I don't see his logic.

Post #45,698 by Ashton 7/15/02 6:38:03 PM Reply	I don't see his logic. re the amount of this huge excess - as could ever contact the surface-area of all teeth. Y'know? I'm missing this point. But I do see the "time factor" - as would anyone who didn't sleep through chem 101. So I generally leave the "mouth not-quite-Full!" of foam, go on and do some other little chore, then final brushy brushy and.. onto the floss. (Which My A+type dentist maintained is the most important of all. Done like a CPA - before Enron). Hmmm.. would be interesting to see some actual #s re the deposition-rate of the fluoride-containing actual radicals in these nostrums: is 2 min. OK? what ya get for 10 then? I mean.. if it really mattered, we could.. develop different brushing habits like, Start brushing. Wash car, motorcycle, UAV Rinse a bit Dry ","," etc. Invention freebie: my great idea, discussed with above A+ kinda teaching-perfessor was - invent a device to fit in kids' mouths for a time. It should simulate the 'feel' of dentures! As in, nuff said about the "time wasted" in keeping your own teeth.. We weren't smart enough to devise such :(
Post #45,737 by CRConrad 7/16/02 4:49:09 AM Reply	I think I do. Ashton: re the amount of this huge excess - as could ever contact the surface-area of all teeth. Y'know? I'm missing this point. How do all detergents (soap, dish-washing stuff, laundry detergent, etc etc) work? I thought it was chemically -- the dirt (or, in this case, the bacteria) binds to the detergent, in stead of whatever surface it is presently adhering to, right? But... once that's happened, what good is that particular detergent molecule? Nothing, AFAICS; it's "spent", bound to the dirt it's picked up already. So I assumed he meant this is what happens; all the detergent in your tiny dollop of toothpaste is bound to just part of the bacteria: Brushing on after that does no good, except for pure mechanical abrasion; you could just as well brush with just pure water. It's not just about covering a surface (cf your "contact the surface-area"); it must also be about how thick the layer of dirt on that surface is. Then again, this is just my interpretation of his point; I'm not saying fersure that's how he meant it works. YMMV. (But mine's lower! :-) Christian R. Conrad Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #45,747 by drewk 7/16/02 8:55:52 AM Reply	Not what I've heard My hazy unsubstantiated recollection of how detergents work is that they either reduce the viscosity of the water so it can penetrate the dirt, or it dissolves the non-water-soluble parts of the dirt so that the water can wash it away. Most detergents, when added to water, are just designed to let the water do its work more effectively. But then again, I can't point to any source for my recollection either. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #45,785 by hnick 7/16/02 12:51:05 PM Reply	What I recall from high school... is that detergents are long molecules that are polar on one end and non-polar on the other. The polar end allows miscibility with water, while the non-polar end allows the same with grease/oils and other non-polar materials. It's been a while, so my memory could be faulty... Hugh
Post #45,825 by Ashton 7/16/02 8:28:16 PM Reply	Similar to that last Polarized fershure.. but the explanation for collecting 'dirt' seemed more a physical chemistry attraction and not an actual chemical (bonding) effect. Old too, so maybe by now someone actually Understands. I've used some Industrial detergents which acted as if they'd clean carburetors; in fact, they did! :-) (Hell it may be as subtle as the fact that, were there no hydronium molecule performing weirdly as it does: we wouldn't be having this conversation) Ashton PS another "long chain polymer" ~ like a detergent -- is the active ingredient in Tweek\ufffd 'contact enhancer' whose amazing property is that: under [sufficient] pressure it conducts electrons but is otherwise a good insulator! Sufficient turns out to be - most electrical contacts except the really 'soft' kind. And.. it's alcohol soluble, making application EZ. The first Cure for lots of kinds of intermittents, now proven in really tough environments.

Welcome to IWETHEY!