Fools Job

[Tom Booth]

Fool and sometimes others here (Matt Brown, "Nobody"etc.) exhibit such a wide range of personalities, attitudes and points of view and apparent forgetfulness regarding things they posted or previous conversations, but always with the same talking points, I can't help but think they are not individuals but rather just a computer terminal in a professional Shill mill.

https://www.dogsonacid.com/threads/what ... et.787627/

[Fool]

.

What Tommy doesn't understand is that to be a shill you must first be a liar. Nothing I've said here goes against classical theory. People, use your own brains. Investigate, read from reputable sources, look at why half baked internet mouthpieces are wrong. Yes it is easy to learn good science, but it takes effort to recognize fantasy from science on your part. Science isn't about belief, it is about reliability.

Tommy's insinuation here about me is a lie.

Tommy also fails to recognize the difference between a shill mill, (political), and a mathematical, logical, and scientific discussion (reality). The reason I will not be participating in any site he moderates is the fact that I wouldn't be treated fairly. Be very cautious of his new website. It will lack valid science. He's called valid classical science, old and obsolete. But he doesn't know or understand it, so his point is a fallacy.


.

[Tom Booth]

.
... I will not be participating in any site he moderates...

You can say that again.

[Fool]

.

Yes, your site will be nothing more than the blind leading the blind. And I wish it well and far away from me.

.

[Fool]

.

Tommy doesn't even have the concept of gasses correct. They fill the container and always have positive absolute pressure. Please measure one that doesn't.

Think about it this way, molecules in a solid have attractions by other molecules from each side, so their opposing attractions would cancel each other. Right? If they are not moving they are locked into a crystal lattice, a solid. Their combined forces providing no motion to anything.

If heat is added their temperature rises. They start moving. Their attractive force reduces, and their repulsive force decreases even faster, so they are pulled back together. They vibrate with thermal energy. They are still locked into a solid.

If one in the middle of three were to be moving fast enough it would vibrated back and forth pushing the other two further and further away. This would increase as temperature increased until they began moving away from each other fast enough to escape. That is the boiling point. That happens because the molecular attractions go to almost zero a very small distance away and get smaller as distance between them gets larger. That is how a substance becomes a gas.

Tommy doesn't believe that molecules can be going fast enough to escape and never return. He then must deny the simple laboratory measurement of absolute pressure, volume, and temperature, of a gas, or risk completely destroying his belief. He has become a science denier, and data denier.

.

[Tom Booth]

.

Tommy doesn't even have the concept of gasses correct. They fill the container and always have positive absolute pressure. Please measure one that doesn't.

Think about it this way, molecules in a solid have attractions by other molecules from each side, so their opposing attractions would cancel each other. Right? If they are not moving they are locked into a crystal lattice, a solid. Their combined forces providing no motion to anything.

If heat is added their temperature rises. They start moving. Their attractive force reduces, and their repulsive force decreases even faster, so they are pulled back together. They vibrate with thermal energy. They are still locked into a solid.

If one in the middle of three were to be moving fast enough it would vibrated back and forth pushing the other two further and further away. This would increase as temperature increased until they began moving away from each other fast enough to escape. That is the boiling point. That happens because the molecular attractions go to almost zero a very small distance away and get smaller as distance between them gets larger. That is how a substance becomes a gas.

Tommy doesn't believe that molecules can be going fast enough to escape and never return. He then must deny the simple laboratory measurement of absolute pressure, volume, and temperature, of a gas, or risk completely destroying his belief. He has become a science denier, and data denier.

.

Straw man.

There are, no doubt, SOME free gas molecules in outer space, but not in earths lower atmosphere at near 15 psi pressure. "Never" is a very long time and attractive forces, according to the Lennard Jones formula only become zero at a distance of INFINITY.

I also do not "deny' absolute pressure. There is no such thing as negative ABSOLUTE pressure, you misrepresent my views with your straw man lies as always dirt bag filthy stinking liar.

There certainly is "negative" relative pressure.

