kdthrge@yahoo.com wrote:
- -
The helium within the CO2 laser, radiates a considerable amount of
these high energy ultraviolets. They are continulallly absorbed by the
N2 and CO2 molecules and the helium itself. These high energy
ultraviolets 584.4 to about 490 Angstroms, are too energetic to travel
through either glass or air. This function of these high energy
ultraviolets and their absorption is primary to actually understanding
the workings of a CO2 laser.
-
More denialist word salad. lol

The helium within the CO2 laser, radiates a considerable amount of
these high energy ultraviolets. They are continulallly absorbed by the
N2 and CO2 molecules and the helium itself. These high energy
ultraviolets 584.4 to about 490 Angstroms, are too energetic to travel
through either glass or air. This function of these high energy
ultraviolets and their absorption is primary to actually understanding
the workings of a CO2 laser.

No kidding..

This has to be some kind of record for the length of dissembling
over a specific detail related to CO2 and global warming..

On Feb 10, 4:12 pm, Server 13 <c-b...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
- -
More denialist word salad. lol-

No understanding of the perfect gas law. The greenie wienies
get all upset to see the perfect gas law written , P/V = T.
The perfect gas law is the relationship of these 3 values,

;> I fail to see what 1000K N2 has to do with the properties of CO2

Leaving THAT aside, how have you heated the gas to 1000K? This is important
because it can cool by the same path unless you start doing work.

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.

We'll see what can be determined by direct scientific analysis, which
will also PROVE your 'homework' results to be the product of petulant
minds incapable of basic mathematical analysis.

KD

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.

Eric Gisse wrote:
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."

This is the proof:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liouville's_theorem_(Hamiltonian)

http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-t...

--http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ek5w_wtc7-the-smoking-gun-of-911-u...http://911research.wtc7.nethttp://vehme.blogspot.com
Virtus Tutissima Cassis

On Feb 10, 4:38 pm, Rodney Blackall

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thread/1cdd953122cc9eeb/c57c9b4897163f1c?hl=en&rnum=91&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.global-warming%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1cdd953122cc9eeb%3Fhl%3Den%26scoring%3Dd%26&scoring=d#doc_c57c9b4897163f1c

;> I fail to see what 1000K N2 has to do with the properties of CO2
and greenhouse effects.

This is absolutely a critical point, and this simple demonstration
PROVES the theory of grenhouse gases to be invalid especially in the
context of anthropogenic causes of global warming.

The atmosphere is something like 88% N2, 21% O2, and maybe an average
of 1% water vapor. Other gases are trace gases with CO2 most common of
these at about 4 parts per 10,000. The calculations of radiative
forcing are entirely dependent upon the assumption that the infrared
frequencies would leave through the atmosphere directly and unhindered
through an atmosphere of only N2 and O2. This is false, although it is
absolutely essential to attribute the value of effect from the trace
gases.

Leaving THAT aside, how have you heated the gas to 1000K? This is
important because it can cool by the same path unless you start doing
work.

The gas is heated by any means,

and then pumped with slight pressure
through the tubing to the chamber. This tubing should be well
insulated to prevent a considerable loss of heat. The point being
here, that the outside surface of a metal container can be brought to
1000K, with 1000K N2 gas, without a very considerable flow rate. The
container must have an exhaust outlet in order for there to be flow
through the container.

AHHA I see it all now. There is no problem! You are writing about "grenhouse
gases", the rest of us thought it was about GREENhouse gases.

Well now that you think about, I may be wrong about the 'greenie

The atmosphere is something like 88% N2, 21% O2, and maybe an average
of 1% water vapor. Other gases are trace gases with CO2 most common of
these at about 4 parts per 10,000. The calculations of radiative
forcing are entirely dependent upon the assumption that the infrared
frequencies would leave through the atmosphere directly and unhindered
through an atmosphere of only N2 and O2. This is false, although it is
absolutely essential to attribute the value of effect from the trace
gases.

[Snip]




;> COME ON, tell us what means you propose. You keep threatening to

This is simply not true, you CANNOT raise the temperature of the cylinder to
your magic 1000K by passing hot gas through it. The cylinder will be losing
heat to its surroundings all the time (not just when it gets to 1000K) and
your gas will leave the cylinder colder than it entered.

You are the ones that are supposed to be able to quantify the energy.

What the hell does your example mean?

Lets see the quantification.

Anyone can sit around and talk about supposed physics and physical
dynamics, but if you cannot quantify and prove your statements,
it is nothing but trash.

I just happen to be an expert in structure with more than 25 yrs
experience. But the drone of the theoretical science [..]

Well now that you think about, I may be wrong about the 'greenie
wienie' thing too. It may be after all 'wienie greenie'.

P/V = T
P changes as a direct proportion to T.
Example:
P =  1atm
V = 5 liters.
T = 100K

P/V = T
1atm / 5 liters = 100K
Temperature changes to 300K so,,,
3 atm / 5 liters = 300K

At this new value for T, P/V is 3/5,
Since the product of the variables P and V is a constant
3 / 5 is the same as 1 / 15
So if pressure is held constant, P = 1, then V = 15

The change in T operates upon the denominator, V in the same
proportion, V increases 3.0 proportion, to 15 liters volume.

The change in temperature in proportion to 3.0.
incurs the change in pressure by 3.0,
or the change in volume by 3.0,
and with the formula P/V = T
variable changes in either pressure or volume are easily computed.

KDeatherage

"right-wing death-rage"
kdth...@dialup-4.244.69.196.Dial1.StLouis1.Level3.net>:
-

P/V = T, represents the perfect gas law well,

Nope..  Please educate yourself, 'google-scholar'..

On Feb 16, 6:30 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:





P/V = T
P changes as a direct proportion to T.
Example:
P =  1atm
V = 5 liters.
T = 100K

P/V = T
1atm / 5 liters = 100K
Temperature changes to 300K so,,,
3 atm / 5 liters = 300K

At this new value for T, P/V is 3/5,
Since the product of the variables P and V is a constant
3 / 5 is the same as 1 / 15
So if pressure is held constant, P = 1, then V = 15

The change in T operates upon the denominator, V in the same
proportion, V increases 3.0 proportion, to 15 liters volume.

The change in temperature in proportion to 3.0.
incurs the change in pressure by 3.0,
or the change in volume by 3.0,
and with the formula P/V = T
variable changes in either pressure or volume are easily computed.

KDeatherage

P/V = T, represents the perfect gas law well, because in actuality,
the variable of the temperature is completely independent of the other
variables. The temperature of a gas will go to it's environmental
conditions regardless of what pressure it is at, or what volume..

This temperature then operates the pressure and/or volume accordingly.
The pressure and the volume are inversely proportional and their
representation as a fraction is more valuable since this is their
actual relationship.

At any time, volume can be considered 1, since all units are man-made
anyway, this value can be considered 1 unit. A change in this value,
affects the pressure, and can easily be valued as the reciprocal of
the volume times the pressure, which results in the value of the new
pressure.

Also the equation PV = NRT, places the 'N', which represents the
amount of air on the side with the temperature. Changes in the amount
of air do not affect the temperature first and then the pressure or
volume.

But if the equatioon is written, P/V = NRT, if the N is removed to the
other side, one has, (P/V) / N = RT.
This simplifies to PN / V = RT, a slightly more correct rendering
since the pressure is a value for the amount of gas, in a particular
area, with the molecules at a particular average kinetic energy.

KDeatherage- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -