| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Robert Clark" |
| Date: |
08 Sep 2006 01:35:49 PM |
| Object: |
'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
It's referred to as "polyyne" here:
Polyyne said to be 40 times harder than diamond.
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2111
The research is published here:
Harder than Diamond: Determining the Cross-Sectional Area and Young's
Modulus of Molecular Rods.
Angewandte Chemie International Edition, Volume 44, Issue 45, Pages
7315-7483 (November 18, 2005).
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112130826/ABSTRACT
The research actually only calculated Young's modulus. It didn't
measure it.
Also the hardness claim is coming from the fact the calculated Young's
modulus was 40 times that of diamond, and hardness is correlated to
Young's modulus.
Bob Clark
.
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
09 Sep 2006 08:54:18 PM |
|
|
Isn't diamond _already_ tetra?
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
09 Sep 2006 09:49:24 PM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1157853258.896592.226150@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| Isn't diamond _already_ tetra?
|
|
| Bret Cahill
Yes.
The standard test for hardness is depth of penetration, whether
that is diamond into a steel surface or your *****.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
09 Sep 2006 10:19:51 PM |
|
|
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:U2LMg.33419$a9.15000@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1157853258.896592.226150@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| Isn't diamond _already_ tetra?
Yes.
-hedral, yes, but that's not what the name refers to. If this is about the
Angewandte article that I glanced at last week, I think this is a polymer of
a substituted 1,3-butadiyne, X-CCCC-X. If I remember the article right, it
is a sort of poly(tetracarbon) molecule, by insertion of an alkyne triple
bond into a C-X bond. Again, if I remember right, the structure of the
polymer is an alternating ene-yne-ene-yne structure, so it's less rigid than
the ene-ene-ene structure of polyacetylene, but not as unidimensionsional as
an yne-yne-yne unsubstituted polycarbon linear chain. Besides, I think John
Gladysz did a very nice job of showing that conjugated polyynes (polycarbon)
are very reactive and poorly stable, and a poor choice for a high-strength
material.
Eric Lucas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
09 Sep 2006 10:41:07 PM |
|
|
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:rvLMg.24197$kO3.20793@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
| news:U2LMg.33419$a9.15000@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
| > news:1157853258.896592.226150@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > | Isn't diamond _already_ tetra?
| >
| > Yes.
|
| -hedral, yes, but that's not what the name refers to. If this is about
the
| Angewandte article that I glanced at last week, I think this is a polymer
of
| a substituted 1,3-butadiyne, X-CCCC-X. If I remember the article right,
it
| is a sort of poly(tetracarbon) molecule, by insertion of an alkyne triple
| bond into a C-X bond. Again, if I remember right, the structure of the
| polymer is an alternating ene-yne-ene-yne structure, so it's less rigid
than
| the ene-ene-ene structure of polyacetylene, but not as unidimensionsional
as
| an yne-yne-yne unsubstituted polycarbon linear chain. Besides, I think
John
| Gladysz did a very nice job of showing that conjugated polyynes
(polycarbon)
| are very reactive and poorly stable, and a poor choice for a high-strength
| material.
|
| Eric Lucas
|
Thanks. At least that explains what the fuss was all about.
So when can I get a leather strop impregnated with it and hone
my razor, taking care not to allow any reaction? I need a shave,
you see.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
09 Sep 2006 11:10:49 PM |
|
|
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:nPLMg.33975$a9.28915@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Thanks. At least that explains what the fuss was all about.
So when can I get a leather strop impregnated with it and hone
my razor, taking care not to allow any reaction?
Don't hold your breath.
I need a shave,
you see.
:^) Grow a beard. The sleep I've saved since I did has amounted to about
24 hours per year.
Eric Lucas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
09 Sep 2006 11:33:26 PM |
|
|
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dfMMg.24211$kO3.12219@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
| news:nPLMg.33975$a9.28915@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
|
| > Thanks. At least that explains what the fuss was all about.
| > So when can I get a leather strop impregnated with it and hone
| > my razor, taking care not to allow any reaction?
|
| Don't hold your breath.
|
|
| > I need a shave,
| > you see.
|
| :^) Grow a beard. The sleep I've saved since I did has amounted to about
| 24 hours per year.
|
| Eric Lucas
Dang... I've been holding my breath for so many years now my
beard has turned white, I figured that was the end of the 5-o'clock shadow
and I could start shaving again... but not until my razor is honed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Father Haskell" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
10 Sep 2006 01:18:33 AM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
Thanks. At least that explains what the fuss was all about.
So when can I get a leather strop impregnated with it and hone
my razor, taking care not to allow any reaction? I need a shave,
you see.
Silica already present in cowhide means you don't need,
and really shouldn't use, additional abrasives. It'd be more
useful as a paste for charging buffing wheels.
