Balance and Power

Dallas Museum of Flight Supports the Popular Image of the Wrights and Their Cycling Company

This post is, more or less, a book review. Recently I read again about the effort that the Wright Brothers expended in order to make the first sustained human controlled flight in history. This book, by David McCullough, entitled "The Wright Brothers, recounts their journey. My loyal reader may recall the Wright Brothers as bicycle mechanics, but that serves only to minimize their accomplishments. In truth, their accomplishments were made possible by their cycling background, combined with the love of reading instilled in them by their parents. McCullough makes this point, but fails to emphasize some of the groundbreaking accomplishments these two brothers from Dayton, Ohio accomplished.

• As cyclists, they realized that proper balance was essential to controlled flight. Any cyclist knows that balance is a prerequisite to movement. The Wrights realized early on that balance was even trickier for powered flight than it was for cycling.
• Their learning led them to absorb virtually every book written on human flight. One of their sources was Samual Langley, the head of the Smithsonian Institution and an erstwhile competitor to be first in flight with his "Aerodrome." More on this later.
• They realized that scientific research, whether peer reviewed or not, was sadly lacking. One example was the absence of any serious research into the principles behind propeller operation despite their having been used in ships for a half century. They had to develop the principles themselves. They achieved far better efficiency than the best ship propellers of the time.
• Similarly, stability and control laws were lacking; this led them to build their own, homemade wind tunnel. One of their first conclusions is that the big problem in flight was the learning of how to control the aircraft, not in the basic principles.
• The Wrights were far more than sinple mechanics. According to McCullough, before the turn of the century, they were turning out close to 200 machines a year when they started working on building a flying machine. The photos above make it look like they were a couple of country hicks working with tools one might have seen in the American Revolution. They don't look like an outfit that had a wind tunnel in the back room.
• As they developed the scientific principles needed for flight, they asked all the auto manufacturers of the day to provide them with an engine. They asked for an engine that could develop at least 8Hp and weighed less than 200Lb. Nobody offered to meet their specifications. So they put one of their employees, Charlie Taylor to work. He built one that weighed 150Lb and put out 12Hp. Score another for the cyclists. For comparison, the 1912 Model T engine weighed around 300Lb without transmission and put out 20Hp.
• Their choice of Kill Devil Hill was also not accidental. They researched all the potential

  

  From Wikipedia

  locales, looking for one that was relatively unpopulated, with consistent wind, and with lots of level and hilly locales for launch/recovery sites.
• Somewhat strangely, considering the almost instant spread of news today, the first accurate eyewitness account of the Wright Brothers flights didn't come out until January 1905; more than a year after their first flight. The publication: "Gleanings in Bee Culture."
• The editor of the first accurate article on human flight (the same "Bee Culture" guy) sent a copy to Scientific American with an offer of free republication. Far from taking him up on the offer, Scientific American ignored it and, instead, a full year later, ridiculed the notion that the Wrights were capable of something they'd been doing for over two years. Wilbur Wright opined: "If they will not take our word and the word of many witnesses, ... we do not think they will be convinced until they see a flight with their own eyes." By that time, the Wrights were negotiating the sale of the Wright Flyer III to the French Government after receiving no interest from the US Government. Three years later, they were making their famous flight over the Statue of Liberty.
• Oddly, even long after this, in 1928, the Smithsonian turned down a Wright offer to donate the original Flyer. Instead, the Smithsonian falsely claimed that Langley produced the first machine capable of flight. They even had Glenn Curtiss modify it so it COULD fly. As a result, the original Wright Flyer was sent to England to reside in the London Science Museum. It stayed there until after Orville's death in 1948. I guess we're lucky it wasn't hit by the Germans in the Blitz.

I guess the US Government has reconsidered. After the Flyer went to England, the Smithsonian board recanted their denial of the Wrights being the first to fly. Perhaps final vindication came in 1969 when a piece of the original Wright Flyer went to the Moon with Neil Armstrong. One Giant Step indeed!

Batteries Are Not Simple Anymore

Poorly Designed Cateye Light Breaks if You Try to Use Rechargeable Batteries!

