Sciencemadness Discussion Board - how to find the presence of methanol

pls tell simplest ways that don't require lots of chemicals (if there are any,

[Edited on 26-1-2012 by rstar]

NMR ? it doesnt look like this would be in the budget of a 13 years old. or even practical

[Edited on 26-1-2012 by neptunium]

[Edited on 26-1-2012 by neptunium]

bahamuth - 26-1-2012 at 10:02

If the alkohol solution is anhydrous, which I guess it's not, one could possible go by some derivative like the alkoxide and measure the melting/boiling point to determine the purity.
May be way off here but without a GC or a NMR it may be the only way.

This actually peaks my interest since it would be nice to have a method of detecting methanol in ethanol (the ethanol being from "non-taxed" sources...).

GreenD - 26-1-2012 at 10:10

other than nmr, gc, ms, lc - don't know. Maybe a long column... but yeah then I still don't know how you'd do it.

You could always give it to your cat. If you notice the cat running into walls methanol may be present.

Endimion17 - 26-1-2012 at 10:41

Hi geeks,
I've got a alcohol solution (if u know about it then its a homeopathic medicine, so-called mother tincture)

It's said that the solution is made of ethanol, but it might have some methanol (adulteration issues -_-;; ).

how can i find out if it contains methanol or not ? pls tell simplest ways that don't require lots of chemicals (if there are any,

)

thx in advance

[Edited on 26-1-2012 by rstar]

First of all, calling anything homeopathic as "medicine" is quite frankly ridiculous.

Second, there's the boric acid test. I don't know exactly how sensitive it is, but if you see any green colour, there's probably enough methanol inside to be quite toxic.

GreenD - 26-1-2012 at 11:37

Quote:

[quote=234486&tid=18646&author=Endimion17]
First of all, calling anything homeopathic as "medicine" is quite frankly ridiculous.

Why? You should look further into the studies done on homeopathic medicine in acclaimed university chemistry/medicine labs. . . Don't be so quick to judge.

[Edited on 26-1-2012 by GreenD]

[Edited on 26-1-2012 by GreenD]

neptunium - 26-1-2012 at 14:13

i find the problem very interesting detecting methanol without ethanol interfering with it is a problem i came accross in the past as well .
never heard of anything involving boric acid except to make a green flame in pyrotechnic. nut it doesnt mean its not out there...
i am going to do some search and run some test i`ll keep you posted.

entropy51 - 26-1-2012 at 18:52

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50195a027

bahamuth - 26-1-2012 at 18:53

Quote:

[quote=234486&tid=18646&author=Endimion17]
First of all, calling anything homeopathic as "medicine" is quite frankly ridiculous.

Hope you refrain from posting on a scientific forum if you have any belief in homeopatic methods, or opening your mouth at all.

Belief in homeopathy equals ignorance, and any study suggesting it can be easily disproven by anyone with the slightest knowledge of placebo and how an unbiased trial should be conducted.

Knowledge is wasted on the stupid!

Sometime wish homeopath believers would overdose on the trace compounds in the drinking water...

Endimion17 - 26-1-2012 at 20:05

Why? You should look further into the studies done on homeopathic medicine in acclaimed university chemistry/medicine labs. . . Don't be so quick to judge.

Oh dear...

Quote: Originally posted by neptunium

i find the problem very interesting detecting methanol without ethanol interfering with it is a problem i came accross in the past as well .
never heard of anything involving boric acid except to make a green flame in pyrotechnic. nut it doesnt mean its not out there...
i am going to do some search and run some test i`ll keep you posted.

Methanol easily reacts to form methyl borate which gives off green flame. It's a textbook example of distinguishing ethanol from methanol. Again, I'm not sure how sensitive the method is. There's obviously a limit.

weiming1998 - 26-1-2012 at 20:33

Are you going to dilute the alcohol until there is not even one molecule of ethanol/methanol left? If so, then there is no point testing the alcohol for methanol; it's just water anyway.

rstar - 27-1-2012 at 01:38

nope i'm not going to dilute this,

how about this

weiming1998 - 27-1-2012 at 02:00

How can you not dilute it if you are going to use it for homeopathy? If you are worried about people getting methanol poisoning after they drink it, then don't worry, there's (by far) not enough methanol in your homeopathy "remedy" to cause methanol poisoning, even if the person chugged down the whole bottle.

Anyway, the boric acid test, suggested by previous posts, will help. A copper sulfate test for methanol will help also (copper sulfate does not dissolve in ethanol at all, I tried) of course, those tests won't work on trace amounts of methanol, but if that's the case, it shouldn't cause any harm to people (as I said previously.) But don't drink it straight from the bottle, there is still a risk.

One last thing, is your alcohol anhydrous? Because if it is not, then neither boric acid nor copper sulfate test will work (both soluble in water)

neptunium - 27-1-2012 at 09:50

you can distill the alcohol mixture and conduct the test on the first few drops that comes out...if there s any methanol it will be there and not in the rest of the bottle...

bahamut, Edimom - homeopathy

GreenD - 27-1-2012 at 12:16

Without insulting you for your ignorance:

Bahamut, Edimom

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491609...

Just cause you can't explain it, and don't have enough of an open mind to consider it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

PS, a "CH" dilution of >12 means there is theoretically less than 1 molecule per mole of water. <1 part per 1x10^24

[Edited on 27-1-2012 by GreenD]

[Edited on 27-1-2012 by GreenD]

Endimion17 - 27-1-2012 at 12:41

What a troll.

Lambda-Eyde - 27-1-2012 at 13:06

So, you're frequenting a chemistry forum and at the same time arguing that higher dilutions are more active than concentrated? Seriously, dude...

watson.fawkes - 27-1-2012 at 13:55

Quote: Originally posted by Lambda-Eyde

So, you're frequenting a chemistry forum and at the same time arguing that higher dilutions are more active than concentrated?

This is the same are arguing that biological systems have entirely monotonic reactions to increasing concentrations, a claim already known to be false. Indeed, lower dosages can be more active up to a point. All this means is that some agents have local maxima with respect to dosage or concentration.

Endimion17 - 27-1-2012 at 16:17

Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes

Quote: Originally posted by Lambda-Eyde

So, you're frequenting a chemistry forum and at the same time arguing that higher dilutions are more active than concentrated?

The only problem is that homeopathy is all about "solutions" that contain no solutes, but "energy imprint in the water molecules", which is PURE BULLSHIT.
Its concept is all wrong, basically a dead end in the beggining of modern medicine, and it's proven to be bogus.

Honestly, shit like homeopathy should be banned from SM. What's next, horoscopes, palm reading, pyramid power, crystal healing, dowsing?
If we're up to that, this whole forum can go to hell straight away. There are some standards forums like these should respect.

bbartlog - 27-1-2012 at 17:41

Tangentially, not everything sold under the rubric 'homeopathic' consists of an infinitely dilute solution of whatever. See e.g. http://www.hylands.com/products/teethinggel.php and note the tropane alkaloids... since homeopathy in practice is an amalgam of Hahnemann's fever dream and traditional herbal remedies, there are some products that are not derived from the dilution-of-the-hair-of-the-dog-that-bit-you.

Quote:

"energy imprint in the water molecules", which is PURE BULLSHIT.

Water has structure above and beyond the individual molecules. Now, it is true that it has within the past ten years been found, *by experiment*, that these structures are evanescent; but your attempt to reason backwards from theory (in this case your apparent certainty that we know all there is to know about water) is a poor way of doing science.

entropy51 - 27-1-2012 at 17:50

Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes

Well yes, but if you extend the dose-response measurements down below conventional pharmacological concentrations into the homeopathic range of doses, guess what? They monotonically trend to negliglible, or less, as Feynman used to say. There are no magical maxima down there in the range of homeopathic doses.

weiming1998 - 27-1-2012 at 18:14

Even if water has a memory, would it last long enough? What about curing a disease caused by bacteria and viruses (which are living compounds made of molecules) simply with a memory? All the water in the world should be a homeopathic dilution then, as all the water on earth has been in contact with billions of things. No need to buy homeopathic medicine, just drink tap water! Also, some of the solutions are so dilute that even the memory of the memory of a single molecule of the original substance is gone. How do you explain that?

Also, why is people asking homeopathic questions on a chemistry forum? Go to a site like this: http://homeopathyplus.com.au/ and share testimonials!

Neil - 27-1-2012 at 19:52

My tap water told me it was last blue whale piss.

small amounts of methanol are natural in dirty fermentations like red grape juice -->red wine.

Is it made from raw distilled liquor or was it made from denatured alcohol?

Endimion17 - 28-1-2012 at 07:18

Quote: Originally posted by bbartlog

Tangentially, not everything sold under the rubric 'homeopathic' consists of an infinitely dilute solution of whatever. See e.g. http://www.hylands.com/products/teethinggel.php and note the tropane alkaloids... since homeopathy in practice is an amalgam of Hahnemann's fever dream and traditional herbal remedies, there are some products that are not derived from the dilution-of-the-hair-of-the-dog-that-bit-you.

Early homeopathy was dealing with minute quantities which didn't work. Today's homeopathy prefers infinitesimal dillutions. Yeah, I know that 0.001% tinctures are being sold, but dillution that's not the only problem with homeopathy. It's the fact it has never ever been proven to work (though people tried and tried), and the very concept is bogus.

Here's one great guy that has explained it quite well.
<iframe sandbox width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BWE1tH93G9U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Quote:

I'm not "trying to do science" here. I'm just informing you of facts. I'm crushing the homeopathy statements, and I don't need to be an omniscent being to tell that water can't do that stuff.

Your argument is close to the famous copper "problem", and it goes something like: "If we didn't measure and determine properties of all copper atoms in the universe, we can't say that all copper in the universe conducts electricity."

Well, yeah, speaking strictly, we can't. But that's irrelevant. We use statistics and logic induction. And it works. No copper sample we've ever encountered is an isolator, and no sample of water showed any memory capabilities.
And if we ever find a piece of copper that doesn't conduct electricity, or water sample that remembers what was it part of, our knowledge of copper and water will be greater. Let me just be nonscientific and say that will never happen.

I know water molecules form structures, and I know that they last for a ridiculously tiny amount of time. It's nothing new, and they were certainly known to exist for a much longer time than ten years.

So better think about your way of doing science, because if you're going to use absolute statements, you'll never ever be able to conclude anything from any experiment.
That's philosophy you're dealing with, not natural science.

[Edited on 28-1-2012 by Endimion17]

Neil - 28-1-2012 at 08:17

GreenD - 28-1-2012 at 08:55

Edimion your reductionist logic is deafening.

Read the article;

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491609...

Dilutions up to 17-24CH, which is well beyond the Avogadro limit of 1 molecule per mole solvent. Yet these still displayed results that the distilled water could not.

Explain that?

Further more, how can you dismiss memory of water?

Just because nobody taught you anything like it before? Really man? Your kind of ignorance and defeatist attitude should be banned from SM...

I'm giving you a scientific paper on a scientific subject that has yet to be completely dispelled.

I am not on here advocating for homeopathic medicine, I never have. I said don't fucking dismiss it because you don't think its right. Go back to the 1950's with that kind of diminutive thinking.

Neil, I'm not sure how serious you're taking your comic, but if that is really what you are thinking, then you can read the above as well. Again - I am not advocating for homeopathic medicine, I am not saying that diluting every solution will give results as the paper suggests. I am merely pointing out that there is something worth realizing here. Beyond that - yes I believe in complex systems, holistic mind sets, and some other "non-science" ideologies like that.

