Moist air is heavier: Here is the experiment that will prove I am right; who has access to a sensitive scale?

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, November 2, 2014 1:08:05 AM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:

> BTW
> you can temper, close and precisely weight a container with air.
> Preferably metal, plastic or silanized glass,
> as water can get adsorbed at walls.
>
> Than open it. drop in very small amount of water.
> Close it loosely and let it evaporate and temperate.
> Than tight close it and weight it again.

Right. And you'd want to be sure the initial air was as dry as possible. I think a Mason jar would do just fine. (I've never heard of "silanized" glass.) And, like you say, we'd want to allow the lid to be loose to allow for displacement up until the drop has evaporated.

You believe there will be enough displacement to compensate for the added weight of the drop. I believe that there will be some displacement but not enough to compensate for the added weight of the drop.

I would also suggest it be done in a warm and dry setting to discourage any condensation on the metal lid.

> Mass will be lower.

Mass will be higher.

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

surely, it will be heavier, by one drop
;so, What

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

of course, one drop would probably be adsorbed
by the glass/what ever container

[solvingt...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 3, 2014 2:57:52 PM UTC-8, Spac...@hotmail.com wrote:
> surely, it will be heavier, by one drop
> ;so, What

You've got to be one of the dumbest people on the face of this planet.

[samsoia]

but he is right. take a container of air, weigh it. write that down.

now add 1 drop of water to the container.

it HAS to be heavier !

[Poutnik]

Dne 11/4/2014 v 1:29 AM samsoia napsal(a):

After providing more energy
that is needed for boiling out the same amount at 100 deg C,
the water evaporates.

Than it will be lighter, when less dense vapour
pushed out denser air during pressure balance.

--
Poutnik

[Solving Tornadoes]

Read the first post in this thread. Read it real slow.

[Solving Tornadoes]

Ignore dumb and dumber. The steps you delineated couldn't be clearer.

[samsoia]

indeed,

latent heat is interesting and complicated, a nice Psychrometric chart
here;

http://www.shadyattia.net/academic/BioclimaticDesign/Lecture%2007.html

http://img.techpowerup.org/060417/psychrometric_chart.gif

however I am sure Enthalpy, Psychrometric, latent heat, is WAY over head
of OP.


the charts do not show the pressure parameter, etc.........

[Solving Tornadoes]

Actually I mispoke here. After the drop has evaporated the humidity inside the jar should be greater than it was before the drop of water was allowed to evaporate. The evaporate will have forced some of the air out of the top of the container. Both Poutin and I agree on this.

Poutin believes the H2O particles that remain in the jar will be monomolecular (cold steam). And since the molecular weight of the H2O molecules is 18 and the molecular weight of the N2 and O2 that is replaces is, on average, 29 the weight of the contents of the jar will be less than they were before the drop of water was places in the jar.

I believe the H2O particles left in the jar will be multimolecular, clumps/droplets. My guess is that these drops will be at least 10 molecules per particle. Thus the particle size will be at least 180. Also, there will be 1/10 as many particles than there would be if they were monomolecular. For both of these reasons the number of particles that are pushed out of the top will be fewer, thus resulting in fewer particles forces out of the top of the jar and the weight of the remaining particles will be on average greater. And as long as the humidity in the jar is greater than that beforehand the jar will measure heavier.

[Poutnik]

Dne 11/4/2014 v 4:14 AM Solving Tornadoes napsal(a):

That is point. You believe.
This is not believe: K = p[(H2O)n] / (p[H2O])^n

--
Poutnik

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Monday, November 3, 2014 10:43:14 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:

> > Actually I mispoke here. After the drop has evaporated the humidity inside the jar should be greater than it was before the drop of water was allowed to evaporate. The evaporate will have forced some of the air out of the top of the container. Both Poutin and I agree on this.
> >
> > Poutin believes the H2O particles that remain in the jar will be monomolecular (cold steam). And since the molecular weight of the H2O molecules is 18 and the molecular weight of the N2 and O2 that is replaces is, on average, 29 the weight of the contents of the jar will be less than they were before the drop of water was places in the jar.
> >
> > I believe the H2O particles left in the jar will be multimolecular, clumps/droplets. My guess is that these drops will be at least 10 molecules per particle. Thus the particle size will be at least 180. Also, there will be 1/10 as many particles than there would be if they were monomolecular. For both of these reasons the number of particles that are pushed out of the top will be fewer, thus resulting in fewer particles forces out of the top of the jar and the weight of the remaining particles will be on average greater. And as long as the humidity in the jar is greater than that beforehand the jar will measure heavier.
> >
>
> That is point. You believe.

LOL. We both believe. Remember, your "knowledge" is based on books you can't find.

> This is not believe: K = p[(H2O)n] / (p[H2O])^n

That is a formula.

You are stupid. And petty.

[Poutnik]

And you do not understand formulas...

--
Poutnik

[Solving Tornadoes]

There are no numbers in your formula, you mental retard.

[Poutnik]

I have learnt in a basic school algebra formulas do not need numbers.
Problem is, you may understand numbers, but not formulas.

--
Poutnik

[James McGinn]

My point is that only an inane ass would put out a formula with no data and declare that others don't understand it. There's nothing to not understand you ignoramus.

[Poutnik]

Your offenses are just evidence of your childishness.

The point is, if you understood it, you would need any data.
All will be result as implications of this formula.


--
Poutnik

A wise man guards words he says,
as they may say about him more, than he says about the subject.

[samsoia]

On 11/4/2014 10:56 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> On 11/04/2014 05:40 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 8:16:41 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>
>>>>
>>> I have learnt in a basic school algebra formulas do not need numbers.
>>> Problem is, you may understand numbers, but not formulas.
>>
>> My point is that only an inane ass would put out a formula with no
>> data and declare that others don't understand it. There's nothing to
>> not understand you ignoramus.
>>
> Your offenses are just evidence of your childishness.
>
> The point is, if you understood it, you would need any data.
> All will be result as implications of this formula.
>
>

so James McGinn dosen't understand formulas or equations, or how to use
them, a self admission.

no wonder you cannot understand anything in sci.physics, even so, there
are calculators online you can use.

so James, are you a high school dropout ?

[Solving Tornadoes]

You can barely write coherent sentences.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 9:07:48 AM UTC-8, samsoia wrote:
> On 11/4/2014 10:56 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> > On 11/04/2014 05:40 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 8:16:41 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> >
> >>>>
> >>> I have learnt in a basic school algebra formulas do not need numbers.
> >>> Problem is, you may understand numbers, but not formulas.
> >>
> >> My point is that only an inane ass would put out a formula with no
> >> data and declare that others don't understand it. There's nothing to
> >> not understand you ignoramus.
> >>
> > Your offenses are just evidence of your childishness.
> >
> > The point is, if you understood it, you would need any data.
> > All will be result as implications of this formula.
> >
> >
>
> so James McGinn dosen't understand formulas or equations, or how to use
> them, a self admission.

Yes, I believe formulas need data to be of any use.

Silly me.

[marfarly]

On 11/6/2014 1:29 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 9:07:48 AM UTC-8, samsoia wrote:
>> On 11/4/2014 10:56 AM, Poutnik wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2014 05:40 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 8:16:41 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I have learnt in a basic school algebra formulas do not need numbers.
>>>>> Problem is, you may understand numbers, but not formulas.
>>>>
>>>> My point is that only an inane ass would put out a formula with no
>>>> data and declare that others don't understand it. There's nothing to
>>>> not understand you ignoramus.
>>>>
>>> Your offenses are just evidence of your childishness.
>>>
>>> The point is, if you understood it, you would need any data.
>>> All will be result as implications of this formula.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> so James McGinn dosen't understand formulas or equations, or how to use
>> them, a self admission.
>
> Yes, I believe formulas need data to be of any use.
>
> Silly me.
>

yep, you silly and uneducated, and have a weak mind. Accept that fact.
Formulas describe relationships between parameters.

>
>>
>> no wonder you cannot understand anything in sci.physics, even so, there
>> are calculators online you can use.
>>
>> so James, are you a high school dropout ?
>

so James, when did you dropout of high school ?

[James McGinn]

[noTthaTguY]

yeah, second time around, I have ne'er heard of silinization, either, but
I guess it involves silica, which is certainly waterpr00f at the beach

> of course, one drop would probably be adsorbed
> by the glass/what ever container

this guy is only functionally literate,
could be the main problem,
whether or so due to age, wTf cares

[noTthaTguY]

that is what is known as merely speculative twaddle

[James McGinn]

Is this trivial pursuit?

[James McGinn]

Do you have a point . . . ever?

[noTthaTguY]

eighteen is the magic number, and that is pi times two times pi

[Sergio]

the definition of "McGinn" is "trivial".

[James McGinn]

Look how man views I got on this?

Thanks again,

[noTthaTguY]

in French, it's twattle, but the fourth T is silent

> Thanks again,

[noTthaTguY]

just as in Fermatttt, que sera, sera

[noTthaTguY]

so, get you hands on a mason jar, or\and
when you finish Stoking the equations

> > Mass will be higher.

[noTthaTguY]

l00k, for instance, at j.g;
he has obviously ne'er bothered with the theory of numbers, or
he'd know that 1/10 is a third, in base_three.

and you, one day, glanced at a table in a boilerr00m, and
have e'er since applied it to every god-am thing in Universe

[noTthaTguY]

yeah, nodding your head, like that