Page 14 of 15

Re: NAMM 2010

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:07 am
by jps
Carlos is a very close friend who we first met while we lived in L.A. in the '80s.

Re: NAMM 2010

Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:36 pm
by doctorwho
bassduke49 wrote:But wait: isn't liquid oxygen REALLY COLD? :lol: :lol: :lol:

It's amazing that the metal grille melts while the briquettes have yet to burn away.
The fact that is it cold is irrelevant to the inherent dangers of liquid oxygen. In fact, there are numrous examples of dangerous reactions at cryogenic temperatures; one that I recall off the top of my head is liquid ammonia with bromine at dry ice temperatures (-78 °C) ... the combination forms a shock-sensitive explosive.

Look at these quotes from the listing for Liquid Oxygen in Bretherick's Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards (4th Edition)):
Bretherick-LOX1.JPG
"... it is probable that most organic materials ... may be highly hazardous with liquid oxygen under appropriate conditions of contact and initiation."
Bretherick-LOX2.JPG
"Mixtures with petroleum and absorbent charcoal have been used experimentally as blasting explosives [1]."
"Petroleum and absorbent charcoal" would describe charcoal briquettes that are "easy lighting" or those soaked in lighter fluid.

I stand by my assertion that there was potential for a big disaster there.

Re: NAMM 2010

Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:41 pm
by 8mileshigher
Gary ---- maybe you better be careful with these kinds of postings .... or you might end up on some Terrorist Watch List :( :( and get stuck at an airport one of these days, while they inspect your shampoo and your :roll: liquid oxygen toothpaste...... :shock:

Re: NAMM 2010

Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:30 pm
by jps
8mileshigher wrote:Gary ---- maybe you better be careful with these kinds of postings .... or you might end up on some Terrorist Watch List :( :( and get stuck at an airport one of these days, while they inspect your shampoo and your :roll: liquid oxygen toothpaste...... :shock:
Why? Gary probably learned all that in high school chemistry. :lol:

Re: NAMM 2010

Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:35 pm
by bassduke49
Gary, you do know I was kidding about the comment on liquid oxygen being cold - as if it would be so cold to snuff out fire. That's why I put the smilies on there.

But wait; liquid oxygen in a bucket out in the open would be boiling, wouldn't it? Then that means it's really hot! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: NAMM 2010

Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:39 pm
by cjj
Well, really hot for liquid oxygen...

And, for those of you who have never had the opportunity to mess with liquid oxygen, it happens to be a very pretty, light blue color, as opposed to most of the other liquid gasses I've dealt with, which are clear like water...

Re: NAMM 2010

Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:45 am
by s4001
All this science stuff is blowing my mind
Image

Re: NAMM 2010

Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:10 pm
by rickenbrother
Scott, is that what they mean by having a scatterbrain? :lol:

Re: NAMM 2010

Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:09 pm
by drumbob
What are we expecting?

Back orders!

Re: NAMM 2010

Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 8:08 pm
by RutleDirk
We're expecting those new models and colors! :mrgreen:

Friends, here is your next new Rick model: the 359-and-a-half!
359-1/2BBR
359-1/2BBR
(Lousy composite/retouch job, but you get the idea!)

Body shape of the current 360 series, but the size of the 600 series.
No sound hole
660-style neck
And...Blueburst. Why on earth is this still not a standard color?

Re: NAMM 2010

Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 8:10 pm
by kennyhowes
RutleDirk wrote:We're expecting those new models and colors! :mrgreen:

Friends, here is your next new Rick model: the 359-and-a-half!
359-and-a-half.jpg
(Lousy composite/retouch job, but you get the idea!)

Body shape of the current 360 series, but the size of the 600 series.
No sound hole
660-style neck
And...Blueburst. Why on earth is this still not a standard color?
Nice! I almost like it!

Re: NAMM 2010

Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 8:20 pm
by jingle_jangle
Sweet...brings the rounded body shape down to a nice size...

Re: NAMM 2010

Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:24 am
by manta
Sign me up for one.
T

Re: NAMM 2010

Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:20 pm
by RutleDirk
jingle_jangle wrote:Sweet...brings the rounded body shape down to a nice size...
Exactly.
Just out of sheer curiosity, does anyone know of any reason why this couldn't be done? Engineering difficulties with the smaller body size, etc.?

Re: NAMM 2010

Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:47 pm
by jingle_jangle
No reason it couldn't be done...except that the factory's busy!