Actually, what you need is a thin base carrier impregnated
with superfine grit. Maybe 2, 3x finer than my best surgical
black Arkansas. Then use the strop.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
10 Sep 2006 05:54:33 AM |
|
|
"Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157869113.076819.72560@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| > Thanks. At least that explains what the fuss was all about.
| > So when can I get a leather strop impregnated with it and hone
| > my razor, taking care not to allow any reaction? I need a shave,
| > you see.
|
| Silica already present in cowhide means you don't need,
| and really shouldn't use, additional abrasives. It'd be more
| useful as a paste for charging buffing wheels.
|
| Actually, what you need is a thin base carrier impregnated
| with superfine grit. Maybe 2, 3x finer than my best surgical
| black Arkansas. Then use the strop.
Thanks Dad...
I see you use a thin base substrate sandpaper in place of
carbonpaper... but wouldn't tetracarbonpaper make 40
hard copies of your speeding ticket?
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
09 Sep 2006 10:00:08 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com>
wrote
on 9 Sep 2006 18:54:18 -0700
<1157853258.896592.226150@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Isn't diamond _already_ tetra?
Bret Cahill
http://cst-www.nrl.navy.mil/lattice/struk/a4.html
suggests diamond is an A4 lattice. Take four carbon atoms
in a tetrahedron and add four additional atoms with an
appropriate "kink", then replicate.
The JMOL applet is a good method to see this in quasi-3D.
--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
08 Sep 2006 04:32:11 PM |
|
|
Robert Clark wrote:
It's referred to as "polyyne" here:
Polyyne said to be 40 times harder than diamond.
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2111
The research is published here:
Harder than Diamond: Determining the Cross-Sectional Area and Young's
Modulus of Molecular Rods.
Angewandte Chemie International Edition, Volume 44, Issue 45, Pages
7315-7483 (November 18, 2005).
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112130826/ABSTRACT
The research actually only calculated Young's modulus. It didn't
measure it.
Also the hardness claim is coming from the fact the calculated Young's
modulus was 40 times that of diamond, and hardness is correlated to
Young's modulus.
Bob Clark
Let's ask a simple low-tech question: Are Israeli diamond cutters
lining up to put it on their wheels?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
08 Sep 2006 11:00:19 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:32:11 -0700
<4501E15B.4A16B1F6@hate.spam.net>:
Robert Clark wrote:
It's referred to as "polyyne" here:
Polyyne said to be 40 times harder than diamond.
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2111
The research is published here:
Harder than Diamond: Determining the Cross-Sectional Area and Young's
Modulus of Molecular Rods.
Angewandte Chemie International Edition, Volume 44, Issue 45, Pages
7315-7483 (November 18, 2005).
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112130826/ABSTRACT
The research actually only calculated Young's modulus. It didn't
measure it.
Also the hardness claim is coming from the fact the calculated Young's
modulus was 40 times that of diamond, and hardness is correlated to
Young's modulus.
Bob Clark
Let's ask a simple low-tech question: Are Israeli diamond cutters
lining up to put it on their wheels?
I also seem to recall -- don't remember the details now -- of a
theoretical explosive that basically fizzled. Something tells me
we have a long way to go before predictive chemistry becomes the
norm. :-)
In any event diamond's crystal structure is a very interesting and
regular pattern; I doubt it can really be improved upon using pure
carbon.
--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Prai Jei" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
09 Sep 2006 03:06:47 AM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in
message <lvp9t3-tvi.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>:
I also seem to recall -- don't remember the details now -- of a
theoretical explosive that basically fizzled. Something tells me
we have a long way to go before predictive chemistry becomes the
norm. :-)
Octanitrocubane C8(NO2)8 is predicted to be a more powerful explosive than
most of what the military are using now, and safer to handle.
Predicted. Up till now nobody has got more than two nitro's onto the cubane
nucleus.
If "polyyne" is really -C≡C-C≡C- (that's alternate single and triple bonds
between the carbons in case the character doesn't come out) I can't see how
it can be stable - the triple bond is not "the strongest" bond but the most
reactive. Also the linear structure would be strong in one dimension only
giving the stuff a fibrous texture.
--
Warning: keel away from child for hot bulb
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
09 Sep 2006 04:47:40 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Robert Clark wrote:
It's referred to as "polyyne" here:
Polyyne said to be 40 times harder than diamond.
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2111
The research is published here:
Harder than Diamond: Determining the Cross-Sectional Area and Young's
Modulus of Molecular Rods.
Angewandte Chemie International Edition, Volume 44, Issue 45, Pages
7315-7483 (November 18, 2005).
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112130826/ABSTRACT
The research actually only calculated Young's modulus. It didn't
measure it.
