Dalton's Law is Well Understood

[James McGinn]

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 9:58:40 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Someone else in these discussions has mentioned Dalton's law.

Dalton's Law is well understood by science. It's very simple. Basic math. I'm sure
you will be just fine.

(I suggest doing a Google or Wiki search.)

It is a gas law. (It is not a vapor law.)

It is also not a vapor gas law. (There is no such thing as a vapor gas). (If Chan
tells you otherwise ask him to explain how he detects this mysterious substance that
he, it seems, created on a whim--assuming he hasn't come to his senses.)

> Evaporation is a surface phenomenon.

Eveporation is a lot more complicated that.

There are a lot more factors involved than modern science currently recognizes, such
as H2O's high heat capacity (poorly understood until 'Bill' [see link below]) and the
electrostatic forces between N2 and O2 molecules in the atmosphere that are involved
with evaporation. Another factor that is often overlooked is the fact that there is
simply a lot of kinetic energy in the atmosphere--molecules are moving at 700 to 900
miles per hour! Think about that for a moment!

The process has been severely misrepresented--oversimplified--by the current
paradigm.

The oversimplification of water is the thorn in the side to conceptual [theoretical]
advancement in the natural sciences. (It is, in my opinion, the most significant
underlying cause of the collective lunacy we see in many parts of the natural sciences and geographic sciences [ie. global warming].)

Always remember, Ed. If you ever do find the evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures be sure to let us know. I have stopped my contest (nobody claimed the $100.000.00 prize, sadly) but in your case I might just make an exception, or at least partially. So don't give up.

Also, as you continue your search for the elusive evidence of 'cold steam' if you do,
by chance, come across the Holy Grail let me know about it through email ASAP!

Remember, Microdroplets are heavier, not lighter than the air molecules in their
vicinity. Consult steam tables if are uncertain on this.

Google is your friend.

> Since this is fairly established science (you noted it dates back to Newton),
> you will find the most recent information for things like this with work
> published by the standards bodies.

Uh, er, . . . uh. Standard bodies? What is this? Uh, er, uh. . . well . . . uh . . .

> http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/83/jresv83n5p419_A1b.pdf
> (of course JM thinks it is a conspiracy, so he won't read or
> understand this paper. And infact he will deny it even exists.)

LOL. I don't need to deny it. The fact that you can't/won't quote it directly tells
me everything I need to know.

> I do not think the partial pressure of oxygen at 20C is the same
> as water. So the classic gas law PV=nRT must be applied, right?

I wanna see how Chan handles this question.

Peace/out

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Bill Chapter One
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16584

[Claudius Denk]

McGinn is right. Dalton's Law is well understood.

[edpr...@gmail.com]

[]
reposting under a different topic,
is that what you call creating good internet content?

Sad, you seem to have no life except to post.
I feel sorry for you.

[James McGinn]

L - L - L - L - Loser!

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 10:48:54 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> []

You seem bitter. Did you, maybe, lose an argument recently or something?

[noTthaTguY]

00ps; I thought that your pseudonymite, mCg,
would explain the law de Dalton, because
I don't recall, what it is ... go for it,
doctoR Denk

[Claudius Denk]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 10:48:54 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> []

Dalton's is well understood, dumbass.

[noTthaTguY]

yeah, but what do you say, it is, this law de monsieuR Dalton?

[edpr...@gmail.com]

Me bitter? 8^)
Again I have to question your reading comprehension skills.
8^)

[Claudius Denk]

It's comical watching these stunned pretenders just beginning to wake up to
the fact that McGinn has been setting them up for this for a long time.

CD

[James McGinn]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 2:50:42 PM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:

So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?

[noTthaTguY]

what if the reDSpot is floating, top three decimeters?

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 5:09:38 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?

Could it possibly be that H2O exists in the atmosphere as a gas? Look up the freaking definition of 'water vapor', you ignorant fool!

[James McGinn]

Do you admit that you had classes in physics?

[pnal...@gmail.com]

I admit that I have a university degree in physics... while you, on the other hand, have never passed a science class at any level...

[James McGinn]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 7:39:55 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 6:55:34 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 6:37:41 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 5:09:38 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > >

James M

> > > > So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?
> > >
> > > Could it possibly be that H2O exists in the atmosphere as a gas? Look up the freaking definition of 'water vapor', you ignorant fool!
> >
> > Do you admit that you had classes in physics?
>
> I admit that I have a university degree in physics...

Would you like to make a retraction? Because this comment makes you look like an imbecile. Read the thread before you respond, also.

This is your opportunity for a mulligan.

[Claudius Denk]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 6:37:41 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

You've admitted you have a degree in physics, right?

[James McGinn]

So, a degree in physics and he says a dictionary definition refutes Dalton's Law.

Uh . . . can I ask you one more question? Do you mind telling what school awarded you the degree? Year?

[James McGinn]

No response. Hmm.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 8:07:54 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 5:09:38 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

<no response>

[noTthaTguY]

so, I am now going to promise
-- ASAiC impliment the **** --
to ne'er reply to this sylliness,
this utter lack of conversational 't00d ...
nothing from nothing is nothing, even though
zero is a really important metrication -- or,
THE metrication, which is heretofore canonically joked-upon
with the notion of a gOgl
-- a one with ten zeroes after it in any base --
and that of the gOglX
-- a one with a gOgl zeroes after it in the self-same base,
starting with base_two for the fun of it:
gOgl_2 = 1,00;
gOglX_2 = 1,00,00, et voila

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 8:07:54 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

guess again.

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 8:07:54 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[Claudius Denk]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 10:48:54 AM UTC-8, Edward Prochak wrote:
> []
> reposting under a different topic,
> is that what you call creating good internet content?
>
> Sad, you seem to have no life except to post.
> I feel sorry for you.

