Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #674562 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-03-04 16:04 -0600 |
| Last post | 2018-03-06 16:41 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 212 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 16:04 -0600
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 14:41 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 23:32 +0000
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 16:36 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 15:16 +0000
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 08:03 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 16:17 +0000
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 08:53 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 17:03 +0000
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 09:14 -0800
No one would -dare- to compare James McGinn to others. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-03-05 09:24 -0800
Re: No one would -dare- to compare James McGinn to others. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 11:24 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 13:48 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:03 -0800
Thanks for driving the short bus, Mr. Odd. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-03-05 09:12 -0800
Re: Thanks for driving the short bus, Mr. Odd. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-05 16:16 -0600
Re: Thanks for driving the short bus, Mr. Odd. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-05 18:18 -0500
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Ser gio <innvilid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-04 19:12 -0600
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 19:53 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 21:52 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 22:19 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 00:10 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 01:25 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 04:08 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 13:56 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 15:53 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 17:35 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 08:38 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 13:49 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:11 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 08:21 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 16:36 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 18:48 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 22:24 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 03:25 +0000
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 22:26 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 14:17 +0000
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 12:58 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 23:23 +0000
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 17:15 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 14:17 +0000
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-08 13:37 -0600
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-08 16:58 -0500
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-08 19:43 -0600
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 18:25 -0800
We don't live in the perfectly ordered world you're selling. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-03-08 13:27 -0800
Re: We don't live in the perfectly ordered world you're selling. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 16:50 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 20:48 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-07 10:11 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 00:42 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 01:44 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 06:23 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 09:29 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 11:36 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-08 14:16 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-08 19:40 -0600
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 20:24 -0600
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 08:53 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 17:53 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-08 14:17 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 17:32 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 20:08 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 11:23 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 12:41 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-09 14:59 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 15:29 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 19:12 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-10 23:35 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 06:20 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 10:56 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-11 18:30 -0500
Counterfeit testosterone, from China. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-03-11 18:10 -0700
Re: Counterfeit testosterone, from China. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 18:52 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 10:57 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 15:28 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 16:27 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-09 20:27 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 07:08 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 08:10 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-12 11:32 -0500
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 10:30 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 10:23 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 22:11 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 15:24 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 15:58 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 11:01 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 12:25 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 14:03 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 16:16 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 10:03 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 11:46 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-15 18:04 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-15 21:25 -0500
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-15 19:48 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-15 21:57 -0500
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 08:55 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 08:52 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 09:37 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 11:18 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 13:03 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 14:27 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 15:24 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 00:45 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 13:28 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 07:03 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 11:48 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 19:53 +0000
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 13:26 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-19 13:31 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-19 15:46 -0500
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 15:27 -0700
Re: James McGinn is abusing "caffeine" ( or something like it ). James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 23:06 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 15:43 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 07:27 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-19 10:41 -0500
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 13:17 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 15:33 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 23:03 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 11:10 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 13:09 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 14:25 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 15:18 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 16:59 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-20 20:39 -0500
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 06:33 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 10:55 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 14:15 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 06:28 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 11:20 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 17:21 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 19:06 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 00:31 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 09:04 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-20 09:18 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-20 09:24 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 10:10 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-20 14:20 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 14:34 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-20 15:04 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 15:21 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-20 20:38 -0500
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 06:36 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 10:50 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 19:08 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 19:22 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-16 18:07 -0500
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 16:13 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 19:02 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-16 19:42 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-16 22:04 -0500
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 21:54 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-16 22:06 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 22:38 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 16:11 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 22:58 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 21:51 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 22:55 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 00:57 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 22:59 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-14 20:53 -0500
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 19:04 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 12:27 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 12:08 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 09:13 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 11:48 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-11 14:12 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 14:38 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-11 18:31 -0500
