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

Groups > sci.physics > #562038

Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

James McGinn, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in
<news:353ec31e-e8fe-488a-adb1-7739af62c6c9@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 12:08:04 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:b0cb369b-c6b5-427a-8eff-444ca81f7ead@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
>>>> violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
>>>> been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.

>>> So, you noticed that CO2-driven AGW violates Laws of
>>> Thermodynamics but you never noticed that gaseous H2O
>>> at ambient temperatures/pressures also violates Laws
>>> of Thermodynamics.

>> That's because it doesn't, Jim.

> The steam tables indicate otherwise.  If you want to contradict the
> steam tables we need something more than anecdote based peer-review.  

One doesn't use the steam tables for the atmosphere, Jim. One uses a
Mollier diagram.

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Mollier.pdf>

But then, you can't read a steam table *or* a Mollier diagram, Jim.

> Here is the thing that I know that you don't know.  The fact that
> everybody believes something is not evidence that it is true.  It
> is, however, evidence that nobody ever bothered to test/measure it.
> Think about that.

It has been empirically measured, tested, poked, prodded and utterly
completely explored, Jim. Hence the Mollier diagram. That you refuse
to acknowledge that fact doesn't change that fact, Jim.

> This is something that isn't true but that everybody believes to
> be true.

Wrong.

> Why? Because everybody made the same mistake that you are making
> to ask the opinion of other people before they actually
> measured/tested it.  

Wrong.

> The fact that you have to resort to arguments based on,
> "peer-review," indicates that you have lost the argument.  

But Jim, I've provided the empirical experiments performed from all
the way back to the 1800s, which led to the development of the Mollier
diagram in 1904, which has been updated and improved and made more
accurate as additional empirical experiments were performed.

You're just a kooktard desperately backpedaling as means of attempting
to defend your kooky conspiracy theory. But you should know
backpedaling isn't a defense, Jim. It's your admission of your failure
to defend your kooky conspiracy theory.

> You will never find evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient
> temperatures/pressures because it is just a myth.

Wrong. Your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" doesn't even rise to the level
of "myth"... it's just the mad ranting of your utterly broken brain,
Jim.

> It's just something people chose to believe.  It doesn't actually exist.

Wrong.

> There is a story by Hans Christian Andersen called, The Emperor's
> New Clothes.

Referencing children's books doesn't constitute a defense of your
kooky conspiracy theory, Jim.

> It explains better than I can why you will never, ever find
> evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures.

Oh, sure it does. Because in James McGinn's kooky world, there exists
a magical "plasma not-a-plasma" made from water, which can still form
droplets, and which is "plasmized not-plasmized" by an energy source
which, if it existed in the troposphere, would dissociate all water on
the planet and kill off all life. And a children's book explains it
all. Because James McGinn *isn't* utterly insane, right?

Are you ready to pay me the $100,000 you owe me now, Jim? If not, we
can continue this forever. I'm far younger, far saner and far smarter
than you... I'll hound you to the grave if you don't pay what you owe,
Jim.

How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're 
plasma, Jim?

How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding 
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the 
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?

Where is the energy coming from to form your kooky "plasma 
not-a-plasma", Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

<snicker>

-- 

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.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

That nuclear charge does not equal effective nuclear charge.

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

Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 20:31 -0800
  Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 08:57 +0100
    Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 00:41 -0800
      Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 09:01 -0600
      Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 21:42 +0100
      Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:44 +0100
        Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 22:20 -0800
          Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 08:09 +0100
            Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 00:59 -0800
              Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 04:54 +0100
              Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 14:20 -0500
    Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-12 14:46 +0800
      Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 07:22 +0100
        Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-13 15:35 +0800
          Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:22 +0100
            Faketard seriously reduced. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-14 06:34 -0600
              Re: Faketard seriously reduced. Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-15 01:02 +0800
            Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-14 14:53 +0000
              Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 16:24 +0100
                Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-14 15:42 +0000
                Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 18:03 +0100
                Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-14 20:56 -0600
  Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:58 -0600

csiph-web