Address the issue you simpleton.

[James McGinn]

Believer don't explain. They just believe.

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[Claudius Denk]

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 7:13:22 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[Steve BH]

Dear Claudius Wank, sock puppet:

Is there any actual limit to how much you can polish McGinn’s knob? Since he sets YOU up, I would guess not.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:59:19 AM UTC-8, Steve BH wrote:
> Dear Claudius Wank, sock puppet:
>
> Is there any actual limit to how much you can polish McGinn’s knob? Since he sets YOU up, I would guess not.

You look like I imagine Sergio looks if he got his hair bleached.

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 8:05:14 AM UTC-8, Claudius Denk wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 10:48:54 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > []
> > reposting under a different topic,
> > is that what you call creating good internet content?
> >
> > Sad, you seem to have no life except to post.
> > I feel sorry for you.
>

> Dalton's is well understood, dumbass.

Dalton's is well understood.

[Michael Moroney]

>Dalton's is well understood.

Apparently not by yourself. Otherwise you could have answered my simple
question easily.

You have dry (no H2O of any form) air at 20 C. You introduce some liquid
water, also at 20 C, into it. According to Dalton's Law, what happens?

I will interpret any personal attack as an admission that you cannot solve
this problem.

[James McGinn]

You incompetent dolts can't even put forth a rational question.

Laws don't make predictions, dumbass. People make predictions. However, if I was to make a prediction based on Dalton's law here I would say that it makes no prediction at all. It doesn't say something will happen. And it doesn't say nothing will happen.

As everybody knows, evaporation will happen. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with Dalton's law. Dalton's law deal with different percentages of GASES!!!

Evaporation (you fucking imbecile) produces vapor not gas!!!

It is not called Dalton's gas and vapor law. It's called Dalton's gas law.

Duhrrr!!!!

Go back to watching cartoons you imbecile.

[Michael Moroney]

James McGinn writes:

>You incompetent dolts can't even put forth a rational question.

>Laws don't make predictions, dumbass. ...

<snip more rants and insults>

Thanks for making my point. You really just don't understand Dalton's Law
at all. So why did you claim it is well understood? Or well understood by
everyone except yourself?

[James McGinn]

You got nothing you loon.

[Sergio]

On 12/22/2018 9:11 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> James McGinn writes:
>> mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
>
>>>> Dalton's is well understood.
>
>>> Apparently not by yourself. Otherwise you could have answered my simple
>>> question easily.
>
>>> You have dry (no H2O of any form) air at 20 C. You introduce some liquid
>>> water, also at 20 C, into it. According to Dalton's Law, what happens?
>
>>> I will interpret any personal attack as an admission that you cannot solve
>>> this problem.
>
>> You incompetent dolts can't even put forth a rational question.

>> *Laws don't make predictions*, dumbass. ...

>
> <snip more rants and insults>
>
> Thanks for making my point. You really just don't understand Dalton's Law
> at all. So why did you claim it is well understood? Or well understood by
> everyone except yourself?
>

from above

"Laws don't make predictions" - James McGinn


ANOTHER KEEPER !!!


Corollary: Predictions never use Laws. -James McGinn


"Church Lady" McGinn spewing his BS, no laws needed, nor understood.



[ Cold Steam Tables !!! ]

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Yet another great 'scientific' argument put forth by the resident loon... which, of course, is no argument at all. Just like always. Jim couldn't argue his way out of a wet paper bag...

[James McGinn]

Dalton's Law is well understood, you loon.

[Odd Bodkin]

Yes, exactly. And what’s interesting is that you can apply Dalton’s law to
a system that involves only water as the fluid, whether you regard that
fluid as a gas, a fog, an emulsion, or whatever you’d like to guess. But
since Dalton’s law is a law for gases, and it accurately predicts the
relationship between the measured water fluid, then this fluid is
successfully treated as a gas.

Or are you claiming that Dalton’s law won’t work for water?

>
> Duhrrr!!!!
>
> Go back to watching cartoons you imbecile.
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[James McGinn]

On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 10:56:09 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> > You incompetent dolts can't even put forth a rational question.
> >
> > Laws don't make predictions, dumbass. People make predictions. However,
> > if I was to make a prediction based on Dalton's law here I would say that
> > it makes no prediction at all. It doesn't say something will happen.
> > And it doesn't say nothing will happen.
> >
> > As everybody knows, evaporation will happen. But this has nothing
> > whatsoever to do with Dalton's law. Dalton's law deal with different
> > percentages of GASES!!!
> >
> > Evaporation (you fucking imbecile) produces vapor not gas!!!
> >
> > It is not called Dalton's gas and vapor law. It's called Dalton's gas law.
>
> Yes, exactly. And what’s interesting is that you can apply Dalton’s law to
> a system that involves only water as the fluid,

Like you have a clue, idiot.

> whether you regard that
> fluid as a gas, a fog, an emulsion, or whatever you’d like to guess.

LOL. Yeah, facts don't matter for science groupies.

> But
> since Dalton’s law is a law for gases, and it accurately predicts the
> relationship between the measured water fluid, then this fluid is
> successfully treated as a gas.

Meaningless.

> Or are you claiming that Dalton’s law won’t work for water?

Uh, er, uh . . . uh?

[Odd Bodkin]

Gee, seems straightforward to me. Dalton’s law works for water. Dalton’s
law is a gas law. Therefore water behaves like a gas.

What part of this do you find difficult?

>
>> Or are you claiming that Dalton’s law won’t work for water?
>
> Uh, er, uh . . . uh?
>

[Claudius Denk]

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 7:11:37 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:

Explain yourself, you fucking liar.

