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

Groups > sci.physics > #643004 > unrolled thread

Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 18:46 -0700
    Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 02:27 +0000
      Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 19:38 -0700
      Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 02:52 +0000
        Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 19:57 -0700
          Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 11:40 +0000
        Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 23:56 -0700
      Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2017-07-28 10:37 +0000
        Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 09:54 -0700
          Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2017-07-29 16:29 +0000
            Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 09:52 -0700
              Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 21:03 -0700
            Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 13:51 -0700
            Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 13:54 -0700
        Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 11:40 +0000
          Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 09:57 -0700
            Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-31 12:07 -0700
              Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-31 21:01 -0500
      Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-04 13:36 -0500
    Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 19:52 -0700
      Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 22:22 -0700
      Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 05:35 -0700
        Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 09:59 -0700
          Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 10:45 -0700
            Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 10:58 -0700
              Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 14:52 -0700
                Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 15:38 -0700
                  Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 10:53 -0700
                    Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 11:47 -0700
                    Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:17 -0500
                      Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:16 -0700
                        Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 15:37 -0700
                      Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 11:10 -0700
                Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-28 18:26 -0500
                Re: Often, fantasy is preferable to the truth, more productive. Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 16:28 -0700
                Re: Often, fantasy is preferable to the truth, more productive. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-28 19:51 -0400
                Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:09 -0500
                  Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:16 -0700
                    Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 18:48 +0000
                      Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 17:32 -0700
            Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-28 13:06 -0500
              Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-28 13:32 -0500
                Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 12:53 -0700
        Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 15:25 -0700
        Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-04 13:34 -0500
    Re: Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 22:22 -0700

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

#643046

On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 7:52:52 PM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 6:46:24 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > According to the phase diagram for H2O what phase is water in at 50 degrees Celsius at an air pressure of 1 ATM?
> 
> I'm still looking.  But I found all of these:
> https://www.google.com/search?client=browser-ubuntu&hs=jtx&channel=fe&hl=en&q=phase+diagram+H2O&oq=phase+diagram+H2O&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30k1l3.2623.6326.0.7224.4.4.0.0.0.0.267.690.0j3j1.4.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.683...0i67k1.h-yJvrLFKiI
> 
> All indicates it is liquid.  None of them indicate it is gaseous whatsoever. 
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> Did anybody find one that indicates any gaseous H2O at 50 degrees Celsius at an air pressure of 1 ATM?
> 
> Anybody?

No.  Only liquid.  

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

#643097

On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 10:52:52 PM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 6:46:24 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > According to the phase diagram for H2O what phase is water in at 50 degrees Celsius at an air pressure of 1 ATM?
> 
> I'm still looking.  But I found all of these:
> https://www.google.com/search?client=browser-ubuntu&hs=jtx&channel=fe&hl=en&q=phase+diagram+H2O&oq=phase+diagram+H2O&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30k1l3.2623.6326.0.7224.4.4.0.0.0.0.267.690.0j3j1.4.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.683...0i67k1.h-yJvrLFKiI
> 
> All indicates it is liquid.  None of them indicate it is gaseous whatsoever. 
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> Did anybody find one that indicates any gaseous H2O at 50 degrees Celsius at an air pressure of 1 ATM?
> 
> Anybody?

You do not know how to read that diagram.
Read this one.

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2006aaitmaterialsiregularchapter6introductiontophasediagrams-150126101236-conversion-gate01/95/2006-ec-aait-materials-i-regular-chapter-6-introduction-to-phase-diagrams-12-638.jpg?cb=1422270499

Notice it says
"At any point on one of these curves, the two phases on
 either side of the curve are in equilibrium (or coexist)
 with one another."

