or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › **The Official Shoe Care Thread: Tutorials, Photos, etc.**
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

**The Official Shoe Care Thread: Tutorials, Photos, etc.** - Page 578

post #8656 of 10715
I am proud to announce that I was about to polish my shoes last night, but I didn't. bigstar[1].gif
post #8657 of 10715
For lighter colored shoes that get affected by rain drops that cause black spots and a white halo, should I use a cleaner to essentially wipe away the mark if buffing it with a cloth doesn't work?
post #8658 of 10715

I feel that I should be awarded a dual degree in chemistry and psychology after reading the last several days of this thread. 

post #8659 of 10715
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaywhyy View Post

You keep appealling to the “scientific community” as your only evidence for why you consider water as the universal solvent. You don’t provide any empirical or mechanistic evidence. You don’t provide a citation or source. Plus the fact that you don’t speak for the scientific community--which I consider myself to be a part of--means you don’t have any evidence at all.

I haven't appealed to anyone, I have stated a widely accepted fact and provided an explanation. I didn't realise we were in Science Forum where I have to append citation, sources and references. Happy to provide them though, given its a fact lots of sources exist.

Now you consider yourself part of the scientific community, but apparently I'm not???

Hmm very scientific of you, making wild assumptions... I have an MSc in Chemical engineering and despite not progressing to a PhD (career change) I was widely published, so I DO know what I am talking about.

I also know what sort of fellow you are, like you I won't make any silly assumptions though, I'll base it on something. How about an example of what you've posted, starting with the last 48hrs:

Apparently you believed JR Rendenbach soles were not oak bark tanned - despite the fact Redenbach say they are on their website, despite what other knowledgeable posters have said, No sir your scientific magnificence felt they were specifically acorn tanned and definitely not oak bark tanned....confused.gif

You have stated 'that you can gauge the value of something with research, even if you have had no direct experience with it' - i.e I've seen it online, I've never handled it in person but you know what I know everything about it now.
This arrogant 'belief' helps to explain a lot, including some of your arbitrary comparisons: You believe there is no difference in quality between Carmina and Meermin lm. No difference in quality between C&J bg and Cheaney. You believe the average man can tell the difference between C&J bench grade and Lobb St James. Fascinating insight & statements based on what exactly?..... Do you even possess a sample size of one?

You see I think you are a bit of an odd ball. You have a problem accepting fact and truth even when it's staring at you in the face. There is something amiss, in your presumptuous, ill informed opinions.

So do me a favour and stop trolling this thread.
post #8660 of 10715
Quote:
Originally Posted by dapperdoctor View Post

I feel that I should be awarded a dual degree in chemistry and psychology after reading the last several days of this thread. 

I hear ya. Funnily enough I decided to put Water the universal solvent into Google and got this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_solvent

Seems pretty straightforward to me, so why all the essays.
post #8661 of 10715
Quote:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Originally Posted by Northampton Novice View Post


I haven't appealed to anyone, I have stated a widely accepted fact and provided an explanation. I didn't realise we were in Science Forum where I have to append citation, sources and references. Happy to provide them though, given its a fact lots of sources exist.

Now you consider yourself part of the scientific community, but apparently I'm not???

Hmm very scientific of you, making wild assumptions... I have an MSc in Chemical engineering and despite not progressing to a PhD (career change) I was widely published, so I DO know what I am talking about.

I also know what sort of fellow you are, like you I won't make any silly assumptions though, I'll base it on something. How about an example of what you've posted, starting with the last 48hrs:

Apparently you believed JR Rendenbach soles were not oak bark tanned - despite the fact Redenbach say they are on their website, despite what other knowledgeable posters have said, No sir your scientific magnificence felt they were specifically acorn tanned and definitely not oak bark tanned....confused.gif

You have stated 'that you can gauge the value of something with research, even if you have had no direct experience with it' - i.e I've seen it online, I've never handled it in person but you know what I know everything about it now.
This arrogant 'belief' helps to explain a lot, including some of your arbitrary comparisons: You believe there is no difference in quality between Carmina and Meermin lm. No difference in quality between C&J bg and Cheaney. You believe the average man can tell the difference between C&J bench grade and Lobb St James. Fascinating insight & statements based on what exactly?..... Do you even possess a sample size of one?

You see I think you are a bit of an odd ball. You have a problem accepting fact and truth even when it's staring at you in the face. There is something amiss, in your presumptuous, ill informed opinions.

So do me a favour and stop trolling this thread.