Many LED bicycle lights, such as the Cateye HL-EL520 pictured above, use "AA" size batteries. It is also the size that my Fujifilm camera takes. Over time, I've come to discover that AA batteries come in different sizes and power outputs. SOME will make your camera or bike light perform less well than others, and what's good for one may not be best for the other. As I discovered, SOME will physically break your bike light. Here's the rundown.

Alkaline Batteries - These are the garden variety battery that most devices are designed around. They work fine, but are not rechargeable and don't last long in my camera. It'd also be nice to not have to stock up on batteries for a bright headlight. That started me on a search for better. Highly relevant to this story is that Duracell AA Alkaline batteries, when fresh, are rated at 1.5 V and have about 2500 mAh capacity. As you can see from the Duracell service life graph, when voltage gets down much below 1.2 V, the batteries are on their last legs.

 

Alkaline Battery Next to NiMH Rechargeable

Duracell Voltage Drop Over Time - FROM Duracell Site

 

NiMH Batteries - The current standard for rechargeable AA lights are NiMH. These are pretty much a direct substitute for alkalines in many applications. HOWEVER, a AA NiMH does not have the same nominal voltage as an alkaline battery. They start at 1.2 V and drop from there. What this means is that if you have a camera that takes AA batteries, it won't take very many pictures or flashes before it poops out. There's ANOTHER problem with NiMH batteries. While it is difficult to see in the photo above, NiMH batteries are a little bigger than their alkaline cousins. In the case of my Cateye light, I put a set of NiMH batteries in and it broke. Yup, that light lasted all of two minutes. Using a micrometer, the NiMH batteries scope out at 0.565 inches compared to 0.550 inches for the alkalines. Luckily, my bike shop was still open and they exchanged it. The clerk broke it worse so he simply shook his head. Now I ONLY use alkaline batteries in that light. Their bigger light, the 530, CAN accept NiMH batteries and the LED stays pretty bright for many hours. Then I recharge.

 

NiZn Rechargeable is Superior for Camera Usage and Not Bad for Bike Lights

 

NiZn Batteries - NiZn are a fairly new type of rechargeable. While they don't fit into my Cateye much better than the NiMH, (they are about 0.558 inches diameter) they drop right into my camera. What's more, while the NiMH start out at 1.2 V, the NiZn start out at 1.7 V. What this means is that they last in my camera much better than either NiMH or disposable alkalines. They also work well in bike lights that can accept them. They're a bit "hotter" than an alkaline, but not by much.

 

Other Rechargeables - There are two other main types of rechargeable batteries that you might want to use in your bike light, and one that you DO NOT. The first of these are NiCd batteries. They were what people used before NiMH came along. They don't last as long, have toxic cadmium, and have memory effect problems. NiCds are on the way out. The second are rechargeable alkaline batteries. I don't have any experience with them, but looking at Wikipedia, they don't look like they'd work well as camera or as bike light batteries. One that you do NOT want to use is the lithium rechargeable battery. The problem with them is they put out 3.6 V. That'd fry your camera, and might also fry a bike light.

 

Last Words - In summary, I'm quite happy with my NiZn batteries in my Fujifilm camera. I use the NiMH batteries in my Cateye HL-EL530, where they make a snug, but acceptable fit and last quite well. I AVOID using anything but old-fashioned alkalines in the HL-EL520 since NiMH will break it and the NiZn are tight enough that I'm reluctant to try. One wonders why Cateye did not provide even a smidge of clearance on that light. As a back-up light, it works OK. Alkalines will last for years when you rarely use them. One more thing. Disposable lithium batteries are now available. According to Wikipedia, it looks like they will probably last about 50% longer than disposable alkalines, but are a LOT more expensive.

Cyclist Crosses the Road

While I don’t often post about it, I pay close attention to news reports of collisions involving motor vehicles and bikes. In the vast majority of cases, it quickly becomes evident that the collision is remote enough to my riding or driving that it is completely irrelevant. I simply don’t ride on sidewalks, in crosswalks, against traffic or chat on a cell phone while riding, and I rarely ride in locations where a right turning car will squish me. Still, there are sometimes crash elements that relate to things I see or do daily. One such came up a while back in a post Andy, of Carbon Trace, made about a cyclist that was hit crossing a major highway. I imagine it was a road the cyclist had crossed many times before, but this time his luck ran out and it looks as if he was hit by a motorist because he didn’t have quite enough time to get the distance he needed to go.

I opined:
“What I saw on Google streetview was a divided four lane highway, with left turns and a median that the cyclist could have used to confirm his judgment of the highway traffic when he got half way across. It is difficult to judge the traffic on the far side of a four lane road, and using that median could have kept that cyclist safe. He apparently failed to use an advantage (small size) that would NOT have been available to him had he been driving a Ford Ranger.

"THAT is the lesson we as cyclists should absorb unless we wish to become victims ourselves. Suppose the motorist IS distracted, the task remains the same for the cyclist – operate so you get to your destination safely, without close calls. Distracted motorists merely make that task a bit more urgent.
Posted 24 Aug 2010 at 6:33 pm ”

There are ways you, as a cyclist, can reduce your risk of such a collision. One way is to establish a reference mark, such as I describe here for purposes of making crossing the Alliance Gateway Freeway eastbound lanes safer. The reference mark is very handy because there’s lots of traffic along Alliance and I have to cross it every day, so I’m highly motivated to accurately judge the traffic gaps. Another way to make crossing a major street safer is to learn how long it takes to cross big streets, and how quickly oncoming traffic will be upon you.

Table 1. Simple Time Guide to Cross Lanes

I’ll illustrate the basic process. The first element is how long it’ll take to cross a wide street. I have found that I should allow the time shown in Table 1 to get across these things. You may be significantly quicker or slower, but my table works for me on my commute. These are 12 foot wide lanes, but you won’t get across narrower lanes a whole lot quicker. Maybe a second or two, but you’ll have to work out just how quick YOU cross a street.

The second element is how quickly an oncoming motor vehicle will intersect your path. Conveniently, many streets include reference marks such as telephone or light poles that can be used as a rough guide. Telephone pole spacing varies, but 100 to 125 feet is typical. For safety’s sake, we’ll assume 100 feet.

Table 2 shows how many phone poles away a car needs to be to give the appropriate time window if the poles are 100 feet apart. In each case, I have rounded partial seconds DOWN to the nearest full second. You will note that if you want a really simple rule of thumb, just figure that an oncoming car will travel one telephone pole’s distance each second. That’ll be safe for city streets, and will be a reasonable guide even for getting across higher speed roads. If your street has periodic driveways, you can create an equivalent table simply by measuring (rough measurement will do) how far apart they are and knowing that:

 time in sec = 0.681818 X (number of features) X (distance apart features are in ft) / (car speed in mph)

Table 2. How Fast the Cars are Coming at You

If you want to cross a road on your bike safely, you need to arrive past where the car is traveling before it gets there. It’s as simple as that. If it takes 6 seconds to cross a seven lane road, you are in big trouble if the oncoming motorist occupies the same space 6 seconds hence. You want to pass that space far enough in front of the motorist that he/she feels no need to take evasive action. Evasive action by a motorist with the right of way can end badly for the cyclist attempting to cross the road. You want happy, content motorists that do not come into contact with you or your bike and that don’t have to think too hard to make that objective into a reality.

If I apply this to crossing a seven lane road such as Davis in North Richland Hills, I know that it’ll take me 5 to 6 seconds to get across the far lane. If a motorist is coming along at a clip of 40mph, I know that if he is 4 telephone poles away, it’s not going to be safe to try to cross in front of him. Because I like to leave extra margin, I’d probably want a bit extra if I were going to cross – the driver might be going faster, or I might miss a shift. As a result, I'd probably only cross if the car was 6 poles away. This'd give me clearance even if the driver were bombing along at 60mph. On the other hand, if the traffic is two lanes away from me, I can cross if the oncoming motorist is 4 telephone poles away because it takes me only 3 seconds to cross that lane.

All this math has an added side benefit. Counting how long it takes to cross various streets builds the traffic senses and seeing how fast cars are traveling also sharpens the sensibilities. Of course, all the finer points will vary for you, just as they do at various locations along my commute route. KNOW your motorists! It is one reason why, when I fell on Monday, no motorists became involved with me afterwards.

