Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air

[James McGinn]

Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air

Purpose:
Compare the weight of moist air versus dry air, all other factors being controlled

Materials needed:
Mason jars, one dozen (to repeat controlled experiment 4 times)
Aluminum foil , one square foot
Fishing line, one yard, scissors
Cotton ball
Distilled water, one ounce
Access to warm, dry room, or dry environment, like a desert setting
Extremely sensitive scales that can measure extremely small differences in weight between mason jars
Vacuum pump

Procedures:
In warm, dry room, or windless, desert environment set up a table.

Prepare two, two by two inch squares of aluminum foil enclosed around a cotton ball with fishing line, such that the whole thing can be lowered into an open mason jar, without contaminating the jar with cotton or precipitate from the water droplet.

Open three of the mason jars and let the ambient air balance in all three. Fan them to balance the air in all three.

In one of the two aluminum foil, cotton, fishing line thingies put a drop of distilled water. Be sure to allow for moisture to evaporate out of it

Lower both of these thingies into two of the jars.

Turn the lids upside down for all three jars and place them over the top of the jars, this will trap any moisture and prevent it from "convecting" away. Wait for ten minutes, or so, allowing for evaporation.

Any moisture should have evaporated in from the thingies into the mason jars. This should have increased the moisture level in the one jar and should have left it unchanged in the other jars. The moisture having pushed out a equal number of air particles.

Carefully remove the thingies and screw the top on the jars tightly.

Be sure to only handle jars with latex gloves, don't tape or glue anything to jars. Put jars in plastic bags to protect them from contamination. Be sure to distinguish which jar is which. And be sure to keep respective sets together.

Weigh the mason jars and record their respective weights
Open lid, fan to balance humidity level and weigh again
Evacuate all with pump and weigh again.

Produce a data table with all of the respective weights for all three of the jars. Repeat for all additional (three) sets of jars.

Evaluate data.

If the moist air jar is heavier (as I claim) then my premise is proven.
If it is lighter then the traditional understanding is proven.
If there is no measurable different then more precise scales are needed.

[Sam Wormley]

Density of Dry Air
The density of dry air can be expressed as:

ρa = 0.0035 pa / T (1)

where

ρa = density dry air (kg/m3)

pa = partial pressure of air (Pa, N/m2)

T = absolute dry bulb temperature (K)




Density of Water Vapor
The density of water vapor can be expressed as:

ρw = 0.0022 pw / T (2)

where

pw = partial pressure water vapor (Pa, N/m2)

ρw = density water vapor (kg/m3)

T = absolute dry bulb temperature (K)



Ref: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-air-d_680.html



--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[Sam Wormley]

> Density of Moist Air - an Air Vapor Mixture

> The amount of water vapor in air will influence the density. Water
> vapor is a relatively light *gas* compared to diatomic Oxygen and
> diatomic Nitrogen - the dominant components in air.
>
> When the vapor content increase in moist air the amount of Oxygen and
> Nitrogen are decreased per unit volume and the density of the mix
> will also decrease since the mass is decreasing.
>
> *Dry air is more dense that humid air* !

[Sergio]

On 2/27/2016 8:30 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air
> versus dry air
>
> Purpose: Compare the weight of moist air versus dry air, all other
> factors being controlled
>
> Materials needed: Mason jars, one dozen (to repeat controlled
> experiment 4 times) Aluminum foil , one square foot Fishing line, one
> yard, scissors Cotton ball Distilled water, one ounce Access to warm,
> dry room, or dry environment, like a desert setting Extremely
> sensitive scales that can measure extremely small differences in
> weight between mason jars Vacuum pump
>
> Procedures: In warm, dry room, or windless, desert environment set up
> a table.
>
> Prepare two, two by two inch squares of aluminum foil enclosed around
> a cotton ball with fishing line, such that the whole thing can be
> lowered into an open mason jar, without contaminating the jar with
> cotton or precipitate from the water droplet.
>
> Open three of the mason jars and let the ambient air balance in all
> three. Fan them to balance the air in all three.
>
> In one of the two aluminum foil, cotton, fishing line thingies put a
> drop of distilled water. Be sure to allow for moisture to evaporate
> out of it

evaporate ?
liquid water disappears into the air,
water turn into a GAS ?

you said this is impossible, did your little troll brain forget ?


So you are loony toony, delusional, and a stinking little brony

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 6:40:05 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Density of Dry Air
> The density of dry air can be expressed as:
>
> ρa = 0.0035 pa / T (1)
>
> where
>
> ρa = density dry air (kg/m3)
>
> pa = partial pressure of air (Pa, N/m2)
>
> T = absolute dry bulb temperature (K)
>
>
>
>
> Density of Water Vapor
> The density of water vapor can be expressed as:
>
> ρw = 0.0022 pw / T (2)
>
> where
>
> pw = partial pressure water vapor (Pa, N/m2)
>
> ρw = density water vapor (kg/m3)
>
> T = absolute dry bulb temperature (K)
>
>
>
> Ref: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-air-d_680.html

Sam,

These procedures will test whether the particles of moisture are multi-molecular, as I claim, or monomolecular, as you and engineering toolbox claim. If the jar with moisture is heavier, as I predict, then I am right. If it is lighter, then you and engineering toolbox are right.

The underlying theory is based on standard gas laws and Avogadro's law.

Do you get it?

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 6:52:32 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Density of Moist Air - an Air Vapor Mixture
>
> > The amount of water vapor in air will influence the density. Water
> > vapor is a relatively light *gas* compared to diatomic Oxygen and
> > diatomic Nitrogen - the dominant components in air.
> >
> > When the vapor content increase in moist air the amount of Oxygen and
> > Nitrogen are decreased per unit volume and the density of the mix
> > will also decrease since the mass is decreasing.
> >
> > *Dry air is more dense that humid air* !

This tests for weight, not density.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

But all along you have claimed that moist air is denser than dry air... of course it is about the density...

Besides this, your so-called "controlled" experiment, as you have described, is something that might be done at a cub scout meeting, it is laughable! It really does not sound at all like an experiment that a 'real' physicist would ever consider. In college I performed dozens and dozens of experiments in physics labs, and virtually ALL of them were more rigorous that what you have described! what a joke. Do you really epec this to be accepted as a "proof"?

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 7:31:52 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 6:52:32 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > Density of Moist Air - an Air Vapor Mixture
> > >
> > > > The amount of water vapor in air will influence the density. Water
> > > > vapor is a relatively light *gas* compared to diatomic Oxygen and
> > > > diatomic Nitrogen - the dominant components in air.
> > > >
> > > > When the vapor content increase in moist air the amount of Oxygen and
> > > > Nitrogen are decreased per unit volume and the density of the mix
> > > > will also decrease since the mass is decreasing.
> > > >
> > > > *Dry air is more dense that humid air* !
> >
> > This tests for weight, not density.
>
> But all along you have claimed that moist air is denser than dry air...

Not me.

[Sergio]

Liar ! ... that is why you are in an institution!


what happened to your videos on you tube ?

why did you take them down ?

was it the feedback ?

did people enjoy your advanced intellectualism ?

[James McGinn]

Maybe you could make a video about your problems with wetness.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Well, yes, you did make that claim.

It makes no difference in any case, because when measuring equal volumes, the heavier is also the densest... after all, D=m/v

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 9:11:22 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> It makes no difference in any case, because when measuring equal volumes, the heavier is also the densest... after all, D=m/v

As you suggest, it can mean that. But, as I've explained about 20 times now, it can also mean H2O/air. In fact this is what meteorologists measure.

The only question that remains is how many more fucking times will I have to explain this to you morons.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 9:55:42 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 9:11:22 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > It makes no difference in any case, because when measuring equal volumes, the heavier is also the densest... after all, D=m/v
>
> As you suggest, it can mean that. But, as I've explained about 20 times now, it can also mean H2O/air. In fact this is what meteorologists measure.

But H2O/air is lighter than just air and not as dense (as long as the H2O is in the form of water vapor, of course)!

> The only question that remains is how many more fucking times will I have to explain this to you morons.

But you haven't explained anything!

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 10:28:32 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 9:55:42 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 9:11:22 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > It makes no difference in any case, because when measuring equal volumes, the heavier is also the densest... after all, D=m/v
> >
> > As you suggest, it can mean that. But, as I've explained about 20 times now, it can also mean H2O/air. In fact this is what meteorologists measure.
>
> But H2O/air is lighter than just air and not as dense (as long as the H2O is in the form of water vapor, of course)!

I'm not sure, but I think you are starting to understand. Maybe it is best for you to quit while you're ahead.

[Sam Wormley]

James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to
mean water (H2O) gas. When the temperature of atmospheric water vapour
falls to the dew point, liquid water can form. You denial of water
vapour in the earth's atmosphere has you all bollixed up.

Have not you ever seen a "dry rain" -- rain falling from clouds, but
never reaching the ground as it re-evaporates to gaseous H2O?

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:52:14 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/27/16 8:56 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 6:40:05 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> Density of Dry Air
> >> The density of dry air can be expressed as:
> >>
> >> ρa = 0.0035 pa / T (1)
> >>
> >> where
> >>
> >> ρa = density dry air (kg/m3)
> >>
> >> pa = partial pressure of air (Pa, N/m2)
> >>
> >> T = absolute dry bulb temperature (K)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Density of Water Vapor
> >> The density of water vapor can be expressed as:
> >>
> >> ρw = 0.0022 pw / T (2)
> >>
> >> where
> >>
> >> pw = partial pressure water vapor (Pa, N/m2)
> >>
> >> ρw = density water vapor (kg/m3)
> >>
> >> T = absolute dry bulb temperature (K)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ref: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-air-d_680.html
> >
> > Sam,
> >
> > These procedures will test whether the particles of moisture are multi-molecular, as I claim, or monomolecular, as you and engineering toolbox claim. If the jar with moisture is heavier, as I predict, then I am right. If it is lighter, then you and engineering toolbox are right.
> >
> > The underlying theory is based on standard gas laws and Avogadro's law.
> >
> > Do you get it?
> >
>
>
> James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to
> mean water (H2O) gas.

Yeah, that's the belief, Sam. But if moist air is heavier that would indicate that the belief is false. And if the belief is, in fact, false that would indicate that major parts of meteorology are a myth. And since climatology was built upon meteorology, that would indicate that major parts of climatology are also a myth. And if major parts of climatology are a myth that would indicate that global warming is not an emergency. And if global warming is not an emergency that would open people's minds to being cognizant of the true threat that is facing mankind, evil penguins.

> When the temperature of atmospheric water vapour
> falls to the dew point, liquid water can form. You denial of water
> vapour in the earth's atmosphere has you all bollixed up.
>
> Have not you ever seen a "dry rain" -- rain falling from clouds, but
> never reaching the ground as it re-evaporates to gaseous H2O?

Hmm, maybe your dry rain will help us understand why Sergio can't get his smoking wet pants dry. But I consider both of you to be penguin deniers.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/28/16 2:38 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:52:14 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:

>>
>>
>> James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to
>> mean water (H2O) gas.

> Yeah, that's the belief, Sam. But if moist air is heavier that would
> indicate that the belief is false. And if the belief is, in fact,
> false that would indicate that major parts of meteorology are a myth.
> And since climatology was built upon meteorology, that would indicate
> that major parts of climatology are also a myth. And if major parts
> of climatology are a myth that would indicate that global warming is
> not an emergency. And if global warming is not an emergency that
> would open people's minds to being cognizant of the true threat that
> is facing mankind, evil penguins.
>

But water vapor is lighter than dry air and is observed daily to
produce upward convection. Have you never lived by a lake? Or observed
the evaporating H2O over crop land spawn thunderstorms?

There is no doubt that:

Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
gas. There is nothing to see.

> Water vapour (H2O molecules)

> Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the *gaseous phase* of
> water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor
> can be produced from the *evaporation or boiling of liquid water* or
> from the *sublimation of ice* . Unlike other forms of water, water
> vapor is invisible. Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor
> is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation.
> It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
> lead to clouds.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

No, that is the definition.


--
Jim Pennino

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 1:04:17 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:

> But water vapor is lighter than dry air

You have no proof.

http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39179

> and is observed daily

Anecdotal.

> to produce upward convection. Have you never lived by a lake? Or observed
> the evaporating H2O over crop land spawn thunderstorms?

Anecdotal.

> There is no doubt that:
>
> Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
> gas. There is nothing to see.

Anecdotal.

You should get some education is scientific methodology.

[James McGinn]

Can it not be both?

[Sergio]

On 2/28/2016 3:47 PM, James McGinn wrote:

boob troll boy James "tweeker" McGinn can't figure out how water gets up
to the clouds in his world of "moisture air".

last time boob trollboy J"t"M said "plasma", without knowing plasma's
are dissociated ions.

but all he says, is without knowing. Easier to make stuff up in his
delusional world of fictional sworlie tormatoes, heavy wet air, and no
water vapor, than to go to the effort to study the scientific body of
knowledge, which would just drain out of the holes in his brain anyway.
and James, you are a gas bigot, air is invisable too, and you admit
there is air, but you hate water vapor.

[James McGinn]

It's comical how angry you nitwits are when somebody doesn't conform with your brain-dead, sheepish, unscientific tendency to turn science based beliefs into a cult.

