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

Groups > sci.physics > #717358 > unrolled thread

Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo

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: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:22 -0800
    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-12-08 22:42 +0000
    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 04:04 -0800
      Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 07:12 -0800
        Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 12:53 -0800
          Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 13:50 -0800
            Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 13:56 -0800
              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo % <%> - 2018-12-11 15:05 -0700
                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 14:19 -0800
                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-11 23:43 +0100
                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-12 00:06 -0600
              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 14:29 -0800
                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 15:41 -0800
                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 16:14 -0800
                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 16:18 -0800
                      Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 16:24 -0800
                        Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 17:02 -0800
                          Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:45 -0800
                          Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-12 00:09 -0600
                            Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 22:19 -0800
                              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 22:44 -0800
                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 21:46 -0800
                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 22:47 -0800
                                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 08:58 -0800
                                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 16:40 -0800
                                      Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 16:59 -0800
                                        Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 18:04 -0800
                            Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 22:38 -0800
                              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-12 08:44 +0100
                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 01:31 -0800
                                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-15 16:07 +0100
                                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 07:39 -0800
                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 09:50 -0800
                                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-15 15:40 +0100
                                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-15 09:51 -0500
                                      Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-15 10:37 -0600
                                        Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-15 11:56 -0500
                                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 07:23 -0800
                                      Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-15 20:16 +0100
                                        Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 12:12 -0800
                                          Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-16 00:09 +0100
                                            Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 15:17 -0800
                                              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-16 17:54 +0100
                                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 08:56 -0800
                                                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-16 19:40 +0100
                                                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-16 13:05 -0600
                                                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 11:32 -0800
                                                      Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-16 22:12 +0100
                                                        Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 13:32 -0800
                                                          Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 15:24 -0800
                                                            Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 03:13 +0100
                                                              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 19:12 -0800
                                                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 22:46 +0100
                                                              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 19:15 -0800
                                                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 20:05 -0800
                                                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 22:16 +0100
                                                          Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 02:04 +0100
                                            Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-16 13:30 -0600
                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-14 09:02 -0600
                                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 07:33 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#717838

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 10:19:35 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

Arindam:
" . . . the ejected molecule of water experiences a local 100degC+ for its eviction."

JMcG:
Even sublimation?  Do you think the temperature can get to 100 degrees on an ice cube?

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

#718303

On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 5:44:48 PM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 10:19:35 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> 
> Arindam:
> " . . . the ejected molecule of water experiences a local 100degC+ for its eviction."
> 
> JMcG:
> Even sublimation?  Do you think the temperature can get to 100 degrees on an ice cube?

Yes, see my recent post.

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

#718714

About sublimation from ice, under pressure, a powerful air molecule can kick out a water molecule from ice causing sublimation. 

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

#718785

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 11:07:16 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> About sublimation from ice, under pressure, a powerful air molecule can kick out a water molecule from ice causing sublimation.

Yeah so, what's your point and what does it have to do with the issue under discussion, you vague nitwit.

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

#718881

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 3:58:38 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 11:07:16 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > About sublimation from ice, under pressure, a powerful air molecule can kick out a water molecule from ice causing sublimation.
> 
> Yeah so, what's your point and what does it have to do with the issue under discussion, you vague nitwit.

You talked about sublimation, and how it can be explained with my theory which has it that kinetic impact causes instantaneous high temperature upon a single molecule of water, causing change of state as per the phase diagram of water. 

I explained that with the kinetic theory of gases, in an earlier post. A strong impact from an air molecule upon ice may remove a water molecule from the ice, with energy enough to raise it instantaneously above the boiling point, causing it to proceed to the vapour state from the solid state as per the phase diagram of water - and this process is known as sublimation.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

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

#718885

You talked about sublimation, and how it can be explained with my theory which has it that kinetic impact causes instantaneous high temperature upon a single molecule of water, causing change of state as per the phase diagram of water. 

I explained that with the kinetic theory of gases, in an earlier post. A strong impact from an air molecule upon ice may remove a water molecule from the ice, with energy enough to raise it instantaneously above the boiling point, causing it to proceed to the vapour state from the solid state as per the phase diagram of water - and this process is known as sublimation. 

You've already presented this absurd theory and ive already replied. 

