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

Groups > sci.physics > #555797 > unrolled thread

Will Janoshka Coors inspired rant

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Will Janoshka Coors inspired rant James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 00:31 -0800
    Re: Will Janoshka Coors inspired rant Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 05:39 -0800
      Re: Will Janoshka Coors inspired rant James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 10:21 -0800
        Re: Will Janoshka Coors inspired rant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-23 20:25 +0000
    Re: Will Janoshka Coors inspired rant Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 09:57 -0600

#555797 — Will Janoshka Coors inspired rant

http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39124

WJ: Indeed as has anyone else that has actually measured anything . . . 

JM: Blah, blah, blah.  Nobody cares, Will.  

WJ: What is known and well measured is that all gaseous atmospheric water vapor at temperature above the triple point of H2O carries with it an additional accumulation of power with a magnitude of 2500 Watt secos per gram.

JM: Really?  So, you yourself measured this?  Did you write a paper on it?  Is your paper available?  Are your methods explicit?  Is it reproducible?  Are your notes available?  Data?  

WJ: This storage of power is measurably isentropic between the states of liquid and vapor.

JM: Really? Did you determine this under laboratory conditions, or Coors conditions?

WJ: At temperatures below that triple point, atmospheric water vapor(gas), caries with it 3000 Watt seconds per gram above that of solid H2O, also well measured. Density of airborne solid H2O is also highly variable. Mike courteously requested your evidence to back up your fantasy claim that these measurements are in error. 

JM: You lost me.  I don't know what you are talking about.  

WJ: You presented none, you have none, you cannot present any such. Any such measurement must clearly demonstrate that only the Claudius Denk fantasy is in error. This is significant and relevant to all except you!

JM: Steam tables.  (That is 100% more evidence than you or Mike have presented.)

WJ: (quoting me) "However, you have as yet provided no data based on controlled experiments to support that assertion. I am however hoping that you might back up your assertions with some data as only the data can tell me whether your assertions are correct."

WJ: Mike repeated only the assertions of those that have measured! 

JM: I think my characterizaiton of Mike's argument is accurate.  And I think you know that.

WJ: Likely those assertions are physically, mathematically, and geometrically correct! You demand, of others, but provide nothing but fantasy. Where is your evidence of error? 

JM: I will make a deal with both you and Mike. If both of your will apologize to all of the global warming alarmists/advocates that you've berated for presenting arguments based on anecdote, consensus, strained analogy, appeal to authority and other desperate pleadings I will apologize to both of you for having berated you for doing the same.  Fair enough?

There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere.  It is physically impossible for H2O to exist as gas at ambient temperatures/pressures.  What people choose to believe is irrelevant.  The truth of atmospheric flow isn't obvious.  But it isn't so difficult that we have to resort to pretending it is what it isn't.  The role that water plays in the atmosphere is tricky.  But that too becomes approachable once you understand the underlying dynamics of polarity and H bonding.  And air pressure, boundary layers, and wind shear play larger roles that most anybody imagined.  But the pieces of the puzzle do come together.  But first you have to discard convection.  It plays no role at all in the atmosphere.  Same with latent heat.  Sorry to burst you bubble.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#555822

Dne úterý 23. února 2016 9:31:25 UTC+1 James McGinn napsal(a):

> There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere.  It is physically impossible for H2O to exist as gas at ambient temperatures/pressures.

That would have been true 
IF molecules at given temperature had had the same energy. 

But molecules actively participate on quick process
of keeping their energies distributed very unevenly. 

More can be found 
in physical chemistry and statistical thermodynamics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555916

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 5:39:37 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne úterý 23. února 2016 9:31:25 UTC+1 James McGinn napsal(a):
> 
> > There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere.  It is physically impossible for H2O to exist as gas at ambient temperatures/pressures.
> 
> That would have been true 
> IF molecules at given temperature had had the same energy. 
> 
> But molecules actively participate on quick process
> of keeping their energies distributed very unevenly. 
> 
> More can be found 
> in physical chemistry and statistical thermodynamics.

Plainly stupid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555986

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 5:39:37 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne úterý 23. února 2016 9:31:25 UTC+1 James McGinn napsal(a):
>> 
>> > There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere.  It is physically impossible for H2O to exist as gas at ambient temperatures/pressures.
>> 
>> That would have been true 
>> IF molecules at given temperature had had the same energy. 
>> 
>> But molecules actively participate on quick process
>> of keeping their energies distributed very unevenly. 
>> 
>> More can be found 
>> in physical chemistry and statistical thermodynamics.
> 
> Plainly stupid.

Hostile delusional rejection of evidence that contradicts the delusions.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555880

On 2/23/16 2:31 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> There is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere.  It is physically
> impossible for H2O to exist as gas at ambient
> temperatures/pressures.


   These statements are the crux of your misunderstanding, James. As I
   already pointed out spectra shows water as a gas on the atmosphere of
   the earth, sun and deep space. Do you not trust spectra?

   Bright LIne Emission Spectrum of Water Vapor (gas)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6WOhYedsAg



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web