The population has dealt with reductionism for the past 100-200 years and is now seeing the consequences. If you can't wrap your head around the possibility of complexity in a natural system I'd say you're a detriment to the fore-goings of science and you should stay in your house and discontinue communication to the general population.

thanks
/rage

[Edited on 28-1-2012 by GreenD]

Endimion17 - 28-1-2012 at 09:12

That's almost the same thing as Benveniste did, and it was proven to be a false.

If you want to display extraordinary claim, you have to have an extraordinary evidence. You clearly don't understand that such claim is serious on the order of: "I can drink liquid bromine and fart out helium for ona whole week".
You don't. Because you have no knowledge and it's getting more and more clear that you don't know what scientific method is.

And for god sake, you're linking to a HOMEOPATHY JOURNAL. Talking about bias, LOL!

Please don't embarass yourself anymore. Please. It's pathetic.

edit: Jesus, the more I dig, the more crap I find out about the authors.

[Edited on 28-1-2012 by Endimion17]

GreenD - 28-1-2012 at 09:32

Now you use circular logic; since the journal says homeopathy you won't acknowledge the credentials. http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=d4xh1gqc...

http://jap.physiology.org/content/9/3/481.short

http://jem.rupress.org/content/70/4/415.abstract

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347663...

Nature Journal: http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:Jt47YMG...

if the last one doesn't work you can look it up in NAture; Human basophil degranulation triggered by very
dilute antiserum against IgE

IT goes on and on.

[Edited on 28-1-2012 by GreenD]

Fusionfire - 28-1-2012 at 09:34

Ridiculous. What is homeopathy doing on a scientific forum?

GreenD - 28-1-2012 at 09:38

Quote: Originally posted by Fusionfire

Ridiculous. What is homeopathy doing on a scientific forum?

cause it's been shown by the scientific process.

oi this website is a bunch of conservative reductionists.

Endimion17 - 28-1-2012 at 09:48

Trolling, Fusionfire. Trolling. The same thing it's doing ever since it laid its tentacles on the World Wide Web.

It's interesting how proponents of homeopathy scream so loudly about scientific sources when a handful of poor experiments show a blink of hope, and cast an immense WALL OF SILENCE when the whole massive mountain of almost every natural science out there speaks against it. That's what I called a fucking bias.

Belon and Sainte-Laudy work for the homeopathy companies. At least one of them was helping Benveniste do his shoddy experiment in the nineties, and is a homeopathy proponent.

I say - delete this thread or open threads about crystal power, pyramid power, astrology, dowsing, polywater, cold fusion, perpetuum mobile, etc.
Why should only one bullshit get its tentacles around SM? All of them or none of them, it's simple.
I'm not new to this. Poking crackpots is my hobby for almost ten years now.

Homeopathy is ridiculed among scientists, and everything crackpots do is wave hands screaming about "pathological skepticism" and "conservative reductionism". I say "give me some nonbiased hard evidence or STFU".

Quote: Originally posted by Fusionfire

Ridiculous. What is homeopathy doing on a scientific forum?

cause it's been shown by the scientific process.

oi this website is a bunch of conservative reductionists.

Yeah, we're the Church of Conservativist Reductionism. Do you want to join us? You have to pass the entrance quest and repeat "homeopathy is BS" three times.

[Edited on 28-1-2012 by Endimion17]

Neil - 28-1-2012 at 09:52

In same cases small concentrations are more efficacious then larger ones, such as things which may display a low toxicity but in small amounts may act as hormones.

The cartoon?

My thinking? No not me, Them.

The only hair of the dog that bit you thing I believe in is a beer after a beer.

Just because a paper suggests results doesn't mean proves. in the bits of the paper I was able to see there were far to many things that were not addressed and not controlled. I can show you a paper that proves autism and mercury are linked.. well it was finally rescinded but after how many years?

Papers on cold fusion? Evidence of thermite in the twin towers? there are papers on everything but I rely on my own ability to examine facts before forming an opinion.

In this case, anything diluted to nothing and then having an effect = bullshit. How do you erase or re-set water? Drinking rain water would cure EVERYTHING if there was anything to homoeopathy as EVERYTHING at some point ends up in the ocean which evaporates and so on.

I do have an open mind but I try not to have an ignorant mind.

Fusionfire - 28-1-2012 at 09:54

I have medical doctor friends and have heard many stories of cancer patients who got diagnosed with cancer in the early stages and they refused proper blind-tested treatments in favour of homeopathic "treatments".

A few years later they come back with terminal cancer.

Homeopathy is not only absurd it is also plain dangerous to the ignorant.

Neil - 28-1-2012 at 15:41

I say - delete this thread or open threads about crystal power, pyramid power, astrology, dowsing, polywater, cold fusion, perpetuum mobile, etc

This thread was about testing for MeOH... What is with all the calling for threads to be locked or closed. It is like the newbies want to censor the crap outta this place.

weiming1998 - 28-1-2012 at 16:52

Edimion your reductionist logic is deafening.

Read the article;

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491609...

Dilutions up to 17-24CH, which is well beyond the Avogadro limit of 1 molecule per mole solvent. Yet these still displayed results that the distilled water could not.

Explain that?

Further more, how can you dismiss memory of water?

Just because nobody taught you anything like it before? Really man? Your kind of ignorance and defeatist attitude should be banned from SM...

I'm giving you a scientific paper on a scientific subject that has yet to be completely dispelled.

I am not on here advocating for homeopathic medicine, I never have. I said don't fucking dismiss it because you don't think its right. Go back to the 1950's with that kind of diminutive thinking.

Neil, I'm not sure how serious you're taking your comic, but if that is really what you are thinking, then you can read the above as well. Again - I am not advocating for homeopathic medicine, I am not saying that diluting every solution will give results as the paper suggests. I am merely pointing out that there is something worth realizing here. Beyond that - yes I believe in complex systems, holistic mind sets, and some other "non-science" ideologies like that.

The population has dealt with reductionism for the past 100-200 years and is now seeing the consequences. If you can't wrap your head around the possibility of complexity in a natural system I'd say you're a detriment to the fore-goings of science and you should stay in your house and discontinue communication to the general population.

thanks
/rage

[Edited on 28-1-2012 by GreenD]

So you support vitalism. If you do, then don't do chemistry (technically biochemistry) because it is all about how life works in a molecular level and what triggers certain things in cells. If you believe that magically casting a spell on H2O, diluted so there is not even a single molecule left, can magically make the water remember what's in it before, you shouldn't be doing any chemistry. If you think that these "memories" somehow kill bacteria and viruses (which are made of molecules) with just a memory or a certain pattern in water, then you shouldn't be doing any science at all. There's no complex mindsets involved, it's just not possible, unless we ditch hundreds of years worth of science. Regarding the paper, a few suggestions of data cannot disprove hundreds of years of research.

[Edited on 29-1-2012 by weiming1998]

Panache - 28-1-2012 at 16:55

Firstly if someone has the access could you please upload the fulltxt of the article liked above, it gives a simple permanganate test that if negative is proof negative but if positive, may be negative or positive, it then goes into a more rigorous treatment of a positive sample to ascertain its true status.
Secondly regarding homeopathy, water memory has been sincerely and earnestly investigated by some uk researchers, awhile back i linked the address of the most comprehensive water site maintained by the aformentioned researchers, search for panache, in misc, you'll find it. No memory effects or affects were able to be shown, the research is very clear and convincing.
Thirdly, did you hear about the great irish drought? Well all the top irish scientists came together in order to solve the impending water shortage, and after weeks of intensive workshopping, to the great relief of the nation they found a solution, they would immediately begin diluting their water in order to make it last out the drought. (i made that joke up when i was ten years old).
And lastly my only experience with homeopathy was when a collegue referred someone to me when i was selling some glass. Turns out this nutter was selling into the homeopathic market, he proceeded to tell me he sold 'heavy water', as in dueterated, that he distilled himself from tapwater. When i raised an eyebrow and crossexamined his or anyones ability to acheive this via distillation, he nodded reassuringly and condescendingly and said 'it can be done'. I'm sure he tells his customers this should a query come in. However it is a meangingless statement and not an answer to the question. He is a crook, and the customers of his are very willing victims, it angers me so much when with this great wealth and affluence we have in the west the best we can come up with is to buy into this crap.
People are idiots.
Take your heavy memory water, your collodial silver, and try and treat some dysentery in equitorial guinea and see how useful you are.

