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 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 06:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <de99b005387de55767ac92a3a7655624@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #561497 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in <news:l7i5ebteuqfi3pr89li8k6j9e9vgpddga3@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again: >> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain, in >>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again: >>>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in >>>>> 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." >>> 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." You fucking moron. You k'lamed water could not be plasmized. It most obviously can. <https://www.quora.com/Can-liquids-be-turned-into-plasma> ========================================================= Owen Jones, Physics graduate, postdoctoral researcher in magnetic confinement fusion. In order to jump straight from a liquid to a plasma, you need to supply sufficient energy to remove the electrons from the atoms over a large enough volume that the material can be classified as a plasma (see my answer to this question for more details on what constitutes a plasma). The easiest way of doing this is with an extremely powerful, intense laser pulse. Some of the world's most powerful short-pulse lasers are capable of producing power densities of a billion trillion (10^21) watts per square centimetre. The electric fields generated by these lasers are strong enough to rip electrons from the atoms in any material, be it solid, liquid or gas, in much less than a trillionth of a second. The material doesn't even get a chance to go through the normal solid-liquid-gas phase transitions; it's completely vaporized and ionized almost as soon as the laser pulse hits it. So in answer to your question about converting a liquid straight to a plasma, it's possible as long as you have a big enough laser! ========================================================= <https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_create_a_plasma_from_water_vapour_in_a_laboratory> ========================================================= Is it possible to create a plasma from water vapour in a laboratory? Christophe O Laux · Ecole Centrale Paris We did exactly that, create a plasma in pure water vapor. We published a first paper on the topic: Sainct, F.P., Lacoste, D.A., Kirkpatrick, M.J., Odic, E., and Laux, C.O., Experimental study of nanosecond repetitively pulsed discharges in water vapor, International Journal of Plasma Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 6, no. 2, Sep. 2012. More publications should follow soon. ========================================================= SPNAK! on the backpedaling bleating lying blither-blathering moron. LOL > That means, fakey, that once it's heated to the plasma > phase, there are no longer any water molecules. Awww, look at the kook backpedal. What were the originating molecules, Backpedaling KookTard? Oh, that's right, they were water, so yeah, water can be plasmized. SPNAK! > You just have a soup of H nuclei, O nuclei, and swarming electrons. > No more water. Just like i already told you. Except you were *wrong*, as I proved. Water can be plasmized. Some fucking idiot blither-blathered: "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature." Water can be plasmized. SPNAK! > That's what "plasma" means, tardlet. Backpedal much, Spankard? LOL Thanks for admitting I was right when I said water could be plasmized, Moron. SPNAK! > Please bleat & bray: ____________________________________ Moron. LOL >>>>> 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. If it was "a very simple question", you'd not be begging your Usenet Lord and Master for the answer. SPNAK! > Everyone knows that you know the answer. Of course I know the answer. I'm a genius who can easily grasp advanced concepts, whereas you're a backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering moron who can't grasp that water can be plasmized. LOL > The electronegativity of oxygen is _.__. Aren't you the moron who k'lames that elemental oxygen has a constant electronegativity? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity> ================================================= As it is usually calculated, electronegativity is not a property of an atom alone, but rather a property of an atom in a molecule.[4] The property of electronegativity of an atom in a molecule is different from the electrode potential of the element, which depends on the difference in free energy of the element in its standard state and in ionic solution, and it is different from the ionization potential of the atom, and from its electron affinity; although it is related to these properties in a general way. It has been found possible to formulate an electronegativity scale of the elements by the analysis of the values of delta and delta_umlaut given by the single-bond energies. In Table 3-6 values of delta_umlaut are listed for the bonds between nonmetallic atoms whose energies are given in Table 3-4. These are obtained in the same ways as those in Table 3-3. It is seen on inspection that the valued of delta_umlaut do not satisfy an additivity relation; they cannot be represented as differences of terms characteristic of the two atoms in a bond. However, the square roots of the delta_umlaut values do satisfy approximately a relation of this sort. The method just described for formulating the electronegativity scale cannot be used for the remaining elements in general because of a lack of knowledge of enthalpies of formation of their compounds as gases and of the values of single-bond energies for the elements themselves. Except for nitrogen and oxygen, which are discussed below, the elements in their standard states do not differ much in energy from states involving normal single covalent bonds between the atoms. It is the unusual stability of multiple bonds for oxygen and nitrogen, stabilizing their normal states, that often leads to negative values of the enthalpy of formation of substances. By the use of Equation 3-13 the difference in electronegativity of two elements can be calculated from the enthalpy of formation of the compounds formed by them. Table 3-8: The values given in the table refer to the common oxidation states of the elements. For some elements variation of the electronegativity with oxidation number is observed. [4] Pauling, Linus (1960). Nature of the Chemical Bond. Cornell University Press. pp. 88–107. ISBN 0-8014-0333-2. ================================================= How do you oxidize *oxygen* except with fluorine to figure out its enthalpy of formation and thus its exact electronegativity, you fecking *moron*? *No* *one* wants to formulate FOOF (O2F2) to find out the exact oxidation state of elemental oxygen. You know, FOOF, Lucifer's Gas? That shit makes *ice* explode. It makes asbestos *burn*. It reacts with gold. Hit it with a CO2 fire extinguisher, you just make it mad. So... your bleating about oxygen's electronegativity means you're bleating about an approximation, Moron. Even Pauling himself admitted that elemental electronegativity is an approximation, and thus isn't all that accurate, which is why he only presented them with single decimal accuracy. Moron. Further, oxygen's affinity for itself in forming multiple bonds means that for a lot of substances, the enthalpy of formation is negative, thus the electronegativity is dependent upon which substance oxygen is interacting with and whatever other factors contribute to or detract from that interaction. Nitrogen is the same way, nitrogen trichloride isn't unstable because of weak N-Cl bonds, but rather because nitrogen is constantly trying to reform into triple-bonded N2, with a negative enthalpy of formation and thus exothermic reaction of nitrogen trichloride. You know, Linus Pauling... the guy who developed the first accurate electronegativity scale for molecules... you think *he* might know a bit more about electronegativity than a moronic bleatfarting retard like you, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL SPNAK! > Are you scared, fakey? Are you stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? Yeah... yeah you are. LOL > Did you print out the cool periodic table yet, fakey? Did you buy a new brain yet, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? SPNAK! -- Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: ===================================== The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*); That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms; That superposition is the same as wave interference; That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves; That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things; That RMS isn't a DC voltage; That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L; That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1; The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave; That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical engineering, physics and control systems engineering; What a positive or negative vector is; That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero; That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic"; That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+. That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge. What the definition of the word "equivalent" is. That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples. That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842% margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F. That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does *not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames. That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes into account molar volume. That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error". That water can be plasmized. That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge. That nuclear charge does not equal effective nuclear charge. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 16:27 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <jn8aeb904e873rujvtlvcjmqvan90513c4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #562032 |
Fakey wrote: > You fucking moron. You k'lamed water could not be plasmized. It most > obviously can. Wrong again, lying k00k. YOU claimed water can be a plasma and still be water. I corrected you: when water becomes plasma, it's no longer water. You realize i was right, so you are trying desperately to rewrite who said what. Typical fakery. You will continue to froth & foam about it anyway because you are... well, a kook. -- "What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K." --Fakey claims water can exist as a plasma
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 05:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3903ab7c1d38060641720c2bbeea3186@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #562072 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in <news:jn8aeb904e873rujvtlvcjmqvan90513c4@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again: >> You fucking moron. You k'lamed water could not be plasmized. It most >> obviously can. > Wrong again, lying k00k. Some backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering moron squeaked: "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature." Try again, Moron. You're not backpedaling fast enough. <snicker> > YOU claimed water can be a plasma and still be water. Fucking liar. I was proving exactly the opposite in drop-kicking that moron James McGill across Usenet because *he* was k'laming that water could be a plasma that forms droplets in the atmosphere. Good god, you fucking moron, just how pathetic are you going to let yourself become? You've already sunk to telling lies that are diametrically opposed to reality. You must *like* getting your stupid ass kicked, likely because you're such a pathetic moronic shut-in loser that it's the only attention you can get. <snicker> > I corrected you: when water becomes plasma, it's no longer water. Bullshit, you lying moron. You k'lamed water couldn't be plasmized. Some backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering moron squeaked: "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature." SPNAK! > You realize i was right, Translation: "Everyone knows I was wrong, and that I'm now desperately backpedaling." > so you are trying desperately to rewrite who said what. > Typical fakery. And now, on top of your backpedaling and lying, you're projecting. LOL > You will continue to froth & foam about it anyway because > you are... well, a kook. Says the drop-kicked kooktard as he froths and foams. Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron. <snicker> -- Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: ===================================== The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*). That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms. That superposition is the same as wave interference. That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves. That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things. That RMS isn't a DC voltage. That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L. That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1. The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave. That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical engineering, physics and control systems engineering. What a positive or negative vector is. That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero. That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic". That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective nuclear charge. What the definition of the word "equivalent" is. That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples. That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842% margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F. That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does *not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames. That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes into account molar volume. That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error". That water can be plasmized. That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 16:00 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <phrcebdvrapsujqujlstscppktkfi1bokr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #562236 |
Fakey wrote: > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in > > Wrong again, lying k00k. YOU claimed water can be a plasma > > and still be water. I corrected you: when water becomes > > plasma, it's no longer water. > > Fucking liar. I was proving exactly the opposite in drop-kicking that > moron James McGill across Usenet because *he* was k'laming that water > could be a plasma that forms droplets in the atmosphere. And with that, Fakey crabwalks backwards as fast as his little arms & legs can take him. Oh, mind the door, fakey. It opens in, not out. <people applauded> -- "What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K." --Fakey claims water can exist as a plasma
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 17:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <a32a432e47d03e43dff0b1b633e270dd@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #562277 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in <news:phrcebdvrapsujqujlstscppktkfi1bokr@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 >>> Wrong again, lying k00k. YOU claimed water can be a plasma >>> and still be water. I corrected you: when water becomes >>> plasma, it's no longer water. >> Fucking liar. I was proving exactly the opposite in drop-kicking that >> moron James McGill across Usenet because *he* was k'laming that water >> could be a plasma that forms droplets in the atmosphere. > And with that, Fakey crabwalks backwards as fast as his > little arms & legs can take him. > > Oh, mind the door, fakey. It opens in, not out. > > <people applauded> Awww, look at the moronic kook spewing lies in an attempt at evading having been SPNAK!'d so hard he was forced to wholesale snip everything kicking his ass (which in one post was everything, and in the above post was nearly everything... he had to leave something so he could bleat out his butthurt.). LOL Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? Don't go running away now... you and I are just getting started. <snicker> -- Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: ===================================== The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*). That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms. That superposition is the same as wave interference. That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves. That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things. That RMS isn't a DC voltage. That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L. That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1. The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave. That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical engineering, physics and control systems engineering. What a positive or negative vector is. That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero. That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic". That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective nuclear charge. What the definition of the word "equivalent" is. That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples. That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842% margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F. That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does *not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames. That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes into account molar volume. That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error". That water can be plasmized. That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 19:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1mk62pe.1t95sk6oqv1myN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #562236 |
Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> (Snickerturd) furiously wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> [...] > > FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again: [...] > >> You fucking moron. [...] > > Wrong again, lying k00k. [...] > Some backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering moron squeaked: [...] > Try again, Moron. You're not backpedaling fast enough. [...] > <snicker> [...] > Fucking liar. I was proving exactly the opposite in drop-kicking that > moron [...] > Good god, you fucking moron, just how pathetic are you going to let > yourself become? You've already sunk to telling lies that are > diametrically opposed to reality. You must *like* getting your stupid > ass kicked, likely because you're such a pathetic moronic shut-in > loser that it's the only attention you can get. [...] > <snicker> [...] > Bullshit, you lying moron. You k'lamed water couldn't be plasmized. [...] > Some backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering moron squeaked: > "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature." [...] > SPNAK! [...] > Says the drop-kicked kooktard as he froths and foams. [...] > Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL [...] > I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron. [...] > <snicker> > Impressive. Very impressive. -- ^Ï^. Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts. My pet rock Gordon wants home rule for England.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 03:30 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <v8ogebt8pa435h3c7s1m2eghr5vnum1id8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #562663 |
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote: > Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> > (Snickerturd) furiously wrote: > > > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > [...] > > > FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again: > [...] > > >> You fucking moron. > [...] > > > Wrong again, lying k00k. > [...] > > Some backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering moron squeaked: > [...] > > Try again, Moron. You're not backpedaling fast enough. > [...] > > <snicker> > [...] > > Fucking liar. I was proving exactly the opposite in drop-kicking that > > moron > [...] > > Good god, you fucking moron, just how pathetic are you going to let > > yourself become? You've already sunk to telling lies that are > > diametrically opposed to reality. You must *like* getting your stupid > > ass kicked, likely because you're such a pathetic moronic shut-in > > loser that it's the only attention you can get. > [...] > > <snicker> > [...] > > Bullshit, you lying moron. You k'lamed water couldn't be plasmized. > [...] > > Some backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering moron squeaked: > > "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature." > [...] > > SPNAK! > [...] > > Says the drop-kicked kooktard as he froths and foams. > [...] > > Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL > [...] > > I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron. > [...] > > <snicker> > > > > Impressive. Very impressive. When you have as little to hang your hat on as fakey, you invent what you can and make up the rest. If you handed fakey a new box of credibility, he'd trade it away in a heartbeat for a bag of peanuts. It's a living.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 17:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0bbcb797-e283-4767-b65a-9258b17e39cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #561178 |
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:36:15 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > 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. This kind of helps. But my question is can I use the ideal gas law with sauturated liquids or saturated vapors? – Greg Harrington Nov 23 '11 at 17:35 1 The ideal gas does not exhibit any behaviors related to saturation and condensation, which makes it very risky to apply in any situation where those behaviors might matter. Note that just replacing it with the Van der Waals equation of state won't help unless you understand the thermodynamics of the situation. This is rather the point of my answer: you have to understand the conditions for validity of the models you're thinking of applying and you are responsible for checking that they are satisfied. – dmckee♦ Nov 23 '11 at 17:54 So how do I know when I should use the Ideal Gas Law? I was looking at examples in the book and there were times where I thought I could use it, and they don't end up using it. – Greg Harrington Nov 23 '11 at 17:55 1 @Greg: "Is it true that I can use the ideal gas equation with pure liquids or pure gases?" - pure gases, yes; pure liquids, no. All that's needed is that the ideal gas assumptions should be "applicable" to the situation at hand. Usually, this means high temperatures (keeps the particles moving randomly) and low pressures (particles can be as far apart and noninteracting as possible). A liquid is a "gas" at low temperature and/or high pressure, so one requires a different equation of state. – user172 Nov 23 '11 at 23:58 1 Liquids that exhibit a surface tension (that is, essentially all of them) fail the no inter-particle forces at mean distance test (because those inter-particle fores are responsible for the surface tension). – dmckee♦ Nov 24 '11 at 0:52
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 20:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbtau7$okm$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #561334 |
On 3/10/2016 7:27 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:36:15 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> 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. > > > This kind of helps. <snip Ko0K crap>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 09:53 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <u9adnSPKH8pydH_LnZ2dnUU7-a2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #561052 |
