Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Equipment Discussions
Bore solvents - Interesting thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ricka0" data-source="post: 81602" data-attributes="member: 3086"><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p> <font color="purple"> <strong>You say that getting ammonia into oil is a myth and would be worthy of the Nobel and then you say ammonia miscible oil is nothing new.</strong> </font> </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ] Where did I say that? I was rejecting no water in Ammonia under STP.</p><p> [ QUOTE ]</p><p> <font color="purple"> <strong> But I've got a bore scope and more than a few targets that, in combination with the results of many others, lead me to conclude that BMG 50 is a breakthrough product for rifle bore cleaning. Heck, I knew it was a breakthrough with the first patch! Our results speak. </strong> </font> </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ]</p><p>A bore scope cannot tell you if a few million Fe atoms are dissolving.</p><p> [ QUOTE ]</p><p> <font color="purple"> <strong>has no experience with the product he is critiquing. </strong> </font> </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ] I'm not critiquing the product; I'm presenting evidence for ammonia or showing the lack of evidence of ammonia being safe. I use 22 – 26 degree baume Ammonia solution to clean my 50's. I don't test crack or LSD but I do recommend against using them. </p><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p> <font color="purple"> <strong> </strong></p><p><strong>ammonia is a gas, when dissolved in water (ammonium hydroxide) it wants to leave, evaporate, not combine.</strong></p><p><strong></strong> </font> </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ]Why would you think they are mutually exclusive? Why do you think you can get equal volumes of hot and cold water to freeze the hot water faster than the cold water? (Well known freshman physics question). Put an ice cube tray filled with water in a modern frost free freezer and wait a month. The water quickly freezes – all the while it's slowly and continuously evaporating. A month latter it's all gone. Actually that's a pretty good metaphor for ammoniacal bore cleaners – it's possible they are dissolving a few million Fe or far worse Ni atoms each cleaning. Like the proverbial frog in a pan of water on the stove. Most folks don't have a clue that VihtaVuori N series powders can accelerate the wear on their barrel. But GG keeps records and has confirmed what the physics suggest, you don't get a flatter pressure curve for free. Is 50% shorter barrel life worth the velocity advantage? Suppose the laboratory tests show ammoniacal solutions reduce barrel life by 15%? 1%, 50%?</p><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p> <font color="purple"> <strong> </strong></p><p><strong>What credentials does F&amp;S have? Perhaps more than an anonomous guy on an internet chat board that has no experience with the product he is critiquing. </strong> </font> </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ]Your ad-hominem remark does not answer the question. It doesn't matter what my credentials are. I've presented a question on ammoniacal chemistry – an unanswered question. You don't need any credentials to ask a good question -The question can stand on it's own. If the question is ambiguous or non-falsifiable, then show as much. You also suffer from the logic flaw of attacking my credentials to support the F&amp;S credentials. It's moot what my credentials are when asking for F&amp;S. Do you understand the difference between asserting a fact and asking a question? </p><p>Now if F&amp;S regularly published in peer reviewed scientific journals, they would have credibility in this arena. I would still want to review their test design.</p><p> </p><p>You have presented no valid evidence to reject my statement – that ammoniacal cleaning of gun barrels has never been proven safe. </p><p></p><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p> <font color="purple"> <strong> I don't know a single shooter that bubbles oxygen up through rifle bore. </strong> </font> </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ]</p><p>That's a good test design, suggested to me by the famous ammoniacal chemist Karl H Dietz. If it's not obvious why ping me offline and I'll explain it.</p><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p> <font color="purple"> <strong> I knew it was a breakthrough with the first patch! Our results speak. </strong> </font> </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ]</p><p>Breakthrough in cleaning, maybe. I doubt it removes cu faster than the 22+ deg. Baume ammonia solution I get for free. But you have never established safety to barrel steel. All your results speak to is the efficacy of cleaning. You have not established safety.