Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Disclosure:

The statements in this forum have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and are generated by non-professional writers. Any products described are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Website Disclosure:

This forum contains general information about diet, health and nutrition. The information is not advice and is not a substitute for advice from a healthcare professional.

__ quarter sized half g?

Discussion in 'Marijuana Consumption Q&A' started by electric donut, May 25, 2015.

  1. #1 electric donut, May 25, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2015
    should half g nugs be the size of 2 quarters like people say?
     
  2. pics would help
     
  3. Jet fuel can't melt steel beams
     
  4. Three grams for $15 sounds like a good deal.  That's almost an eighth which would cost $50 in my illegal state.  How did it smoke?
    I think your first buy was a hit, mate.
     
  5. post a pic of your pick up, or a nickel, cause i need a frame of reference
     
  6. Depends on the density of the buds my friend. When you grind it you should be able to tell.
     
  7. Hell, even if it was only two grams, it's illegal where I am and three grams would go for about $40. 
     
  8. Could be super dense from vacuum pack, could be fluffy buds. If it's vacuum packed them it's probably 2gs, if it's fluffy it probably around a gram. But I don't know because theres no picture and OP doesn't have a scale. 
     
  9. i dont think 2 nickel size bud can weigh 3g but who knows. get a scale. also post a pic.
     
  10. #10 enjoyandlive, May 26, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2015
    Ive bought 1g dubs before and yeah they were 28 grams, he hooked it up 4 quarters for 20


    Sent from my intergalactic spaceship hotbox
     
  11. Or course it can, steel has a melting point.
     
  12. ...
     
  13. Reference: 2 skyscrapers that fell due to weakened steel.
     
  14. I get it's about 9/11. I was just commenting on your lack on understanding on melting points.
     
  15. #15 Dr. Sheldon Cooper, May 26, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2015
    Nope. Understand it pretty well, and I understand what fallacies of the conspiracy try to ascertain about melting points.

    Basically, the fire started by jet fuel was stoked even hotter because the fire was in a big office building with lots of fuel inside. Then the big hole in the wall provided oxygen, which is also fuel.

    Melting point is also a state of equilibrium, so as temperature approaches melting point or boiling point or freezing point, some of the molecules begin to escape. Which is why water that is starting to boil starts to bubble, even though it's not at the boiling point yet.

    So, it's not hard to believe steel would weaken under such conditions, also taking into consideration that 1/3 of the buildings weight was sitting on top of the steel on the floors where the fire burned, which would provide additional stress to weaken the steel even further.
     
  16. I guess the temperature in a closed space burning hotter in a closed environment makes sense from a thermodynamic perspective but I still that variables like pressure and volume would cause the fuel to melt the steel. I mean we're talking about a 1250F difference. If this was an adiabatic process I wouldn't be questing it.
    And in regards to the oxygen, it really depends on how the oxygen interacts with it. Plus there's less oxygen in higher altitudes. I'd really have to see some math on this.

    The last part is relatively convincing though. The conspiracy could be wrong but there's other factors aside from the faulty physics that makes me question it. After reading about the Tuskegee experiment, CIA LSD experiments, pardoning unit 731, putting Japanese people in internment camps, and the whole WMD's they never found in Iraq, I tend to not believe what the government says.
     
  17. You don't have to believe the government to not believe in the conspiracy that the buildings went down in some other fashion other than jets flying into them. They have done fucked up things in the past, the evidence of that is very clear, but that doesn't mean that everything they do is devious.

    Evidence is what will sway me back into believing in that aspect of the conspiracy, not the capability of government to be corrupt.
     
  18. I can't fault you for that, it's logical. I remember a phrase that went like "the simplest answer is usually the right answer". I could be completely wrong and I hope I am.
     

Share This Page