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 4 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 05:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <40cf388c9f85ba6b9c63bcb4daa35723@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #561466 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in <news:1fc3dc3e-6425-4764-b73f-35af4176e478@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 12:14:07 AM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> 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. ============================================================= Moron uses the steam tables on the atmosphere! And he k'lames he's sane! Bwahahaha! Ever hear of a Mollier diagram, you braindead halfwit? <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Mollier.pdf> SPNAK! ============================================================= The Ideal Gas Law doesn't require an *ideal* gas, Moron. Ever hear of PV = nRT? Yeah, you have no fucking idea what that means, huh. LOL Solving for volume: P = 101325 Pa T = 294.261 K R = 8.3144621 J/(mol*K) n = 1 V = 0.0241463 m^3 SPNAK! ============================================================= Now compare what was calculated above with: <http://www.webqc.org/van_der_waals_gas_law.html> (P + ((n^2 * a) / V^2)(V - nb) = nRT Parameters: Air P = 101325 Pa T = 294.261 K R = 8.3144621 J/(mol*K) n = 1 V = 0.024127215938815 m^3 Gee... the Ideal Gas Law when used with dry air is only 0.079% off from perfect. So using the Ideal Gas Law for dry air is well *within* 10% error. Moron. LOL SPNAK! ============================================================= Now, let's calculate for air with moisture. We'll go all out and assume 100% relative humidity as a worst case scenario, just so morons have no wiggle room to backpedal, lie, conflate and blither-blather. <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=psychrometric+properties> Using the same parameters as used above gives: V = 0.02445 m^3 Gee... that's only 1.337842% off from an ideal gas. Moron. And that 1.337842% is the molar density change due to water in its gaseous phase being in air... you'll note it's *less* dense than dry air. You'll also note it occupies a *larger* volume for the same molar quantity, thus it is *less* dense than dry air. SPNAK! ============================================================= <http://chemistry.bd.psu.edu/jircitano/gases.html> "The previous laws all assume that the gas being measured is an ideal gas, a gas that obeys them all exactly. But over a wide range of temperature, pressure, and volume, real gases deviate slightly from ideal. Since, according to Avogadro, the same volumes of gas contain the same number of moles, chemists could now determine the formulas of gaseous elements and their formula masses. The idea gas law is: PV = nRT Where n is the number of moles of the number of moles and R is a constant called the universal gas constant and is equal to approximately 0.0821 L-atm / mole-K." SPNAK! ================================================== So, go on and demonstrate yet again your lack of understanding of the Ideal Gas Law and molar volume. Moron. SPNAK! > It's really that simple. No, Jim. You're really that stupid and insane. -- 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 | Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 01:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nbaaeb11domn4vb5irj2nup3u402t1jvfi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #562017 |
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:48:59 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >Ever hear of a Mollier diagram, you braindead halfwit? Is it right by the yourlar signwave thingie?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 01:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a0f9d377-f8c0-469a-815e-a89fd734c272@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 > > <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. LOL. Your own reference indicates a 10% error. And this is in reference to a measurement that involves, at most, a 1% difference in weight. You are one desperate twit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 06:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <c84fe0f8201b303c9bbcbcbb9b97bd1d@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #561472 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:a0f9d377-f8c0-469a-815e-a89fd734c272@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 12:14:07 AM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> 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. > LOL. Your own reference indicates a 10% error. And this is in > reference to a measurement that involves, at most, a 1% difference > in weight. Stupid enough that you'd conflate "within 10% error" (a criteria for using the Ideal Gas Law) with "10% error", Jim? > You are one desperate twit. ============================================================= The Ideal Gas Law doesn't require an *ideal* gas, Moron. Ever hear of PV = nRT? Yeah, you have no fucking idea what that means, huh. LOL Solving for volume: P = 101325 Pa T = 294.261 K R = 8.3144621 J/(mol*K) n = 1 V = 0.0241463 m^3 SPNAK! ============================================================= Now compare what was calculated above with: <http://www.webqc.org/van_der_waals_gas_law.html> (P + ((n^2 * a) / V^2)(V - nb) = nRT Parameters: Air P = 101325 Pa T = 294.261 K R = 8.3144621 J/(mol*K) n = 1 V = 0.024127215938815 m^3 Gee... the Ideal Gas Law when used with dry air is only 0.079% off from perfect. So using the Ideal Gas Law for dry air is well *within* 10% error. Moron. LOL SPNAK! ============================================================= Now, let's calculate for air with moisture. We'll go all out and assume 100% relative humidity as a worst case scenario, just so morons have no wiggle room to backpedal, lie, conflate and blither-blather. <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=psychrometric+properties> Using the same parameters as used above gives: V = 0.02445 m^3 Gee... that's only 1.337842% off from an ideal gas. Moron. And that 1.337842% is the molar density change due to water in its gaseous phase being in air... you'll note it's *less* dense than dry air. SPNAK! ============================================================= <http://chemistry.bd.psu.edu/jircitano/gases.html> "The previous laws all assume that the gas being measured is an ideal gas, a gas that obeys them all exactly. But over a wide range of temperature, pressure, and volume, real gases deviate slightly from ideal. Since, according to Avogadro, the same volumes of gas contain the same number of moles, chemists could now determine the formulas of gaseous elements and their formula masses. The idea gas law is: PV = nRT Where n is the number of moles of the number of moles and R is a constant called the universal gas constant and is equal to approximately 0.0821 L-atm / mole-K." SPNAK! ================================================== So, go on and demonstrate yet again your lack of understanding of the Ideal Gas Law and molar volume. Moron. SPNAK! How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will, Jim. Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity. I note you are doing the same. <snicker> -- Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: ===================================== The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*); That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms; That superposition is the same as wave interference; That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves; That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things; That RMS isn't a DC voltage; That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L; That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1; The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave; That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical engineering, physics and control systems engineering; What a positive or negative vector is; That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero; That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic"; That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+. That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge. What the definition of the word "equivalent" is. That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples. That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842% margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F. That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does *not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames. That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes into account molar volume. That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error". That water can be plasmized. That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge. That nuclear charge does not equal effective nuclear charge. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 01:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1b3bd1ca-b396-4715-b6c7-422a86ed1df5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #562028 |
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 9:34:32 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > LOL. Your own reference indicates a 10% error. And this is in > > reference to a measurement that involves, at most, a 1% difference > > in weight. > > Stupid enough that you'd conflate "within 10% error" (a criteria for > using the Ideal Gas Law) with "10% error", Jim? Hell, when it came to inferring the droplet/cluster size you could make up any number you want since there is no way to directly measure/detect it. So this is just an absurd conversation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 05:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <44f0c39dc5bdb8acbbbf1540ff0fd2b2@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #562085 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:1b3bd1ca-b396-4715-b6c7-422a86ed1df5@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 9:34:32 PM UTC-8, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> LOL. Your own reference indicates a 10% error. And this is in >>> reference to a measurement that involves, at most, a 1% difference >>> in weight. >> Stupid enough that you'd conflate "within 10% error" (a criteria for >> using the Ideal Gas Law) with "10% error", Jim? > Hell, when it came to inferring the droplet/cluster size We're not talking about "droplet/cluster size", Jim. Are you confused, Jim? Do you need to take a moment to take your meds so your brain stops feverishly burrowing itself deeper into insanity, Jim? > you could make up any number you want since there is no way to > directly measure/detect it. So this is just an absurd conversation. Awww, look at the insane kooktard blathering away. He's so far gone he can't even follow a conversation anymore. What were we discussing, Jim? Do you even know? Or do you want to just blabber out whatever random fart rises to the surface of that septic tank you call a mind? Now get right on answering those tough questions, Jim. Your failure to do so stands as your tacit admission that your kooky conspiracy theory has no defense, and is therefore dead... So you throw out 150+ years of substantive and in-depth research as means of attempting to salvage your kooky discredited conspiracy theory in order to maintain your delusion that you know something no one else, all of them smarter and saner than you, knows, Jim? Do you really think the entire world has been wrong for a century and a half, and *you*, the kooktard who cannot answer my tough questions, are right, Jim? Or do you think the Occam's Razor explanation is that you're a delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted paranoid-schizophrenic kook who's concocted a kooky conspiracy theory that is laughably wrong? Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review process, Jim? Why are there *no* corroborating peer-reviewed papers that back up your kooky contentions, Jim? The ones you've provided I've used to prove you and your kooky conspiracy theory *wrong*. How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed far above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding, and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your kooky conspiracy theory is workable, Jim? Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will, Jim. Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity. I note you are doing the same. I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live. Are you ready to pay me the $100,000 you owe me for not only meeting the terms of your challenge, but in addition also utterly destroying your kooky conspiracy theory, in the process proving you're insane, Jim? <snicker> -- Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: ===================================== The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*). That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms. That superposition is the same as wave interference. That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves. That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things. That RMS isn't a DC voltage. That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L. That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1. The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave. That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical engineering, physics and control systems engineering. What a positive or negative vector is. That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero. That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic". That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. That 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 | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 21:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1d4786e-4aa4-46b8-b7bb-6a4cc2bd085f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #562211 |
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:10:37 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote > >>> LOL. Your own reference indicates a 10% error. And this is in > >>> reference to a measurement that involves, at most, a 1% difference > >>> in weight. > > >> Stupid enough that you'd conflate "within 10% error" (a criteria for > >> using the Ideal Gas Law) with "10% error", Jim? > > > Hell, when it came to inferring the droplet/cluster size > > We're not talking about "droplet/cluster size", Jim. Unless you know that application of Avogadro's law will give you nonsense results, and you will have no way of knowing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 06:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e8096307838a0b979f0fbc8e201fb9e6@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #562224 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:c1d4786e-4aa4-46b8-b7bb-6a4cc2bd085f@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:10:37 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>>>> LOL. Your own reference indicates a 10% error. And this is in >>>>> reference to a measurement that involves, at most, a 1% difference >>>>> in weight. >>>> Stupid enough that you'd conflate "within 10% error" (a criteria for >>>> using the Ideal Gas Law) with "10% error", Jim? >>> Hell, when it came to inferring the droplet/cluster size >> We're not talking about "droplet/cluster size", Jim. Are you confused, >> Jim? Do you need to take a moment to take your meds so your brain >> stops feverishly burrowing itself deeper into insanity, Jim? > Unless you know that application of Avogadro's law will give you nonsense results, and you will have no way of knowing. Except it doesn't give "nonsense results", Jim. You're just a kooktard desperately backpedaling because I've used scientific fact to utterly destroy your kooky conspiracy theory. You have no refutation of that scientific fact. Why can't you grasp reality, Jim? Now, let's you get to answering those questions you've been ducking, Jim... How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding, and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your kooky conspiracy theory is workable, Jim? Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will, Jim. Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity. I note you are doing the same. I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live. <snicker> You must realize by now that your name is Google-Stacked to hell and back, Jim... anyone searching for your name will know what a delusional moron you are. Your kooky conspiracy theory is dead, and now I've Google-stacked it so the whole world knows James Bernard McGinn of Antioch, CA is an idiot. And you cannot refute that fact any more than you can refute the scientific reality used to destroy your kooky little theory, Jim. -- 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 | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 23:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a232469e-70e7-4b66-b996-4ed779ce5367@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #562246 |
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 10:42:37 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > Unless you know that application of Avogadro's law will give you nonsense results, and you will have no way of knowing. > > Except it doesn't give "nonsense results", LOL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 08:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9274573975c53cd004cf5294a0c32472@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #562252 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> James McGinn, in <news:a232469e-70e7-4b66-b996-4ed779ce5367@googlegroups.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 10:42:37 PM UTC-7, > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> Unless you know that application of Avogadro's law will give you nonsense results, and you will have no way of knowing. >> Except it doesn't give "nonsense results", Jim. You're just a kooktard >> desperately backpedaling because I've used scientific fact to utterly >> destroy your kooky conspiracy theory. You have no refutation of that >> scientific fact. >> >> Why can't you grasp reality, Jim? > LOL. Your insane laughter is no substitute for refutation of the scientific data which proves your kooky claims are nothing more than the mad ranting of a thoroughly insane kooktard, James. You lose. Again. ========================================================== Still demonstrating your inability to grasp how water can be gaseous phase below its boiling point, James? It's already been fully explained to you, and in the process, your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly demolished. You postulate the following: 1) There is a "plasma not-a-plasma" that exists in the troposphere, which you have admitted is merely a hypothetical construct so you can continue to blather on about your kooky discredited conspiracy theory. 2) This magical "plasma not-a-plasma" is plasmized by an energy source that is somehow magically plasmizing water in the troposphere without dissociating it, given that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, and thus water will dissociate rather than plasmize, unless hit with an extremely energetic laser. 3) That your kooky energy source is somehow plasmizing only atmospheric water while not plasmizing or dissociating Earth-bound water, and is not killing off all life on the planet. Given that the *minimum* energy necessary to even *begin* to plasmize water would be equivalent to photons at a *maximum* wavelength of 103.32 nm, just 3.32 nm away from the x-ray range, I'm sure even you can see the problem inherent in your contention, James. 4) That this magical energy source exists in the troposphere. Except it cannot exist in the troposphere. Photons of shorter wavelength than ~121 nm are absorbed far above the troposphere due to their ability to ionize air, thus they are not present in the troposphere, where the overwhelming majority of all water is. 5) That warm air is heavier than cooler air... tell me, Jim... which direction does air flow from a flame? Oh, that's right, upward. Why? Because warm air is lighter and less dense than cooler air and thus convects upward. 6) That air with gaseous phase water in it is heavier than dry air, except you forget that science has long known about molar mass and molar volume... \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Air temperature is a much greater determiner of air density than humidity. 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. //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ And before you begin blathering on again about the Ideal Gas Law not applying to the atmosphere, let me remind you that I've done the calculations for the van der Waals equation, as well. It is in agreement with the Ideal Gas Law to a great degree of accuracy even with the molar volume I used. As air volume increases for the same relative humidity, air with gaseous phase water in it acts more and more like an ideal gas, Jim. Compare the Ideal Gas Law to the van der Waals Equation with all parameters the same except for volume, and increase the volume through several iterations, then plot the difference between the results of the Ideal Gas Law and the van der Waals equation... notice the converging trend? Do you think for an Earth-atmosphere-sized container, the air with gaseous phase water in it would be within a very small margin of error to an ideal gas, Jim? Sure it is. But that's something else you don't understand because you're a low-information uneducated oaf. 7) Your kooky contention that water polarity changes upon H bonding... which would also cause random changes in water's solvent properties, and we know water's solvent properties do not change randomly, Jim. You didn't know about the two spin isomers of water, which means there are two hybrids of water with different H bonding strengths: <https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156> They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron orbital shell descent. You'll note the gaseous phase water molecule's photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two phases. <https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304> You'll note the double peak of liquid water. Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory: ==================================================== Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules. ==================================================== You betcha... para and ortho-form water. <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ortho_para_water.html> ==================================================== Each hydrogen atom in water has a magnetic moment, which is associated with the proton's spin of 1/2. As is found in molecular hydrogen (H2), the protons (within the hydrogen atoms) in water (H2O) may possess parallel or antiparallel nuclear spin (see right). When the spins are parallel, there is a paramagnetic state called ortho-H2O with a magnetic moment = 1. This is the high spin (triplet) state with three symmetric spin states +1 , 0 , -1 (^^, ^v+^v, vv) where the three states have equal energy in a zero magnetic field. This spin state always possesses positive energy with a minimum energy level of 284.7 J mol-1 (23.794352 cm-1) H216O, [607c], 284.4 J mol-1 (23.773510 cm-1) H217O [607a] or 284.2 J mol-1 (23.754902 cm-1) H218O [607a]. When the spins are opposed there exists the nonmagnetic state called para-H2O with magnetic moment = 0 with just one antisymmetric spin state (^v-^v) and magnetic moment = 0. Some of the water molecules in this low spin (singlet) state will not be rotating even at room temperature. Para-H2O does not interact with an external magnetic field, but ortho-H2O does. Conversion between these isomers is symmetry forbidden for isolated water molecules and they act as different molecular species. They can change spin state on interaction with another particle, including other water molecules. The equilibrium ratio of these nuclear spin states in H2O is all para- at zero Kelvin, where the molecules have no rotational spin in their ground state, shifting to the most stable ratio [1694] of 3:1 ortho:para, in the relative amounts of the number of magnetic states, at less cold temperatures (>50 K, see left [2478]); the equilibrium taking months to establish itself in ice (or gas) and nearly an hour in ambient water [410]. It is now thought that the ratio lies far from equilibrium and much closer to 1:1 in liquid water due to hydrogen bond formation [2076]. This means that liquid H2O effectively consists of a mixture of non-identical molecules and the properties of pure liquid ortho-H2O or para-H2O are unknown. The differences in the properties of these two forms of water are expected to be greater in an electric field [1186], which may be imposed externally, from surfaces or from water clustering itself. Many materials preferentially adsorb para-H2O due to its non-rotation ground state [410, 835]. The apparent difference in energy between the two states is a significant 1-2 kJ mol-1, far greater than expected from spin-spin interactions (< μJ mol-1) [835]. It has been suggested that structural rearrangements may be induced by ortho-H2O : para-H2O conversion [1430], as it is possible that hydrogen bonds between para-H2O, possessing no ground state spin, are stronger and last longer than hydrogen bonds between ortho-H2O [1150]. It is thus possible that ortho-H2O and para-H2O form separate hydrogen bonded clusters [1150] with para-H2O being preferred in the low density tetrahedrally coordinated clusters and ortho-H2O being preferred in the high density clusters [2070], where their rotation is more easily accommodated. Picoliter samples of pure ortho-H2O and para-H2O may be separated in a strong dc electric field [2156]. ==================================================== The two spin isomers of water cause a different H bond strength when water molecules of like spin isomers engage in H bonding to form water clusters, Jim. Thus the weaker ortho-H2O hydrogen bond is more easily broken, so most of the gaseous phase water being evaporated should be ortho-H2O. You'll note above that ortho-H2O even in its liquid form is very close to the same properties as gaseous phase water under x-ray spectroscopy, the difference accountable by taking into consideration temperature and phase. Remember when I said the surface layer of water was more viscous than the bulk water? Yeah, that's because the ortho-H2O being evaporated removes heat from the water, which makes the para-H2O in the ~1.7 nm thick surface layer act nearly the same as ice. <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html> ===================================================== Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a lower temperature). ===================================================== As for condensation? Well, it's been found that under circumstances in which relative humidity is less than ~25%, a four-molecule thick layer of ice forms on the condensation surface... so apparently what is happening is that the ortho-H2O being evaporated is colliding with other molecules in the air, changing their spin isomer and thus giving off energy, becoming para-H2O, and those are the ones preferentially condensing, forming that four-molecule thick layer of ice. You'll note above that para-H2O even in its liquid form is very close to the same properties as solid phase water (ice) under x-ray spectroscopy, the difference accountable by taking into consideration temperature and phase. For conditions of greater than ~25% relative humidity and thus greater water gaseous-phase partial pressure in the air, apparently the condensation process is fast enough to allow even ortho-H2O gaseous-phase water to condense, thus the four-molecule thick layer of ice is melted. So you see, James, it's not because of your kooky contention that the water molecule's polarity changes upon hydrogen bonding, it's because there are two spin-isomer hybrids of the water molecule with two different hydrogen bonding strengths. Yet again, your kooky conspiracy theory is ripped to shreds by scientific fact... made especially delicious because it was done utilizing a link *you* provided. LOL <http://phys.org/news/2014-09-para-ortho.html> ============================================== A hydrogen nucleus (proton) can adopt two different states, comparable to rotation clockwise and counterclockwise. In the case of water, the nuclear spins of the two — indistinguishable — protons can be combined in four different ways: one antisymmetric and three symmetric wavefunctions. Water adopting the antisymmetric wavefunction is called para water, whereas water adopting one of the symmetric ones is called ortho water. Because switching from one state to the other is "forbidden" due to quantum-mechanical symmetry rules, the two spin isomers cannot interconvert without external influences such as collisions. ============================================== Were you not aware that hydrogen has two spin isomers, ortho- and para-, and thus water, comprised of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, also has two spin isomers? <https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f24e171918d462fac89b809dccaa7c3e> <http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2014/201434press.gif> In pure hydrogen, ortho-hydrogen is thermodynamically unstable even at low temperature and / or high pressure and it thus spontaneously converts to para-hydrogen upon molecular collision, which has implications for liquefied hydrogen storage, as energy is given off by this spin isomer conversion. In water, the oxygen atom slows the already slow conversion process to para-hydrogen by preserving spin state of the hydrogen atom via partially shielding the hydrogen atom from molecular collision which would cause spin isomer conversion. Now, let's you get to answering those questions you've been ducking, Jim... How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma, Jim? How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim? Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim? How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim? Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change upon H bonding, and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your kooky conspiracy theory is workable, Jim? Why can't you answer those questions, Jim? Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will, Jim. Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity. I note you are doing the same. I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live. <snicker> -- Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: ===================================== The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*). That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms. That superposition is the same as wave interference. That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves. That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things. That RMS isn't a DC voltage. That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L. That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1. The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave. That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical engineering, physics and control systems engineering. What a positive or negative vector is. That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero. That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic". That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective nuclear charge. What the definition of the word "equivalent" is. That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples. That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842% margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F. That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does *not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames. That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes into account molar volume. That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error". That water can be plasmized. That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 12:20 -0700 |
| Subject | there is no warmal globing per se |
| Message-ID | <0ca14221-e98c-4f82-adbd-e990c97d0a72@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #562246 |
I want to know the exact integer value of Avacado's numbeR > > Unless you know that application of Avogadro's law will give you nonsense results, and you will have no way of knowing. > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 21:29 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nrh5eb1bvaup4f619q16pp8qbc6t160teq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #561459 |
Fakey wrote: > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in > > > 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. > > 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. 10% off? So water doesn't follow the ideal gas law, does it faketard? It's common knowledge that water and freon are different critters. That's why sane people use steam tables instead of the ideal gas law. Of course, you have a right to be wrong. Which you exercise profusely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 05:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <cca9fd08a86e39337d16271b5b7982f7@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #561493 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in <news:nrh5eb1bvaup4f619q16pp8qbc6t160teq@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: >>>> 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. > 10% off? Nicely conflated, Moron. So now Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames "within 10% error" = "10% error"... likely because he's a moron. LOL > So water doesn't follow the ideal gas law, does it > faketard? Sure it does. One of the criteria for using the Ideal Gas Law is that the margin of error be *within* 10%. Get it now, Moron? Or do you want to continue to display your reading comprehension problems? SPNAK! > It's common knowledge that water and freon are different > critters. You should really stop sniffing that Freon, Moron. LOL > That's why sane people use steam tables instead of the ideal gas law. I'm going to SPNAK! you so fucking hard I've got to subdivide the individual SPNAK!s into separate sections, Shiny Tinfoil Brain. Try not to cry and bleat too loudly, now. LOL ============================================================= Moron uses the steam tables on the atmosphere! And he k'lames he's