Sound wave propagation question

[richard....@comcast.net]

I am having a problem visualizing and resolving a conflict between gas
molecule size and sound wave propagation.

When a single gas molecule escapes into a vacuum, nothing slows the
molecule and T --> 0 (Gay-Lussac's law). Logically, if initial
molecular velocity caused pressure, releasing the molecule into a
vacuum would remove the pressure w/o changing molecular velocity.
However, reducing temperature w/o increasing molecular KE violates the
conservation of energy law.

KE = 1/2mv^2 = 3/2kT

I concluded that the force that causes pressure between gas molecules
is more similar to spring tension, than collisions between molecules.
This is hard for me to visualize on a 3D level, because the KE of a
second tiny molecule added to the initial volume would not add force
between molecules, except during (rare) collisions. In other words, a
sound wave could not propagate from one molecule to the next, because
of the scarcity of contact between adjacent molecules.

Before considering the size of air molecules, I thought sound
propagation required the three dimensional compression and expansion
of the volume of a single air molecule to cause compression and
expansion of an adjacent air molecule. Now, I think that an
occasional collision between tiny molecules is not enough to compress
a volume containing a single molecule, versus the
compression/expansion of volume of virtually every molecule within a
sound wave's propagation path.

If air molecules are indeed huge, then I would have difficulty
thinking of what prevents a huge electron-proton distance from
influencing ionization energy, bonding energy, and photon emission .
What am I missing, what is the real story?

[Poutnik]

In article <b4i8g7l44g0p3p3b8...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
> I am having a problem visualizing and resolving a conflict between gas
> molecule size and sound wave propagation.
>
> When a single gas molecule escapes into a vacuum, nothing slows the
> molecule and T --> 0 (Gay-Lussac's law). Logically, if initial
> molecular velocity caused pressure, releasing the molecule into a
> vacuum would remove the pressure w/o changing molecular velocity.
> However, reducing temperature w/o increasing molecular KE violates the
> conservation of energy law.
>
> KE = 1/2mv^2 = 3/2kT
>

Note that gas thermodynamics, temperature
and mean quadratic molecule speed
are purely statistical terms,
that are not valid for single molecule.

E.g. v in formula above is molecule speed,
that all molecules would must have for given temperature,
to have the same summary kinetic energy
as the same gast with given speed statistical distribution.


For single molecule temperature does not have sense,
because for any temperature molecules have
continuous speed distribution.

--
Poutnik

[Darwin123]

On Jan 4, 7:46 am, richard.desan...@comcast.net wrote:
> I am having a problem visualizing and resolving a conflict between gas
> molecule size and sound wave propagation.
>
> When a single gas molecule escapes into a vacuum, nothing slows the
> molecule and T --> 0 (Gay-Lussac's law).  Logically, if initial
> molecular velocity caused pressure, releasing the molecule into a
> vacuum would remove the pressure w/o changing molecular velocity.
> However, reducing temperature w/o increasing molecular KE violates the
> conservation of energy law.

The cooling due to expansion into a vacuum is a selection process.
The temperature inside the container decreases because the fastest
molecules leave the container first. The temperature of gas outside
the container goes down because the molecules moving in the direction
of the hole leave first.
The probability per unit time of a molecule leaving the container
is proportional to the speed of the molecule. Therefore, the
probability per unit time of a molecule leaving the container is
proportional to the square root of the kinetic energy. The more
kinetic energy that a molecule has, the less time on average it takes
for a molecule to leave through the hole in the container.
Therefore, the lowering of temperature inside the container is
caused by selection of the slowest molecules.
As the faster molecules leave the container, the average kinetic
energy per molecule in the container decreases. After a while, only
the slowest moving molecules are left in the chamber.
The temperature of gas inside the container is proportional to the
average kinetic energy per molecule. Therefore, the temperature of the
molecules inside the container go down.
The temperature of molecules outside the chamber is also
proportional to the kinetic energy in the rest frame of the center of
mass of the molecules. The center of mass of molecules inside the
chamber is near the center of the chamber. However, all the molecules
outside the chamber are moving in the same general direction.
Therefore, the center of mass of the molecules outside the chamber is
moving very fast away from the container. In the frame (Galilean frame
or Lorentzian frame) of the center of mass outside the container, the
molecules are moving very slowly. Therefore, the average kinetic
energy of a molecule in the center of mass frame is very small. So the
temperature of gas outside the container has become very small because
of selection of direction.

