Response to Arindham; By James McGinn Atmospheric Physicist and top expert on water in the atmosphere

[James McGinn]

Arindham:
However your point about water below 100degC in gaseous state being not necessarily mono-molecular, is controversial.

JMcG:
Controversial? For it to be controversial there would have to be something more than superstition and anecdote opposing it. And that just isn't the case. People who believe H2O can turn to gaseous and stay gaseous at any temperature/pressure that is different from what any idiot can determine by looking at a H2O phase diagram are scientifically illiterate goons. And goons can't create controversy.

Arindham:
I would think that any wet shoe, when left to dry, will do so when some water is kicked out of it by some air molecule with kinetic impact.

JMcG:
Jesus fucking christ. What you think is irrelevant and what you imagine isn't an experiment. The properties of H2O are not a mystery. Yes, there is a lot of confusion. But that is no excuse for confusing your imagination with empirical evidence. It makes no difference that you can imagine it becoming gaseous. Hell, even if it did become gaseous for an instant (and it doesn't) in the next instant it would reform bonds and become liquid again.

Arindham:
If it pleases you, that momentary contact may raise the local temperature beyond 100degC no matter what the ambient may be, so that way your theory may still hold for then all evaporation is steamy, for steam as you say has to be monomolecular.

JMcG:
The word "Steam" is ambiguous. It has different meaning to different people. Science illiterates use ambiguous terminology.

Arindham:
These monomolecules rise high, as per our observation of the ways of Mother Nature, in the rare spaces high above where they get more concentration as the heavier atoms are below them.

JMcG:
This is a fucking retarded claim. You have never observed gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures. Nobody has.

Arindham:
In such high concentration, they unite to form multi-molecules, forming clouds, etc.

JMcG:
Your imagination isn't evidence. Consult an H2O phase diagram to realize the impossibility of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere. Heavier moisture nanodroplets are suspended by electrostatic factors associated with air..

Arindham, your understanding of H2O is amateurish. Trust me, I know. I am a physicist and the #! expert in the world on the water structure problem

Watch This Video!!!
No Steam in the Atmosphere; H2O Polarity is Variable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TccP1_pU5UE&t=98s


James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[AF]

James, you don't get to decide whether you're "#!" or not.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Friday, March 2, 2018 at 7:21:37 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> Arindham:
> However your point about water below 100degC in gaseous state being not necessarily mono-molecular, is controversial.
>
> JMcG:
> Controversial?

You have got one point of view and the rest of the world thinks otherwise.
That would be controversial.

My name is Arindam, not Arindham. South Indians have a tendency to spell it as you do, and that is strange for I don't think you hail from South India.

> For it to be controversial there would have to be something more than superstition and anecdote opposing it. And that just isn't the case. People who believe H2O can turn to gaseous and stay gaseous at any temperature/pressure that is different from what any idiot can determine by looking at a H2O phase diagram are scientifically illiterate goons. And goons can't create controversy.

What is a gas? Let us define a gas as a state of matter when the constituents of that matter escape the liquid state and are thus not confined to a state of fluid TOGETHERNESS. A monomolecule of H20 is a gas, at whatever temperature. A bi-molecule of H20 should have 36gm in 22.4l at NTP, less than CO2 at 44gm. So a bi-molecule of H20 is a heavy gas, heavier than air but less heavy than CO2. At what stage does gas becomes liquid? It should have to do with N, where N*H20 exceeds a certain number.

A H2O phase diagram is just a diagram. It could have been drawn by Ms Rowlling for all I know or care. I don't bother about any diagrams. That would make me a kind of religious nut - like most around here, as I see. Why should I *believe* in any diagram? They could all be fools or liars, those who made the diagrams, just like the e=mcc wallahs. I care only for scientific truth, starting from basics, including assumptions, then building up on the basis with faultless logic, and proving that logic with correct experimentation that can be repeated by all, and whose analysis is impeccable, considering the assumptions. And of course, it could all be very wrong, just as the analysis of the huge MMI bungle that I pointed out in 2005.

A diagram, thus, can only help when you already are aware of the facts behind its construction. When you don't know that, it is irrelevant and just used for either creating confusion or for robbery of some sort.

>
> Arindham:
> I would think that any wet shoe, when left to dry, will do so when some water is kicked out of it by some air molecule with kinetic impact.
>
> JMcG:
> Jesus fucking christ. What you think is irrelevant and what you imagine isn't an experiment.

The link you yourself showed us, mentioned *experiments* with wet shoes and wet bottles too at different orientations. Of course it is an experiment, for you do something actually repeatable with given aim and conclusion. It may be that the analysis is wrong, etc. but as an experiment it cannot be faulted.

The properties of H2O are not a mystery. Yes, there is a lot of confusion. But that is no excuse for confusing your imagination with empirical evidence. It makes no difference that you can imagine it becoming gaseous. Hell, even if it did become gaseous for an instant (and it doesn't) in the next instant it would reform bonds and become liquid again.
>
> Arindham:
> If it pleases you, that momentary contact may raise the local temperature beyond 100degC no matter what the ambient may be, so that way your theory may still hold for then all evaporation is steamy, for steam as you say has to be monomolecular.
>
> JMcG:
> The word "Steam" is ambiguous. It has different meaning to different people. Science illiterates use ambiguous terminology.

Let us say that by "steam" we mean monomolecular water, at whatever temperature.
Your point as I understand is that below 100degC a monomolecule of water cannot be called steam. Then what is it - a gas or liquid or solid?

> Arindham:
> These monomolecules rise high, as per our observation of the ways of Mother Nature, in the rare spaces high above where they get more concentration as the heavier atoms are below them.
>
> JMcG:
> This is a fucking retarded claim.

Why are you such a rude prick? You need not be so rude with me - I am not being rude with you, just trying to make some sense from your constant clamour. There could be something there after all. Your rudeness only exposes your insecurities and detracts from whatever merits your claims may deserve.

> You have never observed gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures. Nobody has.

We hard working people who do practical work, do our own cleaning and cooking, that is, have all observed gaseous H20 at ambient temperatures when we use a steam vacuum, or kettle for boiling water. How the monomolecules become multimolecules when they escape - rising - from the hot container and cool down in the ambient. What you may be trying to say is that ALL the steam monomolecules become multimolecules when they escape into the ambient. I don't think so, for steam vacuuming does not produce that much water upon the objects steam cleaned. A good fraction of the steam simply cools down and vanishes, in some N*H2O state as I explained earlier where N could jolly well be 1. If a single H2O atom cannot find another to combine with to form some N*H2O then well it goes on its lonely way till it finds some other H2O or group of H2Os.

> Arindham:
> In such high concentration, they unite to form multi-molecules, forming clouds, etc.
>
> JMcG:
> Your imagination isn't evidence. Consult an H2O phase diagram to realize the impossibility of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere.

As a general rule, and like every engineer or scientist I have learned from in my long career, ANY diagram used to crush logic and fact with hand-waving MUST be either total bullshit, or is being used by bullshitters for their own devious purposes. Such tactics are totally worthless and meaningless for any serious discussions about the fundamentals.

Anyway, it is not imagination, but observation of reality which tells us that multimolecules of water exist high up in the airm as clouds. Evidently the cloud state is neither gas nor liquid, something in between, when rigorous definitions of liquid and gas are applied.

> Heavier moisture nanodroplets are suspended by electrostatic factors associated with air..

That may well be, just like surface tension as I wrote earlier. With surface tension, a denser solid can float upon a less dense liquid, as a razor blade upon water. Similarly, a liquid can rest upon a gas, and thus clouds rest upon air. Surface tension is about electric forces between atoms.

> Arindham, your understanding of H2O is amateurish. Trust me, I know. I am a physicist and the #! expert in the world on the water structure problem

James, maybe you are a physicist, and certainly understanding of H2O is not my field. I have basic information about H2O from my university studies of Chemistry. Long time ago. On the other hand, all modern physics involving e=mcc=hv is bunkum, so physicists of that sort should not have any credibility. We need to go back to the basics.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Ser gio]

hi banjo,
James McGinn (McFly) knows 1/10,000 the amount of science of anybody
else in this newsgroup. He is at a 3rd grade school level in science.
He is only here to insult people. He has the intelligence of 3 dead gnats.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Sergio-ji, it does not matter to me if James & etc. is as exalted as Hawking or Einstein, or what you say he is. Somewhat like the fictional detective Poirot, I look for clues in what people say - doesn't ultimately matter if they are lying and ignorant, or truthful and wise. Logic and facts have their inimitable ways of providing a certain structure for evaluation purposes, to one such as I, considered by my friends to be blessed. Water is very important for all, so any study of water and its properties is bound to be beneficial.