Also the hardness claim is coming from the fact the calculated Young's
modulus was 40 times that of diamond, and hardness is correlated to
Young's modulus.
Bob Clark
Let's ask a simple low-tech question: Are Israeli diamond cutters
lining up to put it on their wheels?
That''s doesn't really matter.
Since Israeli diamond cutters are the most
proton-ignorant Swahili retards to visit Earth
since Bill Clonton.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
09 Sep 2006 04:23:22 PM |
|
|
<zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1157795260.187993.65660@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Robert Clark wrote:
====Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond?]
It's referred to as "polyyne" here [@ Technion, Israel]
Polyyne said to be 40 times harder than diamond.
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2111
Harder than Diamond: Determining the Cross-Sectional
Area and Young's Modulus of Molecular Rods.
Angewandte Chemie International Edition, Volume 44,
Issue 45, Pages 7315-7483 (November 18, 2005).
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112130826/ABSTRACT
The research actually only calculated Young's modulus. It didn't
measure it. Also the hardness claim is coming from the fact the
calculated Young's modulus was 40 times that of diamond, and
hardness is correlated to Young's modulus. -- Bob Clark
"Prai Jei" <pvstownsend@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:edtsrv$bmh$1@emma.aioe.org...
If "polyyne" is really -C?C-C?C- (that's alternate single and
triple bonds between the carbons in case the character doesn't
come out) I can't see how it can be stable - the triple bond is not
"the strongest" bond but the most > reactive. Also the linear
structure would be strong in one dimension only giving the stuff a
fibrous texture.
[Uncle Al]
Let's ask a simple low-tech question: Are Israeli diamond cutters
lining up to put it on their wheels?
[zzgunker]
That''s doesn't really matter. Since Israeli diamond cutters are
the most proton-ignorant Swahili retards to visit Earth since
Bill Clonton.
[hanson]
...... ahahahaha... zz, don't get so extra terrestrial ... If Al is right
then it's simply another Jewish game of cons conning cons.
------------------ [Interesting side note] -----------------
"Prai Jei" <pvstownsend@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:edtsrv$bmh$1@emma.aioe.org...
Octanitrocubane C8(NO2)8 is predicted to be a more powerful
explosive than most of what the military are using now, and safer
to handle. Predicted. Up till now nobody has got more than two
nitro's onto the cubane nucleus.
[hanson]
Why is that? Steric hindrance or e-charge rejection? The
analog aromatic C6(NO2)6 is known, so is the aliphatic C(NO2)4
------------------ [Interesting side note] -----------------
--
Uncle Al : http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
[hanson]
I notice that your qz3.pdf is dated 15-Jan-06. So, Al, what
happened to that Eotvoes/Chirality/Gravitation project since
then? How is that Chinese situation going/coming along?
Do you have any other irons in the fire for it?
hanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
09 Sep 2006 07:40:12 PM |
|
|
hanson wrote:
<zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1157795260.187993.65660@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Robert Clark wrote:
====Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond?]
It's referred to as "polyyne" here [@ Technion, Israel]
Polyyne said to be 40 times harder than diamond.
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2111
Harder than Diamond: Determining the Cross-Sectional
Area and Young's Modulus of Molecular Rods.
Angewandte Chemie International Edition, Volume 44,
Issue 45, Pages 7315-7483 (November 18, 2005).
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112130826/ABSTRACT
The research actually only calculated Young's modulus. It didn't
measure it. Also the hardness claim is coming from the fact the
calculated Young's modulus was 40 times that of diamond, and
hardness is correlated to Young's modulus. -- Bob Clark
"Prai Jei" <pvstownsend@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:edtsrv$bmh$1@emma.aioe.org...
If "polyyne" is really -C?C-C?C- (that's alternate single and
triple bonds between the carbons in case the character doesn't
come out) I can't see how it can be stable - the triple bond is not
"the strongest" bond but the most > reactive. Also the linear
structure would be strong in one dimension only giving the stuff a
fibrous texture.
[Uncle Al]
Let's ask a simple low-tech question: Are Israeli diamond cutters
lining up to put it on their wheels?
[zzgunker]
That''s doesn't really matter. Since Israeli diamond cutters are
the most proton-ignorant Swahili retards to visit Earth since
Bill Clonton.
[hanson]
..... ahahahaha... zz, don't get so extra terrestrial ... If Al is right
then it's simply another Jewish game of cons conning cons.
Well, that's always the way it's going to be
with commercial diamonds. since the only
thing they're even used for is cutting other diamonds.
Most of us figured even people as stupid as Israels,
Egyptians, Africans, Australians, Mexicans, Jimmy Carter,
and moron Europeans would figure it out sonner or later.
But since it's industrial diamands that you use
to make stealth titanium, the only thing that really
still surprises us about Jews is that the
Swiss still haven't foreclosed on all the Africans yet.