Thank you for playing.
Please close the door on you way out. 

ed

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

#643126

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:35:39 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:

> > Did anybody find one that indicates any gaseous H2O at 50 degrees Celsius at an air pressure of 1 ATM?
> > 
> > Anybody?
> 
> You do not know how to read that diagram.
> Read this one.
> 
> https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2006aaitmaterialsiregularchapter6introductiontophasediagrams-150126101236-conversion-gate01/95/2006-ec-aait-materials-i-regular-chapter-6-introduction-to-phase-diagrams-12-638.jpg?cb=1422270499
> 
> Notice it says
> "At any point on one of these curves, the two phases on
>  either side of the curve are in equilibrium (or coexist)
>  with one another."

Right, it just means that on the boundary the phases are in equillibrium.  But that is irrelevant because 50C and 1 ATM IS NOT ON THE BOUNDARY.

What is wrong with you people.  This is simple stuff.  It's just a simple phase diagram.  

Ed, you're as dumb as Bert.

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

#643138

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 12:59:12 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:35:39 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> 
> > > Did anybody find one that indicates any gaseous H2O at 50 degrees Celsius at an air pressure of 1 ATM?
> > > 
> > > Anybody?
> > 
> > You do not know how to read that diagram.
> > Read this one.
> > 
> > https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2006aaitmaterialsiregularchapter6introductiontophasediagrams-150126101236-conversion-gate01/95/2006-ec-aait-materials-i-regular-chapter-6-introduction-to-phase-diagrams-12-638.jpg?cb=1422270499
> > 
> > Notice it says
> > "At any point on one of these curves, the two phases on
> >  either side of the curve are in equilibrium (or coexist)
> >  with one another."
> 
> Right, it just means that on the boundary the phases are
> in equillibrium.  But that is irrelevant because 50C and
> 1 ATM IS NOT ON THE BOUNDARY.

Then you are reading a point that is NOT in equilibrium.
Here's a quarter, go buy a clue.


I'm still having a great day, while you still suffer
from delusions of mediocrity. 8^)
ed

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

#643143

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 10:45:48 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:

> > > Notice it says
> > > "At any point on one of these curves, the two phases on
> > >  either side of the curve are in equilibrium (or coexist)
> > >  with one another."
> > 
> > Right, it just means that on the boundary the phases are
> > in equillibrium.  But that is irrelevant because 50C and
> > 1 ATM IS NOT ON THE BOUNDARY.
> 
> Then you are reading a point that is NOT in equilibrium.

Correct! That's what I just said, you fucking retard. 50C and 1 ATM IS NOT ON THE BOUNDARY. It is, unequivocally liquid. 

It's fucking right there plain as day.  There is nothing to discuss or debate.  

The "equillibrium" here is between phases.  IOW, along the bounDary of the different colors it is in equillibrum BETWEEN PHASES.  

This is a trivial artifact that you trolls are blowing all out of proportion.

Go find another hobby, you fucking troll.

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

#643183

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:58:31 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 10:45:48 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> 
> > > > Notice it says
> > > > "At any point on one of these curves, the two phases on
> > > >  either side of the curve are in equilibrium (or coexist)
> > > >  with one another."
> > > 
> > > Right, it just means that on the boundary the phases are
> > > in equillibrium.  But that is irrelevant because 50C and
> > > 1 ATM IS NOT ON THE BOUNDARY.
> > 
> > Then you are reading a point that is NOT in equilibrium.
> 
> Correct! That's what I just said, you fucking retard. 50C and 1 ATM IS NOT ON THE BOUNDARY. It is, unequivocally liquid.

Perhaps for an instant. But the system will then move toward equilibrium,
meaning part of the water will evaporate to a gas to form the vapor pressure
at that temperature.
 
> 
> It's fucking right there plain as day.  There is nothing to discuss or debate.  
> 
> The "equillibrium" here is between phases.  IOW, along
> the bounDary of the different colors it is in equillibrum BETWEEN PHASES.  

So you see you do admit gas and liquid water can exist at the same time.

But for the non-equilibrium areas, you are only right for an instant.

> 
> This is a trivial artifact that you trolls are blowing all out of proportion.
> 
> Go find another hobby, you [bleep]ing troll.

