Discussion:
Steve BH's BS
(too old to reply)
James McGinn
2018-04-07 18:49:02 UTC
Permalink
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.
Can you explain why the textbooks and experts in the field don't support your model?
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.
Were you, by chance, in a drug induced state when you formulated all of this?
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.
For what?
p***@gmail.com
2018-04-07 19:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
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.
Can you explain why the textbooks and experts in the field don't support your model?
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.
Were you, by chance, in a drug induced state when you formulated all of this?
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.
For what?
Jim, do you think acting like a complete dumbfuck somehow makes you look smarter?
Sergio
2018-04-07 19:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
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.
Can you explain why the textbooks and experts in the field don't support your model?
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.
Were you, by chance, in a drug induced state when you formulated all of this?
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.
For what?
Jim, do you think acting like a complete dumbfuck somehow makes you look smarter?
as posted by others, James McGinn is lolcow.
p***@gmail.com
2018-04-07 19:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sergio
as posted by others, James McGinn is lolcow.
We're only here for the lulz...
James McGinn
2018-04-07 21:18:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Sergio
as posted by others, James McGinn is lolcow.
We're only here for the lulz...
Like there was the slightest chance any of you retards would be able to support your positions.

Doy duh doy doy.
Steve BH
2018-04-07 23:47:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Sergio
as posted by others, James McGinn is lolcow.
We're only here for the lulz...
Like there was the slightest chance any of you retards would be able to support your positions.
Doy duh doy doy.
We did. See the notes:

https://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phaseeqia/phasediags.html

The problem is you refuse to read the literature we spoon feed you.
James McGinn
2018-04-07 23:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve BH
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Sergio
as posted by others, James McGinn is lolcow.
We're only here for the lulz...
Like there was the slightest chance any of you retards would be able to support your positions.
Doy duh doy doy.
https://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phaseeqia/phasediags.html
The problem is you refuse to read the literature we spoon feed you.
The fact that you won't quote it tells me all I need to know.

You don't have a coherent argument, dude.
Sergio
2018-04-08 04:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve BH
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Sergio
as posted by others, James McGinn is lolcow.
We're only here for the lulz...
Like there was the slightest chance any of you retards would be able to support your positions.
Doy duh doy doy.
https://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phaseeqia/phasediags.html
The problem is you refuse to read the literature we spoon feed you.
Oh. I think we need smaller spoons.


like, nano spoons...
James McGinn
2018-04-08 19:47:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve BH
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Sergio
as posted by others, James McGinn is lolcow.
We're only here for the lulz...
Like there was the slightest chance any of you retards would be able to support your positions.
Doy duh doy doy.
https://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phaseeqia/phasediags.html
The problem is you refuse to read the literature we spoon feed you.
The problem is you are a fool who wants to believe what the evidence doesn't
indicate. There is zero evidence of H2O existing at temperature below its known
boiling temperature/pressure. The fact that it is easy to find other fools who
believe this absurdity doesn't make it true. Retards are the rule. Counting
retards that agree with you is not a scientific method.
Steve BH
2018-04-09 00:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
Post by Steve BH
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Sergio
as posted by others, James McGinn is lolcow.
We're only here for the lulz...
Like there was the slightest chance any of you retards would be able to support your positions.
Doy duh doy doy.
https://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phaseeqia/phasediags.html
The problem is you refuse to read the literature we spoon feed you.
The problem is you are a fool who wants to believe what the evidence doesn't
indicate. There is zero evidence of H2O existing at temperature below its known
boiling temperature/pressure. The fact that it is easy to find other fools who
believe this absurdity doesn't make it true. Retards are the rule. Counting
retards that agree with you is not a scientific method.
The gas laws and the kinetic theory of gases require that all gases have about the same number of particles per volume at the same temperature and pressure. That's how I can tell you offhand that hydrogen is about 2/29 the density of air, and helium is 4/29 the density of air. The way we know the gas laws are true, is that the densities really are about as I have written them. You name a gas and I can tell you how dense it is with regard to air, without having to look anything up. Argon-40 is.... 40/29 as dense as air (same T and P). Don't take any argon balloons.

Water gas (steam) is 18/29 as dense as air at 101 C (meaning compared with air that has a temp of 101 C also).

It is also an **experimental fact** that pure water "vapor" at 99 C is 18/29 as dense as air at 99 C. Nothing has changed below the "boiling point." That means the "gas particles" at 99 C are just the same composition as they are at 101 C. Which is individual water molecules with an atomic weight of 18, giving the gas they form a density of 18 grams per molar volume (which at 100 C is 22.4(373/373) = 30.6 liters/mole).

You, Mr. Atmospheric physicist, should be able to rattle off all the above. The density of steam is given above, directly, no table needed. Instead I find you know none of it.
Claudius Denk
2018-04-08 21:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve BH
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Sergio
as posted by others, James McGinn is lolcow.
We're only here for the lulz...
Like there was the slightest chance any of you retards would be able to support your positions.
Doy duh doy doy.
https://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phaseeqia/phasediags.html
The problem is you refuse to read the literature we spoon feed you.
You read. But do you understand?
Libor Striz
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by James McGinn
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.
Can you explain why the textbooks and experts in the field don't support your model?
Exactly, Jim, you ask yourself well.
Why the textbooks and experts in the field do not support your model ?

As what Steve wrote is fully supported by them.
--
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
James McGinn
2018-04-08 03:31:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Libor Striz
Exactly, Jim, you ask yourself well.
Why the textbooks and experts in the field do not support your model ?
You got nothing!!!
Loading...