[Edited on 29-1-2012 by Panache]

watson.fawkes - 28-1-2012 at 18:02

Quote: Originally posted by entropy51

if you extend the dose-response measurements down below conventional pharmacological concentrations into the homeopathic range of doses, guess what? They monotonically trend to negliglible, or less, as Feynman used to say. There are no magical maxima down there in the range of homeopathic doses.

I agree. The argument about monotonic response was what was wrong. It's clear that a lot of claims about homeopathy are in the quackery and fraud category. I'm not convinced that everything in the minds of practitioners is false, though. I've never seen even a trace of theory that strikes me as true, much less proven.

Mind you, I've never taken a homeopathic medicine ever. To each his own.

Endimion17 - 28-1-2012 at 18:57

Quote: Originally posted by Neil

I say - delete this thread or open threads about crystal power, pyramid power, astrology, dowsing, polywater, cold fusion, perpetuum mobile, etc

This thread was about testing for MeOH... What is with all the calling for threads to be locked or closed. It is like the newbies want to censor the crap outta this place.

A conterquestion. What's with all the newbies wanting to turn SM to a woo woo forum?

All I've said is - either turn everything bat-crap crazy (and drop the science from the Sciencemadness name), or don't turn anything at all. That's it.

This forum was constructed with science in mind, right? Then science it is. You don't see people opening threads about 18th century poems, do you?

I don't understand you. Anyone with the slightest interest in scientific rigor, truth, knowledge about pseudoscience and sense of ethics feels the same about homeopathy.
It's a scam. A quackery. A pseudoscience.

If logic, empiric evidence from chemistry and biology doesn't ring you a bell (which should, because that's the hardest evidence), why do you think the scientific and skeptic community is all alarmed by this "practice"? They're all paid by "lobbies"? Come on, man. Wake up.
The whole thing is so ridiculed that there's a whole foundation out there, offering million USA dollars (maybe even more, it was 1 million when it started) if anyone can prove "woo woo things" true. No one ever made it.

Have you even looked at the video I've posted? If not, go and take a look.

There's even a campaign about quackery awareness. Each October 23rd (Mole Day, reffering to the limit of dillution) people around the world chug tons of homeopathic pills and nothing happens. Because it's sugar and it doesn't work.

In the days of intensive Web communication, it has become a normative for a scientist and anyone thinking rationally to be acquainted with this BS. For god sake, even comics are being drawn.

Neil - 28-1-2012 at 19:15

Oh NOES

! Someone dissented with Endi!

I'd run and hide from your expert angst but frankly your being silly.

Try to re-read, or just read if you haven't read, my posts. Show me where I supported homoeopathy?

I pointed out that we were off topic and that shouting for things to get closed up is juvenile and you attack? Really?

How about people stick to the topic which was not 'does 30x diluted balderdash cure my runs' or 'do ya think diluting Endi 30 times would make him more palatable' but rather 'How can I test for methanol in a fast easy way'

Stop trying to fight everyone.

weiming1998 - 28-1-2012 at 21:24

Quote: Originally posted by Neil

Oh NOES

! Someone dissented with Endi!

Didn't everyone agree on the boric acid test?

