Cooking Bacons with a Machine Gun

Notoriously Conservative ^ | 03 30 10 | Notoriously Conservative

[Notoriously Conservative]

Behold, a new way of cooking bacon. All you need is: bacon, tin foil, some string, your every day, common, household machinegun, and about 200 rounds of ammunition.

You start by wrapping the barrel in tin foil. Then you wrap bacon around it, and tie it down with some string.

You then wrap some more tin foil around it, and once again tie it down with string. It is now ready to be inserted into the cooking device.

After just a few short bursts (Give it about 200-250 rounds. ) you should be able to smell the wonderful aroma of bacon.

Ah the smell of sizzling bacon mixed with the smell of gunpowder and weapon oil.

The end result? Crispy delicious well done bacon.

[absolootezer0]

Dude, it was wrapped in foil while they were firing.

i'm not so sure, there'd be an awful lot of lead particles floating around right where the bacon is, and foil isn't exactly air tight.

[Still Thinking]

True, it’s not air tight, but I’m sure that whatever lead ended up on the bacon wouldn’t be enough to be toxic. People are WAY too concerned about lead in metallic form (assuming the lead in the smoke is particles and maybe some droplets that will freeze). It’s lead in soluble ionic compounds that people need to be concerned about.

[absolootezer0]

It’s lead in soluble ionic compounds that people need to be concerned about.

sorry, can you explain what "lead in soluble ionic compounds" means, and how that may differ from injesting lead particles?

[Still Thinking]

Picture table salt, sodium chloride, NaCl. It's very different from both metallic sodium and chlorine gas. It will dissolve easily in water, breaking the bond between the Na and the Cl, so then you have Na+ and Cl- ions in the solution independent from one another. The tendency of a particular element to form cations (the "+" ions) or anions (the "-" ions) is related to the numbers of electrons that fit in the various shells around the nucleus. A full shell is a relatively stable condition, so an element that in its electrically neutral state has one or two electrons in it's outside shell which might have room for eight or more, will have a tendency to donate electrons and become a positively charged cation. An element that is just a few shy of a full shell will tend to accept them, and will become an anion. The interesting exception to this is hydrogen. The electron shell closest to the nucleus of any atom has room for two electrons, thus there are two Shell-1 elements, hydrogen and helium. Hydrogen is a special case of my previous statement in that it's at +1 and -1 at the same time. Look at this periodic table:

The electron shells are the reason it's laid out the way it is. Each row represents one shell, with increasing numbers of electrons in the last shell as you move from left to right, the elements becoming more and more likely to accept rather than donate electrons, becoming less metallic as you go. As you go down, there are more and more elements per row, because higher level shells can hold more electrons and thus have a bigger list of elements for which that is the top shell.

(Not all compounds work like salt when they dissolve. Sugar doesn't break into ions for example)

[gundog]

Sugar doesn't break into ions for example...

Isn't that dependent upon the solvent used? HCL does cool things to complex sugars.

[Still Thinking]

I wasn’t specific enough. I just said “dissolve” but I was talking about aqueous solutions. Plus I don’t know much organic chemistry (not that my mineral chemistry is encyclopedic).

[gundog]

Plus I don’t know much organic chemistry...

Probably more than Al Gore, and he's making billions...

[Still Thinking]

Plus I don’t know much organic chemistry...

Probably more than Al Gore, and he's making billions...

Yeah, but he's got a head start. He IS a large male organ, whereas I only HAVE a large male organ.