Before There Was Global Warming There Was Meteorology

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 7:41:03 AM UTC-8, pipp...@gmail.com wrote:

James McGinn:
Whatever the case, your argument is contrived. You are mixing metaphors and being deceptive.

LipperF:
Like I said, this is the most direct example I can find of published data showing that moist air is less dense than dry air.

James McGinn:
There is zero data involving the direct measurement of the weight of moist air versus dry air. Yet meteorologists continue to maintain the BELIEF that moist air is lighter than dry air as THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT IN ALL OF METEOROLOGY'S STORM THEORY.

The fact that this fact is casually dismissed by you and by all meteorologists is all anybody needs to conclude that meteorology is not a real science like physics or chemistry.

LipperF:
Since air is a fluid, it really doesn't make sense to talk about its weight

James McGinn:
LOL. It's you meteorologists that assert that weight/buoyancy/convections is what powers all storms. So your words sound funny coming from the mouth of a meteorologist. It's like you don't know what you think from one minute to the next.

LipperF:
So if there are any publications that address your question directly (by reporting a weight rather than a mass or a density) they are not easy to locate:
http://www.imeko.org/publications/tc3-2002/IMEKO-TC3-2002-038.pdf

James McGinn:
As you eluded, your reference is worthless. The details of meteorology's convection model of storm theory are IMPOSSIBLE to locate. Meteorologists don't discuss these details. It is strictly a taboo subject--literally.

You have as much chance to get a meteorologist to discuss the mathematical details of convection as you do getting a priest to discuss the details of the inquisition.

LipperF:
But since the weight of the sample is directly proportional to the density and the mass of the sample, both of which are reported in the reference(s) above, I find the publications to be thoroughly convincing.

James McGinn:
I find your claim that the sample is directly proportional to density to be absurd--plainly. And I find the fact that you find this convincing to be evidence that you are not a real scientists and, by association, meteorology is not a real science.

LipperF:
Nonsense. Meteorologists (as well as physicists, chemists, mathematicians, engineers, etc) spend a considerable amount of time and ink talking about how clouds, dust devils, thunderstorms, winter storms, supercell thunderstorms, monsoons, hurricanes, and tornadoes form. The conceptual and numerical models we use to analyze, simulate, and predict these systems are constantly analyzed for inconsistencies and improved when possible.

James McGinn:
As you just eluded, meteorology is a conversational science. It's not an empirical science. Listening to you is like listening to two clergy discussing a passage in the bible. Meteorologists make observations. They/you don't do experiments. The basic assumptions of their/your most fundamental models are mathematically absurd/inept. So they/you can't actually solve problems. It's all talk and phoney math used to create the illusion that they/you understand what they/you do not.

Before there was global warming there was meteorology.

[James McGinn]

Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQSIApZxgVk

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in
<news:6ce0e771-15f0-413d...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQSIApZxgVk

Translation:
"I realize there can exist no plasma in the troposphere, where 91.43%
of all water in the atmosphere exists, mainly because the conditions
for plasma to exist include high solar flux and a dominant species
consisting of hydrogen ions, not oxygen and nitrogen as in the
troposphere... which is why the plasmasphere exists so far above the
planet's surface, and no plasma can be created further down in the
atmosphere. So I'll make my blathering video private... it doesn't
provide any evidence of plasma in the troposphere anyway. I'm just a
delusional kooktard promulgating a conspiracy theory."

<snicker>

I've seen no proof from you that plasma *does* exist anywhere in our
atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, Jim. Because you *have* no
proof... and a large corpus of evidence that you're a blathering moron
for even suggesting such a thing.

Do you not understand that the reason the plasmasphere exists so high
above the planet's surface is because it takes a lot of energy to
generate and sustain a plasma?

Do you not understand that the reason the plasmasphere has plasma is
because at that altitude, the predominant species is hydrogen ions,
not oxygen and nitrogen, said hydrogen ions *required* for the plasma
to form?

Do you not understand that the atmospheric reflection and absorption
of sunlight as it descends through the atmosphere means the
troposphere doesn't have the solar flux *nor* the hydrogen ions
necessary to generate plasma?

Do you not understand that clouds top out at the tropopause, and
therefore the *only* place you can claim there exists plasma for your
kooky conspiracy theory to work is in the troposphere?

Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the
troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting
of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist, when
really you're just a delusional kooktard?

So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky
conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it.

<snicker>

Two peer-reviewed studies, empirically-derived data, proving monomer
water in the atmosphere, Jim:

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>

--

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*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

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 attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

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 k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

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
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard 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.

[James McGinn]

Did you not notice this phrase: " . . . according to computer simulations."?

What do you think that phrase means?

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:a678955b-7929-400f...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

Still denying Avogadro's Law, Jim?

The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.

The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.

Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.

The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas
the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP.

Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
28.57 g for air

Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore
air with water in its gaseous phase in it is lighter than dry air.

Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its
gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant.

Ergo, your entire basis of argument is invalid, and you'll be
forwarding the $100,000 to my BitCoin account immediately.

Now, I'm sure you'll blather something like "that only applies if the
polarity of water is constant, it is not", as you've done in the past,
so let's just destroy that kooky little duck-n-weave right now, shall
we?

The solvent properties of water depend upon the hydrogen bonding of
water. If the polarity of the water molecule varied, the hydrogen bond
length would vary, and therefore the solvent properties of water would
vary. We know it does not change randomly, only from temperature.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/solacid.gif>

M. H. Abraham and W. E. Acree Jr., The hydrogen bond properties of
water from 273 K to 573 K; equations for the prediction of gas-water
partition coefficients, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 14 (2012) 7433-7440.

The solvent properties of water changing with temperature are
explained by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Jim... a more energetic
environment would cause those hydrogen bonds to be separated more
often, thus affecting the solvent properties as a measure of
temperature, *not* as a result of "variable polarity of water", you
kooktard:

<http://preparatorychemistry.com/Bishop_solubility_temperature.htm>

Thus, for any given temperature, the solvent properties of water will
not change, Jim, and thus the polarity of the water molecule does not
change, Jim. It is such a bedrock of all chemical processes involving
water that it can be graphed, as shown above.

Oh look, proof that the polarity of a water molecule does not change
unless *induced* to do so via application of electric charge:
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/dielectric_constant.html#polar>

The only way one can force the polarity of water to vary, given that
the polarization of water is, by definition, its electric dipole
moment density, is to apply an electric field to the water, you
kooktard.

Thus, if you're going to argue that the change in solvent properties
of water as a result of temperature change is a result of change in
polarity of the water molecule (an utter impossibility, but let's
entertain Jim the Moron for a bit), then according to your kooky
theory, water is an electrocaloric fluid! A change in polarity of the
molecule due to temperature would entail a change in the electric
dipole moment density, thus when that purported polarity change
occurred, your kooky theory says that, by necessity due to the Law of
Conservation of Energy, water *must* give off an electric charge!

And that, Jim, is just silly. As is your kooky conspiracy theory. As
are you, Jim.

Your theory has been demolished, Jim. It does not reflect reality, it
cannot reflect reality.

Now you get to backpedaling, Jim. You backpedal just as hard and fast
as you can... your delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted state demands
that you do so.

[James McGinn]

Except if the average drop size is 20 moles. Then what number should we employ. Hmm. 20 x 18 = 360.

Plug that into your equation and see what you get.

[Poutnik]

Dne 09/03/2016 v 07:30 Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
napsal(a):

> Still denying Avogadro's Law, Jim?
>
> The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
> the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.
>
> The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
> 1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.
>
> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
> phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
> mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
> same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.
>

He can as well take water thermodynamic tables,
pressure over water and vapour density.

and match them in formula ro[kg/m^3]=p.M/R/T
where M is effective mean molecular mass.
The M will go from about 18 for low temperatures
to about 1.05 . 18 for 100 deg C


--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[Poutnik]

Dne 09/03/2016 v 08:12 Poutnik napsal(a):

>
> and match them in formula ro[kg/m^3]=p.M/R/T
> where M is effective mean molecular mass.
> The M will go from about 18 for low temperatures
> to about 1.05 . 18 for 100 deg C
>

That follows general rules of Le Chatelier principle,
the equilibrium shifts in direction to act in contrary
of change of external conditions.

Increases partial water pressure cause dimerization
and in small amount trimers or other polymers,
following water dimer dissociation constant
K(T)=(p[H2O])^2/p[(H2O)2]

And this effect is stronger than thermal shift
of water dipole dissociation constant.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 11:12:34 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 09/03/2016 v 07:30 Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
> napsal(a):
> > Still denying Avogadro's Law, Jim?
> >
> > The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
> > the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.
> >
> > The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
> > 1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.
> >
> > Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
> > phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
> > mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
> > same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.
> >
> He can as well take water thermodynamic tables,
> pressure over water and vapour density.
>
> and match them in formula ro[kg/m^3]=p.M/R/T
> where M is effective mean molecular mass.
> The M will go from about 18 for low temperatures
> to about 1.05 . 18 for 100 deg C

Gibberish.

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <323719d8a0ffc7ee...@dizum.com>,
FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx says...

Fuck, you're smart! Will you have my baby?

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[Poutnik]

Dne středa 9. března 2016 7:51:54 UTC+1 James McGinn napsal(a):

It seems like somebody have no clue what the mol is.

[Poutnik]

Dne středa 9. března 2016 8:30:29 UTC+1 James McGinn napsal(a):

For those with lack of basic theoretical skills, definitely gibberish.

[Sam Wormley]

Two guys who know their meteorology and their climatology, from my
institution.

ISU professor of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences
Bill Gutowski - Global Climate Change 101 >
https://isualumblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/global-climate-change-101/

ISU professor of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences
Eugene S. Takle (ISU) | Outreach Presentations
> http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/outreach.html





--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[hanson]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:>
> ISU professor of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences
> Bill Gutowski - Global Climate Change 101 >
> https://isualumblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/global-climate-change-101/
>
> ISU professor of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences
> Eugene S. Takle (ISU) | Outreach Presentations
>> http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/outreach.html
>

> These Two guys who know their meteorology

> and their climatology, from my institution.
>

hanson wrote:
..."your **institution**, not institute, Sam"?... hmmm....
So are you three guys, together, in the same mental ward?
Are you 3 sorry mental patient there for Green Hysteria &
pathological FUD mastering? What's Takle reaching out for?
ROTFLMAO

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:1d93c0c0-9cc7-4162...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

Did *you* notice the fact that no ultraviolet of sufficient energy can
make its way through the atmosphere to the troposphere to create your
kooky "water plasma", Jim? That utterly destroys your kooky conspiracy
theory, right there. And that's besides all the other avenues which
I've destroyed it, Jim.

Your kooky conspiracy theory is dead, Jim.

As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the
atmosphere:

<http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html>
=========================================================
It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a
water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at
least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if
you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only
you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of
energy about 12 electron volts of higher. That means the water
molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about
this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation
energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K.
So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to
make such a plasma.
=========================================================

Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32
nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet
light, nearly in the x-ray range.

And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of
plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere
is plasma.

Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through
the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less
energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm.

In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so
strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, plasma
*cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming majority of
atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are except for those
wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim.

Yet again, and via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky
little conspiracy theory.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Chimpy the Coin-Slot
Operated SuckMonkey, aka Checkmate The PickleTickler), socked up as
Mustaffa Sheboygan, in
<news:MPG.3149711fa...@news.altopia.com> did thusly jump

head first into the wood chipper again:

> In article <323719d8a0ffc7ee...@dizum.com>,
> Chimpy's Usenet Lord and Master
> <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> says...

Ah, hell. Chimpy ate up his entire stash of Oxycodone, Neurontin,
Vicodin, Norco, Xanax, N2O, Marijuana, Amphetamine, Ecstasy,
Hydrocodone, Alprazolam and Percocet, wore out his morbidly obese
boyfriends in pink spandex and lubed-up boxing gloves, and now he's
fagging the place up again.

<snicker>

--

FNVWe:
"The Man Who Spanked Chimpy Checkmate The Cowardly CockSmoker Out Of
AUK, Then Out Of The Flonk, Then Into Insanity, Then Made Him Run Away
Like A Little Spankard Bitch. Again."

In which Checkmate admits to being a faggot and fantasizing about men:
MID: <feb093af883d0bf2...@dizum.com>
MID: <ab050c692202f7d9...@dizum.com>

In which Checkmate says he wants to spank guys all night long:
MID: <k3m5ls$3pr$1...@news.mixmin.net>

In which Checkmate confesses his desire to fuck who he claims is a
guy:
MID: <k3oolf$cpe$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <k9nj0v$u4a$2...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <l8ogd6$1cd$4...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lclrtd$eei$4...@news.mixmin.net>

In which Checkmate admits he'd definitely fuck a male dog:
MID: <k2h0j1$6ll$5...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <k4dsc7$l32$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <k5m8o5$vmq$5...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>

In which Checkmate admits to having a golden showers fetish:
MID: <k79p80$9ps$3...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k8t9l0$nf0$5...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k8t9kv$nev$5...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k994eg$77l$1...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k9i8is$sna$3...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <lf3noh$sqv$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <76b587bf03232be2...@dizum.com>
MID: <d1590e1490afb949...@dizum.com>
MID: <4c614669bd9da0e2...@dizum.com>

In which Checkmate asks a guy for a blowjob (again):
MID: <ka4m1r$8rs$2...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <knd50p$7ni$2...@news.albasani.net>
MID: <knnmme$3a4$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <kp77db$rqk$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <kvvjjb$a8t$3...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <kvvjjb$a8u$3...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l069qt$g3j$9...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l1b6g1$qqv$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l65hh2$jpd$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l9b7ha$ret$4...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lfe72e$q0s$4...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lffimp$k2f$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <13de9e018d33aa5c...@dizum.com>
MID: <ddfe5035129d525f...@dizum.com>
MID: <8352c247386df605...@dizum.com>
MID: <863c1b2a4221005e...@dizum.com>
MID: <9d7e6e672aa61c16...@dizum.com>
MID: <aacd887c22128680...@dizum.com>
MID: <372519cc110e5acf...@dizum.com>
MID: <1b8820753ce4e2da...@dizum.com>

Checkmate's got a thing about tickling guy's asses with random
objects:
MID: <l8rapt$rfm$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lfm4f8$3jb$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <li2ao1$3rf$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <37fb49820eaf36d0...@dizum.com>
MID: <13badb999438389e...@dizum.com>
MID: <2ce704d96dbf41ca...@dizum.com>
MID: <f9b10e223db85839...@dizum.com>
MID: <184091e3de3a1009...@dizum.com>
MID: <ee740ba6bc409af0...@dizum.com>
MID: <d1d62217afbcbf98...@dizum.com>
MID: <ac96244a69bc75dd...@dizum.com>
MID: <9f02c35ef6d67ac0...@dizum.com>
MID: <3e4b3a8bb953839b...@dizum.com>
MID: <9ec2ad3439122a90...@dizum.com>
MID: <761ef52f7fc54d46...@dizum.com>
MID: <8ef71d83a5af476e...@dizum.com>

Checkmate's so gay he repeatedly insists that a picture of a vagina is
actually an asshole and balls... he went on and on about assholes and
balls... couldn't shut up about them... come to find out, he was just
trying to tell us that his lost love was actually a man:
MID: <l84jo7$cnd$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l84oip$icu$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l85ste$ao$3...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l87aud$saf$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l88ptv$nlj$3...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8dvdt$tj2$4...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8kl20$91i$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8psgt$m7d$1...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8rapv$rfm$3...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l98brg$6hp$6...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <ldg914$pel$2...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <31e4747ee7179064...@dizum.com>
MID: <4dba3edb9556cb8d...@dizum.com>

Chimpy the neurotic overwrought hysterical hissy-fit ninny escalates
his prescription drug abuse to "calm the fuck down" (Chimpy's words):
MID: <512f192b17a529cc...@dizum.com> - Oxy, Neurontin
MID: <kjucol$ckr$3...@newsfeed.x-privat.org> - Oxy, Vicodin
MID: <kmqoip$cg3$8...@news.albasani.net> - Norco
MID: <knc9l2$e66$2...@news.albasani.net> - Vicodin
MID: <6lnn79.p...@news.alt.net> - Oxycodone, Vicodin
MID: <6lo0dt....@news.alt.net> - Xanax
MID: <krt925$u63$3...@news.mixmin.net> - N2O
MID: <6o9mv7....@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <6os03j....@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <6p12vg....@news.alt.net> - Marijuana
MID: <6pg2lv....@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <kuqmlq$mi7$1...@news.mixmin.net> - Amphetamine (!)
MID: <6qprvj....@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <6r26ti....@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <6stbk8.p...@news.alt.net> - Ecstasy
MID: <l1b6g2$qr0$2...@news.mixmin.net> - Vicodin
MID: <l5kd53$8kd$1...@news.mixmin.net> - Norco
MID: <lanvc8$f06$2...@news.mixmin.net> - Norco
MID: <larrim$lft$1...@news.mixmin.net> - N2O
MID: <lcckii$mue$3...@news.mixmin.net> - N2O
MID: <e7848d7ebc7f0b52...@dizum.com> - Hydrocodone,
Alprazolam
MID: <MPG.2eb9f496c...@news.alt.net> - Percocet

Chimpy Checkmate's Famous Faggotisms:
=====================================
Chimpy tries enticing a straight man who lives with a woman to join
him in his lonely faggoty lifestyle:
Message-ID: <b1ae7a665b08a82e...@dizum.com>
"How about I put the squirrel up your ass to keep your gerbil
company?"

Chimpy's desperate plea to a dude:
MID: <5b690abba10d04da...@dizum.com>
"Diddle me!"

MID: <07b50fac74279fab...@dizum.com>
"Trojans are a condiment."

Chimpy discusses his new boyfriend, Dave "SnuhWolf" Norris:
MID: <c565ada4723ca2e5...@dizum.com>
"Snuhbaby makes a good cock warmer."

MID: <ffd2a514115a20cb...@dizum.com>
"Pack your donut hole, any time, anywhere!"

Chimpy discussing the relative merits of 4 inches versus 10 inches:
MID: <b62ad5949e43f369...@dizum.com>
"Plus, I suppose it doesn't hurt as much when they stuff it up your
butt."

MID: <MPG.2a5ec5516...@news.alt.net>
"Best you keester a kielbasa."

Message-ID: <kvvjjb$a8t$3...@news.mixmin.net>
"Brag about it to my dick."
"My dick can't quite hear you, could you come a little closer?"

MID: <knnmmb$3a4$1...@news.mixmin.net>
"If you see a dick, suck it."

MID: <6qft9a....@news.alt.net>
"The Winchester 1892 would make a damned-good dildo."

MID: <l61jjg$tth$1...@news.mixmin.net>
"Pump a rump."

MID: <l9d76m$k1v$4...@news.mixmin.net>
"You gerbils are always in the dark."

MID: <lal84d$g2u$5...@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <97bfaeca4f3abe27...@dizum.com>
"I gotta gay named Guido from Jersey"

MID: <lamgt8$b2d$1...@news.mixmin.net>
"If they're soft, yer probably blowin' it all wrong."

MID: <lchub0$q96$5...@news.mixmin.net>
"Hitler would have made a damned good Queen."

MID: <lcsgjb$obk$2...@news.mixmin.net>
"Don't get slapped by the cocks you crave."

MID: <b068d280517a2d6c...@dizum.com>
To a nearly toothless man:
"I wouldn't pay you to suck my dick if your last tooth fell out."
So Chimpy prefers paying *nearly* toothless men for blowjobs, but not
*fully* toothless men. LOL

MID: <afe97a65ff77e738...@dizum.com>
"If I send you some money, will you suck Greg's dick?"
Chimpy likes to watch. LOL

MID: <9d7e6e672aa61c16...@dizum.com>
"Suck my clit."
Chimpy's proposition to a tranny sucking faggot who gets around being
gay by claiming tranny cocks are 'huge dangling clits'. LOL

Chimpy is confused again: "giant ball-like labia". LOL
MID: <4dba3edb9556cb8d...@dizum.com>
=====================================

What a FAG!

Melt, Chimpy, melt.
Froth, Chimpy, froth.
Dance, Chimpy, dance!

<snicker>

/\ Properly known as Bill
\ /\ The Monster You Kooks Can't Handle
\ / \ THERE IS NO CABAL - LONG LIVE THE NEW CABAL
\/ The AUK coup is complete. The Old Cabal is no more.

Accept no substitutes...
if it's from Databasix, it's a sure bet it's from a kook.

databasix.com / PacketDerm, LLC / COTSE:
all branches of the same malignant tree.

Message-ID: <l7m8ig$1ld$7...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8jh$1le$8...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8lh$1le$9...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8ne$1ld$8...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8pc$1le$1...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8rb$1ld$9...@news.mixmin.net>

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:6d07f1b3-228c-44f8...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

I get a fucking moron named James McGinn who doesn't understand molar
mass or molar volume.

"if the average drop size is 20 moles" LOL!

You're no physicist, Jim. You're an uneducated kooktard.

Now, let's explore my latest destruction of your kooky conspiracy
theory, shall we?

================================================

I've destroyed the central tenet of your kooky conspiracy theory,
James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on.

I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility.
That's, what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky
conspiracy theory?

Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma
existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from
that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well
impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning
strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never
stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near
clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who
knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor,
apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled
you.

Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere,
just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere.
That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause.

For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy.
It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few
microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no
appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and
updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface
area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its
radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is
proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized
water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet
radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest
average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they
stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which
is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting
the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls,
thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous
phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets
grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface
area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall
to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different
updraft speeds) cause different types of rain.

Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an
environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s);
convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are
associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second.

For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its
fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air
down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of
sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as
compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of
air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further
proves this fact.

Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is
another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas
where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating
lightning ... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the
Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by
rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a
dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced
tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle
being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the
P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and
telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination
signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their
Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically
the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster,
thus the Triboelectrification Effect is stronger.

So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which
types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right?

As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the

atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere,
given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin,
wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds):

<http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html>
=========================================================
It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a
water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at
least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if
you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only
you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of
energy about 12 electron volts of higher. That means the water
molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about
this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation
energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K.
So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to
make such a plasma.
=========================================================

Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32
nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet
light, nearly in the x-ray range.

And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of
plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere
is plasma.

Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through
the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less
energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm.

In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so

strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water

plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming
majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are
except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim.

Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the
troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting

of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because
he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're

just a delusional kooktard?

So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky
conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it.

<snicker>

See how simple things are when one is sane, Jim? See how much sense
that all makes? The world (indeed, the universe) doesn't work by kooky
conspiracies and impossibilities as you claim, Jim, it works by a set
of immutable rules. Learn those rules, Jim, and stop being such a
fucking moron.

--

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.

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

SPNAK!

<snicker>

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <aa72310191f95998...@dizum.com>,
FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx says...

> Ah, hell. Chimpy ate up his entire stash of Oxycodone, Neurontin,
> Vicodin, Norco, Xanax, N2O, Marijuana, Amphetamine, Ecstasy,
> Hydrocodone, Alprazolam and Percocet, wore out his morbidly obese
> boyfriends in pink spandex and lubed-up boxing gloves, and now he's
> fagging the place up again.
>

Dumbass lists the same few drugs by many different names to stretch the
truth beyond its breaking limit.

Tell me, you disingenuous prick, what's the difference between Norco,
Vicodin, and hydrocodone? They're all the same thing with different
names.

What's the difference between oxycodone and Percocet?

How about the difference between Alprazolam and Xanax?

So far, you've listed three drugs, only two of which I actually take,
and used seven different names. You've also listed marijuana,
amphetamine, and Ecstasy... none of which I take, and N2O, which is the
gas in a can of whipped cream, and Neurontin, which doesn't get you
high. So your list of 12 drugs that you claim I take, actually
translates to two... unless you want to count the Neurontin to help you
make whatever point you think you're making. Have you ever attempted to
have an honest conversation with anyone in your whole pathetic life?

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[James McGinn]

Do the math, dumbass. Without gaseous H2O convection theory is reduced to nonsense:

20 x 18 = 360

10 x 18 = 180

2 x 18 = 36

N2 = 28

O2 = 32

Convection Versus Plasma
https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:a23fe731-7aea-42e4...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> Do the math, dumbass.

You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, Dumbass. LOL

> Without gaseous H2O convection theory is reduced to nonsense:

Wrong. Where's your inclusion of pressure differential due to
altitude, Jim?

> 20 x 18 = 360
>
> 10 x 18 = 180
>
> 2 x 18 = 36
>
> N2 = 28
>
> O2 = 32
>
> Convection Versus Plasma
> https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk
>
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes

Still struggling with the fact that cooler drier air can sit above
warmer moister air because of the pressure differential of altitude
creating an energetic hurdle that the lower-atmosphere air must
surmount in order to rise due to buoyancy, Jim? I've already explained
it to you, even did the calculations for you... your inability to
grasp the concept means you're too retarded and insane to grasp
reality, Jim. Therefore you're too insane and retarded to construct a
theory that reflects reality, which is why you've instead constructed
your kooky conspiracy theory.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.

The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.

Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.

The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas
the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP.

Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase

28.57 g for dry air

Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore

air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air.

Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its
gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant.

Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude
decreases.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water
partial pressure will have the same density.

At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous
water partial pressure will have higher density.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous
water partial pressure will have lower density.

For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure,
air at a higher altitude will have lower density.

(1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative
humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3.

Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative
humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C,
the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3.

Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to
increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the
air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the
air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or
the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater
than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity.

Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas
relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that
temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather
systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions.

IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which
requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air
itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of
monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of
higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density).

It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is
"heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard, it's because density of
the air varies with altitude, as does temperature. Or are you going to
deny the existence of gravity the same as you've denied the existence
of evaporation and sublimation?

These factors cause air to flow from higher pressure regions to lower
pressure regions. But once you get near the top of the troposphere,
the temperature no longer goes down, it goes up, thus air finds it
more difficult to continue rising (especially considering that as it
rises and expands through the troposphere due to decreasing pressure
at altitude, it gets cooler and thus more dense due to the Ideal Gas
Law). This generally balances out at the tropopause. Above this, the
jet stream winds decrease in speed.

This horizontally flowing air at the tropopause is affected by
planetary rotation, causing the air to turn to the right (in the
Northern Hemisphere) in a phenomenon known as the Coriolis Effect.
This causes a spiraling around the cold and warm air masses which
induced the jet stream to begin with, thus causing those cold and warm
air masses to spiral. This wind shear between warm and cold air masses
is how hurricanes form, Jim.

You'll note the jet stream runs at the top and slightly above the
tropopause for the polar jets, thus they don't "deliver energy and
activity to top of the thunderclouds", given that the tropopause
ranges from an average of 5.6 miles at the poles to 11 miles at the
equator, whereas the highest clouds are thin wispy cirrus,
cirrostratus and cirrocumulus clouds, and they are the *only* types of
clouds at the top of the troposphere, except for the occasional
unusually strong weather system forming cumulus, cumulonimbus or
nimbostratus clouds all the way up to the top of the tropopause.

Because remember, it's the updraft which forms the clouds in the first
place, and the speed of the updraft which determines what type of
cloud is formed. And that updraft is caused by a combination of warmer
air and air with higher gaseous water content creating air with
greater buoyancy, carrying that gaseous water content upward, where
the temperature drops, causing that gaseous water to condense and / or
nucleate into clouds and eventually fall as rain under the right
conditions.

And that destroys yet another of your kooky contentions... because
you're a low-information uneducated moron trying to argue a subject
about which you know very little, while k'laming yourself to be a
'physicist' because you once took a Basic Meteorology elective
class... a rather pathetic appeal to authority fallacy whilst trying
to establish yourself as that authority. You are not an authority,
Jim, you're just a delusional kooktard spouting a kooky and
discredited conspiracy theory.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

That's one means by which I utterly destroyed your kooky conspiracy
theory, Jim.

I've destroyed the central tenets of your kooky conspiracy theory,

James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on.

I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility.

That's... what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky
conspiracy theory?

Now let's explore another avenue of destruction of your kooky
conspiracy theory, Jim. It proves that what you k'lame is happening is
a physical impossibility. If high-energy ultraviolet just 3.32 nm
wavelength away from the x-ray range were getting through the
atmosphere to the troposphere, life on this planet would be nigh-well
impossible. And that's the *minimum* photon energy required to even
*begin* to create plasma from water... to plasmize all the water in
the atmosphere would require a very high flux of very energetic
photons reaching throughout the troposphere.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

thus the Triboelectric Effect is stronger.

So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which
types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right?

As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the
atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere,
given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin,
wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds):

<http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html>
=========================================================
It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a
water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at
least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if
you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only
you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of

energy about 12 electron volts or higher. That means the water

Anyone with any interest can look up the data and corroborate it for
themselves. I am certain, Jim, that you will not... you will instead
run away from reality again. It is all you can do, given your
delusional mental state. Your sanity hangs in the balance, thus you'll
avoid any proof which upsets the delicate smoke-and-mirrors world
you've constructed as means of propping up your failing sanity, Jim.

So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky
conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it.

<snicker>

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

See how simple things are when one is sane, Jim? See how much sense
that all makes? The world (indeed, the universe) doesn't work by kooky
conspiracies and impossibilities as you claim, Jim, it works by a set
of immutable rules. Learn those rules, Jim, and stop being such a

fucking moron. Go back and finish high school, Jim. You'll be the
better for it, and likely the saner, too.

<snicker>

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Chimpy the Coin-Slot
Operated SuckMonkey, aka Checkmate The PickleTickler), socked up as
Mustaffa Sheboygan, in

<news:MPG.314a1a65d...@news.altopia.com> did thusly jump

head first into the wood chipper again:

> In article <aa72310191f95998...@dizum.com>,

> Chimpy's Usenet Lord and Master

> <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> says...

>> Ah, hell. Chimpy ate up his entire stash of Oxycodone, Neurontin,
>> Vicodin, Norco, Xanax, N2O, Marijuana, Amphetamine, Ecstasy,
>> Hydrocodone, Alprazolam and Percocet, wore out his morbidly obese
>> boyfriends in pink spandex and lubed-up boxing gloves, and now he's
>> fagging the place up again.

> Dumbass lists the same few drugs by many different names to stretch the
> truth beyond its breaking limit.

