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 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 14:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p7rgl3$1def$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #675271 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 3:23:39 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> >>>>>>> Go ahead, explain how you would contain steam at >>>>>>> 105 degrees C at 1 ATM. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mylar balloon. >>>>> >>>>> You would melt it, and you still couldn't control accurately >>>>> for volume or pressure. >>> >>>> the >>>> balloon would expand until internal pressure equilibrates with external >>>> pressure, which in turn is easy to maintain at 1 ATM. So apply a heat >>>> source until the temperature gets to 105C. I don’t see why you think this >>>> is complicated or hard. >>> >>> Everything is easy for an idiot. >>> >>> You will not be able to maintain the temperature of 105 with just thin mylar. >>> >>> >> >> With a heat source nearby? What makes you say that? Put the Mylar balloon >> in an industrial oven used to bake bread for crying out loud. I mean, tie >> the balloon with strings that hold it suspended and then set the thermostat >> to 221 F. This will come to thermal equilibrium just like a loaf of bread >> would. >> >> Why do you think this is hard? >> >> First you thought the Mylar would melt, it won’t. >> Then you thought it would be hard to control the pressure, it won’t. >> Then you thought it would be hard to keep it at 221F, it won’t. >> >> I imagine you have lots of fabricated excuses why you can’t do simple >> things. Like hold a job. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Your oven will have to be emplaced in a pressurized room to maintain 1.19 > ATM, because the mylar balloon isn't going to be able to maintain that pressure. Why on earth would you pressurize an oven to 1.19 ATM so that the interior of a stretchy Mylar balloon would be at 1 ATM? When you can stop spluttering incoherently, let me know. > > You simpleton's know just enough to pretend you understand as long as > nobody examines anything too closely. > > So, would any of you geniuses like to explain how any of this gets us any > closer to y'all demonstrating your retarded premise that gaseous H2O > magically defies its known boiling temperature/pressure when it is > suspended in the atmosphere. No defying going on. Water as gas below 100C does not defy its boiling temperature and pressure. That’s your mistake. Always has been. Ever own up to a mistake? Didn’t think so. > > What's funny is that it took you dingbats 20 posts to get your scenario > straight and only to reveal that it has nothing to do with the assertion > that it was originally intended to address. > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 13:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <p7s3ev$ht2$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #675343 |
On 3/8/2018 8:17 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 3:23:39 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> Go ahead, explain how you would contain steam at >>>>>>>> 105 degrees C at 1 ATM. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mylar balloon. >>>>>> >>>>>> You would melt it, and you still couldn't control accurately >>>>>> for volume or pressure. >>>> >>>>> the >>>>> balloon would expand until internal pressure equilibrates with external >>>>> pressure, which in turn is easy to maintain at 1 ATM. So apply a heat >>>>> source until the temperature gets to 105C. I don’t see why you think this >>>>> is complicated or hard. >>>> >>>> Everything is easy for an idiot. >>>> >>>> You will not be able to maintain the temperature of 105 with just thin mylar. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> With a heat source nearby? What makes you say that? Put the Mylar balloon >>> in an industrial oven used to bake bread for crying out loud. I mean, tie >>> the balloon with strings that hold it suspended and then set the thermostat >>> to 221 F. This will come to thermal equilibrium just like a loaf of bread >>> would. >>> >>> Why do you think this is hard? >>> >>> First you thought the Mylar would melt, it won’t. >>> Then you thought it would be hard to control the pressure, it won’t. >>> Then you thought it would be hard to keep it at 221F, it won’t. >>> >>> I imagine you have lots of fabricated excuses why you can’t do simple >>> things. Like hold a job. >>> >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> Your oven will have to be emplaced in a pressurized room to maintain 1.19 >> ATM, because the mylar balloon isn't going to be able to maintain that pressure. > > Why on earth would you pressurize an oven to 1.19 ATM so that the interior > of a stretchy Mylar balloon would be at 1 ATM? > > When you can stop spluttering incoherently, let me know. > >> >> You simpleton's know just enough to pretend you understand as long as >> nobody examines anything too closely. >> >> So, would any of you geniuses like to explain how any of this gets us any >> closer to y'all demonstrating your retarded premise that gaseous H2O >> magically defies its known boiling temperature/pressure when it is >> suspended in the atmosphere. > > No defying going on. Water as gas below 100C does not defy its boiling > temperature and pressure. That’s your mistake. Always has been. Ever own up > to a mistake? Didn’t think so. > >> >> What's funny is that it took you dingbats 20 posts to get your scenario >> straight and only to reveal that it has nothing to do with the assertion >> that it was originally intended to address. >> >> > > > we lit a prayer candle for McGinn, and the water vapor product from that chemical reaction went stright up, we used a mirror to collect the water vapor about 2 feet above the candle in church, proving McGinn is suffering from defective thinking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 16:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <VmioC.39567$EV2.25052@fx30.iad> |
| In reply to | #675386 |
On 3/8/2018 2:37 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 3/8/2018 8:17 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 3:23:39 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Go ahead, explain how you would contain steam at >>>>>>>>> 105 degrees C at 1 ATM. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mylar balloon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You would melt it, and you still couldn't control accurately >>>>>>> for volume or pressure. >>>>> >>>>>> the >>>>>> balloon would expand until internal pressure equilibrates with external >>>>>> pressure, which in turn is easy to maintain at 1 ATM. So apply a heat >>>>>> source until the temperature gets to 105C. I don’t see why you think this >>>>>> is complicated or hard. >>>>> >>>>> Everything is easy for an idiot. >>>>> >>>>> You will not be able to maintain the temperature of 105 with just thin mylar. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> With a heat source nearby? What makes you say that? Put the Mylar balloon >>>> in an industrial oven used to bake bread for crying out loud. I mean, tie >>>> the balloon with strings that hold it suspended and then set the thermostat >>>> to 221 F. This will come to thermal equilibrium just like a loaf of bread >>>> would. >>>> >>>> Why do you think this is hard? >>>> >>>> First you thought the Mylar would melt, it won’t. >>>> Then you thought it would be hard to control the pressure, it won’t. >>>> Then you thought it would be hard to keep it at 221F, it won’t. >>>> >>>> I imagine you have lots of fabricated excuses why you can’t do simple >>>> things. Like hold a job. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> Your oven will have to be emplaced in a pressurized room to maintain 1.19 >>> ATM, because the mylar balloon isn't going to be able to maintain that pressure. >> >> Why on earth would you pressurize an oven to 1.19 ATM so that the interior >> of a stretchy Mylar balloon would be at 1 ATM? >> >> When you can stop spluttering incoherently, let me know. >> >>> >>> You simpleton's know just enough to pretend you understand as long as >>> nobody examines anything too closely. >>> >>> So, would any of you geniuses like to explain how any of this gets us any >>> closer to y'all demonstrating your retarded premise that gaseous H2O >>> magically defies its known boiling temperature/pressure when it is >>> suspended in the atmosphere. >> >> No defying going on. Water as gas below 100C does not defy its boiling >> temperature and pressure. That’s your mistake. Always has been. Ever own up >> to a mistake? Didn’t think so. >> >>> >>> What's funny is that it took you dingbats 20 posts to get your scenario >>> straight and only to reveal that it has nothing to do with the assertion >>> that it was originally intended to address. >>> >>> >> >> >> > > we lit a prayer candle for McGinn, and the water vapor product from that > chemical reaction went stright up, we used a mirror to collect the water > vapor about 2 feet above the candle in church, proving McGinn is > suffering from defective thinking. > Sorry Sergio but you know nothing! That was Cold Dry steam rising from the candle which saw itself in the mirror and frightened, immediately turned into water. That is real science!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 19:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <p7sos9$1jq8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #675398 |
On 3/8/2018 3:58 PM, benj wrote: > On 3/8/2018 2:37 PM, Sergio wrote: >> On 3/8/2018 8:17 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 3:23:39 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Go ahead, explain how you would contain steam at >>>>>>>>>> 105 degrees C at 1 ATM. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mylar balloon. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You would melt it, and you still couldn't control accurately >>>>>>>> for volume or pressure. >>>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> balloon would expand until internal pressure equilibrates with >>>>>>> external >>>>>>> pressure, which in turn is easy to maintain at 1 ATM. So apply a >>>>>>> heat >>>>>>> source until the temperature gets to 105C. I don’t see why you >>>>>>> think this >>>>>>> is complicated or hard. >>>>>> >>>>>> Everything is easy for an idiot. >>>>>> >>>>>> You will not be able to maintain the temperature of 105 with just >>>>>> thin mylar. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> With a heat source nearby? What makes you say that? Put the Mylar >>>>> balloon >>>>> in an industrial oven used to bake bread for crying out loud. I >>>>> mean, tie >>>>> the balloon with strings that hold it suspended and then set the >>>>> thermostat >>>>> to 221 F. This will come to thermal equilibrium just like a loaf of >>>>> bread >>>>> would. >>>>> >>>>> Why do you think this is hard? >>>>> >>>>> First you thought the Mylar would melt, it won’t. >>>>> Then you thought it would be hard to control the pressure, it won’t. >>>>> Then you thought it would be hard to keep it at 221F, it won’t. >>>>> >>>>> I imagine you have lots of fabricated excuses why you can’t do simple >>>>> things. Like hold a job. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>> >>>> Your oven will have to be emplaced in a pressurized room to maintain >>>> 1.19 >>>> ATM, because the mylar balloon isn't going to be able to maintain >>>> that pressure. >>> >>> Why on earth would you pressurize an oven to 1.19 ATM so that the >>> interior >>> of a stretchy Mylar balloon would be at 1 ATM? >>> >>> When you can stop spluttering incoherently, let me know. >>> >>>> >>>> You simpleton's know just enough to pretend you understand as long as >>>> nobody examines anything too closely. >>>> >>>> So, would any of you geniuses like to explain how any of this gets >>>> us any >>>> closer to y'all demonstrating your retarded premise that gaseous H2O >>>> magically defies its known boiling temperature/pressure when it is >>>> suspended in the atmosphere. >>> >>> No defying going on. Water as gas below 100C does not defy its boiling >>> temperature and pressure. That’s your mistake. Always has been. Ever >>> own up >>> to a mistake? Didn’t think so. >>> >>>> >>>> What's funny is that it took you dingbats 20 posts to get your scenario >>>> straight and only to reveal that it has nothing to do with the >>>> assertion >>>> that it was originally intended to address. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> we lit a prayer candle for McGinn, and the water vapor product from that >> chemical reaction went stright up, we used a mirror to collect the water >> vapor about 2 feet above the candle in church, proving McGinn is >> suffering from defective thinking. >> > Sorry Sergio but you know nothing! That was Cold Dry steam rising from > the candle which saw itself in the mirror and frightened, immediately > turned into water. That is real science! it had to be "cold dry steam", after all it got burnt in the flame of the candle. yes frightening makes people cold, so it was the mirror that did it, all you need is a mirror to find that pesky cold steam and scare it into condensate. you are right again! could send McGinn some small mirrors, to see if he is full of cold steam too, OR if he has no reflection
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 18:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a3681754-6eaf-41dc-af8f-508588117859@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675448 |
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 5:43:42 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > On 3/8/2018 3:58 PM, benj wrote: > > On 3/8/2018 2:37 PM, Sergio wrote: > >> On 3/8/2018 8:17 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 3:23:39 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Go ahead, explain how you would contain steam at > >>>>>>>>>> 105 degrees C at 1 ATM. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Mylar balloon. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You would melt it, and you still couldn't control accurately > >>>>>>>> for volume or pressure. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> balloon would expand until internal pressure equilibrates with > >>>>>>> external > >>>>>>> pressure, which in turn is easy to maintain at 1 ATM. So apply a > >>>>>>> heat > >>>>>>> source until the temperature gets to 105C. I don’t see why you > >>>>>>> think this > >>>>>>> is complicated or hard. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Everything is easy for an idiot. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You will not be able to maintain the temperature of 105 with just > >>>>>> thin mylar. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> With a heat source nearby? What makes you say that? Put the Mylar > >>>>> balloon > >>>>> in an industrial oven used to bake bread for crying out loud. I > >>>>> mean, tie > >>>>> the balloon with strings that hold it suspended and then set the > >>>>> thermostat > >>>>> to 221 F. This will come to thermal equilibrium just like a loaf of > >>>>> bread > >>>>> would. > >>>>> > >>>>> Why do you think this is hard? > >>>>> > >>>>> First you thought the Mylar would melt, it won’t. > >>>>> Then you thought it would be hard to control the pressure, it won’t. > >>>>> Then you thought it would be hard to keep it at 221F, it won’t. > >>>>> > >>>>> I imagine you have lots of fabricated excuses why you can’t do simple > >>>>> things. Like hold a job. > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>> > >>>> Your oven will have to be emplaced in a pressurized room to maintain > >>>> 1.19 > >>>> ATM, because the mylar balloon isn't going to be able to maintain > >>>> that pressure. > >>> > >>> Why on earth would you pressurize an oven to 1.19 ATM so that the > >>> interior > >>> of a stretchy Mylar balloon would be at 1 ATM? > >>> > >>> When you can stop spluttering incoherently, let me know. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> You simpleton's know just enough to pretend you understand as long as > >>>> nobody examines anything too closely. > >>>> > >>>> So, would any of you geniuses like to explain how any of this gets > >>>> us any > >>>> closer to y'all demonstrating your retarded premise that gaseous H2O > >>>> magically defies its known boiling temperature/pressure when it is > >>>> suspended in the atmosphere. > >>> > >>> No defying going on. Water as gas below 100C does not defy its boiling > >>> temperature and pressure. That’s your mistake. Always has been. Ever > >>> own up > >>> to a mistake? Didn’t think so. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> What's funny is that it took you dingbats 20 posts to get your scenario > >>>> straight and only to reveal that it has nothing to do with the > >>>> assertion > >>>> that it was originally intended to address. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> we lit a prayer candle for McGinn, and the water vapor product from that > >> chemical reaction went stright up, we used a mirror to collect the water > >> vapor about 2 feet above the candle in church, proving McGinn is > >> suffering from defective thinking. > >> > > Sorry Sergio but you know nothing! That was Cold Dry steam rising from > > the candle which saw itself in the mirror and frightened, immediately > > turned into water. That is real science! > > it had to be "cold dry steam", after all it got burnt in the flame of > the candle. > > yes frightening makes people cold, so it was the mirror that did it, all > you need is a mirror to find that pesky cold steam and scare it into > condensate. you are right again! > > could send McGinn some small mirrors, to see if he is full of cold steam > too, OR if he has no reflection Do you think that if you had any direct evidence of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere that y'all would be so obsessed with me? Just wondering. James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16652
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 13:27 -0800 |
| Subject | We don't live in the perfectly ordered world you're selling. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Mar.8--1.27pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #675343 |
> > Would any of you geniuses like to explain how gaseous H2O
> > magically defies its known boiling temperature/pressure.