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 1:59:48 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> > >> James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to
> > >> mean water (H2O) gas.
> > >
> > > Yeah, that's the belief, Sam.
> >
> > No, that is the definition.
>
> Can it not be both?

Duhr.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/28/16 4:20 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> It's comical how angry you nitwits are when somebody doesn't conform
> with your brain-dead, sheepish, unscientific tendency to turn science
> based beliefs into a cult.

More likely some are trying to help you understand that measured
properties of water, liquid, ice and gas, the role water vapour plays
is the earth's atmosphere, how physics measurements are made and basic
physics, and finally about physics literature.

In other words, some are trying to help you, a wayward sheep.

I always wondered (and still do) why you started posting in
sci.physics?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

It is your delusions that are comical, i.e. any experiment, observation,
or definition that threatens your delusions is "anecdotal".

Seek professional help for your mental health issues.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

No, fool.

Let us now add "definition" to the ever growing list of words this delusional
fool doesn't understand.


--
Jim Pennino

[Sergio]

it is comical when you are trapped in your own corner, troll !

You still cannot answer these simple questions,

1. how does your shirt dry out on a clothes line ?

2. How does water get up in the air to make clouds ?


answer NOW !!


(can't ? we understand your limitations in math, science, intellegence,
and reality. But when you're just making stuff up a looney-toonie style,
like a delusional Citizen Toxie, the hordes snicker at you.)

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 2:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> >> >> James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to
> >> >> mean water (H2O) gas.
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, that's the belief, Sam.
> >>
> >> No, that is the definition.
> >
> > Can it not be both?
>
> No,

No? Wow, you are a genuine imbecile.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

He probably thinks this is clever.


--
Jim Pennino

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 2:46:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> >> No, that is the definition.
> >
> > Can it not be both?
>
> No, fool.
>
> Let us now add "definition" to the ever growing list of words this delusional
> fool doesn't understand.

I'm embarassed for having wasted my time talking with such complete fools.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/28/16 5:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> I'm embarassed for having wasted my time talking with such complete fools.
>

Let's see if we can find some common ground, James. Perhaps we could
start with the existence of gaseous water--single molecules of H2O.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Like I said, we can add the words "definition" and "belief" to the ever
growing list of words this fool doesn't understand.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In other words, you have backed yourself into a corner with your delusions.

Seek professional help for your delusions.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/28/16 5:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>
>> I'm embarassed for having wasted my time talking with such complete fools.
>>
>
>
> Let's see if we can find some common ground, James. Perhaps we could
> start with the existence of gaseous water--single molecules of H2O.

What possible common ground could there be with someone that doesn't
understand the difference between "belief" and "definition"?



--
Jim Pennino

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 3:18:51 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/28/16 5:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >
> > I'm embarassed for having wasted my time talking with such complete fools.
> >
>
>
> Let's see if we can find some common ground, James. Perhaps we could
> start with the existence of gaseous water--single molecules of H2O.

I'll tell you what, Sam, answer these two questions

1) Do you believe droplets of H2O can be suspended in the atmosphere?

2) Do you believe that these same droplets can be small enough to be invisible?

I answer affirmatively to both questions. If you do not then we can only agree to disagree.

Fair enough?

[Sergio]

what about single molecules of H2O, can they exist or be suspended in
the atmosphere ?

can you answer affirmatively to this question ?

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/28/16 6:07 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> I'll tell you what, Sam, answer these two questions
>
> 1) Do you believe droplets of H2O can be suspended in the atmosphere?

Yes--Fog, Clouds. Gaseous H2O condenses when the local atmospheric
temperature falls to the dew point, forming fog and clouds, but
not before.

Rising water vapour (gaseous H2O being lighter than oxygen O2 and
Nitrogen N2) rises because it is lighter forming convection
currents.

>
> 2) Do you believe that these same droplets can be small enough to be invisible?

No, as one can see the droplets with a microscope. We tend to see
condensed water as fog and clouds. Gaseous H2O condenses when the
local atmospheric temperature falls to the local dew point,
forming fog and clouds, but not before.

>
> I answer affirmatively to both questions. If you do not then we can only agree to disagree.
>
> Fair enough?

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 4:22:25 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:


> > 2) Do you believe that these same droplets can be small enough to be invisible?
>

> No.

Then we will have to agree to disagree.

[Sergio]

On 2/27/2016 11:55 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 9:11:22 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> It makes no difference in any case, because when measuring equal
>> volumes, the heavier is also the densest... after all, D=m/v
>
> As you suggest, it can mean that. But, as I've explained about 20
> times now, it can also mean H2O/air.

"H2O/air", WTF is that ? Water Gas ? what 20 times, each time you have
a different spew.

> In fact this is what
> meteorologists measure.

no, typical measurement of humidity is... => You go google it, pupa.

>
> The only question that remains is how many more fucking times will I
> have to explain this to you morons.

explaining why you don't believe in common science facts, without any
math or science behind it, will take a really really long time.

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 6:30:35 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>
Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air
>
> Purpose:
> Compare the weight of moist air versus dry air, all other factors being controlled
>
> Materials needed:
> Mason jars, one dozen (to repeat controlled experiment 4 times)
> Aluminum foil , one square foot
> Fishing line, one yard, scissors
> Cotton ball
> Distilled water, one ounce
> Access to warm, dry room, or dry environment, like a desert setting
> Extremely sensitive scales that can measure extremely small differences in weight between mason jars
> Vacuum pump
>
> Procedures:
> In warm, dry room, or windless, desert environment set up a table.
>
> Prepare two, two by two inch squares of aluminum foil enclosed around a cotton ball with fishing line, such that the whole thing can be lowered into an open mason jar, without contaminating the jar with cotton or precipitate from the water droplet.
>
> Open three of the mason jars and let the ambient air balance in all three. Fan them to balance the air in all three.
>
> In one of the two aluminum foil, cotton, fishing line thingies put a drop of distilled water. Be sure to allow for moisture to evaporate out of it
>
> Lower both of these thingies into two of the jars.
>
> Turn the lids upside down for all three jars and place them over the top of the jars, this will trap any moisture and prevent it from "convecting" away. Wait for ten minutes, or so, allowing for evaporation.
>
> Any moisture should have evaporated in from the thingies into the mason jars. This should have increased the moisture level in the one jar and should have left it unchanged in the other jars. The moisture having pushed out a equal number of air particles.
>
> Carefully remove the thingies and screw the top on the jars tightly.
>
> Be sure to only handle jars with latex gloves, don't tape or glue anything to jars. Put jars in plastic bags to protect them from contamination. Be sure to distinguish which jar is which. And be sure to keep respective sets together.
>
> Weigh the mason jars and record their respective weights
> Open lid, fan to balance humidity level and weigh again
> Evacuate all with pump and weigh again.
>
> Produce a data table with all of the respective weights for all three of the jars. Repeat for all additional (three) sets of jars.
>
> Evaluate data.
>
> If the moist air jar is heavier (as I claim) then my premise is proven.
> If it is lighter then the traditional understanding is proven.
> If there is no measurable different then more precise scales are needed.

[noTthaTguY]

you may have a postulate as to why,
if HOH is lighter than air,
it should increase the weight of air. so, I gather that
you say it is because HOH does not occur in the gas phase,
by refusing to completely evaporate

[James McGinn]

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 1:12:14 PM UTC-8, noTthaTguY wrote:
> you may have a postulate as to why,
> if HOH is lighter than air,
> it should increase the weight of air. so, I gather that
> you say it is because HOH does not occur in the gas phase,
> by refusing to completely evaporate

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 1:12:14 PM UTC-8, noTthaTguY wrote:
> you may have a postulate as to why,
> if HOH is lighter than air,
> it should increase the weight of air. so, I gather that
> you say it is because HOH does not occur in the gas phase,
> by refusing to completely evaporate

Right. Even when it is invisible it is still liquid droplets/cluster. In fact it is impossible, because water's boiling point has been well established by the laboratory evidence.

How was it that it took you this long to figure out that this was my postulate?

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/29/16 4:53 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> Even when it is invisible it is still liquid droplets/cluster.

Except when it [water] is gas, which is most of the time.

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 6:52:56 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> On 2/27/2016 8:30 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air
> > versus dry air
> >
> > Purpose: Compare the weight of moist air versus dry air, all other
> > factors being controlled
> >
> > Materials needed: Mason jars, one dozen (to repeat controlled
> > experiment 4 times) Aluminum foil , one square foot Fishing line, one
> > yard, scissors Cotton ball Distilled water, one ounce Access to warm,
> > dry room, or dry environment, like a desert setting Extremely
> > sensitive scales that can measure extremely small differences in
> > weight between mason jars Vacuum pump
> >
> > Procedures: In warm, dry room, or windless, desert environment set up
> > a table.
> >
> > Prepare two, two by two inch squares of aluminum foil enclosed around
> > a cotton ball with fishing line, such that the whole thing can be
> > lowered into an open mason jar, without contaminating the jar with
> > cotton or precipitate from the water droplet.
> >
> > Open three of the mason jars and let the ambient air balance in all
> > three. Fan them to balance the air in all three.
> >
> > In one of the two aluminum foil, cotton, fishing line thingies put a
> > drop of distilled water. Be sure to allow for moisture to evaporate
> > out of it
>

> evaporate ?
> liquid water disappears into the air,
> water turn into a GAS ?
>
>
you said this is impossible, did your little troll brain forget ?
>
>
> So you are loony toony, delusional, and a stinking little brony

[noTthaTguY]

given the relative humidity (r.h,
it is hard for drops to form when it is less than 1 (one;
more than one is supersaturated, whence falleth raindrops

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 11:37:06 AM UTC-8, noTthaTguY wrote:
> given the relative humidity (r.h,
> it is hard for drops to form when it is less than 1 (one;
> more than one is supersaturated, whence falleth raindrops

Is this a question, or a statement? What's your point?

[James McGinn]

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 3:33:55 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/29/16 4:53 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > Even when it is invisible it is still liquid droplets/cluster.
>
>
> Except when it [water] is gas, which is most of the time.

Sam, do you have any proof that clear air is gaseous?

Answer the question you evasive AGW loon.

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:52:14 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/27/16 8:56 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 6:40:05 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> Density of Dry Air
> >> The density of dry air can be expressed as:
> >>
> >> ρa = 0.0035 pa / T (1)
> >>
> >> where
> >>
> >> ρa = density dry air (kg/m3)
> >>
> >> pa = partial pressure of air (Pa, N/m2)
> >>
> >> T = absolute dry bulb temperature (K)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Density of Water Vapor
> >> The density of water vapor can be expressed as:
> >>
> >> ρw = 0.0022 pw / T (2)
> >>
> >> where
> >>
> >> pw = partial pressure water vapor (Pa, N/m2)
> >>
> >> ρw = density water vapor (kg/m3)
> >>
> >> T = absolute dry bulb temperature (K)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ref: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-air-d_680.html
> >
> > Sam,
> >
> > These procedures will test whether the particles of moisture are multi-molecular, as I claim, or monomolecular, as you and engineering toolbox claim. If the jar with moisture is heavier, as I predict, then I am right. If it is lighter, then you and engineering toolbox are right.
> >
> > The underlying theory is based on standard gas laws and Avogadro's law.
> >
> > Do you get it?
> >
>
>

> James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to
> mean water (H2O) gas.

I'm not saying many people don't believe that. I'm just saying that nobody has any proof.


> When the temperature of atmospheric water vapour
> falls to the dew point, liquid water can form. You denial of water
> vapour

Well, know. But the fact is that nobody can prove that clear air is gaseous. It's just something a lot of people believe. Kind of like children and the tooth fairy.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 3:33:55 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 2/29/16 4:53 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>> > Even when it is invisible it is still liquid droplets/cluster.
>>
>>
>> Except when it [water] is gas, which is most of the time.
>
> Sam, do you have any proof that clear air is gaseous?

Have you the slightest clue just how mind boggling, blaziningly, and
absolutely ignorant that question is?


--
Jim Pennino

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 1:04:17 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:

> But water vapor is lighter than dry air

There is an abundance of cool dry air a few hundred meters above any point on the planet. If it is heavier and the warm moist air along the surface is lighter why does it not just come falling down constantly, always.

The obvious answer is that moist air contains microdroplets, not gaseous H2O and is, therefore, heavier.

Do you have any proof that clear, moist air contains gaseous H2O?


> and is observed daily to
> produce upward convection.

Actually, that is not true. It rushes up occasionally, in storms. So there is something wrong with your theory.

BTW, my theory explains storms too.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:52:14 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:

<snip>

>> James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to
>> mean water (H2O) gas.
>
> I'm not saying many people don't believe that. I'm just saying that
> nobody has any proof.

It has nothing to do with proof, it is a definition.

--
Jim Pennino

[Solving Tornadoes]

My point exactly!!!

[Sam Wormley]

On 3/2/16 6:05 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> If it is heavier and the warm moist air along the surface is lighter why does it not just come falling down constantly, always.

Humid air is lighter than dry air and therefore, rises. If it rises
into cooler air layers and falls in temperature to the local dew
point, it can condense into liquid water or ice.

Evaporation from soil, oceans, plants and lakes results in a
continuous supply of Water Vapor (gaseous H2O) in the earth's
atmosphere.