On 3/10/16 12:19 AM, James McGinn wrote: > What is the boiling temp of H2O? One doesn't need boiling temp. The 1% of moisture making up the earth's troposphere is water vapor (gas) that evaporates from plants soils, rivers, lakes and oceans. Definition for James McGinn | Water Vapor > https://www.wordnik.com/words/water%20vapor > from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th > Edition > n. Water in a gaseous state, especially when diffused as a vapor in > the atmosphere and at a temperature below boiling point. > from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License > n. water in a gaseous state, especially when diffused in the > atmosphere Terminology: Evaporation Liquid water ==> water vapour (gas) Experiment: Put a couple of drops of water on a plate, and wait, watching carefully. Like magic, the drops of water convert to gas before your very eyes, James. That gas may contribute (via condensation) into rain later in the day. Evaporation from soil, oceans, plants and lakes results in a continuous supply of Water Vapor (gaseous H2O) in the earth's atmosphere. Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible gas, so there is nothing to see. > Water vapour (H2O molecules) > Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the *gaseous phase* of > water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor > can be produced from the *evaporation or boiling of liquid water* or > from the *sublimation of ice* . Unlike other forms of water, water > vapor is invisible. Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor > is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation. > It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can > lead to clouds. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 08:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4a372e83-7e88-4266-9b03-7400ba445c95@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #561550 |
Dne pátek 11. března 2016 16:53:23 UTC+1 Sam Wormley napsal(a): > On 3/10/16 12:19 AM, James McGinn wrote: > > What is the boiling temp of H2O? At pressure 610 Pa, the boiling point is 0.01 deg C / 273.15 K. It is water triple point, the reference point of absolute T scale, where all solid, liquid and gaseous phases of water coexist in thermodynamic equilibrium.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 20:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3573875a-314a-43ac-9fee-aa645fe81065@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #561006 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > > Do the math, dumbass. > > You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, Dumbass. LOL > > > Without gaseous H2O convection theory is reduced to nonsense: > > Wrong. Where's your inclusion of pressure differential due to > altitude, Jim? Pressure diffenrential?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 06:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2997c31859758123d1ae290c92f337f1@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #561020 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:3573875a-314a-43ac-9fee-aa645fe81065@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: >>> Do the math, dumbass. >> You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, Dumbass. LOL >>> Without gaseous H2O convection theory is reduced to nonsense: >> Wrong. Where's your inclusion of pressure differential due to >> altitude, Jim? > Pressure diffenrential? If you weren't a reality-denying kooktard too psychologically weak to go back and reexamine your underlying premise, you'd read the reality I promulgate and realize that the entire world is now laughing at you, Jim. I've proven you're insane, Jim... now what are you going to do? 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> -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 22:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bf8d6de4-6d2d-479c-b1f3-022886cf61a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #561045 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 9:59:37 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > Pressure diffenrential? > > If you weren't a reality-denying kooktard too psychologically weak to > go back and reexamine your underlying premise, you'd read the reality > I promulgate and realize that the entire world is now laughing at you, > Jim. I've proven you're insane, Jim... now what are you going to do? > > 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 It's gaseous phase only occurs at temps much higher. Sorry to burst your bubble.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 07:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ffa40135c12c11a7a50398d8686161fb@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #561050 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:bf8d6de4-6d2d-479c-b1f3-022886cf61a6@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 9:59:37 PM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> Pressure diffenrential? >> If you weren't a reality-denying kooktard too psychologically weak to >> go back and reexamine your underlying premise, you'd read the reality >> I promulgate and realize that the entire world is now laughing at you, >> Jim. I've proven you're insane, Jim... now what are you going to do? >> >> 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 > It's gaseous phase only occurs at temps much higher. > > Sorry to burst your bubble. Higher temperatures like the 12,000 K necessary for plasmized water to occur, Jim? IOW, your kooky theory is even farther off 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> -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 23:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d837306e-32c0-42c5-94fb-901dd8629e7e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #561059 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 10:34:40 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > James McGinn, in > <news:bf8d6de4-6d2d-479c-b1f3-022886cf61a6@googlegroups.com> did > thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > > > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 9:59:37 PM UTC-8, > > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > >>> Pressure diffenrential? > > >> If you weren't a reality-denying kooktard too psychologically weak to > >> go back and reexamine your underlying premise, you'd read the reality > >> I promulgate and realize that the entire world is now laughing at you, > >> Jim. I've proven you're insane, Jim... now what are you going to do? > >> > >> 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 > > > It's gaseous phase only occurs at temps much higher. > > > > Sorry to burst your bubble. > > Higher temperatures like the 12,000 K See steam tables.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 18:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2d8448f4623e0263f0e44013bc3ceaec@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #561072 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:d837306e-32c0-42c5-94fb-901dd8629e7e@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 10:34:40 PM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> James McGinn, in >> <news:bf8d6de4-6d2d-479c-b1f3-022886cf61a6@googlegroups.com> did >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> It's gaseous phase only occurs at temps much higher. >>> >>> Sorry to burst your bubble. >> Higher temperatures like the 12,000 K necessary for plasmized water to >> occur, Jim? >> >> IOW, your kooky theory is even farther off than you k'lame reality to >> be, Jim. By more than an order of magnitude. > See steam tables. Non sequiturs won't help you now, Jim. You've become a laughingstock, a buffoonish moron desperately backpedaling away from the kooky conspiracy theory that you were stupid enough to think actually reflected reality, when in fact it was off by nearly two orders of magnitude more than you claimed reality to be off. Here, Jim. Run away from your shame 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> -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer; that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place", that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 02:16 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <6be3eb1gn8kr2evrr1nhv30o6iji66m796@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #561190 |
Fakey wrote: > Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous > phase and air have a molar volume Water vapor doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law, retard. It's common knowledge... meaning everyone knows, except Ersatzia. I bet Jim even knows that. There is none so blind as he who will not see.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 09:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <919054026c4fc328069d2d37c918fad1@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #561197 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in <news:6be3eb1gn8kr2evrr1nhv30o6iji66m796@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again: >> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous >> phase and air have a molar volume > Water vapor doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law, retard. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong, Moron? LOL <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! > It's common knowledge... meaning everyone knows, except > Ersatzia. I bet Jim even knows that. It most certainly does follow the Ideal Gas Law when using it for water in its gaseous phase in the atmosphere, as I did to prove that James McGinn's kooky conspiracy theory was wrong. <http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137556/use-of-the-ideal-gas-law-for-earths-atmosphere-and-the-role-of-density> ================================================= To a good approximation the atmosphere behaves as an ideal gas, with each mole of gas obeying the law: pVm=RT ================================================= Hence my use of molar volume and molar density with a given temperature and pressure to make the molar volume of atmosphere in the example an intensive property. SPNAK! > There is none so blind as he who will not see. There are none so stupid as those who become emotionally invested in a wrong position and refuse to amend their stupidity. SPNAK! -- Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: ===================================== The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*); That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms; That superposition is the same as wave interference; That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves; That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things; That RMS isn't a DC voltage; That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L; That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1; The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave; That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical engineering, physics and control systems engineering; What a positive or negative vector is; That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero; That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic"; That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+. That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge. What the definition of the word "equivalent" is. That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples. That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 00:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1fc3dc3e-6425-4764-b73f-35af4176e478@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #561459 |
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 12:14:07 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in > <news:6be3eb1gn8kr2evrr1nhv30o6iji66m796@4ax.com> did thusly jump head > first into the wood chipper again: > > > FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again: > > >> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous > >> phase and air have a molar volume > > > Water vapor doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law, retard. > > Don't you ever get tired of being wrong, Moron? LOL Ideal gas laws apply to ideal gases. H2O isn't. It's really that simple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web