soda stream

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
What materials have you engineered over the last fifteen years vs. what materials has Into the Night engineered over the same time period?

I've engineered some materials, but not for commercial purposes. What have you done?

Lessee. Most of the materials my sensors help produce tend to be measured by the ton. They help produce (among other things):

Chlorine dioxide, an extremely sensitive explosive used for the bleaching of paper. It must be made on site because it's too dangerous to ship it.

The accurate extraction of lignin during the bleaching process itself, allowing for better quality paper. The lignin is used as fuel to power much of the plant.

Improved protective coatings of titanium components in pulp mills.

Improved techniques to achieve 3rd stage water treatment at wastewater treatment plants, leaving the effluent as potable water, without the use of large settling ponds, by using charge cancelling technique on incoming material at the head of the plant.

Improved fuel efficiency of aircraft (almost doubling it!) through better isolation of hot and cold sections of the engine, and by better fuel metering.


As for myself, for my own chemistry (not the sensors controlling processes on an industrial scale) this last year:

Developed a safer method of mixing explosives used as salutes using automation.

Developed a faster and more reliable method of building a lightning effect, constructing 400 ft of it within hours, instead of the weeks it usually took.

Developed a safer formula for red stars (the visible part of a firework) that also allows for different manufacturing techniques including cut, rolled, or pressed stars.

Improved safe manufacture of aluminum powder, a dangerous conflagrant.

Mixed up some 20kg of black power, granulating some for lift charge, coursing some for burst charge, and leaving some as meal for time fuses, blackmatch, or quickmatch.

Taught people how to safely construct, then launch their own shell.

That's a bit of what I do.

Im a BM wrote:
Was THIS the "RQAA" referred to?

Im a BM wrote:
Is THIS what qualifies Into the Night to claim that he has the professional title of "chemist"?
RQAA
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Hmmm.. So, what DISQUALIFIES the guy who only has a PhD and published widely cited chemistry research?

Im a BM wrote:
If THIS is the "chemist" resume, then... MEH!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Was THIS the "RQAA" referred to?

RQAA. Repetitive Question Already Answered. I already told you this.

Im a BM wrote:
Is THIS what qualifies Into the Night to claim that he has the professional title of "chemist"?
RQAA
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Hmmm.. So, what DISQUALIFIES the guy who only has a PhD and published widely cited chemistry research?

RQAA. Your posts. You have no PhD. Stop pretending.

Im a BM wrote:
If THIS is the "chemist" resume, then... MEH!

Chemistry is not a 'research' or a 'study'. It is not a resume. It is not a title. It is not a university, degree, license (except in some limited cases, such as mine), or sanctification of any kind.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Was THIS the "RQAA" referred to?

RQAA. Repetitive Question Already Answered. I already told you this.

Im a BM wrote:
Is THIS what qualifies Into the Night to claim that he has the professional title of "chemist"?
RQAA
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Hmmm.. So, what DISQUALIFIES the guy who only has a PhD and published widely cited chemistry research?

RQAA. Your posts. You have no PhD. Stop pretending.

Im a BM wrote:
If THIS is the "chemist" resume, then... MEH!

Chemistry is not a 'research' or a 'study'. It is not a resume. It is not a title. It is not a university, degree, license (except in some limited cases, such as mine), or sanctification of any kind.

What would I have to do to get a chemist "license", as you claim to have?

If I am competent enough to accomplish that, would I then be allowed to call myself a "chemist", as you do?

Would that make us "peers"?

Im a BM wrote:
What would I have to do to get a chemist "license", as you claim to have?

Im a BM wrote:
If I am competent enough to accomplish that,

Im a BM wrote:
would I then be allowed to call myself a "chemist", as you do?

Im a BM wrote:
Additional note:

From the thread "Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean":

(August 18,2024)
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Im a BM: "Physical properties of carbonic acid versus dissolved carbon dioxide:
Less than 1% of the CO2 that dissolves in water forms a covalent bond to water molecules to become something quite different - carbonic acid."

Into the Night: "Carbolic acid, dummy."

I guess that this "dummy" stands corrected.

Apparently, it is CARBOLIC acid that forms from water and carbon dioxide.

Good thing we have a REAL chemist on board to correct my mistake.

This must be where the "RQAA" got clarified, and Into the Night makes it quite clear WHICH acid forms, and it is NOT carbonic acid.

All those fake chemists who deceived me were WRONG when they taught me that it is CARBONIC acid that forms from CO2 and water.

So, Into the Night, you still claim CO2 + H2O can make CARBOLIC acid.

Is that your final answer?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What would I have to do to get a chemist "license", as you claim to have?

Pass both a State and federal exam.

Im a BM wrote:
If I am competent enough to accomplish that,

You aren't.

Im a BM wrote:
would I then be allowed to call myself a "chemist", as you do?

You are no chemist.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Additional note:

From the thread "Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean":

(August 18,2024)
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Im a BM: "Physical properties of carbonic acid versus dissolved carbon dioxide:
Less than 1% of the CO2 that dissolves in water forms a covalent bond to water molecules to become something quite different - carbonic acid."

Into the Night: "Carbolic acid, dummy."

I guess that this "dummy" stands corrected.

Apparently, it is CARBOLIC acid that forms from water and carbon dioxide.

Good thing we have a REAL chemist on board to correct my mistake.

This must be where the "RQAA" got clarified, and Into the Night makes it quite clear WHICH acid forms, and it is NOT carbonic acid.

All those fake chemists who deceived me were WRONG when they taught me that it is CARBONIC acid that forms from CO2 and water.

So, Into the Night, you still claim CO2 + H2O can make CARBOLIC acid.

Is that your final answer?

RQAA

Im a BM wrote: Because the ABSURD assertion was made that EVAPORATION neutralizes acid in the ocean.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What would I have to do to get a chemist "license", as you claim to have?

Pass both a State and federal exam.

Im a BM wrote:
If I am competent enough to accomplish that,

You aren't.

Im a BM wrote:
would I then be allowed to call myself a "chemist", as you do?

You are no chemist.

Im a BM wrote:
You are a LIAR!

There is no such thing as a "federal exam" to get a chemist "license".

Im a BM wrote:
There is no state or federal "license" that confers the professional title "chemist".

Im a BM wrote:
Obviously, you don't even know what a chemist is.
Equally obvious, you don't even know what chemistry is.

Im a BM wrote:
But that doesn't stop you from constantly trolling with brilliant insights such as "carbonate is not a chemical"

Im a BM wrote:
You don't have a chemist "license". You are a LIAR.

Im a BM wrote:
There is no point continuing to discuss whether a chemist "license", acquired through some kind of State or federal exam process, is a more legitimate claim to the professional title of "chemist" than a PhD, master's degree, and bachelor's degree from some of the world's most prestigious universities.

Im a BM wrote:
There is no point trying to tease out an honest response to the question about whether CARBOLIC acid was incorrectly identified in post after post as the product of carbon dioxide dissolving in water.

Im a BM wrote:
Anyone with any science education knows or can quickly confirm that when carbon dioxide dissolves in water, a tiny fraction of it (less than 1%), forms the chemical known as CARBONIC ACID.

Carbonic acid is a very weak acid. It is virtually the ONLY carbon-based acid that is NOT an organic acid. H2CO3 contains one atom of INORGANIC carbon.

In the discussion below, the physical properties of carbonic acid were being discussed, and the "correction" was interjected ("Carbolic acid, dummy.")

Why bring up the PHYSICAL properties of carbonic acid, rather than discussing its chemical role interacting with the ocean's carbonate buffer system?

Im a BM wrote:
Because the ABSURD assertion was made that EVAPORATION neutralizes acid in the ocean.

Im a BM wrote:
Any acid in the sea just evaporates off, supposedly, and this prevents the sea from ever becoming acidic.

Im a BM wrote:
This was before they figured out that "water itself is a buffer for acid", and by simply diluting it into the nearly infinite volume of sea water, it was neutralized.

Im a BM wrote:
The PHYSICAL properties of carbonic acid exclude the neutralization-by-evaporation hypothesis.

Im a BM wrote:
The CHEMICAL properties of ANY acid exclude the neutralization-by-dilution hypothesis.
No such hypothesis. Learn what 'hypothesis' means.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Water itself is NOT a buffer.

Im a BM wrote:
The carbonate system,

Im a BM wrote:
which DOES buffer the real-world ocean

Im a BM wrote:
against pH change,

Im a BM wrote:
has been altered by increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
The shift in balance of the carbonate system,

Im a BM wrote:
with greater addition of carbonic acid as atmospheric CO2 dissolves into sea water, has caused the concentration of carbonate ions in sea water to decrease.

Im a BM wrote:
The diminished bioavailability of carbonate ions

Im a BM wrote:
for marine organisms to form calcium carbonate shell is KILLING some of the ocean's living biomass.

Im a BM wrote:
THAT is why some people actually CARE about ocean "acidification".

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Because the ABSURD assertion was made that EVAPORATION neutralizes acid in the ocean.

You are altering positions so that you have something about which to whine.

The statement is that evaporation releases the CO2 back into the atmosphere. The acid is not neutralized so much as it is eliminated altogether by converting back to CO2 gas (and water). Carbonic acid is unstable and readily decomposes into water and CO2, which becomes water vapor and CO2 upon evaporation.

i.e. no more acid. It's gone.

How do you not know this?

Im a BM wrote:
I guess it takes one to know one.

Im a BM wrote:
The real thing can always spot a pretender.

Im a BM wrote:
You called me out on my false claim to be a chemist within hours of my first post.

How did you know so instantaneously?

Im a BM wrote:
Because you can see right through all that incomprehensible gibber babble and meaningless buzzwords that fake chemists use in the fake textbooks.

Im a BM wrote:
It takes one to know one.

Im a BM wrote:
No fake chemist could ever fool a genuine chemist such as yourself.

Im a BM wrote:
You don't need no stinkin' credentials!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I guess it takes one to know one.

Grow up.

Im a BM wrote:
The real thing can always spot a pretender.

Coca-Cola always says so.

Im a BM wrote:
You called me out on my false claim to be a chemist within hours of my first post.

How did you know so instantaneously?

Your post.

Im a BM wrote:
Because you can see right through all that incomprehensible gibber babble and meaningless buzzwords that fake chemists use in the fake textbooks.

There is no such thing as a 'fake chemist'.

Im a BM wrote:
It takes one to know one.

Grow up.

Im a BM wrote:
No fake chemist could ever fool a genuine chemist such as yourself.

