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

Groups > sci.physics > #561395 > unrolled thread

Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#561395 — Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures

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.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#561457

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

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.

It's been explained to you prior about the surface condition of water
and electrostatic attachment of individual water molecules to air
molecules, the underlying mechanism of evaporation. Which also
explains atmospheric diffusion into water, Jim.

Your inability to understand is a limitation of your low-IQ and your
affliction with Dunning-Kruger, which has led you to make a kooky
conspiracy theory that invents a new "plasma not-a-plasma" made of
water which isn't ionized, plasmized from a magical energy source that
does not and could not exist within the troposphere (or it would kill
off all life), given that high energy photons are absorbed high up in
the atmosphere and SCRs and GCRs have too low a flux and too low an
energy by the time they reach the troposphere to plasmize anything.

You also didn't know 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... 
so how is this hydrogen and oxygen forming your purported "droplets", 
Jim?

Your theory is yet again dismantled, Jim, utterly destroyed.

<snicker>

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

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

#561464

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 12:08:04 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> 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.  

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.

This is something that isn't true but that everybody believes to be true.  Why?  Because everybody made the same mistake that you are making to ask the opinion of other people before they actually measured/tested it.  

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

You will never find evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures because it is just a myth.  It's just something people chose to believe.  It doesn't actually exist.

There is a story by Hans Christian Andersen called, The Emperor's New Clothes.  It explains better than I can why you will never, ever find evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures.

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

#561525

On 3/11/16 2:41 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> You will never find evidence of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures because it is just a myth.


   Makes up about 1% of the troposphere, James. Measured every hour at
   tens of thousands of weather stations around the globe.

   Definition for James McGinn | Water Vapor
 > https://www.wordnik.com/words/water%20vapor


 > from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th
 > Edition

 > n. Water in a gaseous state, especially when diffused as a vapor in
 > the atmosphere and at a temperature below boiling point.

 > from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License

 > n. water in a gaseous state, especially when diffused in the
 > atmosphere





-- 

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]

#561674

Dne 11/03/2016 v 09:41 Solving Tornadoes napsal(a):
> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 12:08:04 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> 
> The steam tables indicate otherwise.  If you want to contradict the steam tables we need something more than anecdote based peer-review.   gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures/pressures.
> 
Exactly, bear steam tables in mind,
promoting your heavy water hypotheses.

There is no way for water clusters
to keep measured pressure/density ratios.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#562038

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>

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

#562046

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 9:55:04 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 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>

According to this Mollier didn't rigorously distinguish betwenen gaseous H2O and vapor.  So this is just more anecdote, dumbass.

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

#562058

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

James McGinn, in
<news:f6fb430b-cf27-4a9b-a6de-f4d238f69fe4@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 9:55:04 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> 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>

> According to this Mollier didn't rigorously distinguish betwenen

Ah, spelling errors... the first indication that you're becoming
perturbed, Jim. Why are you perturbed, Jim?

<snicker>

> gaseous H2O and vapor.  So this is just more anecdote, dumbass.

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
everyone 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,
is right, Jim?

Or do you think the Occam's Razor explanation is that you're a
delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted schizophrenic paranoid 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 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 high 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.

<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]

#562080

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 11:20:04 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> So you throw out 150 years of substantive and in-depth research? 
> Do you really think the entire world has been wrong for a century and
> a half, and *you*, are right, Jim?

It's been longer than that.  It's literally all of human history.

> Or do you think the Occam's Razor explanation is that you're a
> delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted schizophrenic paranoid 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?

Hmm. Maybe I should claim that it confirms global warming.

> Why are there *no* corroborating papers that back up your kooky
> contentions, Jim? 

So, either I'm very, very crazy or . . . or . . . or, not.

The funny thing is that when I made the discovery, about 3 and a half years ago, I didn't even think it was a big deal. I kind of just assumed that it was something known but obscure. It was not until just this last November that I came to grips with the fact that not only would academia not be an ally in my attempt to introduce this thinking to the world but they would be an obstacle.  That is when I wrote the paper.

I'd known for a long time that the notion that H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere is nonsense.  Yet I didn't have any explanation for why the evidence thereof is so paradoxical (as you are noticing). If not for the fact that I was trying to find substantiation for my hunch that H2O could produce a plasma under wind shear conditions and, also, if I did not suspect that surface tension, by way of H bonding, played a role therein, I never would have had a reason to theorize that H bonds neutralize H2O polarity.  And that discovery turned out to be the big discovery.  Because it not only resolved my hunch about the plasma but also explained (or, at least, set the stage for eventually explaining) why moisture in the atmosphere appeared to be gaseous when it was not.  (The exact explanation for which is still not 100% clear in my mind.)

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

#562210

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

James McGinn, in
<news:43708ba7-4812-4d3c-8872-ad446efb087c@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 11:20:04 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> So you throw out 150 years of substantive and in-depth research? 
>> Do you really think the entire world has been wrong for a century and
>> a half, and *you*, are right, Jim?

> It's been longer than that.  It's literally all of human history.

So you admit you throw out all scientific advancement in all of human
history as means of justifying your kooky conspiracy theory which does
not and cannot reflect reality. And you still believe yourself to be
sane, James?

>> Or do you think the Occam's Razor explanation is that you're a
>> delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted schizophrenic paranoid 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?

> Hmm. Maybe I should claim that it confirms global warming.

Or maybe, just as global warming has been proven to be a fairy tale,
you've just admitted your kooky conspiracy theory is also a fairy
tale, James.

>> Why are there *no* corroborating papers that back up your kooky
>> contentions, Jim? 

> So, either I'm very, very crazy or . . . or . . . or,

Or you're very, very, very crazy, James.

> not.

You're not sane in the slightest, James.

> The funny thing is that when I made the discovery,

You didn't make a "discovery", James. A discovery is a finding or
uncovering of information, usually via empirical observation or
mathematical derivation, but always based upon reproducible evidential
experimental observation of some sort.

What you did was to make a supposition, pulled straight from your ass
in the most literal usage of the etymology of that word's root ever,
based upon nothing more than your lack of education, stupidity and
paranoid insanity, James.

> about 3 and a half years ago, I didn't even think it was a big deal.

It isn't. Your theory is a demonstrably false fairy tale, Jim.

> I kind of just assumed that it was something known but obscure. It
> was not until just this last November that I came to grips with the
> fact that not only would academia not be an ally in my attempt to
> introduce this thinking to the world but they would be an obstacle.
> That is when I wrote the paper.

So your insanity is encroaching at an accelerating rate, then.

> I'd known

No, you'd supposed, Jim. You have no evidence, no proof, of your
supposition, and you'll never have any evidence or proof... because
your supposition of a theory is a fairy tale that has been proven to
not reflect reality, via more than a half-dozen different avenues.

> for a long time that the notion that H2O is gaseous in the
> atmosphere is nonsense.

When you base your kooky conspiracy theory upon a wrong premise
derived from an incorrect supposition, as has been proven that you
have done, your entire theory is wrong, Jim.

Go back and review what I've written. If you do so honestly, you'll
find your original supposition and thus your premise and thus your
entire kooky conspiracy theory is flawed, and thus cannot reflect
reality. The implication of the above reality is that you've gone
insane, Jim... so I'm betting you *won't* go back and review the path
you took to reach your current insane state.

> Yet I didn't have any explanation for why the evidence thereof is
> so paradoxical (as you are noticing).

It's not paradoxical, Jim. I've explained it to you, in detail, with
corroborable third-party research (peer-reviewed, no less) that
explains it all.

> If not for the fact that I was trying to find substantiation for
> my hunch that H2O could produce a plasma

You admit it is merely a hunch, a supposition, something pulled
straight from your ass with no evidence or proof whatsoever, in direct
contradiction to a mountain of evidence that you are delusional. Do
you think that's a rational course to take, James?

> under wind shear conditions and, also, if I did not suspect that
> surface tension, by way of H bonding, played a role therein, I
> never would have had a reason to theorize that H bonds neutralize
> H2O polarity.

They don't, James. The two isomer spin states of water explains the
phenomenon, has been empirically observed, experimentally proven and
actually exists, whereas your kooky k'lame that H bonding affects
water molecule polarity would also imply that water's solvent
properties are variable by some other mechanisms than temperature or
electromagnetic inducement of molecular alignment. We know it is not,
therefore your kooky theory is nothing more than the mad ranting of a
delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard who refuses to go back
and review his supposition and subsequent premise because he knows
it'll prove he's gone so far off the rails of reality that he is now
quite insane.

> And that discovery turned out to be the big discovery.

It wasn't a discovery, James. It was yet another supposition piled
upon your earlier suppositions, with no evidence or proof, as even you
admit. The reason insane people are insane is because they compound
one wrong supposition upon another until they're so twisted around
they can't even recognize reality, then become emotionally invested in
being 'right' in their insanity and thus refuse to unwind their
suppositions to get back to the root of their divergence from reality,
as you have done, Jim.

But you should know that insane people are never right, Jim. Never.

> Because it not only resolved my hunch about the plasma but also
> explained (or, at least, set the stage for eventually explaining)
> why moisture in the atmosphere appeared to be gaseous when it was
> not. (The exact explanation for which is still not 100% clear in
> my mind.)

It appears there is no longer much of anything that is clear in your
mind, Jim. You're rapidly approaching the point where your insanity
will be self-perpetuating, and you'll find yourself unable to
backtrack to your original mistake and self-correct. You should do so
now, before it's too late, Jim.

Now, get right on answering those questions you've been running away
from, Jim. They highlight the incorrect suppositions you've made on
your way to your blathering, babbling insanity...

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]

#562382

On 3/13/16 3:59 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> So, either I'm very, very crazy or . . . or . . . or, not.


   Or just an untutored fool. But I think we can find common ground and
   work back to the was of scientific observation.
> http://www.aviationweather.gov/adds/metars/?station_ids=KAMW&std_trans=translated&chk_metars=on



-- 

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]

#561819

Fakey wrote:

> You also didn't know 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... 
> so how is this hydrogen and oxygen forming your purported "droplets", 
> Jim?

It's good to see you have recognized that water cannot exist
as a plasma, as i told you before, k00ktard.

You're welcome.

-- 
"What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K."
  --Fakey claims water can exist as a plasma

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

#562053

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
<news:19e7eblms6eaesch8jmtdbisf4u82knqk8@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>> You also didn't know 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... 
>> so how is this hydrogen and oxygen forming your purported "droplets", 
>> Jim?

> It's good to see you have recognized that water cannot exist
> as a plasma, as i told you before, k00ktard.
> 
> You're welcome.

Awww, kooktard persists in his stupidity. LOL

Some *moron* blither-blathered:
"Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature."

<https://www.quora.com/Can-liquids-be-turned-into-plasma>
=========================================================
Owen Jones, Physics graduate, postdoctoral researcher in magnetic 
confinement fusion.

In order to jump straight from a liquid to a plasma, you need to 
supply sufficient energy to remove the electrons from the atoms over a 
large enough volume that the material can be classified as a plasma 
(see my answer to this question for more details on what constitutes a 
plasma). The easiest way of doing this is with an extremely powerful, 
intense laser pulse. Some of the world's most powerful short-pulse 
lasers are capable of producing power densities of a billion trillion  
(10^21) watts per square centimetre. The electric fields generated by 
these lasers are strong enough to rip electrons from the atoms in any 
material, be it solid, liquid or gas, in much less than a trillionth 
of a second. The material doesn't even get a chance to go through the 
normal solid-liquid-gas phase transitions; it's completely vaporized 
and ionized almost as soon as the laser pulse hits it.

So in answer to your question about converting a liquid straight to a 
plasma, it's possible as long as you have a big enough laser!
=========================================================

<https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_create_a_plasma_from_water_vapour_in_a_laboratory>
=========================================================
Is it possible to create a plasma from water vapour in a laboratory?

Christophe O Laux · Ecole Centrale Paris
We did exactly that, create a plasma in pure water vapor. We published 
a first paper on the topic: Sainct, F.P., Lacoste, D.A., Kirkpatrick, 
M.J., Odic, E., and Laux, C.O., Experimental study of nanosecond 
repetitively pulsed discharges in water vapor, International Journal 
of Plasma Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 6, no. 2, Sep. 
2012. More publications should follow soon.
=========================================================

SPNAK! on the backpedaling bleating lying blither-blathering moron. 
LOL

Now you backpedal again and k'lame that "once it's heated to the
plasma phase, there are no longer any water molecules." again.

Except a blither-blathering *moron* wrote:
"Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature."

So you've caught yourself in your own stupidity, and you're
backpedaling by k'laming that plasmized water is no longer water...
but what were the originating molecules, Moron? Oh yeah... water.

So you're just a backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering lying
moronic kooktard.

SPNAK!

Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL

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 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]

#562062

Fakey wrote:

> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
> 
> > Fakey wrote:
> 
> >> You also didn't know 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... 
> >> so how is this hydrogen and oxygen forming your purported "droplets", 
> >> Jim?
> 
> > It's good to see you have recognized that water cannot exist
> > as a plasma, as i told you before, k00ktard.
> > 
> > You're welcome.

> <https://www.quora.com/Can-liquids-be-turned-into-plasma>
> =========================================================
> Owen Jones, Physics graduate, postdoctoral researcher in magnetic 
> confinement fusion.
> 
> In order to jump straight from a liquid to a plasma, you need to 
> supply sufficient energy to remove the electrons from the atoms over a 

Did you understand that, fakey?  When you remove the
electrons, there is no longer any bonding.

Why are you so stupid?

Oh... you are being deliberately stupid so you won't have to
admit you are wrong, and i'm right.

ROFL!  Spankity-spnak, ersatzia.

> <https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_create_a_plasma_from_water_vapour_in_a_laboratory>
> =========================================================
> Is it possible to create a plasma from water vapour in a laboratory?

Yes, just like it's possible to create steam from ice.

But, fakey... when it's steam, it's not ice any more, is it?

> Now you backpedal again and k'lame that "once it's heated to the
> plasma phase, there are no longer any water molecules." again.
> 
> Except a blither-blathering *moron* wrote:
> "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature."

Water has no plasma phase.

> So you've caught yourself in your own stupidity, and you're
> backpedaling by k'laming that plasmized water is no longer water...
> but what were the originating molecules, Moron? Oh yeah... water.

There are no molecules in the plasma phase.
Sux to be you, dunnit?

Can i quote you as saying water has a plasma phase?
Oh, wait...

-- 
"What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K."
  --Fakey claims water can exist as a plasma

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

#562223

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
<news:ik5aebl5rutban8leprogq1p99cvuilp0b@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:

>>>> You also didn't know 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... 
>>>> so how is this hydrogen and oxygen forming your purported "droplets", 
>>>> Jim?

>>> It's good to see you have recognized that water cannot exist
>>> as a plasma, as i told you before, k00ktard.
>>> 
>>> You're welcome.

>> <https://www.quora.com/Can-liquids-be-turned-into-plasma>
>> =========================================================
>> Owen Jones, Physics graduate, postdoctoral researcher in magnetic 
>> confinement fusion.
>> 
>> In order to jump straight from a liquid to a plasma, you need to 
>> supply sufficient energy to remove the electrons from the atoms over a 

> Did you understand that, fakey?  When you remove the
> electrons, there is no longer any bonding.

Are you backpedaling away from your kooky contention that water has no
plasma phase, when in reality any material heated sufficiently will
plasmize, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL

> Why are you so stupid?

Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL

> Oh... you are being deliberately stupid so you won't have to
> admit you are wrong, and i'm right.

Says the moron who's been proven wrong. Again. LOL

> RO<SMACKAKOOK!>

Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL

>> <https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_create_a_plasma_from_water_vapour_in_a_laboratory>
>> =========================================================
>> Is it possible to create a plasma from water vapour in a laboratory?

> Yes, just like it's possible to create steam from ice.

Some blither-blathering backpedaling bleatfarting moron wrote:
"Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature."

SPNAK!

> But, fakey... when it's steam, it's not ice any more, is it?

It's still water, Moron. And given that the plasma comes from water,
it is plasmized water. Moron.

SPNAK!

>> Now you backpedal again and k'lame that "once it's heated to the
>> plasma phase, there are no longer any water molecules." again.
>> 
>> Except a blither-blathering *moron* wrote:
>> "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature."

> Water has no plasma phase.

<https://www.quora.com/Can-liquids-be-turned-into-plasma>
=========================================================
Owen Jones, Physics graduate, postdoctoral researcher in magnetic 
confinement fusion.

In order to jump straight from a liquid to a plasma, you need to 
supply sufficient energy to remove the electrons from the atoms over a 
large enough volume that the material can be classified as a plasma 
(see my answer to this question for more details on what constitutes a 
plasma). The easiest way of doing this is with an extremely powerful, 
intense laser pulse. Some of the world's most powerful short-pulse 
lasers are capable of producing power densities of a billion trillion  
(10^21) watts per square centimetre. The electric fields generated by 
these lasers are strong enough to rip electrons from the atoms in any 
material, be it solid, liquid or gas, in much less than a trillionth 
of a second. The material doesn't even get a chance to go through the 
normal solid-liquid-gas phase transitions; it's completely vaporized 
and ionized almost as soon as the laser pulse hits it.

So in answer to your question about converting a liquid straight to a 
plasma, it's possible as long as you have a big enough laser!
=========================================================

<https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_create_a_plasma_from_water_vapour_in_a_laboratory>
=========================================================
Is it possible to create a plasma from water vapour in a laboratory?

Christophe O Laux · Ecole Centrale Paris
We did exactly that, create a plasma in pure water vapor. We published 
a first paper on the topic: Sainct, F.P., Lacoste, D.A., Kirkpatrick, 
M.J., Odic, E., and Laux, C.O., Experimental study of nanosecond 
repetitively pulsed discharges in water vapor, International Journal 
of Plasma Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 6, no. 2, Sep. 
2012. More publications should follow soon.
=========================================================

SPNAK! on the backpedaling bleating lying blither-blathering moron. 
LOL

>> So you've caught yourself in your own stupidity, and you're
>> backpedaling by k'laming that plasmized water is no longer water...
>> but what were the originating molecules, Moron? Oh yeah... water.

> There are no molecules in the plasma phase.
> Sux to be you, dunnit?

Awww, look at the spankard backpedaling. You're even outdoing Gargles
on his best day... did getting SPNAK!'d so hard really hurt your
fragile little psyche so badly that you can't admit you're *wrong*,
Moron?

SPNAK!

> Can i quote you as saying water has a plasma phase?
> Oh, wait...

Sure you can. Everything has a plasma phase. Moron. It is, after all,
the most abundant form of matter in the universe, by both mass and
volume.

SPNAK!

> -- 
> "What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K."
>   --Fakey claims water can exist as a plasma

<https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_create_a_plasma_from_water_vapour_in_a_laboratory>
=========================================================
Is it possible to create a plasma from water vapour in a laboratory?

Christophe O Laux · Ecole Centrale Paris
We did exactly that, create a plasma in pure water vapor. We published 
a first paper on the topic: Sainct, F.P., Lacoste, D.A., Kirkpatrick, 
M.J., Odic, E., and Laux, C.O., Experimental study of nanosecond 
repetitively pulsed discharges in water vapor, International Journal 
of Plasma Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 6, no. 2, Sep. 
2012. More publications should follow soon.
=========================================================

SPNAK! on the backpedaling bleating lying blither-blathering moron. 
LOL

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]

#562287 — Faketard seriously reduced.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 05:22:51 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>> Why are you so stupid?
>
>Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL
>
>> Oh... you are being deliberately stupid so you won't have to
>> admit you are wrong, and i'm right.
>
>Says the moron who's been proven wrong. Again. LOL
>
>> RO<SMACKAKOOK!>
>
>Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL

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

#562339 — Re: Faketard seriously reduced.

Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 05:22:51 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
> Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
> 
> >> Why are you so stupid?
> >
> >Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL
> >
> >> Oh... you are being deliberately stupid so you won't have to
> >> admit you are wrong, and i'm right.
> >
> >Says the moron who's been proven wrong. Again. LOL
> >
> >> RO<SMACKAKOOK!>
> >
> >Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL

I must not be getting my quota of faglames.
Gay queer bumchum faggotty buttroller.

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

#562302

Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
(Snickerturd)  wrote as he ran away: 

[...]

> >> Owen Jones, Physics graduate, postdoctoral researcher in magnetic 
> >> confinement fusion.
> >> 
> >> In order to jump straight from a liquid to a plasma, you need to 
> >> supply sufficient energy to remove the electrons from the atoms over a
> 
> > Did you understand that, fakey?  When you remove the
> > electrons, there is no longer any bonding.
> 
> Are you backpedaling away from your kooky contention that water has no
> plasma phase, when in reality any material heated sufficiently will
> plasmize, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL
> 
> > Why are you so stupid?
> 
> Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL
> 
> > Oh... you are being deliberately stupid so you won't have to
> > admit you are wrong, and i'm right.
> 
> Says the moron who's been proven wrong. Again. LOL
> 
> > RO<SMACKAKOOK!>
> 
> Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL
>

And there it is again, Fakey's favoured tactic of last resort: delete
the question that he can't answer and run away, casting trite insults
and aspersions over his shoulder as he retreats in confusion.
        
Pffft, what a fake.

-- 
^Ï^.       Sn!pe       <snipeco.1@gmail.com>

My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts.
My pet rock Gordon wants home rule for England.

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

#562313

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

Tr!pe the Hypoxic ChickenFucker (aka Steve Hall), in
<news:1mk3vyh.1p27msb1snqco6N%snipeco.2@gmail.com> squawked as he
pulled it to poultry porn:

> A<SMACKAKOOK!>

ChickenFucker.

<snicker>

-- 

---------------------------------------------
Tr!pe the Hypoxic ChickenFucker squawked, in
<news:1l9enri.1boemg21mhmo5lN%snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk>:
"If you want to know about bird sex, just ask me."

Steve Hall (G8DGC, snipeco.1@gmail.com, snipeco.2@gmail.com,
snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk, snipe@notforspam.fsnet.co.uk) fucks birds.
LOL

http://i.imgur.com/f0euFil.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/pR0mX95.jpg

Slow bird sex... if Tr!pe chickenfucks fast, he turns blue. LOL
Too much chickenspooge clogging up his lungs. LOL
That's why he's too stupid to do simple math. Lack of oxygen. LOL
That also explains his rampant paranoia. Hypoxic brain damage. LOL
And his segue to human penis... birds aren't enough for him now. LOL

Maths Fail:
Message-ID: <07f2598e7078240cb9a4b25fa701c861@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <444e1cce007418ec5345daa93ec0ba38@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <1aefd4d212571584185eacda6e6750d8@dizum.com>

Paranoia Will Destroy Ya:
Message-ID: <6620b273ab1a048aaaff3acbf2583ca9@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <9db516a6a44943053aed3107df34af86@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <0793f311af986182080222026eab9325@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <6b28ba3566b3f36fa69ff1cb311d4d89@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <aa840a32fa3dc7050cc69f1dda0de7e3@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <938a2d9957c61a788fcbfd0f613aa92d@dizum.com>

Tr!pe The Penis Obsessed Poof:
Message-ID: <48bc243b312b3999403a6ab8b26ea0b0@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <0eb75ae7a93df2df718219c1ccd622a6@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <9a5d3b92c9841c7e71a07f484653a125@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <a4c326b191a39afe57a747dc51e7166b@dizum.com>
---------------------------------------------

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

#562315

Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
(Snickerturd)  furiously wielded his eraser when he wrote: 

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> Tr!pe the Hypoxic ChickenFucker (aka Steve Hall), in
> <news:1mk3vyh.1p27msb1snqco6N%snipeco.2@gmail.com> squawked as he
> pulled it to poultry porn:
> 
> > A<SMACKAKOOK!>
> 
> ChickenFucker.
> 
> <snickerturd>
>

And there it is again, Fakey's favoured tactic of last resort: delete
the question that he can't answer and run away, casting trite insults
and aspersions over his shoulder as he retreats in confusion.
        
Pffft, what a fake.

-- 
^Ï^.       Sn!pe       <snipeco.1@gmail.com>

My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts.
My pet rock Gordon wants home rule for England.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web