Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood

From	Sergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood
Date	2019-01-07 09:42 -0600
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<q0vs1d$1lj9$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <b6e2eb95-5ffc-4970-b1b0-227d4bdc55ab@googlegroups.com> <q0s9eo$ik0$1@dont-email.me> <d448c85c-a1b2-4768-8e86-7d950e9e9452@googlegroups.com> <q0urpn$h7l$1@dont-email.me> <d627c9b5-4fc1-40b4-82c9-6aedfd7a52f2@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 1/7/2019 1:10 AM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 10:32:27 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 1/6/2019 2:47 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 11:07:08 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Dalton's Law states this
>>>>>> pressure can be added to the partial pressures of nitrogen, oxygen etc.
>>>>>> to get the total absolute pressure of the air.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously.  Yes, of course, it can be added. And is.
>>>>
>>>> So you agree that adding the partial pressure of H2O(g) to that of
>>>> nitrogen and oxygen is correct? OK, good.
>>>
>>> I'm happy that you're happy.
>>>
>>>>>> Simple example: 78,000 pascals of nitrogen + 21,000 pascals of oxygen +
>>>>>> 1,000 pascals of other gases + 1,000 pascals of H2O(g) = 101,000 pascals
>>>>>> of air pressure. At 24C there can be up to 3,000 pascals of H2O(g)
>>>>>> according to the water phase diagram.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not going to go over your numbers. But you still seem confused. Keep in mind that, for example, the "vapor" pressure of H2O and the pressure of H2O gas are vastly different.
>>>>
>>>> So you have some sort of new definition of "vapor"?
>>>
>>> LOL.  It may be new to you but that is because you have no experience in this discipline.
>>>
>>>> I am talking about
>>>> H2O(g) here.
>>>
>>> Then you need to be more careful to use concise, non ambiguous words.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Gaseous H2O produces a lot of pressure.
>>>>
>>>> Not according to the H2O phase diagram, at least at lower temperatures.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>>
>>>>>   Vapor produces a fraction of the pressure in comparison H2O gas.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another big difference between H2O vapor and H2O gas is the fact that the H2O nanodroplets require an existing substrate to be suspended in.  Gaseous H2O does not.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, the fact that the vapor has a pressure that can be accounted for using Dalton's law does not mean that vapor and gas are equivalent in all other respects.
>>>>
>>>> I am not interested in whatever it is you call "vapor".
>>>
>>> It makes no difference what you interests are if you can't communicate clearly and concisely.
>>
>> The difference between "gas" and "vapor" (same as gas, but only below 
>> its critical temperature) is irrelevant in this discussion, since all we 
>> are discussing is water well below its critical temperature.
>>>
>>>> All I am saying
>>>> is that at, for example, 24C, the H2O phase diagram states that the
>>>> stable phase of H2O is gas below 3,000 pascals.
>>>
>>> Yes, this is true.
>>>
>>>> Dalton's Law states that
>>>> the presence of other nonreacting gases (N2, O2) doesn't affect this,
>>>
>>> Reference.
>>
>> Umm, every single chemistry book in existence?
>>>
>>>> so
>>>> at 24C the partial pressure of H2O(g) can be up to 3,000 pascals.
>>>
>>> Wrong. You are still confused. Yes, if you isolate H2O in a sealed container and lower the pressure it will turn to gas (at 24C and 3,000 pascals). However, under normal pressure it will revert back to a liquid.
>>
>> Only if normal pressure was produced by compressing the water vapor. If 
>> done by adding dry air, the partial pressure of H2O(g) is still 3,000 
>> pascals.
>>
>>>  As a liquid it will still exert pressure, vapor pressure. Now, might it be true that these two pressures are the same. I don't know.  I suppose it is possible.
>>
>> Dalton's Law states they will be the same.
>>
>>>  Nevertheless, this fact isn't reason to assume H2O magically turns to gas at ambient temps/pressures.
>>
>> No magic involved, but any phase diagram for water will tell you it does.
> 
> Volney, you need to keep in mind that McGinn has no clue as to how to interpret a phase diagram. He says he does, but he is clueless. A dumbfuck, to be sure...
> 

  think of talking to McGinn as talking to a small dog, perhaps a Shih
Tzu or Toy Poodle.   it knows nothing of science, nor the meaning of the
words used.  McGinn is called McFly for a reason.

Density, pressure, are not in his knowledge base, which consists only of
what he can look up on the internet, and understand, which is not much
at all.

Thread

Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 20:15 -0800
  Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-03 20:22 -0800
    Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 09:40 -0800
      Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-04 10:08 -0800
        Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 10:49 -0800
          Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-04 18:24 -0800
        Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-05 00:53 -0600
  Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-04 10:03 -0800
    Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-05 00:53 -0600
  Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-05 09:42 -0500
    Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 15:14 -0800
      Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 21:00 -0800
        Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 21:53 -0800
    Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 20:18 -0800
      Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 21:52 -0800
        Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-06 02:13 -0500
        Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 12:11 -0800
          Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-06 13:58 -0800
            Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 22:16 +0000
              Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-06 14:31 -0800
              Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:26 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-06 17:01 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 18:50 -0800
            Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:29 -0800
              Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-07 00:11 +0000
      Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-06 02:09 -0500
        Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 11:47 -0800
          Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-07 01:34 -0500
            Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-06 23:10 -0800
              Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-07 09:42 -0600
            Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 09:19 -0800
        Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 19:10 -0800
          Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-06 19:42 -0800
          Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-07 01:48 -0500
            Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 22:58 -0800
            Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-07 09:44 -0600
            Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 08:01 -0800
              Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-08 00:30 -0500
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-07 22:22 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-08 09:35 -0600
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 09:27 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-08 13:00 -0500
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 13:34 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-09 00:53 -0500
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 10:08 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 11:46 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-09 20:11 -0500
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 17:13 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-09 20:23 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2019-01-10 21:08 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-12 09:47 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-12 13:02 -0500
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-12 10:07 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-12 18:21 +0000
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-13 02:40 -0600
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2019-01-12 18:46 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-26 13:41 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-26 20:16 -0500
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 07:49 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-01-27 12:24 -0500
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 11:46 -0800
                Re: Dalton's Law is Well Understood Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 12:16 -0800

csiph-web