Are we on the same planet? I'm referring to your TOWN'S animal control
department. I've never heard of those people charging a citizen for removing
Try it yourself. Sprinkle some on the counter and press your paws into it.
Now, rub your eyes, pick your nose, and if you're really brave, go take a
leak. If there's enough sweat on your hands to cause the essence of the
powder to be released, your pecker will be in a world of hurt for a few
hours. If you like the results, head over to a supermarket that sells spices
in the bulk department. Lock & load!
Oh, I see. I became confused. I called animal control department of our
village a couple of weeks ago, and they said that they would not help
Okay, I like this idea actually, as it seems practical.
My thinking is, buy this cayenne pepper powder, get some food
leftovers, sprinkle with CPP, and leave for raccoons to try. That
could probably dissuade them from visiting my property. I could use
CPP on my garbage bins, as well.
I would rather not sprinkle CPPon the garden, as my son plays with it
(he "owns" some of the plants and likes to sprinkle water on the
garden). But, if raccoons are smart enough to avoid a whole yard if
they have enough trouble on it, I will be fine!
@ @ @ Please forgive my typos as my right hand is injured. @ @ @
Where I live (a little north of Seattle, Washington) you have to pay for this
service unless you can show they are injured or diseased. I had a family of 4
destroying my ponds last year and was told to either live with it or pay the
cities subcontractor $300 to remove them. And keep paying about $75 per animal
after that as new ones arrived to fill the created void.
It's not unheard of. We had a baby raccoon trapped in our garage behind
pegboard last summer. The town wouldn't touch the situation and referred us
to a private contractor. Cost us $145 to have the guy take it out and
release it in our yard.
BTW, after seeing how pi$$ed off that animal was, there's no way I'd try to
release one from a trap myself. And this was a raccoon that was only about 3
months old. Better left to professionals.
reading in misc.rural.
fun part is that depending on how new the car is, that might not work.
since about 1995, the car computers have been smart enough to stop the
engine when the oxygen level falls below 16% or so...and with the
modern cat cons, that might not have the carbon monoxide level high
enough for more than a head ache.
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)
| >I'd have spent a dollar on letting the car idle for a half gallon of gas,
| >so, then removed the carcass.....
| >Mark (just trying to save you $144 next time) Dunning
| reading in misc.rural.
| fun part is that depending on how new the car is, that might not work.
| since about 1995, the car computers have been smart enough to stop the
| engine when the oxygen level falls below 16% or so...and with the
| modern cat cons, that might not have the carbon monoxide level high
| enough for more than a head ache.
Actually the variation in O2 levels as controlled by the computer is not
that great. Regardless it is the blood's affinity for CO that is the danger
and CO levels way lower than can be minimally produced by an internal
combustion engine are sufficient to kill after prolonged exposure. The key
is time. I should also mention that CO is heavier than O2 so the atmosphere
at the bottom of the rat hole will be have increasingly concentrated CO
levels. If all else fails the critter will have one h*ll of a head ache.
| > I should also mention that CO is heavier than O2 so the atmosphere
| >at the bottom of the rat hole will be have increasingly concentrated CO
| >levels. If all else fails the critter will have one h*ll of a head ache.
| C = 12, O = 16, N = 14
| CO = 28, O2 = 32, N2 = 28
The real world physics/dynamics is not quite that simple but sufficient to
say CO is heavier than air and will settle to the lowest level i.e. the
bottom of the rat hole.
If you work out Van der Waal's equation:
at 1 atm and 20C, I get
02 1 mol / 2.74 L
N2 1 mol / 2.74 L
CO 1 mol / 2.73 L
CO2 1 mol / 2.49 L
making CO2 the most dense (unless I solved the equation wrong which is
entirely likely: v^3 - bv^2 = av - ab - RT = 0).
The difference between CO and O2 doesn't seem remarkable enough to be
significant, but I guess at greater concentrations it'd be workable. I
think you'd be more likely to kill yourself than the rat, though.
[I'm not a chemist or physicist, so all this could a bunch of hokey.]
Well, the way you're using it IS a bunch of hokey. You've calculated
molar density, not mass density. That's equivalent to saying 100
bowling balls takes up more space than 100 baseballs, since a 'mole'
is just a fixed number of atoms (somewhat more than a 'sh*tload'). It
says nothing about which is 'heavier'. You're better off just
ignoring molar density (as the previous poster did ) since, as you
note, they're all pretty close, and just going with the mass density.
CO2 is denser than 'air', and CO is slightly lighter.
email@example.com (Kelly E Jones) wrote in wrote:
100 bowling balls do take up more space than 100 baseballs, and the size
of the molecules is something the Van der Waals equation takes into
account that the Ideal Gas equation does not. (at STP the variation is
not very significant, but if you use the ideal gas equation, obviously
you get the same answer for every compound). [for people who don't
remember their chemistry a mole is Avogadro's number of particles ~= 6.02
If you take the molar density and multiply by the molecular weight, you
get the mass density.
Assuming the numbers are right, oxygen has more mass density than carbon
monoxide (but slightly less particle density). For purposes of
asphixation, the CO vs O2 comparison is what matters.
I still can't work out how mass density is relevant when talking about
gases or how adding atomic weights can give a correct indication of
density or buoyancy. It would be akin to saying water floats on oil
(obviously it doesn't), because water (1 + 1 + 16 = 18) is lighter than
oil (say minimum of 2 H and 2 C = 26). To me it makes more sense (when
talking about gases at least) to talk about particle density, but I'm not
convinced particle density is the solution, either.
Not really... O2 and N2 don't separate out - they form, effectively, a
'solution', so the density of 02 is not really relevant. It's the
density of 'air' which matters, which is between the density of air
and nitrogen (and closer to nitrogen).
Because mass density, coupled with gravity, is what causes bouyancy.
Because for most gases (at fixed temperature and pressure), the molar
volume (molar density) is roughly constant, thus the molecular weight
is a good indicator of the mass density, which determines bouyancy.
If we say that a mole of any gas occupies roughly 24 liters at STP,
and a mole of gas weighs it's molecular weight in grams, then the
density of any gas is proportional to it's molecular weight. The
density of CO2 is thus about 44 grams per 24 liters.
No, gases and liquids are vastly different phases. The molar volume
of most gases (at STP) is roughly the same; the molar volume of
liquids can be orders of magnitude in difference.
Nope, not at all. Gravity doesn't care at all about particles, it
only cares about mass...
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.