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

Groups > alt.food.fast-food > #40799

Re: Hey, DildoRider...

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
<news:1kjqcb95f7n2tm2d50kastom0v79ae2hve@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

Froups desnecked, Coward.

> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
>> <news:269pcb5v1tvu2q8i21ppnar42d0u2rm78s@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
>> first into the wood chipper again:
>> 
>> Froups desnecked, Coward.

>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
>>> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>>>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
>>>> <news:430pcbdp6pvnd2jk5dp2knqninb9alo58p@4ax.com> did
>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>>>>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/hVUxMNj.png>

>>>>>>>> Graph #4: (purple): 208.207 volt L1-L2 RMS

>>>>>>> 208v peak.

>>>>>> Wrong.

>>>>> Then why does the big purple sine wave peak between the
>>>>> +/-200v and 210v ticks?

>>>> Moron can't read the label on the sinewave that says "208.207". LOL!

>>> Exactly.  That's the PEAK voltage.  Not the RMS!
>>> Hello?  Anyone home???

>> So your idea of "winning" isn't "be smarter, faster, better", it's
>> "get your stoooopid ass drop-kicked across Usenet then bleat
>> 'victolly!' because someone paid attention to you". Got it.
>> 
>> You sad sorry stupid sack of shit.

> Non-response noted.  You lose, fakey.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crest_factor>
"Crest factor is a measure of a waveform, such as alternating current
or sound, showing the ratio of peak values to the effective value. In
other words, crest factor indicates how extreme the peaks are in a
waveform."

"The peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) is the peak amplitude squared
(giving the peak power) divided by the RMS value squared (giving the
average power)."

<http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/worksheets/peak-average-and-rms-measurements/>
"We may express quantities of AC voltage and current in terms of peak,
peak-to-peak, average, or RMS."

SPNAK! on the moron who yet again demonstrates he doesn't know much of
anything.

You're the moron who's already demonstrated his inability to
distinguish between peak-to-peak and RMS when you blathered that the
graph I posted was actually a graph of 85 volt RMS.

Shiny Tinfoil Brain wrote:
<MID:rdomcb169mq5csebugqrbj9ganol8je5s1@4ax.com>
"You graphed sines with 85v RMS and 147v RMS amplitude."

Yeah, you *are* the moron who demonstrated that you don't know the
difference between RMS and peak-to-peak. No idea where you're getting
147 volts, maybe you're just a moron.

SPNAK!

>>>>> Hint:  208v RMS = 294v peak

>>>> I didn't plot the peak, there was no need. I showed a 170 volt peak
>>>> L-N input, which the equations translated to a 120.208 volt RMS L-N,
>>>> then to a 208.207 volt RMS L-L. You're just a moron.

>>> ROFL!  Can you really be that clueless?

>> See? You're a moron. It's ok, morons like you are too moronic to keep

> Non-response noted.  You lose, fakey.

Says the moron as he projects about his having lost. LOL

>>> Do you know what "peak" means?

>> It's apparent that you don't, at least not in this context.

> Non-response noted.  You lose, fakey.

I've got the moron repeat-bleating because he lost. LOL

>>> It means the highest part of the function.

>> Moron. "Peak voltage" is used to differentiate between the crest
>> voltage and RMS voltage. Shall I use "crest", or will you start
>> bleating about the tops of hills?

> If "crest" is a word you understand, go ahead and use it.
> You sure don't know what "peak" means.

Sure I do. You've demonstrated that you don't. You lose, Shiny Tinfoil
Brain.

>>> Just like a mountain peak is the highest
>>> place on the mountain.  Just like the peak of your head is
>>> that pointy thing on top.  Get it?

>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crest_factor>
>> "Crest factor is a measure of a waveform, such as alternating current
>> or sound, showing the ratio of peak values to the effective value. In
>> other words, crest factor indicates how extreme the peaks are in a
>> waveform."
>> 
>> "The peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) is the peak amplitude squared
>> (giving the peak power) divided by the RMS value squared (giving the
>> average power)."

> That's great.  It shows you are wrong.
> Peak and RMS are indeed different things.
> But i told you that.

