Perpetual motion/"free energy"

  • 301 Replies
  • 59779 Views
?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #150 on: September 11, 2008, 10:58:37 PM »
Water definitely does react in photosynthesis.  There is a famous experiment where "heavy" water was used to track the reactions and it clearly showed that the water molecule bonds are broken and that the water produced from the reaction is different to the water you begin with.  The oxygen plants produce comes from the water in a photosynthesis reaction (and not the carbon dioxide, as many people think).

Sorry I only read this page so I wasn't aware you were talking about exothermic reactions.


really? ok..my bad. i know peanuts about biology. i did assume it was just a carrier

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #151 on: September 11, 2008, 11:30:19 PM »

I also think it's ridiculous to call water the ash of hydrogen.  Ash refers to, as you quoted, "residue."  When hydrogen is "oxidised" (and this is also incorrect, as it's a covalent bond, not an ionic bond) then all the hydrogen turns to water.  Residue obviously refers to a small remainder, not the whole product.

You've demonstrated you can misunderstand things.

If you burn a conventional hydrocarbon fuel in the presence of excess oxygen you should theoretically end up with gaseous products. Any ash should be an inorganic impurity.

If you are going to stick to your dictionary definition, how often does burning hydrogen with oxygen result in ice? You think ash can extinguish fires? It depends on what it is.
Again, water is not ash.

I said some would would consider akin to burning. I'm not tasting any foot.

Can you post any quote referring to water as ash? Besides your own misguided one.


The definition states residue after combustion or oxidation. Water is the residue of combustion of hydrogen in oxygen same as carbon dioxide is the residue of carbon combustion in oxygen the difference is that water is an ash and carbon dioxide is not.

It does not matter what the temperature of the water vapor is at combustion it only matters when you compare the material at STP as that is the base reference point in chemistry at which all matter is examined to see if it is a solid or liquid or gas.

Also http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oxidation

Main Entry: ox·i·da·tion  
Pronunciation: \ˌäk-sə-ˈdā-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from oxider, oxyder to oxidize, from oxide
Date: 1791
1 : the act or process of oxidizing
2 : the state or result of being oxidized
— ox·i·da·tive  \ˈäk-sə-ˌdā-tiv\ adjective
— ox·i·da·tive·ly adverb

Says nothing about ionic bonds or covalent bonds that just defines the type of chemical bonds in a molecule.

Post a link saying water is the ash of hydrogen? I just did look at the definition. BTW its a question on the Oklahoma State Board of Education's: State placement exam for Chemistry, I placed 2nd, 1981 and you can only take that test if you are nominated to take it by the school district you attend. Call them and ask them what the answer is!

I am not going to hunt up some link for you just because you are so stupid that you can not look at a definition and see what is right before your eyes. You evidently do not know very much about chemistry, if you do not know that STP is the reference point to determine if matter is a solid or liquid or gas. The published definition of ash and the fact that STP is the reference point used in chemistry to determine the state of matter (solid or liquid or gas) tells the whole story. The reference is there, look at it.  

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #152 on: September 12, 2008, 12:04:36 AM »
It's a question on the exam? Well I guess you got it wrong. How can you remember something from 27 years ago anyway?

I believe you are wrong because of your concept of ash. I'm fairly confident other chemists would consider water from hydrogen and oxygen a product, not an ash. And yes, I have a bachelors degree in chemistry.

If you want to have your own opinion of what an ash is, then sure, call water whatever you like. I think you argument is trying to get others to believe that water is ash though. It still isn't.

I know what STP is. It's a set of conditions used to standardise tests and measurements. Are you telling me you can conduct a test at STP conditions burning hydrogen and oxygen producing ice, not water vapor and not water? What kind of dynamic volume chamber is this?

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #153 on: September 12, 2008, 01:23:06 AM »
dyno, you should know the guy is a lunatic, don't worry too much about it.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #154 on: September 12, 2008, 04:40:07 AM »
The definition states residue after combustion or oxidation. Water is the residue of combustion of hydrogen in oxygen same as carbon dioxide is the residue of carbon combustion in oxygen the difference is that water is an ash and carbon dioxide is not.

How does this statement have any logic.  If you redefine residue to mean product, and redefine solid to mean could be solid after I freeze it, then you could say water is ash, but then carbon dioxide would be too. 

Massive logic failure! 

