this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2025
1434 points (97.7% liked)

Science Memes

14312 readers
1637 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 532 points 1 week ago (6 children)

The reason not to use pencils in Space wasn't that Pencil are inflamable, the main reason was the graphit dust produced by Pencils, which because of the lack of gravity, enter floating in the electronic, causing short circuits as main risk.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

and thin paper shavings = space kindling. the entire argument is fucking dumb.

perhaps the sovs gnawed their pencils sharp and consumed all the graphite fragments and shavings lol. good lil soviet space beavers

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

The Soviets were using grease pencils IIRC before also switching to the Fisher Space Pen around 1969. The grease pencil eliminated the risk of graphite floating around but the writing quality isn’t great.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If I remember correctly, the Soviet engines were a lot harder to short out, so pencils weren't as big a problem in their spacecraft.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

the Soviet engines were a lot harder to short out,

bwahaha this is idiotic. anyone familiar with the long litany of rocket failures out of baiknor knows their engines weren't 'harder to short out' whatever silly shit you mean with it.

short out what? the alternator? bwahahahahaahahahaha

short out the fuse box? dear god, I'm dying here

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

This is the most upvotes I think I have ever seen on a comment here.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Genuine question. why did you choose to use "inflammable" instead of "flammable"?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Inflame was the original word for 'to ignite' - to set aflame, to set on fire. We still see if in metaphor, 'inflammatory argument' or 'inflamed passion', for example.

So an inflammable object was one you can inflame (or enflame). The word 'flammable' came about later, probably to reduce confusion for people who thought it mean 'un-flameable'.

These days we use flammable on labels for safety reasons, but inflame is still peppered throughout language in metaphor and medicine, and both are correct.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

inflammation, inflamed, inflammable

inflammable = easily ignited

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Oh dear, the internet is leaking again.. Call the locksmith 🗣️

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Also a broken bit of lead could easily float into someone's eye or get aspirated.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

There is no way either side used lead pencils. Saying lead is in pencils is a very outdated thing, it's all graphite these days.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

A sharp piece of graphite from a broken pencil is not something you would want in your eyes either

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

it hasn’t been graphite for while now either….

pencil lead

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

Regular chalk is calcium carbonate. Crayola's website says their sidewalk chalk uses calcium sulfate (gypsum as an ingredient in plaster of paris).

So they're both calcium salts.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Probably not great for eyes or noses or filtration systems either

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Twist: you’re the filtration system.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I guess we are in a way a filtration system that removes oxygen from the air...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Ok there Ongo Baglogian

[–] [email protected] 268 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 week ago (4 children)

That is something I found weird, too. Inflammable and flammable mean the same thing!

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Flammable isn't a word.

Just Americans got confused by it so it became a word.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

A word made for stupid people, yes.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

United States education system

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It makes more sense if you think of it as enflammable. Indent and indebted at examples of this "in-" prefix. https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/flammable-or-inflammable

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

If you want to keep things crystal clear, choose flammable when you are referring to something that catches fire and burns easily, and use the relatively recent nonflammable when referring to something that doesn't catch fire and burn easily. Inflammable is just likely to enflame confusion.

The people at Merriam are alright 👌

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Technically, I think they're different. Flammable means that it can be lit on fire, like wood or something. Whereas inflammable means it can catch fire on its own, like gas, for example.

Edit: after some googling, it appears that my source was shit and should be disregarded. They do indeed appear to be synonyms. And also, I was thinking of gasoline. I think I was thinking of the "gas pedal" and that threw me off.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

Credit to you for the self-correction though

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 week ago

Synonyms, true synonyms. No real difference between them (except don't use inflammable in safety situations, for above reasons)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

saying that "gas" is able to catch fire on its own is stretching it :) A gas mix typically still needs a spark, unlike: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant <- that stuff can "catch fire" on its own. But even there - it needs to be mixed, so technically, one component requires the other to ignite.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Yeah, my bad, shit example.