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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #679958

Re: Slow evaporation, fast boiling

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:cef2e68b-6760-4cae-9e3c-f66d1bff8289@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>>> Bwahahaaa! Yet again James McGinn the delusional kooktard demonstrates
>>>> that he can't grasp that water being evaporated is merely a slower,
>>>> lower-energy process of vaporization, the same as boiling is a faster,
>>>> higher-energy process of vaporization. Not even after the proof of
>>>> same has been posted, from the physics department of a university, no
>>>> less.

>>> Uh, so, let me get this straight.  Boiling is fast and evaporation is slow.  That is your insight?  And you got this from some university.  Is that your argument?

>> Again, Jim, your inability to comprehend physical phenomena is due in
>> part to your lack of education, and in part to your delusional
>> Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting any information from those
>> you deem to be of higher authority than you (which is everyone). Thus
>> you have no sounding board for reality, leading your broken brain off
>> into the brambles of your kooky discredited conspiracy theory.
>> 
>> Both attributes of your affliction can be ameliorated via subjecting
>> yourself to those educational and psychiatric authorities, which your
>> broken brain will not allow you to do... hence the Catch-22 of
>> Dunning-Kruger.

> Can you provide a reference for your slow/fast theory?  Or are you still working on the paper?  

Already provided, Jim, and you snipped it out and ran away from it.
It's provided again immediately below:

<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/vappre.html>
===============================================================
Evaporation vs Boiling

Ordinary evaporation is a surface phenomenon - since the vapor
pressure is low and since the pressure inside the liquid is equal to
atmospheric pressure plus the liquid pressure, bubbles of water vapor
cannot form. But at the boiling point, the saturated vapor pressure is
equal to atmospheric pressure, bubbles form, and the vaporization
becomes a volume phenomena.
===============================================================

That's the physics department of a university, Jim. People far smarter
and saner than you. That you continue to reject reality merely because
it came from people far smarter and saner than you shows you have a
problem with authority figures, as does your kooky conspiracy theory
that meteorologists are withholding sooper sekret information from the
public to give themselves some sort of domination over us. IOW, you're
delusional, tending toward paranoia. There are psychotropic
medications which can ameliorate your condition, Jim.

<snicker>

> Do you dress yourself?

It's apparent that you ask that question as means of projection, Jim.

>> O2 is electronegative, Jim, as is nitrogen, the two largest
>> constituents of our atmosphere. 

> Yes

Great, then you understand the process of evaporation, don't you, Jim?
Which utterly destroys your kooky conspiracy theory.

> I explained this to you. 

Lying won't help your losing position, Jim.

>> They accept those electrons at the
>> water surface, helped by thermal kinetic energy random motion giving
>> those molecules enough of a kick to leave the bulk water, thereby
>> stripping water away from the surface in a process known as
>> evaporation, a process you continue to demonstrate that you cannot
>> fathom.

> Do you have any direct evidence that evaporation produces gaseous H2O?

Besides the two peer-reviewed studies which empirically observed
monomer H2O in the atmosphere?

Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
<http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation>
=================================================
A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in
the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number
is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least
one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the
obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain
sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this,
the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies,
and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that
an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise
interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent
collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the
liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was
interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the
evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation
process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's
cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a
well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule.
=================================================

"one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule
process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the
atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere,
meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been
provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been
utterly destroyed, meaning you  owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay,
Jim.

<snicker>

Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous
water exists in the atmosphere:
<http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/>
=========================================================
Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum
absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains
controversial.
=========================================================

That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim,
thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you
promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding
challenge, but it utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves
you're a moronic kooktard, Jim.

<snicker>

>> I've already proven via two peer-reviewed sources that monomolecular
>> water exists in the atmosphere, Jim. Why do you continue to deny
>> reality?

> Too bad you can't prove it.  Huh?

I just did, Jim. Too bad you can't muster the intelligence to refute
that reality.

Do you feed yourself, Jim? Do you dress yourself? It's becoming
apparent that you do not.

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Why can't you even get your kooky conspiracy theory on
the pre-print servers, Jim? Answer the questions, you evasive twit.

<snicker>

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?

-- 

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

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

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, 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 "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "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 (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), 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
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

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

Thread

Re: Slow evaporation, fast boiling "Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-08-04 06:29 +0200
  Re: Slow evaporation, fast boiling "Checkmate, DoW #1" <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 21:34 -0700
    Re: Slow evaporation, fast boiling "Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-08-04 07:46 +0200
      Re: Slow evaporation, fast boiling Skeet DoW # 420 <Skidaddle@chote.com> - 2016-08-04 03:56 -0600
    Re: Slow evaporation, fast boiling "\"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> - 2016-08-04 10:59 -0400
  Re: Slow evaporation, fast boiling Skeet DoW # 420 <Skidaddle@chote.com> - 2016-08-04 03:56 -0600

csiph-web