Now tell us how this one hot h2o molecule and many others stay gaseous in earths atmosphere.

Does this not require more if you magical hot molecules as a regular part of ambient air?

Where does this absurdity stop?

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

#718899

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 11:59:16 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> You talked about sublimation, and how it can be explained with my theory which has it that kinetic impact causes instantaneous high temperature upon a single molecule of water, causing change of state as per the phase diagram of water. 
> 
> I explained that with the kinetic theory of gases, in an earlier post. A strong impact from an air molecule upon ice may remove a water molecule from the ice, with energy enough to raise it instantaneously above the boiling point, causing it to proceed to the vapour state from the solid state as per the phase diagram of water - and this process is known as sublimation. 
> 
> You've already presented this absurd theory and ive already replied. 

I was referring to your point relating to sublimation. 
> 
> Now tell us how this one hot h2o molecule and many others stay gaseous in earths atmosphere.

They stay as per the kinetic theory of gases. As the water vapour is a gas it acts like any gas, no matter what some opine about this. I will allow that water vapour unlike other gases does liquefy in the 0-100degC range, provided it gets proximity to other vapour molecules. Adhesive forces come into play, then, and we get fog, mist, clouds, ice, etc.

So they remain gaseous so long as they can remain single.
I hope this is not too hard to understand.

> 
> Does this not require more if you magical hot molecules as a regular part of ambient air?


Nothing magical about high velocity molecules you call hot molecules. That is a part of the normal distribution of molecular velocities in the gas. Given the mean velocity, one can find how much percent of the gas is hot, or cold. Just see any normal distribution, the bell-shaped curcem, brush up on statistics.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
> 
> Where does this absurdity stop?

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

#717837

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 10:09:09 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> that is where McGinn gets lost,
> the transition from lots of liquid droplets (hot or cold steam) into
> single molecules of water, which is invisable gas.

It's called "boiling."

Guess what temperature water boils at sea level?

Guess what is the temperature of the atmosphere.

What grade are you in.

I bet your mom is proud of you. Here is something for you to tell your teacher about:
What You Don't get about science and truth
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17161

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

#717842

James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 10:09:09 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> that is where McGinn gets lost,
>> the transition from lots of liquid droplets (hot or cold steam) into
>> single molecules of water, which is invisable gas.
> 
> It's called "boiling."

Not only.  Water (like other substances) evoporates at temperatures much
lower than its boiling point.

This is why you sweat: the sweat (basically warm salty water) carries heat
from inside the body to the surface of the skin and evoporates there.
Evaporation, the ability to leave the ensemble of water molecules held
together by hydrogen bond, requires greater inner energy U for each water
molecule in the sweat; this energy is taken from other water molecules, so
that the temperature of the remaining sweat is reduced – it is cooled [first
law of thermodynamics: dU = δQ + δW = c dT + δW; cₚ(H₂O) = 4184 J/(kg K)].
Since heat always flows from the hotter to the colder substance [a
consequence of the second law of thermodynamics: dS ≥ 0], this cools the
body.  Then the evaporated molecules diffuse into the surrounding air, so
that this heat is finally transported away from the body.

You can also observe this if you have a shower or a bath or go swimming and
do not dry your body quickly afterwards.  As the water on your skin
evaporates, you will feel colder because you *actually* become colder.

> Guess what temperature water boils at sea level?

100 °C, because that is how the Celsius scale is defined.

> Guess what is the temperature of the atmosphere.

I do not have to guess, it is known: It varies from ca. −90 °C to 270 °C.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#/media/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg>

But that does not matter.  A glass half full with liquid water does not only
contain liquid water.

You can easily see this if you put something on top of it and wait a bit:
the bottom of the cover becomes wet because some water molecules have been
ejected or have ejected themselves from the water surface (evaporation), and
some found themselves on the bottom surface of the cover (condensation).
This process is supported by high kinetic energy of the molecules, i.e. high
temperatures.  So compare the result with that of a glass/cup of hot tea
(basically flavoured water).  Note that the tea at the bottom of the
glass/cup is still liquid; it is NOT boiling.

<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html#Ch1-S3>

> What grade are you in.

A higher grade than you, obviously.  I am not entirely sure, but I think
I learned evaporation and condensation in the 7th form at the latest
(several decades ago).

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#717845

Ears:
I learned evaporation and condensation in the 7th form at the latest 

Jim McGinb:
When I was in seventh grade I thought that too.  Everybody did.  Then I studied h2o. 

Your model ASSUMES evaporation/sublimation produces gaseous H2O. 

Explain the force that explains the breaking of ALL of the water's trillions of h bonds? 

You cant. 

Im an expert on water.  But it shouldnt take an expert to realize you cant boil water with good intentions. 

Right? 

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

#718554

James McGinn wrote:
> Ears:

Who?

> I learned evaporation and condensation in the 7th form at the latest 
> 
> Jim McGinb:

Who?

> When I was in seventh grade I thought that too.  Everybody did.  Then I studied h2o. 

A pipe dream in an armchair does not amount to a study.

> Your model ASSUMES evaporation/sublimation produces gaseous H2O. 

It does.  I have already told you how to confirm this experimentally.

> Explain the force that explains the breaking of ALL of the water's trillions of h bonds? 

It does not have to.

> You cant. 

(That’s “_can’t_”.)

You are proceeding from a false assumption.

> Im an expert on water.

No, you are an illiterate crackpot who does not know what he is talking
about.  And you are too ignorant to realize your own incompetence.

> But it shouldnt take an expert to realize you cant boil water with good intentions. 
> 
> Right? 

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Evaporation is NOT boiling.  *Neither* is sublimation.  Those are
*different* phase transitions, happening only *on the surface* of substances
at much lower temperatures than the substance’s boiling point.

I have already told you how to confirm that experimentally.

And if you could read a phase diagram, not only would you realize that the
phase depends on temperature *and* pressure, but also you would realize that
there are certain combinations of temperature and pressure where a substance
exists in two phases *simultaneously*, or even all three (triple point).

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#718558

Evaporation is NOT boiling.  *Neither* is sublimation.  Those are 
*different* phase transitions, happening only *on the surface* of substances 
at much lower temperatures than the substance’s boiling point. 

I have already told you how to confirm that experimentally. 

Where?


And if you could read a phase diagram, 

You pretenders read between the lines. 

There is no cold steam on the phase table you imbecile. 

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

#717888

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 11:44:33 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 10:09:09 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >> that is where McGinn gets lost,
> >> the transition from lots of liquid droplets (hot or cold steam) into
> >> single molecules of water, which is invisable gas.
> > 
> > It's called "boiling."
> 
> Not only.  Water (like other substances) evoporates at temperatures much
> lower than its boiling point.
> 
> This is why you sweat: the sweat (basically warm salty water) carries heat
> from inside the body to the surface of the skin and evoporates there.

You are correct up to here.

> Evaporation, the ability to leave the ensemble of water molecules held
> together by hydrogen bond,

It is an ensemble that is leaving, not just one molecule.  And since liqiuid water has a huge heat capacity a lot of heat is carried away in the nanodroplet that leaves.

> requires greater inner energy U for each water
> molecule in the sweat; this energy is taken from other water molecules, so
> that the temperature of the remaining sweat is reduced – it is cooled [first
> law of thermodynamics: dU = δQ + δW = c dT + δW; cₚ(H₂O) = 4184 J/(kg K)].
> Since heat always flows from the hotter to the colder substance [a
> consequence of the second law of thermodynamics: dS ≥ 0], this cools the
> body.  Then the evaporated molecules diffuse into the surrounding air, so
> that this heat is finally transported away from the body.

Most importantly--and this is something only an expert in water will understand--the ensemble that leaves still maintains hydrogen bonds with other H2O molecules in the ensemble. And since H bonds LOWER THE POLARITY OF THE MOLECULES THAT PARTICIPATE IN THE BONDS the force necessary for the nanodrolet ensemble to break away is considerably less per molecule than it would be if we were trying to remove these molecules one at a time (boiling).  Only a person (myself) who is an expert in understanding the VARIABILITY of the polarity of the H2O molecule and the fact that H bonds are the mechanism thereof is there the slightest chance of being able to explain the broad range of observed behaviors (ie. sublimation) associated with evaporation. Morons (ie. Arindam and Thomas pointy head) who stubbornly insist on standard assumptions that are ignorant of the distinctness of H2O polarity and h bonding are, well, just wasting everybodies time with your ignorant assertions. This is a subject that require and expert (myself) who has an intimate understanding of the highly variable nature of H2O polarity and h bonding.

