Seals Blowing Out: Epidemic?

[rbredding]

with most electronics, their technology is outdated within the 5 year timeframe (obviously not all, but certainly most)

that's certainly NOT the case with an aquarium (trying to get this train back on track)

 

[dave green]

grouper therapy;596526 wrote: NO NO Mr Bill !!the water will mix with the glass at such an alarming rate that a black glass hole will form creating a star gate into a dimension where people are kept as pets in a sea of artificial atmosphere.

:lol2:

 

[raisedonnintendo]

ichthyoid;596692 wrote:

We are figuratively standing at the intersection of ill-defined areas of physics. We both feel our positions have merit. I'll leave it at that.

FWIW-I have not been condescending in my replies to your statements. To the contrary, I have stated that I respected your opinion. Comparing my position to big foot, fools gold, etc. was uncalled for-IMO.

My bad.. I thought I said that I learned about urban legends in metallurgy school in college. As more of a reference point on the fact it was thru education not something I made up. Also at that time we learned about the myth of glass being liquid and fools gold. They all tied into that class my bad if I hurt your feelings. That's y I stated I believe you may be mistaken and I would like to help you learn more. Like with how glass was made hundreds of years ago. I didn't just say you had no clue what you where talking about. Because you have a ton of scientific facts that you where helping all of us to learn. Just the few you may have been off a little and I'm glad I could help you find the correct path.

 

[raisedonnintendo]

First, I want to say that I am enjoying this debate and respect your opinions. However, I think that you are oversimplifying the issue. It is not at all cut and dried.

There are many substances that span the viscosity spectrum from low viscosity liquids, to extremely high viscosity, like glass. Using the extremely different properties of water and obsidian to make a point is useful. If you were to make contact with water at a high enough velocity, it too could hurt or kill you just like obsidian. Instead of water we could also substitute oil, mercury, resin, butter, peanut butter or glass. This list has a more gradual increase of viscosities across several substances at room temperature.

I'm trying to grasp the relevance of your comparison of disingenuous from hitting water to fast. And being hit by a obsidian rock. Because if you enter the earths atmosphere to fast you would die to. Air causes friction thrown at you only ones gonna knock you out because it's solid.

 

[raisedonnintendo]

(I'm not above a condescending remark, obviously) [/QUOTE]

We if you mean to be condescending you probably shouldn't say it. I'm not Ty I feel like I'm being blunt and to the point no more. We have 2 different opinions on the matter just like glass being a solid or a liquid. Hence I apoligized for the miss understanding of my intention. You are telling me you just are trying to hurt someone n cause problems. I forgive you either way because that what he would do. Gb u

 

[ichthyoid]

RaisedOnNintendo;596809 wrote:

My bad.. I thought I said that I learned about urban legends in metallurgy school in college. As more of a reference point on the fact it was thru education not something I made up. Also at that time we learned about the myth of glass being liquid and fools gold. They all tied into that class my bad if I hurt your feelings. That's y I stated I believe you may be mistaken and I would like to help you learn more. Like with how glass was made hundreds of years ago. I didn't just say you had no clue what you where talking about. Because you have a ton of scientific facts that you where helping all of us to learn. Just the few you may have been off a little and I'm glad I could help you find the correct path.

No harm, no foul. I just felt the discussion had taken a turn away from the OP's subject, was becoming a little personal, and was detracting from the other poster's discussion. I now understand the context of your statement.

FWIW-I only mentioned the cathedral glass thing for what I felt was an interesting footnote to the discussion of aquarium failures.

That you contributed by illustrating that the glass thickness variation was likely due to the processing and not a property of the glass is appreciated. It has also given me reason to pour over current glass theory.
Thank you.