[Michael Moroney]

James McGinn wrote:

>Explain yourself, you fucking liar.

I already did.

> >>I will interpret any personal attack as an admission that you cannot solve
> >>this problem.

Since it's Christmas, you may have one more chance.

>>You have dry air (contains no H2O of any form) at 20 C. You introduce

[James McGinn]

>Explain yourself, you fucking liar.

I already did.

JMcG:
LOL. I saw that.

You got nothing!!!

Merry Xmas,

[James McGinn]

> > > So, Ed. What in the world allowed you to come to the conclusion that Dalton's Law was applicable to water vapor (H2O[l])?
> >
> > Could it possibly be that H2O exists in the atmosphere as a gas? Look up the freaking definition of 'water vapor', you ignorant fool!
>
> You've admitted you have a degree in physics, right?

So, a degree in physics and he says a dictionary definition refutes Dalton's Law.

Uh . . . can I ask you one more question? Do you mind telling what school awarded you the degree? Year?

Did they teach you to look for empirical truth in dictionaries?

[James McGinn]

reposting under a different topic,
is that what you call creating good internet content?

Well, I guess I thought this would be a good place to branch off.

Sad, you seem to have no life except to post.
I feel sorry for you.

But, but, but, . . . uh, er.

[James McGinn]

McGinn is right. Dalton's Law is well understood.

JMcG:
Yes. Of course

[pnal...@gmail.com]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dalton%27s_law_of_partial_pressures.png

[Claudius Denk]

Maybe you should contact them to inform them of their error. Then you can give them a link to the discussion between you and McGinn that proves that their designation of H2O as a gas here is mistaken.

I hope this helps.

CD

CD

[pnal...@gmail.com]

McGinn wrote

< McGinn is right. Dalton's Law is well understood.

< JMcG:
< Yes. Of course

Oh look, McGinn screws up his puppets again and congratulates himself...

[pnal...@gmail.com]

<< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dalton%27s_law_of_partial_pressures.png

< Maybe you should contact them to inform them of their error. Then you can give them a link to the discussion between you and McGinn that proves that their designation of H2O as a gas here is mistaken.

< I hope this helps.

< CD

Jim's imaginary friend Denk has just made himself look very foolish again... after all, Jim agrees with Dalton's law, but Denk doesn't... you better set him straight, Jim...

[Claudius Denk]

What is wrong with you. You lie constantly. Don't be putting words in my mouth.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 10:49:14 AM UTC-8, Claudius Denk wrote:

> What is wrong with you. You lie constantly. Don't be putting words in my mouth.

... words from the mouth of a made-up imaginary friend...

[Sergio]

well they wrote an amazon book together, later one was deleted, the
smarter one.

only Dink says "McGinn is right."

[Sergio]

dink is right there in the same room jim....

[Volney]

On 1/3/2019 11:15 PM, James McGinn puts the wrong sock on his hand and
agrees with himself:

> McGinn is right. Dalton's Law is well understood.
>
> JMcG:
> Yes. Of course
>

Dalton's Law is quite well understood.
Since for all temperatures between 0 and 100C, liquid and gaseous water
coexist at a certain positive vapor pressure, Dalton's Law states this
pressure can be added to the partial pressures of nitrogen, oxygen etc.
to get the total absolute pressure of the air.

Simple example: 78,000 pascals of nitrogen + 21,000 pascals of oxygen +
1,000 pascals of other gases + 1,000 pascals of H2O(g) = 101,000 pascals
of air pressure. At 24C there can be up to 3,000 pascals of H2O(g)
according to the water phase diagram.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

The problem with your clear and concise example, Volney, is that Jim McGinn, the self-proclaimed smartest physicist to ever live, claims that there is no such thing as H2O(g) below the boiling point of water... isn't that right, Jim? He cannot supply any evidence to support his position and boldly demands that others need to prove him wrong, but when such evidence is given he dismisses it out of hand. In this case, I predict that Jim will say that you are not interpreting the phase diagram correctly and that it is not possible that "...At 24C there can be up to 3,000 pascals of H2O(g)
according to the water phase diagram", according to his own flawed ability to interpret that phase diagram himself.

Instead of being a gas, Jim claims that water in the atmosphere below the boiling point of water is *always* liquid water in the form of his "nanodroplets", with no exceptions... right, Jim?

Jim thinks that his best defense is to simply hurl insults towards his detractors and respond "you've got nothing!" repeatedly.

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 6:40:32 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:

> On 1/3/2019 11:15 PM, James McGinn puts the wrong sock on his hand and
> agrees with himself:
> > McGinn is right. Dalton's Law is well understood.
> >
> > JMcG:
> > Yes. Of course
> >
>
> Dalton's Law is quite well understood.

Yes. Dalton's *gas* law is well understood. Moreover it's a very simple concept. Attempts by Pnal and his fellow bozos to conflate it to fit their rhetoric notwithstanding.

> Since for all temperatures between 0 and 100C

I think it would be more concise to refer to all temperatures/pressures in which H2O is a liquid (as indicated in the H2O Phase diagram). I think this phraseology captures your meaning.

, liquid and gaseous water
> coexist at a certain positive vapor pressure,

Sorry. You got this wrong. Vapor exerts a pressure because the nanodroplets it contains are, essentially, large molecules, and there is a lot of them.

Remember, water vapor is nanodroplets that are (somehow) suspended in the air. There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. It's far too cold. Look at an H2O phase diagram.

it essentially is

Essentially?

> Dalton's Law states this
> pressure can be added to the partial pressures of nitrogen, oxygen etc.
> to get the total absolute pressure of the air.

Obviously. Yes, of course, it can be added. And is.