I note that Chimpy doesn't deny the part about the morbidly obese
boyfriends in pink spandex and lubed-up boxing gloves. Chimpy the gay
junkie would much rather be known as gay than a junkie. LOL

> Tell me, you disingenuous prick, what's the difference between Norco,
> Vicodin, and hydrocodone? They're all the same thing with different
> names.

Only a prescription drug-abusing faggot would know that, Chimpy. LOL

Remember, those are all the drugs *you* have described abusing, as
outlined in my .sig. I'll see if I can find your description of that
drug that loosens up your sphincter so your morbidly obese boyfriends
in pink spandex and lubed-up boxing gloves don't get stuck.

<snicker>

> What's the difference between oxycodone and Percocet?
>
> How about the difference between Alprazolam and Xanax?
>
> So far, you've listed three drugs, only two of which I actually take,
> and used seven different names. You've also listed marijuana,
> amphetamine, and Ecstasy... none of which I take, and N2O, which is the
> gas in a can of whipped cream, and Neurontin, which doesn't get you
> high. So your list of 12 drugs that you claim I take, actually
> translates to two... unless you want to count the Neurontin to help you
> make whatever point you think you're making. Have you ever attempted to
> have an honest conversation with anyone in your whole pathetic life?

Translation:
"I'm a bigger junkie than you, so I *win*, for fuck sake!"

Pathetic. Next the gay queer gay fag will k'lame he's won because he
can accurately identify the various strains of fromage fermenting in
the crotchal regions of his morbidly obese boyfriends in pink spandex
and lubed-up boxing gloves.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, in

<news:c49a74db62e18edd...@dizum.com> wrote:

> James McGinn, in
> <news:6d07f1b3-228c-44f8...@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:

>>> Still denying Avogadro's Law, Jim?
>>>
>>> The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
>>> the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.

>> Except if the average drop size is 20 moles. Then what number
>> should we employ. Hmm. 20 x 18 = 360.
>>
>> Plug that into your equation and see what you get.

> I get a fucking moron named James McGinn who doesn't understand molar
> mass or molar volume.

James McGinn, 'CEO' of Solving Tornadoes and Phictitious Physicist,
are you there? No reply? You're going to stick by your kooky k'lame
that each drop of water in clouds amounts to 360.4 grams of water, or
0.3604 liters?

Are you beginning to understand now, Jim, that you're far out of your
depth, that you really understand very little about that which you've
been blathering, and your best bet is to drop all this nonsense and
educate yourself along conventional lines so you're not a delusional
kooktard anymore?

No, you don't see... you're mentally ill. You're *so* mentally ill
that your mental illness precludes you realizing that you're mentally
ill.

Don't worry, Jim... I specialize in helping the insane. My particular
brand of therapy might be coined "ballistic boot" therapy.

I'm here for you, Jim. I'll get you through this. I'll make you sane
even if it kills you. <nods>

<snicker>

No reply, James McGinn? Are you still bent on denying reality and
thereby exacerbating your ever-encroaching insanity, Jim?

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James McGinn, in
> <news:a23fe731-7aea-42e4...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > Do the math, dumbass.
>
> You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, Dumbass. LOL
>
> > Without gaseous H2O convection theory is reduced to nonsense:
>
> Wrong. Where's your inclusion of pressure differential due to
> altitude, Jim?

Irelevant.

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James McGinn, in
> <news:a23fe731-7aea-42e4...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > Do the math, dumbass.
>
> You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, Dumbass. LOL
>
> > Without gaseous H2O convection theory is reduced to nonsense:
>
> Wrong. Where's your inclusion of pressure differential due to
> altitude, Jim?
>
> > 20 x 18 = 360
> >
> > 10 x 18 = 180
> >
> > 2 x 18 = 36
> >
> > N2 = 28
> >
> > O2 = 32
> >
> > Convection Versus Plasma
> > https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk
> >
> > James McGinn
> > Solving Tornadoes
>
> Still struggling with the fact that cooler drier air can sit above

> warmer moister air because of the pressure differential \\\\

Relevance?

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>

> James McGinn, in.

> <news:a23fe731-7aea-42e4...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > Do the math, dumbass.
>
> You're demonstrating that you can't do the math,

It's pretty simple

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> > Do the math, dumbass.
>
> You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, Dumbass. LOL
>
> > Without gaseous H2O convection theory is reduced to nonsense:
>
> Wrong. Where's your inclusion of pressure differential due to
> altitude, Jim?

Pressure diffenrential?

["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]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 23:19:59 -0500, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, in
> <news:c49a74db62e18edd...@dizum.com> wrote:

what's got you replying to your own poasts now, k0oky?

--
"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu

-

FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:
<3dcad3dd0a0d3972...@dizum.com>

">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>> phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>> voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)

Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking
*moron*?

"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf

on page 2:

** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII
art if you ask nicely.
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb...@dizum.com>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

//float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
//float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
float_precision t=float_precision(0); // time variable
float_precision sum=float_precision(0); // sum of SnickerTurd's
ridiculous sinewave mess
float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25); //
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
float_precision PI;
PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

// this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
while(sum < snickerPrediction){

// fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:
<db672705e57e4932...@dizum.com>
sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))
+
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

// perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh
snickerTurds
if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
}
t = t+STEP;
}
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e328...@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves
never reaches that. They never reach their max values at the same time.
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8...@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages.

*/
cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."
<f4f9193fa7d28b76...@dizum.com>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL

on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*

*hell doesn't exist. hope everybody is having a productive evening.

-

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

-

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers
containing "ro...@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

-

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

-

Coming soon! To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot> I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account? <snicker>
You> Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot> Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot> Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot> Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)

-

snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message
<b5e7da79a455d0c9...@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden
service. It's not rocket science.

_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._ (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a
kiddie pr0n network.)

That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:534aa80a-684f-4816...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:a23fe731-7aea-42e4...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> Do the math, dumbass.

>> You're demonstrating that you can't do the math, Dumbass. LOL

>>> Without gaseous H2O convection theory is reduced to nonsense:

>> Wrong. Where's your inclusion of pressure differential due to
>> altitude, Jim?

>>> 20 x 18 = 360
>>>
>>> 10 x 18 = 180
>>>
>>> 2 x 18 = 36
>>>
>>> N2 = 28
>>>
>>> O2 = 32
>>>
>>> Convection Versus Plasma

>>> https://youtu.be/LvSyalcoRAk

>>>
>>> James McGinn
>>> Solving Tornadoes

>> Still struggling with the fact that cooler drier air can sit above
>> warmer moister air because of the pressure differential

> Relevance?

The relevance is contained within that which you cowardly snipped out,
Jim. Here it is again, so you can run away from reality again, Jim.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:f3f1d6a3-b895-4e7e...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

Bwahahahaa! That's it, Jim, do exactly as I'd predicted you'd do, as
every other Dunning-Kruger afflicted moron has ever done... keep
insisting that your kooky conspiracy theory *must* be right because
damn it!, you said so! despite that mountain of evidence crushing your
skull.

You're right on the verge of utter insanity, Jim, and you're too
stupid to even see it. And just as with every other Dunning-Kruger
sufferer, you'll continue crashing headlong through the brambles of
stupidity and insanity towing your kooky little theory behind you,
rather than going back to examine your underlying premise.

In short, Jim, you are my stock in trade on Usenet. You make the job
of driving you insane so easy... because my kooks always do my work
for me.

<snicker>

Now, let's reexamine that reality you deny, Jim, shall we?
==========================================================

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey)
5907 Stanton Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA
(412) 853-6395
(412) 799-0532
(412) 665-8289
(412) 404-8757

DildoRider admits he's stoooopid:
MID: <c65504c436778934...@dizum.com>
=================================================
>> it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's
>> damaged your brain, DildoRider.

> then it appears that you like shooting fish in
> barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are.

Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is
akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're
stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell.

<snicker>
=================================================

DildoRider admits he's "really stupid" (his words). LOL
MID: <8a9faed11123abfa...@dizum.com>
=================================================
> so what you're saying is that your targets for attack
> have to be really stupid or else you can't manage?
=================================================

DildoRider admits much more about himself:
MID: <36c6802852caf4f7...@dizum.com>
=================================================
"absolutely and completely retarded, insane, gay, ugly, smelly,
toothless, dirt-poor, incontinent and possibly homeless"
=================================================

This is a libtard's method of "winning", for fuck sake.

150 IQ? LOL

[Sergio]

you're simpler

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:3573875a-314a-43ac...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

If you weren't a reality-denying kooktard too psychologically weak to
go back and reexamine your underlying premise, you'd read the reality
I promulgate and realize that the entire world is now laughing at you,
Jim. I've proven you're insane, Jim... now what are you going to do?

Here, Jim. Prove to the world that you're a loonytunes moron again:

[James McGinn]

You lost me.

Sorry.

[Sergio]

of course your lost, you are not a scientist, not a physicist, not a
chemist, you are unable to follow simplistic equations.
You are all airy-fairy la de da flippin AIRHEAD !!

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 9:59:37 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > Pressure diffenrential?
>
> If you weren't a reality-denying kooktard too psychologically weak to
> go back and reexamine your underlying premise, you'd read the reality
> I promulgate and realize that the entire world is now laughing at you,
> Jim. I've proven you're insane, Jim... now what are you going to do?
>
> Here, Jim. Prove to the world that you're a loonytunes moron again:
>
> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
> the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.
>
> The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
> 1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.
>
> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
> phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
> mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
> same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.
>
> The density of water in its gaseous phase

It's gaseous phase only occurs at temps much higher.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:df281cd1-872f-49d2...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

Sure it is, Jim... yet you can't seem to grasp that simple reality.
Here it is again so you can demonstrate to a worldwide audience that
you're a reality-denying loon, Jim.

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 10:14:38 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James McGinn, in
> <news:df281cd1-872f-49d2...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-8,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> >> James McGinn, in.
> >> <news:a23fe731-7aea-42e4...@googlegroups.com> did
> >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> >>> Do the math, dumbass.
>
> >> You're demonstrating that you can't do the math,
>
> > It's pretty simple
>
> Sure it is, Jim...

What is the boiling temp of H2O?

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:bf8d6de4-6d2d-479c...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

Higher temperatures like the 12,000 K necessary for plasmized water to
occur, Jim?

IOW, your kooky theory is even farther off than you k'lame reality to
be, Jim. By more than an order of magnitude.

Here, Jim. Prove to the world that you're a loonytunes moron again:

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.

The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.

Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.

[Poutnik]

Dne 10/03/2016 v 07:19 James McGinn napsal(a):

> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 10:14:38 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>>
>>

>>>>> Do the math, dumbass.
>>
>>>> You're demonstrating that you can't do the math,
>>
>>> It's pretty simple
>>
>> Sure it is, Jim...
>
> What is the boiling temp of H2O?

At what pressure ?
As it is pressure dependent.

Water boils, when external pressure is equal to
or less than saturated vapour pressure at current temperature.

You can cause even a cold water to boil,
using a vacuum pump.

In upper stratosphere,
water boils until freezes,
and than sublimates until the ice crystals disappear.

100 deg C / 373.15 K
is just nominal boiling temp
for nominal pressure 101 325 Pa,
without special physical significance.




--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[James McGinn]

See steam tables.

[Poutnik]

Dne 10/03/2016 v 07:11 James McGinn napsal(a):

>
> It's gaseous phase only occurs at temps much higher.

I routinely caused water to boil
at 20 deg C in a high school...

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:48f28ab7-1cb3-4ca1...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K.

Your kooky theory is even more wrong than you k'lame reality to be,

Jim. By more than an order of magnitude.

Here, Jim. Prove to the world that you're a loonytunes moron again:

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

[Poutnik]

Dne 10/03/2016 v 08:11 Poutnik napsal(a):

> Dne 10/03/2016 v 07:11 James McGinn napsal(a):
>>
>> It's gaseous phase only occurs at temps much higher.
>
> I routinely caused water to boil
> at 20 deg C in a high school...
>

P.S.>
If you took a boiling water,
stopped heating, but vacuumed it by a good vacuum pump instead,
it will not stop boiling until rest of water freezes.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
<news:aeb2eb1h3eho9h7sc...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> Fakey (aka "Nutcase dude") wrote:
>
>> What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K.

> ROFL! There are no molecules in a plasma, faketard.
> Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature.

You apparently *like* proving yourself to be a moron:

<https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/water-and-plasma.390771/>
"Any substance - regardless of what is its composition - becomes
plasma if heated high enough. However, once it is heated it doesn't
contain molecules, as all chemical bonds are broken."

<http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html>
=========================================================
It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a
water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at
least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if
you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only
you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of
energy about 12 electron volts or higher. That means the water
molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about
this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation
energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K.
So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to
make such a plasma.
=========================================================

> Sheesh!

SPNAK!

>> Your kooky theory is even more wrong than you k'lame reality to be,
>> Jim. By more than an order of magnitude.

> What's the electronegativity of oxygen, Ersatzia?

Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen
with that of the oxygen atom in a water molecule and prove that PhD
professor of applied sciences wrong, eh, Moron? LOL

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_molecule.html>
London South Bank University - Physics Department
Martin Chaplin BSc PhD CChem FRSC
Emeritus Professor of Applied Science
111 peer-reviewed studies published
3 books published
3 patents granted
==================================================
Due to the relatively large positive charge on the oxygen atom nucleus
(8+) and the closeness of its electrons, the oxygen atom attracts
electrons much more strongly (i.e. is much more electronegative) than
the hydrogen atoms (1+). This results in a charge transfer from the
hydrogen atoms towards the oxygen atom and, hence, the polarity of the
water molecule.

Early 5-point molecular models, with explicit negative charge where
the lone pairs are purported to be, fared poorly in describing
hydrogen bonding, but more recent models show some promise. Although
there is no apparent consensus of opinion [116], such descriptions of
substantial sp3-hybridized lone pairs in the isolated water molecule
should perhaps be avoided [117], as an sp2-hybridized structure (plus
a pz orbital) is indicated.

The molecule H2O has 10 electrons associated, 8 from the oxygen atom
and one each from the two hydrogen atoms.
==================================================

And all of the above backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies by people
far smarter and saner than you, Moron.

SPNAK!

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

<snicker>

> https://www.google.com/search?q=electronegativity+of+oxygen

>> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
>> phase and air have a molar volume

> Water in its gaseous phase doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law,
> moron. Do you know what steam tables are, and why sane
> people use them?

You just love proving yourself to be a moron, don't you?

<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17362/what-type-of-substances-allows-the-use-of-the-ideal-gas-law>
========================================
Pure water vapor at 1 atm and 373 K has Pr=1/217=0.0046, so the ideal
gas law applies to within 10% error.

The ideal gas law is derived from a model (the ideal gas), and like
every other model it applies where it's underling assumptions are good
approximations to reality.
========================================

The Ideal Gas Law is applied to the air *and* the gaseous phase water
vapor, because it comes within 10% error, one of the criteria for
using the Ideal Gas Law, you fecking nong. Moron.

SPNAK!

> Do you need someone to follow you around usenet and correct
> all your fuckups?

No, I have a moron following me around Usenet and making more fuckups.
Perhaps we can get someone to follow that moron around Usenet and
correct all his fuckups. Moron. LOL

> I can see why you lost an argument with another raving loon.
> You have more kooksine than he does!

You mean my having utterly destroyed James McGinn's kooky theory by
proving via several different avenues that it is a physical
impossibility, such as the fact that water plasma does not and cannot
exist in the troposphere?

You didn't understand any of that, which is why you're now agreeing
with that kooktard James McGinn. You're as delusional as he is.

SPNAK!

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:d837306e-32c0-42c5...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 10:34:40 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:bf8d6de4-6d2d-479c...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> It's gaseous phase only occurs at temps much higher.
>>>
>>> Sorry to burst your bubble.

>> Higher temperatures like the 12,000 K necessary for plasmized water to
>> occur, Jim?
>>
>> IOW, your kooky theory is even farther off than you k'lame reality to
>> be, Jim. By more than an order of magnitude.

> See steam tables.

Non sequiturs won't help you now, Jim. You've become a laughingstock,
a buffoonish moron desperately backpedaling away from the kooky
conspiracy theory that you were stupid enough to think actually
reflected reality, when in fact it was off by nearly two orders of
magnitude more than you claimed reality to be off.

Here, Jim. Run away from your shame again:

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.

The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.

Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.

[James McGinn]

This kind of helps. But my question is can I use the ideal gas law with sauturated liquids or saturated vapors? – Greg Harrington Nov 23 '11 at 17:35
1
The ideal gas does not exhibit any behaviors related to saturation and condensation, which makes it very risky to apply in any situation where those behaviors might matter. Note that just replacing it with the Van der Waals equation of state won't help unless you understand the thermodynamics of the situation. This is rather the point of my answer: you have to understand the conditions for validity of the models you're thinking of applying and you are responsible for checking that they are satisfied. – dmckee♦ Nov 23 '11 at 17:54

So how do I know when I should use the Ideal Gas Law? I was looking at examples in the book and there were times where I thought I could use it, and they don't end up using it. – Greg Harrington Nov 23 '11 at 17:55
1
@Greg: "Is it true that I can use the ideal gas equation with pure liquids or pure gases?" - pure gases, yes; pure liquids, no. All that's needed is that the ideal gas assumptions should be "applicable" to the situation at hand. Usually, this means high temperatures (keeps the particles moving randomly) and low pressures (particles can be as far apart and noninteracting as possible). A liquid is a "gas" at low temperature and/or high pressure, so one requires a different equation of state. – user172 Nov 23 '11 at 23:58
1
Liquids that exhibit a surface tension (that is, essentially all of them) fail the no inter-particle forces at mean distance test (because those inter-particle fores are responsible for the surface tension). – dmckee♦ Nov 24 '11 at 0:52

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:56:19 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
> 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
> 28.57 g for dry air

Ideal gas laws are applicable to ideal gases, dumbass. They are not applicable to liquids that are suspended in air.

It's really that simple, dumbass.

[James McGinn]

Only when it is above it's boiling point is H2O an ideal gas. And that doesn't occur in our atmosphere.

Facts are facts. Deal with it.

[Sam Wormley]

On 3/10/16 7:39 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> Only when it is above it's boiling point is H2O an ideal gas.

H2O spectra in observed in cold (really cold) clouds of interstellar
space, planetary atmosphere, stars, etc. But more importantly, in
the troposphere of the earth, making up about one percent of the gas.

Humidity measurements of gaseous H2O are made hourly by tens of
thousands of weather stations around the world.



--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[Sergio]

<snip Ko0K crap>

[Sergio]

On 3/10/2016 7:39 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 5:30:13 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:56:19 AM UTC-8, Friendly
>> Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>> Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh: 18.02
>>> grams for water in its gaseous phase 28.57 g for dry air
>>
>> Ideal gas laws are applicable to ideal gases, dumbass. They are
>> not applicable to liquids that are suspended in air.
>>
>> It's really that simple, dumbass.
>
> Only when it is above it's boiling point is H2O an ideal gas.

how can H2O be an ideal gas ?

(you need to study up on the meaning of scientific words)

> And
> that doesn't occur in our atmosphere.

Your imagination does not make it true.

>
> Facts are facts. Deal with it.

Your "facts" are created by your imagination.

I know you don't have much to play with upstairs, but Deal with it dummy.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 6:40:27 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> how can H2O be an ideal gas?

That you have to ask this question shows how out of touch you are.

H2O is an ideal gas at temperatures/pressures above it's boiling point, which does not occur in earth's atmosphere.

You obviously don't understand any of this stuff. Why do you hang out here in this NG?

[Sam Wormley]

No James, Ideal gas (not particularly applicable to water vapour)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas

> An ideal gas is a theoretical gas composed of many randomly moving
> point particles that do not interact except when they collide
> elastically. The ideal gas concept is useful because it obeys the
> ideal gas law, a simplified equation of state, and is amenable to
> analysis under statistical mechanics. One mole of an ideal gas has a
> volume of 22.7 L at STP as defined by IUPAC.
>
> At normal conditions such as standard temperature and pressure, most
> real gases behave qualitatively like an ideal gas. Many gases such as
> nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, noble gases, and some heavier gases like
> carbon dioxide can be treated like ideal gases within reasonable
> tolerances.[1] Generally, a gas behaves more like an ideal gas at
> higher temperature and lower pressure,[1] as the potential energy due
> to intermolecular forces becomes less significant compared with the
> particles' kinetic energy, and the size of the molecules becomes less
> significant compared to the empty space between them.
>
> The ideal gas model *tends to fail* at lower temperatures or higher
> pressures, when intermolecular forces and molecular size become
> important. It also fails for most heavy gases, such as many
> refrigerants,[1] and *for gases with strong intermolecular forces* ,
> *notably water vapor* . At high pressures, the volume of a real gas is
> often considerably greater than that of an ideal gas. At low
> temperatures, the pressure of a real gas is often considerably less
> than that of an ideal gas. At some point of low temperature and high
> pressure, real gases undergo a phase transition, such as to a liquid
> or a solid. The model of an ideal gas, however, does not describe or
> allow phase transitions.



James, water vapour, doesn't have to behave like an "ideal gas" to
exist. In fact, water vapour (gas) make up about one percent of the
troposphere.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 6:56:35 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:

> James, water vapour, doesn't have to behave like an "ideal gas" to
> exist. In fact, water vapour (gas) make up about one percent of the
> troposphere.

Nobody is disputing the existence of vapor in earth's atmosphere. We're disputing whether its a gas or a liquid.

How is it you haven't grasped this distinction yet, Sam?

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:e80ac93a-25e3-42d1...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:56:19 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
>> 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
>> 28.57 g for dry air

> Ideal gas laws are applicable to ideal gases, dumbass.

They are also applicable to gases when their margin of error are
within 10%, as both water vapor and air are.

Air contains:
78.08% nitrogen
20.95% oxygen
0.93% argon
0.038% carbon dioxide
All the above are relatively small, light, non-polar molecules,
characteristics mimicking an ideal gas.

Atmospheric air contains typically less than 3% of water in its
gaseous phase, thus this skews the Ideal Gas Law by a very small
amount. Which is why I also calculated the water vapor partial
pressure for you, Jim.

===========================================================
Another method of debunking your retarded drivel is via the speed of
sound in dry air and air laden with water in its gaseous phase.

The Ideal Gas Model predicts that the speed of sound in a pure gas
will be:
v_sound = SQRT((y * P)/p)

Where:
y = specific heat ratio or adiabatic exponent
P = absolute pressure of gas
p = density of gas

Using the Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT (with 'n' constant, ie: the number
of gas molecules is constant), the equation above can be rewritten as:

v_sound = SQRT((y * k_b * T)/M)

Where:
T = temperature (K)
M = mass of one gass molecule
k_b = Boltzmann's constant (converts absolute temperature units to
energy units)

Thus, for typical air at room conditions, the average molecule is
moving at about 500 m/s. Since the Law of Conservation of Energy
states that no energy is lost due to these molecular collisions, the
collisions do not slow down the speed of sound, they simply randomize
the motion resultant from that sound pressure wave... hence sound
waves propagate spherically from their source until they hit an
obstruction.

For air, which is a mixture of molecules, one must use average values
for the adiabatic constant and molecular mass. Air is mostly N2 and
O2, which are both simple diatomic molecules with almost the same
masses. The adiabatic constant will be very close to 1.4 for both
molecules for a wide range of temperatures near room temperature.

Hence the adiabatic constant will also be close to 1.4 for bulk air.
The average molecular mass will depend on the air composition which
changes slightly, for example due to day to day variations in relative
humidity. For 100% relative humidity under normal room conditions,
about 2% of the molecules of air are water molecules. Since the mass
of a water molecule is almost half that of an oxygen or nitrogen
molecule, the larger the humidity the lower the density of the air for
the same pressure and temperature. At or near room temperature the
fraction of air which is water is small, and so the effect will not be
large.

The temperature dependence and the change in density due to changes in
composition, the latter almost entirely due to changes in humidity,
are by far the two largest causes for variations in the speed of sound
in air. Note, however, that humidity is normally expressed as a
percentage of the maximum concentration for the air. That maximum may
change with conditions. What matters for the speed of sound is the
fraction of the air molecules which are water (i.e. the "molar
fraction"). The molar fraction corresponding to 100% humidity will
depend on temperature and pressure. Hence there may be an apparent
dependence on pressure when the water content is expressed as a
percent relative humidity rather than a molar fraction. For example,
if you take 20 C air at 1 atm and 100% humidity and remove half of the
molecules, you end up with air at 0.5 atm and about 50% relative
humidity, not 100% humidity. Hence to look at the changes due only to
changes in pressure, and not molecular composition, you would need to
compare air at 1 atm and 100% humidity with air at 0.5 atm and 50%
humidity.

<http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/SoundSpeedTemp.gif>

As one can easily see, the speed of sound increases with increasing
humidity of air... hence the *only* way that can happen is if air
laden with water in its gaseous phase is less dense than dry air,
given the same temperature and pressure for each.
===========================================================

> They are not applicable to liquids that are suspended in air.

Then it's a good thing the gaseous phase water in the atmosphere isn't
liquid phase, eh?

> It's really that simple, dumbass.

You just love proving yourself to be a moron, don't you?

<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17362/what-type-of-substances-allows-the-use-of-the-ideal-gas-law>
========================================
Pure water vapor at 1 atm and 373 K has Pr=1/217=0.0046, so the ideal
gas law applies to within 10% error.

The ideal gas law is derived from a model (the ideal gas), and like
every other model it applies where it's underling assumptions are good
approximations to reality.

========================================

The Ideal Gas Law is applied to the air *and* the gaseous phase water
vapor, because it comes within 10% error, one of the criteria for
using the Ideal Gas Law, you fecking nong.

SPNAK!

--

Cipher (aka Dave A. Howard the Coward) is an ancient mainframe Usenet
bot that never got shut off. He walkered his way back into AUK after
an eternity spent in an infinite loop, started clacking his dentures
and bragging about what a big man he *used* to be and how we kids
should get the hell off his lawn, promptly outed himself, slipped in
the urine dribbling down his leg from his over-full Depends, his
walker went flying, his dentures clattered to the floor, and he lay
there, hearing aid squealing, stabbing an arthritic finger at his
Life-Alert pendant and crying "Help, I've soiled myself and I can't
get up!" as we youngsters laughed raucously at him. Don't ask him
about the Port-A-Potty that drove him so bonkers that he ended up in a
tight-white jacket in a rubber room in a mental institution... that
wasn't Dave, man. He's blocked all that out.

["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]

jumping jack flash is a gas gas gas

"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu

-

FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:
<3dcad3dd0a0d3972...@dizum.com>

">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>> phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>> voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)

Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking
*moron*?

"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf

on page 2:

** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII
art if you ask nicely.
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb...@dizum.com>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

//float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
//float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
float_precision t=float_precision(0); // time variable
float_precision sum=float_precision(0); // sum of SnickerTurd's
ridiculous sinewave mess
float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25); //
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
float_precision PI;
PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

// this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
while(sum < snickerPrediction){

// fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:
<db672705e57e4932...@dizum.com>
sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))
+
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

// perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh
snickerTurds
if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
}
t = t+STEP;
}
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e328...@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves
never reaches that. They never reach their max values at the same time.
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8...@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages.

*/
cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."
<f4f9193fa7d28b76...@dizum.com>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL

on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*

*hell doesn't exist. hope everybody is having a productive evening.

-

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

-

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers
containing "ro...@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

-

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

-

Coming soon! To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot> I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account? <snicker>
You> Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot> Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot> Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot> Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)

-

snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message
<b5e7da79a455d0c9...@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden
service. It's not rocket science.

_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._ (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a
kiddie pr0n network.)

That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain, in
<news:ejc3eblovovmfqe5b...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

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

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
>> <news:aeb2eb1h3eho9h7sc...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
>> first into the wood chipper again:

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

>>>> What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K.

>>> ROFL! There are no molecules in a plasma, faketard.
>>> Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature.

>> You apparently *like* proving yourself to be a moron:
>>
>> <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/water-and-plasma.390771/>
>> "Any substance - regardless of what is its composition - becomes
>> plasma if heated high enough. However, once it is heated it doesn't
>> contain molecules, as all chemical bonds are broken."
>>
>> <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html>
>> =========================================================
>> It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a
>> water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at
>> least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if
>> you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only
>> you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of
>> energy about 12 electron volts or higher. That means the water
>> molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about
>> this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation
>> energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K.
>> So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to
>> make such a plasma.
>> =========================================================

> Uh, Fakey... you just posted a cite that says what i just
> said.

You lying kook, you k'lamed that water could not become plasmized:

"Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature."

SPNAK!

> It agrees with me, not you. But you don't understand it.

Moron. You k'lamed that water could not be a plasma. Now you're
backpedaling and lying because you can't stand the level of stupidity
you've proved you exude.

> SP<SMACAKOOK!>

SPNAK!

>>> Sheesh!

>>>> Your kooky theory is even more wrong than you k'lame reality to be,
>>>> Jim. By more than an order of magnitude.

>>> What's the electronegativity of oxygen, Ersatzia?

>> Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen

> Still trying to deny the obvious?

Still demonstrating that you're a moron? LOL

>> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_molecule.html>

>> ==================================================
>> Due to the relatively large positive charge on the oxygen atom nucleus
>> (8+) and the closeness of its electrons, the oxygen atom attracts
>> electrons much more strongly (i.e. is much more electronegative) than
>> the hydrogen atoms (1+). This results in a charge transfer from the
>> hydrogen atoms towards the oxygen atom and, hence, the polarity of the
>> water molecule.

> Uh, Fakey... It doesn't say what you think it says.
>
> What's the electronegativity of oxygen?

<http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Electronegativity.html>
"The electronegativity of an atom is a measure of its affinity for
electrons."

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_molecule.html>

==================================================
Due to the relatively large positive charge on the oxygen atom nucleus
(8+) and the closeness of its electrons, the oxygen atom attracts
electrons much more strongly (i.e. is much more electronegative) than
the hydrogen atoms (1+). This results in a charge transfer from the
hydrogen atoms towards the oxygen atom and, hence, the polarity of the
water molecule.

The molecule H2O has 10 electrons associated, 8 from the oxygen atom
and one each from the two hydrogen atoms.
==================================================

So now you're denying that covalent bonds exist within water
molecules... but you're far too stupid to know why you've just made
that k'lame.

Aren't you the *moron* who k'lamed the water molecule had 2 positive
poles and 2 negative poles? Yeah... yeah, you are.

SPNAK!

> <snip attempted dodge>

Says the lying dodging moron. LOL

>> And all of the above backed up by 2517 peer-reviewed studies by people
>> far smarter and saner than you, Moron.

> Isn't it funny that they really agree with me, not you, but
> you can't understand it.

Isn't it funny that you're too much of a moron to even understand
those 2517 peer-reviewed studies, yet you k'lame to know that they
agree with you, when you're the moron who k'lamed that water is
molecularly tetrahedral, has 4 poles (2 negative and two positive) and
cannot be plasmized?

SPNAK!

>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=electronegativity+of+oxygen

>>>> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
>>>> phase and air have a molar volume

>>> Water in its gaseous phase doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law,
>>> moron. Do you know what steam tables are, and why sane
>>> people use them?

>> You just love proving yourself to be a moron, don't you?
>>
>> <http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17362/what-type-of-substances-allows-the-use-of-the-ideal-gas-law>
>> ========================================
>> Pure water vapor at 1 atm and 373 K has Pr=1/217=0.0046, so the ideal
>> gas law applies to within 10% error.
>>
>> The ideal gas law is derived from a model (the ideal gas), and like
>> every other model it applies where it's underling assumptions are good
>> approximations to reality.
>> ========================================
>>
>> The Ideal Gas Law is applied to the air *and* the gaseous phase water
>> vapor, because it comes within 10% error, one of the criteria for
>> using the Ideal Gas Law, you fecking nong. Moron.
>>
>> SPNAK!

> If that's true, it isn't a very close fit, is it?

It doesn't have to be a perfect fit. The criteria for using the Ideal
Gas Law is if it is within 10% error. Both water in its gaseous phase
in air, and air itself, are within that margin of error.

But your backpedaling "it isn't a very close fit" blather is noted as
your tacit admission that you were *wrong*. Again.

SPNAK!

> Water doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law. I'm right.

No, you're wrong. I've proven you're wrong. Now you're backpedaling
and lying. That doesn't make you right, that makes you a backpedaling
lying moron who is wrong.

SPNAK!

>> The Ideal Gas Law is applied to the air *and* the gaseous phase water
>> vapor, because it comes within 10% error, one of the criteria for
>> using the Ideal Gas Law, you fecking nong. Moron.

> LOL! So you have to mix a little water vapor with a lot of
> air, to get a 10% fit.

Blither-blather from a blither-blathering moron. Are you now k'laming
the percentage water in the atmosphere is more than a maximum of ~4%,
you fecking *moron*?

SPNAK!

> Water doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law. I'm right. Be
> humble and move on, spankee.

I've proven you're wrong. The Ideal Gas Law is used for water in its
gaseous phase in the atmosphere, just as I did in proving James McGinn
and his kooky conspiracy theory wrong. You're just a
blither-blathering backpedaling lying moron.

SPNAK!

>>> I can see why you lost an argument with another raving loon.
>>> You have more kooksine than he does!

>> You mean my having utterly destroyed James McGinn's kooky theory by
>> proving via several different avenues that it is a physical
>> impossibility, such as the fact that water plasma does not and cannot
>> exist in the troposphere?

> You are losing an argument with a wacked out kook.
> Your father must finally be proud of you!

Is that why he's snipping out my posts wholesale and finds himself
utterly unable to refute the scientific truth I promulgate? Or is the
more likely explanation that he's lost and you're just a delusional
spankard? Yeah, yeah that's it.

SPNAK!

Moron. LOL

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:45:04 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James McGinn, in
> <news:e80ac93a-25e3-42d1...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:56:19 AM UTC-8,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> >> Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
> >> 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
> >> 28.57 g for dry air
>
> > Ideal gas laws are applicable to ideal gases, dumbass.
>
> They are also applicable to gases when their margin of error are
> within 10%, as both water vapor and air are.

Convection theory involves a 1% difference, at best.

Are you some kind of mental retard?

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in

<news:6be3eb1gn8kr2evrr...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

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

>> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
>> phase and air have a molar volume

> Water vapor doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law, retard.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong, Moron? LOL

<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17362/what-type-of-substances-allows-the-use-of-the-ideal-gas-law>
========================================
Pure water vapor at 1 atm and 373 K has Pr=1/217=0.0046, so the ideal
gas law applies to within 10% error.

The ideal gas law is derived from a model (the ideal gas), and like
every other model it applies where it's underling assumptions are good
approximations to reality.
========================================

The Ideal Gas Law is applied to the air *and* the gaseous phase water
vapor, because it comes within 10% error, one of the criteria for
using the Ideal Gas Law, you fecking nong.

Moron.

SPNAK!

> It's common knowledge... meaning everyone knows, except
> Ersatzia. I bet Jim even knows that.

It most certainly does follow the Ideal Gas Law when using it for
water in its gaseous phase in the atmosphere, as I did to prove that
James McGinn's kooky conspiracy theory was wrong.

<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137556/use-of-the-ideal-gas-law-for-earths-atmosphere-and-the-role-of-density>
=================================================
To a good approximation the atmosphere behaves as an ideal gas, with
each mole of gas obeying the law:

pVm=RT
=================================================

Hence my use of molar volume and molar density with a given
temperature and pressure to make the molar volume of atmosphere in the
example an intensive property.

SPNAK!

> There is none so blind as he who will not see.

There are none so stupid as those who become emotionally invested in a
wrong position and refuse to amend their stupidity.

SPNAK!

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law.

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:09:36 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> I've seen no proof from you that plasma *does* exist

I think people who argue semantics are nitwits.

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 12:14:07 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
> <news:6be3eb1gn8kr2evrr...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
> first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:
>
> >> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
> >> phase and air have a molar volume
>
> > Water vapor doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law, retard.
>
> Don't you ever get tired of being wrong, Moron? LOL

Ideal gas laws apply to ideal gases. H2O isn't.

It's really that simple.

[James McGinn]

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 12:14:07 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
> <news:6be3eb1gn8kr2evrr...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
> first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:
>
> >> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
> >> phase and air have a molar volume
>
> > Water vapor doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law, retard.
>
> Don't you ever get tired of being wrong, Moron? LOL
>
> <http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17362/what-type-of-substances-allows-the-use-of-the-ideal-gas-law>
> ========================================
> Pure water vapor at 1 atm and 373 K has Pr=1/217=0.0046, so the ideal
> gas law applies to within 10% error.

LOL. Your own reference indicates a 10% error. And this is in reference to a measurement that involves, at most, a 1% difference in weight.

You are one desperate twit.

[Sam Wormley]

Water Vapour, by definition, is gas. This is something you should
have learned in school, James.

[Sam Wormley]

On 3/10/16 9:01 PM, James McGinn wrote:

> Nobody is disputing the existence of vapor in earth's atmosphere. We're disputing whether its a gas or a liquid.

Definition for James McGinn | Water Vapor
> https://www.wordnik.com/words/water%20vapor


> from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th
> Edition

> n. Water in a gaseous state, especially when diffused as a vapor in
> the atmosphere and at a temperature below boiling point.

> from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License

> n. water in a gaseous state, especially when diffused in the
> atmosphere

[Poutnik]

Dne pátek 11. března 2016 15:41:11 UTC+1 Sam Wormley napsal(a):

> On 3/10/16 9:01 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 6:56:35 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> >> James, water vapour, doesn't have to behave like an "ideal gas" to
> >> exist. In fact, water vapour (gas) make up about one percent of the
> >> troposphere.
> >
> > Nobody is disputing the existence of vapor in earth's atmosphere. We're disputing whether its a gas or a liquid.
> >
> > How is it you haven't grasped this distinction yet, Sam?
> >
>
>
> Water Vapour, by definition, is gas. This is something you should
> have learned in school, James.
>
> --

James is still confused and trapped by the technical term steam.

In science, (water) steam is visible aerosol of liquid water,
being bases of low/medium troposphere clouds
and of steam above boiling kettle or formed by a breath in cold air.

Vapour is gaseous state of substance, that is liquid at ambient temperature ( its vapour tension is lower than 1atm )

[Sam Wormley]

On 3/10/16 12:19 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> What is the boiling temp of H2O?

One doesn't need boiling temp. The 1% of moisture making up the
earth's troposphere is water vapor (gas) that evaporates from plants
soils, rivers, lakes and oceans.

Definition for James McGinn | Water Vapor
> https://www.wordnik.com/words/water%20vapor

> from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th
> Edition

> n. Water in a gaseous state, especially when diffused as a vapor in
> the atmosphere and at a temperature below boiling point.

> from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License

> n. water in a gaseous state, especially when diffused in the
> atmosphere

Terminology: Evaporation

Liquid water ==> water vapour (gas)

Experiment: Put a couple of drops of water on a plate, and wait,
watching carefully. Like magic, the drops of water convert to gas
before your very eyes, James.

That gas may contribute (via condensation) into rain later in the day.

Evaporation from soil, oceans, plants and lakes results in a
continuous supply of Water Vapor (gaseous H2O) in the earth's
atmosphere.

Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
gas, so there is nothing to see.

> Water vapour (H2O molecules)

> Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the *gaseous phase* of
> water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor
> can be produced from the *evaporation or boiling of liquid water* or
> from the *sublimation of ice* . Unlike other forms of water, water
> vapor is invisible. Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor
> is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation.
> It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
> lead to clouds.

[Sam Wormley]

On 3/10/16 12:11 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> It's gaseous phase only occurs at temps much higher.

Nope.

Terminology: Evaporation

Liquid water ==> water vapour (gas)

Experiment: Put a couple of drops of water on a plate, and wait,
watching carefully. Like magic, the drops of water convert to gas
before your very eyes, James.

[James McGinn]

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 6:49:43 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:

> James is still confused and trapped by the technical term steam.

Too funny. You two birdbrains are presenting definitions as indications of truth, and *I'm* the one that is trapped?

[Poutnik]

Dne pátek 11. března 2016 16:53:23 UTC+1 Sam Wormley napsal(a):

> On 3/10/16 12:19 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> > What is the boiling temp of H2O?

At pressure 610 Pa, the boiling point is 0.01 deg C / 273.15 K.

It is water triple point, the reference point of absolute T scale,
where all solid, liquid and gaseous phases of water
coexist in thermodynamic equilibrium.

[Poutnik]

Dne pátek 11. března 2016 17:38:57 UTC+1 James McGinn napsal(a):

> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 6:49:43 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>
> > James is still confused and trapped by the technical term steam.
>
> Too funny. You two birdbrains are presenting definitions as indications of truth, and *I'm* the one that is trapped?

Really funny, seeing you to think we present definition
as indication of truth.

As definition is just conventional assignment of a meaning to a term.

As it is *you* who call "cat"(steam) that barking animal,
that is called by all others "dog"(vapour), while the term "cat" ( steam)
is used for that smaller one that catches mice.

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <1mjycfl.12kzhb91i2ro17N%snip...@gmail.com>, snipeco.2
@gmail.com says...


>
> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <ben...@the.future> wrote:

>
> > Fakey wrote:
> >
> > > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain, in
> > >
> > > > Fakey wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
> > >
> > > >>> Fakey wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>> What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K.
> > >
> > > >>> ROFL! There are no molecules in a plasma, faketard.
> > > >>> Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature.
> > >
> > > >> You apparently *like* proving yourself to be a moron:
> > > >>
> > > >> <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/water-and-plasma.390771/>
> > > >> "Any substance - regardless of what is its composition - becomes
> > > >> plasma if heated high enough. However, once it is heated it doesn't
> > > >> contain molecules, as all chemical bonds are broken."
> > >

> > > > Uh, Fakey... you just posted a cite that says what i just
> > > > said.
> > >
> > > You lying kook, you k'lamed that water could not become plasmized:
> > > "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature."
> >

> > I was right. You don't understand this sentence, which YOU
> > quoted:

> >
> > "However, once it is heated it doesn't contain molecules, as
> > all chemical bonds are broken."
> >

> > That means, fakey, that once it's heated to the plasma
> > phase, there are no longer any water molecules. You just
> > have a soup of H nuclei, O nuclei, and swarming electrons.
> > No more water. Just like i already told you.
> >
> > That's what "plasma" means, tardlet.
> >
> > Please bleat & bray: ____________________________________

> >
> >
> > > >>> What's the electronegativity of oxygen, Ersatzia?
> > >
> > > >> Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen
> > >
> > > > Still trying to deny the obvious?
> > >
> > > Still demonstrating that you're a moron? LOL
> >

> > <snip obfuscating blither-blather>
> >
> > C'mon, fakey. Why can't you answer the question?
> > It's a very simple question.
> > Everyone knows that you know the answer.
> >
> > The electronegativity of oxygen is _.__.
> >
> > Are you scared, fakey?
> >
> > Did you print out the cool periodic table yet, fakey?
> >
>
> He'll run away again, I bet you a pound to a penny.

I'll chip in a quid... whatever THAT is!

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <hnn5eb1hd58o4gm43...@4ax.com>,
ben...@the.future says...


>
> snip...@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>
> > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <ben...@the.future> wrote:

> >
> > > Fakey wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain, in
> > > >
> > > > > Fakey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
> > > >
> > > > >>> Fakey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>>> What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K.
> > > >
> > > > >>> ROFL! There are no molecules in a plasma, faketard.
> > > > >>> Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature.
> > > >
> > > > >> You apparently *like* proving yourself to be a moron:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/water-and-plasma.390771/>
> > > > >> "Any substance - regardless of what is its composition - becomes
> > > > >> plasma if heated high enough. However, once it is heated it doesn't
> > > > >> contain molecules, as all chemical bonds are broken."
> > > >

> > > > > Uh, Fakey... you just posted a cite that says what i just
> > > > > said.
> > > >
> > > > You lying kook, you k'lamed that water could not become plasmized:
> > > > "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature."
> > >

> > > I was right. You don't understand this sentence, which YOU
> > > quoted:
> > >

> > > "However, once it is heated it doesn't contain molecules, as
> > > all chemical bonds are broken."
> > >

> > > That means, fakey, that once it's heated to the plasma
> > > phase, there are no longer any water molecules. You just
> > > have a soup of H nuclei, O nuclei, and swarming electrons.
> > > No more water. Just like i already told you.
> > >
> > > That's what "plasma" means, tardlet.
> > >
> > > Please bleat & bray: ____________________________________
> > >
> > >

> > > > >>> What's the electronegativity of oxygen, Ersatzia?
> > > >
> > > > >> Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen
> > > >
> > > > > Still trying to deny the obvious?
> > > >
> > > > Still demonstrating that you're a moron? LOL
> > >

> > > <snip obfuscating blither-blather>
> > >
> > > C'mon, fakey. Why can't you answer the question?
> > > It's a very simple question.
> > > Everyone knows that you know the answer.
> > >
> > > The electronegativity of oxygen is _.__.
> > >
> > > Are you scared, fakey?
> > >
> > > Did you print out the cool periodic table yet, fakey?
> > >
> >
> > He'll run away again, I bet you a pound to a penny.
>

> I'm expecting the broadside of froth. Maybe even a faglame!
> But will he answer? Never.

Extra points for faglames. "LOL"

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <1mjykwk.17jwwbkxcociaN%snip...@gmail.com>, snipeco.2
@gmail.com says...

> It's like a buck but worth more.

It's worth more that The Almighty Dollar? Bloody HELL! I simply must
have some!

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[%]

$1.44 US

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in
<news:1fc3dc3e-6425-4764...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

=============================================================
Moron uses the steam tables on the atmosphere! And he k'lames he's
sane! Bwahahaha!

Ever hear of a Mollier diagram, you braindead halfwit?

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Mollier.pdf>

SPNAK!
=============================================================
The Ideal Gas Law doesn't require an *ideal* gas, Moron.

Ever hear of PV = nRT?

Yeah, you have no fucking idea what that means, huh. LOL

Solving for volume:
P = 101325 Pa
T = 294.261 K
R = 8.3144621 J/(mol*K)
n = 1
V = 0.0241463 m^3

SPNAK!
=============================================================
Now compare what was calculated above with:

<http://www.webqc.org/van_der_waals_gas_law.html>
(P + ((n^2 * a) / V^2)(V - nb) = nRT

Parameters: Air
P = 101325 Pa
T = 294.261 K
R = 8.3144621 J/(mol*K)
n = 1
V = 0.024127215938815 m^3

Gee... the Ideal Gas Law when used with dry air is only 0.079% off
from perfect. So using the Ideal Gas Law for dry air is well *within*
10% error. Moron. LOL

SPNAK!
=============================================================
Now, let's calculate for air with moisture. We'll go all out and
assume 100% relative humidity as a worst case scenario, just so morons
have no wiggle room to backpedal, lie, conflate and blither-blather.

<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=psychrometric+properties>
Using the same parameters as used above gives:
V = 0.02445 m^3

Gee... that's only 1.337842% off from an ideal gas. Moron. And that
1.337842% is the molar density change due to water in its gaseous
phase being in air... you'll note it's *less* dense than dry air.

You'll also note it occupies a *larger* volume for the same molar
quantity, thus it is *less* dense than dry air.

SPNAK!
=============================================================
<http://chemistry.bd.psu.edu/jircitano/gases.html>
"The previous laws all assume that the gas being measured is an ideal
gas, a gas that obeys them all exactly. But over a wide range of
temperature, pressure, and volume, real gases deviate slightly from
ideal. Since, according to Avogadro, the same volumes of gas contain
the same number of moles, chemists could now determine the formulas of
gaseous elements and their formula masses. The idea gas law is:
PV = nRT

Where n is the number of moles of the number of moles and R is a
constant called the universal gas constant and is equal to
approximately 0.0821 L-atm / mole-K."

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

So, go on and demonstrate yet again your lack of understanding of the
Ideal Gas Law and molar volume. Moron.

SPNAK!

> It's really that simple.

No, Jim. You're really that stupid and insane.

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.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in

<news:nrh5eb1bvaup4f619...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

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

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in

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

>>>> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
>>>> phase and air have a molar volume

>>> Water vapor doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law, retard.

>> Don't you ever get tired of being wrong, Moron? LOL
>>
>> <http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17362/what-type-of-substances-allows-the-use-of-the-ideal-gas-law>
>> ========================================
>> Pure water vapor at 1 atm and 373 K has Pr=1/217=0.0046, so the ideal
>> gas law applies to within 10% error.

> 10% off?

Nicely conflated, Moron.

So now Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames "within 10% error" = "10% error"...
likely because he's a moron. LOL

> So water doesn't follow the ideal gas law, does it
> faketard?

Sure it does. One of the criteria for using the Ideal Gas Law is that
the margin of error be *within* 10%. Get it now, Moron? Or do you want
to continue to display your reading comprehension problems?

SPNAK!

> It's common knowledge that water and freon are different
> critters.

You should really stop sniffing that Freon, Moron. LOL

> That's why sane people use steam tables instead of the ideal gas law.

I'm going to SPNAK! you so fucking hard I've got to subdivide the
individual SPNAK!s into separate sections, Shiny Tinfoil Brain. Try
not to cry and bleat too loudly, now. LOL

> Of course, you have a right to be wrong. Which you exercise
> profusely.

Says the moron who just got SPNAK!'d. Again. And again, and again, and
again.

<snicker>

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.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in

<news:13bf5e57-731a-4211...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

I think people who k'lame there is a magical "plasma not-a-plasma"
made from water, which can still form droplets, and which is
"plasmized not-plasmized" by an energy source which, if it existed in
the troposphere, would dissociate all water on the planet and kill off
all life, are insane retards, Jim.

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 coming from to form your kooky "plasma
not-a-plasma", Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in
<news:a0f9d377-f8c0-469a...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

Stupid enough that you'd conflate "within 10% error" (a criteria for
using the Ideal Gas Law) with "10% error", Jim?

> You are one desperate twit.

SPNAK!
=============================================================
<http://chemistry.bd.psu.edu/jircitano/gases.html>
"The previous laws all assume that the gas being measured is an ideal
gas, a gas that obeys them all exactly. But over a wide range of
temperature, pressure, and volume, real gases deviate slightly from
ideal. Since, according to Avogadro, the same volumes of gas contain
the same number of moles, chemists could now determine the formulas of
gaseous elements and their formula masses. The idea gas law is:
PV = nRT

Where n is the number of moles of the number of moles and R is a
constant called the universal gas constant and is equal to
approximately 0.0821 L-atm / mole-K."

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

So, go on and demonstrate yet again your lack of understanding of the
Ideal Gas Law and molar volume. Moron.

SPNAK!

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?

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>

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.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:2522df6e-eb8a-4148...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

Wrong. I'd tell you to show your math, but you can't, Jim. You're a
prototypical math moron on top of being a delusional Dunning-Kruger
afflicted kooktard. Hence your kooky conspiracy theory that purports a
"plasma not-a-plasma" that does not and cannot exist, plasmized by an
energy source that does not exist in the troposphere or it would
dissociate all water on the planet and kill off all life.

> Are you some kind of mental retard?

Conflating "within 10% margin of error" and "10% error", James McGinn?
Your fawning sphincter-licking acolyte Shiny Tinfoil Brain did the
same. You know what they say... kooks and morons think alike.

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 coming from to form your kooky "plasma
not-a-plasma", Jim?

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
<news:l7i5ebteuqfi3pr89...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

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

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain, in

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

>>>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in

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

>>>>>> What is the plasma temperature of H2O, Jim? 12000 K.

>>>>> ROFL! There are no molecules in a plasma, faketard.
>>>>> Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature.

>>>> You apparently *like* proving yourself to be a moron:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/water-and-plasma.390771/>
>>>> "Any substance - regardless of what is its composition - becomes
>>>> plasma if heated high enough. However, once it is heated it doesn't
>>>> contain molecules, as all chemical bonds are broken."

>>> Uh, Fakey... you just posted a cite that says what i just
>>> said.

>> You lying kook, you k'lamed that water could not become plasmized:
>> "Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature."

> I was right. You don't understand this sentence, which YOU
> quoted:
>

> "However, once it is heated it doesn't contain molecules, as
> all chemical bonds are broken."

You fucking moron. You k'lamed water could not be plasmized. It most
obviously can.

<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

> That means, fakey, that once it's heated to the plasma
> phase, there are no longer any water molecules.

Awww, look at the kook backpedal. What were the originating molecules,
Backpedaling KookTard? Oh, that's right, they were water, so yeah,
water can be plasmized.

SPNAK!

> You just have a soup of H nuclei, O nuclei, and swarming electrons.
> No more water. Just like i already told you.

Except you were *wrong*, as I proved. Water can be plasmized.

Some fucking idiot blither-blathered:

"Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature."

Water can be plasmized.

SPNAK!

> That's what "plasma" means, tardlet.

Backpedal much, Spankard? LOL

Thanks for admitting I was right when I said water could be plasmized,
Moron.

SPNAK!

> Please bleat & bray: ____________________________________

Moron. LOL

>>>>> What's the electronegativity of oxygen, Ersatzia?

>>>> Still trying to conflate the electronegativity of elemental oxygen

>>> Still trying to deny the obvious?

>> Still demonstrating that you're a moron? LOL

> <snip obfuscating blither-blather>
>
> C'mon, fakey. Why can't you answer the question?
> It's a very simple question.

If it was "a very simple question", you'd not be begging your Usenet
Lord and Master for the answer.

SPNAK!

> Everyone knows that you know the answer.

Of course I know the answer. I'm a genius who can easily grasp
advanced concepts, whereas you're a backpedaling bleatfarting
blither-blathering moron who can't grasp that water can be plasmized.
LOL

> The electronegativity of oxygen is _.__.

Aren't you the moron who k'lames that elemental oxygen has a constant
electronegativity?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity>
=================================================
As it is usually calculated, electronegativity is not a property of an
atom alone, but rather a property of an atom in a molecule.[4]

The property of electronegativity of an atom in a molecule is
different from the electrode potential of the element, which depends
on the difference in free energy of the element in its standard state
and in ionic solution, and it is different from the ionization
potential of the atom, and from its electron affinity; although it is
related to these properties in a general way.

It has been found possible to formulate an electronegativity scale of
the elements by the analysis of the values of delta and delta_umlaut
given by the single-bond energies. In Table 3-6 values of delta_umlaut
are listed for the bonds between nonmetallic atoms whose energies are
given in Table 3-4. These are obtained in the same ways as those in
Table 3-3. It is seen on inspection that the valued of delta_umlaut do
not satisfy an additivity relation; they cannot be represented as
differences of terms characteristic of the two atoms in a bond.
However, the square roots of the delta_umlaut values do satisfy
approximately a relation of this sort.

The method just described for formulating the electronegativity scale
cannot be used for the remaining elements in general because of a lack
of knowledge of enthalpies of formation of their compounds as gases
and of the values of single-bond energies for the elements themselves.

Except for nitrogen and oxygen, which are discussed below, the
elements in their standard states do not differ much in energy from
states involving normal single covalent bonds between the atoms.

It is the unusual stability of multiple bonds for oxygen and nitrogen,
stabilizing their normal states, that often leads to negative values
of the enthalpy of formation of substances.

By the use of Equation 3-13 the difference in electronegativity of two
elements can be calculated from the enthalpy of formation of the
compounds formed by them.

Table 3-8: The values given in the table refer to the common oxidation
states of the elements. For some elements variation of the
electronegativity with oxidation number is observed.

[4] Pauling, Linus (1960). Nature of the Chemical Bond. Cornell
University Press. pp. 88–107. ISBN 0-8014-0333-2.
=================================================

How do you oxidize *oxygen* except with fluorine to figure out its
enthalpy of formation and thus its exact electronegativity, you
fecking *moron*? *No* *one* wants to formulate FOOF (O2F2) to find out
the exact oxidation state of elemental oxygen. You know, FOOF,
Lucifer's Gas? That shit makes *ice* explode. It makes asbestos
*burn*. It reacts with gold. Hit it with a CO2 fire extinguisher, you
just make it mad.

So... your bleating about oxygen's electronegativity means you're
bleating about an approximation, Moron. Even Pauling himself admitted
that elemental electronegativity is an approximation, and thus isn't
all that accurate, which is why he only presented them with single
decimal accuracy. Moron.

Further, oxygen's affinity for itself in forming multiple bonds means
that for a lot of substances, the enthalpy of formation is negative,
thus the electronegativity is dependent upon which substance oxygen is
interacting with and whatever other factors contribute to or detract
from that interaction.

Nitrogen is the same way, nitrogen trichloride isn't unstable because
of weak N-Cl bonds, but rather because nitrogen is constantly trying
to reform into triple-bonded N2, with a negative enthalpy of formation
and thus exothermic reaction of nitrogen trichloride.

You know, Linus Pauling... the guy who developed the first accurate
electronegativity scale for molecules... you think *he* might know a
bit more about electronegativity than a moronic bleatfarting retard
like you, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? LOL

SPNAK!

> Are you scared, fakey?

Are you stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? Yeah... yeah you are. LOL

> Did you print out the cool periodic table yet, fakey?

Did you buy a new brain yet, Shiny Tinfoil Brain?

SPNAK!

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.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in

<news:l0j5eb57kl6if4kjm...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

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

>> James McGinn, in

>>> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:56:19 AM UTC-8,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
>>>> 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
>>>> 28.57 g for dry air

>>> Ideal gas laws are applicable to ideal gases, dumbass.

> Ahhh... from the mouths of babes.

Well, James McGinn has the intelligence of an infant, so for once
you're at least half-right. LOL

>> They are also applicable to gases when their margin of error are
>> within 10%, as both water vapor and air are.

> Not very applicable, is it?

I'm going to SPNAK! you so fucking hard I've got to subdivide the
individual SPNAK!s into separate sections, Shiny Tinfoil Brain. Try
not to cry and bleat too loudly, now. LOL

=============================================================
Moron uses the steam tables on the atmosphere! And he k'lames he's
sane! Bwahahaha!

Ever hear of a Mollier diagram, you braindead halfwit?

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Mollier.pdf>

SPNAK!

You'll also note it occupies a *larger* volume for the same molar

quantity, thus it is *less* dense than dry air.

SPNAK!
=============================================================
<http://chemistry.bd.psu.edu/jircitano/gases.html>
"The previous laws all assume that the gas being measured is an ideal
gas, a gas that obeys them all exactly. But over a wide range of
temperature, pressure, and volume, real gases deviate slightly from
ideal. Since, according to Avogadro, the same volumes of gas contain
the same number of moles, chemists could now determine the formulas of
gaseous elements and their formula masses. The idea gas law is:
PV = nRT

Where n is the number of moles of the number of moles and R is a
constant called the universal gas constant and is equal to
approximately 0.0821 L-atm / mole-K."

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

So, go on and demonstrate yet again your lack of understanding of the
Ideal Gas Law and molar volume. Moron.

SPNAK!

> Don't you hate being outsmarted by a k00k, k00ky?

I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen the first time,
K00k.

<snicker>

> --
> "The Euler-Fourier Formulas are used to perform vector
> summation of sinusoids. Moron."
> --Phakester offers instruction in the use of Sooper Hi Maths

<http://dspguru.com/sites/dspguru/files/Sum_of_Two_Sinusoids.pdf>
<http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/MusicAndComputers/chapter3/03_03.php>

SPNAK!

Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain?

<snicker>

[Skeeter]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:48:59 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>Ever hear of a Mollier diagram, you braindead halfwit?

Is it right by the yourlar signwave thingie?

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 9:34:32 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > LOL. Your own reference indicates a 10% error. And this is in
> > reference to a measurement that involves, at most, a 1% difference
> > in weight.
>
> Stupid enough that you'd conflate "within 10% error" (a criteria for
> using the Ideal Gas Law) with "10% error", Jim?

Hell, when it came to inferring the droplet/cluster size you could make up any number you want since there is no way to directly measure/detect it. So this is just an absurd conversation.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:1b3bd1ca-b396-4715...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 9:34:32 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> LOL. Your own reference indicates a 10% error. And this is in
>>> reference to a measurement that involves, at most, a 1% difference
>>> in weight.

>> Stupid enough that you'd conflate "within 10% error" (a criteria for
>> using the Ideal Gas Law) with "10% error", Jim?

> Hell, when it came to inferring the droplet/cluster size

We're not talking about "droplet/cluster size", Jim. Are you confused,
Jim? Do you need to take a moment to take your meds so your brain
stops feverishly burrowing itself deeper into insanity, Jim?

> you could make up any number you want since there is no way to
> directly measure/detect it. So this is just an absurd conversation.

Awww, look at the insane kooktard blathering away. He's so far gone he
can't even follow a conversation anymore.

What were we discussing, Jim? Do you even know? Or do you want to just
blabber out whatever random fart rises to the surface of that septic
tank you call a mind?

Now get right on answering those tough questions, Jim. Your failure to
do so stands as your tacit admission that your kooky conspiracy theory
has no defense, and is therefore dead...

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 no
one 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,
are right, Jim?

Or do you think the Occam's Razor explanation is that you're a
delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted paranoid-schizophrenic 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 peer-reviewed 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 far 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.

Are you ready to pay me the $100,000 you owe me for not only meeting
the terms of your challenge, but in addition also utterly destroying
your kooky conspiracy theory, in the process proving you're insane,
Jim?

<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.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in

<news:fj7beb9g78bv66k2u...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

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

>> Wrong. I'd tell you to show your math, but you can't, Jim. You're a
>> prototypical math moron on top of being a delusional Dunning-Kruger
>> afflicted kooktard. Hence your kooky conspiracy theory that purports a

> That's funny, Ersatzia. People keep telling you to show
> your supposed Oiley and Fooly'all transformer maths that you
> claim to be using to add up sines (of different frequencies,
> yet!).

Awww, Shiny Tinfoil Brain yet again reiterates that he doesn't know
that vector summation can be used on any sinewave of any frequency and
any phase angle.

What about vector summation is causing your poor little brain to melt
down, Shiny Tinfoil Brain? It's as easy as geometry and simple
addition and subtraction, so it's little wonder you can't grasp it.
LOL

<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/audio/sumdif.html>
"When you superimpose two sine waves of different frequencies, you get
components at the sum and difference of the two frequencies. This can
be shown by using a *sum* *rule* from trigonometry."

Oh, look... *summation* of sinewaves of different frequency, phase and
amplitude:
<http://astro.pas.rochester.edu/~aquillen/phy103/Lectures/D_Fourier.pdf#page=31>
<http://astro.pas.rochester.edu/~aquillen/phy103/Lectures/D_Fourier.pdf#page=83>

Oh, look... *more* _summation_ of sinewaves of different frequency:
<https://linsysneuro.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/adding-sine-waves/>

Oh, look... *even* *more* _summation_ of sinewaves of different
frequency:
<https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Trigonometry/Beat_Frequencies>
"We've expressed the sum of two sine waves in terms of a product of
sine and cosine."

And just for you, since you've demonstrated your stupidity by k'laming
that wave superposition and constructive/destructive interference
aren't the same things, and that wave interference for standing and
traveling waves aren't the same things:
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/trawvcon.html>
<http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/superposition/superposition.html>

So it's little wonder you, Shiny Tinfoil Brain, have *never* posted a
graph of a sum of sinewaves... you are simply incapable of doing so.

SPNAK! on the moronic kooktards who for nearly 3 months have
demonstrated their utter stupidity.

<snicker>

> But you never do.

Liar. I have several times. But don't let reality get in the way of
you stomping your little feetz and ranting like a retard, Shiny
Tinfoil Brain.

It's never stopped you before.

Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain?

<snicker>

> You just keep cranking out bad sinewaves

You mean the completely correct sinewaves I graphed, utilizing 170
volt peak-voltage L-N, from which I derived 120 volt RMS L-N, from
which I derived 208 volt RMS L-L, all with the correct phase shift?
That which you morons have demonstrated your inability to accomplish?

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

<snicker>

> until you *finally* understand what people are

Still having trouble grasping vector summation, are you, Shiny Tinfoil
Brain?

Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain?

<snicker>

> telling you about why they are wrong.

Except they're not. Contrast that with DildoRider's kooky sinewave
subtraction equation, which he used to graph sinewaves which showed:

1) A higher RMS voltage than the peak voltage the RMS voltage was
derived from.

2) A *doubling* of voltage as a result of all three phases of 3-phase
AC, akin to shorting all three phases together.

3) A result of 0 volts when deriving the difference between any two
phases of 3-phase AC.

4) He demonstrated his inability to grasp why two phases *summed* gave
a sinewave of the same voltage but phase shifted 60 degrees from each
of the tributary sinewaves, such that the resultant is 180 degrees
phase from the remaining third phase.

5) He demonstrated his inability to grasp why all three phases of
3-phase AC *summed* together gives a result of 0 volts (as have
*you*).

6) He k'lamed he was feeding 240 volts to the *primary* of a
*substation* transformer, deriving 120 volts from the *primary* side,
then feeding that 240 volts to a 120/208 volt electrical feed... he
even went so far as to justify it with his kooky math, showing he was
deriving 208 volts from 240 volts. Then he backpedaled and k'lamed he
was instead feeding the primary with a voltage of "12 kVA"
(DildoRider's blather), proving he doesn't know the difference between
voltage and apparent power.

> Do you have some kind of learning disability? No need to be
> embarrassed, fakey. It happens all the time.

Awww, look at the backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering moronic
kooktard project.

Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain?

<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.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in

<news:q58aebp1d2f8i511k...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

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

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in

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

>>>> James McGinn, in

>>>>> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:56:19 AM UTC-8,
>>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>>> Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
>>>>>> 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
>>>>>> 28.57 g for dry air

>>>>> Ideal gas laws are applicable to ideal gases, dumbass.

>>> Ahhh... from the mouths of babes.

>> Well, James McGinn has the intelligence of an infant, so for once
>> you're at least half-right. LOL

>>>> They are also applicable to gases when their margin of error are
>>>> within 10%, as both water vapor and air are.

> That's your criteria.

No, that's the general criteria of whether to use the Ideal Gas Law or
the van der Waal equation, Moron. You obviously didn't rape Google
hard enough. LOL

SPNAK!

> Not the criteria for people who need right answers.

But I gave you the right answer, KookTard.

------------------------------------------

> Really, fakey?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas
> "The ideal gas model tends to fail at lower
> temperatures or higher pressures, when intermolecular
> forces and molecular size become important. It also
> fails for most heavy gases, such as many
> refrigerants,[1] and for gases with strong
> intermolecular forces, notably water vapor."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas>
"One mole of an ideal gas has a volume of 22.7 L at STP as defined by
IUPAC."

STP = 0 C, 1 bar

That's 0.0227 m^3.

I proved above that the Ideal Gas Law was much more accurate than that
for air.

SPNAK!

> So i'm right, as i knew all along.

Translation:
"So I'm wrong, as I have been all along, but my fragile little psyche
will crack if I admit that, so I'll bleat victolly." LOL

> And you're wrong, as you already know.

Except I'm right, and you're a moron. LOL

> But you will continue to bleat & bray.

Says the bleating, braying, bleatfarting, blither-blathering
backpedaling moronic kooktard, picking himself up after having been
drop-kicked yet again all the way across Usenet and scurrying back for
another punting. LOL

>> Ever hear of PV = nRT?
>>
>> Yeah, you have no fucking idea what that means, huh. LOL

> Wow. You just googled "ideal gas law", now you're an ideal
> gas expert. Snjorkf!
>
> I learned that in high school, fakey. Too bad you didn't.

Except I proved you were wrong when you tried to conflate "within 10%
margin of error" with "10% error" *and* on your kooky k'lame that the
steam table should be used on the atmosphere, Moron. Now you backpedal
and bleat more, Spankard. But everyone saw you getting drop-kicked
across Usenet. Again.

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 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.

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:10:37 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote

> >>> LOL. Your own reference indicates a 10% error. And this is in
> >>> reference to a measurement that involves, at most, a 1% difference
> >>> in weight.
>
> >> Stupid enough that you'd conflate "within 10% error" (a criteria for
> >> using the Ideal Gas Law) with "10% error", Jim?
>
> > Hell, when it came to inferring the droplet/cluster size
>
> We're not talking about "droplet/cluster size", Jim.

Unless you know that application of Avogadro's law will give you nonsense results, and you will have no way of knowing.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in

<news:jn8aeb904e873rujv...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

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

>> You fucking moron. You k'lamed water could not be plasmized. It most
>> obviously can.

> Wrong again, lying k00k.

Some backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering moron squeaked:

"Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature."

Try again, Moron. You're not backpedaling fast enough.

<snicker>

> YOU claimed water can be a plasma and still be water.

Fucking liar. I was proving exactly the opposite in drop-kicking that
moron James McGill across Usenet because *he* was k'laming that water
could be a plasma that forms droplets in the atmosphere.

Good god, you fucking moron, just how pathetic are you going to let
yourself become? You've already sunk to telling lies that are
diametrically opposed to reality. You must *like* getting your stupid
ass kicked, likely because you're such a pathetic moronic shut-in
loser that it's the only attention you can get.

<snicker>

> I corrected you: when water becomes plasma, it's no longer water.

Bullshit, you lying moron. You k'lamed water couldn't be plasmized.

Some backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering moron squeaked:

"Water has NO plasma phase, ergo no plasma temperature."

SPNAK!

> You realize i was right,

Translation:
"Everyone knows I was wrong, and that I'm now desperately
backpedaling."

> so you are trying desperately to rewrite who said what.
> Typical fakery.

And now, on top of your backpedaling and lying, you're projecting. LOL

> You will continue to froth & foam about it anyway because
> you are... well, a kook.

Says the drop-kicked kooktard as he froths and foams.

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 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.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:c1d4786e-4aa4-46b8...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:10:37 PM UTC-7,

> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>> LOL. Your own reference indicates a 10% error. And this is in
>>>>> reference to a measurement that involves, at most, a 1% difference
>>>>> in weight.

>>>> Stupid enough that you'd conflate "within 10% error" (a criteria for
>>>> using the Ideal Gas Law) with "10% error", Jim?

>>> Hell, when it came to inferring the droplet/cluster size

>> We're not talking about "droplet/cluster size", Jim. Are you confused,
>> Jim? Do you need to take a moment to take your meds so your brain
>> stops feverishly burrowing itself deeper into insanity, Jim?

> Unless you know that application of Avogadro's law will give you nonsense results, and you will have no way of knowing.

Except it doesn't give "nonsense results", Jim. You're just a kooktard
desperately backpedaling because I've used scientific fact to utterly
destroy your kooky conspiracy theory. You have no refutation of that
scientific fact.

Why can't you grasp reality, Jim?

Now, let's you get to answering those questions you've been ducking,
Jim...

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>

You must realize by now that your name is Google-Stacked to hell and
back, Jim... anyone searching for your name will know what a
delusional moron you are. Your kooky conspiracy theory is dead, and
now I've Google-stacked it so the whole world knows James Bernard
McGinn of Antioch, CA is an idiot. And you cannot refute that fact any
more than you can refute the scientific reality used to destroy your
kooky little theory, Jim.

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 10:42:37 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > Unless you know that application of Avogadro's law will give you nonsense results, and you will have no way of knowing.
>
> Except it doesn't give "nonsense results",

LOL.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:a232469e-70e7-4b66...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 10:42:37 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Unless you know that application of Avogadro's law will give you nonsense results, and you will have no way of knowing.

>> Except it doesn't give "nonsense results", Jim. You're just a kooktard
>> desperately backpedaling because I've used scientific fact to utterly
>> destroy your kooky conspiracy theory. You have no refutation of that
>> scientific fact.
>>
>> Why can't you grasp reality, Jim?

> LOL.

Your insane laughter is no substitute for refutation of the scientific
data which proves your kooky claims are nothing more than the mad
ranting of a thoroughly insane kooktard, James. You lose. Again.

==========================================================

Still demonstrating your inability to grasp how water can be gaseous
phase below its boiling point, James? It's already been fully
explained to you, and in the process, your kooky conspiracy theory has
been utterly demolished.

You postulate the following:

1) There is a "plasma not-a-plasma" that exists in the troposphere,
which you have admitted is merely a hypothetical construct so you can
continue to blather on about your kooky discredited conspiracy theory.

2) This magical "plasma not-a-plasma" is plasmized by an energy source
that is somehow magically plasmizing water in the troposphere without
dissociating it, given that the dissociation energy and nuclear
binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, and thus water
will dissociate rather than plasmize, unless hit with an extremely
energetic laser.

3) That your kooky energy source is somehow plasmizing only
atmospheric water while not plasmizing or dissociating Earth-bound
water, and is not killing off all life on the planet. Given that the
*minimum* energy necessary to even *begin* to plasmize water would be
equivalent to photons at a *maximum* wavelength of 103.32 nm, just
3.32 nm away from the x-ray range, I'm sure even you can see the
problem inherent in your contention, James.

4) That this magical energy source exists in the troposphere. Except
it cannot exist in the troposphere. Photons of shorter wavelength than
~121 nm are absorbed far above the troposphere due to their ability to
ionize air, thus they are not present in the troposphere, where the
overwhelming majority of all water is.

5) That warm air is heavier than cooler air... tell me, Jim... which
direction does air flow from a flame? Oh, that's right, upward. Why?
Because warm air is lighter and less dense than cooler air and thus
convects upward.

6) That air with gaseous phase water in it is heavier than dry air,
except you forget that science has long known about molar mass and
molar volume...

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Air temperature is a much greater determiner of air density than
humidity.

The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.

The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.

Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous

phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.

The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas
the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP.

Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
28.57 g for dry air

Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore
air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air.

Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its
gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant.

Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude
decreases.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water
partial pressure will have the same density.

At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous
water partial pressure will have higher density.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous
water partial pressure will have lower density.

For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure,
air at a higher altitude will have lower density.

(1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative
humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3.

Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative
humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C,
the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3.

Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to
increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the
air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the
air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or
the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater
than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity.

Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas
relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that
temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather
systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions.

IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which
requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air
itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of
monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of
higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density).

It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is
"heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

And before you begin blathering on again about the Ideal Gas Law not
applying to the atmosphere, let me remind you that I've done the
calculations for the van der Waals equation, as well. It is in
agreement with the Ideal Gas Law to a great degree of accuracy even
with the molar volume I used. As air volume increases for the same
relative humidity, air with gaseous phase water in it acts more and
more like an ideal gas, Jim. Compare the Ideal Gas Law to the van der
Waals Equation with all parameters the same except for volume, and
increase the volume through several iterations, then plot the
difference between the results of the Ideal Gas Law and the van der
Waals equation... notice the converging trend?

Do you think for an Earth-atmosphere-sized container, the air with
gaseous phase water in it would be within a very small margin of error
to an ideal gas, Jim? Sure it is. But that's something else you don't
understand because you're a low-information uneducated oaf.

7) Your kooky contention that water polarity changes upon H bonding...
which would also cause random changes in water's solvent properties,
and we know water's solvent properties do not change randomly, Jim.
You didn't know about the two spin isomers of water, which means there
are two hybrids of water with different H bonding strengths:

<https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156>
They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron
orbital shell descent. You'll note the gaseous phase water molecule's
photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is
due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two
phases.

<https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304>
You'll note the double peak of liquid water.

Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory:
====================================================
Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of
water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the
peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to
the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules.
====================================================

You betcha... para and ortho-form water.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ortho_para_water.html>
====================================================
Each hydrogen atom in water has a magnetic moment, which is associated
with the proton's spin of 1/2. As is found in molecular hydrogen (H2),
the protons (within the hydrogen atoms) in water (H2O) may possess
parallel or antiparallel nuclear spin (see right). When the spins are
parallel, there is a paramagnetic state called ortho-H2O with a
magnetic moment = 1. This is the high spin (triplet) state with three
symmetric spin states +1 , 0 , -1 (^^, ^v+^v, vv) where the three
states have equal energy in a zero magnetic field. This spin state
always possesses positive energy with a minimum energy level of 284.7
J mol-1 (23.794352 cm-1) H216O, [607c], 284.4 J mol-1 (23.773510 cm-1)
H217O [607a] or 284.2 J mol-1 (23.754902 cm-1) H218O [607a].

When the spins are opposed there exists the nonmagnetic state called
para-H2O with magnetic moment = 0 with just one antisymmetric spin
state (^v-^v) and magnetic moment = 0. Some of the water molecules in
this low spin (singlet) state will not be rotating even at room
temperature.

Para-H2O does not interact with an external magnetic field, but
ortho-H2O does. Conversion between these isomers is symmetry forbidden
for isolated water molecules and they act as different molecular
species. They can change spin state on interaction with another
particle, including other water molecules. The equilibrium ratio of
these nuclear spin states in H2O is all para- at zero Kelvin, where
the molecules have no rotational spin in their ground state, shifting
to the most stable ratio [1694] of 3:1 ortho:para, in the relative
amounts of the number of magnetic states, at less cold temperatures
(>50 K, see left [2478]); the equilibrium taking months to establish
itself in ice (or gas) and nearly an hour in ambient water [410]. It
is now thought that the ratio lies far from equilibrium and much
closer to 1:1 in liquid water due to hydrogen bond formation [2076].
This means that liquid H2O effectively consists of a mixture of
non-identical molecules and the properties of pure liquid ortho-H2O or
para-H2O are unknown. The differences in the properties of these two
forms of water are expected to be greater in an electric field [1186],
which may be imposed externally, from surfaces or from water
clustering itself. Many materials preferentially adsorb para-H2O due
to its non-rotation ground state [410, 835].

The apparent difference in energy between the two states is a
significant 1-2 kJ mol-1, far greater than expected from spin-spin
interactions (< μJ mol-1) [835]. It has been suggested that structural
rearrangements may be induced by ortho-H2O : para-H2O conversion
[1430], as it is possible that hydrogen bonds between para-H2O,
possessing no ground state spin, are stronger and last longer than
hydrogen bonds between ortho-H2O [1150]. It is thus possible that
ortho-H2O and para-H2O form separate hydrogen bonded clusters [1150]
with para-H2O being preferred in the low density tetrahedrally
coordinated clusters and ortho-H2O being preferred in the high density
clusters [2070], where their rotation is more easily accommodated.
Picoliter samples of pure ortho-H2O and para-H2O may be separated in a
strong dc electric field [2156].
====================================================

The two spin isomers of water cause a different H bond strength when
water molecules of like spin isomers engage in H bonding to form water
clusters, Jim. Thus the weaker ortho-H2O hydrogen bond is more easily
broken, so most of the gaseous phase water being evaporated should be
ortho-H2O. You'll note above that ortho-H2O even in its liquid form is
very close to the same properties as gaseous phase water under x-ray
spectroscopy, the difference accountable by taking into consideration
temperature and phase.

Remember when I said the surface layer of water was more viscous than
the bulk water? Yeah, that's because the ortho-H2O being evaporated
removes heat from the water, which makes the para-H2O in the ~1.7 nm
thick surface layer act nearly the same as ice.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
=====================================================
Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable
structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just
under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less
with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the
water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and
more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a
lower temperature).
=====================================================

As for condensation? Well, it's been found that under circumstances in
which relative humidity is less than ~25%, a four-molecule thick layer
of ice forms on the condensation surface... so apparently what is
happening is that the ortho-H2O being evaporated is colliding with
other molecules in the air, changing their spin isomer and thus giving
off energy, becoming para-H2O, and those are the ones preferentially
condensing, forming that four-molecule thick layer of ice. You'll note
above that para-H2O even in its liquid form is very close to the same
properties as solid phase water (ice) under x-ray spectroscopy, the
difference accountable by taking into consideration temperature and
phase.

For conditions of greater than ~25% relative humidity and thus greater
water gaseous-phase partial pressure in the air, apparently the
condensation process is fast enough to allow even ortho-H2O
gaseous-phase water to condense, thus the four-molecule thick layer of
ice is melted.

So you see, James, it's not because of your kooky contention that the
water molecule's polarity changes upon hydrogen bonding, it's because
there are two spin-isomer hybrids of the water molecule with two
different hydrogen bonding strengths.

Yet again, your kooky conspiracy theory is ripped to shreds by
scientific fact... made especially delicious because it was done
utilizing a link *you* provided. LOL

<http://phys.org/news/2014-09-para-ortho.html>
==============================================
A hydrogen nucleus (proton) can adopt two different states, comparable
to rotation clockwise and counterclockwise. In the case of water, the
nuclear spins of the two — indistinguishable — protons can be combined
in four different ways: one antisymmetric and three symmetric
wavefunctions. Water adopting the antisymmetric wavefunction is called
para water, whereas water adopting one of the symmetric ones is called
ortho water. Because switching from one state to the other is
"forbidden" due to quantum-mechanical symmetry rules, the two spin
isomers cannot interconvert without external influences such as
collisions.
==============================================

Were you not aware that hydrogen has two spin isomers, ortho- and
para-, and thus water, comprised of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen
atoms, also has two spin isomers?

<https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f24e171918d462fac89b809dccaa7c3e>
<http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2014/201434press.gif>

In pure hydrogen, ortho-hydrogen is thermodynamically unstable even at
low temperature and / or high pressure and it thus spontaneously
converts to para-hydrogen upon molecular collision, which has
implications for liquefied hydrogen storage, as energy is given off by
this spin isomer conversion.

In water, the oxygen atom slows the already slow conversion process to
para-hydrogen by preserving spin state of the hydrogen atom via
partially shielding the hydrogen atom from molecular collision which
would cause spin isomer conversion.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in

<news:phrcebdvrapsujquj...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

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

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in

>>> Wrong again, lying k00k. YOU claimed water can be a plasma
>>> and still be water. I corrected you: when water becomes

>>> plasma, it's no longer water.

>> Fucking liar. I was proving exactly the opposite in drop-kicking that
>> moron James McGill across Usenet because *he* was k'laming that water
>> could be a plasma that forms droplets in the atmosphere.

> And with that, Fakey crabwalks backwards as fast as his
> little arms & legs can take him.
>
> Oh, mind the door, fakey. It opens in, not out.
>
> <people applauded>

Awww, look at the moronic kook spewing lies in an attempt at evading
having been SPNAK!'d so hard he was forced to wholesale snip
everything kicking his ass (which in one post was everything, and in
the above post was nearly everything... he had to leave something so
he could bleat out his butthurt.). LOL

Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain?

Don't go running away now... you and I are just getting started.

["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]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:53:58 -0400, Sn!pe <snip...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <ben...@the.future> wrote:
>
>> Snickerturd Fakey wrote:
>>
>> <snippage of misinformed blather>
>>
>> Actually, fakey, you don't get sum & difference frequencies
>> simply by adding 2 frequencies together. You do it by
>> mixing them in a non-linear element, like a diode.
>>
>
> Indeed, that's fundamental to heterodyne mixing.
> I wonder what our "expert" correspondent knows
> about intermediate frequencies and sidebands.

well, he has no idea how to measure and calculate a voltage, doesn't know
what RMS means, thinks he can vector sum sine waves of mixed frequency by
summing amplitudes...

i'd say the chances are slim to nada.

>
>>
>> The explanation would be wasted on you. If there are any
>> *sane* people here who actually want to hear the explanation
>> (doubtful), i will. But you have proven yourself incapable
>> of grasping simple concepts, let alone harder ones.
>>
>> Bleat like a good sheepie.
>>
>
> # Baa, baa, Black Sheep, have you any credibility? ;D
>
> [saunters off chortling, stage left]
>
fakey's credibility -> gerg's bucket.

--
"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu

-

FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:
<3dcad3dd0a0d3972...@dizum.com>

">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>> phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>> voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)

Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking
*moron*?

"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf

on page 2:

** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII
art if you ask nicely.
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb...@dizum.com>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

//float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
//float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
float_precision t=float_precision(0); // time variable
float_precision sum=float_precision(0); // sum of SnickerTurd's
ridiculous sinewave mess
float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25); //
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
float_precision PI;
PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

// this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
while(sum < snickerPrediction){

// fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:
<db672705e57e4932...@dizum.com>
sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))
+
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

// perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh
snickerTurds
if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
}
t = t+STEP;
}
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e328...@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves
never reaches that. They never reach their max values at the same time.
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8...@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages.

*/
cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."
<f4f9193fa7d28b76...@dizum.com>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL

on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*

*hell doesn't exist. hope everybody is having a productive evening.

-

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

-

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers
containing "ro...@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

-

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

-

Coming soon! To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot> I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account? <snicker>
You> Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot> Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot> Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot> Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)

-

snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message
<b5e7da79a455d0c9...@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden
service. It's not rocket science.

_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._ (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a
kiddie pr0n network.)

That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in

<news:ljmdebtpae3jgch3m...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

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

> <snippage of misinformed blather>

Translation:
"<snippage of all that which proves me to be a moron... which is
everything. Why am I so stupid?!>"

Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain?

<snicker>

> Actually, fakey, you don't get sum & difference frequencies
> simply by adding 2 frequencies together. You do it by
> mixing them in a non-linear element, like a diode.

Look at the backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering moron mewling
out his latest Google-rape in hopes of salvaging his pride and proving
himself "not-a-moron". LOL

Still don't understand constructive and destructive interference, eh,
Moron? LOL

Moron k'lames the air contains trillions upon trillions of "non-linear
elements, like a diode", which is how constructive and destructive
interference in air works in MoronWorld. LOL

And in MoronWorld water, they're Schottky diodes, which explains why
the speed of sound is faster in water. LOL

> The explanation would be wasted on you. If there are any
> *sane* people here who actually want to hear the explanation
> (doubtful), i will. But you have proven yourself incapable
> of grasping simple concepts, let alone harder ones.

Translation:
"I raped Google hard enough to be able to explain something for once.
I think. Don't anybody call me on that, or I'll prove myself a moron.
Again."

<snicker>

> Bleated like a good sheepie.

Indeed.

[noTthaTguY]

I want to know the exact integer value of Avacado's numbeR

> > Unless you know that application of Avogadro's law will give you nonsense results, and you will have no way of knowing.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in

<news:5rtdeblqf9fe3f7jn...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> I'll prove myself a moron. Again.

Well, if you insist, knock yourself out, Moron.

["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]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 01:14:58 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> I'll prove myself a moron. Again.

makes sense. nobody's stopping you, fakester.

["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]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 13:09:00 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Brain), in
> <news:ljmdebtpae3jgch3m...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
> first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:
>
>> <snippage of misinformed blather>
>
> Translation:
> "<snippage of all that which proves me to be a moron... which is
> everything. Why am I so stupid?!>"
>
> Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain?
>
> <snicker>
>
>> Actually, fakey, you don't get sum & difference frequencies
>> simply by adding 2 frequencies together. You do it by
>> mixing them in a non-linear element, like a diode.
>
> Look at the backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering moron mewling
> out his latest Google-rape in hopes of salvaging his pride and proving
> himself "not-a-moron". LOL
>
> Still don't understand constructive and destructive interference, eh,
> Moron? LOL
>
> Moron k'lames the air contains trillions upon trillions of "non-linear
> elements, like a diode", which is how constructive and destructive
> interference in air

wouldn't that add in a log function for Db?

that's not linear.

> works in MoronWorld. LOL

by skipping the logarithm part and pretending that you know anything about
the world before googling it?

>
> And in MoronWorld water, they're Schottky diodes, which explains why
> the speed of sound is faster in water. LOL
>
>> The explanation would be wasted on you. If there are any
>> *sane* people here who actually want to hear the explanation
>> (doubtful), i will. But you have proven yourself incapable
>> of grasping simple concepts, let alone harder ones.
>
> Translation:
> "I raped Google hard enough to be able to explain something for once.
> I think. Don't anybody call me on that, or I'll prove myself a moron.
> Again."
>
> <snicker>
>
>> Bleated like a good sheepie.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain?
>
> <snicker>
>


--

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
socked up as suck...@127.0.0.1, in
<news:op.yecz4...@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first

into the wood chipper again:

Nothing is linear in MoronWorld. The whole place is one giant
surrealistic Salvador Dali painting. LOL

>> works in MoronWorld. LOL

> by skipping the logarithm part and pretending that you know anything about
> the world before googling it?

You apparently know first-hand how waves undergo superposition in
MoronWorld, DildoRider. Almost as if you spend a great amount of time
there. LOL

>> And in MoronWorld water, they're Schottky diodes, which explains why
>> the speed of sound is faster in water. LOL

>>> The explanation would be wasted on you. If there are any
>>> *sane* people here who actually want to hear the explanation
>>> (doubtful), i will. But you have proven yourself incapable
>>> of grasping simple concepts, let alone harder ones.

>> Translation:
>> "I raped Google hard enough to be able to explain something for once.
>> I think. Don't anybody call me on that, or I'll prove myself a moron.
>> Again."
>>
>> <snicker>

>>> Bleated like a good sheepie.

>> Indeed.
>>
>> Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Brain?
>>
>> <snicker>

Why are you more stupid than Shiny Tinfoil Brain, DildoRider?

Now Shiny Tinfoil Brain is gonna get a swollen head because he's
finally found someone who's a bigger moron than he is. LOL

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL

Obsessed Retard. LOL

Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL

Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In Usenet History. LOL

--

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey)
5907 Stanton Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA
(412) 853-6395
(412) 799-0532
(412) 665-8289
(412) 404-8757

DildoRider admits he's stoooopid:
MID: <c65504c436778934...@dizum.com>
=================================================
>> it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's
>> damaged your brain, DildoRider.

> then it appears that you like shooting fish in
> barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are.

Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is
akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're
stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell.

<snicker>
=================================================

DildoRider admits he's "really stupid" (his words). LOL
MID: <8a9faed11123abfa...@dizum.com>
=================================================
> so what you're saying is that your targets for attack
> have to be really stupid or else you can't manage?
=================================================

DildoRider admits much more about himself:
MID: <36c6802852caf4f7...@dizum.com>
=================================================
"absolutely and completely retarded, insane, gay, ugly, smelly,
toothless, dirt-poor, incontinent and possibly homeless"
=================================================

This is a libtard's method of "winning", for fuck sake.

150 IQ? LOL

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
socked up as suck...@127.0.0.1, in

<news:op.yecpd...@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first

into the wood chipper again:

> I'll prove myself a moron. Again.

That's impossible, DildoRider. You haven't stopped proving yourself a
moron from last time. You should have written that you'll *continue*
to prove yourself a moron.

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL

Obsessed Retard. LOL

Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL

["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]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:39:06 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to prove myself a moron. Again.

--
"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu

-

FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:
<3dcad3dd0a0d3972...@dizum.com>

">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>> phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>> voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)

Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking
*moron*?

"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to

real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds. it says that you're in denial
about the inversion of your AC legs.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf

on page 2:

** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII

art if you ask nicely.</GROUCHO MARX>

k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages that are archived FOREVER.

*/
cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."
<f4f9193fa7d28b76...@dizum.com>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL

Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL

Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL

<the band strikes up a rousing version of "on top of old smokey">

Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016