Even a single gas molecule in a vacuum chamber exerts some "pressure" when it impacts the wall of the container.

Maybe you would like to explain why gas bubbles form and hold together under water.

Why don't the gas molecules in a bubble disperse into the liquid as individual molecules rather than coalescing to form bubbles?

https://youtu.be/irIXQNjXESQ

Yes "surface tension" is involved, but that does not explain what holds the bubble together or why the bubbles form in the first place so that a "surface" of the bubble exists at all.

Mutual attraction between gas particles is what causes bubbles to form.

[Fool]

.

Why don't the gas molecules in a bubble disperse into the liquid as individual molecules rather than coalescing to form bubbles?

They do disperse into the liquid, some. It is called absorption. Liquid is way way more dense than gas. The molecules in a bubble both bounce off the liquid surface, and penetrate into the liquid under the natural process of absorption. They bounce off the liquid just as if it were a wall. Liquid's attraction is high enough for clumping.

It is not much different than a solid. Gasses both bounce off a solid, and penetrate. Gas doesn't penetrate solids as fast as liquids.

The thing you need to ask is why their attractive forces don't make the bubbles absorb instantaneously? Because the gas molecules are bouncing off the liquid molecules manifesting an always pushing characteristic. Going too fast to stick to Anything. Liquid too dense to penetrate/absorb.

There is no such thing as negative ABSOLUTE pressure

I take that as agreement that gasses always push. Now you need to understand the ramifications of always pushing.

It means that a vacuum never pulls. Mercury in a barometer isn't sucked up a glass tube by a vacuum. It is pushed up by always pushing surrounding atmosphere.

Ice in a vacuum sublimes into a water vapor/gas, that completely fills the container, for a minimal but positive pressure.

Bubbles form because the gas molecules push the liquid away, by bouncing.

.

[Tom Booth]

.

Why don't the gas molecules in a bubble disperse into the liquid as individual molecules rather than coalescing to form bubbles?

They do disperse into the liquid, some. It is called absorption. Liquid is way way more dense than gas. The molecules in a bubble both bounce off the liquid surface, and penetrate into the liquid under the natural process of absorption. They bounce off the liquid just as if it were a wall. Liquid's attraction is high enough for clumping.

It is not much different than a solid. Gasses both bounce off a solid, and penetrate. Gas doesn't penetrate solids as fast as liquids.

The thing you need to ask is why their attractive forces don't make the bubbles absorb instantaneously? Because the gas molecules are bouncing off the liquid molecules manifesting an always pushing characteristic. Going too fast to stick to Anything. Liquid too dense to penetrate/absorb.

There is no such thing as negative ABSOLUTE pressure

I take that as agreement that gasses always push.

Sorry but no.

The issue is gas molecules being attracted to EACH OTHER.

Two independent gas molecules "stuck" or "clumped" together, and attracting each other or three or six or a million or a billion or a trillion etc. impact the walls of the container less than the same number of gas molecules that "always push" as you put it. i.e. an "Ideal Gas" with no mutual attraction

That is why REAL gases deviate from "Ideal" gas behavior.

References, websites and videos have already been provided that cover this in exhaustive detail. All I can conclude from your persistence in ignoring such more advanced scientific understanding of gas behavior, van der Walls forces, Lennard Jones potential etc. is you are brain damaged.

Sorry about your mental affliction. .Maybe you could try taking some nutritional supplements.

[Fool]

.

Two independent gas molecules "stuck" or "clumped" together, and attracting each other or three or six or a million or a billion or a trillion etc. impact the walls of the container less than the same number of gas molecules that "always push" as you put it. i.e. an "Ideal Gas" with no mutual attraction

That is why REAL gases deviate from "Ideal" gas behavior.

Yes. Real gasses act 0.0000001% differently than ideal gasses because two molecules out of 6.022x10^23 molecules don't.

Big Fat Hairy Tail Deal. You don't understand the concept of moot. But classical theory does. It is called steam tables, or phase diagrams.

It only matters significantly when the project operates near the boiling temperature of the working fluid.

.

