On Feb 5, 12:19 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 5, 2:46 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Feb 5, 2:40 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

P/V = NRT is the perfect gas law. It is derived from the fact that at
low pressures, all gases obey this relationship of temperature,
pressure and volume. In this formula, N is the number of moles.

OK, let's try this again. When you take a course in any of the hard
sciences, you either work the homework problems, or you ended up
ignorant.

I will bet you never worked any of the homework problems at the end of
each chapter. .

Harry C.

That is cute. So let's see your homework. You are only indoctrinated
with a bunch of information you can repeat. Your education gives you
no ability to review and rationally analyse problems.

So do you want to talk about my education? Just a diversion for
someone who does not understand his psuedo scientific indoctrination
and cannot discuss this very simple topic.

Oh, so when you only take the introductory courses it is enlightening,
but when you take the more advanced courses it is indoctrination?

Or are you seriously claiming you didn't learn things like PV=nkT and
Wein's law in a classroom?

[...]

I sure didn't. I learned PV=NRT in (not P/V=NRT) in a classroom. But the
rest of thermo and stat-mech I learned on my own. I have to laugh at the
knuckle-dragging goons who call themselves physicist, but cannot comprehend
the fact that the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition.

On Feb 5, 2:46 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 5, 2:40 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

P/V = NRT is the perfect gas law. It is derived from the fact that at
low pressures, all gases obey this relationship of temperature,
pressure and volume. In this formula, N is the number of moles.

OK, let's try this again. When you take a course in any of the hard
sciences, you either work the homework problems, or you ended up
ignorant.

I will bet you never worked any of the homework problems at the end of
each chapter. .

Harry C.

That is cute. So let's see your homework. You are only indoctrinated with
a bunch of information you can repeat. Your education gives you no ability
to review and rationally analyse problems.

So do you want to talk about my education? Just a diversion for someone
who does not understand his psuedo scientific indoctrination and cannot
discuss this very simple topic.

What do you want to discuss next, Aristotle. Philosophy, exsitentialism,
moral authority of scientists, the benefits of buying a $100,000 dollar
piece of paper called a diploma, which you can hang on a wall but gives
you no capability to discuss this simple problem which shows your
indoctrination to be incompletely invalid and useless??

The laboratory facts are this:
A gas injected into a container will bring the substance of the container
to it's temperature.
If a metal container is injected with N2 gas, the container will come to
the temperature of the gas. At this time, the outside surface of the
container has a quantity of energy leaving it's surface according to
Boltzman Stefan, 5.67E-5 ergs, cm-2, sec-1, degK-4.

THESE ARE FACTS. THE QUANTITY LEAVING THE SURFACE OF A HEATED BODY IS
DEFINED BY BOLTZMAN STEFAN.
This energy is a quantity and is always in compliance with the law of the
conservation of energy.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THIS ENERGY IS TRANSFERED BY MERE COLLISIONS OR
CONDUCTION OF THE MOLECULES. ALTHOUGH THIS IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO THE
THEORY OF GRENHOUSE GASES.

If the temperature of the gas entering the container is increased but it
is allowed to expand, the pressure remains the same.

The collective energy
of the collisions of the molecules is therfore the same. However, energy
leaving the surface of the outside of the container increases as a
fourth power to temperature. From 300K to 1000K, this is a 12,226%
increase in energy.

You don't get it. CO2 is transparent to visible light, but not to
infrared. So the 6000 K black body radiation from the sun can enter the
atmosphere almost unaffected, but significant part of the 300 K radiation
from the Earth is absorbed by the atmosphere. So the equilibrium
temperature is higher than if the atmosphere was completely transparent.

The more CO2 is there, the stronger the effect is. Why else would Venus be
so much hotter than Mercury?

On Feb 6, 1:01 pm, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
That is a moronic assumption if N2 and O2 do not radiate
much in the infra-red.

Thats just they thing - N2 and O2 do radiate IR, everything on this
planet, save light bulbs and anything over about 5000K does radiate
IR. The frequency of radiation is dependant on temp

Since half of all atmospheric radiation is upward, isn't
it obvious that without GHGs, the N2 and O2 atmosphere would
be much warmer.

Without GHG's they'd be colder.

The more CO2 is there, the stronger the effect is.

Mercury has no atmosphere - that's why its frozen - no greenhouse - no
oxygen - no ozone - no nothing.

Venus also has much more N2 than Earth, and the latest
images show weather on Venus something like that on Earth,
with very dense clouds that seem to play a big role in the
temperature extremes.

I think you should check this out - the only similarities between
erath and venus is that the both have atmosphere, both have volcanos,
both have ground to tread but that where it stops. Venus has an
atmosphere made predominately of sulpher dioxide due to large scale
volcanic activity - the atmosphere is covered in cloud and it wasn't
till they sent robots there that they realised it had lightning. But
that doesn't make it like earth.

kdthrge wrote:
P/V = NRT is the perfect gas law. It is derived from the fact that at
low pressures, all gases obey this relationship of temperature,
pressure and volume. In this formula, N is the number of moles.

