| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Geology - Meteorology Forum » P/V = NRT disproves theory of grenhouse gases
Page 1 of 9 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:40 am |
|
|
|
|
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.
In this formula, pressure and volume are inversly proportional. The
pressure is directly proportinal to temperature at constant volume.
This pressure is directly proportional to the energy of 1 mole also
which is described by RT. RT is a quantity of energy of 1 mole of gas.
This total quantity of energy diminishes as a direct proportion to
decreasing temperature, so that it is zero, at absolute zero.
If one takes this 'total' energy of the pressure of the mole of gas,
and divides it by the number of molecules in the mole, Avagadro's
number, this gives the 'average' energy of each molecule. Certainly in
a normal gas, some molecules are moving faster and some are moving
slower. For their velocities, there is an 'average' kinetic energy
according to 1/2mv^2. R divided by Avagadro's number is therefore the
average or 'mean' kinetic energy for an individual molecule. This is
refered to as, kT, or Botzman'z constant by absolute temperature,
which is also a direct proportion to temperature, and changes as a
direct increment to temperature.
This energy of RT, being the kinetic energy of the velocities of the
molecules, must be absorbed from the environment from other forms of
energy according to the temperature of the gas. This energy that must
be absorbed into the motions of the molecuels is the 'heat capacity'
of the gas. This is demonstrated by the monatomic gases.
The inert elements have gases with only 1 molecule. These gases have
very different weights of their molecules. Yet these gases at normal
or low pressures, exactly obey the perfect gas law, and have exactly
the same heat capacity, which is 3/2 RT. The energy absorbed by the
different weight molecules is the same. The velocities of the
molecules is varied so that they have the same kinetic energy
according to 1/2mv^2. More complex molecules, absorb kinetic energy
according to the rotation of their mass, or kinetic energy of
vibrations.
In the theory of grenhouse gases, O2 and N2 are supposedly non-
reactive to infrared radiation. This presumption is critical to the
theory that minute concentrations of other gases affect temperature
and have the possibility to create climate catastrophe. This theory
then requires that N2 and O2 gas, only have temperature and energy
according to their motions and collisions, since they do not possess
the particular property of 'greenhouse gases'.
This is nonsense. IF this were true, pressure would always be directly
proportional to temperature alone, it would not have the inverse
relationship to volume.
If a gas is allowed to expand as it is heated, it maintains the same
pressure. Volume is greater and mean free path is greater. Since the
pressure is the collective impact of the molecules on the side of a
container, the velocities of the molecules is increased at greater
temperature, but the number of collisions decreases so that the
collective energy imparted (pressure), is the same.
A gas which is heated and delivered into a chamber heats the walls of
the chamber to it's temperature. The energy leaving the outside
surface of the chamber increases according to the Boltzman Stefan
equation in which the total energy or derivative of the energy
increases as a fourth power to temperature.
If grenhouse theory were correct, a heated gas which was kept at the
same pressure, would be entirely unable to transfer greater
temperature to the surface of solids. The temperature would always be
directly proportional to the pressure, regardless of volume. This is
not the case.
This and many other means of direct science to prove that gases absorb
and radiate the frequencies of the infrared, about 2um to 30um, and
this is the means they maintain temperature and transfer heat energy.
The theory that minute concentrations of certain gases dramatically
affect temperature is easily proved invalid, and is not based upon any
direct scientific support.
It is only derived from the theoretical surmise of 19th century
classical theory of Tyndell, and the classical theory that radiation
energy was merely waves through the aether. This theory was entirely
deposed by Planck and Einstein, who developed modern physics.
KDeatherage |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eric Gisse |
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 5, 10:40 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
[...]
I love how your level of argument _never_ goes past freshman chemistry
and thermodynamics. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| hhc314@yahoo.com |
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 5, 2:40 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:19 am |
|
|
|
|
On Feb 5, 2:46 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: 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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:24 am |
|
|
|
|
On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Feb 5, 10:40 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
[...]
I love how your level of argument _never_ goes past freshman chemistry
and thermodynamics.
I am doing my damn best to simplify this to a level that can be
understood. The petulant minds such as yourself resent so badly anyone
who actually has objective thought, that those who reside in academics
are entirely unable to understand or learn these very very basics, and
such rational thought and simplified mathematics is forbidden amongst
the dweebs of theoretical science.
Just posting notes, irritated eric, of information which will be valid
in future courts of law in the determination of facts. Sorry that
bothers you so much in your anal enjoyment of the bullshit you call
science.
Maybe you should make a note of what I am posting so you can sue to
get your money back for that bullshit indoctrination from the mealy
mouth idiots who are selling you your education.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHA
KD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eric Gisse |
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 5, 12:19 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: 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?
[...] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:31 am |
|
|
|
|
On Feb 5, 3:26 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
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?
When you discuss in generalities about education or classrooms it
means nothing. When you discuss the particular topic of the energy
transfered by gases to solid materials it may mean something if done
in conjuction with proper laboratory documentation.
Go ahead eric, and convince us of how superior your understanding is
due to the great advancement of your educational level. Discuss this
topic, dweeb, or admit you have no rational capability to do so, which
we can see already.
KD. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| klonq |
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
This is flawed science the earth is not in a container, there are no
walls to heat. Pressure and temperature are allowed to vary
independently and expand into the vacuum of space.
Furthermore we are not talking about simple gas structures, earth
contains an array of solids, liquids and gasses. Energy can be
transferred to solids which melt at the core if global temperatures
increase and thus expand the volume of the earth without necessarily
changing pressure.
The walls of your container are determined by gravity which is
determined by mass density, which yes would affect pressure. But not
temperature. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Army1987 |
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
kdthrge wrote:
Quote: 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") |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Roger Coppock |
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 5, 12:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Feb 5, 10:40 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
[...]
I love how your level of argument _never_ goes past freshman chemistry
and thermodynamics.
. . . and doesn't get either of them right to boot! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ouroboros_Rex |
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| klonq |
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 6, 1:01 pm, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
Quote: 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
Quote: 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.
Quote: The more CO2 is there, the stronger the effect is. Why else would Venus be
so much hotter than Mercury?
Mercury has no atmosphere - that's why its frozen - no greenhouse - no
oxygen - no ozone - no nothing.
Quote: 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eric Gisse |
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 5, 1:48 pm, Hatto von Aquitanien <ab...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
Quote: 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."
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tom Gardner |
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<kdthrge@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:58dbb0cd-b4b8-4a8b-a969-6d76b688ddbd@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 5, 3:26 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
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?
When you discuss in generalities about education or classrooms it
means nothing. When you discuss the particular topic of the energy
transfered by gases to solid materials it may mean something if done
in conjuction with proper laboratory documentation.
Go ahead eric, and convince us of how superior your understanding is
due to the great advancement of your educational level. Discuss this
topic, dweeb, or admit you have no rational capability to do so, which
we can see already.
KD.
What you're missing in all of this is that Faith trumps real science every
time. You can't dissuade the "Faith" of the AGW folks. They want the power
and money sooo much! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rodney Blackall |
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<3f971446-7cec-4f7b-92d0-76ee547fa1c2@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
<kdthrge@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: 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.
This implies that the container has zero mass. If cold air at 0C is blown
into a hot cylinder at 50C you say the cylinder will cool to 0C? Or does it
have to be hot air into a cold cylinder? Either way you should patent this
wonderful heat exchanger AND the material the cylinder is made from.
--
Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)(BSc, FRMetS, MRI)
Buckingham, ENGLAND
Using Acorn SA-RPC, OS 4.02 with ANT INS and Pluto 3.03j |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 9 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:12 pm
|
|