[Tom Booth]

.

Two independent gas molecules "stuck" or "clumped" together, and attracting each other or three or six or a million or a billion or a trillion etc. impact the walls of the container less than the same number of gas molecules that "always push" as you put it. i.e. an "Ideal Gas" with no mutual attraction

That is why REAL gases deviate from "Ideal" gas behavior.

Yes. Real gasses act 0.0000001% differently than ideal gasses because two molecules out of 6.022x10^23 molecules don't.

Big Fat Hairy Tail Deal. You don't understand the concept of moot. But classical theory does. It is called steam tables, or phase diagrams.

It only matters significantly when the project operates near the boiling temperature of the working fluid.

Well, it's nice to see you at least admit it ever matters at all, any time, but you are still wrong.

It always matters to one degree or another.

It matters more near phase change or "boiling temperature" but any change in PRESSURE also changes the boiling TEMPERATURE, so incomplete.

Also wrong because the degree of variation from "ideal" is gradient. Any change in temperature or pressure will cause some deviation. That only increases the nearer you get to phase change but any deliberate manipulation of temperature and pressure has a result that can be significant.

Mostly however, what you seem to be blind to or ignorant of is changes that result as a consequence of the gas doing work which can result in both pressure and temperature changes as well as phase changes.

An expanding gas doing work driving a piston, for example, can cool to the point of liquefaction or solidification.

You also still insist on your silly "gasses always push" mantra, which is just bone headed nonsense.

[Fool]

.

It always matters to one degree or another.

Hence my use of the word "significantly". One way is significantly, another way is insignificantly. When significant, classical theory has always used data tables. When insignificant, classical theory may substitute ideal gas law for the data tables, it also may use real gas equations. Both allow mathematical modeling using relatively simple modeling to understand the natural laws more comprehensively.

Mostly however, what you seem to be blind to or ignorant of is changes that result as a consequence of the gas doing work which can result in both pressure and temperature changes as well as phase changes.

Quit lying about what I know. I've proven over and over that I know more about science than you ever will. Classical theory does a way better job of predicting phase changes, work, expansion, temperature, and volume than you ever will. Good luck trying. Put some verified numbers into your theory. How much power does your little LTD engine produce when insulated? So far zero. That's a very short leg to stand on.

An expanding gas doing work driving a piston, for example, can cool to the point of liquefaction or solidification.

No. Not if well above the critical temperature. If below that, continued expansion will go through the vapor-liquid dome and emerge on the all vapor/gas side. If already on that side it won't condense.

images (1).jpeg (10.88 KiB) Viewed 4961 times

You also still insist on your silly "gasses always push" mantra, which is just bone headed nonsense.

You have already agreed on that, they do.

Even a single gas molecule in a vacuum chamber exerts some "pressure" when it impacts the wall of the container.

Right. Correct. Excellent. Even for one molecule, above the boiling temperature. Boiling points are at zero temperature at zero pressure. Even the vacuum of space has gas pressure, pushing. The vacuum of space is far better than any producible here on Earth.

Even if two molecules approach each other and stick, they will pick up heat from the 3 Kelvin background radiation, or higher, and eventually speed off away from each other as separate gas molecules.

You are just beginning to understand gasses. Next more thermodynamics.

What kind of pressure and temperature is required for a gas to liquify? Just expanding a gas won't do it. It also needs pressure. Look at a phase diagram to understand why that is true.

.

[Tom Booth]

There is no point in debating these issues with you, you're a total moron, set in your opinions, incapable of any common sense reasoning or enlargement of your limited understanding, your head stuck in 1820's classical science sand.

I'll only address your misrepresentations:

.

It always matters to one degree or another.

Quit lying about what I know. ...

I'm not "lying" about anything. Your lack of comprehension of well known principles of gas liquefaction etc. is plain to see.

I've proven over and over that I know more about science than you ever will.

Hardly. What you've done is prove over and over that you're a complete moron.

You also still insist on your silly "gasses always push" mantra, which is just bone headed nonsense.

You have already agreed on that, they do.

