Rust prevention in the workshop

Stephen Howard's copy of Mr.Stevenson's Newsblock program appears to have failed.

It is important to correct the record, here. I started this thread to alert readers of the NG to the dehumidifiers available from Homebase. It is the person using the pseudonym of, "Mike" who initiated a rather silly and childish series of posts when he or she jumped down my throat so aggressively.

The unfriendliness and lack of productivity in this case have come from, "Mike".

I have d>

I append a copy of your emotional outbursts to date.....

I also presume to point out your category error - you have hijacked this thread in your mistaken assumption that a didactic episode was sought from you. It is not, nor has it ever been a scientific discussion - it is no more than a (hopefully helpful) alerting of the NG to dehumidifiers on sale by Homebase together with a bit of clubman's chit chat about how they work.

-----OOOOO----- Statement 2 is complete rubbish.

This is a red herring. It serves only to reinforce the impression that you are confused about how a dehumidifier works. I suggest again that you work out each of the mechanisms involved, and you will see where things have gone wrong. The key is to start with your assertion about moisture content.

You chose to include mumbo-jumbo dressed as science to offer an incorrect 'explanation' of something when none was needed. You thereby alerted people to the fact you know nothing about the science of dehumidifiers, and consequently shot yourself in the foot.

Next time, just post the message and forget about the 'explanation'.

Or just not posting at all might be the best course for you.

There's nothing silly about science and technology. The only silly thing is the way you chose to present yourself when pretending you know something when, clearly, you don't.

I'm being scientific. You're being a fool.

I am careful to not to introdice 'emotions' as they have no place in science and technology. I wonder why you have introduced the term - to deflect attention, perhaps? Hardly a rational debating tactic.

I never used the term 'thesis'. Please stop overblowing your contribution.

You're going to have a difficult journey through life of you leap on every idiomatic expression and present it a scientific fact. In fact, it makes you look rather silly and childish. You will find you cannot shout down your opponent when challenged about your childish perceptions, without it causing you so much anxiety.

Any mature observer to this exchange will see who is 'sneering and jeering'. You have tried to save face by your silly outbursts about 'emotions' and 'idiomatic useage', but you have failed miserably.

When you behave like a gentleman - something I suspect you will find difficult - then I'm sure you will be admitted to the thread. When having a 'fireside chat', be careful about your pompous attitude, or it could easily be confused with childish attention-seeking.

Gentleman to the last, are we? I'm amazed they tolerate you on a technical group such as this.

You are a fool.

You fool. That does nothing to deflect attention from your pompous mumbo-jumbo.

With you on one side it could never be a scientific discussion. You are not equipped to partake of such a discussion.

I note that your 'contribution' has been demoted from an "idiomatic" explanation to "clubman's chit chat". Could you have learned something? We, first time for everything.

Now be a good chap and stop pestering us grown ups.

If you find yourself in environments where the oxygen is liquid, then I suggest that it is not the oxygen that will kill you - you will be already dead from the cold!

There would, however, be one advantage for this thread from such a cold temperature, and that is that all the water (whether originating as vapour or as moisture) will have condensed and long since frozen solid to a very dry state.!

PS. For those with uncontrollable neurotic and obsessive furies - the above is just clubman's chit-chat; the stuff of lineside meetings of model-engineers, and not some scientific discourse to be leapt upon and torn apart by teeth especially sharpened for the purpose. (Why do those who behave as such in this NG bring to mind the loonies who pounce upon and stab or shoot innocent bystanders in the local park?)

PS. One (if not already dead) had better be careful about bumping into one's beloved machines at such temperatures - the various castings making them up might easily be shattered by the impact!

PPS. This is not a troll nor is it a scientific discourse to be seized upon by the angry and obsessive loony; it is merely a bit of clubman's chit-chat offered in a humorous vein!

I didn't mention the Law Of Conservation Of Energy (This is, after all, a bit of clubman's chit-chat and not a scientific discourse to be seized upon by every passing loony), but isn't what you said below the essence of what I wrote?

You are mistaken, once again. I never presented anything as science. My remarks were clubman's chit-chat, pure and simple. I see this NG as an extension of the sort of chatting that takes place at every lineside meeting of model engineers. It is only you who has seized on it with your manic outbursts and misinterpreted it as a scientific discourse.

Indeed, your attacking something which was never put in the way in which you misinterpreted it is a very poor debating technique known as a, "Straw Man", i.e., something which is easy to knock down because it was never put up in the first place.

Well done Mike, you have beaten him fair, square and convincingly. He always responds with a tirade when he KNOWS he is beaten. I've only seen one other guy beat "Airy" (real name Gareth) so convincingly. Well done.

Keep up the good work Mike!

Nimrod.

Reposted after the other thread was hijacked by an obsessive neurotic loony.....

