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

Groups > sci.physics > #674180 > unrolled thread

Steve BH Provide a link

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Steve BH Provide a link James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-01 22:02 -0800
    Re: Steve BH Provide a link poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-03-01 22:33 -0800
    Re:Steve BH Provide a link Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-02 07:48 +0100
      Re: Steve BH Provide a link James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 08:52 -0800
        Re: Steve BH Provide a link Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-02 18:57 +0100
          Re: Steve BH Provide a link James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 10:24 -0800
            Re: Steve BH Provide a link pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-02 17:41 -0800
              Re: Steve BH Provide a link James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 18:10 -0800
                Re: Steve BH Provide a link pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-02 19:56 -0800
                  Re: Steve BH Provide a link Ser gio <innvilid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-02 22:56 -0600
                  Re: Steve BH Provide a link James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 21:19 -0800
      Re: Steve BH Provide a link Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 01:06 -0800
        Re: Steve BH Provide a link James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 07:36 -0800
          Re: Steve BH Provide a link Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 23:21 +0000
            Re: Steve BH Provide a link pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-03 20:36 -0800
              Re: Steve BH Provide a link Ser gio <innvilid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-04 00:21 -0600
            Re: Steve BH Provide a link Ser gio <innvilid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-04 00:19 -0600
              Re: Steve BH Provide a link Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-07 01:43 +0100
                Re: Steve BH Provide a link Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 18:52 -0800
                  Re: Steve BH Provide a link Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-07 05:16 +0100
                    Re: Steve BH Provide a link Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-06 20:49 -0800
                      Re: Steve BH Provide a link Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-07 13:23 +0100
                Re: Steve BH Provide a link Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-06 23:57 -0600
            Re: Steve BH Provide a link poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-03-03 22:53 -0800
              Re: Steve BH Provide a link James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 09:10 -0800
                Re: Steve BH Provide a link poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-03-06 23:07 -0800
    Re: Steve BH Provide a link Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 01:11 -0800
      Re: Steve BH Provide a link James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 07:37 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#674180 — Steve BH Provide a link

Water can be a gas at any point in the P-T phase diagram where it says "gas". At that temperature and that partial pressure of gas. And it is a gas in that area, not a suspension of liquid drops. 

If you don't know THAT, then YOU ARE the scientifically illiterate goon. 

Lines on the diagram are places where two phases (like liquid and gas) can coexist in equilibrium. Areas between the lines are for one phase. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#674183

On Friday, March 2, 2018 at 8:02:05 AM UTC+2, James McGinn wrote:
> Water can be a gas at any point in the P-T phase diagram where it says "gas". At that temperature and that partial pressure of gas. And it is a gas in that area, not a suspension of liquid drops. 
> 
> If you don't know THAT, then YOU ARE the scientifically illiterate goon. 
> 
> Lines on the diagram are places where two phases (like liquid and gas) can coexist in equilibrium. Areas between the lines are for one phase.

===========================
if so 
what is that important for  us ??
TIA
Y.Porat
=====================================

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

#674188

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> Water can be a gas at any point in the P-T phase diagram where it says "gas". 

This is incorrect. 

Water can exist as a gas at ANY point of the p-T phase diagram.
 The gas phase area means that AT EQUILIBRIUM only the gas phase
 exists.

The system can be out of equilibrium, if macroscopic phase
 processes are ongoing, or if the state is temporary frozen for
 kinetic reasons, like supercooled vapour or 
liquid.

If  water in the gas phase at 1atm is cooled below 100 deg C, then
 it does not stop being a gas, but starts partially condensate
 into macroscopic liquid water.

At this point, both evaporation and  condensation occurs
 simultaneously. But  as condensation  has higher rate, the system
 is not at ( dynamic)) equilibrium yet and pressure is decreasing.
 

Finally, pressure reaches saturated vapour pressure at the given
 temperature and condensation rate equals evaporation rate in the
 dynamic equilibrium.

 If condensation centres are not present, vapour can be
 supercooled what was in early 20th century used in the fog
 chambers for detection of flying charged particles.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#674227

On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 10:48:19 PM UTC-8, Libor Striz wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > Water can be a gas at any point in the P-T phase diagram where it says "gas". 
> 
> This is incorrect. 
> 
> Water can exist as a gas at ANY point of the p-T phase diagram.
>  The gas phase area means that AT EQUILIBRIUM only the gas phase
>  exists.
> 
> The system can be out of equilibrium, if macroscopic phase
>  processes are ongoing, or if the state is temporary frozen for
>  kinetic reasons, like supercooled vapour or 
> liquid.
> 
> If  water in the gas phase at 1atm is cooled below 100 deg C, then
>  it does not stop being a gas, but starts partially condensate
>  into macroscopic liquid water.

