• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Florida Teen Expelled For Doing Science

fuelair said:
Congrats on still being among the living!!!!:D:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

That was after dozens of other explosives. Having a firecracker go off in your hand and not being able to move your fingers for a few hours while you wonder whether you should tell your parents is actually a pretty good learning experience when it comes to safety.

When we had to talk our way past a cop to pick up some debris that may have implicated us we decided we had probably hit the limit of what we could get away with. Within city limits.
 
Dancing David said:
I can't believe someone took a bomb to school and another person just thinks it is no big deal.
Click to expand...

Didn't the article say the "explosive" popped the top of a water bottle. Sorry, that's not a bomb. That's a well shaken bottle of champagne.

Trying to define everything that goes pop or bang as a bomb really diminishes how freaking awful the bombs that do go off in society really are. You are talking as if she brought a pressure cooker bomb into school that could have killed numerous classmates and damaged the building when in fact she did something more akin to dropping a Mentos into a diet coke. Not all bangs are the same, stopping acting like they are.
 
RemieV said:
To be fair - she lied, and it isn't doing her any favors. What happened was this:

Some other kid told her it would be so cool to try mixing these things up (it was something they'd seen on Youtube) and that she should bring the stuff to school and do it. Wilmot had *no idea* what would happen by mixing these things. She thought it would cause smoke - but from what I'm able to tell, there is no reason she should've thought that.

She was showing off for some other kids when she mixed the bottle and set it down. The principal was nearby, heard the bang, thought it was a firecracker and went over to see what was up.

Wilmot told the principal that she was testing something out for the science fair. The science teacher was then contacted, and had no knowledge of that.

So - leaving science out of it (because it wasn't really about science) what happened is that some kid pressured her into doing a cool kid show off thing, and she didn't think it through. Funnily enough, I've had this experience myself and was also expelled. I was the first (and only) student in alternative school honors classes.
Click to expand...

Where did you find the details?
 
The principal was nearby, heard the bang, thought it was a firecracker and went over to see what was up. Wilmot told the principal that she was testing something out for the science fair.
Click to expand...

She broke one of the cardinal rules of Being A Kid 101.

I would have told the principal as sincerely as I could that some other kids did it. Then they ran. I didn't really recognize them but I don't think they are from our school.

Than I would've agreed with the principal that it was a really stupid thing to do. Especially on school grounds. :o
 
Last edited:
So she wanted, or got persuaded, to try out using some kitchen cupboard chemistry to burst a half pint plastic bottle. In the right circumstances that could be pretty cool. In inappropriate circumstances she should expect to get in trouble. And she did.

But then there's the other thing, which is being arrested and charged with a felony and some mention of being tried as an adult. If the adults in that particular chain of events really had no choice, then I'm inclined to think the real problem is precisely that they had no choice.
 
RemieV said:
It said that the principal, when he was looking around, saw a group of kids gathered and then heard the firework sound later.
Click to expand...

You mean the "detonation of the destructive device and or weapon", right?

I love the use of "detonation" in this context. It sounds so well timed and precise, which is completely the opposite of what we are talking about. I don't think a more misleading word could be used.
 