</p><p></p><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p> <font color="purple"> <strong> Talk about authority fallacy! </strong> </font> </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ]</p><p>You've contradicted yourself. The logic flaw authority fallacy occurs when an authority on subject A (shooting in this case) gives authoritative advice on subject B (ammoniacal chemistry) where he is not an authority. By your own words I have no credentials, I'm not an authority in either area. I'm only interested in the truth. My zeal for understanding ammoniacal chemistry started 18 months ago when someone posted on BH (the 50 BMG site) that ammonia attacks barrel steel. Because I'd been using 22+ Baume ammonia solution for some time with amazing results (in efficacy of cu removal), and with my limited chemistry background, I rejected the statement. We decided to settle the question someone fill a 2" barrel stub in 26 degree Baume ammonia solution (sealed) for a month, then check it with a bore scope. After one month he could see no harm. I was a happy ammonia pimp after that. Then something GG wrote got me thinking. I designed some better tests, ran them by a couple PhD chemists and they showed the flaws in my test designs. After a few weeks of working on test designs and working with a laboratory chemists who actually does these measurement – we came up with a good test design that will put the question to rest. The lab would like me at minimum to have four samples: <ul type="square"> [*]virgin 26 degree Baume Ammonia solution [*]virgin popular commercial cu cleaner [*]ammonia solution after 2 week sealed bubble test with 2" barrel stub [*]commercial cleaning solution after 2 week sealed bubble test with 2" barrel stub [/list]</p><p>I was hoping to get coppermelt to fund part of the lab costs (They charge $20 for an acid digestion of the sample, then $12.50 per element tested. – we will probably only test for iron) But coppermelt seems to be an underground operation. I was thinking of contacting wipe-out as they are very popular.</p><p></p><p>In review: <ul type="square"> [*]I have extensive experience using 22+ deg. Baume ammonia to remove cu from my guns (the active ingredient in BH that removes cu) [*]I have never stated that Ammonia attacks SS gun barrels; I've only stated that it has never been proven not to [*]I use 22+ deg. Baume ammonia solution to clean my 50. While I'm guessing 26 deg. Baume ammoina removes cu faster than MX-BH - the BH product almost certainly cleans the gun faster (by combining solvents) I need extra steps of runnng Butches thru my guns. [*]Greg Culpepper is a better shot and more experienced HP shooter than B1g_B0RE [/list]</p><p></p><p>I'm a flip flopper like Kerry. But unlike Kerry I don't flip flop based on polls – when better evidence is available, I go with objective information. Right now I'm with the chemists who say "We don't know".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ricka0, post: 81602, member: 3086"] [ QUOTE ] <font color="purple"> [b]You say that getting ammonia into oil is a myth and would be worthy of the Nobel and then you say ammonia miscible oil is nothing new.[/b] </font> [/ QUOTE ] Where did I say that? I was rejecting no water in Ammonia under STP. [ QUOTE ] <font color="purple"> [b] But I've got a bore scope and more than a few targets that, in combination with the results of many others, lead me to conclude that BMG 50 is a breakthrough product for rifle bore cleaning. Heck, I knew it was a breakthrough with the first patch! Our results speak. [/b] </font> [/ QUOTE ] A bore scope cannot tell you if a few million Fe atoms are dissolving. [ QUOTE ] <font color="purple"> [b]has no experience with the product he is critiquing. [/b] </font> [/ QUOTE ] I'm not critiquing the product; I'm presenting evidence for ammonia or showing the lack of evidence of ammonia being safe. I use 22 – 26 degree baume Ammonia solution to clean my 50’s. I don’t test crack or LSD but I do recommend against using them. [ QUOTE ] <font color="purple"> [b] ammonia is a gas, when dissolved in water (ammonium hydroxide) it wants to leave, evaporate, not combine. [/b] </font> [/ QUOTE ]Why would you think they are mutually exclusive? Why do you think you can get equal volumes of hot and cold water to freeze the hot water faster than the cold water? (Well known freshman physics question). Put an ice cube tray filled with water in a modern frost free freezer and wait a month. The water quickly freezes – all the while it’s slowly and continuously evaporating. A month latter it’s all gone. Actually that’s a pretty good metaphor for ammoniacal bore cleaners – it’s possible they are dissolving a few million Fe or far worse Ni atoms each cleaning. Like the proverbial frog in a pan of water on the stove. Most folks don’t have a clue that VihtaVuori N series powders can accelerate the wear on their barrel. But GG keeps records and has confirmed what the physics suggest, you don’t get a flatter pressure curve for free. Is 50% shorter barrel life worth the velocity advantage? Suppose the laboratory tests show ammoniacal solutions reduce barrel life by 15%? 