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

Groups > sci.physics > #604657 > unrolled thread

There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 19:14 -0800
    you, what noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 11:26 -0800
      what, you noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 16:21 -0800
    Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 09:20 -0800
      Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 13:33 -0800
        Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-19 18:26 -0600
          Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 07:04 +0100
            Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 22:20 -0800
            Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot Mitzi Gilliard <iotoor@iGMaMiai.org> - 2016-12-20 07:41 +0000
              Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 08:48 +0100
                Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-20 16:10 -0600
                  Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 14:41 -0800
                  Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 07:14 +0100
            Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-20 16:06 -0600
              Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 07:11 +0100
                Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 10:48 +0100
                  Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 06:38 -0800
                  Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-21 11:06 -0600
                    Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 09:16 -0800
                    Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 21:15 +0100
                      Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-21 21:14 -0600
                        Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 06:44 +0100
                          Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 06:58 -0800
                      Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 07:54 -0800
                      Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 15:20 -0800
    Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 09:22 -0800
    Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot "Mutt Buncher" <LOL_IMA_POSTER@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 22:51 -0800
      Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 06:17 -0800
      Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-21 11:30 -0600
        Re: There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 10:21 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#604657 — There is no Cold Steam in Earths Atmosphere you fricking idiot

Nobody has ever detected cold steam in our atmosphere, you idiot.  Cold steam is physically impossible.  The boiling point of water is not transitory.  All of the moisture in our atmosphere is in the form of small droplets/clusters too small to be seen.  There is no monomolecular H2O in our atmosphere.  That is but an urban legend believed by dimwits. 

Which of these do you think is most significant? 
1) Hundreds of people tell you that you are wrong. 
2) Not one person can tell you how/why you are wrong. 

You would say #1.  I would say #2. 

The difference is that I'm a scientists. 

On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 12:26:44 AM UTC-7, Angelo wrote: 

> Is it correct to say that the first H bond of an H2O with 
> another H2O is stronger than the second H bond, third, fourth? 
> And if yes, is that statement of yours a hypothesis or is 
> already proven? 

I could ask you the same question.  Is the notion that cold 
steam (mono-molecular H2O) can persist in our atmosphere at 
temperatures well below the boiling point of H2O a hypothesis 
or is it already proven?   

What are you waiting for, Angelo. Explain to us the physics of cold steam. Go ahead.  Tell us how molecules that require a temperature over the boiling point of H2O to be torn apart are able to stay apart when cooled below the boiling point.  Explain the physical mechanism that underlies your magical cold steam.  What are you waiting for.   

Or could it be that unless it's laid out for you in a book with pretty pictures you don't know what to do.   

Real scientists never blindly accept what people tell them because real scientists realize that people are mostly lazy, dumb, and intellectually dishonest.  Humans are extremely prone to group think.  Look at the global warming fiasco, for example. 

The truth, you evasive twit, is you don't have the slightest idea why you believe in cold steam.  The truth is that until I brought it up it never even occurred to you to even question the notion.  And now, like all the other pretenders on this planet, you are just looking for a way to save face.   

There is no cold steam in our atmosphere, you idiots.  It's a stupid notion that is completely at odds with physical reality.  It isn't even debatable--thus the reason the only argument you pinheads can muster claims of consensus.   

In science when people use claims of consensus to make their argument its because they have no argument. 

Tell us what procedures are used to substantiate that the moisture in our atmosphere is monomolecular and not multimolecular.  Go ahead.  Explain it to us in your own words.  Put up or shut up. 

Tell us how 
molecules that require a temperature over the boiling 
point of H2O to be torn apart are able to stay apart when 
cooled below the boiling point.  Explain the physical 
mechanism that underlies your magical cold steam.  

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#604772 — you, what

that is bubbles of HOH,
surrounded by the tensile network of liquid HOH, but
how can you even deny that, say bi-HOH would not have
its very own spectrum of emmission and absorption?

that is an important question, since
it is far-and-away the number one glassal houser,
at least in terms of individual HOHs in hte atmosphere

> Tell us how 
> molecules that require a temperature over the boiling 
> point of H2O to be torn apart are able to stay apart when 
> cooled below the boiling point.  Explain the physical 
> mechanism that underlies your magical cold steam.

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

#605151 — what, you

don't worry ... we have lots of ellipses

> that is bubbles of HOH,
> surrounded by the tensile network of liquid HOH, but
> how can you even deny that, say bi-HOH would not have
> its very own spectrum of emmission and absorption?
> 
> that is an important question, since
> it is far-and-away the number one glassal houser,
> at least in terms of individual HOHs in hte atmosphere

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

#609562

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 7:14:07 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Nobody has ever detected cold steam in our atmosphere, you idiot.  Cold steam is physically impossible.  The boiling point of water is not transitory.  All of the moisture in our atmosphere is in the form of small droplets/clusters too small to be seen.  There is no monomolecular H2O in our atmosphere.  That is but an urban legend believed by dimwits. 
> 
> Which of these do you think is most significant? 
> 1) Hundreds of people tell you that you are wrong. 
> 2) Not one person can tell you how/why you are wrong. 
> 
> You would say #1.  I would say #2. 
> 
> The difference is that I'm a scientists. 
> 
> On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 12:26:44 AM UTC-7, Angelo wrote: 
> 
> > Is it correct to say that the first H bond of an H2O with 
> > another H2O is stronger than the second H bond, third, fourth? 
> > And if yes, is that statement of yours a hypothesis or is 
> > already proven? 
> 
> I could ask you the same question.  Is the notion that cold 
> steam (mono-molecular H2O) can persist in our atmosphere at 
> temperatures well below the boiling point of H2O a hypothesis 
> or is it already proven?   
> 
> What are you waiting for, Angelo. Explain to us the physics of cold steam. Go ahead.  Tell us how molecules that require a temperature over the boiling point of H2O to be torn apart are able to stay apart when cooled below the boiling point.  Explain the physical mechanism that underlies your magical cold steam.  What are you waiting for.   
> 
> Or could it be that unless it's laid out for you in a book with pretty pictures you don't know what to do.   
> 
> Real scientists never blindly accept what people tell them because real scientists realize that people are mostly lazy, dumb, and intellectually dishonest.  Humans are extremely prone to group think.  Look at the global warming fiasco, for example. 
> 
> The truth, you evasive twit, is you don't have the slightest idea why you believe in cold steam.  The truth is that until I brought it up it never even occurred to you to even question the notion.  And now, like all the other pretenders on this planet, you are just looking for a way to save face.   
> 
> There is no cold steam in our atmosphere, you idiots.  It's a stupid notion that is completely at odds with physical reality.  It isn't even debatable--thus the reason the only argument you pinheads can muster claims of consensus.   
> 
> In science when people use claims of consensus to make their argument its because they have no argument. 
> 
> Tell us what procedures are used to substantiate that the moisture in our atmosphere is monomolecular and not multimolecular.  Go ahead.  Explain it to us in your own words.  Put up or shut up. 
> 
> Tell us how 
> molecules that require a temperature over the boiling 
> point of H2O to be torn apart are able to stay apart when 
> cooled below the boiling point.  Explain the physical 
> mechanism that underlies your magical cold steam.

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

#609584

avagadro; get a oiuja board,iff
you only want yesmen

> > molecules that require a temperature over the boiling 
> > point of H2O to be torn apart are able to stay apart when 
> > cooled below the boiling point.  Explain the physical 
> > mechanism that underlies your magical cold steam.

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

#609628

On 12/19/2016 3:33 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
> avagadro; get a oiuja board,iff
> you only want yesmen
>
>>> molecules that require a temperature over the boiling
>>> point of H2O to be torn apart are able to stay apart when
>>> cooled below the boiling point.  Explain the physical
>>> mechanism that underlies your magical cold steam.
>

takea coldsteam shower + magically cooloff

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

#609660

Dne 20/12/2016 v 01:26 Yuri Kreaton napsal(a):
> On 12/19/2016 3:33 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
>> avagadro; get a oiuja board,iff
>> you only want yesmen
>>
>>>> molecules that require a temperature over the boiling
>>>> point of H2O to be torn apart are able to stay apart when
>>>> cooled below the boiling point.  Explain the physical
>>>> mechanism that underlies your magical cold steam.
>>
> 
> takea coldsteam shower + magically cooloff

As the energy of molecules is NOT determined by temperature,
there is no distingished temperature
needed to torn molecules apart.

There is equilibrium between fractions of connected and torn apart
molecules and the equilibrim constants shifts with temperature.

Water is not exception.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#609663

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 10:04:19 PM UTC-8, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:

> As the energy of molecules is NOT determined by temperature,

LOL.  So, therefore anything that fits your imagination is valid?

You're just a nitwit.

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

#609685

Poutnik wrote:

> As the energy of molecules is NOT determined by temperature, there is no
> distingished temperature needed to torn molecules apart.
> There is equilibrium between fractions of connected and torn apart
> molecules and the equilibrim constants shifts with temperature. 
> Water is not exception.

Then try it with calories restriction.

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

#609687

Dne 20/12/2016 v 08:41 Mitzi Gilliard napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>> As the energy of molecules is NOT determined by temperature, there is no
>> distingished temperature needed to torn molecules apart.
>> There is equilibrium between fractions of connected and torn apart
>> molecules and the equilibrim constants shifts with temperature. 
>> Water is not exception.
> 
> Then try it with calories restriction.
> 
Not before you learn the basics
if you want to talk about them.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#609774

On 12/20/2016 1:48 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 20/12/2016 v 08:41 Mitzi Gilliard napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>> As the energy of molecules is NOT determined by temperature, there is no
>>> distingished temperature needed to torn molecules apart.
>>> There is equilibrium between fractions of connected and torn apart
>>> molecules and the equilibrim constants shifts with temperature.
>>> Water is not exception.
>>
>> Then try it with calories restriction.
>>
> Not before you learn the basics
> if you want to talk about them.
>


found this;

What is the average kinetic energy of molecules at room temperature?

What is meant by root-mean-square velocity?

1. In the absence of a net force, the center of mass of a body either is 
at rest or moves at a constant velocity.

2. A body experiencing a force F experiences an acceleration a related 
to F by F = ma, where m is the mass of the body. Alternatively, force is 
equal to the time derivative of momentum.

3. Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second 
body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in 
magnitude and opposite in direction.

4. A gas consists of a collection of small particles traveling in 
straight-line motion and obeying Newton's Laws.
The collisions of gas molecules are elastic, so kinetic energy is conserved.

1. The molecules in a gas occupy no volume (that is, they are 
points).The volume of gas molecule is approximately 1/1000 of the volume 
of the container, so their volume is negligible.

2. Collisions between molecules are perfectly elastic (that is, no 
energy is gained or lost during the collision). So after a collision 
occurs, the total kinetic energy is the same as the total kinetic energy 
before the collision occurred.

3. There are no attractive or repulsive forces between the molecules.
There is no force attracting the molecules towards each other or 
repelling them away from each other, so velocity doesn’t change as they 
travel between collisions. Only during the collision does the velocity 
change.

4. The average kinetic energy of a molecule is 3kT/2. (T is the absolute 
temperature and k is the Boltzmann constant = 1.3806503 × 10-23 m2 kg 
s-2 K-1
What is the average kinetic energy of molecules at room temperature?
KE = 1.5 * k * T
If we agree that room temperature = 68° F = 20° C = 293° K

KE = 1.5 * 1.38 * 10^-23 * 293 = 6.065 * 10^-21 Joules

What is meant by root-mean-square velocity?
In physics, the root mean square velocity is defined as the square root 
of the average velocity-squared of the molecules in a gas. The RMS 
velocity of an ideal gas is calculated using the following equation:

V rms= (3 * R * T) ÷ mass

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

#609775

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 2:10:47 PM UTC-8, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
> On 12/20/2016 1:48 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> > Dne 20/12/2016 v 08:41 Mitzi Gilliard napsal(a):
> >> Poutnik wrote:
> >>
> >>> As the energy of molecules is NOT determined by temperature, there is no
> >>> distingished temperature needed to torn molecules apart.
> >>> There is equilibrium between fractions of connected and torn apart
> >>> molecules and the equilibrim constants shifts with temperature.
> >>> Water is not exception.
> >>
> >> Then try it with calories restriction.
> >>
> > Not before you learn the basics
> > if you want to talk about them.
> >
> 
> 
> found this;
> 
> What is the average kinetic energy of molecules at room temperature?
> 
> What is meant by root-mean-square velocity?
> 
> 1. In the absence of a net force, the center of mass of a body either is 
> at rest or moves at a constant velocity.
> 
> 2. A body experiencing a force F experiences an acceleration a related 
> to F by F = ma, where m is the mass of the body. Alternatively, force is 
> equal to the time derivative of momentum.
> 
> 3. Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second 
> body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in 
> magnitude and opposite in direction.
> 
> 4. A gas consists of a collection of small particles traveling in 
> straight-line motion and obeying Newton's Laws.
> The collisions of gas molecules are elastic, so kinetic energy is conserved.
> 
> 1. The molecules in a gas occupy no volume (that is, they are 
> points).The volume of gas molecule is approximately 1/1000 of the volume 
> of the container, so their volume is negligible.
> 
> 2. Collisions between molecules are perfectly elastic (that is, no 
> energy is gained or lost during the collision). So after a collision 
> occurs, the total kinetic energy is the same as the total kinetic energy 
> before the collision occurred.
> 
> 3. There are no attractive or repulsive forces between the molecules.
> There is no force attracting the molecules towards each other or 
> repelling them away from each other, so velocity doesn’t change as they 
> travel between collisions. Only during the collision does the velocity 
> change.
> 
> 4. The average kinetic energy of a molecule is 3kT/2. (T is the absolute 
> temperature and k is the Boltzmann constant = 1.3806503 × 10-23 m2 kg 
> s-2 K-1
> What is the average kinetic energy of molecules at room temperature?
> KE = 1.5 * k * T
> If we agree that room temperature = 68° F = 20° C = 293° K
> 
> KE = 1.5 * 1.38 * 10^-23 * 293 = 6.065 * 10^-21 Joules
> 
> What is meant by root-mean-square velocity?
> In physics, the root mean square velocity is defined as the square root 
> of the average velocity-squared of the molecules in a gas. The RMS 
> velocity of an ideal gas is calculated using the following equation:
> 
> V rms= (3 * R * T) ÷ mass


Read this:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=120#p115051

Read it carefully.  Absorb it.  

The high boiling point of H2O is a direct consequence of H2O polarity.  

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

#609821

Dne 20/12/2016 v 23:10 Yuri Kreaton napsal(a):

> 
> found this;

As a graduated chemist I am quite familiar with it.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#609772

On 12/20/2016 12:04 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 20/12/2016 v 01:26 Yuri Kreaton napsal(a):
>> On 12/19/2016 3:33 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
>>> avagadro; get a oiuja board,iff
>>> you only want yesmen
>>>
>>>>> molecules that require a temperature over the boiling
>>>>> point of H2O to be torn apart are able to stay apart when
>>>>> cooled below the boiling point.  Explain the physical
>>>>> mechanism that underlies your magical cold steam.
>>>
>>
>> takea coldsteam shower + magically cooloff
>
> As the energy of molecules is NOT determined by temperature,
> there is no distingished temperature
> needed to torn molecules apart.
>
> There is equilibrium between fractions of connected and torn apart
> molecules and the equilibrim constants shifts with temperature.
>
> Water is not exception.
>

pressure is a factor always [partial pressures too]

(pressure * volume )/ temperature = constant

Temperature is proportional to the kinetic energy of the molecules of a 
substance. Kinetic energy is the energy of an object due to its motion.


also see equations;

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/molke.html

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

#609819

Dne 20/12/2016 v 23:06 Yuri Kreaton napsal(a):
> On 12/20/2016 12:04 AM, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>> As the energy of molecules is NOT determined by temperature,
>> there is no distingished temperature
>> needed to torn molecules apart.
>>
>> There is equilibrium between fractions of connected and torn apart
>> molecules and the equilibrim constants shifts with temperature.
>>
>> Water is not exception.
> 
> pressure is a factor always [partial pressures too]
> 
> (pressure * volume )/ temperature = constant

For ideal gas only.
> 
> Temperature is proportional to the kinetic energy of the molecules of a
> substance. Kinetic energy is the energy of an object due to its motion.

Temperature is proportional
to the *mean* kinetic energy of the molecules.
The adjective mean is essential.

At each temperature, there is fraction of molecules
with enough energy to separate from other molecules.

> 
> also see equations;
> 
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/molke.html

As a graduated chemist, I need to visit it.
But I do recommend this site.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#609829

On 12/21/2016 07:11 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 20/12/2016 v 23:06 Yuri Kreaton napsal(a):
>
>>
>> also see equations;
>>
>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/molke.html
>
> As a graduated chemist, I need to visit it.

..need not.

> But I do recommend this site.



-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#609840

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 1:48:13 AM UTC-8, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> On 12/21/2016 07:11 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> > Dne 20/12/2016 v 23:06 Yuri Kreaton napsal(a):
> >
> >>
> >> also see equations;
> >>
> >> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/molke.html
> >
> > As a graduated chemist, I need to visit it.
> 
> ..need not.
> 
> > But I do recommend this site.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> 
> A wise man guards words he says,
> as they say about him more,
> than he says about the subject.

This is a situation where your education will mislead you.  The solution to the 
cognitive dissonance you are feeling can be found here:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

Don't have high expectations that you are going to prove me wrong.  And also, 
be aware it's going to take you a lot longer than you think.

Good Luck! 

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Knock, knock, knocking on eight thousand views!
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

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

#609862

On 12/21/2016 3:48 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> On 12/21/2016 07:11 AM, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 20/12/2016 v 23:06 Yuri Kreaton napsal(a):
>>
>>>
>>> also see equations;
>>>
>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/molke.html
>>
>> As a graduated chemist, I need to visit it.
>
> ..need not.
>
>> But I do recommend this site.
>
>
>

so "temperature" is a value of the mean of, and there is a distribution 
profile of energy (or velocity) about that mean, and the higher energy 
particals do more stuff than the lower energy ones, like escape a 
liquid's surface...

I assume that you can have a liquid freeze on the bottom, and boil on 
the top (using external devices) and then have a wide distribution of 
energys.

and then one can have a narrow energy distribution, like with super 
cooled pure water, left in the fridge with inssulation around so the 
bottle is almost uniform, (boundry conditions the same on all sides)

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

#609864

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 9:07:12 AM UTC-8, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
> On 12/21/2016 3:48 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> > On 12/21/2016 07:11 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> >> Dne 20/12/2016 v 23:06 Yuri Kreaton napsal(a):
> >>
> >>>
> >>> also see equations;
> >>>
> >>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/molke.html
> >>
> >> As a graduated chemist, I need to visit it.
> >
> > ..need not.
> >
> >> But I do recommend this site.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> so "temperature" is a value of the mean of, and there is a distribution 
> profile of energy (or velocity) about that mean, and the higher energy 
> particals do more stuff than the lower energy ones, like escape a 
> liquid's surface...
> 
> I assume that you can have a liquid freeze on the bottom, and boil on 
> the top (using external devices) and then have a wide distribution of 
> energys.
> 
> and then one can have a narrow energy distribution, like with super 
> cooled pure water, left in the fridge with inssulation around so the 
> bottle is almost uniform, (boundry conditions the same on all sides)

You think like a child.  Not like a scientists.

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

#609887

Dne 21/12/2016 v 18:06 Yuri Kreaton napsal(a):
> 
> so "temperature" is a value of the mean of, and there is a distribution
> profile of energy (or velocity) about that mean, and the higher energy
> particals do more stuff than the lower energy ones, like escape a
> liquid's surface...

Yes. If I used a citizen income analogy, higher temperature
means a country with higher mean citizen income.
There are many citizens with (much) higher
and (much) lower income than is the average one.
The probability a randomly chosen citizen of lower mean income country
has lower income than from the higher mean one is not 1.0.
It is generally just >0.5.

Therefore probability a randomly chosen molecule of boiling water
has higher energy than a randomly chosen molecule of almost boing water
is just very little above 0.5.
> 
> I assume that you can have a liquid freeze on the bottom, and boil on
> the top (using external devices) and then have a wide distribution of
> energys.

Sure. But the molecule energy range within the same temperature
is MUCH wider than difference
between mean energies at water freezing and boiling point.
> 
> and then one can have a narrow energy distribution, like with super
> cooled pure water, left in the fridge with inssulation around so the
> bottle is almost uniform, (boundry conditions the same on all sides)

It is not narrow energy distribution,
at least not relatively wrt the mean energy.

Many molecules in even supercooled water have higher energy
than many molecules of boiling water.

The fraction of molecules with sufficient energy
to leave liquid as a single molecule
grows about exponentially with temperature.


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web