You must be REALLY frustrated since you always seem to have to resort to foul language. You are a very unhappy person.

Try this: explain what exist at the triple point!

Your pal,
ed  8^)

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

#643186

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 2:52:59 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:

> > Correct! That's what I just said, you fucking retard. 50C and 1 ATM 
> > IS NOT ON THE BOUNDARY. It is, unequivocally liquid.

> Perhaps for an instant. But the system will then move toward equilibrium,
> meaning part of the water will evaporate to a gas to form the vapor pressure
> at that temperature.

Wow!  You are one amazing dimwit. This is such a stupid comment I don't know how to respond. 

If it is exposed evaporation will occur.  And if it is enclosed vapor pressure will form.  THIS HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE ISSUE UNDER DISCUSSION.

It will not move toward equillibrium unless we adjust the pressure or the temperature.  How is this not obvious?

> > It's fucking right there plain as day.  There is nothing to 
> > discuss or debate.  
> > 
> > The "equillibrium" here is between phases.  IOW, along
> > the bounDary of the different colors it is in equillibrum BETWEEN PHASES.  
> 
> So you see you do admit gas and liquid water can exist at the same time.

Not at 50 C and 1 ATM, you fucking moron.  If you boil water in an open container then, yes, technically gas and water can exists simultaneously.  But this is both trivial and irrelevant. At 50 C and 1 ATM IT IS ONLY LIQUID!!!  IT FUCKING STATES AS MUCH UNAMBIGUOUSLY IN THE FUCKING PHASE DIAGRAM!!!

> But for the non-equilibrium areas, you are only right for an instant.

You are a fucking retarded loon. if the ambient temp and pressure don't change it will evaporate from a pooled liquid H2O to microdroplets of suspended (wait to it, wait for it, . . . here it comes . . . ) LIQUID H2O.  

Repeat after me.  It will remain liquid (not gas) and we can now refer to it as evaporate, or vapor, or simply moist air.  BUT IT REMAINS LIQUID, you stupid SOB.

> > This is a trivial artifact that you trolls are blowing all out of proportion.
> > 
> > Go find another hobby, you [bleep]ing troll.
> 
> You must be REALLY frustrated since you always seem to have to 
> resort to foul language. You are a very unhappy person.

I suppose I could try to be nicer.  Can you try to be smarter?

> Try this: explain what exist at the triple point!

Go choke on a dildo, you fucking lazy retard.

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

#643641

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:39:04 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 2:52:59 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> 
> > > Correct! That's what I just said, you fucking retard. 50C and 1 ATM 
> > > IS NOT ON THE BOUNDARY. It is, unequivocally liquid.
> 
> > Perhaps for an instant. But the system will then move toward equilibrium,
> > meaning part of the water will evaporate to a gas to form the vapor pressure
> > at that temperature.
> 
> Wow!  You are one amazing dimwit. This is such a stupid comment I don't know how to respond. 
> 
> If it is exposed evaporation will occur.  And if it is enclosed vapor pressure will form.  THIS HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE ISSUE UNDER DISCUSSION.
> 
> It will not move toward equillibrium unless we adjust the pressure or the temperature.  How is this not obvious?
> 
> > > It's fucking right there plain as day.  There is nothing to 
> > > discuss or debate.  
> > > 
> > > The "equillibrium" here is between phases.  IOW, along
> > > the bounDary of the different colors it is in equillibrum BETWEEN PHASES.  
> > 
> > So you see you do admit gas and liquid water can exist at the same time.
> 
> Not at 50 C and 1 ATM, you fucking moron.

You can't even follow your comment that I responded to.

You are just inept.


>  If you boil water in an open container then, yes,
> technically gas and water can exists simultaneously. 

At the phase boundary, BOTH exists. You said so yourself.


> But this is both trivial and irrelevant. At 50 C and
> 1 ATM IT IS ONLY LIQUID!!!  IT FUCKING STATES AS MUCH
> UNAMBIGUOUSLY IN THE FUCKING PHASE DIAGRAM!!!


