question for jobst brandt

[still just me]

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 02:44:50 -0600, Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>If you take one of those diatomic Hydrogen molecules and carefully
>squeeze the two halves together until it's only about 1 angstrom across
>it should make a bit of a ping and turn into Helium.

Maybe they should go the other way and trying splitting those Hydrogen
atoms to see what happens.

 

[jim beam]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <b55b2d43-4559-4c28-a656-f21bd6db98c4@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 30, 7:07 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Michael Press wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> My assertion is exactly this: What you said about the relative
>>>> sizes of H2 and He is incorrect.
>>> you're the weakest...
>> From a small amount of calculation and consultation with my physical
>> chemistry text, the length of a diatomic hydrogen molecule is close to
>> 2.2 angstroms. The diameter of a helium atom is close to 1.0
>> angstrom. The diameter of a single hydrogen atom is about 0.75
>> angstrom. The relevant numbers are:
>>
>> Atomic radii: H, 0.37; He, 0.5. Bond length, H-H, 0.74. Lengths
>> given in angstroms.
>
> jim beam wrote "yeah but, the molecular size
> of H2 is much larger than the atomic size of He. that also affects diffusion"

which is correct.


>
> The relevant measure for size here is volume and the best value is
> the b parameter in the van der Waals equation of state.
> b for H2 = 2.65 x 10^{-5} m^3/mole
> b for He = 2.34 x 10^{-5} m^3/mole

but that's not diffusion!!!


> As you can see the difference between H2 and He is negligible.
>
> <http://www.ac.wwu.edu/%7Evawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Thermal/vdWaalEquatOfState.html>
>

see above. give us your numbers for diffusivity of hydrogen in steel
vs. helium in steel, schmuck.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On Jan 31, 10:09 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article
> <b55b2d43-4559-4c28-a656-f21bd6db9...@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 7:07 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Michael Press wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > My assertion is exactly this: What you said about the relative
> > > > sizes of H2 and He is incorrect.
>
> > > you're the weakest...
>
> > From a small amount of calculation and consultation with my physical
> > chemistry text, the length of a diatomic hydrogen molecule is close to
> > 2.2 angstroms. The diameter of a helium atom is close to 1.0
> > angstrom. The diameter of a single hydrogen atom is about 0.75
> > angstrom. The relevant numbers are:
>
> > Atomic radii: H, 0.37; He, 0.5. Bond length, H-H, 0.74. Lengths
> > given in angstroms.
>
> jim beam wrote "yeah but, the molecular size
> of H2 is much larger than the atomic size of He. that also affects diffusion"
>
> The relevant measure for size here is volume and the best value is
> the b parameter in the van der Waals equation of state.
> b for H2 = 2.65 x 10^{-5} m^3/mole
> b for He = 2.34 x 10^{-5} m^3/mole
> As you can see the difference between H2 and He is negligible.

Best? By whose judgment? Comparing radii gives a pretty big number.

And like any other approximation, the van der Waals value is merely an
approximation.

You are now splitting semantic hairs.

And, as Jim points out, hydrogen diffuses into metal at a VASTLY
higher rate than He. Equations of state do not tell you the whole
story, and in fact may only tell you a little about how the gaseous
form behaves in a very tightly controlled experimental environment,
under a very small range of conditions.

Here's a cheap experiment:

Take two rubber balloons and fill one with helium and fill one with
hydrogen. In the morning, one of them will be on the floor, with less
gas volume. The other will still look about the same as the previous
day.

Want to make a guess?

E.P.

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <b55b2d43-4559-4c28-a656-f21bd6db98c4@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> > Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Jan 30, 7:07 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Michael Press wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >>>> My assertion is exactly this: What you said about the relative
> >>>> sizes of H2 and He is incorrect.
> >>> you're the weakest...
> >> From a small amount of calculation and consultation with my physical
> >> chemistry text, the length of a diatomic hydrogen molecule is close to
> >> 2.2 angstroms. The diameter of a helium atom is close to 1.0
> >> angstrom. The diameter of a single hydrogen atom is about 0.75
> >> angstrom. The relevant numbers are:
> >>
> >> Atomic radii: H, 0.37; He, 0.5. Bond length, H-H, 0.74. Lengths
> >> given in angstroms.
> >
> > jim beam wrote "yeah but, the molecular size
> > of H2 is much larger than the atomic size of He. that also affects diffusion"
>
> which is correct.

The statement
"the molecular size of H2 is much larger than the atomic size of He"
is false.