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 09:38 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 10:42 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 07:02 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 10:14 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 14:46 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-21 15:38 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 16:38 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-21 17:09 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 09:23 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 09:12 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 12:43 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 14:49 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 15:08 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-22 19:54 -0500
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 22:46 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 05:58 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 13:38 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 08:11 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-26 10:46 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-26 13:32 -0500
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 14:10 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 06:34 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 10:20 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-23 07:56 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 11:17 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-11 06:59 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 09:24 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 10:29 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 14:57 -0700
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 19:47 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 20:02 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 08:54 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 00:45 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 01:47 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 17:57 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-05 16:19 -0600
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 13:31 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:02 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 06:29 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 07:58 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-06 10:19 -0600
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 14:13 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 08:24 -0800
Re: Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 16:41 -0800
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 17:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <439e67d2-391b-4ad9-8727-8f5181762689@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675401 |
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:18:03 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > Yes, I am an atmospheric physicist. I am currently the number one expert on storm theory. More recently I have become the number one expert on the anomalies of H2O. > > you are delusional, Jim, you are no scientist of any kind. You are just making this up... > > > I would suggest two glass containers, one dry, one clear moist air. Allow the pressure to equillibriate. > > Sorry, Jim, there is no such word as 'equillibriate', you are just making this up, too... > no> > I don't know, but I'm guessing... > > Now you're talking! THIS I believe fully! You got, uh, . . . nothing!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 20:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f6717be4-97ba-4040-b815-41ffb35ec7c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675401 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 9:18:03 AM UTC+11, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > Yes, I am an atmospheric physicist. I am currently the number one expert on storm theory. More recently I have become the number one expert on the anomalies of H2O. > > you are delusional, Jim, you are no scientist of any kind. You are just making this up... ...oop
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 11:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f098d1bc-3d5d-469f-914a-b44a561a6e1c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675384 |
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:36:41 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 6:23:24 AM UTC-8, Edward Prochak wrote: [] > > Now in JM's theory, the moisture is all in his nanodroplets > > in the liquid state. > > > > with a dry container (can't have any macro-droplets of water > > contaminating the test), open it to the air using whatever means > > to ensure the air in the container is the same as outside. > > IOW, the container now has an air and water nanoparticle mixture. > > > > Drop in wireless pressure and temperature sensors. > > seal the container. Note I was thinking of a flexible container > > like a balloon, to avoid the explosive factor, but then we also need > > to measure the volume. Doable, but one more variable. > > > > Now heat the container slowly plotting the data. > > With a fixed size container the pressure will increase, so we need > > to continue past 100C. But we reach a pressure and temperature > > that is the boiling point of water. > > > > Now in the accepted theory of gases (A), the humidity was already > > water gas. But in JM's theory (B), those nanodroplets now all start > > to boil. SO there are two different outcomes. > > > > At the transition from below the boiling point to above the boiling point > > By modern gas law: the transition is smooth since the water is already a gas. > > By JM' theory: the transition is not smooth (and may be explosive) > > as all that water increases the pressure by boiling. > > I'm already in the process of proposing this exact experiment > through a crowdfunding experimental website, experiment.com. > > It is commendable, Ed, that you have, somehow, overcome the > limitations of your education and stated something intelligent. > > I would suggest two glass containers, one dry, one clear moist air. > Allow the pressure to equillibriate. Only need one, the moist air container. > Be sure the pressure measuring devices are wireless and can > withstand some fairly high temperature, maybe as high as 300 F. They don't have to be wireless. NPT mounted sensors would be fine, but do have to have a high temperature range. > Bake them both in the same oven at the same time. > > I don't know, but I'm guessing the transition to boiling > (dpending on the size of the container) will be around 230 to 240 F. > I don't think it will be explosive since we are dealing with > such a small amount of water. The key is merely the curve. using a fixed container does simplify things. By the ideal gas law PV=nRT or P=nRT/V the amount n of air and water is constant (in ideal gas law) R is constant an V is being held constant. So for the ideal gas law, where the water molecules are each separate P=kT, right through the boiling point because there are few if any multiple molecule water droplets. So humid air will just keep rising in pressure linear with the rise in temperature, for the ideal gas law. Now, entering your world, JM. In the JM theory, any water in that humid air is nanodroplets. So the number of water nanoparticles in JM's theory is about the same as the number of water molecules in ideal gas because of the law of partial pressures. (Good old Dalton). So below the boiling point, JM's air water mixture looks the same as an ideal gas, so the pressure will be linear with the rise in temperature. (You agree JM?) Now we get to the boiling point. Note that the temperature where that is will be above 100C because the pressure is increasing. If I did the calculations correctly, this will happen about 123C (253F) just above 19 PSI. SO, in JM's world, the nanodroplets will boil. This increases the number of particles so the P=nRT/V has a new value for n, a larger value. IOW, the pressure suddenly rises. How much? JM made a guess that the nanodroplets of water might be about 10 molecules. If the number of nanodroplets of water was about 10% of the total # of particles of n IOW 10 water nanodroplets to 90 air molecules. If each nanodroplet boils to 10 molecules we now have 100 water molecules to 90 air molecules. WOW! do you get the implication JM?? IF JM is right, at the boiling point those nanodroplets will nearly double the pressure. So at or near 123 C the pressure will go from about 19PSI to near 38PSI. If those nanodroplets were only 2-3 molecules each, then at boiling point we have 20 water to 90 air, a 10% increase. This should be measurable. But also if we continue heating, the pressure in JM's world would be rising faster than the accepted theory because the number of water particles changed from a few nanodroplets to a larger number of water molecules. It will be interesting to see you do this JM. Will you finally drop the charade once you are proven wrong? Enjoy, Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 12:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d9628528-5b5a-4034-b0bd-456318964210@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675533 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:23:52 AM UTC-8, Edward Prochak wrote: > > I'm already in the process of proposing this exact experiment > > through a crowdfunding experimental website, experiment.com. > > I would suggest two glass containers, one dry, one clear moist air. > > Allow the pressure to equillibriate. > > Only need one, the moist air container. It wouldn't hurt to have a control, with dry air in it. It will make the results easier to comprehend and communicate. > > Be sure the pressure measuring devices are wireless and can > > withstand some fairly high temperature, maybe as high as 300 F. > > They don't have to be wireless. NPT mounted sensors > would be fine, > but do have to have a high temperature range. Right. This may prove difficult. > > > Bake them both in the same oven at the same time. > > > > I don't know, but I'm guessing the transition to boiling > > (dpending on the size of the container) will be around 230 to 240 F. > > I don't think it will be explosive since we are dealing with > > such a small amount of water. > > The key is merely the curve. > using a fixed container does simplify things. > By the ideal gas law PV=nRT or P=nRT/V > the amount n of air and water is constant (in ideal gas law) > R is constant an V is being held constant. > So for the ideal gas law, where the water molecules are each separate > P=kT, > right through the boiling point because there are few if any > multiple molecule water droplets. > > So humid air will just keep rising in pressure linear with the > rise in temperature, for the ideal gas law. > > Now, entering your world, JM. > In the JM theory, any water in that humid air is nanodroplets. > So the number of water nanoparticles in JM's theory is about > the same as the number of water molecules in ideal gas because > of the law of partial pressures. (Good old Dalton). > > So below the boiling point, JM's air water mixture looks the same > as an ideal gas, so the pressure will be linear with the rise in > temperature. (You agree JM?) More or less, yes. > > Now we get to the boiling