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

Groups > sci.physics > #557455 > unrolled thread

Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 18:30 -0800
    Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 20:40 -0600
      Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 18:56 -0800
        Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 12:52 -0600
          Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 12:38 -0800
            Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 15:04 -0600
              Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 13:47 -0800
                Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-28 16:05 -0600
                  Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 14:20 -0800
                    Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 16:43 -0600
                    Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-28 22:43 +0000
                    Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-28 16:46 -0600
              Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:05 -0800
                Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 18:46 -0600
                  Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:58 -0800
                    Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 19:07 -0600
                Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 00:51 +0000
            Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-28 21:33 +0000
              Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 13:59 -0800
                Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 14:36 -0800
                  Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-28 22:51 +0000
                Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-28 22:44 +0000
                  Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 14:53 -0800
                    Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-28 23:48 +0000
                  Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 15:11 -0800
                    Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 17:18 -0600
                      Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-28 23:51 +0000
                      Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 16:07 -0800
                        Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-28 18:13 -0600
                        Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 18:22 -0600
                          Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 16:28 -0800
                    Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-28 23:49 +0000
          Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 15:59 -0800
            Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 00:12 +0000
              Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:18 -0800
                Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-03 00:52 +0000
              Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 08:54 -0800
    Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 20:52 -0600
      Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 18:57 -0800
        Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-27 19:31 -0800
          Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 19:54 -0800
            Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-27 22:37 -0600
              Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 20:51 -0800
            Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-27 21:11 -0800
              Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 21:55 -0800
                Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-27 22:28 -0800
                  Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 23:08 -0800
                Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-28 19:21 -0600
    Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-27 20:51 -0600
      Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 23:34 -0800
    Re: Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 21:18 -0800
      re, re, re noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 13:12 -0800
        Re: re, re, re James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 14:53 -0800
          Re: re, re, re Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 17:33 -0600
            Re: re, re, re James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 15:36 -0800
              Re: re, re, re jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-02 23:55 +0000
                Re: re, re, re Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 18:50 -0600
                Re: re, re, re James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 11:24 -0800
                  Re: re, re, re jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 19:35 +0000
          re de rain noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 11:37 -0800
            Re: re de rain James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 13:32 -0800
              Re: re de rain noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 14:22 -0800
          Re: re, re, re noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 14:20 -0800
            Re: re, re, re James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 14:29 -0800

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#557683

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 1:59:48 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> 
>> > >>    James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to
>> > >>    mean water (H2O) gas.
>> > > 
>> > > Yeah, that's the belief, Sam.  
>> > 
>> > No, that is the definition.
>> 
>> Can it not be both?
> 
> Duhr.

He probably thinks this is clever.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557678

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:52:14 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> >> On 2/27/16 8:56 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>> >> > On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 6:40:05 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> >> >> Density of Dry Air
>> >> >> The density of dry air can be expressed as:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ρa = 0.0035 pa / T         (1)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> where
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ρa = density dry air (kg/m3)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> pa = partial pressure of air (Pa, N/m2)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> T = absolute dry bulb temperature (K)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Density of Water Vapor
>> >> >> The density of water vapor can be expressed as:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ρw = 0.0022 pw / T         (2)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> where
>> >> >>
>> >> >> pw = partial pressure water vapor (Pa, N/m2)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ρw = density water vapor (kg/m3)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> T = absolute dry bulb temperature (K)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ref: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-air-d_680.html
>> >> >
>> >> > Sam,
>> >> >
>> >> > These procedures will test whether the particles of moisture are multi-molecular, as I claim, or monomolecular, as you and engineering toolbox claim.  If the jar with moisture is heavier, as I predict, then I am right.  If it is lighter, then you and engineering toolbox are right.
>> >> >
>> >> > The underlying theory is based on standard gas laws and Avogadro's law.
>> >> >
>> >> > Do you get it?
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >>    James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to
>> >>    mean water (H2O) gas.
>> > 
>> > Yeah, that's the belief, Sam.  
>> 
>> No, that is the definition.
> 
> Can it not be both?

No, fool.

Let us now add "definition" to the ever growing list of words this delusional
fool doesn't understand.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557680

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 2:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> >> >>    James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to
> >> >>    mean water (H2O) gas.
> >> > 
> >> > Yeah, that's the belief, Sam.  
> >> 
> >> No, that is the definition.
> > 
> > Can it not be both?
> 
> No, 

No?  Wow, you are a genuine imbecile.

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

#557700

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 2:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> >> >>    James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to
>> >> >>    mean water (H2O) gas.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Yeah, that's the belief, Sam.  
>> >> 
>> >> No, that is the definition.
>> > 
>> > Can it not be both?
>> 
>> No, 
> 
> No?  Wow, you are a genuine imbecile.

Like I said, we can add the words "definition" and "belief" to the ever
growing list of words this fool doesn't understand.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557688

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 2:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> >> No, that is the definition.
> > 
> > Can it not be both?
> 
> No, fool.
> 
> Let us now add "definition" to the ever growing list of words this delusional
> fool doesn't understand.

I'm embarassed for having wasted my time talking with such complete fools.

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

#557690

On 2/28/16 5:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> I'm embarassed for having wasted my time talking with such complete fools.
>


   Let's see if we can find some common ground, James.  Perhaps we could
   start with the existence of gaseous water--single molecules of H2O.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#557702

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/28/16 5:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>
>> I'm embarassed for having wasted my time talking with such complete fools.
>>
> 
> 
>   Let's see if we can find some common ground, James.  Perhaps we could
>   start with the existence of gaseous water--single molecules of H2O.

What possible common ground could there be with someone that doesn't
understand the difference between "belief" and "definition"?

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557704

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 3:18:51 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/28/16 5:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >
> > I'm embarassed for having wasted my time talking with such complete fools.
> >
> 
> 
>    Let's see if we can find some common ground, James.  Perhaps we could
>    start with the existence of gaseous water--single molecules of H2O.

I'll tell you what, Sam, answer these two questions

1) Do you believe droplets of H2O can be suspended in the atmosphere?

2) Do you believe that these same droplets can be small enough to be invisible?

I answer affirmatively to both questions.  If you do not then we can only agree to disagree.  

Fair enough?

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

#557707

On 2/28/2016 6:07 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 3:18:51 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 2/28/16 5:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm embarassed for having wasted my time talking with such complete fools.
>>>
>>
>>
>>     Let's see if we can find some common ground, James.  Perhaps we could
>>     start with the existence of gaseous water--single molecules of H2O.
>
> I'll tell you what, Sam, answer these two questions
>
> 1) Do you believe droplets of H2O can be suspended in the atmosphere?
>
> 2) Do you believe that these same droplets can be small enough to be invisible?
>
> I answer affirmatively to both questions.  If you do not then we can only agree to disagree.
>
> Fair enough?
>

what about single molecules of H2O,  can they exist or be suspended in 
the atmosphere ?

can you answer affirmatively to this question ?

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

#557711

On 2/28/16 6:07 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> I'll tell you what, Sam, answer these two questions
>
> 1) Do you believe droplets of H2O can be suspended in the atmosphere?

      Yes--Fog, Clouds. Gaseous H2O condenses when the local atmospheric
      temperature falls to the dew point, forming fog and clouds, but
      not before.

      Rising water vapour (gaseous H2O being lighter than oxygen O2 and
      Nitrogen N2) rises because it is lighter forming convection
      currents.

>
> 2) Do you believe that these same droplets can be small enough to be invisible?

      No, as one can see the droplets with a microscope. We tend to see
      condensed water as fog and clouds. Gaseous H2O condenses when the
      local atmospheric temperature falls to the local dew point,
      forming fog and clouds, but not before.

>
> I answer affirmatively to both questions.  If you do not then we can only agree to disagree.
>
> Fair enough?




-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#557715

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 4:22:25 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:


> > 2) Do you believe that these same droplets can be small enough to be invisible?
> 
>       No.

Then we will have to agree to disagree.

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

#557701

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 2:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> >> No, that is the definition.
>> > 
>> > Can it not be both?
>> 
>> No, fool.
>> 
>> Let us now add "definition" to the ever growing list of words this delusional
>> fool doesn't understand.
> 
> I'm embarassed for having wasted my time talking with such complete fools.

In other words, you have backed yourself into a corner with your delusions.

Seek professional help for your delusions.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#558728

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:52:14 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/27/16 8:56 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 6:40:05 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> Density of Dry Air
> >> The density of dry air can be expressed as:
> >>
> >> ρa = 0.0035 pa / T         (1)
> >>
> >> where
> >>
> >> ρa = density dry air (kg/m3)
> >>
> >> pa = partial pressure of air (Pa, N/m2)
> >>
> >> T = absolute dry bulb temperature (K)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Density of Water Vapor
> >> The density of water vapor can be expressed as:
> >>
> >> ρw = 0.0022 pw / T         (2)
> >>
> >> where
> >>
> >> pw = partial pressure water vapor (Pa, N/m2)
> >>
> >> ρw = density water vapor (kg/m3)
> >>
> >> T = absolute dry bulb temperature (K)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ref: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-air-d_680.html
> >
> > Sam,
> >
> > These procedures will test whether the particles of moisture are multi-molecular, as I claim, or monomolecular, as you and engineering toolbox claim.  If the jar with moisture is heavier, as I predict, then I am right.  If it is lighter, then you and engineering toolbox are right.
> >
> > The underlying theory is based on standard gas laws and Avogadro's law.
> >
> > Do you get it?
> >
> 
> 
>    James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to
>    mean water (H2O) gas. 

I'm not saying many people don't believe that.  I'm just saying that nobody has any proof.


>    When the temperature of atmospheric water vapour
>    falls to the dew point, liquid water can form. You denial of water
>    vapour 

Well, know.  But the fact is that nobody can prove that clear air is gaseous.  It's just something a lot of people believe.  Kind of like children and the tooth fairy.

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

#558737

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:52:14 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:

<snip>

>>    James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to
>>    mean water (H2O) gas. 
> 
> I'm not saying many people don't believe that.  I'm just saying that
> nobody has any proof.

It has nothing to do with proof, it is a definition.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#558739

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:52:14 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >>    James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to
> >>    mean water (H2O) gas. 
> > 
> > I'm not saying many people don't believe that.  I'm just saying that
> > nobody has any proof.
> 
> It has nothing to do with proof, it is a definition.

My point exactly!!!

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

#558756

Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:52:14 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>> >>    James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to
>> >>    mean water (H2O) gas. 
>> > 
>> > I'm not saying many people don't believe that.  I'm just saying that
>> > nobody has any proof.
>> 
>> It has nothing to do with proof, it is a definition.
> 
> My point exactly!!!

The only point you made was that you don't understand the English language.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#559221

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:52:14 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >>    James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to
> >>    
mean water (H2O) gas. 
> > 
> > I'm not saying many people don't believe that.  I'm just saying that
> > nobody has any proof.
> 
> It has nothing to do with proof, it is a definition.
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

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

#557460

> Density of Moist Air - an Air Vapor Mixture

> The amount of water vapor in air will influence the density. Water
> vapor is a relatively light *gas* compared to diatomic Oxygen and
> diatomic Nitrogen - the dominant components in air.
>
> When the vapor content increase in moist air the amount of Oxygen and
> Nitrogen are decreased per unit volume and the density of the mix
> will also decrease since the mass is decreasing.
>
> *Dry air is more dense that humid air* !


Ref: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-air-d_680.html

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#557464

On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 6:52:32 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Density of Moist Air - an Air Vapor Mixture
> 
> > The amount of water vapor in air will influence the density. Water
> > vapor is a relatively light *gas* compared to diatomic Oxygen and
> > diatomic Nitrogen - the dominant components in air.
> >
> > When the vapor content increase in moist air the amount of Oxygen and
> > Nitrogen are decreased per unit volume and the density of the mix
> > will also decrease since the mass is decreasing.
> >
> > *Dry air is more dense that humid air* !

This tests for weight, not density.

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

#557472

On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 6:52:32 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > Density of Moist Air - an Air Vapor Mixture
> > 
> > > The amount of water vapor in air will influence the density. Water
> > > vapor is a relatively light *gas* compared to diatomic Oxygen and
> > > diatomic Nitrogen - the dominant components in air.
> > >
> > > When the vapor content increase in moist air the amount of Oxygen and
> > > Nitrogen are decreased per unit volume and the density of the mix
> > > will also decrease since the mass is decreasing.
> > >
> > > *Dry air is more dense that humid air* !
> 
> This tests for weight, not density.

But all along you have claimed that moist air is denser than dry air... of course it is about the density...

Besides this, your so-called "controlled" experiment, as you have described, is something that might be done at a cub scout meeting, it is laughable! It really does not sound at all like an experiment that a 'real' physicist would ever consider. In college I performed dozens and dozens of experiments in physics labs, and virtually ALL of them were more rigorous that what you have described! what a joke. Do you really epec this to be accepted as a "proof"?

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web