>
> KE = 1/2mv^2 = 3/2kT

This is a formula for average kinetic of molecules in the rest
frame where the center of mass of the molecules is zero. Therefore,
there are two caveats to the use of
This is the formula for average kinetic energy of molecules, not
a formula for the kinetic energy of any one particle. There is a broad
distribution of kinetic energies for gas molecules at any
temperature.
Before a hole opens in the container, the molecules in the
container are distributed at all speeds and all directions relative to
the center of mass inside the container. There may be no single
molecule that has that exact kinetic energy, even if the temperature
is stable at T. The temperature relates to the average energy of a
mode, not the specific energy. Furthermore, the molecules of gas are
moving in different directions.
In the middle of the vacuum expansion, you have two different
gases. Inside the container, you have slow moving molecules moving in
all directions. Outside the container, you have molecules moving
rapidly in the same direction. Both gases have a very small
quasitemperature relative to the temperature that was inside the
container before a hole in the container was opened.
This isn't an equilibrium so the temperatures aren't "true
temperatures". Physicists sometimes call them quasitemperatures

>
> I concluded that the force that causes pressure between gas molecules
> is more similar to spring tension, than collisions between molecules.

This would be a false conclusion. You didn't use two caveats
that came with the formula.

> This is hard for me to visualize on a 3D level, because the KE of a
> second tiny molecule added to the initial volume would not add force
> between molecules, except during (rare) collisions.  In other words, a
> sound wave could not propagate from one molecule to the next, because
> of the scarcity of contact between adjacent molecules.

Even if the molecules could not interact directly with
each other, the molecules would still interact through collisions with
the walls of the container. A molecule could collide with the atoms in
the container, changing its kinetic energy and momentum. The kinetic
energy and momentum change in the atoms of the container could be
passed on to another atom when it hits the container.
If there was no interaction of the gas with the container, then
the container could not confined the gas. Therefore, there is an
implied hypothesis that the container interacts with the gas. The
walls of the container are a "player", in thermodynamics whether you
acknowledge them or not. When a hole is made, you are changing the
forces between the container atoms and the gas molecules.

>
> Before considering the size of air molecules, I thought sound
> propagation required the three dimensional compression and expansion
> of the volume of a single air molecule to cause compression and
> expansion of an adjacent air molecule.  Now, I think that an
> occasional collision between tiny molecules is not enough to compress
> a volume containing a single molecule, versus the
> compression/expansion of volume of virtually every molecule within a
> sound wave's propagation path.

While a molecule is in the container, there is a probability of
it colliding the container. Once the hole is made, the container acts
to select molecules. The fast molecules moving in the direction of the
hole leave the container first.
The container is an unconscious selection agent. Although it
doesn't think, it does select molecules.

>
> If air molecules are indeed huge, then I would have difficulty
> thinking of what prevents a huge electron-proton distance from
> influencing ionization energy, bonding energy, and photon emission .
> What am I missing, what is the real story?

You are missing:
1) The selection of kinetic energy by the hole.
2) The selection of velocity direction by the hole.
3) Interactions between the container and the gas molecules.

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:24:33 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <b4i8g7l44g0p3p3b8...@4ax.com>,
>richard....@comcast.net says...
>>
>> I am having a problem visualizing and resolving a conflict between gas
>> molecule size and sound wave propagation.
>>
>> When a single gas molecule escapes into a vacuum, nothing slows the
>> molecule and T --> 0 (Gay-Lussac's law). Logically, if initial
>> molecular velocity caused pressure, releasing the molecule into a
>> vacuum would remove the pressure w/o changing molecular velocity.
>> However, reducing temperature w/o increasing molecular KE violates the
>> conservation of energy law.
>>
>> KE = 1/2mv^2 = 3/2kT
>>
>
>Note that gas thermodynamics, temperature
>and mean quadratic molecule speed
>are purely statistical terms,
>that are not valid for single molecule.
>

Do you believe that as temperature increases, molecular speed (and KE)
increases? You do realize that in order to balance the equation

KE = 1/2mv^2 = 3/2kT,

gas molecule velocity does not equal v^2 until 3/2kt equals zero. For
example, the Venturi effect causes gas molecules to gain velocity
while the molecules' temperature and pressure decrease. In other
words, the Venturi effect CONVERTS the energy that causes temperature
and pressure into molecular KE.


For the same molecule with the same energy, why would confinement
within a solid (a single molecule) differ from confinement by other
molecules? PV=nRT applies to both.

[Darwin123]

On Jan 4, 10:34 pm, richard.desan...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:24:33 +0100, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <b4i8g7l44g0p3p3b8vj2ut8kkldqop2...@4ax.com>,
> >richard.desan...@comcast.net says...

PV=nRT does not apply to atoms within the molecule. There are
forces between molecules within one molecule. Some of these forces are
described in some models as chemical bonds.
In the case of a single molecule, the chemical bonds can be
described as restoring forces. This is why molecules vibrate.
The ideal gas law, PV=nRT, is derived using the assumption that
there are no forces between molecules. The molecules can collide with
the walls of the container even if they don't collide with each
other.

>
> >E.g. v in formula above is molecule speed,
> >that all molecules would must have for given temperature,
> >to have the same summary kinetic energy
> >as the same gast with given speed statistical distribution.
>
> >For single molecule temperature does not have sense,
> >because for any temperature molecules have
> >continuous speed distribution.

Molecules have a not so continuous distribution of vibrational
and rotational states.

[Poutnik]

In article <f2ba4676-8e6e-45cd-ab67-ddd9c129ed27
@d9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, drose...@yahoo.com says...

>

> PV=nRT does not apply to atoms within the molecule. There are
> forces between molecules within one molecule. Some of these forces are
> described in some models as chemical bonds.
> In the case of a single molecule, the chemical bonds can be
> described as restoring forces. This is why molecules vibrate.
> The ideal gas law, PV=nRT, is derived using the assumption that
> there are no forces between molecules. The molecules can collide with
> the walls of the container even if they don't collide with each
> other.

pV=nRT is statistical formula
for large samples of gas molecules

derived for ideal gas

with no intermolecular attracting or repulsing forces
( so no cohesion disturbance for low T a/o high p )

and with zero molecule volume
( to be ideally compressible )


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <de3ag7t8hjhhstvce...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
>
> >
> >Note that gas thermodynamics, temperature
> >and mean quadratic molecule speed
> >are purely statistical terms,
> >that are not valid for single molecule.
> >
> Do you believe that as temperature increases, molecular speed (and KE)
> increases?

Mean speed ( quadratic, arithmetic, most probable ) YES
Speed of a single molecule NO,
at it can have speed of very long range

I can answer also by question:
Do you believe non-smokers have usually longer life than smoker ?

If yes, than as consequence, do you believe
non-smoker A will have longer life than smoker B ?
All you can say such probability is greater than 0.5.

The same for temperature and molecular speed.
Each temperature has it own shape of statistical distribution
of molecule speed.

> You do realize that in order to balance the equation
>
> KE = 1/2mv^2 = 3/2kT,
>
> gas molecule velocity does not equal v^2 until 3/2kt equals zero.

This equation is related to
mean thermodynamic kinetic energy and related speed
of moving gas molecules

Total kinetic energy ( not counting rotation or vibration ) of
molecules

N * 1/2 * m * v^2 = 1/2 * m * "sum for 1 to N molecules" ( vi^2 )

where N is number of moleculs
m is molecule mass
v is above quadratic mean speed
vi is spead of a single particular molecule


--
Poutnik

[Darwin123]

On Jan 5, 5:50 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> pV=nRT is statistical formula
> for large samples of gas molecules
>
> derived for ideal gas
>
> with no intermolecular attracting or repulsing forces
> ( so no cohesion disturbance for low T a/o high p )
>
> and with zero molecule volume
> ( to be ideally compressible )
>

I know that. I said that.
Tell the original poster of this thread!

