tinacci wrote:

...GOTHE CHEAPY WAY

Go down to Walmart and buy yourself a few bucks worth of MOTH BALLS,
yes Moth Balls. and scatter them around and all your animals will stay
clear...


Tried it. Doesn't work well in the open, where the wind can remove the
smell.

On 10 May 2004 13:54:25 GMT, someone wrote:


Can I simply buy a
raccoon trap and transport a few away from my property?

Sure, if you want to do that every night until you have taught all the
racoons in the neighborhood not to go in the traps. But that won't
keep them out of your garden.

You sure this aint just a troll????

-v.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Max" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:


that's upsetting that they can climb.

They live in trees. They are also very good at opening gates and
latches. They can quickly learn to turn standard door handles. They

are

not too good at picking locks, but some primates can do that.

ahem.. cough [tap tap] THEY HAVE HANDS!!!

.max


They also have a sense of humor. While camping in the Catskills many years
ago, my wife & I watched as some knucklehead set up a screen house, and
inside it, two sets of collapsible plastic shelves onto which he placed what
appeared to be enough snacks for an army. Lots of chips, cookies, cereal,
etc. The ranger warned the dummy about wildlife, but I guess he decided the
ranger didn't know what he was talking about. Around 2:00 AM, there was lots
of crashing & interesting animal sounds. Two raccoons had bitten through the
screen and knocked over the shelves. When the guy got up the nerve to come
out of his tent, the creatures were still inside having a feast, while they
watched the guy run around outside the screen house yelling. The feast
continued for about an hour until the ranger finally came over and urged
them (with a stick) to go elsewhere. He then evicted the camper.


LOL at coons. When still in Illinois I had tossed a bunch of Halloween
suckers in the trash that the ants had gotten into. The next morning I
found a pile of sucker sticks in the yard! I laughed for days at the
mental picture of these coons sucking on suckers in the yard.

amy

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Ignoramus15189" wrote in message
...

In article , Doug Kanter wrote:

Sharpen your spade and make a "slot" into the ground all along the

bottom of

the existing fence. Insert fence wire as deep as possible, and attach

the

I am sorry for my stupid question, but what is fence wire?


Galvanized wire screen that you buy in rolls. It's available with openings
of various sizes. It'll be obvious which size to get.



top of the wire to the chain link fence. This still leaves the top of

the

fence vulnerable though, and raccoons can definitely climb.

that's upsetting that they can climb.


It's not upsetting to the raccoons. :-)



A Havahart trap is a good idea, too, but you might want to have your

local

animal control people assist. Raccoons can get weird....

I can get weird too, I am not afraid of raccoons.


In order to release an animal from a Havahart trap, your hands will be right
ON the trap as you open the end. You didn't say whether you've seen raccoons
on your property during daylight hours, but if you have, it's assumed they
may be rabid. Animal control people may have equipment which allows them to
keep a little more distance during the release.


Animal control capturing a coon in the daytime is NOT going to release
it. It will be destroyed....unless someone is exposed...then it will be
destroyed and the head sent to the lab to test for rabies.

amy ex-animal control

Besides...if you have to "get weird" to keep from being bitten, it might
mean hurting the animal.



The issue is, are there so
many local raccoons that trapping them is a waste of time? Do they
migrate? For example, obviously, trapping birds is a waste of time
since they propagate everywhere. But, if I could trap, say, 3-5
raccoons, would it actually help?


Beats me. I lived in a semi-city neighborhood where we'd only see one or two
per year. No idea what your area is like. Take a walk, look for other
vegetable gardens, and knock on the owners' doors & ask them.


Another suggestion I've heard is to plant prickly stuff around the crops
that interest the raccoon. Zucchini and other squashes have abrasive

stems

that some raccoons won't step through. And, you didn't mention how far

your

fence is from the garden. If it's possible to plant shrubs that'll end

up

being 3-4' in diameter, and still leave room for YOU to work, you might
consider barberry. Nothing gets past that bush without severe

lacerations.

That's why birds hang out in them and laugh at the cats.

no space for that, unfortunately.


Too bad. It's fun to watch dogs crash into barberry bushes.

Anthony Aversano wrote:

On Mon, 10 May 2004 17:25:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Ignoramus15189" wrote in message
...

In article , Doug Kanter wrote:

"Ignoramus15189" wrote in message
...

forgot to say, trapping and releasing raccoons would be educational
for my 3 year old son.

Is it an ego thing, or is there some other reason you don't want to

enlist

your local animal control people?

I hate spending money on various contractors. Hiring contractors is an
unbelievable waste of time and money.

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
an animal.