 

quite the ad hominem you got there

post #8662 of 10715

i have some pull on boots and when i walk in them, my heel lifts up slightly as if i were wearing sandals due to the wide shaft.  I have already added insoles as they are .5 of a size big to begin with.  Is there something that can help me with this?  Anything else to help minimize it or stop it at all?  

post #8663 of 10715
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennyy View Post
 

i have some pull on boots and when i walk in them, my heel lifts up slightly as if i were wearing sandals due to the wide shaft.  I have already added insoles as they are .5 of a size big to begin with.  Is there something that can help me with this?  Anything else to help minimize it or stop it at all?  

tongue pads. in theory they help keep your foot pushed further back into the heel cup. of course, if the shoes are more than a little too big you won't notice much difference.

post #8664 of 10715
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennyy View Post

i have some pull on boots and when i walk in them, my heel lifts up slightly as if i were wearing sandals due to the wide shaft.  I have already added insoles as they are .5 of a size big to begin with.  Is there something that can help me with this?  Anything else to help minimize it or stop it at all?  

Nothing.

Most pull-on boots slip a bit at first, simply because to get the boot on, the heel stiffener must be straight enough to allow you to push the heel of your foot all the way into the boot. The heel of a boot last is straighter than the heel of a shoe last, IOW (although some shoe lasts are surprisingly straight, as well).

But that initial slippage more or less disappears as the boot breaks in...IF the boot fits.

A boot that is already a half size too big and then doesn't fit you is never gonna stop slipping--I point out the obvious when I say there are no laces to adjust the fit.

It really is the distance between the top of the instep (on the boot) and the back of the heel...what shoe/bootmakers call the "long heel"...that holds the foot into the boot. While the throat of the boot can be a factor it is not the critical one.

--
Edited by DWFII - 3/29/14 at 5:34am
post #8665 of 10715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northampton Novice View Post


I have an MSc in Chemical engineering and despite not progressing to a PhD (career change) I was widely published, so I DO know what I am talking about.

...can gauge the value of something with research, even if you have had no direct experience with it' - i.e I've seen it online, I've never handled it in person but you know what I know everything about it now.

Where angels fear to tread...

I'm not qualified to get into the middle of this but I will applaud you for citing your credentials.

I cannot muster the pettiness, nor am I so wracked by such feelings of inadequacy and uncertainty that, like some here, I feel compelled to find fault in authenticity. Esp. on the Internet where there is so much BS and inaccuracy and so many people who feel that they can hide their own inadequacies and ignorance by citing someone else...again usually from the Internet...who is, in all likelihood, also pretending to knowledge they don't really have and haven't earned.

There is nothing wrong with being proud of who you are and what you've done/acomplished...if anything. Theoretically, the fact that people are different and bring different strengths to any endeavor, is what makes discussion forums...or even just ordinary conversations...so interesting. No need to "dumb down" people, as well.

--
Edited by DWFII - 3/29/14 at 8:32am
post #8666 of 10715
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaywhyy View Post
 

I’m just going to provide my two cents here and end it at that. I have no wish to get in a debate with you, but I do feel obligated to clarify any misinformation you present.

 

You keep appealling to the “scientific community” as your only evidence for why you consider water as the universal solvent. You don’t provide any empirical or mechanistic evidence. You don’t provide a citation or source. Plus the fact that you don’t speak for the scientific community--which I consider myself to be a part of--means you don’t have any evidence at all.

 

Here’s the accepted mechanism for solvation in chemistry. You bring up molecular physics which deals with intramolecular forces i.e. bonding, but solution chemistry deals with intermolecular forces (IMFs), though it all boils down to thermodynamics. For solvation to occur, the free energy drop resulting from solute-solvent IMFs must exceed the drop that results from solute-solute and solvent-solvent IMFs. In other words, thermodynamic stability has to increase. Macroscopically, this is where the “like-dissolves-like” concept that is taught in gen chem 1 comes from.

 

Water is very polar--like you mentioned with the high dielectric constant--but it’s the very stable hydrogen bond IMFs of water that dictates water solubility. For something (X) to be soluble in water, it must form hydrogen bonds (or ion-dipole) with water, and the sum of the X-water hydrogen bonds/ion-dipole must be lower in free energy than the sum of the X-X IMFs + water-water hydrogen bonds. This is only true with solutes like ionic salts (ion-dipole IMFs galore) and molecules where hydrogen-bonding moieties predominate. The former is why salt and DNA are soluble in water, and the latter is why carbohydrates and ethanol are soluble.

 

Nonpolar molecules and many polar molecules are insoluble in water, usually because the water-water hydrogen bonding is very strong, and so are van der Waals forces between two large nonpolar molecules. Most lipids--fats, oils, waxes--are not soluble in water because these compounds typically have very long hydrocarbon regions that form very strong/stable van der Waals attractions, precluding water solvation. Polar molecules like butanol and pentanol are also insoluble in water because while they can form hydrogen bonds with water through their hydroxyl groups, they are too few to override the free energy drop you would get from the water-water hydrogen bonds and van der Waals attractions between the hydrocarbon tails. The fact that water cannot solvate everything makes it not the UNIVERSAL solvent.

