This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have heard the stories about molten lead just as everyone else has, but I am somewhat skeptical. Molten lead actually seems somewhat impractical to me:
Another issue us that large vats of molten lead are a disaster waiting to happen, due to the Leidenfrost effect.
Note that we have already quite rightly expressed skepticism about how often common was the use of boiling oil, but the arguments about it go double for lead. With much more practical alternatives available, I am rather skeptical. Can anyone find a genuine reference or should we mark this dubious? -- Securiger 09:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Is the term usually hyphenated? Every time I've come across it elsewhere it was two separate words, unhyphenated. Thinking of moving it unless people object. -- Nscheffey( T/ C) 17:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure it's that big a deal, so go for it. I don't have any of my books at hand, but seeing it hyphenated doesn't seem that odd to me. Lordjim13 10:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, if there is evidence, it should be cited. But how can we cite a lack of evidence? If there is no evidence to be found, there would be nothing to cite. Dforest ( talk) 08:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have heard the stories about molten lead just as everyone else has, but I am somewhat skeptical. Molten lead actually seems somewhat impractical to me:
Another issue us that large vats of molten lead are a disaster waiting to happen, due to the Leidenfrost effect.
Note that we have already quite rightly expressed skepticism about how often common was the use of boiling oil, but the arguments about it go double for lead. With much more practical alternatives available, I am rather skeptical. Can anyone find a genuine reference or should we mark this dubious? -- Securiger 09:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Is the term usually hyphenated? Every time I've come across it elsewhere it was two separate words, unhyphenated. Thinking of moving it unless people object. -- Nscheffey( T/ C) 17:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure it's that big a deal, so go for it. I don't have any of my books at hand, but seeing it hyphenated doesn't seem that odd to me. Lordjim13 10:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, if there is evidence, it should be cited. But how can we cite a lack of evidence? If there is no evidence to be found, there would be nothing to cite. Dforest ( talk) 08:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)