> Simple example: 78,000 pascals of nitrogen + 21,000 pascals of oxygen +
> 1,000 pascals of other gases + 1,000 pascals of H2O(g) = 101,000 pascals
> of air pressure. At 24C there can be up to 3,000 pascals of H2O(g)
> according to the water phase diagram.

I'm not going to go over your numbers. But you still seem confused. Keep in mind that, for example, the "vapor" pressure of H2O and the pressure of H2O gas are vastly different. Gaseous H2O produces a lot of pressure. Vapor produces a fraction of the pressure in comparison H2O gas.

Another big difference between H2O vapor and H2O gas is the fact that the H2O nanodroplets require an existing substrate to be suspended in. Gaseous H2O does not.

So, the fact that the vapor has a pressure that can be accounted for using Dalton's law does not mean that vapor and gas are equivalent in all other respects.

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 3:14:46 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> The problem with your clear and concise example, Volney, is that Jim McGinn, the self-proclaimed smartest physicist to ever live, claims that there is no such thing as H2O(g) below the boiling point of water... isn't that right, Jim?

Yes.

He cannot supply any evidence to support his position and boldly demands that others need to prove him wrong, but when such evidence is given he dismisses it out of hand.

More lies.

In this case, I predict that Jim will say that you are not interpreting the phase diagram correctly and that it is not possible that "...At 24C there can be up to 3,000 pascals of H2O(g)

?

> according to the water phase diagram", according to his own flawed ability to interpret that phase diagram himself.
>
> Instead of being a gas, Jim claims that water in the atmosphere below the boiling point of water is *always* liquid water in the form of his "nanodroplets", with no exceptions... right, Jim?
>
> Jim thinks that his best defense is to simply hurl insults towards his detractors and respond "you've got nothing!" repeatedly.

You've got nothing!!!

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 8:18:07 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 6:40:32 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> > On 1/3/2019 11:15 PM, James McGinn puts the wrong sock on his hand and
> > agrees with himself:
> > > McGinn is right. Dalton's Law is well understood.
> > >
> > > JMcG:
> > > Yes. Of course
> > >
> >
> > Dalton's Law is quite well understood.
>
> Yes. Dalton's *gas* law is well understood. Moreover it's a very simple concept. Attempts by Pnal and his fellow bozos to conflate it to fit their rhetoric notwithstanding.
>
> > Since for all temperatures between 0 and 100C
>
> I think it would be more concise to refer to all temperatures/pressures in which H2O is a liquid (as indicated in the H2O Phase diagram). I think this phraseology captures your meaning.
>
> , liquid and gaseous water
> > coexist at a certain positive vapor pressure,
>
> Sorry. You got this wrong. Vapor exerts a pressure because the nanodroplets it contains are, essentially, large molecules, and there is a lot of them.

Here is a paper by your favorite chemist, Dr. Richard J. Saykally...

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/22

... where he studies the number of water dimers in the atmosphere. You know what a water dimer is, right, Jim? It is what YOU call a nanodroplet. If you were an actual physicist, as you claim, you would already know this... but you aren't, so you don't. Understand that when Dr. Saykally talks about water vapor in this paper he is definitely talking about the gaseous form of water. Here is a great quote from his paper, which I want you to write on the blackboard 1000 times...

"Nearly all the water vapor in the atmosphere lies in the troposphere—the layer extending roughly 20 kilometers from Earth’s surface. Dimers make up less than one percent of this water vapor, which makes it difficult to see them compared to single (monomer) water molecules, particularly in the visible and infrared portion of the spectrum, where the light energy is sufficient to destroy the dimers."

Do you finally understand this, Jim? For every one of your precious nanodroplets, there are 100 gas molecules of water in the atmosphere. Your dumb theory is blown to hell and back. Time for you to fold your tent and go stand in the corner.

I guess you need to revise your last statement, above, where you have claimed "... Vapor exerts a pressure because the nanodroplets it contains are, essentially, large molecules, and there is a lot of them." BZZZZT! There are NOT a lot f them.

Of course, you will probably not understand a word of that paper an instead will claim that Dr. Saykally is a whackjob and that he's "got nothing", but then, he's been a professor of chemistry at UC Berkeley for 40 years, whereas you've got little to no education in the sciences at all.

> Remember, water vapor is nanodroplets that are (somehow) suspended in the air. There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. It's far too cold. Look at an H2O phase diagram.
>
> it essentially is
>
> Essentially?
>
> > Dalton's Law states this
> > pressure can be added to the partial pressures of nitrogen, oxygen etc.
> > to get the total absolute pressure of the air.
>
> Obviously. Yes, of course, it can be added. And is.
>
> > Simple example: 78,000 pascals of nitrogen + 21,000 pascals of oxygen +
> > 1,000 pascals of other gases + 1,000 pascals of H2O(g) = 101,000 pascals
> > of air pressure. At 24C there can be up to 3,000 pascals of H2O(g)
> > according to the water phase diagram.
>
> I'm not going to go over your numbers. But you still seem confused. Keep in mind that, for example, the "vapor" pressure of H2O and the pressure of H2O gas are vastly different. Gaseous H2O produces a lot of pressure. Vapor produces a fraction of the pressure in comparison H2O gas.
>
> Another big difference between H2O vapor and H2O gas is the fact that the H2O nanodroplets require an existing substrate to be suspended in. Gaseous H2O does not.
>
> So, the fact that the vapor has a pressure that can be accounted for using Dalton's law does not mean that vapor and gas are equivalent in all other respects.
>
> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

See what I mean, Volney? I called it, spot-on.

Jim McGinn obviously does not know the first think about interpreting a phase diagram, and simply refuses to accept the traditional physics definition of the word 'vapor'...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor

"Vapor refers to a gas phase at a temperature where the same substance can also exist in the liquid or solid state, below the critical temperature of the substance... If the vapor is in contact with a liquid or solid phase, the two phases will be in a state of equilibrium... A liquid or solid does not have to boil to release a vapor."

Jim McGinn does not know what he does not know, and he is proud of it. It prevents the actual facts from getting in his way.

Jim, you remain an incredible dumbfuck.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 9:00:53 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> You've got nothing!!!

Well, I've got this...

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/22

Go cry in your beer, Jim, you're done.

[Volney]

On 1/5/2019 11:18 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 6:40:32 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 1/3/2019 11:15 PM, James McGinn puts the wrong sock on his hand and
>> agrees with himself:
>>> McGinn is right. Dalton's Law is well understood.
>>>
>>> JMcG:
>>> Yes. Of course
>>>
>>
>> Dalton's Law is quite well understood.
>
> Yes. Dalton's *gas* law is well understood. Moreover it's a very simple concept. Attempts by Pnal and his fellow bozos to conflate it to fit their rhetoric notwithstanding.
>
>> Since for all temperatures between 0 and 100C
>
> I think it would be more concise to refer to all temperatures/pressures in which H2O is a liquid (as indicated in the H2O Phase diagram). I think this phraseology captures your meaning.
>
> , liquid and gaseous water
>> coexist at a certain positive vapor pressure,
>
> Sorry. You got this wrong. Vapor exerts a pressure because the nanodroplets it contains are, essentially, large molecules, and there is a lot of them.
>
> Remember, water vapor is nanodroplets that are (somehow) suspended in the air. There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere. It's far too cold. Look at an H2O phase diagram.
>
> it essentially is
>
> Essentially?

As in when you wrote "...because the nanodroplets it contains are,
essentially, large molecules,..." ?

>> Dalton's Law states this
>> pressure can be added to the partial pressures of nitrogen, oxygen etc.
>> to get the total absolute pressure of the air.
>
> Obviously. Yes, of course, it can be added. And is.

So you agree that adding the partial pressure of H2O(g) to that of
nitrogen and oxygen is correct? OK, good.

>
>> Simple example: 78,000 pascals of nitrogen + 21,000 pascals of oxygen +
>> 1,000 pascals of other gases + 1,000 pascals of H2O(g) = 101,000 pascals
>> of air pressure. At 24C there can be up to 3,000 pascals of H2O(g)
>> according to the water phase diagram.
>
> I'm not going to go over your numbers. But you still seem confused. Keep in mind that, for example, the "vapor" pressure of H2O and the pressure of H2O gas are vastly different.

So you have some sort of new definition of "vapor"? I am talking about
H2O(g) here.

> Gaseous H2O produces a lot of pressure.

Not according to the H2O phase diagram, at least at lower temperatures.

> Vapor produces a fraction of the pressure in comparison H2O gas.
>
> Another big difference between H2O vapor and H2O gas is the fact that the H2O nanodroplets require an existing substrate to be suspended in. Gaseous H2O does not.
>
> So, the fact that the vapor has a pressure that can be accounted for using Dalton's law does not mean that vapor and gas are equivalent in all other respects.

I am not interested in whatever it is you call "vapor". All I am saying
is that at, for example, 24C, the H2O phase diagram states that the
stable phase of H2O is gas below 3,000 pascals. Dalton's Law states that
the presence of other nonreacting gases (N2, O2) doesn't affect this, so
at 24C the partial pressure of H2O(g) can be up to 3,000 pascals.

[Volney]

You sure did!

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 11:07:08 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:

> >> Dalton's Law states this
> >> pressure can be added to the partial pressures of nitrogen, oxygen etc.
> >> to get the total absolute pressure of the air.
> >
> > Obviously. Yes, of course, it can be added. And is.
>
> So you agree that adding the partial pressure of H2O(g) to that of
> nitrogen and oxygen is correct? OK, good.

I'm happy that you're happy.

> >> Simple example: 78,000 pascals of nitrogen + 21,000 pascals of oxygen +
> >> 1,000 pascals of other gases + 1,000 pascals of H2O(g) = 101,000 pascals
> >> of air pressure. At 24C there can be up to 3,000 pascals of H2O(g)
> >> according to the water phase diagram.
> >
> > I'm not going to go over your numbers. But you still seem confused. Keep in mind that, for example, the "vapor" pressure of H2O and the pressure of H2O gas are vastly different.
>
> So you have some sort of new definition of "vapor"?

LOL. It may be new to you but that is because you have no experience in this discipline.

> I am talking about
> H2O(g) here.

Then you need to be more careful to use concise, non ambiguous words.

> > Gaseous H2O produces a lot of pressure.
>
> Not according to the H2O phase diagram, at least at lower temperatures.

Irrelevant.

> > Vapor produces a fraction of the pressure in comparison H2O gas.
> >
> > Another big difference between H2O vapor and H2O gas is the fact that the H2O nanodroplets require an existing substrate to be suspended in. Gaseous H2O does not.
> >
> > So, the fact that the vapor has a pressure that can be accounted for using Dalton's law does not mean that vapor and gas are equivalent in all other respects.
>
> I am not interested in whatever it is you call "vapor".

It makes no difference what you interests are if you can't communicate clearly and concisely.

> All I am saying
> is that at, for example, 24C, the H2O phase diagram states that the
> stable phase of H2O is gas below 3,000 pascals.

Yes, this is true.

> Dalton's Law states that
> the presence of other nonreacting gases (N2, O2) doesn't affect this,

Reference.

> so
> at 24C the partial pressure of H2O(g) can be up to 3,000 pascals.

Wrong. You are still confused. Yes, if you isolate H2O in a sealed container and lower the pressure it will turn to gas (at 24C and 3,000 pascals). However, under normal pressure it will revert back to a liquid. As a liquid it will still exert pressure, vapor pressure. Now, might it be true that these two pressures are the same. I don't know. I suppose it is possible. Nevertheless, this fact isn't reason to assume H2O magically turns to gas at ambient temps/pressures.

James McGinn

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 9:52:24 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> "Nearly all the water vapor in the atmosphere lies in the
> troposphere—the layer extending roughly 20 kilometers from Earth’s
> surface. Dimers make up less than one percent of this water vapor,

How did he determine this?

> which makes it difficult to see them compared to single (monomer) water
> molecules, particularly in the visible and infrared portion of the
> spectrum, where the light energy is sufficient to destroy the dimers."

Blatant speculation.

> Do you finally understand this, Jim?

A better question would be does Saykally understand it or is he just pretending. He has already been caught in lies (just like you).

<snip>

> he's been a professor of chemistry at UC Berkeley for 40 years,

Right. He's a teacher and an academic. He has a standard model to promote and he has a pedestal as a professor to promote it. But this doesn't translate into a license to ignore the scientific method and create your own truth.

Why don't you contact Saykally and ask him to explain how he verified that the IR signature of a dimer is correctly attributable to a dimer. (You won't get a response.) This is kind of a laughable claim in that we know we don't have the ability to see the size of the nanodroplets.

He can make any speculative claim he wants. Nobody can dispute him since we don't have the ability to view an H2O molecules as individuals.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 12:11:06 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 9:52:24 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > "Nearly all the water vapor in the atmosphere lies in the
> > troposphere—the layer extending roughly 20 kilometers from Earth’s
> > surface. Dimers make up less than one percent of this water vapor,

> How did he determine this?

Why don't you read his 407 papers and find out for yourself? You can read, can't you? That's why these guys publish in the first place, so that others can read all about it. If you don't believe what he has to say, well, you know...

"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally

> > "... which makes it difficult to see them compared to single (monomer) water

> > molecules, particularly in the visible and infrared portion of the
> > spectrum, where the light energy is sufficient to destroy the dimers."
>
> Blatant speculation.

Blatant verbal bullshit from you is more like it. You didn't even read the paper, as usual, or you would know the answer. Here are the references from that paper, you should follow up by reading them so you can learn just how he came to his conclusions...

References
N. Goldman, C. Leforestier, and R. J. Saykally, “Water Dimers in the Atmosphere II: Results from the VRT(ASP-W)III Potential Surface,” J. Phys. Chem. A 108, 787 (2004)

V. Vaida, “Perspective: Water Cluster Mediated Atmospheric Chemistry,” J. Chem. Phys. 135, 020901 (2011)

A. J. L. Shillings, S. M. Ball, M. J. Barber, J. Tennyson, and R. L. Jones, “An Upper Limit for Water Dimer Absorption in the 750 nm Spectral Region and a Revised Water Line List,” Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 4273 (2011)

M. Y. Tretyakov, E. A. Serov, M. A. Koshelev, V. V. Parshin, and A. F. Krupnov, “Water Dimer Rotationally Resolved Millimeter-Wave Spectrum Observation at Room Temperature,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 093001 (2013)

Y. Scribano and C. Leforestier, “Contribution of Water Dimer Absorption to the Millimeter and Far Infrared Atmospheric Water Continuum,” J. Chem. Phys. 126, 234301 (2007)

A. F. Krupnov, M. Yu. Tretyakov, and C. Leforestier, “Possibilities of the Observation of the Discrete Spectrum of the Water Dimer at Equilibrium in Millimeter-Wave Band,” J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer 110, 427 (2009)

R. A. Bohlander, H. A. Gebbie, and G. W. F. Pardoe, “Absorption Spectrum of Water Vapor in the Region of 23 cm−1 At Low Temperatures,” Nature 228, 157 (1970)

K. L. Busarow, R. C. Cohen, G. A. Blake, K. B. Laughlin, Y. T. Lee, and R. J. Saykally, “Measurement of the Perpendicular Rotation-Tunneling Spectrum of the Water Dimer by Tunable Far Infrared Laser Spectroscopy in a Planar Supersonic Jet,” J. Chem. Phys. 90, 3937 (1989)

R. C. Cohen, K. L. Busarow, K. B. Laughlin, G. A. Blake, M. Havenith, Y. T. Lee, and

R. J. Saykally, “Tunable Far Infrared Laser Spectroscopy of van der Waals Bonds: Vibration-Rotation-Tunneling Spectra of Ar-H2O,” J. Chem. Phys. 89, 4494 (1988)

H. C. Pumphrey and S. Buhler, ”Instrumental and Spectral Parameters: Their Effect on and Measurement by Microwave Limb Sounding of the Atmosphere”, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiati. Transfer 64, 421 (2000)

I suppose you will now claim that all of these researchers don't know what they are talking about and are just lying to us, right Jim?

> > Do you finally understand this, Jim?

> A better question would be does Saykally understand it or is he just pretending. He has already been caught in lies (just like you).

No, to say that Dr. Saykally has lied to you is in itself a lie, and I have not lied, either. Point out to me where I have lied to you. You will fail. You are one sick puppy, Jim...

> <snip>
>
> > he's been a professor of chemistry at UC Berkeley for 40 years,
>
> Right. He's a teacher and an academic. He has a standard model to promote and he has a pedestal as a professor to promote it. But this doesn't translate into a license to ignore the scientific method and create your own truth.

Yet another Big Lie form Jim McGinn, who has never used the scientific method in his life. You can't possibly even know what the phrase means. It has something to do with observations and experiments, neither of which you have. Lies, lies, and more lies from Jim McGinn.

