Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #545539 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-14 20:25 -0600 |
| Last post | 2016-01-16 03:55 -0800 |
| Articles | 18 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 20:25 -0600
Re: WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 22:13 -0800
Re: WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-16 14:04 +1100
Re: WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 19:13 -0800
Re: WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-16 14:29 +1100
Re: WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 19:40 -0800
Re: WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-16 16:02 +1100
Re: WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 21:20 -0800
Re: WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 10:51 -0800
Re: WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 15:44 -0800
Re: WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 08:50 -0800
Re: WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-23 11:46 -0600
Re: WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:12 -0800
Re: WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 18:30 -0800
WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 10:53 -0800
Re: WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 16:43 -0800
Re: WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-16 14:05 +1100
Re: WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 03:55 -0800
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 20:25 -0600 |
| Subject | WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE |
| Message-ID | <u9CdnZXp6N0xxQXLnZ2dnUU7-b3OydjZ@giganews.com> |
WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE > http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/260/ > The amount of water vapor in the air also effects the density. Water > vapor is a relatively light gas when compared to diatomic Oxygen and > diatomic Nitrogen. Thus, when water vapor increases, the amount of > Oxygen and Nitrogen decrease per unit volume and thus density > decreases because mass is decreasing. > > The two most abundant elements in the troposphere are Oxygen and > Nitrogen. Oxygen has an 16 atomic unit mass while Nitrogen has a 14 > atomic units mass. Since both these elements are diatomic in the > troposphere (O2 and N2), the atomic mass of diatomic Oxygen is 32 and > the diatomic mass of Nitrogen is 28. Some people's "Heavy Air Theory" is a complete sham. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 22:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7eb635fe-eecd-4e40-933e-a94b9328745f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545539 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 6:25:51 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: > WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE > > http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/260/ > > > The amount of water vapor in the air also effects the density. Water > > vapor is a relatively light gas when compared to diatomic Oxygen and > > diatomic Nitrogen. Thus, when water vapor increases, the amount of > > Oxygen and Nitrogen decrease per unit volume and thus density > > decreases because mass is decreasing. > > > > The two most abundant elements in the troposphere are Oxygen and > > Nitrogen. Oxygen has an 16 atomic unit mass while Nitrogen has a 14 > > atomic units mass. Since both these elements are diatomic in the > > troposphere (O2 and N2), the atomic mass of diatomic Oxygen is 32 and > > the diatomic mass of Nitrogen is 28. > > > Some people's "Heavy Air Theory" is a complete sham. The devil is in the details of what they are not telling you: 1) Earth's atmosphere is too cool for steam 2) Their models assume steam 3) The livelihood of many, both in meteorology and climatology, depend on the public not realizing #1 and #2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 14:04 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dftq9uFnv6dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #545566 |
On 15/01/2016 5:13 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 6:25:51 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: >> WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE >>> http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/260/ >> >>> The amount of water vapor in the air also effects the density. Water >>> vapor is a relatively light gas when compared to diatomic Oxygen and >>> diatomic Nitrogen. Thus, when water vapor increases, the amount of >>> Oxygen and Nitrogen decrease per unit volume and thus density >>> decreases because mass is decreasing. >>> >>> The two most abundant elements in the troposphere are Oxygen and >>> Nitrogen. Oxygen has an 16 atomic unit mass while Nitrogen has a 14 >>> atomic units mass. Since both these elements are diatomic in the >>> troposphere (O2 and N2), the atomic mass of diatomic Oxygen is 32 and >>> the diatomic mass of Nitrogen is 28. >> >> >> Some people's "Heavy Air Theory" is a complete sham. > > The devil is in the details of what they are not telling you: > 1) Earth's atmosphere is too cool for steam It's not too cool for water vapour, though, as is evidenced by the fact that wet clothes turn into dry clothes without the application of heat. > 2) Their models assume steam No they don't. > 3) The livelihood of many, both in meteorology and climatology, depend on the public not realizing #1 and #2 > The public probably do realise (1), but it's not relevant. They don't realise (2) because it's not true. (3) seems a non sequitur. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 19:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <705e0c81-4b78-4ccf-acb9-51e5768b4be7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545774 |