sane! Bwahahaha! Ever hear of a Mollier diagram, you braindead halfwit? <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Mollier.pdf> SPNAK! ============================================================= The Ideal Gas Law doesn't require an *ideal* gas, Moron. Ever hear of PV = nRT? Yeah, you have no fucking idea what that means, huh. LOL Solving for volume: P = 101325 Pa T = 294.261 K R = 8.3144621 J/(mol*K) n = 1 V = 0.0241463 m^3 SPNAK! ============================================================= Now compare what was calculated above with: <http://www.webqc.org/van_der_waals_gas_law.html> (P + ((n^2 * a) / V^2)(V - nb) = nRT Parameters: Air P = 101325 Pa T = 294.261 K R = 8.3144621 J/(mol*K) n = 1 V = 0.024127215938815 m^3 Gee... the Ideal Gas Law when used with dry air is only 0.079% off from perfect. So using the Ideal Gas Law for dry air is well *within* 10% error. Moron. LOL SPNAK! ============================================================= Now, let's calculate for air with moisture. We'll go all out and assume 100% relative humidity as a worst case scenario, just so morons have no wiggle room to backpedal, lie, conflate and blither-blather. <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=psychrometric+properties> Using the same parameters as used above gives: V = 0.02445 m^3 Gee... that's only 1.337842% off from an ideal gas. Moron. And that 1.337842% is the molar density change due to water in its gaseous phase being in air... you'll note it's *less* dense than dry air. You'll also note it occupies a *larger* volume for the same molar quantity, thus it is *less* dense than dry air. SPNAK! ============================================================= <http://chemistry.bd.psu.edu/jircitano/gases.html> "The previous laws all assume that the gas being measured is an ideal gas, a gas that obeys them all exactly. But over a wide range of temperature, pressure, and volume, real gases deviate slightly from ideal. Since, according to Avogadro, the same volumes of gas contain the same number of moles, chemists could now determine the formulas of gaseous elements and their formula masses. The idea gas law is: PV = nRT Where n is the number of moles of the number of moles and R is a constant called the universal gas constant and is equal to approximately 0.0821 L-atm / mole-K." SPNAK! ================================================== So, go on and demonstrate yet again your lack of understanding of the Ideal Gas Law and molar volume. Moron. SPNAK! > Of course, you have a right to be wrong. Which you exercise > profusely. Says the moron who just got SPNAK!'d. Again. And again, and again, and again. <snicker> -- Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know: ===================================== The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*); That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms; That superposition is the same as wave interference; That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves; That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things; That RMS isn't a DC voltage; That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L; That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1; The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave; That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical engineering, physics and control systems engineering; What a positive or negative vector is; That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero; That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic"; That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron. That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+. That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge. What the definition of the word "equivalent" is. That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples. That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842% margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F. That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does *not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames. That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes into account molar volume. That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error". That water can be plasmized. That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge. That nuclear charge does not equal effective nuclear charge. And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph. ===================================== SPNAK! <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 17:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e80ac93a-25e3-42d1-aee5-c8d0582dc753@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #561190 |
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:56:19 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh: > 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase > 28.57 g for dry air Ideal gas laws are applicable to ideal gases, dumbass. They are not applicable to liquids that are suspended in air. It's really that simple, dumbass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 17:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ecf6d027-08d9-4cb6-a7ca-e16b53bbfd12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #561339 |
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 5:30:13 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:56:19 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh: > > 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase > > 28.57 g for dry air > > Ideal gas laws are applicable to ideal gases, dumbass. They are not applicable to liquids that are suspended in air. > > It's really that simple, dumbass. Only when it is above it's boiling point is H2O an ideal gas. And that doesn't occur in our atmosphere. Facts are facts. Deal with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 19:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <DK2dnd8HOOftvn_LnZ2dnUU7-eudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #561347 |