Not possible.  It will become liquid.  Instantly.



> 
> At this point, both evaporation and  condensation occurs
>  simultaneously. But  as condensation  has higher rate, the system
>  is not at ( dynamic)) equilibrium yet and pressure is decreasing.
>  
> 
> Finally, pressure reaches saturated vapour pressure at the given
>  temperature and condensation rate equals evaporation rate in the
>  dynamic equilibrium.
> 
>  If condensation centres are not present, vapour can be
>  supercooled what was in early 20th century used in the fog
>  chambers for detection of flying charged particles.

Wrong.  It can be supercooled into small microdroplets--given air is mixed in with it--but not gaseous H2O

Dumbass Poutnik

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

#674235

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 10:48:19 PM UTC-8, Libor Striz wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> > Water can be a gas at any point in the P-T phase diagram where it says "gas". 
>> 
>> This is incorrect. 
>> 
>> Water can exist as a gas at ANY point of the p-T phase diagram.
>>  The gas phase area means that AT EQUILIBRIUM only the gas phase
>>  exists.
>> 
>> The system can be out of equilibrium, if macroscopic phase
>>  processes are ongoing, or if the state is temporary frozen for
>>  kinetic reasons, like supercooled vapour or 
>> liquid.
>> 
>> If  water in the gas phase at 1atm is cooled below 100 deg C, then
>>  it does not stop being a gas, but starts partially condensate
>>  into macroscopic liquid water.
> 
> Not possible.  It will become liquid.  Instantly.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> At this point, both evaporation and  condensation occurs
>>  simultaneously. But  as condensation  has higher rate, the system
>>  is not at ( dynamic)) equilibrium yet and pressure is decreasing.
>>  
>> 
>> Finally, pressure reaches saturated vapour pressure at the given
>>  temperature and condensation rate equals evaporation rate in the
>>  dynamic equilibrium.
>> 
>>  If condensation centres are not present, vapour can be
>>  supercooled what was in early 20th century used in the fog
>>  chambers for detection of flying charged particles.
> 
> Wrong.  It can be supercooled into small microdroplets--given air is mixed in with it--but not gaseous H2O
> 
> Dumbass Poutnik

Fortunately, measurements contradict your ideas.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#674241

On Friday, March 2, 2018 at 9:57:11 AM UTC-8, Libor Striz wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 10:48:19 PM UTC-8, Libor Striz wrote:
> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> >> > Water can be a gas at any point in the P-T phase diagram where it says "gas". 
> >> 
> >> This is incorrect. 
> >> 
> >> Water can exist as a gas at ANY point of the p-T phase diagram.
> >>  The gas phase area means that AT EQUILIBRIUM only the gas phase
> >>  exists.
> >> 
> >> The system can be out of equilibrium, if macroscopic phase
> >>  processes are ongoing, or if the state is temporary frozen for
> >>  kinetic reasons, like supercooled vapour or 
> >> liquid.
> >> 
> >> If  water in the gas phase at 1atm is cooled below 100 deg C, then
> >>  it does not stop being a gas, but starts partially condensate
> >>  into macroscopic liquid water.
> > 
> > Not possible.  It will become liquid.  Instantly.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> >> At this point, both evaporation and  condensation occurs
> >>  simultaneously. But  as condensation  has higher rate, the system
> >>  is not at ( dynamic)) equilibrium yet and pressure is decreasing.
> >>  
> >> 
> >> Finally, pressure reaches saturated vapour pressure at the given
> >>  temperature and condensation rate equals evaporation rate in the
> >>  dynamic equilibrium.
> >> 
> >>  If condensation centres are not present, vapour can be
> >>  supercooled what was in early 20th century used in the fog
> >>  chambers for detection of flying charged particles.
> > 
> > Wrong.  It can be supercooled into small microdroplets--given air is mixed in with it--but not gaseous H2O
> > 
> > Dumbass Poutnik
> 
> Fortunately, measurements contradict your ideas.

Measuring the number of people that agree with you isn't science, you simpleton.

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

#674325

On Friday, March 2, 2018 at 10:24:27 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> Measuring the number of people that agree with you isn't science, you simpleton.

And measuring the number of people that agree with you is quite easy... ZERO!

It must be very lonely being the only person in the world to believe what you do... except for your sockpuppets, of course...

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

#674330

On Friday, March 2, 2018 at 5:41:38 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 2, 2018 at 10:24:27 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> 
> > Measuring the number of people that agree with you isn't science, you simpleton.
> 
> And measuring the number of people that agree with you is quite easy... ZERO!
> 
> It must be very lonely being the only person in the world to believe what you do... except for your sockpuppets, of course...

I can get a dog.  You will always be dumb.

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

#674343

On Friday, March 2, 2018 at 6:10:48 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> I can get a dog.  You will always be dumb.

I've got a dog. He knows more physics than you do. 

I've also got a mud fence out back that knows more physics than you do.

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

#674355

On 3/2/2018 9:56 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 2, 2018 at 6:10:48 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> 
>> I can get a dog.  You will always be dumb.
> 
> I've got a dog. He knows more physics than you do. 
> 
> I've also got a mud fence out back that knows more physics than you do.
> 

McGinn won't get a dog, as all dogs are smarter than James McGinn in
science and/or physics, and McGinn can't stand to be corrected by his
own puppy.

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

#674360

On Friday, March 2, 2018 at 7:56:28 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 2, 2018 at 6:10:48 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> 
> > I can get a dog.  You will always be dumb.
> 
> I've got a dog. He knows more physics than you do. 
> 
> I've also got a mud fence out back that knows more physics than you do.

Some dogs get lucky.  Some don't.

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

#674371

On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 10:48:19 PM UTC-8, Libor Striz wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > Water can be a gas at any point in the P-T phase diagram where it says "gas". 
> 
> This is incorrect. 
> 
> Water can exist as a gas at ANY point of the p-T phase diagram.
>  The gas phase area means that AT EQUILIBRIUM only the gas phase
>  exists.
> 
> The system can be out of equilibrium, if macroscopic phase
>  processes are ongoing, or if the state is temporary frozen for
>  kinetic reasons, like supercooled vapour or 
> liquid.
> 
> If  water in the gas phase at 1atm is cooled below 100 deg C, then
>  it does not stop being a gas, but starts partially condensate
>  into macroscopic liquid water.
> 
> At this point, both evaporation and  condensation occurs
>  simultaneously. But  as condensation  has higher rate, the system
>  is not at ( dynamic)) equilibrium yet and pressure is decreasing.
>  
> 
> Finally, pressure reaches saturated vapour pressure at the given
>  temperature and condensation rate equals evaporation rate in the
>  dynamic equilibrium.
> 
>  If condensation centres are not present, vapour can be
>  supercooled what was in early 20th century used in the fog
>  chambers for detection of flying charged particles.
> 
> -- 
> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> 
> 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/


Umm, yes. At equilibrium conditions. I thought that went without saying, but I suppose we have to say it. The P-T phase diagram describes systems in equilibrium only.

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

#674399

On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 1:06:37 AM UTC-8, Steve BH wrote:
> On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 10:48:19 PM UTC-8, Libor Striz wrote:
> > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > > Water can be a gas at any point in the P-T phase diagram where it says "gas". 
> > 
> > This is incorrect. 
> > 
> > Water can exist as a gas at ANY point of the p-T phase diagram.
> >  The gas phase area means that AT EQUILIBRIUM only the gas phase
> >  exists.
> > 
> > The system can be out of equilibrium, if macroscopic phase
> >  processes are ongoing, or if the state is temporary frozen for
> >  kinetic reasons, like supercooled vapour or 
> > liquid.
> > 
> > If  water in the gas phase at 1atm is cooled below 100 deg C, then
> >  it does not stop being a gas, but starts partially condensate
> >  into macroscopic liquid water.
> > 
> > At this point, both evaporation and  condensation occurs
> >  simultaneously. But  as condensation  has higher rate, the system
> >  is not at ( dynamic)) equilibrium yet and pressure is decreasing.
> >  
> > 
> > Finally, pressure reaches saturated vapour pressure at the given
> >  temperature and condensation rate equals evaporation rate in the
> >  dynamic equilibrium.
> > 
> >  If condensation centres are not present, vapour can be
> >  supercooled what was in early 20th century used in the fog
> >  chambers for detection of flying charged particles.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> > 
> > 
> > ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> > http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
> 
> 
> Umm, yes. At equilibrium conditions. I thought that went without saying, but I suppose we have to say it. The P-T phase diagram describes systems in equilibrium only.

You are a simpleton that found a big word and since scienc has big words you think you are being scientific to keep repeating it.  

There is no evidence of your purported equillibrium conditions dumbass.  

