Re: Nitrogen VS Compressed air quenching

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: Matthew Smith <matt-at-kbc-dot-net.au> 

Arpit Thomas writes:
>Chlorine sounds pretty good for a recirculated system, especailly since I 
>have a method of generating vast amounts of chlorine extremely cheaply ( 
>oxidising agent- (i use trichloroisocynuric acid- pool tablets finely 
>ground up in a ball mill) into hydrochloric acid- bought really cheaply 
>from hardware store)  - just a little bit stank up my whole back yard and 
>it really stings your eyes :(   But as you said a recirculating system 
>might be a little hard to implement. Still,  It may be an option if I 
>can't find a cheap air tank ;)

Matthew replies:
I'd be inclined to leave chlorine alone for an application like 
this.  Chlorine is a very reactive gas.  Apart from being a major health 
hazard in any concentration, I think that you would need to be very careful 
in the choice of materials for the whole gas system.  With the heating and 
ionisation of the quench gas, I wouldn't be surprised if the electrodes 
didn't get attacked.

Whilst the gaseous (at STP) halogens are highly reactive, many of their 
compounds are likewise stable.  (Works on the principal of the halogen 
saying "I'm gonna grab it; I'm gonna grab it - I've grabbed it! Now I'm not 
letting go.")*  Something like SF6 would be MUCH nicer.

Going back to the origins of this thread, nitrogen is cheap, plentiful and 
pretty inert, especially when there's no oxygen (or hydrogen -> Haber 
Process makes ammonia) to react with in the presence of the gap energy.  It 
can actually be concentrated at home - burn a bit of magnesium ribbon in a 
bell jar and you'll have a far less reactive mix.  Still cheaper to get it 
by the bottle!

Cheers

M

* Halogens don't normally talk.  I was just trying to explain a point ;-)

-- 
Matthew Smith
Kadina Business Consultancy
South Australia
http://www.kbc-dot-net.au