Re: Composition of the Atmosphere

[Akinbo Ojo]

An interesting and tricky thing to contemplate.

If I may observe, in the elastic collisions between Nitrogen and Oxygen atoms momentum will be conserved, so yes, the lighter Nitrogen atoms will rebound at a higher speed than the heavier Oxygen atoms (in the kinetic theory view).

But from gravitational theory, when it comes to vertical motion and collision with or rebound from the Earth surface, there appears to be no difference in the downward or upward speeds of BOTH atoms despite their differing masses making their masses seemingly irrelevant (?weightlessness).

And I may be wrong...

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 5:05 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo; Roger Munday
Cc: Carl Reiff; Viraj Fernando; Ronald Hatch; David Tombe; rm...@comcast.net; dubui...@bellsouth.net; af.kra...@web.de; almc...@earthlink.net; bna...@a3ri.org; creb...@gmail.com; clit...@verizon.net; cpr...@gmail.com; cow...@eircom.net; dgta...@telusplanet.net; alle...@sbcglobal.net; dgs...@alice.it; dynu...@yahoo.com; donbr...@fieldstructure.org; frank...@yahoo.com; glennb...@aol.com; r...@epola.co.uk; kc3...@yahoo.com; hartwi...@jku.at; hefia...@gmail.com; ivor...@gmail.com; cir...@yahoo.com; jimc...@berkeley.edu; jeande...@yahoo.ca; jpbaug...@gmail.com; johneri...@yahoo.com; ser...@wt.net; john.mi...@hotmail.com; julesh...@yahoo.com; karl.virgi...@gmail.com; matthias...@gmail.com; matt...@grabiak.net; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; odo...@yahoo.com; PalA...@gmail.com; peter...@landisgyr.com; phili...@gmail.com; raju...@gmail.com; Robert....@rcn.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; rar...@earthlink.net; nedic...@gmail.com; then...@yahoo.com; bau...@gmail.com; alt...@gmail.com; pana...@gmail.com; Sung...@aol.com
Subject: RE: Composition of the Atmosphere

 

That’s true Akinbo,

 

But let’s consider the kinetic theory model where the molecules are all going every-which-way constantly colliding with the ground as the boundary. Now after each collision, the lighter particle (nitrogen molecule) will on average exit faster than the heavier particle (oxygen molecule) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision#/media/File:Elastischer_sto%C3%9F3.gif  . Without a boundary (earth’s surface), it may not matter but because of the earth’s surface existence, I the nitrogen molecules ending up travelling further up due to higher speeds than the oxygen hence causing a composition gradient.

 

But perhaps it’s not all that measureable, what do you think?

Best, Ian

 

 

From: Akinbo Ojo [mailto:ta...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 8:25 PM
To: Roger Munday
Cc: IMontgomery52Private; Carl Reiff; Viraj Fernando; Ronald Hatch; David Tombe; rm...@comcast.net; dubui...@bellsouth.net; af.kra...@web.de; almc...@earthlink.net; bna...@a3ri.org; creb...@gmail.com; clit...@verizon.net; cpr...@gmail.com; cow...@eircom.net; dgta...@telusplanet.net; alle...@sbcglobal.net; dgs...@alice.it; dynu...@yahoo.com; donbr...@fieldstructure.org; frank...@yahoo.com; glennb...@aol.com; r...@epola.co.uk; kc3...@yahoo.com; hartwi...@jku.at; hefia...@gmail.com; ivor...@gmail.com; cir...@yahoo.com; jimc...@berkeley.edu; jeande...@yahoo.ca; jpbaug...@gmail.com; johneri...@yahoo.com; ser...@wt.net; john.mi...@hotmail.com; julesh...@yahoo.com; karl.virgi...@gmail.com; matthias...@gmail.com; matt...@grabiak.net; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; odo...@yahoo.com; PalA...@gmail.com; peter...@landisgyr.com; phili...@gmail.com; raju...@gmail.com; Robert....@rcn.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; rar...@earthlink.net; nedic...@gmail.com; then...@yahoo.com; bau...@gmail.com; alt...@gmail.com; pana...@gmail.com; Sung...@aol.com
Subject: Re: Composition of the Atmosphere

 

Yes, you are correct. But there is gravitational attraction between Earth and Nitrogen atom on the one hand, and between Earth and Oxygen atom on the other hand. As a result both may fall at the same rate towards Earth. Hence at each altitude Nitrogen and Oxygen may remain side by side instead of the lighter atom falling slower.

Just a suggestion to resolve the puzzle concerning the relative densities.

Akinbo 

 

---

From: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 10:35 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo
Cc: IMontgomery52Private; Carl Reiff; Viraj Fernando; Ronald Hatch; David Tombe; rm...@comcast.net; dubui...@bellsouth.net; af.kra...@web.de; almc...@earthlink.net; bna...@a3ri.org; creb...@gmail.com; clit...@verizon.net; cpr...@gmail.com; cow...@eircom.net; dgta...@telusplanet.net; alle...@sbcglobal.net; dgs...@alice.it; dynu...@yahoo.com; donbr...@fieldstructure.org; frank...@yahoo.com; glennb...@aol.com; r...@epola.co.uk; kc3...@yahoo.com; hartwi...@jku.at; hefia...@gmail.com; ivor...@gmail.com; cir...@yahoo.com; jimc...@berkeley.edu; jeande...@yahoo.ca; jpbaug...@gmail.com; johneri...@yahoo.com; ser...@wt.net; john.mi...@hotmail.com; julesh...@yahoo.com; karl.virgi...@gmail.com; matthias...@gmail.com; matt...@grabiak.net; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; odo...@yahoo.com; PalA...@gmail.com; peter...@landisgyr.com; phili...@gmail.com; raju...@gmail.com; Robert....@rcn.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; rar...@earthlink.net; nedic...@gmail.com; then...@yahoo.com; bau...@gmail.com; alt...@gmail.com; pana...@gmail.com; Sung...@aol.com
Subject: Re: Composition of the Atmosphere

 

Akinbo,

According to the generally accepted postulates of the kinetic atomic theory of gases there is no gravitational attraction between atoms.

If there were the theory would itself collapse.

Regards,

Roger Munday

 

On 20 May 2017 at 21:05, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ian and All,

Perhaps Galileo's experiment at the leaning tower of Pisa may shed some light...

Release an atom of Nitrogen and another of Oxygen simultaneously from a height, despite Oxygen being slightly more massive, at every altitude as they fall they will remain side by side. This is because in the mutual gravitational attraction between each atom and Earth, the mass cancels out.

Just a thought...

Regards,

Akinbo

 

---

From: IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 1:20 AM
To: Roger Munday; Carl Reiff
Cc: Viraj Fernando; Akinbo Ojo; Ronald Hatch; David Tombe; rm...@comcast.net; dubui...@bellsouth.net; af.kra...@web.de; almc...@earthlink.net; bna...@a3ri.org; creb...@gmail.com; clit...@verizon.net; cpr...@gmail.com; cow...@eircom.net; dgta...@telusplanet.net; alle...@sbcglobal.net; dgs...@alice.it; dynu...@yahoo.com; donbr...@fieldstructure.org; frank...@yahoo.com; glennb...@aol.com; r...@epola.co.uk; kc3...@yahoo.com; hartwi...@jku.at; hefia...@gmail.com; ivor...@gmail.com; cir...@yahoo.com; jimc...@berkeley.edu; jeande...@yahoo.ca; jpbaug...@gmail.com; johneri...@yahoo.com; ser...@wt.net; john.mi...@hotmail.com; julesh...@yahoo.com; karl.virgi...@gmail.com; matthias...@gmail.com; matt...@grabiak.net; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; odo...@yahoo.com; PalA...@gmail.com; peter...@landisgyr.com; phili...@gmail.com; raju...@gmail.com; Robert....@rcn.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; rar...@earthlink.net; nedic...@gmail.com; then...@yahoo.com; bau...@gmail.com; alt...@gmail.com; pana...@gmail.com; Sung...@aol.com
Subject: RE: Composition of the Atmosphere

 

Yes Roger,

 

I just seems that KE theory within a gravitational field  just can’t explain why the percentages of air composition don’t change in that 100 km zone, just like why the top bench in a sauna is hotter than the lower.

 

Best, Ian

 

 

From: Roger Munday [mailto:munda...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 9:43 PM
To: Carl Reiff
Cc: IMontgomery52Private; Viraj Fernando; Akinbo Ojo; Ronald Hatch; David Tombe; rm...@comcast.net; dubui...@bellsouth.net; af.kra...@web.de; almc...@earthlink.net; bna...@a3ri.org; creb...@gmail.com; clit...@verizon.net; cpr...@gmail.com; cow...@eircom.net; dgta...@telusplanet.net; alle...@sbcglobal.net; dgs...@alice.it; dynu...@yahoo.com; donbr...@fieldstructure.org; frank...@yahoo.com; glennb...@aol.com; r...@epola.co.uk; kc3...@yahoo.com; hartwi...@jku.at; hefia...@gmail.com; ivor...@gmail.com; cir...@yahoo.com; jimc...@berkeley.edu; jeande...@yahoo.ca; jpbaug...@gmail.com; johneri...@yahoo.com; ser...@wt.net; john.mi...@hotmail.com; julesh...@yahoo.com; karl.virgi...@gmail.com; matthias...@gmail.com; matt...@grabiak.net; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; odo...@yahoo.com; PalA...@gmail.com; peter...@landisgyr.com; phili...@gmail.com; raju...@gmail.com; Robert....@rcn.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; rar...@earthlink.net; nedic...@gmail.com; then...@yahoo.com; bau...@gmail.com; alt...@gmail.com; pana...@gmail.com; Sung...@aol.com
Subject: Re: Composition of the Atmosphere

 

Carl,

This is simple, basic.

To focus on the lower atmosphere to 100 km altitude that, as stated, is composed of the same proportions of nitrogen and oxygen, which gases of course decrease in density with altitude.

The oxygen component, having a greater mass, should, if the cause of the variation in density is gravity as it must be, accumulate in greater proportions nearer to the surface. But it patently does not, and the textbooks state, in attempts to cover this problem, that in terms of kinetic theory “gravity can be ignored”, while at the same time the kinetic motions of atoms are “perfectly random”.

This and many other problems with this theory are ignored, “Oh - this is elementary stuff”.

Yes it is elementary, it is fundamental to all of theoretical physics, and if this theory cannot describe such simple interactions and completely ignores gravity, then it is about time that people come, literally, down to Earth, and instead of delving deeper and deeper into the complexity and confusion that is evident here on this forum, and indeed in the mainstream, reconsider the fundamentals.

Electron microscopy shows clearly that solid matter is continuous, and this and the liquid state are analysed using continuum mechanics, but of course the mindset is that this is an illusion and the all permeating vacuum ( non-material aether) MUST ‘exist’.

It does not and cannot.

Regards,

Roger Munday

 

On 19 May 2017 at 15:54, Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com> wrote:

Ian,

I'm not sure it you are saying that you can't see how a lot of KE would cause that, or how only a little KE would?  If a lot, then that makes perfect sense to me, as a lot of mixing would be occurring.

Regards,
Carl

-----------------------------------

 

On 5/18/2017 8:50 PM, IMontgomery52Private wrote:

Hi Roger,

 

May well be. But just focussing on the first 100 kms, they seem to be pretty sure there’s no major change of composition and I can’t see how KE would explain that. Can anyone else on this list give a KE explanation?