------------------ [Interesting side note] -----------------
"Prai Jei" <pvstownsend@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:edtsrv$bmh$1@emma.aioe.org...
Octanitrocubane C8(NO2)8 is predicted to be a more powerful
explosive than most of what the military are using now, and safer
to handle. Predicted. Up till now nobody has got more than two
nitro's onto the cubane nucleus.
[hanson]
Why is that? Steric hindrance or e-charge rejection? The
analog aromatic C6(NO2)6 is known, so is the aliphatic C(NO2)4
------------------ [Interesting side note] -----------------
--
Uncle Al : http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
[hanson]
I notice that your qz3.pdf is dated 15-Jan-06. So, Al, what
happened to that Eotvoes/Chirality/Gravitation project since
then? How is that Chinese situation going/coming along?
Do you have any other irons in the fire for it?
hanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Father Haskell" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
10 Sep 2006 01:21:41 AM |
|
|
wrote:
But since it's industrial diamands that you use
to make stealth titanium,
Nope. We use cubic zirconium, from the QVC Cubic
Zirconium Hour.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
10 Sep 2006 10:03:00 AM |
|
|
"Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157869301.136718.87740@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
zzbunker@netscape.net wrote:
But since it's industrial diamands that you use
to make stealth titanium,
[Fatha]
Nope. We use cubic zirconium, from the QVC Cubic
Zirconium Hour.
[hanson]
Get it right, Fatha! They use pubic circumonium,
from the Circumcision Hour. Here are the details:
http://www.SexuallyMutilatedChild.org/mohel.htm
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
10 Sep 2006 11:56:55 AM |
|
|
Father Haskell wrote:
zzbunker@netscape.net wrote:
But since it's industrial diamands that you use
to make stealth titanium,
Nope. We use cubic zirconium, from the QVC Cubic
Zirconium Hour.
Zirconium in any form is only used by Disney.
Since they'te the only people that
actually hire ABC idiots.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
09 Sep 2006 09:54:31 AM |
|
|
"zzbunker@netscape.net" wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Robert Clark wrote:
It's referred to as "polyyne" here:
Polyyne said to be 40 times harder than diamond.
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2111
The research is published here:
Harder than Diamond: Determining the Cross-Sectional Area and Young's
Modulus of Molecular Rods.
Angewandte Chemie International Edition, Volume 44, Issue 45, Pages
7315-7483 (November 18, 2005).
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112130826/ABSTRACT
The research actually only calculated Young's modulus. It didn't
measure it.
Also the hardness claim is coming from the fact the calculated Young's
modulus was 40 times that of diamond, and hardness is correlated to
Young's modulus.
Bob Clark
Let's ask a simple low-tech question: Are Israeli diamond cutters
lining up to put it on their wheels?
That''s doesn't really matter.
Since Israeli diamond cutters are the most
proton-ignorant Swahili retards to visit Earth
since Bill Clonton.
Ignorance and faith are the three pillars of Bushist America. So
what? Idiot. A Jew can smell money hidden under a pile of *****
stink.
If there were something "40 times harder than diamond" it would be on
diamond cutting wheels faster than an East Indian could steal gobar
(the living temple of Lakshmi, Goddess of Wealth; re epic poem
"Mahabharata").
Do you know anything about diamond cutting, git? If you try to facet
the hard plane you are majorly fucked. Were there a wheel that could
rapidly grind any diamond direction Hasidim would be cutting the tips
off their son's dicks to get at it.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Father Haskell" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
09 Sep 2006 07:10:57 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Robert Clark wrote:
It's referred to as "polyyne" here:
Polyyne said to be 40 times harder than diamond.
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2111
The research is published here:
Harder than Diamond: Determining the Cross-Sectional Area and Young's
Modulus of Molecular Rods.
Angewandte Chemie International Edition, Volume 44, Issue 45, Pages
7315-7483 (November 18, 2005).
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112130826/ABSTRACT
The research actually only calculated Young's modulus. It didn't
measure it.
Also the hardness claim is coming from the fact the calculated Young's
modulus was 40 times that of diamond, and hardness is correlated to
Young's modulus.
Bob Clark
Let's ask a simple low-tech question: Are Israeli diamond cutters
lining up to put it on their wheels?
What's the crystal shape? Abrasives need to be sharp
as well as hard.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: 'Tetracarbon', 40 times harder than diamond? |
10 Sep 2006 08:04:40 AM |
|
|
Robert Clark wrote:
Polyyne said to be 40 times harder than diamond.
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3D2111
See my reply there. For stabler materials, I don't see much talk about
paracuanoj=E8n derivativs, which must mean that the Groom Lake base is
a'doing mead work on them. By the way, did you know that the Mohs
chart leaves off plumbago for 0? Poluyne must then be -1.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