I have no idea what even the point of this stupid argument is, how did you end up arguing such a stupid position? 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #155 on: September 12, 2008, 06:49:23 AM »
It's a question on the exam? Well I guess you got it wrong. How can you remember something from 27 years ago anyway?

I believe you are wrong because of your concept of ash. I'm fairly confident other chemists would consider water from hydrogen and oxygen a product, not an ash. And yes, I have a bachelors degree in chemistry.

If you want to have your own opinion of what an ash is, then sure, call water whatever you like. I think you argument is trying to get others to believe that water is ash though. It still isn't.

I know what STP is. It's a set of conditions used to standardise tests and measurements. Are you telling me you can conduct a test at STP conditions burning hydrogen and oxygen producing ice, not water vapor and not water? What kind of dynamic volume chamber is this?

The product of combustion of Hydrogen in oxygen is water + heat + light. Water is only a protion of the total output.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/residue



Main Entry: res·i·due 
Pronunciation: \ˈre-zə-ˌdü, -ˌdyü\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin residuum, from neuter of residuus left over, from residēre to remain
Date: 14th century
: something that remains after a part is taken, separated, or designated or after the completion of a process : remnant, remainder: as a: the part of a testator's estate remaining after the satisfaction of all debts, charges, allowances, and previous devises and bequests b: the remainder after subtracting a multiple of a modulus from an integer or a power of the integer that can appear as the second of the two terms in an appropriate congruence <2 and 7 are residues of 12 modulo 5> c: a constituent structural unit (as a group or monomer) of a usually complex molecule <amino acid residues from hydrolysis of protein> 


Reference ": something that remains after a part is taken, seperated or designated or after the completion of a process"

Water is only one part the total result of the combustion of hydrogen, take away the heat produced and take away the light produced and water is the part that is produced that remains. By defination, "water" is a residue of the combustion is hydrogen with oxygen.

You can devise an apparatus that will maintain STP, you make it to extract or add heat as needed and to add or extract pressure as needed so that conditions are maintained in the apparatus. That is called maintaining constant conditions. So yes when constant conditions are maintained at STP, the combustion of hydrogen with oxygen will form ice. LOL and you say you have a bachelors? It ain't (or would you prefer the phrase "is not under any set of circummstances") worth the paper its written on!

Who's got a doctorial in chemistry in here, anyone? That might be the one that would have a chance to successfully challenge what I say and I repeat MIGHT BE THE ONE.

dyno, you should know the guy is a lunatic, don't worry too much about it.


LOL branding someone a lunitic to try and hide your lack of knowledge and understanding does not take away from my knowledge and understanding, it only shows your lack of that.

The definition states residue after combustion or oxidation. Water is the residue of combustion of hydrogen in oxygen same as carbon dioxide is the residue of carbon combustion in oxygen the difference is that water is an ash and carbon dioxide is not.

How does this statement have any logic.  If you redefine residue to mean product, and redefine solid to mean could be solid after I freeze it, then you could say water is ash, but then carbon dioxide would be too. 

Massive logic failure! 

I have no idea what even the point of this stupid argument is, how did you end up arguing such a stupid position? 


I did not redefine residue. I properly applied its definition. I did not redefine solid or the point at which chemistry makes that determination, I properly applied the definition and properly applied the Standard for determining the state of matter (solid or liquid or gas). Carbon dioxide is not an ash, though it is a residue of carbon combustion with oxygen, it is not a solid at STP it is a gas and thus not an ash by definition. Water on the other hand is a solid at STP and is a residue of hydrogen combustion with oxygen. The failure of logic is not in what I said but in your understanding and that you would make an attempt, with a lack of understanding and incomplete knowledge, to refute what I said. You do not even supply supporting evidence to your claim. I on the other hand have a good understanding and a sound base of knowledge and I supplied supporting evidence to my statement and in that I have a massive failure of logic? The opposite is shown to be true it woulod be you, not I, that has the failure.

To all of you that wish to make attempt to refute my statement of fact that water is an ash, its funny I make statements that have supporting evidence, and the statements are rejected and called illogical by abortrary statments of certain individuals? Where is your supporting evidence? Where is the support for the claim that water is not an ash? I have provided the definition of ash, oxidation and residue as supporting evidence because it is clear every one of you that wishes to contest my statement knows little of these things. The claim water is not a residue is clearly wrong, the claim that water's covalent bonds means it is not the oxidation state of hydrogen is clearly wrong, the claim that water is not an ash is clearly wrong.