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

#674466

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 1:06:37 AM UTC-8, Steve BH wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 10:48:19 PM UTC-8, Libor Striz wrote:
>>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>> Water can be a gas at any point in the P-T phase diagram where it says "gas". 
>>> 
>>> This is incorrect. 
>>> 
>>> Water can exist as a gas at ANY point of the p-T phase diagram.
>>> The gas phase area means that AT EQUILIBRIUM only the gas phase
>>> exists.
>>> 
>>> The system can be out of equilibrium, if macroscopic phase
>>> processes are ongoing, or if the state is temporary frozen for
>>> kinetic reasons, like supercooled vapour or 
>>> liquid.
>>> 
>>> If  water in the gas phase at 1atm is cooled below 100 deg C, then
>>> it does not stop being a gas, but starts partially condensate
>>> into macroscopic liquid water.
>>> 
>>> At this point, both evaporation and  condensation occurs
>>> simultaneously. But  as condensation  has higher rate, the system
>>> is not at ( dynamic)) equilibrium yet and pressure is decreasing.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Finally, pressure reaches saturated vapour pressure at the given
>>> temperature and condensation rate equals evaporation rate in the
>>> dynamic equilibrium.
>>> 
>>> If condensation centres are not present, vapour can be
>>> supercooled what was in early 20th century used in the fog
>>> chambers for detection of flying charged particles.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
>>> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
>> 
>> 
>> Umm, yes. At equilibrium conditions. I thought that went without saying,
>> but I suppose we have to say it. The P-T phase diagram describes systems
>> in equilibrium only.
> 
> You are a simpleton that found a big word and since scienc has big words
> you think you are being scientific to keep repeating it.  
> 
> There is no evidence of your purported equillibrium conditions dumbass.  
> 

LOL. Jim does not know about equilibrium and thinks it’s a big word. 

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

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

#674496

On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 3:21:42 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:

> > There is no evidence of your purported equillibrium conditions dumbass.  
> > 
> 
> LOL. Jim does not know about equilibrium and thinks it’s a big word.

McGinn can't even spell the word correctly, let alone understand it...

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

#674504

On 3/3/2018 10:36 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 3:21:42 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> There is no evidence of your purported equillibrium conditions dumbass.  
>>>
>>
>> LOL. Jim does not know about equilibrium and thinks it’s a big word.
> 
> McGinn can't even spell the word correctly, let alone understand it...
> 


Jim was thinking equilllibrium => Equal doses of Lithium

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

#674503

On 3/3/2018 5:21 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 1:06:37 AM UTC-8, Steve BH wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 10:48:19 PM UTC-8, Libor Striz wrote:
>>>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>>> Water can be a gas at any point in the P-T phase diagram where it says "gas". 
>>>>
>>>> This is incorrect. 

>>>>
>>>> Finally, pressure reaches saturated vapour pressure at the given
>>>> temperature and condensation rate equals evaporation rate in the
>>>> dynamic equilibrium.
>>>>
>>>> If condensation centres are not present, vapour can be
>>>> supercooled what was in early 20th century used in the fog
>>>> chambers for detection of flying charged particles.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
>>>> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> Umm, yes. At equilibrium conditions. I thought that went without saying,
>>> but I suppose we have to say it. The P-T phase diagram describes systems
>>> in equilibrium only.
>>
>> You are a simpleton that found a big word and since scienc has big words
>> you think you are being scientific to keep repeating it.  
>>
>> There is no evidence of your purported equillibrium conditions dumbass.  
>>
> 
> LOL. Jim does not know about equilibrium and thinks it’s a big word. 
> 

big words are  easy Simple James,  equil = equal, and ibrium => steam
EQUAL STEAM, both cold steam and hot steam, so you get warm steam.

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

#675038

Ser gio <innvilid@invalid.com> wrote:

With that pseudo-address, you are still in violation of Internet standards 
and Netiquette.

> On 3/3/2018 5:21 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> LOL. Jim does not know about equilibrium and thinks it’s a big word.
> 
> […] equil = equal, and ibrium => steam EQUAL STEAM, both cold steam and
> hot steam, so you get warm steam.

Utter nonsense.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram>

    [Libor, thanks for pointing out the equilibrium condition.]

As easily shown, your derivation is wrong.  The English word “equilibrium” 
comes from the 17th-century New Latin word «æquilībrium», which is a 
compound of «æquus» “equal“ and «lībra» “pair of scales”, “balance” (cf.
the constellation).  See also “equilateral” (triangle), “equinox”, etc.

<https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/equilibrium>
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equilibrium>
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/equilibrium>

“steam” is, trivially, «vapor» in Latin (from which the English word is 
derived), and «(υδρ)ατμός» ([ydr]atmós) in Greek (cf. English “atmosphere”).

