James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland

[TrollReportService]

Who is James B Mcginn - (503) 223-7990 - Portland - OR ...

OR, Portland, 2365 NW Marshall St, 97210

https://www.google.com/maps/place

/2365+NW+Marshall+St,+Portland,+OR+97210/@45.5306596,-122.6995998,189m

/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x549509f0201cc1d5:0x1ea2ec0bf1d0cb96!6m1!1e1


CEO at Socratic inc
Office Technician at State of california

File Size: 569 KB; Print Length: 52 pages; Publisher: James B. McGinn
IV; 1 edition (June 11, 2014); Sold by: Amazon Digital Services, Inc.
Language: English ...
[Search domain waatp.com] waatp.com/people/james-b-mcginn/41655274/


zenodo.org
James B. McGinn IV, is a graduate of CSU Northridge, BA Geography 1992,
and is an independent science theorist whose primary focus is on the
physics of the atmosphere.
[Search domain zenodo.org]
zenodo.org/record/37224/files/HydrogenBondingasTheMe...


WHAT GOES UP: Storm Theory: What meteorologists believe but ...
James McGinn's out-of-the-box approach opens for debate what everyone
has accepted as the unchallenged ... James B. McGinn IV; 1 edition (June
11, 2014 ...
[Search domain www.amazon.com]
amazon.com/WHAT-GOES-meteorologists-Tornadoes-Atmosp...


Wind and Paranoia: What Meteorologist Won't Tell...
Claudius Denk. James McGinn. James B. McGinn IV.
[Search domain www.kashikari.net]
kashikari.net/asin-ForeignBooks-B00KY7EGSG/?lang=tr

Picture of his Dog;

https://www.rover.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ugly-dog.png


Picture of his sister
http://weedactivist.com/wp-content/uploads/weird.1.jpg

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 12:47:43 PM UTC-8, TrollReportService wrote:

Also, lest we forget. I am offering a cash reward of $100,000.00
(U.S.) for anybody that can come up with reproducible experimental
evidence that H2O can be a gas at the ambient temperatures of
Earth's atmosphere.

Or

That moist air, all other factors being the same, is or can be
lighter than dry air. Here is a link to experimental procedures
that would suffice:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/2XZmr9zDCig/mpUXaNxzAAAJ

Or

That moist air can rise as a result of convection through dry air

The person that wrote this "Troll Report," was obviously joking. I want to assure you that this offer of $100,000.00 US Dollars is no joke.

Feel free to submit claim here or at my email address below.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn9 at gmail dot com

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

James McGinn, in

<news:28189e9d-b2ff-46d5...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Also, lest we forget. I am offering a cash reward of $100,000.00
> (U.S.) for anybody that can come up with reproducible experimental
> evidence that H2O can be a gas at the ambient temperatures of
> Earth's atmosphere.

Do you not understand the concept of partial pressure? Or that water
in its gaseous phase is miscible in air at all temperatures above ~-60
C?

You will typically hear humidity expressed as "relative humidity",
which is the ratio of vapor pressure 'e' to saturation vapor pressure
'e_s', and thus when the relative humidity e/e_s < 1, net evaporation
occurs, whereas when e/e_s > 1, net condensation occurs. In both
cases, however, evaporation is occurring.

IOW, water will evaporate to gaseous phase until its partial pressure
has reached the vapor pressure for that temperature.

This is best treated by experimental analogy. Get a roulette wheel,
spin it slowly and drop in 100 marbles. They'll bounce around, and you
might see one or two collide with other marbles, the kinetic energy
derived from said collisions giving one of the marbles the necessary
energy to escape the roulette wheel (ie: to evaporate to gaseous
phase).

Now collect all your marbles and spin the roulette wheel faster, and
drop the marbles back in. You'll see more of the marbles experiencing
collisions which impart to them the energy necessary to fly off the
wheel. Thus increased temperature increases evaporation.

Now collect all your marbles again, spin the roulette wheel at 5000
RPM and drop the marbles back in. They'll all fling off the wheel...
that's boiling.

Now, let's address sublimation. Because even when the water molecules
are locked in the matrix of ice, the water can evaporate directly from
solid to gaseous phase. That would be akin to a roulette wheel
spinning very slowly... the collision of marbles necessary to throw
one of them off the roulette table wouldn't happen very often, but
it'd still happen occasionally.

I'm sure you'll blather something akin to "Sublimation produces
evaporate (vapor, small clusters of H2O). It does not produce gaseous
H2O.", but hey, take a look at this:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_transition)>
"Sublimation is the transition of a substance directly from the solid
to the gas phase without passing through the intermediate liquid
phase.[1]"

That [1] is the Merriam-Webster definition. You're trying to dispute a
long-held scientific definition. That's not very smart of you, now is
it?

Further, just how do you suppose freeze-drying works, if not by
sublimation in a reduced-pressure environment? Just how do you suppose
dry ice evaporates if not by sublimation? Do you purport that "small
clusters of vaporous CO2" are in the atmosphere as a result of
sublimation? If so, do try not to breathe, you may suffocate on a "CO2
vapor cluster".

I invite you to peruse the works of Bar-Nun et. al., who studied water
ice sublimation using mass spectrometry; and Sandford and Allamandola,
who studied water ice sublimation using infrared spectroscopy; as well
as R.L. Hudson, who studied water ice sublimation via mass
spectroscopy. ALL of them found water ice sublimates directly to
gaseous phase.

Thermodynamics dictates that for a system of liquid, the free energy
can be lowered by trading some enthalpy for the increase in entropy.
For any given temperature, this balance determines the equilibrium
vapor pressure. Thus, there will always be some gaseous phase water in
equilibrium (for all temperatures above ~-60 C).

At an interface between a liquid and a gas, a water molecule can
randomly fly out of the liquid and join the gas, or drop out of the
gas and join the liquid. This gas/liquid system is at equilibrium if
the change in free energy is the same for a molecule to go in either
direction. In this case, the molecules are transferred in both
directions at the same rate, and there is no net change. If you have a
situation that is not in equilibrium, then molecules will be
transferred from the liquid to the gas or the gas to the liquid
preferentially, and this will continue until the pressure or
temperature have changed to achieve equilibrium, or until one phase is
completely gone. In many common examples, equilibrium is never
reached. For example, at room temperature, the equilibrium point for
water will be at a pressure of about 20 Torr. If the relative humidity
is less than 100%, then the partial pressure of water in the air is
less than 20 Torr. So, if you put a glass of water in such an
atmosphere, the water molecules will tend to leave the liquid and join
the gas. Since the atmosphere is much larger than the glass of water,
this evaporation will not noticeably change the partial pressure of
water in the atmosphere, so the water will continue to evaporate until
it is entirely converted into gas. On the other hand, if you put a cap
on the glass, the evaporation would only continue until the partial
pressure of water under that cap went up to 20 Torr.

In point of fact, water is *always* trying to "boil"... except that at
room temperature, the 20 Torr pressure created isn't enough to expand
the bubbles created by boiling against the atmospheric pressure of
~760 Torr. This can be seen quite easily by putting water in a flask
and evacuating the flask to a lower pressure than atmospheric. The
water will boil at a lower temperature. In fact, there are such
devices that allow one to boil water merely by holding the flask, the
heat from one's hand causing the boiling... until gaseous phase water
partial pressure in the flask rises sufficiently to prevent bubble
formation.

<http://docs.engineeringtoolbox.com/documents/689/air-moisture-temperature-saturation-diagram-SI.png>
You'll note that at 100 C, the saturation pressure is 100,000 Pa, or
atmospheric pressure. You'll further note that at that 100 C / 100,000
Pa point, Density = 1... but at lower temperatures, water in its
gaseous phase can still exist at lower partial pressure. At lower
atmospheric pressure, the partial pressure:atmospheric pressure ratio
increases such that evaporation occurs at a higher rate for a given
temperature, finally leading to perpetual boiling for a sufficiently
low atmospheric pressure, as in the evacuated flask example above.

Did you not think about your contention that all water in the
atmosphere is in a liquid state, or that a simple saturation diagram
and an evacuated flask would cost you $100,000?

I'd like to request my $100,000 in the form of BitCoin, if you please.

> Or
>
> That moist air, all other factors being the same, is or can be
> lighter than dry air. Here is a link to experimental procedures
> that would suffice:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/2XZmr9zDCig/mpUXaNxzAAAJ

Mason jars? Desert environment? Aluminum foil? Cotton balls?

You silly little man, there's no need to go to such lengths if you're
so very determined to give away $100,000.

Density of Dry Air
Pa = 0.0035 pa / T

Where:
Pa = density dry air (kg/m3)
pa = partial pressure of air (Pa, N/m2)
T = absolute dry bulb temperature (K)

Density of Water In Its Gaseous Phase
Pw = 0.0022 pw / T

Where:
pw = partial pressure water in its gaseous phase (Pa, N/m2)
Pw = density water in its gaseous phase (kg/m3)
T = absolute dry bulb temperature (K)

<http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-air-d_680.html>

Were you not aware that liquid water has an electrostatic surface
potential of ~1.815 eV in liquid phase, but ~-1.815 eV in gaseous
phase, thus water is *always* trying to evaporate to its gaseous phase
to reduce its free energy, but the majority of it is held in check
from doing so via the inter-molecular hydrogen bonds?

<http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jz900268s>

> Or
>
> That moist air can rise as a result of convection through dry air

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.

> The person that wrote this "Troll Report," was obviously joking. I want to assure you that this offer of $100,000.00 US Dollars is no joke.

Great... so you'll be forwarding the $100,000 to my BitCoin account
post-haste. Don't make me sue you for it. You've made a public offer,
legally binding. I've met _all_ of your 'Or' conditions, thereby more
than thoroughly satisfying the demands of the challenge. I've amply
proven using well-known and long-established scientific equations,
tables and concepts that you're a kooktard. And kooktards gotta pay.

<snicker>

> Feel free to submit claim here or at my email address below.
>
> James McGinn
> Solving Tornadoes
> jimmcginn9 at gmail dot com

The claim has been submitted and you've been proven wrong. Pay up.

James McGinn owes FNVWe $100,000. Because stupidity should be costly.

<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]

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 10:00:51 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> James McGinn, in
> <news:28189e9d-b2ff-46d5...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> > Also, lest we forget. I am offering a cash reward of $100,000.00
> > (U.S.) for anybody that can come up with reproducible experimental
> > evidence that H2O can be a gas at the ambient temperatures of
> > Earth's atmosphere.
>
> Do you not understand the concept of partial pressure?

Yes. Perfectly.

> Or that water
> in its gaseous phase is miscible in air at all temperatures above ~-60
> C?
>
> You will typically hear humidity expressed as "relative humidity",
> which is the ratio of vapor pressure 'e' to saturation vapor pressure
> 'e_s', and thus when the relative humidity e/e_s < 1, net evaporation
> occurs, whereas when e/e_s > 1, net condensation occurs. In both
> cases, however, evaporation is occurring.
>
> IOW, water will evaporate to gaseous phase

You have to prove it is gaseous.

You can't just assume it -- dumbass.

[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:0rhodbdife2fovihl...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus

> <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:28189e9d-b2ff-46d5...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>>> Also, lest we forget. I am offering a cash reward of $100,000.00
>>> (U.S.) for anybody that can come up with reproducible experimental
>>> evidence that H2O can be a gas at the ambient temperatures of
>>> Earth's atmosphere.

>> Do you not understand the concept of partial pressure? Or that water

> Forget it, fakey, you won't get a dime. This kook is just
> like you. You can give him all the proof in the world,

You gave no proof, you blathered stupidity which I disproved. Because
you're a moron.

<snicker>

> and
> he will cover his eyes, plug his ears, jump up & down,
> screaming "There's no proof! Show me proof!"

Bwahahaaaa! That's rich, coming from the retard who blathered all the
stupidity in my .sig, which I proved *wrong* using science, reality,
truthiness and intelligence... you know, that which you lack.

<snicker>

--

Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*);

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;

That superposition is the same as wave interference;

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves;

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things;

That RMS isn't a DC voltage;

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L;

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering;

What a positive or negative vector is;

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero;

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

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

SPNAK!

<snicker>

[Sergio]

On 3/6/2016 1:15 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 10:00:51 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:28189e9d-b2ff-46d5...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>

>>
>> Do you not understand the concept of partial pressure?
>
> Yes. Perfectly.

he agrees he does not understand pp.

>

>
> You have to prove it is gaseous.

how does a shirt dry on a clothes line ? magic ?
Sorley tormators magicly dry it out for you using their plasmamas,
little elven peples w spunges ?? you are an idiot, and a moron, but
you already know that.



from OP

why do have a a restraining order on you ?

James B Mcginn IV -
(503) 223-7990 -
2365 NW Marshall St, Portland, Or 97210

["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 Sun, 06 Mar 2016 10:13:58 -0500, Bite My Shiny Metal Ass
<ben...@the.future> wrote:

> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus

> <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>
>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:28189e9d-b2ff-46d5...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Also, lest we forget. I am offering a cash reward of $100,000.00
>> > (U.S.) for anybody that can come up with reproducible experimental
>> > evidence that H2O can be a gas at the ambient temperatures of
>> > Earth's atmosphere.
>>
>> Do you not understand the concept of partial pressure? Or that water
>

> Forget it, fakey, you won't get a dime. This kook is just

> like you. You can give him all the proof in the world, and

> he will cover his eyes, plug his ears, jump up & down,
> screaming "There's no proof! Show me proof!"

fakey has a million dollar ransom on the gables on my flat porch roof.

--
"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

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 10:01:22 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > Forget it, fakey, you won't get a dime.

That's true.

Meteorology's boiling point was established by scientists
years ago, long before meteorologists decided to ignore
it and a construct a phoney model of atmospheric flow.

You brain-dead science groupies don't have the slightest
chance of finding evidence of gaseous H2O in the ambient
temperatures of earth atmosphere. It doesn't matter what
you whackjobs believe. You have about as much chance of
refuting the boiling point of H2O as you do of refuting
gravity.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

Convection Versus Plasma
https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk?t=11m30s

Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss

Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo

How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU

My channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcg8R1ALfDP7sGkeIEBjkMQ

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in
<news:4ffa904b-e54c-4c4e...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 10:00:51 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:28189e9d-b2ff-46d5...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>>> Also, lest we forget. I am offering a cash reward of $100,000.00
>>> (U.S.) for anybody that can come up with reproducible experimental
>>> evidence that H2O can be a gas at the ambient temperatures of
>>> Earth's atmosphere.

>> Do you not understand the concept of partial pressure?

Your cowardly snipping is noted, Jim. What are you afraid of? That
people will see that I've met every single one of your 'Or'
conditions, thereby more than satisfying the conditions of the
challenge in the eyes of the law?

> Yes. Perfectly.

>> Or that water
>> in its gaseous phase is miscible in air at all temperatures above ~-60
>> C?
>>
>> You will typically hear humidity expressed as "relative humidity",
>> which is the ratio of vapor pressure 'e' to saturation vapor pressure
>> 'e_s', and thus when the relative humidity e/e_s < 1, net evaporation
>> occurs, whereas when e/e_s > 1, net condensation occurs. In both
>> cases, however, evaporation is occurring.
>>
>> IOW, water will evaporate to gaseous phase

> You have to prove it is gaseous.
>
> You can't just assume it -- dumbass.

I did prove it, you moron. It's not my fault you can't understand that
simple reality as outlined by science long ago.

To repeat that which you cowardly snipped out, to give you a second
chance to peruse it and realize your error:
================================================================
================================================================
================================================================
Do you not understand the concept of partial pressure? Or that water

in its gaseous phase is miscible in air at all temperatures above ~-60
C?

You will typically hear humidity expressed as "relative humidity",
which is the ratio of vapor pressure 'e' to saturation vapor pressure
'e_s', and thus when the relative humidity e/e_s < 1, net evaporation
occurs, whereas when e/e_s > 1, net condensation occurs. In both
cases, however, evaporation is occurring.

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

I'll further add that a gas is a single well-defined thermodynamic
phase, whereas a vapor is a mixture of two phases (in the case of
water, gas and liquid). A cloud contains water vapor, whereas clear
sky contains gaseous water. IOW, all vapor contains gaseous phase, but
gas is not vaporous.

This applies to all substances which can be liquefied... liquid oxygen
will coexist with oxygen vapor right up to the boiling point of oxygen
at the pressure it is being stored. Above that Critical Temperature,
it is gaseous.

So even in water vapor, there is gaseous water... so no matter what,
you're wrong, I'm right, and you owe me $100,000.

Remember, I'm litigious. I'll gladly spend $25k on an attorney to get
$75 net. And I can afford to do so. So you've better pay up.

The scientific proof I've provided will stand up in any court of law,
you've made a public challenge with a payoff of $100,000 and you've
reiterated that offer. It is a legally binding offer.

I've met _all_ of your 'Or' conditions, thereby more than thoroughly
satisfying the demands of the challenge. I've amply proven using
well-known and long-established scientific equations, tables and

concepts that I've met your challenge

You're the moron who claims that warmer air is *heavier* than colder
air... that level of stupidity should be painful. I intend to make it
so for you.

Pay up. Now.

["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 Sun, 06 Mar 2016 13:50:06 -0500, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James McGinn, in
> <news:4ffa904b-e54c-4c4e...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 10:00:51 PM UTC-8,
>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
>>> James McGinn, in
>>> <news:28189e9d-b2ff-46d5...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Also, lest we forget. I am offering a cash reward of $100,000.00
>>>> (U.S.) for anybody that can come up with reproducible experimental
>>>> evidence that H2O can be a gas at the ambient temperatures of
>>>> Earth's atmosphere.
>
>>> Do you not understand the concept of partial pressure?
>
> Your cowardly snipping is noted, Jim. What are you afraid of? That
> people will see that I've met every single one of your 'Or'
> conditions, thereby more than satisfying the conditions of the
> challenge in the eyes of the law?

you should graph it for him with gnuplot or desmos.com.

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 11:00:04 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> >>> Also, lest we forget. I am offering a cash reward of $100,000.00
> >>> (U.S.) for anybody that can come up with reproducible experimental
> >>> evidence that H2O can be a gas at the ambient temperatures of
> >>> Earth's atmosphere.
>
> >> Do you not understand the concept of partial pressure?
>
> Your cowardly snipping is noted, Jim. What are you afraid of? That
> people will see that I've met every single one of your 'Or'
> conditions, thereby more than satisfying the conditions of the
> challenge in the eyes of the law?

Have your lawyer email me:

jimmcginn9 at gmail dot com

> > You have to prove it is gaseous.
> >
> > You can't just assume it -- dumbass.

<snipped psycho-babble>

> IOW, water will evaporate to gaseous phase

It remains liquid, suspended in air, dumbass.

> until its partial pressure
> has reached the vapor pressure for that temperature.
>
> This is best treated by experimental analogy.

Uh, there is no such thing as a experimental analogy, you retard. It's either one or the other. And it is fairly clear its not an experiment.

God I had idiots!

> I'm sure you'll blather something akin to "Sublimation produces
> evaporate (vapor, small clusters of H2O). It does not produce gaseous
> H2O.",

Correct.

but hey, take a look at this:
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_transition)>
> "Sublimation is the transition of a substance directly from the solid
> to the gas phase without passing through the intermediate liquid
> phase.[1]"

Wikepedia was constructed by dumbasses like you.

> That [1] is the Merriam-Webster definition. You're trying to dispute a
> long-held scientific definition. That's not very smart of you, now is
> it?

You just lost the argument, dumbass. I suggest you don't waste your money on hiring a lawyer.

> Remember, I'm litigious. I'll gladly spend $25k on an attorney to get
> $75 net. And I can afford to do so. So you've better pay up.

Make my day, dumbass.

> The scientific proof I've provided will stand up in any court of law,
> you've made a public challenge with a payoff of $100,000 and you've
> reiterated that offer. It is a legally binding offer.

That's right. Go ahead. It's legally binding. And I have the money. So what are you waiting for?

Unfortunately the laws of thermodynamics are also binding.

Sorry to burst you little bubble.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[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:6e0659b2-4349-4656...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 11:00:04 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>> Also, lest we forget. I am offering a cash reward of $100,000.00
>>>>> (U.S.) for anybody that can come up with reproducible experimental
>>>>> evidence that H2O can be a gas at the ambient temperatures of
>>>>> Earth's atmosphere.

>>>> Do you not understand the concept of partial pressure?

>> Your cowardly snipping is noted, Jim. What are you afraid of? That
>> people will see that I've met every single one of your 'Or'
>> conditions, thereby more than satisfying the conditions of the
>> challenge in the eyes of the law?

> Have your lawyer email me:
> jimmcginn9 at gmail dot com

Why do I need my lawyer to contact you, Jim? Are you welshing on your
challenge already, after you've been proven irrefutably wrong?

You should know I've never lost. And given that you're a moronic
kooktard who believes that warmer air is *heavier* than cooler air,
you're not going to be the first to beat me. You'll pay up or I'll
drive you so insane you'll be begging to pay me just so I leave you
alone. I've done it to many others far saner and more intelligent than
you.

<snicker>

>>> You have to prove it is gaseous.
>>>
>>> You can't just assume it -- dumbass.

> <snipped psycho-babble>

Translation:
"<snipped proof that I owe FNVWe $100,000">

Let it be known that Jim McGinn is a kooktard who doesn't make good on
his promises, doesn't pay his debts, and is actually stupid enough to
believe that warmer air is heavier than cooler air.

Let the game begin, Jim. This doesn't end until you pay. I've met the
conditions of your challenge using scientific facts and evidence which
would be admissible as evidence in any court of law. Pay up.

>> IOW, water will evaporate to gaseous phase

> It remains liquid, suspended in air, dumbass.

No, it doesn't. I note *you* have provided no proof for your kooky
contentions, whereas I've provided plentiful examples, diagrams and
equations to prove you *wrong*. Pay up, Jim. You owe me $100,000.

>> until its partial pressure
>> has reached the vapor pressure for that temperature.
>>
>> This is best treated by experimental analogy.

> Uh, there is no such thing as a experimental analogy, you retard.

I just gave you one, so there is. Too stupid to see it? Too stupid to
do that simple experiment? Or too cowardly to prove yourself *wrong*
because you know you'd be forced to pay me the $100,000 you owe me.

> It's either one or the other.
> And it is fairly clear its not an experiment.

Only because you haven't performed it yet, Jim. Why haven't you
performed it yet, Jim? Are you running away from that experimental
analogy because you know it'd prove you *wrong*, Jim? Why aren't you
paying me the money you owe me, Jim?

> God I had idiots!

Idiot. LOL

>> I'm sure you'll blather something akin to "Sublimation produces
>> evaporate (vapor, small clusters of H2O). It does not produce gaseous
>> H2O.",

> Correct.

Wrong. The scientific definition of sublimation proves you wrong.
Words have meaning, Jim. You redefining words just because you want to
in order to fit your little kook theory doesn't change the reality of
those scientific definitions. Ice sublimates directly from solid phase
to gaseous phase. You owe me $100,000, Jim. Pay up.

>> but hey, take a look at this:
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_transition)>
>> "Sublimation is the transition of a substance directly from the solid
>> to the gas phase without passing through the intermediate liquid
>> phase.[1]"

> Wikepedia was constructed by dumbasses like you.

That's the Merriam-Webster definition, a long-held scientific
definition of sublimation.

<http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/a/sublimationdef.htm>
<http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Sublimation>
<http://www.windows2universe.org/comets/sublimation.html>
<http://van.physics.illinois.edu/QA/listing.php?id=1703>
<http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercyclesublimation.htmlwater.usgs.gov/edu/watercyclesublimation.html>

It's a well-known and commonly held definition, Jim, across chemistry,
biology, astrophysics, physics... even the USGS Water Science School
holds to that definition. Every physical science there is. Since
approximately the 15th century.

And if ice can sublimate directly to gaseous phase, air *must* contain
water in its gaseous form.

You're wrong, Jim. You owe me $100,000, Jim. Pay up, Jim.

