Water that isn't wet.

Vektor T. Gecko · Post by **Vektor T. Gecko** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:50 am

Nope. That's the whole point. In the example, they immersed a running notebook PC and LCD television in the liquid, and took them back out again, fully functional.

furre · Post by **furre** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:02 am

Oh yeah... I knew that... Nevermind me. I'm stupid.

spoon · Post by **spoon** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:53 am

/me starts patching up furre's stupid container

Post by **Martin Blank** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 4:11 am

Water is a very poor conductor of electricity. Now, the solution known as "tap water" which contains many dissolved minerals which are electrically conductive is another story.

Monk · Post by **Monk** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 4:23 am

I wonder what the cost would be of replacing existing halon systems with this, and if there would be any point in doing so. Obviously, non-halon systems are easy; drain the reserviour and refill. How much does it cost to recharge a discharged halon system?

Daemonfly · Post by **Daemonfly** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:19 am

I beleive it cost my company $20,000 to recharge two huge tanks that got set off when a tiny relay smoked in the data center.

I'd like to see how this stuff works in real-world applications. I'd think Halon gas would be a lot easier to clean up(air room out) than some non-wetting chemical.

BillyBlaze · Post by **BillyBlaze** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:05 pm

Children are starving, people are dying of cancer, and we make water that isn't wet.

Skorpion · Post by **Skorpion** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:15 pm

Children are starving, people are dying of cancer, and we make water that isn't wet.

And why not? Us rich westeners need our total-immersion cooled gaming rigs.

Anyway, if I can get my hands on a few gallons of that stuff, I can get a nice heating system set up with it.
Yes, heating. Run the stuff through a set of overclocked PC boxes to heat it up. then around the room to vent it's precious heat into the atmosphere.

Can fish survive in it?

BillyBlaze · Post by **BillyBlaze** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:31 pm

Now if only it couldn't put out fires. Then it would be PERFECT!

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:35 pm

Children are starving, people are dying of cancer, and we make water that isn't wet.

A: If you give people enough food to survive, they'll simply expand their population until they're starving again.
B: As I said before... because we all know every scientist in the world is working on curing cancer..

... and it's the most important scientific breakthrough that needs to be found...

BillyBlaze · Post by **BillyBlaze** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:58 pm

WRONG! It is the SECOND most important breakthrough. Second to what you ask? WATER THAT ISN'T WET!

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:11 pm

First question: Why should we take every single scientist and put them to researching a cure for cancer?
Second question: You realize that that wouldn't work, right? Both because there's this thing called fields, and you know, especially scientists researching THIS don't quite belong in the field of medical research, and also ... eventually you'll reach a point of diminishing returns per scientist added to the project... right?

Stop channeling Fark headlines, Billy.

BillyBlaze · Post by **BillyBlaze** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:29 pm

First question: Who was the guy that woke up one morning and said," I'm going to make water that isn't wet!" And who was the lunatic that said, "Gee, I could feed a starving nation or cure cancer with this money, but I want to see water that isn't wet. Just for shits and giggles."

First statement: I don't think that EVERY scientist should be devoted to one specific field. We should always have one or two working on something else, like food preservatives.

Second question: You WERE able to tell that I was picking a random and arbitrary example to make a point, werent you?

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:32 pm

Well, cure cancer, end starvation, cure AIDS ... All my statements still apply.

Personally, also, I don't feel we -should- find a way to feed everyone in the world ... well, I feel we should, eventually, but not yet. But that's a topic for a new thread, not this one.

BillyBlaze · Post by **BillyBlaze** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:36 pm

My point still aplies. This is a clear example of misplaced prioreties.

As for this

Why should we take every single scientist and put them to researching a cure for cancer?

You're right. I've got no clue why you said it because noone borught up taking every scientist from every field and devoting it to cancer research, but you're still right, in your own wrong way.

Real Life Forums

Water that isn't wet.

Who is online