Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #546306 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-18 12:45 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-26 10:44 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 130 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 12:45 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-18 16:38 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 10:31 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-18 23:01 +0000
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 19:48 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 23:01 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 07:08 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 05:42 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 08:23 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:18 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:23 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:30 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:37 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:53 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 11:07 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:05 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 12:29 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:41 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 12:02 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:36 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-23 13:42 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 09:11 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" claudiusdenk@gmail.com - 2016-01-25 11:50 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:37 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 15:16 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 06:24 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 08:36 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 14:20 -0500
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 13:35 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 09:51 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" claudiusdenk@gmail.com - 2016-01-25 11:55 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:39 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 15:18 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-26 10:40 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:46 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 11:05 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:03 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 12:04 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:15 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 17:31 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 08:52 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 11:33 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 13:39 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" claudiusdenk@gmail.com - 2016-01-25 12:04 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:43 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 15:31 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-26 10:42 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 13:28 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:46 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 15:33 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-24 20:00 +1100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 01:08 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 17:22 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 11:14 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-25 10:45 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-26 11:40 +1100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 17:34 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-26 13:03 +1100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 18:18 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-26 14:28 +1100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:28 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 09:32 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 12:07 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 10:18 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 12:55 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 11:29 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 07:01 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 10:02 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 17:05 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 11:16 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-25 10:48 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:39 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" claudiusdenk@gmail.com - 2016-01-25 12:00 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:40 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 15:22 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:10 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 09:31 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 12:00 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 10:10 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 12:11 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 10:24 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:22 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-26 13:05 +1100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 18:20 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-26 10:42 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:26 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 13:31 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 12:42 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:52 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Lawrence Senreich <lawest@galaxyredeems.org> - 2016-01-22 18:59 +0000
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 11:08 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 14:35 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 20:54 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Lawrence Senreich <lawest@galaxyredeems.org> - 2016-01-23 13:28 +0000
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 08:33 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 00:18 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 08:48 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 00:27 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-25 10:49 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Rebecca Ochsenknecht <rebeoch@stritzelhassel.net> - 2016-01-24 12:27 +0000
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 16:29 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Rebecca Ochsenknecht <rebeoch@stritzelhassel.net> - 2016-01-24 15:54 +0000