<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/steam#Translations>

    [Do notice the wisdom of Ancient Greek scholars that speaks from this:
     “water” is «ὕδωρ» (húdōr) in Ancient Greek, so the “atmosphere” is
     literally the “sphere of water vapor/steam”.  James McGinn is
     *millennia* behind.]

«ibrium» is not a (Latin) word at all.  «i_m_brium», as in «Mare Imbrium»
(„Sea of Rains/Storms“, one of the basaltic plains on Luna) is the genitive 
plural of Latin «imber» “rain”, “storm(cloud)”.

<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imber>


PointedEars
-- 
«Nec fasces, nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant.»
(“Neither high office nor power, only the scepters of science survive.”)

  —Tycho Brahe, astronomer (1546-1601), inscription at Hven

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

#675063

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 4:43:36 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ser gio <innvilid@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
> With that pseudo-address, you are still in violation of Internet standards 
> and Netiquette.
> 
> > On 3/3/2018 5:21 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> LOL. Jim does not know about equilibrium and thinks it’s a big word.
> > 
> > […] equil = equal, and ibrium => steam EQUAL STEAM, both cold steam and
> > hot steam, so you get warm steam.
> 
> Utter nonsense.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram>
> 
>     [Libor, thanks for pointing out the equilibrium condition.]
> 
> As easily shown, your derivation is wrong.  The English word “equilibrium” 
> comes from the 17th-century New Latin word «æquilībrium», which is a 
> compound of «æquus» “equal“ and «lībra» “pair of scales”, “balance” (cf.
> the constellation).  See also “equilateral” (triangle), “equinox”, etc.
> 
> <https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/equilibrium>
> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equilibrium>
> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/equilibrium>
> 
> “steam” is, trivially, «vapor» in Latin (from which the English word is 
> derived), and «(υδρ)ατμός» ([ydr]atmós) in Greek (cf. English “atmosphere”).
> 
> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/steam#Translations>
> 
>     [Do notice the wisdom of Ancient Greek scholars that speaks from this:
>      “water” is «ὕδωρ» (húdōr) in Ancient Greek, so the “atmosphere” is
>      literally the “sphere of water vapor/steam”.  James McGinn is
>      *millennia* behind.]
> 
> «ibrium» is not a (Latin) word at all.  «i_m_brium», as in «Mare Imbrium»
> („Sea of Rains/Storms“, one of the basaltic plains on Luna) is the genitive 
> plural of Latin «imber» “rain”, “storm(cloud)”.
> 
> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imber>
> 
> 
> PointedEars
> -- 
> «Nec fasces, nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant.»
> (“Neither high office nor power, only the scepters of science survive.”)
> 
>   —Tycho Brahe, astronomer (1546-1601), inscription at Hven


You have the wrong etymology for equilibrium. It is from "aequi" and "libra" = equal balance. No "imber" or seas involved.

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

#675086

Steve BH full-quoted:

> On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 4:43:36 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:
>> Ser gio <innvilid@invalid.com> wrote:
   ^^^^^^^
>> […]
>> > On 3/3/2018 5:21 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> >> LOL. Jim does not know about equilibrium and thinks it’s a big word.
>> > 
>> > […] equil = equal, and ibrium => steam EQUAL STEAM, both cold steam and
                            ^^^^^^
>> > hot steam, so you get warm steam.
>> 
>> Utter nonsense.
>> 
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram>
>> 
>>     [Libor, thanks for pointing out the equilibrium condition.]
>> 
>> As easily shown, your derivation is wrong.  The English word
>> “equilibrium” comes from the 17th-century New Latin word «æquilībrium»,
                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> which is a compound of «æquus» “equal“ and «lībra» “pair of scales”,
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> “balance” (cf. the constellation).  See also “equilateral” (triangle),
   ^^^^^^^^^
>> “equinox”, etc.
>> 
>> <https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/equilibrium>
>> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equilibrium>
>> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/equilibrium>
>> […]
>> «ibrium» is not a (Latin) word at all.  «i_m_brium», as in «Mare Imbrium»
>> („Sea of Rains/Storms“, one of the basaltic plains on Luna) is the
>> genitive plural of Latin «imber» “rain”, “storm(cloud)”.
>> 
>> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imber>
> 
> You have the wrong etymology for equilibrium.

Learn to read, and to quote.  And get a real name.

> It is from "aequi"

No, “aequi” is _not_ a word.  I have already given the correct etymology 
above.

> and "libra" = equal balance.

Yes.  Learn to read.

> No "imber" or seas involved.

See above.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?  
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
   I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web