Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #555283 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-21 11:25 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-01 15:42 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 145 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 11:25 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 13:41 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-21 19:55 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:04 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-22 15:05 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 21:45 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:00 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:18 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:34 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:37 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 22:48 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:05 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:39 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 06:53 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:25 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 22:32 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:57 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 23:19 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:41 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:39 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 09:31 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness dm <pippinese@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 08:14 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:30 -0800
moistly noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 11:30 -0800
Re: moistly James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 11:45 -0800
my assumptions are easy to explain noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:00 -0800
Re: moistly Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 14:01 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:38 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 22:54 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:12 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 21:21 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:05 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 22:19 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:49 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 19:56 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:59 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 22:44 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 23:32 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 08:27 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 12:11 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:42 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 17:27 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:55 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 17:09 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:25 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 07:04 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 21:26 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 21:59 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-22 22:15 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:46 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 19:59 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 11:51 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:13 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:36 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 17:11 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 10:41 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 11:31 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 16:39 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:34 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 17:25 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:52 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 18:24 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 19:54 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:40 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:47 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 23:10 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 15:35 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 23:56 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 23:03 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 15:33 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 00:06 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:52 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 01:05 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:32 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 02:01 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:10 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 22:45 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:19 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 00:43 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 17:11 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:25 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 19:43 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 02:02 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:18 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 21:12 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 03:11 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:07 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 19:09 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 19:13 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 19:27 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 17:13 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:30 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 19:41 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 02:07 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 19:23 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:23 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 20:38 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:36 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-26 13:42 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:45 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-02-26 21:45 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:09 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 16:23 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 18:26 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 16:22 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 00:45 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:48 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-22 23:25 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:45 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 00:18 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 16:35 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 00:50 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 17:22 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 02:14 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 18:45 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-22 21:03 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 03:33 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 20:21 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 07:14 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:24 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-23 13:11 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:10 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 11:56 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 11:36 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 11:46 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:38 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:56 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 22:58 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:28 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:36 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:52 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-27 00:13 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:32 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-27 03:50 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 15:42 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-29 23:55 +0000