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-25 20:12 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 13:03 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 11:09 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 14:33 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 12:54 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 18:29 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 13:42 -0500
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:11 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 09:13 +0100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 00:35 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 07:38 -0600
Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 04:18 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 18:09 -0500
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-01-19 16:44 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 19:26 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 07:41 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-23 13:41 +1100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 19:34 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-23 16:33 +1100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 21:36 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 04:12 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:25 -0500
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-26 14:31 +1100
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-01-26 04:46 +0000
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 21:53 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:31 -0600
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 21:05 -0800
Re: Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-26 10:44 -0600
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 12:45 -0800 |
| Subject | Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" |
| Message-ID | <7e3d2d26-9620-4e58-a369-9d07960786b8@googlegroups.com> |
Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" When confronted with mystery the public turns to experts and pays them to resolve it. When confronted with irresolvable contradictions an expert can either conceal and obscure the contradiction, pretending to have resolved the mystery or they can reveal the contradiction and notify the public that the mystery remains. If they do the latter there is a good chance the public will fire them and look to hire a new expert. But if they sweep the contradiction under the rug then the public remains ignorant and the experts can keep their jobs. This is why meteorology won't discuss the fact that moist air doesn't contain gaseous H2O. (Earth's atmosphere doesn't contain H2O[g]. It is far too cool for that. It contains H2O[l], small clusters/droplets of H2O.) There models of storms are built around the notion that moist air is lighter than dry air. And the math on this only works if gaseous H2O is assumed. Accordingly, this allows them to pretend that this explains why moist air rises, causing storms. And this pretense saves them from having to worry about losing their jobs when the public figures out that they really don't understand what causes storms. A big part of how they have been able to conceal and obscure this contradiction has to do with terminology. They use the terms for gaseous H2O9(g) and vaporous H2O(l) interchangeably. There are any number of words that they can use to obscure the issue: steam, vapor, evaporate, moist air, condensate etc. So there are any number of different methods with which they can leave their audience confused. They realize that when it comes to job security it is better to keep the public confused thinking the subject is so complex that only an expert can understand it than it is to educate them and risk revealing that they really don't understand the mechanics of storms.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 16:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7jpja$1ous$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #546306 |
On 1/18/2016 2:45 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > Why Meteorologists Won't > stop posting your ignored and stupid blog here, dumbass. post your poo in alt.snorting.tomatoes.love.cold.steam.for.dumbasses
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 10:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7kvjf$406$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #546333 |
On 01/18/2016 11:38 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 1/18/2016 2:45 PM, James McGinn wrote: >> >> Why Meteorologists Won't >> > > > stop posting your ignored and stupid blog here, dumbass. > > > post your poo in alt.snorting.tomatoes.love.cold.steam.for.dumbasses > Posts of James MacGinn aka Solving Tornadoes are not worthy to respond. He does not bother with checking his ideas against known experimental data, or learning physics. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 23:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cf70nc-8l.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #546306 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > > Why Meteorologists Won't Talk About "Cold Steam" Because they are not insane. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 19:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3420def7-9567-4523-a5c9-66d119bd220a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #546337 |
Cold steam? That's just that vapor pressure is non-zero in comparing aqueous and gaseous environments and the interface, and the fact that liquid water covers 2/3 the Earth. Also there are often a variety of other sooty and even often ionized components in the atmosphere which are carrying liquid water, not gaseous steam, in terms of water density in the air. For being a solvent, it's also quite often residual. That there is also gaseous dihydrogen monoxide in air and of measures of humidity etcetera is also known in terms of water triple point etcetera. Still, steam is only gaseous water and only exists above the boiling point of water (otherwise being fog). Below zero it is quite a dry cold. Minus ten or fifteen degrees C is crisp. Water is interesting, to be sure, it's interesting to consider its centrality in liquid phase systems and as the prevalent liquid and solvent, besides methane seas or along those lines in rather colder climes, or under pressures on gas giant planets. Similarly to iron and its centrality in fission and fusion or nuclear stability, water as strongly oxidized in hydrogen environments or stable, in that sense, may be found to have theoretically central characteristics in matter phase mechanics, besides being so totally relevant to the biomechanics of living bodies as on Earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 23:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bafd1e99-779a-4b79-b435-22150fd8b104@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547115 |
