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

Groups > sci.physics > #680537

Re: Prochak stupidity

Show all headers | View raw

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 3:34:03 PM UTC-7, Steve BH wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 9:48:53 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 1:51:14 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>>>> 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."
>>> 
>>> So, you retards believe that this sentence proves the existence of "cold steam?"
>>> 
>>> So, let me get this straight, your "evidence" is a sentence that refers
>>> to a line on the H2O phase diagram?  
>>> 
>>> It's too bad you couldn't provide qny empirical evidence, huh.
>> 
>> 
>> I gave you the vapor densities from steam tables, including vapor below
>> 100 C. That is the empirical evidence. You said "so what"? I pointed out
>> from density (mass per volume) and the gas laws (particles per volume)
>> you can calculate particle mass for any gas (hydrogen, helium, argon),
>> and in steam or water vapor at ANY temperature, this turns out to be the
>> mass of the water molecule. You said so what? 
>> 
>> So the gas is water molecules, is what. Nothing larger.
> 
> You aren't even beginning to make sense.
> 

Yes he is. 
No, what’s true is that you are impenetrably dense. 
Somehow you blame others for your own flaws. 

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

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web