'Home-brewed morphine' made possible

[untermensche]

What work are you taking about?

There is no work involved in exchanging oxygen with carbon dioxide. The only work done is bringing air in and out of the lungs and moving blood through the lungs. The gas exchange occurs passively.

Available oxygen is oxygen in gas form, not dissolved in liquid. The lungs cannot remove oxygen from liquid. I don't know where you heard that.

Perflurocarbons.

Of course, having been shown to be wrong, again, you will doubtless change your position and claim that only a fool or a pedant would be unable to see that what you really meant was something other than what you said. Again.

You should probably check the accuracy of what you say before saying it; and you should probably also try to avoid logical fallacies. But I am not going to hold my Perflurocarbons.

I've never said that anything I say shouldn't be checked.

But the topic was water. Not your diversion.

You really can't help yourself, can you?

Even after I predicted it, you had to make the claim that you were right, when you made a seven word statement that I just demonstrated to be wrong.

The 'topic' was "Available oxygen is oxygen in gas form, not dissolved in liquid. The lungs cannot remove oxygen from liquid."

You could have simply said "I was wrong". But instead you doubled down on your error.

Or are you claiming that 'in gas form' includes any liquid other than water?

Go ahead. Fill your lungs with water and start extracting the oxygen.

Prove me wrong.

 

[bilby]

What work are you taking about?

There is no work involved in exchanging oxygen with carbon dioxide. The only work done is bringing air in and out of the lungs and moving blood through the lungs. The gas exchange occurs passively.

Available oxygen is oxygen in gas form, not dissolved in liquid. The lungs cannot remove oxygen from liquid. I don't know where you heard that.

Perflurocarbons.

Of course, having been shown to be wrong, again, you will doubtless change your position and claim that only a fool or a pedant would be unable to see that what you really meant was something other than what you said. Again.

You should probably check the accuracy of what you say before saying it; and you should probably also try to avoid logical fallacies. But I am not going to hold my Perflurocarbons.

I've never said that anything I say shouldn't be checked.

But the topic was water. Not your diversion.

You really can't help yourself, can you?

Even after I predicted it, you had to make the claim that you were right, when you made a seven word statement that I just demonstrated to be wrong.

The 'topic' was "Available oxygen is oxygen in gas form, not dissolved in liquid. The lungs cannot remove oxygen from liquid."

You could have simply said "I was wrong". But instead you doubled down on your error.

Or are you claiming that 'in gas form' includes any liquid other than water?

Go ahead. Fill your lungs with water and start extracting the oxygen.

Prove me wrong.

Water is not the only liquid. Water is not synonymous with liquid. I don't have to fill my lungs with water to prove you wrong; I have ALREADY proven you wrong, and provided you with a link to a detailed article on liquid Perflurocarbons.

Your refusal to accept that you are wrong is amusing, but not a reason for me to continue to try to prove it.

Moving the goalposts is just making you look silly. You could have avoided looking silly by simply say "Oh, I was wrong. I did not know about liquid breathing. I have learned something new". But you chose a different path.

 

[untermensche]

Water is not the only liquid. Water is not synonymous with liquid...

No, liquid is a phase of water.

 

[bilby]

Water is not the only liquid. Water is not synonymous with liquid...

No, liquid is a phase of water matter.

FIFY.

Precision is not always important. But a lot of the time, it is; and in science discussions, it almost always is. It would be a good idea to get into the habit of being precise, or to get used to being thought a fool.

 

[untermensche]

No, liquid is a phase of water matter.

FIFY.

Precision is not always important. But a lot of the time, it is; and in science discussions, it almost always is. It would be a good idea to get into the habit of being precise, or to get used to being thought a fool.

It's not a phase of water?

Is that your idea of precision?

 

[bilby]

No, liquid is a phase of water matter.

FIFY.

Precision is not always important. But a lot of the time, it is; and in science discussions, it almost always is. It would be a good idea to get into the habit of being precise, or to get used to being thought a fool.

It's not a phase of water?

Is that your idea of precision?

Equivocation is not clever - it is a logical fallacy.

Trying to be clever is not a good way to gain respect, either for yourself or for your ideas.

Liquid is a phase of matter. Water is a subset of matter; one of your errors here is to conclude that 'matter' is a synonym for 'water', which is a fallacy of division. All water is matter; but not all matter is water.

So that's two logical fallacies in one short post.

If you don't have a good grasp of how to think logically, and how to apply that logic to your posts, you will continue to make these blunders. They only make you appear clever to yourself; everyone else can see right through them.

I made a clear statement of fact, which you then contradicted:

Water is not the only liquid. Water is not synonymous with liquid...

No, liquid is a phase of water.