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.

Tony

THAT sucks! Ya'll should pay more taxes.

amy

Adam Russell wrote:

"Snooze" wrote in message
. com...

"Adam Russell" wrote in message
...

Evolution in action. He'll either learn what futility is, or he'll

actually

educate himself on electric fences and not subscribe to ignorant

hysteria.

I'll bet he's even touched his tongue to a battery as a child, but

somehow

he thinks that should have electrocuted him.

I'm pretty sure it takes more than 9v to scare off a racoon. So how

much

voltage would you use that would do the job but not hurt the child? I

know

you can die from as little as 50v. Even less if you got imaginative.



Don't let your kids wear wool socks on a low humidity day...imagine what
would happen if they discovered they can shuffle around the house and zap
each other with a few thousand volts. A typical static electricity shock

is

about 2000 - 4000 volts.

Of course a amperage involved is so low, that aside from the surprise, no
damage is done. Ever taken a weak 9v battery and tapped it against your
tongue? A fresh battery hurts a little, but a weak one gives a little
tingling sensation.

A consumer grade electric fence is harmless, it will give a mild shock,

but

nothing dangerous. I couldn't find the specifications online, so
guestimating, if an electric fence transformer draws 120v A/C @ 1 amp, the
output would be 4000 v A/C at .03 amp.

That's just a mild shocker, pretty safe..if it was D/C on the otherhand is

a

different story.


You dont know much about electricity it appears. Static electricity is
completely different from transformer electricity. When you get a shock
from static electricity it is 2-4k for only an extreme fraction of a second.
I dont remember how short exactly (1ms comes to mind), but it is the brevity
that saves you. As it swiftly runs out of electrons the voltage falls to
zero. Power out of your wall does not fall off. At all. That 120v will
deliver 1mA or 15A depending on the resistance of what you are powering and
only limited by your circuit breaker or fuse. If you were to put a penny in
the fusebox it could deliver 1000's of amps with no problem except that the
wires would get hot. So putting it through a transformer will not reduce
the amperage available to any safe amount. 4000v will kill you, and it
matters not whether it is DC or AC.

Now as to the matter of electric fences, when I was a child my grandpa told
me to stay away from the electric fence surrounding the cow field. He said
it would kick me like a sledgehammer. He could have been pulling my leg,
but I imagine that anything meant to coerce a cow would hurt a human. OTOH,
a raccoon is not a cow. The question is open whether you could make a fence
with enough jolt to keep out racoons but not enough to hurt 3 year olds. I
personally doubt it.


The electic fence wouldn't have kicked you like a sledgehammer. I saw
more reaction from guys peeing on it than my blonde sister grabbing it
to see if it was alive. Incidentally, she was also the same one that
ALWAYS tested the batteries.....and she's alive and well.

amy

In article , Amy D
wrote:

You may speak for the animal control where you worked but you do not
speak for all animal control agencies. Our local control will release
the animal several miles from its capture point.

Dick



Animal control capturing a coon in the daytime is NOT going to release
it. It will be destroyed....unless someone is exposed...then it will be
destroyed and the head sent to the lab to test for rabies.

amy ex-animal control

Richard Cline wrote:

In article , Amy D
wrote:

You may speak for the animal control where you worked but you do not
speak for all animal control agencies. Our local control will release
the animal several miles from its capture point.

Dick


Are you telling me your animal control will release a racoon captured in
the daytime?

amy


Animal control capturing a coon in the daytime is NOT going to release
it. It will be destroyed....unless someone is exposed...then it will be
destroyed and the head sent to the lab to test for rabies.

amy ex-animal control

"Richard Cline" wrote

You may speak for the animal control where you worked but you do not
speak for all animal control agencies. Our local control will release
the animal several miles from its capture point.


How do you know this - for sure? I'm not saying that this may not be the
case somewhere but it sure would be the exception, plus being just plain
stupid. Several miles from the capture point may be in my back yard and I
(purely as an example) sure don't need any more coons who are into predation
'round these parts, plus the chance of importing various diseases such as
scabies, parvo, rabies, etc. If you have a problem - deal with it - don't
export it to another area for someone else to have to solve for you.

A retired game warden hunting buddy of mine used to get called out on road
injured deer and every time there were yuppies and/or children involved he
would tell them he was going to take the injured deer to the "deer
hospital." Until they left the scene...

Skip


Skip & Christy Hensler
THE ROCK GARDEN
Newport, WA
http://www.povn.com/rock/

"Amy D" wrote in message
...


