Nnanji
Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
Boyles Law actually relates pressure and volume inversely to a constant for that mass, (P1V1=P2V2), stated for a constant temperature. This implies either pressure, volume or temp. can change, and later work is named for the worker, and has the different constants in the same general relationship, (Charles Law, Guy-Lussac's Law), which are now usually combined and called the Ideal Gas Law, so you are correct in the technical name. Thermodynamics is the study of the details and complications of real world use of this understanding (Among other heat dynamics), not a separate field. Most liquids and gasses (Fluids) follow the same principal of expansion when heated under relatively constant pressure (At the bottom of Earth's atmosphere), and by convection (Requiring a significant gravity field as well), the warmer mass will rise relative to adjoining cooler fluid. (Flexibly ontained or not. Heating rigid containers does Not make most more buoyant, or only to the extent the container material/shape expands. Far less than most fluids will expand.) In mechanically closed systems, this drives thermosyphons, for instance.
In the context of this thread, the reason gravity changes flames from micro-gravity balls of self-extinguishing gas, to our familiar Earth surface vertically rising flames and smoke/hot gas. And that flames or flame induced convection doesn't 'suck' O2 from surrounding air, it overturns whole volumes of generally homogenous N2, O2 and the lesser components of Earth's atmosphere, the flame being supported if the convection brings enough new Oxygen (O2) in contact with the heated material.
To suggest Trump has even the slightest understanding of Science, it's history, or how it works in the 20th and 21st centuries, or an even smaller amount of respect for careful observationally determined facts and likely conclusions from their study (Science) is delusional to an astounding degree. You must be doing the usual Trump Fan 'listening', hearing what you want to think he may have said. The slightest attention to what he Does, or the disconnect between succeeding days' emotional outbursts, quickly disabuses any actual student of the words and actions of the man of his being in any way rational, educated or even aware of the massive contradictions between different outbursts. In particular, when confronted with actual video of what he said previously, the video record itself becomes "Fake News". And you want to defend this deeply dysfunctional Narcissism?
Been there, took the class have the diploma.
A couple of things.
You'll notice that you discuss temperature but only list pressure and volume. P1v1/t1=p2v2/t2 is not the same as the equations you listed and named, p1v1=p2v2 which is a simplistic way of writing Boyle's law. I was correct in my statement to you.
Yes I was correct and I really don't need affirmation from you in that regard. Simply stating you agree with my correction of your previous statements is all that's necessary.
Having sat through my share of thermodynamics and fluid mechanics classes I'm aware of what they are. I wonder if you are more conversant than Google can make you in 15 minutes?
While you're heating gases in a confined volume I believe the only recognition of atmospheric pressure is to state the word "gage". As the pressure from atmosphere is the same both inside and outside the vessel the common scientific recognition of that is to call the pressure reading, in what ever numeric system...psi...hg...whatever...as a gage pressure. Stating where you are in...or out...of the atmosphere is assumed by that statement, at least from high school physics on, as far as I've seen.
If you'll reread what I said, you'll notice I mentioned you might be confused by what you were understanding if the container wasn't stable and created a bouyancy effect, such a with a rising weather ballon. Since I did point that out to you, it seems a little excessive of you to repeat that situation back to me in order to make people think you actually were aware of what you were talking about.
I don't believe I made any mention of trump. Where you got that part of your statement was probably out of your ass. Yet, in my career ive explained physics and chemistry to a lot of people that didn't have my education and they then applied my knowledge to that which they needed to accomplish. It's what people with a science degree actually sell in the market place and is very common. I would guess that a developer who builds a shit load of things would be much more capable of understanding my explanation compared to...say...a community organizer. So, in my opinion your projection toward trump, who I repeat I didn't mention, is really just that, your idiotic projection.
< Message edited by Nnanji -- 5/2/2017 5:44:51 PM >
|
RE: Science anarchists - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread