Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #580701 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-26 10:17 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-06-12 09:35 -0700 |
| Articles | 18 on this page of 58 — 9 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: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:17 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-05-26 12:27 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 16:18 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:55 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-05-31 22:32 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 13:26 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 12:55 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 16:01 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-05-31 22:25 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 03:00 -0400
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 09:33 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 02:14 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:36 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-01 12:13 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 14:04 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-01 15:10 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 16:46 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-01 18:37 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 20:08 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-02 00:07 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 10:38 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-02 12:22 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 13:34 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-02 22:52 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:11 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-03 12:07 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 12:20 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-03 13:04 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:19 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 12:31 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 12:24 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-03 20:22 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-06-03 12:11 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-03 20:58 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 16:17 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:52 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 11:14 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 02:13 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 11:45 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 09:39 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 09:30 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 09:40 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 09:44 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 06:18 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:01 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:29 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-21 10:56 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-05-28 07:27 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 10:50 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 10:31 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 20:06 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 18:18 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-21 10:57 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-06-21 10:58 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-21 13:15 -0500
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 09:51 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 20:04 -0700
Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 09:35 -0700
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 09:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5594a294-4545-48f6-afef-033572afee03@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582104 |
On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 2:13:21 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: > Le vendredi 27 mai 2016 20:14:52 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/VaporPressure.html > > > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/KMT-Gas-Laws.html > > > > > > > > If it didn't help you what makes you think it will help me? > > > > > > Oh, I don't think it will help you, because you will not consider it openly. > > > > Consider what? You presented nothing. > > Consider the presentations provided by the site I provided the links for. > > > > > > It helped me to better understand the internal mechanism for evaporation... reminded me of things I had forgotten from my old physics classes. > > > > I think you are FOS. > > Your opinion does not matter. You don't have a point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are clueless. I think you are just pretending to understand what you do not actually understand. You are a believer, not a scientists, not a thinker. > > > > > > > > > > You can think what you like. Your thoughts do not effect the truth. I AM a scientist, just not a physicist or chemist. As far as being a believer, perhaps, but I do not believe blindly. I review the arguemtns, the presented evidence, and I choose the arguemnt that is most convincing. > > > > You aren't scientific. This isn't a political debate. > > No. It really isn't. Granted, there are politicians who attempt to obscure things for political reasons, but the science is well established. As far as water evaporation is concerned, there isn't even a political controversy. I agree. It's like the notion that the earth is flat. People believe evaporation produces gaseous H2O despite the fact that there is zero corroborating evidence. It's just a dumb belief held by brain-dead believers. Right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know this how? > > > > > > > By researching the literature on the subject. By reading the research papers. By reviewing the various reported experiments. I do not have the means to conduct all the experiments on my own, so I am forced to rely on the published works presented by those who HAVE performed the experiments. > > > > > > You got nothing. > > Nothing that will sway your obtuse mind. Plenty that informed me more fully. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BS. You are pretending to be an authority on what you know nothing about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, I am not. I have never made a claim to be an authority. My only claim is that I have a fairly good understanding of the scientific principles when I read them. In other words, I understand the concepts as they are presented. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. Boiling and evaporation are categorically distinct processes, as I've explained. > > > > > > No. > > > > You are a clueless idiot. > > > Pot and ceramic kettle. > > > > > > > Both are the result of molecules of a liquid attaining sufficient energy to break their intermoleculer bonds. The difference is that boiling does this on a large scale, allowing even interior water to become gaseous, rise, and break through the surface tension. Whereas evaporation only allows individual surface molecules to escape. > > > Incidentally, for water, you assign this as a special case that only aplies to water. In reality, the facts of boiling and evaporation apply to ALL liquids. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find it rather curious that you believe a collective aggregate of water could be liberated more easily from a source than individual molecules. > > > > > > > > I was curious about this too. That lead to me doing an investigation and the writing of this breakthrough paper: > > > > BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ > > > > > > I will read this. > > > > You will need more than just that. > > you are right. This paper does not provide the explanations I asked for. For that matter, it would not qualify as a scientific paper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you deny that the boiling point of H2O is 212 F? Do you deny that no part of the atmosphere is hotter than, maybe, 132 F? So, do you deny any of this? > > > > > > The boiling point is 212F at sea level, yes. It is quite a bit lower at altitude. No, I do not deny that the temperatur of the atmosphere is well below the boiling point of water. However, once again, temperature is defined as the AVERAGE kinetic energy within a system. The actual molecules themselves follow a very wide distribution of kinetic energy values. > > > > Pure BS. > > This has been long established in both chemistry and physics. The distribution has been demonstrated consistently through a wide sample of gases and liquids, including H2O. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . . . so how will a molecule of air be able to provide the energy to overcome the high surface tension of an aggregate (droplet) of liquid water if it can't overcome the force to liberate a single molecule? > > > > > > > > You are not making sense here. Read the paper I linked to above. Unless and until you can first understand the molecular peculiarities of H2O you will be resigned to continue to pretend what you actually don't yet understand. Pretending will only get you so far. This is why meteorologists refuse to discuss any of this with the public. They know that further discussion will only reveal their greater cluelessness. > > > > > > Meteorologists have submitted a wealth of papers on the subjects discussed, as have physicists and chemists. I have understood their explanations quite well, and have done my best to lay out their arguments as I understand them. I would have thought the question simple: how can you perform a multitude of work without being able to perform a single unit of work? > > > > You don't have an argument. > > Apparently none that you are willing or able to comprehend. > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-12 09:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79e29ed4-ffcf-4298-a5d9-4b8bd3bcf931@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582831 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 9:30:47 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 2:13:21 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: > > Le vendredi 27 mai 2016 20:14:52 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/VaporPressure.html > > > > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/KMT-Gas-Laws.html > > > > > > > > > > If it didn't help you what makes you think it will help me? > > > > > > > > Oh, I don't think it will help you, because you will not consider it openly. > > > > > > Consider what? You presented nothing. > > > > Consider the presentations provided by the site I provided the links for. > > > > > > > > > > It helped me to better understand the internal mechanism for evaporation... reminded me of things I had forgotten from my old physics classes. > > > > > > I think you are FOS. > > > > Your opinion does not matter. > > You don't have a point. LOL. You are trying to divert attention from the fact that you don't have a coherent point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are clueless. I think you are just pretending to understand what you do not actually understand. You are a believer, not a scientists, not a thinker. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can think what you like. Your thoughts do not effect the truth. I AM a scientist, just not a physicist or chemist. As far as being a believer, perhaps, but I do not believe blindly. I review the arguemtns, the presented evidence, and I choose the arguemnt that is most convincing. > > > > > > You aren't scientific. This isn't a political debate. > > > > No. It really isn't. Granted, there are politicians who attempt to obscure things for political reasons, but the science is well established. As far as water evaporation is concerned, there isn't even a political controversy. > > I agree. It's like the notion that the earth is flat. People believe evaporation produces gaseous H2O despite the fact that there is zero corroborating evidence. It's just a dumb belief held by brain-dead believers. Right? Answer my questions you evasive twit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know this how? > > > > > > > > > By researching the literature on the subject. By reading the research papers. By reviewing the various reported experiments. I do not have the means to conduct all the experiments on my own, so I am forced to rely on the published works presented by those who HAVE performed the experiments. > > > > > > > > > You got nothing. > > > > Nothing that will sway your obtuse mind. Plenty that informed me more fully. Why not just make a retraction? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BS. You are pretending to be an authority on what you know nothing about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, I am not. I have never made a claim to be an authority. My only claim is that I have a fairly good understanding of the scientific principles when I read them. In other words, I understand the concepts as they are presented. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. Boiling and evaporation are categorically distinct processes, as I've explained. > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > You are a clueless idiot. > > > > > > Pot and ceramic kettle. > > > > > > > > > > > Both are the result of molecules of a liquid attaining sufficient energy to break their intermoleculer bonds. The difference is that boiling does this on a large scale, allowing even interior water to become gaseous, rise, and break through the surface tension. Whereas evaporation only allows individual surface molecules to escape. > > > > Incidentally, for water, you assign this as a special case that only aplies to water. In reality, the facts of boiling and evaporation apply to ALL liquids. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find it rather curious that you believe a collective aggregate of water could be liberated more easily from a source than individual molecules. > > > > > > > > > > I was curious about this too. That lead to me doing an investigation and the writing of this breakthrough paper: > > > > > BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ > > > > > > > > I will read this. > > > > > > You will need more than just that. > > > > you are right. This paper does not provide the explanations I asked for. For that matter, it would not qualify as a scientific paper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you deny that the boiling point of H2O is 212 F? Do you deny that no part of the atmosphere is hotter than, maybe, 132 F? So, do you deny any of this? > > > > > > > > The boiling point is 212F at sea level, yes. It is quite a bit lower at altitude. No, I do not deny that the temperatur of the atmosphere is well below the boiling point of water. However, once again, temperature is defined as the AVERAGE kinetic energy within a system. The actual molecules themselves follow a very wide distribution of kinetic energy values. > > > > > > Pure BS. > > > > This has been long established in both chemistry and physics. The distribution has been demonstrated consistently through a wide sample of gases and liquids, including H2O. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . . . so how will a molecule of air be able to provide the energy to overcome the high surface tension of an aggregate (droplet) of liquid water if it can't overcome the force to liberate a single molecule? > > > > > > > > > > You are not making sense here. Read the paper I linked to above. Unless and until you can first understand the molecular peculiarities of H2O you will be resigned to continue to pretend what you actually don't yet understand. Pretending will only get you so far. This is why meteorologists refuse to discuss any of this with the public. They know that further discussion will only reveal their greater cluelessness. > > > > > > > > Meteorologists have submitted a wealth of papers on the subjects discussed, as have physicists and chemists. I have understood their explanations quite well, and have done my best to lay out their arguments as I understand them. I would have thought the question simple: how can you perform a multitude of work without being able to perform a single unit of work? > > > > > > You don't have an argument. > > > > Apparently none that you are willing or able to comprehend. You got nothing. > > > > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-12 09:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <252d60de-2785-449d-98fa-470ffe53aabd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582104 |
On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 2:13:21 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: > Le vendredi 27 mai 2016 20:14:52 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/VaporPressure.html > > > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/KMT-Gas-Laws.html > > > > > > > > If it didn't help you what makes you think it will help me? > > > > > > Oh, I don't think it will help you, because you will not consider it openly. > > > > Consider what? You presented nothing. > > Consider the presentations provided by the site I provided the links for. What about it? Why not just admit you don't have a point > > > > > > It helped me to better understand the internal mechanism for evaporation... reminded me of things I had forgotten from my old physics classes. > > > > I think you are FOS. > > Your opinion does not matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are clueless. I think you are just pretending to understand what you do not actually understand. You are a believer, not a scientists, not a thinker. > > > > > > > > > > You can think what you like. Your thoughts do not effect the truth. I AM a scientist, just not a physicist or chemist. As far as being a believer, perhaps, but I do not believe blindly. I review the arguemtns, the presented evidence, and I choose the arguemnt that is most convincing. > > > > You aren't scientific. This isn't a political debate. > > No. It really isn't. Granted, there are politicians who attempt to obscure things for political reasons, but the science is well established. As far as water evaporation is concerned, there isn't even a political controversy. There are just evasive twits like yourself that sidestep the real issue so as not to upset the true believers. You are a phony who doesn't have a valid point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know this how? > > > > > > > By researching the literature on the subject. By reading the research papers. By reviewing the various reported experiments. I do not have the means to conduct all the experiments on my own, so I am forced to rely on the published works presented by those who HAVE performed the experiments. > > > > > > You got nothing. > > Nothing that will sway your obtuse mind. Plenty that informed me more fully. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BS. You are pretending to be an authority on what you know nothing about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, I am not. I have never made a claim to be an authority. My only claim is that I have a fairly good understanding of the scientific principles when I read them. In other words, I understand the concepts as they are presented. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. Boiling and evaporation are categorically distinct processes, as I've explained. > > > > > > No. > > > > You are a clueless idiot. > > > Pot and ceramic kettle. > > > > > > > Both are the result of molecules of a liquid attaining sufficient energy to break their intermoleculer bonds. The difference is that boiling does this on a large scale, allowing even interior water to become gaseous, rise, and break through the surface tension. Whereas evaporation only allows individual surface molecules to escape. > > > Incidentally, for water, you assign this as a special case that only aplies to water. In reality, the facts of boiling and evaporation apply to ALL liquids. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find it rather curious that you believe a collective aggregate of water could be liberated more easily from a source than individual molecules. > > > > > > > > I was curious about this too. That lead to me doing an investigation and the writing of this breakthrough paper: > > > > BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ > > > > > > I will read this. > > > > You will need more than just that. > > you are right. This paper does not provide the explanations I asked for. For that matter, it would not qualify as a scientific paper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you deny that the boiling point of H2O is 212 F? Do you deny that no part of the atmosphere is hotter than, maybe, 132 F? So, do you deny any of this? > > > > > > The boiling point is 212F at sea level, yes. It is quite a bit lower at altitude. No, I do not deny that the temperatur of the atmosphere is well below the boiling point of water. However, once again, temperature is defined as the AVERAGE kinetic energy within a system. The actual molecules themselves follow a very wide distribution of kinetic energy values. > > > > Pure BS. > > This has been long established in both chemistry and physics. The distribution has been demonstrated consistently through a wide sample of gases and liquids, including H2O. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . . . so how will a molecule of air be able to provide the energy to overcome the high surface tension of an aggregate (droplet) of liquid water if it can't overcome the force to liberate a single molecule? > > > > > > > > You are not making sense here. Read the paper I linked to above. Unless and until you can first understand the molecular peculiarities of H2O you will be resigned to continue to pretend what you actually don't yet understand. Pretending will only get you so far. This is why meteorologists refuse to discuss any of this with the public. They know that further discussion will only reveal their greater cluelessness. > > > > > > Meteorologists have submitted a wealth of papers on the subjects discussed, as have physicists and chemists. I have understood their explanations quite well, and have done my best to lay out their arguments as I understand them. I would have thought the question simple: how can you perform a multitude of work without being able to perform a single unit of work? > > > > You don't have an argument. > > Apparently none that you are willing or able to comprehend. > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 06:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f8e5a0e4-3ebb-42d5-8363-f3a3528df183@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582104 |
The boiling point of H2O at sea level is what?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 08:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ca3761fa-b5b0-48bb-a6a0-6bf7a537a068@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585984 |
Le mardi 21 juin 2016 15:18:55 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit : > The boiling point of H2O at sea level is what? Not relevent, since you are dealing with individual molecules, and not high volumes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 08:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <98118465-2c59-4ad8-8dee-8e8a83840f99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586001 |
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 8:01:21 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: > Le mardi 21 juin 2016 15:18:55 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit : > > The boiling point of H2O at sea level is what? > > Not relevent, since you are dealing with individual molecules, and not high volumes. LOL. So, according to Mikkel, molecules have different properties when in smaller quantities. Is this what you are saying, Mikkel? Are you drawing from a principle you just made up?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 10:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkbo36$16q0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #586001 |
On 6/21/2016 10:01 AM, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: > Le mardi 21 juin 2016 15:18:55 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit : >> The boiling point of H2O at sea level is what? > > Not relevent, since you are dealing with individual molecules, and not high volumes. > discussing with James McGinn is like talking at a deft chicken head. The head qurkes around, but nothing happens.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 07:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nic2td$1m97$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580994 |
On 5/27/2016 11:52 AM, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: > Le vendredi 27 mai 2016 01:17:09 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit : > ribution (in liquids). The site below might also be helpful. >>> >>> http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/VaporPressure.html >>> http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/KMT-Gas-Laws.html >> >> If it didn't help you what makes you think it will help me? > > Oh, I don't think it will help you, no need to respond to JM, he has no science background at all. He does not understand science. It is like teaching a chicken to drive a car.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 10:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <364ae7ea-85ab-47a0-8905-4b33530b87e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581164 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 5:28:34 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote: > On 5/27/2016 11:52 AM, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: > > Le vendredi 27 mai 2016 01:17:09 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit : > > ribution (in liquids). The site below might also be helpful. > >>> > >>> http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/VaporPressure.html > >>> http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/KMT-Gas-Laws.html > >> > >> If it didn't help you what makes you think it will help me? > > > > Oh, I don't think it will help you, > > > no need to respond to JM, he has no science background at all. > > He does not understand science. > > It is like teaching a chicken to drive a car. So, Sergio, tell us your theory on inversion layers: 1) Why is the moist air on the bottom? 2) Why are they so flat? Go ahead, you simpleton, answer the questions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 10:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56a38704-2eec-4297-a48e-a1a843e554c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580994 |
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 9:52:15 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: > Le vendredi 27 mai 2016 01:17:09 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit : > ribution (in liquids). The site below might also be helpful. > > > > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/VaporPressure.html > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/KMT-Gas-Laws.html > > > > If it didn't help you what makes you think it will help me? > > Oh, I don't think it will help you, because you will not consider it openly. Consider what? What is your point you vague nitwit? It helped me to better understand the internal mechanism for evaporation... reminded me of things I had forgotten from my old physics classes. Maybe someday when you've come out of your nostalgic trance you'll figure out what you point is. > > > > > > I think you are clueless. I think you are just pretending to understand what you do not actually understand. You are a believer, not a scientists, not a thinker. > > > > You can think what you like. Your thoughts do not effect the truth. I AM a scientist, just not a physicist or chemist. As far as being a believer, perhaps, but I do not believe blindly. I review the arguemtns, the presented evidence, and I choose the arguemnt that is most convincing. Maybe someday you'll have a point. Keep trying. > > > > > > You know this how? > > > By researching the literature on the subject. By reading the research papers. By reviewing the various reported experiments. I do not have the means to conduct all the experiments on my own, so I am forced to rely on the published works presented by those who HAVE performed the experiments. Hmm. It's too bad you can't find any experimental evidence that substantiates the existence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures, huh? > > > > > > BS. You are pretending to be an authority on what you know nothing about. > > > > > No, I am not. I have never made a claim to be an authority. My only claim is that I have a fairly good understanding of the scientific principles when I read them. In other words, I understand the concepts as they are presented. It's too bad you have to constantly tell us and can't show us, huh? > > > > > > Wrong. Boiling and evaporation are categorically distinct processes, as I've explained. > > No. Both are the result of molecules of a liquid attaining sufficient energy to break their intermoleculer bonds. The difference is that boiling does this on a large scale, allowing even interior water to become gaseous, rise, and break through the surface tension. Whereas evaporation only allows individual surface molecules to escape. Yet you can find no reproducible evidence to substantiate this narrative. Right? You just want us to take your word on it, Right? > Incidentally, for water, you assign this as a special case that only applies to water. In reality, the facts of boiling and evaporation apply to ALL liquids. It's not a simple as you suggest: Water is unique: BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ BTW, Google recognized this as the most viewed post in the history of usenet. > > > > > > > I find it rather curious that you believe a collective aggregate of water could be liberated more easily from a source than individual molecules. > > > > I was curious about this too. That lead to me doing an investigation and the writing of this breakthrough paper: > > BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ > > I will read this. You will not have a dispute. > > > > > > Do you deny that the boiling point of H2O is 212 F? Do you deny that no part of the atmosphere is hotter than, maybe, 132 F? So, do you deny any of this? > > The boiling point is 212F at sea level, yes. It is quite a bit lower at altitude. No, I do not deny that the temperatur of the atmosphere is well below the boiling point of water. However, once again, temperature is defined as the AVERAGE kinetic energy within a system. The actual molecules themselves follow a very wide distribution of kinetic energy values. It's too bad you imagination isn't evidence, huh. > > > > > > > . . . so how will a molecule of air be able to provide the energy to overcome the high surface tension of an aggregate (droplet) of liquid water if it can't overcome the force to liberate a single molecule? > > > > You are not making sense here. Read the paper I linked to above. Unless and until you can first understand the molecular peculiarities of H2O you will be resigned to continue to pretend what you actually