On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 7:48:52 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > Cold steam? > > That's just that vapor pressure is non-zero > in comparing aqueous and gaseous environments > and the interface, and the fact that liquid > water covers 2/3 the Earth. > > Also there are often a variety of other sooty > and even often ionized components in the atmosphere > which are carrying liquid water, not gaseous steam, > in terms of water density in the air. For being > a solvent, it's also quite often residual. That > there is also gaseous dihydrogen monoxide in air > and of measures of humidity etcetera is also known > in terms of water triple point etcetera. Still, > steam is only gaseous water and only exists > above the boiling point of water (otherwise being > fog). > > Below zero it is quite a dry cold. > > Minus ten or fifteen degrees C is crisp. > > Water is interesting, to be sure, it's interesting > to consider its centrality in liquid phase systems > and as the prevalent liquid and solvent, besides > methane seas or along those lines in rather colder > climes, or under pressures on gas giant planets. > > Similarly to iron and its centrality in fission and > fusion or nuclear stability, water as strongly oxidized > in hydrogen environments or stable, in that sense, may > be found to have theoretically central characteristics > in matter phase mechanics, besides being so totally > relevant to the biomechanics of living bodies as on Earth. Water is a subject in which almost everybody (accept me) is, in one way or anotehr, deeply confused. The vast majority of people are confused into thinking it is a lot simpler than it really is. There are a handful of scientists that study it and they are overwhelmingly confused by why they can't quite seem to comprehend it; the more it seems like it makes sense the more its anomalies stand out. Here is a video I think you will like. It is a little bit longish but it is right along the lines of what I am talking about here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hGqlEpvODw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 07:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7t9jq$1n60$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547141 |
On 1/22/2016 1:01 AM, James McGinn wrote: > Water is a subject in which almost everybody (accept me) is, in one way or anotehr, deeply confused. This sentence all by itself should be an early-warning siren for you. Or in your case, an egregiously late warning siren. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 05:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <34ce1cbf-0037-452d-b198-0ce0a186fd1f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547164 |
I think professor Wormley should post an article on the difference between evaporation and boiling. There is obviously much confusion on this subject. I would do it myself except for 2 reasons. 1) I am a poor instructor and often resort to threats of violence 2) I am lazy as fuck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 08:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7te3m$1vm2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547173 |
On 1/22/2016 7:42 AM, HVAC wrote: > I think professor Wormley should post an article on the difference between evaporation and boiling. > > There is obviously much confusion on this subject. > > I would do it myself except for 2 reasons. > > 1) I am a poor instructor and often resort to threats of violence > > 2) I am lazy as fuck > 3) you just dont care about evaporation nor boiling. "evaporation" is what the do to milk to put it in a can. "boiling" is what the do to clams, lobsters and other critters that live on the ocean floor with spunge bob. WIKI SAYS (read this! if you want to); Evaporation is a type of vaporization of a liquid that occurs from the surface of a liquid into a gaseous phase that is not saturated with the evaporating substance. The other type of vaporization is boiling, which is characterized by bubbles of saturated vapor forming in the liquid phase. Steam produced in a boiler is another example of evaporation occurring in a saturated vapor phase. Evaporation that occurs directly from the solid phase below the melting point, as commonly observed with ice at or below freezing or moth crystals (napthalene or paradichlorobenzene), is called sublimation. Fog is Cold Steam.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 08:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c40f2e9d-668d-4c04-9744-3084c3d4ab3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547184 |
On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 6:25:02 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > On 1/22/2016 7:42 AM, HVAC wrote: > > I think professor Wormley should post an article on the difference between evaporation and boiling. > > > > There is obviously much confusion on this subject. > > > > I would do it myself except for 2 reasons. > > > > 1) I am a poor instructor and often resort to threats of violence > > > > 2) I am lazy as fuck > > > > > > 3) you just dont care about evaporation nor boiling. > > > "evaporation" is what the do to milk to put it in a can. > > "boiling" is what the do to clams, lobsters and other critters that live > on the ocean floor with spunge bob. > > WIKI SAYS (read this! if you want to); > > Evaporation is a type of vaporization of a liquid that occurs from the > surface of a liquid into a gaseous phase What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means? At what temperature does water turn to gas? At what temperature does evaporation generally take place?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 10:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7tl2p$g6u$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547203 |
On 1/22/2016 10:18 AM, James McGinn wrote: > > What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means? > > At what temperature does water turn to gas? All temperatures. Basic fact, Jim. > > At what temperature does evaporation generally take place? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 08:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b2e7f15b-2c04-4c98-890e-7c4ecc9cf9a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547207 |
On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 8:23:57 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/22/2016 10:18 AM, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means? > > > > At what temperature does water turn to gas? > > All temperatures. Basic fact, Jim. Except that is not what steam tables indicate, is it? Why do you think that is?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 10:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7tlrd$il8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547211 |
