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

Groups > sci.physics > #680648

Re: Prochak stupidity

Show all headers | View raw

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 4:18:36 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> 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
> 
> You idiots have no coherent thoughts.  

I found his explanation to be very coherent. I gather you had problems
following it. So whose problem is that?

> You just bumble along from one belie
> 

Well, speaking of incoherency. Speaks for itself, doesn’t it?



-- 
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