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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #652486

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

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

James McGinn:
"Liquid water (evaporate) does have a high heat capacity. And when it
gets pulled up into the upper at atmosphere it does bring heat with
it. But it isn’t “latent” heat. It’s just heat. There is no phase
transition from gaseous H2O to liquid H2O happening in the atmosphere.
And even if there was that would not be latent heat either. Latent
heat has to do with chemical reactions, not phase transitions."

Bwahahahaa! KookTard James McGinn denies latent heat! A value that has
been empirically measured time and again, and the delusional moron
denies it exists. He goes on to further blather that "latent heat has
to do with chemical reaction, not phase transitions.", which is wrong.

Latent Heat Values (-25 to 40 C):
=================================
Melting: -79.7 cal/g, -330,000 J/kg
Freezing: +79.7 cal/g, +330,000 J/kg

Evaporation: -597.3 cal/g, -2,500,000 J/kg
Condensation: +597.3 cal/g, +2,500,000 J/kg
=================================

Latent Heat Values (-40 to 0 C):
=================================
Sublimation: -677.0 cal/g, -2,830,000 J/kg
Deposition: +677.0 cal/g, +2,830,000 J/kg
=================================

You'll note that evaporation has ~7.5 times the latent heat, aka
enthalpy, than ice melting, thus water evaporation carries away ~7.5
times more heat than ice does when melting.

Yeah, folks, James McGinn is *so* delusional that he denies well-known
physical phenomena in order to keep his kooky conspiracy theory (and
his delusions) alive.

Now, I'm sure Jim will blather something akin to:
=================================================
> Latent Heat Values (-25 to 40 C):
> =================================
> Evaporation: -597.3 cal/g, -2,500,000 J/kg
> Condensation: +597.3 cal/g, +2,500,000 J/kg
> 
> Can you describe the reproducible experimental
> evidence that underlies these numbers?"
=================================================

To which I'll reply:
=================================================
Sure, Jim. Yet again you ask for the well-known and long-obvious as
means of diverting attention away from the fact that you have
absolutely no defense of your kooky conspiracy theory.

<http://nautilus.fis.uc.pt/personal/mfiolhais/artigosdid/did5.pdf>

That PDF file not only contains details of Joseph Black's experiments
way back in the 1700s, but a modern reproduction of those experiments,
complete with references to past experiments of a similar nature.

1. S.C. Brown, "The caloric theory of heat," Am. J. Phys . 18, 367
(Sept. 1950).

2. L.W. Taylor, Physics: The Pioneer Science. Volume I. Mechanics
Heat, Sound (Dover Publications, New York), Ch. 20, p. 267. This
reproduces the original Lectures on Elements of Chemistry, given by
Black at the University of Edinburgh, published from his manuscripts
by John Robinson (Longman & Rees, London, 1803).

3. H.S. Allen and H. Moore, A Textbook of Practical Physics
(MacMillan, London, 1965), p. 296.

4. P.H. Bligh and R. Haywood, "Latent heat — Its meaning and
measurement," Eur. J. Phys. 7, 245 (1986).

5. S.Y. Mak and C.K.W. Chun, "The measurement of the specific latent
heat of fusion of ice: two improved methods," Phys. Educ. 35, 181 (May
2000).

8. H.U. Fuchs, The Dynamics of Heat (Springer, New York, 1996), p.
659.

9. C.D. Galles, "Revival of Black's experiment," Am. J. Phys. 47, 1008
(Nov. 1979).

10. J.W. Dewdney, "Newton's law of cooling as a laboratory
introduction to exponential decay functions," Am. J. Phys. 27, 668
(Dec. 1959).

11. H. Lindeman and A. Lavie, "Instrument for the measurement of the
heat of vaporization of water," Am. J. Phys. 29, 705 (Oct. 1961).

So you can see just from that small handful of replications of Joseph
Black's original experiments, James, that the latent heat of water has
been well-known for a long time, empirically observed, experimentally
confirmed, corroborated by experiment after experiment over 250+
years.
=================================================

How do I know James McGinn will bleat something like the above?
Because he already has. Then he ran away. Again.

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.

<snicker>

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?

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>

Back to alt.usenet.kooks | Previous | Next — 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