point. Note that the temperature where > that is will be above 100C because the pressure is increasing. > If I did the calculations correctly, this will happen about > 123C (253F) just above 19 PSI. > > SO, in JM's world, the nanodroplets will boil. This increases > the number of particles so the P=nRT/V has a new value for n, > a larger value. IOW, the pressure suddenly rises. > > How much? JM made a guess that the nanodroplets of water > might be about 10 molecules. Right, I'm guessing anywhere between 6 to 25 H2O molecules per nanodroplet If the number of nanodroplets > of water was about 10% of the total # of particles of n > IOW 10 water nanodroplets to 90 air molecules. I believe the ratio is going to be much lower. Measurements indicate that on a percentage basis (I don't know if it is moles or weight) H2O makes up around 1% of clear, moist air. And if we assume that it is in clusters of 10 molecules only one in one thousand of the particles in clear moist air are H2O nano droplets. Converting to gaseous H2O they will introduce 9 more Avogadro particles per one thousand. So the increase in particles will be about 0.9 percent. And if we assume that this corresponds to pressure on a one to one basis the increase in pressure should be about 0.2 PSI (.09 x 19 PSI). And so, to get two decimal places of accuracy we would want to get a sensitivity of about .01 or even .001 PSI for the pressure measuring devices. > If each nanodroplet boils to 10 molecules we now have > 100 water molecules to 90 air molecules. > > WOW! do you get the implication JM?? > > IF JM is right, at the boiling point those nanodroplets > will nearly double the pressure. It should only go up about 1 percent according to my calculations. However, if the actual nano droplet size is bigger than the ten that I estimate and/or if they percentage of H2O is greater than the 1 percent that I estimate the actually change in pressure might be as high as 2 or 3 percent. But it is also possible that they change will be below 1 % if those other factors are lower than I anticipate. > Will you finally drop the charade once you are proven wrong? Undoubtedly you won't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 14:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0fafc51c-bf90-436c-9fd9-9452a008e174@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675542 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:41:53 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > Right, I'm guessing... That's all you've ever done, Jim, is guess, because you certainly do not have any experiments or observations to offer in support of your goofy theories... > I believe the ratio is going to be much lower... Your 'beliefs' have no place in science, Jim, you need actual experimental evidence. didn't anyone ever explain the Scientific Method to you, Jim? > It should only go up about 1 percent according to my calculations... Calculations only are what pretenders have to offer, Jim, while actual scientists have experiments and observations to offer... which clearly labels you as a non-scientist... Run, Jim, run, you aren't fooling anyone here, you are just another idiot troll...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 15:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d0b1ffa5-1a68-4fac-a81d-2d43c7ab9ffe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675550 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 2:59:17 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:41:53 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > Right, I'm guessing... > > That's all you've ever done, Jim, is guess, because you certainly do not have any experiments or observations to offer in support of your goofy theories... Hmm. Maybe if you didn't wear your scientific beliefs on your sleeve you wouldn't feel so bitter all the time. If your belief in the validity of the current theory of storms--the convection model of storm theory--actually involved experimental evidence maybe you would not feel so defensive and desperate. > > I believe the ratio is going to be much lower... > > Your 'beliefs' have no place in science, Jim, you need actual experimental evidence. didn't anyone ever explain the Scientific Method to you, Jim?a Hmm. Maybe you should explain it to meteorologists since their theory is supported by exactly zero experimental evidence. > > > It should only go up about 1 percent according to my calculations... > > Calculations only are what pretenders have to offer, Jim, while actual scientists have experiments and observations to offer... which clearly labels you as a non-scientist... Are you opposed to math in general? Maybe science isn't your thing?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-10 19:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0b7fad71-f925-4dc8-89c5-772a257ab72d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675550 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 2:59:17 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:41:53 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > Right, I'm guessing... > > That's all you've ever done, Jim, Fuck you, you petty simpleton.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-10 23:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4bee7b18-d368-4acd-b13d-2f3c2965a5bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675714 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 2:59:17 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:41:53 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > >>> Right, I'm guessing... > >> That's all you've ever done, Jim, > Fuck you, you petty simpleton Brilliant retort, Jim, very professional-sounding... for a dumbfuck.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 06:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <994a3882-5521-4e6e-aac1-9d517ccd5750@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675750 |
On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 2:59:17 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:41:53 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > >>> Right, I'm guessing... > > > >> That's all you've ever done, Jim, > > > Fuck you, you petty simpleton > > Brilliant retort, Jim, very professional-sounding... for a dumbfuck. You are an idiot without and argument or even a relevant point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 10:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ef92a48c-fef2-4b63-8481-6ca296d425fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675750 |
On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 2:59:17 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:41:53 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > >>> Right, I'm guessing... > > > >> That's all you've ever done, Jim, > > > Fuck you, you petty simpleton > > Brilliant retort, Jim, very professional-sounding... for a dumbfuck. Cowards like you don't make arguments or address issues. You sit on the sidelines and cowardly call names to the brave individuals who take a stand. You are a worthless piece of shit. I spit on you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 18:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p84e62$df4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #675750 |
On 3/11/2018 1:35 AM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 2:59:17 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:41:53 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> >>>> Right, I'm guessing... >> >>> That's all you've ever done, Jim, > >> Fuck you, you petty simpleton > > Brilliant retort, Jim, very professional-sounding... for a dumbfuck. > what's up with James McGinn ? McGinn posts lies and nonsense in here and expects respect ? Survey, which describes JM best ? select 2 or more; 1. moron, 2. idiot, 3. retard, 4. dumbfuck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 18:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Counterfeit testosterone, from China. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Mar.11--6.10pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #675859 |
> What's up with James McGinn ? > McGinn posts lies and nonsense in here and expects respect ? > Survey, which describes JM best ? select 2 or more; > > 1. moron, > 2. idiot, > 3. retard, > 4. dumbfuck I think he's injecting counterfeit testosterone, from China. "Uppers" ( caffeine, cocaine, meth, adderall, and testosterone ) make us obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ). "Do you believe in God" is a euphemism for "Do you believe in me". "God is Great" is a euphemism for "I am Great". "God hates fags" is a euphemism for "I hate fags". God is obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 18:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Counterfeit testosterone, from China. |
| Message-ID | <c17ebcde-3532-4e62-bad7-78fcb3bf53d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675871 |
On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 6:10:55 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > What's up with James McGinn ? > > McGinn posts lies and nonsense in here and expects respect ? > > Survey, which describes JM best ? select 2 or more; > > > > 1. moron, > > 2. idiot, > > 3. retard, > > 4. dumbfuck > > I think he's injecting counterfeit testosterone, from China. > > "Uppers" ( caffeine, cocaine, meth, adderall, and testosterone ) > make us obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ). > > "Do you believe in God" is a euphemism for "Do you believe in me". > "God is Great" is a euphemism for "I am Great". > "God hates fags" is a euphemism for "I hate fags". > > God is obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ). Here it comes . . . Wait for it, wait for it . . . I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say how and why.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 10:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7d5c76e-d017-4dc9-8d46-e6387fe97ff2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675550 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 2:59:17 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:41:53 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > Right, I'm guessing... > > That's all you've ever done, Jim, is guess, because you certainly do not have any experiments or observations to offer in support of your goofy theories... > > > > > I believe the ratio is going to be much lower... > > Your 'beliefs' have no place in science, Jim, you need actual experimental evidence. didn't anyone ever explain the Scientific Method to you, Jim? > > > It should only go up about 1 percent according to my calculations... > > Calculations only are what pretenders have to offer, Jim, while actual scientists have experiments and observations to offer... which clearly labels you as a non-scientist... > > Run, Jim, run, you aren't fooling anyone here, you are just another idiot troll... You got nothing!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 15:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e75896a4-6170-4e02-96aa-f12b6df01001@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675542 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:41:53 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 11:23:52 AM UTC-8, Edward Prochak wrote: [] > > > > Be sure the pressure measuring devices are wireless and can > > > withstand some fairly high temperature, maybe as high as 300 F. > > > > They don't have to be wireless. NPT mounted sensors > > would be fine, > > but do have to have a high temperature range. > > Right. This may prove difficult. Given the results of my estimate of the crossover pressure and resulting boiling temperature, looks like this one will fit the bill: http://www.core-sensors.com/sensor-types/high-temperature-pressure-sensors/htp-miniature-pressure-sensor/ +/-0.15% FSO Accuracy +204C Mac operating temperature 30,000 PSI max pressure The CS-HTP series miniature pressure sensor uses a fully active four arm Wheatstone bridge, dielectrically isolated Silicon on Sapphire sensing element based on proprietary technology. The pressure sensor is packaged in both standard and custom designs. The standard design offers a 10-32 UNF-2A process connection, millivolt output signal, 12mm diameter housing, and cable. This miniature pressure sensor can be packaged with an independent PT1000 temperature sensor output. Even an optional temp sensor. > > > > > > Bake them both in the same oven at the same time. > > > > > > I don't know, but I'm guessing the transition to boiling > > > (dpending on the size of the container) will be around 230 to 240 F. > > > I don't think it will be explosive since we are dealing with > > > such a small amount of water. > > > > The key is merely the curve. > > using a fixed container does simplify things. > > By the ideal gas law PV=nRT or P=nRT/V > > the amount n of air and water is constant (in ideal gas law) > > R is constant an V is being held constant. > > So for the ideal gas law, where the water molecules are each separate > > P=kT, > > right through the boiling point because there are few if any > > multiple molecule water droplets. > > > > So humid air will just keep rising in pressure linear with the > > rise in temperature, for the ideal gas law. > > > > Now, entering your world, JM. > > > > > In the JM theory, any water in that humid air is nanodroplets. > > So the number of water nanoparticles in JM's theory is about > > the same as the number of water molecules in ideal gas because > > of the law of partial pressures. (Good old Dalton). > > > > So below the boiling point, JM's air water mixture looks the same > > as an ideal gas, so the pressure will be linear with the rise in > > temperature. (You agree JM?) > > More or less, yes. > > > > > Now we get to the boiling point. Note that the temperature where > > that is will be above 100C because the pressure is increasing. > > If I did the calculations correctly, this will happen about > > 123C (253F) just above 19 PSI. > > > > SO, in JM's world, the nanodroplets will boil. This increases > > the number of particles so the P=nRT/V has a new value for n, > > a larger value. IOW, the pressure suddenly rises. > > > > How much? JM made a guess that the nanodroplets of water > > might be about 10 molecules. > > Right, I'm guessing anywhere between 6 to 25 H2O molecules per nanodroplet You actually made a prediction. Congratulations! > > > If the number of nanodroplets > > of water was about 10% of the total # of particles of n > > IOW 10 water nanodroplets to 90 air molecules. > > I believe the ratio is going to be much lower. > Measurements indicate that on a percentage basis (I don't know > if it is moles or weight) H2O makes up around 1% of clear, moist air. You have a reference? Never mind, I'll check myself. > And if we assume that it is in clusters of 10 molecules > only one in one thousand of the particles in clear moist One in 1000 is 0.1% you changed by a factor of 10. > air are H2O nano droplets. Converting to gaseous H2O they > will introduce 9 more Avogadro particles per one thousand. What the hell. Avogadro particles? Just call them what they are at that point molecules of water. > So the increase in particles will be about 0.9 percent. If it is 1% as you mentioned first then the ratio goes from 1 to 99 to 10 to 99 or about a 9% increase. > And if we assume that this corresponds to pressure on a one to one > basis the increase in pressure should be about 0.2 PSI (.09 x 19 PSI). > And so, to get two decimal places of accuracy we would want to get a > sensitivity of about .01 or even .001 PSI for the pressure measuring devices. > +/-0.15% FSO Accuracy is close, but the key is we don't stop there because at that point your theory, the slope of the temperature-pressure equation changed, so we can still see a curve in your world, but a straight line right through in the normal ideal gas law world. > > If each nanodroplet boils to 10 molecules we now have > > 100 water molecules to 90 air molecules. > > > > WOW! do you get the implication JM?? > > > > IF JM is right, at the boiling point those nanodroplets > > will nearly double the pressure. > > It should only go up about 1 percent according to my calculations. > However, if the actual nano droplet size is bigger than the ten that > I estimate and/or if they percentage of H2O is greater than the 1 percent > that I estimate the actually change in pressure might be as high as 2 or > 3 percent. But it is also possible that they change will be below 1 % > if those other factors are lower than I anticipate. > Again, keep in mind, your theory predicts that above the boiling point the pressure will go up FASTER than the accepted view of single molecules of water. So don't stop recording data just at the crossover point. > > Will you finally drop the charade once you are proven wrong? > > Undoubtedly you won't. In contrast to your approach, I am a trained scientist and I follow the data. So if you conduct this test properly and get that change in slope, I will accept the results. I would probably find a way to run the test myself. If confirmed, I'll even promise to help you write the research paper and help get it published. hell, I will even become a follower on your Google account. But this is a big step for you. You accepted the challenge. here's a big attaboy for you. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 16:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6e4d3622-a6e3-4407-b0bd-3d28c01ca43c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675555 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:28:30 PM UTC-8, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > Be sure the pressure measuring devices are wireless and can > > > > withstand some fairly high temperature, maybe as high as 300 F. > > > > > > They don't have to be wireless. NPT mounted sensors > > > would be fine, > > > but do have to have a high temperature range. > > > > Right. This may prove difficult. > > Given the results of my estimate of the crossover pressure > and resulting boiling temperature, looks like this one will > fit the bill: > http://www.core-sensors.com/sensor-types/high-temperature-pressure-sensors/htp-miniature-pressure-sensor/ > > +/-0.15% FSO Accuracy > +204C Mac operating temperature > 30,000 PSI max pressure I think the range can be much smaller 0 to 50 PSI. And more sensitive. > The CS-HTP series miniature pressure sensor uses a fully active four arm Wheatstone bridge, dielectrically isolated Silicon on Sapphire sensing element based on proprietary technology. The pressure sensor is packaged in both standard and custom designs. The standard design offers a 10-32 UNF-2A process connection, millivolt output signal, 12mm diameter housing, and cable. This miniature pressure sensor can be packaged with an independent PT1000 temperature sensor output. > > Even an optional temp sensor. > > > > > > > > > Bake them both in the same oven at the same time. > > > > > > > > I don't know, but I'm guessing the transition to boiling > > > > (dpending on the size of the container) will be around 230 to 240 F. > > > > I don't think it will be explosive since we are dealing with > > > > such a small amount of water. > > > > > > The key is merely the curve. > > > using a fixed container does simplify things. > > > By the ideal gas law PV=nRT or P=nRT/V > > > the amount n of air and water is constant (in ideal gas law) > > > R is constant an V is being held constant. > > > So for the ideal gas law, where the water molecules are each separate > > > P=kT, > > > right through the boiling point because there are few if any > > > multiple molecule water droplets. > > > > > > So humid air will just keep rising in pressure linear with the > > > rise in temperature, for the ideal gas law. > > > > > > Now, entering your world, JM. > > > > > > > > > In the JM theory, any water in that humid air is nanodroplets. > > > So the number of water nanoparticles in JM's theory is about > > > the same as the number of water molecules in ideal gas because > > > of the law of partial pressures. (Good old Dalton). > > > > > > So below the boiling point, JM's air water mixture looks the same > > > as an ideal gas, so the pressure will be linear with the rise in > > > temperature. (You agree JM?) > > > > More or less, yes. > > > > > > > > Now we get to the boiling point. Note that the temperature where > > > that is will be above 100C because the pressure is increasing. > > > If I did the calculations correctly, this will happen about > > > 123C (253F) just above 19 PSI. > > > > > > SO, in JM's world, the nanodroplets will boil. This increases > > > the number of particles so the P=nRT/V has a new value for n, > > > a larger value. IOW, the pressure suddenly rises. > > > > > > How much? JM made a guess that the nanodroplets of water > > > might be about 10 molecules. > > > > Right, I'm guessing anywhere between 6 to 25 H2O molecules per nanodroplet > > You actually made a prediction. Congratulations! > > > > > > If the number of nanodroplets > > > of water was about 10% of the total # of particles of n > > > IOW 10 water nanodroplets to 90 air molecules. > > > > I believe the ratio is going to be much lower. > > Measurements indicate that on a percentage basis (I don't know > > if it is moles or weight) H2O makes up around 1% of clear, moist air. > > You have a reference? Never mind, I'll check myself. > > > And if we assume that it is in clusters of 10 molecules > > only one in one thousand of the particles in clear moist > > One in 1000 is 0.1% you changed by a factor of 10. > > > air are H2O nano droplets. Converting to gaseous H2O they > > will introduce 9 more Avogadro particles per one thousand. > > What the hell. Avogadro particles? Just call them what they > are at that point molecules of water. Stop being a pedantic jackass, please. > > > So the increase in particles will be about 0.9 percent. > > If it is 1% as you mentioned first then the ratio goes from > 1 to 99 > to > 10 to 99 or about a 9% increase. Pay attention: 1 in 100 molecules are H2O But the H2O is in clusters of 10 Therefore, 1 in 1000 Avogadro particles are H2O 10 in 1000 molecules are H2O After it turns to steam the number of Avogadro particles and the number of molecules will be the same, 10 per 1000 The difference between 1 in 1000 and 10 in 1000 is 9 in 1000 9 in 1000 is 0.9 percent. Not 9 percent. So, you say you're an engineer??? > > And if we assume that this corresponds to pressure on a one to one > > basis the increase in pressure should be about 0.2 PSI (.09 x 19 PSI). > > And so, to get two decimal places of accuracy we would want to get a > > sensitivity of about .01 or even .001 PSI for the pressure measuring devices. > > > +/-0.15% FSO Accuracy > is close, but the key is we don't stop there Why not? > because at that point your theory, the slope of the temperature-pressure > equation changed, so we can still see a curve in your world, but > a straight line right through in the normal ideal gas law world. The slope will be slightly higher through the boiling point but then will track like normal gas. > > > If each nanodroplet boils to 10 molecules we now have > > > 100 water molecules to 90 air molecules. > > > > > > WOW! do you get the implication JM?? > > > > > > IF JM is right, at the boiling point those nanodroplets > > > will nearly double the pressure. > > > > It should only go up about 1 percent according to my calculations. > > However, if the actual nano droplet size is bigger than the ten that > > I estimate and/or if they percentage of H2O is greater than the 1 percent > > that I estimate the actually change in pressure might be as high as 2 or > > 3 percent. But it is also possible that they change will be below 1 % > > if those other factors are lower than I anticipate. > > > > Again, keep in mind, your theory predicts that above the boiling point > the pressure will go up FASTER than the accepted view of single molecules > of water. My theory doesn't predict this. It is your creative interpretation of my theory that purportedly predicts this. So don't stop recording data just at the crossover point. > > > > Will you finally drop the charade once you are proven wrong? > > > > Undoubtedly you won't. > > In contrast to your approach, I am a trained scientist LOL. So, you're a trained scientists and you think the properties of H2O are going to be different while suspended in the atmosphere than when pooled? and I follow > the data. So if you conduct this test properly and get that change > in slope, I will accept the results. It will only produce an increase in pressure of about 0.2 PSI at the boiling point. Any change in slope will be miniscule and will not continue after boiling. I would probably find a way to > run the test myself. If confirmed, I'll even promise to help you > write the research paper If you want to write a research paper, go ahead. You don't even have to reference me. I won't write a paper. I don't think anybody will publish it. To any nonmeteorology journal it will be trivial. To a meteorology journal it will be heresy. and help get it published. > hell, I will even become a follower on your Google account. > > But this is a big step for you. You accepted the challenge. > here's a big attaboy for you. > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 20:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <be277efd-4934-4c2e-9237-6251dc2838b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675560 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 4:27:50 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:28:30 PM UTC-8, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > > Be sure the pressure measuring devices are wireless and can > > > > > withstand some fairly high temperature, maybe as high as 300 F. > > > > > > > > They don't have to be wireless. NPT mounted sensors > > > > would be fine, > > > > but do have to have a high temperature range. > > > > > > Right. This may prove difficult. > > > > Given the results of my estimate of the crossover pressure > > and resulting boiling temperature, looks like this one will > > fit the bill: > > http://www.core-sensors.com/sensor-types/high-temperature-pressure-sensors/htp-miniature-pressure-sensor/ > > > > +/-0.15% FSO Accuracy > > +204C Mac operating temperature > > 30,000 PSI max pressure > > I think the range can be much smaller 0 to 50 PSI. And more sensitive. > > > The CS-HTP series miniature pressure sensor uses a fully active four arm Wheatstone bridge, dielectrically isolated Silicon on Sapphire sensing element based on proprietary technology. The pressure sensor is packaged in both standard and custom designs. The standard design offers a 10-32 UNF-2A process connection, millivolt output signal, 12mm diameter housing, and cable. This miniature pressure sensor can be packaged with an independent PT1000 temperature sensor output. > > > > Even an optional temp sensor. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bake them both in the same oven at the same time. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know, but I'm guessing the transition to boiling > > > > > (dpending on the size of the container) will be around 230 to 240 F. > > > > > I don't think it will be explosive since we are dealing with > > > > > such a small amount of water. > > > > > > > > The key is merely the curve. > > > > using a fixed container does simplify things. > > > > By the ideal gas law PV=nRT or P=nRT/V > > > > the amount n of air and water is constant (in ideal gas law) > > > > R is constant an V is being held constant. > > > > So for the ideal gas law, where the water molecules are each separate > > > > P=kT, > > > > right through the boiling point because there are few if any > > > > multiple molecule water droplets. > > > > > > > > So humid air will just keep rising in pressure linear with the > > > > rise in temperature, for the ideal gas law. > > > > > > > > Now, entering your world, JM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the JM theory, any water in that humid air is nanodroplets. > > > > So the number of water nanoparticles in JM's theory is about > > > > the same as the number of water molecules in ideal gas because > > > > of the law of partial pressures. (Good old Dalton). > > > > > > > > So below the boiling point, JM's air water mixture looks the same > > > > as an ideal gas, so the pressure will be linear with the rise in > > > > temperature. (You agree JM?) > > > > > > More or less, yes. > > > > > > > > > > > Now we get to the boiling point. Note that the temperature where > > > > that is will be above 100C because the pressure is increasing. > > > > If I did the calculations correctly, this will happen about > > > > 123C (253F) just above 19 PSI. > > > > > > > > SO, in JM's world, the nanodroplets will boil. This increases > > > > the number of particles so the P=nRT/V has a new value for n, > > > > a larger value. IOW, the pressure suddenly rises. > > > > > > > > How much? JM made a guess that the nanodroplets of water > > > > might be about 10 molecules. > > > > > > Right, I'm guessing anywhere between 6 to 25 H2O molecules per nanodroplet > > > > You actually made a prediction. Congratulations! > > > > > > > > > If the number of nanodroplets > > > > of water was about 10% of the total # of particles of n > > > > IOW 10 water nanodroplets to 90 air molecules. > > > > > > I believe the ratio is going to be much lower. > > > Measurements indicate that on a percentage basis (I don't know > > > if it is moles or weight) H2O makes up around 1% of clear, moist air. > > > > You have a reference? Never mind, I'll check myself. > > > > > And if we assume that it is in clusters of 10 molecules > > > only one in one thousand of the particles in clear moist > > > > One in 1000 is 0.1% you changed by a factor of 10. > > > > > air are H2O nano droplets. Converting to gaseous H2O they > > > will introduce 9 more Avogadro particles per one thousand. > > > > What the hell. Avogadro particles? Just call them what they > > are at that point molecules of water. > > Stop being a pedantic jackass, please. > > > > > > So the increase in particles will be about 0.9 percent. > > > > If it is 1% as you mentioned first then the ratio goes from > > 1 to 99 > > to > > 10 to 99 or about a 9% increase. > > Pay attention: > 1 in 100 molecules are H2O > But the H2O is in clusters of 10 > Therefore, 1 in 1000 Avogadro particles are H2O > 10 in 1000 molecules are H2O > After it turns to steam the number of Avogadro particles and the number of molecules will be the same, 10 per 1000 > The difference between 1 in 1000 and 10 in 1000 is 9 in 1000 > 9 in 1000 is 0.9 percent. Not 9 percent. > > So, you say you're an engineer??? > > > > And if we assume that this corresponds to pressure on a one to one > > > basis the increase in pressure should be about 0.2 PSI (.09 x 19 PSI). > > > And so, to get two decimal places of accuracy we would want to get a > > > sensitivity of about .01 or even .001 PSI for the pressure measuring devices. > > > > > +/-0.15% FSO Accuracy > > is close, but the key is we don't stop there > > Why not? > > > because at that point your theory, the slope of the temperature-pressure > > equation changed, so we can still see a curve in your world, but > > a straight line right through in the normal ideal gas law world. > > The slope will be slightly higher through the boiling point but then will track like normal gas. > > > > > If each nanodroplet boils to 10 molecules we now have > > > > 100 water molecules to 90 air molecules. > > > > > > > > WOW! do you get the implication JM?? > > > > > > > > IF JM is right, at the boiling point those nanodroplets > > > > will nearly double the pressure. > > > > > > It should only go up about 1 percent according to my calculations. > > > However, if the actual nano droplet size is bigger than the ten that > > > I estimate and/or if they percentage of H2O is greater than the 1 percent > > > that I estimate the actually change in pressure might be as high as 2 or > > > 3 percent. But it is also possible that they change will be below 1 % > > > if those other factors are lower than I anticipate. > > > > > > > Again, keep in mind, your theory predicts that above the boiling point > > the pressure will go up FASTER than the accepted view of single molecules > > of water. > > My theory doesn't predict this. It is your creative interpretation of my theory that purportedly predicts this. > > So don't stop recording data just at the crossover point. > > > > > > Will you finally drop the charade once you are proven wrong? > > > > > > Undoubtedly you won't. > > > > In contrast to your approach, I am a trained scientist > > LOL. So, you're a trained scientists and you think the properties of H2O are going to be different while suspended in the atmosphere than when pooled? > > and I follow > > the data. So if you conduct this test properly and get that change > > in slope, I will accept the results. > > It will only produce an increase in pressure of about 0.2 PSI at the boiling point. Any change in slope will be miniscule and will not continue after boiling. > > > I would probably find a way to > > run the test myself. If confirmed, I'll even promise to help you > > write the research paper > > If you want to write a research paper, go ahead. You don't even have to reference me. I won't write a paper. > > I don't think anybody will publish it. To any nonmeteorology journal it will be trivial. To a meteorology journal it will be heresy. > > > and help get it published. > > hell, I will even become a follower on your Google account. > > > > But this is a big step for you. You accepted the challenge. > > here's a big attaboy for you. > > Ed Why is there molecular togetherness or liquid water collecting with itself? What about H2O causes it to mix with gaseous atmosphere? And then un mix and recollect? Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-11 07:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <97e59a56-f188-43a3-b1f7-5d60aeaa6815@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675560 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 4:27:50 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:28:30 PM UTC-8, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > > Be sure the pressure measuring devices are wireless and can > > > > > withstand some fairly high temperature, maybe as high as 300 F. > > > > > > > > They don't have to be wireless. NPT mounted sensors > > > > would be fine, > > > > but do have to have a high temperature range. > > > > > > Right. This may prove difficult. > > > > Given the results of my estimate of the crossover pressure > > and resulting boiling temperature, looks like this one will > > fit the bill: > > http://www.core-sensors.com/sensor-types/high-temperature-pressure-sensors/htp-miniature-pressure-sensor/ > > > > +/-0.15% FSO Accuracy > > +204C Mac operating temperature > > 30,000 PSI max pressure > > I think the range can be much smaller 0 to 50 PSI. And more sensitive. > > > The CS-HTP series miniature pressure sensor uses a fully active four arm Wheatstone bridge, dielectrically isolated Silicon on Sapphire sensing element based on proprietary technology. The pressure sensor is packaged in both standard and custom designs. The standard design offers a 10-32 UNF-2A process connection, millivolt output signal, 12mm diameter housing, and cable. This miniature pressure sensor can be packaged with an independent PT1000 temperature sensor output. > > > > Even an optional temp sensor. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bake them both in the same oven at the same time. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know, but I'm guessing the transition to boiling > > > > > (dpending on the size of the container) will be around 230 to 240 F. > > > > > I don't think it will be explosive since we are dealing with > > > > > such a small amount of water. > > > > > > > > The key is merely the curve. > > > > using a fixed container does simplify things. > > > > By the ideal gas law PV=nRT or P=nRT/V > > > > the amount n of air and water is constant (in ideal gas law) > > > > R is constant an V is being held constant. > > > > So for the ideal gas law, where the water molecules are each separate > > > > P=kT, > > > > right through the boiling point because there are few if any > > > > multiple molecule water droplets. > > > > > > > > So humid air will just keep rising in pressure linear with the > > > > rise in temperature, for the ideal gas law. > > > > > > > > Now, entering your world, JM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the JM theory, any water in that humid air is nanodroplets. > > > > So the number of water nanoparticles in JM's theory is about > > > > the same as the number of water molecules in ideal gas because > > > > of the law of partial pressures. (Good old Dalton). > > > > > > > > So below the boiling point, JM's air water mixture looks the same > > > > as an ideal gas, so the pressure will be linear with the rise in > > > > temperature. (You agree JM?) > > > > > > More or less, yes. > > > > > > > > > > > Now we get to the boiling point. Note that the temperature where > > > > that is will be above 100C because the pressure is increasing. > > > > If I did the calculations correctly, this will happen about > > > > 123C (253F) just above 19 PSI. > > > > > > > > SO, in JM's world, the nanodroplets will boil. This increases > > > > the number of particles so the P=nRT/V has a new value for n, > > > > a larger value. IOW, the pressure suddenly rises. > > > > > > > > How much? JM made a guess that the nanodroplets of water > > > > might be about 10 molecules. > > > > > > Right, I'm guessing anywhere between 6 to 25 H2O molecules per nanodroplet > > > > You actually made a prediction. Congratulations! > > > > > > > > > If the number of nanodroplets > > > > of water was about 10% of the total # of particles of n > > > > IOW 10 water nanodroplets to 90 air molecules. > > > > > > I believe the ratio is going to be much lower. > > > Measurements indicate that on a percentage basis (I don't know > > > if it is moles or weight) H2O makes up around 1% of clear, moist air. > > > > You have a reference? Never mind, I'll check myself. > > > > > And if we assume that it is in clusters of 10 molecules > > > only one in one thousand of the particles in clear moist > > > > One in 1000 is 0.1% you changed by a factor of 10. > > > > > air are H2O nano droplets. Converting to gaseous H2O they > > > will introduce 9 more Avogadro particles per one thousand. > > > > What the hell. Avogadro particles? Just call them what they > > are at that point molecules of water. > > Stop being a pedantic jackass, please. > > > > > > So the increase in particles will be about 0.9 percent. > > > > If it is 1% as you mentioned first then the ratio goes from > > 1 to 99 > > to > > 10 to 99 or about a 9% increase. > > Pay attention: > 1 in 100 molecules are H2O > But the H2O is in clusters of 10 > Therefore, 1 in 1000 Avogadro particles are H2O > 10 in 1000 molecules are H2O > After it turns to steam the number of Avogadro particles and the number of molecules will be the same, 10 per 1000 > The difference between 1 in 1000 and 10 in 1000 is 9 in 1000 > 9 in 1000 is 0.9 percent. Not 9 percent. > > So, you say you're an engineer??? Answer the question Ed. > > > > And if we assume that this corresponds to pressure on a one to one > > > basis the increase in pressure should be about 0.2 PSI (.09 x 19 PSI). > > > And so, to get two decimal places of accuracy we would want to get a > > > sensitivity of about .01 or even .001 PSI for the pressure measuring devices. > > > > > +/-0.15% FSO Accuracy > > is close, but the key is we don't stop there > > Why not? > > > because at that point your theory, the slope of the temperature-pressure > > equation changed, so we can still see a curve in your world, but > > a straight line right through in the normal ideal gas law world. > > The slope will be slightly higher through the boiling point but then will track like normal gas. Ed, you better clear this up if you want anybody smart to take you seriously. > > > > > If each nanodroplet boils to 10 molecules we now have > > > > 100 water molecules to 90 air molecules. > > > > > > > > WOW! do you get the implication JM?? > > > > > > > > IF JM is right, at the boiling point those nanodroplets > > > > will nearly double the pressure. > > > > > > It should only go up about 1 percent according to my calculations. > > > However, if the actual nano droplet size is bigger than the ten that > > > I estimate and/or if they percentage of H2O is greater than the 1 percent > > > that I estimate the actually change in pressure might be as high as 2 or > > > 3 percent. But it is also possible that they change will be below 1 % > > > if those other factors are lower than I anticipate. > > > > > > > Again, keep in mind, your theory predicts that above the boiling point > > the pressure will go up FASTER than the accepted view of single molecules > > of water. > > My theory doesn't predict this. It is your creative interpretation of my theory that purportedly predicts this. Were you always this dumb? How did you get a job as an engineer? > > So don't stop recording data just at the crossover point. > > > > > > Will you finally drop the charade once you are proven wrong? > > > > > > Undoubtedly you won't. > > > > In contrast to your approach, I am a trained scientist > > LOL. So, you're a trained scientists and you think the properties of H2O are going to be different while suspended in the atmosphere than when pooled? Retard. > > and I follow > > the data. So if you conduct this test properly and get that change > > in slope, I will accept the results. > > It will only produce an increase in pressure of about 0.2 PSI at the boiling point. Any change in slope will be miniscule and will not continue after boiling.. So, Ed, that's about a 1% increase in pressure, not 50%. > > > I would probably find a way to > > run the test myself. If confirmed, I'll even promise to help you > > write the research paper > > If you want to write a research paper, go ahead. You don't even have to reference me. I won't write a paper. Academia is a recipe for mediocrity. > > I don't think anybody will publish it. To any nonmeteorology journal it will be trivial. To a meteorology journal it will be heresy. > > > and help get it published. > > hell, I will even become a follower on your Google account. > > > > But this is a big step for you. You accepted the challenge. > > here's a big attaboy for you. > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 08:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <246915ff-557b-4d42-9966-af31720ff6ae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675560 |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 7:27:50 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:28:30 PM UTC-8, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > > > > Be sure the pressure measuring devices are wireless and can
> > > > > withstand some fairly high temperature, maybe as high as 300 F.
> > > >
> > > > They don't have to be wireless. NPT mounted sensors
> > > > would be fine,
> > > > but do have to have a high temperature range.
> > >
> > > Right. This may prove difficult.
> >
> > Given the results of my estimate of the crossover pressure
> > and resulting boiling temperature, looks like this one will
> > fit the bill:
> > http://www.core-sensors.com/sensor-types/high-temperature-pressure-sensors/htp-miniature-pressure-sensor/
> >
> > +/-0.15% FSO Accuracy
> > +204C Mac operating temperature
> > 30,000 PSI max pressure
>
> I think the range can be much smaller 0 to 50 PSI. And more sensitive.
That was from a 2 minute search before I calculated the crossover temp.
So the criteria I used was high temperature. That one happened to handle
over 200C so it meet your criteria.
>
> > The CS-HTP series miniature pressure sensor uses a fully active four arm Wheatstone bridge, dielectrically isolated Silicon on Sapphire sensing element based on proprietary technology. The pressure sensor is packaged in both standard and custom designs. The standard design offers a 10-32 UNF-2A process connection, millivolt output signal, 12mm diameter housing, and cable. This miniature pressure sensor can be packaged with an independent PT1000 temperature sensor output.
> >
> > Even an optional temp sensor.
With the bonus temp sensor.
> > > >
> > > > The key is merely the curve.
> > > > using a fixed container does simplify things.
> > > > By the ideal gas law PV=nRT or P=nRT/V
> > > > the amount n of air and water is constant (in ideal gas law)
> > > > R is constant an V is being held constant.
> > > > So for the ideal gas law, where the water molecules are each separate
> > > > P=kT,
> > > > right through the boiling point because there are few if any
> > > > multiple molecule water droplets.
> > > >
> > > > So humid air will just keep rising in pressure linear with the
> > > > rise in temperature, for the ideal gas law.
> > > >
> > > > Now, entering your world, JM.