>> That [1] is the Merriam-Webster definition. You're trying to dispute a
>> long-held scientific definition. That's not very smart of you, now is
>> it?

> You just lost the argument, dumbass.

I just won the argument, Jim. You're the kooktard trying to redefine
something that's been known for centuries. You lose, Jim. You owe me
$100,000, Jim. Pay up, Jim.

> I suggest you don't waste your money on hiring a lawyer.

The definitions, equations, tables and examples I've provided would
all stand up to scrutiny in a court of law, Jim. You know this, Jim.
Whereas you've provided nothing but kook blather with no corroboration
whatsoever, Jim. You're wrong, Jim. You owe me $100,000, Jim. Pay up,
Jim.

>> Remember, I'm litigious. I'll gladly spend $25k on an attorney to get

>> $75k net. And I can afford to do so. So you've better pay up.

> Make my day, dumbass.

Are you now signalling your intent to violate your legally binding
offer of $100,000 to the person who proves to you that water in its
gaseous phase can and does exist in air, Jim? Why are you backpedaling
away from your offer, Jim, rather than presenting proof to the
contrary? Is it because you know you're *wrong*, and you owe me
$100,000, Jim?

Why are you refuted and laughed at everywhere you go, Jim?
<http://wottsupwiththat.com/2013/01/06/an-open-letter-challenging-the-epa-on-co2-regulation/>

<http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/>

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics/xaBP8bBV6Co>
Your book got bad reviews, all of them calling you a kooktard.

"To cite Jim McGinn as an idiot or a moron is to slight idiots and
morons."

You suffer from Dunning-Kruger Effect, Jim. You need to take your
meds:
===========================================
1) Skill-boundary transgression: The individual is seeking to operate
as an authority or qualified individual, in a field beyond their
personal level of academic and professional qualification.

2) Self-identified authority: The individual identifies themselves as
sufficiently competent to comment authoritatively on the subject.

3) Unrecognized competence: The individual's self-assessed competence
is not recognized by those who are academically and professional
competent.

4) False peers: The individual believes that the favorable commentary
of other unskilled and non-professional individuals indicates they
themselves are sufficiently qualified.

5) Scrutiny avoidance: The individual fails to submit their work for
professional scrutiny (such as in the relevant scholarly literature)
for review by those genuinely qualified.

6) Pioneer complex: The individual self-identifies as a pioneer
uncovering previously unknown or unrecognized facts.

7) Conspiracy claims: The individual explains opposition by qualified
professionals as a coordinated attempt to suppress truth, in order to
defend the existing scholarly consensus.

8) Allocentric claims of bias: The individual explains the difference
between their views and those of qualified professionals, as the
result of inherent bias on the part of the professionals; accusations
of bias are directed at anyone other than themselves, and they claim
objectivity.
===========================================

IOW, you're off your meds again, Jim... and in so being off your meds,
you've blathered your way into a corner you now cannot get out of,
because you've upped the ante to the point that you've offered
$100,000 to anyone able to meet the conditions of your challenge,
which I've done in spades. You will pay up or you will be hounded
until your burgeoning insanity blossoms into fully-blown psychosis of
such an extent that you'll forget your own name.

<snicker>

>> The scientific proof I've provided will stand up in any court of law,
>> you've made a public challenge with a payoff of $100,000 and you've
>> reiterated that offer. It is a legally binding offer.

> That's right. Go ahead. It's legally binding. And I have the money.
> So what are you waiting for?

I'm waiting for you to melt down so badly that you beg to pay me the
$100,000 in return for me leaving you alone, Jim. I'm going to haunt
you from now on, Jim, until you pay what you owe me.

> Unfortunately the laws of thermodynamics are also binding.

Indeed they are, and as I've already stated in a prior post:
===========================================================

Thermodynamics dictates that for a system of liquid, the free energy
can be lowered by trading some enthalpy for the increase in entropy.
For any given temperature, this balance determines the equilibrium
vapor pressure. Thus, there will always be some gaseous phase water in
equilibrium (for all temperatures above ~-60 C).

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

That alone proves you *wrong*, Jim. Scientific reality doesn't change
just because your broken little tardbrain says it does. Reality is
immutable. Take your meds and deal with that reality, Jim.

You're conversing with the guy who's made physicists tear their hair
out from being proven wrong, Jim, the guy who can type far faster than
you can think, and who can think far faster than you can ever imagine.

I've proven you wrong in several different ways, all of which would be
admissible as evidence in a court of law... ergo you are wrong, Jim,
and you owe me $100,000. Pay up, Jim.

> Sorry to burst you little bubble.

I note you're still cowardly snipping out that which proves you
*wrong*, Jim. Let me restate that last little bit for you to peruse
again, because it irrefutably proves you *wrong*, leaving you no
wiggle room whatsoever:

===========================================================
I'll further add that a gas is a single well-defined thermodynamic
phase, whereas a vapor is a mixture of two phases (in the case of
water, gas and liquid). A cloud contains water vapor, whereas clear
sky contains gaseous water. IOW, all vapor contains gaseous phase, but
gas is not vaporous.

This applies to all substances which can be liquefied... liquid oxygen
will coexist with oxygen vapor right up to the boiling point of oxygen
at the pressure it is being stored. Above that Critical Temperature,
it is gaseous.

So even in water vapor, there is gaseous water... so no matter what,
you're wrong, I'm right, and you owe me $100,000.

Remember, I'm litigious. I'll gladly spend $25k on an attorney to get

$75k net. And I can afford to do so. So you've better pay up.

The scientific proof I've provided will stand up in any court of law,
you've made a public challenge with a payoff of $100,000 and you've
reiterated that offer. It is a legally binding offer.

I've met _all_ of your 'Or' conditions, thereby more than thoroughly
satisfying the demands of the challenge. I've amply proven using
well-known and long-established scientific equations, tables and
concepts that I've met your challenge

You're the moron who claims that warmer air is *heavier* than cooler

air... that level of stupidity should be painful. I intend to make it
so for you.

Pay up. Now.

James McGinn owes FNVWe $100,000. Because stupidity should be costly.

<snicker>

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

===========================================================
I'll further note that the polarity of water is not variable. It is
fixed at 1.09 (http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_properties.html).

References:
========================
C-H. Gu, H. Li, R. B. Gandhi and K. Raghavan, Grouping solvents by
statistical analysis of solvent property parameters:implication to
polymorph screening. Int. J. Pharmaceutics 283 (2004) 117-125.

R. S. Varma, Clean chemical synthesis in water, Org. Chem. Highlights
(2007), February.
========================

If water's polarity were variable, its solvent properties would be
variable, as well. It is not, therefore its polarity is not variable,
Jim. Why do you deny reality, 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.
===========================================================

Why do you continue to deny reality, Mr. McGinn? And given that you've
been proven *wrong* via several different avenues, all of which would
be admissible in a court of law as evidence, why do you continue to
refuse to pay the $100,000 you promised to the person who proved you
*wrong*, namely, your Usenet Lord and Master... me.

Pay me what you owe me, Mr. McGinn.

===========================================================
Stop to think *why* water expands upon increased temperature, despite
the fact that the covalent O-H bond length shrinks with rising
temperature, Jim... might that give a clue as to why gaseous phase
water can exist in our atmosphere?
===========================================================

Pay me what you owe me, Jim. Because there is a toll for stupidity.

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 2:19:13 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > Have your lawyer email me:
> > jimmcginn9 at gmail dot com
>
> Why do I need my lawyer to contact you,

Well, I suggest you don't. But if you do the lawyer will probably suggest that you hire a meteorologists. The meteorologists will tell you and the lawyer that you are right, but that won't do you any good.

So, I suggest you don't. But you know what they say about a fool and their money.

Or, you might just hire a chemistry student or even a real chemist to do the experiment for you. That way you can minimize your losses.

> Jim? Are you welshing on your
> challenge already, after you've been proven irrefutably wrong?

If you think your imagination will stand up in court then what are you waiting for. Go ahead.

> You should know I've never lost.

You can't lose if you don't play.

> And given that you're a moronic
> kooktard who believes that warmer air is *heavier* than cooler air,
> you're not going to be the first to beat me. You'll pay up or I'll
> drive you so insane you'll be begging to pay me just so I leave you
> alone. I've done it to many others far saner and more intelligent than
> you.

Ho hum.

> No, it doesn't. I note *you* have provided no proof

This is a perfect opportunity for you then, isn't it. You could get a lawyer to do it on spec. You know you are right. Right? You can enlists meteorologists too. Right? So what's the problem. Go for it. Don't waste time whining here.

> Wrong. The scientific definition of sublimation proves you wrong.

Spoken like a true science groupy. Definitions don't define reality, idiot.

> The definitions, equations, tables and examples I've provided would
> all stand up to scrutiny in a court of law, Jim.

Well then there's your answer.

You could even start contacting meteorologists. LOL.

[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:b07f359f-30be-4328...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 2:19:13 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Have your lawyer email me:
>>> jimmcginn9 at gmail dot com

>> Why do I need my lawyer to contact you,

> Well, I suggest you don't.

Because you don't have the $100,000 you owe me, or because you
couldn't stand to have your kooky theory demolished in a court of law,
which would shatter your fragile little ego?

> But if you do the lawyer will probably suggest that you hire
> a meteorologists.

I don't need to hire a meteorologist. I'm right, science proves me
right. A meteorologist wouldn't be any more adept at presenting the
science involved than I would be.

> The meteorologists will tell you and the lawyer that you are right,

Ah, so you admit your kooky theory has been decimated, then, and that
I am right. Good. Pay me the $100,000 you owe me. You've just made an
admission in a public forum that a court of law will consider to be
your admission that you know you owe me $100,000, per the terms of the
challenge that you publicly made. You *will* pay, Mr. McGinn... one
way or another.

> but that won't do you any good.

Because you don't have the money, or because you don't want the world
to realize what a kooktard you are for believing such an off-the-wall
theory that is diametrically opposed to reality?

> So, I suggest you don't. But you know what they say about a fool
> and their money.

Yeah, that fool pays me $100,000 or I so utterly destroy his kooky
theory that he's driven insane and begs to pay me the money he owes me
just so he can limp away and attempt to salvage what little sanity I
let him keep intact.

> Or, you might just hire a chemistry student or even a real
> chemist to do the experiment for you. That way you can
> minimize your losses.

What losses, Jim? You've admitted above that I'm right. Pay what you
owe. I've demonstrated via several different avenues that your kooky
theory is wrong, I've met every single one of your 'Or' conditions,
not just one... I've exceeded the requirements of your public
challenge by a great deal and I've done so using long-known and
well-established science which you cannot refute. Pay what you owe,
Jim. Because one way or another, I *will* exact a toll.

>> Jim? Are you welshing on your
>> challenge already, after you've been proven irrefutably wrong?

> If you think your imagination will stand up in court then what are
> you waiting for. Go ahead.

The scientific fact I've presented is not "imagination", Jim. What
*is* "imagination" is your kooky theory, which is so full of holes
it's like Swiss cheese. Your theory runs counter to reality, Mr.
McGinn. It's been proven wrong. I fully intend to collect what you owe
me per the terms of your own publicly offered challenge. Your failure
to pay means you agree to *my* terms... and my terms are that I drive
you to the brink of insanity *until* you pay me what you owe me.

>> You should know I've never lost.

> You can't lose if you don't play.

Non sequitur, Jim. Don't do that. That makes you look even more
foolish than I've already made you look.

>> And given that you're a moronic
>> kooktard who believes that warmer air is *heavier* than cooler air,
>> you're not going to be the first to beat me. You'll pay up or I'll
>> drive you so insane you'll be begging to pay me just so I leave you
>> alone. I've done it to many others far saner and more intelligent than
>> you.

> Ho hum.

If these pathetic non sequiturs are the best you can come up with,
Jim, you stand no chance in court, and even less chance with the
alternative.

>> No, it doesn't. I note *you* have provided no proof

> This is a perfect opportunity for you then, isn't it. You could
> get a lawyer to do it on spec. You know you are right. Right?
> You can enlists meteorologists too. Right? So what's the
> problem. Go for it. Don't waste time whining here.

Oh, but that's not the way I operate, Jim. You see, I always get my
kooks to do my bidding. It's my way of letting them know that I'm the
dominant species, and they're the retarded shit-flinging monkeys. So I
do believe I'll just continue to destroy your kooky little theory
until either your brain implodes or you beg to pay me what you owe me
just to be rid of me in order to spare what scraps of sanity I allow
you to keep. Does that work for you, Jim?

>> Wrong. The scientific definition of sublimation proves you wrong.

> Spoken like a true science groupy. Definitions don't define reality, idiot.

Reality defines the definitions, Jim. And reality *and* those
definitions are immutable. Your kooky attempts at skirting reality by
redefining definitions known for centuries isn't working.

>> The definitions, equations, tables and examples I've provided would
>> all stand up to scrutiny in a court of law, Jim.

> Well then there's your answer.
>
> You could even start contacting meteorologists. LOL.

No, I think we'll go with Plan B instead, it's more fun that way. It's
worked so well in the past, it's a sure winner. Inside of 5 years,
you'll either pay me just to be rid of me to spare your sanity any
more drubbings, or you'll be driven so insane you won't even remember
your own name. It could go either way... it has in the past.

But one way or another, I *will* exact a toll, Jim. Stupidity should
be painful. And for you, that pain starts now.

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 4:45:06 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> Because you don't have the $100,000 you owe me, or because you
> couldn't stand to have your kooky theory demolished in a court of law,
> which would shatter your fragile little ego?

There are thousands of physicists in the world. Why don't you see if you can get one to help you.

> A meteorologist wouldn't be any more adept at presenting the
> science involved than I would be.

You have a point there.

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 01:35:06 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<trim>

>But one way or another, I *will* exact a toll, Jim. Stupidity should
>be painful. And for you, that pain starts now.
>
><snicker>

Wrong! The pain started the minute he began reading your
extensive bleating and empty threats. As in, "Boy is the
FNVWe ever a pain in the butt."

<guffaws>


--
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.

"It is my erudite opinion that a man
should not mince words just to spare
the sensibilities of the ignorant or
the thin-skinned."

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Sir Gargles Balls, Is Queer (aka Craptain Kneel Whorin' the
Pusillanimous Pail-Pooping Pooter Pirate of the SS Cut The [mus]Turd),
in <news:1ukpdb5slov5svii4...@4ax.com> did thusly jump

head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 01:35:06 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>> But one way or another, I *will* exact a toll, Jim. Stupidity should
>> be painful. And for you, that pain starts now.
>>
>> <snicker>

> Wr<SMACKAKOOK!>

Shaddup, Convict. Go back to sucking off trannies and dressing up in
women's dresses.

<snicker>

--

Chimpy likes tickling pickles.
His picklecycle is a classic.
He visited Greg, who showed him his peg,
but Chimpy only likes Vlasics.

"It's no Vlasic for sure,
but my poor closet door",
said Chimpy as he kneeled on one knee,
"is already broken
so I'll get to throatin',
but after this I get to pee!"

But Gargles had one more condition
before being sucked to perdition.
"Put on this dress
and I'll do the rest,
imagining you're in transition."

The nickel slot glowed furiously hot
and slurping drowned out the sea noise.
Soon Gargles was done, he'd had all his fun.
It was quick because Gargles likes boys.

When Chimpy was done he smacked Gargles' ass
and said, "Now *that's* how to suck it!"
But no Golden Showers for Chimpy, alas.
Greg went to play with his bucket!

Bucket play done Gargles wanted more fun
so he told Chimpy it was his turn.
Chimpy didn't demur, Gargles dropped to the floor
and his throat got a case of cock burn!

"Not to worry", was heard from the retarded turd,
fapping blindingly fast like a fool.
"We'll put everything right by the end of the night.
Just swallow this, trust me, it's cool."

Gargles guzzled for hours before hitting the showers.
"How's the throat?" was the query. "No pain!
So when I am done, we'll have some more fun,
my throat's good so let's do it again!"

On into the night as the waves lapped the boat,
sounds of gagging and slurping and juice.
In that gay little boat, Chimpy battered on throat
'til Gargles said, "Let's call a truce!"

"I can't take any more! You've outgayed me for sure"
Gargles cried as he sat all defeated.

Chimpy beamed victory,
"You can't beat me, you see?
My gayness is just half depleted!"

<snicker>

[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:66f4be5d-55f3-429a...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 4:45:06 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
>> Because you don't have the $100,000 you owe me, or because you
>> couldn't stand to have your kooky theory demolished in a court of law,
>> which would shatter your fragile little ego?

> There are thousands of physicists in the world.

And you've demonstrated that you are not one of them. You're a
kooktard with a weird theory that is at odds with reality. You get
laughed at and refuted everywhere you go. People point and laugh at
the broken-brained freak who thinks warmer air is heavier than cooler
air because you can't grasp basic thermodynamics and physics. You
likely never even graduated from high school, let alone college, let
alone got an advanced degree. You have no actual proof of your theory,
just twisted logic from your equally twisted mind. You do not and
cannot grasp the fundamentals, which has led you off into the brambles
of your odd little theory, and just as most Dunning-Kruger sufferers
do, you're compelled to put your incompetence on public display.

> Why don't you see if you can get one to help you.

I don't need to. Scientific fact proves you wrong. You can backpedal
and deny all you like, but in your heart, you know you're wrong.
You're just hoping you're right... but you're not. You're wrong.
Laughably wrong. Deal with that reality as you will, Jim.

>> A meteorologist wouldn't be any more adept at presenting the
>> science involved than I would be.

> You have a point there.

Exactly right. And given that I've met every single 'Or' condition of
your kooky challenge and utterly demolished your weird little theory
in a mere day, forcing you to acknowledge that I am right, you are
further forced to admit you owe me $100,000.

That payment can be either cash or your sanity, Jim. Your choice. But
before you choose, I'd suggest you do some research into just how
*many* I've driven insane in the past... the number might surprise
you.

<snicker>

--

Kadaitcha Man (aka HalfADickRick Mather) is an AUK veteran from way
back. He was actually stupid enough to try to hook up with that AUK
pass-around girl Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries (aka Rhonda Russo), but ended
up booting her to the curb because she's just a cunt hair away from
being that nucking futs cat lady dragging a folding cart filled with
recyclables so she can afford to buy cat food for herself and her
dozen cats. He dodged a bullet, given that she now looks like a reject
from a zombie slasher flick, has cancer, hypothyroidism, bulging neck
goiters, rotting gums, missing teeth, thinning hair, Dissociative
Identity Disorder, Autism and is just plumb nutz. HalfADickRick lost
his better half in a motorcycle accident, so even if he had hooked up
with Rhondumb, he'd have to get a surrogate to bed her. He's got
growling menacingly down to a science, but toothless old dogs have had
plenty of time to practice. He has first-hand experience with gaiety,
given that his oldest son wasn't raised right and turned out to be
light in the loafers... which limits HalfADickRick's trolling
abilities and precludes him laughing at the sissies. So he lost half
his dick *and* now has no balls for trolling.

"Big things are made out of little things."
HalfADickRick Mather's Grand Unified Theory of the Universe.

Message-ID: <d7419da693ffc53a...@dizum.com>
"all matter appeared simultaneously in all places at once (i.e.
everywhere at the same time)"
Delusional fuckwit HalfADickRick denying nucleosynthesis, nuclear
transmutation, universal expansion, hydrogen consisting of most
universal mass, cosmic background radiation, 21 cm radiation, the very
means by which matter came to be formed from energy after the big
bang, and most importantly, reality.

Message-ID: <9eb660cc06ece30d...@dizum.com>
HalfADickRick believes these two statements mean the same thing...
he's too stupid to realize the contradiction within the statements:
1) "When you touch something, you don't actually touch it because the
negative charge of the electrons in all matter repel each other."
2) "everything you experience is experienced only within your
consciousness. That is, there is no reality apart from consciousness."

MID: <269e51973939871b...@dizum.com>
"Who said it's your eyes that see?"
HalfADickRick, yet again displaying his unfathomable stupidity.

"The Turing test is overrated anyway."
HalfADickRick, mad because he's too stupid to pass the Turing test.

"The now you experience now simply moves to this now."
HalfADickRick's excuse for living in the past.

Message-ID: <2e6f960b0b8c4a73...@dizum.com>
HalfADickRick projects what he thinks of himself:
"A fairyboy with an inadequate penis."

Message-ID: <d4e79c0adde0074e...@dizum.com>
HalfADickRick tried blaming his own screediness on a Visual Basic bot
he programmed, k'laming it's artificially intelligent and able to hold
contextually-relevant conversations without any assistance... when
challenged to put Fred Tehbot to work producing 5000 intelligent and
contextually relevant replies per day to random posts, an easy task
for a machine, HalfADickRick started backpedaling, evading and hurling
insults. In actuality, he was assisting his tardbot by screeding right
alongside it to lend it the appearance of intelligence (but only the
appearance, because HalfADickRick's pretty retarded LOL). Spanked to
tears yet again by reality, he plonked and ran away, tears streaming,
fright-piss flowing, a plaintive "WHHHHAAAAAAA!" issuing from his
otherwise-dumbstruck mouth.

<snicker>

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 8:03:35 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > Why don't you see if you can get one to help you.
>
> I don't need to. Scientific fact proves you wrong.

Why be so emotional. If you are sure you are right then you should be willing to make some effort to provide the proof. I'm a reasonable person. I can afford it. I will pay you gladly if you provide the proof. Read my proposal again. I provided you three different approaches. I even suggested a particular experiment.

You could collaborate with other scientists, let some kids to the experimental work. I outlined the methods for you.

If you are so sure you are right you should be excited, happy, grateful.

Unless you really aren't as confident as you claim . . .

. . . could that be it?

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <9f938a8128279124...@dizum.com>,
FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx says...

> "A fairyboy with an inadequate penis."

But... but what about those six drooling mongoloids you claim to have
fathered?

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <d67db5fb7dc240b3...@dizum.com>,
FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx says...

>
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Sir Gargles Balls, Is Queer (aka Craptain Kneel Whorin' the
> Pusillanimous Pail-Pooping Pooter Pirate of the SS Cut The [mus]Turd),
> in <news:1ukpdb5slov5svii4...@4ax.com> did thusly jump
> head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 01:35:06 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood
> > Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>
> >> But one way or another, I *will* exact a toll, Jim. Stupidity should
> >> be painful. And for you, that pain starts now.
> >>
> >> <snicker>
>
> > Wr<SMACKAKOOK!>
>
> Shaddup, Convict. Go back to sucking off trannies and dressing up in
> women's dresses.
>
> <snicker>

See what happens when you don't accept what little slurpage you get more
graciously? Greg's NEVER going to play in your hamster playground now.

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[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.3146d8933...@news.altopia.com> did thusly jump

head first into the wood chipper again:

> A fairyboy with an inadequate penis.

Chimpy's already making his Christmas wish-list!

What a fag!

<snicker>

Ever notice how Chimpy tries to revise history when he gets
continually spanked? Chimpy had the goatse image in his fapfolder, so
when I posted that picture of a gaping vagina in reference to his
story about "the one who got away" thinking that a ragged-out crack
whore would be the *best* Chimpy could hope to attract, Chimpy
immediately launched into a years-long rant about his "lost love"
being the goatse image.

How else would Chimpy know that the "lost love" image was an altered
version of the goatse image to show a vagina rather than male dangley
bits, and why would he insist for *years* that his "lost love"
actually had male dangley bits? LOL!

A paraphrasing of what Chimpy was essentially ranting for *years*:
"Nuhhh-uhhhh! That image is supposed to be the goatse image! I should
know, I have it in my fapfolder and it was *my* "lost love"! You will
immediately change the image of my lost love back to having a "man's
gaping asshole", "gaping asshole and balls", "giant ball-like labia"
and "a nut sack swinging" or I'll stamp my high heels and hit you with
my purse!" LOL!

Take, for instance, this emoticon:

:(

And now I'll change it to:

:-)

But Chimpy will insist it's still a noseless sad-face emoticon because
he was caught insisting that the picture of his "lost love" was
actually the goatse image and that his "lost love" actually had a
"man's gaping asshole" (Chimpy's words), "gaping asshole and balls"
(Chimpy's words), "giant ball-like labia" (Chimpy's words) and "a nut
sack swinging" (Chimpy's words)... he has no other choice but to
insist that every altered image is still the original and therefore
that his "lost love" *was* a man as he's insisted for years... which
makes him really, really gay. LOL

Chimpy's a bleaty historical revisionist credit-stealing lying
backpedaling bleatfarting simpering little queer gay faggot *moron*.
LOL

Message-ID: <31e4747ee7179064...@dizum.com>
================================================================
She's the fish that got away, all because Chimpy didn't have $5 or a
rock of crack as payment. She was...
/ \ \ / \
| | | |
| `. ASSHOLE | :
\ | | \| |
\' | / v \\ :
\ \/ _-- __| \ |
\ \_-~ / (*) \ ~-\ |
\_ \ _/-------\.____,_\| |
\ \_,____// _ ___ _ (____> / |
\ < ___) ______ (_____> /
/\ | < ____)/ \(_____> |_/\
/ /\| <_____) | (___> / \
| ( _<____)\_______/ /// _/ / \
| \ \_ \\\_________/// (__/ \
| \ \___) \`--\\_//--'/ /|
| \ / \ / |
| \_ / ^ \ _/ |
| / | \ |
| / / VAGINA \ |
| / / \ |
| / | |
| | | |
.............that big. But unlike fishermen's tales of "the one that
got
away", this one doesn't get bigger with time, only smaller.
================================================================
Note the labeling so Chimpy can find his way around unfamiliar
territory. LOL!

Every time Chimpy looks at a clearly labeled vagina, all he sees is a
"man's gaping asshole" (Chimpy's words), "gaping asshole and balls"
(Chimpy's words), "giant ball-like labia" (Chimpy's words) and "a nut
sack swinging" (Chimpy's words). LOL.

What a queer gay fag!

Chimpy's latest SPNAK!, in his own words:
====================================================
"they're 240 volt legs" (Chimpy's words)
"either ONE of the 240 volt lines" (Chimpy's words)
"120 volt neutral" (Chimpy's words)
"New residential service is 240 volts, with a 120 volt neutral center
tap" (Chimpy's words)

Chimpy k'lames each leg running into a house is 240 volts, and neutral
is 120 volts. What a *moron*. LOL!

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
<https://www.blackhillsenergy.com/sites/default/files/bhe-coe-rules-regs.pdf>
=======================================
All new installations of three (3) or more circuits must be wired for
120/240 volt, 3-wire when secondary distribution is single-phase
except when distribution is connected wye, the voltage will be
120/208."
=======================================

<https://www.blackhillspower.com/rates>
=======================================
Type of Service - Residential
Alternating current, 60 hertz, single phase, at nominal voltages of
_120_ _or_ 120/240 volts.
=======================================
What kind of backpedaling *moron* is Chimpy that he k'lames a utility
doesn't provide a service that they have a rate listed for? Of course,
Chimpy's such a *moron* he can't possibly conceive of a separate 120
volt-only service for an outbuilding, separate from a residence. LOL

Message-ID: <096001b11e397e1c...@dizum.com>
=======================================
>>>> I proved via a quote directly from Pissbum's utility that
>>>> they provide a 120 volt-only service.

>>> They didn't say they would provide it. They merely defined it,

>> You lying, backpedaling pathetic piece of shit.
>>
>> <https://www.blackhillspower.com/rates>
>> =======================================
>> Type of Service - Residential
>> Alternating current, 60 hertz, single phase, at nominal voltages of
>> _120_ _or_ 120/240 volts.
>> =======================================
>>
>> What's that URL say, you fucking *moron*... *rates*. That's the
>> *rates* *page*, how much they *charge* for that *service*.

(Chimpy's best lie ever)! LOL!
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Chimpy: "it's NOT 120 volts, it's 120/240", when in fact, 120 volts is
ALL it is. Two oppositely-phased legs, each running at 120 volts, and
the 240 volt "service" is only created by tapping across those two 120
volt hot legs. So Chimpy's doubly wrong. LOL

Chimpy: "Normal residential service is single phase 240 volts." when
in fact it's split-phase 120 volts. The 240 volts is only achieved
in-house by connecting across the oppositely-phased 120 volt legs. LOL
====================================================

Chimpy thinks each leg running into a house is 240 volts: "they're 240
volt legs" (Chimpy's words), and the neutral is 120 volts: "120 volt
neutral" (Chimpy's words), because he's a *moron*.

Chimpy *still* can't figure out the difference between "single-phase"
and "split-phase midpoint-neutral", which is why he was talking about
that guy who called him and talked about "split-phase", which Chimpy
conflated to "2-phase", which Chimpy was making fun of, because
Chimpy's a *moron*. LOL

In fact, Chimpy's demonstrated that he's *such* a bad electrician he
doesn't know the meaning of the word "electrics"... he thinks it's a
misspelling: "Electrics [sic]" (Chimpy's words). LOL!

It's called a "3-wire midpoint-neutral split-phase" system for a
reason, you *moron*. LOL

Chimpy's a bad electrician, a bleatfarting backpedaling spankard and a
*moron*.

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

<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, socked up as Solving Tornadoes, in

<news:e592a4cf-f85a-4ea4...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 8:03:35 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Why don't you see if you can get one to help you.

>> I don't need to. Scientific fact proves you wrong. You can backpedal
>> and deny all you like, but in your heart, you know you're wrong.
>> You're just hoping you're right... but you're not. You're wrong.
>> Laughably wrong. Deal with that reality as you will, Jim.

> Why be so emotional.

You don't want me to laugh at your stupidity quite so much, Jim?

> If you are sure you are right then you should be willing to make
> some effort to provide the proof.

But I've already provided the scientific proof that your kooky theory
is broken, Jim. You'll backpedal away from it as you have all the
other proof.

> I'm a reasonable person. I can afford it.

No, you're not, and no, you can't. You're a kooktard Dunning-Kruger
sufferer who, to bolster your inadequate ego, has taken the ridiculous
step of offering a cash reward for disproving his kooky theory... then
you run from every bit of proof provided. I've utterly decimated your
kooky theory, Jim. There is no "shifting the details a bit" to try to
compensate, I've proven your main premise is flawed, therefore your
entire theory is built upon a flawed premise.

> I will pay you gladly if you provide the proof. Read my proposal
> again.

I've already provided you the scientific data to prove you're wrong,
no experiment required. We use mathematics because it's a highly
accurate model of our environment... where is the mathematics to
support your kooky theory, Jim? Because that's another giant glaring
"Dunning-Kruger" flashing signpost when the kooktard has developed no
advanced mathematics to model his kooky world.

> I provided you three different approaches. I even suggested a
> particular experiment.

A flawed experiment that isn't needed? You silly little kooktard, no
experiment is needed. The scientific proof of the flaws within your
kooky theory lie within the scientific data already provided. That
which you ran away from.

> You could collaborate with other scientists, let some kids to the
> experimental work. I outlined the methods for you.

But I've utterly destroyed every tenet of your kooky theory, to
include the central pillar... that removing one inter-molecular H bond
strengthens the other... it doesn't, it causes the much stronger and
shorter covalent bonds to shorten preferentially, as I proved. Thus,
your central tenet is flawed, thus your entire premise is flawed, thus
your kooky theory is flawed, thus your brain is flawed.

You have no mathematics to model any of your kookblather, you can't
get through the peer-review process, and you're refuted and laughed at
everywhere you go because your kooky theory is flawed, although you're
so emotionally invested in it by now that you'll ignore all proof to
the contrary.

You can't escape scientific logic, Jim. I've destroyed your theory,
proven via many avenues that it is flawed and thus does not reflect
reality.

> If you are so sure you are right you should be excited, happy, grateful.

Oh, I am. You're going to pay me $100,000 for disproving your theory.
Maybe not right now, but you will... eventually.

> Unless you really aren't as confident as you claim . . .
>
> . . . could that be it?

Your non sequitur is noted. Whereas no emotion was conveyed, you read
into it what you needed, to try to spin away from the fact that I've
already met and exceeded the terms of your challenge, and you refuse
to pay. Because one overarching feature of all Dunning-Kruger
afflicted kooktards is that they are, to a person, cowards when
confronted with proof of their mental disease.

You're not the first D-K sufferer to suffer this fate, Jim... you're
so prototypical you didn't even realize other D-K sufferers are often
compelled to up the ante to ridiculous heights, often offering a "cash
reward" to disprove their kooky theories... and all of them, when
their kooky theories are disproved, ran away and went into hiding
rather than pay.

Don't worry, though... I'm also very good at tracking people down.
There's no escape for you now, Jim.

<snicker>

--

Wherein I shred Burnore's version of events (read: Burnore's lies)
with the truth... liars lie, it's what Convicted Child Molester Gary
Lee 'DiddleTard' Burnore does:
Message-ID: <c099dd0d93396c49...@dizum.com>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.usenet.kooks/Ejc0ZFJyF00/SpW4kc6UoUcJ>

Message-ID: <a070be7fcd535c21...@dizum.com>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.usenet.kooks/Ejc0ZFJyF00/SpW4kc6UoUcJ>

Message-ID: <kiunju$dgm$1...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.usenet.kooks/uCvjWySm7X8/0Ki8Nq3SsswJ>

Gary Lee Burnore
137 Meadowbrook Lane
Davidson, NC 28036

SSN: 316-70-3613
DOB: 10-13-1957
BORN: Southbend, IN

Operator of the Databasix.com NNTP server, and the following domains:
netbasix.net
usfast.net
ncfast.net

Databasix.com was recently shut down and has purportedly been bought
and set up again by another person of similar ilk as Gary Lee Burnore.
Some believe it is Mr. Burnore, under a false name.

Gary Lee Burnore was convicted of sexually molesting a minor in 1997
in California.

<https://www.wklaw.com/annoying-or-molesting-a-child-pc-647.6/>
==============================================================
In order to convict you of annoying or molesting a child, the
prosecution must prove the following:

1) You engaged in conduct directed at a minor AND

2) A normal person, without hesitation, would have been disturbed,
irritated, offended, or injured by your conduct AND

3) Your conduct was motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual
interest in the minor AND

4) The minor was under the age of 18 years at the time of the conduct
==============================================================

Police Narrative Pages 1-7
http://s12.postimg.org/fwvzv9fx9/Police_Narrative_1.jpg
http://s12.postimg.org/vjn98mtp9/Police_Narrative_2.jpg
http://s12.postimg.org/j2gllgyjh/Police_Narrative_3.jpg
http://s12.postimg.org/4bqvko0rh/Police_Narrative_4.jpg
http://s12.postimg.org/scxrm4fkt/Police_Narrative_5.jpg
http://s12.postimg.org/tghvy307x/Police_Narrative_6.jpg
http://s12.postimg.org/hm533bvml/Police_Narrative_7.jpg

Gary Lee Burnore's police confession:
http://s2.postimg.org/g2nbvhmux/Burnore_Police_Confession.jpg

His conviction brought with it the requirement that he register for
life as a sexual offender in any state he resided in:

Gary Lee Burnore's signed Sexual Offender Registration form:
http://s24.postimg.org/7waeeak1h/Burnore_Sex_Offender_Registration_3.jpg

The above, zoomed in:
http://s24.postimg.org/k9n8l79px/Burnore_Sex_Offender_Registration_1.jpg

Rather than face what he'd done, Gary Lee Burnore violated his
probation to avoid the consequences of his sexual offender conviction
and its lifetime registration requirement. He secretly absconded from
CA to NC; attempted to evade his probation officer; failed to register
as a convicted sexual offender; failed to attend court-ordered
psychological counseling; and tried to evade paying victim
restitution. For his efforts, CA hauled him back into court and
petitioned to revoke his probation:

Petition To Revoke Probation Pages 1-3
http://s14.postimg.org/kcq6po31d/Petition_to_Revoke_Probation_1.jpg
http://s14.postimg.org/ppf13sqxt/Petition_to_Revoke_Probation_2.jpg
http://s14.postimg.org/t6h36rq01/Petition_to_Revoke_Probation_3.jpg

Because of an inconsistency in the legalese between the California
Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (CA ICAOS) board and
the NC ICAOS board, Gary Lee Burnore was able to get his conviction
pleaded down to "Assault On Female" in North Carolina (except for
that, he'd be listed on the NC Department of Public Safety website as
a Convicted Sexual Offender, registered for life as a sexual
predator):

North Carolina Department Of Public Safety (NC DPS):
http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=0594483

Short URL:
http://goo.gl/FSN0W

You'll notice on the website directly above that Gary Lee Burnore is
listed as a "California Interstate Compact Offender".

There are only three ways to get listed on the CA ICAOS list:
Narcotics Offender
Arson Offender
Sexual Offender

Gary Lee Burnore, despite his denials, is a convicted sexual offender,
and we know this from the scanned documents above, and because he
REMAINS on the NC Department of Public Safety website as a California
Interstate Compact Offender. If he were either of the other two types
of offender (Narcotics, Arson), he'd have aged off the CA ICAOS list
by now, but convicted sexual offenders are listed for life.

Gary Lee Burnore has already admitted that the record on that NC DPS
page is his:

Message-ID: <jjtrbk$liq$1...@reader1.panix.com>
Gary Lee Burnore describes why he got the reckless driving conviction
reflected in his NC DPS record:
"I did a reverse 180 and then a rolling burnout on a bet. Naturally,
cop saw me. Google Reverse 180. THEN google 66 Newport. You'll see why
it was spectacular. Well worth three days picking up leaves. ;)"

Note that this proves (and that Gary Lee Burnore admits) that the NC
DPS record in question is his, 'Assault on Female' conviction,
Interstate Compact Offender listing, and all.

Note that 'Assault' and 'Assault On Female' are not the same thing.
'Assault On Female' encompasses domestic abuse, sexual battery, etc.,
as North Carolina recognizes two forms of assault... the regular "show
of violence" type, and a "serious mental injury" type. Burnore falls
into the second type, merely because NC didn't have an identical
statute that the NC ICAOS could charge him with to reflect his CA
conviction for molesting a minor, and he had a good lawyer who worked
hard to reclassify Burnore's conviction in CA to as innocuous a
conviction as was possible in NC.

Note also that 'Assault On Female' in NC is a Class A1 misdemeanor,
which is the most serious misdemeanor class.

Note also that in North Carolina, an 'Assault On Female' arrest
entails an automatic 48 hour mandatory jail hold where the arrestee
cannot bond out for that 48 hours, handily disproving Burnore's claim
that he never went to jail for his actions.

That's why his NC DPS web page entry for his "Assault On Female"
conviction also has a "Sentence Type 3: DEPT OF CORR DIV OF PRISONS"
entry.

But we already knew Burnore is a liar, right?

Gary Lee Burnore's PGP-signed confessional post:
http://www.shmoo.com/mail/cypherpunks/jun99/msg00146.html

Gary Lee Burnore now disavows having made that confessional PGP-signed
post, and has for years asserted that the child he was convicted of
molesting either seduced him into doing what he did, or sexually
assaulted him as he slept (he's made both claims), as well as claiming
that _none_ of it happened, that it was all a plot by someone he'd
harassed online, that he'd never spent any time in prison... except he
forgets his NC DPS record, and the CA ICAOS listing reflected therein.

If you don't believe any of the above, you could always call
408-261-5400 (Santa Clara Police Department Detective Division) and
ask to speak to a Brian Lane (badge: Lane 7281), the police officer
who signed Burnore's arrest warrant and prepared Burnore's Police
Narrative/Supplemental Report.

Or, you could call Paul Bick Nguyen (Nguyen Bich) at 408-288-9224. He
was Burnore's attorney.

More reading material:
Message-ID:
<0b1dd3d600712dce...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/b7ab18a19c1d0bdc

Message-ID: <4c0fdcbb534c818f...@dizum.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/7911259ccad1dc09

Message-ID: <8ab6af816a7e504f...@dizum.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/0830c4bd6ec481c7

Message-ID: <2c38499401819919...@remailer.privacy.at>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/50f591d0a4251e01

Message-ID: <k74fb5$s0e$1...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
https://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/bcc9cb11d8682c1f

Message-ID: <kipe34$nov$1...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=136424653700

Message-ID: <kiunju$dgm$1...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/ccb2d2ad36bca8d0

Message-ID: <ko6jdg$7gt$1...@news.mixmin.net>
http://alt.usenet.kooks.narkive.com/vVlTBJjE/usenet-priority-0ne-1-news-reader-software-changes-potential-abuse-complaint-information-inside.3#post55

[James McGinn]

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 8:28:43 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > Why be so emotional.
>
> You don't want me to laugh at your stupidity quite so much, Jim?
>
> > If you are sure you are right then you should be willing to make
> > some effort to provide the proof.
>
> But I've already provided the scientific proof

Maybe you could hire a tutor to help you get a better understanding of science. One of the things they should teach you is the meaning of boiling point. And they could teach you methods on how to make decisions when the evidence is unclear.

I hope that helps,

James McGinn
Solving tornadoes

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in
<news:de26619c-08d8-441f...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 8:28:43 AM UTC-8, Friendly
> Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Why be so emotional.

>> You don't want me to laugh at your stupidity quite so much, Jim?

>>> If you are sure you are right then you should be willing to make
>>> some effort to provide the proof.

>> But I've already provided the scientific proof that your
>> kooky theory is broken, Jim. You'll backpedal away from
>> it as you have all the other proof.

> Maybe you could hire a tutor to help you get a better understanding
> of science.

Translation:
"I can't refute FNVWe, nor the scientific proof he's provided which
proves my kooky theory is the mad ravings of a moron, so I'll do the
only thing I can do... snip, backpedal, non sequitur, lie and divert."

> One of the things they should teach you is the meaning
> of boiling point.

Says the moron who doesn't know the meaning of "boiling point", nor
much of anything else. Remember, you're the moron who couldn't
describe the process by which evaporation happens at the molecular
level. I did, thereby yet again proving your kooky theory wrong. And
you *still* don't understand it.

> And they could teach you methods on how to make decisions
> when the evidence is unclear.

The "evidence" is only "unclear" on your end, Jim... IOW, you've
provided *no* evidence to back up your kooky theory.

Everywhere you go, people refute and belittle you. You can't even get
through the peer-review process. People having bought and read your
"book" call you a moron.

It's not a conspiracy, Jim... you're a fucking moron and you're wrong.
The whole world telling you that you're a fucking moron and that
you're wrong doesn't constitute a conspiracy, it constitutes you being
a fucking moron and you being wrong.

> I hope that helps,

I note you cannot refute the scientific proof I've provided that
utterly decimates your kooky theory, Jim. I further note you're
snipping all that scientific proof out. That's telling, Jim. Even
*you* know you're defeated, but you're far too emotionally invested in
being wrong to ever admit that you're wrong. IOW, your kooky theory
has driven you to reject reality. You're insane, Jim. Seek psychiatric
help immediately.

<snicker>

--

Marguerite Kathleenann Petersen (aka Pandora, aka Granny Inane) in a
nutshell... which considering her limited intellect, gives her plenty
of room:
Message-ID: <59819a918e3a4dbf...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <db1a278983d3e1aa...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <932033cd588c739f...@dizum.com>

Her story gets more and more unbelievable with each passing day, eh?
He had a checkup just a month prior and it was completely normal, he
weighed 245 pounds with end-stage pancreatic cancer, and it killed him
in 3 weeks.

Except she was posting on Usenet about his glaucoma and seizures...
amongst other problems he'd been having prior to his death.

What'd your doctor do, Granny Inane? Shake a dead chicken at your
husband, slit it open, read the entrails, and declare your dying
husband completely healthy? For fuck sake, he fucking *died*,
supposedly of pancreatic cancer... and end stage pancreatic cancer
ravages the body in 100% of cases.

Unless you're lying, which is looking more and more to be the case...
which would explain your return to your usual stupidity and inanity in
a mere 5 days after your husband's supposed death, supposedly from
terminal pancreatic cancer... and it'd explain why you were drooling
over the fact that you could go out and get eye-humped by other men a
mere 9 days after his supposed death.

So... which is it, Marg? Are you lying about the circumstances of
Bent's death? Or are you so fucking clueless that you believe cancer
can replicate quickly enough to kill a 245 pound man in three weeks
with no symptoms?

Ah, well, at least his students won't be sad to see him go:
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=338031
Overall Quality: 1.6 / 5
Helpfulness: 1.7 / 5
Clarity: 1.5 / 5
Easiness: 1.9 / 5

I especially like this quote from one of his students:
"Not only is the book a better teacher, it has a better personality"

Not a very highly-rated professor, was he? Most of the students said
something on the order of "Thank God for the TA", the TA being Kyle
Champley.

Remember, Granny Inane, it was *you* who dragged your personal life
into Usenet like an attention whore... if you don't like what others
are saying about it, keep it to yourself. And no one is keeping you
here, there's the door if you don't like it. Those are the rules you
and your stauker pals made for Emmett, right? Those are the rules you
and your stauker pals used to justify your continued harassment of
Emmett, right?

They're your rules. Live with 'em.

<snicker>

Marguerite Kathleenann McCrindle-Petersen
P.O. Box 608
993 Driftwood Lane
Yachats, OR 97498

pan...@peak.org
(541) 547-3497

And here's the insane wrinkled old bag herself:
https://goo.gl/qiEJQ1

[James McGinn]

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:53:03 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > Maybe you could hire a tutor to help you get a better understanding
> > of science.
>
> Translation:
> "I can't refute

Nobody can refute gibberish.

> > One of the things they should teach you is the meaning
> > of boiling point.
>
> Says the moron who doesn't know the meaning of "boiling point",

Maybe you can explain it to all of us. Hmm. I wonder why it's called a "point" and not a boiling distribution. Hmm.

That's curious. Hmm.

[noTthaTguY]

Pascal discovered the absolute vacuum by experiment
(the limit of a stage of a suction pumping of water is about 30' at sealevel,
but he probably learned of partial pressure, later. any cites?

> Do you not understand the concept of partial pressure? Or that water
> in its gaseous phase is miscible in air at all temperatures above ~-60
> C?
>
> You will typically hear humidity expressed as "relative humidity",
> which is the ratio of vapor pressure 'e' to saturation vapor pressure
> 'e_s', and thus when the relative humidity e/e_s < 1, net evaporation
> occurs, whereas when e/e_s > 1, net condensation occurs. In both
> cases, however, evaporation is occurring.
>
> IOW, water will evaporate to gaseous phase until its partial pressure
> has reached the vapor pressure for that temperature.
>
> This is best treated by experimental analogy. Get a roulette wheel,
> spin it slowly and drop in 100 marbles. They'll bounce around, and you
> might see one or two collide with other marbles, the kinetic energy
> derived from said collisions giving one of the marbles the necessary
> energy to escape the roulette wheel (ie: to evaporate to gaseous

> phase.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:e87bb530-1798-4247...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:53:03 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Maybe you could hire a tutor to help you get a better understanding
>>> of science.

>> Translation:

>> "I can't refute FNVWe, nor the scientific proof he's provided which
>> proves my kooky theory is the mad ravings of a moron, so I'll do the
>> only thing I can do... snip, backpedal, non sequitur, lie and divert."

> Nobody can refute gibberish.

Then it's a good thing I'm using peer-reviewed studies instead of
gibberish to prove your kooky theory *wrong*, Jim. Now why can't you
refute those peer-reviewed studies, Jim?

>>> One of the things they should teach you is the meaning
>>> of boiling point.

>> Says the moron who doesn't know the meaning of "boiling point", nor
>> much of anything else. Remember, you're the moron who couldn't
>> describe the process by which evaporation happens at the molecular
>> level. I did, thereby yet again proving your kooky theory wrong. And
>> you *still* don't understand it.

> Maybe you can explain it to all of us. Hmm. I wonder why it's
> called a "point" and not a boiling distribution. Hmm.

That might be because it's the *point* where the evaporation processes
gaseous pressure is sufficient to overcome atmospheric pressure, thus
allowing boiling (bubble formation) to occur in the bulk of the
liquid, you moronic kooktard.

I'll let you do this experiment, Jim. Carry a beaker of water to sea
level, heat it to 100 C. You'll note the water gaseous pressure is
sufficient to overcome the 760 mm Hg atmospheric pressure.

Now allow the water to cool to 70 C, you'll note the vapor pressure is
insufficient to overcome the 750 mm Hg atmospheric pressure, so
boiling does not occur, yet evaporation does occur.

Now, while maintaining that water at 70 C, carry it to the top of Mt.
Everest. You'll note that as you rise in altitude, the water will
again begin boiling, despite the temperature of the water only being
70 C.

Hence, boiling and evaporation are the same process, but evaporation
has the condition where gaseous phase pressure is insufficient to
overcome atmospheric pressure, and thus bulk boiling cannot occur, and
hence bubbles will not form in the bulk of the liquid.

You'll note the only condition that changed to transition from
evaporation to boiling was atmospheric pressure, Jim... hence
evaporation and boiling are the same process under different
conditions.

And that destroys yet another of your kooky tenets of your kooky
theory, Jim. Now you'll be forced to backpedal away from reality
again.

> That's curious. Hmm.

Awww, poor kooktard James McGinn doesn't know that evaporation and
boiling are the same process under different conditions, as I've
proven. LOL

> What is the temperature of atmosphere?

If you have to ask questions, rather than offer refutation, Jim, you
don't know... making you a low-information moronic kooktard suffering
the crippling effects of delusion and Dunning-Kruger effect. But one
of the manifestations of D-K is that its sufferers, while holding
themselves out as 'experts', display their utter nincompoopish
incompetence, as you do, Jim.

> Where is your evidence that moist air contains gaseous H2O?

See below, Jim. Those peer-reviewed studies presented utterly destroy
your kooky theory.

Why can't you get your kooky theory through the peer-review process,
Jim? Could it be because it's *wrong*, Jim?

> Your imagination is not evidence.

Peer-reviewed evidence is evidence, Jim. Why do you continue cowardly
snipping out and running away from that evidence that proves you're a
moron who in actuality knows next to nothing about that which you're
stupidly blathering about, Jim?

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
"About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H
group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594,
1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions
[2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight
negative charge on the surface."

What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs
in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The
electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random
thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water
molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964.

<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html>
<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz>

You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. I've
destroyed the central premise of your kooky theory, thereby proving
that both you *and* your kooky theory are wrong, Jim.

That'd be because you're an uneducated moron suffering from delusions,
combined with Dunning-Kruger causing you to believe you can never be
wrong. Take your meds, 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>

You'll be paying me the $100,000 prize for meeting (indeed,
*exceeding*) not just one of your 'Or' conditions in your challenge,
but *all* of the conditions... in the process, utterly destroying your
kooky theory and proving you, James McGinn, are a moronic delusional
Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard.

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.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:17:03 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > Maybe you can explain it to all of us. Hmm. I wonder why it's
> > called a "point" and not a boiling distribution. Hmm.
>
> That might be because it's the *point* where the evaporation processes
> gaseous pressure is sufficient to overcome atmospheric pressure, thus
> allowing boiling (bubble formation) to occur in the bulk of the
> liquid,

Reference?

[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:i1nsdbd2t3auop4ku...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> FVNWe 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
>>>> <news:28189e9d-b2ff-46d5...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>>>>> Also, lest we forget. I am offering a cash reward of $100,000.00
>>>>> (U.S.) for anybody that can come up with reproducible experimental
>>>>> evidence that H2O can be a gas at the ambient temperatures of
>>>>> Earth's atmosphere.

>>>> Do you not understand the concept of partial pressure? Or that water

>>> Forget it, fakey, you won't get a dime. This kook is just
>>> like you. You can give him all the proof in the world,

>> You gave no proof, you blathered stupidity which I disproved.
>> Because you're a moron.
>>
>> <snicker>

>>> and he will cover his eyes, plug his ears, jump up & down,
>>> screaming "There's no proof! Show me proof!"

No. Turns out, I've *so* dismantled his kooky theory via referencing
peer-reviewed studies that he's forced to snip out every single word I
write which proves his kooky theory is wrong... and lately that's been
every single work I write. Because kooks are cowards. Because cowardly
kooks can't face reality. Because reality would cause their brains to
implode. LOL

>> Bwahahaaaa! That's rich, coming from the retard who blathered all the
>> stupidity in my .sig, which I proved *wrong* using science, reality,
>> truthiness and intelligence... you know, that which you lack.

> You don't know what "proof" is. You are adamantly ignorant
> about everything you blither-blather about. You refuse to
> understand what the fourier transform is for,

You mean the Euler-Fourier Formulas, in use since 1748 by scientists
and engineers when doing sinewave summation?

<snicker>

> the difference between peak and RMS values,

Oh, I know the difference, in fact, I proved it *and* used the
Euler-Fourier Formula to derive RMS L-N voltage from peak L-N voltage,
then used the same equation to derive RMS L-L voltage from that RMS
L-N voltage... something none of you morons have been able to
accomplish.

Aren't you the moron who k'lamed that RMS voltage doesn't fluctuate,
and is thus DC? Yeah... yeah you are.

IOW, I win. Again.

<snicker>

> or that water is tetrahedral.

Wrong. Monomolecular water according to the VSEPR theory AXE method is
bent, KookTard. The description of "tetrahedral" is for clustered
water, and only used to describe the electron distribution with the
covalent bonds as landmarks.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSEPR_theory#AXE_method>
"Bent (H2O)"

You'll note the VSEPR theory does *not* classify water as tetrahedral.

Message-ID: <230fdc3806a6ca5c...@dizum.com>
=========================================================
To be technically correct, you'd have to say water dynamic
heterogeneities are approximately trigonally, nearly planarly,
arranged with bond angles at 109.47 degrees, having sp^2-hybridized
electron pairs, which combine into icosahedral super-heterogeneities.
This model not only fully explains hydrogen bonding, but the
electrostatic potential distribution which accounts for the O--O dimer
and further accurately models the radial distribution function as
embodied in the observed diffraction pattern of liquid water.

But the individual water molecule is dipolar, with one strongly
electronegative (8+) oxygen and two weakly electronegative (1+)
hydrogens, said dipolar nature arising due to the O-H bond angle.

And that still doesn't explain your stupidly blathering: "Water is

tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative."

Water has *no* "negative poles", and it most certainly doesn't have "4
poles", you witless turd.

You'll be getting right on diagramming your fictional "4 pole" water,
Moron.
=========================================================

SPNAK!

> You lose every arguement, then crow that you won, FFS.

Says the kooktard who's lost every argument, and is now tearfully
bleating. LOL

> Now you found an idiot who is as kooky as you are. Go for
> it, fakey! Maybe you can win this time!

Like every other time? Why were you so stoooopid that drop-kicking
your retarded ass across Usenet was a simple matter of pointing out
that you're a know-nothing moron? Likely because you're a know-nothing
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]

...who couldn't grok a graphing calculator or you know... gnuplot.

> when doing sinewave summation?

to determine differences in potential.

>
> <snicker>
>
>> the difference between peak and RMS values,
>
> Oh, I know the difference, in fact, I proved it *and* used the
> Euler-Fourier Formula to derive RMS L-N voltage

the fuck? you didn't derive anything. you took the RMS value and, for
some reason, factored it into a sine wave plot like a complete idiot noob
would.

> from peak L-N voltage,
> then used the same equation to derive RMS L-L voltage from that RMS
> L-N voltage... something none of you morons have been able to
> accomplish.

funny. you never bothered to show us the exact full equations that you
graphed, for some reason.

> Aren't you the moron who k'lamed that RMS voltage doesn't fluctuate,
> and is thus DC? Yeah... yeah you are.

RMS is a power average estimate, not a sine wave.

fakey has his projector set on "stunningly incompetent".

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:cd5839ef-24ec-4978...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

Does anyone find it strange that the kooktard James McGinn continually
asks for proof of everything, even that which is common knowledge, yet
has provided absolutely no evidence (let alone proof) that his kooky
theory is anything other than the mad ranting of a badly damaged
brain?

<snicker>

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

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

And yet again, the delusional uneducated oaf James McGinn has his
kooky theory utterly demolished.

Now, let's you get busy refuting all that peer-reviewed data which
shreds your kooky theory, Jim...

Jim, you're a kooktard who k'lames that stripping multiple molecules
of water away from the surface of water via evaporation takes *less*
energy than stripping away a single molecule because you're a
low-information uneducated oaf who can't wrap your delusional
Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain around the reality of physical
processes.

You further have demonstrated that you don't understand that when an
inter-molecular H bond is broken, the other inter-molecular H bond
isn't strengthened, the diametrically-opposed covalent bond to that
broken inter-molecular H bond is preferentially strengthened:

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H路路路路O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O路路路路O distance"

Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.

You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

Why do you continue cowardly snipping out and running away from that

evidence which proves you're a moron who in actuality knows next to

["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, 08 Mar 2016 02:47:55 -0500, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James McGinn, in
> <news:cd5839ef-24ec-4978...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:17:03 PM UTC-8,
>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
>>>> Maybe you can explain it to all of us. Hmm. I wonder why it's
>>>> called a "point" and not a boiling distribution. Hmm.
>
>>> That might be because it's the *point* where the evaporation processes
>>> gaseous pressure is sufficient to overcome atmospheric pressure, thus
>>> allowing boiling (bubble formation) to occur in the bulk of the
>>> liquid,
>
>> Reference?
>
> Does anyone find it strange that the kooktard James McGinn continually
> asks for proof of everything, even that which is common knowledge, yet
> has provided absolutely no evidence (let alone proof) that his kooky
> theory is anything other than the mad ranting of a badly damaged
> brain?

yes, i've noticed that you do that.

> strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
> covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"

[James McGinn]

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:57:57 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> >>> Maybe you can explain it to all of us. Hmm. I wonder why it's
> >>> called a "point" and not a boiling distribution. Hmm.
>
> >> That might be because it's the *point* where the evaporation
> >> processes
> >> gaseous pressure is sufficient to overcome atmospheric pressure,
> >> thus
> >> allowing boiling (bubble formation) to occur in the bulk of the
> >> liquid,
>
> > Reference?
>
> Does anyone find it strange that the kooktard James McGinn continually
> asks for proof of everything,

So, uh, I wonder why the steam tables indicate the boiling point being so hot. Kinda makes you wonder. Hmm.

Maybe you should contact them to let them know of your amazing discovery.

Were you home schooled?

[vallor]

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 17:34:37 +0800, Bite My Shiny Metal Ass wrote:

> snip...@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>
>> "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 <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>> [...]

>>
>> > >> the difference between peak and RMS values,
>> > >
>> > > Oh, I know the difference, in fact, I proved it *and* used the
>> > > Euler-Fourier Formula to derive RMS L-N voltage
>> >
>> > the fuck? you didn't derive anything. you took the RMS value and,
for
>> > some reason, factored it into a sine wave plot like a complete idiot
noob
>> > would.
>> >
>> > > from peak L-N voltage,
>> > > then used the same equation to derive RMS L-L voltage from that RMS
>> > > L-N voltage... something none of you morons have been able to
>> > > accomplish.
>> >
>> > funny. you never bothered to show us the exact full equations that
you
>> > graphed, for some reason.
>> >
>> > > Aren't you the moron who k'lamed that RMS voltage doesn't
fluctuate,
>> > > and is thus DC? Yeah... yeah you are.
>> >
>> > RMS is a power average estimate, not a sine wave.
>>

>> [...]
>>
>> PMFJI
>>
>> It's apparent that Fakey just doesn't comprehend the meaning
>> of Root Mean Square or why we use it. Let me see if I can explain
>> it to him in simple terms:
>>
>> Because an AC power voltage waveform normally swings from negative
>> to positive and back equally either side of zero, its simple mean
>> is zero. Such a result is of use to neither man nor aspiring
>> electrical engineering pundit.
>>
>> So: square the waveform. The squared positive half of each cycle
>> is still positive but the negative half, when squared, becomes
>> positive too. -1 multiplied by -1 equals +1, remember?
>>
>> Now take the mean of the squared waveform -- this will now be a
>> positive quantity. Because you've squared everything you now have
>> to "unsquare" it again; take the root of that mean and you have RMS.
>>
>> It's a \\mean\\ value, \\not\\ a waveform; root MEAN square, geddit?
>>
>>
>> HTH HAND HORSE
>
> Good explanation. And the other reason for calculating RMS
> is that it works in Ohm's law for power, ie,
>
> P = voltage(RMS) * current(RMS) * cos(phase angle between
> them)
>
> Even Fakey could understand, if he tried. He will try ever
> so hard not to, and bleat that you think RMS is DC (which is
> closer to truth than his limited understanding is).

I never did understand why he was talking about Fourier transforms in our
discussions -- the DFT moves one from the time domain to the frequency
domain. (Think: bumping your tunes with a spectrum analyzer display.)

But that was what he started with in the first place.

Maybe he meant an inverse Fourier transform, to compose his waveform from
the discrete signals he gave with his inputs? I don't think that will
work how he expects it too, assuming that's the idea.

--
-v

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:f71e4f1b-6566-4dce...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:57:57 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> Does anyone find it strange that the kooktard James McGinn continually

>> asks for proof of everything, even that which is common knowledge, yet
>> has provided absolutely no evidence (let alone proof) that his kooky
>> theory is anything other than the mad ranting of a badly damaged
>> brain?
>>
>> <snicker>
>>
>> <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/vappre.html>
>> ===============================================================
>> Evaporation vs Boiling
>>
>> Ordinary evaporation is a surface phenomenon - since the vapor
>> pressure is low and since the pressure inside the liquid is equal to
>> atmospheric pressure plus the liquid pressure, bubbles of water vapor
>> cannot form. But at the boiling point, the saturated vapor pressure is
>> equal to atmospheric pressure, bubbles form, and the vaporization
>> becomes a volume phenomena.
>> ===============================================================
>>
>> And yet again, the delusional uneducated oaf James McGinn has his
>> kooky theory utterly demolished.

> So, uh, I wonder why the steam tables indicate the boiling point being so hot.
> Kinda makes you wonder. Hmm.
>
> Maybe you should contact them to let them know of your amazing discovery.
>
> Were you home schooled?

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

Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is
electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is
the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you
fucking *moron*?

Now, as to all that proof of your being a delusional kooktard, which
you cowardly snipped out, let's set you to refuting that peer-reviewed
data, shall we?

<snicker>

======================================================================
Bwahahahaaa! Referring to your own blathering asinine nitwittery isn't
proof, Jim. You fucking kooktard.

"Plasma in the atmosphere"
"thick air"
"tornadoes... jet stream... same thing"
"this oxygen sucks down more of the electrons, making the Mickey Mouse
ears more relatively positive"

And you said all that loonbat tripe with a straight face. LOL

Holy shit, Jim... do you not realize that the reason people are
laughing at you and your kooky theory is that you're a fucking moron
in dire need of psychotropic drugs? LOL

Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is
electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is
the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you
fucking *moron*?

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?

Your kooky contention has been demolished, the dictates of your
challenge have not only been met but have been exceeded, utilizing
scientific facts, figures, equations, diagrams and concepts long-known
and admissible in a court of law. Hence, you will make good on your
promise to pay $100,000 to the person who disproved your kooky
theory... namely your Usenet Lord and Master... me.

Stop denying reality, Mr. McGinn. I've proven your kooky theory wrong
via several different avenues, and you'll be paying me the promised
$100,000 for meeting (indeed, *exceeding*) your challenge.

Holy fuck, Jim. Seek immediate professional psychiatric help, and be
sure to describe in detail your kooky theory that has led you to
become so very delusional.

But meanwhile, how about you get right on refuting all that
peer-reviewed scientific data I've provided proving your kooky theory
*wrong*:
-------------------------

Jim, you're a kooktard who k'lames that stripping multiple molecules
of water away from the surface of water via evaporation takes *less*
energy than stripping away a single molecule because you're a
low-information uneducated oaf who can't wrap your delusional
Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain around the reality of physical
processes.

The only ways electron probability distribution in bulk water can
shift, Jim, is if a solute or ion solution is introduced to the
water... but then we'd not be talking about just water, would we,
Jim?... or if the water changes phase, which would prove me right that
gaseous water is being evaporated into the air, meaning your challenge
has been met, yet another central tenet of your kooky theory has been
utterly destroyed, you've been proven wrong again, and you owe me
$100,000 for meeting your challenge.

You're not doing very well defending your kooky little theory, Jim.

Jim, you further have demonstrated that you don't understand that when

an inter-molecular H bond is broken, the other inter-molecular H bond
isn't strengthened, the diametrically-opposed covalent bond to that
broken inter-molecular H bond is preferentially strengthened:

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H路路路路O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O路路路路O distance"

Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.

You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

Why do you continue cowardly snipping out and running away from that

evidence that proves you're a moron who in actuality knows next to
nothing about that which you're stupidly blathering, Jim?

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

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Tr!pe the Hypoxic ChickenFucker (aka Steve Hall), in
<news:1mjs89z.xh5k4dcsx517N%snip...@gmail.com> squawked as he pulled
it to poultry porn:

> PMFJI
>
> It's apparent that Fakey just doesn't comprehend the meaning
> of Root Mean Square or why we use it. Let me see if I can explain
> it to him in simple terms:
>
> Because an AC power voltage waveform normally swings from negative
> to positive and back equally either side of zero, its simple mean
> is zero. Such a result is of use to neither man nor aspiring
> electrical engineering pundit.
>
> So: square the waveform. The squared positive half of each cycle
> is still positive but the negative half, when squared, becomes
> positive too. -1 multiplied by -1 equals +1, remember?
>
> Now take the mean of the squared waveform -- this will now be a
> positive quantity. Because you've squared everything you now have
> to "unsquare" it again; take the root of that mean and you have RMS.
>
> It's a \\mean\\ value, \\not\\ a waveform; root MEAN square, geddit?
>
> HTH HAND HORSE

Bwahahahaa! And Tr!pey old bird buggerer hops on the "AC is DC"
bandwagon.

RMS voltage is the DC *equivalent* of an AC waveform, that voltage in
DC which would dissipate the same amount of power in a resistive
element as that AC... but the RMS voltage of an AC peak voltage
waveform is still a sinusoidal waveform. To argue otherwise is to
argue that the 120 volt RMS voltage at every wall outlet in North
America is DC.

It is an *instantaneous* quadratic square of the *instantaneous*
voltage of an AC sinusoidal waveform, and can thus be graphed as a
sinusoid.

<http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms1.gif>

You moron.

SPNAK!

<snicker>

--

---------------------------------------------
Tr!pe the Hypoxic ChickenFucker squawked, in
<news:1l9enri.1boemg21mhmo5lN%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk>:
"If you want to know about bird sex, just ask me."

Steve Hall (G8DGC, snip...@gmail.com, snip...@gmail.com,
sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk, sn...@notforspam.fsnet.co.uk) fucks birds.
LOL

http://i.imgur.com/f0euFil.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/pR0mX95.jpg

Slow bird sex... if Tr!pe chickenfucks fast, he turns blue. LOL
Too much chickenspooge clogging up his lungs. LOL
That's why he's too stupid to do simple math. Lack of oxygen. LOL
That also explains his rampant paranoia. Hypoxic brain damage. LOL
And his segue to human penis... birds aren't enough for him now. LOL

Maths Fail:
Message-ID: <07f2598e7078240c...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <444e1cce007418ec...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <1aefd4d212571584...@dizum.com>

Paranoia Will Destroy Ya:
Message-ID: <6620b273ab1a048a...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <9db516a6a4494305...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <0793f311af986182...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <6b28ba3566b3f36f...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <aa840a32fa3dc705...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <938a2d9957c61a78...@dizum.com>

Tr!pe The Penis Obsessed Poof:
Message-ID: <48bc243b312b3999...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <0eb75ae7a93df2df...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <9a5d3b92c9841c7e...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <a4c326b191a39afe...@dizum.com>
---------------------------------------------

[James McGinn]

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:57:57 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > Reference?
>
> Does anyone find it strange that the kooktard James McGinn continually
> asks for proof of everything, even that which is common knowledge, yet
> has provided absolutely no evidence

Hmm. Well, there's the fact that the boiling temperature of H2O at atmospheric pressures is much higher than is available in the atmosphere. That seems like pretty good evidence to me.

Can you explain the physics of low temperature boiling? Has this ever been detected in the laboratory? Or does it only exist up high in the atmosphere where nobody can measure it?

I wonder why that would be? Hmm.

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

Do you have a reference for all of this? It seems rather speculative. Or am I expected to take your, uh, expert opinion on this?

> you don't understand that when an
> inter-molecular H bond is broken, the other inter-molecular H bond
> isn't strengthened, the diametrically-opposed covalent bond to that
> broken inter-molecular H bond is preferentially strengthened:
>
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
> "There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
> strengths; the stronger the H路路路路O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
> covalent bond, and the shorter the O路路路路O distance"
>
> Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
> than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
> ~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
> covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
> the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim.

Nothing I see here indicates the covalent bond shortening. So I can't figure out what your point is.

That's why, when using high
> frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
> frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
> bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
> bonds.

You are misreading something. I don't know what.

You aren't making any sense. Sorry.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 7:47:51 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > So, uh, I wonder why the steam tables indicate the
> > boiling point being so hot.
> > Kinda makes you wonder. Hmm.
> >
> > Maybe you should contact them to let them know of
> > your amazing discovery.
> >
> > Were you home schooled?
>
> Bwahahaaa! Yet again James McGinn the delusional kooktard demonstrates
> that he can't grasp that water being evaporated is merely a slower,
> lower-energy process of vaporization, the same as boiling is a faster,
> higher-energy process of vaporization. Not even after the proof of
> same has been posted, from the physics department of a university, no
> less.

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

> Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is
> electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air,

Do you have a reference for this? Or should I just take your word on it, like everything else?

[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 ro...@127.0.0.1, in
<news:op.ydzva...@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first

into the wood chipper again:

>> You mean the Euler-Fourier Formulas, in use since 1748 by scientists
>> and engineers

> ...who couldn't grok a graphing calculator or you know... gnuplot.

Oh sure... because every scientist and engineer since 1748 is dumb and
a stick-figure crackhead emo-goth kooktard who k'lames that AC voltage
(both peak *and* RMS) is constant and therefore DC, who k'lames that
the voltage between two phases is simultaneously 0 volts *and* 208
volts; who k'lames that shorting all 3 phases of 3-phase AC together
somehow *doubles* the voltage; who k'lames that he's feeding a
substation transformer *primary* with 240 volts, deriving 120 volts
from the primary, and feeding that 240 volts to feed a 120/208 volt
service, then backpedals and k'lames he's actually running the primary
at "12 kVA" because the moron doesn't know the difference between
voltage and apparent power; and who *still* cannot figure out vector
summation after more than two months of trying... *that* is the
delusional halfwit who's figured out sinewaves. LOL

SPNAK!

>> when doing sinewave summation?

> to determine differences in potential.

Still can't grasp vector summation, eh, DildoRider? LOL

SPNAK!

<snicker>

>>> the difference between peak and RMS values,

>> Oh, I know the difference, in fact, I proved it *and* used the
>> Euler-Fourier Formula to derive RMS L-N voltage

> the fuck? you didn't derive anything. you took the RMS value and, for
> some reason, factored it into a sine wave plot like a complete idiot noob
> would.

Except I derived the 120 volt RMS L-N from the 170 volt peak L-N, and
the 208 volt RMS L-L from the same 170 volt peak L-N (derived to that
120 volt RMS L-N), as is evidenced by the fact that in every image I
posted of the graphs I made for that purpose, 170 volts is used in
each and every equation, DildoRider.

That you can't do that because you're a kooktard who is *still*
struggling with that simple vector summation concept, to the point
that you can't even add two simple line vectors without changing their
slope and direction, is no one's fault but your own... well, maybe
your parent's... they definitely should have aborted.