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 18:01 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 15:28 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 14:50 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:50 -0600
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:10 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:38 -0800
haha, none noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:10 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 11:53 -0800
Re: Moist air convection, an example of human intellectual sheepishness Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 15:42 -0600
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 09:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nahu1l$17ui$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #555691 |
On 2/22/2016 6:39 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:41:44 PM UTC-8, noTthaTguY wrote:
>> a-hem water is heavier than air, but water vapor is lighter than
>> air; OCO is heavier than air
>
> Another moron chimes in. H2O molecules are lighter than N2 or O2.
> But H2O molecules are not gaseous in earth's atmsophere. They are in
> little clumps.
prove it.
where is your evidence for your screwy "little clumps" idea ?
How clumpy ?
Humpy Clumpy?
Like the prions in your brain ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dm <pippinese@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 08:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6f811855-4271-4ace-8d16-8aaf39d8b1b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555876 |
There are three quite direct and obvious means of establishing that water molecules exist at ambient temperatures (at least two of which were presented in this newsgroup the last time McGinn piped up). McGinn, predictably, refuses to accept any of them, but that will surprise no one. 1) The radiative properties of liquid H2O are hugely different from the radiative properies of gaseous H20. While gaseous H20 does not interact strongly with visible light, it is anything but "invisible." Both gaseous and liquid H20 interact strongly (and in very different ways) with light at IR frequencies. Absorption spectra in the atmosphere clearly indicate that H20 is almost exclusively a gas. There is evidence for very small amounts of very short-lived "dimers" and "trimers", but there is no evidence for persistent clumps of the sort that McGinn imagines. 2) Molecular dispersion rates of water vapor are well documented at temperatures and pressures consistent with atmospheric conditions. If water clumped in the manner imagined by McGinn, these dispersion rates would be much slower (I would guess by at least an order of magnitude, but perhaps more). Medical research relies heavily on molecular dispersion rates of H20 and although it is not my area of expertise I'm pretty sure many drugs would not work at all if water existed as persistent clumps of the sort that McGinn imagines. 3) Finally, water has a vapor pressure associated with it at all temperatures and pressures, not just above the boiling point. It has been measured and documented to considerable precision across a wide range of pressures and temperatures. If one introduces water into a closed container of dry air at any temperature the pressure in the container increases (even when the change in volume is accounted for if the air becomes saturated and some of the water remains as a liquid or a solid). If water existed in persistent clumps suspended by electrostatic forces in the manner imagined by McGinn, the pressure would remain virtually the same. It doesn't. There are many many more experiments and observations that refute McGinn's theory. These are just three of the most obvious (to me, anyway).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 10:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a5cbf631-797a-4407-b7d2-7d653c378692@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555884 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 8:15:00 AM UTC-8, dm wrote: > There are three quite direct and obvious means of establishing that water molecules exist at ambient temperatures (at least two of which were presented in this newsgroup the last time McGinn piped up). McGinn, predictably, refuses to accept any of them, but that will surprise no one. > > 1) The radiative properties of liquid H2O are hugely different from the radiative properies of gaseous H20. While gaseous H20 does not interact strongly with visible light, it is anything but "invisible." Both gaseous and liquid H20 interact strongly (and in very different ways) with light at IR frequencies. Absorption spectra in the atmosphere clearly indicate that H20 is almost exclusively a gas. There is evidence for very small amounts of very short-lived "dimers" and "trimers", but there is no evidence for persistent clumps of the sort that McGinn imagines. > > 2) Molecular dispersion rates of water vapor are well documented at temperatures and pressures consistent with atmospheric conditions. If water clumped in the manner imagined by McGinn, these dispersion rates would be much slower (I would guess by at least an order of magnitude, but perhaps more). Medical research relies heavily on molecular dispersion rates of H20 and although it is not my area of expertise I'm pretty sure many drugs would not work at all if water existed as persistent clumps of the sort that McGinn imagines. > > 3) Finally, water has a vapor pressure associated with it at all temperatures and pressures, not just above the boiling point. It has been measured and documented to considerable precision across a wide range of pressures and temperatures. If one introduces water into a closed container of dry air at any temperature the pressure in the container increases (even when the change in volume is accounted for if the air becomes saturated and some of the water remains as a liquid or a solid). If water existed in persistent clumps suspended by electrostatic forces in the manner imagined by McGinn, the pressure would remain virtually the same. It doesn't. > > There are many many more experiments and observations that refute McGinn's theory. These are just three of the most obvious (to me, anyway). DM, these are all is all anecdotal. These "experiments" will only reinforce your misconceptions. Controls are essential. I've already indicated an experiment that will suffice. I posted it here about a year and a half ago. I'll see if I can find it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 11:30 -0800 |
| Subject | moistly |
| Message-ID | <4c5f2a4e-fa0d-45bd-81da-5449b5d2a9fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555884 |
water vapor's absorption spectrum is far larger than OCO's; elsewise, water is a great refractor a la rainbows > 1) The radiative properties of liquid H2O are hugely different from the radiative properies of gaseous H20. While gaseous H20 does not interact strongly with visible light, it is anything but "invisible." Both gaseous and liquid H20 interact strongly (and in very different ways) with light at IR frequencies. Absorption spectra in the atmosphere clearly indicate that H20 is almost exclusively a gas. There is evidence for very small amounts of very short-lived "dimers" and "trimers", but there is no evidence for persistent clumps of the sort that McGinn imagines. > > 3) Finally, water has a vapor pressure associated with it at all temperatures and pressures, not just above the boiling point. It has been measured and documented to considerable precision across a wide range of pressures and temperatures. If one introduces water into a closed container of dry air at any temperature the pressure in the container increases (even when the change in volume is accounted for if the air becomes saturated and some of the water remains as a liquid or a solid). If water existed in persistent clumps suspended by electrostatic forces in the manner imagined by McGinn, the pressure would remain virtually the same. It doesn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 11:45 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: moistly |
| Message-ID | <11bb90c0-da60-43b6-aa54-1894d0f28c9c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555946 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:30:22 AM UTC-8, noTthaTguY wrote: > water vapor's absorption spectrum is far larger than OCO's; elsewise, > water is a great refractor a la rainbows What do you think that indicates? > > 1) The radiative properties of liquid H2O are hugely different from the radiative properies of gaseous H20. What do you think that indicates? While gaseous H20 does not interact strongly with visible light, it is anything but "invisible." Both gaseous and liquid H20 interact strongly (and in very different ways) with light at IR frequencies. Absorption spectra in the atmosphere clearly indicate that H20 is almost exclusively a gas. Examine your assumptions? There is evidence for very small amounts of very short-lived "dimers" and "
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 12:00 -0800 |
| Subject | my assumptions are easy to explain |
| Message-ID | <dbdd713e-b665-400e-8b06-f20f8ff315b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555952 |
it mainly means that water vapor is the #1 glassal houser, by far, and it is also produced by combustion > What do you think that indicates? > Absorption spectra in the atmosphere clearly indicate that H20 is almost exclusively a gas. > > Examine your assumptions? > > > There is evidence for very small amounts of very short-lived "dimers" and "
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 14:01 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: moistly |
| Message-ID | <naidrv$5uh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #555952 |
On 2/23/2016 1:45 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:30:22 AM UTC-8, noTthaTguY > wrote: >> water vapor's absorption spectrum is far larger than OCO's; >> elsewise, water is a great refractor a la rainbows > > What do you think that indicates? > Obviously, Water Vapor is in the air. >>> 1) The radiative properties of liquid H2O are hugely different >>> from the radiative properies of gaseous H20. > > What do you think that indicates? Huge amounts of Water Vapor are going into your nose. > > > While gaseous H20 does not interact strongly with visible light, it > is anything but "invisible." Both gaseous and liquid H20 interact > strongly (and in very different ways) with light at IR frequencies. > Absorption spectra in the atmosphere clearly indicate that H20 is > almost exclusively a gas. > > Examine your assumptions? It is not part of your Delusion. You will not be able to understand it. > > > There is evidence for very small amounts of very short-lived "dimers" > and " dimes? they are worth 10 cents. Most all dimes are covered in water vapor due to attraction of the silver plate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 14:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9eec7a85-8f7c-4b43-880c-3446ca8be6d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555634 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 12:01:08 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > >> > The data that, supposedly, substantiates it doesn't involve direct > >> > measurement but derivations base on indirect data. > >> > >> Convection, evaporation, and sublimation can all be directly observed > >> with Schlieren imaging. > > > > Yeah, so? I never claimed otherwise. Are you really this dumb? > > So it shows that gaseous H2O exists at temperatures below the boiling > point and the relative densities of gaseous H2O and air at different > temperatures, which are different than your claims. The subject is moisture in the atmosphere at ambient temperatures/pressure. Do you agree? Are you saying that the fact that moisture is in the atmosphere that it must be gaseous? Answer this question. Answer yes or no. Don't think about it just answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 22:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j6gspc-eo4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555655 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 12:01:08 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > The data that, supposedly, substantiates it doesn't involve direct >> >> > measurement but derivations base on indirect data. >> >> >> >> Convection, evaporation, and sublimation can all be directly observed >> >> with Schlieren imaging. >> > >> > Yeah, so? I never claimed otherwise. Are you really this dumb? >> >> So it shows that gaseous H2O exists at temperatures below the boiling >> point and the relative densities of gaseous H2O and air at different >> temperatures, which are different than your claims. > > The subject is moisture in the atmosphere at ambient temperatures/pressure. > Do you agree? > > Are you saying that the fact that moisture is in the atmosphere that it > must be gaseous? Answer this question. Answer yes or no. Don't think > about it just answer. Yet another red herring; the moisture in the atmosphere is both gaseous and liquid. Humidity is the gaseous moisture and clouds, mist, and fog are the liquid. Grade school children know that. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 15:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ab6a6c38-e2a5-4120-b57b-49ac1e0ee9d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555665 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Humidity is the gaseous moisture and clouds, mist, and fog are the liquid. > > Grade school children know that. I am a physicist. Droplets smaller than a photon are invisible (except through Schleiren Imaging). I am a physicist. You are not a physicist. You are a dumbass with computer. There is not gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. I am a physicist. Gaseous H2O can only exist above the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O that has been measured in laboratories, by phiscist. Like me. Not by school children. I am a physicist. You are an idiot that draws conclusions based on anecdote. You have the intellect of a child. You are not a physicist. You draw conclusions based on lack of evidence to the contrary. Physicists, like me, are trained to not make that mistake. I am a physicist. You are a guy with a computer that thinks like a child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 21:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <25746e4d-579a-48a4-951e-6711b405d12a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555670 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:13:01 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > I am a physicist. It does not matter how many times you repeat this, it will never be true... impossible!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 22:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5faf90e2-fa82-4bcf-89af-8f72c7479351@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555756 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 9:21:32 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:13:01 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > I am a physicist. > > It does not matter how many times you repeat this, it will never be true... impossible! Be honest. Isn't is true that Schleiren imaging does allow you to directly observe individual molecules. Be honest. It's not like everybody doesn't know you were lying. Why not just be honest. Maybe you will fell better about yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 22:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c74f9965-836e-4a52-bfa0-15e8fce35862@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555766 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:05:51 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 9:21:32 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:13:01 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > I am a physicist. > > > > It does not matter how many times you repeat this, it will never be true... impossible! > > Be honest. Isn't is true that Schleiren imaging does allow you to directly observe individual molecules. Be honest. > > It's not like everybody doesn't know you were lying. Why not just be honest. Maybe you will fell better about yourself. I know nothing about Schleiren imaging and have never even mentioned it. I never heard the term until Jim Pennino brought it up. Apparently you aren't paying attention...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 22:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <da1a7516-355c-4299-b02b-241bda66a8d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555772 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:19:23 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:05:51 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 9:21:32 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:13:01 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > > > I am a physicist. > > > > > > It does not matter how many times you repeat this, it will never be true... impossible! > > > > Be honest. Isn't is true that Schleiren imaging does allow you to directly observe individual molecules. Be honest. > > > > It's not like everybody doesn't know you were lying. Why not just be honest. Maybe you will fell better about yourself. > > I know nothing about Schleiren imaging and have never even mentioned it. I never heard the term until Jim Pennino brought it up. Apparently you aren't paying attention... Everybody knows you were lying dude. Think about it. You can't see molecules with a microscope. You aren't going to see them pointing a device into the sky. At least try to tell less absurd lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 19:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <65qupc-v6c.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #555782 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:19:23 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:05:51 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 9:21:32 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >> > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:13:01 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> > > >> > > > I am a physicist. >> > > >> > > It does not matter how many times you repeat this, it will never be true... impossible! >> > >> > Be honest. Isn't is true that Schleiren imaging does allow you to directly observe individual molecules. Be honest. >> > >> > It's not like everybody doesn't know you were lying. Why not just be honest. Maybe you will fell better about yourself. >> >> I know nothing about Schleiren imaging and have never even mentioned it. >> I never heard the term until Jim Pennino brought it up. Apparently you >> aren't paying attention... > > Everybody knows you were lying dude. Think about it. You can't see > molecules with a microscope. You aren't going to see them pointing a > device into the sky. Neither of those things have anything to do with Schleiren imaging. You have shown you still haven't bothered to find out what Schleiren imaging actually is or how it works. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 12:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bfd47a3d-645a-48da-a812-99f7efa30b4a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555964 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:19:23 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:05:51 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > >> > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 9:21:32 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:13:01 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > I am a physicist. > >> > > > >> > > It does not matter how many times you repeat this, it will never be true... impossible! > >> > > >> > Be honest. Isn't is true that Schleiren imaging does allow you to directly observe individual molecules. Be honest. > >> > > >> > It's not like everybody doesn't know you were lying. Why not just be honest. Maybe you will fell better about yourself. > >> > >> I know nothing about Schleiren imaging and have never even mentioned it. > >> I never heard the term until Jim Pennino brought it up. Apparently you > >> aren't paying attention... > > > > Everybody knows you were lying dude. Think about it. You can't see > > molecules with a microscope. You aren't going to see them pointing a > > device into the sky. > > Neither of those things have anything to do with Schleiren imaging. > > You have shown you still haven't bothered to find out what Schleiren imaging > actually is or how it works. You admitted, explicitly, that it does not allow us to distinguish indivdual molecules. Right? Would you like to make a retraction?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 22:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nar9lc$1ttr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #557004 |
On 2/26/2016 2:59 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:01:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:19:23 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:05:51 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >>>>> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 9:21:32 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:13:01 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I am a physicist. liar, you are a mental case, and you know it. >>>>>> >>>>>> It does not matter how many times you repeat this, it will never be true... impossible! >>>>> >>>>> Be honest. Isn't is true that Schleiren imaging does allow you to directly observe individual molecules. Be honest. >>>>> >>>>> It's not like everybody doesn't know you were lying. Why not just be honest. Maybe you will fell better about yourself. >>>> I know nothing about Schleiren imaging and have never even mentioned it. >>>> I never heard the term until Jim Pennino brought it up. Apparently you >>>> aren't paying attention... >>> >>> Everybody knows you were lying dude. Think about it. You can't see >>> molecules with a microscope. You aren't going to see them pointing a >>> device into the sky. >> >> Neither of those things have anything to do with Schleiren imaging. >> >> You have shown you still haven't bothered to find out what Schleiren imaging >> actually is or how it works. > take a look at the links below James "tweeker" McGinn, proof and evidence you are missing as your brain evaporated. James McGinn Book Review Customer Reviews; 1.0 out of 5 stars insane rambling *By K. Parker* on July 3, 2014 Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit. 1.0 out of 5 starsWaste of time, a non-funny joke *By hunter* on July 16, 2014 Format: Kindle Edition This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density, the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive self publishing by a moron. *direct film evidence of convection*; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLp_rSBzteI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSFwH0BVd3Q *direct film evidence of Water Vapor*, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQX6c_Ln2To https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgdoGPXOwGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g74X2nnBTw *COLD STEAM direct evidence on film*; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKMNSvpB9dY *Water Vapor explained to little James by Mr. Wizard* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTKmWp7ek2A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 23:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fe885f85-dbb9-40df-b2eb-9a41fe74fa1b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555772 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:19:23 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:05:51 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 9:21:32 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:13:01 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > > > I am a physicist. > > > > > > It does not matter how many times you repeat this, it will never be true... impossible! > > > > Be honest. Isn't is true that Schleiren imaging does allow you to directly observe individual molecules. Be honest. > > > > It's not like everybody doesn't know you were lying. Why not just be honest. Maybe you will fell better about yourself. > > I know nothing about Schleiren imaging and have never even mentioned it. I never heard the term until Jim Pennino brought it up. Apparently you aren't paying attention... The boiling temperature/pressure of H2O is known. It isn't debatable. Without ever having thought about it, most people assume clear, moist air contains gaseous H2O even though the notion is plainly nonsensical. Of those that have thought about it the vast majority are easily swayed by anecdotal evidence to believe it, yet they would never bother to debate it. Those that do debate it become real emotional. They become entrenched, defensive, desperate. They start lying. They start name calling. They become bitter. It's the exact same behavior you would have seen two hundred years ago if you challenged the existence of angels or God. There is no gasous H2O in earth's atmosphere. It's way too cool. And the pressure is way too high. To a physicist this isn't even a hard question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 08:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nahqa0$10ik$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #555792 |
On 2/23/2016 1:32 AM, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:19:23 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com > wrote: >> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:05:51 PM UTC-8, James McGinn >> wrote: >>> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 9:21:32 PM UTC-8, >>> pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:13:01 PM UTC-8, James McGinn >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am a physicist. Liar. >>>> >>>> It does not matter how many times you repeat this, it will >>>> never be true... impossible! >>> > > The boiling temperature/pressure of H2O is known. It isn't > debatable. wrong, it is not one number dude. > Without ever having thought about it, most people assume > clear, moist air contains gaseous H2O even though the notion is > plainly nonsensical. to you. > Of those that have thought about it the vast > majority are easily swayed by anecdotal evidence to believe it, yet > they would never bother to debate it. Those that do debate it become > real emotional. They become entrenched, defensive, desperate. They > start lying. They start name calling. They become bitter. no they dont. They call you a stupid troll. > > It's the exact same behavior you would have seen two hundred years > ago if you challenged the existence of angels or God. so you do not believe in angles or God ? So you believe in Athiesm ? > > There is no gasous H2O in earth's atmosphere. bullshit, answer now! "how does the water get up into the sky to make clouds ?" I have asked you this 50 times now and you can not answer, you are caught in the trap you cannot explain. > It's way too cool. wrong. > And the pressure is way too high. wrong. > To a physicist this isn't even a > hard question. you are not a physicist, you are a delusional liar, troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 12:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1ff14a42-2a14-4771-b8ad-bcc8e900a84d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555792 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 2:32:13 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote: [] > > The boiling temperature/pressure of H2O is known. > It isn't debatable. But it is irrelevant. > Without ever having thought about it, most people assume clear, > moist air contains gaseous H2O most people are not chemists of physicists. So nothing new here > even though the notion is plainly nonsensical. It is not plainly nonsensical. Physicists do not talk like that. They test it first. > Of those that have thought about it the vast majority are > easily swayed by anecdotal evidence to believe it, So what? You are not trying to sway most people here. > yet they would never bother to debate it. > Those that do debate it become real emotional. > They become entrenched, defensive, desperate. [] Mainly because they do not have the tools or knowledge to debate it. But the "they" above still refers to "most people". [] So here's your claim: > There is no gasous H2O in earth's atmosphere. > It's way too cool. And the pressure is way too high. for which you offer no evidence. Since you are taking the affirmative it is your responsibility to prove it. > To a physicist this isn't even a hard question. because to a physicist, it isn't a question. the claim is wrong. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web