In order to release an animal from a Havahart trap, your hands will be
right
ON the trap as you open the end. You didn't say whether you've seen
raccoons
on your property during daylight hours, but if you have, it's assumed
they
may be rabid. Animal control people may have equipment which allows them
to
keep a little more distance during the release.


Animal control capturing a coon in the daytime is NOT going to release
it. It will be destroyed....unless someone is exposed...then it will be
destroyed and the head sent to the lab to test for rabies.

Correct. I was mixing two ideas in too large of a bowl. :-)

Curiousity got the better of me ...

Safest is a battery-powered, pulsing (as opposed to continuous) electric
fence controller bearing Underwriters Laboratories label ANSI/UL69 (Electric
Rence Contollers) One town's regulations specified that the current pulse
a maximum of 60 times a minute with the duration of each pulse a max of
1/10 second and be 25 milliamps or less. This is on the high side; the
newer controllers have pulse duration around 1/1000 second. Voltages seem
to run in the 5K-7K range. The shorter pulse duration also has the
advantage of not heating dried vegetation to combustion temperature.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

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
an animal.

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.
--
JennP.

I'd have spent a dollar on letting the car idle for a half gallon of gas, or
so, then removed the carcass.....

Mark (just trying to save you $144 next time) Dunning

"JennP" wrote in message
news:4Sdrc.767$JC5.195590@attbi_s54...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

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
an animal.

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.
--
JennP.

On Sat, 22 May 2004 03:16:52 GMT, "mark dunning"
wrote:

I'd have spent a dollar on letting the car idle for a half gallon of gas, or
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.

ck
--
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)

"charles krin" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 22 May 2004 03:16:52 GMT, "mark dunning"
| wrote:
|
| I'd have spent a dollar on letting the car idle for a half gallon of gas,
or
| 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.

"Tom Quackenbush"

| 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.

I was in South Carolina once and the place i stayed at was near some
woods. They had a big rubber snake outside all coiled up ..looked VERY
real. They said it was to keep raccoons and other pests away. Dont know
if it works...but maybe worth a try.

Dave

Tom Quackenbush wrote in
:

Not Me wrote:
"Tom Quackenbush"

| 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.

Are you sure you're not thinking of CO2?

Carbon monoxide is obviously lighter than air (but not by much). If
you don't believe me, Google for "carbon monoxide lighter air".

R,
Tom Q.

If you work out Van der Waal's equation:
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genche...eviation5.html

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.]
(rec.gardens)

In article ,
Salty Thumb wrote:

If you work out Van der Waal's equation:
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genche...eviation5.html

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.

Kelly

"Not Me" wrote in message
...

"Tom Quackenbush"

| 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.

Brownian motion will cause gases to mix. You don't see the O2 and N2 that
compose most of our "air" separating.

(Kelly E Jones) wrote in news:c950es$71o$1
@news01.intel.com:

In article ,
Salty Thumb wrote:

If you work out Van der Waal's equation:

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genche...eviation5.html

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.

Kelly


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
x 10^23]

If you take the molar density and multiply by the molecular weight, you
get the mass density.
02 1 mol / 2.74 L = 11.7 g/L
N2 1 mol / 2.74 L = 10.2 g/L
CO 1 mol / 2.73 L = 10.3 g/L
CO2 1 mol / 2.49 L = 17.7 g/L

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.

"William W. Plummer" wrote in
news:yPntc.35081$af3.1824427@attbi_s51:


"Not Me" wrote in message
...

"Tom Quackenbush"

| 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.

Brownian motion will cause gases to mix. You don't see the O2 and N2
that compose most of our "air" separating.

But isn't it true that there exists some "heavy" gas that will tend to
collect at a lowest elevation? I don't remember exactly what carbon
monoxide does, but it's possible that I've also heard that it sinks
(compared to say something like helium which obviously wants to rise).

The question is whether CO is one of those gases.

In article ,
Salty Thumb wrote:

If you take the molar density and multiply by the molecular weight, you
get the mass density.
02 1 mol / 2.74 L = 11.7 g/L
N2 1 mol / 2.74 L = 10.2 g/L
CO 1 mol / 2.73 L = 10.3 g/L
CO2 1 mol / 2.49 L = 17.7 g/L

True!


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.

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).

I still can't work out how mass density is relevant when talking about
gases

Because mass density, coupled with gravity, is what causes bouyancy.

or how adding atomic weights can give a correct indication of
density or buoyancy.

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.

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).

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.


To me it makes more sense (when
talking about gases at least) to talk about particle density

Nope, not at all. Gravity doesn't care at all about particles, it
only cares about mass...

Kelly

That makes sense, thanks for the explanation.

(Kelly E Jones) wrote in
:

In article ,
Salty Thumb wrote:

If you take the molar density and multiply by the molecular weight,
you get the mass density.
02 1 mol / 2.74 L = 11.7 g/L
N2 1 mol / 2.74 L = 10.2 g/L
CO 1 mol / 2.73 L = 10.3 g/L
CO2 1 mol / 2.49 L = 17.7 g/L

True!


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.

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).

I still can't work out how mass density is relevant when talking about
gases

Because mass density, coupled with gravity, is what causes bouyancy.

or how adding atomic weights can give a correct indication of
density or buoyancy.

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.

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).

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.


To me it makes more sense (when talking about gases at least) to
talk about particle density

Nope, not at all. Gravity doesn't care at all about particles, it
only cares about mass...

Kelly

On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:21:40 -0400, Tom Quackenbush wrote:
Kelly's already done a bang-up job of explaining why you need to
bring mass back into the picture.

Um. Hate to be practical and everything here, but if you're forcing
a gas into the gopher hole, the density doesn't matter; it's not going
there by gravity, it's going there by pressure. You could force
helium down there and it'd go down rather than up, density and
molecular mass notwithstanding.

In article ,
Tom Quackenbush wrote:

Just as a sanity check, I multiplied each one of those figures by
22.4 to make sure that the product was close to the molecular mass
(they are).

Erg. Now you've made me realize that mis-remembered that the molar
volume of a gas is 22.4, not 24 as I stated in my previous posts.
Been a long time since college...

Kelly

Tom Quackenbush wrote in
:

Salty Thumb wrote:
snip
If you take the molar density and multiply by the molecular weight, you
get the mass density.
02 1 mol / 2.74 L = 11.7 g/L
N2 1 mol / 2.74 L = 10.2 g/L
CO 1 mol / 2.73 L = 10.3 g/L
CO2 1 mol / 2.49 L = 17.7 g/L

As I mentioned in my previous post, I think those volume figures are
a little off.

According to my handy-dandy Pocket Ref, here are the densities (@
STP):

O2 1.4290 g/L
N2 1.2506 g/L
CO 1.2500 g/L
CO2 1.9770 g/L
Air 1.2928 g/L

Ha, thanks, but mine were way off. This is why I am not a chemist (or
mathematician). The correct equation is probably: v^3 - (b + RT) v^2 + a
V - ab = 0 (forgot to multiply RT by v^2 last time)

which gives
CO 1.168 g/L at 20C, 1 atm
CO 1.253 g/L at STP (using 28 for mass)

Close enough to the value you reported.

Calculations for other compounds are an exercise left to the reader

(Kelly E Jones) wrote in news:c963nr$p9u$1
@news01.intel.com:

In article ,
Tom Quackenbush wrote:

Just as a sanity check, I multiplied each one of those figures by
22.4 to make sure that the product was close to the molecular mass
(they are).

Erg. Now you've made me realize that mis-remembered that the molar
volume of a gas is 22.4, not 24 as I stated in my previous posts.
Been a long time since college...

Kelly


The volume is around 24.04 L/mol at 20C, 1 atm (which is the temp I
calculated at) and 22.4 L/mol at STP.

On Wed, 26 May 2004 08:23:48 -0400, "Not Me" wrote:



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.


actually, carbon monoxide, at mol wt 28 (same as N2) is slightly
lighter than air (avg formula wt approx 30).

and there have been a number of documented human survivors from failed
CO suicide attempts because the engines shut down before the air in
the garage became lethal.

and cigarette smokers frequently tolerate levels of carboxy hemoglobin
that would debilitate folks who didn't smoke.

ck
--
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)

"HVAC IsFun" wrote in message
...
I was in South Carolina once and the place i stayed at was near some
woods. They had a big rubber snake outside all coiled up ..looked VERY
real. They said it was to keep raccoons and other pests away. Dont know
if it works...but maybe worth a try.

Dave



What would keep you away from kids Davey?
Just curious since you claim to be a pedophile and all...

On Thu, 27 May 2004 16:36:23 GMT, Salty Thumb
wrote:


But isn't it true that there exists some "heavy" gas that will tend to
collect at a lowest elevation? I don't remember exactly what carbon
monoxide does, but it's possible that I've also heard that it sinks
(compared to say something like helium which obviously wants to rise).

The question is whether CO is one of those gases.

Is not...Oxygen (O2, molecular wt 32) will settle slowly...Carbon
Dioxide (CO2, molecular wt 44) settles fairly well...Propane (C3H8,
also molecular wt 44), settles well enough to cause major problems if
a leak occurs.

ck
--
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)