[James McGinn]

A bi-molecule of H20 should have 36gm in 22.4l at NTP, less than CO2 at 44gm. So a bi-molecule of H20 is a heavy gas, heavier than air but less heavy than CO2. At what stage does gas becomes liquid? It should have to do with N, where N*H20 exceeds a certain number.

N2 is electromagnetically neutural 2H2O is extremely polar.


A human being that is not educated to believe otherwise will have a strong predisposition to believe in ghosts. So, we can infer that belief in ghosts is instinctual in humans such that any human that was not educated to believe otherwise can be expected to maintain a belief in ghosts.

Likewise, a human being that is not educated to believe otherwise will have a strong predisposition to believe that moisture in the atmosphere is gaseous.

> A H2O phase diagram is just a diagram. It could have been drawn by Ms Rowlling for all I know or care. I don't bother about any diagrams. That would make me a kind of religious nut - like most around here, as I see. Why should I *believe* in any diagram? They could all be fools or liars, those who made the diagrams, just like the e=mcc wallahs. I care only for scientific truth, starting from basics, including assumptions, then building up on the basis with faultless logic, and proving that logic with correct experimentation that can be repeated by all, and whose analysis is impeccable, considering the assumptions. And of course, it could all be very wrong, just as the analysis of the huge MMI bungle that I pointed out in 2005.
>
> A diagram, thus, can only help when you already are aware of the facts behind its construction. When you don't know that, it is irrelevant and just used for either creating confusion or for robbery of some sort.

The H2O phase diagram is based on empirical evidence. Your imagination is not evidence.

> > Arindham:
> > I would think that any wet shoe, when left to dry, will do so when some water is kicked out of it by some air molecule with kinetic impact.
> >
> > JMcG:
> > Jesus fucking christ. What you think is irrelevant and what you imagine isn't an experiment.
>
> The link you yourself showed us, mentioned *experiments* with wet shoes and wet bottles too at different orientations. Of course it is an experiment, for you do something actually repeatable with given aim and conclusion. It may be that the analysis is wrong, etc. but as an experiment it cannot be faulted.

The experiment did demonstrate that the net direction of evaporation in earth's atmosphere is upward, against the direction of gravity. It did not demostrate that the nature of the evaporate was gaseous (monomolecular) or that the cause of the upward movement was convection. If you think it did that is because your mind is filling in details to match your expectations. Your imagination is not evidence.

Ultimately the thread lead to an interesting conclusion. Evaporation is caused by thermionics:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=180#p122195

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=300#p122533

http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~callen/energy_harvesting/Feynman1964pp9-1to9-3.pdf

Read the following document very thoroughly:
http://breakthroughinenergy.com/sitefiles/media/PDF%20Documents/BreakthroughInEnergyBook.pdf

> Let us say that by "steam" we mean monomolecular water, at whatever temperature.
> Your point as I understand is that below 100degC a monomolecule of water cannot be called steam. Then what is it - a gas or liquid or solid?

If you give a ghost a name does it become real? It doesn't matter what we call it since its existence is just a conjecture by science illiterates.

> > Arindam:

> > These monomolecules rise high, as per our observation of the ways of Mother Nature, in the rare spaces high above where they get more concentration as the heavier atoms are below them.
> >
> > JMcG:
> > This is a fucking retarded claim.
>
> Why are you such a rude prick? You need not be so rude with me - I am not being rude with you, just trying to make some sense from your constant clamour. There could be something there after all. Your rudeness only exposes your insecurities and detracts from whatever merits your claims may deserve.

You just made a fucking absurd claim to have observed monomolecular H2O. And you expect me to be polite?

>
> > You have never observed gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures. Nobody has.
>
> We hard working people who do practical work, do our own cleaning and cooking, that is, have all observed gaseous H20 at ambient temperatures

No you haven't you fucking moron. Nobody in the history of mankind has observed monomolecular H2O.

when we use a steam vacuum, or kettle for boiling water. How the monomolecules become multimolecules when they escape - rising - from the hot container and cool down in the ambient. What you may be trying to say is that ALL the steam monomolecules become multimolecules when they escape into the ambient.

Yes. This is what the best evidence indicates. The phase of H2O has been demonstrated to strictly conform to its thermal charcateristics.

I don't think so, for steam vacuuming does not produce that much water upon the objects steam cleaned. A good fraction of the steam simply cools down and vanishes, in some N*H2O state as I explained earlier where N could jolly well be 1. If a single H2O atom cannot find another to combine with to form some N*H2O then well it goes on its lonely way till it finds some other H2O or group of H2Os.

There is no opportunity for "loneliness" on planet earth. Once again, your imagination is not evidence.

> > Arindham:
> > In such high concentration, they unite to form multi-molecules, forming clouds, etc.
> >
> > JMcG:
> > Your imagination isn't evidence. Consult an H2O phase diagram to realize the impossibility of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere.
>
> As a general rule, and like every engineer or scientist I have learned from in my long career, ANY diagram used to crush logic and fact with hand-waving MUST be either total bullshit, or is being used by bullshitters for their own devious purposes. Such tactics are totally worthless and meaningless for any serious discussions about the fundamentals.

What facts were crushed? All you have is anecdote and imagination.

>
> Anyway, it is not imagination, but observation of reality

YOU CANNOT OBSERVE GASEOUS H2O, YOU FUCKING MORON.

which tells us that multimolecules of water exist high up in the airm as clouds. Evidently the cloud state is neither gas nor liquid, something in between,

It's liquid.

[Steve BH]

Water can be a gas at any point in the P-T phase diagram where it says "gas". At that temperature and that partial pressure of gas. And it is a gas in that area, not a suspension of liquid drops.

If you don't know THAT, then YOU ARE the scientifically illiterate goon.

Lines on the diagram are places where two phases (like liquid and gas) can coexist in equilibrium. Areas between the lines are for one phase.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 6:26:32 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> Nobody in the history of mankind has observed monomolecular H2O.

Jim, you dumbfuck, have you not learned a damn thing over the last 2 days? You are busted, big-time, and don't have a leg to stand on. Painted into a corner, again.

Run, Jim, run, before it's too late!

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 6:26:40 PM UTC-8, Steve BH wrote:

> Water can be a gas at any point in the P-T phase diagram where it
> says "gas". At that temperature and that partial pressure of gas.

So, you've transposed the concept of pressure with the concept of partial pressure and have arrived at a creative new interpretation.

Does the P-T phase diagram indicate partial pressure?

Hell, no!!!

> And it is a gas in that area, not a suspension of liquid drops.

It's a liquid.

[James McGinn]

You got nothing!!!

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Not true, I've got your goat...

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 2:44:01 PM UTC-8, AF wrote:
> James, you don't get to decide whether you're "#!" or not.

I'm the one and only on this subject.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Only in your tiny little pea-brain...

[James McGinn]

You've established yourself as a vague nitwit without and argument or even a point. Steve presented an argument. It's bad argument, but at least he is trying. You and Sergio sit on the sidelines and make stupid comments.

You've got nothing!!!

[James McGinn]

There is nobody else. I'm the only scientist in the world dealing with this issue and the many goons that believe it.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 6:26:40 PM UTC-8, Steve BH wrote:

> Water can be a gas at any point in the P-T phase diagram where it
> says "gas". At that temperature and that partial pressure of gas.
> And it is a gas in that area, not a suspension of liquid drops.

I assure you, Steve, the other retards in this thread don't understand what you are saying. I understand what you are saying. It's completely ludicrous, but I understand it.

Why do you think it is nobody else has expressed support for your creative chart reading methods?

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Jim, you buffoon, virtually *everyone* agrees with Steve regarding the interpretation of the phase diagram, why don't you understand this? His interpretation is exactly what the phase diagram intends to say. All physicists would agree with Steve, it is only you who doesn't.

How can one guy be so fucking stupid? Beyond my comprehension!

You obviously *don't* understand what he is saying, that is what is clear to everyone else.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 8:25:18 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 8:10:06 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 6:26:40 PM UTC-8, Steve BH wrote:
> >
> > > Water can be a gas at any point in the P-T phase diagram where it
> > > says "gas". At that temperature and that partial pressure of gas.
> > > And it is a gas in that area, not a suspension of liquid drops.
> >
> > I assure you, Steve, the other retards in this thread don't understand what you are saying. I understand what you are saying. It's completely ludicrous, but I understand it.
> >
> > Why do you think it is nobody else has expressed support for your creative chart reading methods?
>
> Jim, you buffoon, virtually *everyone* agrees with Steve regarding the interpretation of the phase diagram, why don't you understand this? His interpretation is exactly what the phase diagram intends to say. All physicists would agree with Steve, it is only you who doesn't.

Virtually everybody? Really? Can you find even one?

Go ahead, provide a reference you moron.

How about that other moron Sergio. Is he on the same page as you.

Can you find anybody else. Anything?

[pnal...@gmail.com]

You must live inside a ping-pong ball, Jim, you are so delusional...