We are talking kinetic theory of gases.
The van der Waals equation of state is definitive.

> > The relevant measure for size here is volume and the best value is
> > the b parameter in the van der Waals equation of state.
> > b for H2 = 2.65 x 10^{-5} m^3/mole
> > b for He = 2.34 x 10^{-5} m^3/mole
>
> but that's not diffusion!!!

I am not discussing diffusion.

>
> > As you can see the difference between H2 and He is negligible.
> >
> > <http://www.ac.wwu.edu/%7Evawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Thermal/vdWaalEquatOfState.html>
> >
>
> see above. give us your numbers for diffusivity of hydrogen in steel
> vs. helium in steel, schmuck.

I am not discussing diffusion.
I am talking physical size of molecules.
The van der Waals equation of state is definitive.

--
Michael Press

 

[Tom Sherman]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <b55b2d43-4559-4c28-a656-f21bd6db98c4@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 30, 7:07 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> My assertion is exactly this: What you said about the relative
>>>>>> sizes of H2 and He is incorrect.
>>>>> you're the weakest...
>>>> From a small amount of calculation and consultation with my physical
>>>> chemistry text, the length of a diatomic hydrogen molecule is close to
>>>> 2.2 angstroms. The diameter of a helium atom is close to 1.0
>>>> angstrom. The diameter of a single hydrogen atom is about 0.75
>>>> angstrom. The relevant numbers are:
>>>>
>>>> Atomic radii: H, 0.37; He, 0.5. Bond length, H-H, 0.74. Lengths
>>>> given in angstroms.
>>> jim beam wrote "yeah but, the molecular size
>>> of H2 is much larger than the atomic size of He. that also affects diffusion"
>> which is correct.
>
> The statement
> "the molecular size of H2 is much larger than the atomic size of He"
> is false.
>
> We are talking kinetic theory of gases.
> The van der Waals equation of state is definitive.
>
>>> The relevant measure for size here is volume and the best value is
>>> the b parameter in the van der Waals equation of state.
>>> b for H2 = 2.65 x 10^{-5} m^3/mole
>>> b for He = 2.34 x 10^{-5} m^3/mole
>> but that's not diffusion!!!
>
> I am not discussing diffusion.
>
>>> As you can see the difference between H2 and He is negligible.
>>>
>>> <http://www.ac.wwu.edu/%7Evawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Thermal/vdWaalEquatOfState.html>
>>>
>> see above. give us your numbers for diffusivity of hydrogen in steel
>> vs. helium in steel, schmuck.
>
> I am not discussing diffusion.
> I am talking physical size of molecules.
> The van der Waals equation of state is definitive.
>
I think a free ruler from the hardware store would be an adequate
measuring tool to settle this argument.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

 

[Dan Burkhart]

I think a free ruler from the hardware store would be an adequate
measuring tool to settle this argument.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Lay em out on the table boys.

 

[jim beam]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <b55b2d43-4559-4c28-a656-f21bd6db98c4@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 30, 7:07 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> My assertion is exactly this: What you said about the relative
>>>>>> sizes of H2 and He is incorrect.
>>>>> you're the weakest...
>>>> From a small amount of calculation and consultation with my physical
>>>> chemistry text, the length of a diatomic hydrogen molecule is close to
>>>> 2.2 angstroms. The diameter of a helium atom is close to 1.0
>>>> angstrom. The diameter of a single hydrogen atom is about 0.75
>>>> angstrom. The relevant numbers are:
>>>>
>>>> Atomic radii: H, 0.37; He, 0.5. Bond length, H-H, 0.74. Lengths
>>>> given in angstroms.
>>> jim beam wrote "yeah but, the molecular size
>>> of H2 is much larger than the atomic size of He. that also affects diffusion"
>> which is correct.
>
> The statement
> "the molecular size of H2 is much larger than the atomic size of He"
> is false.
>
> We are talking kinetic theory of gases.
> The van der Waals equation of state is definitive.
>
>>> The relevant measure for size here is volume and the best value is
>>> the b parameter in the van der Waals equation of state.
>>> b for H2 = 2.65 x 10^{-5} m^3/mole
>>> b for He = 2.34 x 10^{-5} m^3/mole
>> but that's not diffusion!!!
>
> I am not discussing diffusion.
>
>>> As you can see the difference between H2 and He is negligible.
>>>
>>> <http://www.ac.wwu.edu/%7Evawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Thermal/vdWaalEquatOfState.html>
>>>
>> see above. give us your numbers for diffusivity of hydrogen in steel
>> vs. helium in steel, schmuck.
>
> I am not discussing diffusion.
> I am talking physical size of molecules.
> The van der Waals equation of state is definitive.
>

you don't like my argument because it's correct, so you're trying to
redefine it as another one that suits you better. that's called "being
a schmuck".