UPDATE FOR MATH-CHALLENGED CYCLISTS WITHOUT CALCULATORS
If you like things REALLY SIMPLE, just make sure that oncoming traffic is more telephone poles away than you have lanes to cross. No math needed. Just see that oncoming motorist is far enough away that you can cross without turning into a pancake. This is not about absolute calculation precision, but about using available visual references to guard against a misjudgment by yourself. You'll get better with very little practice, and it won't slow you down on your commute by a single second or cost you a penny. Actually, it'll probably get you to your destination a smidge quicker - without close calls.

Cycling Clots

Nowadays, a lot of us work in offices at desks. If you’re reading this, you probably ride your bike more than the average person. You ride when it’s cold, or when it’s hot. You may have concluded, as I have, that cycling is fun and safe. Unfortunately, around the edges of things there are risks, and it turns out that Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) may be one of those risks. And that risk isn’t as remote as you might imagine. I’ve seen estimates that 15% of unexpected sudden deaths may be linked to DVT and that 3-5% of airline passengers experience blood clotting. This risk isn’t unique to cycling – it will affect people engaging in almost any aerobic activity, but I can think of few that people engage in for such long periods of time at a stretch as cycling. When you put the pieces together, I think you’ll agree that it makes sense. How big a danger is DVT? I have no idea because I have no idea how many unexpected sudden deaths (other than collisions) cyclists experience, nor how their cycling affects their death rate compared to the general public. Even if a cyclist experiences a higher rate, he/she might still be better off due to general condition. Fortunately, most of the preventative steps are very simple.

Exercise as DVT Cause Agent
First, one of the benefits of cycling is that the aerobic activity lowers your blood pressure and resting pulse rate. Your heart doesn’t have to work as hard when you’re lounging around beside the pool. However, this also means that if you are sitting at a desk or in an economy class airline seat, the blood in your leg isn’t getting stirred up as much. A study, summarized here, discovered that 85% of DVT cases amongst airline passengers were experienced by athletic types. I would expect that to be greatest amongst the marathoners and cyclists. After all, swimmers that swim for hours per day are rare. Cyclists that cycle for hours per day are common. If you ride a bike and read this and think "I'm not athletic," think back to when you first started riding frequently and compare it to what you do now. You ARE athletic compared to similar people that do not ride.

Second, as for other long-distance athletic activities, fluid loss and balance can affect your body. Dehydration can cause your blood to thicken. Hmm, now we have blood sitting in the leg in a thickened condition. NOT a good combination.

It gets complicated and not only am I not a doctor, but I’ve never even played one on television. Among other things, temperature extremes can affect you as well. Apparently cold constricts your veins in your legs, and heat causes you to dehydrate quicker. I think I’d worry more about the latter, but then I live in North Texas and summer is upon us.

Finally, if you cycle regularly and over longer distances, you will inevitably experience all sorts of aches and pains along the way. Mostly these will appropriately be shaken off, but sometimes these may signal an early warning for you to go see a doctor. In the link I cited, here, the cyclist got leg pain and swelling, but shook it off. Myself, I got a couple of cramps in the same leg they eventually discovered the DVT on a few occasions. I noticed no swelling or other symptoms. I shall never know if those were leg cramps or early warning signals. DVT is typically mistaken as a simple cramp, even by doctors experiencing it. I think if you get a cramp once, don't worry about it. If you get them repeatedly in the same leg, go see a doctor.

Risk Reduction
Obviously, the simplest and cheapest thing you can do is avoid letting your legs laze around after exercise. If you are stuck on an airplane, do leg flex exercises during the course of the flight.

Next up is to follow the advice that Gail Spann gave us at LCI training – hydrate! I’ve never been a fanatical hydrater. Growing up in Seattle, it was only fairly recently that I learned that hydration was something other than how the grass stayed green. It was only last year that I started regularly carrying a water bottle for trips over 10 or so miles. BUT, water may not be the best solution. Taste your sweat and you’ll notice that it does not taste like bottled water. Sure enough, airline passengers that drink water experienced blood thickening during a flight not all that much differently than did those that didn't do anything. The  reference is here. ON THE OTHER HAND, those that took an isotonic beverage consisting of water, salt, and potassium did NOT experience blood thickening, and it appears they needed less trips to the restroom as well. You could approximate this effect with a sports drink, but those have a lot of sugar which you won't be needing while working in an office or sitting on an airplane. The simple solution is to find a way to ingest salt and potassium along with your water. I have found such supplements, but I'm not prepared to conclude they are strictly necessary, nor to dismiss them entirely. John Forester, in Effective Cycling, is clearly an advocate of "replace the salt you sweat" and has a good discussion on home made electrolitic solutions, though he is oriented towards the "during the ride" solution rather than for "keep your blood from clumping after you get there." Whether you go for a precise mix or not, according to Wikipedia's perspiration article, there is roughly 0.9g/L of sodium and 0.2g/L of potassium in sweat, along with minute quantities of all sorts of things. They also note that the  exact composition depends on all sorts of factors and can vary quite a bit. I wonder how sport drink manufacturers get their composition so precise. Might there be just a touch of marketing exaggeration involved? Anyway, bump up your salt intake along with your water when you ride.

It appears there may well be other simple things you can do to help. For example, herbs such as green tea appear to have a blood thinning aspect to them. Some advocate the use of aspirin, though medical opinions are divided on whether aspirin actually helps, despite being a thinning agent. Conveniently enough, the drug education brochure on the blood thinning drug I've been put on has a list of these things which I am now supposed to stay away from to avoid overthinning my blood. Green tea and aspirin are both on the list, along with things like garlic and ginkgo.

If I were not already on a blood thinning medication, let's assume a scenario where I'm a cyclist that rides enough that my resting heart rate is significantly lower than the general public that otherwise fit my age, weight, and gender profile. What do I do that might help myself if I'm going to work in an office for the day, or if I'm leaving on a long airplane flight?

Office for the Day
In this case, the main task is to replace the salt and fluid lost to sweat during the bike commute. John Forester recommends using unsweetened lemonade with added salt. In reality, it's probably simpler to toss a couple of grams of salt down and bump up the banana consumption a bit. A bit trickier is to figure out how much sweat you have produced. You can approximate that by a careful weighing plan (as a first approximation, most of the weight change is due to  water consumption or sweating as long as you haven't gone to the bathroom and it's fairly warm out). You can improve that approximation if you also estimate your water loss due to breathing, but we're quickly getting complicated here. Anyway, regardless, periodically get up from your desk and do simple leg exercises to keep the blood from solidifying. Basically, I've got six months to get this one dialed in. Luckily, as your commute gets shorter and colder, this gets simpler. In my own case, I need to determine the right amount of water and electrolytes to consume when it is 60F out or 105F out. Fortunately, the results really only need to be in the right general ballpark. If I  can find a way to summarize all this in a way it might be coherent, I'll post it, but such a post will not occur in the near future - I've got six months to figure this out and only one shot to get it right. If anyone has a good source for this, I'd be eternally grateful, as I could move up to an early "trust but verify" stage. I suspect, however, that the most we might hope for is a good "here's how you determine your profile now."

Airplane Flight
In this case, in addition to the exercises, there are several added steps I'd take. First off, it probably makes sense to get a sugar-free isotonic powder to bring along. That will not be available on board. Then order water and consume the powder along with bottled water as the flight progresses. I hear one cup per hour is a good consumption rate. Taken prior to the flight, an aspirin will thin my blood a bit. Opinions are divided on how much, if any, good this does, but aspirin is readily available and will help keep the blood thinner. I'd put it into the "might help and won't hurt"category. In addition, I'd probably order a green tea at the local coffee concession, rather than the coffee I might have had otherwise.

Simple Green Speaks Up

Simple Green has evaporated after nine days, leaving the foil with a green gel on it, but otherwise unaffected

In my previous post, I asked Simple Green what I needed to do to get Simple Green to actually EAT aluminum. They indicated that there was some etching with 5456 aluminum. I'm not familiar with that particular alloy, but in the Aerospace Industry, we commonly use other 5XXX alloys for aluminum honeycomb core. To summarize, I would NOT suggest soaking metal parts that have corrosion-susceptible alloys for weeks at a time in Simple Green. Use it, and then wipe/wash it away. It's what I do and I have NEVER had any problem with it. You are even LESS likely to have problems if the aluminum is painted, as on a frame. Anyway, here's the story FROM Simple Green - I sense some tenderness from them on this:

Steve A to Laura tonight:
Thank you. Your answer was very complete and helpful, and explains why I have never had any problems personally with your product, unlike with many others.

