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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #652321

Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures

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:f6fb430b-cf27-4a9b-a6de-f4d238f69fe4@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 9:55:04 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>> 
>> James McGinn, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in
>> <news:353ec31e-e8fe-488a-adb1-7739af62c6c9@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>> 
>>> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 12:08:04 AM UTC-8,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> 
>>>> James McGinn, in
>>>> <news:b0cb369b-c6b5-427a-8eff-444ca81f7ead@googlegroups.com> did
>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>> 
>>>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:40:59 PM UTC-8,
>>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> Um, Jim? You're talking to the guy who proved that CO2-driven AGW
>>>>>> violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and thus is a fairy tale. CO2 has
>>>>>> been proven by NASA to be a global *cooling* gas.
>> 
>>>>> So, you noticed that CO2-driven AGW violates Laws of
>>>>> Thermodynamics but you never noticed that gaseous H2O
>>>>> at ambient temperatures/pressures also violates Laws
>>>>> of Thermodynamics.
>> 
>>>> That's because it doesn't, Jim.
>> 
>>> The steam tables indicate otherwise.  If you want to contradict the
>>> steam tables we need something more than anecdote based peer-review.  
>> 
>> One doesn't use the steam tables for the atmosphere, Jim. One uses a
>> Mollier diagram.
>> 
>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Mollier.pdf>

> According to this Mollier didn't rigorously distinguish betwenen

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

<snicker>

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

So you throw out 150 years of substantive and in-depth research as
means of attempting to salvage your kooky discredited conspiracy
theory in order to maintain your delusion that you know something
everyone else, all of them smarter and saner than you, knows, Jim?

Do you really think the entire world has been wrong for a century and
a half, and *you*, the kooktard who cannot answer my tough questions,
is right, Jim?

Or do you think the Occam's Razor explanation is that you're a
delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted schizophrenic paranoid kook who's
concocted a kooky conspiracy theory that is laughably wrong?

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim?

Why are there *no* corroborating papers that back up your kooky
contentions, Jim? The ones you've provided I've used to prove you and
your kooky conspiracy theory *wrong*.

How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're 
plasma, Jim?

How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding 
energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the 
water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm, extremely 
strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except photons 
with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the 
troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the 
troposphere to form your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" not 
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the 
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly 
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding, and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules
account for the different H bonding strengths which account for
evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your kooky
conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does 
not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will, 
Jim.

Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with 
the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to 
protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity. 
I note you are doing the same.

<snicker>

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*);

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;

That superposition is the same as wave interference;

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves;

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things;

That RMS isn't a DC voltage;

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L;

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering;

What a positive or negative vector is;

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero;

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

That nuclear charge does not equal effective nuclear charge.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

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

Thread

Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 08:57 +0100
  Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-12 14:46 +0800
    Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 07:22 +0100
      Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-13 15:35 +0800
        Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:22 +0100
          Faketard seriously reduced. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-14 06:34 -0600
            Re: Faketard seriously reduced. Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-15 01:02 +0800
          Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-14 14:53 +0000
            Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 16:24 +0100
              Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-14 15:42 +0000
                Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 18:03 +0100
                Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-14 20:56 -0600
                Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures binky feel good <julianfwaldby@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 21:14 -0700
                Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures "\"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 00:50 -0400
    Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Psychotic Chicken <Bill@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-12 10:53 +0000
      Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-13 18:22 +0800
        Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Psychotic Chicken <Bill@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-15 09:59 +0000
          Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-16 01:54 +0800
            Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Chicken F*cker DOW #4 <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 17:31 +0000
  Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:44 +0100
    Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 08:09 +0100
      Re: Thermodynamics of gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 04:54 +0100

csiph-web