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

Groups > sci.physics > #582650 > unrolled thread

Re: Potatoes, no Meat

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Potatoes, no Meat Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:56 -0700
    Re: Potatoes, no Meat James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 19:48 -0700
    Re: Potatoes, no Meat James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 19:54 -0700
      Re: Potatoes, no Meat noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 21:09 -0700
        Re: Potatoes, no Meat noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 12:43 -0700
          Re: Potatoes, no Meat James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:39 -0700
    Re: Potatoes, no Meat James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 15:11 -0700
    Re: Potatoes, no Meat James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 15:16 -0700

#582650 — Re: Potatoes, no Meat

Le mardi 8 mars 2016 22:15:36 UTC+1, James McGinn a écrit :
> 
> Electrostatic forces explain why heavier cluster/droplets of liquid H2O get pulled up into the atmosphere. 

Not really. Those electrostatic forces don't really work very well at the distances involved. If true, having a larger number of atmospheric atoms should support a larger amount of H2O, when in fact just the opposite is true (as demonstrated in both controlled and uncontrolled conditions). You have not demonstrated that clusters/droplets of liquid H2O ARE being pulled up. Your notion that bound molecules neutralise polarity is unfounded, as the supposedly released oxygen would have a stronger attractive force that the H-bond on the H2O molecule, and would therefor immediately strip the hydrogen atoms back off again.


>There is no evidence that it (evaporation) is gaseous.  

The spectrographic evidence has already been cited. There is also laboratory evidence (so routine it is conducted frequently in classroom) demonstrating the gaseous nature of vapour (it has all the behavioural characteristics that define a gaseous state, and none of those that define a liquid state... until it subsequently condenses; it diffuses in ther gases; it follows the laws of vapour pressure equilibrium; etc).




>In fact that notion is strictly disputed by all known laboratory evidence.  

Please cite the laboratory evidence you refer to. All of the laboratory evidence I have seen has demonstrated its gaseous state;

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#582744

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 10:56:41 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
> Le mardi 8 mars 2016 22:15:36 UTC+1, James McGinn a écrit :
> > 
> > Electrostatic forces explain why heavier cluster/droplets of liquid H2O get pulled up into the atmosphere. 
> 
> Not really. Those electrostatic forces don't really work very well at the distances involved. 

Uh, we're talking about the distance between molecules, you numskull.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582745

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 10:56:41 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:

If true, having a larger number of atmospheric atoms should support a larger amount of H2O, when in fact just the opposite is true (as demonstrated in both controlled and uncontrolled conditions). 

Present your evidence, you evasive twit.

You have not demonstrated that clusters/droplets of liquid H2O ARE being pulled up. 

You haven't demonstrated that they are gaseous or that they convect.

Your notion that bound molecules neutralise polarity is unfounded,

Feel free to address these points directly, you evasive twit.


 as the supposedly released oxygen would have a stronger attractive force that the H-bond on the H2O molecule, and would therefor immediately strip the hydrogen atoms back off again.

Uh, there is no released oxygen in my model.  So I don't know what you are talking about.  


> 
> 
> >There is no evidence that it (evaporation) is gaseous.  
> 
> The spectrographic evidence has already been cited. 

Right.  And it confirms my position.

There is also laboratory evidence (so routine it is conducted frequently in classroom) demonstrating the gaseous nature of vapour (it has all the behavioural characteristics that define a gaseous state, and none of those that define a liquid state... until it subsequently condenses; it diffuses in ther gases; it follows the laws of vapour pressure equilibrium; etc).

Feel free to make an argument to this effect.  Remember, your imagination is not evidence.


> 
> 
> 
> 
> >In fact that notion is strictly disputed by all known laboratory evidence.  
> 
> Please cite the laboratory evidence you refer to.

Steam tables.

 All of the laboratory evidence I have seen has demonstrated its gaseous state;

Your imagination is not evidence.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582765

the extremes of heat mean that a huge amount
of water vapor cam make you sweat like a ..., and
that is a sort of precipitation

> Your imagination is not evidence.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#583176

it is just the difference between absolute & relative humidity;
one of them is apparent to the sweating dOOd

> > Your imagination is not evidence.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#583181

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 12:43:36 PM UTC-7, noTthaTguY wrote:
> it is just the difference between absolute & relative humidity;
> one of them is apparent to the sweating dOOd
> 
> > > Your imagination is not evidence.

Right.  And what else is different about them.  I'll give you a hint.  Answer this question first.  Relative density is relative to what?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#583193

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 10:56:41 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
> Le mardi 8 mars 2016 22:15:36 UTC+1, James McGinn a écrit :
> > 
> > Electrostatic forces explain why heavier cluster/droplets of liquid H2O get pulled up into the atmosphere. 
> 
> Not really. Those electrostatic forces don't really work very well at the distances involved. 

JM:
So, once again, you want us to take your word on everything.  


If true, having a larger number of atmospheric atoms should support a larger amount of H2O, when in fact just the opposite is true (as demonstrated in both controlled and uncontrolled conditions). 


Dumb argument.


You have not demonstrated that clusters/droplets of liquid H2O ARE being pulled up. Your notion that bound molecules neutralise polarity is unfounded, as the supposedly released oxygen would have a stronger attractive force that the H-bond on the H2O molecule, and would therefor immediately strip the hydrogen atoms back off again.
> 
> 
> >There is no evidence that it (evaporation) is gaseous.  
> 
> The spectrographic evidence has already been cited. There is also laboratory evidence (so routine it is conducted frequently in classroom) demonstrating the gaseous nature of vapour (it has all the behavioural characteristics that define a gaseous state, and none of those that define a liquid state... until it subsequently condenses; it diffuses in ther gases; it follows the laws of vapour pressure equilibrium; etc).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >In fact that notion is strictly disputed by all known laboratory evidence.  
> 
> Please cite the laboratory evidence you refer to. All of the laboratory evidence I have seen has demonstrated its gaseous state;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#583195

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 10:56:41 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:

MH: You have not demonstrated that clusters/droplets of liquid H2O ARE being pulled up. 

JM: You haven't either.  Right?  

MH: Your notion that bound molecules neutralise polarity is unfounded,

JM: That is your argument.   Is convection founded?

MH: as the supposedly released oxygen would have a stronger attractive force that the H-bond on the H2O molecule, and would therefor immediately strip the hydrogen atoms back off again.

JM: You are incoherent.


> 
> 
> >There is no evidence that it (evaporation) is gaseous.  
> 
> The spectrographic evidence has already been cited. 

LOL.  That evidence proves me right and you wrong.

There is also laboratory evidence (so routine it is conducted frequently in classroom) demonstrating the gaseous nature of vapour (it has all the behavioural characteristics that define a gaseous state, and none of those that define a liquid state... until it subsequently condenses; it diffuses in ther gases; it follows the laws of vapour pressure equilibrium; etc).

JM: It's just your imagination.  You are a believer.  Not a scientist.


> >In fact that notion is strictly disputed by all known laboratory evidence.  
> 
> Please cite the laboratory evidence you refer to. All of the laboratory evidence I have seen has demonstrated its gaseous state;


See Steam tables.  All of the laboratory evidence indicates the boiling point of H2O.  Do you deny that?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web