 

Best, Ian

 

 

From: Roger Munday [mailto:munda...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 6:57 AM
To: IMontgomery52Private
Cc: Viraj Fernando; Akinbo Ojo; Carl Reiff; Ronald Hatch; David Tombe; rm...@comcast.net; dubui...@bellsouth.net; af.kra...@web.de; almc...@earthlink.net; bna...@a3ri.org; creb...@gmail.com; clit...@verizon.net; cpr...@gmail.com; cow...@eircom.net; dgta...@telusplanet.net; alle...@sbcglobal.net; dgs...@alice.it; dynu...@yahoo.com; donbr...@fieldstructure.org; frank...@yahoo.com; glennb...@aol.com; r...@epola.co.uk; kc3...@yahoo.com; hartwi...@jku.at; hefia...@gmail.com; ivor...@gmail.com; cir...@yahoo.com; jimc...@berkeley.edu; jeande...@yahoo.ca; jpbaug...@gmail.com; johneri...@yahoo.com; ser...@wt.net; john.mi...@hotmail.com; julesh...@yahoo.com; karl.virgi...@gmail.com; matthias...@gmail.com; matt...@grabiak.net; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; odo...@yahoo.com; PalA...@gmail.com; peter...@landisgyr.com; phili...@gmail.com; raju...@gmail.com; Robert....@rcn.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; rar...@earthlink.net; nedic...@gmail.com; then...@yahoo.com; bau...@gmail.com; alt...@gmail.com; pana...@gmail.com; Sung...@aol.com
Subject: Composition of the Atmosphere

 

Ian,

 

Started this new thread, the other was sending detritus.

 

You wrote:-

 

Actually, the below begs a question in my mind. I had a look at atmospheric composition verses elevation http://wordpress.mrreid.org/2014/08/01/the-composition-of-earths-atmosphere-with-elevation/ and I notice that the N2 and O2 composition doesn’t change for the first 100 km. With N2 being lighter, one would think that there’d be a steady increase through this 100 km?

 

 

Yes, I agree with your point about nitrogen oxygen proportions.

But I note this qualification from your link :-

“It’s important to note that the graphs above all show concentration as a percentage of the total number of particles of gas in the atmosphere, rather than by mass or volume. The atmosphere becomes incredibly thin at high elevations, so that particles of gas may travel many kilometres between collisions, and if absolute concentrations were used instead, the graph would look very different (and be completely unusable, which is why I haven’t included it here).”

And my attempts to get some other estimates of compositions and proportions was not successful, just vague comments, so I wonder how these were experimentally determined in these graphs, any info on this would be appreciated.

And then this:-

“By the time we reach an elevation of 1000?km helium makes up 93% of the atmosphere. This is due to the fact that helium is an unreactive and very light atom (with a mass about one-eighth of oxygen) and thus isn’t held tightly by Earth’s gravitational field. (Helium is so light that it can escape Earth’s gravity entirely.) The bulk of the remainder is hydrogen, also prevalent due to its low mass (about one-sixteenth of oxygen’s).”

So the gases of the atmosphere are governed by the Earth's gravity acting through a vacuum – How?

The failure to explain this invalidates this, and the theoretical necessity of “escape velocity” is therefore also nonsense.

Regards,

Roger Munday

 

 

Virus-free. www.avast.com

 

 

[Roger Munday]

Ian and Akinbo,

You invoke gravity, when the theory suggests that this "can be ignored".

This is a necessary condition (for the theory) as, for example, if an atom is in 'kinetic' motion horizontally and gravity acts upon it,

then its trajectory is altered towards the surface.

Now you may argue that the high speed and the minuscule distance between collisions enables you to say that this effect is negligible, "can be ignored".

But it cannot be ignored, an atom has mass and the trajectory will be altered.

It is no use squirming on the hook by making excuses, the result would be that atoms in the atmosphere would congregate at the Earth's surface.

The fact that Oxygen and Nitrogen have the same proportions to 100 km altitude and above and, relatively, at the same separations invalidates the theory.

Other observed invalidations are diffusion, convection, thermal transport, phase changes, and obviously the transmission of gravity itself through a vacuum (or non-resistive aether) in which (do I need to remind you again?) action and reaction are impossible.

Regards,

Roger Munday

[Franklin Hu]

I don't think the data invalidates the theory at all, on the contrary fully confirms it. Above 200 KM, we see that atomic oxygen which would be half the mass of N^2 clearly dominates showing the expected gravitational separation, even higher, we see that helium and then finally the lightest hydrogen dominate. This is exactly what we would expect. The heavy Oxygen and Nitrogen are concentrated towards the ground. These two have such similar atomic mass, it is not surprising that there would be no detectible separation at the lower levels.

-Frankln

---

From: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>

To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Ronald Hatch <Ron.R...@outlook.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; "rm...@comcast.net" <rm...@comcast.net>; "dubui...@bellsouth.net" <dubui...@bellsouth.net>; "af.kra...@web.de" <af.kra...@web.de>; "almc...@earthlink.net" <almc...@earthlink.net>; "bna...@a3ri.org" <bna...@a3ri.org>; "creb...@gmail.com" <creb...@gmail.com>; "clit...@verizon.net" <clit...@verizon.net>; "cpr...@gmail.com" <cpr...@gmail.com>; "cow...@eircom.net" <cow...@eircom.net>; "dgta...@telusplanet.net" <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; "alle...@sbcglobal.net" <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; "dgs...@alice.it" <dgs...@alice.it>; "dynu...@yahoo.com" <dynu...@yahoo.com>; "donbr...@fieldstructure.org" <donbr...@fieldstructure.org>; "frank...@yahoo.com" <frank...@yahoo.com>; "glennb...@aol.com" <glennb...@aol.com>; "r...@epola.co.uk" <r...@epola.co.uk>; "hartwi...@jku.at" <hartwi...@jku.at>; "hefia...@gmail.com" <hefia...@gmail.com>; "ivor...@gmail.com" <ivor...@gmail.com>; "cir...@yahoo.com" <cir...@yahoo.com>; "jeande...@yahoo.ca" <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; "jpbaug...@gmail.com" <jpbaug...@gmail.com>; "ser...@wt.net" <ser...@wt.net>; "john.mi...@hotmail.com" <john.mi...@hotmail.com>; "julesh...@yahoo.com" <julesh...@yahoo.com>; "karl.virgi...@gmail.com" <karl.virgi...@gmail.com>; "matthias...@gmail.com" <matthias...@gmail.com>; "matt...@grabiak.net" <matt...@grabiak.net>; "mike.gamb...@gmail.com" <mike.gamb...@gmail.com>; "musa...@gmail.com" <musa...@gmail.com>; "nper...@snet.net" <nper...@snet.net>; "odo...@yahoo.com" <odo...@yahoo.com>; "PalA...@gmail.com" <PalA...@gmail.com>; "peter...@landisgyr.com" <peter...@landisgyr.com>; "phili...@gmail.com" <phili...@gmail.com>; "raju...@gmail.com" <raju...@gmail.com>; "Robert....@rcn.com" <Robert....@rcn.com>; "r.j.an...@btinternet.com" <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; "rar...@earthlink.net" <rar...@earthlink.net>; "nedic...@gmail.com" <nedic...@gmail.com>; "then...@yahoo.com" <then...@yahoo.com>; "bau...@gmail.com" <bau...@gmail.com>; "alt...@gmail.com" <alt...@gmail.com>; "pana...@gmail.com" <pana...@gmail.com>; "Sung...@aol.com" <Sung...@aol.com>; npa-relativity <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 12:30 PM