[...]
You don't get it. CO2 is transparent to visible light, but not to
infrared. So the 6000 K black body radiation from the sun can enter the
atmosphere almost unaffected, but significant part of the 300 K radiation
from the Earth is absorbed by the atmosphere. So the equilibrium
temperature is higher than if the atmosphere was completely transparent.
The more CO2 is there, the stronger the effect is. Why else would Venus be
so much hotter than Mercury?

--
Army1987 (Replace "NOSPAM" with "email")

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:19:02 -0800, kdthrge wrote:
On Feb 5, 2:46 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 5, 2:40 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

P/V = NRT is the perfect gas law. It is derived from the fact that at
low pressures, all gases obey this relationship of temperature,
pressure and volume. In this formula, N is the number of moles.

OK, let's try this again. When you take a course in any of the hard
sciences, you either work the homework problems, or you ended up
ignorant.

I will bet you never worked any of the homework problems at the end of
each chapter. .

Harry C.

That is cute. So let's see your homework. You are only indoctrinated with
a bunch of information you can repeat. Your education gives you no ability
to review and rationally analyse problems.

So do you want to talk about my education? Just a diversion for someone
who does not understand his psuedo scientific indoctrination and cannot
discuss this very simple topic.

What do you want to discuss next, Aristotle. Philosophy, exsitentialism,
moral authority of scientists, the benefits of buying a $100,000 dollar
piece of paper called a diploma, which you can hang on a wall but gives
you no capability to discuss this simple problem which shows your
indoctrination to be incompletely invalid and useless??

The laboratory facts are this:
A gas injected into a container will bring the substance of the container
to it's temperature.
If a metal container is injected with N2 gas, the container will come to
the temperature of the gas. At this time, the outside surface of the
container has a quantity of energy leaving it's surface according to
Boltzman Stefan, 5.67E-5 ergs, cm-2, sec-1, degK-4.

THESE ARE FACTS. THE QUANTITY LEAVING THE SURFACE OF A HEATED BODY IS
DEFINED BY BOLTZMAN STEFAN.
This energy is a quantity and is always in compliance with the law of the
conservation of energy.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THIS ENERGY IS TRANSFERED BY MERE COLLISIONS OR
CONDUCTION OF THE MOLECULES. ALTHOUGH THIS IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO THE
THEORY OF GRENHOUSE GASES.

If the temperature of the gas entering the container is increased but it
is allowed to expand, the pressure remains the same.

It's easier for me to think about it as the gas being held at constant
pressure, such as with a weighted frictionless piston at the top of a
cylinder. Then when the gas is heated, the piston rises, doing mechanical
work without changing pressure.

The collective energy
of the collisions of the molecules is therfore the same. However, energy
leaving the surface of the outside of the container increases as a
fourth power to temperature. From 300K to 1000K, this is a 12,226%
increase in energy.

'> KD, when the gas and container system radiates energy away, it

On Feb 5, 1:48 pm, Hatto von Aquitanien <ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 5, 12:19 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 5, 2:46 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Feb 5, 2:40 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

P/V = NRT is the perfect gas law. It is derived from the fact that
at low pressures, all gases obey this relationship of temperature,
pressure and volume. In this formula, N is the number of moles.

OK, let's try this again. When you take a course in any of the hard
sciences, you either work the homework problems, or you ended up
ignorant.

I will bet you never worked any of the homework problems at the end
of each chapter. .

Harry C.

That is cute. So let's see your homework. You are only indoctrinated
with a bunch of information you can repeat. Your education gives you
no ability to review and rationally analyse problems.

So do you want to talk about my education? Just a diversion for
someone who does not understand his psuedo scientific indoctrination
and cannot discuss this very simple topic.

Oh, so when you only take the introductory courses it is enlightening,
but when you take the more advanced courses it is indoctrination?

Or are you seriously claiming you didn't learn things like PV=nkT and
Wein's law in a classroom?

[...]

I sure didn't. I learned PV=NRT in (not P/V=NRT) in a classroom. But
the
rest of thermo and stat-mech I learned on my own. I have to laugh at the
knuckle-dragging goons who call themselves physicist, but cannot
comprehend the fact that the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition.

"fact"

A curious word to use for the repeatedly disproven and now comical
assertion that the WTC was destroyed by "controlled demolition."

Hatto von Aquitanien <abbot@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:

I sure didn't. I learned PV=NRT in (not P/V=NRT) in a classroom. But the
rest of thermo and stat-mech I learned on my own. I have to laugh at the
knuckle-dragging goons who call themselves physicist, but cannot comprehend
the fact that the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition.

That shows you are not only a whacko nut, but don't know
enough about steel skyscrapers to know that once the rivets get
red hot, they shear like taffy.




I saw a new story of a local parking garage(concrete) that collapsed

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:19:02 -0800, kdthrge wrote:
On Feb 5, 2:46 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 5, 2:40 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

P/V = NRT is the perfect gas law. It is derived from the fact that at
low pressures, all gases obey this relationship of temperature,
pressure and volume. In this formula, N is the number of moles.

OK, let's try this again. When you take a course in any of the hard
sciences, you either work the homework problems, or you ended up
ignorant.

I will bet you never worked any of the homework problems at the end of
each chapter. .

Harry C.

That is cute. So let's see your homework. You are only indoctrinated with
a bunch of information you can repeat. Your education gives you no ability
to review and rationally analyse problems.

So do you want to talk about my education? Just a diversion for someone
who does not understand his psuedo scientific indoctrination and cannot
discuss this very simple topic.

What do you want to discuss next, Aristotle. Philosophy, exsitentialism,
moral authority of scientists, the benefits of buying a $100,000 dollar
piece of paper called a diploma, which you can hang on a wall but gives
you no capability to discuss this simple problem which shows your
indoctrination to be incompletely invalid and useless??

The laboratory facts are this:
A gas injected into a container will bring the substance of the container
to it's temperature.
If a metal container is injected with N2 gas, the container will come to
the temperature of the gas. At this time, the outside surface of the
container has a quantity of energy leaving it's surface according to
Boltzman Stefan, 5.67E-5 ergs, cm-2, sec-1, degK-4.

THESE ARE FACTS. THE QUANTITY LEAVING THE SURFACE OF A HEATED BODY IS
DEFINED BY BOLTZMAN STEFAN.
This energy is a quantity and is always in compliance with the law of the
conservation of energy.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THIS ENERGY IS TRANSFERED BY MERE COLLISIONS OR
CONDUCTION OF THE MOLECULES. ALTHOUGH THIS IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO THE
THEORY OF GRENHOUSE GASES.

If the temperature of the gas entering the container is increased but it
is allowed to expand, the pressure remains the same.

It's easier for me to think about it as the gas being held at constant
pressure, such as with a weighted frictionless piston at the top of a
cylinder. Then when the gas is heated, the piston rises, doing mechanical
work without changing pressure.

The collective energy
of the collisions of the molecules is therfore the same. However, energy
leaving the surface of the outside of the container increases as a
fourth power to temperature. From 300K to 1000K, this is a 12,226%
increase in energy.

'> KD, when the gas and container system radiates energy away, it

*>LOL!<*  You shouldn't be casting stones right now, death-rage..

By the way, it's "pV = nRT"

http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/0199271836/atkins_echem_ch01.pdf

So do you want to talk about my education?

Nope, it's obvious that you don't have one..

--But, keep telling on yourself.  I find it amusing

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

"bile wad" <bward@socal.res.rr.com> sniveled something else:

kdthrge@Dial1.StLouis1.Level3.net was smoking something toxic:

Harry C. wrote back correcting:

kdthrge@Dial1.StLouis1.Level3.net screwed the pooge yet again:

P/V = NRT is the perfect gas law. It is derived from the fact that at
low pressures, all gases obey this relationship of temperature,
pressure and volume. In this formula, N is the number of moles.

OK, let's try this again. When you take a course in any of the hard
sciences, you either work the homework problems, or you ended up
ignorant.

I will bet you never worked any of the homework problems at the end of
each chapter. .

That is cute. So let's see your homework. You are only indoctrinated with
a bunch of information you can repeat. Your education gives you no ability
to review and rationally analyse problems.

So do you want to talk about my education?

kdth...@Dial1.StLouis1.Level3.net babbled almost incoherently with:







"bile wad" <bw...@socal.res.rr.com> sniveled something else:

kdth...@Dial1.StLouis1.Level3.net was smoking something toxic:

Harry C. wrote back correcting:

kdth...@Dial1.StLouis1.Level3.net screwed the pooge yet again:

P/V = NRT is the perfect gas law. It is derived from the fact that at
low pressures, all gases obey this relationship of temperature,
pressure and volume. In this formula, N is the number of moles.

OK, let's try this again. When you take a course in any of the hard
sciences, you either work the homework problems, or you ended up
ignorant.

I will bet you never worked any of the homework problems at the end of
each chapter. .

That is cute. So let's see your homework. You are only indoctrinated with
a bunch of information you can repeat. Your education gives you no ability
to review and rationally analyse problems.

*>LOL!<*  You shouldn't be casting stones right now, death-rage..

By the way, it's "pV = nRT"

http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/0199271836/atkins_echem_ch01.pdf

So do you want to talk about my education?

Nope, it's obvious that you don't have one..

--But, keep telling on yourself.  I find it amusing..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -