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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #652507

Re: Go on, James, tell us about latent heat...

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

James McGinn, in
<news:dce2654c-c3a8-48e9-8839-7590d33a18a6@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 10:26:45 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> See my response here:
> http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39373

Do you really believe dishonest debating tactics are a viable
alternative to defending your kooky claims, Jim?

James McGinn:
Hmm. Well. I guess we’re at an impasse then. Because unless we can
explicate the reproducible experimental evidence that underlies these
numbers (below) I don’t see the point in continuing the conversation.

NOY:
No explication of the reproducible experimental evidence is necessary,
James. They’ve been corroborated over 250+ years via experiment after
experiment, each of them arriving at the same values.

Your task is to prove your kooky contention that latent heat doesn’t
exist.

You’ll remember I said in a prior post:
==========================================================
Ok, Jim… prove your kooky contention. Measure the heat being carried
away by evaporation. If it amounts to 2,500,000 J/kg, then your kooky
theory is wrong.

But if the water being evaporated only carries away 2326 J/kg, then
you’ll know you are right, and that your kooky conspiracy theory
thereby reflects reality.

Who wants to lay odds that James McGinn will run away from doing that
simple experiment which will either verify or null his kooky
conspiracy theory, because he knows it’ll null.
==========================================================

And you’re running, Jim. You won’t do that simple, reproducible
experiment to test your supposition (because we all know your kooky
claims don’t rise to even the level of a hypothesis, let along a
theory… you have absolutely no corroborating data to support your
supposition) because you know it’ll null.

Now, Jim, get right on answering those tough questions you’ve been
avoiding like a coward… keep that up, and people will start thinking
you don’t have a plausible defense of your kooky discredited
conspiracy theory…

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? Why are you so cowardly
that you run away from defending your kooky claims, Jim? Why are your
claims so far away from reality, 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>

Back to alt.usenet.kooks | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Go on, James, tell us about latent heat... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 06:16 +0100
  Re: Go on, James, tell us about latent heat... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 09:03 +0100
    Re: Go on, James, tell us about latent heat... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 16:08 +0100

csiph-web