Subject: Re: Composition of the Atmosphere

That’s true Akinbo,

 

But let’s consider the kinetic theory model where the molecules are all going every-which-way constantly colliding with the ground as the boundary. Now after each collision, the lighter particle (nitrogen molecule) will on average exit faster than the heavier particle (oxygen molecule) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Elastic_collision#/media/File: Elastischer_sto%C3%9F3.gif  . Without a boundary (earth’s surface), it may not matter but because of the earth’s surface existence, I the nitrogen molecules ending up travelling further up due to higher speeds than the oxygen hence causing a composition gradient.

Yes Roger,

Actually, the below begs a question in my mind. I had a look at atmospheric composition verses elevation http://wordpress.mrreid.org/ 2014/08/01/the-composition-of- earths-atmosphere-with- elevation/ and I notice that the N2 and O2 composition doesn’t change for the first 100 km. With N2 being lighter, one would think that there’d be a steady increase through this 100 km?

 

 

Yes, I agree with your point about nitrogen oxygen proportions.

But I note this qualification from your link :-

“It’s important to note that the graphs above all show concentration as a percentage of the total number of particles of gas in the atmosphere, rather than by mass or volume. The atmosphere becomes incredibly thin at high elevations, so that particles of gas may travel many kilometres between collisions, and if absolute concentrations were used instead, the graph would look very different (and be completely unusable, which is why I haven’t included it here).”

And my attempts to get some other estimates of compositions and proportions was not successful, just vague comments, so I wonder how these were experimentally determined in these graphs, any info on this would be appreciated.

And then this:-

“By the time we reach an elevation of 1000?km helium makes up 93% of the atmosphere. This is due to the fact that helium is an unreactive and very light atom (with a mass about one-eighth of oxygen) and thus isn’t held tightly by Earth’s gravitational field. (Helium is so light that it can escape Earth’s gravity entirely.) The bulk of the remainder is hydrogen, also prevalent due to its low mass (about one-sixteenth of oxygen’s).”

So the gases of the atmosphere are governed by the Earth's gravity acting through a vacuum – How?

The failure to explain this invalidates this, and the theoretical necessity of “escape velocity” is therefore also nonsense.

Regards,

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

Franklin,

Then perhaps you can explain why mercury, of an atomic weight of 200, freely evaporates at STP, and rises through oxygen and nitrogen (16 and 14) and is evidently distributed evenly throughout the air, for example in a laboratory.

Regards,

Roger Munday

On 23 May 2017 at 10:32, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I don't think the data invalidates the theory at all, on the contrary fully confirms it. Above 200 KM, we see that atomic oxygen which would be half the mass of N^2 clearly dominates showing the expected gravitational separation, even higher, we see that helium and then finally the lightest hydrogen dominate. This is exactly what we would expect. The heavy Oxygen and Nitrogen are concentrated towards the ground. These two have such similar atomic mass, it is not surprising that there would be no detectible separation at the lower levels.

-Frankln

---

From: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

Cc: IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Ronald Hatch <Ron.R...@outlook.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; "rm...@comcast.net" <rm...@comcast.net>; "dubui...@bellsouth.net" <dubui...@bellsouth.net>; "af.kra...@web.de" <af.kra...@web.de>; "almc...@earthlink.net" <almc...@earthlink.net>; "bna...@a3ri.org" <bna...@a3ri.org>; "creb...@gmail.com" <creb...@gmail.com>; "clit...@verizon.net" <clit...@verizon.net>; "cpr...@gmail.com" <cpr...@gmail.com>; "cow...@eircom.net" <cow...@eircom.net>; "dgta...@telusplanet.net" <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; "alle...@sbcglobal.net" <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; "dgs...@alice.it" <dgs...@alice.it>; "dynu...@yahoo.com" <dynu...@yahoo.com>; "donbriddell@fieldstructure.org" <donbriddell@fieldstructure.org>; "frank...@yahoo.com" <frank...@yahoo.com>; "glennb...@aol.com" <glennb...@aol.com>; "r...@epola.co.uk" <r...@epola.co.uk>; "hartwi...@jku.at" <hartwi...@jku.at>; "hefia...@gmail.com" <hefia...@gmail.com>; "ivor...@gmail.com" <ivor...@gmail.com>; "cir...@yahoo.com" <cir...@yahoo.com>; "jeande...@yahoo.ca" <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; "jpbaug...@gmail.com" <jpbaug...@gmail.com>; "ser...@wt.net" <ser...@wt.net>; "john.mi...@hotmail.com" <john.mi...@hotmail.com>; "julesh...@yahoo.com" <julesh...@yahoo.com>; "karl.virgil.thompson@gmail.com" <karl.virgil.thompson@gmail.com>; "matthias...@gmail.com" <matthias...@gmail.com>; "matt...@grabiak.net" <matt...@grabiak.net>; "mike.gamb...@gmail.com" <mike.gamb...@gmail.com>; "musa...@gmail.com" <musa...@gmail.com>; "nper...@snet.net" <nper...@snet.net>; "odo...@yahoo.com" <odo...@yahoo.com>; "PalA...@gmail.com" <PalA...@gmail.com>; "peter...@landisgyr.com" <peter...@landisgyr.com>; "phili...@gmail.com" <phili...@gmail.com>; "raju...@gmail.com" <raju...@gmail.com>; "Robert....@rcn.com" <Robert....@rcn.com>; "r.j.an...@btinternet.com" <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; "rar...@earthlink.net" <rar...@earthlink.net>; "nedic...@gmail.com" <nedic...@gmail.com>; "then...@yahoo.com" <then...@yahoo.com>; "bau...@gmail.com" <bau...@gmail.com>; "alt...@gmail.com" <alt...@gmail.com>; "pana...@gmail.com" <pana...@gmail.com>; "Sung...@aol.com" <Sung...@aol.com>; npa-relativity <npa-relativity@googlegroups.com>

[IMontgomery52Private]

Indeed a good question Roger,

 

Looking it up, it does as you describe. So these very heavy atoms should just fall without being bumped too much by the N2 and O2 lightweights. What say you Franklin?

Best, Ian

 

 

From: Roger Munday [mailto:munda...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 9:53 AM
To: Franklin Hu
Cc: Akinbo Ojo; IMontgomery52Private; Carl Reiff; Viraj Fernando; Ronald Hatch; David Tombe; rm...@comcast.net; dubui...@bellsouth.net; af.kra...@web.de; almc...@earthlink.net; bna...@a3ri.org; creb...@gmail.com; clit...@verizon.net; cpr...@gmail.com; cow...@eircom.net; dgta...@telusplanet.net; alle...@sbcglobal.net; dgs...@alice.it; dynu...@yahoo.com; donbr...@fieldstructure.org; glennb...@aol.com; r...@epola.co.uk; hartwi...@jku.at; hefia...@gmail.com; ivor...@gmail.com; cir...@yahoo.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; jpbaug...@gmail.com; ser...@wt.net; john.mi...@hotmail.com; julesh...@yahoo.com; karl.virgi...@gmail.com; matthias...@gmail.com; matt...@grabiak.net; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; odo...@yahoo.com; PalA...@gmail.com; peter...@landisgyr.com; phili...@gmail.com; raju...@gmail.com; Robert....@rcn.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; rar...@earthlink.net; nedic...@gmail.com; then...@yahoo.com; bau...@gmail.com; alt...@gmail.com; pana...@gmail.com; Sung...@aol.com; npa-relativity
Subject: Re: Composition of the Atmosphere

 

Franklin,

[Franklin Hu]

Anything can evaporate with enough energy and if you did an experiment with a sufficiently large laboratory in a cold and still environment, I think you would find that on average, the mercury would find its way towards the bottom of the room. How can you say it would be evenly distributed when you haven't done any such experiment? After all, most of the mercury is already sitting on the floor in a puddle and not floating around the room.

Although this whole subject begs the question of why lighter gases rise. People say that gravity is only an attraction, but when you look at a helium balloon, is that attraction? Looks a lot more like repulsion to me. In fact, the force of gravity actually depends upon the material that an object is immersed in, than it being an all attractive force. If I toss you into water, you float up, being repelled from the gravity source.

Some say this is due to 'boyancy', but then what is buoyancy? Is it the action of the atoms pushing upwards.

I don't think so, the electrostatic theory of gravity suggests that the directional force of gravity depends of the relative permeability of the objects involved. This force can be towards or away from the central charge source. I suggest that the reason why the helium balloon rises is because the atoms inside of the balloon are experiencing an upward force on them due to the different permeability of the surrounding atmosphere. We would see the pushing happening from inside the balloon, not on the outside of the balloon as buoyancy would suggest.

So, if you're looking for an explanation for how gases separate in gravity, I would start with explaining how a helium balloon works, rather than try to explain what is going on in the whole atmosphere which appears to have the stratification that one would expect.

-Franklin

---

From: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>

To: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Ronald Hatch <Ron.R...@outlook.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; "rm...@comcast.net" <rm...@comcast.net>; "dubui...@bellsouth.net" <dubui...@bellsouth.net>; "af.kra...@web.de" <af.kra...@web.de>; "almc...@earthlink.net" <almc...@earthlink.net>; "bna...@a3ri.org" <bna...@a3ri.org>; "creb...@gmail.com" <creb...@gmail.com>; "clit...@verizon.net" <clit...@verizon.net>; "cpr...@gmail.com" <cpr...@gmail.com>; "cow...@eircom.net" <cow...@eircom.net>; "dgta...@telusplanet.net" <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; "alle...@sbcglobal.net" <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; "dgs...@alice.it" <dgs...@alice.it>; "dynu...@yahoo.com" <dynu...@yahoo.com>; "donbr...@fieldstructure.org" <donbr...@fieldstructure.org>; "glennb...@aol.com" <glennb...@aol.com>; "r...@epola.co.uk" <r...@epola.co.uk>; "hartwi...@jku.at" <hartwi...@jku.at>; "hefia...@gmail.com" <hefia...@gmail.com>; "ivor...@gmail.com" <ivor...@gmail.com>; "cir...@yahoo.com" <cir...@yahoo.com>; "jeande...@yahoo.ca" <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; "jpbaug...@gmail.com" <jpbaug...@gmail.com>; "ser...@wt.net" <ser...@wt.net>; "john.mi...@hotmail.com" <john.mi...@hotmail.com>; "julesh...@yahoo.com" <julesh...@yahoo.com>; "karl.virgi...@gmail.com" <karl.virgi...@gmail.com>; "matthias...@gmail.com" <matthias...@gmail.com>; "matt...@grabiak.net" <matt...@grabiak.net>; "mike.gamb...@gmail.com" <mike.gamb...@gmail.com>; "musa...@gmail.com" <musa...@gmail.com>; "nper...@snet.net" <nper...@snet.net>; "odo...@yahoo.com" <odo...@yahoo.com>; "PalA...@gmail.com" <PalA...@gmail.com>; "peter...@landisgyr.com" <peter...@landisgyr.com>; "phili...@gmail.com" <phili...@gmail.com>; "raju...@gmail.com" <raju...@gmail.com>; "Robert....@rcn.com" <Robert....@rcn.com>; "r.j.an...@btinternet.com" <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; "rar...@earthlink.net" <rar...@earthlink.net>; "nedic...@gmail.com" <nedic...@gmail.com>; "then...@yahoo.com" <then...@yahoo.com>; "bau...@gmail.com" <bau...@gmail.com>; "alt...@gmail.com" <alt...@gmail.com>; "pana...@gmail.com" <pana...@gmail.com>; "Sung...@aol.com" <Sung...@aol.com>; npa-relativity <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 4:52 PM

Subject: Re: Composition of the Atmosphere

Franklin,

Then perhaps you can explain why mercury, of an atomic weight of 200, freely evaporates at STP, and rises through oxygen and nitrogen (16 and 14) and is evidently distributed evenly throughout the air, for example in a laboratory.

Regards,

Roger Munday

On 23 May 2017 at 10:32, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I don't think the data invalidates the theory at all, on the contrary fully confirms it. Above 200 KM, we see that atomic oxygen which would be half the mass of N^2 clearly dominates showing the expected gravitational separation, even higher, we see that helium and then finally the lightest hydrogen dominate. This is exactly what we would expect. The heavy Oxygen and Nitrogen are concentrated towards the ground. These two have such similar atomic mass, it is not surprising that there would be no detectible separation at the lower levels.

-Frankln

---

From: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

Cc: IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au >; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Ronald Hatch <Ron.R...@outlook.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; "rm...@comcast.net" <rm...@comcast.net>; "dubui...@bellsouth.net" <dubui...@bellsouth.net>; "af.kra...@web.de" <af.kra...@web.de>; "almc...@earthlink.net" <almc...@earthlink.net>; "bna...@a3ri.org" <bna...@a3ri.org>; "creb...@gmail.com" <creb...@gmail.com>; "clit...@verizon.net" <clit...@verizon.net>; "cpr...@gmail.com" <cpr...@gmail.com>; "cow...@eircom.net" <cow...@eircom.net>; "dgta...@telusplanet.net" <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; "alle...@sbcglobal.net" <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; "dgs...@alice.it" <dgs...@alice.it>; "dynu...@yahoo.com" <dynu...@yahoo.com>; "donbriddell@fieldstructure. org" <donbriddell@fieldstructure. org>; "frank...@yahoo.com" <frank...@yahoo.com>; "glennb...@aol.com" <glennb...@aol.com>; "r...@epola.co.uk" <r...@epola.co.uk>; "hartwi...@jku.at" <hartwi...@jku.at>; "hefia...@gmail.com" <hefia...@gmail.com>; "ivor...@gmail.com" <ivor...@gmail.com>; "cir...@yahoo.com" <cir...@yahoo.com>; "jeande...@yahoo.ca" <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; "jpbaug...@gmail.com" <jpbaug...@gmail.com>; "ser...@wt.net" <ser...@wt.net>; "john.mi...@hotmail.com" <john.mi...@hotmail.com>; "julesh...@yahoo.com" <julesh...@yahoo.com>; "karl.virgil.thompson@gmail. com" <karl.virgil.thompson@gmail. com>; "matthias...@gmail.com" <matthias...@gmail.com>; "matt...@grabiak.net" <matt...@grabiak.net>; "mike.gamb...@gmail.com " <mike.gamb...@gmail.com >; "musa...@gmail.com" <musa...@gmail.com>; "nper...@snet.net" <nper...@snet.net>; "odo...@yahoo.com" <odo...@yahoo.com>; "PalA...@gmail.com" <PalA...@gmail.com>; "peter...@landisgyr.com" <peter...@landisgyr.com>; "phili...@gmail.com" <phili...@gmail.com>; "raju...@gmail.com" <raju...@gmail.com>; "Robert....@rcn.com" <Robert....@rcn.com>; "r.j.an...@btinternet.com" <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; "rar...@earthlink.net" <rar...@earthlink.net>; "nedic...@gmail.com" <nedic...@gmail.com>; "then...@yahoo.com" <then...@yahoo.com>; "bau...@gmail.com" <bau...@gmail.com>; "alt...@gmail.com" <alt...@gmail.com>; "pana...@gmail.com" <pana...@gmail.com>; "Sung...@aol.com" <Sung...@aol.com>; npa-relativity <npa-relativity@googlegroups. com>

[Roger Munday]

Franklin,

You say "the mercury would find its way towards the bottom of the room."

It evidently does not, as Newton was probably amongst the first to, inadvertently, experience when trying to change it to gold in numerous experiments, and suffered severe mercury poisoning. Analysis of his blood found six times normal levels at death.

Today sophisticated breathing apparatus is employed when dealing with exposed mercury.

So what you are saying is simply wrong.

Roger Munday

On 24 May 2017 at 05:16, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Anything can evaporate with enough energy and if you did an experiment with a sufficiently large laboratory in a cold and still environment, I think you would find that on average, the mercury would find its way towards the bottom of the room. How can you say it would be evenly distributed when you haven't done any such experiment? After all, most of the mercury is already sitting on the floor in a puddle and not floating around the room.

Although this whole subject begs the question of why lighter gases rise. People say that gravity is only an attraction, but when you look at a helium balloon, is that attraction? Looks a lot more like repulsion to me. In fact, the force of gravity actually depends upon the material that an object is immersed in, than it being an all attractive force. If I toss you into water, you float up, being repelled from the gravity source.

Some say this is due to 'boyancy', but then what is buoyancy? Is it the action of the atoms pushing upwards.

I don't think so, the electrostatic theory of gravity suggests that the directional force of gravity depends of the relative permeability of the objects involved. This force can be towards or away from the central charge source. I suggest that the reason why the helium balloon rises is because the atoms inside of the balloon are experiencing an upward force on them due to the different permeability of the surrounding atmosphere. We would see the pushing happening from inside the balloon, not on the outside of the balloon as buoyancy would suggest.

So, if you're looking for an explanation for how gases separate in gravity, I would start with explaining how a helium balloon works, rather than try to explain what is going on in the whole atmosphere which appears to have the stratification that one would expect.

-Franklin

---

From: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
To: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>

Cc: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; IMontgomery52Private <imontg...@atlasgas.com.au>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; Ronald Hatch <Ron.R...@outlook.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; "rm...@comcast.net" <rm...@comcast.net>; "dubui...@bellsouth.net" <dubui...@bellsouth.net>; "af.kra...@web.de" <af.kra...@web.de>; "almc...@earthlink.net" <almc...@earthlink.net>; "bna...@a3ri.org" <bna...@a3ri.org>; "creb...@gmail.com" <creb...@gmail.com>; "clit...@verizon.net" <clit...@verizon.net>; "cpr...@gmail.com" <cpr...@gmail.com>; "cow...@eircom.net" <cow...@eircom.net>; "dgta...@telusplanet.net" <dgta...@telusplanet.net>; "alle...@sbcglobal.net" <alle...@sbcglobal.net>; "dgs...@alice.it" <dgs...@alice.it>; "dynu...@yahoo.com" <dynu...@yahoo.com>; "donbriddell@fieldstructure.org" <donbriddell@fieldstructure.org>; "glennb...@aol.com" <glennb...@aol.com>; "r...@epola.co.uk" <r...@epola.co.uk>; "hartwi...@jku.at" <hartwi...@jku.at>; "hefia...@gmail.com" <hefia...@gmail.com>; "ivor...@gmail.com" <ivor...@gmail.com>; "cir...@yahoo.com" <cir...@yahoo.com>; "jeande...@yahoo.ca" <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; "jpbaug...@gmail.com" <jpbaug...@gmail.com>; "ser...@wt.net" <ser...@wt.net>; "john.mi...@hotmail.com" <john.mi...@hotmail.com>; "julesh...@yahoo.com" <julesh...@yahoo.com>; "karl.virgil.thompson@gmail.com" <karl.virgil.thompson@gmail.com>; "matthias...@gmail.com" <matthias...@gmail.com>; "matt...@grabiak.net" <matt...@grabiak.net>; "mike.gamb...@gmail.com" <mike.gamb...@gmail.com>; "musa...@gmail.com" <musa...@gmail.com>; "nper...@snet.net" <nper...@snet.net>; "odo...@yahoo.com" <odo...@yahoo.com>; "PalA...@gmail.com" <PalA...@gmail.com>; "peter...@landisgyr.com" <peter...@landisgyr.com>; "phili...@gmail.com" <phili...@gmail.com>; "raju...@gmail.com" <raju...@gmail.com>; "Robert....@rcn.com" <Robert....@rcn.com>; "r.j.an...@btinternet.com" <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; "rar...@earthlink.net" <rar...@earthlink.net>; "nedic...@gmail.com" <nedic...@gmail.com>; "then...@yahoo.com" <then...@yahoo.com>; "bau...@gmail.com" <bau...@gmail.com>; "alt...@gmail.com" <alt...@gmail.com>; "pana...@gmail.com" <pana...@gmail.com>; "Sung...@aol.com" <Sung...@aol.com>; npa-relativity <npa-relativity@googlegroups.com>

[IMontgomery52Private]

Yes Roger,

 

And I saw this;

 

Common exposures: When most exposures to metallic mercury occur, they occur because mercury is released from a container, or from a product or device that breaks.  If the mercury is not immediately contained or cleaned up, it can evaporate, becoming an invisible, odorless, toxic vapor. Exposures may occur when people breathe this vapor and inhale it into their lungs.  Poorly ventilated, warm, indoor spaces are of particular concern in cases of airborne mercury vapors. Note that where metallic mercury generally is contained in glass or metal, it does not pose a risk unless the product is damaged or broken and mercury vapors are released.  

 

It seems that molecules in the air don’t drop unless they liquefy, like rain?

Best, Ian

 

 

From: Roger Munday [mailto:munda...@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 5:20 AM
To: Franklin Hu

Cc: Akinbo Ojo; IMontgomery52Private; Carl Reiff; Viraj Fernando; Ronald Hatch; David Tombe; rm...@comcast.net; dubui...@bellsouth.net; af.kra...@web.de; almc...@earthlink.net; bna...@a3ri.org; creb...@gmail.com; clit...@verizon.net; cpr...@gmail.com; cow...@eircom.net; dgta...@telusplanet.net; alle...@sbcglobal.net; dgs...@alice.it; dynu...@yahoo.com; donbr...@fieldstructure.org; glennb...@aol.com; r...@epola.co.uk; hartwi...@jku.at; hefia...@gmail.com; ivor...@gmail.com; cir...@yahoo.com; jeande...@yahoo.ca; jpbaug...@gmail.com; ser...@wt.net; john.mi...@hotmail.com; julesh...@yahoo.com; karl.virgi...@gmail.com; matthias...@gmail.com; matt...@grabiak.net; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; odo...@yahoo.com; PalA...@gmail.com; peter...@landisgyr.com; phili...@gmail.com; raju...@gmail.com; Robert....@rcn.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; rar...@earthlink.net; nedic...@gmail.com; then...@yahoo.com; bau...@gmail.com; alt...@gmail.com; pana...@gmail.com; Sung...@aol.com; npa-relativity
Subject: Re: Composition of the Atmosphere

 

Franklin,

You say "the mercury would find its way towards the bottom of the room."

[Franklin Hu]

This is so incredibly irrelevant!

Occupational exposure doesn't prove that mercury won't stratify under gravity if left to settle. There is more than enough KE in room temperature air to suspend mercury. Your examples prove nothing. Put mercury in a tall glass vat and show that it doesn't still concentrate at the bottom. 

Sent from my iPhone

Yes Roger,

<image001.png>

 

Yes, I agree with your point about nitrogen oxygen proportions.

But I note this qualification from your link :-

“It’s important to note that the graphs above all show concentration as a percentage of the total number of particles of gas in the atmosphere, rather than by mass or volume. The atmosphere becomes incredibly thin at high elevations, so that particles of gas may travel many kilometres between collisions, and if absolute concentrations were used instead, the graph would look very different (and be completely unusable, which is why I haven’t included it here).”

And my attempts to get some other estimates of compositions and proportions was not successful, just vague comments, so I wonder how these were experimentally determined in these graphs, any info on this would be appreciated.

And then this:-

“By the time we reach an elevation of 1000?km helium makes up 93% of the atmosphere. This is due to the fact that helium is an unreactive and very light atom (with a mass about one-eighth of oxygen) and thus isn’t held tightly by Earth’s gravitational field. (Helium is so light that it can escape Earth’s gravity entirely.) The bulk of the remainder is hydrogen, also prevalent due to its low mass (about one-sixteenth of oxygen’s).”

So the gases of the atmosphere are governed by the Earth's gravity acting through a vacuum – How?

The failure to explain this invalidates this, and the theoretical necessity of “escape velocity” is therefore also nonsense.

Regards,

Roger Munday

 

 

<image002.jpg>

Virus-free. www.avast.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Roger Munday]

Ian,
Aye, there's the rub, as they used to say.

For a mercury atom to evaporate from a liquid surface, in terms of kinetic theory, it has to somehow absorb energy to generate an 'escape velocity', and this energy could only be extracted from the atmosphere at STP.

And for such a massive atom this requires a relatively enormous amount, and of course the start temperatures, energy levels, of both are the same.

No answers, just more questions.

It is interesting to note that small quantities of mercury on a plane surface form (apparently) spherical drops, or I suggest nearly spherical drops.

So what we have here is a heavy, liquid metal that, in a sense, defies gravity, or does it?

This structure cannot be caused by the weak collisional actions of 'kinetic' atoms of oxygen and nitrogen on the mercury atoms.
So does this not indicate that a strong attractive force is acting between the mercury atoms?

So, more questions and another invalidation of kinetic theory.

Regards,

Roger Munday

 

[Roger Munday]

Franklin,

So you are saying that the combined kinetic energies of oxygen and nitrogen, at masses of 16 and 14, are sufficient, not only to suspend but to elevate mercury atoms of atomic mass 200, which (presumably) have kinetic energies corresponding to their masses???

I wish I had that power.

Roger Munday

[Carl Reiff]

Roger,

What about surface tension as an explanation for the shape of mercury droplets?

(Nice image, by the way.)

Regards,
Carl

-------------------------------

[Roger Munday]

Carl,

Yes good point, there has to be an ‘explanation’ for this phenomenon, and in the case of mercury the required ‘surface tension’ is, at 487 dyn/cm, five times that of any other liquid.

This is, of necessity, a relatively huge force, but the question is:-

How do the atoms at the surface of the drop generate this force and how does it act between discontinuous atoms that are in kinetic motion in a vacuum?

This is patently inexplicable.

What is described as ‘surface tension’ is of course an observed effect, and obviously the mass of mercury atoms are far greater than those of other liquids and accordingly any potential attractive force will be proportionate.

This, and any other surface effect, can be simply explained by assuming a continuity of atomic matter where liquids and gases are in contact, for example the surface of water where the cohesion, the mutual attraction, between the atoms of the water are greater than those of the atmospheric gases.

And, in smaller quantities, water acts in the same way as mercury, for example where spherical droplets accumulate on a leaf.

With a continuum of mercury atoms the inter-atomic attraction is, due to their greater masses, much greater than other liquids and of course this mutual attraction can act throughout the droplet, and this, logically, can form a near perfect sphere, (i.e. distorted slightly at the point of contact with the supporting surface) and thus present a high level of ‘surface tension’.

Regards,

Roger Munday

[IMontgomery52Private]

Yes Roger,

 

Very strong cohesive forces as also evidenced by mercury’s famous reverse meniscus, so how do those light bombs heading down cause the mercury atoms to escape up when it won’t even climb a glass wall like water does?

[Roger Munday]

Ian,

Interesting video of mercury evaporation.

Regards,

Roger Munday

"This video claims to show mercury giving off a steady stream of toxic vapor when viewed with a UV light."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JABbofwD3MI

[IMontgomery52Private]

Amazing video Roger,

 

That mercury vapour (which I checked has a density to air ratio of 6.92) just nice and easily drifts up. And you don’t wonder about this, Franklin?

Best, Ian

[Carl Reiff]

Yes, amazing - and a little creepy considering I played with mercury in high school chemistry.

I imagine if the atmospheric pressure was 10 times normal, the amount of "evaporation" would be significantly retarded.

Regards,
Carl

--------------------------------

[Slobodan Nedic]

Could this 'peculiarity' be related to mercury's (presumably:) high thermal coefficient - heat as anti-gravity?!

--Slobodan

[Franklin Hu]

Absolutely, plenty of energy to move mercury. A tiny bullet can move you.

I don't understand this attempt to disprove kinetic theory. It is probably one of the best understood and correct theories we have. Everything I have pointed out only confirms kinetic theory.

Sent from my iPhone