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

Groups > sci.physics > #680670

Re: Prochak stupidity

Show all headers | View raw

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:59:49 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> 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
> 
> You retards always pretend like you can see the emperor's clothes.

No, it’s no pretense. It’s not difficult stuff, Jim, really. 
I’m completely flummoxed as to why you are so incapacitated that you can’t
absorb simple things. 

Instead you have to pretend that it is all WAY too complex for ordinary
people to understand it, that YOU ALONE are genius enough to appreciate the
complexity, and that EVERYONE ELSE is pretending that they understand it.
It’s a truly and spectacularly weird position. 

> 
> You got nothing!!!
> 



-- 
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