> I
> You can also observe this if you have a shower or a bath or go swimming and
> do not dry your body quickly afterwards.  As the water on your skin
> evaporates, you will feel colder because you *actually* become colder.

Yes, evaporation cools. (Everybody knows this.) But this does not substantiate your simplistic model that completely breaks down when trying to explain evaporation at lower temperatures. Your model fails to explain sublimation.  My model does not fail.

> > Guess what temperature water boils at sea level?
> 100 °C, because that is how the Celsius scale is defined.

Meaningless.

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

#718545

James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 11:44:33 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 10:09:09 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>>> that is where McGinn gets lost,
>>>> the transition from lots of liquid droplets (hot or cold steam) into
>>>> single molecules of water, which is invisable gas.
>>> It's called "boiling."
>> Not only.  Water (like other substances) evoporates at temperatures much
>> lower than its boiling point.
>>
>> This is why you sweat: the sweat (basically warm salty water) carries heat
>> from inside the body to the surface of the skin and evoporates there.
> 
> You are correct up to here.

LOL

>> Evaporation, the ability to leave the ensemble of water molecules held
>> together by hydrogen bond,
> 
> It is an ensemble that is leaving, not just one molecule.

There is no evidence that (water) molecules are leaving the surface in
pairs, triplets aso.

> And since liqiuid water has a huge heat capacity a lot of heat is carried away
> in the nanodroplet that leaves.

Superfluous assumption.

>>> Guess what temperature water boils at sea level?
>> 100 °C, because that is how the Celsius scale is defined.
> 
> Meaningless.

Not at all.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#718552

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 15:40:57 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>James McGinn wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 11:44:33 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> James McGinn wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 10:09:09 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> that is where McGinn gets lost,
>>>>> the transition from lots of liquid droplets (hot or cold steam) into
>>>>> single molecules of water, which is invisable gas.
>>>> It's called "boiling."
>>> Not only.  Water (like other substances) evoporates at temperatures much
>>> lower than its boiling point.
>>>
>>> This is why you sweat: the sweat (basically warm salty water) carries heat
>>> from inside the body to the surface of the skin and evoporates there.
>> 
>> You are correct up to here.
>
>LOL
>
>>> Evaporation, the ability to leave the ensemble of water molecules held
>>> together by hydrogen bond,
>> 
>> It is an ensemble that is leaving, not just one molecule.
>
>There is no evidence that (water) molecules are leaving the surface in
>pairs, triplets aso.
>
>> And since liqiuid water has a huge heat capacity a lot of heat is carried away
>> in the nanodroplet that leaves.
>
>Superfluous assumption.
>
>>>> Guess what temperature water boils at sea level?
>>> 100 °C, because that is how the Celsius scale is defined.
>> 
>> Meaningless.
>
>Not at all.

Yes, what will happen to the accuracy of the Centigrade
scale if the global warming kooks are correct and sea
level rises hundreds of feet because all the high latitude
ice melts?

-- 

Everybody here likes...
Yours Truly, 
Gregøry Hall - Bombastic Loudmouth of the South

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

#718561

On 12/15/2018 8:51 AM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 15:40:57 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>> James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 11:44:33 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> James McGinn wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 10:09:09 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>> that is where McGinn gets lost,
>>>>>> the transition from lots of liquid droplets (hot or cold steam) into
>>>>>> single molecules of water, which is invisable gas.
>>>>> It's called "boiling."
>>>> Not only.  Water (like other substances) evoporates at temperatures much
>>>> lower than its boiling point.
>>>>
>>>> This is why you sweat: the sweat (basically warm salty water) carries heat
>>>> from inside the body to the surface of the skin and evoporates there.
>>>
>>> You are correct up to here.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>>>> Evaporation, the ability to leave the ensemble of water molecules held
>>>> together by hydrogen bond,
>>>
>>> It is an ensemble that is leaving, not just one molecule.
>>
>> There is no evidence that (water) molecules are leaving the surface in
>> pairs, triplets aso.
>>
>>> And since liqiuid water has a huge heat capacity a lot of heat is carried away
>>> in the nanodroplet that leaves.
>>
>> Superfluous assumption.
>>
>>>>> Guess what temperature water boils at sea level?
>>>> 100 °C, because that is how the Celsius scale is defined.
>>>
>>> Meaningless.
>>
>> Not at all.
> 
> Yes, what will happen to the accuracy of the Centigrade
> scale if the global warming kooks are correct and sea
> level rises hundreds of feet because all the high latitude
> ice melts?
> 

