--- In
DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Norm Keller" wrote:
>
> >Here's a question: What about charging it >with argon?
>
> >Mark
>
> I don't know. Is Argon a crime?
>
> Reminds me of the skit set in a small town court room.
> The judge asks the police officer, "So what's this young man
charged with, Clem?"
>
> Officer: "He's charged with arson, your honour!"
>
> Judge: "Arson! There's been altogether too much of that lately.
Son, you marry that girl!"
>
> In case you think I'm being sarcastic, you should know that the
question is about the sum total of my knowledge in the matter.
>
> Argon is an inert gas but the concern is not a chemical interaction
between the shock oil and the charging gas. I have seen
demonstrations of the relative rates of bubble escapement from oil
which compared Nitrogen and air bubbles. The difference is quite
graphic! Nitrogen bubbles leave the oil much more rapidly than do air
bubbles which serves to reduce the aeration of the oil.
>
> Since gas bubbles (air, Nitrogen, Argon, etc.) are lighter and less
viscous than shock oil, any gas bubbles present in the shock oil will
serve to make the oil less viscous. A reduction in shock oil
viscosity will allow the oil to pass metering orifices and valves
more rapidly than intended.
>
> For this reason, aeration of the shock oil is a bad thing.
Hopefully someone who is either more conversant or less lazy.....
>
> (Yes, I could look it up but it's been a long day. Regardless, I
make it a principle to stop at a point where I cannot respond off the
top of my head. At the point where I need to do research, this
activity becomes work rather than a simple sharing process.)
>
> ....will respond with more of an engineering approach to the
effects of oil aeration by various gasses.
>
> I have always been interested by the phenomenon of gas bubble
escapement from oil because air (78% Nitrogen) has so much lower
escapement rate than pure Nitrogen. It is hard to believe that
Carbon-Dioxide will influence the phenomenon appreciably because it
is present in such low concentrations in the atmosphere. Oxygen sits
not far from Nitrogen on the Periodic Table so one would tend to
believe that the density of air will not be that much greater than
Nitrogen.
>
> Interesting phenomenon but my understanding is almost purely
empirical.
>
> Some high-end shocks use a diaphragm to isolate the Nitrogen used
to pressurize the shock absorber from the oil.
>
> Hoping for a better explanation.....Jeff, Krokko, Blake, Fast
Eddie....????
>
> Norm
>
Hi Norm,
Do you have to have a Canadian accent to understand the joke? Maybe
you could draw me a picture.
I didn't make the list of scientific-minds, but that won't keep me
from offering a sub-tangential understanding.... grin. I to am
speaking at the limits of my understandings, but it does not keep me
from engaging in the thought process, all of which is observed
through the lens of a high school chemistry student circa 1970.
I would think the use of Nitrogen or Oxygen is directly related to
their position in the Periodic Table (as stated by Norm). that is:
The structural size of a Nitrogen or Oxygen molecule in relationship
to the size of the petroleum molecule it is touching. When the two
are interfaced, i.e. Nitrogen over oil, or oxygen over oil, the
molecules are able to stay better separated, or separated longer due
to the difference in size of the molecule of Nitrogen vs. Oxygen.
Which is largely what Norm said/speculated.
Even though you suggest that O and N they are 'not far apart on the
P. Table', neither are lead and gold, and there is slight difference
there also in value and usefulness... both can be used for fish
weights, but one makes a better conductor for things like electrical
connectors on the space shuttle. Perhaps the difference is 'just
enough' to make a significant difference, say, like adding baking
soda vs. baking powder to biscuits. Look the same, feel the same to
me, but the results are different when added to flour.
I doubt that the first experimenters used a Periodic table, but
said, "That didn't work, let us try this a, b, c,..." until they
said, "Looks like Nitrogen worked pretty good, hmmm, much better than
Oxygen." And nitrogen is (has to be cheaper, more readily available--
although Argon is more plentiful now than 20 years ago) to produce
that Argon, and you don't have to marry the girl.
revmaaatin.