> > > > In the JM theory, any water in that humid air is nanodroplets.
> > > > So the number of water nanoparticles in JM's theory is about
> > > > the same as the number of water molecules in ideal gas because
> > > > of the law of partial pressures. (Good old Dalton).
> > > >
> > > > So below the boiling point, JM's air water mixture looks the same
> > > > as an ideal gas, so the pressure will be linear with the rise in
> > > > temperature. (You agree JM?)
> > >
> > > More or less, yes.
> > >
> > > > Now we get to the boiling point. Note that the temperature where
> > > > that is will be above 100C because the pressure is increasing.
> > > > If I did the calculations correctly, this will happen about
> > > > 123C (253F) just above 19 PSI.
> > > >
> > > > SO, in JM's world, the nanodroplets will boil. This increases
> > > > the number of particles so the P=nRT/V has a new value for n,
> > > > a larger value. IOW, the pressure suddenly rises.
> > > >
> > > > How much? JM made a guess that the nanodroplets of water
> > > > might be about 10 molecules.
> > >
> > > Right, I'm guessing anywhere between 6 to 25 H2O molecules per nanodroplet
> >
> > You actually made a prediction. Congratulations!
> > >
> > >
> > > If the number of nanodroplets
> > > > of water was about 10% of the total # of particles of n
> > > > IOW 10 water nanodroplets to 90 air molecules.
> > >
> > > I believe the ratio is going to be much lower.
> > > Measurements indicate that on a percentage basis (I don't know
> > > if it is moles or weight) H2O makes up around 1% of clear, moist air.
> >
> > You have a reference? Never mind, I'll check myself.
> >
> > > And if we assume that it is in clusters of 10 molecules
> > > only one in one thousand of the particles in clear moist
> >
> > One in 1000 is 0.1% you changed by a factor of 10.
> >
> > > air are H2O nano droplets. Converting to gaseous H2O they
> > > will introduce 9 more Avogadro particles per one thousand.
> >
> > What the hell. Avogadro particles? Just call them what they
> > are at that point molecules of water.
>
> Stop being a pedantic jackass, please.
Stop introducing new undefined terms, please.
> > > So the increase in particles will be about 0.9 percent.
> >
> > If it is 1% as you mentioned first then the ratio goes from
> > 1 to 99
> > to
> > 10 to 99 or about a 9% increase.
>
> Pay attention:
> 1 in 100 molecules are H2O
> But the H2O is in clusters of 10
> Therefore, 1 in 1000 Avogadro particles are H2O
> 10 in 1000 molecules are H2O
> After it turns to steam the number of Avogadro particles and the number of molecules will be the same, 10 per 1000
> The difference between 1 in 1000 and 10 in 1000 is 9 in 1000
> 9 in 1000 is 0.9 percent. Not 9 percent.
>
> So, you say you're an engineer???
Pay attention to your own comments. I estimated 10%
You then said 1% and then changed to 0.1%
Sorry I told you my mind reader hat is in the shop,
so I cannot guess what number your are going to pull out next.
>
> > > And if we assume that this corresponds to pressure on a one to one
> > > basis the increase in pressure should be about 0.2 PSI (.09 x 19 PSI).
> > > And so, to get two decimal places of accuracy we would want to get a
> > > sensitivity of about .01 or even .001 PSI for the pressure measuring devices.
> > >
> > +/-0.15% FSO Accuracy
> > is close, but the key is we don't stop there
>
> Why not?
>
> > because at that point your theory, the slope of the temperature-pressure
> > equation changed, so we can still see a curve in your world, but
> > a straight line right through in the normal ideal gas law world.
>
> The slope will be slightly higher through the boiling point but then will track like normal gas.
WITH A DIFFERENT SLOPE!
To summarize:
In the normal world is the Ideal gas law
(used by physicists and chemical engineers everywhere)
In this experiment will show a linear increase of pressure with
temperature from below the boiling point well beyond the boiling point.
There is NO change in the slope of the line.
In JM's world is the nanodroplets of water theory
(used by James McGinn and no one else anywhere)
In this experiment will show a linear increase of pressure with
temperature from below the boiling point up to the boiling point.
Then the nanodroplets become steam, and the slope of the line changes.
From that point on the pressure increases even faster than before.
> > > > If each nanodroplet boils to 10 molecules we now have
> > > > 100 water molecules to 90 air molecules.
> > > >
> > > > WOW! do you get the implication JM??
> > > >
> > > > IF JM is right, at the boiling point those nanodroplets
> > > > will nearly double the pressure.
> > >
> > > It should only go up about 1 percent according to my calculations.
> > > However, if the actual nano droplet size is bigger than the ten that
> > > I estimate and/or if they percentage of H2O is greater than the 1 percent
> > > that I estimate the actually change in pressure might be as high as 2 or
> > > 3 percent. But it is also possible that they change will be below 1 %
> > > if those other factors are lower than I anticipate.
> > >
> >
> > Again, keep in mind, your theory predicts that above the boiling point
> > the pressure will go up FASTER than the accepted view of single molecules
> > of water.
>
> My theory doesn't predict this. It is your creative
> interpretation of my theory that purportedly predicts this.
OH, now it's my fault.
Up to this moment, you agreed with this interpretation.
Do the nanodroplets boil or not?
If they do the pressure MUST increase.
And the increase is then MAGNIFIED as the temperature increases.
>
> So don't stop recording data just at the crossover point.
A plot of the two theories should look like this:
| - |
| - |
P | - |
R | - |
E | - |
S | - |
S | - |
U | + <------Boiling point
R | +
E | +
| +
| +
| +
| +
| +
| +
o-------------------------------------------------------
T E M P E R A T U R E
> >
> > > > Will you finally drop the charade once you are proven wrong?
> > >
> > > Undoubtedly you won't.
> >
> > In contrast to your approach, I am a trained scientist
>
> LOL. So, you're a trained scientists and you think the properties
> of H2O are going to be different while suspended in the atmosphere
> than when pooled?
>
> > and I follow
> > the data. So if you conduct this test properly and get that change
> > in slope, I will accept the results.
>
> It will only produce an increase in pressure of about 0.2 PSI at
> the boiling point. Any change in slope will be miniscule and
> will not continue after boiling.
WHY? By your own admission, the nano droplets of water becomes steam.
At that point there clearly is ONLY GAS in the container.
This has been your point for years now, that water is steam only above
the boiling point. Why are you changing now?
> > I would probably find a way to
> > run the test myself. If confirmed, I'll even promise to help you
> > write the research paper
>
> If you want to write a research paper, go ahead.
> You don't even have to reference me. I won't write a paper.
>
> I don't think anybody will publish it. To any nonmeteorology
> journal it will be trivial. To a meteorology journal it will be heresy.
>
So you prefer to keep to your conspiracy opinion.
Showing your true colors again.
ED
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-12 11:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p86a2b$1d45$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #675919 |
On 3/12/2018 10:10 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 7:27:50 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote: >> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:28:30 PM UTC-8, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>> Be sure the pressure measuring devices are wireless and can >>>>>> withstand some fairly high temperature, maybe as high as 300 F. >>>>> >>>>> They don't have to be wireless. NPT mounted sensors >>>>> would be fine, >>>>> but do have to have a high temperature range. >>>> >>>> Right. This may prove difficult. >>> >>> Given the results of my estimate of the crossover pressure >>> and resulting boiling temperature, looks like this one will >>> fit the bill: >>> http://www.core-sensors.com/sensor-types/high-temperature-pressure-sensors/htp-miniature-pressure-sensor/ >>> >>> +/-0.15% FSO Accuracy >>> +204C Mac operating temperature >>> 30,000 PSI max pressure >> >> I think the range can be much smaller 0 to 50 PSI. And more sensitive. > > That was from a 2 minute search before I calculated the crossover temp. > So the criteria I used was high temperature. That one happened to handle > over 200C so it meet your criteria. > >> >>> The CS-HTP series miniature pressure sensor uses a fully active four arm Wheatstone bridge, dielectrically isolated Silicon on Sapphire sensing element based on proprietary technology. The pressure sensor is packaged in both standard and custom designs. The standard design offers a 10-32 UNF-2A process connection, millivolt output signal, 12mm diameter housing, and cable. This miniature pressure sensor can be packaged with an independent PT1000 temperature sensor output. >>> >>> Even an optional temp sensor. > > With the bonus temp sensor. >>>>> >>>>> The key is merely the curve. >>>>> using a fixed container does simplify things. >>>>> By the ideal gas law PV=nRT or P=nRT/V >>>>> the amount n of air and water is constant (in ideal gas law) >>>>> R is constant an V is being held constant. >>>>> So for the ideal gas law, where the water molecules are each separate >>>>> P=kT, >>>>> right through the boiling point because there are few if any >>>>> multiple molecule water droplets. >>>>> >>>>> So humid air will just keep rising in pressure linear with the >>>>> rise in temperature, for the ideal gas law. >>>>> >>>>> Now, entering your world, JM. >>>>> In the JM theory, any water in that humid air is nanodroplets. >>>>> So the number of water nanoparticles in JM's theory is about >>>>> the same as the number of water molecules in ideal gas because >>>>> of the law of partial pressures. (Good old Dalton). >>>>> >>>>> So below the boiling point, JM's air water mixture looks the same >>>>> as an ideal gas, so the pressure will be linear with the rise in >>>>> temperature. (You agree JM?) >>>> >>>> More or less, yes. >>>> >>>>> Now we get to the boiling point. Note that the temperature where >>>>> that is will be above 100C because the pressure is increasing. >>>>> If I did the calculations correctly, this will happen about >>>>> 123C (253F) just above 19 PSI. >>>>> >>>>> SO, in JM's world, the nanodroplets will boil. This increases >>>>> the number of particles so the P=nRT/V has a new value for n, >>>>> a larger value. IOW, the pressure suddenly rises. >>>>> >>>>> How much? JM made a guess that the nanodroplets of water >>>>> might be about 10 molecules. >>>> >>>> Right, I'm guessing anywhere between 6 to 25 H2O molecules per nanodroplet >>> >>> You actually made a prediction. Congratulations! >>>> >>>> >>>> If the number of nanodroplets >>>>> of water was about 10% of the total # of particles of n >>>>> IOW 10 water nanodroplets to 90 air molecules. >>>> >>>> I believe the ratio is going to be much lower. >>>> Measurements indicate that on a percentage basis (I don't know >>>> if it is moles or weight) H2O makes up around 1% of clear, moist air. >>> >>> You have a reference? Never mind, I'll check myself. >>> >>>> And if we assume that it is in clusters of 10 molecules >>>> only one in one thousand of the particles in clear moist >>> >>> One in 1000 is 0.1% you changed by a factor of 10. >>> >>>> air are H2O nano droplets. Converting to gaseous H2O they >>>> will introduce 9 more Avogadro particles per one thousand. >>> >>> What the hell. Avogadro particles? Just call them what they >>> are at that point molecules of water. >> >> Stop being a pedantic jackass, please. > > Stop introducing new undefined terms, please. > >>>> So the increase in particles will be about 0.9 percent. >>> >>> If it is 1% as you mentioned first then the ratio goes from >>> 1 to 99 >>> to >>> 10 to 99 or about a 9% increase. >> >> Pay attention: >> 1 in 100 molecules are H2O >> But the H2O is in clusters of 10 >> Therefore, 1 in 1000 Avogadro particles are H2O >> 10 in 1000 molecules are H2O >> After it turns to steam the number of Avogadro particles and the number of molecules will be the same, 10 per 1000 >> The difference between 1 in 1000 and 10 in 1000 is 9 in 1000 >> 9 in 1000 is 0.9 percent. Not 9 percent. >> >> So, you say you're an engineer??? > > Pay attention to your own comments. I estimated 10% > You then said 1% and then changed to 0.1% > Sorry I told you my mind reader hat is in the shop, > so I cannot guess what number your are going to pull out next. > >> >>>> And if we assume that this corresponds to pressure on a one to one >>>> basis the increase in pressure should be about 0.2 PSI (.09 x 19 PSI). >>>> And so, to get two decimal places of accuracy we would want to get a >>>> sensitivity of about .01 or even .001 PSI for the pressure measuring devices. >>>> >>> +/-0.15% FSO Accuracy >>> is close, but the key is we don't stop there >> >> Why not? >> >>> because at that point your theory, the slope of the temperature-pressure >>> equation changed, so we can still see a curve in your world, but >>> a straight line right through in the normal ideal gas law world. >> >> The slope will be slightly higher through the boiling point but then will track like normal gas. > > WITH A DIFFERENT SLOPE! > > To summarize: > > In the normal world is the Ideal gas law > (used by physicists and chemical engineers everywhere) > In this experiment will show a linear increase of pressure with > temperature from below the boiling point well beyond the boiling point. > There is NO change in the slope of the line. > > > In JM's world is the nanodroplets of water theory > (used by James McGinn and no one else anywhere) > In this experiment will show a linear increase of pressure with > temperature from below the boiling point up to the boiling point. > Then the nanodroplets become steam, and the slope of the line changes. > From that point on the pressure increases even faster than before. > >>>>> If each nanodroplet boils to 10 molecules we now have >>>>> 100 water molecules to 90 air molecules. >>>>> >>>>> WOW! do you get the implication JM?? >>>>> >>>>> IF JM is right, at the boiling point those nanodroplets >>>>> will nearly double the pressure. >>>> >>>> It should only go up about 1 percent according to my calculations. >>>> However, if the actual nano droplet size is bigger than the ten that >>>> I estimate and/or if they percentage of H2O is greater than the 1 percent >>>> that I estimate the actually change in pressure might be as high as 2 or >>>> 3 percent. But it is also possible that they change will be below 1 % >>>> if those other factors are lower than I anticipate. >>>> >>> >>> Again, keep in mind, your theory predicts that above the boiling point >>> the pressure will go up FASTER than the accepted view of single molecules >>> of water. >> >> My theory doesn't predict this. It is your creative >> interpretation of my theory that purportedly predicts this. > > OH, now it's my fault. > Up to this moment, you agreed with this interpretation. > Do the nanodroplets boil or not? > > If they do the pressure MUST increase. > And the increase is then MAGNIFIED as the temperature increases. > >> >> So don't stop recording data just at the crossover point. > > A plot of the two theories should look like this: > > | - | > | - | > P | - | > R | - | > E | - | > S | - | > S | - | > U | + <------Boiling point > R | + > E | + > | + > | + > | + > | + > | + > | + > o------------------------------------------------------- > T E M P E R A T U R E > >>> >>>>> Will you finally drop the charade once you are proven wrong? >>>> >>>> Undoubtedly you won't. >>> >>> In contrast to your approach, I am a trained scientist >> >> LOL. So, you're a trained scientists and you think the properties >> of H2O are going to be different while suspended in the atmosphere >> than when pooled? >> >>> and I follow >>> the data. So if you conduct this test properly and get that change >>> in slope, I will accept the results. >> >> It will only produce an increase in pressure of about 0.2 PSI at >> the boiling point. Any change in slope will be miniscule and >> will not continue after boiling. > > WHY? By your own admission, the nano droplets of water becomes steam. > At that point there clearly is ONLY GAS in the container. > This has been your point for years now, that water is steam only above > the boiling point. Why are you changing now? > >>> I would probably find a way to >>> run the test myself. If confirmed, I'll even promise to help you >>> write the research paper >> >> If you want to write a research paper, go ahead. >> You don't even have to reference me. I won't write a paper. >> >> I don't think anybody will publish it. To any nonmeteorology >> journal it will be trivial. To a meteorology journal it will be heresy. >> > > So you prefer to keep to your conspiracy opinion. > Showing your true colors again. > > ED > good effort there, but McGinn cannot understand the complexities of the states of water, so far he has not progressed at all in 5 years. In fact, his absorption rate of knowledge is negative, apparent organic cause.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web