SPNAK!

<snicker>

>> from peak L-N voltage, then used the same equation to derive RMS
>> L-L voltage from that RMS L-N voltage... something none of you
>> morons have been able to accomplish.

> funny. you never bothered to show us the exact full equations that you
> graphed, for some reason.

You mean the Euler sinewave summation equation, in use by scientists
and engineers since 1748, DildoRider? If you're too stupid to find an
equation that's been in widespread use for 250+ years, you're *far*
too stupid to ever understand it or properly use it.

SPNAK!

<snicker>

>> Aren't you the moron who k'lamed that RMS voltage doesn't fluctuate,
>> and is thus DC? Yeah... yeah you are.

> RMS is a power average estimate, not a sine wave.

Bwahahahaaaa! DildoRider yet again k'lames that RMS voltage is DC, and
therefore the 120 volt RMS voltage at every outlet in his shitshack
half-a-house is DC.

SPNAK!

<snicker>

And you remain incompetent. And stunned stupid.

SPNAK!

<snicker>

--

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

["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, 08 Mar 2016 04:34:37 -0500, Bite My Shiny Metal Ass
<ben...@the.future> wrote:

> snip...@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>
>> "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 <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>

>> > >> the difference between peak and RMS values,
>> > >
>> > > Oh, I know the difference, in fact, I proved it *and* used the
>> > > Euler-Fourier Formula to derive RMS L-N voltage
>> >
>> > the fuck? you didn't derive anything. you took the RMS value and,
>> for
>> > some reason, factored it into a sine wave plot like a complete idiot
>> noob
>> > would.
>> >
>> > > from peak L-N voltage,
>> > > then used the same equation to derive RMS L-L voltage from that RMS
>> > > L-N voltage... something none of you morons have been able to
>> > > accomplish.
>> >
>> > funny. you never bothered to show us the exact full equations that
>> you
>> > graphed, for some reason.
>> >
>> > > Aren't you the moron who k'lamed that RMS voltage doesn't fluctuate,
>> > > and is thus DC? Yeah... yeah you are.
>> >
>> > RMS is a power average estimate, not a sine wave.
>>

>> [...]

>>
>> PMFJI
>>
>> It's apparent that Fakey just doesn't comprehend the meaning
>> of Root Mean Square or why we use it. Let me see if I can explain
>> it to him in simple terms:
>>
>> Because an AC power voltage waveform normally swings from negative
>> to positive and back equally either side of zero, its simple mean
>> is zero. Such a result is of use to neither man nor aspiring
>> electrical engineering pundit.
>>
>> So: square the waveform. The squared positive half of each cycle
>> is still positive but the negative half, when squared, becomes
>> positive too. -1 multiplied by -1 equals +1, remember?
>>
>> Now take the mean of the squared waveform -- this will now be a
>> positive quantity. Because you've squared everything you now have
>> to "unsquare" it again; take the root of that mean and you have RMS.
>>
>> It's a \\mean\\ value, \\not\\ a waveform; root MEAN square, geddit?
>>
>>
>> HTH HAND HORSE
>

> Good explanation. And the other reason for calculating RMS
> is that it works in Ohm's law for power, ie,

you'd think that our local ohm's law "expert" would have figured that out.

>
> P = voltage(RMS) * current(RMS) * cos(phase angle between
> them)

but... but fakey graphed RMS voltage, he sez!

> Even Fakey could understand, if he tried. He will try ever
> so hard not to, and bleat that you think RMS is DC (which is
> closer to truth than his limited understanding is).

fakey is busy plugging his RMS sine function into the power term of ohm's
law.

["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, 08 Mar 2016 04:45:49 -0500, Sn!pe <snip...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <ben...@the.future> wrote:
>
>> snip...@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>>
>> > "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 <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >

>> > > >> the difference between peak and RMS values,
>> > > >
>> > > > Oh, I know the difference, in fact, I proved it *and* used the
>> > > > Euler-Fourier Formula to derive RMS L-N voltage
>> > >
>> > > the fuck? you didn't derive anything. you took the RMS value and,
>> for
>> > > some reason, factored it into a sine wave plot like a complete
>> idiot noob
>> > > would.
>> > >
>> > > > from peak L-N voltage,
>> > > > then used the same equation to derive RMS L-L voltage from that
>> RMS
>> > > > L-N voltage... something none of you morons have been able to
>> > > > accomplish.
>> > >
>> > > funny. you never bothered to show us the exact full equations that
>> you
>> > > graphed, for some reason.
>> > >
>> > > > Aren't you the moron who k'lamed that RMS voltage doesn't
>> fluctuate,
>> > > > and is thus DC? Yeah... yeah you are.
>> > >
>> > > RMS is a power average estimate, not a sine wave.
>> >

>> > [...]
>> >
>> > PMFJI
>> >
>> > It's apparent that Fakey just doesn't comprehend the meaning
>> > of Root Mean Square or why we use it. Let me see if I can explain
>> > it to him in simple terms:
>> >
>> > Because an AC power voltage waveform normally swings from negative
>> > to positive and back equally either side of zero, its simple mean
>> > is zero. Such a result is of use to neither man nor aspiring
>> > electrical engineering pundit.
>> >
>> > So: square the waveform. The squared positive half of each cycle
>> > is still positive but the negative half, when squared, becomes
>> > positive too. -1 multiplied by -1 equals +1, remember?
>> >
>> > Now take the mean of the squared waveform -- this will now be a
>> > positive quantity. Because you've squared everything you now have
>> > to "unsquare" it again; take the root of that mean and you have RMS.
>> >
>> > It's a \\mean\\ value, \\not\\ a waveform; root MEAN square, geddit?
>> >
>> >
>> > HTH HAND HORSE
>> >
>>
>> Good explanation. And the other reason for calculating RMS
>> is that it works in Ohm's law for power, ie,
>>

>> P = voltage(RMS) * current(RMS) * cos(phase angle between
>> them)
>>

>> Even Fakey could understand, if he tried. He will try ever
>> so hard not to, and bleat that you think RMS is DC (which is
>> closer to truth than his limited understanding is).
>>
>

> I assume that Fakey has read this:-
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square>
>
> It escapes me as to how he could possibly misunderstand the
> concept of the quadratic mean; ergo, it's just another torll.
>

no, fakey is just the perfect combination of proud and intellectually lazy
that anybody might think he's trolling, but he's just a goof.

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <2p8tdblfb94mb10td...@4ax.com>,
ben...@the.future says...

>
> snip...@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>
> > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <ben...@the.future> wrote:
> >
> > > snip...@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
> > >
> > > > "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 <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >

> > > > > >> the difference between peak and RMS values,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, I know the difference, in fact, I proved it *and* used the
> > > > > > Euler-Fourier Formula to derive RMS L-N voltage
> > > > >
> > > > > the fuck? you didn't derive anything. you took the RMS value and, for
> > > > > some reason, factored it into a sine wave plot like a complete idiot noob
> > > > > would.
> > > > >
> > > > > > from peak L-N voltage,
> > > > > > then used the same equation to derive RMS L-L voltage from that RMS
> > > > > > L-N voltage... something none of you morons have been able to
> > > > > > accomplish.
> > > > >
> > > > > funny. you never bothered to show us the exact full equations that you
> > > > > graphed, for some reason.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Aren't you the moron who k'lamed that RMS voltage doesn't fluctuate,
> > > > > > and is thus DC? Yeah... yeah you are.
> > > > >
> > > > > RMS is a power average estimate, not a sine wave.
> > > >

> He probably referenced it a few times without understanding
> that it flatly contradicted his bleation-du-jour.
>
> When you're wrong as often as fakey is, some selective
> misunderstanding goes a long way in protecting your
> delusions from the cold wrath of reality.

Stop beating Fakey up with his own arrogant stupidity! Have you no
sense of pity... or mercy?

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <1mjsf3j.1vxpwgv1p0rmvcN%snip...@gmail.com>, snipeco.2
@gmail.com says...


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

>
> > > I assume that Fakey has read this:-
> > >
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square>
> > >
> > > It escapes me as to how he could possibly misunderstand the
> > > concept of the quadratic mean; ergo, it's just another torll.
> > >
> >
> > He probably referenced it a few times without understanding
> > that it flatly contradicted his bleation-du-jour.
> >
> > When you're wrong as often as fakey is, some selective
> > misunderstanding goes a long way in protecting your
> > delusions from the cold wrath of reality.
>

> lol

lol

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

["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, 08 Mar 2016 04:54:58 -0500, Bite My Shiny Metal Ass
<ben...@the.future> wrote:

> "\"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" <ro...@127.0.0.1>
> wrote:
>

> Heheh... some kooks put their kookiness on display, by the
> ream, for the world to ridicule.

>
>> >>> Bwahahaaaa! That's rich, coming from the retard who blathered all
>> the
>> >>> stupidity in my .sig, which I proved *wrong* using science, reality,
>> >>> truthiness and intelligence... you know, that which you lack.
>> >
>> >> You don't know what "proof" is. You are adamantly ignorant
>> >> about everything you blither-blather about. You refuse to
>> >> understand what the fourier transform is for,
>> >
>> > You mean the Euler-Fourier Formulas, in use since 1748 by scientists
>> > and engineers
>>
>> ...who couldn't grok a graphing calculator or you know... gnuplot.
>

> That was funny. How many iterations did it take fakey to
> finally graph 120v RMS correctly?

about 12 at my count... he didn't get it right until i basically gave him
the equations he needed.

>
>> > when doing sinewave summation?
>>
>> to determine differences in potential.
>

> Fakey still thinks Euler's theorem and Fourier transforms
> are used to add up sinewaves.

well... how about you explain how we even have sine waves if their fourier
series' weren't summed to create them! ;)

>
>> >> the difference between peak and RMS values,
>> >
>> > Oh, I know the difference, in fact, I proved it *and* used the
>> > Euler-Fourier Formula to derive RMS L-N voltage
>>
>> the fuck? you didn't derive anything. you took the RMS value and, for
>> some reason, factored it into a sine wave plot like a complete idiot
>> noob
>> would.
>

> See? he still thinks 120v RMS and 170v peak are 2 different
> thangs.

yep... idiot. i hope he knows a good electrician.

>> > from peak L-N voltage,
>> > then used the same equation to derive RMS L-L voltage from that RMS
>> > L-N voltage... something none of you morons have been able to
>> > accomplish.
>>
>> funny. you never bothered to show us the exact full equations that you
>> graphed, for some reason.
>

> Snjork! "for some reason"....

phase A - phase B =

phase B - phase C =

phase C - phase A =

did you see his k0oky k'lame that using my equation: phase B - phase A
isn't the same as phase B - phase A?

he doesn't even understand trigonometric identities. or sinewaves... or
electricity... or how to compute a difference in potential... or what to
do with an RMS value.

>
>> > Aren't you the moron who k'lamed that RMS voltage doesn't fluctuate,
>> > and is thus DC? Yeah... yeah you are.
>>
>> RMS is a power average estimate, not a sine wave.
>>
>> > IOW, I win. Again.
>> >
>> > <snicker>
>> >
>> >> or that water is tetrahedral.
>> >
>> > Wrong. Monomolecular water according to the VSEPR theory AXE method is
>> > bent, KookTard. The description of "tetrahedral" is for clustered
>> > water, and only used to describe the electron distribution with the
>> > covalent bonds as landmarks.
>> >
>> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSEPR_theory#AXE_method>
>> > "Bent (H2O)"
>

> It says water molecules form a Bent tetrahedron. Wow.

seems to make sense. pretty sure that's what we were taught in EngChem3.
d'oh!

>
>> > You'll note the VSEPR theory does *not* classify water as tetrahedral.
>> >
>> > Message-ID: <230fdc3806a6ca5c...@dizum.com>
>> > =========================================================
>> > To be technically correct, you'd have to say water dynamic
>> > heterogeneities are approximately trigonally, nearly planarly,
>> > arranged with bond angles at 109.47 degrees, having sp^2-hybridized
>

> Uh, Dufus... 109.47° would make it a perfect tetrahedron.
> Which it isn't. LOL.

heh

>
> Extra hint: "trigonally planar" would give it bond angles
> of 120°, an angle which seems to give you particular
> trouble.

same angle as the top of his pointy pin head? ...where he stores his bird
brain?

>
>> > electron pairs, which combine into icosahedral super-heterogeneities.
>

> So you finally admit the non-bonding electron pairs form the
> other corners of the tetrahedron. Like I told you, and
> which you petulantly denied.
>
> SPNAK!

>
>> > But the individual water molecule is dipolar, with one strongly
>

> Now fakey admits a water molecule is dipolar.

wait until he finally admits that i was subtracting sine waves correctly
and arriving at results that predict real-world phenomena.

>
> SPNAK!
>
>> > electronegative (8+) oxygen
>
> No, faketard, the electronegativity of O is not +8.

isn't that it's oxidation number, or something? chemistry always bored
the fuck out of me unless it was biochemistry.

>
>> > and two weakly electronegative (1+)
>> > hydrogens,
>

> No, faketard, the electronegativity of H is not +1.
> You don't understand the meaning of electronegativity.
> Back to Google!
>
> ReSPNAK!

welp, guess we'll hear back from fakey after his google walkabout.

>
>> > said dipolar nature arising due to the O-H bond angle.
>

> Nope again.
>
> Methane has the same tetrahedral bond angle, but it's in no
> way dipolar.
>
> MultiSPNAK!

>
>> > And that still doesn't explain your stupidly blathering: "Water is
>> > tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative."
>> >
>> > Water has *no* "negative poles", and it most certainly doesn't have "4
>> > poles", you witless turd.
>

> Did... did you just say water has no negative poles?
> But... but you said water is dipolar!
> How does that work, fakey?

>
>> fakey has his projector set on "stunningly incompetent".
>

> Yup. I'm stunned. STUNNED, i tell you!
>
:)

["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, 08 Mar 2016 05:14:52 -0500, Sn!pe <snip...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <ben...@the.future> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> > I assume that Fakey has read this:-
>> >
>> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square>
>> >
>> > It escapes me as to how he could possibly misunderstand the
>> > concept of the quadratic mean; ergo, it's just another torll.
>> >
>>
>> He probably referenced it a few times without understanding
>> that it flatly contradicted his bleation-du-jour.
>>
>> When you're wrong as often as fakey is, some selective
>> misunderstanding goes a long way in protecting your
>> delusions from the cold wrath of reality.
>
> lol
>

XD

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:a362af95-4784-4692...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:57:57 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Reference?

>> Does anyone find it strange that the kooktard James McGinn continually
>> asks for proof of everything, even that which is common knowledge, yet

>> has provided absolutely no evidence (let alone proof) that his kooky
>> theory is anything other than the mad ranting of a badly damaged
>> brain?
>>
>> <snicker>
>>
>> <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/vappre.html>
>> ===============================================================
>> Evaporation vs Boiling
>>

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

>> ===============================================================
>>
>> And yet again, the delusional uneducated oaf James McGinn has his
>> kooky theory utterly demolished.

> Hmm. Well, there's the fact that the boiling temperature of H2O
> at atmospheric pressures is much higher than is available in the
> atmosphere. That seems like pretty good evidence to me.

So you admit you're still confused as regards the vaporization process
of water. The internet contains a plethora of information to relieve
you of your confusion, Jim... unfortunately, you being a delusional
Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard, you'll run off into the brambles of
yet another kooky conspiracy theory that contradicts reality nearly
immediately after starting your education. Perhaps you should attempt
an education in a more formal setting... try finishing high school.

<snicker>

> Can you explain the physics of low temperature boiling? Has this
> ever been detected in the laboratory? Or does it only exist up
> high in the atmosphere where nobody can measure it?
>
> I wonder why that would be? Hmm.

That you continue to demonstrate your lack of comprehension of
physical processes is no one's fault but your own, Jim. Your broken
brain has formulated an equally broken conspiracy theory, a
manifestation of your Dunning-Kruger afflicted schizoid brain
rejecting reality because it is too painful to contemplate. Seek
professional psychiatric intervention to alleviate yourself of your
burden.

<snicker>

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

> Do you have a reference for all of this?

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

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

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

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

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

<snicker>

> It seems rather speculative. Or am I expected to take your, uh,
> expert opinion on this?

Well, that's your problem in a nutshell, isn't it, Jim? You take *no*
expert opinion due to your problem with authority figures and your
delusional paranoia. Thus your broken little brain scrambles off into
the brambles of kooky conspiracy theories, exacerbated by your lack of
education.

<snicker>

>> you don't understand that when an
>> inter-molecular H bond is broken, the other inter-molecular H bond
>> isn't strengthened, the diametrically-opposed covalent bond to that
>> broken inter-molecular H bond is preferentially strengthened:
>>
>> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
>> "There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond

>> strengths; the stronger the H--O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
>> covalent bond, and the shorter the O--O distance"

>>
>> Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
>> than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
>> ~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
>> covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
>> the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim.

> Nothing I see here indicates the covalent bond shortening. So
> I can't figure out what your point is.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-路路路路OH2) both weaken the
covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it ) and reduces the HO-H路路路路OH2
'hydrogen' bond."

Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically
opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim. This has
been known and is well-exploited when building HHO welders for a great
number of years, Jim. That's why, when dissociating water, you don't
target the long covalent bond, as the resonant frequency required to
break that covalent bond is too close to the inter-molecular H bond
resonant frequency, and breaking that would strengthen the covalent
bond opposite, thereby costing more energy in dissociating the water.

Again, your lack of understanding of physical processes stems in part
from your broken delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting
any information from those you deem to be of higher authority than you
(which would be pretty much everyone), and in part from your lack of
education. Both conditions together lead you off into the brambles of
your kooky discredited conspiracy theory, and both can be ameliorated
by subjecting yourself to those very same psychiatric and educational
authorities your broken brain rejects... hence you'll remain
delusional for the remainder of your pathetic life, Jim... but you'll
find your delusion and hence your insanity grows until it destroys
your life. Fix yourself, Jim, or suffer the same fate of every other
D-K sufferer.

<snicker>

>> That's why, when using high
>> frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
>> frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
>> bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
>> bonds.

> You are misreading something. I don't know what.
>
> You aren't making any sense. Sorry.

That reality doesn't make any sense to you is part and parcel of your
displayed and demonstrated confusion as regards the very underlying
precepts of your own kooky theory, Jim. Your lack of knowledge and
hence understanding is no one's fault but your own. Educate yourself,
then try again.

Why can't you even get your kooky theory through the peer-review
process, Jim?

<snicker>

Now, get to refuting all that peer-reviewed data which utterly
decimates your kooky theory, Jim:

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

Bwahahahaaa! Referring to your own blathering asinine nitwittery isn't
proof, Jim. You fucking kooktard.

"Plasma in the atmosphere"
"thick air"
"tornadoes... jet stream... same thing"
"this oxygen sucks down more of the electrons, making the Mickey Mouse
ears more relatively positive"

And you said all that loonbat tripe with a straight face. LOL

Holy shit, Jim... do you not realize that the reason people are
laughing at you and your kooky theory is that you're a fucking moron
in dire need of psychotropic drugs? LOL

Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is

Jim, you're a kooktard who k'lames that stripping multiple molecules
of water away from the surface of water via evaporation takes *less*
energy than stripping away a single molecule because you're a
low-information uneducated oaf who can't wrap your delusional
Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain around the reality of physical
processes.

The only ways electron probability distribution in bulk water can
shift, Jim, is if a solute or ion solution is introduced to the
water... but then we'd not be talking about just water, would we,
Jim?... or if the water changes phase, which would prove me right that
gaseous water is being evaporated into the air, meaning your challenge
has been met, yet another central tenet of your kooky theory has been
utterly destroyed, you've been proven wrong again, and you owe me
$100,000 for meeting your challenge.

You're not doing very well defending your kooky little theory, Jim.

Jim, you further have demonstrated that you don't understand that when

an inter-molecular H bond is broken, the other inter-molecular H bond
isn't strengthened, the diametrically-opposed covalent bond to that
broken inter-molecular H bond is preferentially strengthened:

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H路路路路O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O路路路路O distance"

Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of

the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high

frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.

You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

Why do you continue cowardly snipping out and running away from that

evidence that proves you're a moron who in actuality knows next to
nothing about that which you're stupidly blathering, Jim?

["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]

perhaps he thought that we were trying to decompose the sine wave
functions into their respective fourier series' before subtracting them to
determine the potential difference over time?

> But that was what he started with in the first place.
>
> Maybe he meant an inverse Fourier transform, to compose his waveform from
> the discrete signals he gave with his inputs? I don't think that will
> work how he expects it too, assuming that's the idea.

what he meant was to buy some time while he could figure out how to use
any modern function graphing method to find out that adding sine waves
isn't how potentials are computed.

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <op.yd0oy...@benson.localhost>, ro...@127.0.0.1 says...

> > See? he still thinks 120v RMS and 170v peak are 2 different
> > thangs.
>
> yep... idiot. i hope he knows a good electrician.
>

Not one who would ever be inclined to help him...

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

["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, 08 Mar 2016 12:14:13 -0500, Bite My Shiny Metal Ass
<ben...@the.future> wrote:

> Fakey wrote:
>
>> It is an *instantaneous* quadratic square of the *instantaneous*
>> voltage of an AC sinusoidal waveform, and can thus be graphed as a
>> sinusoid.
>

> Oh, shit! i missed this part amid gales of laughter. Sorry
> fakey, you are just wrong about that. RMS is the Root of
> the Mean (that means average) square. It's based on an
> average over the whole period, not instantaneous values.
> Otherwise, you are just saying the RMS is the square root of
> the square of the instantaneous value, which is... the
> instantaneous value! Except it would be positive for both
> halves of the cycle. Lol.

the concept of a mean eludes fakey. CHECK.

>
>> <http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms1.gif>
>
> Uh, fakey, do you understand the significance of the dashed
> purple line? No?

HAHAHAHA

>
> How bout this picture from the same site:
>
> http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms15.gif
>
> Is that RMS value varying instantaneously? Fakey?
>
<shifts eyeglasses matt foley motivational speaker style>

["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]

what a bunch of mean squares!

["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, 08 Mar 2016 12:48:07 -0500, Bite My Shiny Metal Ass
<ben...@the.future> wrote:

> "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave.,

> The Fakey Electric Company is advertising 120v RMS electric
> power to his tenants, but it's really +/-120v peak
> amplitude, which is 85v RMS, just like he graphed. Now the
> lights at the Fakewood Tenement Compound glow dimly, and
> both of the refrigerators have burned-out motors.
>
> Oops! What happened?
> Maybe those guys at auk were right after all!
>
> LOL.

The Fakey Electric Kompany is brought to you by the letters 'L', 'O', and
'L' again.

["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, 08 Mar 2016 13:07:08 -0500, Bite My Shiny Metal Ass
<ben...@the.future> wrote:

> Yeah, i guess i should lighten up on the spnaktard.
>
> After he wins his $100,000 prize from the other looney-toon
> in sci.physics, he might buy us pizza or something. If i
> quit spanking him so bad.
>
> Since his newsreader can't sort posts by number of lines, he
> probably can't find our posts anymore anyway. Is that why
> he fled to the other ng? And why isn't he arguing with the
> 41-line spammer?

perhaps because aioe wasn't blocking bleatTards who live on Tor?

[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:u57tdbh2pprbkts9c...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

>>> No. Turns out, I've *so* dismantled his kooky theory via referencing
>>> peer-reviewed studies that he's forced to snip out every single word I
>>> write which proves his kooky theory is wrong... and lately that's been
>>> every single work I write. Because kooks are cowards. Because cowardly
>>> kooks can't face reality. Because reality would cause their brains to
>>> implode. LOL

> Heheh... some kooks put their kookiness on display, by the
> ream, for the world to ridicule.

