I'm 40 minutes drive from Napa/Sonoma valley - wine central in
America. I have a sister in law who's a chemist at a winery. My
wife's family had a vineyard, before it got lost in a divorce -
we're talking 100 years, here. I'm personally aquainted with
around a half-dozen winemakers, I've taken the tours and seen it
all. Been to wine groups and clubs, discussed the various
fermentation methods and products - on, and on, and on, and on, and
on. I'm not a wine expert (a relative term) but I'm certainy very
knowlegable on the subject.
As tempting as it may be, I will restrain myself from wine
discussions. I guess it does no good to repeat the same thing over
and over again. The best I can do is put words in writing. If they
are ignored, not much I can do about it. I suspect that close
connection to winemakers have something to do with that.
I do want to ease everybodyâs mind and say that drinking of wine in
moderation is good for you, even if moderation is a hard thing to
manage at times.
It is counter-productive to continue the discussion in this manner. I
am going to write a short assay on this subject, which will be
posted on my blog. I do have some time right now, so it should not
take too long.
Can you admit that there may be some things you have heard of that
might not be? I take it this isn't something you've personally
experienced, but that somebody told you about it, and you believed
it enough to pass it along.
No arguments here. There are billion upon billion things that I have
no idea about. And there are very many things that we talk about
without having personal experience. It is simply not possible to test
every time you hear something. We do have to rely on books and other
sources of After all that is how civilization
progresses.
About your experiment. I really do not want to go into all the
possibilities why it did not worked. Frankly, even if it did, it
would not prove anything. Too many variable to account for.
Galileo discovered law of falling bodies using pure logic. If was
only proven experimentally when Armstrong dropped golf ball and the
feather on the surface of the Moon. Galileo used the following
argument - Letâs assume that the heaver the object, the faster it
falls. If we drop a sledge hammer and an anvil, the anvil would hit
the ground first because it heavier.
But if it is correct, then if tie the anvil and the sledge hammer
together, the two of them would fall slower than anvil alone,
because sledge hammer falling slower would be acting as a brake. But
that cannot be, because the anvil and the sledge hammer together are
heavier than the anvil alone. So the only way to resolve the
contraction is to assume that things would fall at the same speed,
regardless of their weight.
He was proven to be correct. I suggest that we learn from Galileo
and apply the following thinking.
We know that function of silverware, at least at some period of the
History, was to warn us of the presence of dangerous substances in
our food and drink. I am assuming this not questioned.
Than we should ask, how it was supposed to do it.
Letâs consider that cyanide makes silver bright. Then the custom of
shining silverware before dinner, would not make sense. It would make
sense if presence of dangerous substances would make silver darker.
Back to your experiment. Letâs forget about cyanide for a second.
There is a method of removing copper flashing from gold and silver
articles by using hydrogen peroxide and pickle. Letâs modify things a
bit. Combine some regular table salt with vinegar. If you use excess
of vinegar, you will make cocktail of acetic acid, hydrochloric
acid, some water and sodium salts of both acids. Exact concentration
would depend on ingredient quantities. Use it in a copper vessel. If
you put a silver article, it will become bright, like should be
expected from any pickle. Add some hydrogen peroxide and you should
see silver turning black. The reason is that now there will be
copper acetate present, which is a dangerous poison.
As difficult as it may be to believe, we are constantly exposed to
different forms of cyanide all the time.
Cyanide is very common in nature. Through the thousands of years of
civilization, we developed resistance to many forms of it. The danger
is when cyanide combines with hydrogen, which could happen in some
cases, during food preparation and making of wine. This possibility
is mostly theoretical in modern times, but was not so just a few
hundred years ago.
Leonid is, of course, being specious as a negative cannot be proved,
as he knows.
The problem with classical literature is that it must be tempered by
contemporary literature, and absorbed with intellegence. Pliny the
Elder was mentioned, for some reason - a renowned, noble and wise man
who was born 23 BC - he died off the coast of Pompeii duing the
eruption that buried it.
