Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #560474 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-08 12:38 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-23 18:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 131 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 12:38 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 12:54 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:59 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 21:33 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:37 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 00:47 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:14 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 07:30 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:51 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 01:55 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:58 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 11:56 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 04:54 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 20:52 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 06:34 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 20:54 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 06:16 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 22:00 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 00:05 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 20:55 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-09 23:57 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 07:04 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 22:19 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:01 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 08:11 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 16:29 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:26 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 01:54 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:40 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 21:44 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 15:02 +0000
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 23:08 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 15:20 +0000
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-11 10:03 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-11 10:03 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 18:05 +0000
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-11 10:14 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 11:29 -0700
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-12 02:13 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 18:52 +0000
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:29 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-13 16:27 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:54 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-14 16:00 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 17:16 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-15 19:18 +0000
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-16 03:30 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:27 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 20:35 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 09:53 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:47 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 20:57 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 06:49 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 22:11 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 07:24 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 23:10 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:46 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 02:16 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 09:03 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 00:52 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 05:48 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-13 01:49 -0700
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 01:12 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:24 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 01:22 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:00 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 21:33 -0700
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 06:32 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 23:00 -0700
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 08:43 +0100
there is no warmal globing per se noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 12:20 -0700
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 21:29 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 05:54 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:30 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:39 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:46 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 20:40 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 18:46 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 20:56 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:01 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:41 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 06:49 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:38 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:58 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:49 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:34 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-11 01:45 -0500
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 23:48 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:24 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-14 01:11 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:05 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-14 23:46 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-14 15:53 +0000
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-15 00:17 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-14 16:27 +0000
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-15 00:51 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-14 12:42 -0400
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-15 00:54 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 18:09 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-15 01:42 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-15 06:14 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-15 01:26 -0400
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-15 18:39 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-15 17:45 -0400
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 05:27 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-16 11:39 -0400
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-16 18:16 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-16 15:16 -0400
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-17 05:50 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-15 05:18 -0400
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-15 17:29 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 21:53 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:34 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-13 16:20 +0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:12 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:11 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:26 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 09:54 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 05:19 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 00:03 -0500
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:12 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:25 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 23:30 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 03:31 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-08 23:31 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 19:43 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-09 11:33 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 05:04 +0100
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:45 -0600
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-09 08:22 -0800
Re: Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 18:22 -0700
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 23:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbr2cl$18vb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #561019 |
On 3/9/2016 10:55 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >> >> James McGinn, in. >> <news:a23fe731-7aea-42e4-b722-35de781b8f71@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >> >>> Do the math, dumbass. >> >> You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, > > It's pretty simple > you're simpler
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 07:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ed7c3c626b991f8634c578ec146804d5@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #561019 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:df281cd1-872f-49d2-8aa3-eba5a5f3ddac@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James McGinn, in. >> <news:a23fe731-7aea-42e4-b722-35de781b8f71@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> Do the math, dumbass. >> You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, > It's pretty simple Sure it is, Jim... yet you can't seem to grasp that simple reality. Here it is again so you can demonstrate to a worldwide audience that you're a reality-denying loon, Jim. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of the atomic masses of its constituent atoms. The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP. Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the same volume of 22.414 liters at STP. The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP. Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh: 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase 28.57 g for dry air Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air. Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant. Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude decreases. At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure will have the same density. At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous water partial pressure will have higher density. At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous water partial pressure will have lower density. For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure, air at a higher altitude will have lower density. (1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3. Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C, the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3. Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity. Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions. IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density). It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is "heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard, it's because density of the air varies with altitude, as does temperature. Or are you going to deny the existence of gravity the same as you've denied the existence of evaporation and sublimation? These factors cause air to flow from higher pressure regions to lower pressure regions. But once you get near the top of the troposphere, the temperature no longer goes down, it goes up, thus air finds it more difficult to continue rising (especially considering that as it rises and expands through the troposphere due to decreasing pressure at altitude, it gets cooler and thus more dense due to the Ideal Gas Law). This generally balances out at the tropopause. Above this, the jet stream winds decrease in speed. This horizontally flowing air at the tropopause is affected by planetary rotation, causing the air to turn to the right (in the Northern Hemisphere) in a phenomenon known as the Coriolis Effect. This causes a spiraling around the cold and warm air masses which induced the jet stream to begin with, thus causing those cold and warm air masses to spiral. This wind shear between warm and cold air masses is how hurricanes form, Jim. You'll note the jet stream runs at the top and slightly above the tropopause for the polar jets, thus they don't "deliver energy and activity to top of the thunderclouds", given that the tropopause ranges from an average of 5.6 miles at the poles to 11 miles at the equator, whereas the highest clouds are thin wispy cirrus, cirrostratus and cirrocumulus clouds, and they are the *only* types of clouds at the top of the troposphere, except for the occasional unusually strong weather system forming cumulus, cumulonimbus or nimbostratus clouds all the way up to the top of the tropopause. Because remember, it's the updraft which forms the clouds in the first place, and the speed of the updraft which determines what type of cloud is formed. And that updraft is caused by a combination of warmer air and air with higher gaseous water content creating air with greater buoyancy, carrying that gaseous water content upward, where the temperature drops, causing that gaseous water to condense and / or nucleate into clouds and eventually fall as rain under the right conditions. And that destroys yet another of your kooky contentions... because you're a low-information uneducated moron trying to argue a subject about which you know very little, while k'laming yourself to be a 'physicist' because you once took a Basic Meteorology elective class... a rather pathetic appeal to authority fallacy whilst trying to establish yourself as that authority. You are not an authority, Jim, you're just a delusional kooktard spouting a kooky and discredited conspiracy theory. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ That's one means by which I utterly destroyed your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. I've destroyed the central tenets of your kooky conspiracy theory, James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on. I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility. That's... what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory? Now let's explore another avenue of destruction of your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. It proves that what you k'lame is happening is a physical impossibility. If high-energy ultraviolet just 3.32 nm wavelength away from the x-ray range were getting through the atmosphere to the troposphere, life on this planet would be nigh-well impossible. And that's the *minimum* photon energy required to even *begin* to create plasma from water... to plasmize all the water in the atmosphere would require a very high flux of very energetic photons reaching throughout the troposphere. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled you. Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause. For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy. It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls, thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different updraft speeds) cause different types of rain. Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second. For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further proves this fact. Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating lightning ... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster, thus the Triboelectric Effect is stronger. So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right? As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds): <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html> ========================================================= It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of energy about 12 electron volts or higher. That means the water molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to make such a plasma. ========================================================= Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet light, nearly in the x-ray range. And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere is plasma. Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm. In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim. Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're just a delusional kooktard? Anyone with any interest can look up the data and corroborate it for themselves. I am certain, Jim, that you will not... you will instead run away from reality again. It is all you can do, given your delusional mental state. Your sanity hangs in the balance, thus you'll avoid any proof which upsets the delicate smoke-and-mirrors world you've constructed as means of propping up your failing sanity, Jim. So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it. <snicker> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ See how simple things are when one is sane, Jim? See how much sense that all makes? The world (indeed, the universe) doesn't work by kooky conspiracies and impossibilities as you claim, Jim, it works by a set of immutable rules. Learn those rules, Jim, and stop being such a fucking moron. Go back and finish high school, Jim. You'll be the better for it, and likely the saner, too. <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. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 22:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <48f28ab7-1cb3-4ca1-851a-4bba4a76b2f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #561051 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 10:14:38 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > James McGinn, in > <news:df281cd1-872f-49d2-8aa3-eba5a5f3ddac@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-8, > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >> James McGinn, in. > >> <news:a23fe731-7aea-42e4-b722-35de781b8f71@googlegroups.com> did > >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > >>> Do the math, dumbass. > > >> You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, > > > It's pretty simple > > Sure it is, Jim... What is the boiling temp of H2O?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 08:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbr5vb$a0d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #561052 |
Dne 10/03/2016 v 07:19 James McGinn napsal(a): > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 10:14:38 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> >> >> >>>>> Do the math, dumbass. >> >>>> You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, >> >>> It's pretty simple >> >> Sure it is, Jim... > > What is the boiling temp of H2O? At what pressure ? As it is pressure dependent. Water boils, when external pressure is equal to or less than saturated vapour pressure at current temperature. You can cause even a cold water to boil, using a vacuum pump. In upper stratosphere, water boils until freezes, and than sublimates until the ice crystals disappear. 100 deg C / 373.15 K is just nominal boiling temp for nominal pressure 101 325 Pa, without special physical significance. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 08:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <931d4178a58446d02d03a4a5a1179679@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #561052 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:48f28ab7-1cb3-4ca1-851a-4bba4a76b2f4@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 10:14:38 PM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James McGinn, in >> <news:df281cd1-872f-49d2-8aa3-eba5a5f3ddac@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-8, >>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>> James McGinn, in. >>>> <news:a23fe731-7aea-42e4-b722-35de781b8f71@googlegroups.com> did >>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>>>> Do the math, dumbass. >>>> You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, >>> It's pretty simple >> Sure it is, Jim... > What is the boiling temp of H2O? What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K. Your kooky theory is even more wrong than you k'lame reality to be, Jim. By more than an order of magnitude. Here, Jim. Prove to the world that you're a loonytunes moron again: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of the atomic masses of its constituent atoms. The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP. Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the same volume of 22.414 liters at STP. The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP. Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh: 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase 28.57 g for dry air Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air. Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant. Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude decreases. At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure will have the same density. At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous water partial pressure will have higher density. At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous water partial pressure will have lower density. For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure, air at a higher altitude will have lower density. (1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3. Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C, the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3. Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity. Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions. IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density). It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is "heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard, it's because density of the air varies with altitude, as does temperature. Or are you going to deny the existence of gravity the same as you've denied the existence of evaporation and sublimation? These factors cause air to flow from higher pressure regions to lower pressure regions. But once you get near the top of the troposphere, the temperature no longer goes down, it goes up, thus air finds it more difficult to continue rising (especially considering that as it rises and expands through the troposphere due to decreasing pressure at altitude, it gets cooler and thus more dense due to the Ideal Gas Law). This generally balances out at the tropopause. Above this, the jet stream winds decrease in speed. This horizontally flowing air at the tropopause is affected by planetary rotation, causing the air to turn to the right (in the Northern Hemisphere) in a phenomenon known as the Coriolis Effect. This causes a spiraling around the cold and warm air masses which induced the jet stream to begin with, thus causing those cold and warm air masses to spiral. This wind shear between warm and cold air masses is how hurricanes form, Jim. You'll note the jet stream runs at the top and slightly above the tropopause for the polar jets, thus they don't "deliver energy and activity to top of the thunderclouds", given that the tropopause ranges from an average of 5.6 miles at the poles to 11 miles at the equator, whereas the highest clouds are thin wispy cirrus, cirrostratus and cirrocumulus clouds, and they are the *only* types of clouds at the top of the troposphere, except for the occasional unusually strong weather system forming cumulus, cumulonimbus or nimbostratus clouds all the way up to the top of the tropopause. Because remember, it's the updraft which forms the clouds in the first place, and the speed of the updraft which determines what type of cloud is formed. And that updraft is caused by a combination of warmer air and air with higher gaseous water content creating air with greater buoyancy, carrying that gaseous water content upward, where the temperature drops, causing that gaseous water to condense and / or nucleate into clouds and eventually fall as rain under the right conditions. And that destroys yet another of your kooky contentions... because you're a low-information uneducated moron trying to argue a subject about which you know very little, while k'laming yourself to be a 'physicist' because you once took a Basic Meteorology elective class... a rather pathetic appeal to authority fallacy whilst trying to establish yourself as that authority. You are not an authority, Jim, you're just a delusional kooktard spouting a kooky and discredited conspiracy theory. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ That's one means by which I utterly destroyed your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. I've destroyed the central tenets of your kooky conspiracy theory, James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on. I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility. That's... what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory? Now let's explore another avenue of destruction of your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. It proves that what you k'lame is happening is a physical impossibility. If high-energy ultraviolet just 3.32 nm wavelength away from the x-ray range were getting through the atmosphere to the troposphere, life on this planet would be nigh-well impossible. And that's the *minimum* photon energy required to even *begin* to create plasma from water... to plasmize all the water in the atmosphere would require a very high flux of very energetic photons reaching throughout the troposphere. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled you. Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause. For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy. It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls, thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different updraft speeds) cause different types of rain. Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second. For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further proves this fact. Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating lightning ... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster, thus the Triboelectric Effect is stronger. So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right? As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds): <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html> ========================================================= It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of energy about 12 electron volts or higher. That means the water molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to make such a plasma. ========================================================= Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet light, nearly in the x-ray range. And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere is plasma. Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm. In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim. Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're just a delusional kooktard? Anyone with any interest can look up the data and corroborate it for themselves. I am certain, Jim, that you will not... you will instead run away from reality again. It is all you can do, given your delusional mental state. Your sanity hangs in the balance, thus you'll avoid any proof which upsets the delicate smoke-and-mirrors world you've constructed as means of propping up your failing sanity, Jim. So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it. <snicker> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ See how simple things are when one is sane, Jim? See how much sense that all makes? The world (indeed, the universe) doesn't work by kooky conspiracies and impossibilities as you claim, Jim, it works by a set of immutable rules. Learn those rules, Jim, and stop being such a fucking moron. Go back and finish high school, Jim. You'll be the better for it, and likely the saner, too. <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. 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 | 2016-03-10 16:29 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <aeb2eb1h3eho9h7scc6oupba48mjt3e2jr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #561074 |
Fakey (aka "Nutcase dude") wrote: > What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K. ROFL! There are no molecules in a plasma, faketard. Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature. Sheesh! > Your kooky theory is even more wrong than you k'lame reality to be, > Jim. By more than an order of magnitude. What's the electronegativity of oxygen, Ersatzia? https://www.google.com/search?q=electronegativity+of+oxygen > Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous > phase and air have a molar volume Water in its gaseous phase doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law, moron. Do you know what steam tables are, and why sane people use them? Do you need someone to follow you around usenet and correct all your fuckups? I can see why you lost an argument with another raving loon. You have more kooksine than he does! Got that $100k yet? -- "..the term 'electronegativity' denotes a *positive* nucleal charge." --Fakey the Chemist waxes stupid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 18:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20417d8002d96598785ff36603e40560@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #561084 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in <news:aeb2eb1h3eho9h7scc6oupba48mjt3e2jr@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > Fakey (aka "Nutcase dude") wrote: > >> What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K. > ROFL! There are no molecules in a plasma, faketard. > Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature. You apparently *like* proving yourself to be a moron: <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/water-and-plasma.390771/> "Any substance - regardless of what is its composition - becomes plasma if heated high enough. However, once it is heated it doesn't contain molecules, as all chemical bonds are broken." <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html> ========================================================= It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of energy about 12 electron volts or higher. That means the water molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to make such a plasma. ========================================================= > Sheesh! SPNAK! >> Your kooky theory is even more wrong than you k'lame reality to be, >> Jim. By more than an order of magnitude. > What's the electronegativity of oxygen, Ersatzia? Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen with that of the oxygen atom in a water molecule and prove that PhD professor of applied sciences wrong, eh, Moron? LOL <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_molecule.html> London South Bank University - Physics Department Martin Chaplin BSc PhD CChem FRSC Emeritus Professor of Applied Science 111 peer-reviewed studies published 3 books published 3 patents granted ================================================== Due to the relatively large positive charge on the oxygen atom nucleus (8+) and the closeness of its electrons, the oxygen atom attracts electrons much more strongly (i.e. is much more electronegative) than the hydrogen atoms (1+). This results in a charge transfer from the hydrogen atoms towards the oxygen atom and, hence, the polarity of the water molecule. Early 5-point molecular models, with explicit negative charge where the lone pairs are purported to be, fared poorly in describing hydrogen bonding, but more recent models show some promise. Although there is no apparent consensus of opinion [116], such descriptions of substantial sp3-hybridized lone pairs in the isolated water molecule should perhaps be avoided [117], as an sp2-hybridized structure (plus a pz orbital) is indicated. The molecule H2O has 10 electrons associated, 8 from the oxygen atom and one each from the two hydrogen atoms. ================================================== And all of the above backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies by people far smarter and saner than you, Moron. SPNAK! I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron. <snicker> > https://www.google.com/search?q=electronegativity+of+oxygen >> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous >> phase and air have a molar volume > Water in its gaseous phase doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law, > moron. Do you know what steam tables are, and why sane > people use them? You just love proving yourself to be a moron, don't you? <http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17362/what-type-of-substances-allows-the-use-of-the-ideal-gas-law> ======================================== Pure water vapor at 1 atm and 373 K has Pr=1/217=0.0046, so the ideal gas law applies to within 10% error. The ideal gas law is derived from a model (the ideal gas), and like every other model it applies where it's underling assumptions are good approximations to reality. ======================================== The Ideal Gas Law is applied to the air *and* the gaseous phase water vapor, because it comes within 10% error, one of the criteria for using the Ideal Gas Law, you fecking nong. Moron. SPNAK! > Do you need someone to follow you around usenet and correct > all your fuckups? No, I have a moron following me around Usenet and making more fuckups. Perhaps we can get someone to follow that moron around Usenet and correct all his fuckups. Moron. LOL > I can see why you lost an argument with another raving loon. > You have more kooksine than he does! You mean my having utterly destroyed James McGinn's kooky theory by proving via several different avenues that it is a physical impossibility, such as the fact that water plasma does not and cannot exist in the troposphere? You didn't understand any of that, which is why you're now agreeing with that kooktard James McGinn. You're as delusional as he is. SPNAK! <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. 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 | 2016-03-11 01:54 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <ejc3eblovovmfqe5btu8e3dnpoihc2rakh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #561178 |
Fakey wrote:
> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
> <news:aeb2eb1h3eho9h7scc6oupba48mjt3e2jr@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
> first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > Fakey (aka "Nutcase dude") wrote:
> >
> >> What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K.
>
> > ROFL! There are no molecules in a plasma, faketard.
> > Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature.
>
> You apparently *like* proving yourself to be a moron:
>
> <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/water-and-plasma.390771/>
> "Any substance - regardless of what is its composition - becomes
> plasma if heated high enough. However, once it is heated it doesn't
> contain molecules, as all chemical bonds are broken."
Uh, Fakey... you just posted a cite that says what i just
said. It agrees with me, not you. But you don't understand
it.
SPNAK!
> > Sheesh!
> >> Your kooky theory is even more wrong than you k'lame reality to be,
> >> Jim. By more than an order of magnitude.
>
> > What's the electronegativity of oxygen, Ersatzia?
>
> Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen
Still trying to deny the obvious?
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_molecule.html>
> ==================================================
> Due to the relatively large positive charge on the oxygen atom nucleus
> (8+) and the closeness of its electrons, the oxygen atom attracts
> electrons much more strongly (i.e. is much more electronegative) than
> the hydrogen atoms (1+). This results in a charge transfer from the
> hydrogen atoms towards the oxygen atom and, hence, the polarity of the
> water molecule.
Uh, Fakey... It doesn't say what you think it says.
What's the electronegativity of oxygen?
<snip attempted dodge>
> And all of the above backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies by people
> far smarter and saner than you, Moron.
Isn't it funny that they really agree with me, not you, but
you can't understand it.
> > https://www.google.com/search?q=electronegativity+of+oxygen
> >> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
> >> phase and air have a molar volume
>
> > Water in its gaseous phase doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law,
> > moron. Do you know what steam tables are, and why sane
> > people use them?
>
> You just love proving yourself to be a moron, don't you?
>
> <http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17362/what-type-of-substances-allows-the-use-of-the-ideal-gas-law>
> ========================================
> Pure water vapor at 1 atm and 373 K has Pr=1/217=0.0046, so the ideal
> gas law applies to within 10% error.
If that's true, it isn't a very close fit, is it?
Water doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law. I'm right.
> The Ideal Gas Law is applied to the air *and* the gaseous phase water
> vapor, because it comes within 10% error, one of the criteria for
> using the Ideal Gas Law, you fecking nong. Moron.
LOL! So you have to mix a little water vapor with a lot of
air, to get a 10% fit.
Water doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law. I'm right. Be
humble and move on, spankee.
> > I can see why you lost an argument with another raving loon.
> > You have more kooksine than he does!
>
> You mean my having utterly destroyed James McGinn's kooky theory by
> proving via several different avenues that it is a physical
> impossibility, such as the fact that water plasma does not and cannot
> exist in the troposphere?
You are losing an argument with a wacked out kook.
Your father must finally be proud of you!
--
"Water has *no* 'negative poles' "
--His Nibs reveals the shocking discovery that the water
molecule is an electrical monopole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 07:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <075580023123448a67f4484d97ebef26@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #561189 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain, in <news:ejc3eblovovmfqe5btu8e3dnpoihc2rakh@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 >> <news:aeb2eb1h3eho9h7scc6oupba48mjt3e2jr@4ax.com> did thusly jump head >> first into the wood chipper again: >>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again: >>>> What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K. >>> ROFL! There are no molecules in a plasma, faketard. >>> Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature. >> You apparently *like* proving yourself to be a moron: >> >> <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/water-and-plasma.390771/> >> "Any substance - regardless of what is its composition - becomes >> plasma if heated high enough. However, once it is heated it doesn't >> contain molecules, as all chemical bonds are broken." >> >> <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html> >> ========================================================= >> It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a >> water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at >> least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if >> you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only >> you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of >> energy about 12 electron volts or higher. That means the water >> molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about >> this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation >> energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. >> So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to >> make such a plasma. >> ========================================================= > Uh, Fakey... you just posted a cite that says what i just > said. You lying kook, you k'lamed that water could not become plasmized: "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature." SPNAK! > It agrees with me, not you. But you don't understand it. Moron. You k'lamed that water could not be a plasma. Now you're backpedaling and lying because you can't stand the level of stupidity you've proved you exude. > SP<SMACAKOOK!> SPNAK! >>> Sheesh! >>>> Your kooky theory is even more wrong than you k'lame reality to be, >>>> Jim. By more than an order of magnitude. >>> What's the electronegativity of oxygen, Ersatzia? >> Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen > Still trying to deny the obvious? Still demonstrating that you're a moron? LOL >> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_molecule.html> >> ================================================== >> Due to the relatively large positive charge on the oxygen atom nucleus >> (8+) and the closeness of its electrons, the oxygen atom attracts >> electrons much more strongly (i.e. is much more electronegative) than >> the hydrogen atoms (1+). This results in a charge transfer from the >> hydrogen atoms towards the oxygen atom and, hence, the polarity of the >> water molecule. > Uh, Fakey... It doesn't say what you think it says. > > What's the electronegativity of oxygen? <http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Electronegativity.html> "The electronegativity of an atom is a measure of its affinity for electrons." <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_molecule.html> ================================================== Due to the relatively large positive charge on the oxygen atom nucleus (8+) and the closeness of its electrons, the oxygen atom attracts electrons much more strongly (i.e. is much more electronegative) than the hydrogen atoms (1+). This results in a charge transfer from the hydrogen atoms towards the oxygen atom and, hence, the polarity of the water molecule. The molecule H2O has 10 electrons associated, 8 from the oxygen atom and one each from the two hydrogen atoms. ================================================== So now you're denying that covalent bonds exist within water molecules... but you're far too stupid to know why you've just made that k'lame. Aren't you the *moron* who k'lamed the water molecule had 2 positive poles and 2 negative poles? Yeah... yeah, you are. SPNAK! > <snip attempted dodge> Says the lying dodging moron. LOL >> And all of the above backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies by people >> far smarter and saner than you, Moron. > Isn't it funny that they really agree with me, not you, but > you can't understand it. Isn't it funny that you're too much of a moron to even understand those 2517 peer-reviewed studies, yet you k'lame to know that they agree with you, when you're the moron who k'lamed that water is molecularly tetrahedral, has 4 poles (2 negative and two positive) and cannot be plasmized? SPNAK! >>> https://www.google.com/search?q=electronegativity+of+oxygen >>>> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous >>>> phase and air have a molar volume >>> Water in its gaseous phase doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law, >>> moron. Do