don't yet understand. Pretending will only get you so far. This is why meteorologists refuse to discuss any of this with the public. They know that further discussion will only reveal their greater cluelessness. > > Meteorologists have submitted a wealth of papers on the subjects discussed, as have physicists and chemists. I have understood their explanations quite well, and have done my best to lay out their arguments as I understand them. I would have thought the question simple: how can you perform a multitude of work without being able to perform a single unit of work? It's too bad you can't quote any of these papers to make your point, huh? > > > > > > > > A single molecule has a maximum of 2 h-bonds. > > > > Right. And what trips everybody up is that bonds neutralize the polarity that is the force that underlies the bonds. Thus the relationship between bond completion and bond strength is inverse. Single bonds (ie surface tension) are strong. Dual bonds (ie. liquid water) are weak! Read my paper (linked above) for details. > > More or less correct, Right. And I'm the one that discovered this. (Prove me wrong, you evasive jackass.) except that both the surface AND the interior have dual bonds. The difference is that the surface molecules do not have exterior molecules to bind to, so the second bond goes to reinforcing the connection with other surface molecules The difference, dumbass, is that along the surface the bonds are singular, not dual. And since they are singular 1/2 of the polarity remains in any such bonds. Below the surface the bonds are dual and, therefore, the polarity is neutralized. I'm the one that figured this out. Stop pretending you have always understood what I discovered recently, you deceptive twit. > > In any case, even if your explanation of strong single bonds were correct, these surface tension bonds create a veritable wall. You can not extract interior water without breaking through the surface tension. No matter what, you have to break the strong surface tension bonds, no matter their nature, in order to liberate any water, monomolecular gas or multimoleculer liquid. Electrostatic forces operating over very small (molecular) distances are all that is necessary to pull droplets off the surface AS LONG AS THESE DROPLETS COME OFF IN CLUSTERS THAT HAVE NEUTRALIZED THE POLARITY OF THE MOLECULES WITHING THE CLUSTERS. IOW, it is only possible for clusters to be pulled off the surface because individual molecules would achieve full polarity as soon as they were separated and would, consequently, be pulled back to the surface. > > > > > > > > Any such droplet would have to overcome at least the number of h-bonds equal to the number of surface molecules. > > > > Nonsense. Since H bonds neutralize polarity only if and when H2O molecules are clustered is polarity neutralized enough to achieve evaporation. This explains the dichotomy between the high boiling point of H2O and the low temperatures of evaporation (including sublimation). No reponse. > > > > > In addition, each molecule of air will have to carry the multiple of mass of the total number of water molecules, as opposed to the mass of a single molecule of gaseous water. > > > > Right. This is explained by electrostatic forces. > > Except that it isn't. If the polarity of the water were neutralised by being clusterd, as you say, then there would be no charge for electrostatic force of atmospherice gases to attract. Wrong, surface tension (hydrogen atoms; the velcro hooks of chemistry) are prominent along the surface of all liquid water. They have a net positive charge that acts as a shield to other positive charges and as a magnet to any negative charges. And the atmosphere is constantly charged with negative charges from the solar wind. So, once again, you are very wrong. Sorry to burst your little bubble. > > > > > > > Let's say that the air molecules manage to work together, sharing the energy cost of the task. How is it NOT easier for a given number of air molecules to liberate a single molecule of water than it is to liberate a droplet? > > > > I like the fact that you are asking the right questions. But the answer is very complex and requires an in-depth understanding of chemistry and even the nature of the electron cloud that surrounds the nucleus of atoms. If you want to understand this--and it appears you do--then you will have to work very hard at it. My paper explains it, but it assumes a certain amount of understanding that isn't common. > > > > > Do you pretend that surface tension is NOT influenced by the h-bond strength? > > > > I don't need to pretend. I'm the one that figured it out. > > > > My paper correctly explains surface tension. My paper explains why surface tension happens on the surface. And it explain why if you maximize surface area you maximize surface tension, which is what happens in non-Newtonian fluids and atmospheric vortices. > > We shall see if it does or not. You need to better understand the difference between seeing and believng. You need to stop basing your arguments on common anecdote and start basing your arugments on reproducible evidence. > One final question, however: you discuss this as a special case that only applies to water. Water is one of the few chemicals that can/does neutralize it's own polarity through H bonding. So . . . There are a few others. A variant of flourine for example has the same characteristics. And there are a handful of others. But these are much less ubiquitous. However, the classical model applies to ALL liquids. Right. The classical model makes the error of grouping H2O with other liquids that lack polarity and polarity neutralization. This is the reason there are over 70 anomalies of H2O because it's anamalousness is based on what the classical model predicts. H2O is very strange. For example, based on the classical model H2O should be a gas at ambient temperatures. And it should only turn to a solid at temperatures around negative 150 C. Modern science hasn't yet reconciled the anomalous nature of H2O. They understand polarity. But, until I came along, they haven't figured out polarity neutralization through H bonding. So they are still perplexed and captured by the dimwitted models that have thus far failed to resolve the dilemmas associated with what H2O actually does and what the model predict. The explanations for boiling and evaporation, transitions from liquid to gas, are explained for all liquids, whether elemental or molecular. How is it that water is immune to these, while still exhibiting virtually the same behaviours? I think it is good that, at least, you are starting to ask the right questions. The next step for you is to realize that I have already provided the right answers. Read my paper again and again, until you eventually get it. How do you reconcile your special case for water with the rest of the classical model, which is applicable to real world situations? How? That was the reason I wrote the paper that I linked to above. How does our model provide applicable utility (what is the practical use for your model in the real world)? > Okay, more than one question. I should have said'one last SET of questions'. Get the theory right first. Utility will follow. One obvious area of utility is the recognition that maximization of surface area in wind shear explains the plasma of atmospheric vortices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 20:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <849dd5a2-030b-45dc-b1b3-bd106ec1bcce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582842 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 10:31:40 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 9:52:15 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: > > Le vendredi 27 mai 2016 01:17:09 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit : > > ribution (in liquids). The site below might also be helpful. > > > > > > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/VaporPressure.html > > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/KMT-Gas-Laws.html > > > > > > If it didn't help you what makes you think it will help me? > > > > Oh, I don't think it will help you, because you will not consider it openly. > > Consider what? What is your point you vague nitwit? > > > It helped me to better understand the internal mechanism for evaporation... reminded me of things I had forgotten from my old physics classes. > > Maybe someday when you've come out of your nostalgic trance you'll figure out what you point is. > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are clueless. I think you are just pretending to understand what you do not actually understand. You are a believer, not a scientists, not a thinker. > > > > > > > You can think what you like. Your thoughts do not effect the truth. I AM a scientist, just not a physicist or chemist. As far as being a believer, perhaps, but I do not believe blindly. I review the arguemtns, the presented evidence, and I choose the arguemnt that is most convincing. > > Maybe someday you'll have a point. Keep trying. > > > > > > > > > > > You know this how? > > > > > By researching the literature on the subject. By reading the research papers. By reviewing the various reported experiments. I do not have the means to conduct all the experiments on my own, so I am forced to rely on the published works presented by those who HAVE performed the experiments. > > Hmm. It's too bad you can't find any experimental evidence that substantiates the existence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures, huh? > > > > > > > > > > > BS. You are pretending to be an authority on what you know nothing about. > > > > > > > > > No, I am not. I have never made a claim to be an authority. My only claim is that I have a fairly good understanding of the scientific principles when I read them. In other words, I understand the concepts as they are presented. > > It's too bad you have to constantly tell us and can't show us, huh? > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. Boiling and evaporation are categorically distinct processes, as I've explained. > > > > No. Both are the result of molecules of a liquid attaining sufficient energy to break their intermoleculer bonds. The difference is that boiling does this on a large scale, allowing even interior water to become gaseous, rise, and break through the surface tension. Whereas evaporation only allows individual surface molecules to escape. > > > Yet you can find no reproducible evidence to substantiate this narrative. Right? You just want us to take your word on it, Right? > > > > Incidentally, for water, you assign this as a special case that only applies to water. In reality, the facts of boiling and evaporation apply to ALL liquids. > > It's not a simple as you suggest: > > Water is unique: > BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ > > BTW, Google recognized this as the most viewed post in the history of usenet. > > > > > > > > > > > I find it rather curious that you believe a collective aggregate of water could be liberated more easily from a source than individual molecules. > > > > > > I was curious about this too. That lead to me doing an investigation and the writing of this breakthrough paper: > > > BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ > > > > I will read this. > > You will not have a dispute. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you deny that the boiling point of H2O is 212 F? Do you deny that no part of the atmosphere is hotter than, maybe, 132 F? So, do you deny any of this? > > > > The boiling point is 212F at sea level, yes. It is quite a bit lower at altitude. No, I do not deny that the temperatur of the atmosphere is well below the boiling point of water. However, once again, temperature is defined as the AVERAGE kinetic energy within a system. The actual molecules themselves follow a very wide distribution of kinetic energy values. > > It's too bad you imagination isn't evidence, huh. > > > > > > > > > > > > . . . so how will a molecule of air be able to provide the energy to overcome the high surface tension of an aggregate (droplet) of liquid water if it can't overcome the force to liberate a single molecule? > > > > > > You are not making sense here. Read the paper I linked to above. Unless and until you can first understand the molecular peculiarities of H2O you will be resigned to continue to pretend what you actually don't yet understand. Pretending will only get you so far. This is why meteorologists refuse to discuss any of this with the public. They know that further discussion will only reveal their greater cluelessness. > > > > Meteorologists have submitted a wealth of papers on the subjects discussed, as have physicists and chemists. I have understood their explanations quite well, and have done my best to lay out their arguments as I understand them. I would have thought the question simple: how can you perform a multitude of work without being able to perform a single unit of work? > > It's too bad you can't quote any of these papers to make your point, huh? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A single molecule has a maximum of 2 h-bonds. > > > > > > Right. And what trips everybody up is that bonds neutralize the polarity that is the force that underlies the bonds. Thus the relationship between bond completion and bond strength is inverse. Single bonds (ie surface tension) are strong. Dual bonds (ie. liquid water) are weak! Read my paper (linked above) for details. > > > > More or less correct, > > Right. And I'm the one that discovered this. (Prove me wrong, you evasive jackass.) > > except that both the surface AND the interior have dual bonds. The difference is that the surface molecules do not have exterior molecules to bind to, so the second bond goes to reinforcing the connection with other surface molecules > > The difference, dumbass, is that along the surface the bonds are singular, not dual. And since they are singular 1/2 of the polarity remains in any such bonds. Below the surface the bonds are dual and, therefore, the polarity is neutralized. I'm the one that figured this out. Stop pretending you have always understood what I discovered recently, you deceptive twit. > > > > > > > In any case, even if your explanation of strong single bonds were correct, these surface tension bonds create a veritable wall. You can not extract interior water without breaking through the surface tension. No matter what, you have to break the strong surface tension bonds, no matter their nature, in order to liberate any water, monomolecular gas or multimoleculer liquid. > > Electrostatic forces operating over very small (molecular) distances are all that is necessary to pull droplets off the surface AS LONG AS THESE DROPLETS COME OFF IN CLUSTERS THAT HAVE NEUTRALIZED THE POLARITY OF THE MOLECULES WITHING THE CLUSTERS. > > IOW, it is only possible for clusters to be pulled off the surface because individual molecules would achieve full polarity as soon as they were separated and would, consequently, be pulled back to the surface. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any such droplet would have to overcome at least the number of h-bonds equal to the number of surface molecules. > > > > > > Nonsense. Since H bonds neutralize polarity only if and when H2O molecules are clustered is polarity neutralized enough to achieve evaporation. This explains the dichotomy between the high boiling point of H2O and the low temperatures of evaporation (including sublimation). > > No reponse. > > > > > > > > > In addition, each molecule of air will have to carry the multiple of mass of the total number of water molecules, as opposed to the mass of a single molecule of gaseous water. > > > > > > Right. This is explained by electrostatic forces. > > > > Except that it isn't. If the polarity of the water were neutralised by being clusterd, as you say, then there would be no charge for electrostatic force of atmospherice gases to attract. > > Wrong, surface tension (hydrogen atoms; the velcro hooks of chemistry) are prominent along the surface of all liquid water. They have a net positive charge that acts as a shield to other positive charges and as a magnet to any negative charges. And the atmosphere is constantly charged with negative charges from the solar wind. So, once again, you are very wrong. Sorry to burst your little bubble. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's say that the air molecules manage to work together, sharing the energy cost of the task. How is it NOT easier for a given number of air molecules to liberate a single molecule of water than it is to liberate a droplet? > > > > > > I like the fact that you are asking the right questions. But the answer is very complex and requires an in-depth understanding of chemistry and even the nature of the electron cloud that surrounds the nucleus of atoms. If you want to understand this--and it appears you do--then you will have to work very hard at it. My paper explains it, but it assumes a certain amount of understanding that isn't common. > > > > > > > Do you pretend that surface tension is NOT influenced by the h-bond strength? > > > > > > I don't need to pretend. I'm the one that figured it out. > > > > > > My paper correctly explains surface tension. My paper explains why surface tension happens on the surface. And it explain why if you maximize surface area you maximize surface tension, which is what happens in non-Newtonian fluids and atmospheric vortices. > > > > We shall see if it does or not. > > You need to better understand the difference between seeing and believng. You need to stop basing your arguments on common anecdote and start basing your arugments on reproducible evidence. > > > One final question, however: you discuss this as a special case that only applies to water. > > Water is one of the few chemicals that can/does neutralize it's own polarity through H bonding. So . . . There are a few others. A variant of flourine for example has the same characteristics. And there are a handful of others. But these are much less ubiquitous. > > However, the classical model applies to ALL liquids. > > Right. The classical model makes the error of grouping H2O with other liquids that lack polarity and polarity neutralization. This is the reason there are over 70 anomalies of H2O because it's anamalousness is based on what the classical model predicts. H2O is very strange. For example, based on the classical model H2O should be a gas at ambient temperatures. And it should only turn to a solid at temperatures around negative 150 C. > > Modern science hasn't yet reconciled the anomalous nature of H2O. They understand polarity. But, until I came along, they haven't figured out polarity neutralization through H bonding. So they are still perplexed and captured by the dimwitted models that have thus far failed to resolve the dilemmas associated with what H2O actually does and what the model predict. > > > The explanations for boiling and evaporation, transitions from liquid to gas, are explained for all liquids, whether elemental or molecular. How is it that water is immune to these, while still exhibiting virtually the same behaviours? > > I think it is good that, at least, you are starting to ask the right questions. The next step for you is to realize that I have already provided the right answers. Read my paper again and again, until you eventually get it. > > > How do you reconcile your special case for water with the rest of the classical model, which is applicable to real world situations? > > How? That was the reason I wrote the paper that I linked to above. > > > How does our model provide applicable utility (what is the practical use for your model in the real world)? > > Okay, more than one question. I should have said'one last SET of questions'. > > Get the theory right first. Utility will follow. > > One obvious area of utility is the recognition that maximization of surface area in wind shear explains the plasma of atmospheric vortices. too bad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-20 18:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5628064-875e-494c-9d71-a7558dd03be8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585618 |
Egg. Egg on faces. Not mud.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 10:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkbo54$16q0$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #585917 |
On 6/20/2016 8:18 PM, john wrote:
> Egg. Egg on faces. Not mud.
>
yes, it is EGG, Egg on faces
{where did 'egg on face' come from?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 10:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a797a6a-6748-4644-b1dd-4832576b8b27@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586011 |
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 8:57:29 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 6/20/2016 8:18 PM, john wrote:
> > Egg. Egg on faces. Not mud.
> >
>
> yes, it is EGG, Egg on faces
>
>
>
> {where did 'egg on face' come from?)
https://www.quora.com/What-does-caught-with-egg-on-your-face-mean-and-what-is-its-origin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 13:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkc08q$1klu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #586032 |
On 6/21/2016 12:58 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 8:57:29 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>> On 6/20/2016 8:18 PM, john wrote:
>>> Egg. Egg on faces. Not mud.
>>>
>>
>> yes, it is EGG, Egg on faces
>>
>>
>>
>> {where did 'egg on face' come from?)
>
> https://www.quora.com/What-does-caught-with-egg-on-your-face-mean-and-what-is-its-origin
>
back to 1936 or before at this one
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/23577/origin-of-egg-on-my-face
This expression possibly alludes to dissatisfied audiences pelting
performers with raw eggs. (answers.com)
bet it is a lot older back into the 1800s
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cae0a861-5432-4ffd-9891-db0469f2e5a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580994 |
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 9:52:15 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: > Le vendredi 27 mai 2016 01:17:09 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit : > ribution (in liquids). The site below might also be helpful. > > > > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/VaporPressure.html > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/KMT-Gas-Laws.html > > > > If it didn't help you what makes you think it will help me? > > Oh, I don't think it will help you, because you will not consider it openly. What exactly? It helped me to better understand the internal mechanism for evaporation... reminded me of things I had forgotten from my old physics classes. > > > > > > I think you are clueless. I think you are just pretending to understand what you do not actually understand. You are a believer, not a scientists, not a thinker. > > > > You can think what you like. Your thoughts do not effect the truth. I AM a scientist, just not a physicist or chemist. As far as being a believer, perhaps, but I do not believe blindly. I review the arguemtns, the presented evidence, and I choose the arguemnt that is most convincing. > > > > > > You know this how? > > > By researching the literature on the subject. By reading the research papers. By reviewing the various reported experiments. I do not have the means to conduct all the experiments on my own, so I am forced to rely on the published works presented by those who HAVE performed the experiments. What experiments? > > > > > > BS. You are pretending to be an authority on what you know nothing about. > > > > > No, I am not. I have never made a claim to be an authority. My only claim is that I have a fairly good understanding of the scientific principles when I read them. In other words, I understand the concepts as they are presented. > > > > > > Wrong. Boiling and evaporation are categorically distinct processes, as I've explained. > > No. Both are the result of molecules of a liquid attaining sufficient energy to break their intermoleculer bonds. The difference is that boiling does this on a large scale, allowing even interior water to become gaseous, rise, and break through the surface tension. Whereas evaporation only allows individual surface molecules to escape. Uh, okay. So what is your point? > Incidentally, for water, you assign this as a special case that only aplies to water. In reality, the facts of boiling and evaporation apply to ALL liquids. > > > > > > > I find it rather curious that you believe a collective aggregate of water could be liberated more easily from a source than individual molecules. > > > > I was curious about this too. That lead to me doing an investigation and the writing of this breakthrough paper: > > BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ > > I will read this. > > > > > > Do you deny that the boiling point of H2O is 212 F? Do you deny that no part of the atmosphere is hotter than, maybe, 132 F? So, do you deny any of this? > > The boiling point is 212F at sea level, yes. It is quite a bit lower at altitude. No, I do not deny that the temperatur of the atmosphere is well below the boiling point of water. However, once again, temperature is defined as the AVERAGE kinetic energy within a system. The actual molecules themselves follow a very wide distribution of kinetic energy values. Didn't you just make this up? Be honest. > > > > > > > . . . so how will a molecule of air be able to provide the energy to overcome the high surface tension of an aggregate (droplet) of liquid water if it can't overcome the force to liberate a single molecule? > > > > You are not making sense here. Read the paper I linked to above. Unless and until you can first understand the molecular peculiarities of H2O you will be resigned to continue to pretend what you actually don't yet understand. Pretending will only get you so far. This is why meteorologists refuse to discuss any of this with the public. They know that further discussion will only reveal their greater cluelessness. > > Meteorologists have submitted a wealth of papers on the subjects discussed, Yeah, so? What is your point? as have physicists and chemists. I have understood their explanations quite well, and have done my best to lay out their arguments as I understand them. I would have thought the question simple: how can you perform a multitude of work without being able to perform a single unit of work? Relevance? > > > > > > > > A single molecule has a maximum of 2 h-bonds. > > > > Right. And what trips everybody up is that bonds neutralize the polarity that is the force that underlies the bonds. Thus the relationship between bond completion and bond strength is inverse. Single bonds (ie surface tension) are strong. Dual bonds (ie. liquid water) are weak! Read my paper (linked above) for details. > > More or less correct, except that both the surface AND the interior have dual bonds. Wrong. The surface has stronger, singular bonds. Dual bonds are weak (floating). Singular bonds are the strong bonds of surface tension. The difference is that the surface molecules do not have exterior molecules to bind to, so the second bond goes to reinforcing the connection with other surface molecules Your explanation is contrived. > > In any case, even if your explanation of strong single bonds were correct, these surface tension bonds create a veritable wall. You can not extract interior water without breaking through the surface tension. No matter what, you have to break the strong surface tension bonds, no matter their nature, in order to liberate any water, monomolecular gas or multimoleculer liquid. > > > > > > > > Any such droplet would have to overcome at least the number of h-bonds equal to the number of surface molecules. > > > > Nonsense. Since H bonds neutralize polarity only if and when H2O molecules are clustered is polarity neutralized enough to achieve evaporation. This explains the dichotomy between the high boiling point of H2O and the low temperatures of evaporation (including sublimation). > > > > > In addition, each molecule of air will have to carry the multiple of mass of the total number of water molecules, as opposed to the mass of a single molecule of gaseous water. > > > > Right. This is explained by electrostatic forces. > > Except that it isn't. If the polarity of the water were neutralised by being clusterd, as you say, then there would be no charge for electrostatic force of atmospherice gases to attract. Uh, what? > > > > > > > Let's say that the air molecules manage to work together, sharing the energy cost of the task. How is it NOT easier for a given number of air molecules to liberate a single molecule of water than it is to liberate a droplet? > > > > I like the fact that you are asking the right questions. But the answer is very complex and requires an in-depth understanding of chemistry and even the nature of the electron cloud that surrounds the nucleus of atoms. If you want to understand this--and it appears you do--then you will have to work very hard at it. My paper explains it, but it assumes a certain amount of understanding that isn't common. > > > > > Do you pretend that surface tension is NOT influenced by the h-bond strength? > > > > I don't need to pretend. I'm the one that figured it out. > > > > My paper correctly explains surface tension. My paper explains why surface tension happens on the surface. And it explain why if you maximize surface area you maximize surface tension, which is what happens in non-Newtonian fluids and atmospheric vortices. > > We shall see if it does or not. > One final question, however: you discuss this as a special case that only applies to water. However, the classical model applies to ALL liquids. Yeah, so? The explanations for boiling and evaporation, transitions from liquid to gas, are explained for all liquids, whether elemental or molecular. How is it that water is immune to these, while still exhibiting virtually the same behaviours? How do you reconcile your special case for water with the rest of the classical model, which is applicable to real world situations? How does our model provide applicable utility (what is the practical use for your model in the real world)? > Okay, more than one question. I should have said'one last SET of questions'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 20:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2fd62287-9a47-4562-a524-88961431326a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583134 |
