Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #561319 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-10 15:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-11 12:37 -0800 |
| Articles | 14 on this page of 54 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 15:49 -0800
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 18:33 -0600
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 16:51 -0800
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 19:27 -0600
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:33 -0800
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:40 -0600
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 07:40 +0100
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 01:07 -0800
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 06:38 -0800
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-11 09:05 -0600
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 01:22 +0000
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:36 -0800
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 19:52 -0600
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 03:13 +0000
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:44 -0800
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 05:24 +0000
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 21:53 -0800
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 07:12 +0000
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 00:42 +0000
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 16:53 -0800
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 19:29 -0600
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 01:17 +0000
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:34 -0800
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 20:34 -0600
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 03:15 +0000
E-maniA noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:49 -0800
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:34 -0600
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 07:12 +0100
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 22:36 -0800
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-11 07:48 -0600
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:43 -0800
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 09:01 -0800
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 23:22 -0800
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:55 +0100
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 23:37 -0800
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-11 07:51 -0600
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 19:08 +0000
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 13:20 -0600
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 07:44 +0100
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 23:20 -0800
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:32 +0100
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 14:21 -0500
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-14 19:33 +0000
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 14:19 -0700
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-14 16:53 -0500
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-14 22:53 +0000
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 22:53 +0800
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 15:10 +0000
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear g8dgc <g8dgc@noneya.none> - 2016-03-11 10:15 -0500
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe aka g8dgc) - 2016-03-11 15:23 +0000
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:19 +0100
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-13 15:49 +0800
Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 06:47 +0100
wind shear?! noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 12:37 -0800
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 05:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0c867f8f22c40d291e3dcee1498f5443@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #562059 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:180e6bc1-de8a-45b3-a78e-2b75ad9b624a@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:54:40 PM UTC-8, Friendly > Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus drop-kicked a moron: >>>>> There is no ionization associated with my plasma. >>>> Then it's not plasma, Jim. >>> Plasma is just a word, dumbass. >> You're backpedaling, Jim. That means that through the fog of your >> insanity, you've gotten a faint glimpse at how wrong and insane you >> are. > Only nitwits debate semantics. Then it's a good thing I'm not debating semantics, Jim. I am instead ripping your kooky conspiracy theory to shreds using scientific reality, in the process proving that you, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA, are a paranoid-schizophrenic with a raging case of Dunning-Kruger and an unmitigable stupidity due to your obstinate refusal to face reality and review the underlying premise for your kooky conspiracy theory for any flaws in your assumptions. <snicker> Now, get yourself busy answering those tough questions, James... So you throw out 150+ years of substantive and in-depth research as means of attempting to salvage your kooky discredited conspiracy theory in order to maintain your delusion that you know something no one else, all of them smarter and saner than you, knows, Jim? Do you really think the entire world has been wrong for a century and a half, and *you*, the kooktard who cannot answer my tough questions, are right, Jim? Or do you think the Occam's Razor explanation is that you're a delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted paranoid-schizophrenic kook who's concocted a kooky conspiracy theory that is laughably wrong? Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Why are there *no* corroborating peer-reviewed papers that back up your kooky contentions, Jim? The ones you've provided I've used to prove you and your kooky conspiracy theory *wrong*. 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 (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed far above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding, and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your kooky conspiracy theory is workable, Jim? Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will, Jim. Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity. I note you are doing the same. I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live. <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 the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective nuclear 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. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 14:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <w5mdnWy2JKClknrLnZ2dnUU7-RUAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #562059 |
On 3/13/16 1:20 AM, James McGinn wrote: > Only nitwits debate semantics Semantics is very important in communicating science. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 19:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <b9gjrc-vdk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #562059 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:54:40 PM UTC-8, Friendly > >> >>> There is no ionization associated with my plasma. >> >> >> Then it's not plasma, Jim. >> >> > Plasma is just a word, dumbass. >> >> You're backpedaling, > > Only nitwits debate semantics. Only kooks ignore the established meaning of words. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 14:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <63a75ec7-2a32-4fad-95b8-1ad3e10f6078@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #562392 |
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 12:46:07 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > Only nitwits debate semantics. > > Only kooks ignore the established meaning of words. Only dumbasses believe scientific truth is found in the dictionary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 16:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nc7bti$lvh$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #562428 |
On 3/14/2016 4:19 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 12:46:07 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>> Only nitwits debate semantics. >> >> Only kooks ignore the established meaning of words. > > Only dumbasses believe scientific truth is found in the dictionary. > you are a dumbass. Accept that Fact. Now Deal with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 22:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20sjrc-vhl.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #562428 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 12:46:07 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> > Only nitwits debate semantics. >> >> Only kooks ignore the established meaning of words. > > Only dumbasses believe scientific truth is found in the dictionary. Only a raving kook would make such a stupid statement. Dictionaries contain the accepted meaning of words and nothing else, something even grade school children understand. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 22:53 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <irm5ebhs7bs79vdf7ujita5mqqca839uvi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #561439 |
Fakey wrote: > Referring to your own kooky blather doesn't make you right, Jim. It > only means you're clue-repellant because you're screaming at the top > of your lungs in your own little Dunning-Kruger lined echo chamber in > attempting to convince *yourself* that you're "not wrong". You're all too familiar with that strategy, aren't you, Ersatzia? Oh, wait... you already know you're wrong. Has the electronegativity of oxygen increased to +8 yet? No? Maybe you could bray a bit louder....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 15:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1mjycrs.qb7r3cp9i2xxN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #561519 |
Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote: > Fakey wrote: > > > Referring to your own kooky blather doesn't make you right, Jim. It > > only means you're clue-repellant because you're screaming at the top > > of your lungs in your own little Dunning-Kruger lined echo chamber in > > attempting to convince *yourself* that you're "not wrong". > > You're all too familiar with that strategy, aren't you, > Ersatzia? Oh, wait... you already know you're wrong. > > Has the electronegativity of oxygen increased to +8 yet? > No? Maybe you could bray a bit louder.... > Hee-Haw, Hee-Haw, Hee-Haw! -- ^Ï^. Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts. My pet rock Gordon wants out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | g8dgc <g8dgc@noneya.none> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 10:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <miBEy.66337$3_5.25781@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #561531 |
On 3/11/2016 10:10 AM, Sn!pe wrote: > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote: > >> Fakey wrote: >> >>> Referring to your own kooky blather doesn't make you right, Jim. It >>> only means you're clue-repellant because you're screaming at the top >>> of your lungs in your own little Dunning-Kruger lined echo chamber in >>> attempting to convince *yourself* that you're "not wrong". >> >> You're all too familiar with that strategy, aren't you, >> Ersatzia? Oh, wait... you already know you're wrong. >> >> Has the electronegativity of oxygen increased to +8 yet? >> No? Maybe you could bray a bit louder.... >> > > Hee-Haw, Hee-Haw, Hee-Haw! > Yer momma gimme good head, little buck tooth. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe aka g8dgc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 15:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1mjyda3.2qd2y56t7zygN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #561532 |
Fake g8dgc <g8dgc@noneya.none> wrote:
> Yer momma gimme good head, little buck tooth.
> LOL
>
[forgery and falsehood, how surprising.]
It's quite flattering to have a little stalker all of my own,
please can I keep him? I promise I'll feed him, walk him every
day and I'll even muck him out.
P.S. Lazy Old Loon
--
^Ï^. Sn!pe aka g8dgc <snipeco.1@gmail.com>
My pet rock Gordon just is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 06:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8f0a6411a7a4a55c5a22e8aae6b7dc1e@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #561519 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in <news:irm5ebhs7bs79vdf7ujita5mqqca839uvi@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again: >> Referring to your own kooky blather doesn't make you right, Jim. It >> only means you're clue-repellant because you're screaming at the top >> of your lungs in your own little Dunning-Kruger lined echo chamber in >> attempting to convince *yourself* that you're "not wrong". > You're all too familiar with that strategy, aren't you, > Ersatzia? Oh, wait... you already know you're wrong. > > Has the electronegativity of oxygen increased to +8 yet? *You* stupidly persist in k'laming me to think electronegativity is nuclear charge. I've never mentioned the nucleus in this discussion, you did. Because you don't realize you're yet again blathering on about something you know little about. You're blathering on about nuclear charge without knowing you're actually blathering on about *effective* nuclear charge, which is different for different electron orbital shells. You keep bleating about the number of protons in the nucleus as your kooky "nuclear charge" of 8, but it's not 8, in the 1s orbital it's 7.658, in the 2s orbital it's 4.492, in the 2p orbital it's 4.453. Because you didn't know the number of protons does *not* equal the effective nuclear charge of an atom. Zeff = Z - S Were you perhaps instead thinking of the atomic number, Moron? Moron?... SPNAK! > No? Maybe you could bray a bit louder.... Aren't you the moron who k'lames that elemental oxygen has a constant electronegativity? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity> ================================================= As it is usually calculated, electronegativity is not a property of an atom alone, but rather a property of an atom in a molecule.[4] The property of electronegativity of an atom in a molecule is different from the electrode potential of the element, which depends on the difference in free energy of the element in its standard state and in ionic solution, and it is different from the ionization potential of the atom, and from its electron affinity; although it is related to these properties in a general way. It has been found possible to formulate an electronegativity scale of the elements by the analysis of the values of delta and delta_umlaut given by the single-bond energies. In Table 3-6 values of delta_umlaut are listed for the bonds between nonmetallic atoms whose energies are given in Table 3-4. These are obtained in the same ways as those in Table 3-3. It is seen on inspection that the values of delta_umlaut do not satisfy an additivity relation; they cannot be represented as differences of terms characteristic of the two atoms in a bond. However, the square roots of the delta_umlaut values do satisfy approximately a relation of this sort. The method just described for formulating the electronegativity scale cannot be used for the remaining elements in general because of a lack of knowledge of enthalpies of formation of their compounds as gases and of the values of single-bond energies for the elements themselves. Except for nitrogen and oxygen, which are discussed below, the elements in their standard states do not differ much in energy from states involving normal single covalent bonds between the atoms. It is the unusual stability of multiple bonds for oxygen and nitrogen, stabilizing their normal states, that often leads to negative values of the enthalpy of formation of substances. By the use of Equation 3-13 the difference in electronegativity of two elements can be calculated from the enthalpy of formation of the compounds formed by them. Table 3-8: The values given in the table refer to the common oxidation states of the elements. For some elements variation of the electronegativity with oxidation number is observed. [4] Pauling, Linus (1960). Nature of the Chemical Bond. Cornell University Press. pp. 88–107. ISBN 0-8014-0333-2. ================================================= How do you oxidize *oxygen* except with fluorine to figure out its enthalpy of formation and thus its exact electronegativity, you fecking *moron*? *No* *one* wants to formulate FOOF (O2F2) to find out the exact oxidation state of elemental oxygen. You know, FOOF, Lucifer's Gas? That shit makes *ice* explode. It makes asbestos *burn*. It reacts with gold. Hit it with a CO2 fire extinguisher, you just make it mad. So... your bleating about oxygen's electronegativity means you're bleating about an approximation, Moron. Even Pauling himself admitted that elemental electronegativity is an approximation, and thus isn't all that accurate, which is why he only presented them with single decimal accuracy. Moron. Further, oxygen's affinity for itself in forming multiple bonds means that for a lot of substances, the enthalpy of formation is negative, thus the electronegativity is dependent upon which substance oxygen is interacting with and whatever other factors contribute to or detract from that interaction. Nitrogen is the same way, nitrogen trichloride isn't unstable because of weak N-Cl bonds, but rather because nitrogen is constantly trying to reform into triple-bonded N2, with a negative enthalpy of formation and thus exothermic reaction of nitrogen trichloride. You know, Linus Pauling... the guy who developed the first accurate electronegativity scale for molecules... you think *he* might know a bit more about electronegativity than a moronic bleatfarting retard like you, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL SPNAK! Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? <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>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 15:49 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <2d6aebpg5qng01l3sov6a1ur9l48g7b5gn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #562026 |