[Poutnik]

In article <5f01b5f3-f472-4795-9e8b-c09f2a3bb640
@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, drose...@yahoo.com says...

I would not bother to repeat the same.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <MPG.2970545...@news.eternal-september.org>,
pou...@privacy.invalid says...

It was posted to the thread, not to you,
response not to be taken personally.

--
Poutnik

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:14:24 -0800 (PST), Darwin123
<drose...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jan 4, 7:46 am, richard.desan...@comcast.net wrote:
>> I am having a problem visualizing and resolving a conflict between gas
>> molecule size and sound wave propagation.
>>
>> When a single gas molecule escapes into a vacuum, nothing slows the
>> molecule and T --> 0 (Gay-Lussac's law).  Logically, if initial
>> molecular velocity caused pressure, releasing the molecule into a
>> vacuum would remove the pressure w/o changing molecular velocity.
>> However, reducing temperature w/o increasing molecular KE violates the
>> conservation of energy law.

We have a fundamental difference of opinion. I think the energy due
to temperature gas is compression energy. You exposed the idea that
energy due to temperature is in the form of KE of gas molecules. I'll
refer to temperature due to your idea "KE temperature", to avoid
confusion.

> The cooling due to expansion into a vacuum is a selection process.
>The temperature inside the container decreases because the fastest
>molecules leave the container first. The temperature of gas outside
>the container goes down because the molecules moving in the direction
>of the hole leave first.

Your expansion scenario preserves KE of every molecule (within the
reference frame of the tank). Therefore, KE remains unchanged.
Unchanged KE conflicts with adiabatic expansion, which outputs energy
(usually KE).

"Adiabatic cooling occurs when the pressure of a substance is
decreased as it does work on its surroundings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process

Allowing adiabatic expansion of a gas into a vacuum can convert
compression energy into KE of the gas molecules themselves, instead of
"work on its surroundings'.


Concerning your statement, "The temperature of gas outside the

container goes down because the molecules moving in the direction of
the hole leave first."

Within the reference frame of the tank, the escaped molecules' "KE
temperature" did not decrease because of DIRECTION. Half the
molecules originally in the tank were going the same direction as the
escaping molecule. If an escaping molecule bounced back into the
tank, it would have the same direction as the other half.

I would more likely use the reference frame of the tank while
calculating or measuring the KE of a gas that escaped from the tank,
then the frame with the moving gas.

>>
>> KE = 1/2mv^2 = 3/2kT
> This is a formula for average kinetic of molecules in the rest
>frame where the center of mass of the molecules is zero. Therefore,
>there are two caveats to the use of
> This is the formula for average kinetic energy of molecules, not
>a formula for the kinetic energy of any one particle. There is a broad
>distribution of kinetic energies for gas molecules at any
>temperature.

Please cite reference to measurements (not predictions) of the
temperature distribution of (preferably STP) gas molecules.

Producing, maintaining and restoring a temperature difference among
gas molecules within a tank can require energy (the Carnot cycle). Gas
molecules can and do equilibrate to a relatively uniform temperature.
In other words, once two gas molecules reach the same temperature,
they likely stay the same temperature. In a steam engine analogy, the
tank does not contain a boiler or other device constantly restoring
temperature differences among molecules.

> Before a hole opens in the container, the molecules in the
>container are distributed at all speeds and all directions relative to
>the center of mass inside the container. There may be no single
>molecule that has that exact kinetic energy, even if the temperature
>is stable at T. The temperature relates to the average energy of a
>mode, not the specific energy. Furthermore, the molecules of gas are
>moving in different directions.

Your temperature range of gas leaving the tank is extreme and has
permanence. If so, then before the leak, at a little over 100 degrees
F, about half of H2O gas molecules exist as ice.