We don't live in the perfectly ordered world you're selling.
Entropy ( ThermoDymanics ) is statistical, SemiRandom.
Every SnakeOil salesman denies entropy,
and James McGinn is no exception.
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington wrote: ＜＜
If someone points out to you that
your pet theory of the universe is
in disagreement with Maxwell's equations --
then, so much the worse for Maxwell's equations.
If it is found to be contradicted by observers --
well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes.
But, if your theory is found to be
against the second law of thermodynamics,
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but
to collapse in deepest humiliation. ＞＞
-- From "The Nature of the Physical World", 1915, chapter 4.
Google "Heat Death of the Universe" and you get: ＜＜
The heat death of the universe is a plausible
ultimate fate of the universe in which the universe
has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free
energy and therefore can no longer sustain processes
that increase entropy ( including computation and life ). ＞＞
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 16:50 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: We don't live in the perfectly ordered world you're selling. |
| Message-ID | <a77f4de9-e48e-4e16-bf7a-aec8771aef1b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675392 |
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 1:27:10 PM UTC-8, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > Would any of you geniuses like to explain how gaseous H2O > > > magically defies its known boiling temperature/pressure. > > We don't live in the perfectly ordered world you're selling. > Entropy ( ThermoDymanics ) is statistical, SemiRandom. > > Every SnakeOil salesman denies entropy, > and James McGinn is no exception. > > Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington wrote: ＜＜ > > If someone points out to you that > your pet theory of the universe is > in disagreement with Maxwell's equations -- > then, so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. > > If it is found to be contradicted by observers -- > well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. > > But, if your theory is found to be > against the second law of thermodynamics, > I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but > to collapse in deepest humiliation. ＞＞ > > -- From "The Nature of the Physical World", 1915, chapter 4. > > Google "Heat Death of the Universe" and you get: ＜＜ > > The heat death of the universe is a plausible > ultimate fate of the universe in which the universe > has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free > energy and therefore can no longer sustain processes > that increase entropy ( including computation and life ). ＞＞ I think if you want to get started in scientific discourse that you start small. Instead of trying to engage, me engage Sergio or Pnal. Start small and work your way up. Also, don't start with all encompassing notions like rules or laws. Stay within your realm of comprehension. The supposition that my theory is inconsistent with one of the laws of thermodynamics would require you to know my theory and thermodynamics. Ultimately, there is no substitute for taking responsibility for your own education.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-06 20:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <95d1816f-ec32-4bf0-9ebd-870c2e98b142@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675036 |
On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 4:36:52 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 8:21:32 AM UTC-8, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > There are a lot of other factors that would need to be clarified. > > > > Looking for your escape plan already. > > You are naive. You have no idea what you are getting into. > > > > Open atmosphere? > > > > Ah, you meant closed container. > > Sure, let's make it closed. > > LOL. You say that in such a casual manner. You are sooooo clueless. With enclosure you have a whole new set of problems. > > > According to you at 95C all the water vapor is liquid nanodroplets. > > The net pressure is proportional to the net number of particles, > > including your nanoparticles. So n= Nair + Np (Np is # of nanoparticles) > > PV=nRT, where we are keeping the volume constant, so replace n to get > > > > PV=(Nair+Np)RT > > > > With me so far, JM? > > Yes, I am with you. Unfortunately H2O is not with you. When enclosed the boiling temperature goes up--depending on the size of the enclosure. Bigger works better, but then you have the problem of how you keep it hot. > > > THis is High school chemistry > > So, your high school failed to educate you that capturing steam in an enclosed container at 105 degrees is not simple. > > and > > I don't want to confuse you. BTW the T in that equation > > has to be in absolute or Kelvin degrees, so need to add 273. > > That makes the start temperature 95C=368K. > > > > All those nanoparticles floating in the air in our container > > at 95C, below the boiling point. Again, how many water molecules > > per particle? We will need that answer in a minute. > > > > > How is that heat maintained. So .. . > > > > However you want to maintain it. Does your theory require the heat > > to be introduced in a special way? > > You haven't a clue why this question matters. > > > That would be a new factor in > > your theory, but hey, you never left a question without some > > escape hatch. 8^) > > > > How's this? the container is clear, with a fast and precise > > thermal sensor and a control unit. We are ecological, so we > > use Solar heating. > > Solar heating? Wow. > > R U a comedian? > > > > The control unit manages a sunscreen so we > > can get precise control on a nice sunny summer's day. > > (Actually doesn't have to be summer, just clear and sunny.) > > > > OR we can use whatever heat source you want. An electrical > > heater inside the container controlled again with feedback > > from a fast precise thermal sensor. Microwaves. Pick one. > > So, uh, you don't know? > > > > So we are at the point where the nano water particles are stable > > in the air inside the container at any temperature below boiling > > (100C) and above freezing. But Steve started with 95C. SO lets > > go with that. > > You got nothing!!! > > > > > So, JM, when we raise the temperature to 105C what will happen? > > I am asking you to commit to a prediction. > > the temperature is going to change (from 386K to 398K) > > so the pressure*volume is going to change. > > > > I'll even let you decide the container. Make it a fixed > > volume like a sealed glass bottle. The just the pressure > > will change. OR let it be flexible like a bottle sealed with > > a mercury manometer, air tight but the volume can change. > > Again pick whatever you like. > > > > (This is leading to a nice simple test of your theory. > > I am having fun now. How about you?) > > I've always found your arrogance amusing. > > > > > I'll post more in a little while. Think about it, JM. > > A chance to show off you scientific skills. > > I wouldn't want to impose. > > Go ahead, explain how you would contain steam at 105 degrees C at 1 ATM. > > By the way, it can be done, but you would want to start with a vacuum pump. You can start with vacuum and water in a sealed container. The various temperatures and pressure are given in something called a "phase diagram." Or use this: http://www.endmemo.com/chem/vaporpressurewater.php Set it for "atm" read out. At 95 C you get water gas at 0.8337 atm. This is the pressure inside the container, as all the pressure is from water gas. At 100 C you will get boiling until water gas pressure (and total pressure) reaches 1.0056 atm (strange coincidence that it's nearly 1 atm). But no boiling behavior will be seen then, as boiling will be suppressed by this pressure. This is the gas pressure for equilibrium with water liquid at 100 C. At 105 C the water will boil until the pressure reaches 1.1957 atm, at which point boiling stops. This is the new equilibrium pressure with liquid at 105 C. Note that all these water partial pressures rise smoothly from 95 to 105 C. There is no change in structure of the gas. At no point are there "nanodroplets." (These require mechanical shaking to produce, or else condensation with a sudden pressure or temperature drop of saturated air, or gas that is below its condensation point). ======== Now, what happens if we have 1 atm air in these containers, sealed before we heat them further? At 95 C, the equilibrium partial pressure of water gas is still 0.83 atm. The air does not change this, and the total pressure inside the container is 1.83 atm-- a lot larger than when we started in vacuum. What does change is the possibility of water boiling in these conditions. Water boils when a bubble containing pure water gas can expand against total ambient pressure, and these expanded bubbles rise to the surface. But at a pressure of 1.83 atm, no bubble has a chance (it takes a temp of 118 C to boil water at these pressures). So when we warm above 95, all that happens is water vapor gas evaporates quietly from the surface and the pressure goes up. At 100 C, the total pressure is about 2 atm. Same comments apply, and there is no boiling to get to here. 1 atm of the total pressure is water gas partial pressure, and ~ 1 atm is air (I have neglected the small increased pressure of air from 95 to 100 C-- a better calculation is water gas partial pressure is 1 atm and air pressure has risen to 373 K/368 K = 1.013, so total pressure is 1.847 atm. Equilibrium is reached here, and no further change in pressure happens at this temp. At 105 C same comments apply. No boiling is seen. But water vapor pressure is now at 1.1957 atm (same as in vacuum at 100 C-- same phase diagram). And total pressure is 2.222 atm (exercise for student). Equilibrium is reached here, and no further change in pressure happens at this temp ========== What happens with open containers of water? The first thing that happens is we cannot use the phase diagrams! Because there is no equilibrium. In the gas above the 95 C pot, the water partial pressure may be high or low, but how high or low depends on the arbitrary mix of air and water gas, as determined by mixing. It might be liquid water with wind or fan blowing across it, and vapor pressure is low. Or it might be in a container which is ALMOST closed, and vapor pressure approaches 0.83 atm with the rest of the partial pressure air (0.17 atm). There is no boiling, obviously. At 100 C we have boiling in any conditions as the pressure above the pot is 1 atm, and vapor pressure exceeds this. In a nearly closed pot, water vapor pressure is close to 1 atm, and in an open one with wind, it is 1 atm air with water vapor arbitrarily low. In an open pot in air it is impossible in theory to reach 105 C, as all heat input boils water to becomes water gas, which escapes, cooling the water and preventing it from increasing in temp. Rapidly boiling water is the same temperature as slowly boiling water. Again the water gas partial pressure depends on ventilation. In a steam kettle the pressure of water vapor will be 1 atm, with the excess pressure vented. As the vent is closed to allow increase in pressure above 1 atm in a boiler, the temperature of the water can rise, until at a water gas pressure of 1.195 atm, the water temp in our "pressure cooker" has risen to 105 C. Without the confinement to raise pressure, the temperature of the water cannot rise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-07 10:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d0cedae6-b277-4b1b-a3d8-ccfed8610d6c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675093 |
On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 8:48:18 PM UTC-8, Steve BH wrote: > > I've always found your arrogance amusing. > > > > > > > > I'll post more in a little while. Think about it, JM. > > > A chance to show off you scientific skills. > > > > I wouldn't want to impose. > > > > Go ahead, explain how you would contain steam at 105 degrees C at 1 ATM. > > > > By the way, it can be done, but you would want to start with a vacuum pump. > > > > You can start with vacuum and water in a sealed container. The various temperatures and pressure are given in something called a "phase diagram." > > Or use this: > > http://www.endmemo.com/chem/vaporpressurewater.php This is a cartoon. > Set it for "atm" read out. > > At 95 C you get water gas at 0.8337 atm. This is the pressure inside the container, as all the pressure is from water gas. Since water is a gas at room temperature within a vacuum it is hardly surprising that it will also be a gas at 95C. However, the pressure will depend on the size of the container and on the quantity of H2O therein. > At 100 C you will get boiling until water gas pressure (and total pressure) reaches 1.0056 atm (strange coincidence that it's nearly 1 atm). But no boiling behavior will be seen then, as boiling will be suppressed by this pressure. This is the gas pressure for equilibrium with water liquid at 100 C. Say what? You already had boiling at room temperature. Why would it boil again? And there is no such thing as "gas pressure for equillibium." That is your imaginative cartoon. > > At 105 C the water will boil until the pressure reaches 1.1957 atm, at which point boiling stops. This is the new equilibrium pressure with liquid at 105 C. This is just silly. You don't understand any of this. The pressure at any temperature (keep in mind, we are starting with a perfect vacuum, and therefore there is only water in the container) will depend on the size of the container and the quantity of water. > > Note that all these water partial pressures rise smoothly from 95 to 105 C. There is no change in structure of the gas. At no point are there "nanodroplets." True, but so what. Your claim has to do with there being air pressure and at temperatures below boiling. (These require mechanical shaking to produce, or else condensation with a sudden pressure or temperature drop of saturated air, or gas that is below its condensation point). Absurd. > > ======== > > Now, what happens if we have 1 atm air in these containers, sealed before we heat them further? Again, it will depend on size of container and quantity of water. You still don't get that. > > At 95 C, the equilibrium partial pressure of water gas is still 0.83 atm. The air does not change this, and the total pressure inside the container is 1.83 atm-- a lot larger than when we started in vacuum. What does change is the possibility of water boiling in these conditions. Water boils when a bubble containing pure water gas can expand against total ambient pressure, and these expanded bubbles rise to the surface. But at a pressure of 1.83 atm, no bubble has a chance (it takes a temp of 118 C to boil water at these pressures). So when we warm above 95, all that happens is water vapor gas evaporates quietly from the surface and the pressure goes up. > > At 100 C, the total pressure is about 2 atm. Same comments apply, and there is no boiling to get to here. 1 atm of the total pressure is water gas partial pressure, and ~ 1 atm is air (I have neglected the small increased pressure of air from 95 to 100 C-- a better calculation is water gas partial pressure is 1 atm and air pressure has risen to 373 K/368 K = 1.013, so total pressure is 1.847 atm. Equilibrium is reached here, and no further change in pressure happens at this temp. > > At 105 C same comments apply. No boiling is seen. But water vapor pressure is now at 1.1957 atm (same as in vacuum at 100 C-- same phase diagram). And total pressure is 2.222 atm (exercise for student). Equilibrium is reached here, and no further change in pressure happens at this temp The huge heat capacity of liquid H2O (which does not exist in the gaseous phase) completely defeats any notion of equilibrium being maintained. This is why H2O flashes between being liquid and gas. > > ========== > > What happens with open containers of water? The first thing that happens is we cannot use the phase diagrams! Because there is no equilibrium. In the gas above the 95 C pot, the water partial pressure may be high or low, but how high or low depends on the arbitrary mix of air and water gas, as determined by mixing. It might be liquid water with wind or fan blowing across it, and vapor pressure is low. Or it might be in a container which is ALMOST closed, and vapor pressure approaches 0.83 atm with the rest of the partial pressure air (0.17 atm). There is no boiling, obviously. > > At 100 C we have boiling in any conditions as the pressure above the pot is 1 atm, and vapor pressure exceeds this. In a nearly closed pot, water vapor pressure is close to 1 atm, and in an open one with wind, it is 1 atm air with water vapor arbitrarily low. > > In an open pot in air it is impossible in theory to reach 105 C, as all heat input boils water to becomes water gas, which escapes, cooling the water and preventing it from increasing in temp. Rapidly boiling water is the same temperature as slowly boiling water. Again the water gas partial pressure depends on ventilation. In a steam kettle the pressure of water vapor will be 1 atm, with the excess pressure vented. As the vent is closed to allow increase in pressure above 1 atm in a boiler, the temperature of the water can rise, until at a water gas pressure of 1.195 atm, the water temp in our "pressure cooker" has risen to 105 C. Without the confinement to raise pressure, the temperature of the water cannot rise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 00:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5521212b-d92e-4f88-8ab5-6734bf3b1097@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675183 |
On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 10:11:34 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > You can start with vacuum and water in a sealed container. The various temperatures and pressure are given in something called a "phase diagram." > > > > Or use this: > > > > http://www.endmemo.com/chem/vaporpressurewater.php > > This is a cartoon. No, it's the same data as in any paper table. Check it. > > > Set it for "atm" read out. > > > > At 95 C you get water gas at 0.8337 atm. This is the pressure inside the container, as all the pressure is from water gas. > > Since water is a gas at room temperature within a vacuum it is hardly >surprising that it will also be a gas at 95C. However, the pressure will >depend on the size of the container and on the quantity of H2O therein. No. If the container is sealed and at equilibrium, it can be 1/4 full or 3/4 full, and any size. At 95 C the water gas pressure will be the same. Do you really think the boiling behavior on containers depends on how much water they have in them? No. They boil at 100 C because that is the temperature where water gas pressure exceeds 1 atm. > > At 100 C you will get boiling until water gas pressure (and total pressure) reaches 1.0056 atm (strange coincidence that it's nearly 1 atm). But no boiling behavior will be seen then, as boiling will be suppressed by this pressure. This is the gas pressure for equilibrium with water liquid at 100 C. > > Say what? You already had boiling at room temperature. Why would it boil again? And there is no such thing as "gas pressure for equillibium." That is your imaginative cartoon. Equilibriums between gas and another phsase always have a gas pressure. Yes, water will boil in vacuum below 95 C. But we started at 95 C and equilibium. IF we start with vacuum it boils until pressure reaches 0.8337 then stops. Increase temp to 100 C and it will boil till pressure reaches 100 C, then will stop. > > > > > > At 105 C the water will boil until the pressure reaches 1.1957 atm, at which point boiling stops. This is the new equilibrium pressure with liquid at 105 C. > > This is just silly. You don't understand any of this. The pressure at any temperature (keep in mind, we are starting with a perfect vacuum, and therefore there is only water in the container) will depend on the size of the container and the quantity of water. No. So long as there is any liquid water AT ALL left in the contain, the water pressure we end up with, will be the same at any given temperature. That's the whole point. More or less liquid water does not change this. > > Now, what happens if we have 1 atm air in these containers, sealed before we heat them further? > > Again, it will depend on size of container and quantity of water. You still don't get that. No, YOU don't get it. Some water will boil, but as long as there is any left when the equilibrium pressure is reached, it doesn't matter how much there is left. Any more than a pot cares if 1 cup is in it, or two cups. It still boils at the same temperature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 01:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <76b38e73-0233-4541-a58c-8148e3d2f688@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675322 |
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 12:42:39 AM UTC-8, Steve BH wrote: > > Since water is a gas at room temperature within a vacuum it is hardly >surprising that it will also be a gas at 95C. However, the pressure will >depend on the size of the container and on the quantity of H2O therein. > > > No. If the container is sealed and at equilibrium, it can be 1/4 full or 3/4 full, and any size. At 95 C the water gas pressure will be the same. It's vapor pressure. And it goes up the boiling temperature of water goes up even faster, at first. (The internet is filled with pseudoscience on this subject.) > > Do you really think the boiling behavior on containers depends on how much water they have in them? No. They boil at 100 C because that is the temperature where water gas pressure exceeds 1 atm. No, dumbass, water does not boil at 100 C in a container. You have your head up your ass. > > > > > At 100 C you will get boiling until water gas pressure (and total pressure) reaches 1.0056 atm (strange coincidence that it's nearly 1 atm). But no boiling behavior will be seen then, as boiling will be suppressed by this pressure. This is the gas pressure for equilibrium with water liquid at 100 C. > > > > Say what? You already had boiling at room temperature. Why would it boil again? And there is no such thing as "gas pressure for equillibium." That is your imaginative cartoon. > > > Equilibriums between gas and another phsase always have a gas pressure. > > Yes, water will boil in vacuum below 95 C. But we started at 95 C and equilibium. You are just ignorant. IF we start with vacuum it boils until pressure reaches 0.8337 then stops. Increase temp to 100 C and it will boil till pressure reaches 100 C, then will stop. In steam engines the water doesn't boil until about 195 C. > > > > > > > > > > > > At 105 C the water will boil until the pressure reaches 1.1957 atm, at which point boiling stops. This is the new equilibrium pressure with liquid at 105 C. > > > > This is just silly. You don't understand any of this. The pressure at any temperature (keep in mind, we are starting with a perfect vacuum, and therefore there is only water in the container) will depend on the size of the container and the quantity of water. > > > No. So long as there is any liquid water AT ALL left in the contain, the water pressure we end up with, will be the same at any given temperature. So, according to you we can just ignore the gas laws equation. That's the whole point. More or less liquid water does not change this. Retarded. > > > > > > Now, what happens if we have 1 atm air in these containers, sealed before we heat them further? > > > > Again, it will depend on size of container and quantity of water. You still don't get that. > > > No, YOU don't get it. I'm a physicist and an expert on H2O. Trust me, I get it. You've been reading all the pseudoscience on the internet from the many idiots that pretend they are experts, like youl Some water will boil, but as long as there is any left when the equilibrium pressure is reached, it doesn't matter how much there is left. Any more than a pot cares if 1 cup is in it, or two cups. It still boils at the same temperature. Laughable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 06:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fd721e11-74b4-427b-a053-6af9b33d0ab0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675325 |
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 4:44:23 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 12:42:39 AM UTC-8, Steve BH wrote:
>
> > James McGinn wrote:
> > > Again, it will depend on size of container and quantity of water.
> > > You still don't get that.
> >
> >
> > No, YOU don't get it.
>
> I'm a physicist and an expert on H2O. Trust me, I get it.
FYI Steve, JM has been trying to claim he is a physicist,
but lacks any degree whatsoever. I have begun to wonder
if he even graduated from high school.
> You've been reading all the pseudoscience on the internet
> from the many idiots that pretend they are experts, like youl
JM is one of those posting that pseudoscience on the internet.
So in this particular case, he is an expert at pseudoscience!
Sorry I haven't been able to help much in the discussion.
I am swamped at work, but Odd got close to what I was thinking.
I'll pose it quickly:
Start on a humid summer's day with high relative humidity,
but obviously below 100C. It can be easy to reach a temperature
of near 90C inside a car so that may be a good place to start.
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.
Well, gotta go. maybe I'll check in tonight.
Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 09:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <911372a0-7c82-4742-ad19-a648880caa64@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675344 |
Goodbye loser. James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 11:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <edebb45e-315e-411b-b435-d31b7d551f6d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675344 |
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 6:23:24 AM UTC-8, Edward Prochak wrote: > > I'm a physicist and an expert on H2O. Trust me, I get it. > > FYI Steve, JM has been trying to claim he is a physicist, 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. > but lacks any degree whatsoever. I have begun to wonder > if he even graduated from high school. I don't think it is fair to shift the blame for your incompetence on your education. Education is only meant to get you started. Expertise comes from dealing with issues and resolving problems. Obviously you are out of your element in that regard. Don't blame your teachers. They were doing the best they could under the circumstance of having little choice but to work with models that appeal to the lowest common denominator of the science consuming public. I mean, we do live in a democracy afterall. If you were competent you would more fully realize the compromise that consensus engenders and not be so sheepishly compliant with its dictates. > > You've been reading all the pseudoscience on the internet > > from the many idiots that pretend they are experts, like youl > > JM is one of those posting that pseudoscience on the internet. > So in this particular case, he is an expert at pseudoscience! > > Sorry I haven't been able to help much in the discussion. > I am swamped at work, but Odd got close to what I was thinking. LOL. Well, let's just say that when it comes to science Odd is one hell of a good woodworker. > I'll pose it quickly: > Start on a humid summer's day with high relative humidity, > but obviously below 100C. It can be easy to reach a temperature > of near 90C inside a car so that may be a good place to start. OMG. Obviously you don't mean 90 Celsius. Think about what you are saying. > 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. Be sure the pressure measuring devices are wireless and can withstand some fairly high temperature, maybe as high as 300 F. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 14:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7748cf04-e7c2-483c-8e64-5654d50ebd7e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675384 |
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 11:36:41 AM UTC-8, James McGinn 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 delusioal, 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... > I don't know, but I'm guessing... Now you're talking! THIS I believe fully!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 19:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <p7som7$1jq8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #675400 |
On 3/8/2018 4:16 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 11:36:41 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > >> Yes, I am an atmospheric physicist. JAMES IS A ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICIST GUESSORUST THINGAMIST >> I am currently the number one expert on storm theory. James - in fiction, not fact, and in fiction you in back of line. >>More recently I have become the number one expert on the anomalies of H2O. James - who told you this ? voices ? > > you are delusioal, 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. HEY JIM, WHAT IS "PRESSURE" ? > > Sorry, Jim, there is no such word as 'equillibriate', you are just making this up, too... > >> I don't know, but I'm guessing... > > Now you're talking! THIS I believe fully! >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 20:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <82s3adt0bieh68ifehcbcksnmbmfp29iip@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #675400 |
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 14:16:36 -0800 (PST), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: >there is no such word as 'equillibriate' He's imitating Odd Bodkin, who used the same word in an earlier post. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-09 08:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <91d95142-ee82-4e17-aed9-cbc159d6d711@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675451 |
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 6:24:29 PM UTC-8, Lofty Goat wrote: > On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 14:16:36 -0800 (PST), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > > >there is no such word as 'equillibriate' > > He's imitating Odd Bodkin, who used the same word in an earlier post. LOL. You inane twits can't muster an argument so you pick out words. Find another hobby twerp. Leave science to scientists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-10 17:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <73161d95-1bbd-4d9c-9631-d450596452f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675451 |
On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 6:24:29 PM UTC-8, Lofty Goat wrote: > On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 14:16:36 -0800 (PST), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > > >there is no such word as 'equillibriate' > > He's imitating Odd Bodkin, who used the same word in an earlier post. > > -- > Goat You argue like children.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-08 14:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c98531f1-6113-40e5-854c-9505378e17c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #675384 |
> 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... > I don't know, but I'm guessing... Now you're talking! THIS I believe fully!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web