Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Nilered obviously don't know how to minimise the amount of Cr waste

fusso - 28-9-2019 at 11:02

https://youtu.be/b6R2sTjtUFs?t=165
From 2:45
He actually did fucking not need to add water to the flask!!! Why add more water when you already have enough??? Just put that flask in the fucking sulphite solution you previously made!!! That already has enough water and sulphite to dissolve all of the byproducts and reduce all Cr(IV)!!! Only add more if not enough so you can save water and chemicals!!!:mad::mad::mad:

Ubya - 28-9-2019 at 11:49

because that bath was to soak and clean the glassware, if he added the content of that flask the concentration of the contaminants would have been too much.
same reason why you don't scrub the residue of your dishes in the water you are using to soak them, or same reason you don't shit in the same water you are bathing

DavidJR - 29-9-2019 at 03:02

He also didn't fully reduce all of the hexavalent chromium. Look at that yellow crust...

fusso - 29-9-2019 at 06:49

Quote: Originally posted by Ubya  
because that bath was to soak and clean the glassware, if he added the content of that flask the concentration of the contaminants would have been too much.
same reason why you don't scrub the residue of your dishes in the water you are using to soak them, or same reason you don't shit in the same water you are bathing
He's gonna rinse the flask and evaporate all water in the box afterwards anyway isn't it? Shit and bathing water are different "things" but concentrated Cr waste and dilute Cr waste are the same "thing".

draculic acid69 - 29-9-2019 at 21:03

I see what your getting at but your being a bit too nitpicky

j_sum1 - 29-9-2019 at 21:39

In my experience, dealing with Cr waste is always messy and surprisingly volumous. Nile also admitted that he was playing a bit and certainly was not aiming for any kind of efficiency. It is evident also that he stretched this process out for a long period of time and returned to it on several occasions.

I see little grounds for being critical of procedural inefficiency in this case

[Edited on 30-9-2019 by j_sum1]

fusso - 30-9-2019 at 08:38

Yea its messy, so why not just play with a fraction of that waste? Say treating a half of that waste normally with minimal amount of chemicals as I described, and only play with the remaining waste so you can both do things normally and still have fun. I'd actually wanna see him treating bulk waste normally and using a minimalistic way while still able to have fun.

[Edited on 190930 by fusso]

Ubya - 30-9-2019 at 09:07

In my opinion is easier to work with waste high in volume and low in concentration and waste high in concentration but low in volume. Mixing the two wastes gives you high volume and medium/high concentration of contaminants, IMO not the best option

fusso - 30-9-2019 at 11:45

But I think high conc low vol waste is easier to handle. Smaller containers can be used, and rxns are gonna faster.

Ubya - 30-9-2019 at 12:17

Quote: Originally posted by fusso  
But I think high conc low vol waste is easier to handle. Smaller containers can be used, and rxns are gonna faster.


eh, exactly what i said hahaha

phlogiston - 1-10-2019 at 07:33

Saving water is not an issue. Just let it evaporate, as he did. Did not add any nasties to the environment and lots of people in the western world uses several times that amount of potable water to flush their crap down the toilet.

And playing like that is educational too.
In the end he collected everything, bagged it and stored it.
I think he dealt with it fairly responsibly and made a fun video.

You can continue to discuss it for many days, but is it really worth getting so angry about?