 

Water being the universal solvent is something that is usually taught in introductory biology, notably in Campbell’s Biology which is the most used college textbook for gen bio 1. That’s because most biologically relevant molecules are soluble in water--carbohydrates, nucleic acids, proteins. Unfortunately, biologists as a whole are pretty clueless when it comes to chemistry except those involved in MCB.

 

Cheers

 

Edit: Also, you say "water dissolves more compounds than any other known solvent". That's again true for biological context, but not chemical. Ether,  for example, is a much more useful solvent in organic chemistry. 


Thanks Jaywhyyy, I would never have had the time to write all that, but appreciate that you have taken the effort. Cheers.

post #8667 of 10715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stirling View Post


I hear ya. Funnily enough I decided to put Water the universal solvent into Google and got this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_solvent

Seems pretty straightforward to me, so why all the essays.


Did you read the wiki page that you have cited ? It is simple, and backs up what has been said here. Water solubilizes polar molecules. The fact that it is often referred to as the universal solvent is a misnomer.

post #8668 of 10715
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


Where angels fear to tread...

I'm not qualified to get into the middle of this but I will applaud you for citing your credentials.

I cannot muster the pettiness, nor am I so wracked by such feelings of inadequacy and uncertainty that, like some here, I feel compelled to find fault in authenticity. Esp. on the Internet where there is so much BS and inaccuracy and so many people who feel that they can hide their own inadequacies and ignorance by citing someone else...again usually from the Internet...who is, in all likelihood, also pretending to knowledge they don't really have and haven't earned.

There is nothing wrong with being proud of who you are and what you've done/acomplished...if anything. Theoretically, the fact that people are different and bring different strengths to any endeavor, is what makes discussion forums...or even just ordinary conversations...so interesting. No need to "dumb down" people, as well.

--


Well, that's fair enough. There are many reasons why people prefer not to reveal their identity, and I do agree that we should really all contribute to these forums as though we were doing so under our real names, even though we're not, in order to respect our interlocutors and be responsible for what we say. And I respect you greatly for having done this from the beginning. There is indeed nothing wrong with speaking with authority on a subject if that authority is merited, but there is something wrong with considering others as fools without reason. In the case of this particular discussion about water, as a holder of a PhD in biochemistry, and having also published widely, and as someoone with over 20 years of professsional research experience, largely concerning areas linked to the properties of organic molecules and their interactions, I also do know what I'm talking about, and can assure everyone that the term "universal solvent" for water is unhelpful and quite simply wrong. As I  stated previously, and using language that everyone can understand, water in its liquid state will not solubilize a vast range of non-polar organic molecules, including the range commonly called oils, but also many proteins, and this selectivity of solibilization is one of the basic elements of biological function, so we should all be aware of its importance. And solvent properties of various chemicals in their liquid state are absolutely relevant to discussions about leather treatment.


Edited by thelonius - 3/30/14 at 3:09am
post #8669 of 10715
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelonius View Post


Well, that's fair enough.
...

I do agree that we should really all contribute to these forums as though we were doing so under our real names, even though we're not in order to respect our interlocutors and be responsible for what we say.
...
In the case of this particular discussion about water, as a holder of a PhD in biochemistry, and having also published widely, and as someoone with over 20 years of professsional research experience, largely concerning areas linked to the properties of organic molecules and their interactions, I also do know what I'm talking about, and can assure everyone that the term "universal solvent" for water is unhelpful and quite simply wrong.

As I said, I'm not qualified to get into the middle of this. when it comes to biochemistry, I very simply don't know what am talking about. So I don't.

I for one, appreciate you citing your credentials, as well. There is so much garbage on the internet...I think I read two references on Wikipedia alone that said water was the "universal solvent." Fortunately, I am always suspicious of Wikipedia entries and as a consequence regard such spurious information with some reservations.

And FWIW, much of the discussion that raged over water as the universal solvent went right over my head, mostly. But I read it. And I wanted to understand it. Just the fact that people took the time to explain...to contribute something of positive substance rather than the endless and obsequious "masturbatory group exercise; where (sic) all the purchases are great, all the applications of those purchases are great and everyone looks amazing," to quote a long time member from another thread...is a positive sign as far as I'm concerned.

--
Edited by DWFII - 3/30/14 at 5:35am
post #8670 of 10715
And I'm a Math Major, but wtf does that have to do with this thread. Nothing. Can we get back to shoe shining?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › **The Official Shoe Care Thread: Tutorials, Photos, etc.**