The importance of reading such things with a brain:
Pliny thought the Earth was flat, and about the size of America. The
Sun~absolutely~ revolved around the Earth. He thought diseases were
from âvaporsâ or the Gods - in fact, he thought everything came from
âThe Godsâ.
He didnât know how children were made, aside from the
cause-and-effect relationship of the genders. He didnât know how
wine becomes wine or why food spoiled or why yeast makes bread. He
needed to âkeep the fires burningâ because it was a chore to make it
from scratch. He was a wise man, but he had the scientific and
technical education of a modern third grader - and he was highly
educated, for his time. Reading Homer (admittedly, 800 years
earlier) is a great way to see how the world was a vast, mysterious
place, full of gods, demons and creatures, forces and shadows.
None of the things relating to this nonsensical thread were known
until Leewenhoek discovered bacteria in 1676. The nature of
fermentation was found by Pasteur, attributed to around 1859. Before
that people made wine (and bread), but they didnât know how or why,
in any real sense.
Cellini (1500-1571) still thought the Sun revolved around the Earth,
had no concept of electricity, pressurized gas, didnât know there
was an âoxygenâ. Acetyline had yet to be invented and acid was
âstrong waterâ. Royal Water (aqua regia) dissolved gold. Acid theory
comes from 1884. Bronsted-Lowry theory is the early 1920âs. He still
didnât know how babies are made or why bread becomes bread or wine
becomes wine, and diseases came from vapors or the gods. Even he had
no real knowlege of cyanide because that didnât come until Gay-Lussac
in 1815, 300 years later.
The point being, this is now, this is today. The value of literature,
to me, is in the knowing of humanity and the evolution of the world
and the mind. It is not useful to study what someone thought about
wine or bread before the discovery of yeast beyond an amusing
curiosity⌠If Pliny did have a cup, then itâs either just a cup or
his reasoning is false, based on modern knowlege. Because he was
literally ignorant of things we now know. He didnât know what
cyanide, arsenic, bacteria, viruses or yeast even were - or even that
tiny organisms existed in the world at all. Thus legends and myths
are born. Everybody has a world view. Personally I think having one
that reflects the world of 2010 is the most useful.
Analysis of the corrosion products on a silver dragon suspected to
have been treated with cyanide revealed both silver cyanide and
chalconatronite. It appears that both of these corrosion products can
be formed on silver objects cleaned or replated using a cyanide
solution. These corrosion products darken with exposure to light;
therefore, they may be mistaken for silver sulfide. In order to
determine how to remove the highly poisonous cyanide corrosion
product, numerous tests were run. Using a carefully timed procedure
the silver cyanide was removed with an aqueous solution of 20%
sodium thiosulfate. The chalconatronite was removed mechanically.
You do not need to download the whole article unless you want to.
Leonid is, of course, being specious as a negative cannot be
proved, as he knows.
I can ask for page number of the book which proves that 2 + 2 = 4,
and you will not be able to deliver. Some things are so obvious that
it is ridiculous to ask for some formal reference.
But if you insist, we can start with âThe Book of Old Silverâ by
Seymor Wiler. There is chapter on silver used in wine service. I am
sure there thousand others. Am I suppose to remember them all, and
with page numbers. Are you kidding!
Let's consider that cyanide makes silver bright. Then the custom
of shining silverware before dinner, would not make sense. It would
make sense if presence of dangerous substances would make silver
darker.
Unless there is a willingness to accept the limitations of Orchid as
a forum and that it is unsuitable for such a desultory debate, this
hijacked thread could go on forever. To prove this point, I suggest
that silverware was polished simply and for no other reason than to
make it shiny and pretty. Now, letâs see how many exchanges there
will be to prove that no one likes shiny silverware unless they are
apt to be poisoned by intent or accident. wink!
As I promised, I posted on my blog all the relevant about
subject of wine, cyanide, and silverware. No page numbers, but there
are plenty of links to various sources, so even the most hard nosed
sceptic should be satisfied. Images used are of silverware from
Kremlin Armory. They were taken with film camera and digitized some
years ago, when technology was not what it is now. I have restored
them, but in the process proportions were changed, so If you ever
have a chance to see them live, they may look a bit different.