Yeah, like you did. Hence my .sig. LOL

>>>> You don't know what "proof" is. You are adamantly ignorant
>>>> about everything you blither-blather about. You refuse to
>>>> understand what the fourier transform is for,

>>> You mean the Euler-Fourier Formulas, in use since 1748 by scientists
>>> and engineers

>> ...who couldn't grok a graphing calculator or you know... gnuplot.

Oh sure... because every scientist and engineer since 1748 is dumb and
a stick-figure crackhead emo-goth kooktard who k'lames that AC voltage
(both peak *and* RMS) is constant and therefore DC, who k'lames that
the voltage between two phases is simultaneously 0 volts *and* 208
volts; who k'lames that shorting all 3 phases of 3-phase AC together
somehow *doubles* the voltage; who k'lames that he's feeding a
substation transformer *primary* with 240 volts, deriving 120 volts
from the primary, and feeding that 240 volts to feed a 120/208 volt
service, then backpedals and k'lames he's actually running the primary
at "12 kVA" because the moron doesn't know the difference between
voltage and apparent power; and who *still* cannot figure out vector
summation after more than two months of trying... *that* is the
delusional halfwit who's figured out sinewaves. LOL

SPNAK!

> That was funny. How many iterations did it take fakey to
> finally graph 120v RMS correctly?

One. Whereas you've presented no graphs because you're apparently even
more clueless than DildoRider. LOL

>>> when doing sinewave summation?

>> to determine differences in potential.

Still can't grasp vector summation, eh, DildoRider? LOL

SPNAK!

<snicker>

> Fakey still thinks Euler's theorem and Fourier transforms
> are used to add up sinewaves.

You mean the Euler-Fourier Formulas? Aren't you the moron who k'lamed
that Fourier transforms had nothing to do with sinewaves?

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Unfasor.gif>

Message-ID: <80d61a6928a9e7df...@dizum.com>
<http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL

>>>> the difference between peak and RMS values,

>>> Oh, I know the difference, in fact, I proved it *and* used the
>>> Euler-Fourier Formula to derive RMS L-N voltage

>> the fuck? you didn't derive anything. you took the RMS value and, for
>> some reason, factored it into a sine wave plot like a complete idiot noob
>> would.

Except I derived the 120 volt RMS L-N from the 170 volt peak L-N, and
the 208 volt RMS L-L from the same 170 volt peak L-N (derived to that
120 volt RMS L-N), as is evidenced by the fact that in every image I
posted of the graphs I made for that purpose, 170 volts is used in
each and every equation, DildoRider.

That you can't do that because you're a kooktard who is *still*
struggling with that simple vector summation concept, to the point
that you can't even add two simple line vectors without changing their
slope and direction, is no one's fault but your own... well, maybe
your parent's... they definitely should have aborted.

SPNAK!

<snicker>

> See? he still thinks 120v RMS and 170v peak are 2 different
> thangs.

No, I proved that you're a fanfic spewing kooktard long ago, Moron.
Why do you persist in crying out your tearful fanfic fantasies? Is it
because I drop-kicked your retarded ass across Usenet? Yeah it is.

<snicker>

>>> from peak L-N voltage,
>>> then used the same equation to derive RMS L-L voltage from that RMS
>>> L-N voltage... something none of you morons have been able to
>>> accomplish.

>> funny. you never bothered to show us the exact full equations that you
>> graphed, for some reason.

> Snjork! "for some reason"....

Actually, I did. Twice. That both you *and* DildoRider missed it just
goes to show how collectively retarded the two of you are, given that
the Euler sinewave summation equation has been around and in
widespread use since 1748.

<snicker>

>>> Aren't you the moron who k'lamed that RMS voltage doesn't fluctuate,
>>> and is thus DC? Yeah... yeah you are.

>> RMS is a power average estimate, not a sine wave.

Bwahahahaa! RMS is not a sinewave, eh? So according to you, it's DC,
thus the power coming out of your wall outlets is DC? Moron.

>>> IOW, I win. Again.
>>>
>>> <snicker>

>>>> or that water is tetrahedral.

>>> Wrong. Monomolecular water according to the VSEPR theory AXE method is
>>> bent, KookTard. The description of "tetrahedral" is for clustered
>>> water, and only used to describe the electron distribution with the
>>> covalent bonds as landmarks.
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSEPR_theory#AXE_method>
>>> "Bent (H2O)"

> It says water molecules form a Bent tetrahedron. Wow.

Liar. It says nothing of the sort. It says methane is tetrahedral, but
water is bent... perhaps you're just a confused little kooktard
backpedaling like mad because you've yet again had your stoooopid ass
drop-kicked across Usenet by reality. LOL

>>> You'll note the VSEPR theory does *not* classify water as tetrahedral.
>>>
>>> Message-ID: <230fdc3806a6ca5c...@dizum.com>
>>> =========================================================
>>> To be technically correct, you'd have to say water dynamic
>>> heterogeneities are approximately trigonally, nearly planarly,
>>> arranged with bond angles at 109.47 degrees, having sp^2-hybridized

> Uh, Dufus... 109.47° would make it a perfect tetrahedron.
> Which it isn't. LOL.

For a water cluster, the H bonds are 109.47 degrees, you fecking
moron. Not for individual water molecule covalent bonds, which are at
104.474 degrees for gaseous water, and 105.5 to 106 degrees in bulk
water. If you're basing tetrahedrality upon water clusters, you can
arrive at pretty much any geometry you wish... in point of fact, the
latest and most accurate water model states that water clusters are
icosahedral. But the individual water molecule, according to the VSEPR
theory AXE method is bent. Moron.

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

> Extra hint: "trigonally planar" would give it bond angles
> of 120°,

Or... or, and just bear with me for a moment here as I explore another
possibility... or the researchers who are far smarter and saner than
you know better than you, and you're just a moron. LOL

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/icosahedral_water_clusters.html#icos>

> an angle which seems to give you particular trouble.

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/hydrogen_bonding.html>
====================================================
However trigonal (approximately planar) hydrogen bonding is also
possible with two donor and one acceptor hydrogen bonds associated
with individual water molecules. The lack of substantial tetrahedrally
positioned 'lone pair' electrons may ease this process, at a cost of
one hydrogen bond energy. Also the acceptor hydrogen bond in three
coordinated but tetrahedral arrangements (two donor and one acceptor
hydrogen bonds with one vacant acceptor site) can slide through a
planar arrangement to the vacant tetrahedral site without breaking.
This flexibility in the hydrogen bonding topology facilitates
hydrogen-bonding rearrangements.
====================================================

The individual water molecule is dipolar, with one strongly

electronegative (8+) oxygen and two weakly electronegative (1+)
hydrogens, said dipolar nature arising due to the O-H bond angle.

And that still doesn't explain your stupidly blathering: "Water is
tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative."

Water has *no* "negative poles", and it most certainly doesn't have "4
poles", you witless turd.

You'll be getting right on diagramming your fictional "4 pole" water,
Moron.

SPNAK!

>>> electron pairs, which combine into icosahedral super-heterogeneities.

> So you finally admit the non-bonding electron pairs form the
> other corners of the tetrahedron. Like I told you, and
> which you petulantly denied.
>
> SPNAK!

You fecking moron, you're trying to conflate water cluster geometry
with water molecular geometry, likely a result of your boobish
confusion on all topics.

And there are no "lone pairs":
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_molecule.html#elec>
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.

SPNAK!

>>> But the individual water molecule is dipolar, with one strongly

> Now fakey admits a water molecule is dipolar.
>

> SPN<SMACKAKOOK!>

I never denied that, you fecking moron. *You* did. I've been trying to
tell you morons it's dipolar all along, whereas you've k'lamed water
has 4 poles:

"Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2
negative."

SPNAK!

>>> electronegative (8+) oxygen

> No, faketard, the electronegativity of O is not +8.

For fuck sake, you moron. Do you really think you know better than the
researchers who've spent years working on this?

<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+)."

SPNAK!

>>> and two weakly electronegative (1+) hydrogens,

> No, faketard, the electronegativity of H is not +1.
> You don't understand the meaning of electronegativity.
> Back to Google!

<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+)."

> ReSPN<SMACKAKOOK!>

SPNAK!

>>> said dipolar nature arising due to the O-H bond angle.

> Nope again.
>
> Methane has the same tetrahedral bond angle, but it's in no
> way dipolar.
>
> MultiSPNAK!

Bwahahahaaa! Moron k'lames water has the same molecular geometry as
methane!

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSEPR_theory>
"Bent (H2O)
Tetrahedral (CH4)"

SPNAK!

>>> And that still doesn't explain your stupidly blathering: "Water is
>>> tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2 positive and 2 negative."
>>>
>>> Water has *no* "negative poles", and it most certainly doesn't have "4
>>> poles", you witless turd.

> Did... did you just say water has no negative poles?
> But... but you said water is dipolar!
> How does that work, fakey?

Moron *still* can't figure that simple concept out.

<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+)."

SPNAK!

>> fakey has his projector set on "stunningly incompetent".

> Yup. I'm stunned. STUNNED, i tell you!

I'm sure you walk around like that all day, in a fog of confusion,
dazed and confused and wondering how the hell you ever lived as long
as you have without winning a Darwin award. Moron.

[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:fn0udb9grva07nem7...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

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

>> RMS voltage is the DC *equivalent* of an AC waveform, that voltage in
>> DC which would dissipate the same amount of power in a resistive
>> element as that AC... but the RMS voltage of an AC peak voltage
>> waveform is still a sinusoidal waveform.

> How bout a triangle wave, fakey? Is the RMS voltage of a
> triangle waveform still a sinusoid?
>
> And is RMS still Vpeak/sqrt(2)?

If you have to ask, you don't know, and you're too stupid to Google
for it. But thanks for affirming your stupidity, Shiny Tinfoil Brain.
LOL

<http://masteringelectronicsdesign.com/how-to-derive-the-rms-value-of-a-triangle-waveform/>

SPNAK!

["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, 08 Mar 2016 13:17:20 -0500, Sn!pe <snip...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Snickerturd the Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus

^
|

{laughs, points}

>
> ^
> |
> [points, laughs]

[vallor]

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 19:21:46 +0100, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus wrote:

> Oh sure... because every scientist and engineer since 1748 is dumb and a
> stick-figure crackhead emo-goth kooktard who k'lames that AC voltage
> (both peak *and* RMS) is constant and therefore DC, who k'lames that the
> voltage between two phases is simultaneously 0 volts *and* 208 volts;
> who k'lames that shorting all 3 phases of 3-phase AC together somehow
> *doubles* the voltage; who k'lames that he's feeding a substation
> transformer *primary* with 240 volts, deriving 120 volts from the
> primary, and feeding that 240 volts to feed a 120/208 volt service, then
> backpedals and k'lames he's actually running the primary at "12 kVA"
> because the moron doesn't know the difference between voltage and
> apparent power; and who *still* cannot figure out vector summation after
> more than two months of trying... *that*
> is the delusional halfwit who's figured out sinewaves.

$ cut -c3- this | wc -w
138

That's a 138-word sentence, folks -- one rife with strawman arguments.

The froth is strong with this one.

--
-v

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in

<news:795c6892-d1c7-4b57...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 7:47:51 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> Bwahahaaa! Yet again James McGinn the delusional kooktard demonstrates
>> that he can't grasp that water being evaporated is merely a slower,
>> lower-energy process of vaporization, the same as boiling is a faster,
>> higher-energy process of vaporization. Not even after the proof of
>> same has been posted, from the physics department of a university, no
>> less.
>
> Uh, so, let me get this straight. Boiling is fast and evaporation is slow. That is your insight? And you got this from some university. Is that your argument?

Again, Jim, your inability to comprehend physical phenomena is due in
part to your lack of education, and in part to your delusional

Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting any information from those

you deem to be of higher authority than you (which is everyone). Thus
you have no sounding board for reality, leading your broken brain off
into the brambles of your kooky discredited conspiracy theory.

Both attributes of your affliction can be ameliorated via subjecting
yourself to those educational and psychiatric authorities, which your
broken brain will not allow you to do... hence the Catch-22 of
Dunning-Kruger.

<snicker>

>> Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is
>> electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air,

> Do you have a reference for this? Or should I just take your word
> on it, like everything else?

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
"About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H
group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594,
1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions
[2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight
negative charge on the surface."

<http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/36_eneg/electroneg.html>
<http://www.webelements.com/nitrogen/electronegativity.html>

O2 is electronegative, Jim, as is nitrogen, the two largest
constituents of our atmosphere. They accept those electrons at the
water surface, helped by thermal kinetic energy random motion giving
those molecules enough of a kick to leave the bulk water, thereby
stripping water away from the surface in a process known as
evaporation, a process you continue to demonstrate that you cannot
fathom.

Thus, at temperatures below the boiling point, the thermal kinetic
energy is barely sufficient to evaporate those molecules of water
except for the contributing factor of molecular attraction between the
surface water molecules and the atmosphere. The opposite process also
occurs, diffusion of the atmosphere into the water. If this were not
the case, fish, for one example, would all suffocate.

Given that the water molecule has only 62% the molar weight of bulk
air for a given molar volume, once it's stripped from the water
surface, its buoyancy will naturally cause it to rise until
temperature in the atmosphere is low enough that condensation can
occur, whereupon the ratio of the water cluster's downward facing
surface area:mass is sufficient to allow it to fall back to earth
against the combined effects of that lower molar weight and air
updraft speed.

That condensation process, BTW, is how water augurs heat out of our
atmosphere... the latent heat of condensation is emitted in the
infrared, at the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, which allows
that heat nearly unhindered passage out to the 2.725 K of space.

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

Here, I'll repost all that peer-reviewed data which utterly destroys
your kooky conspiracy theory which states that meteorologists are
withholding sooper sekret information from the public as means of
gaining domination over us, Jim. Do try your *very* best to refute it,
rather than snipping it out and running away from it again, thereby
proving you know you're *wrong*.

<snicker>

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

Holy shit, Jim... do you not realize that the reason people are
laughing at you and your kooky theory is that you're a fucking moron
in dire need of psychotropic drugs? LOL

Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is

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>

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:50:04 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > Hmm. Well, there's the fact that the boiling temperature of H2O
> > at atmospheric pressures is much higher than is available in the
> > atmosphere. That seems like pretty good evidence to me.
>
> So you admit you're still confused as regards the vaporization process
> of water. The internet contains a plethora of information to relieve
> you of your confusion,

So, uh, you have a plethora of information. And, apparently, none of confirms your assertions. What you have pointed to is indicative of a group delusion, not unlike the notion that CO2 causes catastrophic global warming.

You have a belief supported by consensus. You don't have a fact supported by empirical evidence.

> > ever been detected in the laboratory? Or does it only exist up
> > high in the atmosphere where nobody can measure it?
> >
> > I wonder why that would be? Hmm.
>
> That you continue to demonstrate your lack of comprehension of
> physical processes is no one's fault but your own, Jim.

Is that a yes or a no?

> >> Ordinary evaporation is a surface phenomenon - since the vapor
> >> pressure is low and since the pressure inside the liquid is equal to
> >> atmospheric pressure plus the liquid pressure, bubbles of water vapor
> >> cannot form. But at the boiling point, the saturated vapor pressure is
> >> equal to atmospheric pressure, bubbles form, and the vaporization
> >> becomes a volume phenomena.
>
> > Do you have a reference for all of this?
>
> Already provided, Jim, and you snipped it out

I snip anything that is not defnitive. Do you have anything definitive? Or should we just take your word on all of this?

> > It seems rather speculative. Or am I expected to take your, uh,
> > expert opinion on this?
>
> Well, that's your problem in a nutshell, isn't it, Jim?

Apparently.

> You take *no*
> expert opinion

Yes, well, I'm a physicist. So that is a part of my training.

Did you know that the results of google searches aren't considered experimental evidence by real scientists, like me?

> > Nothing I see here indicates the covalent bond shortening. So
> > I can't figure out what your point is.
>
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
> "The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
> orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-路路路路OH2) both weaken the
> covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it )

LOL. It's an O-H bond being lengthened, dumbass. Covalent bonds aren't being lengthened.

> Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically
> opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim.

Surreal.

Do you feed yourself?

> >> That's why, when using high
> >> frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
> >> frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
> >> bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
> >> bonds.
>
> > You are misreading something. I don't know what.
> >
> > You aren't making any sense. Sorry.
>
> That reality doesn't make any sense to you is part and parcel of your
> displayed

That's funny. Because I'm an expert on this subject.

> Now, get to refuting all that peer-reviewed data

You/we don't refute data, dumbass.

> Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is
> electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is
> the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you
> fucking *moron*?

Might you be so kind as to explain to us how you came to this amazing realization? Are you going to write a paper on it?

> Do you not understand what plasma is,

Perfectly.

> Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere

Proof?

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 11:10:05 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> >> Bwahahaaa! Yet again James McGinn the delusional kooktard demonstrates
> >> that he can't grasp that water being evaporated is merely a slower,
> >> lower-energy process of vaporization, the same as boiling is a faster,
> >> higher-energy process of vaporization. Not even after the proof of
> >> same has been posted, from the physics department of a university, no
> >> less.
> >
> > Uh, so, let me get this straight. Boiling is fast and evaporation is slow. That is your insight? And you got this from some university. Is that your argument?
>
> Again, Jim, your inability to comprehend physical phenomena is due in
> part to your lack of education, and in part to your delusional
> Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain rejecting any information from those
> you deem to be of higher authority than you (which is everyone). Thus
> you have no sounding board for reality, leading your broken brain off
> into the brambles of your kooky discredited conspiracy theory.
>
> Both attributes of your affliction can be ameliorated via subjecting
> yourself to those educational and psychiatric authorities, which your
> broken brain will not allow you to do... hence the Catch-22 of
> Dunning-Kruger.

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

Do you dress yourself?

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

Yes, I explained this to you.

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

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

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

Too bad you can't prove it. Huh?

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <op.yd0pe...@benson.localhost>, ro...@127.0.0.1 says...

Let's all root for Fakey!

<pom-poms>

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <gn4udbl2b2ftskgb0...@4ax.com>,
ben...@the.future says...

> Yeah, i guess i should lighten up on the spnaktard.
>
> After he wins his $100,000 prize from the other looney-toon
> in sci.physics, he might buy us pizza or something. If i
> quit spanking him so bad.
>
> Since his newsreader can't sort posts by number of lines, he
> probably can't find our posts anymore anyway. Is that why
> he fled to the other ng? And why isn't he arguing with the
> 41-line spammer?

I would have thought he's have at least a thousand line screed for each
of those posts. I think he's been reduced to a puddle of quivering
foam. There's only so much a little tardlet can handle by himself, and
all the other tardlets quit helping him long ago.

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <1mjt3w8.7yjqioscc1wzN%snip...@gmail.com>, snipeco.2
@gmail.com says...


>
> Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic...@The.Edge> wrote:
>
> [...]

>
> > > > I assume that Fakey has read this:-
> > > >
> > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square>
> > > >
> > > > It escapes me as to how he could possibly misunderstand the
> > > > concept of the quadratic mean; ergo, it's just another torll.
> > >
> > > He probably referenced it a few times without understanding
> > > that it flatly contradicted his bleation-du-jour.
> > >
> > > When you're wrong as often as fakey is, some selective
> > > misunderstanding goes a long way in protecting your
> > > delusions from the cold wrath of reality.
> > >
> >
> > Stop beating Fakey up with his own arrogant stupidity!
> > Have you no sense of pity... or mercy?
> >
>

> Should... should we stop laughing at him?
> I must admit that my sides are aching!

Okay... let's try...


BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

That hertz...

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <op.yd0pb...@benson.localhost>, ro...@127.0.0.1 says...

>
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 12:14:13 -0500, Bite My Shiny Metal Ass
> <ben...@the.future> wrote:
>
> > Fakey wrote:
> >
> >> It is an *instantaneous* quadratic square of the *instantaneous*
> >> voltage of an AC sinusoidal waveform, and can thus be graphed as a
> >> sinusoid.
> >
> > Oh, shit! i missed this part amid gales of laughter. Sorry
> > fakey, you are just wrong about that. RMS is the Root of
> > the Mean (that means average) square. It's based on an
> > average over the whole period, not instantaneous values.
> > Otherwise, you are just saying the RMS is the square root of
> > the square of the instantaneous value, which is... the
> > instantaneous value! Except it would be positive for both
> > halves of the cycle. Lol.
>
> the concept of a mean eludes fakey. CHECK.
>
> >
> >> <http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms1.gif>
> >
> > Uh, fakey, do you understand the significance of the dashed
> > purple line? No?
>
> HAHAHAHA
>
> >
> > How bout this picture from the same site:
> >
> > http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms15.gif
> >
> > Is that RMS value varying instantaneously? Fakey?
> >
> <shifts eyeglasses matt foley motivational speaker style>

<looks disdainfully over top of glasses, Checky-style (tm)>

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <op.yd0p2...@benson.localhost>, ro...@127.0.0.1 says...

LOL

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <1mjt16b.1xyx5rv1ludwwnN%snip...@gmail.com>, snipeco.2
@gmail.com says...

> > RMS voltage is the DC *equivalent* of an AC waveform, that voltage in
> > DC which would dissipate the same amount of power in a resistive
> > element as that AC... but the RMS voltage of an AC peak voltage
> > waveform is still a sinusoidal waveform. To argue otherwise is to
> > argue that the 120 volt RMS voltage at every wall outlet in North
> > America is DC.
>

WTF???

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <3j7udbhp7j7tgbrkj...@4ax.com>,
ben...@the.future says...

> > <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Unfasor.gif>
> >
> > Message-ID: <80d61a6928a9e7df...@dizum.com>
> > <http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
> > See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
> > transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
> > the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL
>

> Nope. You don't understand anything on that page.
>
> The animation shows a geometric explanation of what the sine
> function is -- really simple, so even dummies like you could
> understand. You assumed that because the page title is
> something about fourier transforms, that this must a
> "fourier transform of a circle".
>

That's an excellent way to illustrate single phase to people who don't
understand alternating current. Have you seen a similar animation
anywhere that shows three phases 120 degrees apart?

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <rpcudbpanc96uofde...@4ax.com>,
ben...@the.future says...

> No... maybe that's why fakey hasn't grasped 3-phase.

He hasn't even grasped single phase.

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[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:i81udbl4q2bhv6ndf...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

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

>> It is an *instantaneous* quadratic square of the *instantaneous*
>> voltage of an AC sinusoidal waveform, and can thus be graphed as a
>> sinusoid.

> Oh, shit! i missed this part amid gales of laughter. Sorry
> fakey, you are just wrong about that. RMS is the Root of
> the Mean (that means average) square. It's based on an
> average over the whole period, not instantaneous values.
> Otherwise, you are just saying the RMS is the square root of
> the square of the instantaneous value, which is... the
> instantaneous value! Except it would be positive for both
> halves of the cycle. Lol.

<http://www.bcae1.com/voltages.htm>
==============================================================
Calculating Actual RMS Voltage:
If you have a 'true RMS' voltmeter, the meter measures the
instantaneous voltage at regular time intervals.
==============================================================

SPNAK!

RMS voltage is the DC *equivalent* of an AC waveform, that voltage in
DC which would dissipate the same amount of power in a resistive
element as that AC... but the RMS voltage of an AC peak voltage
waveform is still a sinusoidal waveform. To argue otherwise is to
argue that the 120 volt RMS voltage at every wall outlet in North
America is DC.

It is an *instantaneous* quadratic square of the *instantaneous*
voltage of an AC sinusoidal waveform, and can thus be graphed as a
sinusoid.

<http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms1.gif>

You moron.

SPNAK!

<http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/rms-voltage.html>
<http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms1.gif?81223b>

SPNAK!

>> <http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms1.gif>

> Uh, fakey, do you understand the significance of the dashed
> purple line? No?
>

> How bout this picture from the same site:
>
> http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms15.gif
>
> Is that RMS value varying instantaneously? Fakey?

Thank you for yet again reiterating your utter confusion as to RMS
voltage being the DC *equivalent* of an AC waveform, that voltage in

DC which would dissipate the same amount of power in a resistive
element as that AC... but the RMS voltage of an AC peak voltage
waveform is still a sinusoidal waveform. To argue otherwise is to
argue that the 120 volt RMS voltage at every wall outlet in North
America is DC.

It is an *instantaneous* quadratic square of the *instantaneous*
voltage of an AC sinusoidal waveform, and can thus be graphed as a
sinusoid.

<http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms1.gif>

You moron.

SPNAK!

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <cd6641ef3be0bed8...@dizum.com>,
FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx says...


> Subject: Re: James McGinn pictures of his dog and sister w Claudius Denk in Portland
> From: Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx>
> Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks, sci.physics

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

> Mustaffa Sheboygan the Seattle Slammer (aka
> Checkmate) did thusly jump head first

> into the wood chipper again:

DAMN YOU FOR OUTING ME! How did you figure it out?

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <v7dudb5ofn5018ef0...@4ax.com>,

ben...@the.future says...


>
> snip...@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>

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

> >
> > > > > > > When you're wrong as often as fakey is, some selective
> > > > > > > misunderstanding goes a long way in protecting your
> > > > > > > delusions from the cold wrath of reality.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stop beating Fakey up with his own arrogant stupidity!
> > > > > > Have you no sense of pity... or mercy?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Should... should we stop laughing at him?
> > > > > I must admit that my sides are aching!
> > > >
> > > > Okay... let's try...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
> > > >
> > > > That hertz...
> > > >
> > >

> > > Kooksine!
> > >
> >
> > Just cos we can.
>
> Watt the flux were you thinking?

He seems reluctant to say. I suspect he's deliberately trying to impede
the conversation.

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[vallor]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 04:39:01 +0800, Bite My Shiny Metal Ass wrote:

> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx>

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

>> > How bout this picture from the same site:
>> >
>> > http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms15.gif
>> >
>> > Is that RMS value varying instantaneously? Fakey?
>

> <crickets>

==| RMS quantities such as electric current are usually calculated over
one cycle. However for some purposes the RMS current over a longer period
is required when calculating transmission power losses. The same
principle applies, and (for example) a current of 10 amps used for 12
hours each day represents an RMS current of 5 amps in the long term. |==

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square#Average_electrical_power

--
-v

[Skeeter]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 20:52:03 +0000, snip...@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:

>Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic...@The.Edge> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> > > > > > > > When you're wrong as often as fakey is, some selective
>> > > > > > > > misunderstanding goes a long way in protecting your
>> > > > > > > > delusions from the cold wrath of reality.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Stop beating Fakey up with his own arrogant stupidity!
>> > > > > > > Have you no sense of pity... or mercy?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Should... should we stop laughing at him?
>> > > > > > I must admit that my sides are aching!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Okay... let's try...
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > That hertz...
>> > > >
>> > > > Kooksine!
>> > >
>> > > Just cos we can.
>> >
>> > Watt the flux were you thinking?
>>
>> He seems reluctant to say. I suspect he's deliberately
>> trying to impede the conversation.
>

>His capacity for reactance is watt kills it,
>he should conduct himself better.

Do you know how an electrician tells if he's working with AC or DC
power?
If it's AC, his teeth chatter when he grabs the conductors. If it's
DC, they just clamp together.

[Skeeter]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 20:52:03 +0000, snip...@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:

>Mustaffa Sheboygan <Lunatic...@The.Edge> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> > > > > > > > When you're wrong as often as fakey is, some selective
>> > > > > > > > misunderstanding goes a long way in protecting your
>> > > > > > > > delusions from the cold wrath of reality.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Stop beating Fakey up with his own arrogant stupidity!
>> > > > > > > Have you no sense of pity... or mercy?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Should... should we stop laughing at him?
>> > > > > > I must admit that my sides are aching!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Okay... let's try...
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > That hertz...
>> > > >
>> > > > Kooksine!
>> > >
>> > > Just cos we can.
>> >
>> > Watt the flux were you thinking?
>>
>> He seems reluctant to say. I suspect he's deliberately
>> trying to impede the conversation.
>

>His capacity for reactance is watt kills it,
>he should conduct himself better.

I’m ex-static!

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <1mjtdgu.14edzf4161ta2nN%snip...@gmail.com>, snipeco.2
@gmail.com says...

> He should take a bus bar in each hand.

"Catch the bus" LOL

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

["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]

here's an animation showing snickers using his euler fourier equations to
calculate that he doesn't understand the concept of RMS:

http://i.imgur.com/1P4HKOW.gifv

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly

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

["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]

he should put on some wet socks, go over to his breaker panel and grasp it.

["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]

i'm simply trying to conduct a civil discussion.

[Skeeter]

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 19:00:00 -0500, "\"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"
<ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 15:31:55 -0500, Mustaffa Sheboygan
><Lunatic...@the.edge> wrote:
>
>> In article <v7dudb5ofn5018ef0...@4ax.com>,
>> ben...@the.future says...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> snip...@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>>>
>>> > Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <ben...@the.future> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > [...]
>>> >
>>> > > > > > > When you're wrong as often as fakey is, some selective
>>> > > > > > > misunderstanding goes a long way in protecting your
>>> > > > > > > delusions from the cold wrath of reality.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Stop beating Fakey up with his own arrogant stupidity!
>>> > > > > > Have you no sense of pity... or mercy?
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Should... should we stop laughing at him?
>>> > > > > I must admit that my sides are aching!
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Okay... let's try...
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>> > > >
>>> > > > That hertz...
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Kooksine!
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > Just cos we can.
>>>
>>> Watt the flux were you thinking?
>>
>> He seems reluctant to say. I suspect he's deliberately trying to impede
>> the conversation.
>>
>i'm simply trying to conduct a civil discussion.

My tight-fisted neighbor doesn’t want to pay for an electrician to
re-wire his house so he’s going to try and do it himself.
“How hard can it be?” he said.

I think he’s in for a shock.

[Skeeter]

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 18:54:15 -0500, "\"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"
<ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 15:10:25 -0500, Mustaffa Sheboygan
><Lunatic...@the.edge> wrote:
>
>> In article <3j7udbhp7j7tgbrkj...@4ax.com>,
>> ben...@the.future says...
>>
>>
>>> > <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Unfasor.gif>
>>> >
>>> > Message-ID: <80d61a6928a9e7df...@dizum.com>
>>> >
>>> <http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
>>> > See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
>>> > transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
>>> > the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL
>>>
>>> Nope. You don't understand anything on that page.
>>>
>>> The animation shows a geometric explanation of what the sine
>>> function is -- really simple, so even dummies like you could
>>> understand. You assumed that because the page title is
>>> something about fourier transforms, that this must a
>>> "fourier transform of a circle".
>>>
>>
>> That's an excellent way to illustrate single phase to people who don't
>> understand alternating current. Have you seen a similar animation
>> anywhere that shows three phases 120 degrees apart?
>>
>
>here's an animation showing snickers using his euler fourier equations to
>calculate that he doesn't understand the concept of RMS:
>
>http://i.imgur.com/1P4HKOW.gifv

A superconductor walks into a bar. The bartender says, “Get out! We
don’t serve your kind here.”
The superconductor left without resistance.

[Skeeter]

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 18:58:13 -0500, "\"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"
<ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

Fakey arrives home at 3am.
His wife asks him, “Wire you insulate?”

He replies, “Watt’s it to you? I’m Ohm, aren’t I?”

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 8:28:43 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

You're not the first D-K sufferer to suffer this fate, Jim... you're
so prototypical you didn't even realize other D-K sufferers are often
compelled to up the ante to ridiculous heights, often offering a "cash
reward" to disprove their kooky theories... and all of them, when
their kooky theories are disproved, ran away and went into hiding
rather than pay.

Don't worry, though... I'm also very good at tracking people down.
There's no escape for you now, Jim.

James McGinn:
Don't get your panties in a bunch. Why don't you contact Al Gore. I'm notorious as a global warming "denier". My AKA is Claudius Denk. Do some research. They would love to find a way to get revenge on me. I exposed the scam about ten years ago. He would probably pay all your legal fees. And they are dumb enough they might actually think you have a case.

You don't want to come chasing me down. I will just laugh at you.

You need to find some allies in this endeavor.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <op.yd050...@benson.localhost>, ro...@127.0.0.1 says...

>
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 15:10:25 -0500, Mustaffa Sheboygan
> <Lunatic...@the.edge> wrote:
>
> > In article <3j7udbhp7j7tgbrkj...@4ax.com>,
> > ben...@the.future says...
> >
> >
> >> > <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Unfasor.gif>
> >> >
> >> > Message-ID: <80d61a6928a9e7df...@dizum.com>
> >> >
> >> <http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
> >> > See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
> >> > transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
> >> > the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL
> >>
> >> Nope. You don't understand anything on that page.
> >>
> >> The animation shows a geometric explanation of what the sine
> >> function is -- really simple, so even dummies like you could
> >> understand. You assumed that because the page title is
> >> something about fourier transforms, that this must a
> >> "fourier transform of a circle".
> >>
> >
> > That's an excellent way to illustrate single phase to people who don't
> > understand alternating current. Have you seen a similar animation
> > anywhere that shows three phases 120 degrees apart?
> >
>
> here's an animation showing snickers using his euler fourier equations to
> calculate that he doesn't understand the concept of RMS:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/1P4HKOW.gifv

So THAT'S how he's able to keep up with all that screeding... he's a
speed-screeder!

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <o4sudbls05i99j1ah...@4ax.com>,
sk...@invalid.invalid says...

> His wife asks him, ?Wire you insulate??
>
> He replies, ?Watt?s it to you? I?m Ohm, aren?t I??

And everyone applauded.

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <r1sudbpfda8mr39bf...@4ax.com>,
sk...@invalid.invalid says...

> My tight-fisted neighbor doesn?t want to pay for an electrician to
> re-wire his house so he?s going to try and do it himself.
> ?How hard can it be?? he said.
>
> I think he?s in for a shock.

<titter>

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

Tr!pe the Hypoxic ChickenFucker (aka Steve Hall), in
<news:1mjtcxl.iirw3pcf84okN%snip...@gmail.com> squawked as he pulled
it to poultry porn:

> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus

> <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> drop-kicked another retard:

>> RMS voltage is the DC *equivalent* of an AC waveform, that voltage in
>> DC which would dissipate the same amount of power in a resistive
>> element as that AC... but the RMS voltage of an AC peak voltage
>> waveform is still a sinusoidal waveform. To argue otherwise is to
>> argue that the 120 volt RMS voltage at every wall outlet in North
>> America is DC.
>>
>> It is an *instantaneous* quadratic square of the *instantaneous*
>> voltage of an AC sinusoidal waveform, and can thus be graphed as a
>> sinusoid.

> Definition of Mean as in Root //Mean// Square :-
>
> Mean
> noun
> "The value obtained by dividing the sum of
> several quantities by their number; an average."
>
> A sinusoid is not an average; an average is a quantity,
> not a waveform.
>
> HTH HAND HORSE

It is a quadratic square of the *instantaneous* voltage of an AC
sinusoidal waveform measured peak-to-peak *at* *that* *instant*, and
can thus be graphed as a sinusoid. It is only mean averaged *after*
the sampling is done. Or are you not aware of the 4 steps of
calculating RMS?

To calculate it otherwise would lead to problems, as the calculated
RMS would vary with frequency of the peak waveform and the sampling
frequency.

<http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms1.gif>
<http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/isotek3/graph.png>

Do you morons understand now? No? LOL

--

---------------------------------------------
Tr!pe the Hypoxic ChickenFucker squawked, in
<news:1l9enri.1boemg21mhmo5lN%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk>:
"If you want to know about bird sex, just ask me."

Steve Hall (G8DGC, snip...@gmail.com, snip...@gmail.com,
sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk, sn...@notforspam.fsnet.co.uk) fucks birds.
LOL

http://i.imgur.com/f0euFil.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/pR0mX95.jpg

Slow bird sex... if Tr!pe chickenfucks fast, he turns blue. LOL
Too much chickenspooge clogging up his lungs. LOL
That's why he's too stupid to do simple math. Lack of oxygen. LOL
That also explains his rampant paranoia. Hypoxic brain damage. LOL
And his segue to human penis... birds aren't enough for him now. LOL

Maths Fail:
Message-ID: <07f2598e7078240c...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <444e1cce007418ec...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <1aefd4d212571584...@dizum.com>

Paranoia Will Destroy Ya:
Message-ID: <6620b273ab1a048a...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <9db516a6a4494305...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <0793f311af986182...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <6b28ba3566b3f36f...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <aa840a32fa3dc705...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <938a2d9957c61a78...@dizum.com>

Tr!pe The Penis Obsessed Poof:
Message-ID: <48bc243b312b3999...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <0eb75ae7a93df2df...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <9a5d3b92c9841c7e...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <a4c326b191a39afe...@dizum.com>
---------------------------------------------

[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:fhdudbpves56l38np...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus

> <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

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

>> <http://www.bcae1.com/voltages.htm>
>> ==============================================================
>> Calculating Actual RMS Voltage:
>> If you have a 'true RMS' voltmeter, the meter measures the
>> instantaneous voltage at regular time intervals.

> Right, because it samples (within frequency spec) fast
> enough to reconstruct the waveform, and calculate the RMS
> value.

Right, and that RMS waveform is sinusoidal:
<http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/rms-voltage.html>
<http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms1.gif>

Moron. LOL

SPNAK!

> Or maybe you are going to tell us that the readout will
> bounce around erratically, never settling on one value?

Of course not. That's the averaging part of RMS, KookTard. But you'll
note the RMS *waveform* must be *averaged* to provide a steady
readout. Do you not understand the steps necessary to calculate RMS?

You moron. LOL

SPNAK!

> http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms15.gif
>
> SP<SMACKAKOOK!>

Bwahahaha! KookTard yet again k'lames that RMS voltage is DC. What a
fucking moron. LOL

> Thank you for once again reiterating your deliberate
> ignorance on the subject. I can understand why you wouldn't
> want to face reality, being D-K impaired and all.
>
> Oh, and thanks too for the URLs that prove you are wrong.

You mean the below URLs, which prove you wrong? LOL

>> <http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/rms-voltage.html>
>> <http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms1.gif?81223b>
>>
>> SPNAK!

SPNAK!

>>>> <http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms1.gif>

>>> Uh, fakey, do you understand the significance of the dashed
>>> purple line? No?

> <crickets>

You mean the sinusoidal waveform of RMS voltage? Moron. LOL

>>> How bout this picture from the same site:
>>>
>>> http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms15.gif
>>>
>>> Is that RMS value varying instantaneously? Fakey?

> <crickets>

<http://www.bcae1.com/voltages.htm>
==============================================================
Calculating Actual RMS Voltage:
If you have a 'true RMS' voltmeter, the meter measures the
instantaneous voltage at regular time intervals.
==============================================================

RMS voltage is the DC *equivalent* of an AC waveform, that DC voltage

which would dissipate the same amount of power in a resistive element
as that AC... but the RMS voltage of an AC peak voltage waveform is
still a sinusoidal waveform. To argue otherwise is to argue that the
120 volt RMS voltage at every wall outlet in North America is DC.

It is an *instantaneous* quadratic square of the *instantaneous*
voltage of an AC sinusoidal waveform, and can thus be graphed as a
sinusoid.

<http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms1.gif>

<http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/isotek3/graph.png>

You moron.

SPNAK!

<snicker>

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal 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:3j7udbhp7j7tgbrkj...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

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

> Oops! Your AF is down to 3.1 dB, fakey. Type faster!

Bwahahaha! I've got the bootfucked kooktard counting lines and
calculating dB again. Butthurt much, Moron? LOL

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

>>>>>> You don't know what "proof" is. You are adamantly ignorant
>>>>>> about everything you blither-blather about. You refuse to
>>>>>> understand what the fourier transform is for,

>>>>> You mean the Euler-Fourier Formulas, in use since 1748 by scientists
>>>>> and engineers

> who never used it to add sines together, let alone sines of
> different frequencies.
>
> Do you know what Euler's theorem is for? Or fourier
> transforms? That's too bad, because there are other people
> here who obviously do. You aren't fooling anyone yet, fakey.

Educate yourself, Moron:
<http://betterexplained.com/articles/intuitive-understanding-of-eulers-formula/>
<http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>

The Euler-Fourier Formulas are used to perform vector summation of
sinusoids. Moron.

SPNAK!

>>> That was funny. How many iterations did it take fakey to
>>> finally graph 120v RMS correctly?

>> One. Whereas you've presented no graphs because you're apparently even
>> more clueless than DildoRider. LOL

> LOL indeed. You did many multiple iterations of your kooky
> plots with a peak voltage of 120v, and you called them 120v
> RMS. Yet you were utterly confounded when i told you they
> were really 85v RMS.

No, I properly graphed 170 volt peak L-N, derived and graphed the 120
volt RMS L-N from that, then derived and graphed the 208 volt RMS L-L
from that. You're just butthurt because you've been proven to be a
know-nothing moron on so many topics. LOL

>>>>> when doing sinewave summation?

>>>> to determine differences in potential.

> Still can't grasp vector summation, eh, fakey? LOL
> Not to mention potential, uhmm, DIFFERENCE.

Still having a problem grokking why vector *summation* is required to
calculate the resultant of tributary sinewaves, Moron? LOL

What is 75 minus -45, Moron? According to you, it'd be 120. Unless you
switched them in your equation to -45 minus 75, whereupon you'd get
-120. But when working with vectors, the *sum* of a 75 degree upwardly
sloping line and a -45 degree downwardly sloping line would be 30
degrees, no matter which position each vector assumes in the equation.
Moron. LOL

>>> Fakey still thinks Euler's theorem and Fourier transforms
>>> are used to add up sinewaves.

>> You mean the Euler-Fourier Formulas? Aren't you the moron who k'lamed
>> that Fourier transforms had nothing to do with sinewaves?

> Nope. You are the moron who claimed fourier transforms are
> for the purpose of adding sinewaves (of different
> frequencies, yet).

Translation:
"BBBLLLEEAAT! Despite my Usenet Lord and Master drop-kicking my
retarded ass across Usenet again using facts and reality, I'm going to
BBBBLLLEEAAT!"

<snicker>

>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Unfasor.gif>
>>
>> Message-ID: <80d61a6928a9e7df...@dizum.com>
>> <http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
>> See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
>> transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
>> the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL

> Nope. You don't understand anything on that page.
>
> The animation shows a geometric explanation of what the sine
> function is -- really simple, so even dummies like you could
> understand. You assumed that because the page title is
> something about fourier transforms, that this must a
> "fourier transform of a circle".
>

> A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, eh fakey?

Educate yourself, Moron:
<http://betterexplained.com/articles/intuitive-understanding-of-eulers-formula/>
<http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>

The Euler-Fourier Formulas are used to perform vector summation of
sinusoids. Moron.

SPNAK!

>>>>>> the difference between peak and RMS values,

>>>>> Oh, I know the difference, in fact, I proved it *and* used the
>>>>> Euler-Fourier Formula to derive RMS L-N voltage

> Nope, and nope you didn't.

Translation:
"I don't even care that I get my stoooopid ass drop-kicked across
Usenet by facts and reality anymore. If FNVWe says something, I'll
automatically say the opposite. I'm *that* butthurt."

<snicker>

>>>> the fuck? you didn't derive anything. you took the RMS value and, for
>>>> some reason, factored it into a sine wave plot like a complete idiot noob
>>>> would.

>> Except I derived the 120 volt RMS L-N from the 170 volt peak L-N, and

> Which are the same fucking thing, you imbecile.

Sure, but represented differently, you imbecile.

SPNAK!

>> the 208 volt RMS L-L from the same 170 volt peak L-N (derived to that

> You couldn't derive water from ice.

Says the moron who k'lames that RMS is DC, and therefore the 120 volt
RMS voltage at the wall outlets of his single-wide trailer is DC. LOL

>> 120 volt RMS L-N), as is evidenced by the fact that in every image I
>> posted of the graphs I made for that purpose, 170 volts is used in
>> each and every equation, DildoRider.

> You mean, the incomplete formulas (not equations) you showed
> beside the plots, that started with 170*sin(unparsable)? So
> why were the plots all of something with a peak amplitude of
> 120v?

They weren't, you moron. I showed the peak L-N voltage sinusoid, the
RMS L-N voltage sinusoid, and the RMS L-L voltage sinusoid. You can't
even figure out how to properly graph a sinewave, let alone do vector
summation of sinewaves to derive the resultant. Moron.

SPNAK!

> Because you don't know what you were doing?
> Because you don't understand that 120v peak is really 85v
> RMS?

Because you're a bleatfarting moron who doesn't understand that RMS
voltage is merely an *equivalent* to DC voltage, but is still a
sinusoid, and can thus be graphed.

<http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms1.gif>

You moron.

SPNAK!

<snicker>

>>> See? he still thinks 120v RMS and 170v peak are 2 different
>>> thangs.

>> No, I proved that you're a fanfic spewing kooktard long ago, Moron.
>> Why do you persist in crying out your tearful fanfic fantasies? Is it
>> because I drop-kicked your retarded ass across Usenet? Yeah it is.

> Waaaaaaaaaahhh! OUCH!

That's right, KookTard. Know your role or suffer the consequences. LOL

>>>>> then used the same equation to derive RMS L-L voltage from that RMS
>>>>> L-N voltage... something none of you morons have been able to
>>>>> accomplish.

> Something that i had to tell you how to do.

MID? No? Oh, Shiny Tinfoil Brain is lying. Again.

SPNAK!

>>>> funny. you never bothered to show us the exact full equations that you
>>>> graphed, for some reason.

>>> Snjork! "for some reason"....

>> Actually, I did. Twice. That both you *and* DildoRider missed it just
>> goes to show how collectively retarded the two of you are, given that
>> the Euler sinewave summation equation has been around and in
>> widespread use since 1748.

> Nope. You never did, because you would have been ridiculed.
> But... you were ridiculed severely anyway.

Sure I did. When this whole discussion began, and in reply to
DildoRider's kooky k'lame that the resultant of all three phases of
3-phase AC had an amplitude of *double* the voltage of the
tributaries, when in reality, it's akin to shorting the phases and
thus results in 0 volts.

Now go burrowing back through the posts to find them and prove
yourself wrong, Moron.

SPNAK!

>>>>> Aren't you the moron who k'lamed that RMS voltage doesn't fluctuate,
>>>>> and is thus DC? Yeah... yeah you are.

>>>> RMS is a power average estimate, not a sine wave.

>> Bwahahahaa! RMS is not a sinewave, eh? So according to you, it's DC,
>> thus the power coming out of your wall outlets is DC? Moron.

> LOL! You are still licking your wounded tush over that.
> How many people have explained it to you now, and you still
> don't get it.
>
> RMS is not a sine wave, fakey.

Bwahahahaaaa! What a fucking moron.

RMS voltage is the DC *equivalent* of an AC waveform, that DC voltage
which would dissipate the same amount of power in a resistive element
as that AC... but the RMS voltage of an AC peak voltage waveform is
still a sinusoidal waveform. To argue otherwise is to argue that the
120 volt RMS voltage at every wall outlet in North America is DC.

It is an *instantaneous* quadratic square of the *instantaneous*
voltage of an AC sinusoidal waveform, and can thus be graphed as a
sinusoid.

<http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms1.gif>

<http://www.bcae1.com/voltages.htm>
==============================================================
Calculating Actual RMS Voltage:
If you have a 'true RMS' voltmeter, the meter measures the
instantaneous voltage at regular time intervals.
==============================================================

<http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/rms-voltage.html>
<http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms1.gif?81223b>

You moron.

SPNAK!

>>>>>> or that water is tetrahedral.

>>>>> Wrong. Monomolecular water according to the VSEPR theory AXE method is
>>>>> bent, KookTard. The description of "tetrahedral" is for clustered
>>>>> water, and only used to describe the electron distribution with the
>>>>> covalent bonds as landmarks.

> Your own references showed water is tetrahedral. An
> imperfect tetrahedron, but a tetrahedron.
>
> Pooooor buttkicked fakey.