you know what steam tables are, and why sane >>> people use them? >> You just love proving yourself to be a moron, don't you? >> >> <http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17362/what-type-of-substances-allows-the-use-of-the-ideal-gas-law> >> ======================================== >> Pure water vapor at 1 atm and 373 K has Pr=1/217=0.0046, so the ideal >> gas law applies to within 10% error. >> >> The ideal gas law is derived from a model (the ideal gas), and like >> every other model it applies where it's underling assumptions are good >> approximations to reality. >> ======================================== >> >> The Ideal Gas Law is applied to the air *and* the gaseous phase water >> vapor, because it comes within 10% error, one of the criteria for >> using the Ideal Gas Law, you fecking nong. Moron. >> >> SPNAK! > If that's true, it isn't a very close fit, is it? It doesn't have to be a perfect fit. The criteria for using the Ideal Gas Law is if it is within 10% error. Both water in its gaseous phase in air, and air itself, are within that margin of error. But your backpedaling "it isn't a very close fit" blather is noted as your tacit admission that you were *wrong*. Again. SPNAK! > Water doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law. I'm right. No, you're wrong. I've proven you're wrong. Now you're backpedaling and lying. That doesn't make you right, that makes you a backpedaling lying moron who is wrong. SPNAK! >> The Ideal Gas Law is applied to the air *and* the gaseous phase water >> vapor, because it comes within 10% error, one of the criteria for >> using the Ideal Gas Law, you fecking nong. Moron. > LOL! So you have to mix a little water vapor with a lot of > air, to get a 10% fit. Blither-blather from a blither-blathering moron. Are you now k'laming the percentage water in the atmosphere is more than a maximum of ~4%, you fecking *moron*? SPNAK! > Water doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law. I'm right. Be > humble and move on, spankee. I've proven you're wrong. The Ideal Gas Law is used for water in its gaseous phase in the atmosphere, just as I did in proving James McGinn and his kooky conspiracy theory wrong. You're just a blither-blathering backpedaling lying moron. SPNAK! >>> I can see why you lost an argument with another raving loon. >>> You have more kooksine than he does! >> You mean my having utterly destroyed James McGinn's kooky theory by >> proving via several different avenues that it is a physical >> impossibility, such as the fact that water plasma does not and cannot >> exist in the troposphere? > You are losing an argument with a wacked out kook. > Your father must finally be proud of you! Is that why he's snipping out my posts wholesale and finds himself utterly unable to refute the scientific truth I promulgate? Or is the more likely explanation that he's lost and you're just a delusional spankard? Yeah, yeah that's it. SPNAK! Moron. LOL -- 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. 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 | 2016-03-11 21:44 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <l7i5ebteuqfi3pr89li8k6j9e9vgpddga3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #561430 |
Fakey wrote: > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain, in > > > Fakey wrote: > > >> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in > > >>> Fakey wrote: > > >>>> What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K. > > >>> ROFL! There are no molecules in a plasma, faketard. > >>> Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature. > > >> You apparently *like* proving yourself to be a moron: > >> > >> <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/water-and-plasma.390771/> > >> "Any substance - regardless of what is its composition - becomes > >> plasma if heated high enough. However, once it is heated it doesn't > >> contain molecules, as all chemical bonds are broken." > > > Uh, Fakey... you just posted a cite that says what i just > > said. > > You lying kook, you k'lamed that water could not become plasmized: > "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature." I was right. You don't understand this sentence, which YOU quoted: "However, once it is heated it doesn't contain molecules, as all chemical bonds are broken." That means, fakey, that once it's heated to the plasma phase, there are no longer any water molecules. You just have a soup of H nuclei, O nuclei, and swarming electrons. No more water. Just like i already told you. That's what "plasma" means, tardlet. Please bleat & bray: ____________________________________ > >>> What's the electronegativity of oxygen, Ersatzia? > > >> Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen > > > Still trying to deny the obvious? > > Still demonstrating that you're a moron? LOL <snip obfuscating blither-blather> C'mon, fakey. Why can't you answer the question? It's a very simple question. Everyone knows that you know the answer. The electronegativity of oxygen is _.__. Are you scared, fakey? Did you print out the cool periodic table yet, fakey? -- "..the term 'electronegativity' denotes a *positive* nucleal charge." --Fakey the Chemist waxes stupid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 15:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1mjycfl.12kzhb91i2ro17N%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #561497 |
Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote: > Fakey wrote: > > > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain, in > > > > > Fakey wrote: > > > > >> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in > > > > >>> Fakey wrote: > > > > >>>> What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K. > > > > >>> ROFL! There are no molecules in a plasma, faketard. > > >>> Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature. > > > > >> You apparently *like* proving yourself to be a moron: > > >> > > >> <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/water-and-plasma.390771/> > > >> "Any substance - regardless of what is its composition - becomes > > >> plasma if heated high enough. However, once it is heated it doesn't > > >> contain molecules, as all chemical bonds are broken." > > > > > Uh, Fakey... you just posted a cite that says what i just > > > said. > > > > You lying kook, you k'lamed that water could not become plasmized: > > "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature." > > I was right. You don't understand this sentence, which YOU > quoted: > > "However, once it is heated it doesn't contain molecules, as > all chemical bonds are broken." > > That means, fakey, that once it's heated to the plasma > phase, there are no longer any water molecules. You just > have a soup of H nuclei, O nuclei, and swarming electrons. > No more water. Just like i already told you. > > That's what "plasma" means, tardlet. > > Please bleat & bray: ____________________________________ > > > > >>> What's the electronegativity of oxygen, Ersatzia? > > > > >> Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen > > > > > Still trying to deny the obvious? > > > > Still demonstrating that you're a moron? LOL > > <snip obfuscating blither-blather> > > C'mon, fakey. Why can't you answer the question? > It's a very simple question. > Everyone knows that you know the answer. > > The electronegativity of oxygen is _.__. > > Are you scared, fakey? > > Did you print out the cool periodic table yet, fakey? > He'll run away again, I bet you a pound to a penny. -- ^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 | Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 23:08 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <hnn5eb1hd58o4gm438s8dlf87q05rc6qr7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #561527 |
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote: > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote: > > > Fakey wrote: > > > > > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain, in > > > > > > > Fakey wrote: > > > > > > >> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in > > > > > > >>> Fakey wrote: > > > > > > >>>> What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K. > > > > > > >>> ROFL! There are no molecules in a plasma, faketard. > > > >>> Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature. > > > > > > >> You apparently *like* proving yourself to be a moron: > > > >> > > > >> <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/water-and-plasma.390771/> > > > >> "Any substance - regardless of what is its composition - becomes > > > >> plasma if heated high enough. However, once it is heated it doesn't > > > >> contain molecules, as all chemical bonds are broken." > > > > > > > Uh, Fakey... you just posted a cite that says what i just > > > > said. > > > > > > You lying kook, you k'lamed that water could not become plasmized: > > > "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature." > > > > I was right. You don't understand this sentence, which YOU > > quoted: > > > > "However, once it is heated it doesn't contain molecules, as > > all chemical bonds are broken." > > > > That means, fakey, that once it's heated to the plasma > > phase, there are no longer any water molecules. You just > > have a soup of H nuclei, O nuclei, and swarming electrons. > > No more water. Just like i already told you. > > > > That's what "plasma" means, tardlet. > > > > Please bleat & bray: ____________________________________ > > > > > > > >>> What's the electronegativity of oxygen, Ersatzia? > > > > > > >> Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen > > > > > > > Still trying to deny the obvious? > > > > > > Still demonstrating that you're a moron? LOL > > > > <snip obfuscating blither-blather> > > > > C'mon, fakey. Why can't you answer the question? > > It's a very simple question. > > Everyone knows that you know the answer. > > > > The electronegativity of oxygen is _.__. > > > > Are you scared, fakey? > > > > Did you print out the cool periodic table yet, fakey? > > > > He'll run away again, I bet you a pound to a penny. I'm expecting the broadside of froth. Maybe even a faglame! But will he answer? Never.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 15:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1mjycuo.c1gq52zwpbgzN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #561530 |
Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote: [...] > > > C'mon, fakey. Why can't you answer the question? > > > It's a very simple question. > > > Everyone knows that you know the answer. > > > > > > The electronegativity of oxygen is _.__. > > > > > > Are you scared, fakey? > > > > > > Did you print out the cool periodic table yet, fakey? > > > > > > > He'll run away again, I bet you a pound to a penny. > > > > I'm expecting the broadside of froth. Maybe even a faglame! > But will he answer? Never. > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thxAqdxGSPU> He's fruity and he's frothy, man. -- ^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 | Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 10:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.314ca868e224637898cafd@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #561530 |
In article <hnn5eb1hd58o4gm438s8dlf87q05rc6qr7@4ax.com>, bender@the.future says... > > snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote: > > > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote: > > > > > Fakey wrote: > > > > > > > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain, in > > > > > > > > > Fakey wrote: > > > > > > > > >> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in > > > > > > > > >>> Fakey wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>> What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K. > > > > > > > > >>> ROFL! There are no molecules in a plasma, faketard. > > > > >>> Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature. > > > > > > > > >> You apparently *like* proving yourself to be a moron: > > > > >> > > > > >> <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/water-and-plasma.390771/> > > > > >> "Any substance - regardless of what is its composition - becomes > > > > >> plasma if heated high enough. However, once it is heated it doesn't > > > > >> contain molecules, as all chemical bonds are broken." > > > > > > > > > Uh, Fakey... you just posted a cite that says what i just > > > > > said. > > > > > > > > You lying kook, you k'lamed that water could not become plasmized: > > > > "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature." > > > > > > I was right. You don't understand this sentence, which YOU > > > quoted: > > > > > > "However, once it is heated it doesn't contain molecules, as > > > all chemical bonds are broken." > > > > > > That means, fakey, that once it's heated to the plasma > > > phase, there are no longer any water molecules. You just > > > have a soup of H nuclei, O nuclei, and swarming electrons. > > > No more water. Just like i already told you. > > > > > > That's what "plasma" means, tardlet. > > > > > > Please bleat & bray: ____________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > >>> What's the electronegativity of oxygen, Ersatzia? > > > > > > > > >> Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen > > > > > > > > > Still trying to deny the obvious? > > > > > > > > Still demonstrating that you're a moron? LOL > > > > > > <snip obfuscating blither-blather> > > > > > > C'mon, fakey. Why can't you answer the question? > > > It's a very simple question. > > > Everyone knows that you know the answer. > > > > > > The electronegativity of oxygen is _.__. > > > > > > Are you scared, fakey? > > > > > > Did you print out the cool periodic table yet, fakey? > > > > > > > He'll run away again, I bet you a pound to a penny. > > I'm expecting the broadside of froth. Maybe even a faglame! > But will he answer? Never. Extra points for faglames. "LOL" -- Mustaffa Sheboygan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 10:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.314ca8392186658698cafc@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #561527 |
In article <1mjycfl.12kzhb91i2ro17N%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, snipeco.2 @gmail.com says... > > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote: > > > Fakey wrote: > > > > > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain, in > > > > > > > Fakey wrote: > > > > > > >> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in > > > > > > >>> Fakey wrote: > > > > > > >>>> What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K. > > > > > > >>> ROFL! There are no molecules in a plasma, faketard. > > > >>> Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature. > > > > > > >> You apparently *like* proving yourself to be a moron: > > > >> > > > >> <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/water-and-plasma.390771/> > > > >> "Any substance - regardless of what is its composition - becomes > > > >> plasma if heated high enough. However, once it is heated it doesn't > > > >> contain molecules, as all chemical bonds are broken." > > > > > > > Uh, Fakey... you just posted a cite that says what i just > > > > said. > > > > > > You lying kook, you k'lamed that water could not become plasmized: > > > "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature." > > > > I was right. You don't understand this sentence, which YOU > > quoted: > > > > "However, once it is heated it doesn't contain molecules, as > > all chemical bonds are broken." > > > > That means, fakey, that once it's heated to the plasma > > phase, there are no longer any water molecules. You just > > have a soup of H nuclei, O nuclei, and swarming electrons. > > No more water. Just like i already told you. > > > > That's what "plasma" means, tardlet. > > > > Please bleat & bray: ____________________________________ > > > > > > > >>> What's the electronegativity of oxygen, Ersatzia? > > > > > > >> Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen > > > > > > > Still trying to deny the obvious? > > > > > > Still demonstrating that you're a moron? LOL > > > > <snip obfuscating blither-blather> > > > > C'mon, fakey. Why can't you answer the question? > > It's a very simple question. > > Everyone knows that you know the answer. > > > > The electronegativity of oxygen is _.__. > > > > Are you scared, fakey? > > > > Did you print out the cool periodic table yet, fakey? > > > > He'll run away again, I bet you a pound to a penny. I'll chip in a quid... whatever THAT is! -- Mustaffa Sheboygan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 18:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1mjykwk.17jwwbkxcociaN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #561601 |
Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote: > In article <1mjycfl.12kzhb91i2ro17N%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, snipeco.2 > @gmail.com says... > > > > > > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote: > > > > > Fakey wrote: > > > > > > > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain, in > > > > > > > > > Fakey wrote: > > > > > > > > >> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in > > > > > > > > >>> Fakey wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>> What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K. > > > > > > > > >>> ROFL! There are no molecules in a plasma, faketard. > > > > >>> Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature. > > > > > > > > >> You apparently *like* proving yourself to be a moron: > > > > >> > > > > >> <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/water-and-plasma.390771/> > > > > >> "Any substance - regardless of what is its composition - becomes > > > > >> plasma if heated high enough. However, once it is heated it doesn't > > > > >> contain molecules, as all chemical bonds are broken." > > > > > > > > > Uh, Fakey... you just posted a cite that says what i just > > > > > said. > > > > > > > > You lying kook, you k'lamed that water could not become plasmized: > > > > "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature." > > > > > > I was right. You don't understand this sentence, which YOU > > > quoted: > > > > > > "However, once it is heated it doesn't contain molecules, as > > > all chemical bonds are broken." > > > > > > That means, fakey, that once it's heated to the plasma > > > phase, there are no longer any water molecules. You just > > > have a soup of H nuclei, O nuclei, and swarming electrons. > > > No more water. Just like i already told you. > > > > > > That's what "plasma" means, tardlet. > > > > > > Please bleat & bray: ____________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > >>> What's the electronegativity of oxygen, Ersatzia? > > > > > > > > >> Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen > > > > > > > > > Still trying to deny the obvious? > > > > > > > > Still demonstrating that you're a moron? LOL > > > > > > <snip obfuscating blither-blather> > > > > > > C'mon, fakey. Why can't you answer the question? > > > It's a very simple question. > > > Everyone knows that you know the answer. > > > > > > The electronegativity of oxygen is _.__. > > > > > > Are you scared, fakey? > > > > > > Did you print out the cool periodic table yet, fakey? > > > > > > > He'll run away again, I bet you a pound to a penny. > > I'll chip in a quid... whatever THAT is! It's like a buck but worth more. -- ^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 | Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 10:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.314caafc51b1918498caff@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #561603 |
In article <1mjykwk.17jwwbkxcociaN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, snipeco.2 @gmail.com says... > > Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote: > > > In article <1mjycfl.12kzhb91i2ro17N%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, snipeco.2 > > @gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote: > > > > > > > Fakey wrote: > > > > > > > > > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain, in > > > > > > > > > > > Fakey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in > > > > > > > > > > >>> Fakey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>>> What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K. > > > > > > > > > > >>> ROFL! There are no molecules in a plasma, faketard. > > > > > >>> Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature. > > > > > > > > > > >> You apparently *like* proving yourself to be a moron: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/water-and-plasma.390771/> > > > > > >> "Any substance - regardless of what is its composition - becomes > > > > > >> plasma if heated high enough. However, once it is heated it doesn't > > > > > >> contain molecules, as all chemical bonds are broken." > > > > > > > > > > > Uh, Fakey... you just posted a cite that says what i just > > > > > > said. > > > > > > > > > > You lying kook, you k'lamed that water could not become plasmized: > > > > > "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature." > > > > > > > > I was right. You don't understand this sentence, which YOU > > > > quoted: > > > > > > > > "However, once it is heated it doesn't contain molecules, as > > > > all chemical bonds are broken." > > > > > > > > That means, fakey, that once it's heated to the plasma > > > > phase, there are no longer any water molecules. You just > > > > have a soup of H nuclei, O nuclei, and swarming electrons. > > > > No more water. Just like i already told you. > > > > > > > > That's what "plasma" means, tardlet. > > > > > > > > Please bleat & bray: ____________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> What's the electronegativity of oxygen, Ersatzia? > > > > > > > > > > >> Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen > > > > > > > > > > > Still trying to deny the obvious? > > > > > > > > > > Still demonstrating that you're a moron? LOL > > > > > > > > <snip obfuscating blither-blather> > > > > > > > > C'mon, fakey. Why can't you answer the question? > > > > It's a very simple question. > > > > Everyone knows that you know the answer. > > > > > > > > The electronegativity of oxygen is _.__. > > > > > > > > Are you scared, fakey? > > > > > > > > Did you print out the cool periodic table yet, fakey? > > > > > > > > > > He'll run away again, I bet you a pound to a penny. > > > > I'll chip in a quid... whatever THAT is! > > It's like a buck but worth more. It's worth more that The Almighty Dollar? Bloody HELL! I simply must have some! -- Mustaffa Sheboygan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "%" <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 11:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <97ro8n.58q.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #561610 |
