|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Personal Lubricant" and tires?
|
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Personal Lubricant" and tires?
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:37:35 PM UTC-5, wrote:
aiiiiiiieeeeee run run https://www.google.com/search?q=hydr...w=1067&bih=472 ................ spoke adjustment http://img100.xvideos.com/videos/thu...e59eb5b.28.jpg |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Personal Lubricant" and tires?
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
:On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 21:50:30 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt wrote: :Jeff Liebermann wrote: ::On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:41:44 -0600, Doug Cimperman wrote: : ::Genuine talcum powder has been driven out of the US market due to ::concerns about asbestos contamination (some fears not unfounded). Most ::of what you will find now sold as 'baby powder' is corn starch*. : ::I wanted to see for myself, so I found a "Johnson and Johnson baby :owder talc" MSDS: ::http://www1.mscdirect.com/MSDS/MSDS00010/62525761-20110708.PDF ::It lists talc at "50%" which implies that the other 50% is something ::else. The remaining 50% is not specified, but a clue further down the : :No, it just implies you continue to think that an MSDS is a formula, :which it's not. "50%" is acceptable to mean "=99.9%" on an MSDS. :I've got a bottle of the stuff. The ingredients are "talc, fragrance". :Unless you think "corn starch" is fragrance, I suspect there's an editing :error. : :-- sig 120 :Please re-read the part of my posting that you trimmed which says: : The remaining 50% is not specified, but a clue further down the : page is: : "Safe handling advice: High concentrations of starch dust can : form an explosive mixture in air." : The starch is probably corn starch. So it seems that it's a : 50-50 mix of talc and corn starch. :I would be interested in how a starch dust explosion can be produced :without any starch in the mixture. Perhaps it might be best if we :assume that MSDS is correct (as far as it goes), and that the only :error is the omission of the corn starch in the active ingredients :section. You're suggesting that the bottle would neglect to properly state its contents? MSDS contain all sorts of errors, somewhere I've got one for sawdust that instructs not to use water on it when it's on fire, because it's ineffective. I think you'd hve me believe it, instead of the more reasonable "someone made a mistake". In the case of the baby powder, the likely answer is someone started with the version that contains corn starch and failed to edit it properly. The source you site has an msds from 7 years ago; it would interesting to see what the current one says. -- sig 17 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Personal Lubricant" and tires?
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 7:19:12 PM UTC-5, David Scheidt wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote: :On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 21:50:30 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt wrote: :Jeff Liebermann wrote: ::On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:41:44 -0600, Doug Cimperman wrote: : ::Genuine talcum powder has been driven out of the US market due to ::concerns about asbestos contamination (some fears not unfounded). Most ::of what you will find now sold as 'baby powder' is corn starch*. : ::I wanted to see for myself, so I found a "Johnson and Johnson baby :owder talc" MSDS: ::http://www1.mscdirect.com/MSDS/MSDS00010/62525761-20110708.PDF ::It lists talc at "50%" which implies that the other 50% is something ::else. The remaining 50% is not specified, but a clue further down the : :No, it just implies you continue to think that an MSDS is a formula, :which it's not. "50%" is acceptable to mean "=99.9%" on an MSDS. :I've got a bottle of the stuff. The ingredients are "talc, fragrance". :Unless you think "corn starch" is fragrance, I suspect there's an editing :error. : :-- sig 120 :Please re-read the part of my posting that you trimmed which says: : The remaining 50% is not specified, but a clue further down the : page is: : "Safe handling advice: High concentrations of starch dust can : form an explosive mixture in air." : The starch is probably corn starch. So it seems that it's a : 50-50 mix of talc and corn starch. :I would be interested in how a starch dust explosion can be produced :without any starch in the mixture. Perhaps it might be best if we :assume that MSDS is correct (as far as it goes), and that the only :error is the omission of the corn starch in the active ingredients :section. You're suggesting that the bottle would neglect to properly state its contents? MSDS contain all sorts of errors, somewhere I've got one for sawdust that instructs not to use water on it when it's on fire, because it's ineffective. I think you'd hve me believe it, instead of the more reasonable "someone made a mistake". In the case of the baby powder, the likely answer is someone started with the version that contains corn starch and failed to edit it properly. The source you site has an msds from 7 years ago; it would interesting to see what the current one says. -- sig 17 cscscsccscsc uh uh if corn starch msds is your goal then try what ? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Personal Lubricant" and tires?
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:41:44 -0600, Doug Cimperman
wrote: On 12/28/2013 9:12 PM, John B. wrote: On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 11:31:14 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote: Per Ron Hardin: I was thinking it might be less messy than using my traditional soap-based formula for even tire seating. What about talcum powder? I've always put a new tube in a plastic bag of talc and shaken it up a little before rolling it up for storage. Dunno from seating, but it makes them easier to handle and not stick to the inner walls of the tire. I also use talcum powder, both on the inside surfaces of the tire and on the inner tube, but I did read something on the web that seemed to say that modern talcum powder wasn't just ground up rock and modern powders might be injurious to the tubes. and of course, the indomitable Brandt said it wasn't needed, but I bought a large can of the absolutes cheapest talcum powder I could find and have been using that for some years now with no problems. (besides, it makes even old, calloused, grimy, hands feel so soft :-) Genuine talcum powder has been driven out of the US market due to concerns about asbestos contamination (some fears not unfounded). Most of what you will find now sold as 'baby powder' is corn starch*. I don't buy stuff on the US market :-) If you want a non-water-soluble inert coating powder you can also use field marking chalk, found at sporting goods stores. I ended up buying the cheapest talcum powder I could find in Thailand and it seems to be "talcum powder" :-) The "British Pharmacy also sells some stuff named "Snake Brand Prickly Heat Powder" that contains Talc, Kolin and Camphor Menthol, Triclocarban and perfume so I guess that talc is still legally sold here. *(-corn starch, probably from genetically-modified corn! How long before that show is over I wonder. Oh well.) Well, it is apparent that humans are genetically modified and, as I understand the worry is about genetically modified flora, they seem to have taken over the regions in which they are located. :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Personal Lubricant" and tires?
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 10:20:50 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:41:44 -0600, Doug Cimperman wrote: Genuine talcum powder has been driven out of the US market due to concerns about asbestos contamination (some fears not unfounded). Most of what you will find now sold as 'baby powder' is corn starch*. I wanted to see for myself, so I found a "Johnson and Johnson baby powder talc" MSDS: http://www1.mscdirect.com/MSDS/MSDS00010/62525761-20110708.PDF It lists talc at "50%" which implies that the other 50% is something else. The remaining 50% is not specified, but a clue further down the page is: "Safe handling advice: High concentrations of starch dust can form an explosive mixture in air." The starch is probably corn starch. So it seems that it's a 50-50 mix of talc and corn starch. So apparently the baby getting silicosis from the talc is of more worry then blowing the little tyke up with starch explosions :-) Seems strange as with the silicosis the little fellow will linger on a bit while with the starch, boom! and he's gone. -- Cheers, John B. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Personal Lubricant" and tires?
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 15:03:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote: On Sunday, December 29, 2013 1:02:57 AM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote: If your having problems with a rim/tire combination that should work, see this video for the trick on how to mount the tire without tools or lubricants. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNhLPXfd8FM I learned that trick from a bicycle mechanic when I was quite young. It works well. I went through a few videos, and decided that video was the best. That video is good, and I've taught that method to quite a few cyclists in my classes. But it doesn't address the problem of beads that refuse to seat evenly around the rim. I don't know the correct way to deal with that. I've adapted a method I saw while having my automobile tires changed. The bead wouldn't quite seat evenly, which was a bad thing before adding weights to balance the tires. So, the tire changer partly filled the tire with just enough air to hold it in place, and bounced it around on the floor about 10 times. He also beat on the tread with a big rubber mallet, but that's not practical on bicycle tires. I think the idea was to momentarily cause large sections of the bead to lift off the rim, thus equalizing the seating. I've definitely seen those. The problem comes up just after the video's "There it is. That's it!" at 2:55, when you inflate the tire to low pressure, check the registration line, and find out that one part of the tire is deeper into the rim than the rest, and doesn't want to seat evenly. If used that way, the tire would roll "lumpy." That's the problem we're trying to cure. Another automotive method is to balance the tires, and then have the customer come back after about 100 miles for a rebalancing. That was offered to me maybe 50 years ago at one of the better auto tire dealers. It worked well. My guess(tm) is that even if the tire was "lumpy" for a few miles, it would eventually even itself out. I would be tempted to under-inflate the tire to help with the self adjustment, but then it might decide to roll off the rim. I suspect the beat seating could also be evened out if I point the axle into the (concrete) floor, and thrash about on the tire until it evens out. I've only had one tire refuse to seat properly. I forgot the rim and tire brands but I do recall they were not quality products. The problem was that there was a mess of rubber molding "flash" left on the inside of the tire near the bead, that was hitting the too wide rim tape that I had applied. The combination caused the tire to ride up higher where the rim tape had crawled up the sides of the rim. I had to tear it down, get the correct rim tape, shave some of the "flash" off the tire, and try again. It worked. BTW, I once long ago saw a special set of pliers with super-wide jaws, used for wrestling problem tires into an evenly seated position. Park Tool PTS-1 http://www.parktool.com/product/tire-seater-pts-1 I have a pair of these: http://www.ebay.com/itm/290880008414 which look like they might work, but I've never tried it. Something might also be learned from a bicycle tire mounting machine, which would probably need to deal with the same problem: http://www.tube-pipe-bender.com/bicycle-machinery-for-wheel-rim-making-tire-mounting.htm Hmmm... difficult to see and I couldn't find a better photo. But last time I had the problem (on another's bike) trying ordinary Channel Lock pliers that way didn't seem to help. - Frank Krygowski -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Personal Lubricant" and tires?