Liar. My reference shows water clusters are icosahedral, whereas
monomolecular water is bent geometry. Do you believe lying is a viable
means of "winning, for fuck sake", you moron?

SPNAK!

>>> Uh, Dufus... 109.47° would make it a perfect tetrahedron.
>>> Which it isn't. LOL.

>> For a water cluster, the H bonds are 109.47 degrees, you fecking

> No they aren't.

Yeah, they are.
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/water_tetrahedron_1.gif>

Now you're denying that which you've previously claimed, you moron.
I've got you so confused you're just blathering out denials. LOL

SPNAK!

>>> Extra hint: "trigonally planar" would give it bond angles
>>> of 120°,

>> Or... or, and just bear with me for a moment here as I explore another
>> possibility... or the researchers who are far smarter and saner than
>> you know better than you, and you're just a moron. LOL

> And they would have said what i just said.

No, they would have said you're a moron. LOL

> But you can't understand the concept of RMS, so you can't be
> expected to understand water molecules.

Says the moron who's demonstrated his inability to understand much of
anything. LOL

>>>>> But the individual water molecule is dipolar, with one strongly

>>> Now fakey admits a water molecule is dipolar.
>>>
>>> SPN<SMACKAKOOK!>

>> I never denied that,

> You denied that. You said water has no negative poles. So
> it couldn't possibly be DIpolar, could it?

<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+)."

The dipolar nature of water is due to the difference in
electronegativity between the oxygen and hydrogens, you fecking moron.

What's 8 - 2, Moron?

SPNAK!

> Duh.

Yeah, stick with those simple answers. They're all you can handle.
Moron. LOL

>>>>> electronegative (8+) oxygen

>>> No, faketard, the electronegativity of O is not +8.

>> For fuck sake, you moron. Do you really think you know better than the
>> researchers who've spent years working on this?

> I really think you don't understand what you are talking
> about. Real scientists do.

>> <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+)."

> Does that say oxygen has an electronegativity of +8? Nope.
> They mean the oxygen NUCLEUS has a charge of +8.
>
> See what i mean? You google all this shit, but you can't
> understand what it means. Then you throw it up on the wall
> and hope nobody knows what "electronegativity" means. I
> mean, christ on a moped, how can electroNEGATIVITY mean
> positive charge?
>
> The electronegativity of oxygen is not +8.
>
> Don't blither-blather. Google "electronegativity of
> oxygen". Then come back here and eat some humble pie.

Moronic blither blather from a moron. We're not talking about gaseous
oxygen, you moron, we're talking about the electronegativity (ie:
*positive* *charge*, just as it says in the link referenced below) of
the oxygen atom in a water molecule. Those 2517 peer-reviewed studies
backing up the below blurb proves you're a know-nothing 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 (ie: *positively* *charged*) than the hydrogen atoms
(1+)."

So the moron Shiny Tinfoil Brain doesn't understand that
"electronegativity" denotes a positive charge. LOL

SPNAK!

[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.3148d623b...@news.altopia.com> did thusly jump

head first into the wood chipper again:

> In article <cd6641ef3be0bed8...@dizum.com>,
> Chimpy's Usenet Lord and Master
> <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> says...

>> Mustaffa Sheboygan the Seattle Butt Slammer (aka

>> Checkmate) did thusly jump head first
>> into the wood chipper again:

> DAMN YOU FOR OUTING ME! How did you figure it out?

It was all the gay you slosh across Usenet, Chimpy.

<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>

["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]

"instantaneous average" eh, fakester?

LOLOLOL

it takes at least one cycle to arrive at an RMS value for a signal of
constant amplitude and frequency.

someone is proving that they don't have a decent multimeter handy.

>>>> Uh, Dufus... 109.47° would make it a perfect tetrahedron.

>>>> Which it isn't. LOL.
>
>>> For a water cluster, the H bonds are 109.47 degrees, you fecking
>
>> No they aren't.
>
> Yeah, they are.
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/water_tetrahedron_1.gif>
>
> Now you're denying that which you've previously claimed, you moron.
> I've got you so confused you're just blathering out denials. LOL
>
> SPNAK!
>
>>>> Extra hint: "trigonally planar" would give it bond angles

>>>> of 120°,

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly

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

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

vallor, in <news:dk8s87...@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump

head first into the wood chipper again:

> ==| RMS quantities such as electric current are usually calculated over
> one cycle. However for some purposes the RMS current over a longer period
> is required when calculating transmission power losses. The same
> principle applies, and (for example) a current of 10 amps used for 12
> hours each day represents an RMS current of 5 amps in the long term. |==
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square#Average_electrical_power

Exactly, which is why the RMS calculation is the DC *equivalent* of an
AC waveform, that DC voltage which would dissipate the same amount of

power in a resistive element as that AC... but the RMS voltage of an
AC peak voltage waveform is still a sinusoidal waveform. To argue
otherwise is to argue that the 120 volt RMS voltage at every wall
outlet in North America is DC.

It is a quadratic square of the *instantaneous* voltage of an AC

sinusoidal waveform measured peak-to-peak *at* *that* *instant*, and

can thus be graphed as a sinusoid.

To calculate it otherwise would lead to problems, as the calculated
RMS would vary with frequency of the peak waveform and the sampling
frequency.

<http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms1.gif>
<http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/isotek3/graph.png>

Do you morons understand now? No? LOL

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.

["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 00:04:34 -0500, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> vallor, in <news:dk8s87...@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump
> head first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> ==| RMS quantities such as electric current are usually calculated over
>> one cycle. However for some purposes the RMS current over a longer
>> period
>> is required when calculating transmission power losses. The same
>> principle applies, and (for example) a current of 10 amps used for 12
>> hours each day represents an RMS current of 5 amps in the long term. |==
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square#Average_electrical_power
>
> Exactly, which is why the RMS calculation is the DC *equivalent* of an
> AC waveform,

no... it's just a number, dumbshit.

http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/sample-rate-and-rms.80042/
"For a pure sinewave of frequency f you only need to sample slightly above
2*f to get true RMS. If you need the true RMS of a distorted sinewave or a
sinewave with harmonics then you need to sample at >2*f where f is the
highest Fourier component of interest in the waveform. But for ease of
processing it's desirable to sample at well above twice the highest
frequency of interest"

> that DC voltage which would dissipate the same amount of
> power in a resistive element as that AC... but the RMS voltage of an
> AC peak voltage waveform is still a sinusoidal waveform. To argue
> otherwise is to argue that the 120 volt RMS voltage at every wall
> outlet in North America is DC.
>
> It is a quadratic square of the

peak voltage value. DUMBASS. that's all.

i swear.

> *instantaneous* voltage of an AC
> sinusoidal waveform measured peak-to-peak *at* *that* *instant*, and
> can thus be graphed as a sinusoid.
>
> To calculate it otherwise would lead to problems, as the calculated
> RMS would vary with frequency of the peak waveform and the sampling
> frequency.

to graph it as a sine wave...

PRICELESS.

>
> <http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms1.gif>
> <http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/isotek3/graph.png>
>
> Do you morons understand now? No? LOL
>

uh-huh.

i understand your problem.

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly

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

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in
<news:99d53837-6063-45ca...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:50:04 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> Hmm. Well, there's the fact that the boiling temperature of H2O
>>> at atmospheric pressures is much higher than is available in the
>>> atmosphere. That seems like pretty good evidence to me.

>> So you admit you're still confused as regards the vaporization process
>> of water. The internet contains a plethora of information to relieve
>> you of your confusion,

> So, uh, you have a plethora of information.

All of which utterly destroys your kooky little conspiracy theory,
Jim.

> And, apparently, none of confirms your assertions.

Bullshit, Jim. It all confirms it. Your inability or refusal to grasp
that reality is no one's fault but your own.

> What you have pointed to is indicative of a group delusion,
> not unlike the notion that CO2 causes catastrophic global warming.
> You have a belief supported by consensus.

It is supported by experimental empirically derived data obtained from
2517 peer-reviewed studies, Jim. Conversely, your kooky theory has the
sum total of ZERO corroborating peer-reviewed studies, cannot pass the
peer-review process itself, and indeed cannot even get placed on a
pre-print server.

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review
process, Jim? Answer the question, you evasive twit.

> You don't have a fact supported by empirical evidence.

Except for those 2517 studies, all presenting data empirically
derived, Jim. You can backpedal and deny all you want, but your kooky
theory is destroyed. I've shown you lack the requisite knowledge to
even form a coherent theory that reflects reality. Accept that fact.

>>> ever been detected in the laboratory? Or does it only exist up
>>> high in the atmosphere where nobody can measure it?
>>>
>>> I wonder why that would be? Hmm.

>> That you continue to demonstrate your lack of comprehension of
>> physical processes is no one's fault but your own, Jim.

> Is that a yes or a no?

That is a "you're far too stupid to understand whether it is a yes or
no", Jim.

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

>>> Do you have a reference for all of this?

>> Already provided, Jim, and you snipped it out

> I snip anything that is not defnitive. Do you have anything
> definitive? Or should we just take your word on all of this?

You mean beside all that definitive data which definitively destroyed
your kooky little conspiracy theory, Jim? Why do you snip out that
which proves your theory wrong, rather than try to refute it, Jim? Is
it because you know you cannot?

>>> It seems rather speculative. Or am I expected to take your, uh,
>>> expert opinion on this?

>> Well, that's your problem in a nutshell, isn't it, Jim?

> Apparently.

No "apparently" about it, Jim. You have a mental problem that has led
you to construct your kooky little conspiracy theory, despite lacking
the requisite knowledge to ever construct a theory that reflects
reality. I'd tell you to educate yourself, but your affliction with
Dunning-Kruger means you really have nowhere to turn for knowledge
that you would accept as reality... hence your own echo-chamber
delusions are all you have, Jim.

>> You take *no* expert opinion

> Yes, well, I'm a physicist. So that is a part of my training.

No, no you're not. You're a kooktard with an inadequate education
pretending that he's a physicist. Which universities did you attend,
and which degrees did you earn, Jim?

> Did you know that the results of google searches aren't considered
> experimental evidence by real scientists, like me?

Then it's a good thing I've provided no Google search results, Jim.
I've provided peer-reviewed studies which utterly destroyed your kooky
conspiracy theory because you're too stupid to construct a theory that
reflects reality.

>>> Nothing I see here indicates the covalent bond shortening. So
>>> I can't figure out what your point is.

>> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
>> "The movement of electrons from the oxygen atom to the O-H antibonding
>> orbital on a neighboring molecule (HO-H-路路路路OH2) both weaken the
>> covalent O-H bond (so lengthening it )

> LOL. It's an O-H bond being lengthened, dumbass. Covalent bonds
> aren't being lengthened.

Holy shit, James McGinn thinks covalent bonds don't change length!

What does it say above, Jim? "both weaken the covalent O-H bond (so
lengthening it)". Yet again, you prove you're a moron who is far too
stupid and uneducated to ever construct a theory which reflects
reality... hence you've constructed your kooky little discredited
conspiracy theory instead.

>> Hence, when that inter-molecular H bond is broken, the diametrically
>> opposed covalent bond is shortened and strengthened, Jim.

> Surreal.
>
> Do you feed yourself?

And yet again James McGinn the uneducated oaf reiterates that he has
no background education in chemical or physical sciences. Does it hurt
your feelings that you're inadequate as compared to even a first-year
chemistry major, Jim?

>>>> That's why, when using high
>>>> frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
>>>> frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
>>>> bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
>>>> bonds.

>>> You are misreading something. I don't know what.
>>>
>>> You aren't making any sense. Sorry.

>> That reality doesn't make any sense to you is part and parcel of your
>> displayed

> That's funny. Because I'm an expert on this subject.

No, you're a kooktard with a discredited conspiracy theory and a
raging case of Dunning-Kruger, desperately and pathetically attempting
an appeal to authority fallacy whilst simultaneously attempting to
establish yourself as that authority... but you're not an authority,
Jim. You're a delusional kook.

>> Now, get to refuting all that peer-reviewed data

> You/we don't refute data, dumbass.

Oh, then you admit you cannot refute the peer-reviewed studies, and
the data contained therein, which utterly destroy your kooky little
discredited conspiracy theory. Well, now we're making progress, Jim.
Now scrap your kooky little conspiracy theory and try again.

>> Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is
>> electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is
>> the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you
>> fucking *moron*?

> Might you be so kind as to explain to us how you came to this
> amazing realization? Are you going to write a paper on it?

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
"About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H
group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594,
1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions
[2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight
negative charge on the surface."

<http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/36_eneg/electroneg.html>
<http://www.webelements.com/nitrogen/electronegativity.html>

O2 is electronegative, Jim, as is N2, the two largest constituents of
our atmosphere. They accept those electrons at the water surface,
helped by thermal kinetic energy random motion giving those molecules
enough of a kick to leave the bulk water, thereby stripping water away
from the surface in a process known as evaporation, a process you
continue to demonstrate that you cannot fathom.

Thus, at temperatures below the boiling point, the thermal kinetic
energy is barely sufficient to evaporate those molecules of water
except for the contributing factor of molecular attraction between the
surface water molecules and the atmosphere. The opposite process also
occurs, diffusion of the atmosphere into the water. If this were not
the case, fish, for one example, would all suffocate.

Given that the water molecule has only 62% the molar weight of bulk
air for a given molar volume, once it's stripped from the water
surface, its buoyancy will naturally cause it to rise until
temperature in the atmosphere is low enough that condensation can
occur, whereupon the ratio of the water cluster's downward facing
surface area:mass is sufficient to allow it to fall back to earth
against the combined effects of that lower molar weight and air
updraft speed.

That condensation process, BTW, is how water augurs heat out of our
atmosphere... the latent heat of condensation is emitted in the
infrared, at the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, which allows
that heat nearly unhindered passage out to the 2.725 K of space.

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

>> 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.

> Perfectly.

Apparently you don't, Jim.

>> 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.

> Proof?

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 in order for any degree of water ionization
and thus plasma from water to occur, it requires a minimum of 12 eV to
ionize that water, Jim?

Do you not 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.

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 course 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>

--

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.

[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 ro...@127.0.0.1, in
<news:op.yd0o5...@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first

into the wood chipper again:

> perhaps he thought that we were trying to decompose the sine wave
> functions into their respective fourier series' before subtracting them to
> determine the potential difference over time?

Message-ID: <80d61a6928a9e7df...@dizum.com>
=========================================================

<http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL

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

SPNAK!

> what he meant was to buy some time while he could figure out how to use
> any modern function graphing method to find out that adding sine waves
> isn't how potentials are computed.

Yeah, it is. The Euler sinewave summation equation has been in use by
scientists and engineers since 1748, whereas your kooky sinewave
subtraction equation has been in use for only two months by only one
thoroughly confused skinny emo-goth dildoriding bad sinewave spamming
kooktard who can't for the life of him understand vector summation nor
why vector summation is necessary for phase shifted sinusoids.

SPNAK!

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 ro...@127.0.0.1, in

<news:op.yd0oy...@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first

into the wood chipper again:

> about 12 at my count... he didn't get it right until i basically gave him
> the equations he needed.

Liar, I posted the proper Euler sinewave summation equation and graphs
from the very start. You're the moron posting graphs showing 0 volts
*and* 208 volts between two phases, graphs showing that shorting all 3
phases of 3-phase AC *doubles* the voltage, and persisting in
defending your kooky sinewave subtraction equation despite my having
proven that you can't even use it to sum two lines without fucking up
the slope and direction of the vectors... because you're the moron who
*still* can't grasp vector summation... after more than 2 months of
trying. 150 IQ? LOL

SPNAK!

> phase A - phase B =
>
> phase B - phase C =
>
> phase C - phase A =
>
> did you see his k0oky k'lame that using my equation: phase B - phase A
> isn't the same as phase B - phase A?

That was *your* kooky k'lame, you pathetic moron, brought about by the
fact that if you switch the two sinewaves' positions in the equation,
your kooky equation shifts the phase angle, because you're too
stoooopid to use the correct Euler sinewave summation equation.

In fact, you're *so* stooopid, you bleated that summing all three
phases of 3-phase AC *didn't* result in 0 volts, it *doubled* the
voltage... because you're a moron.

SPNAK!

> he doesn't even understand trigonometric identities. or sinewaves... or
> electricity... or how to compute a difference in potential... or what to
> do with an RMS value.

Says the guy who doesn't even understand trigonometric identities. or
sinewaves... or electricity... or how to compute a difference in
potential... or what to do with an RMS value. LOL

Still struggling with why vector summation is required for
phase-shifted voltage sinusoids, DildoRider? 150 IQ? LOL

SPNAK!

>> It says water molecules form a Bent tetrahedron. Wow.

Liar. Water molecules on a monomolecular basis are bent geometry.
Water clusters form icosahedral geometries. You're basing your blather
off a long-disproved water model.

For a water cluster, the H bonds are 109.47 degrees, you fecking

moron. Not for individual water molecule covalent bonds, which are at
104.474 degrees for gaseous water, and 105.5 to 106 degrees in bulk
water. If you're basing tetrahedrality upon water clusters, you can
arrive at pretty much any geometry you wish... in point of fact, the
latest and most accurate water model states that water clusters are
icosahedral. But the individual water molecule, according to the VSEPR
theory AXE method is bent. Moron.

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

> seems to make sense. pretty sure that's what we were taught in EngChem3.
> d'oh!

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSEPR_theory>
"Bent (H2O)
Tetrahedral (CH4)"

SPNAK!

>> Extra hint: "trigonally planar" would give it bond angles

>> of 120°, an angle which seems to give you particular
>> trouble.

> same angle as the top of his pointy pin head? ...where he stores his bird
> brain?

For a water cluster, the H bonds are 109.47 degrees, you fecking

moron. Not for individual water molecule covalent bonds, which are at
104.474 degrees for gaseous water, and 105.5 to 106 degrees in bulk
water. If you're basing tetrahedrality upon water clusters, you can
arrive at pretty much any geometry you wish... in point of fact, the
latest and most accurate water model states that water clusters are
icosahedral. But the individual water molecule, according to the VSEPR
theory AXE method is bent. Moron.

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

SPNAK!

> wait until he finally admits that i was subtracting sine waves correctly
> and arriving at results that predict real-world phenomena.

Except you're wrong. Likely because you're a moron. Your kooky
sinewave subtraction equation can't even arrive at the correct result
for two simple lines, there's no fucking way you're getting correct
results for sinewaves, as you've demonstrated by spamming bad sinewave
after bad sinewave. LOL

SPNAK!

>> No, faketard, the electronegativity of O is not +8.

> isn't that it's oxidation number, or something? chemistry always bored
> the fuck out of me unless it was biochemistry.

<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+)."

SPNAK!

>> No, faketard, the electronegativity of H is not +1.
>> You don't understand the meaning of electronegativity.
>> Back to Google!
>>
>> ReSPNAK!

> welp, guess we'll hear back from fakey after his google walkabout.

<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+)."

SPNAK!

>> Nope again.
>>
>> Methane has the same tetrahedral bond angle, but it's in no
>> way dipolar.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSEPR_theory>
"Bent (H2O)
Tetrahedral (CH4)"

SPNAK!

Morons.

<snicker>

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:19:38 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > What you have pointed to is indicative of a group delusion,
> > not unlike the notion that CO2 causes catastrophic global warming.
> > You have a belief supported by consensus.
>
> It is supported by experimental empirically derived data obtained from
> 2517 peer-reviewed studies,

All you need is one that is definitive and you collect $100,000.00. Don't let the fact that I know my money is safe stop you from trying.

> >>> ever been detected in the laboratory? Or does it only exist up
> >>> high in the atmosphere where nobody can measure it?
> >>>
> >>> I wonder why that would be? Hmm.
>
> >> That you continue to demonstrate your lack of comprehension of
> >> physical processes is no one's fault but your own, Jim.
>
> > Is that a yes or a no?
>
> That is a "you're far too stupid to understand whether it is a yes or
> no", Jim.

Appaently.

> > Yes, well, I'm a physicist. So that is a part of my training.
>
> No, no you're not.

Actually, I am.

> > Did you know that the results of google searches aren't considered
> > experimental evidence by real scientists, like me?
>
> Then it's a good thing I've provided no Google search results, Jim.
> I've provided peer-reviewed studies which utterly destroyed your kooky
> conspiracy theory because you're too stupid to construct a theory that
> reflects reality.

You've provided nonsense.

> > LOL. It's an O-H bond being lengthened, dumbass. Covalent bonds
> > aren't being lengthened.
>
> Holy shit, James McGinn thinks covalent bonds don't change length!

I'm just going by what you referenced, dumbass.

>
> What does it say above, Jim? "both weaken the covalent O-H bond (so
> lengthening it)".

You misread it.

> > You/we don't refute data, dumbass.
>
> Oh, then you admit you cannot refute the peer-reviewed studies,

You can't refute nonsense.

> >> Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is
> >> electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is
> >> the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you
> >> fucking *moron*?
>
> > Might you be so kind as to explain to us how you came to this
> > amazing realization? Are you going to write a paper on it?
>
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
> "About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H
> group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594,
> 1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions
> [2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight
> negative charge on the surface."
>
> <http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/36_eneg/electroneg.html>
> <http://www.webelements.com/nitrogen/electronegativity.html>
>
> O2 is electronegative, Jim, as is N2, the two largest constituents of
> our atmosphere. They accept those electrons at the water surface,
> helped by thermal kinetic energy random motion giving those molecules
> enough of a kick to leave the bulk water, thereby stripping water away
> from the surface in a process known as evaporation, a process you
> continue to demonstrate that you cannot fathom.

You didn't answer my question.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

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

James McGinn, in
<news:1f765a39-83c9-4f01...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 11:10:05 AM UTC-8,

> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snicker>

> Do you dress yourself?

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

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

> Yes

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

> I explained this to you.

Lying won't help your losing position, Jim.

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

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

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

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

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

<snicker>

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

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

<snicker>

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

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

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

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

Why can't you get your kooky conspiracy theory through the peer-review

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

[Skeeter]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 06:14:34 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>The Euler sinewave summation equation has been in use by
>scientists and engineers since 1748

Maybe you should buy a new toaster.

["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]

it figures that you couldn't even figure out the bread poked onto a pointy
stick equation that has been in use since agrarian societies formed.

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

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <1mju5ns.2vp73e12giiyhN%snip...@gmail.com>, snipeco.2
@gmail.com says...


>
> Snickerturd the Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus
> <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> went around in circles when he wrote:
>
> [...]

>
> > > Definition of Mean as in Root //Mean// Square :-
> > >
> > > Mean
> > > noun
> > > "The value obtained by dividing the sum of
> > > several quantities by their number; an average."
> > >
> > > A sinusoid is not an average; an average is a quantity,
> > > not a waveform.
> > >
> > > HTH HAND HORSE
> > >
> >
> > It is a quadratic square of the *instantaneous* voltage of an AC
> > sinusoidal waveform measured peak-to-peak *at* *that* *instant*, and
> > can thus be graphed as a sinusoid. It is only mean averaged *after*
> > the sampling is done. Or are you not aware of the 4 steps of
> > calculating RMS?
> >
> > To calculate it otherwise would lead to problems, as the calculated
> > RMS would vary with frequency of the peak waveform and the sampling
> > frequency.
> >
> > <http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/articles/rms1.gif>
> > <http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/isotek3/graph.png>
> >
> > Do you morons understand now? No? LOL
> >
>

> Don't you agree with the dictionary definition of "mean"?
> If not, what is \your\ definition?
>
> Please stick to the point and answer just this one question
> without your usual disingenuous dissembling, obfuscation, spin,
> misdirection, backpedalling, avoidance of the point, wriggling
> or squirmification.
>
>
> Your answer goes here; please write on only one side of the paper
> in black ink. There is extra credit for spelling your name correctly.
>
> TIA
>
>
> ANSWER: ________________________________________

"I'm right because I know everything, and the whole damned world is
rong!"


<mocking snicker at the egotistical retard>

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan