# Thread: Bizarre Comments on ammonia and nitrous oxide

1. Originally Posted by JaneBennet
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Is how I learned the formula for ammonia. I like it. I like it. Nice work.
Not exactly, William. If you want the formula for ammonia, you should type this:
• \mbox{NH}_3
Well, I’m glad to know you’re enjoying TeX as well.

And this brings us nicely to another topic:

Text formatting in TeX
TeX format raw letters of the alphabet in italics: wrapping the tags around “abc de” gives (with the space removed). Suppose you want regular font, no italics? Well, there are at least four ways of formatting regular font in TeX. One of them, as I’ve used above, is the command \mbox. The others are \text, \textrm and \mathrm.
• \mbox{abc de}

\text{abc de}

\textrm{abc de}

\mathrm{abc de}
Notice that the typed space is ignored in the last one, \mathrm. In fact, with \mathrm, the whole input is parsed like any TeX expression, with relevant spaces added and redundant spaces removed, the sole exception being that variables are not italicized. Example:
• G=6.674\times10^{-11}\ \mathrm{m^3\:kg^{-1}\:s^{-2}} =
With the other three, what you type is parsed as plain text. If you need to format a small amout of your text as a math or math-type expression, it is handy to enclose it within a pair of dollar ($) signs: • \textrm{Water is H$_2$O.} In a moment, we shall see that \mbox together with$ has a very special property of its own.

To format TeX expressions in italics, use \textit or \mathit. Since letters of the alphabet are already formatted in italics by default, this will probably be used for formatting other characters, particularly numerals.
• \textit{123 45}

\mathit{123 45}
Bold is \textbf and \mathbf.
• \textibf{abc 123}

\mathbf{abc 123}
And with a bit of ingenuity, you can combine the two.
• \textbf{$\textit{123 45}$}
Finally, a word about \mbox{$…$}. This has the property that it preserves the size of whatever it is formatting. Take an example: X^X gives . The superscripted X is slightly smaller than the other X. Suppose you want both Xs to be of the same size? Then use \mbox{$…$}!
• X^X

X^\mbox{$X$}
Note: the dollar signs can be omitted if only numerals are being formatted. This is particularly handy when you have fractions within a fraction and you don’t want TeX to make things too small to be legible:
• \frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{2}}
\frac{\mbox{1}}{\mbox{$1+\frac{\mbox{1}}{\mbox{2}} }$}
The down side, obviously, is that your expression can quickly become too complicated with too many mboxes, so this will probably be something you’ll only want to use occasionally.
Well, Jane, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, in a world in my opinion that has very poor basics in place. However I still feel that ammonia is

Hope you will allow me my opinion that I admit is against most of the institutions on earth. I like the little sub script symbol. Thanks.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

2.

3. Originally Posted by bit4bit
Originally Posted by JaneBennet
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Is how I learned the formula for ammonia. I like it. I like it. Nice work.
Not exactly, William. If you want the formula for ammonia, you should type this:
• \mbox{NH}_3
Well, I’m glad to know you’re enjoying TeX as well.
Whats more, "" is not a valid molecular formula. It should be for nitrogen dioxide, for nitrous oxide (laughing gas), or for two moles of Nitric oxide.

I used to use and purchase as nitrous oxide for my car. I would use a forty pound bottle in 43 seconds. Nitrogen puts out fires. Nitrogen can release oxygen if it is in chemical bond with oxygen, very quickly when heated. However nitrogen is pretty inept as a fuel or catalyst.

Nitrogen allows all that oxygen to become a liquid at around 500-1000 psi depending on temperature. That is what makes nitrous oxide in cars so special. It is a very stable, medium low pressure liquid that contains a heap of oxygen, in my opinion.
But nitrogen is useless to an automobile. It will cause it to stall. So when nitrous oxide breaks down under heat. The nitrogen can do nothing and if the oxygen was just a single oxygen it would give you similar effects to air.

A super charger could give you those kinds of effects. However I have been told by professional installers that some users of nitrous oxide have had small leaks that detonated and blew apart the car upon starting the car. It was paramount that you shut off your tanks after use. And preferably drain the pressure from the lines.

Nitrous oxide is also listed as an oxidizer. Nitrous oxide would have more oxygen then air, however air would only have a little less oxygen, then a substance with the formula of

From my experience it is a powerful instant oxidizer. However so can air be a powerful oxidizer. The original method of manufacture of nitrous oxide was the combination of sodium nitrate which is sometimes listed as and ammonia sulfate listed as Heated to 230 degrees Celsius and the gas is collected over hot water or mercury.

Those two chemicals seem to contain a lot of oxygen to make a substance with the formula

This was me and my sleeper, on nitrous. Ha-ha.

This is oxygen at work on acetylene.

http://www.Rockwelder.com/Explosives/blast2.wmv

There is a big difference between nitrogen and oxygen. I use nitrogen to test for leaks in refrigeration systems. Then I solder the copper lines with nitrogen in them. Nitrogen is inert and protects the copper lines from scale.

You need disintegrative ARC energy to disintegrate nitrogen alone. Like in plasma cutting. Oxygen will also disintegrate alone in ARC energy.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

4. There was a picture on the net years ago, and the caption on the picture was that a noble prize winner was dousing a fire with liquid oxygen. The fire did get very excited. However there was a large amount of liquid oxygen going onto the fire.

My thought was that the proportion of catalyst activity of the liquid oxygen would about match that of nitrous oxide.

However in all fairness I have never taken liquid air to a fire to see what would happen.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

5. Except if the ammonia were NO3 it would have completely different electrostatic behavior than NH3 which has the ability to become the cation ammonium, which has a positive charge...

6. Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
Except if the ammonia were NO3 it would have completely different electrostatic behavior than NH3 which has the ability to become the cation ammonium, which has a positive charge...

I am saying that ammonia is .

If you have ever worked with chemical film developer, you can note that it does not have a strong ammonia smell like ammonia.
However if you treat kiln dust with ammonia hydroxide film developer, it will create clouds of strong powerful ammonia vapor.

I somehow do not think that the oxides in the ash, would want nitrogen or oxygen. But would rather have the hydrogen in the water.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

7. Ammonium nitrate was listed in my area as Mallincrodt brand. However it is sometimes created by treating nitric acid with ammonium hydroxide. With crystallization to purify it.

I would think that you would put the nitric acid into the ammonium hydroxide for safety. However I have never tried it, so I cannot say if it will work like that.

Another process to create nitrous oxide is to thermally decompose Ammonium nitrate that is listed in my chemical books today as

To me it just seems more like it is mostly oxygen, both ammonium nitrate and nitrous oxide.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

8. Originally Posted by William McCormick
I am saying that ammonia is .
Really? Because the entire rest of the world disagrees with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia
Ammonia is a compound with the formula NH3
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...5/ammonia.html
Ammonia, colorless, pungent gas, NH3, highly soluble in water.
http://www.epa.gov/tri/TWebHelp/WebH..._document_.htm
Since total aqueous ammonia is the sum of the two forms of ammonia (NH3 and NH4+) present in aqueous solutions, a precise calculation of the weight of total aqueous ammonia would require determining the ratio of the two forms of ammonia present using the pH and temperature of the solution.
http://www.chemistry.nus.edu.sg/rese...ionization.htm
We use both methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3) on a routine basis for CI and when protonated in the ion source they form (CH5+ and NH4+) respectively.
Ok, so let's review. We've just read that ammonia is NH3 in
1. Wikipedia
2. A private encyclopedia
3. A U.S. federal government web page
4. A university chemistry department web page

Or you could just look in ANY basic chemistry textbook.

9. Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
Originally Posted by William McCormick
I am saying that ammonia is .
Really? Because the entire rest of the world disagrees with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia
Ammonia is a compound with the formula NH3
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...5/ammonia.html
Ammonia, colorless, pungent gas, NH3, highly soluble in water.
http://www.epa.gov/tri/TWebHelp/WebH..._document_.htm
Since total aqueous ammonia is the sum of the two forms of ammonia (NH3 and NH4+) present in aqueous solutions, a precise calculation of the weight of total aqueous ammonia would require determining the ratio of the two forms of ammonia present using the pH and temperature of the solution.
http://www.chemistry.nus.edu.sg/rese...ionization.htm
We use both methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3) on a routine basis for CI and when protonated in the ion source they form (CH5+ and NH4+) respectively.
Ok, so let's review. We've just read that ammonia is NH3 in
1. Wikipedia
2. A private encyclopedia
3. A U.S. federal government web page
4. A university chemistry department web page

Or you could just look in ANY basic chemistry textbook.
Law makers rule America. How un-American is that? How unscientific would evil law makers need it be to maintain control?

For example lets say that ammonia and a bit of propane created a silent explosion that could hurl things at unbelievable speeds. And there is no explanation for ammonia alone or with other oxidizers doing this. What might the explanation be?

What organization publicly came out and said that they would hide the atom from American citizens? The United States government and England.

Why would you expect them to properly label chemicals used to make conventional bombs that create Hiroshima blasts and weigh in under a half ton?

Sincerely,

William McCormick

10. You are either insane or a troll. Either way, I think I'm done with you.

11. Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
You are either insane or a troll. Either way, I think I'm done with you.
Have you considered the possibility he is both? :wink:

12. Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
You are either insane or a troll. Either way, I think I'm done with you.
Do you think our government was lying then or now?

Sincerely,

William McCormick

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement