It may be dying out. I drank only a little and that last spurt of flames was weaker than the first. As for how it does it-- that's a mystery I'm still unraveling, but the chemical compounds are a bit . . . messy.
Don't get sassy. I can break it down for you if you like, but "messy" is really the best way to describe it. It's slapdash. It's sloppy. It works, but it works in the same way a tire with a patch works: it'll get you where you want, but it isn't going to last for long.
no subject
Date: 2017-09-27 02:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-30 02:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-10-01 06:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-10-03 05:41 pm (UTC)Do you think there's a better way to make it, then?
no subject
Date: 2017-10-03 05:56 pm (UTC)I'm a fair bit disappointed, honestly. I can imagine a few reasons why the other Rosalind might have done such sloppy work, but it's
[. . .]
Embarrassing, really.
no subject
Date: 2017-10-03 10:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-10-04 03:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-10-04 04:27 pm (UTC)No, I completely read what you wrote there, but how? How is that even possible? Possible that they exist, let alone how does somebody study them?
no subject
Date: 2017-10-04 08:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-10-05 11:03 pm (UTC)Because that's amazing.
no subject
Date: 2017-10-06 06:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-10-07 01:51 am (UTC)Should I look up your office hours, too?
no subject
Date: 2017-10-08 08:07 pm (UTC)