-Steve A

On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:08 PM, "Laura" wrote:

Dear Mr. Averill,

Thank you for contacting Simple Green and for your interest in Simple Green products.

Many years ago, Simple Green was submitted for Mil-Spec testing. One of the tests involved required soaking a bare piece of aluminum for 24 hours in a heated solution of 1:48 Simple Green to Water. Aluminum Alloy 5456 showed some etching and thus failed the test. Although there was no effect on some other Aluminum’s, our product was thus branded as an “aluminum eater”. I have attached a copy of this test for your records.

Simple Green will not “eat” Aluminum. It may, on certain alloys, cause indiscreet etching which may not be visible to the naked eye or at most be visible through slight discoloration.

Simple Green may present some risk if one chooses to completely immerse their Aluminum, of certain grade, in a solution for up to 24 hours. Applying and rinsing off within 5-15 minutes will not cause any sort of problems. If there is any cause for concern, you can switch to our Simple Green Pro HD solution, which has passed some Boeing and Pratt & Whitney specs allowing it to be a exterior surface wash, thus not causing any sort of problems for aluminum.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions about this or other Simple Green products or uses, please feel free to contact me directly. My contact information is provided below and my regular business hours are Mon thru Fri from 8 – 5 Pacific Standard Time.

Thank you again for your inquiry.

Sincerely,
Laura
Environmental & Regulatory Coordinator
Sunshine Makers, Inc. / Simple Green
---
My original query to Simple Green:
Your FAQ suggested that Simple Green might have problems with aluminum if not used according to instructions. About the same time, it was suggested to me that Simple Green would "eat" aluminum. As a result, being an engineer, I decided to do a test and left a piece of aluminum foil immersed in Simple Green to see what, if anything, would happen. Well over the course of the last two weeks, the Simple Green has evaporated and now is Simple Green gel. What do I have to do to get the Simple Green to eat the aluminum?

Personally I LOVE Simple Green, but I DO use it to clean a lot of aluminum parts and would like to better understand when it might present some risk. Clearly it isn't real agressive towards aluminum foil when undiluted and in a clean solution.
Name: Steve Averill


PS: There was also an attached pdf to the email that showed corrosion results, but for unknown reasons I can only see it on my iPhone and can't attach it to this post. For the 6XXX alloy tested (probably what bike frames are usually made of), there was no corrosion. Interestingly, though I did not ask, it appeared that Simple Green was more likely to corrode high strength steel than aluminum or other alloys, suggesting that it would NOT be a good idea to soak a bike chain in it for an extended period. I have never done this so cannot comment from first-hand experience. Apply and remove and you'll probably not have a problem with any metal. Also, while the email did not put the testing into context, it looks like it was done in conjunction with the US Navy in 1994 based on a handwritten note at the bottom of the pdf saying "from NAVSEA, 3/24/94."

FWIW, aluminum foil may be 11XX aluminum (almost pure aluminum with not much else), or 5052. 5052 was one of the alloys tested with Simple Green and experienced no corrosion. 5052 is also a common alloy for making honeycomb core. In addition to aluminum, it has a bit of magnesium and chromium in it.

Is the Simple Green question settled, Mythbusters?

Simple Green - Tired of Waiting - Let's See What Experts Say

I think we ought to see what Simple Green have to say for themselves. My foil seems unaffected. Eat aluminum - how do you make Simple Green do this? Snopes says nothing on the subject. Simple Green PROMISES a response within 72 hours.

I'll be interested to hear what they say. I use Simple Green often, because it gets stuff clean without damaging it. When doing the concours circuit, I discovered a lot of stuff that WOULD eat stuff, but never Simple Green. Castrol Cleaner, for example, I discovered would remove the paint from the underside of a greasy Jaguar bonnet. Good thing I had touchup paint. Easy Off also makes good paint remover and it WILL eat aluminum - and pretty quick.