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Press wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <b55b2d43-4559-4c28-a656-f21bd6db98c4@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Jan 30, 7:07 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> Michael Press wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>>>> My assertion is exactly this: What you said about the relative
> >>>>>> sizes of H2 and He is incorrect.
> >>>>> you're the weakest...
> >>>> From a small amount of calculation and consultation with my physical
> >>>> chemistry text, the length of a diatomic hydrogen molecule is close to
> >>>> 2.2 angstroms. The diameter of a helium atom is close to 1.0
> >>>> angstrom. The diameter of a single hydrogen atom is about 0.75
> >>>> angstrom. The relevant numbers are:
> >>>>
> >>>> Atomic radii: H, 0.37; He, 0.5. Bond length, H-H, 0.74. Lengths
> >>>> given in angstroms.
> >>> jim beam wrote "yeah but, the molecular size
> >>> of H2 is much larger than the atomic size of He. that also affects diffusion"
> >> which is correct.
> >
> > The statement
> > "the molecular size of H2 is much larger than the atomic size of He"
> > is false.
> >
> > We are talking kinetic theory of gases.
> > The van der Waals equation of state is definitive.
> >
> >>> The relevant measure for size here is volume and the best value is
> >>> the b parameter in the van der Waals equation of state.
> >>> b for H2 = 2.65 x 10^{-5} m^3/mole
> >>> b for He = 2.34 x 10^{-5} m^3/mole
> >> but that's not diffusion!!!
> >
> > I am not discussing diffusion.
> >
> >>> As you can see the difference between H2 and He is negligible.
> >>>
> >>> <http://www.ac.wwu.edu/%7Evawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Thermal/vdWaalEquatOfState.html>
> >>>
> >> see above. give us your numbers for diffusivity of hydrogen in steel
> >> vs. helium in steel, schmuck.
> >
> > I am not discussing diffusion.
> > I am talking physical size of molecules.
> > The van der Waals equation of state is definitive.
> >
>
> you don't like my argument because it's correct, so you're trying to
> redefine it as another one that suits you better. that's called "being
> a schmuck".

I have been discussing exactly one statement all along.
"the molecular size of H2 is much larger than the atomic size of He"
That statement is still false. Molecular size is the volume it
occupies. H2 and He are the same size.

Explicitly speaking to diffusion through channels you should
be quoting the smallest cross section area.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<01483252-115c-4348-bbb6-32bb134ebc38@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jan 31, 10:09 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article
> > <b55b2d43-4559-4c28-a656-f21bd6db9...@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> > Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 30, 7:07 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Michael Press wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > My assertion is exactly this: What you said about the relative
> > > > > sizes of H2 and He is incorrect.
> >
> > > > you're the weakest...
> >
> > > From a small amount of calculation and consultation with my physical
> > > chemistry text, the length of a diatomic hydrogen molecule is close to
> > > 2.2 angstroms. The diameter of a helium atom is close to 1.0
> > > angstrom. The diameter of a single hydrogen atom is about 0.75
> > > angstrom. The relevant numbers are:
> >
> > > Atomic radii: H, 0.37; He, 0.5. Bond length, H-H, 0.74. Lengths
> > > given in angstroms.
> >
> > jim beam wrote "yeah but, the molecular size
> > of H2 is much larger than the atomic size of He. that also affects diffusion"
> >
> > The relevant measure for size here is volume and the best value is
> > the b parameter in the van der Waals equation of state.
> > b for H2 = 2.65 x 10^{-5} m^3/mole
> > b for He = 2.34 x 10^{-5} m^3/mole
> > As you can see the difference between H2 and He is negligible.
>
> Best? By whose judgment? Comparing radii gives a pretty big number.

What are all the dimensions of the H2 molecule?

> And like any other approximation, the van der Waals value is merely an
> approximation.

All physical measurements are approximations.
The van der Waals equation of state is very accurate indeed.

> You are now splitting semantic hairs.

I know nothing about semantics.

> And, as Jim points out, hydrogen diffuses into metal at a VASTLY
> higher rate than He.

The initial discussion was butyl rubber. H+ in metal is
a whole other world.

> Equations of state do not tell you the whole
> story, and in fact may only tell you a little about how the gaseous
> form behaves in a very tightly controlled experimental environment,
> under a very small range of conditions.
>
> Here's a cheap experiment:
>
> Take two rubber balloons and fill one with helium and fill one with
> hydrogen. In the morning, one of them will be on the floor, with less
> gas volume. The other will still look about the same as the previous
> day.
>
> Want to make a guess?

I am not guessing. Size is not everything.
Diffusion rate is influenced by mass, intrinsic dipole moment,
polarizability, and other things. The mass difference between
H2 and He is equivalent to a factor of 0.70 applied to the
diffusion rate from H2 to He.

--
Michael Press

 

[jim beam]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <01483252-115c-4348-bbb6-32bb134ebc38@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 31, 10:09 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <b55b2d43-4559-4c28-a656-f21bd6db9...@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 30, 7:07 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> My assertion is exactly this: What you said about the relative
>>>>>> sizes of H2 and He is incorrect.
>>>>> you're the weakest...
>>>> From a small amount of calculation and consultation with my physical
>>>> chemistry text, the length of a diatomic hydrogen molecule is close to
>>>> 2.2 angstroms. The diameter of a helium atom is close to 1.0
>>>> angstrom. The diameter of a single hydrogen atom is about 0.75
>>>> angstrom. The relevant numbers are:
>>>> Atomic radii: H, 0.37; He, 0.5. Bond length, H-H, 0.74. Lengths
>>>> given in angstroms.
>>> jim beam wrote "yeah but, the molecular size
>>> of H2 is much larger than the atomic size of He. that also affects diffusion"
>>>
>>> The relevant measure for size here is volume and the best value is
>>> the b parameter in the van der Waals equation of state.
>>> b for H2 = 2.65 x 10^{-5} m^3/mole
>>> b for He = 2.34 x 10^{-5} m^3/mole
>>> As you can see the difference between H2 and He is negligible.
>> Best? By whose judgment? Comparing radii gives a pretty big number.
>
> What are all the dimensions of the H2 molecule?
>
>> And like any other approximation, the van der Waals value is merely an
>> approximation.
>
> All physical measurements are approximations.
> The van der Waals equation of state is very accurate indeed.
>
>> You are now splitting semantic hairs.
>
> I know nothing about semantics.
>
>> And, as Jim points out, hydrogen diffuses into metal at a VASTLY
>> higher rate than He.
>
> The initial discussion was butyl rubber. H+ in metal is
> a whole other world.
>
>> Equations of state do not tell you the whole
>> story, and in fact may only tell you a little about how the gaseous
>> form behaves in a very tightly controlled experimental environment,
>> under a very small range of conditions.
>>
>> Here's a cheap experiment:
>>
>> Take two rubber balloons and fill one with helium and fill one with
>> hydrogen. In the morning, one of them will be on the floor, with less
>> gas volume. The other will still look about the same as the previous
>> day.
>>
>> Want to make a guess?
>
> I am not guessing. Size is not everything.
> Diffusion rate is influenced by mass, intrinsic dipole moment,
> polarizability, and other things. The mass difference between
> H2 and He is equivalent to a factor of 0.70 applied to the
> diffusion rate from H2 to He.
>

why do you spend so much time avoiding specific answers when asked
specific questions? [rhetorical] - anyone would think you're trying to
cover up for some kind of inferiority. and attempting to redefine the
question is not an answer.

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2008-02-01, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 7:07 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
> > From a small amount of calculation and consultation with my physical
> > chemistry text, the length of a diatomic hydrogen molecule is close to
> > 2.2 angstroms. The diameter of a helium atom is close to 1.0
> > angstrom. The diameter of a single hydrogen atom is about 0.75
> > angstrom. The relevant numbers are:
>
> If you take one of those diatomic Hydrogen molecules and carefully
> squeeze the two halves together until it's only about 1 angstrom across
> it should make a bit of a ping and turn into Helium.

Actually not. There is no He isotope with no neutrons.
It might find a way to deuterium, though.

--
Michael Press

 

[jim beam]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <b55b2d43-4559-4c28-a656-f21bd6db98c4@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 30, 7:07 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My assertion is exactly this: What you said about the relative
>>>>>>>> sizes of H2 and He is incorrect.
>>>>>>> you're the weakest...
>>>>>> From a small amount of calculation and consultation with my physical
>>>>>> chemistry text, the length of a diatomic hydrogen molecule is close to
>>>>>> 2.2 angstroms. The diameter of a helium atom is close to 1.0
>>>>>> angstrom. The diameter of a single hydrogen atom is about 0.75
>>>>>> angstrom. The relevant numbers are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Atomic radii: H, 0.37; He, 0.5. Bond length, H-H, 0.74. Lengths
>>>>>> given in angstroms.
>>>>> jim beam wrote "yeah but, the molecular size
>>>>> of H2 is much larger than the atomic size of He. that also affects diffusion"
>>>> which is correct.
>>> The statement
>>> "the molecular size of H2 is much larger than the atomic size of He"
>>> is false.
>>>
>>> We are talking kinetic theory of gases.
>>> The van der Waals equation of state is definitive.
>>>
>>>>> The relevant measure for size here is volume and the best value is
>>>>> the b parameter in the van der Waals equation of state.
>>>>> b for H2 = 2.65 x 10^{-5} m^3/mole
>>>>> b for He = 2.34 x 10^{-5} m^3/mole
>>>> but that's not diffusion!!!
>>> I am not discussing diffusion.
>>>
>>>>> As you can see the difference between H2 and He is negligible.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.ac.wwu.edu/%7Evawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Thermal/vdWaalEquatOfState.html>
>>>>>
>>>> see above. give us your numbers for diffusivity of hydrogen in steel
>>>> vs. helium in steel, schmuck.
>>> I am not discussing diffusion.
>>> I am talking physical size of molecules.
>>> The van der Waals equation of state is definitive.
>>>
>> you don't like my argument because it's correct, so you're trying to
>> redefine it as another one that suits you better. that's called "being
>> a schmuck".
>
> I have been discussing exactly one statement all along.

yes, /your/ argument, not mine!!!



> "the molecular size of H2 is much larger than the atomic size of He"
> That statement is still false.

no it's not. and as always, your so-called response lacks numbers.


> Molecular size is the volume it
> occupies. H2 and He are the same size.

let's feed that into what you say below...


>
> Explicitly speaking to diffusion through channels you should
> be quoting the smallest cross section area.

so you admit they're not the same size! what a schmuck.

 

[Ben C]

On 2008-02-02, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-02-01, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Jan 30, 7:07 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > From a small amount of calculation and consultation with my physical
>> > chemistry text, the length of a diatomic hydrogen molecule is close to
>> > 2.2 angstroms. The diameter of a helium atom is close to 1.0
>> > angstrom. The diameter of a single hydrogen atom is about 0.75
>> > angstrom. The relevant numbers are:
>>
>> If you take one of those diatomic Hydrogen molecules and carefully
>> squeeze the two halves together until it's only about 1 angstrom across
>> it should make a bit of a ping and turn into Helium.
>
> Actually not. There is no He isotope with no neutrons.
> It might find a way to deuterium, though.

You're quite right. My next question was then going to be, so where do
all the neutrons in the sun (and in the universe generally) come from.

I found this explanation:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/procyc.html

 

[delurker]

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 12:46:10 -0800, Michael Press wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-02-01, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 7:07 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> From a small amount of calculation and consultation with my physical
>>> chemistry text, the length of a diatomic hydrogen molecule is close to
>>> 2.2 angstroms. The diameter of a helium atom is close to 1.0
>>> angstrom. The diameter of a single hydrogen atom is about 0.75
>>> angstrom. The relevant numbers are:
>>
>> If you take one of those diatomic Hydrogen molecules and carefully
>> squeeze the two halves together until it's only about 1 angstrom across
>> it should make a bit of a ping and turn into Helium.
>
> Actually not. There is no He isotope with no neutrons.
> It might find a way to deuterium, though.

May I ask you a personal question, why do you feed the kooks? Yes Jute is
wrong about Carl calling him a liar, and Beam is wrong about ...well most
everything. I don't know how much the lurkers support sane people in email
anymore, someone made that a cliche, so I'll acknowledge here that you are
a force of righteousness, while adding that at the same time I admire that
you stick to the truth and make valiant efforts to refute cowpucky posters,
I also worry that you spend too much time on a lost cause.

 

[Tom Sherman]

delurker WHO? anonymously posts:
> ...
> May I ask you a personal question, why do you feed the kooks? Yes Jute is
> wrong about Carl calling him a liar,...
>
"delurker" needs to re-read what Mr. Fogel posted - the insinuation that
Mr. Jute was lying was clearly made by Mr. Fogel.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

> delurker WHO? anonymously posts:
> > ...
> > May I ask you a personal question, why do you feed the kooks? Yes Jute is
> > wrong about Carl calling him a liar,...
> >
> "delurker" needs to re-read what Mr. Fogel posted - the insinuation that
> Mr. Jute was lying was clearly made by Mr. Fogel.