Water vapour (H2O) like Oxygen (O2) like Nitrogen (N2) is an invisible
gas, so there is nothing to see.

> Water vapour (H2O molecules)

> Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the *gaseous phase* of
> water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor
> can be produced from the *evaporation or boiling of liquid water* or
> from the *sublimation of ice* . Unlike other forms of water, water
> vapor is invisible. Under typical atmospheric conditions, water vapor
> is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation.
> It is *lighter than air* and *triggers convection currents* that can
> lead to clouds.

[Sam Wormley]

On 3/2/16 5:55 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Have you the slightest clue just how mind boggling, blaziningly, and
> absolutely ignorant that question is?

It like you saying, "I fell down, but nobody can prove gravity exists,
after all I can't see it".

Get real, James.

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:46:35 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/2/16 6:05 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > If it is heavier and the warm moist air along the surface is lighter why does it not just come falling down constantly, always.
>
>
> Humid air is lighter than dry air and therefore, rises.

Actually, there's a big problem with that assertion:

http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39029

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 1:04:17 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> But water vapor is lighter than dry air
>
> There is an abundance of cool dry air a few hundred meters above any
> point on the planet.

Nope.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:52:14 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to
>> >> mean water (H2O) gas.
>> >
>> > I'm not saying many people don't believe that. I'm just saying that
>> > nobody has any proof.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with proof, it is a definition.
>
> My point exactly!!!

The only point you made was that you don't understand the English language.

--
Jim Pennino

[Sam Wormley]

On 3/2/16 6:58 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:46:35 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Humid air is lighter than dry air and therefore, rises.

> Actually, there's a big problem with that assertion:

Nevertheless, the fact that humid air is lighter than dry air is
empirically so.

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:16:07 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

[noTthaTguY]

one has to assess the volume of air that is holding these drops,
to assesss its optical qualities, but, probably,
one only needs Snell's laW of refrraction

[noTthaTguY]

it is meteorology per se,
stuff falling from sky

[James McGinn]

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 2:20:43 PM UTC-8, noTthaTguY wrote:
> one has to assess the volume of air that is holding these drops,
> to assesss its optical qualities, but, probably,
> one only needs Snell's laW of refrraction

Why doesn't one explain the relevance of Snell's law.

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:01:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> >> Except when it [water] is gas, which is most of the time.
> >
> > Sam, do you have any proof that clear air is gaseous?
>

> Have you the slightest clue just how mind boggling, blazingly, and

> absolutely ignorant that question is?

Seems like a good question to me. Is there some reason you don't just answer it?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:01:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> >> Except when it [water] is gas, which is most of the time.
>> >
>> > Sam, do you have any proof that clear air is gaseous?
>>
>> Have you the slightest clue just how mind boggling, blazingly, and
>> absolutely ignorant that question is?
>
> Seems like a good question to me.

This is because you are delusional and mind boggling, blazingly, and
absolutely ignorant.


--
Jim Pennino

[lipperf]

Okay, McGinn, here is the most direct answer I can find to your question in the literature (and it comes from a laboratory setting that has considerably better controls than the experiment you outlined above).

First check out:

http://www.imeko.org/publications/wc-2000/IMEKO-WC-2000-TC3-P093.pdf

and see Fig. 4. The dots show precise measurements of the density of moist air on different days using a buoyancy artifact under the following conditions:

p = 88.1 kPa
t = 22.0 °C
h = 37.4%

The density varies between about 1.03555 and 1.03618 kg/m3 (note: the volume of the buoyancy artifact is identical on each day, so the density of the air is directly proportional to the weight the air for these measurements).

If you then go to http://physics.holsoft.nl/physics/ocmain.htm#densair and enter in those values for p, t, and h, you get a density of:

1.036 kg/m3

The density of moist air calculator at Holsoft's Physics Resources Page of course assumes that moist air contains gaseous (H20(g), monomolecular) water when h is 37.4%. The same calculator gives the density of air if h=0 at the same p and t as:

1.04 kg/m3

So the assumption that air contains H20(g) gives a predicted density (from this calculator) of moist air that is lower than that of dry air. And the lower moist air density agrees with laboratory measurements within a range of between 0.0007 and 0.0008 kg/m3. If moist air were more dense (heavier) than dry air, the measured densities would have to be at least 0.004 higher than the reported range of values (a difference that is more than a factor of 5 larger than the variability in the measurements).

These calculations and laboratory measurements confirm that moist air is less dense (lighter) than dry air. They also confirm that the equation used in metrology (note: not meteorology, but metrology) to calculate the density of moist and dry air, which includes a factor that reduces the density of air when moisture is present, is very accurate indeed.

Thoughts?

[James McGinn]

(note: the volume of the buoyancy artifact is identical on each day, so the density of the air is directly proportional to the weight the air for these measurements).

Where did this "note" come from? From you? Can you explain what a "buoyancy artifact" is? And how does it follow that it is directly proportional as you indicate?

[lipperf]

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 1:17:30 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> (note: the volume of the buoyancy artifact is identical on each day, so the density of the air is directly proportional to the weight the air for these measurements).
>
>
> Where did this "note" come from? From you? Can you explain what a "buoyancy artifact" is? And how does it follow that it is directly proportional as you indicate?

I wrote the note. The manner in which the buoyancy artifact is used by Mizushima et al. to produce the numbers I supplied is described in sections 2 and 3 of the previous reference. I find this reference to be a little more descriptive about how buoyancy artifacts work:

http://www.imeko.org/publications/tc3-2002/IMEKO-TC3-2002-038.pdf

But I don't see any room for ambiguity here. If the density (total mass/volume) of a sample of air is less than the density of another sample with the same volume, the mass (weight) must also be less.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:17:04 AM UTC-8, lipperf wrote:

> > Where did this "note" come from? From you? Can you explain what a "buoyancy artifact" is? And how does it follow that it is directly proportional as you indicate?
>
> I wrote the note.

That's what I thought.

The manner in which the buoyancy artifact is used by Mizushima et al. to produce the numbers I supplied is described in sections 2 and 3 of the previous reference. I find this reference to be a little more descriptive about how buoyancy artifacts work:
>
> http://www.imeko.org/publications/tc3-2002/IMEKO-TC3-2002-038.pdf
>
> But I don't see any room for ambiguity here.

Maybe you should write a paper on it.

> If the density (total mass/volume) of a sample of air is less than the density of another sample with the same volume, the mass (weight) must also be less.

I think you meteorologists are trained to be deceptive. We are dealing with two different versions of density and you are trying to pass it off with a "note." Then when I uncovered your deception you present an argument based on your inability to see ambiguity.