No, you didn't. You're the moron who's already demonstrated his
inability to distinguish between peak-to-peak and RMS when you
blathered that the graph I posted was actually a graph of 85 volt RMS.

Shiny Tinfoil Brain wrote:
<MID:rdomcb169mq5csebugqrbj9ganol8je5s1@4ax.com>
"You graphed sines with 85v RMS and 147v RMS amplitude."

Yeah, you *are* the moron who demonstrated that you don't know the
difference between RMS and peak-to-peak. No idea where you're getting
147 volts, maybe you're just a moron.

SPNAK!

>> SPNAK! on the moron who yet again demonstrates he doesn't know much of
>> anything.

<crickets> LOL

You lose, Shiny Tinfoil Brain.

>>> Sheesh.
>>> 
>>> Fakey, do you know that the PEAK of the sine function is 1 ?
>>> And that its RMS value is 0.707 ?

>> You mean the maximum amplitude of the sine function is 1,

> Yes.

>> and the maximum amplitude of its RMS of its maximum amplitude
>> is its maximum amplitude multiplied by 1/SQRT(2)?

> That's getting closer, but your comprehension is lacking.
> 
> "Amplitude" of the RMS doesn't vary with time,

Moron thinks the RMS voltage of a sinewave is constant! Bwahahahaa!

You'll be getting right on graphing this DC "RMS" of an AC waveform,
Shiny TinFoil Brain.

> so it has no min or max.  It's a single, fixed value for any periodic
> function.

See? Shiny Tinfoil Brain just reiterated that he stoooopidly thinks
the RMS voltage of an AC waveform is DC! What a moron! LOL

> v(RMS) = v(peak) / sqrt(2) for all time, for a sinusoid.
> 
> See, you take sin(wt), square it giving sin^2(wt), then use
> some simple calculus (which you can't do) to find the mean
> (that means average, fakey) of that (in v^2, amps^2 or
> whatever), which is 0.5, then take the square root. I know
> you won't understand, so froth away: ________________

Nicely Google-raped, Shiny Tinfoil Brain. Now get right on explaining
why you think (fsvo 'think') the RMS voltage of an AC waveform is DC.

SPNAK!

>> Do you even know what RMS means?

> Glad you asked.  It's a measure of the ability of the
> voltage to do work. ie, it's proportional to the power
> expended.  That's why RMS is also called "effective voltage"
> (or current).

That's the literal definition, not the mathematical one... so you
still don't know why RMS is used on an AC waveform. Likely because
you're a moron.

SPNAK!

> Note that P(out) = V(rms) * I(rms) * cos (theta),
> where theta is the phase ange between voltage & current.
> 
> You won't understand this, of course, so bleat on.

I understand that you spent all night raping Google so you wouldn't
look as stupid as you really are... but that didn't work. You lose,
Shiny Tinfoil Brain.

<snicker>

>> Not the dictionary definition, its implications in using it
>> and *why* it's maximum amplitude divided by SQRT(2).

> Only for a sinusoid.

Which is what we're discussing. Do try to stay on topic. I know it's
difficult for a moron like you, but give it your best shot. LOL

>>   If you did, you'd be laughing at DildoRider's kooky sinewave
>> subtraction equation and his even kookier k'lame that he's somehow

> Why?  Your dogwhistle clearly understands what you don't.

The moron k'lames he's half-rectifying 120 volts from 240 volts on the
*primary* of a substation transformer to feed a 120/208 volt
electrical system, that 240 v != 240 v, and that one has to subtract
vectors to arrive at a correct result. What the fuck is it, in your
estimation, that he "understands"?

But then, you're the moron who k'lamed that 4,444,525,800 = 1. LOL

Message-ID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com>
========================================================
> I realize you don't understand the difference between
> frequency and period.  Whatever you think the number means
> is wrong.

You're projecting because you're a moron who doesn't know the
difference between frequency and period. And I'll prove that
contention below. Try not to cry too much. LOL

The period of a sinusoid is the amount of *time* it takes for a
sinusoid to repeat itself. If you are summing the sinusoids, then this
happens the first time that a whole number of each tributary sinusoid
ends at the same time axis, and at the same phase angle as when each
tributary sinusoid started.

Aren't you the *moron* who k'lamed the period was measured in Hz, and
that the resultant would be 4.4 GHz? Yeah... yeah you are.

Aren't you the *moron* who k'lamed the "frequency of the composite sum
is 1 hz."? Yeah... yeah, you are.

Aren't you the *moron* who doesn't understand that the period is the
inverse of the frequency? Yeah... yeah you are.

So you're the *moron* who believes that 4,444,525,800 = 4,400,000,000
= 1.

SPNAK!
========================================================

Shiny Tinfoil Brain didn't even 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; what cross correlation
is; 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 170 volt peak,
120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L; that
4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1; and the moron continues to demonstrate
his inability to read a graph.

> But please, continue pretending you are winning.

Oh, I am winning. Because I'm right. And you're wrong, because you're
a moron. So you're losing.

<snicker>

>>> Now look at what you graphed.  The highest point of the big
>>> wave (i'm using words you might understand) is 208v.
>>> That means its peak value is 208v.
>>> That means its RMS value is 208v/sqrt(2), or 147v.

>> No, you're just a moron who doesn't understand much. Thanks for
>> pointing that out. Again. I see you have no shame in labeling yourself
>> a moron.

> Non-response noted.  You lose, fakey.

I note you're still unable to differentiate between peak-to-peak
voltage, peak voltage and RMS voltage... in fact, up above you said
RMS voltage is DC! Likely because you're a moron. That's why you've
lost, Shiny Tinfoil Brain. LOL

>>> You totally dont know how to express a 208v RMS sine wave.
>>> 
>>> You do it like this:
>>> 294v * sin(something) --> 294v peak = 208v RMS

>> That doesn't look anything like a sinewave, moron. That looks like a
>> moron proving he's a moron. LOL

> Non-response noted.  You lose, fakey.

Says the moron, proving he's a moron. LOL

>> I graphed the 170 volt *peak* voltage and its 120.208 volt RMS voltage
>> sinewaves, Moron.

> No you didn't.  You don't get the concept of "peak", and you
> can't read your own simple-minded graphs.

Yeah, I did. The equations all use the 170 volt peak voltage as the
input.

Of course, you're the moron who's demonstrated that you don't know the
difference between peak voltage, peak-to-peak voltage and RMS voltage.
Likely because you're a moron. LOL

>>> Now, be a good little spankee, and do all your graphs all
>>> over again.  Then come back here for your next lesson.

> Try again, fakey.

Why? I've already done it correctly. You can't.

>> Aren't you the moron who's already demonstrated his inability to 
>> distinguish between peak-to-peak and RMS when you blathered that the 
>> graph I'd posted was actually a graph of 85 volt RMS?

> Vallor recognized that you graphed 85v RMS, too.  Seems
> everyone is smarter than you.  What a surprise.

Wrong. I graphed the 170 volt peak L-N voltage waveform and its
120.208 volt RMS L-N waveform, from which the 208.207 volt RMS L-L
voltage waveform was graphed. You're just a moron who can't
differentiate between peak voltage, peak-to-peak voltage and RMS
voltage, because you're a moron. LOL

> Try explaining something simple, like the difference between
> i and j.

Now the moron is bragging that he's memorized the alphabet all the way
up to 'j'. LOL!

> -- 
> "The 120.208 volt RMS L-N sinewaves peak at 120.208 volts,
> moron. LOL"
>   --fakey claims RMS and peak voltage are identically equal

Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames 120.208 volts is a peak voltage and not an 
RMS voltage. LOL!

Of course, Shiny Tinfoil Brain also k'lames RMS voltage of an AC
waveform is DC. He's stoooopid.

SPNAK! on the moron.

<snicker>

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
slumpy dumpy frumpy lumpy loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

Back to alt.food.fast-food | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Hey, DildoRider... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-24 19:35 +0100
  Re: Hey, DildoRider... Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-24 12:00 -0700

csiph-web