At best, he insinuated that Mr. Jute was mistaken. It is somewhere
between uncharitable and paranoid to claim otherwise.

I have a pretty good idea why Andre Jute might say so, but Tom, what's
your excuse?

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

 

[Tom Sherman]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> delurker WHO? anonymously posts:
>>> ...
>>> May I ask you a personal question, why do you feed the kooks? Yes Jute is
>>> wrong about Carl calling him a liar,...
>> >
>> "delurker" needs to re-read what Mr. Fogel posted - the insinuation that
>> Mr. Jute was lying was clearly made by Mr. Fogel.
>
> At best, he insinuated that Mr. Jute was mistaken. It is somewhere
> between uncharitable and paranoid to claim otherwise.
>
> I have a pretty good idea why Andre Jute might say so, but Tom, what's
> your excuse?
>
Mr. Fogel has made similar incorrect accusations in the past, but to
this day has refused to admit his error.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> delurker WHO? anonymously posts:
> >>> ...
> >>> May I ask you a personal question, why do you feed the kooks? Yes Jute is
> >>> wrong about Carl calling him a liar,...
> >> >
> >> "delurker" needs to re-read what Mr. Fogel posted - the insinuation that
> >> Mr. Jute was lying was clearly made by Mr. Fogel.
> >
> > At best, he insinuated that Mr. Jute was mistaken. It is somewhere
> > between uncharitable and paranoid to claim otherwise.
> >
> > I have a pretty good idea why Andre Jute might say so, but Tom, what's
> > your excuse?
> >
> Mr. Fogel has made similar incorrect accusations in the past, but to
> this day has refused to admit his error.

What error was that? Questioning an extraordinary claim (which turned
out to be supportable only by the rather extraordinary measure of
motorpacing)?

You're supposed to question extraordinary claims! Especially on Usenet!

Sheesh.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

 

[Tom Sherman]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> delurker WHO? anonymously posts:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> May I ask you a personal question, why do you feed the kooks? Yes Jute is
>>>>> wrong about Carl calling him a liar,...
>>>> >
>>>> "delurker" needs to re-read what Mr. Fogel posted - the insinuation that
>>>> Mr. Jute was lying was clearly made by Mr. Fogel.
>>> At best, he insinuated that Mr. Jute was mistaken. It is somewhere
>>> between uncharitable and paranoid to claim otherwise.
>>>
>>> I have a pretty good idea why Andre Jute might say so, but Tom, what's
>>> your excuse?
>>>
>> Mr. Fogel has made similar incorrect accusations in the past, but to
>> this day has refused to admit his error.
>
> What error was that? Questioning an extraordinary claim (which turned
> out to be supportable only by the rather extraordinary measure of
> motorpacing)?
>
> You're supposed to question extraordinary claims! Especially on Usenet!
>
> Sheesh.
>
Mr. Fogel apparently believes he can read the minds of others and
determine their true intentions. That is more of a stretch that
exceeding 100 kph with the assist of a relatively straight and steep
downhill section of well paved road with the assist of a cube van.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

 

[Werehatrack]

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 10:17:35 -0600, Tom Sherman
<[email protected]> may have said:

>Mr. Fogel apparently believes he can read the minds of others and
>determine their true intentions. That is more of a stretch that
>exceeding 100 kph with the assist of a relatively straight and steep
>downhill section of well paved road with the assist of a cube van.

100kph on a down grade? That's not beyond the realm of what I'd
consider easily possible, given that while I was tooling along
westward at the then-max limit of 55mph on I-70 in Colorado in 1976, I
was passed on the downgrade after the tunnel west of Denver by a
cyclist who was easily going 70. In those days, I didn't know enough
about bikes to realize that I should have been looking closely at the
sprockets to see what sort of kit was on it. I was passed by a
Colorado state trooper a few seconds later, and then came upon the two
of them stopped in a wide spot much farther down. I thought the
cyclist was getting ticketed for speeding...and I still didn't look
closely at the bike. I wish I had, now. It's been pointed out that I
probably had it wrong; the cyclist was most likely being chased by the
trooper because they were in cahoots. After 30 years, I still think
the rider was nuts, though. I've seen what was on the other side of
those guardrails, and it wouldn't have been fun to end up on the wrong
side of one.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.