> In the middle of the vacuum expansion, you have two different
>gases. Inside the container, you have slow moving molecules moving in
>all directions. Outside the container, you have molecules moving
>rapidly in the same direction. Both gases have a very small
>quasitemperature relative to the temperature that was inside the
>container before a hole in the container was opened.
> This isn't an equilibrium so the temperatures aren't "true
>temperatures". Physicists sometimes call them quasitemperatures

You are confusing me. At first, you said that during expansion into a
vacuum, fast molecules leave before slow ones, until the last
molecules to leave have the coldest temperature. Perhaps the coldest
temperature is absolute zero. That is a broad temperature range. Now
you claim that the departed molecules have a very small
quasitemperature with respect to each other.

>>
>> I concluded that the force that causes pressure between gas molecules
>> is more similar to spring tension, than collisions between molecules.
> This would be a false conclusion. You didn't use two caveats
>that came with the formula.
>> This is hard for me to visualize on a 3D level, because the KE of a
>> second tiny molecule added to the initial volume would not add force
>> between molecules, except during (rare) collisions.  In other words, a
>> sound wave could not propagate from one molecule to the next, because
>> of the scarcity of contact between adjacent molecules.
> Even if the molecules could not interact directly with
>each other, the molecules would still interact through collisions with
>the walls of the container. A molecule could collide with the atoms in
>the container, changing its kinetic energy and momentum. The kinetic
>energy and momentum change in the atoms of the container could be
>passed on to another atom when it hits the container.
> If there was no interaction of the gas with the container, then
>the container could not confined the gas. Therefore, there is an
>implied hypothesis that the container interacts with the gas. The
>walls of the container are a "player", in thermodynamics whether you
>acknowledge them or not. When a hole is made, you are changing the
>forces between the container atoms and the gas molecules.
>

In reality, adiabatic cooling can increase molecular velocity and
compression energy does not have frame dependence.

Note: Sound travels through air w/ or w/o a nearby tank.

>>
>> Before considering the size of air molecules, I thought sound
>> propagation required the three dimensional compression and expansion
>> of the volume of a single air molecule to cause compression and
>> expansion of an adjacent air molecule.  Now, I think that an
>> occasional collision between tiny molecules is not enough to compress
>> a volume containing a single molecule, versus the
>> compression/expansion of volume of virtually every molecule within a
>> sound wave's propagation path.
> While a molecule is in the container, there is a probability of
>it colliding the container. Once the hole is made, the container acts
>to select molecules. The fast molecules moving in the direction of the
>hole leave the container first.
> The container is an unconscious selection agent. Although it
>doesn't think, it does select molecules.

You did notice that I moved on to a discussion of molecule compression
by sound waves. You could have included the above in the molecule
selection and direction section.

>>
>> If air molecules are indeed huge, then I would have difficulty
>> thinking of what prevents a huge electron-proton distance from
>> influencing ionization energy, bonding energy, and photon emission .
>> What am I missing, what is the real story?
>You are missing:
>1) The selection of kinetic energy by the hole.
>2) The selection of velocity direction by the hole.
>3) Interactions between the container and the gas molecules.

Correct. I did not originally account for "KE temperature". Perhaps
because propagation of sound through air indicates that air molecules
are not tiny molecules buzzing around at high velocity within a huge
volume.

Imagine propagating sound waves through a cloud of electrons. You can
sequentially add and subtract KE from electrons near a diaphragm.
Subsequent random collision locations and random directions after
collisions between the electrons would greatly hamper retention of
initial direction of velocity (required for long distance propagation
of sound.) The vacuum between electrons would further prevent sound
propagation.

Sound wave propagation requires STATIONARY molecules that are close
enough that the compression or expansion of one molecule will cause
compression or expansion of an adjacent molecule. Otherwise, sound
wave propagation through tiny molecules with random motion within a
large volume would be similar to sound wave propagation through a
cloud of electrons.

[richard....@comcast.net]

Sorry about asking a question that could so easily be misinterpreted.
I could have asked: "Why would a gas molecule confined by a solid
differ from the same molecule confined by other gas molecules."

Gas molecules do confine each other. The following would not exist
without relatively stationary gas molecules with little or no distance
between them.

a) Macroscopic non-zero electrical conductivity and transmission of
sound wave. A vacuum between molecules would prevent electrical
conduction and sound wave propagation.

b) Persistent atmospheric stratification (boundary between hot and
cold air masses). If a group of tiny particles traveling at constant
velocity, but in random directions, were above or below a group of
tiny particles traveling at a slightly slower velocity, the particles
would quickly mix.