After searching for a couple of years, I finally managed to obtain a second-hand dehumidifier for the workshop, for £40. (Anybody need any distilled water for their orchids?)

But Lo!

And Behold!

A junk-mail flyer for Homebase has just arrived advertising a variety of models at £34-99p, (380mlitres per day) £79-99p (10 litres per day), £149-99p (12 litres per day)and £199-99p (15 litres per day).

Hopefully all of our prayers are thereby answered!

My guess is that the heat consumed by these apparatuses will also act as background anti-frost protection (unless you know different?)

Nimrod posted the following in uk.rec.models.engineering:

Thank you, Nimrod, but I can't claim victory here! There has been no debate at all with Bean on the fundamentals raised in his original posting. Does he do this often? He has side-stepped, blustered, attempted deflection of the issues, involved irrelevances such as 'emotion' and gender confusion - but he hasn't debated the issues. From his actions I doubt if he knows what the issues are - rather like his bland assertion in another thread about 'planing' some bar to the desired thickness. How this ng puts up with him I just don't know.

Airy R. Bean posted the following in uk.rec.models.engineering:

That is very true. You merely spoke rubbish, which subsequent events revealed you won't support - perhaps because it is unsupportable.

You remarks were pompous mumbo-jumbo.

I never in my wildest dreams assumed that what you said was science. The point of my response was to get you to think about the issues raised by what you said, as a mehod of leading you to a learning exercise on the topic. You chose a different - ineffective - path instead.

And what kind of 'argumentum' has been *your* response? Do tell!

Airy R. Bean posted the following in uk.rec.models.engineering:

If you wanted to alert the group to the sale of dehumidifiers, you could have done just that.

What was your reference to 'these apparatuses consume heat' about? It is against the laws of physics. You have been caught out, and have blustered as a response.

You are no clubman.

Airy R. Bean posted the following in uk.rec.models.engineering:

Is part of your 'discourse technique' (hollow laugh) to fail to answer a single point? How revealing.

Airy R. Bean posted the following in uk.rec.models.engineering:

The next time you try a 'thought experiment', try putting in some thought - preferably early on in the process.

William J Lamond posted the following in uk.rec.models.engineering:

No, Bill, what I'm saying is that Bean's statement which I quoted above is scientifically meaningless. What in this context defines "...a high moisture content..."? Why is it a necessary precursor? How does that high moisture content proceed to saturation? Bean hasn't said. It certainly isn't the dehumidifier. What makes it necessarily condense out? Bean's statement has failed to allow for the situation - so admirably described earlier by Dave when he mentioned the Canadian phenomenon - that air can be supersaturated with water vapour (a phenomenon that Bean sees daily but doubtless doesn't recognise).

A dehumidifier works by providing a surface which is below the dew point, and getting rid of the water obtained from the condensate to a drain or tank. None of this need involve saturation of the air. The system produces heat from three sources, and when Bean has come back from Homebase with his shiny new purchase, they will be available to warm his shed.

Airy, or Gareth Evans as he really is, does this often. He used to haunt uk.radio.amateur but was seen off by one of the regular posters there (who beat him many many times in technical arguments).

Nimrod

So, kill file him! The world of Usenet is much more peaceful that way.

Steve R.

There are no issues to debate of which I am aware..

Dehumidifiers remove moisture (or vapour) from the atmosphere and deposit as condensate. The heat from the operation serves as background heat to the workshop.

I have neither side-stepped, nor blustered, nor attempted deflection of any issues. There is simply no debate taking place with you; I have kept you at arms length treating you as an annoying little dog snapping at one's ankle, kicking you away and otherwise ignoring you except for the well-deserved chastisement in response to the anti-social and aggressive persona that you choose to project.

It was you who introduced emotional outbursts when your strange obsession was rumbled.

You are right on one thing - I certainly don't know what the issues are that have caused you so much anxiety in response to what was an original informative posting of mine of only about 10 lines. You certainly are making a mountain out of a molehill, your obsession has resulted in what must by now amount to several hundred lines. Hardly proportionate in the circumstances, OM!

The person posting as, "Nimrod" is one Graham Winters, a disaffected squaddie of questionable mental stability. If you review his postings under his various pseudonyms, ("Nimrod", "GrahamW", "Gareth's Memory", and "Evans Memory") you will not find a single positive contribution to any discussion. All you will find is the destructive sneering 'n' jeering that comes from a man of questionable mental stability. No-one here will wish to gain any debating points by seeming to make fun of the mentally ill, so I'll leave it at that. (I won't even tease him by anagramising his current pseudonym as, "Dim Ron")

I don't like you, Mike, but you'll only raise further questions about your own mental stability if you are an associate of Graham Winter.

Hang on, perhaps you yourself, with your similar unhealthy obsessions, are another of his sock puppets? Perhaps his own desperation has resulted in him talking to himself?

You really are obsessed by irrelevant trivia.