There is no such thing as a 'fake chemist'.

Im a BM wrote:
You don't need no stinkin' credentials!

Chemistry in general requires no credentials. Certain types of chemistry require a license, however.

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe you should get a "license" to also call yourself a "physicist".

Your knowledge of thermodynamics is far superior to any fool who merely has a degree in physics.

You should take the State and federal exam to get a physicist license.

You can hang it on the wall along with your chemist license, which you got through the State and federal exam process.

Or is it just a photo ID card?

Clip on badge?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I guess it takes one to know one.

Grow up.

Im a BM wrote:
The real thing can always spot a pretender.

Coca-Cola always says so.

Im a BM wrote:
You called me out on my false claim to be a chemist within hours of my first post.

How did you know so instantaneously?

Your post.

Im a BM wrote:
Because you can see right through all that incomprehensible gibber babble and meaningless buzzwords that fake chemists use in the fake textbooks.

There is no such thing as a 'fake chemist'.

Im a BM wrote:
It takes one to know one.

Grow up.

Im a BM wrote:
No fake chemist could ever fool a genuine chemist such as yourself.

There is no such thing as a 'fake chemist'.

Im a BM wrote:
You don't need no stinkin' credentials!

Chemistry in general requires no credentials. Certain types of chemistry require a license, however.

Im a BM wrote:
I could go on teasing you for pretending to be a chemist.

I could go on resenting you for what you do the the climate discussion.

But right now I'll just have some fun, putting on my best "Trump"

As everyone knows the BEST way to prove that your assertions about the nature of reality are correct is to use insults.

As the Orange Messiah has taught us, it is very important to come up with a good denigrating nickname for those who disagree.

As the Orange Messiah has explained, you really have to put some thought into it and come up with the BEST insulting nickname for the job. You might have to test drive a few different models before you decide which one to go home with.

Parrot Boy is okay. It reminds people of the stupid parrot picture.

But I'm trying to think of something better. I want it to have a good sound, as well as have it be a biting zinger to humiliate my foe. I kind of like the double "p" sound

Pest Parrot

Pretender Parrot

Patriot Parrot

Petty Parrot

Punk Parrot

Pussy Parrot

Pathetic Parrot

Pitiful Parrot

Penis Parrot

Poopy Parrot

Poser Parrot

PhD Parrot

Pathological Parrot

Political Parrot

Perplexed Parrot

Plastic Parrot

Paranormal Parrot

Powerful Parrot

Popular Parrot

Putrid Parrot

Puke Parrot

Perdition Parrot

Purgatory Parrot

Paralyzed Parrot

Preppy Parrot

Personal Parrot

Prison Parrot

OR, instead leading with the Parrot part

Parrot Poop

Parrot Puke

Parrot Piss

Parrot Pus

Parrot Pussy

Parrot Penis

PARROT POWER!


I guess I'll have to give an unambiguous definition each time I introduce one of these new terms.

Because that is the way that REAL scientists communicate.

Just keepin' it REAL!

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe you should get a "license" to also call yourself a "physicist".

Your knowledge of thermodynamics is far superior to any fool who merely has a degree in physics.

You should take the State and federal exam to get a physicist license.

You can hang it on the wall along with your chemist license, which you got through the State and federal exam process.

Or is it just a photo ID card?

Clip on badge?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I guess it takes one to know one.

Grow up.

Im a BM wrote:
The real thing can always spot a pretender.

Coca-Cola always says so.

Im a BM wrote:
You called me out on my false claim to be a chemist within hours of my first post.

How did you know so instantaneously?

Your post.

Im a BM wrote:
Because you can see right through all that incomprehensible gibber babble and meaningless buzzwords that fake chemists use in the fake textbooks.

There is no such thing as a 'fake chemist'.

Im a BM wrote:
It takes one to know one.

Grow up.

Im a BM wrote:
No fake chemist could ever fool a genuine chemist such as yourself.

There is no such thing as a 'fake chemist'.

Im a BM wrote:
You don't need no stinkin' credentials!

Chemistry in general requires no credentials. Certain types of chemistry require a license, however.

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
I have noticed that with the soda stream if I use tap water at 18.C it will not hold a charge of CO2 it fizzes off immediately.I have to chill the water to 4.C then it takes a charge and I can mix the flavouring and in the morning the bottle still has fiz in it.Could this mean ocean waters over a certain temperature can not hold CO2

The saturation of CO2 in water is dependent on temperature. You can look up this chart from various engineering sources.

The amount of CO2 in the oceans is nowhere near saturation.

Your soda dispenser is trying to oversaturate the CO2 in water. That's what the fizz is. CO2 venting from the water to re-establish equilibrium.

Warm water holds less CO2 than cold water. Thus, for soda, CO2 will stay dissolved in the soda longer (it won't fizz as fast, but it will still fizz).

Oceans, of course, have nowhere near that much CO2 in them. They don't fizz like soda does. The concentration of CO2 in any part of the ocean is about the same as the air above it.

Like air, CO2 is not uniformly distributed in ocean water. CO2 also does nothing to ocean water. It does not make the ocean water less alkaline.

A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid. This is reaction goes both ways. Carbolic acid in water will also turn into CO2.

Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer.

Acid-base chemistry is completely denied by the Church of Global Warming in just the same way they deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

These idiots aren't chemists. I am...among other things.

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe you should get a "license" to also call yourself a "physicist".

Im a BM wrote:
Your knowledge of thermodynamics is far superior to any fool who merely has a degree in physics.

Im a BM wrote:
You should take the State and federal exam to get a physicist license.

Im a BM wrote:
You can hang it on the wall along with your chemist license, which you got through the State and federal exam process.

Im a BM wrote:
Or is it just a photo ID card?

Im a BM wrote:
I could go on teasing you for pretending to be a chemist.

Im a BM wrote:
I could go on resenting you for what you do the the climate discussion.

Im a BM wrote:
But right now I'll just have some fun, putting on my best "Trump"

As everyone knows the BEST way to prove that your assertions about the nature of reality are correct is to use insults.

As the Orange Messiah has taught us, it is very important to come up with a good denigrating nickname for those who disagree.

As the Orange Messiah has explained, you really have to put some thought into it and come up with the BEST insulting nickname for the job. You might have to test drive a few different models before you decide which one to go home with.

Parrot Boy is okay. It reminds people of the stupid parrot picture.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
But I'm trying to think of something better. I want it to have a good sound, as well as have it be a biting zinger to humiliate my foe. I kind of like the double "p" sound

Pest Parrot

Pretender Parrot

Patriot Parrot

Petty Parrot

Punk Parrot

Pussy Parrot

Pathetic Parrot

Pitiful Parrot

Penis Parrot

Poopy Parrot

Poser Parrot

PhD Parrot

Pathological Parrot

Political Parrot

Perplexed Parrot

Plastic Parrot

Paranormal Parrot

Powerful Parrot

Popular Parrot

Putrid Parrot

Puke Parrot

Perdition Parrot

Purgatory Parrot

Paralyzed Parrot

Preppy Parrot

Personal Parrot

Prison Parrot



I guess I'll have to give an unambiguous definition each time I introduce one of these new terms

Im a BM wrote:
This is the only thing you'll ever need to read if you want to understand why the whole "ocean acidification" thing is just a hoax.

It is because "Water itself is a buffer for acid." And the "carbolic acid" that forms from 1% of the dissolved CO2 is neutralized.

Im a BM wrote:
Water itself is such an incredibly strong buffer for acid, it neutralizes the carbolic acid out of existence.

Sea water samples very rarely have detectable concentrations of carbolic acid.

That's how effective a buffer that "water itself" is.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night omitted unnecessary mention of bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions

Im a BM wrote:
or carbonic acid. Any alkalinity

Im a BM wrote:
No need to mention carbonic acid at all. It has no significant role in sea water.

Im a BM wrote:
The Carbonate System? THE CARBONATE SYSTEM!

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE CARBONATE SYSTEM

And don't you dare believe what you read in that Water Chemistry textbook.

That entire chapter that was titled "The Carbonate System" (was it Chapter 4 or or Chapter 7? IT WAS BOTH! I own two different Water Chemistry textbooks)

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
What materials have you engineered over the last fifteen years vs. what materials has Into the Night engineered over the same time period?

I've engineered some materials, but not for commercial purposes. What have you done?

Lessee. Most of the materials my sensors help produce tend to be measured by the ton. They help produce (among other things):

Chlorine dioxide, an extremely sensitive explosive used for the bleaching of paper. It must be made on site because it's too dangerous to ship it.

The accurate extraction of lignin during the bleaching process itself, allowing for better quality paper. The lignin is used as fuel to power much of the plant.

Improved protective coatings of titanium components in pulp mills.

Improved techniques to achieve 3rd stage water treatment at wastewater treatment plants, leaving the effluent as potable water, without the use of large settling ponds, by using charge cancelling technique on incoming material at the head of the plant.

Improved fuel efficiency of aircraft (almost doubling it!) through better isolation of hot and cold sections of the engine, and by better fuel metering.


As for myself, for my own chemistry (not the sensors controlling processes on an industrial scale) this last year:

Developed a safer method of mixing explosives used as salutes using automation.

Developed a faster and more reliable method of building a lightning effect, constructing 400 ft of it within hours, instead of the weeks it usually took.

Developed a safer formula for red stars (the visible part of a firework) that also allows for different manufacturing techniques including cut, rolled, or pressed stars.

Improved safe manufacture of aluminum powder, a dangerous conflagrant.

Mixed up some 20kg of black power, granulating some for lift charge, coursing some for burst charge, and leaving some as meal for time fuses, blackmatch, or quickmatch.

Taught people how to safely construct, then launch their own shell.

That's a bit of what I do.

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
What materials have you engineered over the last fifteen years vs. what materials has Into the Night engineered over the same time period?

I've engineered some materials, but not for commercial purposes. What have you done?

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
I have noticed that with the soda stream if I use tap water at 18.C it will not hold a charge of CO2 it fizzes off immediately.I have to chill the water to 4.C then it takes a charge and I can mix the flavouring and in the morning the bottle still has fiz in it.Could this mean ocean waters over a certain temperature can not hold CO2

The saturation of CO2 in water is dependent on temperature. You can look up this chart from various engineering sources.

The amount of CO2 in the oceans is nowhere near saturation.

Your soda dispenser is trying to oversaturate the CO2 in water. That's what the fizz is. CO2 venting from the water to re-establish equilibrium.

Warm water holds less CO2 than cold water. Thus, for soda, CO2 will stay dissolved in the soda longer (it won't fizz as fast, but it will still fizz).

Oceans, of course, have nowhere near that much CO2 in them. They don't fizz like soda does. The concentration of CO2 in any part of the ocean is about the same as the air above it.

Like air, CO2 is not uniformly distributed in ocean water. CO2 also does nothing to ocean water. It does not make the ocean water less alkaline.

A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid. This is reaction goes both ways. Carbolic acid in water will also turn into CO2.

Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer.

Acid-base chemistry is completely denied by the Church of Global Warming in just the same way they deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

These idiots aren't chemists. I am...among other things.

Im a BM wrote: Parachemistry 101 - ANYBODY Can Debunk Ocean Acidification

Im a BM wrote: You don't need to understand a thing about chemistry to know that ocean acidification must be some kind of hoax, probably of Marxist origin.

Im a BM wrote: This is the only thing you'll ever need to read if you want to understand why the whole "ocean acidification" thing is just a hoax.

Im a BM wrote: That's how effective a buffer that "water itself" is.

Im a BM wrote: Into the Night omitted unnecessary mention of bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions or carbonic acid.

Im a BM wrote: Any alkalinity provided by these ions (shit! carbonate isn't even a CHEMICAL) is negligible compared the acid buffering power of water itself.

Im a BM wrote: No need to mention carbonic acid at all. It has no significant role in sea water.

Im a BM wrote: The Carbonate System? THE CARBONATE SYSTEM! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE CARBONATE SYSTEM

Im a BM wrote: And don't you dare believe what you read in that Water Chemistry textbook.

Im a BM wrote: That entire chapter that was titled "The Carbonate System" (was it Chapter 4 or or Chapter 7? IT WAS BOTH! I own two different Water Chemistry textbooks)

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Parachemistry 101 - ANYBODY Can Debunk Ocean Acidification

I like that term "parachemistry" ... but you already introduced the concept under the name "biogeochemistry" so you should probably drop one of them.

Im a BM wrote: You don't need to understand a thing about chemistry to know that ocean acidification must be some kind of hoax, probably of Marxist origin.

Better wording: One simply cannot understand anything about chemistry and still use the term, much less actually believe in, "ocean acidification".

Im a BM wrote: This is the only thing you'll ever need to read if you want to understand why the whole "ocean acidification" thing is just a hoax.

Nope. One need only to read your posts and notice that you mistakenly believe that pH moving towards 7.0 is "acidifying" or "basifying" and that you do not correctly understand that it is "neutralizing." One will instantly realize that you aren't a chemist, but are a political activist trying to manipulate people through fear and panic. One need only notice your deliberate avoidance of the topic of "evaporation" and notice your bizarre denial of sea water evaporation to realize that your entire basis for belief is one of a scientifically illiterate religious faith.

Im a BM wrote: That's how effective a buffer that "water itself" is.

You are butt hurt that ocean water meets the strict definition of buffering because its sheer limitless quantity resists changes in pH. You cannot abide this reality staring you in the face so you ... blame Into the Night. Slick.

Im a BM wrote: Into the Night omitted unnecessary mention of bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions or carbonic acid.

He was talking about water. I have to admit that of all the times that I have discussed water, I have not broken into treatises of carbonates and bicarbonates.

I typically wait until you are around to breach that subject matter.

Im a BM wrote: Any alkalinity provided by these ions (shit! carbonate isn't even a CHEMICAL) is negligible compared the acid buffering power of water itself.

Consider what you just wrote. Nothing can compete against an unlimited quantity of water.

Im a BM wrote: No need to mention carbonic acid at all. It has no significant role in sea water.

No need to mention evaporation at all. It has no significant role in releasing CO2 back to the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote: The Carbonate System? THE CARBONATE SYSTEM! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE CARBONATE SYSTEM

You are finally making progress.

Im a BM wrote: And don't you dare believe what you read in that Water Chemistry textbook.

Depending on which book, I can go with it.

Im a BM wrote: That entire chapter that was titled "The Carbonate System" (was it Chapter 4 or or Chapter 7? IT WAS BOTH! I own two different Water Chemistry textbooks)

Pull out those textbooks, find out what the author(s) supposedly mean(s) by a "carbonate system" and post it here.

Im a BM wrote:
More proof that IBdaMann is UNTEACHABLE and unworthy of respect.

Im a BM wrote:
From the scientific genius of IBdaMann

Carbon dioxide just "evaporates" off the sea, and this takes the acid out. Right.

Im a BM wrote:
If the total flux of CO2 exiting the sea to the atmosphere were GREATER than the total flux of CO2 entering the sea from the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
How the inexplicable situation occurred notwithstanding, it would raise the pH.

Im a BM wrote:
But, as thousands of research teams have confirmed,

Im a BM wrote:
with NEVER a contradictory finding, more CO2 goes into the sea the air than comes out from the sea to the air. It isn't even slightly controversial

Im a BM wrote:
And the "buffer" effect of water by DILUTION is absurd.

Im a BM wrote:
It's like back in the 1950s when the auto industry hired pseudo scientists to tell us how harmless automobile pollution was.

Im a BM wrote:
The atmosphere was just so BIG, it could keep diluting the automobile exhaust away to a harmlessly low concentration.

Im a BM wrote:
The sea is just so BIG, carbonic acid gets diluted forever to harmlessly low concentration.

Im a BM wrote:
Every liter of sea water has more than 2000 times as much acid neutralizing capacity from the carbonate system than it does from "water itself".

Im a BM wrote:
There was no such thing as ocean acidification because of evaporation and dilution and what else?

Im a BM wrote:
Don't forget EROSION! That is what keeps the sea "very alkaline", right?

Im a BM wrote:
How could erosion possibly account for more than a small fraction of the carbonate ions and bicarbonate ions in sea water?

Im a BM wrote:
One could invoke the small acid neutralization from cation exchange capacity on suspended particles of silicate clays, etc. But don't forget how BIG the sea is! How many gigatons of the stuff do you think can erode in a single year. There is plenty of data for sediment loads etc. Maybe IBdaMann can get his Nobel Prize by proving that EROSION is what keeps the sea "very alkaline"

Im a BM wrote:
If IBdaMann wants to claim that there is no such thing as the carbonate system, the burden of proof is on him to find some evidence that there is not.

Im a BM wrote:
There is another Nobel Prize to be won if he can do it.

Im a BM wrote:
Or just show how WRONG all the scientists are about fluxes of carbon dioxide into and out of the sea.

Im a BM wrote:
EVAPORATION is what keeps the sea "very alkaline". And now you have your THIRD Nobel Prize.

Im a BM wrote:
I can't spoon feed remedial education to someone who doesn't even WANT to understand what it means.

Im a BM wrote:
Enjoy your echo chamber.

Im a BM wrote:
Glorified plumber can't legitimately claim the professional title "chemist".

"Those idiots are not chemists. I am, among other things." - Into the Night

"Unlike you, I do not give out personal information in a forum." - Into the Night

This appears to be a confession that ITN was just making up stories about what he imagines a chemist might do.

None of what he shared is personal information.

Just lies about who he PRETENDS to be, and that is not personal at all.

It looks like it was lifted directly from a fake resume.

--------------------------------------

I was being very disingenuous about pretending to believe that this isn't really personal information given out by Into the Night.

I DO believe that this really IS ITN's personal information. Not a fake resume.

I don't see anything in it that would go on an actual chemist's resume.

I don't see anything that ever required actual knowledge of chemistry.

A glorified plumber can follow a recipe, without having a clue about the chemistry of what he is mixing.

You don't need to know anything about lignin chemistry is to know how to clean it out of the paper mill equipment.

You don't need to understand the first thing about oxidation and reduction to mix black powder.

But STOP calling yourself a chemist. That absolutely IS a LIE.

--------------------------------------

It was disingenuous of me to pretend that I don't believe that it really IS the personal information of ITN being revealed in his post.

No, I don't believe he is making up stories and lies about this.

I never imagined it was a fake resume.

Indeed, it is quite plausible that every word of it is true.

But it hardly displays that any expertise in chemistry has been part of the career.

It kind of looks like a glorified plumber's resume.
----------------------------------------


Was THIS the "RQAA" referred to?

Is THIS what qualifies Into the Night to claim that he has the professional title of "chemist"?

Hmmm.. So, what DISQUALIFIES the guy who only has a PhD and published widely cited chemistry research?

If THIS is the "chemist" resume, then... MEH!

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
What materials have you engineered over the last fifteen years vs. what materials has Into the Night engineered over the same time period?

I've engineered some materials, but not for commercial purposes. What have you done?

Lessee. Most of the materials my sensors help produce tend to be measured by the ton. They help produce (among other things):

Chlorine dioxide, an extremely sensitive explosive used for the bleaching of paper. It must be made on site because it's too dangerous to ship it.

The accurate extraction of lignin during the bleaching process itself, allowing for better quality paper. The lignin is used as fuel to power much of the plant.

Improved protective coatings of titanium components in pulp mills.

Improved techniques to achieve 3rd stage water treatment at wastewater treatment plants, leaving the effluent as potable water, without the use of large settling ponds, by using charge cancelling technique on incoming material at the head of the plant.

Improved fuel efficiency of aircraft (almost doubling it!) through better isolation of hot and cold sections of the engine, and by better fuel metering.


As for myself, for my own chemistry (not the sensors controlling processes on an industrial scale) this last year:

Developed a safer method of mixing explosives used as salutes using automation.

Developed a faster and more reliable method of building a lightning effect, constructing 400 ft of it within hours, instead of the weeks it usually took.

Developed a safer formula for red stars (the visible part of a firework) that also allows for different manufacturing techniques including cut, rolled, or pressed stars.

Improved safe manufacture of aluminum powder, a dangerous conflagrant.

Mixed up some 20kg of black power, granulating some for lift charge, coursing some for burst charge, and leaving some as meal for time fuses, blackmatch, or quickmatch.

Taught people how to safely construct, then launch their own shell.

That's a bit of what I do.

Im a BM wrote:
"You're just a glorified bus driver." - Donald Trump

He said this to an airline pilot, to belittle him.

At least Donald didn't pretend that he himself was an airline pilot.

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
I have noticed that with the soda stream if I use tap water at 18.C it will not hold a charge of CO2 it fizzes off immediately.I have to chill the water to 4.C then it takes a charge and I can mix the flavouring and in the morning the bottle still has fiz in it.Could this mean ocean waters over a certain temperature can not hold CO2

The saturation of CO2 in water is dependent on temperature. You can look up this chart from various engineering sources.

The amount of CO2 in the oceans is nowhere near saturation.

Your soda dispenser is trying to oversaturate the CO2 in water. That's what the fizz is. CO2 venting from the water to re-establish equilibrium.

Warm water holds less CO2 than cold water. Thus, for soda, CO2 will stay dissolved in the soda longer (it won't fizz as fast, but it will still fizz).

Oceans, of course, have nowhere near that much CO2 in them. They don't fizz like soda does. The concentration of CO2 in any part of the ocean is about the same as the air above it.

Like air, CO2 is not uniformly distributed in ocean water. CO2 also does nothing to ocean water. It does not make the ocean water less alkaline.

A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid. This is reaction goes both ways. Carbolic acid in water will also turn into CO2.

Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer.

Acid-base chemistry is completely denied by the Church of Global Warming in just the same way they deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

These idiots aren't chemists. I am...among other things.

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
I have noticed that with the soda stream if I use tap water at 18.C it will not hold a charge of CO2 it fizzes off immediately.I have to chill the water to 4.C then it takes a charge and I can mix the flavouring and in the morning the bottle still has fiz in it.Could this mean ocean waters over a certain temperature can not hold CO2

The saturation of CO2 in water is dependent on temperature. You can look up this chart from various engineering sources.

The amount of CO2 in the oceans is nowhere near saturation.

Your soda dispenser is trying to oversaturate the CO2 in water. That's what the fizz is. CO2 venting from the water to re-establish equilibrium.

Warm water holds less CO2 than cold water. Thus, for soda, CO2 will stay dissolved in the soda longer (it won't fizz as fast, but it will still fizz).

Oceans, of course, have nowhere near that much CO2 in them. They don't fizz like soda does. The concentration of CO2 in any part of the ocean is about the same as the air above it.

Like air, CO2 is not uniformly distributed in ocean water. CO2 also does nothing to ocean water. It does not make the ocean water less alkaline.

A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid. This is reaction goes both ways. Carbolic acid in water will also turn into CO2.

Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer.

Acid-base chemistry is completely denied by the Church of Global Warming in just the same way they deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

These idiots aren't chemists. I am...among other things.

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
I have noticed that with the soda stream if I use tap water at 18.C it will not hold a charge of CO2 it fizzes off immediately.I have to chill the water to 4.C then it takes a charge and I can mix the flavouring and in the morning the bottle still has fiz in it.Could this mean ocean waters over a certain temperature can not hold CO2

The saturation of CO2 in water is dependent on temperature. You can look up this chart from various engineering sources.

The amount of CO2 in the oceans is nowhere near saturation.

Your soda dispenser is trying to oversaturate the CO2 in water. That's what the fizz is. CO2 venting from the water to re-establish equilibrium.

Warm water holds less CO2 than cold water. Thus, for soda, CO2 will stay dissolved in the soda longer (it won't fizz as fast, but it will still fizz).

Oceans, of course, have nowhere near that much CO2 in them. They don't fizz like soda does. The concentration of CO2 in any part of the ocean is about the same as the air above it.

Like air, CO2 is not uniformly distributed in ocean water. CO2 also does nothing to ocean water. It does not make the ocean water less alkaline.

A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid. This is reaction goes both ways. Carbolic acid in water will also turn into CO2.

Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer.

Acid-base chemistry is completely denied by the Church of Global Warming in just the same way they deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

These idiots aren't chemists. I am...among other things.

Im a BM wrote:
Fact-checking the personal information posted by Into the Night

Im a BM wrote:
What Into the Night alleges to be accurate personal information includes the following.
He lives near Seattle, Washington.

Im a BM wrote:
He works at a paper mill.

Im a BM wrote:
He passed some kind of State and Federal exam to get a "license" that qualifies him to characterize himself as a professional chemist.

Im a BM wrote:
When I get bored, I'll see if I can find out what kind of "State and federal exams" (both Washington the State and Washington, DC) exist that can qualify one for a "license" to pretend to be a professional chemist.

Im a BM wrote:
Someone with malicious intentions could dox Into the Night using the personal information he has published here.

How many people living near Seattle have a chemist "license", work in a paper mill, have a pilot's license, and permits to make and use fireworks?

Im a BM wrote:
Fact-checking the personal information posted by Into the Night

What Into the Night alleges to be accurate personal information includes the following.

He lives near Seattle, Washington.

He works at a paper mill.

He passed some kind of State and Federal exam to get a "license" that qualifies him to characterize himself as a professional chemist.

When I get bored, I'll see if I can find out what kind of "State and federal exams" (both Washington the State and Washington, DC) exist that can qualify one for a "license" to pretend to be a professional chemist.

My first guess is that someone who has a CNA "license" as a certified nursing assistant is trying to pretend he is allowed to call himself "doctor", as in MD.

Im a BM wrote:Parachemistry 101 - ANYBODY Can Debunk Ocean Acidification

Im a BM wrote: You don't need to understand a thing about chemistry to know that ocean acidification must be some kind of hoax, probably of Marxist origin.

Into the Night wrote:It is because "Water itself is a buffer for acid."

Im a BM wrote: Into the Night omitted unnecessary mention of bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions or carbonic acid.

Im a BM wrote: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE CARBONATE SYSTEM

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Fact-checking the personal information posted by Into the Night

Missing colon. Go learn English.

Im a BM wrote:
What Into the Night alleges to be accurate personal information includes the following.
He lives near Seattle, Washington.

But not in Seattle, WA. I use the city since that is a well known location to many people.

Im a BM wrote:
He works at a paper mill.

Never did. It sell to them though.

Im a BM wrote:
He passed some kind of State and Federal exam to get a "license" that qualifies him to characterize himself as a professional chemist.

No license needed to be a professional chemist. There IS both a federal and State license for the type of chemistry I conduct, though.

Im a BM wrote:
When I get bored, I'll see if I can find out what kind of "State and federal exams" (both Washington the State and Washington, DC) exist that can qualify one for a "license" to pretend to be a professional chemist.

Have fun.

I'll add some more I've already mentioned:
* I am a licensed pilot.
* I am a licensed aircraft mechanic.
* I fly, break, design, build, and repair aircraft.
* I specialize in avionics, wood and composite structures, electrical, hydraulics, and tube and fabric structures in aircraft.
* I own three aircraft.
* I am a licensed radio operator.
* I own several internal gas combustion engines, including cars, trucks, a tractor, lawnmower, etc.
* I am licensed as a CDL in Washington (valid in all States).
* I have a large property, over 9 acres.
* I own a successful company selling instrumentation to pulp mills, wastewater and freshwater treatment plants, other industrial processes, aerospace (including spacecraft), entertainment, and automotive applications. I sell my products all over the world.
* I am a Native American.
* I have visited all 50 States.
* I have seen both solar total eclipses and the auroras.
* I manufacture bombs for entertainment purposes.
* I do all the maintenance on all my vehicles.
* I am a licensed casino dealer, specializing in poker, craps, and roulette, and train other dealers.
* I have fingerprints on file with the FBI and the local police, as required for various licenses I hold.
* I carry a concealed weapons permit, and usually carry.
* I routinely drive cross country, crossing several States on such a trip.
* I built my own house, including doing the electrical and plumbing work, and landscaped my own property including access, fencing, and electrical and plumbing work.
* I enjoy video games, including the Assassin's Creed series, Red Dead series, and Hogwarts Legacy, and the Zelda series.
* I have designed two computer processors, build numerous PC style computers, written two operating systems (both tightly coupled timesharing systems), written several assemblers, condensers, and interpreters.
* I have my own linux distribution.
* I raise chickens and rabbits. My nearest neighbor in one direction owns two horses and an ass, the other is a retired machinist, and has a son living with him that is a talented man with wood.

So...go knock yourself out.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Fact-checking the personal information posted by Into the Night

Missing colon. Go learn English.

Im a BM wrote:
What Into the Night alleges to be accurate personal information includes the following.
He lives near Seattle, Washington.

But not in Seattle, WA. I use the city since that is a well known location to many people.

Im a BM wrote:
He works at a paper mill.

Never did. It sell to them though.

Im a BM wrote:
He passed some kind of State and Federal exam to get a "license" that qualifies him to characterize himself as a professional chemist.

No license needed to be a professional chemist. There IS both a federal and State license for the type of chemistry I conduct, though.

Im a BM wrote:
When I get bored, I'll see if I can find out what kind of "State and federal exams" (both Washington the State and Washington, DC) exist that can qualify one for a "license" to pretend to be a professional chemist.

Have fun.

I'll add some more I've already mentioned:
* I am a licensed pilot.
* I am a licensed aircraft mechanic.
* I fly, break, design, build, and repair aircraft.
* I specialize in avionics, wood and composite structures, electrical, hydraulics, and tube and fabric structures in aircraft.
* I own three aircraft.
* I am a licensed radio operator.
* I own several internal gas combustion engines, including cars, trucks, a tractor, lawnmower, etc.
* I am licensed as a CDL in Washington (valid in all States).
* I have a large property, over 9 acres.
* I own a successful company selling instrumentation to pulp mills, wastewater and freshwater treatment plants, other industrial processes, aerospace (including spacecraft), entertainment, and automotive applications. I sell my products all over the world.
* I am a Native American.
* I have visited all 50 States.
* I have seen both solar total eclipses and the auroras.
* I manufacture bombs for entertainment purposes.
* I do all the maintenance on all my vehicles.
* I am a licensed casino dealer, specializing in poker, craps, and roulette, and train other dealers.
* I have fingerprints on file with the FBI and the local police, as required for various licenses I hold.
* I carry a concealed weapons permit, and usually carry.
* I routinely drive cross country, crossing several States on such a trip.
* I built my own house, including doing the electrical and plumbing work, and landscaped my own property including access, fencing, and electrical and plumbing work.
* I enjoy video games, including the Assassin's Creed series, Red Dead series, and Hogwarts Legacy, and the Zelda series.
* I have designed two computer processors, build numerous PC style computers, written two operating systems (both tightly coupled timesharing systems), written several assemblers, condensers, and interpreters.
* I have my own linux distribution.
* I raise chickens and rabbits. My nearest neighbor in one direction owns two horses and an ass, the other is a retired machinist, and has a son living with him that is a talented man with wood.

So...go knock yourself out.

Making up stories about yourself won't help you.

You are NOT a chemist, scientist, or "expert" of any kind.

You are just a LIAR and a TROLL.