In other words, compressing air is equivalent to compressing water,
except compression of water requires more force.

[Poutnik]

In article <gsumg7ht8864ma03o...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>

>
> We have a fundamental difference of opinion. I think the energy due
> to temperature gas is compression energy. You exposed the idea that
> energy due to temperature is in the form of KE of gas molecules. I'll
> refer to temperature due to your idea "KE temperature", to avoid
> confusion.

The same amount of ideal gas of the same temperature,
but preasure 1 and 2 MPa has the same kinetic molecule energy.

What energy you add by compression is converted to heat,
but than dissipated to surrounding to previous value
of energy and temperature.

What energy you take by expansion is supported by taken heat,
but than is added back by heat of the surrounding.

--
Poutnik

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:57:01 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

The amount of energy an expanding gas uses to push a piston will equal
the calories lost. If the gas expands into the piston's displacement
volume w/o changing temperature or pushing a piston, no energy will be
lost or gained (PV=nRT.)

The Venturi effect during gas expansion into displacement volume w/o
pushing a piston plays with mother nature. The gas expends calories
(lowering temperature) w/o converting the calories to external work.
The increased gas molecule velocity (Venturi effect) conflicts with
cooler gas temperature (also the Venturi effect.)

Mother nature being gas temperature based on molecular velocity
(instead of compression.)

[Poutnik]

In article <i4q3h7hpqn6hhkkp6...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>

>
> The Venturi effect during gas expansion into displacement volume w/o
> pushing a piston plays with mother nature. The gas expends calories
> (lowering temperature) w/o converting the calories to external work.
> The increased gas molecule velocity (Venturi effect) conflicts with
> cooler gas temperature (also the Venturi effect.)

You cannot mix macro scale and thermodynamical gas molecules velocity.


--
Poutnik

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 02:44:11 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

Kinetic gas theory fails to account for the pressure between adjacent
molecules (compression.) Gas molecules collide with their container,
not with each other. The following indicates that gas at STP is
indeed compressed.

1. Sound wave propagation within kinetic (versus compressed) molecular
media would require sound wave energy conversion to molecule speed
(KE.) The resulting speeds of modulated molecules would be their
(random) initial speeds + speed due to sound wave energy. Modulated
kinetic molecules will more likely travel at nearly their random
initial speeds, than at the speed of sound.

2. The collisions that occur on the surface of a Venturi apparatus
would be elastic. Therefore, the collisions should not change gas
molecule velocity. Without a change in velocity, temperature should
not change. In other words, kinetic gas theory does not account for
the Venturi effect.

3. Kinetic gas theory does not account for the boundary between hot
and cold air masses within the atmosphere. Tiny molecules would
bounce off their container, instead bouncing off a boundary layer.

[Poutnik]

In article <puj9h7ldmlhav6503...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 02:44:11 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <i4q3h7hpqn6hhkkp6...@4ax.com>,
> >richard....@comcast.net says...
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> The Venturi effect during gas expansion into displacement volume w/o
> >> pushing a piston plays with mother nature. The gas expends calories
> >> (lowering temperature) w/o converting the calories to external work.
> >> The increased gas molecule velocity (Venturi effect) conflicts with
> >> cooler gas temperature (also the Venturi effect.)
> >
> >You cannot mix macro scale and thermodynamical gas molecules velocity.
> >
> Kinetic gas theory fails to account for the pressure between adjacent
> molecules (compression.) Gas molecules collide with their container,
> not with each other. The following indicates that gas at STP is
> indeed compressed.

I do not think it fails.
Maxwell Boltzman distribution, based on evaliation of molecul
collisions of molecule speed of ideal gas well fit the reality,
where real gas cohesive or repuslsive forces
other than mechanical are neglible.
( I remember deriving it at my Physics lectures
on Faculty of Science years ago )

For real gases there are equations to, differing in precission and
complexity, e.g. Vand der Waals one as the simplests
( p + a/V^2 )( V - b ) = RT for 1 mole

BTW the preasure is macroscopic statistical enttity too, same as
molecule speed.

