Friction Labs
|
reboot wrote: Sounds like you need to invest some of that frictionlabs cash money in better brushes, which make an actual difference. |
|
Max Rausch wrote: Probably should get some friction labs, bro down with the boulderers, and send some hard rigs... then you will get a hot girlfriend. |
|
Ian McAfee wrote: Have plenty. They make brushing faster on a low ball but only marginally so on a tall boulder or an actual route. Speaking of brushes, IMO, Lapis brush is a way bigger "scam" than FL chalk. I mean you do whatever you want to do. I'm not judging. |
|
bruno-cx wrote: fixed that for you ;) |
|
I would climb 5.-2 if chalk didn't exist. If you don't need it, good for you. |
|
bruno-cx wrote: ....but can you still drink IPA's and take bong rips if you use friction labs? will the two cancel each other out, making your climbing ability unaffected? |
|
I was disappointed by this headline - hoping the thread would be about crag dogs with spectacular smearing technique. |
|
Okay finally a post I can reply to and actually know what I'm talking about! About 3 years ago, for my undergrad. independent study, I wanted to quantify the moisture absorbance of various chalk brands. We tested Metolius, Friction Labs, BD, SoiLL, and a few other brands to scientifically find the 'best' chalk. We used lab grade MgCO3, CaCO3, and Johnson's Baby Powder (talc) as comparison. First, we performed a mass and IR spectroscopy on all samples, comparing them to labratory grade MgCO3 and CaCO3. This was to see if there was anything in the chalk other than chalk. Turns out almost all chalk is pretty much the same ingredient wise (go figure, since carbonates are all mined from the same places anyways.) Mainly Ca & Mg carbonates, minute amounts of FeCO3, and various trace amounts of sediments. These trace sediments were so minute that they barely had a peak on either IR or MassSpec. My hypothesis is that they are something like SiO2, but who knows. It is entirely possible that these tiny peaks were just background noise on the graphs, but freshman me didn't care to do more test. Then we performed an EDTA titration to quantify the percent composition in MgCO3 and CaCO3 in each brand. They all had vastly more CaCO3 compared to MgCO3 (something like 80:20 ratio in some), which makes sense. Your carbonates originated from calcium shell production millions of years ago, now compressed into limestone, calcite, aragonite, etc. Finally, we placed all grounded-up samples in a kiln to bake off any moisture in the chalk. From there, we placed one gram of each chalk and added μL of a saline solution (to imitate sweat) till the chalk became a paste-like solution. We used this μL amount of water to determine the 'best' chalk, and the winner was Metolius, with SoILL in 2nd. However, this was only marginal, with standard deviation making the margin of error pretty much equal across the board. Meaning all the chalks had the same saline absorbance. Now this isn't to say there is a tactile preference/difference in brands. You can use whatever you want on your hands. |
|
|
|
Justin Barrett wrote: Obviously your science is flawed, Metolius is cheap, it can't be any good. |
|
Justin Barrett wrote: |
|
Chalk geeks! |
|
One less doughnut and one more ab workout would yield better results. |
|
not all chalk products are the same. Some have drying agents, some are cut with other products to save money. Whatever the difference it can't be worth it. |
|
reboot wrote: alright I'll answer each question as best as I can. 1)Any links to your study? Unfortunately, no :( This was an Undergraduate Research Project to fluff my CV/curiosity, so I never published the results. I can search my drives later and google doc a link to the actual data, but I give no promises on being timely. 2) This contradicts w/ the previous FL thread... I said some chalks. All had varying degrees of Mg vs Ca concentration, and a thing to keep in mind this is a project I did a few years ago. The exact numbers and details are foggy, except for the Fact that FL chalk was not the best at absorbing water. Again, give me time, and I'll upload my excel spreadsheet. 3) So this says MgCO3 and CaCO3 can absorb water equally...the BD chalk clouded up (dissolved in?) the water very quickly whereas I had to crush & stir the FL chalk chunk and still didn't get the same consistency). Your carbonates do not 'absorb' water, at least not exactly. Its solubility in water is determined by the pH level or its saturation. In neutral/basic water, its insoluble and will just sit there. In acidic water, it will dissolve into Ca(HCO3)2 (Calcium Bicarbonate). (Think of what's happening to our coral reefs and ocean acidification). Your tap water's pH can be quite different than what someone else's tap will be, causing varying results. The water from your tap can also be saturated with other ions, probably fluoride, and at its current temperature will not dissolve anymore. As for chalk absorbing water, your carbonates 'absorb' water due to their polarity. They are acting as a magnet, pulling on water's polar charges, and is doing so with the very minute amounts of sweat. You're right in that the dissolve differently. If you look at a periodic table, Mg is above Ca in Group 2, meaning that (in simple terms) less electrons and less charge (kinda). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_bicarbonate http://www.chem.ucla.edu/~bacher/Specialtopics/Drying%20Agents.html 4) Whether MgCO3 is better than CaCO3... I dunno? The cheapest chalk is the best chalk... |
|
climbing friend, like the "molly" you purchase from track-suit wearing surly russian in high school, no it is not pure yes, it is filled with other agents for the making of the big-bucks hyah! |
|