> Why don't you contact Saykally and ask him to explain how he verified that the IR signature of a dimer is correctly attributable to a dimer. (You won't get a response.) This is kind of a laughable claim in that we know we don't have the ability to see the size of the nanodroplets.

Dr. Saykally will tell you the same thing that I'm telling you, if you want to see his observations and/or experiments, go read his papers. They are all on the internet and available to anyone. Dr. Saykally has nothing to hide, especially from a dumbfuck like you, who isn't equipped to understand much more than 5% of his work in any case.

> He can make any speculative claim he wants.

Just like you can make any claims you want. The difference is that he has the research papers to back him up, whereas you have virtually nothing to offer up as evidence. You've got nothing!

> Nobody can dispute him since we don't have the ability to view an H2O molecules as individuals.

You can't dispute him, that's for sure because you don't know the first thing about chemistry! I can't dispute him for essentially the same reason, but that's why he is the expert and you and I are not. You don't know what you don't know, but I do... but then, I'm not the guy here who is proposing theories that directly oppose professional like Dr. Saykally without any evidence at all.

You are dead in the water, you have been outed, and you have nowhere to go, except back under your rock or back to your mental facility.

[Odd Bodkin]

<pnal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 12:11:06 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 9:52:24 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> "Nearly all the water vapor in the atmosphere lies in the
>>> troposphere—the layer extending roughly 20 kilometers from Earth’s
>>> surface. Dimers make up less than one percent of this water vapor,
>
>> How did he determine this?
>
> Why don't you read his 407 papers and find out for yourself?

Because it’s his objective to:

1. Get you to mine the papers for him

2. Ask you the relevance of what you quote directly, even if the relevance
is obvious

3. Make you prove that the data are trustworthy

4. In the end, dismiss it as consensus science that should be rejected on
that basis alone

5. Loop to 1.

How much time you got? He has A LOT.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 2:16:51 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 12:11:06 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> >> On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 9:52:24 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Nearly all the water vapor in the atmosphere lies in the
> >>> troposphere—the layer extending roughly 20 kilometers from Earth’s
> >>> surface. Dimers make up less than one percent of this water vapor,
> >
> >> How did he determine this?
> >
> > Why don't you read his 407 papers and find out for yourself?
>
> Because it’s his objective to:
>
> 1. Get you to mine the papers for him
>
> 2. Ask you the relevance of what you quote directly, even if the relevance
> is obvious
>
> 3. Make you prove that the data are trustworthy
>
> 4. In the end, dismiss it as consensus science that should be rejected on
> that basis alone
>
> 5. Loop to 1.
>
> How much time you got? He has A LOT.

Well, you are right, of course, but I'm just sitting here watching the playoff games anyhow. I just like jerking his chain and watching him implode.

We both spend too much time sparring with the many idiots on these forums, and that's a fact!

[James McGinn]

> > "Nearly all the water vapor in the atmosphere lies in the
> > troposphere—the layer extending roughly 20 kilometers from Earth’s
> > surface. Dimers make up less than one percent of this water vapor,

> How did he determine this?

Why don't you read his 407 papers and find out for yourself?

You got nothing!!!

[Michael Moroney]

James McGinn writes:

> You got nothing!!!

Thanks for admitting to us that you have been shown to be wrong.

[James McGinn]

>> How did he determine this?
>
> Why don't you read his 407 papers and find out for yourself?

Because it’s his objective to:

1. Get you to mine the papers for him

If Pnal can't support his argument and he doesn't want to be called a liar again he should make a retraction.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Looks who's talking about someone who can't support his argument! Jim, you are the King of deflectors. I fully supported my argument by providing a published paper. YOU are the liar here who can't support his argument, and that's a fact.

[Claudius Denk]

I fully supported my argument by providing a published paper.

No, you dropped a link to a paper you don't understand.

Hell, even Sergio could do that.

[James McGinn]

JMcG:

So, the fact that the vapor has a pressure that can be accounted for using Dalton's law does not mean that vapor and gas are equivalent in all other respects.

Volney:

I am not interested in whatever it is you call "vapor". All I am saying
is that at, for example, 24C, the H2O phase diagram states that the
stable phase of H2O is gas below 3,000 pascals.

CD:
Yeah, so?

Volney:

Dalton's Law states that
the presence of other nonreacting gases (N2, O2) doesn't affect this,

CD:
What is "this"? And where does Dalton's law state that it doesn't effect "this."

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Mr. Desperate, who doesn't even know the difference between 'effect' and 'affect', has once again dropped the unabridged (very heavy) version of the Oxford Dictionary on his pecker and does not understand why it hurts so much.

How can one guy (well, 2, if you include Denk) bo so very stupid? He is a laughingstock it total denial, and will soon return to 'the home'.

"In physics a vapor (American) or vapour (Rest of the World) is a substance in the gas phase at a temperature lower than its critical temperature"

When will ever learn?

[Volney]

The difference between "gas" and "vapor" (same as gas, but only below
its critical temperature) is irrelevant in this discussion, since all we
are discussing is water well below its critical temperature.

>
>> All I am saying
>> is that at, for example, 24C, the H2O phase diagram states that the
>> stable phase of H2O is gas below 3,000 pascals.
>
> Yes, this is true.
>
>> Dalton's Law states that
>> the presence of other nonreacting gases (N2, O2) doesn't affect this,
>
> Reference.

Umm, every single chemistry book in existence?

>
>> so
>> at 24C the partial pressure of H2O(g) can be up to 3,000 pascals.
>
> Wrong. You are still confused. Yes, if you isolate H2O in a sealed container and lower the pressure it will turn to gas (at 24C and 3,000 pascals). However, under normal pressure it will revert back to a liquid.