off topic

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

#718562

On 12/15/2018 10:37 PM, Smelly Sergio wrote:
>On 12/15/2018, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>>> James McGinn wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>> that is where McGinn gets lost,
>>>>>>> the transition from lots of liquid droplets (hot or cold steam) into
>>>>>>> single molecules of water, which is invisable gas.
>>>>>> It's called "boiling."
>>>>> Not only.  Water (like other substances) evoporates at temperatures much
>>>>> lower than its boiling point.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is why you sweat: the sweat (basically warm salty water) carries heat
>>>>> from inside the body to the surface of the skin and evoporates there.
>>>>
>>>> You are correct up to here.
>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>>>>> Evaporation, the ability to leave the ensemble of water molecules held
>>>>> together by hydrogen bond,
>>>>
>>>> It is an ensemble that is leaving, not just one molecule.
>>>
>>> There is no evidence that (water) molecules are leaving the surface in
>>> pairs, triplets aso.
>>>
>>>> And since liqiuid water has a huge heat capacity a lot of heat is carried away
>>>> in the nanodroplet that leaves.
>>>
>>> Superfluous assumption.
>>>
>>>>>> Guess what temperature water boils at sea level?
>>>>> 100 °C, because that is how the Celsius scale is defined.
>>>>
>>>> Meaningless.
>>>
>>> Not at all.
>> 
>> Yes, what will happen to the accuracy of the Centigrade
>> scale if the global warming kooks are correct and sea
>> level rises hundreds of feet because all the high latitude
>> ice melts?
>
>off topic

Sounds like the question involves physics/science so, no, it's not off
topic. Take it from an accomplished and highly respected Ph.D. 

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

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

#718556

> It is an ensemble that is leaving, not just one molecule. 

There is no evidence that (water) molecules are leaving the surface in 
pairs, triplets aso. 

There is no evidence either way


> And since liqiuid water has a huge heat capacity a lot of heat is carried away 
> in the nanodroplet that leaves. 

Superfluous assumption. 

Like you have a clue. 

>>> Guess what temperature water boils at sea level? 
>> 100 °C, because that is how the Celsius scale is defined. 
> 
> Meaningless. 

Not at all. 

You got nothing

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

#718579

James McGinn wrote:
>> It is an ensemble that is leaving, not just one molecule. 
> 
> There is no evidence that (water) molecules are leaving the surface in 
> pairs, triplets aso. 
> 
> There is no evidence either way

(Learn to quote.)

Not true.  You are merely arguing from your own ignorance.

Breaking apart (hydrogen) bonds between molecules requires energy.

The first law of thermodynamics is usually written as

  dU = δQ + δW = δQ − p dV.

Since the volume of the contents of the *covered* glass of water does not
change (dV = 0), no work (W) is being done or by on the system, and any
increase in inner energy (U) that would be required to break hydrogen bonds
apart (essentially increasing the kinetic energy of the molecules so that
they would move fast enough that hydrogen bonds are not stable anymore) has
to come from heat (Q).

So if water molecules would evaporate in pairs, triplets, aso., then less
heat of the environment would be consumed by evaporation than if they
evaporated independently (which they do).  For the evaporated water, the
liquid water is part of the environment.

The (change of) heat in a system can be measured because it is proportional
to the (change in) absolute temperature (T, in K) by the equation

  δQ = m c_X dT

or IOW

             T₂
   Q = m c_X ∫  dT = m c_X (T₂ − T₁)
             T₁

with m being the mass of the specimen (in kg), and c_X being the specific
heat capacity of the substance (in J K⁻¹ kg⁻¹) where the quantity X is constant.

Since we are considering a situation where the volume is constant, that
would be the specific heat capacity at constant volume, c_V, for water.

IOW, if molecules would evaporate in pairs, triplets, then the water would
be warmer than if they would evoporate as single molecules.  This can be
calculated and measured.

I dare you to do the calculation and the measurement properly.

>>> And since liqiuid water has a huge heat capacity a lot of heat is carried away 
>>> in the nanodroplet that leaves. 
>> Superfluous assumption. 
> 
> Like you have a clue. 

I do.  I am *actually* studying physics.

>>>>> Guess what temperature water boils at sea level? 
>>>> 100 °C, because that is how the Celsius scale is defined. 
>>> Meaningless. 
>> Not at all. 
> 
> You got nothing

You are confusing me with yourself.

*You* got nothing but your armchair fantasies and  your ridiculous claim
“You got nothing”.  As if merely claiming something would make it true.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#718587

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 11:16:57 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
> >> It is an ensemble that is leaving, not just one molecule. 
> > 
> > There is no evidence that (water) molecules are leaving the surface in 
> > pairs, triplets aso. 
> > 
> > There is no evidence either way
> 
> (Learn to quote.)
> 
> Not true.

I'm an expert on this subject.  There is no evidence of evaporation being gaseous.



> You are merely arguing from your own ignorance.
> 
> Breaking apart (hydrogen) bonds between molecules requires energy.

Prove that the force required isn't variable and prove that H bonds don't neutralize polarity.

You are clueless.



> 
> The first law of thermodynamics is usually written as
> 
>   dU = δQ + δW = δQ − p dV.

Yeah so?  What's your point?

> Since the volume of the contents of the *covered* glass of water does not
> change (dV = 0), no work (W) is being done or by on the system, and any
> increase in inner energy (U) that would be required to break hydrogen bonds
> apart (essentially increasing the kinetic energy of the molecules so that
> they would move fast enough that hydrogen bonds are not stable anymore) has
> to come from heat (Q).
> 
> So if water molecules would evaporate in pairs, triplets, aso., then less
> heat of the environment would be consumed by evaporation than if they
> evaporated independently (which they do).  For the evaporated water, the
> liquid water is part of the environment.

The polarity is too high for one or few to get pushed/pulled off the surface.  

I am an expert on H bonding in water.  See my videos.


> 
> The (change of) heat in a system can be measured because it is proportional
> to the (change in) absolute temperature (T, in K) by the equation
> 
>   δQ = m c_X dT
> 
> or IOW
> 
>              T₂
>    Q = m c_X ∫  dT = m c_X (T₂ − T₁)
>              T₁
> 
> with m being the mass of the specimen (in kg), and c_X being the specific
> heat capacity of the substance (in J K⁻¹ kg⁻¹) where the quantity X is constant.

Irrelevant.  First you need to confirm your assumption that the force of H2O polarity that underlies the bonds is static (fixed) and not variable, as I have determined.

Moreover, you model fails to explain the other anomalies of water.  So, your explanation is worthless.



> 
> Since we are considering a situation where the volume is constant, that
> would be the specific heat capacity at constant volume, c_V, for water.
> 
> IOW, if molecules would evaporate in pairs, triplets, then the water would
> be warmer than if they would evoporate as single molecules.  This can be
> calculated and measured.
> 
> I dare you to do the calculation and the measurement properly.

Do it yourself, asshole.


> 
> >>> And since liqiuid water has a huge heat capacity a lot of heat is carried away 
> >>> in the nanodroplet that leaves. 
> >> Superfluous assumption. 
> > 
> > Like you have a clue. 
> 
> I do.  I am *actually* studying physics.

LOL.  I'm a physicist.  You are an amateur.


> 
> >>>>> Guess what temperature water boils at sea level? 
> >>>> 100 °C, because that is how the Celsius scale is defined. 
> >>> Meaningless. 
> >> Not at all. 
> > 
> > You got nothing
> 
> You are confusing me with yourself.
> 
> *You* got nothing but your armchair fantasies and  your ridiculous claim
> “You got nothing”.  As if merely claiming something would make it true.

You got nothing!!!

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web