Convection Versus Plasma
https://youtu.be/LwSyalcoRAk

[lipperf]

> I think you meteorologists are trained to be deceptive. We are dealing with two different versions of density and you are trying to pass it off with a "note." Then when I uncovered your deception you present an argument based on your inability to see ambiguity.

There is only one density here. It is the mass/volume. And if you multiply by the volume, you get the mass/weight. If you have trained yourself to see a deception in that statement, so be it. But I don't think that has anything to do with how meteorologists are trained.

[James McGinn]

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:42:51 AM UTC-8, lipperf wrote:
> > I think you meteorologists are trained to be deceptive. We are dealing with two different versions of density and you are trying to pass it off with a "note." Then when I uncovered your deception you present an argument based on your inability to see ambiguity.
>
> There is only one density here. It is the mass/volume. And if you multiply by the volume, you get the mass/weight. If you have trained yourself to see a deception in that statement, so be it. But I don't think that has anything to do with how meteorologists are trained.

Whatever the case, your argument is contrived. You are mixing metaphors and being deceptive.

[lipperf]

McGinn wrote:
> Whatever the case, your argument is contrived. You are mixing metaphors and being deceptive.

Well like I said, this is the most direct example I can find of published data showing that moist air is less dense than dry air. Since air is a fluid, it really doesn't make sense to talk about its weight (since one would need to define a volume to weigh, and once a volume is defined it makes more sense to report it as density since that's the variable that really matters for gas laws, buoyancy, etc). So if there are any publications that address your question directly (by reporting a weight rather than a mass or a density) they are not easy to locate.

But since the weight of the sample is directly proportional to the density and the mass of the sample, both of which are reported in the reference(s) above, I find the publications to be thoroughly convincing. That you don't is...odd...but then again not out of character.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 7:41:03 AM UTC-8, lipperf wrote:
> McGinn wrote:

> > Whatever the case, your argument is contrived. You are
> > mixing metaphors and being deceptive.
>
> Well like I said, this is the most direct example I can
> find of published data showing that moist air is less
> dense than dry air.

I don't doubt your sincerity in the least. But I think you need to be more cognizant of the subliminal misconceptions that are revealed in the words you use. For example, you are, already, falling back into ambiguity. Try avoiding using the concept of density unless you fully explicate it. Density can be H2O/air or it could be Mass/volume (weight). Be careful not to make the common mistake of using these concepts interchangeably.

Since air is a fluid, it really doesn't make sense to talk about its weight (since one would need to define a volume to weigh, and once a volume is defined it makes more sense to report it as density since that's the variable that really matters for gas laws, buoyancy, etc).

Weight doesn't matter to buoyancy?

So if there are any publications that address your question directly (by reporting a weight rather than a mass or a density) they are not easy to locate.

The details of meteorology's convection model of storm theory are IMPOSSIBLE to locate. Meteorologists don't discuss any of this. It is strictly a taboo subject--literally. Watch this video:
Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
https://youtu.be/pl-GOPq8aA0

> But since the weight of the sample is directly proportional to the density and the mass of the sample, both of which are reported in the reference(s) above, I find the publications to be thoroughly convincing. That you don't is...odd...but then again not out of character.

If you are determined to stay dumb there is not much I'm going to do to stop you.

[pipp...@gmail.com]

> McGinn wrote:
> Try avoiding using the concept of density unless you fully explicate it. Density can be H2O/air or it could be Mass/volume (weight). Be careful not to make the common mistake of using these concepts interchangeably.

They are not used interchangeably. H20/air is the mixing ratio, commonly reported in grams of H20/kg of dry air. It is not a density and is not used as such. It is simply a measure of humidity (of which there are many, relative humidity being arguably the most common). The only other kind of density I can think of offhand that is commonly used is "specific density" which is the ratio of a given density to another density. And in every instance (in my experience) when someone refers to specific density, they call it just that. In all other cases, density is nothing more or less than mass/volume.

Weight is not commonly used in science because weight varies depending on gravity. I will grant you that weight and mass are pretty close to interchangeable in the earth's troposphere because gravity does not vary much over a depth of 12 km. But when one is talking about differences on the order of fractions of a gram, it seems sensible to be as precise as possible. So your insistence upon weight rather than mass (or density) being the relevant variable feels a little strange to me.

> Weight doesn't matter to buoyancy?

Density is what matters. One cannot define the weight or mass of a fluid (or anything else) without first defining a volume. It is simply not possible. And all discussions and calculations of buoyancy must address the relative density of the two fluids/objects. Mass or weight is only part of the answer. Density is the relevant variable.

> The details of meteorology's convection model of storm theory are IMPOSSIBLE to locate. Meteorologists don't discuss any of this. It is strictly a taboo subject--literally.

Nonsense. Meteorologists (as well as physicists, chemists, mathematicians, engineers, etc) spend a considerable amount of time and ink talking about how clouds, dust devils, thunderstorms, winter storms, supercell thunderstorms, monsoons, hurricanes, and tornadoes form. The conceptual and numerical models we use to analyze, simulate, and predict these systems are constantly analyzed for inconsistencies and improved when possible.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:22:56 AM UTC-8, pipp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > McGinn wrote:
> > Try avoiding using the concept of density unless you fully explicate it. Density can be H2O/air or it could be Mass/volume (weight). Be careful not to make the common mistake of using these concepts interchangeably.
>
> They are not used interchangeably.

How do you know that? I see people doing so all the time.

> H20/air is the mixing ratio, commonly reported in grams of H20/kg of dry air. It is not a density and is not used as such.

Wrong. This is what meteorologists call density. And it is the only thing we can measure. You can't easily measure weight of a parcel of air.

It is simply a measure of humidity (of which there are many, relative humidity being arguably the most common).

Same difference.

The only other kind of density I can think of offhand that is commonly used is "specific density" which is the ratio of a given density to another density. And in every instance (in my experience) when someone refers to specific density, they call it just that. In all other cases, density is nothing more or less than mass/volume.

You are not paying attention. Mass/volume is immeasurable. That is the problem. They are measuring H2O/air density and INFERRING mass/volume.

> Weight is not commonly used in science because weight varies depending on gravity.

Now you just sound silly.

I will grant you that weight and mass are pretty close to interchangeable in the earth's troposphere because gravity does not vary much over a depth of 12 km. But when one is talking about differences on the order of fractions of a gram, it seems sensible to be as precise as possible. So your insistence upon weight rather than mass (or density) being the relevant variable feels a little strange to me.

Try to imagine how ridiculous you sound to me quibbling about being precise about something that is almost impossible to measure and that no meteorologists has ever measured.

>
> > Weight doesn't matter to buoyancy?
>
> Density is what matters.

Weight doesn't matter to buoyancy?

One cannot define the weight or mass of a fluid (or anything else) without first defining a volume. It is simply not possible.

No duh. That is the problem.

And all discussions and calculations of buoyancy must address the relative density of the two fluids/objects. Mass or weight is only part of the answer. Density is the relevant variable.

Weight is the relevant variable. If you know density and volume you can accurately infer the weight. Meteorologists assume the volume and then infer the density using flawed reasoning by assuming gaseous H2O. Thus their conclusions are nonsense.

Stop trying to reason this out in your head. Do it on paper so you stop confusing yourself. You keep making the same conceptual error over and over again.

>
> > The details of meteorology's convection model of storm theory are IMPOSSIBLE to locate. Meteorologists don't discuss any of this. It is strictly a taboo subject--literally.
>
> Nonsense. Meteorologists (as well as physicists, chemists, mathematicians, engineers, etc) spend a considerable amount of time and ink talking about how clouds, dust devils, thunderstorms, winter storms, supercell thunderstorms, monsoons, hurricanes, and tornadoes form. The conceptual and numerical models we use to analyze, simulate, and predict these systems are constantly analyzed for inconsistencies and improved when possible.

As you just explained, meteorology is a conversational science. It's not an empirical science. Meteorologists make observations, but they don't do experiments. So they can't actually solve problems. It's all talk.

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 6:30:35 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Procedures and Methods for measuring (testing) the weigh of moist air versus dry air
>
> Purpose:
> Compare the weight of moist air versus dry air, all other factors being controlled
>
> Materials needed:
> Mason jars, one dozen (to repeat controlled experiment 4 times)
> Aluminum foil , one square foot
> Fishing line, one yard, scissors
> Cotton ball
> Distilled water, one ounce
> Access to warm, dry room, or dry environment, like a desert setting
> Extremely sensitive scales that can measure extremely small differences in weight between mason jars
> Vacuum pump
>
> Procedures:
> In warm, dry room, or windless, desert environment set up a table.
>
> Prepare two, two by two inch squares of aluminum foil enclosed around a cotton ball with fishing line, such that the whole thing can be lowered into an open mason jar, without contaminating the jar with cotton or precipitate from the water droplet.
>
> Open three of the mason jars and let the ambient air balance in all three. Fan them to balance the air in all three.
>
> In one of the two aluminum foil, cotton, fishing line thingies put a drop of distilled water. Be sure to allow for moisture to evaporate out of it
>
> Lower both of these thingies into two of the jars.
>
> Turn the lids upside down for all three jars and place them over the top of the jars, this will trap any moisture and prevent it from "convecting" away. Wait for ten minutes, or so, allowing for evaporation.
>
> Any moisture should have evaporated in from the thingies into the mason jars. This should have increased the moisture level in the one jar and should have left it unchanged in the other jars. The moisture having pushed out a equal number of air particles.
>
> Carefully remove the thingies and screw the top on the jars tightly.
>
> Be sure to only handle jars with latex gloves, don't tape or glue anything to jars. Put jars in plastic bags to protect them from contamination. Be sure to distinguish which jar is which. And be sure to keep respective sets together.
>
> Weigh the mason jars and record their respective weights
> Open lid, fan to balance humidity level and weigh again
> Evacuate all with pump and weigh again.
>
>
Produce a data table with all of the respective weights for all three of the jars. Repeat for all additional (three) sets of jars.
>
> Evaluate data.
>
> If the moist air jar is heavier (as I claim) then my premise is proven.
> If it is lighter then the traditional understanding is proven.
> If there is no measurable different then more precise scales are needed.

[James McGinn]

[Mikkel Haaheim]

Two problems with your method:
Once you open the jars to remove the assembly, you contaminate the experiment.
The single drop of liquid water contains a fraction of 1 g (depending upon the size of the drop, typically between 1/3 g and 1/8 g. This is insufficient forreliable detection.
I have suggested a much more controlled assembly. I did not specify, but the amount of liquid H2O from the source reservoir should be at least 1 l (1 kg).

[Mikkel Haaheim]

Le dimanche 28 février 2016 03:57:36 UTC+1, James McGinn a écrit :
> On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 6:52:32 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > Density of Moist Air - an Air Vapor Mixture
> >
> > > The amount of water vapor in air will influence the density. Water
> > > vapor is a relatively light *gas* compared to diatomic Oxygen and
> > > diatomic Nitrogen - the dominant components in air.
> > >
> > > When the vapor content increase in moist air the amount of Oxygen and
> > > Nitrogen are decreased per unit volume and the density of the mix
> > > will also decrease since the mass is decreasing.
> > >
> > > *Dry air is more dense that humid air* !
>
> This tests for weight, not density.

In a fixed volume at constant pressure and temperature, density will determine weight, and vise versa. Actually, all you need is the fixed volume as density is directly proportionalto mass in a fixed volume (d=m*v).

[Mikkel Haaheim]

Le dimanche 28 février 2016 04:54:56 UTC+1, James McGinn a écrit :
> On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 7:31:52 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> > On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 6:52:32 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > > Density of Moist Air - an Air Vapor Mixture
> > > >
> > > > > The amount of water vapor in air will influence the density. Water
> > > > > vapor is a relatively light *gas* compared to diatomic Oxygen and
> > > > > diatomic Nitrogen - the dominant components in air.
> > > > >
> > > > > When the vapor content increase in moist air the amount of Oxygen and
> > > > > Nitrogen are decreased per unit volume and the density of the mix
> > > > > will also decrease since the mass is decreasing.
> > > > >
> > > > > *Dry air is more dense that humid air* !
> > >
> > > This tests for weight, not density.
> >

> > But all along you have claimed that moist air is denser than dry air...
>
> Not me.

Okay, this is a blatant lie.

[Mikkel Haaheim]

Le dimanche 28 février 2016 21:38:11 UTC+1, James McGinn a écrit :
>
> > James, in the scientific literature, "water vapour" is understood to
> > mean water (H2O) gas.
>

> Yeah, that's the belief, Sam.

No, James. This is what I've been trying to explain to you. Vapour is DEFINED in the scientific literature as the gaseous phase of a substance such as H2O. If you want to argue that water evaporation is not producing gaseous water, you should be using the term "steam", which validly includes both phases.

[James McGinn]

BS. It is just a second and they are not under pressure.

> The single drop of liquid water contains a fraction of 1 g (depending upon the size of the drop, typically between 1/3 g and 1/8 g. This is insufficient forreliable detection.

BS. It is a matter of getting sensitive scale.