And yes, some of the questions on that test still stand out in my mind because they were uncommon questions that required you to have a full understanding of chemistry thus they tested you knowledge in areas not commonly tested to rank your knowledge among the best of the best. But I'm a lunitic because I know more than you do, LOL!

Old saying, "It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool than to open it and confirm that you are a fool." My statement is backed up by facts that are easiely verified. your statements are not supported by fact, no evidence given, yet you make an attempt to refute a statement of mine that is supported by evidence, and say that I have a failure of logic or brand me a lunitic. Who is the fool? You or I? The evidence would point to the simple conslusion that I am not the one acting foolishly or making foolish statements that are unsupported. The evidence points to you as being the foolish ones by making statemets that are not supported by evidence of fact and are contradictory to fact.

Any more takers for the open mouth insert foot hall of shame?
« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 07:38:05 AM by jehkque »

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #156 on: September 12, 2008, 07:13:48 AM »
I don't believe you did your exam back then. That would make you at least 44 years old.

If you had a PhD I doubt you would be here arguing your point as strongly as your are in a position as weak as the one you have made.

You wouldn't have such a sense of superiority as you would have met greater minds than your own.
You wouldn't use "lol" either.

If you were in the top 2% you would have realised the futility of arguing on boards like this.

You, Sir, are full of the proverbial.

But its fun so lets keep it going. ;D

I asked for a single reference from another party calling water ash from the reaction. I've done a search and can't locate any such reference. If you know of one, be a good lad and share. It's the nice thing to do.

You haven't provided any evidence

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #157 on: September 12, 2008, 07:18:20 AM »
The only way you can call water 'ash' is if you define 'ash' to be anything that is the result of combustion.  This would make CO2 (in fact, all oxides) 'ash'.  That's why it is not suitable to call water 'ash', since that would make the term far too general (as well as duplicating the already more descriptive 'oxide').

If you're going to argue the historical origin of the word, then I highly doubt that anyone in prehistory viewed water in the same way they viewed the grey powder that was left after their fires.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #158 on: September 12, 2008, 07:18:24 AM »
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
Readily available on earth in a state that it would freely reach the water for minimal cost, worth the energy it would produce.

So.... Where do you find say lithium deposits on earth?
A train car that has a hole in it. 
Ok, so it is efficient to set up an energy system dependent on finding train cars with holes in them, full of lithium that is open to water but not yet reacted to the water in the air. Good call sok.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #159 on: September 12, 2008, 08:18:21 AM »
I don't believe you did your exam back then. That would make you at least 44 years old.

If you had a PhD I doubt you would be here arguing your point as strongly as your are in a position as weak as the one you have made.

You wouldn't have such a sense of superiority as you would have met greater minds than your own.
You wouldn't use "lol" either.

If you were in the top 2% you would have realised the futility of arguing on boards like this.

You, Sir, are full of the proverbial.

But its fun so lets keep it going. ;D

I asked for a single reference from another party calling water ash from the reaction. I've done a search and can't locate any such reference. If you know of one, be a good lad and share. It's the nice thing to do.

You haven't provided any evidence

I am 44 years old. PhD's do debate (argue) their position, support their position with evidence, and will defend their position tooth and nail against an opinion in a weaker position. A person with a PhD will also laugh, "LOL=Laughs out Loud" do you think internet short cuts are confined to the exclusive use by people that have lesser intelligence? Did I take the test I mentioned? It is listed, by test name, location taken, placement and date, on my High School transcript in the Honors and Awards section.  Futility of agruing a point in a forum like this? Any argument you win is not futile, its satisfying to me and a learning lesson for you; even if I lose the arguement it is still satisfying to me because I learned something. You asked for a reference to water is an ash.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/water

"Main Entry: 1wa·ter   
Pronunciation: \ˈwȯ-tər, ˈwä-\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English wæter; akin to Old High German wazzar water, Greek hydōr, Latin unda wave
Date: before 12th century
1 a: the liquid that descends from the clouds as rain, forms streams, lakes, and seas, and is a major constituent of all living matter and that when pure is an odorless, tasteless, very slightly compressible liquid oxide of hydrogen H2O which appears bluish in thick layers, freezes at 0° C and boils at 100° C,..."

Water is identified as the "oxide of hydrogen", and becomes a solid "freezes at 0 deg C". Reference the defination of ash, and the other referenced definations you were provided that confirm water is the ash of hydrogen combustion with oxygen. BTW Water is the standard of STP. STP is the temperature at 1 atmosphere of pressure that water changes into a solid from liquid form. It is the point at which the oxidation state of the first element in the periodic table exists as an ash. The oxidation state of every other element is compared to that set of conditions to determine if they are an ash or not an ash, thus Sandard Temperature and Pressure "STP". Carbon dioxide is not an ash because at STP CO2 is a gas; not a solid as is required to be defined as an ash. CO2 is a gaseous residue of the combustion and complete oxidation of carbon. Carbon monoxide is the incomplete oxidation of carbon and yes CO will further oxidize thus it will burn and yield CO2.

Did you learn something today? If not then you will forever be lacking in knowledge.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 09:02:16 AM by jehkque »

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #160 on: September 12, 2008, 09:15:54 AM »
That reference in no way refers to water as being an ash of hydrogen which was what I asked for.

I do happen to believe lol is predominantly used by people under 35.

What do you call silica and other inorganics present in hydrocarbon fuels? These are not necessarily products of combustion.

Water is the oxide of water? WTF?

Where did you learn that STP is where hydrogen first becomes an ash? It is the temperature and pressure where water freezes and 1 mole of gas occupies 22.4L

I've learned I'm glad I didn't go to whatever uni you attended.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #161 on: September 12, 2008, 10:31:45 AM »
That reference in no way refers to water as being an ash of hydrogen which was what I asked for.

I do happen to believe lol is predominantly used by people under 35.

What do you call silica and other inorganics present in hydrocarbon fuels? These are not necessarily products of combustion.

Water is the oxide of water? WTF?

Where did you learn that STP is where hydrogen first becomes an ash? It is the temperature and pressure where water freezes and 1 mole of gas occupies 22.4L

I've learned I'm glad I didn't go to whatever uni you attended.

The good part about here is you can edit a error, it also warns you if the postings have been modified before you post so you have a chance to review and see if you are attempting to make reference to something that has been edited for correction purposes. I guess you ignored that warning.

The phrase you quoted water is the oxide of water was a misprint and that misprint was caught and corrected 13 minutes before your posting, had you reviewed when warned by the site the postings had been modified before your posting. You would have noticed that correction and corrected your posting accordingly, unless it is your common practice to misquote. It is one thing if the correction is after your posting, but if it occured before your posting, and you ignored the warning and did not modify your post accordingly then you deliberately misquoted which looks very bad on your character.

By your own admission, you clearly have a misunderstanding. Worse, you do not even see the misunderstanding when it is right before your eyes and in what you state.

It is the temperature and pressure where water freezes

How can you make that statement and not make the association that water is an ash? Standard temperature and pressure is where water freezes, that is a fact and you acknowledge that fact in your statement. The definition of an ash is a solid residue left after oxidation, that is a fact citation given. Water is the oxidized state of hydrogen, that is a fact citation given. Water is one of three products of the oxidation of hydrogen, the other 2 being heat and light, do you accept that as fact or do you need a citation? As one part of the total product of the combustion of hydrogen in oxygen, water is the residue of the oxidation of hydrogen after heat and light are removed, that is a fact citation given.

The oxidized state of the element hydrogen, water, is a solid at STP, is a residue left from oxidation after heat is and light is removed. Proven by cited facts, regardless if you can find any other reference or not, my statement is referenced. By defination of ash it hits the mark squarely in the center of the bulls eye, referenced fact!

But no, you are so dense and/or so blind that you can not see and comprehend what is right before your eyes. Either that is true or you are so concited that you can not admit when you are soundly proven wrong and thus you have to deny the facts to hold onto your wrong and misguided opinion. The bad part of either of these cases is you will eventually pass along your wrong and misguided opinion to someone else as if it were, in your opinion, a fact and try and convience them that your right. You may succeed at that and if you do you will take away from the knowledge of man with lies and false information instead of advancing it with truth. If I am wrong then where is the evidence of your claim? If you can not provide that, you have been soundly beaten in this debate, and that means your opinion is wrong!

What do you call silica and other inorganics present in hydrocarbon fuels?

The inorganics you speak of will remain as an ash unless they are in a gaseous or liquid state at STP.

