Tap Water VS Bottled Water

"Later" what about "sooner" and "in between time"? Air. You breathe some amount of evaporated water every day and with every breath. Why do you continue to duck this fact?

Beeep. Wrong answer. Water can shed oxygen (do you understand H2O?).

Depending on what "scientific" source you believe. And not all air is the same. The air is full of stuff. Furthermore oxygen levels were much higher thousands of years ago depending on what sources you believe.

What?! You've said so yourself when you claimed evaporation rises into the upper atmosphere. What, it magically vanished from the surface and popped up on top of the atmosphere? You've turned to debating yourself!

B.S. Why can't you provide all the alternatives for us now?

I'll ask you again to spell them out.

B.S. I've backed myself up every time. It is you who shoots blanks.

The other goof strongly suggested that, not I My main argument was that auto pollution > coal factory pollution. However the levels are the greatest downwind from a coal factory and as you move away, it dissipates to lower levels.

The farther away the better. Upwind the best.

Let's say your figures are correct .. which I hardly trust. I'm still right, more people are adversely affected by auto emissions X 1000 fold or more. Nice try. If I had time, I could prove the math is in my favor. Just figure out the TRUE number of coal factories versus the 500 million+ autos in use daily and then multiply each by the average levels of harmful chemicals.

No, I meant no "TAP WATER VS BOTTLED WATER" NG exists. That's been my contention all along. Furthermore, why would anyone half sane provide a source which is my own ??

And? What has one to do with the other ??

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,

2008, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com rolled initiative and posted the following:

Are you suggesting that I, too, am a goof? It's certainly arguable given the time I've put into this discussion.

That, I can agree with.

My figures come from the US Department of Energy, as reported by mindfully.org. What are yours but opinion and hyperbole?

Asserting that you're still right even if figures prove you wrong isn't science. It's dogma... again.

This statement proves nothing except that you're too busy to back up your assertions.

Now it's insufficient?! So now you agree that I'm partly right. Pretty soon you'll be in full agreement with my first view lol.

You've just ducked it again. You won't admit that a portion of what we breathe is evaporated air! Admit I'm right and be done with it.

Wrong again. Didn't you do this experiment in highschool? Maybe you haven't got that far yet. It's about grade 7. Heat a pint of water in a kettle with a huge balloon tied to the spout. The balloon will quickly fill so big it bursts. Stop before it bursts. Let it condense. The water will pool. Drain the water. What's left? You tell me.

Don't play footsie here, answer the question.

Who said it did?

Where? That was my argument almost word for word !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dude what you been smoking? Honestly.

I can't waste more time with you. You win! I give up. I cry uncle. At least you've been ontopic and I thank you for that.

I'll wait for someone else to take the batton from you.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,

2008, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com rolled initiative and posted the following:

By "insufficient," I mean "wholly insufficient." I'm not likely to agree with your first view.

No, I don't read further down.

Yes, I did that experiment. The water vapor fills the balloon, as well as causing the existing air to warm and expand. If you let it cool down, ALL of the water vapor will condense back into a liquid.

But it never stops being water.

That sounds like a line from "A Few Good Men."

You, with your assertion that water boiling on hot lava gave us air.

No. It's the reverse of your argument. You cannot mix a larger volume into a smaller one. The devil is in the details.

He also, apparently, went down to Georgia.

Actually, I've been completely off-topic, as nothing I've written in response to you is about tea.

They can pry the baton out of my cold, dead hand.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,

2008, Derek rolled initiative and posted the following:

Danged grammar errors. I meant, "No, I don't. Read further down."

Nertz.

Wrong again squirt. You've obviously never did the experiment or lie because the balloon in the gaseous state is less than 5% water.

You like being wrong a lot huh. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm getting tired of proving you wrong.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,

2008, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com rolled initiative and posted the following:

You're confusing "quantity" with "volume."

I'm just getting tired.

No, I meant quantity. After the balloon is emptied of water, less than

5% of the original water is left over and the balloon is full of ? Answer the ?

Ok honest confession, but are you always this tired? Somebody get him a doctor. Not enough clean air is my first prognosis.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,

2008, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com rolled initiative and posted the following:

That is a COMPLETELY different proposition than the one you wrote previously. "[T]he balloon in the gaseous state is less than 5% water" is not the same as "less than 5% of the original water is left over." Please stick to a point rather than "correcting" me by changing the issue.

In answer to your question, the balloon on the flask (we didn't use a kettle) is not a closed system. We recovered less water than we boiled because much of it pushed its way through the porous rubber of the balloon. (Ever noticed that helium balloon shrink? It's because they leak, not because helium gets more dense.)

The balloon eventually inverted under air pressure and was "sucked" into the flask because there was less water and air in the system after the experiment.

All of this is tangential to the point I'm challenging. Boiling water does not cause it to "shed oxygen." Both oxygen and hydrogen are highly reactive and quickly bond back together. That's why elecrolysis requires two separate capturing vessels (as well as a catalyst).

Certainly, boiling water "frees" dissolved gasses that were in the water. But their volume is significantly less than the volume of the water in which they were previously dissolved.

Actually, it was just late.

Derek:

I think that no matter what way you put it, this is a losing argument, the details will never get through his tinfoil hat and spark that moment of comprehension...

Steve:

Out of curiosity - where are your facts cited from regard> While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,

Mike:

When I said let someone else take over the debate, I didn't mean another slanderous empty argument troll take over.

Mike:

Pure logic for one. Critical thinking for two. Opening my eyes for three. Plug in the known data:

Using the west coast for example, how many ships are there? (ballpark is good enough). Go to a busy harbor and guesstimate. 50? 100? How many harbors are there? 100 down the west coast tops. 100X100,000 tops. How many cars are there (ballpark). In Los Angeles county, there are more than one car per person! >5,000,000 cars. How many cars in western states? Why the struggle with this? Grade two math.

Grow a pair of eyes and count the insults thrown at me vs ones thrown back.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Wednesday, August

13, 2008, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com rolled initiative and posted the following:

I have gone to great effort to have a civil discussion, and have avoided intentional insult in response to replies I don't like. In fact, I've actually spent time looking up facts and figures to make sure that I got them right rather than pulling them out of some faded memory.

You, on the other hand, have not done likewise. So playing the insulted victim seems like a case of a pot not looking in the mirror before commenting on the kettle's sooty exterior.

Short memory.

Confirmed.

Oh contrar, you've yet to answer one of my questions. I'll try one last time. What's in the balloon after the water is allowed to strain off?

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Wednesday, August

13, 2008, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com rolled initiative and posted the following:

Actually, it's rather long. I inherited my father's ability to hold grudges.

You're avoiding the issue. I never suggested that someone reading this group doesn't have the brains to be insulted. Care to guess who wrote that statement and to whom it was directed?

If you strain the condensed water out of the balloon, you've got an empty balloon. But even that isn't the answer to your question about why only 5% of the water remains.

I answered that question. Whether or not you can be bothered to read my answer is up to you.

I see that. Too bad he didn't give you a few "just answer the question" genes. And where did you get your ADD gene from?

Truth hurts huh. One insult? Want me to got back and log all the others thrown at me? I don't have the time.

No, the balloon was still full. Can't you read or is it your short term memory at work?

I did, and nope, not even a half effort. Straight "Fs". Good work.

Like I said, I'll wait for someone else to handle a man's job. Evidently not too many who have read this thread disagree with me.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Thursday, August

14, 2008, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com rolled initiative and posted the following:

Considering that you're argument in this discussion has wandered through various ideas rather than staying focused, I'd like to suggest that you stay away from accusations of ADD.

I am not responsible for what others have "thrown" at you. Neither does the misbehavior of others taint my response.

Then we're talking about two different experiments. If you've actually read what I wrote, you could have noted this already.

If I was wrong, then tell me why. Repeatedly declaring that my description is incorrect doesn't make it true.

I'm willing to admit being wrong when it's proven so. Declaring it to be so, however, isn't proof.

Silence from others does not prove their agreement with you. In fact, the only comments posted by others in the discussion between you and I have been disparaging of you, not of me.

I've been very focused .. that is until I have to address your every miander.

Once you stay away from miandering sure. It's a focused response.

I does subtley if you can see yourself from other's eyes. Subtley as in the way you're being converted to see the reality of my argument lol. It's difficult not to throw in a few appropriate insults your way on occasion. At least you cannot knock me for being accurate.

Later troll. Let someone else take up the challenge. Your well is dry. Meanwhile do the balloon test for yourself.