Mustaffa Sheboygan wrote: > In article <1mjykwk.17jwwbkxcociaN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, snipeco.2 > @gmail.com says... > > >> >> Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote: >> >>> In article <1mjycfl.12kzhb91i2ro17N%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, snipeco.2 >>> @gmail.com says... >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Fakey wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain, in >>>>>> >>>>>>> Fakey wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fakey wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ROFL! There are no molecules in a plasma, faketard. >>>>>>>>> Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> You apparently *like* proving yourself to be a moron: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/water-and-plasma.390771/> >>>>>>>> "Any substance - regardless of what is its composition - >>>>>>>> becomes plasma if heated high enough. However, once it is >>>>>>>> heated it doesn't contain molecules, as all chemical bonds are >>>>>>>> broken." >>>>>> >>>>>>> Uh, Fakey... you just posted a cite that says what i just >>>>>>> said. >>>>>> >>>>>> You lying kook, you k'lamed that water could not become >>>>>> plasmized: "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma >>>>>> temperature." >>>>> >>>>> I was right. You don't understand this sentence, which YOU >>>>> quoted: >>>>> >>>>> "However, once it is heated it doesn't contain molecules, as >>>>> all chemical bonds are broken." >>>>> >>>>> That means, fakey, that once it's heated to the plasma >>>>> phase, there are no longer any water molecules. You just >>>>> have a soup of H nuclei, O nuclei, and swarming electrons. >>>>> No more water. Just like i already told you. >>>>> >>>>> That's what "plasma" means, tardlet. >>>>> >>>>> Please bleat & bray: ____________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> What's the electronegativity of oxygen, Ersatzia? >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental >>>>>>>> oxygen >>>>>> >>>>>>> Still trying to deny the obvious? >>>>>> >>>>>> Still demonstrating that you're a moron? LOL >>>>> >>>>> <snip obfuscating blither-blather> >>>>> >>>>> C'mon, fakey. Why can't you answer the question? >>>>> It's a very simple question. >>>>> Everyone knows that you know the answer. >>>>> >>>>> The electronegativity of oxygen is _.__. >>>>> >>>>> Are you scared, fakey? >>>>> >>>>> Did you print out the cool periodic table yet, fakey? >>>>> >>>> >>>> He'll run away again, I bet you a pound to a penny. >>> >>> I'll chip in a quid... whatever THAT is! >> >> It's like a buck but worth more. > > It's worth more that The Almighty Dollar? Bloody HELL! I simply must > have some! $1.44 US
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 02:13 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <6k26ebd6ki010e6gdt6gqi6hakeacrormf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #561601 |
Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote: > In article <1mjycfl.12kzhb91i2ro17N%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, snipeco.2 > @gmail.com says... > > > > > > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote: > > > > > Fakey wrote: > > > > > > > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain, in > > > > > > > > > Fakey wrote: > > > > > > > > >> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in > > > > > > > > >>> Fakey wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>> What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K. > > > > > > > > >>> ROFL! There are no molecules in a plasma, faketard. > > > > >>> Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature. > > > > > > > > >> You apparently *like* proving yourself to be a moron: > > > > >> > > > > >> <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/water-and-plasma.390771/> > > > > >> "Any substance - regardless of what is its composition - becomes > > > > >> plasma if heated high enough. However, once it is heated it doesn't > > > > >> contain molecules, as all chemical bonds are broken." > > > > > > > > > Uh, Fakey... you just posted a cite that says what i just > > > > > said. > > > > > > > > You lying kook, you k'lamed that water could not become plasmized: > > > > "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature." > > > > > > I was right. You don't understand this sentence, which YOU > > > quoted: > > > > > > "However, once it is heated it doesn't contain molecules, as > > > all chemical bonds are broken." > > > > > > That means, fakey, that once it's heated to the plasma > > > phase, there are no longer any water molecules. You just > > > have a soup of H nuclei, O nuclei, and swarming electrons. > > > No more water. Just like i already told you. > > > > > > That's what "plasma" means, tardlet. > > > > > > Please bleat & bray: ____________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > >>> What's the electronegativity of oxygen, Ersatzia? > > > > > > > > >> Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen > > > > > > > > > Still trying to deny the obvious? > > > > > > > > Still demonstrating that you're a moron? LOL > > > > > > <snip obfuscating blither-blather> > > > > > > C'mon, fakey. Why can't you answer the question? > > > It's a very simple question. > > > Everyone knows that you know the answer. > > > > > > The electronegativity of oxygen is _.__. > > > > > > Are you scared, fakey? > > > > > > Did you print out the cool periodic table yet, fakey? > > > > > > > He'll run away again, I bet you a pound to a penny. > > I'll chip in a quid... whatever THAT is! I'll raise you a shilling. Snipey, what IS a shilling?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 18:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1mjymnp.lvxg8eewshqqN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #561608 |
Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote: > Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote: > > > In article <1mjycfl.12kzhb91i2ro17N%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, snipeco.2 > > @gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote: > > > > > > > Fakey wrote: > > > > > > > > > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain, in > > > > > > > > > > > Fakey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in > > > > > > > > > > >>> Fakey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>>> What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K. > > > > > > > > > > >>> ROFL! There are no molecules in a plasma, faketard. > > > > > >>> Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature. > > > > > > > > > > >> You apparently *like* proving yourself to be a moron: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/water-and-plasma.390771/> > > > > > >> "Any substance - regardless of what is its composition - becomes > > > > > >> plasma if heated high enough. However, once it is heated it doesn't > > > > > >> contain molecules, as all chemical bonds are broken." > > > > > > > > > > > Uh, Fakey... you just posted a cite that says what i just > > > > > > said. > > > > > > > > > > You lying kook, you k'lamed that water could not become plasmized: > > > > > "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature." > > > > > > > > I was right. You don't understand this sentence, which YOU > > > > quoted: > > > > > > > > "However, once it is heated it doesn't contain molecules, as > > > > all chemical bonds are broken." > > > > > > > > That means, fakey, that once it's heated to the plasma > > > > phase, there are no longer any water molecules. You just > > > > have a soup of H nuclei, O nuclei, and swarming electrons. > > > > No more water. Just like i already told you. > > > > > > > > That's what "plasma" means, tardlet. > > > > > > > > Please bleat & bray: ____________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> What's the electronegativity of oxygen, Ersatzia? > > > > > > > > > > >> Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen > > > > > > > > > > > Still trying to deny the obvious? > > > > > > > > > > Still demonstrating that you're a moron? LOL > > > > > > > > <snip obfuscating blither-blather> > > > > > > > > C'mon, fakey. Why can't you answer the question? > > > > It's a very simple question. > > > > Everyone knows that you know the answer. > > > > > > > > The electronegativity of oxygen is _.__. > > > > > > > > Are you scared, fakey? > > > > > > > > Did you print out the cool periodic table yet, fakey? > > > > > > > > > > He'll run away again, I bet you a pound to a penny. > > > > I'll chip in a quid... whatever THAT is! > > I'll raise you a shilling. > > Snipey, what IS a shilling? A shilling was one twentieth of a pound sterling in old money, back in the days when there were 12 pennies to the shilling and 240 of them to the pound. In those far of pre-decimalisation times money was expressed in Pounds (£) Shillings and Pence, abbreviated to LSD. In modern decimalised money an old shilling is equivalent to five pence. There you go, more information than you will ever need to remember. ;) -- ^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]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web