[James McGinn]

You got nothing!!!

[Ser gio]

it is very hard for James McGinn to see he is wrong, or even admit he is
retarded.

However his closest friend, Claudius Denk stated;

15. "James McGinn knows he is retarded" - Claudius Dink


This implies there is a *Phase Diagram for James McGinn*, the McGinn
phase, the Denk phase, the Snoring Pornadios phase, the Church Lady
phase, and Chan phase, with the y axis labled "Schmuck to Insane" in
percentage, and the x axis labled "Spoonfeeding to Asshole" in
percentage. there is one triple point where all three meet, of
blowhard, know-nothing, and moron, usally you will find McGinn there.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Friday, March 2, 2018 at 1:26:32 PM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> A bi-molecule of H20 should have 36gm in 22.4l at NTP, less than CO2 at 44gm. So a bi-molecule of H20 is a heavy gas, heavier than air but less heavy than CO2. At what stage does gas becomes liquid? It should have to do with N, where N*H20 exceeds a certain number.
>
> N2 is electromagnetically neutural 2H2O is extremely polar.

So?

>
>
> A human being that is not educated to believe otherwise will have a strong predisposition to believe in ghosts. So, we can infer that belief in ghosts is instinctual in humans such that any human that was not educated to believe otherwise can be expected to maintain a belief in ghosts.

Educated - or brainwashed, bullied, cajoled, bribed, fooled... why all this irrelevant talk about ghosts? Since when did this ng turn paranormal?

> Likewise, a human being that is not educated to believe otherwise will have a strong predisposition to believe that moisture in the atmosphere is gaseous.

And so it is, going by the current scientific opinion. So long as H2O remains mono or bi or even tri molecular it will behave as a gas. That way, all fog, mist, cloud can be termed as multi-molecular gases. Only when they turn to rain or dew are they liquid.

To say that all H2O in the air HAS to be multimolecular is ridiculous. When steam is formed, a lot of monomolecules of H2O is created and they disperse, and unite only if they can pair or group with other mono or multimolecules. If they cannot find a partner, they have to remain single. Usually they find partners when they rise up to form clouds, or when at night multimolecules descend, so dew/mist is formed.

>
> > A H2O phase diagram is just a diagram. It could have been drawn by Ms Rowlling for all I know or care. I don't bother about any diagrams. That would make me a kind of religious nut - like most around here, as I see. Why should I *believe* in any diagram? They could all be fools or liars, those who made the diagrams, just like the e=mcc wallahs. I care only for scientific truth, starting from basics, including assumptions, then building up on the basis with faultless logic, and proving that logic with correct experimentation that can be repeated by all, and whose analysis is impeccable, considering the assumptions. And of course, it could all be very wrong, just as the analysis of the huge MMI bungle that I pointed out in 2005.
> >
> > A diagram, thus, can only help when you already are aware of the facts behind its construction. When you don't know that, it is irrelevant and just used for either creating confusion or for robbery of some sort.
>
> The H2O phase diagram is based on empirical evidence. Your imagination is not evidence.

In which case there is no reason for debate among those who accept such empirical evidence. As far as I am concerned, the phase diagram is completely irrelevant for the basic facts are very obvious, as I have been pointing out. And far too simple, just school level stuff. That things dry, is known to small children. That H2O goes up into the clouds, to come down as rain, is also well known to all. That H2O as a monomolecule has to be lighter than air, is known to all school students who have understood Avogadro's Hypothesis, and can do elementary calculations with moles. So, the fact of the evaporated H2O climbing up in the air to form clouds, due to its lightness, is easily understood by all.

>
>
> > > Arindham:
> > > I would think that any wet shoe, when left to dry, will do so when some water is kicked out of it by some air molecule with kinetic impact.
> > >
> > > JMcG:
> > > Jesus fucking christ. What you think is irrelevant and what you imagine isn't an experiment.
> >
> > The link you yourself showed us, mentioned *experiments* with wet shoes and wet bottles too at different orientations. Of course it is an experiment, for you do something actually repeatable with given aim and conclusion. It may be that the analysis is wrong, etc. but as an experiment it cannot be faulted.
>
> The experiment did demonstrate that the net direction of evaporation in earth's atmosphere is upward, against the direction of gravity.

Yes. The experimenter said that water evaporates upwards, and not downwards as the bottle facing downward remained wet while the one that got dry faced upwards. His conclusion was that the moist air in both the bottles was less dense than air. Which, he was afraid, went totally AGAINST your theory. So, with his experiment he PROVED that moist air is less dense than dry air. Now, what mistake did he make?

> It did not demostrate that the nature of the evaporate was gaseous (monomolecular) or that the cause of the upward movement was convection.

It did demonstrate that the nature of the evaporation was mono-molecular, though he did not do the analysis. Let me do it now - to repeat, really. Assuming 100% water vapour in monomolecular state at NTP, 18gm are there in 22.4l. Now, the point here is that this state simply cannot be - for with 100% H2O at NTP there will be combination of H2O into multimolecules. So let us say that the concentration never exceeds say 0.1% in the bottle. Thus, there is no recombination, only monomolecules among 99.9% air. Now, the whole volume will be less heavy than the surrounding air and thus it will go up. In other words, the presence of air in the bottle dilutes the gaseous H2O concentration so there is no multi-molecularity. So the monomolecules escape, and the bottle is dry.

Nobody is talkng of convection here - convection is a heat transport mechanism. Here both bottles are at the same temperature.

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 1:29:52 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> Since when did this ng turn paranormal?

When people postulated that H2O could magically defy its known boiling temperature when suspended in the atmosphere.

> > Likewise, a human being that is not educated to believe otherwise will have a strong predisposition to believe that moisture in the atmosphere is gaseous.
>
> And so it is, going by the current scientific opinion.

Opinions of scientists, or anybody, that are not grounded in empirical evidence are not scientific opinions, they are spiritualistic beliefs.

> So long as H2O remains mono or bi or even tri molecular it will behave as a gas. That way, all fog, mist, cloud can be termed as multi-molecular gases. Only when they turn to rain or dew are they liquid.

Wouldn't it be simpler to leave the current definition of gas as it is and refer small droplets as small droplets of liquid?

> To say that all H2O in the air HAS to be multimolecular is ridiculous.

You've presented exactly zero evidence that it exists or that H2O magically defies its known boiling temperature/pressure when suspended in the air. So, you are making an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

When steam is formed, a lot of monomolecules of H2O is created and they disperse,

The polarity of individual (monomolecular) molecules of H2O is 15 to 25 times (the exact number is not known and is highly variable) more polar than liquid water. (This is the reason for H2O's high boiling temperature.) The only thing keeping these highly polar molecules apart from each other is there temperature. The instant their temperature drops below the boiling temperature they reform into nano and microdroplets. And as they do their polarity drops instantly as they reform hydrogen bonds. You see, hydrogen bonds are the mechanism that neutralizes polarity.

You suffer from an amateurish understanding of H2O polarity. This ignorance provides you the arrogant belief that you understand what you do not understand.

and unite only if they can pair or group with other mono or multimolecules. If they cannot find a partner,

LOL. Your ignorance based belief that an H2O molecule could possibly avoid contact with other H2O molecules is laughable.

they have to remain single.

They don't remain single, you fucking mental retard. That is just your imagination that is creating a ridiculous scenario in your mind. If you can't maintain dispassionate objectivity you need to find another hobby, science isn't for you.

Usually they find partners when they rise up to form clouds, or when at night multimolecules descend, so dew/mist is formed.
> >
> > > A H2O phase diagram is just a diagram. It could have been drawn by Ms Rowlling for all I know or care. I don't bother about any diagrams. That would make me a kind of religious nut - like most around here, as I see. Why should I *believe* in any diagram? They could all be fools or liars, those who made the diagrams, just like the e=mcc wallahs. I care only for scientific truth, starting from basics, including assumptions, then building up on the basis with faultless logic, and proving that logic with correct experimentation that can be repeated by all, and whose analysis is impeccable, considering the assumptions. And of course, it could all be very wrong, just as the analysis of the huge MMI bungle that I pointed out in 2005.
> > >
> > > A diagram, thus, can only help when you already are aware of the facts behind its construction. When you don't know that, it is irrelevant and just used for either creating confusion or for robbery of some sort.
> >
> > The H2O phase diagram is based on empirical evidence. Your imagination is not evidence.
>
> In which case there is no reason for debate among those who accept such empirical evidence. As far as I am concerned, the phase diagram is completely irrelevant

I have no time for goons who think their imagination is more relevant than the best empirical evidence that we possess.

for the basic facts are very obvious, as I have been pointing out.

You've presented exactly zero evidence that it exists or that H2O magically defies its known boiling temperature/pressure when suspended in the air. So, you are making an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is on you, not me, you fucking goon.