On 1/22/2016 10:30 AM, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 8:23:57 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/22/2016 10:18 AM, James McGinn wrote: >> >>> >>> What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means? >>> >>> At what temperature does water turn to gas? >> >> All temperatures. Basic fact, Jim. > > Except that is not what steam tables indicate, is it? For example? Maybe you could point to one online that seems to indicate otherwise. > > Why do you think that is? > Dunno yet. Maybe you don't understand what you're looking at. We'll see. Previous statement stands. All temperatures. Tell me, Jim, when water ice sublimates, is the stuff that goes into the air at temperatures below 0 C composed of microsnowflakes? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 08:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <509eeebe-8747-482b-92a8-014c5a361edc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547213 |
On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 8:37:09 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/22/2016 10:30 AM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 8:23:57 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/22/2016 10:18 AM, James McGinn wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means? > >>> > >>> At what temperature does water turn to gas? > >> > >> All temperatures. Basic fact, Jim. > > > > Except that is not what steam tables indicate, is it? > > For example? Maybe you could point to one online that seems to indicate > otherwise. Take my word on it. > > > > > Why do you think that is? > > > > Dunno yet. Excellent. You are honest about what you don't know. What do you think the next step is?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 11:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7tnkr$o1h$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547220 |
On 1/22/2016 10:53 AM, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 8:37:09 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/22/2016 10:30 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 8:23:57 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 1/22/2016 10:18 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> What do you think the term, "gaseous phase," means? >>>>> >>>>> At what temperature does water turn to gas? >>>> >>>> All temperatures. Basic fact, Jim. >>> >>> Except that is not what steam tables indicate, is it? >> >> For example? Maybe you could point to one online that seems to indicate >> otherwise. > > Take my word on it. No. You're a lone voice. I can find steam tables. From what I see in them, they don't support your claim. Now you've made a claim and say that steam tables support your claim. So pull the steam table up, let's look at it and you can point to what you think it says. > > >> >>> >>> Why do you think that is? >>> >> >> Dunno yet. > > Excellent. You are honest about what you don't know. What do you think the next step is? > You showing me a steam table supporting what you claim. That's the next step. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 10:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0f9a4704-8b70-4a35-ae44-022deaa78675@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547224 |
> > Take my word on it. > > No. You're a lone voice. I can find steam tables. Good. > From what I see in > them, they don't support your claim. Reference?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 12:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7tsdl$185g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547235 |
On 1/22/2016 12:05 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>> Take my word on it. >> >> No. You're a lone voice. I can find steam tables. > > Good. > >> From what I see in >> them, they don't support your claim. > > Reference? > Sure. http://www.efunda.com/materials/water/steamtable_general.cfm Now, you made a claim about steam tables. You point to one that supports your claim. Can't find one? So your making a statement without support from a reference that you claim exists is what you call an argument? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 10:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5bd75612-8184-4ec4-8f67-149a4eca49d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547239 |
On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 10:29:17 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/22/2016 12:05 PM, James McGinn wrote: > >>> Take my word on it. > >> > >> No. You're a lone voice. I can find steam tables. > > > > Good. > > > >> From what I see in > >> them, they don't support your claim. > > > > Reference? > > > > Sure. http://www.efunda.com/materials/water/steamtable_general.cfm > > Now, you made a claim about steam tables. > You point to one that supports your claim. > > Can't find one? So your making a statement without support from a > reference that you claim exists is what you call an argument? A chart would be better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 12:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n80f7c$1tm3$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547241 |
On 1/22/2016 12:41 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 10:29:17 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/22/2016 12:05 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>> Take my word on it. >>>> >>>> No. You're a lone voice. I can find steam tables. >>> >>> Good. >>> >>>> From what I see in >>>> them, they don't support your claim. >>> >>> Reference? >>> >> >> Sure. http://www.efunda.com/materials/water/steamtable_general.cfm >> >> Now, you made a claim about steam tables. >> You point to one that supports your claim. >> >> Can't find one? So your making a statement without support from a >> reference that you claim exists is what you call an argument? > > A chart would be better. > So show me a chart that makes your argument for you. Or maybe you don't have one. Can you learn a new word today, Jim? The word is chickenshit. Can you say chickenshit? There! I knew you could! -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 10:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9ce20c99-0c42-4293-adc2-a727b167fdc3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547564 |
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 10:02:25 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > So show me a chart that makes your argument for you. Or maybe you don't > have one. > > Can you learn a new word today, Jim? The word is chickenshit. Can you > say chickenshit? There! I knew you could! As you demonstrate, the boiling temperature/pressure of water is not controversial. It's not even worth looking up because everybody knows what the evidence indicates. It's uneqivocal. Yet whole disciplines, like meteorology and climatology, have models the PERCIEVED validity of which depend on this phantom notion that water can be a gas at ambient temperatures. So, we have whole disciplines dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator because otherwise all members of the discipline are revealed as fools. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/KQyKNSw6DAAJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web