1%, 50%? [ QUOTE ] <font color="purple"> [b] What credentials does F&S have? Perhaps more than an anonomous guy on an internet chat board that has no experience with the product he is critiquing. [/b] </font> [/ QUOTE ]Your ad-hominem remark does not answer the question. It doesn’t matter what my credentials are. I’ve presented a question on ammoniacal chemistry – an unanswered question. You don’t need any credentials to ask a good question -The question can stand on it’s own. If the question is ambiguous or non-falsifiable, then show as much. You also suffer from the logic flaw of attacking my credentials to support the F&S credentials. It’s moot what my credentials are when asking for F&S. Do you understand the difference between asserting a fact and asking a question? Now if F&S regularly published in peer reviewed scientific journals, they would have credibility in this arena. I would still want to review their test design. You have presented no valid evidence to reject my statement – that ammoniacal cleaning of gun barrels has never been proven safe. [ QUOTE ] <font color="purple"> [b] I don't know a single shooter that bubbles oxygen up through rifle bore. [/b] </font> [/ QUOTE ] That’s a good test design, suggested to me by the famous ammoniacal chemist Karl H Dietz. If it’s not obvious why ping me offline and I’ll explain it. [ QUOTE ] <font color="purple"> [b] I knew it was a breakthrough with the first patch! Our results speak. [/b] </font> [/ QUOTE ] Breakthrough in cleaning, maybe. I doubt it removes cu faster than the 22+ deg. Baume ammonia solution I get for free. But you have never established safety to barrel steel. All your results speak to is the efficacy of cleaning. You have not established safety. [ QUOTE ] <font color="purple"> [b] Talk about authority fallacy! [/b] </font> [/ QUOTE ] You’ve contradicted yourself. The logic flaw authority fallacy occurs when an authority on subject A (shooting in this case) gives authoritative advice on subject B (ammoniacal chemistry) where he is not an authority. By your own words I have no credentials, I’m not an authority in either area. I’m only interested in the truth. My zeal for understanding ammoniacal chemistry started 18 months ago when someone posted on BH (the 50 BMG site) that ammonia attacks barrel steel. Because I’d been using 22+ Baume ammonia solution for some time with amazing results (in efficacy of cu removal), and with my limited chemistry background, I rejected the statement. We decided to settle the question someone fill a 2” barrel stub in 26 degree Baume ammonia solution (sealed) for a month, then check it with a bore scope. After one month he could see no harm. I was a happy ammonia pimp after that. Then something GG wrote got me thinking. I designed some better tests, ran them by a couple PhD chemists and they showed the flaws in my test designs. After a few weeks of working on test designs and working with a laboratory chemists who actually does these measurement – we came up with a good test design that will put the question to rest. The lab would like me at minimum to have four samples: <ul type="square"> [*]virgin 26 degree Baume Ammonia solution [*]virgin popular commercial cu cleaner [*]ammonia solution after 2 week sealed bubble test with 2" barrel stub [*]commercial cleaning solution after 2 week sealed bubble test with 2" barrel stub [/list] I was hoping to get coppermelt to fund part of the lab costs (They charge $20 for an acid digestion of the sample, then $12.50 per element tested. – we will probably only test for iron) But coppermelt seems to be an underground operation. I was thinking of contacting wipe-out as they are very popular. In review: <ul type="square"> [*]I have extensive experience using 22+ deg. Baume ammonia to remove cu from my guns (the active ingredient in BH that removes cu) [*]I have never stated that Ammonia attacks SS gun barrels; I've only stated that it has never been proven not to [*]I use 22+ deg. Baume ammonia solution to clean my 50. While I'm guessing 26 deg. Baume ammoina removes cu faster than MX-BH - the BH product almost certainly cleans the gun faster (by combining solvents) I need extra steps of runnng Butches thru my guns. [*]Greg Culpepper is a better shot and more experienced HP shooter than B1g_B0RE [/list] I’m a flip flopper like Kerry. But unlike Kerry I don’t flip flop based on polls – when better evidence is available, I go with objective information. Right now I’m with the chemists who say “We don’t know”. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Equipment Discussions
Bore solvents - Interesting thread
Top