Even a single gas molecule in a vacuum chamber exerts some "pressure" when it impacts the wall of the container.

Right. Correct. Excellent. Even for one molecule,

No I have not "agreed" with your idiocy.

The one molecule is not '"always" colliding with the container walls.

Two or more molecules "clumping" in the bottom of the container, held down due to gravity or floating around aimlessly may not impact the walls at all at times.

Two or more gas molecules moving closer together by mutual attraction and moving AWAY from the container walls and towards each other are not "pushing" on the container walls, any more than a group of people coming together in the center of a room are "always pushing" on the walls of the room.

Even if two molecules approach each other and stick, they will pick up heat from the 3 Kelvin background radiation, or higher, and eventually speed off....

Even your lame erroneous example here is far from "always".

Gases in space do not "always" speed away from each other. They often come together to form stars, planets, moons and whole galaxies etc.

[Fool]

.

There is no point in debating these issues with you, ...

There is no debate here I point out classical theory. Go ahead argue with a textbook. I point out how you are erroneous. Go ahead argue with a textbook. I point out your contradictions. Go ahead argue with yourself. Not my problem.

The one molecule is not '"always" colliding with the container walls.

Two or more molecules "clumping" in the bottom of the container, held down do to gravity or floating around aimlessly may not impact the walls at all at times.

Two or more gas molecules moving closer together by mutual attraction and moving AWAY from the container walls and towards each other are not "pushing" on the container walls, any more than a group of people coming together in the center of a room are "always pushing" on the walls of the room.

One molecule travelling above it's boiling temperature at the pressure itself provides, yes a quantum mechanical farce, having sufficient speed to bounce off the container walls, will not be producing very much push. Push is a macroscopic property. But push that one molecule will do, as you do correctly state.

If there are two molecules clumping in the bottom of the container from gravity, the pressure will be zero, they will only do so at zero temperature. Even 3 Kelvin will make them boil, but the container walls will also begin to evaporate.

Gasses in space condensing into a planet or star do so from gravitational attraction, and their temperature must cooled to below their mutual escape velocities. Gravity acts on a much more distant range, and it drops off as the square of the distance, not the power of six. It, no matter how distant, will be the dominant force by far. Learn the mathematics. Fractions, powers, inverse, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, linear algebra, differential equations, chemistry, engineering, physics.

.

[Tom Booth]

.

There is no point in debating these issues with you, ...

There is no debate here I point out classical theory. Go ahead argue with a textbook. I point out how you are erroneous. Go ahead argue with a textbook. I point out your contradictions. Go ahead argue with yourself. Not my problem.

The one molecule is not '"always" colliding with the container walls.

Two or more molecules "clumping" in the bottom of the container, held down do to gravity or floating around aimlessly may not impact the walls at all at times.

Two or more gas molecules moving closer together by mutual attraction and moving AWAY from the container walls and towards each other are not "pushing" on the container walls, any more than a group of people coming together in the center of a room are "always pushing" on the walls of the room.

One molecule travelling above it's boiling temperature at the pressure itself provides, yes a quantum mechanical farce, having sufficient speed to bounce off the container walls, will not be producing very much push. Push is a macroscopic property. But push that one molecule will do, as you do correctly state.

If there are two molecules clumping in the bottom of the container from gravity, the pressure will be zero, they will only do so at zero temperature. Even 3 Kelvin will make them boil, but the container walls will also begin to evaporate.

Gasses in space condensing into a planet or star do so from gravitational attraction, and their temperature must cooled to below their mutual escape velocities. Gravity acts on a much more distant range, and it drops off as the square of the distance, not the power of six. It, no matter how distant, will be the dominant force by far. Learn the mathematics. Fractions, powers, inverse, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, linear algebra, differential equations, chemistry, engineering, physics.

.

What a pile of horse shit.

You really are a complete moron.

[Fool]

.

I see you've chosen the higher education route.

Classical theory can be used to describe all phenomenon, if it is used correctly. The correct use needs to be taught and learned, before it can be used.
.