> 
> > But for the non-equilibrium areas, you are only right for an instant.
> 
> You are a fucking retarded loon. if the ambient temp and
> pressure don't change it will evaporate from a pooled
> liquid H2O to microdroplets of suspended (wait to it,
> wait for it, . . . here it comes . . . ) LIQUID H2O. 

That's not what happens. You said so yourself, at the phase boundary: 
> > > The "equillibrium" here is between phases.  IOW, along
> > > the bounDary of the different colors it is in equillibrum BETWEEN PHASES.  
> 
> Repeat after me. 
I will learn how to read the phase diagram.

> It will remain liquid (not gas) and we can now refer to it as
> evaporate, or vapor, or simply moist air.  BUT IT REMAINS LIQUID,
> you stupid SOB.

It really frustrates you when you realize
 you admitted already that you are wrong?
[]

> 
> > Try this: explain what exist at the triple point!
> 
> Go choke on a dildo, you fucking lazy retard.

<sarcasm> Nice, calm collected argument there. <\sarcasm>

Have a nice day.
Ed

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

#643646

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 10:53:08 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:39:04 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 2:52:59 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > 
> > > > Correct! That's what I just said, you fucking retard. 50C and 1 ATM 
> > > > IS NOT ON THE BOUNDARY. It is, unequivocally liquid.
> > 
> > > Perhaps for an instant. But the system will then move toward equilibrium,
> > > meaning part of the water will evaporate to a gas to form the vapor pressure
> > > at that temperature.
> > 
> > Wow!  You are one amazing dimwit. This is such a stupid comment I don't know how to respond. 
> > 
> > If it is exposed evaporation will occur.  And if it is enclosed vapor pressure will form.  THIS HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE ISSUE UNDER DISCUSSION.

<no response>

> > It will not move toward equillibrium unless we adjust the pressure or the temperature.  How is this not obvious?
> > 
> > > > It's fucking right there plain as day.  There is nothing to 
> > > > discuss or debate.  
> > > > 
> > > > The "equillibrium" here is between phases.  IOW, along
> > > > the bounDary of the different colors it is in equillibrum BETWEEN PHASES.  
> > > 
> > > So you see you do admit gas and liquid water can exist at the same time.
> > 
> > Not at 50 C and 1 ATM, you fucking moron.
> 
> You can't even follow your comment that I responded to.

Meaningless and irrelevant.

> You are just inept.

You are a lying troll.

> >  If you boil water in an open container then, yes,
> > technically gas and water can exists simultaneously. 
> 
> At the phase boundary, BOTH exists. You said so yourself.

Jeez you are stupid.

> > But this is both trivial and irrelevant. At 50 C and
> > 1 ATM IT IS ONLY LIQUID!!!  IT FUCKING STATES AS MUCH
> > UNAMBIGUOUSLY IN THE FUCKING PHASE DIAGRAM!!!
> 
> 
> > 
> > > But for the non-equilibrium areas, you are only right for an instant.
> > 
> > You are a fucking retarded loon. if the ambient temp and
> > pressure don't change it will evaporate from a pooled
> > liquid H2O to microdroplets of suspended (wait to it,
> > wait for it, . . . here it comes . . . ) LIQUID H2O. 
> 
> That's not what happens. You said so yourself, at the phase boundary: 
> > > > The "equillibrium" here is between phases.  IOW, along
> > > > the bounDary of the different colors it is in equillibrum BETWEEN PHASES. 

I suppose that if the point in question was on the boundary that would be relevant.  BUT IT FUCKING ISN'T, YOU LYING TROLL.