But the boric acid test won't work if the alcohol contains water! The person who originally posted this needs to tell us whether the alcohol is anhydrous or not.

bahamuth - 29-1-2012 at 03:47

Quote: Originally posted by weiming1998

The boric acid won't work, because what the boric acid does is forming tri esters with alcohols, that is three alcohols bind to the borate. If say there was 30% methanol in ones ethanol one would get a mixed ester with one methyl group and two ethyl groups. So the most likely outcome is that one will make a mixed ester and as such the test would be inconclusive. No clear green flame.. Additionally I don't think 1% of a green flame in 99% yellow flame would be visible to the human eye..

Anyways whats wrong with the test linked to above, where hydroiodic acid reacts with the alcohols and are distilled over into triethylamine with a white precipitate a positive for methanol.

Granted the reagents aren't over counter but still...

weiming1998 - 29-1-2012 at 04:14

What about copper sulfate? That is soluble in methanol but insoluble in ethanol. But again, copper sulfate is very soluble in water, so it won't work in non-anhydrous alcohols.
Distillation of the alcohol and collecting the first few drops to mix with copper sulfate, then
light on fire seems to be a viable route, as methanol boils at 64 degrees celsius, but ethanol boils at 78. If there is any methanol in it at all, the flame should be green.

rstar - 29-1-2012 at 04:29

Is CuSO4 soluble in MeOH as much as it is in Water ?

weiming1998 - 29-1-2012 at 04:53

Is CuSO4 soluble in MeOH as much as it is in Water ?

No, CuSO4 is more soluble in H2O than MeOH. If your alcohol contains water, then distil it, collect the first few drops, add copper sulfate and light on fire. If it contained any significant amount of MeOH the flame will be green. If your alcohol contains so much water it is hard to light on fire, I suggest you distil a few times.

Endimion17 - 29-1-2012 at 07:54

Quote: Originally posted by Neil

Oh NOES

! Someone dissented with Endi!

By moaning about "newbies trying to censor everything" you're implying that you have nothing against homeopathy. The "let it be" policy. Well, I disagree.

I too think we should be discussing methanol detection (BTW, it does work if there's some water in it, but what would a n00b like me possibly know about these things, right?), but if there are people promoting homeopathy on a scientific forum, it's our moral duty to react. Being passive solves nothing because all you'll get is a thread with quackery being mentioned few times like it's a normal thing. Do you want SM to have such flavor? Trust me, these things are like weed. If you don't pluck it out while it's scarce, it fucks up your garden.

Trying to fight everyone? Whoa, talking about selective memory by a passive forumer.

So, on topic, it is.

Endimion17 - 29-1-2012 at 08:12

Quote: Originally posted by bahamuth

Why would it be inconclusive? Green color appears with methanol only, if the amount of boric acid is small enough. With ton of boric acid, green flame will appear with ethanol, too, although substantially weaker.
The catch is to put a small amount of boric acid so that it doesn't color the ethanol flame.

If there's appreciable amount of methanol in the mixture, the flame will be at least partially green around the edges. The more methanol there is, the greener the flame becomes.

I did this experiment several times. Actually, the first time I saw it was in a pharmacy, as a kid, when a pharmacist showed me the difference between pure ethanol (water solution, but pure) and denaturated alcohol. The first flame was negative, and the second one wasn't completely green, but there were green edges around it.

watson.fawkes - 29-1-2012 at 08:35

if there are people promoting homeopathy on a scientific forum, it's our moral duty to react.

Demonstrate, by quoting user 'rstar' who is the original poster on this thread, where he "promoted" homeopathy. Oh wait, that's impossible. He's only used the word once in the thread, at the beginning. He didn't refer to it indirectly thereafter, either.

I've got a alcohol solution (if u know about it then its a homeopathic medicine, so-called mother tincture)

How is this promotion? He only mentioned what he was working on. He didn't ask you to work on it. He didn't ask you to believe it. He didn't make any claims of efficacy.

I will be frank. Your exhibition of fundamentalism disgusts me. It disgusts as much as any of the other fundamentalisms that flare up here from time to time, but it Christian fundamentalism, atheist fundamentalism, the various fundamentalisms of politics, and a few other. In your rhetoric, you are promoting conventional behavior, advocating a social reaction against a particular avenue of unconventional exploration that you don't approve of. This combination of rhetoric and advocacy is the essence of politics, the polity in question here being the membership of this board.

You were the one picking a fight here. It started with this post of yours, the first to go off-topic. It's nothing but acting the bully, jabbing at someone not looking to posit any claim of intersubjective truth.

First of all, calling anything homeopathic as "medicine" is quite frankly ridiculous.

What disgusts me about your behavior, very specifically, is that seeks to choke off imagination. Science has had far more dead ends than productive research results. It has always been so. It will continue to be so. If someone wants to spend their time on something on you consider unproductive, that's their business, not yours. Don't join them.

When you seek to exercise political power through rhetoric to squish someone else, you are both inhibiting scientific progress and asking others to go down the road toward totalitarianism, both of which disgust me.

AJKOER - 29-1-2012 at 08:35

Here is a scheme designed to test for even low dosage of methyl alcohol. Those with any background in bio-chemistry or toxicology please comment.

1. Add HBr/H2SO4 to the solution in question (the "target solution") and to a constructed solution with only ethanol in the appropriate percentage, hereafter referred to as the "ethanol" or "standard solution". The goal is to form Methyl bromide (assuming there is any Methanol) as it is a commercial pesticide used against insects, termites, rodents, weeds, nematodes, and even soil-borne diseases.

Caution see link:

"Methyl bromide, labeled with a DANGER signal word, is an extremely toxic vapor. In humans, methyl bromide is readily absorbed through the lungs. Most problems occur as a result of inhalation. About 1,000 human poisoning incidents caused by methyl bromide exposure have been documented, with effects ranging from skin and eye irritation to death. Most fatalities and injuries occurred when methyl bromide was used as a fumigant.
Inhalation of 1,600 ppm for 10-20 hours, or 7,900 ppm for 1.5 hours is lethal to humans (8). The lowest inhalation level found to cause toxicity in humans is 35 ppm in air."

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/haloxyfop-meth...

2. Apply a spray with safety percautions of both solutions to 3O samples of say 30 ants (60 test populations in total). I could also select slides of an appropriate microbe in place of ants. Note, the ants should not be collected from an area that undergoes pesticide treatment as say ants could be more resistant/robust species.

3. Wait and record the # of surviving ants in the 60 samples.

4. Perform an Analysis of Variance (or a dummy variable regression with repeated measurements, or best Probit Analysis actually invented to analyze pesticides, see details at http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~efc/classes/biol710/probit/ProbitAn...) to test any statistical significant. Unless you use Probit analysis, you will need to transform the data to comply with the normal population model assumption.

One, if so inclined, could expand the experimental design to three test populations, the target, ethanol only, and one constructed with an guess estimate of the actual methanol contamination (this would also confirm that the testing process can detect methanol). Also, one could add a concentrated target test sample.

The advantage of this approach is that it statistically confirms the presence of methanol via one of its recognized more toxic cousins, and so directly measures a mortality effect ascribed to be in ppm. The short fall of this test process (other than unlikely random error) is that it only measures toxicological differences between Ethyl and Methyl bromide, where I have made an assumption that there is a measurable difference (Occupational Safety and Health Administration permissible exposure limit (PEL) for ethyl bromide is 200 ppm vs. 20 ppm for Methyl Bromide).

These tests should be performed on behalf of the distributor of say product to ensure product quality/safety.

[Edited on 29-1-2012 by AJKOER]

Endimion17 - 29-1-2012 at 09:23

Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes

I've got a alcohol solution (if u know about it then its a homeopathic medicine, so-called mother tincture)