And far too simple, just school level stuff. That things dry, is known to small children. That H2O goes up into the clouds, to come down as rain, is also well known to all. That H2O as a monomolecule has to be lighter than air, is known to all school students who have understood Avogadro's Hypothesis, and can do elementary calculations with moles. So, the fact of the evaporated H2O climbing up in the air to form clouds, due to its lightness, is easily understood by all.

You have to be retarded to believe that scientific truth is determined by the ease of comprehension. Read this:
Isaac Newton was a human being
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16306

> >
> >
> > > > Arindham:
> > > > I would think that any wet shoe, when left to dry, will do so when some water is kicked out of it by some air molecule with kinetic impact.
> > > >
> > > > JMcG:
> > > > Jesus fucking christ. What you think is irrelevant and what you imagine isn't an experiment.
> > >
> > > The link you yourself showed us, mentioned *experiments* with wet shoes and wet bottles too at different orientations. Of course it is an experiment, for you do something actually repeatable with given aim and conclusion. It may be that the analysis is wrong, etc. but as an experiment it cannot be faulted.
> >
> > The experiment did demonstrate that the net direction of evaporation in earth's atmosphere is upward, against the direction of gravity.
>
> Yes. The experimenter said that water evaporates upwards, and not downwards as the bottle facing downward remained wet while the one that got dry faced upwards. His conclusion was that the moist air in both the bottles was less dense than air. Which, he was afraid, went totally AGAINST your theory. So, with his experiment he PROVED that moist air is less dense than dry air. Now, what mistake did he make?

Read the fucking thread. Follow the other links I presented. Look for something called the thermionic hypothesis which indicates that the earth produces its own electric gradient. Simply put, static electricity in the atmosphere (both from earth and from the solar wind) produce an electric gradient that explains how heavier nanodroplets rise from the surface but also how INDISPUTABLY heavier clouds stay suspended.

Maybe if you didn't have your head up your ass you would have noticed that INDISPUTABLY heavier clouds stay suspended in earth's atmosphere. This is direct evidence that the convection model is nonsense. It is also direct evidence that people who think scientific truth is determined by what is comprehensible to a school child are goons.

>
> > It did not demostrate that the nature of the evaporate was gaseous (monomolecular) or that the cause of the upward movement was convection.
>
> It did demonstrate that the nature of the evaporation was mono-molecular,

That is a fucking retarded conclusion.

though he did not do the analysis. Let me do it now - to repeat, really. Assuming 100% water vapour in monomolecular state at NTP, 18gm are there in 22.4l. Now, the point here is that this state simply cannot be - for with 100% H2O at NTP there will be combination of H2O into multimolecules. So let us say that the concentration never exceeds say 0.1% in the bottle. Thus, there is no recombination, only monomolecules among 99.9% air. Now, the whole volume will be less heavy than the surrounding air and thus it will go up. In other words, the presence of air in the bottle dilutes the gaseous H2O concentration so there is no multi-molecularity. So the monomolecules escape, and the bottle is dry.

This is a retarded explanation.

>
> Nobody is talkng of convection here - convection is a heat transport mechanism. Here both bottles are at the same temperature.

Your imagination is not evidence.

Moisture rises due to static electricity, dumbass. This is why when it rains we often see lightning.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 2:22:45 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 1:29:52 AM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > Since when did this ng turn paranormal?
>
> When people postulated that H2O could magically defy its known boiling temperature when suspended in the atmosphere.

Just because a molecule of H2O was raised to its boiling point to escape the water, and thus exist in say 0degC, does not mean that it has to plunk down to the Earth.

It will do so only when it finds other H2O molecules to unite with, become heavy thus, and with gravity descend to Earth.

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> Just because a molecule of H2O was raised to its boiling point to
> escape the water, and thus exist in say 0degC, does not mean that
> it has to plunk down to the Earth.

Yeah, so? Did anybody say otherwise?

> It will do so only when it finds other H2O molecules to unite with,

It finds this instantly--literally within millionths of a second.

> become heavy thus, and with gravity descend to Earth.

This assertion is based on nothing but your childish imagination.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:43:48 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > Just because a molecule of H2O was raised to its boiling point to
> > escape the water, and thus exist in say 0degC, does not mean that
> > it has to plunk down to the Earth.
>
> Yeah, so? Did anybody say otherwise?

If you agree that a single molecule of water does not plunk down to Earth after being released from water at 100degC, then what happens to it if it cannot find another molecule of water to unite with?

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:43:48 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >
> > > Just because a molecule of H2O was raised to its boiling point to
> > > escape the water, and thus exist in say 0degC, does not mean that
> > > it has to plunk down to the Earth.
> >
> > Yeah, so? Did anybody say otherwise?
>
> If you agree that a single molecule of water does not plunk down to
> Earth after being released from water at 100degC, then what happens
> to it if it cannot find another molecule of water to unite with?

I appreciate the fact that you are taking the time to think this through and
ask the right questions.

If you were to go to outer space, where the pressure is zero, causing the
H2O to boil at room temperature, and then you were to vent it out into outer
space you might be successful in causing H2O molecules to remain singular.
But here on earth, under normal atmospheric pressures at the surface and an
atmosphere that is saturated with H2O, even in the driest of dry
environments, that would be impossible.

There is one thing about H2O molecules that would be extremely difficult for
me to explain to you. So I won't even try. But what it amounts to is that
the characteristics of H2O individually are extremely different from their
characteristics collectively. Individually H2O molecules are extremely
polar. And thus, they are extremely attracted to each other. And it is not
until they are hydrogen bonded to other water molecules that they lose this
polarity. In other words, H2O polarity is neutralized by hydrogen bonds.

I am one of a handful of people that understand what I explained to you in
the above paragraph (and the other four learned it from me).

In order for an H2O molecule to remain singular under any normal atmospheric
conditions it would have to remain very hot, and that means it would be
moving very fast and, somehow, avoid crashing into other molecules in the
atmosphere and it would have to stay away from any other water molecules.

And so, for both of these reasons, steam will not persist form much time in
earth's atmosphere.

Microdroplets and nanodroplets, however, are a different story. The H2O
molecules in a nanodroplet maintain many hydrogen bonds and, therefore, they
are highly neutralized.

Nanodroplets can maintain separation from other H2O nanodroplets because
they are not all that attracted to each other--in fact their outer shell of
"surface tension" is hydrophobic, meaning they will repel each other.

H2O is not just poorly understood it has been badly mischaracterized by the
fact that us humans want to believe it is something it is not--simple.

H2O as you and I know it is not very polar. It is neutral. Individual
molecules, however, are very polar. Understanding how and why both of these
statements are true is the subject of a video that I will be releasing in
about two weeks. I will be dropping a link to it here in this forum.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 1:48:10 PM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 5:40:25 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:43:48 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just because a molecule of H2O was raised to its boiling point to
> > > > escape the water, and thus exist in say 0degC, does not mean that
> > > > it has to plunk down to the Earth.
> > >
> > > Yeah, so? Did anybody say otherwise?
> >
> > If you agree that a single molecule of water does not plunk down to
> > Earth after being released from water at 100degC, then what happens
> > to it if it cannot find another molecule of water to unite with?
>
> I appreciate the fact that you are taking the time to think this through and
> ask the right questions.

Good.

> If you were to go to outer space, where the pressure is zero, causing the
> H2O to boil at room temperature,

How can a single molecule of water "boil" anywhere? Boiling is a phenomenon involving a lot of water subjected to external heat.

and then you were to vent it out into outer
> space you might be successful in causing H2O molecules to remain singular.

I would say, that in outer space with no other molecules around to push H2O molecules apart, the tendency for them to stick to form ice would be more pronounced than on the Earth's surface.

> But here on earth, under normal atmospheric pressures at the surface and an
> atmosphere that is saturated with H2O, even in the driest of dry
> environments, that would be impossible.

Dry air by definition has no H2O, so a single molecule of H2O will find no other molecule of H2O with which to stick. If there are other molecules then sticking to form multimolecules will become a random issue involving the chances of collision. I just don't get the impossibility part, unless you are holding that as soon as 100degC steam is released into dry air, all the monomolecules MUST unite to form multimolecules. ALL of them.

I find this hard to believe, for steam say at 1000degC when released into dry air of the Earth, with no containment, will push out with much greater force, and expand in all directions, while cooling. When expanding out at greater than 100degC, they will still remain monomolecules pushing out. At some stage these monomolecules must get far too isolated to ever unite.

>
> There is one thing about H2O molecules that would be extremely difficult for
> me to explain to you. So I won't even try.

Okay. It does look like a cop-out, though.

But what it amounts to is that
> the characteristics of H2O individually are extremely different from their
> characteristics collectively.

You are not making yourself clear. What do you mean by "characteristics of H2O individually"? Do you mean that monomolecular water has extremely different characteristics than multimolecular water? If so, who disputes that?

> Individually H2O molecules are extremely
> polar. And thus, they are extremely attracted to each other.

Okay.

And it is not
> until they are hydrogen bonded to other water molecules that they lose this
> polarity. In other words, H2O polarity is neutralized by hydrogen bonds.

Who does not know that? Of course H2O molecules bond to each other to form clouds, mists, fog, dew, rain, etc.

I would say, this behaviour is much like plastic cups cupping each other to form a single group entity.

The point is that individual molecules can only unite if they find each other to do so. Until they can, they must move in whatever temperatures singly.

In graphic terms, this means plastic cups moving in air, till they find another in the right position to cup into. But other stuff like bigger plates, ie oxygen and nitrogen molecules, are also there - and these plates push the cups away till they come to a situation when they all cup together to form a big cuppy entity like cloud, mist, etc.

> I am one of a handful of people that understand what I explained to you in
> the above paragraph (and the other four learned it from me).

We all need to learn from each other.

[Steve BH]

No, just this strange gas that comes off of liquid water, and which has a density of 18 grams per 25 liters volume of this vapor in vacuum, at room temperature. And a content of 18 grams water in air at that temperature. Just as air has a density of about 30 grams per 25 liters. And hydrogen a density of 2 grams per 25 liters. And helium 4 grams per 25 liters. And argon 40 grams per 25 liters...

I wonder what this stuff could be? For all other gases the mass per molar volume (25 liters at 25 C) would suggest a molecular weight (mass per mole). Can we think of anything with a molecular weight of 18? I'm stumped.

McGinn? I take it you are stumped, too.

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 7:32:10 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> > If you were to go to outer space, where the pressure is zero, causing the
> > H2O to boil at room temperature,
>
> How can a single molecule of water "boil" anywhere? Boiling is a phenomenon involving a lot of water subjected to external heat.



>
> and then you were to vent it out into outer
> > space you might be successful in causing H2O molecules to remain singular.
>
> I would say, that in outer space with no other molecules around to
> push H2O molecules apart, the tendency for them to stick to form
> ice would be more pronounced than on the Earth's surface.

At room temperature and zero pressure they would be above boiling
temperature and would fly apart, and they would have nothing to stick to in
outer space.

But all of this is academic. The point is that the isolation you postulated
doesn't take place under normal conditions.

> > But here on earth, under normal atmospheric pressures at the surface and an
> > atmosphere that is saturated with H2O, even in the driest of dry
> > environments, that would be impossible.
>
> Dry air by definition has no H2O,

You are being picky for no good reason. Dry air in the troposphere is never 100% dry. And it would not be able to remain hot in the proximity of other air molecules. I suppose, possibly, at the top of the troposphere where it really is dry and somewhat hot an H2O molecule might be able to remain monomolecular. But that is academic.

so a single molecule of H2O will find no other molecule of H2O with which to stick. If there are other molecules then sticking to form multimolecules will become a random issue involving the chances of collision. I just don't get the impossibility part, unless you are holding that as soon as 100degC steam is released into dry air, all the monomolecules MUST unite to form multimolecules. ALL of them.

Yes, they reform into multimolecules almost instantly, just as soon as they cool below 100C.

>
> I find this hard to believe, for steam say at 1000degC when released into dry air of the Earth, with no containment, will push out with much greater force, and expand in all directions, while cooling. When expanding out at greater than 100degC, they will still remain monomolecules pushing out. At some stage these monomolecules must get far too isolated to ever unite.

Not possible. Singular H2O molecules reattach to each other just as soon as they cool. And they cool instantly as they reenter the atmosphere.

> > There is one thing about H2O molecules that would be extremely difficult for
> > me to explain to you. So I won't even try.
>
> Okay. It does look like a cop-out, though.

I'm going to release something in about 2 weeks that will fully inform you. Try not to step in front of a bus until then.

>
> But what it amounts to is that
> > the characteristics of H2O individually are extremely different from their
> > characteristics collectively.
>
> You are not making yourself clear. What do you mean by "characteristics of H2O individually"? Do you mean that monomolecular water has extremely different characteristics than multimolecular water? If so, who disputes that?

Who doesn't.

>
>
> > Individually H2O molecules are extremely
> > polar. And thus, they are extremely attracted to each other.
>
> Okay.
>
>
> And it is not
> > until they are hydrogen bonded to other water molecules that they lose this
> > polarity. In other words, H2O polarity is neutralized by hydrogen bonds.
>
>
> Who does not know that?

Now you just seem confused.

Of course H2O molecules bond to each other to form clouds, mists, fog, dew, rain, etc.

I just said they were neutralized. You aren't following.

>
> I would say, this behaviour is much like plastic cups cupping each other to form a single group entity.

I have a more technical explanation that has to do with symmetry and stretched electron clouds. Give me 2 weeks.

>
> The point is that individual molecules can only unite if they find each other to do so. Until they can, they must move in whatever temperatures singly.

That's not my point that's your point. Good luck proving it.

>
> In graphic terms, this means plastic cups moving in air, till they find another in the right position to cup into. But other stuff like bigger plates, ie oxygen and nitrogen molecules, are also there - and these plates push the cups away till they come to a situation when they all cup together to form a big cuppy entity like cloud, mist, etc.

Why would you expect me to take this kind of off-hand speculation seriously?

>
> > I am one of a handful of people that understand what I explained to you in
> > the above paragraph (and the other four learned it from me).
>
> We all need to learn from each other.

Be patient. And always use the crosswalk.

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 8:54:18 PM UTC-8, Steve BH wrote:

> > No you haven't you fucking moron. Nobody in the history of mankind has observed monomolecular H2O.
>
>
> No, just this strange gas that comes off of liquid water, and which has a density of 18 grams per 25 liters volume of this vapor in vacuum, at room temperature.

Right. In a vacuum, at room temperature it is above its boiling temperature, it is gaseous. (You would have to heat it to maintain room temperature.)

And a content of 18 grams water in air at that temperature. Just as air has a density of about 30 grams per 25 liters. And hydrogen a density of 2 grams per 25 liters. And helium 4 grams per 25 liters. And argon 40 grams per 25 liters...
>
> I wonder what this stuff could be? For all other gases the mass per molar volume (25 liters at 25 C) would suggest a molecular weight (mass per mole). Can we think of anything with a molecular weight of 18? I'm stumped.
>
> McGinn? I take it you are stumped, too.

I think I get where you are going with this but any attempt to make a comparison to other gases would be complicated by the fact that H2O has such a bigh boiling temperature under normal conditions and by the fact that H2O's boiling temperature varies so greatly depending on pressure. Neither of which is true for other gasses because other gasses don't have polarity that varies with bonding as does H2O.

[Steve BH]

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 6:48:10 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> If you were to go to outer space, where the pressure is zero, causing the
> H2O to boil at room temperature, and then you were to vent it out into outer
> space you might be successful in causing H2O molecules to remain singular.
> But here on earth, under normal atmospheric pressures at the surface and an
> atmosphere that is saturated with H2O, even in the driest of dry
> environments, that would be impossible.

No, you don't need "space." It happens all the time. Take water, put it into an evacuated bulb or kettle at a temperature BELOW boiling, and just wait.

Above the water, there forms water gas until equilibrium gas partial pressure is reached. Then the system is stable with liquid and gas. The same happens at a given temperature above liquid mercury, or liquid bromine, or liquid chloroform or alcohol. If you don't heat above boiling temp, the gas pressure is less than 1 atm. You can measure the density and pressure of this gas directly: the pressure with a manometer, the density with a mass scale (you draw off the gas into a separate vacuum vessel you can weigh; or you condense it and weigh after that).

The effective molecular weights of these gases are easily determined with the ideal gas equation. The molar volume for all ideal gases is V = RT/P, which is about 25 liters at 25 C and one atmosphere. It is 30.6 liters at 100 C at one atm partial pressure. For lower partial pressure, the molar volume expands proportionally.

Above liquid water at 100 C, the pressure is 1 atmosphere of water gas. At this point, you find that 30.6 liters of steam weigh 18 grams. This is the molecular weight of steam.

What about 90 C? The molar volume (1 atm) for all ideal gases is 28.8 L. And the partial pressure of water gas above liquid at 90 C falls to 525.8 Torr (0.69 atm). So the molar volume in these conditions (for any gas, not just water) is 28.8 L/0.69 = 41.7 liters. And if you collect 41.7 liters of the gas above water in vacuum at 90 C, you find it weighs 18 grams. And also, saturated air above water at 90 C has 18 grams of water in it per 41.7 liters.

The nature of the gas above water in a container with just one substance in it, and a piston and pressure gauge, is very clear from the fact that the gas phase doesn't just collapse to zero when the temp falls below 100 C. It decreases A LITTLE. If the molecules even paired up to form (H2O)2, this gas would collapse to far less than half its previous density, at half its previous pressure. IT DOES NOT.

The "vapor" above boiling water has the same density/pressure relationship as the "vapor" above water BELOW boiling temperature. It's the same stuff. It follows the same gas LAW.

[Ser gio]

no, McGinn, all molecules are moving fast anyway, air, N2, O2, H2O, and
they bounce of each other, google for the curve that shows how sticky
water gets vs temperature. you can google all this stuff, and present
URLs here to make yourself believable, but you are too lazy, and dont
know science.

>>
>> And so, for both of these reasons, steam will not persist form much time in
>> earth's atmosphere.

wrong again, McGinn, steam turns into gas. Google "EVAPORATION"

>>
>> Microdroplets and nanodroplets, however, are a different story. The H2O
>> molecules in a nanodroplet maintain many hydrogen bonds and, therefore, they
>> are highly neutralized.

McGinn, you use vague words to show your notions, can you be more
specific? or are you going to remain in the imaginary mode ?

>>
>> Nanodroplets can maintain separation from other H2O nanodroplets because
>> they are not all that attracted to each other--in fact their outer shell of
>> "surface tension" is hydrophobic, meaning they will repel each other.

McGinn, got URLs? or is your imagination in overdrive again...

>>
>> H2O is not just poorly understood it has been badly mischaracterized by the
>> fact that us humans want to believe it is something it is not--simple.

that is your thinking, McGinn, not others.

>>
>> H2O as you and I know it is not very polar. It is neutral.

no, McGinn,

water is polar, that is why is desolves so many polar things, and not
non-polar like oils.

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 10:00:58 PM UTC-8, Steve BH wrote:
> On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 6:48:10 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>
> > If you were to go to outer space, where the pressure is zero, causing the
> > H2O to boil at room temperature, and then you were to vent it out into outer
> > space you might be successful in causing H2O molecules to remain singular.
> > But here on earth, under normal atmospheric pressures at the surface and an
> > atmosphere that is saturated with H2O, even in the driest of dry
> > environments, that would be impossible.
>
>
> No, you don't need "space." It happens all the time. Take water, put it into an evacuated bulb or kettle at a temperature BELOW boiling, and just wait.

If it is evacuated then the pressure is zero. If the pressure is zero then the temperature of the liquid will be above the boiling point.

> Above the water, there forms water gas until equilibrium gas partial pressure is reached.

This exists only in your imagination.

[Steve BH]

It exists as a common child's toy. Why don't you buy one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb6feUfHgAU

[Lofty Goat]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2018 18:48:06 -0800 (PST), James McGinn
<jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> outer space, where the pressure is zero, causing the H2O to boil at
> room temperature

No, no. You've been told that in outer space, in freefall, where you've
no gravity and no pressure, water boils at *any* temperature.

[Claudius Denk]

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 8:54:18 PM UTC-8, Steve BH wrote:


> > > > You have never observed gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures. Nobody has.
> > >
> > > We hard working people who do practical work, do our own cleaning and cooking, that is, have all observed gaseous H20 at ambient temperatures
> >
> > No you haven't you fucking moron. Nobody in the history of mankind has observed monomolecular H2O.
>
>
> No, just this strange gas

McGinn's point, you fucking moron, is that it is impossible to distinguish gas from vapor by sight alone.

[Claudius Denk]

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 10:00:58 PM UTC-8, Steve BH wrote:
> On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 6:48:10 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>
> > If you were to go to outer space, where the pressure is zero, causing the
> > H2O to boil at room temperature, and then you were to vent it out into outer
> > space you might be successful in causing H2O molecules to remain singular.
> > But here on earth, under normal atmospheric pressures at the surface and an
> > atmosphere that is saturated with H2O, even in the driest of dry
> > environments, that would be impossible.
>
>
> No, you don't need "space." It happens all the time. Take water, put it into an evacuated bulb or kettle at a temperature BELOW boiling, and just wait.
>
> Above the water, there forms water gas until equilibrium gas partial pressure is reached.

Those four words don't belong together. This is science. Not creative writing. There is no such thing as, "equilibrium gas partial pressure." This does not exist. McGinn is right. Anybody that doesn't stop you and point this out is a retard that has no business in a scientific discussion.

[Claudius Denk]

Yeah, so?

google for the curve that shows how sticky
> water gets vs temperature. you can google all this stuff, and present
> URLs here to make yourself believable, but you are too lazy, and dont
> know science.

You sound like an idiot.

>
> >>
> >> And so, for both of these reasons, steam will not persist form much time in
> >> earth's atmosphere.
>
> wrong again, McGinn, steam turns into gas. Google "EVAPORATION"

That's your argument, "google it."

>
> >>
> >> Microdroplets and nanodroplets, however, are a different story. The H2O
> >> molecules in a nanodroplet maintain many hydrogen bonds and, therefore, they
> >> are highly neutralized.
>
> McGinn, you use vague words to show your notions, can you be more
> specific? or are you going to remain in the imaginary mode ?
>
> >>
> >> Nanodroplets can maintain separation from other H2O nanodroplets because
> >> they are not all that attracted to each other--in fact their outer shell of
> >> "surface tension" is hydrophobic, meaning they will repel each other.
>
> McGinn, got URLs? or is your imagination in overdrive again...
>
> >>
> >> H2O is not just poorly understood it has been badly mischaracterized by the
> >> fact that us humans want to believe it is something it is not--simple.
>
> that is your thinking, McGinn, not others.
>
> >>
> >> H2O as you and I know it is not very polar. It is neutral.
>
> no, McGinn,
>
> water is polar, that is why is desolves so many polar things, and not
> non-polar like oils.

Yeah so?

You don't understand any of this. What are you doing in a scientific forum you child.

[Claudius Denk]

Spoken like a common child.

[James McGinn]

I told you that, dumbass. What's your point?

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 10:48:20 PM UTC-8, Ser gio wrote:

Relevance?

>
> >>
> >> And so, for both of these reasons, steam will not persist form much time in
> >> earth's atmosphere.
>
> wrong again, McGinn, steam turns into gas. Google "EVAPORATION"

Evidence?

>
> >>
> >> Microdroplets and nanodroplets, however, are a different story. The H2O
> >> molecules in a nanodroplet maintain many hydrogen bonds and, therefore, they
> >> are highly neutralized.
>
> McGinn, you use vague words to show your notions,

You don't understand any of this because you are dumb and poorly educated. There is a whole body of literature on hydrogen bonding. It's not my responsibility to educate you.

can you be more
> specific? or are you going to remain in the imaginary mode ?
>
> >>
> >> Nanodroplets can maintain separation from other H2O nanodroplets because
> >> they are not all that attracted to each other--in fact their outer shell of
> >> "surface tension" is hydrophobic, meaning they will repel each other.
>
> McGinn, got URLs? or is your imagination in overdrive again...

Sorry. I'm not running a hand holding service here.

>
> >>
> >> H2O is not just poorly understood it has been badly mischaracterized by the
> >> fact that us humans want to believe it is something it is not--simple.
>
> that is your thinking, McGinn, not others.
>
> >>
> >> H2O as you and I know it is not very polar. It is neutral.
>
> no, McGinn,
>
> water is polar, that is why is desolves so many polar things, and not
> non-polar like oils.

Quote me in context, retard.

[Edward Prochak]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 12:07:26 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> I have a more technical explanation that has to do with symmetry
> and stretched electron clouds. Give me 2 weeks.
>

One week gone already. This should be good. (snicker)
Ed

[Claudius Denk]

You idiots take the easy way out on everything. You wait for somebody to explain it to you. It's dunces like you that cost the american taxpayer millions upon millions of dollars chasing phantom emergencies like global warming (climate change).

[James McGinn]

You can't see gas, you fucking retard.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 8:25:18 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 8:10:06 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 6:26:40 PM UTC-8, Steve BH wrote:
> >
> > > Water can be a gas at any point in the P-T phase diagram where it
> > > says "gas". At that temperature and that partial pressure of gas.
> > > And it is a gas in that area, not a suspension of liquid drops.
> >
> > I assure you, Steve, the other retards in this thread don't understand what you are saying. I understand what you are saying. It's completely ludicrous, but I understand it.
> >
> > Why do you think it is nobody else has expressed support for your creative chart reading methods?
>
> Jim, you buffoon, virtually *everyone* agrees with Steve regarding the interpretation of the phase diagram,

You dingbats don't know what your agree with from one day to the next.

why don't you understand this? His interpretation is exactly what the phase diagram intends to say.

You just make it up as you go. You lie incessantly.

All physicists would agree with Steve,

Name one.

it is only you who doesn't.
>

> How can one guy be so fucking stupid? Beyond my comprehension!

Present a coherent argument, you lying retard.

>
> You obviously *don't* understand what he is saying, that is what is clear to everyone else.

He didn't understand what he was saying

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 9:33:45 AM UTC-7, Lofty Goat wrote:

Who the fuck cares, you fucking irrelevant twerp.

[Edward Prochak]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 12:07:26 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:

[]

> You are being picky for no good reason. Dry air in the troposphere
> is never 100% dry. And it would not be able to remain hot in the
> proximity of other air molecules. I suppose, possibly, at the top
> of the troposphere where it really is dry and somewhat hot an
> H2O molecule might be able to remain monomolecular. But that is academic.
>

Less than a week before the big solution!

> > > Nanodroplets can maintain separation from other H2O nanodroplets because
> > > they are not all that attracted to each other--in fact their outer shell of
> > > "surface tension" is hydrophobic, meaning they will repel each other.

> > > H2O as you and I know it is not very polar. It is neutral. Individual
> > > molecules, however, are very polar. Understanding how and why both of these
> > > statements are true is the subject of a video that I will be releasing in
> > > about two weeks. I will be dropping a link to it here in this forum.

Video is a little disappointing, though.
How about dropping a transcript here?

Still JM says all will be revealed in a few more days.

[Edward Prochak]

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 12:07:26 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
[]

> Yes, they reform into multimolecules almost instantly,
> just as soon as they cool below 100C.
>

[]

>
> Not possible. Singular H2O molecules reattach to each other
> just as soon as they cool. And they cool instantly as they
> reenter the atmosphere.
>

[]

>
> I'm going to release something in about 2 weeks that will
> fully inform you. Try not to step in front of a bus until then.

We are still waiting.
[]

>
> I have a more technical explanation that has to do with
> symmetry and stretched electron clouds. Give me 2 weeks.

It has now been 26 days since you promised this great information.

[]

> Be patient. And always use the crosswalk.

Still waiting.

Ed
PS have a blessed and happy Easter all.

[James McGinn]

I'm done with the first draft. But it is too long--over a half an hour.

I'm considering steps to pare it down.

Thank you for your patience.

[Steve BH]

Said the retarded McGinn sockpuppet. LOL.

[Steve BH]

Encyclopedia Britannica did it in a paragraph.

https://www.britannica.com/science/vapor-pressure

[Steve BH]

Read:

https://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phaseeqia/phasediags.html

[Sergio]

Claudia says "McGinn is right" those 4 words are TOO Complicated
together unless you know some high school science.

so we practice here McGinn;
Big inhale, and go as fast as you can, do not try to understand the
words, that is years off, ready, set GO !!!

"equilibrium gas partial pressure." "equilibrium gas partial pressure."
"equilibrium gas partial pressure." "equilibrium gas partial pressure."
"equilibrium gas partial pressure." "equilibrium gas partial pressure."
"equilibrium gas partial pressure." "equilibrium gas partial pressure."
"equilibrium gas partial pressure." "equilibrium gas partial pressure."
"equilibrium gas partial pressure." "equilibrium gas partial pressure."
"equilibrium gas partial pressure." "equilibrium gas partial pressure."
"equilibrium gas partial pressure." "equilibrium gas partial pressure."
"equilibrium gas partial pressure." "equilibrium gas partial pressure."
"equilibrium gas partial pressure." "equilibrium gas partial pressure."

[James McGinn]

Your point?

[James McGinn]

Retard with a reference and no argument.

[James McGinn]

So, you have words arranged in a certain order and you think that proves something. You are a silly twit.

[Edward Prochak]

Another video?
How disappointing.
Ed

[James McGinn]

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Monday, 5 March 2018 16:07:26 UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:

> On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 7:32:10 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > > If you were to go to outer space, where the pressure is zero, causing the
> > > H2O to boil at room temperature,
> >

> > How can a single molecule of water "boil" anywhere? Boiling is a phenomenon involving a lot of water subjected to external heat.
>
>
>
> >

> > and then you were to vent it out into outer
> > > space you might be successful in causing H2O molecules to remain singular.
> >

> > I would say, that in outer space with no other molecules around to
> > push H2O molecules apart, the tendency for them to stick to form
> > ice would be more pronounced than on the Earth's surface.
>

> At room temperature and zero pressure they would be above boiling
> temperature and would fly apart, and they would have nothing to stick to in
> outer space.

I don't understand the concept of room temperature and zero pressure.
When pressure is zero (as in outer space) the temperature is zero so far as the ambient is concerned given no sunlight, etc.

So how exactly can one have room temperature and zero pressure on Earth?

Taking out the air from a cavity thus reducing the pressure to say zero reduces the temperature of the cavity where the air existed.

P1V1/T1 = constant as per universal gas law

Making P1 tending to 0, keeping V1=V2, means T1 tending to 0 to maintain the gas law.

The room temperature is measured outside the cavity.

> But all of this is academic. The point is that the isolation you postulated
> doesn't take place under normal conditions.

All I am saying is that when a molecule of water evaporates, what does happen?

Must two or more molecules of water simultaneously evaporate and unite automatically to form a nanodroplet of water - and this, always?

or

Does a single molecule of water evaporate at room temperature and remain single until it finds another molecule or nanodroplet to unite with?

I fully agree with you that under 100degC at NTP water has no business to remain as a gas - it has to be water. However, what happens in a closed space, as in the petrol can experiment I had talked about, is not what happens in an open space.

>
> > > But here on earth, under normal atmospheric pressures at the surface and an
> > > atmosphere that is saturated with H2O, even in the driest of dry
> > > environments, that would be impossible.
> >

> > Dry air by definition has no H2O,
>

> You are being picky for no good reason. Dry air in the troposphere is never 100% dry. And it would not be able to remain hot in the proximity of other air molecules. I suppose, possibly, at the top of the troposphere where it really is dry and somewhat hot an H2O molecule might be able to remain monomolecular. But that is academic.

I am not an academic. I am a practical engineer. I would say that simulation of a very small space tracking the behaviour of each and every molecule in it (coming and going from the space, and uniting or repelling therein) would give a fair clue about the way water molecules behave in air. You can have your nanodroplets there, or a mixture of nanodroplets and individual molecules.

This simulation approach, I found very useful to model complex call centre networks. The recommndations made as a result had a lot of backing from the most fundamental positions.

So this simulation, if made good enough, will provide proper predictions with respect to humidity.

With further improvements, it could lead to developments relating to cloud seeding, creation of rain, etc. and that would be a great boon for dry countries.

>
> so a single molecule of H2O will find no other molecule of H2O with which to stick. If there are other molecules then sticking to form multimolecules will become a random issue involving the chances of collision. I just don't get the impossibility part, unless you are holding that as soon as 100degC steam is released into dry air, all the monomolecules MUST unite to form multimolecules. ALL of them.
>

> Yes, they reform into multimolecules almost instantly, just as soon as they cool below 100C.

If you say so. I would like your assertion to be based upon simulation as I described above. How the 100deg water molecules would move (faster than say at 10deg) and what chaces they have of uniting in a volume where they are released.

Actual experiments to show all the steam uniting to form nanodroplets, with nothing left monomolecular, that would be wonderful.

>
> >
> > I find this hard to believe, for steam say at 1000degC when released into dry air of the Earth, with no containment, will push out with much greater force, and expand in all directions, while cooling. When expanding out at greater than 100degC, they will still remain monomolecules pushing out. At some stage these monomolecules must get far too isolated to ever unite.
>

> Not possible. Singular H2O molecules reattach to each other just as soon as they cool. And they cool instantly as they reenter the atmosphere.
>

> > > There is one thing about H2O molecules that would be extremely difficult for
> > > me to explain to you. So I won't even try.
> >
> > Okay. It does look like a cop-out, though.
>

> I'm going to release something in about 2 weeks that will fully inform you. Try not to step in front of a bus until then.
>
> >

> > But what it amounts to is that
> > > the characteristics of H2O individually are extremely different from their
> > > characteristics collectively.
> >
> > You are not making yourself clear. What do you mean by "characteristics of H2O individually"? Do you mean that monomolecular water has extremely different characteristics than multimolecular water? If so, who disputes that?
>

> Who doesn't.

>
> >
> >
> > > Individually H2O molecules are extremely
> > > polar. And thus, they are extremely attracted to each other.
> >
> > Okay.
> >
> >
> > And it is not
> > > until they are hydrogen bonded to other water molecules that they lose this
> > > polarity. In other words, H2O polarity is neutralized by hydrogen bonds.
> >
> >
> > Who does not know that?
>

> Now you just seem confused.

>
> Of course H2O molecules bond to each other to form clouds, mists, fog, dew, rain, etc.
>

> I just said they were neutralized. You aren't following.

>
> >
> > I would say, this behaviour is much like plastic cups cupping each other to form a single group entity.
>

> I have a more technical explanation that has to do with symmetry and stretched electron clouds. Give me 2 weeks.
>
> >

> > The point is that individual molecules can only unite if they find each other to do so. Until they can, they must move in whatever temperatures singly.
>

> That's not my point that's your point. Good luck proving it.

>
> >
> > In graphic terms, this means plastic cups moving in air, till they find another in the right position to cup into. But other stuff like bigger plates, ie oxygen and nitrogen molecules, are also there - and these plates push the cups away till they come to a situation when they all cup together to form a big cuppy entity like cloud, mist, etc.
>

> Why would you expect me to take this kind of off-hand speculation seriously?

>
> >
> > > I am one of a handful of people that understand what I explained to you in
> > > the above paragraph (and the other four learned it from me).
> >
> > We all need to learn from each other.
>

> Be patient. And always use the crosswalk.
>
> > >

> > > In order for an H2O molecule to remain singular under any normal atmospheric
> > > conditions it would have to remain very hot, and that means it would be
> > > moving very fast and, somehow, avoid crashing into other molecules in the
> > > atmosphere and it would have to stay away from any other water molecules.
> > >

> > > And so, for both of these reasons, steam will not persist form much time in
> > > earth's atmosphere.
> > >

> > > Microdroplets and nanodroplets, however, are a different story. The H2O
> > > molecules in a nanodroplet maintain many hydrogen bonds and, therefore, they
> > > are highly neutralized.
> > >

> > > Nanodroplets can maintain separation from other H2O nanodroplets because
> > > they are not all that attracted to each other--in fact their outer shell of
> > > "surface tension" is hydrophobic, meaning they will repel each other.
> > >

> > > H2O is not just poorly understood it has been badly mischaracterized by the
> > > fact that us humans want to believe it is something it is not--simple.
> > >

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 12:19:15 AM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> > > I would say, that in outer space with no other molecules around to
> > > push H2O molecules apart, the tendency for them to stick to form
> > > ice would be more pronounced than on the Earth's surface.
> >
> > At room temperature and zero pressure they would be above boiling
> > temperature and would fly apart, and they would have nothing to
> > stick to in outer space.
>
> I don't understand the concept of room temperature and zero pressure.
> When pressure is zero (as in outer space) the temperature is zero so
> far as the ambient is concerned given no sunlight, etc.
>
> So how exactly can one have room temperature and zero pressure on Earth?

In an enclosed container, using a vacuum pump.

> Taking out the air from a cavity thus reducing the pressure to say zero
> reduces the temperature of the cavity where the air existed.

Yes, you may have to heat it too.

> P1V1/T1 = constant as per universal gas law
>
> Making P1 tending to 0, keeping V1=V2, means T1 tending to 0 to maintain the gas law.
>
> The room temperature is measured outside the cavity.
>
> > But all of this is academic. The point is that the isolation you postulated
> > doesn't take place under normal conditions.
>
> All I am saying is that when a molecule of water evaporates, what does happen?
>
> Must two or more molecules of water simultaneously evaporate and unite
> automatically to form a nanodroplet of water - and this, always?
>
> or
>
> Does a single molecule of water evaporate at room temperature and remain
> single until it finds another molecule or nanodroplet to unite with?

It is the first always. Never does the second happen under normal
ambient conditions.

To understand why this is *always* the case you would have to first
understand the polarity neutralization associated with H bonds. Only
if there are enough associated H bonds is polarity low enough to
allow the molecules associated with a nanodroplet to break free from
the surface of pooled water.

Strangely, the amount of force necessary to break one molecule of H2O
free from the surface of liquid water is much greater than that
associated with a nanodroplets. This is because the nanodroplet
can collectively have low polarity but the singular H2O molecule
can only have full polarity.

Be aware that H bonds alleviate or neutralize 25% of the polarity in
BOTH of the H2O molecules that participate in the bonds. When you
consider this fact and its implications you are starting to understand
why water has so many anomalies.

In the video I am about to release I will explain the quantum mechanics
that underlie this strange reality associated with hydrogen bonding
between H2O molecules.

> I fully agree with you that under 100degC at NTP water has no business
> to remain as a gas - it has to be water. However, what happens
> in a closed space, as in the petrol can experiment I had talked about,
> is not what happens in an open space.

The only difference an enclosed container brings is the ability to control
pressure. IT DOES NOT EFFECT THE PROPERTIES OF H2O!!!

> > > > But here on earth, under normal atmospheric pressures at the surface and an
> > > > atmosphere that is saturated with H2O, even in the driest of dry
> > > > environments, that would be impossible.
> > >
> > > Dry air by definition has no H2O,
> >
> > You are being picky for no good reason. Dry air in the troposphere
> > is never 100% dry. And it would not be able to remain hot in the
> > proximity of other air molecules. I suppose, possibly, at the top
> > of the troposphere where it really is dry and somewhat hot an H2O
> > molecule might be able to remain monomolecular. But that is academic.
>
> I am not an academic. I am a practical engineer. I would say that
> simulation of a very small space tracking the behaviour of
> each and every molecule in it (coming and going from the space,
> and uniting or repelling therein) would give a fair clue
> about the way water molecules behave in air. You can have
> your nanodroplets there, or a mixture of nanodroplets and
> individual molecules.
>
> This simulation approach, I found very useful to model complex call
> centre networks. The recommndations made as a result had a lot of
> backing from the most fundamental positions.

The confounding factor for any such simulation is the fact that it is
just about impossible to reliably determined the size of the
nanodroplets. This problem has confounded researchers going back 200 years.

> So this simulation, if made good enough, will provide proper
> predictions with respect to humidity.
>
> With further improvements, it could lead to developments relating to
> cloud seeding, creation of rain, etc. and that would be a great boon
> for dry countries.

Understanding the genuine behavior of H2O will be a boon to all of the
natural sciences--sciences that are currently handicapped by our
absurdly simplistic understanding of H2O that has been foisted upon us
by an academic tradition that is greedily provides artificially
simplistic models/explanations of H2O and hydrogen bonding (between
water molecules) to a public that is thirsty for simple models.

> > so a single molecule of H2O will find no other molecule of H2O
> > with which to stick. If there are other molecules then sticking
> > to form multimolecules will become a random issue involving the
> > chances of collision. I just don't get the impossibility part,
> > unless you are holding that as soon as 100degC steam is released
> > into dry air, all the monomolecules MUST unite to form
> > multimolecules. ALL of them.
> >
> > Yes, they reform into multimolecules almost instantly, just as
> > soon as they cool below 100C.
>
> If you say so. I would like your assertion to be based upon
> simulation as I described above. How the 100deg water molecules
> would move (faster than say at 10deg) and what chaces they have of
> uniting in a volume where they are released.

I don't disagree, and that is why I am producing the video I am
about to release.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[James McGinn]

On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 12:19:15 AM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> > > > H2O is not just poorly understood it has been badly mischaracterized by the
> > > > fact that us humans want to believe it is something it is not--simple.
> > > >
> > > > H2O as you and I know it is not very polar. It is neutral. Individual
> > > > molecules, however, are very polar. Understanding how and why both of these
> > > > statements are true is the subject of a video that I will be releasing in
> > > > about two weeks. I will be dropping a link to it here in this forum.

Exactly two weeks ago I promised this link:
Incidental Symmetry: Solution to H2O Anomalies
https://youtu.be/ZyYsDGQ76J4

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 10:32:39 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:

Retards trying to turn science into a religious chant.

[James McGinn]

Read it yourself you fucking brain-dead retard.

[Edward Prochak]

Uh, James, your original promise was made March 5
Message-ID: <532f077c-6308-4ba0...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Response to Arindham; By James McGinn Atmospheric Physicist and
top expert on water in the atmosphere
From: James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 05:07:23 +0000

And my first reply was a week later:

On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 2:38:00 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 12:07:26 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:

> > I have a more technical explanation that has to do with symmetry
> > and stretched electron clouds. Give me 2 weeks.
> >
>

> One week gone already. This should be good. (snicker)
> Ed

So much for making your self-imposed due date.
Ed

[Sergio]

he's been posting about it since 2014, wrote 2 or 3 books on it (course
the books had different titles, but same squirrely text inside, [science
imagination]), and gave a huge public lecture on it to some poor schmuck
that got there, one, in kalifornia.

[James McGinn]

Too bad you can't dispute any of it. Huh?

Don't feel bad. Even smart people can't dispute it.

Here's a link:
https://youtu.be/ZyYsDGQ76J4

[James McGinn]

It's Like a


.nightmare.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

It is NOT a nightmare, Jim, and all will be well when and if you finally wake up...

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 8:09:16 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is NOT a nightmare, Jim, and all will be well when and if you finally wake up...

Make it go away.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 8:09:16 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> It is NOT a nightmare, Jim, and all will be well when and if you finally wake up...

You are a worthless piece of shit.

[James McGinn]

The question is how do we know it's true, you fucking retard. We already know what the paradigm assumes. Where is the evidence/proof.

Pull your head out and address the issue.