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 7:04:34 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > 1) Earth's atmosphere is too cool for steam > > It's not too cool for water vapour, though, as is evidenced by the fact > that wet clothes turn into dry clothes without the application of heat. Steam is gaseous H2O. Vapor (evaporate) is not gaseous. It is still liquid, suspended in air. This is pretty simple, Sylvia. You could have figured this out with the slightest effort. > > > 2) Their models assume steam > > No they don't. Yes they do. > > 3) The livelihood of many, both in meteorology and > > climatology, depend on the public not realizing #1 and #2 > > > > The public probably do realise (1), but it's not relevant. They don't think about it. It is relevant. > They don't realise (2) because it's not true. It's true. I'm a trained meteorologists. I know the models. You are ignorant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 14:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dftrouFoaigU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #545776 |
On 16/01/2016 2:13 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 7:04:34 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> 1) Earth's atmosphere is too cool for steam >> >> It's not too cool for water vapour, though, as is evidenced by the >> fact that wet clothes turn into dry clothes without the application >> of heat. > > Steam is gaseous H2O. Vapor (evaporate) is not gaseous. It is still > liquid, suspended in air. > > This is pretty simple, Sylvia. You could have figured this out with > the slightest effort. Saying that it's a liquid suspended in air doesn't make so. >>> 3) The livelihood of many, both in meteorology and climatology, >>> depend on the public not realizing #1 and #2 >>> >> >> The public probably do realise (1), but it's not relevant. > > They don't think about it. It is relevant. > >> They don't realise (2) because it's not true. > > It's true. I'm a trained meteorologists. I know the models. Cite a specific model that assumes steam. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 19:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <139ecd18-ed93-4001-9e2a-084605beddc9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545787 |
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 7:29:38 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > This is pretty simple, Sylvia. You could have figured this out with > > the slightest effort. > > Saying that it's a liquid suspended in air doesn't make so. Clouds. > > It's true. I'm a trained meteorologists. I know the models. > > Cite a specific model that assumes steam. Look up the concept of convection, which is the basis of storm theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 16:02 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfu16rFpdfpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #545789 |
On 16/01/2016 2:40 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 7:29:38 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> This is pretty simple, Sylvia. You could have figured this out with >>> the slightest effort. >> >> Saying that it's a liquid suspended in air doesn't make so. > > Clouds. > >>> It's true. I'm a trained meteorologists. I know the models. >> >> Cite a specific model that assumes steam. > > Look up the concept of convection, which is the basis of storm theory. > So often the response to a request for a cite is a suggestion to look something up. That way, if the material found doesn't support the intended position, this can be blamed on the other party having failed to research adequately. Or do you just not know what "cite" means? | Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 21:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <feb1de74-f01a-4035-954f-dde5915d9cc5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545794 |
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 9:02:25 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 16/01/2016 2:40 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 7:29:38 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >>> This is pretty simple, Sylvia. You could have figured this out with > >>> the slightest effort. > >> > >> Saying that it's a liquid suspended in air doesn't make so. > > > > Clouds. > > > >>> It's true. I'm a trained meteorologists. I know the models. > >> > >> Cite a specific model that assumes steam. > > > > Look up the concept of convection, which is the basis of storm theory. > > > > So often the response to a request for a cite is a suggestion to look > something up. That way, if the material found doesn't support the > intended position, this can be blamed on the other party having failed > to research adequately. > > Or do you just not know what "cite" means? Search engine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 10:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <329ee20e-4c6a-4176-8d88-3f0a918b2356@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545795 |
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 9:20:45 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > Search engine. BTW, storm theory is an incredibly archaic and obscure subject. The Moses of storm theory (a quack by modern day standard) is a guy named Walter James Espy. If you spend more than ten minutes searching for anything on this subject you are, most likely, searching for something you are never going to find. http://wp.me/p4JijN-3j
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 15:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <785e1d8d-690b-4968-8d59-a1e9f4b62e1f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545860 |
On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 10:51:35 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 9:20:45 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > Search engine. > > BTW, storm theory is an incredibly archaic and obscure subject. The Moses of storm theory (a quack by modern day standard) is a guy named Walter James Espy. > > If you spend more than ten minutes searching for anything on this subject you are, most likely, searching for something you are never going to find. > > http://wp.me/p4JijN-3j Keep trying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 08:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3fa2f657-d980-4728-bab0-93ee511eb296@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #546148 |
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 3:44:30 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 10:51:35 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 9:20:45 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > > > Search engine. > > > > BTW, storm theory is an incredibly archaic and obscure subject. The Moses of storm theory (a quack by modern day standard) is a guy named Walter James Espy. > > > > If you spend more than ten minutes searching for anything on this subject you are, most likely, searching for something you are never going to find. > > > > http://wp.me/p4JijN-3j > > Keep trying. asd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 11:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n80eb4$1rl8$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547531 |
On 1/23/2016 10:50 AM, James McGinn wrote: > On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 3:44:30 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 10:51:35 AM UTC-8, James McGinn >> wrote: >>> On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 9:20:45 PM UTC-8, James McGinn >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Search engine. >>> >> >> Keep trying. > > asd > esad troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 10:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ce6b3aaa-672a-42a5-8d77-7dec992870cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545860 |
On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 10:51:35 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 9:20:45 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > > > Search engine. > > BTW, storm theory is an incredibly archaic and obscure subject. The Moses of storm theory (a quack by modern day standard) is a guy named Walter James Espy. > > If you spend more than ten minutes searching for anything on this subject you are, most likely, searching for something you are never going to find. > > http://wp.me/p4JijN-3j
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 18:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fe09bca6-8933-45b5-93d8-d0254d24f2a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545776 |
steam i drops of OHO riding on a stream of vapor OHO ... I mean, HOH > Steam is gaseous H2O. Vapor (evaporate) is not gaseous. It is still liquid, suspended in air. > > This is pretty simple, Sylvia. You could have figured this out with the slightest effort. > > > > > > 2) Their models assume steam > > > > No they don't. > > Yes they do. > > > > 3) The livelihood of many, both in meteorology and > > > climatology, depend on the public not realizing #1 and #2 > > > > > > > The public probably do realise (1), but it's not relevant. > > They don't think about it. It is relevant. > > > They don't realise (2) because it's not true. > > It's true. I'm a trained meteorologists. I know the models. > > You are ignorant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 10:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a1ab3bfb-949b-4971-99db-26ae653a0b20@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545539 |
Some people's "Heavy Air Theory" is a complete sham. ------------ Translation: Bert is a cocksucking liar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 16:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b853852c-c510-4d3b-85b3-230db133fe90@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545539 |
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 6:25:51 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: > WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE > > http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/260/ > > > The amount of water vapor in the air also effects the density. Water > > vapor is a relatively light gas when compared to diatomic Oxygen and > > diatomic Nitrogen. Thus, when water vapor increases, the amount of > > Oxygen and Nitrogen decrease per unit volume and thus density > > decreases because mass is decreasing. > > > > The two most abundant elements in the troposphere are Oxygen and > > Nitrogen. Oxygen has an 16 atomic unit mass while Nitrogen has a 14 > > atomic units mass. Since both these elements are diatomic in the > > troposphere (O2 and N2), the atomic mass of diatomic Oxygen is 32 and > > the diatomic mass of Nitrogen is 28. > > > Some people's "Heavy Air Theory" is a complete sham. > > > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. My "HEAVY AIR THEORY" Is well accepted by the email I get on it. Cold air is heavier than hot air.Very true at the poles. Thin air is here in Anaheim.Heavy air is over NYC Washington Boston and Chicago.TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 14:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dftqbrFnv6dU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #545746 |
On 16/01/2016 11:43 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 6:25:51 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley > wrote: >> WHY IS MOIST AIR LESS DENSE THAN DRY AIR AT SAME TEMPERATURE >>> http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/260/ >> >>> The amount of water vapor in the air also effects the density. >>> Water vapor is a relatively light gas when compared to diatomic >>> Oxygen and diatomic Nitrogen. Thus, when water vapor increases, >>> the amount of Oxygen and Nitrogen decrease per unit volume and >>> thus density decreases because mass is decreasing. >>> >>> The two most abundant elements in the troposphere are Oxygen and >>> Nitrogen. Oxygen has an 16 atomic unit mass while Nitrogen has a >>> 14 atomic units mass. Since both these elements are diatomic in >>> the troposphere (O2 and N2), the atomic mass of diatomic Oxygen >>> is 32 and the diatomic mass of Nitrogen is 28. >> >> >> Some people's "Heavy Air Theory" is a complete sham. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion >> of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related >> social issues. > > My "HEAVY AIR THEORY" Is well accepted by the email I get on it. Cranks tend to support other cranks. Quite why escapes me. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 03:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3b28ce7d-8daa-40f3-9a7a-ce6fa12f6775@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #545775 |
> > My "HEAVY AIR THEORY" Is well accepted by the email I get on it. Cranks tend to support other cranks. Quite why escapes me. ---------- There are no emails
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web