Your response if factually incorrect in the context of being a response to my statement.

It is true that liquid is one of the states in which water is found; but this is in no way a contradiction of the fact that "Water is not the only liquid", nor the fact that "Water is not synonymous with liquid".

Had you left out the first word of your response, your statement would have been a simple non-sequitur. But you didn't. So you were wrong, as well as illogical.

 

[skepticalbip]

bilby,
I realized a while ago that some people just argue for the sake of argument. It doesn't matter that he constantly shifts arguments, has nothing in mind, or constantly contradicts himself. It is the quibbling that is important.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Death from heroin overdose is not due to a lack of oxygen.

There is plenty of available oxygen.

It is due to a lack of breathing.

Death due to drowning is not due to a lack of oxygen.

There is plenty of available oxygen.

It is due to a lack of breathing.

No there is no AVAILABLE oxygen.

We don't have gills.

Our lungs can extract oxygen from water. There are two reasons we can't breathe water, though:

1) The work it would require. The muscles simply aren't strong enough, the lungs aren't built to take the flow and would be damaged.

2) There's not enough oxygen in body-temperature water to sustain us.

What work are you taking about?

There is no work involved in exchanging oxygen with carbon dioxide. The only work done is bringing air in and out of the lungs and moving blood through the lungs. The gas exchange occurs passively.

Available oxygen is oxygen in gas form, not dissolved in liquid. The lungs cannot remove oxygen from liquid. I don't know where you heard that.

I mean the work it would require to get the water in and out. The exchange itself is as you say passive.

Digging into this I find there has been more done along these lines than I was aware of--there actually have been humans living on breathing liquid (not water, but rather a liquid that can carry far more dissolved gas) for a short period of time. It's only been used as a last-resort option for premature infants with inadequate lung capacity so the data isn't good yet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Available oxygen is oxygen in gas form, not dissolved in liquid. The lungs cannot remove oxygen from liquid. I don't know where you heard that.

Perflurocarbons.

Of course, having been shown to be wrong, again, you will doubtless change your position and claim that only a fool or a pedant would be unable to see that what you really meant was something other than what you said. Again.

You should probably check the accuracy of what you say before saying it; and you should probably also try to avoid logical fallacies. But I am not going to hold my Perflurocarbons.

I've never said that anything I say shouldn't be checked.

But the topic was water. Not your diversion.

Your quote says "liquid", not "water". The lungs don't care whether what's in them is a liquid or a gas. The problem with liquid breathing is mechanical.

- - - Updated - - -

Go ahead. Fill your lungs with water and start extracting the oxygen.

Prove me wrong.

It would work. The problem is that there isn't enough oxygen there to run your body. You die from a lack of supply, not an inability to extract.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Water is not the only liquid. Water is not synonymous with liquid...

No, liquid is a phase of water.

The only things that lack a liquid phase are compounds that will decompose before reaching their melting point. (Also, technically, elements with too short a half-life to permit cooling them below their critical temperature. Such elements never exist in quantities sufficient for "liquid" to be a meaningful concept anyway, though.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

FIFY.

Precision is not always important. But a lot of the time, it is; and in science discussions, it almost always is. It would be a good idea to get into the habit of being precise, or to get used to being thought a fool.

It's not a phase of water?

Is that your idea of precision?

Water is a subset of matter. It's a phase of most things, not just water.

Look in your car, are you saying there isn't liquid in the fuel tank??

 

[untermensche]

No, liquid is a phase of water matter.

FIFY.

Precision is not always important. But a lot of the time, it is; and in science discussions, it almost always is. It would be a good idea to get into the habit of being precise, or to get used to being thought a fool.

It's not a phase of water?

Is that your idea of precision?

Equivocation is not clever - it is a logical fallacy.

Trying to be clever is not a good way to gain respect, either for yourself or for your ideas.

Liquid is a phase of matter. Water is a subset of matter; one of your errors here is to conclude that 'matter' is a synonym for 'water', which is a fallacy of division. All water is matter; but not all matter is water.

You understand this is nothing but equivocation?

 

[bilby]

No, liquid is a phase of water matter.

FIFY.

Precision is not always important. But a lot of the time, it is; and in science discussions, it almost always is. It would be a good idea to get into the habit of being precise, or to get used to being thought a fool.

It's not a phase of water?

Is that your idea of precision?

Equivocation is not clever - it is a logical fallacy.

Trying to be clever is not a good way to gain respect, either for yourself or for your ideas.

Liquid is a phase of matter. Water is a subset of matter; one of your errors here is to conclude that 'matter' is a synonym for 'water', which is a fallacy of division. All water is matter; but not all matter is water.

You understand this is nothing but equivocation?

 

[untermensche]

I guess you don't.