Please, a Moment of Silence for Trafn
| 01-06-2026 23:42 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(24080) |
Im a BM wrote: You are describing yourself again, Robert. Inversion fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-06-2026 17:12 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3489) |
Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: This thread has been up for nearly a month, averaging about 20 "Views" per day over its lifetime, mainly viewable on the home page. Meanwhile, the "Immortality Discovered" thread is picking up 20 new "Views" every two hours the last couple of days. The number of members actually POSTING can be counted on one hand. Many more people are "viewing" the threads than posting on them. At least some of them include my "target audience" of persons well-versed in science who are not in denial about climate change, the origin of petroleum, ocean acidification, the age of the Earth, or whether or not the Earth is flat. |
| 02-06-2026 23:43 | |
| sealover★★★★★ (2037) |
Im a BM wrote:Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: Anyone who wants to do a "reality check" can Google the simple question: "Are sodium hydroxide, NaOH, and sodium sulfide, Na2S the chemicals used to make 'white liquor' for the Kraft lignin extraction process?" Google will tell you: "Yes, sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium sulfide (Na2S) are indeed the active cooking chemicals used to prepare 'white liquor' for the Kraft process." One can look further in Google's AI response to see the chemical mechanisms of the process described, pH-dependence of lignin solubility, etc. The local chemistry clown FRAUD pretends he is a "chemist" who works with paper mills. But he doesn't display ANY knowledge of paper mill chemistry. Doesn't even know the basic ingredients of the "caustic brew" they use as "bleachant". Doesn't have a clue why they have to acidify the "black liquor" extracted by the Kraft process to get the lignin to precipitate out. Perhaps because this self-identified literally does not know what pH IS, he cannot comprehend how pH affects the solubility of lignin. The half dozen trolls who used to dominate discussion here just LOVED to call any new member who claimed to have any scientific credibility a "FRAUD". My definition of "fraud" is a "chemist" who doesn't even know what pH is, and doesn't even know the main two chemicals he pretends to work with. YES, sodium hydroxide IS used in paper mills. And YES, sodium sulfide IS used in paper mills. People who actually studied chemistry know how to call it something more specific than a "caustic brew" or "bleachant". |
| 03-06-2026 00:05 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (24080) |
sealover wrote: There is no such thing as a 'reality check'. You are not Google. Google is not God. Don't try to substitute AI for your brain. sealover wrote: No. sealover wrote: You are describing yourself again. You cannot blame your problems on me or anybody else. sealover wrote: You are a fraud. sealover wrote: Okay. You are a fraud. sealover wrote: Neither is used in paper mills. sealover wrote: You deny chemistry. You deny science. You deny mathematics. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 03-06-2026 02:14 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3489) |
Into the Night wrote:sealover wrote: Perhaps the problem is that we have not provided an unambiguous definition for the term "paper mill". I can assure you that it is not a meaningless "buzzword". But the place you "work" that you call a "paper mill" can't be the same thing that Google and I and everyone else I know calls a "paper mill". Perhaps you really ARE a "chemist" at a "paper mill", but only according to your own VERY UNIQUE definition for what a "chemist" and "paper mill" are. Don Quixote thought that what other people called "wind mills" were actually evil giants. Somebody needed to stop everything and DEFINE THEIR TERMS. What do you think a "paper mill" is, YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot). You have already established that they are NOT places that use either sodium hydroxide or sodium sulfide as the two major chemicals used for processing. Maybe we need to agree on a definition for what "paper" is. You might work at what other people mistakenly call a "brewery" or "bath house". I'll be curious to see if IBdaMann has got your back for this one. Does IBdaMann agree that "white liquor" used in "paper mills" is NOT made of water, sodium hydroxide, and sodium sulfide? Let's also account for the paper mills that use potassium hydroxide instead of sodium hydroxide, and some sulfide other than sodium sulfide, such as calcium polysulfide. Does IBdaMann agree that YOU know more about paper mill chemistry than ANY source referenced by Google? If he does, that IBdaMann guy is pretty gosh darn GULLIBLE! Meanwhile, YARP is going to keep the recipe HE uses to make "white liquor" a SECRET. All you need to know it that "white liquor" is the "caustic brew" used as "bleachant". If you don't already know what it is made of and whether or not it might contain any specific CHEMICALS anyone could name, I am NOT responsible for YOUR problems! "Caustic brew" is not a chemical. "Bleachant" is not a chemical. "Science" is not a chemical. But Google is an excellent resource for ACCURATE information about "science" and "chemicals". And they don't just cite Google's self evident omniscience as the source you have to believe. Google provides the citations for the "white papers" and "textbooks" where such "science" can be found. "Your religion is stupid." - IBdaMann "Inversion fallacy" - YARP (a.k.a. "ITN") Edited on 03-06-2026 02:35 |
| 03-06-2026 05:26 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3489) |
"Kraft Lignin" extraction from wood pulp, "white paper" citations. "Science can be found in textbooks and white papers." - IBdaMann M.A. Hubbe et al (2019) "Lignin Recovery from Spent Alkaline Pulping Liquors using Acidification, Membrane Separation, and Related Processing Steps: A Review." Bioresources volume 14, pages 2300-2351. Great review about the process used at paper mills, and the pH dependency of lignin solubility. Specifically points out sodium hydroxide as the ingredient in "white liquor" that makes it have such high pH, to dissolve lignin. Then "acidification" down to pH 3 gets that lignin to all precipitate out from the "black liquor" J. Gierer (1985) details the chemical reactions of lignin during pulping in "Chemistry of Delignification general concept and reactions during pulping. Wood Science and Technology Volume 19, Pages 289-312 Gets into fact that sodium sulfide is used in addition to sodium hydroxide, to break the bonds between lignin and cellulose in wood pulp at paper mills. The "LignoBoost" process is the version of Kraft lignin extraction most widely adopted at large paper mills as of 2026. P. Tomani (2010). "The LignoBoost Process" Cellulose Chemistry and Technology, Volume 44, Pages 53-58 Most emphasis of the chemistry discussed in Kraft lignin extraction literature is about the "acidification" step, bringing the pH of the "black liquor" down low enough for lignin to become insoluble again. Far fewer papers get into details about the role of sodium sulfide, Na2S, the OTHER active ingredient (besides NaOH) in "white liquor" used to break chemical bonds between lignin and cellulose. Even at high pH (>10) lignin can't dissolve if it is attached to insoluble cellulose. Perhaps the "paper mill" where Into the Night claims to be a "chemist" does NOT use the "LignoBoost" process. So.. What process DO they use, in that case? Do ANY of the actual chemicals you use for getting lignin from wood pulp have a NAME that you know, Into the Night? Sodium sulfide is the name of a chemical. Sodium hydroxide is also the name of a "chemical". "Caustic brew" and "bleachant" are NOT chemicals. Into the Night wrote:sealover wrote: Perhaps the problem is that we have not provided an unambiguous definition for the term "paper mill". I can assure you that it is not a meaningless "buzzword". But the place you "work" that you call a "paper mill" can't be the same thing that Google and I and everyone else I know calls a "paper mill". Perhaps you really ARE a "chemist" at a "paper mill", but only according to your own VERY UNIQUE definition for what a "chemist" and "paper mill" are. Don Quixote thought that what other people called "wind mills" were actually evil giants. Somebody needed to stop everything and DEFINE THEIR TERMS. What do you think a "paper mill" is, YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot). You have already established that they are NOT places that use either sodium hydroxide or sodium sulfide as the two major chemicals used for processing. Maybe we need to agree on a definition for what "paper" is. You might work at what other people mistakenly call a "brewery" or "bath house". I'll be curious to see if IBdaMann has got your back for this one. Does IBdaMann agree that "white liquor" used in "paper mills" is NOT made of water, sodium hydroxide, and sodium sulfide? Let's also account for the paper mills that use potassium hydroxide instead of sodium hydroxide, and some sulfide other than sodium sulfide, such as calcium polysulfide. Does IBdaMann agree that YOU know more about paper mill chemistry than ANY source referenced by Google? If he does, that IBdaMann guy is pretty gosh darn GULLIBLE! Meanwhile, YARP is going to keep the recipe HE uses to make "white liquor" a SECRET. All you need to know it that "white liquor" is the "caustic brew" used as "bleachant". If you don't already know what it is made of and whether or not it might contain any specific CHEMICALS anyone could name, I am NOT responsible for YOUR problems! "Caustic brew" is not a chemical. "Bleachant" is not a chemical. "Science" is not a chemical. But Google is an excellent resource for ACCURATE information about "science" and "chemicals". And they don't just cite Google's self evident omniscience as the source you have to believe. Google provides the citations for the "white papers" and "textbooks" where such "science" can be found. "Your religion is stupid." - IBdaMann "Inversion fallacy" - YARP (a.k.a. "ITN") |
| 03-06-2026 08:34 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (24080) |
Im a BM wrote: Whining gets you nowhere, Robert. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 03-06-2026 08:36 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (24080) |
Im a BM wrote: Substituting AI for your brain is a bad idea, Robert. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 03-06-2026 10:27 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3489) |
Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: Obviously, I do not speak for trafn, may he rest in peace. I can only imagine he would be pleased that I didn't let the trolls drive me away, even with multiple doxings. Doxing me only enhances my credibility to discuss environmental chemistry. It is EASY to look up my pubs to see, for example, how I am credited for identifying an important "New Cog in the Nitrogen Cycle" (See Nature, 1995, volume 377, pages 199-200, review article about my discovery authored by Terry Chapin. IBdaMann and YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) can make any false accusations they like, but ANYONE can do a simple search to see that I am actually recognized as a SCIENTIST by many other actual SCIENTISTS. The "local residents in science" have only each other to vouch for their self evident omniscience about all things related to ANY field of science. They make authoritative contrarian assertions that cannot be supported by ANY citable source of published information. "Science is not a publication". I was well known among the scientific community before AI was invented. Google AI cites MY pubs as a credible source of scientific information. Their AI is only smart because of the brains of people such as myself. Into the Night, your pathetic efforts to discredit Google only beg the question, what makes YOU think you have ANY credibility whatsoever to discuss science? You can't cite your degrees, publications, college science teaching experience, original laboratory methods now widely employed globally, position as a peer reviewer for scientific journals, or qualifications as an expert witness in court. By belittling the credibility of actual scientists, your own lack of credibility as any kind of scientist only becomes a more glaring contradiction. It drove poor trafn nuts when all the trolls ran roughshod over attempts to have any kind of rational adult discussion about the website topic. But trafn couldn't be effective as the "adult in the room" without the participation of a conscious moderator or website administrator who cared. |
| 03-06-2026 20:38 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(15223) |
Im a BM wrote:Obviously, I do not speak for trafn, may he rest in peace. Let me guess, you are going to speak for trafn anyway. Im a BM wrote:I can only imagine he would be pleased that I didn't let the trolls drive me away, even with multiple doxings. I'm only aware of your one self-doxxing. Did you dox yourself in other ways as well? Im a BM wrote:Doxing myself only enhances my credibility to discuss environmental chemistry. Why does water not evaporate? |
| 03-06-2026 21:06 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3489) |
IBdaMann wrote:Im a BM wrote:Obviously, I do not speak for trafn, may he rest in peace. "Why does water not evaporate?" Before I let Google AI substitute for my brain with an answer to this question.. One reason water might not evaporate would be when it gets frozen solid and buried. The humidity may be too high, so the sweat stays wet on the skin. The ionic strength of the solution may be so high that water is so tightly bound to dissolved ions it cannot evaporate. The water in the pot might not have yet reached boiling temperature. There are many conditions under which evaporation of a given water molecule is very difficult or impossible. What does Google AI have to say? "Why does water not evaporate?" Google say: "Water does evaporate, but it can appear to stop when the rate of evaporation is balanced by the rate of condensation, or when conditions (like high humidity, cold temperature, or low surface area) prevent molecules from breaking their bonds." Okay, but I wish Google remembered to mention high ionic strength reducing the vapor pressure of liquid water.. Further down in Google AI's answer it goes on to say more about saturation and humidity, temperature, surface area, and the influence of "closed containers". But no mention of why you increase the boiling temperature by adding salt. It DID say "prevent molecules from breaking their bonds", but it didn't specify the hydrogen bonds between adjacent water molecules versus the polarized water molecules tightly lined up to surround a charged ion in solution. Pure water evaporates more easily than water with dissolved ions (salt, etc.) in it. I have to wonder where the question even arises. Is there some controversy regarding the capacity of water to evaporate? We could get into the fact that carbonic acid has much lower vapor pressure than water to assess the impact of evaporation on pH, but the WATER still evaporates. It's just the carbonic acid that gets left behind, stuck in the water because its vapor pressure is so low, bonded to multiple polarized water molecules tightly associated with it. The carbonic acid molecule is preventing THOSE water molecules from evaporating. |
| 03-06-2026 21:24 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (15223) |
Im a BM wrote: One reason water might not evaporate would be when it gets frozen solid and buried. Too funny. Frozen and buried water still evaporates (sublimates). Ask any chemist. Im a BM wrote: The humidity may be too high, so the sweat stays wet on the skin. Water still evaporates, even when there is high humidity. Ask any chemist. Im a BM wrote: The ionic strength of the solution may be so high that water is so tightly bound to dissolved ions it cannot evaporate. That may slow evaporation but it can't stop it. Im a BM wrote: The water in the pot might not have yet reached boiling temperature. Increasing water temperature increases evaporation. Im a BM wrote:There are many conditions under which evaporation of a given water molecule is very difficult or impossible. Nope. There are no conditions achievable in Nature that will halt evaporation. Ask any chemist. By the way, I notice that I am disagreeing with you, because everything you are writing is incorrect. That means I'm TROLLING, right? It means I have more stench, right? |
Join the debate Please, a Moment of Silence for Trafn:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Please join me in a moment of silence for the passing of Climate-Debate.com | 16 | 29-04-2026 08:43 |
| Please everyone take a moment on this memorial day to remember the great contributions | 0 | 27-05-2025 03:22 |
| Nancy Pelosi hospitalized Let us all have a moment of silent prayer and | 1 | 13-12-2024 22:26 |
| At this moment in time we all need to come together as Americans, and join forces to | 3 | 15-11-2024 21:13 |
| A moment of silence to remember the day that the sleeping giant awakened on Dec-7-1941 | 41 | 10-12-2022 10:37 |