I've learned I'm glad I didn't go to whatever uni you attended.

You question the schools I attended? Wish to degrade them? I prove my statements, you choose to ignore them, what did you do when you went to school and something was presented with proof but you disagreeded? Dismiss it as you have dismissed this? I would say the likely hood of that is yes you would have dismissed anything that was not in conformance with your opinion as it exists in you mind. Thus you do not have an open mind to learning new information and you will always have a tendency to be incorrect. Due to your bias towards your own preconceived opinions and your rejection of anything that is contrary to your opinion with out proper review and consideration by you. Thus, you make rejections of information prior to giving due consideration of the information as it is provided and supported with cited facts.

That, sir, is bias and bias has no place in science. Since you clearly have bias, that degree you have as a scientist is worthless, and the university you recieved it from should be ashamed they gave it to you.

I do happen to believe lol is predominantly used by people under 35.

Only goes to confirm that you have preconceived opinions that are not based in fact. Though the predominate use of internet short cuts may be by people under the age of 35, it does not exclude persons over the age of 35 using the internet or internet short cuts. To think that it would exclude use of them by anyone over the age of 35 is a biased opinion and not an opinion based in fact.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 12:41:05 PM by jehkque »

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #162 on: September 12, 2008, 01:24:04 PM »
Water on the other hand is a solid at STP

Which STP? 



Cause I'm looking at that, and most of those STP's have water as being above it's melting point.  It's not 1981 anymore old man, IUPAC changed thier definition in 1982, to be 100 bar kPa instead of 1 ATM, get with the times.

Secondly as you should know, the term freezing point is not used, the term used is melting point due to liquid ability to super cool, (water can supercool to -42), and it defined as a range. 

Thirdly, the melting point of water has been measured as 0.002519 +/- 0.000002 degrees C, so it firmly straddles 0 degrees, meaning it would be neither fully solid, nor fully liquid if being melted at Standard pressure.  If being frozen, it would remain as a liquid until either -42 or if nucleation points were introduced, which in a melting point experiment, they would not.  During reaction of hydrogen and oxygen, water would form as a gas, as the reaction takes place in the gas phase, and then have to loose energy to become liquid, upon reaching 0 degrees it would still be liquid, and would not be solid untill it reached -0.000002 degrees. 

Fourthly, STP is not a standard for determining the state of a compound, Standard State is.  Standard state is only defines a pressure (100 bar kPa, not 1ATM, get with the times old man), not a temperature, however it is commonly defined as 25 degrees C.  This is why mercury is defined as a liquid not a solid, as it would be at STP. 

Now, please lick my balls old man. 



Now onto why you fail at English. 


Residue is that which is left behind after something else is taken away.  Now in an oxidation reaction, the oxide is not there at the start, it is newly created at the end, this does not fit as something that is left behind, how can it be left behind when it was not there at the start.  A residue is that part which does not react, it is what is there at the start and still remains at the end.  The oxide is created anew and so is not a residue. 


So, now you can lick my balls again please.



I still have no idea why the fuck you two are arguing about this, what the fuck are you both even hoping to prove based on whether an essentially meaningless word as far as actual chemistry or physics is concerned, is applied to water? 

why is anyone even arguing this? 



[edit, did a NASA and mixed up my units ;)]
« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 02:54:06 PM by lolz at trollz »
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #163 on: September 12, 2008, 02:12:54 PM »
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
Readily available on earth in a state that it would freely reach the water for minimal cost, worth the energy it would produce.

So.... Where do you find say lithium deposits on earth?
A train car that has a hole in it. 
Ok, so it is efficient to set up an energy system dependent on finding train cars with holes in them, full of lithium that is open to water but not yet reacted to the water in the air. Good call sok.


It's not my fault you used the wrong words. 


Quote from: lolz at trollz
Cause I'm looking at that, and most of those STP's have water as being above it's melting point.  It's not 1981 anymore old man, IUPAC changed thier definition in 1982, to be 100 bar instead of 1 ATM, get with the times.

Since when was 98 atm or 100 bar standard?  That's 1,450 psi. 
« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 02:16:43 PM by sokarul »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #164 on: September 12, 2008, 02:51:15 PM »


Since when was 98 atm or 100 bar standard?  That's 1,450 psi. 

opps, got mixed up there, I meant 100 kPa, as per the table I posted. 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #165 on: September 12, 2008, 05:12:26 PM »
Water on the other hand is a solid at STP

Which STP? 



Cause I'm looking at that, and most of those STP's have water as being above it's melting point.  It's not 1981 anymore old man, IUPAC changed thier definition in 1982, to be 100 bar kPa instead of 1 ATM, get with the times.

Secondly as you should know, the term freezing point is not used, the term used is melting point due to liquid ability to super cool, (water can supercool to -42), and it defined as a range. 

Thirdly, the melting point of water has been measured as 0.002519 +/- 0.000002 degrees C, so it firmly straddles 0 degrees, meaning it would be neither fully solid, nor fully liquid if being melted at Standard pressure.  If being frozen, it would remain as a liquid until either -42 or if nucleation points were introduced, which in a melting point experiment, they would not.  During reaction of hydrogen and oxygen, water would form as a gas, as the reaction takes place in the gas phase, and then have to loose energy to become liquid, upon reaching 0 degrees it would still be liquid, and would not be solid untill it reached -0.000002 degrees. 

Fourthly, STP is not a standard for determining the state of a compound, Standard State is.  Standard state is only defines a pressure (100 bar kPa, not 1ATM, get with the times old man), not a temperature, however it is commonly defined as 25 degrees C.  This is why mercury is defined as a liquid not a solid, as it would be at STP. 

Now, please lick my balls old man. 



Now onto why you fail at English. 


Residue is that which is left behind after something else is taken away.  Now in an oxidation reaction, the oxide is not there at the start, it is newly created at the end, this does not fit as something that is left behind, how can it be left behind when it was not there at the start.  A residue is that part which does not react, it is what is there at the start and still remains at the end.  The oxide is created anew and so is not a residue.


So, now you can lick my balls again please.



I still have no idea why the fuck you two are arguing about this, what the fuck are you both even hoping to prove based on whether an essentially meaningless word as far as actual chemistry or physics is concerned, is applied to water? 

why is anyone even arguing this? 



[edit, did a NASA and mixed up my units ;)]

First, you are in violation of Wikipedia's copy right, you could be suied for such. You quoted a source with out properly citing the source. Which BTW is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_temperature_and_pressure

Second, Line 2 of the table you presented is equal to 0 deg C at 1 ATM the adjusted value in line 1 is the currently accepted version because of the easier calculation associated with dropping the 1.325 kpa to make the value an even 100 kpa.

Third,
Thirdly, the melting point of water has been measured as 0.002519 +/- 0.000002 degrees C, so it firmly straddles 0 degrees, meaning it would be neither fully solid, nor fully liquid if being melted at Standard pressure.  If being frozen, it would remain as a liquid until either -42 or if nucleation points were introduced, which in a melting point experiment, they would not.  During reaction of hydrogen and oxygen, water would form as a gas, as the reaction takes place in the gas phase, and then have to loose energy to become liquid, upon reaching 0 degrees it would still be liquid, and would not be solid untill it reached -0.000002 degrees.


You had better check your math as 0.002519 +/- 0.000002 deg C is the range of 0.002517 - 0.002521 deg C both the upper value and the lower value in the indicated range are above 0 deg C according to your figures. So you make a false statement in stating "would not be solid until it reached -0.000002 degrees" and in stating "it firmly straddles 0 degrees".

Fourth,



Residue is that which is left behind after something else is taken away.  Now in an oxidation reaction, the oxide is not there at the start, it is newly created at the end, this does not fit as something that is left behind, how can it be left behind when it was not there at the start.  A residue is that part which does not react, it is what is there at the start and still remains at the end.  The oxide is created anew and so is not a residue.

If your oxidizing agent was not present at the start your experiment would fail as there would be no oxidation that would occur. Unless you are going to breach the experiment by adding something after it started.

Fifth, foul language as you have used has no place in a debate, it shows your low intellect and is indicitive that you feel threatened or less than adaquate and lash out with such language trying to wound or incite the other to follow suit in an attempt to discredit them to leverage yourself into a better position. Your repeated reference to things of a sexual nature may be an indication you have homosexual tendencies, as you desire a man to "lick you balls". If this is not so it tends to prove my point made at the onset of this section. I on the other hand do not have those tendencies so you can lick them yourself or find someone that has the same tendencies as you do.

Sixth, you reference me as an old man, as if that was something to be ashamed of or is a bad thing. LOL You, yourself will one day reach this age, unless you die before that time, and when you do you will be old by your own standard. I and many others of this age look at it as knowledge gained by life experience.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 06:01:45 PM by jehkque »

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #166 on: September 12, 2008, 07:39:53 PM »
You did not answer all my points, you have ignored Standard State, which is what you will find properties recorded at in almost all literature, you have ignored the fact that the first line in the table is the currently defined one by IUPAC (stp is arbitrary, and they arbitrarily changed it), and you ignore all the other values defined by plenty of other equally worthy bodies, you ignore supercooling, and the fact it is a melting point not a freezing point, a liquid does not need to freeze when it reaches that temperature. 

On the residue bit you utterly fail to see that the oxide is not the oxidising agent, it is a new compound, there was no water at the start of the reaction, it has been formed, it is not a residue.  A residue would remain hte same from start to finish.

You failed to refute all my points, the only one you got was the melting point one which I rather hastily looked up without reading properly.  You still have hte rest to go.  What do you say about standard state?  Is mercury a solid? 

Plus you ignore the fact you are being utterly stupid.  The idea of defining a product as the 'ash' of a reaction is just plain dumb, you made a bad analagy and now you are clinging to it like its some great point of contention.  You know that chemist would call the product of a reaction 'ash'.  It's the fucking product!   The only place I can think the term is used in chemisty is in analytical chemistry, where it refers to non-aqueous remains of combustion.  I mean woah, you have really reached maximum wrongness. 

You are wrong and you insist on remaining wrong, and it doesn't even seem to have a reason behind it. 



What is the point behind this stupid argument???  someone please tell me why it matters????
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #167 on: September 12, 2008, 08:34:59 PM »
errr we like arguing  ;)

isn't that why this board exists?

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #168 on: September 13, 2008, 06:23:34 AM »
errr we like arguing  ;)

isn't that why this board exists?

Well, yea obviously, but why such a dumb point?  I came in and saw someone being wrong and had to correct them, but how did such a stupid point arise?  What happened to perpetual motion? 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #169 on: September 13, 2008, 09:25:25 AM »
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
Readily available on earth in a state that it would freely reach the water for minimal cost, worth the energy it would produce.

So.... Where do you find say lithium deposits on earth?
A train car that has a hole in it. 
Ok, so it is efficient to set up an energy system dependent on finding train cars with holes in them, full of lithium that is open to water but not yet reacted to the water in the air. Good call sok.


It's not my fault you used the wrong words. 


Quote from: lolz at trollz
Cause I'm looking at that, and most of those STP's have water as being above it's melting point.  It's not 1981 anymore old man, IUPAC changed thier definition in 1982, to be 100 bar instead of 1 ATM, get with the times.

Since when was 98 atm or 100 bar standard?  That's 1,450 psi. 
I forgot, sokarul, you're mentally deficient. From now on I'll speak more concisely, and make sure all the statements make sense out of context.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #170 on: September 13, 2008, 11:24:58 PM »
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
Readily available on earth in a state that it would freely reach the water for minimal cost, worth the energy it would produce.

So.... Where do you find say lithium deposits on earth?
A train car that has a hole in it. 
Ok, so it is efficient to set up an energy system dependent on finding train cars with holes in them, full of lithium that is open to water but not yet reacted to the water in the air. Good call sok.


It's not my fault you used the wrong words. 


Quote from: lolz at trollz
Cause I'm looking at that, and most of those STP's have water as being above it's melting point.  It's not 1981 anymore old man, IUPAC changed thier definition in 1982, to be 100 bar instead of 1 ATM, get with the times.

Since when was 98 atm or 100 bar standard?  That's 1,450 psi. 
I forgot, sokarul, you're mentally deficient. From now on I'll speak more concisely, and make sure all the statements make sense out of context.
Dyno pointed out your stupidity first.  If you are going to argue in a scientific thread you should use the right words.   
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #171 on: September 13, 2008, 11:32:27 PM »
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
Readily available on earth in a state that it would freely reach the water for minimal cost, worth the energy it would produce.

So.... Where do you find say lithium deposits on earth?
A train car that has a hole in it. 
Ok, so it is efficient to set up an energy system dependent on finding train cars with holes in them, full of lithium that is open to water but not yet reacted to the water in the air. Good call sok.


It's not my fault you used the wrong words. 


