I was reading the newspaper today and its talking about filling your tires with nitrogen instead of just oxygen....
They said that it won't leak out as quick as oxygen will...
The main purpose of using nitrogen is to stabilize the tir's inflation pressure
Nitrogen molecules leak out of the tire at a slower rate then oxygen...
anyone know if this is ture...i might give it a try

 

Its true. also nitrogen doesn't heat up as quickly as oxygen.

 

yes, and no. special manufacuted nitrogen will be for tires. nitrogen you see on trucks in tubes will be unstable in car tires and cause them to blow up. a place on the internet is manufacturing coin operated nitrogen air pumps so expecet to see them at you local gas stations in the next few years.

facts of nitrogen for tires:

lighter
less air loss
less tire falure
longer tire life up to 30%
less corrosition to tire and rims then air

 

Isn't air ~83% nitrogen? I there really a point to goin with 100% nitrogen?

As far as nitrogen exploding, I don't think so. Are people confusing nitrogen with hydrogen?

As far a filling a tire with 100% oxygen, that might cause faster tire deteriorization as it is an oxidizer. Who has ever done this though?

 

are they really going to use 100% nitrogen? earth's atmostphere is roughly 21% pure oxygen. while there is a certain amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere, the number is much less than 83%. keep in mind there is a whole lot of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere as well. i am not going to talk any further on chemistry, as i believe chemistry is a ****.

 

100% nitrogen means 0% moisture, and I think it's got something to do with water vapor pressure varying considerably between 100*F and 200*F. Eliminating the moisture will make the inflation pressure more stable over the range of tire temperatures experienced between cold and hot.

OT, but what's the matter, roof? You flunking chem this marking period?

Norm

 

no, ive taken 4 chemistry classes, and passed them all. but i hated every minute of them

 

Hmmmm . . . is there any such word as 'unremember'?

Anyway . . .

By volume, the composition of dry air at sea level per Marks 'Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers', 7th Ed., is listed below. Only the top four components need be listed for the purposes of this thread.

N2 (78.03%)
O2 (20.99%)
A (0.94%)
CO2 (0.03%)

Composition by mass, same reference,

N2 (75.5%)
O2 (23.2%)
A (1.33%)
CO2 (0.045%)

By either measure,

neither of those statements are very accurate qualitative descriptions regarding the composition of the atmosphere.

You're encouraged to bring numerical or other tech to the table in any discussion, just don't be afraid to verify that it's correct before posting it. And don't bother watering said tech down with off-topic, off-color juvenile commentary - that just drags your credibility down the same toilet.

Edited for wording. Twice.

Norm

 

i said that the amount of nitrogen was less than 83%, and i was correct. i also said the amount of 02 was about 21%, and according to your numbers i was correct as well. and there is indeed a great deal of carbon dioxide in the atmostphere. .03-,04 is a large amount when considering the size. either way, there is no need to be an ***.

 

I love it when people actually bring out the books, who doesnt love a good old fashioned debate.

 

he was correct by bringing out the books, but as i stated, my statements were correct.

 

Let's try again. You said "much less" . . . Leaving out the descriptive adjective changes the context considerably. Shall I give you less credit for accuracy in quoting material to substantiate your position or much less? Should your next tax refund be less than you asked for or much less? Each to his own, I guess.


Are you trying to create an issue out of thin air? Bad pun, I know, but it seems to fit here. I'll give you this one, minus the "as well", since that assumes too much about the preceding item.


Never mind that the discussion of CO2 is at best a late entry that's not at the core of the original topic question; we aren't talking about the entire global mass of CO2 here, only its concentration. When you find a way to accumulate all the CO2 in one general region of the 3-D atmosphere I'll direct you toward everything that's left (pointing in nearly every direction should work) and we'll compare size, volume, weight, mass, or whatever. Your choice. Meanwhile, I'll stand by my stated opinion that 0.0x% does not represent a "whole lot".


Darn. I thought we were done with the requirement for *s. But then again, this thread is suddenly one post shorter, so I guess you'll be asterisking away again.

Looks like something new has come in to this topic while I was typing. Let me see . . .

[edit] Welcome back, roof. Feel free to take your time. It's past my bedtime, so this end of the repartee will have to wait 'til tomorrow. G'Night all.

Edited for clarity.

Norm

 

go to bed norm

 

Norm, you must be an engineer.

 

BTDT. And to borrow a line from Robin Williams,
"Good Morning TAMPA!!!!!"

BigFly - yup

Norm

 

asterisking is fun