Since the graphic at right is much larger than the solid info, I thought this was also a good opportunity for a few engineer jokes:

To the optimist, the glass is half full, to the pessimist, the glass is half empty.

To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
------------------------
Q: What is the difference between Mechanical Engineers and Civil Engineers?

A: Mechanical Engineers build weapons and Civil Engineers build targets.
------------------------
Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Engineers believe that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.

Cycling Mythbusters - Simple Green

Screen shot from Simple Green website about using SG on aluminum

ORIGINAL POST on Saturday, November 28

Velo, TX suggests in his comment of November 25th that Simple Green eats aluminum. He even included a link that showed some nasty looking aircraft parts, ostensibly due to the pernicious effects of Simple Green. Well, y'all ought to know better than to put such a dare in front of Steve after he's been recovering from the flu and watching an unhealthy number of "Mythbusters" episodes. I've been using Simple Green for many years to clean both aluminum and steel components with never any ill effects on the treated parts, so this "myth" seemed suspect. No Jaguar has never collapsed into a heap of rubble due to Simple Green as far as I know. Still, Velo spoke with the voice of one who's found something out the hard way, so I determined to test this myth. I got my hands on a pair of ancient and lousy wide-reach brake calipers that came off a Schwinn. Aluminum. But before I could sacrifice these brakes in the name of science, I decided to see what Simple Green said on the subject. THAT is the picture above. Basically, Simple Green do not recommend leaving aluminum to soak in a vat of Simple Green for weeks. I would also not do what the Chinook maintainers probably did - spray the stuff on and then not get it wiped off properly afterwards. I'm also going to go out on a limb and guess they didn't use the Simple Green that conformed to Boeing Specification D6-17487P. I've never done that - not until now. Spray on and wipe off has always been the modus operandi, as with other cleaners. One would do well to remember this is a water-based product. Would you leave your chain to soak in a bucket of water for a couple of weeks? And no, I don't buy my Simple Green to the Boeing Specification. I'm not in the "money is no object" class yet, though I notice that the SG Marketing people would probably love the added profit margin.

While I was reading what Simple Green had to say, my oldest daughter came to the rescue of the brakes, so our initial test will involve ALUMINUM FOIL, immersed in Simple Green (undiluted). The test vat is below. No explosions - so far. Immersion at 4PM, CST. If this turns ugly, please don't dwell on the fact that you probably used something similar to this foil when cooking your turkey yesterday. You can take comfort in remembering that you didn't spray the bird with Simple Green before cooking. If this doesn't work in a reasonable time, we may ramp things up. Based on what I read, I would NOT suggest mixing Simple Green with sulphuric acid. Interestingly, Simple Green do not recommend mixing SG with bleach or ammonia simply because those things reduce its ability to clean. No explosions. A search in their FAQs for "danger" yields nothing.

Simple Green - How long will it take to eat this piece of aluminum foil?

Updated at 4:15 - I snuck out to the garage. So far, it looks just like the picture, except the garage is starting to smell like Simple Green. Perhaps this experiment will have to move out to the driveway if my wife wants to know what that SMELL out in the garage is from. LOVE the smell of Simple Green in the afternoon! Thank goodness I had the presence of mind not to keep the concoction in the kitchen or I might be out in the driveway...

Updated at 1PM Sunday - The Simple Green smell in the garage has leveled out, thank goodness. No visible change in the foil so I tried poking it a bit. BORING! I thought about spitting in the solution, but that seemed rude. Where do you get C-4 around North Texas and where are the approved locales for detonating it?

Updated at 8PM Monday - Still the same. The Simple Green seemed a little chillier when I dipped my finger in it, but otherwise nothing...

Updated at 8PM Saturday, December 5th - COOL, most of the Simple Green has gone away. The aluminum foil seems unaffected, it's just sorta sticky and got green film on it. Some say that when I saw this, I said "Aw shucks! This here dang experiment ain't doin' nothin'. I'm done with it now, I reckon!" I'm stomping off to bed. We'll see if THAT has an effect. If not, I'm going to squirt some water back into the container and maybe stir in a little dirt.