Quote from: lolz at trollz
Cause I'm looking at that, and most of those STP's have water as being above it's melting point.  It's not 1981 anymore old man, IUPAC changed thier definition in 1982, to be 100 bar instead of 1 ATM, get with the times.

Since when was 98 atm or 100 bar standard?  That's 1,450 psi. 
I forgot, sokarul, you're mentally deficient. From now on I'll speak more concisely, and make sure all the statements make sense out of context.
Dyno pointed out your stupidity first.  If you are going to argue in a scientific thread you should use the right words.   
You mean correct words. Not right.

You should also use the (sic)right words.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #172 on: September 13, 2008, 11:36:11 PM »
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
Readily available on earth in a state that it would freely reach the water for minimal cost, worth the energy it would produce.

So.... Where do you find say lithium deposits on earth?
A train car that has a hole in it. 
Ok, so it is efficient to set up an energy system dependent on finding train cars with holes in them, full of lithium that is open to water but not yet reacted to the water in the air. Good call sok.


It's not my fault you used the wrong words. 


Quote from: lolz at trollz
Cause I'm looking at that, and most of those STP's have water as being above it's melting point.  It's not 1981 anymore old man, IUPAC changed thier definition in 1982, to be 100 bar instead of 1 ATM, get with the times.

Since when was 98 atm or 100 bar standard?  That's 1,450 psi. 
I forgot, sokarul, you're mentally deficient. From now on I'll speak more concisely, and make sure all the statements make sense out of context.
Dyno pointed out your stupidity first.  If you are going to argue in a scientific thread you should use the right words.   
You mean correct words. Not right.

You should also use the (sic)right words.
“Right” works just fine.  You used the wrong words.  You said “on earth” when you meant “naturally occurring”.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #173 on: September 14, 2008, 06:48:37 AM »
He also said deposits, most geologist would agree the contents of a train carriage would not be classed as a deposit. 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #174 on: September 14, 2008, 09:32:13 AM »
Readily available in nature you mean?

He must or he is an idiot. 
Readily available on earth in a state that it would freely reach the water for minimal cost, worth the energy it would produce.

So.... Where do you find say lithium deposits on earth?
A train car that has a hole in it. 
Ok, so it is efficient to set up an energy system dependent on finding train cars with holes in them, full of lithium that is open to water but not yet reacted to the water in the air. Good call sok.


It's not my fault you used the wrong words. 


Quote from: lolz at trollz
Cause I'm looking at that, and most of those STP's have water as being above it's melting point.  It's not 1981 anymore old man, IUPAC changed thier definition in 1982, to be 100 bar instead of 1 ATM, get with the times.

Since when was 98 atm or 100 bar standard?  That's 1,450 psi. 
I forgot, sokarul, you're mentally deficient. From now on I'll speak more concisely, and make sure all the statements make sense out of context.
Dyno pointed out your stupidity first.  If you are going to argue in a scientific thread you should use the right words.   
You mean correct words. Not right.

You should also use the (sic)right words.
“Right” works just fine.  You used the wrong words.  You said “on earth” when you meant “naturally occurring”.
I did not mean naturally occurring, if there was a pollutant that we released in high enough doses to be useful, I would count that too.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #175 on: September 14, 2008, 09:54:04 AM »
Well than a train car works pretty good. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #176 on: September 14, 2008, 11:11:34 AM »
High enough levels to be useful.  ::)

Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #177 on: September 14, 2008, 12:36:51 PM »
High enough levels to be useful.  ::)

An energy policy based entirely off lithium dropping out of other peoples train carriages.  Wow, the energy crisis has been solved, well done. 

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #178 on: September 17, 2008, 12:32:34 PM »
High enough levels to be useful.  ::)

An energy policy based entirely off lithium dropping out of other peoples train carriages.  Wow, the energy crisis has been solved, well done. 



I apparently missed the second part of the worthless argument. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Dead Kangaroo

  • FES' Anchor Roo
  • The Elder Ones
  • 4551
  • K800 Model 101.
Re: Perpetual motion/"free energy"
« Reply #179 on: September 18, 2008, 03:49:31 PM »
High enough levels to be useful.  ::)

An energy policy based entirely off lithium dropping out of other peoples train carriages.  Wow, the energy crisis has been solved, well done. 



I apparently missed the second part of the worthless argument. 
Don't worry about it, it's not although you'll have a productive response to it anyway.