations for communities where cows were domesticated - all the babies fed on the stuff died! (which was probably nothing too unexpected anyway for folks in those days, just a slightly higher rate than an already high rate of infant mortality, I guess)
I was just speculating that, just perhaps, the size of one's organ doesn't necessarily dictate its efficiency at its particular task! Maybe the human nose is particularly sensitive to metal smells and needs be no bigger? A sensitivity in mass/volume is clearly just an approximation and will differ for different substances. My posit may be wrong, but I do not feel it is *so obviously* incorrect without some substantive evaluation.
I guess a simple initial test question would be - Steven S.; having worked with gold and platinum, d'you think you could smell which one was which in a blacked out room? I presume there would be no chemical intermediaries with noble metals?
> Mankind has not been smelting metals for long enough to affect evolution so the lack of rats that smelt metals is a red herring.
I don't dispute the possible irrelevance of my observation, but evolution can take place not necessarily through genetic changes but also through selection of existing traits. If some select group of a coastal species senses an earthquake is coming and makes for high ground, whereas the rest do not and drown in a tsunami, then that species will have selected for the complex attribute of 'sensing earthquakes and going for high ground' within a single day.
There is no greater evolutionary event than "not dying"!
A similar thing has been found with lactose intolerance, so I seem to recall. Before domesticated cow milk, lactose intolerance was widespread, but mostly died out, as a general genetic trait, within just a couple of generations for communities where cows were domesticated - all the babies fed on the stuff died! (which was probably nothing too unexpected anyway for folks in those days, just a slightly higher rate than an already high rate of infant mortality, I guess)
I was just speculating that, just perhaps, the size of one's organ doesn't necessarily dictate its efficiency at its particular task! Maybe the human nose is particularly sensitive to metal smells and needs be no bigger? A sensitivity in mass/volume is clearly just an approximation and will differ for different substances. My posit may be wrong, but I do not feel it is *so obviously* incorrect without some substantive evaluation.
I guess a simple initial test question would be - Steven S.; having worked with gold and platinum, d'you think you could smell which one was which in a blacked out room? I presume there would be no chemical intermediaries with noble metals?
-
JohnCuthbert
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 4:30 pm
- Real name:
Re: Why do metals smell?
When did an individual or an entire community last die out due to the inability to smell iron?
Babies are not lactose intolerant (where the definition of baby is someone young enough to subsist largely or solely on milk) no matter what their genetic make-up unless they have a very unfortunate lethal mutation.
Lactose intolerance only troubles those old enough to have been weaned.
Babies are not lactose intolerant (where the definition of baby is someone young enough to subsist largely or solely on milk) no matter what their genetic make-up unless they have a very unfortunate lethal mutation.
Lactose intolerance only troubles those old enough to have been weaned.
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Why do metals smell?
John Cuthbert wrote:
> When did an individual or an entire community last die out due to the inability to smell iron?
I could invent scenarios, but they would be inventions. I'm not trying to convince anyone here, it was just a comment!
Seems like there are a load of guesses coming up as to what people actually smell when they perceive a 'metal' smell, so if others can make guesses then I feel at liberty to make some aswell!
Wikipedia says for iron, the smell is aldehydes released on contact with skin secretions. Well, that may be so but it doesn't smell like any aldehydes I know. If these metal smells are released chemicals, then it should be easy enough to prove by getting hold of, or reproducing a proposed chemical, and seeing if it smells like the metal.
> Babies are not lactose intolerant (where the definition of baby is someone young enough to subsist largely or solely on milk) no matter what their genetic make-up unless they have a very unfortunate lethal mutation.
Yeah!!... not any more...that's my point! I'll look out for a citation on this research. It was one of these studies looking at distributions of genes in the population, and by whatever means they have developed to analyse changes in gene patterns, they identified the lactose intolerance died out essentially instantaneously around the time of cattle domestication. The cause would seem pretty obvious!!
> When did an individual or an entire community last die out due to the inability to smell iron?
I could invent scenarios, but they would be inventions. I'm not trying to convince anyone here, it was just a comment!
Seems like there are a load of guesses coming up as to what people actually smell when they perceive a 'metal' smell, so if others can make guesses then I feel at liberty to make some aswell!
Wikipedia says for iron, the smell is aldehydes released on contact with skin secretions. Well, that may be so but it doesn't smell like any aldehydes I know. If these metal smells are released chemicals, then it should be easy enough to prove by getting hold of, or reproducing a proposed chemical, and seeing if it smells like the metal.
> Babies are not lactose intolerant (where the definition of baby is someone young enough to subsist largely or solely on milk) no matter what their genetic make-up unless they have a very unfortunate lethal mutation.
Yeah!!... not any more...that's my point! I'll look out for a citation on this research. It was one of these studies looking at distributions of genes in the population, and by whatever means they have developed to analyse changes in gene patterns, they identified the lactose intolerance died out essentially instantaneously around the time of cattle domestication. The cause would seem pretty obvious!!
-
JohnCuthbert
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 4:30 pm
- Real name:
Re: Why do metals smell?
I don't mind guesses, but silly ideas like people being able to smell single molecules are just a waste of bandwidth.
Also, no baby mammal is lactose intolerant. All milk has lactose in so any baby born with this condition would die.
Also, no baby mammal is lactose intolerant. All milk has lactose in so any baby born with this condition would die.
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Why do metals smell?
Well, maybe it's not lactose, the memory begins to fail, but there's something about cow's milk that makes it fatally different to human milk in a [now] tiny number of cases. I'll be looking out for the citation...
But back to the topic; you've discussed the single-molecule thing more than anyone, so if it is so silly as to be unworth of mentioning, then you can drop it, if you like.
The other side to this isn't about the nature of the vapour pressure of metals, but that the nose detects smells [as I understand it] from the shape of the molecules it detects. Seeing as it can detect huge polymer molecules, what is the objection that the nose can detect ultra-fine metallic dust, as was mentioned before about having chunks of atoms coming off. In such a case, I would expect such small particles to have a uniform crystal structure and, so, would each have a distinct smell according to the crystal shape most likely to come off the metal as an aerosol.
But back to the topic; you've discussed the single-molecule thing more than anyone, so if it is so silly as to be unworth of mentioning, then you can drop it, if you like.
The other side to this isn't about the nature of the vapour pressure of metals, but that the nose detects smells [as I understand it] from the shape of the molecules it detects. Seeing as it can detect huge polymer molecules, what is the objection that the nose can detect ultra-fine metallic dust, as was mentioned before about having chunks of atoms coming off. In such a case, I would expect such small particles to have a uniform crystal structure and, so, would each have a distinct smell according to the crystal shape most likely to come off the metal as an aerosol.
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15023
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Why do metals smell?
This thread seems to have been milked to death.
Richard Hull
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Charles Snyder
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 4:00 pm
- Real name: Charles Snyder
Re: Why do metals smell?
But the thread isn't really complete until we realize...
...no one will ever smell metal in this lifetime and possibly never because mother nature does not give up her smells easily unless the "lucky donkey" just happens to smell it one day.
I couldn't help myself after reading so many threads where Mr. Hull offers the final cripling blow to all of my fusion enthusiasm
...no one will ever smell metal in this lifetime and possibly never because mother nature does not give up her smells easily unless the "lucky donkey" just happens to smell it one day.
I couldn't help myself after reading so many threads where Mr. Hull offers the final cripling blow to all of my fusion enthusiasm
-
JohnCuthbert
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 4:30 pm
- Real name:
Re: Why do metals smell?
Indeed, but it would be a shame to close it without giving Doug a chance to respond.
-
Carl Willis
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
- Real name: Carl Willis
- Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
- Contact:
Re: Why do metals smell?
Indeed. What a thread.
Anyone ever "feel lucky" on teh Google (or even look at the goddamn thing anymore)?
1. Type "why do metals smell?" into Google. 2. Click "I'm Feeling Lucky." 3. An authoritative answer fills your screen. 4. About thirty posts of contention, low-information, non-information, and mis-information on a specialty hobby forum is thereby avoided.
-Carl
Anyone ever "feel lucky" on teh Google (or even look at the goddamn thing anymore)?
1. Type "why do metals smell?" into Google. 2. Click "I'm Feeling Lucky." 3. An authoritative answer fills your screen. 4. About thirty posts of contention, low-information, non-information, and mis-information on a specialty hobby forum is thereby avoided.
-Carl
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Why do metals smell?
Carl Willis wrote:
> Indeed. What a thread.
> Anyone ever "feel lucky" on teh Google (or even look at the goddamn thing anymore)?
> 1. Type "why do metals smell?" into Google. 2. Click "I'm Feeling Lucky." 3. An authoritative answer fills your screen. 4. About thirty posts of contention, low-information, non-information, and mis-information on a specialty hobby forum is thereby avoided.
> -Carl
You appear to be declaring that handling metals is also an answer to why metals can be smelt when machining them and why John F. can smell such after his ion implanting work.
Carl, please do read the material rather than applying your usual dour distain for what you don't find interesting. It's easier not to say anything... especially here as this thread appeared to have already come to its own end as, other than the handling issues which had been drawn out (from internet info, as stated - did you miss that bit?) there was no new information coming on the issue of metallic smells *not* consequent to 'non-handling' events.
> Indeed. What a thread.
> Anyone ever "feel lucky" on teh Google (or even look at the goddamn thing anymore)?
> 1. Type "why do metals smell?" into Google. 2. Click "I'm Feeling Lucky." 3. An authoritative answer fills your screen. 4. About thirty posts of contention, low-information, non-information, and mis-information on a specialty hobby forum is thereby avoided.
> -Carl
You appear to be declaring that handling metals is also an answer to why metals can be smelt when machining them and why John F. can smell such after his ion implanting work.
Carl, please do read the material rather than applying your usual dour distain for what you don't find interesting. It's easier not to say anything... especially here as this thread appeared to have already come to its own end as, other than the handling issues which had been drawn out (from internet info, as stated - did you miss that bit?) there was no new information coming on the issue of metallic smells *not* consequent to 'non-handling' events.
-
Carl Willis
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
- Real name: Carl Willis
- Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
- Contact:
Re: Why do metals smell?
I'm not declaring anything other than what I wrote.
To rephrase: Your "question," as posed, as apparently intended, insofar as it pertains to vacuum compatibility of copper gaskets (the evident crutch for putting it in the Vacuum Forum), is answered definitively and very completely by Google. By "I'm Feeling Lucky." By a single mouse click, requiring at most a few attojoules of personal effort.
True, lots of folks have swung the bat at this pinata of idiocy, scattering nuggets of diverse flavors all over the place. We have comments about ion implantation, we have comments about machining, we have comments about lactose intolerance, about quack theories of smell, and on and on. That's just normal undisciplined human behavior. I don't intend to follow suit and provoke a further shower of riffraff from the swinging wreckage by addressing those tidbits (some of which may be interesting to individual readers, some of which may be accurate). I am addressing the original question, and how a non-lazy self-directed learner might have gone about answering it.
-Carl
To rephrase: Your "question," as posed, as apparently intended, insofar as it pertains to vacuum compatibility of copper gaskets (the evident crutch for putting it in the Vacuum Forum), is answered definitively and very completely by Google. By "I'm Feeling Lucky." By a single mouse click, requiring at most a few attojoules of personal effort.
True, lots of folks have swung the bat at this pinata of idiocy, scattering nuggets of diverse flavors all over the place. We have comments about ion implantation, we have comments about machining, we have comments about lactose intolerance, about quack theories of smell, and on and on. That's just normal undisciplined human behavior. I don't intend to follow suit and provoke a further shower of riffraff from the swinging wreckage by addressing those tidbits (some of which may be interesting to individual readers, some of which may be accurate). I am addressing the original question, and how a non-lazy self-directed learner might have gone about answering it.
-Carl
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Why do metals smell?
Carl Willis wrote:
> To rephrase: Your "question," as posed, as apparently intended, insofar as it pertains to vacuum compatibility of copper gaskets (the evident crutch for putting it in the Vacuum Forum), is answered definitively and very completely by Google. By "I'm Feeling Lucky." By a single mouse click, requiring at most a few attojoules of personal effort.
a) This was done, and it mentioned nothing but in regards iron.
b) this was done, and it mentions nothing about metals that aren't handled
c) this was done, and it mentions nothing about vapour pressures, or other vacuum issues
d) if we believe everything we read on the internet without asking anyone else, then i) it appears you may believe all wordly knowledge already exists on the internet and there is nothing to add to it, ii) you doubt nothing you read on the internet either in truth, or whether it answers questions fully.
For a guy who beats up on folks when they make a modest jump in a conclusion, you've gone from interpreting something you've read on the internet about handling iron, to what that means for machining copper. Quite a big leap - quite a hypocrisy?.
But, hey, you have it your own way. It's your forum to decide what discussion topics are permitted, right? - and you can arbitrate over whether something is an unreasonable jump of logic when there is a tiny break in someone else's logical argument, but different metals and different environments, hey, just the same aren't they, providing it's your argument!??
We thought this thread was all over before you pitched in... it is now! QRT.
> To rephrase: Your "question," as posed, as apparently intended, insofar as it pertains to vacuum compatibility of copper gaskets (the evident crutch for putting it in the Vacuum Forum), is answered definitively and very completely by Google. By "I'm Feeling Lucky." By a single mouse click, requiring at most a few attojoules of personal effort.
a) This was done, and it mentioned nothing but in regards iron.
b) this was done, and it mentions nothing about metals that aren't handled
c) this was done, and it mentions nothing about vapour pressures, or other vacuum issues
d) if we believe everything we read on the internet without asking anyone else, then i) it appears you may believe all wordly knowledge already exists on the internet and there is nothing to add to it, ii) you doubt nothing you read on the internet either in truth, or whether it answers questions fully.
For a guy who beats up on folks when they make a modest jump in a conclusion, you've gone from interpreting something you've read on the internet about handling iron, to what that means for machining copper. Quite a big leap - quite a hypocrisy?.
But, hey, you have it your own way. It's your forum to decide what discussion topics are permitted, right? - and you can arbitrate over whether something is an unreasonable jump of logic when there is a tiny break in someone else's logical argument, but different metals and different environments, hey, just the same aren't they, providing it's your argument!??
We thought this thread was all over before you pitched in... it is now! QRT.