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

Groups > sci.physics > #680686

Re: Prochak stupidity

Show all headers | View raw

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 2:05:31 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:59:49 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 4:18:36 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 3:34:03 PM UTC-7, Steve BH wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 9:48:53 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 1:51:14 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 12:09 AM, Steve BH wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 5:25:36 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 9:26:43 PM UTC-7, Steve BH wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 6:39:55 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 1:07:59 AM UTC-7, Steve BH wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 11:02:08 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, why do you think they distinguish between "vapor" pressure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and gas pressure?  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Often vapor pressures are used as terms for the special partial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressures of gases that are in equilibrium with another phase,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whereas in the generic term of "partial pressure" of a gas, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be anything (no other phase or equilibration is implied). So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the term "vapor" implies a history, and also another phase that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drives it, as an equilibrium partial pressure from phase change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the partial pressure of water gas above liquid at 96.7 C is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.9 atm. We call this special partial pressure a "vapor pressure"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it's in equilibrium with water and has (once been) liquid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water. BUT IT IS A GAS NOW. Of course you can have partial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure of H2O gas as anything LESS than this, without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condensation. That's not properly a vapor pressure, but just a partial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So not all partial pressures are vapor pressures, but all vapor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressures are partial pressures. They are equilibrium partial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressures. One is a subset of the other. However, they are both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taking about the pressure of gas molecules.   
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now you calculate the density of water GAS in equilibrium above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liquid at 90 C. Congrats, that IS the vapor pressure. It's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special gas partial pressure from another phase.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead-- show us your math. Or look it up in a table. Any vapor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure implies a DENSITY (moles per volume) which then can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily be converted to a molecular weight. Use some vapor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressures (I don't care where you get them) to calculate some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> molecular weights. Are these the weights of gas molecules or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something larger? Show me your numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you find any direct quotes from the literature that supports any of this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phaseeqia/phasediags.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Relevance?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Try reading it.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> from the article;
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> "So, again, what is the significance of this line separating the two areas?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Anywhere along this line, there will be an equilibrium between the
>>>>>>>>>> liquid and the vapour."
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> So, you retards believe that this sentence proves the existence of "cold steam?"
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> So, let me get this straight, your "evidence" is a sentence that refers
>>>>>>>>> to a line on the H2O phase diagram?  
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It's too bad you couldn't provide qny empirical evidence, huh.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I gave you the vapor densities from steam tables, including vapor below
>>>>>>>> 100 C. That is the empirical evidence. You said "so what"? I pointed out
>>>>>>>> from density (mass per volume) and the gas laws (particles per volume)
>>>>>>>> you can calculate particle mass for any gas (hydrogen, helium, argon),
>>>>>>>> and in steam or water vapor at ANY temperature, this turns out to be the
>>>>>>>> mass of the water molecule. You said so what? 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So the gas is water molecules, is what. Nothing larger.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You aren't even beginning to make sense.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes he is. 
>>>>>> No, what’s true is that you are impenetrably dense. 
>>>>>> Somehow you blame others for your own flaws. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>> 
>>>>> You idiots have no coherent thoughts.  
>>>> 
>>>> I found his explanation to be very coherent. I gather you had problems
>>>> following it. So whose problem is that?
>>>> 
>>>>> You just bumble along from one belie
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Well, speaking of incoherency. Speaks for itself, doesn’t it
>>> 
>>> You retards always pretend like you can see the emperor's clothes.
>> 
>> No, it’s no pretense. It’s not difficult stuff, Jim, really. 
>> I’m completely flummoxed as to why you are so incapacitated that you can’t
>> absorb simple things. 
>> 
>> Instead you have to pretend that it is all WAY too complex for ordinary
>> people to understand it, that YOU ALONE are genius enough to appreciate the
>> complexity, and that EVERYONE ELSE is pretending that they understand it.
>> It’s a truly and spectacularly weird position. 
>> 
>>> 
>>> You got nothing!!!
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> It's not my job to teach you how to be a critical thinker.  

It’s not your job to teach anybody anything. 
Your job is to learn a subject you want to converse about. 
You don’t want to do your job. 
This is not surprising, given your life status. 

> Find a new hobby.  Science isn't your thing.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 21:48 -0700
  Re: Prochak stupidity Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 15:33 -0700
    Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 15:53 -0700
      Re: Prochak stupidity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 23:18 +0000
        Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 12:03 -0700
          Re: Prochak stupidity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 19:59 +0000
            Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 13:26 -0700
              Re: Prochak stupidity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 21:05 +0000
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 14:28 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 22:55 +0000
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 16:16 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 23:31 +0000
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 16:41 -0700
      Re: Prochak stupidity Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 17:30 -0700
        Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 11:56 -0700
      Re: Prochak stupidity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-09 20:16 -0700
        Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 11:57 -0700

csiph-web