Only if normal pressure was produced by compressing the water vapor. If
done by adding dry air, the partial pressure of H2O(g) is still 3,000
pascals.

> As a liquid it will still exert pressure, vapor pressure. Now, might it be true that these two pressures are the same. I don't know. I suppose it is possible.

Dalton's Law states they will be the same.

> Nevertheless, this fact isn't reason to assume H2O magically turns to gas at ambient temps/pressures.

No magic involved, but any phase diagram for water will tell you it does.

[Volney]

On 1/6/2019 10:10 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> JMcG:
> So, the fact that the vapor has a pressure that can be accounted for using Dalton's law does not mean that vapor and gas are equivalent in all other respects.
>
> Volney:
> I am not interested in whatever it is you call "vapor". All I am saying
> is that at, for example, 24C, the H2O phase diagram states that the
> stable phase of H2O is gas below 3,000 pascals.
>
> CD:

Whoops! McGinn forgot which sock he had on halfway through his post!

> Yeah, so?

The difference in definitions (vapor == same as gas except only below
the critical temperature) is not important to this discussion.

>
> Volney:
> Dalton's Law states that
> the presence of other nonreacting gases (N2, O2) doesn't affect this,
>
> CD:
> What is "this"?

"[at 24C] the stable phase of H2O is gas below 3,000 pascals."

> And where does Dalton's law state that it doesn't effect "this."

That's the entire point of Dalton's Law! The presence of other gases
does not affect the individual gas behavior.
>

[James McGinn]

No worries. Just provide us a quote from Dalton.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Volney, you need to keep in mind that McGinn has no clue as to how to interpret a phase diagram. He says he does, but he is clueless. A dumbfuck, to be sure...

[Sergio]

think of talking to McGinn as talking to a small dog, perhaps a Shih
Tzu or Toy Poodle. it knows nothing of science, nor the meaning of the
words used. McGinn is called McFly for a reason.

Density, pressure, are not in his knowledge base, which consists only of
what he can look up on the internet, and understand, which is not much
at all.

[Sergio]

think of talking to McGinn as talking to a small dog, perhaps a Shih
Tzu or Toy Poodle. it knows nothing of science, nor the meaning of the

words used. McGinn (et al) is called McFly for a reason.

Density, pressure, are not in his knowledge base, which consists only of

what he can look up on the internet and understand, which is not much
at all.

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 10:46:00 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:

> > So, the fact that the vapor has a pressure that can be accounted for using Dalton's law does not mean that vapor and gas are equivalent in all other respects.
> >
> > Volney:
> > I am not interested in whatever it is you call "vapor". All I am saying
> > is that at, for example, 24C, the H2O phase diagram states that the
> > stable phase of H2O is gas below 3,000 pascals.
>

> > Yeah, so?
>
> The difference in definitions (vapor == same as gas except only below
> the critical temperature) is not important to this discussion.

Answer my question you evasive jackass.

> > Volney:
> > Dalton's Law states that
> > the presence of other nonreacting gases (N2, O2) doesn't affect this,
> >
> > CD:
> > What is "this"?
>
> "[at 24C] the stable phase of H2O is gas below 3,000 pascals."
>
> > And where does Dalton's law state that it doesn't effect "this."
>
> That's the entire point of Dalton's Law! The presence of other gases
> does not affect the individual gas behavior.

Answer the questions you evasive twit: 1) What is "this"? and 2) Where does Dalton's law state that it doesn't effect "this."

Checkmate.

That was easy.

[James McGinn]

Pnal:
I admit that I have a university degree in physics...

JMcG:
Really?

[Volney]

On 1/7/2019 11:01 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 10:46:00 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>
>>> So, the fact that the vapor has a pressure that can be accounted for using Dalton's law does not mean that vapor and gas are equivalent in all other respects.
>>>
>>> Volney:
>>> I am not interested in whatever it is you call "vapor". All I am saying
>>> is that at, for example, 24C, the H2O phase diagram states that the
>>> stable phase of H2O is gas below 3,000 pascals.
>>
>>> Yeah, so?
>>
>> The difference in definitions (vapor == same as gas except only below
>> the critical temperature) is not important to this discussion.
>
>
> Answer my question you evasive jackass.

I already did. Vapor is gas below the critical temperature.

>
>>> Volney:
>>> Dalton's Law states that
>>> the presence of other nonreacting gases (N2, O2) doesn't affect this,
>>>
>>> CD:
>>> What is "this"?
>>
>> "[at 24C] the stable phase of H2O is gas below 3,000 pascals."
>>
>>> And where does Dalton's law state that it doesn't effect "this."
>>
>> That's the entire point of Dalton's Law! The presence of other gases
>> does not affect the individual gas behavior.
>
> Answer the questions you evasive twit: 1) What is "this"? and 2) Where does Dalton's law state that it doesn't effect "this."

You have some sort of reading comprehension problem.

"This" is the fact that at 24C the stable phase of H2O is gas below
3,000 pascals pressure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton%27s_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_pressure

That is as much as I am willing to spoonfeed you.

> Checkmate.
>
> That was easy.

Yes, beating you was like taking candy from a baby.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

A very retarded baby...

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Yeah, and math and astronomy. San Diego State University. A long time ago, but I earned them fair and square. How about you, Bozo? It is virtually impossible that you have ever studied any science since your knowledge is negligible, as far as I can tell. You can't even interpret a phase diagram!

You don't know what you don't know and are just too stupid to realize it.

[Sergio]

so more Spoonfeeding James McGinn, use a smaller spoon...

[Sergio]

McGinn: "the lights are on, but no one is home",
"the cheese slid off his cracker"