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

Groups > sci.physics > #556296 > unrolled thread

A Simpler Alternative to Penino's Suggested Experiment

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  A Simpler Alternative to Penino's Suggested Experiment James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 12:42 -0800
    Re: A Simpler Alternative to Penino's Suggested Experiment Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-24 15:40 -0600
    Re: A Simpler Alternative to Penino's Suggested Experiment jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-24 23:08 +0000
      Re: A Simpler Alternative to Penino's Suggested Experiment James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 18:49 -0800
        Re: A Simpler Alternative to Penino's Suggested Experiment pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-24 19:13 -0800
          Re: A Simpler Alternative to Penino's Suggested Experiment pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-24 19:18 -0800
        Re: A Simpler Alternative to Penino's Suggested Experiment jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-25 03:54 +0000
          Re: A Simpler Alternative to Penino's Suggested Experiment James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 22:56 -0800
            Re: A Simpler Alternative to Penino's Suggested Experiment Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 08:49 -0600
        Re: A Simpler Alternative to Penino's Suggested Experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-25 17:57 +0000

#556296 — A Simpler Alternative to Penino's Suggested Experiment

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> Take a fixed volume of air (that means you put ambient air into a container
> and close it) and monitor the pressure (that means put a pressure guage
> on the container) while you slowly increase the temperature (that means
> make the container hotter very slowly so the air inside has time to heat
> up).
> 
> If the H2O in the air in the container is gaseous, the pressure will
> smoothly increase as the temperature in increased.

I get your point.  You are saying there should be a sharp discontinuance as the boiling temperature/pressure is reached.  You have the right idea, but there are complicating factors that you, undoubtedly, did not anticipate.  One is minor the other, however, is not minor. It is a monster.  I will explain below.

> If the H2O in the air in the container is liquid, the pressure will
> smoothly increase as the temperature in increased until the temperature
> reaches the boiling point, at which point there will be a discontinuance
> (that means sharp and sudden) increase in pressure, after which the pressure
> will continue to increase smoothly.
> 
> Guess which happens.

I don't need to guess.  I know what will happen.  

> Is this an anecdote?

No.  

> No, it is an experiment.
> 
> Is this reproducible?

Yes.

> Yes, you will get the same result no matter how many times you do it
> or who does it.

I agree.  

You have the right idea.  But water is tricky.  The discontinuance will not be as sharp as you suggest.  There are complicating factors.  One of those being the fact that water's pressure increases it's boiling temperature increases.  But this is a minor complication that is easily resolved using steam tables. 

However, there is another complicating factor that is a monster, vapor pressure. As you increase temperature, approaching the boiling temperature, vapor pressure (a mixture of air and H2O) will have its own effect.  And this effect will be largely (or even completely) indistinguishable from that of gaseous H2O. 

Nevertheless what you are saying has fundamental validity.  After the boiling temperature is reached the increase in pressure should be linear and it should follow standard gas laws. Before then, well . . . it depends . . . 

Let me explain, above boiling temperature/pressure any increase in temperature will produce a corresponding increase in pressure that is predictable using standard gas laws.  Below the boiling temperature/pressure any decrease in temperature will produce a corresponding decrease in pressure that is predictable using both gas laws (for the air in the container) and laws of vapor pressure (for the H2O droplets).  And so, your results may vary depending on the percentage of air to water (humidity) in the container.  You will find it incredibly difficult to control for this.

BTW, this is an issue Walter James Espy struggled with way back in the 1840s.  Vapor pressure is the monkey wrench that makes this not as simple as he/you/me might at first assume.  

Nevertheless you have the right idea. But you haven't presented any data or methods.  Remember, you stand to gain $100,000 here. Go ahead.  

There is actually a simpler method/experiment to prove your point.  And it doesn't involve the complications mentioned above.  It does, however, require a highly accurate scale and the ability to start from verifiably dry environmental conditions (like a desert or a dry room). 

It is not anecdotal.  It is reproducible.  

It involves controlling for all other factors but moisture, humidity being the variable, and directly weighing moist air vs. dry air.  

It is simple, it is cheap, it is definitive:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Rxuy9dTlldQ/D4bhj4mNemQJ

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#556321

On 2/24/2016 2:42 PM, James McGinn wrote:



I hang my wet shirt out to dry on the clothesline after an hour it is
completely dry.

there was no wet spot under the shirt.

how did the water get out ?

No smoke came off it at all.

did my shirt out-gas ?


what kind of gas ?

water gas ?

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

#556347

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:16:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> Take a fixed volume of air (that means you put ambient air into a container
>> and close it) and monitor the pressure (that means put a pressure guage
>> on the container) while you slowly increase the temperature (that means
>> make the container hotter very slowly so the air inside has time to heat
>> up).
>> 
>> If the H2O in the air in the container is gaseous, the pressure will
>> smoothly increase as the temperature in increased.
> 
> I get your point.  You are saying there should be a sharp discontinuance

Learn to format lines to a fixed length of no more than 68 characters.

> 
>> If the H2O in the air in the container is liquid, the pressure will
>> smoothly increase as the temperature in increased until the temperature
>> reaches the boiling point, at which point there will be a discontinuance
>> (that means sharp and sudden) increase in pressure, after which the pressure
>> will continue to increase smoothly.
>> 
>> Guess which happens.
> 
> I don't need to guess.  I know what will happen.  
> 
>> Is this an anecdote?
> 
> No.  
> 
>> No, it is an experiment.
>> 
>> Is this reproducible?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> Yes, you will get the same result no matter how many times you do it
>> or who does it.
> 
> I agree.  
> 
> You have the right idea.  But water is tricky.  The discontinuance will

Learn to format lines to a fixed length of no more than 68 characters.

<remainder snipped as difficult to read and not amenable to responding>

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#556397

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

The argument is over anyways.

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

#556402

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 6:49:54 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
> The argument is over anyways.

Yes, and you lose...

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

#556406

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 7:13:19 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 6:49:54 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > 
> > The argument is over anyways.
> 
> Yes, and you lose...

Of course... I was referring to McGinn... sorry for any confusion...

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

#556411

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
> The argument is over anyways.

Did you start seeing a mental health professional that helped you see
the error of your delusions or have your delusions caused you to come
to the false conclusion I agree with your nonsense?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#556443

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 8:01:08 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > 
> > The argument is over anyways.
> 
> Did you start seeing a mental health professional that helped you see
> the error of your delusions or have your delusions caused you to come
> to the false conclusion I agree with your nonsense?

I wouldn't want to come to a false conclusion.

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

#556501

On 2/25/2016 12:56 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 8:01:08 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>> The argument is over anyways.
>>
>> Did you start seeing a mental health professional that helped you see
>> the error of your delusions or have your delusions caused you to come
>> to the false conclusion I agree with your nonsense?
>
> I wouldn't want to come to a false conclusion.
>

you preach false conclusions.  you are delusional and scrambled


So McGinn,     "HOW DOES MY SHIRT DRY ?"


you say you are a physicist, a meteorologist, an expert in water,

what is your answer ?


ANSWER NOW !!

no evasive stuff, answer the simple question

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

#556577

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes:

>On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>The argument is over anyways.

I'm glad you finally admit you lost, Jim.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web