On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 9:51:08 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 9:52:15 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: > > Le vendredi 27 mai 2016 01:17:09 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit : > > ribution (in liquids). The site below might also be helpful. > > > > > > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/VaporPressure.html > > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/KMT-Gas-Laws.html > > > > > > If it didn't help you what makes you think it will help me? > > > > Oh, I don't think it will help you, because you will not consider it openly. > > What exactly? > > It helped me to better understand the internal mechanism for evaporation... reminded me of things I had forgotten from my old physics classes. > > > > > > > > > > I think you are clueless. I think you are just pretending to understand what you do not actually understand. You are a believer, not a scientists, not a thinker. > > > > > > > You can think what you like. Your thoughts do not effect the truth. I AM a scientist, just not a physicist or chemist. As far as being a believer, perhaps, but I do not believe blindly. I review the arguemtns, the presented evidence, and I choose the arguemnt that is most convincing. > > > > > > > > > > You know this how? > > > > > By researching the literature on the subject. By reading the research papers. By reviewing the various reported experiments. I do not have the means to conduct all the experiments on my own, so I am forced to rely on the published works presented by those who HAVE performed the experiments. > > What experiments? > > > > > > > > > > > > BS. You are pretending to be an authority on what you know nothing about. > > > > > > > > > No, I am not. I have never made a claim to be an authority. My only claim is that I have a fairly good understanding of the scientific principles when I read them. In other words, I understand the concepts as they are presented. > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. Boiling and evaporation are categorically distinct processes, as I've explained. > > > > No. Both are the result of molecules of a liquid attaining sufficient energy to break their intermoleculer bonds. The difference is that boiling does this on a large scale, allowing even interior water to become gaseous, rise, and break through the surface tension. Whereas evaporation only allows individual surface molecules to escape. > > Uh, okay. So what is your point? > > > Incidentally, for water, you assign this as a special case that only aplies to water. In reality, the facts of boiling and evaporation apply to ALL liquids. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find it rather curious that you believe a collective aggregate of water could be liberated more easily from a source than individual molecules. > > > > > > I was curious about this too. That lead to me doing an investigation and the writing of this breakthrough paper: > > > BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ > > > > I will read this. > > > > > > > > > > Do you deny that the boiling point of H2O is 212 F? Do you deny that no part of the atmosphere is hotter than, maybe, 132 F? So, do you deny any of this? > > > > The boiling point is 212F at sea level, yes. It is quite a bit lower at altitude. No, I do not deny that the temperatur of the atmosphere is well below the boiling point of water. However, once again, temperature is defined as the AVERAGE kinetic energy within a system. The actual molecules themselves follow a very wide distribution of kinetic energy values. > > Didn't you just make this up? Be honest. > > > > > > > > > > > > . . . so how will a molecule of air be able to provide the energy to overcome the high surface tension of an aggregate (droplet) of liquid water if it can't overcome the force to liberate a single molecule? > > > > > > You are not making sense here. Read the paper I linked to above. Unless and until you can first understand the molecular peculiarities of H2O you will be resigned to continue to pretend what you actually don't yet understand. Pretending will only get you so far. This is why meteorologists refuse to discuss any of this with the public. They know that further discussion will only reveal their greater cluelessness. > > > > Meteorologists have submitted a wealth of papers on the subjects discussed, > > Yeah, so? What is your point? > > > as have physicists and chemists. I have understood their explanations quite well, and have done my best to lay out their arguments as I understand them. I would have thought the question simple: how can you perform a multitude of work without being able to perform a single unit of work? > > Relevance? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A single molecule has a maximum of 2 h-bonds. > > > > > > Right. And what trips everybody up is that bonds neutralize the polarity that is the force that underlies the bonds. Thus the relationship between bond completion and bond strength is inverse. Single bonds (ie surface tension) are strong. Dual bonds (ie. liquid water) are weak! Read my paper (linked above) for details. > > > > More or less correct, except that both the surface AND the interior have dual bonds. > > Wrong. The surface has stronger, singular bonds. Dual bonds are weak (floating). Singular bonds are the strong bonds of surface tension. > > > The difference is that the surface molecules do not have exterior molecules to bind to, so the second bond goes to reinforcing the connection with other surface molecules > > Your explanation is contrived. > > > > > > In any case, even if your explanation of strong single bonds were correct, these surface tension bonds create a veritable wall. You can not extract interior water without breaking through the surface tension. No matter what, you have to break the strong surface tension bonds, no matter their nature, in order to liberate any water, monomolecular gas or multimoleculer liquid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any such droplet would have to overcome at least the number of h-bonds equal to the number of surface molecules. > > > > > > Nonsense. Since H bonds neutralize polarity only if and when H2O molecules are clustered is polarity neutralized enough to achieve evaporation. This explains the dichotomy between the high boiling point of H2O and the low temperatures of evaporation (including sublimation). > > > > > > > In addition, each molecule of air will have to carry the multiple of mass of the total number of water molecules, as opposed to the mass of a single molecule of gaseous water. > > > > > > Right. This is explained by electrostatic forces. > > > > Except that it isn't. If the polarity of the water were neutralised by being clusterd, as you say, then there would be no charge for electrostatic force of atmospherice gases to attract. > > Uh, what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's say that the air molecules manage to work together, sharing the energy cost of the task. How is it NOT easier for a given number of air molecules to liberate a single molecule of water than it is to liberate a droplet? > > > > > > I like the fact that you are asking the right questions. But the answer is very complex and requires an in-depth understanding of chemistry and even the nature of the electron cloud that surrounds the nucleus of atoms. If you want to understand this--and it appears you do--then you will have to work very hard at it. My paper explains it, but it assumes a certain amount of understanding that isn't common. > > > > > > > Do you pretend that surface tension is NOT influenced by the h-bond strength? > > > > > > I don't need to pretend. I'm the one that figured it out. > > > > > > My paper correctly explains surface tension. My paper explains why surface tension happens on the surface. And it explain why if you maximize surface area you maximize surface tension, which is what happens in non-Newtonian fluids and atmospheric vortices. > > > > We shall see if it does or not. > > One final question, however: you discuss this as a special case that only applies to water. However, the classical model applies to ALL liquids. > > Yeah, so? > > > The explanations for boiling and evaporation, transitions from liquid to gas, are explained for all liquids, whether elemental or molecular. How is it that water is immune to these, while still exhibiting virtually the same behaviours? How do you reconcile your special case for water with the rest of the classical model, which is applicable to real world situations? How does our model provide applicable utility (what is the practical use for your model in the real world)? > > Okay, more than one question. I should have said'one last SET of questions'. The explanations for boiling and evaporation, transitions from liquid to gas, are explained for all liquids, whether elemental or molecular. How is it that water is immune to these, while still exhibiting virtually the same behaviours? What are you talking about. How is water immune? How do you reconcile your special case for water with the rest of the classical model, which is applicable to real world situations? What needs to be reconciled IYO? How does our model provide applicable utility (what is the practical use for your model in the real world)? Isn't this obvious?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-12 09:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f925c79e-2fc7-49ca-8217-35c78e8b5f90@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583237 |
On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 8:04:34 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 9:51:08 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 9:52:15 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: > > > Le vendredi 27 mai 2016 01:17:09 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit : > > > ribution (in liquids). The site below might also be helpful. > > > > > > > > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/VaporPressure.html > > > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/KMT-Gas-Laws.html > > > > > > > > If it didn't help you what makes you think it will help me? > > > > > > Oh, I don't think it will help you, because you will not consider it openly. > > > > What exactly? > > > > It helped me to better understand the internal mechanism for evaporation... reminded me of things I had forgotten from my old physics classes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are clueless. I think you are just pretending to understand what you do not actually understand. You are a believer, not a scientists, not a thinker. > > > > > > > > > > You can think what you like. Your thoughts do not effect the truth. I AM a scientist, just not a physicist or chemist. As far as being a believer, perhaps, but I do not believe blindly. I review the arguemtns, the presented evidence, and I choose the arguemnt that is most convincing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know this how? > > > > > > > By researching the literature on the subject. By reading the research papers. By reviewing the various reported experiments. I do not have the means to conduct all the experiments on my own, so I am forced to rely on the published works presented by those who HAVE performed the experiments. > > > > What experiments? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BS. You are pretending to be an authority on what you know nothing about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, I am not. I have never made a claim to be an authority. My only claim is that I have a fairly good understanding of the scientific principles when I read them. In other words, I understand the concepts as they are presented. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. Boiling and evaporation are categorically distinct processes, as I've explained. > > > > > > No. Both are the result of molecules of a liquid attaining sufficient energy to break their intermoleculer bonds. The difference is that boiling does this on a large scale, allowing even interior water to become gaseous, rise, and break through the surface tension. Whereas evaporation only allows individual surface molecules to escape. > > > > Uh, okay. So what is your point? > > > > > Incidentally, for water, you assign this as a special case that only aplies to water. In reality, the facts of boiling and evaporation apply to ALL liquids. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find it rather curious that you believe a collective aggregate of water could be liberated more easily from a source than individual molecules. > > > > > > > > I was curious about this too. That lead to me doing an investigation and the writing of this breakthrough paper: > > > > BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ > > > > > > I will read this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you deny that the boiling point of H2O is 212 F? Do you deny that no part of the atmosphere is hotter than, maybe, 132 F? So, do you deny any of this? > > > > > > The boiling point is 212F at sea level, yes. It is quite a bit lower at altitude. No, I do not deny that the temperatur of the atmosphere is well below the boiling point of water. However, once again, temperature is defined as the AVERAGE kinetic energy within a system. The actual molecules themselves follow a very wide distribution of kinetic energy values. > > > > Didn't you just make this up? Be honest. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . . . so how will a molecule of air be able to provide the energy to overcome the high surface tension of an aggregate (droplet) of liquid water if it can't overcome the force to liberate a single molecule? > > > > > > > > You are not making sense here. Read the paper I linked to above. Unless and until you can first understand the molecular peculiarities of H2O you will be resigned to continue to pretend what you actually don't yet understand. Pretending will only get you so far. This is why meteorologists refuse to discuss any of this with the public. They know that further discussion will only reveal their greater cluelessness. > > > > > > Meteorologists have submitted a wealth of papers on the subjects discussed, > > > > Yeah, so? What is your point? > > > > > > as have physicists and chemists. I have understood their explanations quite well, and have done my best to lay out their arguments as I understand them. I would have thought the question simple: how can you perform a multitude of work without being able to perform a single unit of work? > > > > Relevance? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A single molecule has a maximum of 2 h-bonds. > > > > > > > > Right. And what trips everybody up is that bonds neutralize the polarity that is the force that underlies the bonds. Thus the relationship between bond completion and bond strength is inverse. Single bonds (ie surface tension) are strong. Dual bonds (ie. liquid water) are weak! Read my paper (linked above) for details. > > > > > > More or less correct, except that both the surface AND the interior have dual bonds. > > > > Wrong. The surface has stronger, singular bonds. Dual bonds are weak (floating). Singular bonds are the strong bonds of surface tension. > > > > > > The difference is that the surface molecules do not have exterior molecules to bind to, so the second bond goes to reinforcing the connection with other surface molecules > > > > Your explanation is contrived. > > > > > > > > > > In any case, even if your explanation of strong single bonds were correct, these surface tension bonds create a veritable wall. You can not extract interior water without breaking through the surface tension. No matter what, you have to break the strong surface tension bonds, no matter their nature, in order to liberate any water, monomolecular gas or multimoleculer liquid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any such droplet would have to overcome at least the number of h-bonds equal to the number of surface molecules. > > > > > > > > Nonsense. Since H bonds neutralize polarity only if and when H2O molecules are clustered is polarity neutralized enough to achieve evaporation. This explains the dichotomy between the high boiling point of H2O and the low temperatures of evaporation (including sublimation). > > > > > > > > > In addition, each molecule of air will have to carry the multiple of mass of the total number of water molecules, as opposed to the mass of a single molecule of gaseous water. > > > > > > > > Right. This is explained by electrostatic forces. > > > > > > Except that it isn't. If the polarity of the water were neutralised by being clusterd, as you say, then there would be no charge for electrostatic force of atmospherice gases to attract. > > > > Uh, what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's say that the air molecules manage to work together, sharing the energy cost of the task. How is it NOT easier for a given number of air molecules to liberate a single molecule of water than it is to liberate a droplet? > > > > > > > > I like the fact that you are asking the right questions. But the answer is very complex and requires an in-depth understanding of chemistry and even the nature of the electron cloud that surrounds the nucleus of atoms. If you want to understand this--and it appears you do--then you will have to work very hard at it. My paper explains it, but it assumes a certain amount of understanding that isn't common. > > > > > > > > > Do you pretend that surface tension is NOT influenced by the h-bond strength? > > > > > > > > I don't need to pretend. I'm the one that figured it out. > > > > > > > > My paper correctly explains surface tension. My paper explains why surface tension happens on the surface. And it explain why if you maximize surface area you maximize surface tension, which is what happens in non-Newtonian fluids and atmospheric vortices. > > > > > > We shall see if it does or not. > > > One final question, however: you discuss this as a special case that only applies to water. However, the classical model applies to ALL liquids. > > > > Yeah, so? > > > > > > The explanations for boiling and evaporation, transitions from liquid to gas, are explained for all liquids, whether elemental or molecular. How is it that water is immune to these, while still exhibiting virtually the same behaviours? How do you reconcile your special case for water with the rest of the classical model, which is applicable to real world situations? How does our model provide applicable utility (what is the practical use for your model in the real world)? > > > Okay, more than one question. I should have said'one last SET of questions'. > > The explanations for boiling and evaporation, transitions from liquid to gas, are explained for all liquids, whether elemental or molecular. How is it that water is immune to these, while still exhibiting virtually the same behaviours? > > What are you talking about. How is water immune? No response. > > How do you reconcile your special case for water with the rest of the classical model, which is applicable to real world situations? > > What needs to be reconciled IYO? > > How does our model provide applicable utility (what is the practical use for your model in the real world)? If we understand storms we can, possibly, decrease their negative impact and increase their positive impacts. Duhr. > > Isn't this obvious?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web