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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #652315

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>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
<news:19e7eblms6eaesch8jmtdbisf4u82knqk8@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>> You also didn't know that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding 
>> energy of water is identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, thus water will 
>> preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen rather than ionize. 
>> That's one of the anomalous properties of water, Jim.
>> 
>> How is your "water plasma" forming your purported "droplets" if it's 
>> plasma, Jim? And given that the dissociation energy and nuclear 
>> binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, you're saying 
>> that your water has actually dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen... 
>> so how is this hydrogen and oxygen forming your purported "droplets", 
>> Jim?

> It's good to see you have recognized that water cannot exist
> as a plasma, as i told you before, k00ktard.
> 
> You're welcome.

Awww, kooktard persists in his stupidity. LOL

Some *moron* blither-blathered:
"Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature."

<https://www.quora.com/Can-liquids-be-turned-into-plasma>
=========================================================
Owen Jones, Physics graduate, postdoctoral researcher in magnetic 
confinement fusion.

In order to jump straight from a liquid to a plasma, you need to 
supply sufficient energy to remove the electrons from the atoms over a 
large enough volume that the material can be classified as a plasma 
(see my answer to this question for more details on what constitutes a 
plasma). The easiest way of doing this is with an extremely powerful, 
intense laser pulse. Some of the world's most powerful short-pulse 
lasers are capable of producing power densities of a billion trillion  
(10^21) watts per square centimetre. The electric fields generated by 
these lasers are strong enough to rip electrons from the atoms in any 
material, be it solid, liquid or gas, in much less than a trillionth 
of a second. The material doesn't even get a chance to go through the 
normal solid-liquid-gas phase transitions; it's completely vaporized 
and ionized almost as soon as the laser pulse hits it.

So in answer to your question about converting a liquid straight to a 
plasma, it's possible as long as you have a big enough laser!
=========================================================

<https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_create_a_plasma_from_water_vapour_in_a_laboratory>
=========================================================
Is it possible to create a plasma from water vapour in a laboratory?

Christophe O Laux · Ecole Centrale Paris
We did exactly that, create a plasma in pure water vapor. We published 
a first paper on the topic: Sainct, F.P., Lacoste, D.A., Kirkpatrick, 
M.J., Odic, E., and Laux, C.O., Experimental study of nanosecond 
repetitively pulsed discharges in water vapor, International Journal 
of Plasma Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 6, no. 2, Sep. 
2012. More publications should follow soon.
=========================================================

SPNAK! on the backpedaling bleating lying blither-blathering moron. 
LOL

Now you backpedal again and k'lame that "once it's heated to the
plasma phase, there are no longer any water molecules." again.

Except a blither-blathering *moron* wrote:
"Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature."

So you've caught yourself in your own stupidity, and you're
backpedaling by k'laming that plasmized water is no longer water...
but what were the originating molecules, Moron? Oh yeah... water.

So you're just a backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering lying
moronic kooktard.

SPNAK!

Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL

I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron.

<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