Re: Prochak stupidity

From	Sergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Prochak stupidity
Date	2018-04-03 15:51 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<pa0pft$1nro$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <506ea0ef-d29d-4235-a772-e9df60a2c7e8@googlegroups.com> <c9f4f405-cd2e-415a-830f-7ae74b7c11a7@googlegroups.com> <36abadde-8dfd-449b-8567-7578bdd1093e@googlegroups.com> <c6bacc18-17c2-44d0-a428-490a0f649ce0@googlegroups.com> <48666f34-c26d-410b-b36d-16f4d9b8a9fd@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/3/2018 12:09 AM, Steve BH wrote:
> On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 5:25:36 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 9:26:43 PM UTC-7, Steve BH wrote:
>>> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 6:39:55 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 1:07:59 AM UTC-7, Steve BH wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 11:02:08 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, why do you think they distinguish between "vapor" pressure and gas pressure?  
>>>>>
>>>>> Often vapor pressures are used as terms for the special partial pressures of gases that are in equilibrium with another phase, whereas in the generic term of "partial pressure" of a gas, it can be anything (no other phase or equilibration is implied). So the term "vapor" implies a history, and also another phase that drives it, as an equilibrium partial pressure from phase change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus the partial pressure of water gas above liquid at 96.7 C is 0.9 atm. We call this special partial pressure a "vapor pressure" because it's in equilibrium with water and has (once been) liquid water. BUT IT IS A GAS NOW. Of course you can have partial pressure of H2O gas as anything LESS than this, without condensation. That's not properly a vapor pressure, but just a partial pressure.
>>>>>
>>>>> So not all partial pressures are vapor pressures, but all vapor pressures are partial pressures. They are equilibrium partial pressures. One is a subset of the other. However, they are both taking about the pressure of gas molecules.   
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you calculate the density of water GAS in equilibrium above liquid at 90 C. Congrats, that IS the vapor pressure. It's a special gas partial pressure from another phase.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go ahead-- show us your math. Or look it up in a table. Any vapor pressure implies a DENSITY (moles per volume) which then can easily be converted to a molecular weight. Use some vapor pressures (I don't care where you get them) to calculate some molecular weights. Are these the weights of gas molecules or something larger? Show me your numbers.
>>>>
>>>> Can you find any direct quotes from the literature that supports any of this?
>>>
>>> https://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phaseeqia/phasediags.html
>>
>> Relevance?
> 
> Try reading it.
> 

from the article;

"So, again, what is the significance of this line separating the two areas?

Anywhere along this line, there will be an equilibrium between the
liquid and the vapour."


Perhaps McGinn will figure it out after a year or two.

Thread

Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 13:00 -0700
  Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 14:25 -0700
  Re: Prochak stupidity Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 22:28 -0700
    Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 23:02 -0700
      Re: Prochak stupidity Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 23:10 -0700
      Re: Prochak stupidity Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 23:11 -0700
      Re: Prochak stupidity Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 01:07 -0700
        Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 18:39 -0700
          Re: Prochak stupidity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-31 21:18 -0700
            Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 05:25 -0700
            Re: Prochak stupidity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-07 09:42 -0500
          Re: Prochak stupidity Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 21:26 -0700
            Re: Prochak stupidity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-31 22:09 -0700
              Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 05:32 -0700
            Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 05:25 -0700
              Re: Prochak stupidity Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-02 22:09 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 01:38 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 20:39 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 21:26 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 21:45 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-07 08:57 -0500
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 09:55 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-07 11:45 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 16:58 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 18:36 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 20:27 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 22:03 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 17:28 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 21:36 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 15:51 -0500
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 14:28 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 21:48 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 15:33 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 15:53 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 23:18 +0000
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 12:03 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 19:59 +0000
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 13:26 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 21:05 +0000
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 14:28 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 22:55 +0000
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 16:16 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 23:31 +0000
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 16:41 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 17:30 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 11:56 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-09 20:16 -0700
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 11:57 -0700
              Re: Prochak stupidity Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 20:06 -0500
                Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 18:12 -0700
            Re: Prochak stupidity James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-02 21:37 -0700

csiph-web