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

#643991

On 7/31/17 12:53 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:39:04 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 2:52:59 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>
>>>> Correct! That's what I just said, you fucking retard. 50C and 1 ATM
>>>> IS NOT ON THE BOUNDARY. It is, unequivocally liquid.
>>
>>> Perhaps for an instant. But the system will then move toward equilibrium,
>>> meaning part of the water will evaporate to a gas to form the vapor pressure
>>> at that temperature.
>>
>> Wow!  You are one amazing dimwit. This is such a stupid comment I don't know how to respond.
>>
>> If it is exposed evaporation will occur.  And if it is enclosed vapor pressure will form.  THIS HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE ISSUE UNDER DISCUSSION.
>>
>> It will not move toward equillibrium unless we adjust the pressure or the temperature.  How is this not obvious?
>>
>>>> It's fucking right there plain as day.  There is nothing to
>>>> discuss or debate.
>>>>
>>>> The "equillibrium" here is between phases.  IOW, along
>>>> the bounDary of the different colors it is in equillibrum BETWEEN PHASES.
>>>
>>> So you see you do admit gas and liquid water can exist at the same time.
>>
>> Not at 50 C and 1 ATM, you fucking moron.
> 
> You can't even follow your comment that I responded to.
> 
> You are just inept.
> 
> 
>>   If you boil water in an open container then, yes,
>> technically gas and water can exists simultaneously.
> 
> At the phase boundary, BOTH exists. You said so yourself.
> 
> 
>> But this is both trivial and irrelevant. At 50 C and
>> 1 ATM IT IS ONLY LIQUID!!!  IT FUCKING STATES AS MUCH
>> UNAMBIGUOUSLY IN THE FUCKING PHASE DIAGRAM!!!
> 
> 
>>
>>> But for the non-equilibrium areas, you are only right for an instant.
>>
>> You are a fucking retarded loon. if the ambient temp and
>> pressure don't change it will evaporate from a pooled
>> liquid H2O to microdroplets of suspended (wait to it,
>> wait for it, . . . here it comes . . . ) LIQUID H2O.
> 
> That's not what happens. You said so yourself, at the phase boundary:
>>>> The "equillibrium" here is between phases.  IOW, along
>>>> the bounDary of the different colors it is in equillibrum BETWEEN PHASES.
>>
>> Repeat after me.
> I will learn how to read the phase diagram.
> 
>> It will remain liquid (not gas) and we can now refer to it as
>> evaporate, or vapor, or simply moist air.  BUT IT REMAINS LIQUID,
>> you stupid SOB.
> 
> It really frustrates you when you realize
>   you admitted already that you are wrong?
> []
> 
>>
>>> Try this: explain what exist at the triple point!
>>
>> Go choke on a dildo, you fucking lazy retard.
> 
> <sarcasm> Nice, calm collected argument there. <\sarcasm>

Jim has a very simple view of states of matter and temperature.
He has somehow come to the conclusion that a given substance at 
temperatures below the melting point, the entirety of the substance is 
and can only be a solid; that at the melting point, the entirety of the 
substance undergoes a wholesale transition to liquid; that above the 
melting point and below the boiling point, the entirety of the substance 
is and can only be a liquid; that at the boiling point, the entirety of 
the substance undergoes a wholesale transition to gas; that above the 
boiling point, the entirety of the substance is and can only be a gas.

Where he got this VASTLY oversimplified view of phases, I cannot guess. 
Nor will he entertain any suggestion that this vastly oversimplified 
view is wrong.

> 
> Have a nice day.
> Ed
> 


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#644019

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 8:18:00 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Jim has a very simple view of states of matter and temperature.
> He has somehow come to the conclusion that a given substance at 
> temperatures below the melting point, the entirety of the substance is 
> and can only be a solid; that at the melting point, the entirety of the 
> substance undergoes a wholesale transition to liquid; that above the 
> melting point and below the boiling point, the entirety of the substance 
> is and can only be a liquid; that at the boiling point, the entirety of 
> the substance undergoes a wholesale transition to gas; that above the 
> boiling point, the entirety of the substance is and can only be a gas.
> 
> Where he got this VASTLY oversimplified view of phases, I cannot guess. 
> Nor will he entertain any suggestion that this vastly oversimplified 
> view is wrong.

Phases of matter conform to temperature and pressure, as delineated in the phase diagram.  They does not conform to the imagination of trolls.  

If H2O had a small heat capacity and a slow heat conductivity then some of what you are saying might be true for a small amount of time, fractions of a second. But H2O has a huge heat capacity and an extremely rapid heat conductivity--so what you are saying is complete nonsense.

The reason nobody has ever detected gaseous H2O at ambient temperatures IS BECAUSE IT FUCKING DOESN'T EXISTS YOU FUCKING STUPID, LYING TROLLS.

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

#644083

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 10:16:41 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

> Phases of matter conform to temperature and pressure, as delineated in the phase diagram.  They does not conform to the imagination of trolls.  


But, but, but, . .  . they really want it to exist.

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

#644379

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 8:18:00 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Jim has a very simple view of states of matter and temperature.

True.  The phase of water conforms to what is indicated in the phase diagram.

> He has somehow come to the conclusion that a given substance at 
> temperatures below the melting point, the entirety of the substance is 
> and can only be a solid; that at the melting point, the entirety of the 
> substance undergoes a wholesale transition to liquid; that above the 
> melting point and below the boiling point, the entirety of the substance 
> is and can only be a liquid; that at the boiling point, the entirety of 
> the substance undergoes a wholesale transition to gas; that above the 
> boiling point, the entirety of the substance is and can only be a gas.

The phase of water does not conform to the imagination of the observer. The fact the moisture in the atmosphere can form incredibly small microdroplets that are so small that they are just as invisible as gaseous H2O when suspended between air molecules by electrostatic forces DOES NOT ADD UP TO AN EXCUSE TO CONSIDER IT GASEOUS.  IOW, the fact that you loons can imagine pockets of gaseous H2O existing in ambient air (air that is at a temperature that is nowhwere near the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O) does not mean that you loons can pretend that it is gaseous H2O.

Scientific truth isn't determined by the imagination of poorly educated science trolls on the internet. 

Sorry to burst your little bubbles.

> Where he got this VASTLY oversimplified view of phases, I cannot guess. 

I got it by not being dumb.  Where did you get this silly notion that there are pocket of superheated air existing in ambient air?

> Nor will he entertain any suggestion that this vastly oversimplified 
> view is wrong.

It's regrettable that the internet doesn't accommodate links to the imagination of loons.

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

#643202

On 7/28/2017 4:52 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:58:31 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 10:45:48 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>
>>>>> Notice it says
>>>>> "At any point on one of these curves, the two phases on
>>>>>   either side of the curve are in equilibrium (or coexist)
>>>>>   with one another."
>>>>
>>>> Right, it just means that on the boundary the phases are
>>>> in equillibrium.  But that is irrelevant because 50C and
>>>> 1 ATM IS NOT ON THE BOUNDARY.
>>>
>>> Then you are reading a point that is NOT in equilibrium.
>>
>> Correct! That's what you just said, I fucking retard. 50C and 1 ATM IS NOT ON THE BOUNDARY. It is, unequivocally liquid.
> 
> Perhaps for an instant. But the system will then move toward equilibrium,
> meaning part of the water will evaporate to a gas to form the vapor pressure
> at that temperature.
>   
>>
>> It's fucking right there plain as day.  There is nothing to discuss or debate.
>>
>> The "equillibrium" here is between phases.  IOW, along
>> the bounDary of the different colors it is in equillibrum BETWEEN PHASES.
> 
> So you see you do admit gas and liquid water can exist at the same time.
> 
> But for the non-equilibrium areas, you are only right for an instant.

>>
>> This is a trivial artifact that you trolls are blowing all out of proportion.
>>
>> Go find another hobby, you [bleep]ing troll.
> 
> You must be REALLY frustrated since you always seem to have to resort to foul language. You are a very unhappy person.
> 
> Try this: explain what exist at the triple point!
> 
> Your pal,
> ed  8^)
> 

doesn't an Ice Skater use the triple point to go fast ? solid ice, 
pressure converts to liquid, and there is always water vapor around

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

#643205 — Re: Often, fantasy is preferable to the truth, more productive.

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 4:02:35 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Often, fantasy is preferable to the truth, more productive.
> 
> Every crank is out to disprove thermodynamics/entropy,
> and James McGinn is no exception.

Fuck you troll.

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

#643215 — Re: Often, fantasy is preferable to the truth, more productive.

On 7/28/2017 7:02 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> Often, fantasy is preferable to the truth, more productive.
> 
> Every crank is out to disprove thermodynamics/entropy,
> and James McGinn is no exception.
> 
> Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington wrote: ＜＜
> 
>    If someone points out to you that
>    your pet theory of the universe is
>    in disagreement with Maxwell's equations --
>    then, so much the worse for Maxwell's equations.
>      
>    If it is found to be contradicted by observers --
>    well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes.
>      
>    But, if your theory is found to be
>    against the second law of thermodynamics,
>    I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but
>    to collapse in deepest humiliation.  ＞＞
> 
>    -- From "The Nature of the Physical World", 1915, chapter 4.
> 
> Google "Heat Death of the Universe" and you get: ＜＜
> 
>    The heat death of the universe is a plausible
>    ultimate fate of the universe in which the universe
>    has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free
>    energy and therefore can no longer sustain processes
>    that increase entropy ( including computation and life ).  ＞＞

Hey Rolf, you ever been to the "Eddington Wing" at MIT? Bert has 
lectured there!

Eddington is just plain wrong. He's out of date and did not understand 
the advanced in electrical engineering that changed Thermodynamics. He 
(and you) are living back in the steam engine days while today everyone 
knows that information is entropy. Changes the whole picture. Maxwell 
had it right but nobody knew.


"Heat death"! <spit>

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

#643989

On 7/28/17 4:52 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:58:31 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 10:45:48 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>
>>>>> Notice it says
>>>>> "At any point on one of these curves, the two phases on
>>>>>   either side of the curve are in equilibrium (or coexist)
>>>>>   with one another."
>>>>
>>>> Right, it just means that on the boundary the phases are
>>>> in equillibrium.  But that is irrelevant because 50C and
>>>> 1 ATM IS NOT ON THE BOUNDARY.
>>>
>>> Then you are reading a point that is NOT in equilibrium.
>>
>> Correct! That's what I just said, you fucking retard. 50C and 1 ATM IS NOT ON THE BOUNDARY. It is, unequivocally liquid.
> 
> Perhaps for an instant. But the system will then move toward equilibrium,
> meaning part of the water will evaporate to a gas to form the vapor pressure
> at that temperature.
>   
>>
>> It's fucking right there plain as day.  There is nothing to discuss or debate.
>>
>> The "equillibrium" here is between phases.  IOW, along
>> the bounDary of the different colors it is in equillibrum BETWEEN PHASES.
> 
> So you see you do admit gas and liquid water can exist at the same time.
> 
> But for the non-equilibrium areas, you are only right for an instant.
> 
>>
>> This is a trivial artifact that you trolls are blowing all out of proportion.
>>
>> Go find another hobby, you [bleep]ing troll.
> 
> You must be REALLY frustrated since you always seem to have to resort to foul language. You are a very unhappy person.

I think it must be very frustrating to him that the phase diagram means 
a little more than what he took it to mean at first and simple 
inspection. It is the hallmark of the crank to then blame those who 
presented it to him in the first place for not being absolutely plain 
about all the subtleties, lest he misinterpret. He wants it to be as 
trivially simple as he thinks it is.

If the crank is allowed to misinterpret, then it is the fault of the 
teacher, not the student -- so the crank will say.

The irony is that Jim McGinn is happy to tell anyone who will listen 
that water is understood by no one, that it is terrifically complicated 
to the point where all claims of understanding are pure and utter 
bullshit. But tell him that his vast oversimplification of what the 
phase diagram represents is wrong, and that it's actually a bit more 
complicated, and he throws a screaming hissy-fit.


> 
> Try this: explain what exist at the triple point!
> 
> Your pal,
> ed  8^)
> 


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#644020

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 8:09:15 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> I think it must be very frustrating to him that the phase diagram means 
> a little more than what he took it to mean at first and simple 
> inspection. It is the hallmark of the crank to then blame those who 
> presented it to him in the first place for not being absolutely plain 
> about all the subtleties, lest he misinterpret. He wants it to be as 
> trivially simple as he thinks it is.

You got nothing!!!!


> 
> If the crank is allowed to misinterpret, then it is the fault of the 
> teacher, not the student -- so the crank will say.
> 
> The irony is that Jim McGinn is happy to tell anyone who will listen 
> that water is understood by no one, that it is terrifically complicated 
> to the point where all claims of understanding are pure and utter 
> bullshit. But tell him that his vast oversimplification of what the 
> phase diagram represents is wrong, and that it's actually a bit more 
> complicated, and he throws a screaming hissy-fit.

So, the phase diagram has a special meaning that only trolls can see and this meaning is so deep that even trolls can't expain it.  They just see it.  

How fucking retarded would anybody have to be to believe such stupidity?

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

#644218

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 8:09:15 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
>> I think it must be very frustrating to him that the phase diagram means 
>> a little more than what he took it to mean at first and simple 
>> inspection. It is the hallmark of the crank to then blame those who 
>> presented it to him in the first place for not being absolutely plain 
>> about all the subtleties, lest he misinterpret. He wants it to be as 
>> trivially simple as he thinks it is.
> 
> You got nothing!!!!
> 
> 
>> 
>> If the crank is allowed to misinterpret, then it is the fault of the 
>> teacher, not the student -- so the crank will say.
>> 
>> The irony is that Jim McGinn is happy to tell anyone who will listen 
>> that water is understood by no one, that it is terrifically complicated 
>> to the point where all claims of understanding are pure and utter 
>> bullshit. But tell him that his vast oversimplification of what the 
>> phase diagram represents is wrong, and that it's actually a bit more 
>> complicated, and he throws a screaming hissy-fit.
> 
> So, the phase diagram has a special meaning that only trolls can see 
> and this meaning is so deep that even trolls can't expain it.  They just see it.  

Jim, the meaning is not special. It is just different than the vast
oversimplification you drew from the diagram by just looking at it.
Correcting this would be easy -- submit to being educated about it. But
that is a choice you are determined to never take, and so you will never
learn what tens of thousands of others absorb and comprehend EASILY every
year. Instead you will bleat from your tiny soapbox: "I dare you to TRY to
make me understand it."

When are you going to learn that your interpersonal game of bait and dodge
is tiresome for normal people?

> 
> How fucking retarded would anybody have to be to believe such stupidity?
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#644294

On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 11:49:00 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> > So, the phase diagram has a special meaning that only trolls 
> > can see and this meaning is so deep that even trolls can't 
> > explain it.  They just see it.  
> 
> Jim, the meaning is not special. 

I was talking about the ability of people to see things that others can't see.  That is what is special.  For example, if you want to have a seance with dead relatives you need to find a medium.  A "medium" is a person with special abilities to contact dead relatives.  Likewise, you claim the ability to see things in the steam table that normal people can't see.  That makes you special.

Also, Sergio is special in a completely different way.  You know, as in "special" Olympics.

> It is just different than the vast
> oversimplification you drew from the diagram by just looking at it.
> Correcting this would be easy

I wish I was special.

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web