Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #561023

Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:30635fb1-6217-48f0-8a85-0287bc1d35f1@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:08:16 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> a) I quoted a university research team 

> Thi<SMACKAKOOK!>

I'll remind delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards who have had
their kooky conspiracy theories utterly demolished that their main
goal in life is to refute that basic physical reality which utterly
destroys their kooky conspiracy theory, and failing that, to melt down
as entertainment for the sane folk.

<snicker>

================================================

I've destroyed the central tenet of your kooky conspiracy theory, 
James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on.

I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility. 
That's, what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky 
conspiracy theory?

Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma 
existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from 
that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well 
impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning 
strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never 
stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near 
clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who 
knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, 
apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled 
you.

Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, 
just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. 
That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause.

For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy. 
It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few 
microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no 
appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and 
updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface 
area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its 
radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is 
proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized 
water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet 
radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest 
average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they 
stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which 
is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting 
the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls, 
thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous 
phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets 
grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface 
area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall 
to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different 
updraft speeds) cause different types of rain.

Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an 
environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); 
convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are 
associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second.

For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its 
fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air 
down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of 
sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as 
compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of 
air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further 
proves this fact.

Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is 
another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas 
where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating 
lightning ... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the 
Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by 
rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a 
dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced 
tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle 
being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the 
P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and 
telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination 
signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their 
Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically 
the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster, 
thus the Triboelectrification Effect is stronger.

So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which 
types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right?

As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the 
atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, 
given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, 
wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds):

<http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html>
=========================================================
It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a 
water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at 
least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if 
you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only 
you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of 
energy about 12 electron volts of higher.  That means the water 
molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about 
this magnitude.   For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation 
energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. 
So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to 
make such a plasma.
=========================================================

Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 
nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet 
light, nearly in the x-ray range.

And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of 
plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere 
is plasma.

Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through 
the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less 
energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm.

In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so 
strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water 
plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming 
majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are 
except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim.

Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the 
troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting 
of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because 
he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're 
just a delusional kooktard?

So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky 
conspiracy theory, Jim. Anyone with any interest can look up the data
and corroborate it for themselves. That's reality. Deal with it.

<snicker>

See how simple things are when one is sane, Jim? See how much sense 
that all makes? The world (indeed, the universe) doesn't work by kooky 
conspiracies and impossibilities as you claim, Jim, it works by a set 
of immutable rules. Learn those rules, Jim, and stop being such a 
fucking moron.

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*);

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;

That superposition is the same as wave interference;

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves;

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things;

That RMS isn't a DC voltage;

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L;

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering;

What a positive or negative vector is;

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero;

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 11:42 -0800
  Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 03:55 +0800
    Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog "Colonel Edmund J. Burke" <burkesgurlz@t-girls.com> - 2016-03-10 09:01 -0800
  Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 05:50 +0100
    Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 21:02 -0800
      Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 07:44 +0100
        Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 23:08 -0800
          Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:26 +0100
            Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 01:59 +0800
              Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:55 +0100
        Attn: Fake Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>  on!on@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-03-10 11:31 +0000
          Re: Attn: Fake Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>  "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 12:34 -0500
    Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 13:52 +0800
      Re: Like Explaining Auto Mechanics to Your Dog "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 01:33 -0500

csiph-web