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 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 10:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <22ad0caf-9cfb-459d-8939-e77882aa9d88@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548326 |
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:12:03 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/26/2016 12:10 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:00:29 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >> But Jim, you haven't presented any actual data. > > > > I have no issue with the existing data. > > Of course you don't. But what you claim is not related to the data you > have no issue with. That's perhaps why you don't cite the data you don't > have an issue with, because it doesn't actually support your claims. If that is what you believe then you are free to make an argument to that effect. You can present it here on this forum. I guarantee you I will respond--maybe the controversy will draw more attention to my hypothesis, along those lines I think I will drop a link here and now. Thanks again for your participation: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ > > > > > > >> At all. > >> Other people have pointed you to books that contain actual data, which > >> you have declined to look at. > > > > I'm not interested in debating your imagination. > > > >> You have asked for steam tables, which have been provided, but you > >> haven't pointed out any data from any of the steam tables that support > >> anything you say. > > > > See my answer above. > > > >> When you actually support what you say with actual data that you > >> actually cite, then maybe people will treat you as something other than > >> a loon. > > > > above. > > > > Troll. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 16:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ee5725ab-bec9-40f2-9ded-cb85747a31bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548120 |
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:40:29 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Liquid. It can even be supercooled water. But it is always > > liquid, not gas. > > Now, why would there be supercooled liquid drops in the air at -40 C, Jim? > > > Consult steam tables. > > You consult steam tables. Show where in steam tables it says that there > is only liquid water in air at -40 C. Supercooled water is well documented in the atmosphere. Google is your friend, again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 13:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dgo2ijFcckrU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #548144 |
On 26/01/2016 11:22 AM, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:40:29 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> Liquid. It can even be supercooled water. But it is always >>> liquid, not gas. >> >> Now, why would there be supercooled liquid drops in the air at -40 C, Jim? >> >>> Consult steam tables. >> >> You consult steam tables. Show where in steam tables it says that there >> is only liquid water in air at -40 C. > > Supercooled water is well documented in the atmosphere. Google is your friend, again. > That there can be liquid water in the air at -40C was not the point. The operative word was "only". Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 18:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b1760721-8bed-499b-8a08-7d2f89c59bd2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548167 |
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 6:05:11 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 26/01/2016 11:22 AM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:40:29 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >>> Liquid. It can even be supercooled water. But it is always > >>> liquid, not gas. > >> > >> Now, why would there be supercooled liquid drops in the air at -40 C, Jim? > >> > >>> Consult steam tables. > >> > >> You consult steam tables. Show where in steam tables it says that there > >> is only liquid water in air at -40 C. > > > > Supercooled water is well documented in the atmosphere. Google is your friend, again. > > > > That there can be liquid water in the air at -40C was not the point. The > operative word was "only". ice too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 10:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n887mb$1hpv$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #548169 |
On 1/25/2016 8:20 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > ice too. > trolls die horrible deaths.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 07:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n87s60$q9i$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #548144 |
On 1/25/2016 6:22 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:40:29 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> Liquid. It can even be supercooled water. But it is always >>> liquid, not gas. >> >> Now, why would there be supercooled liquid drops in the air at -40 C, Jim? >> >>> Consult steam tables. >> >> You consult steam tables. Show where in steam tables it says that there >> is only liquid water in air at -40 C. > > Supercooled water is well documented in the atmosphere. Google is your friend, again. Show where in the steam tables they show this. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 13:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <14628a32-a9c2-4b7b-8650-b397fcd0c2bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548016 |
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/24/2016 10:05 AM, Poutnik wrote: > > Dne 22/01/2016 v 17:23 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): > >> 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. > > > > And not only water, but ice as well. > > Exactly. Which is why I asked Jim if he thought that the sublimated > water ice that passes into the atmosphere at temperatures below 0 C took > the form of microsnowflakes rather than gas. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.research/QOxLdbhLwQ0/jYwQxYtPCwAJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 12:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7tt8g$1b1v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547203 |
On 1/22/2016 10:18 AM, James McGinn wrote: > 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? non-liquid, non solid > > At what temperature does water turn to gas? at what pressure ?, and what gas is it evaporating into ? you should review "vapor pressure", you will find it works differently than you are thinking, it is a equliberium point where atoms of liquid water leave the surface and go into the air, and an equal # of atoms of water return into the liquid. think of a closed jar with some water in it. And think about "pressure" the dimention of these problems you have been missing all this time, how much pressure does water exert on its container? Bonus Questions: What if you raise the temperature? what happens to pressure inside? Why ? By how much ? (wiki for equations) > > At what temperature does evaporation generally take place? all temps.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 10:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f0a883db-1a08-4ac4-9218-d4e73f3991d7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547243 |
On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 10:43:38 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: > > At what temperature does water turn to gas? > > at what pressure? I'll leave that up to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Senreich <lawest@galaxyredeems.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7tu6h$1bd1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547254 |
James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 10:43:38 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >> > At what temperature does water turn to gas? >> >> at what pressure? > > I'll leave that up to you. Does not matter the temperature and pressure, but the saturation of the surrounding environment, say air. If the humidity is 100% then no evaporations takes place. Otherwise always.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 11:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f722b885-0b91-4bd2-9915-3c34ff27e837@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547255 |
On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 10:59:37 AM UTC-8, Lawrence Senreich wrote: > Does not matter the temperature and pressure, What do the steam tables indicate?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 14:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7u3s1$1u2n$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547274 |
On 1/22/2016 1:08 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 10:59:37 AM UTC-8, Lawrence Senreich wrote: > >> Does not matter the temperature and pressure, > > What do the steam tables indicate? > here you go; http://www.steamtablesonline.com/steam97web.aspx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 20:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7u181$s4a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #547255 |
Dne 22/01/2016 v 19:59 Lawrence Senreich napsal(a): > > Does not matter the temperature and pressure, but the saturation of the > surrounding environment, say air. If the humidity is 100% then no > evaporations takes place. Otherwise always. > It is not related to environment saturation. It is not attribute of air, but of water itself. For given temperature and partial vapour pressure equal to saturated one, rate of condensation reaches rate of evaporation, as it is dynamic process. If vapour pressure reaches external pressure, liquid starts boiling, as external pressure is not able to prevent vapour bubbles to be created. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Senreich <lawest@galaxyredeems.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 13:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7vv52$11va$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547284 |
Poutnik wrote: > Dne 22/01/2016 v 19:59 Lawrence Senreich napsal(a): >> >> Does not matter the temperature and pressure, but the saturation of the >> surrounding environment, say air. If the humidity is 100% then no >> evaporations takes place. Otherwise always. >> > It is not related to environment saturation. > It is not attribute of air, but of water itself. So you mean that humidity can go above those 100%. Why aren't continue posting in sci.physics.research, a place where you are allowed, without the fear to be called stupid?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 08:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n81uji$b0h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #547457 |
Dne 23/01/2016 v 14:28 Lawrence Senreich napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >> Dne 22/01/2016 v 19:59 Lawrence Senreich napsal(a): >>> >>> Does not matter the temperature and pressure, but the saturation of the >>> surrounding environment, say air. If the humidity is 100% then no >>> evaporations takes place. Otherwise always. >>> >> It is not related to environment saturation. >> It is not attribute of air, but of water itself. > > So you mean that humidity can go above those 100%. Why aren't continue > posting in sci.physics.research, a place where you are allowed, without > the fear to be called stupid? > In fact it can, being not stable stable what is used in a fog chambers to detect the flight of charged particles. You can continue to post in sci.physics, if you do not fear to be called stupid. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 00:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <45a6f46d-b8e8-4e22-a20c-c141ce08cb5e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547742 |
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 11:33:49 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 23/01/2016 v 14:28 Lawrence Senreich napsal(a): > > Poutnik wrote: > > > >> Dne 22/01/2016 v 19:59 Lawrence Senreich napsal(a): > >>> > >>> Does not matter the temperature and pressure, but the saturation of the > >>> surrounding environment, say air. If the humidity is 100% then no > >>> evaporations takes place. Otherwise always. > >>> > >> It is not related to environment saturation. > >> It is not attribute of air, but of water itself. > > > > So you mean that humidity can go above those 100%. Why aren't continue > > posting in sci.physics.research, a place where you are allowed, without > > the fear to be called stupid? > > > In fact it can, being not stable stable > what is used in a fog chambers > to detect the flight of charged particles. Incoherent, as usual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 08:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n81vfu$d6f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #547457 |
Dne 23/01/2016 v 14:28 Lawrence Senreich napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >> Dne 22/01/2016 v 19:59 Lawrence Senreich napsal(a): >>> >>> Does not matter the temperature and pressure, but the saturation of the >>> surrounding environment, say air. If the humidity is 100% then no >>> evaporations takes place. Otherwise always. >>> >> It is not related to environment saturation. >> It is not attribute of air, but of water itself. > > So you mean that humidity can go above those 100%. If there is maintained equilibrium between liquid and gaseous phase, the relative humidity does not go above 100%. As above 100%, rate of condensation is higher than rate of evaporation. But if the gaseous phase with 100% humidity* gets cooled down, and if there is lack of condensation centres withing gaseous phase like dust or droplets, vapour get routinely oversaturated. It is similar as when liquid can be temporarily overheated above boiling point, or overcooled below freezing point. Note that all these states are not stable, but waits for opportunity to be changed to stable state. * regardless on if other gases than water vapour are present or not -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 00:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4ca0c117-9fac-49c9-b11a-f66ac2a0cf55@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547745 |
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 11:48:56 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote: > If there is maintained equilibrium > between liquid and gaseous phase, There is no gaseous phase in earth's atmosphere. > the relative humidity does not go above 100%. > > As above 100%, rate of condensation > is higher than rate of evaporation. It is more complicated than just this. Water vapor in the atmosphere is maybe the most poorly understood subject in all of science. Meteorology is clueless, by design. physicists have their heads up there asses on this subject. > > But if the gaseous phase with 100% humidity* gets cooled down, There is no gaseous H2O in the atmospher, you moron. Stop pretending you understand what you don't. > and if there is lack of condensation centres withing gaseous phase > like dust or droplets, vapour get routinely oversaturated. > > It is similar as > when liquid can be temporarily overheated above boiling point, > or overcooled below freezing point. > > Note that all these states are not stable, but waits for opportunity > to be changed to stable state. incoherent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 10:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n85jnl$180m$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547748 |
On 1/24/2016 2:27 AM, James McGinn wrote:
<snip crap>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rebecca Ochsenknecht <rebeoch@stritzelhassel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 12:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n82fvg$f31$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547745 |
Poutnik wrote: >>>> Does not matter the temperature and pressure, but the saturation of >>>> the surrounding environment, say air. If the humidity is 100% then no >>>> evaporations takes place. Otherwise always. >>>> >>> It is not related to environment saturation. >>> It is not attribute of air, but of water itself. >> >> So you mean that humidity can go above those 100%. > > If there is maintained equilibrium between liquid and gaseous phase, > the relative humidity does not go above 100%. Otherwise it will? I can see you are not afraid of being called stupid. Go back and do research in sci.physics.research, a place where nobody ever will call you stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web