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 00:19:12 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote: You're suggesting that the bottle would neglect to properly state its contents? No. I'm suggesting that someone forgot to include the remaining ingredients so that the total would add up to 100%. I suspect there may be some anti-caking, preservative, and/or fluorescent brightners included. MSDS contain all sorts of errors, somewhere I've got one for sawdust that instructs not to use water on it when it's on fire, because it's ineffective. I think you'd hve me believe it, instead of the more reasonable "someone made a mistake". I've seen other MSDS sheets with errors. The danger to the manufactory is that if someone is injured and can prove that the MSDS was ineffective in advising of the danger, recommending mitigation, or suggesting treatment, their lawyer will be able to buy a new BMW. Mistakes can be expensive. In the case of the baby powder, the likely answer is someone started with the version that contains corn starch and failed to edit it properly. Yes, that's possible. I wouldn't be surprised if the corn starch ingredient, and possibly others, disappeared during desktop publishing or file conversion. The source you site has an msds from 7 years ago; it would interesting to see what the current one says. Good point. So, I went looking and found the Johnson and Johnson doesn't seem to want to make it too easy. http://www.johnsonsbaby.com/baby-care/faq (see 3rd paragraph). I would need to apply to the company of a copy of the MSDS and wait 2-3 weeks for it to arrive probably via snail mail. This tends to make me rather suspicious as to the missing ingredients. Since baby powder is commonly used to "cut" recreational drugs, I would not put it past our beloved government to encourage J&J to sneak in something disgusting. http://www.safetyandcarecommitment.com/ingredient-info http://www.safetyandcarecommitment.com/ingredient-info/other/Talc -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Personal Lubricant" and tires?
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
:On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 00:19:12 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt wrote: :You're suggesting that the bottle would neglect to properly state its :contents? :No. I'm suggesting that someone forgot to include the remaining :ingredients so that the total would add up to 100%. I suspect there :may be some anti-caking, preservative, and/or fluorescent brightners :included. It's covered by laws that require it to list its ingredients. Failing to list them will let the person who notices's lawyer buy a new BMW. The stuff I have is entirely insoluable in water, at least as far as I can tell visibly. Certainly it's not 10% starch. I'll bet zero. -- sig 20 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Personal Lubricant" and tires?
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 09:31:02 +0700, John B.
wrote: Seems strange as with the silicosis the little fellow will linger on a bit while with the starch, boom! and he's gone. Been there, done that. This story (from 19 years ago) involved household flour, not corn starch, but the principle is the same. Any finely divided combustible substance will produce a spectacular flash when ignited: https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=ba.mountain-folk/qinipGTNLEo/RACRy6Fi8yEJ No open flames near your baby or your bicycle tires when using baby powder. http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/talcum.html -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bicycle tires (or "tyres" if you're gay (not that there's anythingwrong with that)) | zxcvbob | General | 5 | September 19th 10 05:14 AM |
"John "Cho" Gilmer keeps publishing his "Manifesto" over and over." | Hoodini | Racing | 0 | April 23rd 07 12:38 AM |
The "Oil Free And Happy" Loser is now sending me personal email spam | landotter | General | 2 | August 16th 06 04:48 PM |
R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux") | spin156 | Techniques | 15 | November 28th 05 08:21 PM |