Ian Osborne said:
Yes, the article left a lot of blanks - probably correctly, as we don't want kids to read about how to cause minor explosions.
~~~
Click to expand...

"This is the way the world ends: This is the way the
world ends: Not with a bang but a whimper."
 
mijopaalmc said:
This reaction also evolves hydrogen gas and a lot of heat with the potential a caustic cloud of very fine aluminum particulate and droplets of sodium hydroxide solution. Although, it is also part of of the standard lad procedure for making alum, a lab exercise that teaches the concepts of compound and reaction stoichiometry.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm coming around to BenBurch's WAG that she was trying to build a Hydrogen Bomb Balloon (maybe even for Science Fair)

I suggested aluminium and Sodium Hydroxide because
1) they are actual household chemicals
2) It's what I always used to launch balloons. Although that was in the days before Aluminium Foil was invented, so I had to use milk bottle tops.
3) Very exothermic and the reaction can get away from you if you don't get the strength of the caustic soda right.
4) overpressure pops the top of the bottle she was a using.
5) Lockdown
 
Last edited:
Apparently she used The Works toilet bowl cleaner which is hydrochloric acid and water which reacts with the aluminum foil.
The Works Bomb - One of the coolest things about chemistry has to be blowing things up. It gives you the satisfaction of knowing your experiment worked (or sometimes failed), plus it’s just a lot of fun to watch something blow up. One of the most popular experiments seems to be the Works bomb. It’s not a “bomb” in the sense that it explodes into flames and leaves a big hole in the ground, but it makes an extremely loud bang and steams a little bit. It’s a pressure bomb. The gas created from the reaction of hydrochloric acid and aluminum fills a plastic bottle until it ruptures.
Click to expand...
Link

I confess, to me the oddest thing about this is -- and this may sound sexist -- it was a girl who did it.
 
Dr. Keith said:
You mean the "detonation of the destructive device and or weapon", right?

I love the use of "detonation" in this context. It sounds so well timed and precise, which is completely the opposite of what we are talking about. I don't think a more misleading word could be used.
Click to expand...

At the time at which she was arrested, the people involved didn't know what the reaction was intended to be, because the student didn't know either. Is the arresting officer supposed to know offhand what type of chemical reaction occurs when you mix those ingredients? Or should he say "Well, there were chemicals mixed together with the intention of some kind of reaction; and the one that did happen was a firework sound and smoke..." and act on that knowledge? Should he have turned into a chemistry professor on the spot? Or should he have acted like it was something seriously dangerous, and proceeded that way until the facts righted themselves?

I'm going to bet that the serious charges will be dropped, that small ones might stick, and that she'll remain expelled from school. And, really, I don't see the problem with that.
 
One of the coolest things about chemistry has to be blowing things up. It gives you the satisfaction of knowing your experiment worked (or sometimes failed), plus it’s just a lot of fun to watch something blow up.
Click to expand...

This matches what I have always said...

"The difference between a Physicist and Chemist is that a Physicist blows things up to observe and measure the reaction, a Chemist blows things up because it's fun."

newyorkguy said:
I confess, to me the oddest thing about this is -- and this may sound sexist -- it was a girl who did it.
Click to expand...

Actually very sexist. When I was doing my 3rd Year of Chem/Computing at Uni we had 1 female student out of about 60 in the Computing Departmernt. In the Chemistry Department we had about 100 students, about 65 of who were females. A LOT of women get into chemistry.
 
RemieV said:
At the time at which she was arrested, the people involved didn't know what the reaction was intended to be, because the student didn't know either. Is the arresting officer supposed to know offhand what type of chemical reaction occurs when you mix those ingredients? Or should he say "Well, there were chemicals mixed together with the intention of some kind of reaction; and the one that did happen was a firework sound and smoke..." and act on that knowledge? Should he have turned into a chemistry professor on the spot? Or should he have acted like it was something seriously dangerous, and proceeded that way until the facts righted themselves?

I'm going to bet that the serious charges will be dropped, that small ones might stick, and that she'll remain expelled from school. And, really, I don't see the problem with that.
Click to expand...

Surely the arresting officer should make sure that an actual crime has been commited before arresting people. If they don't know what it was or did, then they have no right to arrest based on nothing more than speculation.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Surely the arresting officer should make sure that an actual crime has been commited before arresting people. If they don't know what it was or did, then they have no right to arrest based on nothing more than speculation.
Click to expand...

It wasn't speculation. It was witness statements. The witnesses referred to it as an 'explosion'. And a crime was committed - my bet is just that they aren't going to hold to the serious charges, and will knock them down to lesser charges.

ETA: Re-reading the arrest report, even Wilmot called it an explosion.
 
Last edited:
RemieV said:
It wasn't speculation. It was witness statements. The witnesses referred to it as an 'explosion'. And a crime was committed - my bet is just that they aren't going to hold to the serious charges, and will knock them down to lesser charges.

ETA: Re-reading the arrest report, even Wilmot called it an explosion.
Click to expand...

Popping a ballon is an explosion by definition, should kids be arrested and charged for doing that?
 
PhantomWolf said:
Surely the arresting officer should make sure that an actual crime has been commited before arresting people. If they don't know what it was or did, then they have no right to arrest based on nothing more than speculation.
Click to expand...

Setting off such a device iat schools a crime in most places - except for teacher demonstrations and if the teacher had oked it for the student , he/she would be looking at finding new employment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom