dust collection ducting

Who are you talking to? There's this really cool thing called "including enough context so people can follow the conversation".

Reply to
Dave Hinz
Loading thread data ...

Exactly which "laws of physics" cover flaming buckets of water? Can you name one or provide a citation ?

Reply to
Gus

Hey Gus - include the text you're replying to will ya? It's impossible to follow who you are replying to when you cut the original text and just post your reply. Most people do not keep the entire thread tree visible in their newsreaders and without that there's no way to know who you're speaking to. In fact, it can really make it difficult to understand the context of a reply.

Reply to
Mike Marlow

And AOL thinks it's a good thing that people today are developing more of a chat room mentality and less of the type of dialog that usenet was built on.

Reply to
Mike Marlow

Yeah, I tried too, but he seemed not to get the hint.

Reply to
Dave Hinz

impossible to

Sorry boys, the old quote button was malfunctioning.

I must have violated one of them thar "laws of physics" that LRod is always prattling on about.

Reply to
Gus

C'mon Gus - none of that stuff now. Hell, there's been enough of folks taking shots at other folks in replies to others lately. Most unpleasant. A good shot should always be thrown directly - it says so right in the hand book. Anyway - thanks for including the text.

Reply to
Mike Marlow

"Gus" blabbered on in message news: snipped-for-privacy@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Starting off with name calling I see. That just shows the strength (or lack of) of your argument. Like I said, you simply don't understand. The point is GUS, that there are some things that can be said with 100% certainty and the bucket of water was an example. Unless the laws of physics are different in your world, water in its liquid state cannot burn so there is a

100% certanity that a bucket of water sitting in your garage WILL NOT burst into flames.

Sure I can. If you actually studied a few facts, you could as well.

I guess that the laws of physics don't apply in your world or are you trying to justify this crap with the chaos theory of variables. The fact is that many of these variables are so rare that they become statistically insignificant and are treated as non-existent. Simple facts say clearly that a bucket of WATER will never burst into flames and if something were to contaminate it and make it flammable, then it is no longer just a bucket of water now, is it? The same can be said for explosions in a home shop dust collection system. The mixture and conditions simply are not there to cause an explosion and if you introduce variables that don't exist in a normal home shop, then you are not dealing with a home shop dust collection system anymore.

Reply to
TBone

I believe that he is talking to me.

Reply to
TBone

I was working with 10 ft lengths but the method is still the same. Most foil tape (at least the stuff I work with) has a release backing and that is what you will need. Cut a length a few inches longer than the length of the pipe you are using it on. Feed a pull line down the pipe (I used a telescoping pole) and attach the line to the tape. Fish the tape down the pipe. Now here is the tricky part. Send the feed line back down the pipe the other way. Peal back a small section of the release tape and attach it to the feed line then attach the foil tape to the pipe on that end. From the other side of the pipe, hold the foil tape sticky side up from the pipe and pull the feed line to remove the release tape from the foil. Once removed, pull the foil tight (not so tight as to break it) and set it into position within the pipe. To make the bond complete, form a tight fitting ball from a shop towel and push it down the inside of the pipe and you are done. I did this on opposite surfaces inside the pipe. On the ends I drilled small holes and put a screw and washer with the head on the inside of the pipe in each hole and secured it with another washer and a nut on the outside. I used another washer and nut on these bolts as mounting points for the braided copper wire I had wrapped around the outside of the pipes which also completed the ground connection.

Reply to
TBone

I sure wish you and/or LRod would elaborate on these "Laws of Physics" you're always quoting with such alacrity.

There's all kinds of them, you know, conservation of mass, conservation of energy.....do a little fact checking yourself, TBone.

Homer

Reply to
Homer

Water doesn't burn. Look it up.

- - LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

formatting link

Reply to
LRod

Actually, that is not precisely true. Probability theory comprehends the fact that there are events for which the probability of occurence is exactly zero as well as events for which the probability of occurence is exactly 1. In the case of what you are citing above, one can, with absolute certainty state that the probability of a container of helium bursting into a chemical flame is exactly zero since helium is an inert gas and will not combine with oxygen to combust. Another example of absolute certainty: conservation of mass in chemical reactions. These are events for which the probabilities don't approach zero or approach one, they can be stated as being identically equal to zero or one.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to
Mark & Juanita

I don't agree.

You could say "empirical evidence suggests it won't happen" or "experience shows us it won't happen".

Stating a probability as exactly identical to zero is inherently incorrect.

Reply to
Steve Decker

Insert "of an empirical event" after the word "probability" in the last sentence and I agree. Logically false (as opposed to empirically false) statements do have a zero probability of being true.

"A and B and (A implies not B)" has a zero probability of being true.

But as someone said, we are picking fly specs out of pepper here. I think LRod cited an interesting article pointing out the baselessness of concerns about dust explosions from ducting. While he might have slightly overstated the article's conclusions, those who are reacting negatively to his absolutism (and I tend to be one who so reacts) are missing or avoiding the message of the cited article.

Reply to
alexy

You have a single die (a regular hexahedron, with the faces labeled "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", and "6".

What is the probability of rolling a "7" ?

I do believe that saying "exactly identical to zero" _would_ be an accuracte answer.

I'll willingly agree that the _question_ could be considered 'inherently incoherrent'.

Reply to
Robert Bonomi

Probabilities are measured on a scale of 0 to 1.

Even a "zero" probability is not an indication that an event will never happen.

A zero probability states that an even "almost never" happens. A probability of one states that an event "almost always" happens.

Therefore, probability theory would state that, while the probability of rolling a 7 is zero, there is still a chance (however small) of it occuring.

Let me put this another way. Prior to 9/11/2001, most Americans would have said that the probability of two airliners striking both towers of the World Trade Center within minutes of each other and destroying both, was zero.

Yet, it DID happen.

LRod actually did make a cogent point in one post that he was willing to settle for a "reasonable estimate". That is actually a good way of explaining the situation.

The lesson to be learned here is to refrain from making absolute statements like "zero chance".

Gus

Reply to
Gus

The problem with this analysis is that it attempts to compare two entirely different hypotheses. While the events of 9/11 were certainly unthinkable and had, even if considered, an extremely low probability, the fact is all of the mechanisms to make it a an eventual reality were always in place.

In the case of the six sided die, there isn't any chance, not one, zero of a seven coming up. It isn't physically possible. There are only six choices--six possibilities. A seventh possibilty does not exist. There is zero chance for it to occur.

But obviously six (or seven) events is too complex for some of our members. Let's make it simple. The classic example for demonstrating probability is tossing a coin. Whenever the event is postulated it is always expressed as, "what is the possible outcome of a coin toss," or words to that effect. The answer of course is either "heads" or "tails."

One can then calculate and demonstrate all of the probability machinations one wants on the probability of any particular toss, however, if one were to say the probability of a toss coming up turkey feathers (or cream of tartar) is zero but could still occur is utter nonsense since turkey feathers is not in the set of possible outcomes. There is zero chance of getting turkey feathers from a coin toss.

In order for there to be probabability there must be possibility. The burning helium mentioned earlier is an example. Can't happen. The laws of physics (or more accurately, chemistry) dictate this. One can't even express a probability of it happening.Those who don't know where to find these "laws of physics" need read no further; the rest will be far too complex.

I made my point about an estimate because I knew it must include the word "zero" which is what seems to have so many up in arms.

Now, having said all of that, I will concede this: "zero chance" or absolutism, as one of my fans described, may not be technically accurate when measured to the painfully smallest degree. However, if you are living life in a real world, breathing real air, eating real food, driving real cars on real streets, hey, if you're woodworking with real wood and real tools, then you are already engaging in countless activities all of which have probabilities of danger orders of magnitude higher than an explosion of dust in a home shop dust collection system. That anyone would pick the demonstrably miniscule potential of that event on which to take a stand on personal risk management makes me double over in mirth.

- - LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

formatting link

Reply to
LRod

This isn't a math ng, but this is simply wrong...the probability of generating a value outside the set of possible integral results of any discrete function is identically zero.

After which the probability was identically one...the problem here is that a hunch or opinion is not a mathematical probability and much experiment has been done to show that people hold opinions of likelihoods of events that are far from being mathematically consistent...but, given the question you posed I don't really think most would have actually said "zero" but given something on the order of "highly unlikely".

Except, of course, when there really is zero chance, which in the case of the potential for dust explosions is identically zero. This assertion detracts significantly from the point attempted to being made as a cogent argument--it just isn't.

Reply to
Duane Bozarth

his point, though was that the odds of your dust collection system exploding- in your garage- are about the same as the odds of a bucket of water exploding -in your garage.

and he's right.

Reply to
bridger

HomeOwnersHub website 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.