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 1:50:27 PM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
> Le dimanche 28 février 2016 03:57:36 UTC+1, James McGinn a écrit :
> > On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 6:52:32 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > Density of Moist Air - an Air Vapor Mixture
> > >
> > > > The amount of water vapor in air will influence the density. Water
> > > > vapor is a relatively light *gas* compared to diatomic Oxygen and
> > > > diatomic Nitrogen - the dominant components in air.
> > > >
> > > > When the vapor content increase in moist air the amount of Oxygen and
> > > > Nitrogen are decreased per unit volume and the density of the mix
> > > > will also decrease since the mass is decreasing.
> > > >
> > > > *Dry air is more dense that humid air* !
> >
> > This tests for weight, not density.
>
> In a fixed volume at constant pressure and temperature, density will determine weight, and vise versa.

Density of what to what, you vague nitwit.

Actually, all you need is the fixed volume as density is directly proportionalto mass in a fixed volume (d=m*v).

This is what we are testing for dumbass.

[James McGinn]

No. I never use the word "density" because it is ambiguous. So leave me you of your delusions. I've only every said that moist air is heavier than dry air, all other factors being the same.

Density has more than one meaning. Only nitwits use ambiguous terminology.

[James McGinn]

And gas is defined as monomolecular. Right? (Answer the question you evasive twit.)

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 7:17:01 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

> No. I never use the word "density" because it is ambiguous...

> Density has more than one meaning. Only nitwits use ambiguous terminology.

Yes, and one definition of density is...

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/density

"stupidity; slow-wittedness; obtuseness", which fits you perfectly, you pretender.

Of course, the definition, from the same source, that Mikkel was talking about, is not at all ambiguous...

"Physics. mass per unit volume."

How can "mass per unit volume" be misunderstood? Of course, since you are not a physicist ( and has probably never passed a science course), it is understandable that you just don't get it. You are a complete dimwit!

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 9:22:03 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 7:17:01 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>
> > No. I never use the word "density" because it is ambiguous...
>
> > Density has more than one meaning. Only nitwits use ambiguous terminology.
>
> Yes, and one definition of density is...
>
> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/density
>
> "stupidity; slow-wittedness; obtuseness", which fits you perfectly, you pretender.
>
> Of course, the definition, from the same source, that Mikkel was talking about, is not at all ambiguous...
>
> "Physics. mass per unit volume."

Uh, okay, dumbass, now tell us what meteorologist's assume. Go ahead, tell us.

>
> How can "mass per unit volume" be misunderstood?



Of course, since you are not a physicist ( and has probably never passed a science course), it is understandable that you just don't get it. You are a complete dimwit!

Go ahead, dumbass. Tell us what meteorologists assume for density. I'll give you a hint. It's not what physicist assume.

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 9:22:03 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

You dingbats are clueless. Duhr.

Go ahead, tell us what meteorologists assume for density.

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 9:22:03 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

You are an idiot. Meteorologists don't measure mass per unit volume, you freekin retard. This is about the fifth time I have informed you of this fact. And it never sinks in. Because you are all a bunch of dingbats who barely understand science.

[Mikkel Haaheim]

I think you will find that meteorologists DO, in fact, use the same definition. The only difference is that they are more likely to be refering to the partial density of a single substance (this is the mass/volume of the specified substance), or the relative density of one substance respective to another (still implying a specified volume), or a number of others. The specific use can always be determined from an appropriate understanding of the context.
In a non-scientific capacity, density is often used metaphorically.

[James McGinn]

Why don't you look it up instead of further confirming your ignorance?

[Sergio]

you cant teach a chicken to ride a bicycle.


(chicken brain = James McGinn, Bicycle = science)

[Odd Bodkin]

At this point, it's probably worth noting that Jim McGinn in one breath
states that only a nitwit would use an ambiguous term like "density".
Then in the next breath he states that meteorologists do NOT use mass
per unit volume for density, implying that there is a different,
specific meaning to "density" for meteorologists. So he is stating that
he, trained as a meteorologist, is a nitwit who uses ambiguous terms
like "density" in an unambiguous way.

Let this be the fundamental lesson that Jim McGinn does not place
particular value in making coherent sense. Rather, he's all about
bickering for the value of battling loneliness and alienation. If you
tell him that the sky is blue, then he will argue with you that it is
green. If you told him instead that it was green, he'd argue that it is
blue.

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 8:47:09 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> At this point, it's probably worth noting that Jim McGinn in one breath
> states that only a nitwit would use an ambiguous term like "density".
> Then in the next breath he states that meteorologists do NOT use mass
> per unit volume for density, implying that there is a different,
> specific meaning to "density" for meteorologists.

Right. They are not interchangeable. Apples and orange. Do some frickin research you simpleton.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 2:10:17 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
> Le jeudi 2 juin 2016 07:30:39 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit :
> > On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 9:22:03 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 7:17:01 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> > >
> > > > No. I never use the word "density" because it is ambiguous...
> > >
> > > > Density has more than one meaning. Only nitwits use ambiguous terminology.
> > >
> > > Yes, and one definition of density is...
> > >
> > > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/density
> > >
> > > "stupidity; slow-wittedness; obtuseness", which fits you perfectly, you pretender.
> > >
> > > Of course, the definition, from the same source, that Mikkel was talking about, is not at all ambiguous...
> > >
> > > "Physics. mass per unit volume."
> > >
> > > How can "mass per unit volume" be misunderstood? Of course, since you are not a physicist ( and has probably never passed a science course), it is understandable that you just don't get it. You are a complete dimwit!
> >
> > You are an idiot. Meteorologists don't measure mass per unit volume, you freekin retard. This is about the fifth time I have informed you of this fact. And it never sinks in. Because you are all a bunch of dingbats who barely understand science.
>
> I think you will find that meteorologists DO, in fact, use the same definition.

Like you have a clue. Go ahead. Make a detailed argument that effect.

Opinions are irrelevant to real scientist.

[noTthaTguY]

to determine the angle of total reflection (by refraction,
one only needs Snell's laW of refrraction ...
but itd is surely why, arctic waters are so cold.

it is the simplest use of the law of sines,
other than the law of sines

> Why doesn't one explain the relevance of Snell's law.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 2:10:17 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:

You are missing the point dumbass. The way they measure it has nothing to do with this definition. And the fact is they don't know or care.

You have to realize that with meteorologists we are dealing with institutionalized beliefs, not factual science. It makes no difference what definition the *claim* to use.

[noTthaTguY]

dUm bAss, is that a fish you like.

if you don't use Snell's laW of total reflection by refraction,
doesn't surprize me, given your sylli manners

[Sergio]

yea, there is a lady at work like that, and she comes up all the time,
and starts up a converstation which turns into banter, then abusive,
every day, ...... and she is single lives alone out in the sticks, 1/2
nuts, and poor work skills, lacking in job knowledge,

[James McGinn]

[noTthaTguY]

so, when does the experiment go to trajectory