Fakey wrote: > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in > > > Fakey wrote: > > >> Referring to your own kooky blather doesn't make you right, Jim. It > >> only means you're clue-repellant because you're screaming at the top > >> of your lungs in your own little Dunning-Kruger lined echo chamber in > >> attempting to convince *yourself* that you're "not wrong". > > > You're all too familiar with that strategy, aren't you, > > Ersatzia? Oh, wait... you already know you're wrong. > > > > Has the electronegativity of oxygen increased to +8 yet? > > *You* stupidly persist in k'laming me to think electronegativity > is nuclear charge. You did say that. Go read your posts. > You keep bleating about the number of protons in the nucleus as your > kooky "nuclear charge" of 8, but it's not 8, in the 1s orbital it's > 7.658, in the 2s orbital it's 4.492, in the 2p orbital it's 4.453. Omg... you're saying that the 1s orbital contains 7.685 protons, 2s contains 4.492 protons, etc? What a maroon. the "orbitals" contain... zero protons, dummy. > Because you didn't know the number of protons does *not* equal the > effective nuclear charge of an atom. Actually it does, imbecile. > Were you perhaps instead thinking of the atomic number, Moron? Atomic number = number of protons = nuclear charge. High school chemistry, tardlet. > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity> > ================================================= > As it is usually calculated, electronegativity is not a property of an > atom alone, but rather a property of an atom in a molecule.[4] You ommitted the rest of the paragraph, didn't you fakey? "As it is usually calculated, electronegativity is not a property of an atom alone, but rather a property of an atom in a molecule.[4] Properties of a free atom include ionization energy and electron affinity. It is to be expected that the electronegativity of an element will vary with its chemical environment,[5] but it is usually considered to be a transferable property, that is to say that similar values will be valid in a variety of situations." So why does electronegativity appear in the periodic table? <http://www.sciencegeek.net/tables/Electronegativity.pdf> Print that out, fakey. So, what's the electronegativity of an oxygen atom? -- "But that squared sinewave function is still a sinewave." --Fakey lectures on trig identities
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 06:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <cbf9b0bed62afd137ce15ad0c04587ca@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #562063 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in <news:2d6aebpg5qng01l3sov6a1ur9l48g7b5gn@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again: >> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in >>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again: >>>> Referring to your own kooky blather doesn't make you right, Jim. It >>>> only means you're clue-repellant because you're screaming at the top >>>> of your lungs in your own little Dunning-Kruger lined echo chamber in >>>> attempting to convince *yourself* that you're "not wrong". >>> You're all too familiar with that strategy, aren't you, >>> Ersatzia? Oh, wait... you already know you're wrong. >>> >>> Has the electronegativity of oxygen increased to +8 yet? >> *You* stupidly persist in k'laming me to think electronegativity >> is nuclear charge. > You did say that. Go read your posts. Bwahahahaaa! No MID. KookTard is trying to conflate my quoting a Professor of Applied Science with his kooky k'lame that the electronegativity of water is 8+. Are you confused, KookTard? Do you not understand anything you've been blither-blathering and bleatfarting about? Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? <snicker> >> You keep bleating about the number of protons in the nucleus as your >> kooky "nuclear charge" of 8, but it's not 8, in the 1s orbital it's >> 7.658, in the 2s orbital it's 4.492, in the 2p orbital it's 4.453. > Omg... you're saying that the 1s orbital contains 7.685 > protons, 2s contains 4.492 protons, etc? Bwahahahaaaa! Moron yet again demonstrates that he can't grasp simple concepts such as electron shielding. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shielding_effect> SPNAK! > What a maroon. the "orbitals" contain... zero protons, > dummy. Awww, look at the reading comprehension challenged kooktard as he struggles to comprehend any word longer than two syllables. LOL Do you not understand the words "Effective Nuclear Charge", Moron, nor what it denotes? SPNAK! >> Because you didn't know the number of protons does *not* equal the >> effective nuclear charge of an atom. > Actually it does, imbecile. Bwahahaaaaa! What a fucking *moron*! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_nuclear_charge> O (oxygen) Atomic Number: 8 Effective Nuclear Charge: 1s: 7.658 2s: 4.492 2p: 4.453 Do you not understand the Periodic Table of the Elements, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? SPNAK! >> Were you perhaps instead thinking of the atomic number, Moron? > Atomic number = number of protons = nuclear charge. > High school chemistry, tardlet. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_nuclear_charge> Did you forget about electron shielding, Dimwit? Are you confused? Do you not understand nuclear processes? Do you need to take a month to scratch your head and puzzle that simple concept out? Go on, I'll be here ready to drop-kick your retarded ass across Usenet. Again. SPNAK! <snicker> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity> >> ================================================= >> As it is usually calculated, electronegativity is not a property of an >> atom alone, but rather a property of an atom in a molecule.[4] > You ommitted the rest of the paragraph, didn't you fakey? > "As it is usually calculated, electronegativity is not > a property of an atom alone, but rather a property of > an atom in a molecule.[4] Properties of a free atom > include ionization energy and electron affinity. It > is to be expected that the electronegativity of an > element will vary with its chemical environment,[5] > but it is usually considered to be a transferable > property, that is to say that similar values will be > valid in a variety of situations." > > So why does electronegativity appear in the periodic table? Because, you fecking moron, it's an estimate for elements. It's a set constant only for molecules. It varies with what is being oxidized, and is dependent upon the factors affecting that oxidation. SPNAK! > <http://www.sciencegeek.net/tables/Electronegativity.pdf> > > Print that out, fakey. > > So, what's the electronegativity of an oxygen atom? Awww, I've let the moron bleat out his stupidity long enough... bend over and ready yourself for Das Boot, Shiny Tinfoil Brain. LOL Aren't you the moron who k'lames that elemental oxygen has a constant electronegativity? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity> ================================================= As it is usually calculated, electronegativity is not a property of an atom alone, but rather a property of an atom _in_ _a_ _molecule_.[4] The property of electronegativity of an atom in a molecule is different from the electrode potential of the element, which depends on the difference in free energy of the element in its standard state and in ionic solution, and it is different from the ionization potential of the atom, and from its electron affinity; although it is related to these properties in a general way. It has been found possible to formulate an electronegativity scale of the elements by the analysis of the values of delta and delta_umlaut given by the single-bond energies. In Table 3-6 values of delta_umlaut are listed for the bonds between nonmetallic atoms whose energies are given in Table 3-4. These are obtained in the same ways as those in Table 3-3. It is seen on inspection that the values of delta_umlaut do not satisfy an additivity relation; they cannot be represented as differences of terms characteristic of the two atoms in a bond. However, the square roots of the delta_umlaut values do satisfy approximately a relation of this sort. The method just described for formulating the electronegativity scale cannot be used for the remaining elements in general because of a lack of knowledge of enthalpies of formation of their compounds as gases and of the values of single-bond energies for the elements themselves. Except for nitrogen and oxygen, which are discussed below, the elements in their standard states do not differ much in energy from states involving normal single covalent bonds between the atoms. It is the unusual stability of multiple bonds for oxygen and nitrogen, stabilizing their normal states, that often leads to negative values of the enthalpy of formation of substances. By the use of Equation 3-13 the difference in electronegativity of two elements can be calculated from the enthalpy of formation of the compounds formed by them. Table 3-8: The values given in the table refer to the common oxidation states of the elements. For some elements variation of the electronegativity with oxidation number is observed. [4] Pauling, Linus (1960). Nature of the Chemical Bond. Cornell University Press. pp. 88–107. ISBN 0-8014-0333-2. ================================================= How do you oxidize *oxygen* except with fluorine to figure out its enthalpy of formation and thus its exact electronegativity, you fecking *moron*? *No* *one* wants to formulate FOOF (O2F2) to find out the exact oxidation state of elemental oxygen. You know, FOOF, Lucifer's Gas? That shit makes *ice* explode. It makes asbestos *burn*. It reacts with gold. Hit it with a CO2 fire extinguisher, you just make it mad. So... your bleating about oxygen's electronegativity means you're bleating about an approximation, Moron. Even Pauling himself admitted that elemental electronegativity is an approximation, and thus isn't all that accurate, which is why he only presented them with single decimal accuracy. Moron. Further, oxygen's affinity for itself in forming multiple bonds means that for a lot of substances, the enthalpy of formation is negative, thus the electronegativity is dependent upon which substance oxygen is interacting with and whatever other factors contribute to or detract from that interaction. Nitrogen is the same way, nitrogen trichloride isn't unstable because of weak N-Cl bonds, but rather because nitrogen is constantly trying to reform into triple-bonded N2, with a negative enthalpy of formation and thus exothermic reaction of nitrogen trichloride. You know, Linus Pauling... the guy who developed the first accurate electronegativity scale for molecules... you think *he* might know a bit more about electronegativity than a moronic bleatfarting retard like you, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL SPNAK! Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? <snicker> > -- > "But that squared sinewave function is still a sinewave." > --Fakey lectures on trig identities <https://youtu.be/pgzc4aU_HeY?t=585> Gee, that squared sinewave function sure looks like a *sinewave*. And the foot-bullets fly. LOL SPNAK! I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron. <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 the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective nuclear 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. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 12:37 -0800 |
| Subject | wind shear?! |
| Message-ID | <d285a997-4d83-44a4-ba22-fe02e4dec0f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #561439 |
lOOks like a big fat zippO (not the lighter > that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding > energy of water is identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, thus water will > preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen rather than ionize. > That's one of the anomalous properties of water, Jim. > > How is your "water plasma" forming your purported "droplets" if it's > plasma, Jim? And given that the dissociation energy and nuclear > binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, you're saying > that your water has actually dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen...
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web