On 3/10/16 7:39 PM, James McGinn wrote: > Only when it is above it's boiling point is H2O an ideal gas. H2O spectra in observed in cold (really cold) clouds of interstellar space, planetary atmosphere, stars, etc. But more importantly, in the troposphere of the earth, making up about one percent of the gas. Humidity measurements of gaseous H2O are made hourly by tens of thousands of weather stations around the world. -- 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 | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 20:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbtb6l$p12$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #561347 |
On 3/10/2016 7:39 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 5:30:13 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:56:19 AM UTC-8, Friendly >> Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >>> Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh: 18.02 >>> grams for water in its gaseous phase 28.57 g for dry air >> >> Ideal gas laws are applicable to ideal gases, dumbass. They are >> not applicable to liquids that are suspended in air. >> >> It's really that simple, dumbass. > > Only when it is above it's boiling point is H2O an ideal gas. how can H2O be an ideal gas ? (you need to study up on the meaning of scientific words) > And > that doesn't occur in our atmosphere. Your imagination does not make it true. > > Facts are facts. Deal with it. Your "facts" are created by your imagination. I know you don't have much to play with upstairs, but Deal with it dummy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 18:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <573f3b53-d68d-4c14-81f7-c2844bb7dfe3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #561368 |
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 6:40:27 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > how can H2O be an ideal gas? That you have to ask this question shows how out of touch you are. H2O is an ideal gas at temperatures/pressures above it's boiling point, which does not occur in earth's atmosphere. You obviously don't understand any of this stuff. Why do you hang out here in this NG?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 20:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <DK2dndcHOOd9rn_LnZ2dnUU7-eudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #561370 |
On 3/10/16 8:46 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 6:40:27 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > >> how can H2O be an ideal gas? > > That you have to ask this question shows how out of touch you are. > > H2O is an ideal gas at temperatures/pressures above it's boiling point, which does not occur in earth's atmosphere. > > You obviously don't understand any of this stuff. Why do you hang out here in this NG? > No James, Ideal gas (not particularly applicable to water vapour) > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas > An ideal gas is a theoretical gas composed of many randomly moving > point particles that do not interact except when they collide > elastically. The ideal gas concept is useful because it obeys the > ideal gas law, a simplified equation of state, and is amenable to > analysis under statistical mechanics. One mole of an ideal gas has a > volume of 22.7 L at STP as defined by IUPAC. > > At normal conditions such as standard temperature and pressure, most > real gases behave qualitatively like an ideal gas. Many gases such as > nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, noble gases, and some heavier gases like > carbon dioxide can be treated like ideal gases within reasonable > tolerances.[1] Generally, a gas behaves more like an ideal gas at > higher temperature and lower pressure,[1] as the potential energy due > to intermolecular forces becomes less significant compared with the > particles' kinetic energy, and the size of the molecules becomes less > significant compared to the empty space between them. > > The ideal gas model *tends to fail* at lower temperatures or higher > pressures, when intermolecular forces and molecular size become > important. It also fails for most heavy gases, such as many > refrigerants,[1] and *for gases with strong intermolecular forces* , > *notably water vapor* . At high pressures, the volume of a real gas is > often considerably greater than that of an ideal gas. At low > temperatures, the pressure of a real gas is often considerably less > than that of an ideal gas. At some point of low temperature and high > pressure, real gases undergo a phase transition, such as to a liquid > or a solid. The model of an ideal gas, however, does not describe or > allow phase transitions. James, water vapour, doesn't have to behave like an "ideal gas" to exist. In fact, water vapour (gas) make up about one percent of the troposphere. -- 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 | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 19:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e9ce2709-5f8c-46f1-a763-5f723c9263c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #561375 |
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 6:56:35 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: > James, water vapour, doesn't have to behave like an "ideal gas" to > exist. In fact, water vapour (gas) make up about one percent of the > troposphere. Nobody is disputing the existence of vapor in earth's atmosphere. We're disputing whether its a gas or a liquid. How is it you haven't grasped this distinction yet, Sam?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web