>
> 1. Sound wave propagation within kinetic (versus compressed) molecular
> media would require sound wave energy conversion to molecule speed
> (KE.) The resulting speeds of modulated molecules would be their
> (random) initial speeds + speed due to sound wave energy. Modulated
> kinetic molecules will more likely travel at nearly their random
> initial speeds, than at the speed of sound.

this is not fuly true.

If you compare 3 values of sound speed ( most probable, arithmetic and
quandratic mean speed valus, ( factor 2, 8/pi or 3 )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_speed_distribution
thay are higher then sound speed ( factor 1.4 )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Basic_formula

>
> 2. The collisions that occur on the surface of a Venturi apparatus
> would be elastic. Therefore, the collisions should not change gas
> molecule velocity. Without a change in velocity, temperature should
> not change. In other words, kinetic gas theory does not account for
> the Venturi effect.

Kinetic gas theory accounts with gas in TD equilibrium,
what is not the case of Venturi effect.

These are dynamic effects leading to Bernouili and Euler equations,
based on laws of conservation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_equations_%28fluid_dynamics%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_equation

>
> 3. Kinetic gas theory does not account for the boundary between hot
> and cold air masses within the atmosphere. Tiny molecules would
> bounce off their container, instead bouncing off a boundary layer.

2 masses of air of different temperature definitely
are not in equlibrium.



--
Poutnik

People's selfconfidency is often reciprocal to their knowledge.

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:49:15 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>

wrote:

>In article <puj9h7ldmlhav6503...@4ax.com>,
>richard....@comcast.net says...
>>
>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 02:44:11 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <i4q3h7hpqn6hhkkp6...@4ax.com>,
>> >richard....@comcast.net says...
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The Venturi effect during gas expansion into displacement volume w/o
>> >> pushing a piston plays with mother nature. The gas expends calories
>> >> (lowering temperature) w/o converting the calories to external work.
>> >> The increased gas molecule velocity (Venturi effect) conflicts with
>> >> cooler gas temperature (also the Venturi effect.)
>> >
>> >You cannot mix macro scale and thermodynamical gas molecules velocity.
>> >
>> Kinetic gas theory fails to account for the pressure between adjacent
>> molecules (compression.) Gas molecules collide with their container,
>> not with each other. The following indicates that gas at STP is
>> indeed compressed.
>
>I do not think it fails.
>Maxwell Boltzman distribution, based on evaliation of molecul
>collisions of molecule speed of ideal gas well fit the reality,
>where real gas cohesive or repuslsive forces
>other than mechanical are neglible.
>( I remember deriving it at my Physics lectures
>on Faculty of Science years ago )
>

Kinetic theory has two basic assumptions, Maxwell Boltzmann
distribution and thermal energy in the form of gas molecular KE (=
mv^2=3/2KT).

1. Maxwell Boltzmann: If 100 degree Celsius steam molecules had a
Maxwell Boltzmann velocity distribution, about half the molecules
would be ice (low velocity).
http://www.chm.davidson.edu/vce/KineticMolecularTheory/Maxwell.html

2. Molecular KE: For two molecules with the same mass, but different
specific heat capacities, the same KE change would produce different
resulting temperatures. Therefore, KE is not the energy of gas
molecules that is responsible for temperature. A different type of
gas energy (acting like compression energy) can convert to KE.

In case you were hoping that a different initial velocity caused a
difference in specific heat, consider that specific heat can change
with gas temperature. "At higher temperatures, however, nitrogen gas
gains two more degrees of internal freedom".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity

>For real gases there are equations to, differing in precission and
>complexity, e.g. Vand der Waals one as the simplests
>( p + a/V^2 )( V - b ) = RT for 1 mole
>
>BTW the preasure is macroscopic statistical enttity too, same as
>molecule speed.
>

You do realize that Van der Waals force is a FORCE BETWEEN MOLECULES.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic-molecular_theory

>>
>> 1. Sound wave propagation within kinetic (versus compressed) molecular
>> media would require sound wave energy conversion to molecule speed
>> (KE.) The resulting speeds of modulated molecules would be their
>> (random) initial speeds + speed due to sound wave energy. Modulated
>> kinetic molecules will more likely travel at nearly their random
>> initial speeds, than at the speed of sound.
>
>this is not fuly true.
>
>If you compare 3 values of sound speed ( most probable, arithmetic and
>quandratic mean speed valus, ( factor 2, 8/pi or 3 )
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_speed_distribution
>thay are higher then sound speed ( factor 1.4 )
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Basic_formula
>>

Molecules are the carrier of sound through gas. Our ability to detect
sound indicates that molecules do not have Maxwell Boltzmann speed
distribution during sound propagation.

>> 2. The collisions that occur on the surface of a Venturi apparatus
>> would be elastic. Therefore, the collisions should not change gas
>> molecule velocity. Without a change in velocity, temperature should
>> not change. In other words, kinetic gas theory does not account for
>> the Venturi effect.
>
>Kinetic gas theory accounts with gas in TD equilibrium,
>what is not the case of Venturi effect.
>
>These are dynamic effects leading to Bernouili and Euler equations,
>based on laws of conservation
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_equations_%28fluid_dynamics%29
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_equation
>

The Bernoulli equation describes conversion of an energy that causes
pressure into KE. For example, gravitational potential energy can
convert to fluid KE.

In kinetic gas theory, molecular KE (collisions) cause pressure. The
Venturi effect converts a molecule's initial KE into a higher KE (due
to higher velocity.) The converted molecules simultaneously have
lower speed, as indicated by lower temperature. Perhaps, the kinetic
gas theory maintains the conservation of energy laws by simultaneously
increasing and decreasing the speed of the same molecule.

>>
>> 3. Kinetic gas theory does not account for the boundary between hot
>> and cold air masses within the atmosphere. Tiny molecules would
>> bounce off their container, instead bouncing off a boundary layer.
>
>2 masses of air of different temperature definitely
>are not in equlibrium.

There is no interaction between air molecules. A vacuum next to a
'kinetic' air molecule will not cause the air molecule (or an air
mass) to move toward the vacuum.


I once lit a stick of incense in a basement room with a hot 4" steam
pipe near the ceiling. The smoke rose straight up until it abruptly
stopped at a plane about 2 feet from the ceiling, and spread within a
very thin smoke layer. When I raised the incense, the hot air
distorted the smoke plane (billowing bulges above the plane) but the
smoke went to the smoke plane. When I raised the candle further, the
smoke rose through the smoke plane, to the ceiling.

The smoke remained with its original air, because the smoke has low
mass diffusivity. A body of air (containing smoke) continuously
formed at the incense and remained intact while moving through the
nearby air, to the smoke layer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_diffusivity

Note: I suspect the room air somehow stratified into layers of
homogenous density, before I lit the incense.

[Poutnik]

In article <mr5oh7hq6rqmmduid...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:49:15 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>

> >

> Kinetic theory has two basic assumptions, Maxwell Boltzmann
> distribution and thermal energy in the form of gas molecular KE (=
> mv^2=3/2KT).

Even if at some time all molecules had the same speed,
by mutual random collisions their speed would get
quickly redistributed by M-B distribution.

>
> 1. Maxwell Boltzmann: If 100 degree Celsius steam molecules had a
> Maxwell Boltzmann velocity distribution, about half the molecules
> would be ice (low velocity).
> http://www.chm.davidson.edu/vce/KineticMolecularTheory/Maxwell.html

It is badly understood.
But the fact is the the significant part of molecules
of 100 deg C warm gas has the same speed range
as significant part of molecules of the same gas at 0 deg C range.

Look at evaporation of liquid. The primary reason of the neededheat of
phase change (l) to (g) is because there are evaporating primarily
the fastest molecules, what is causing cooling the liquid, as the mean
speed is decreasing.
The same in opposing sense for gas condensation.

>
> 2. Molecular KE: For two molecules with the same mass, but different
> specific heat capacities, the same KE change would produce different
> resulting temperatures.

Yes, it is obvious. Every multiatom molecul gets in ideal case 1/2 k
of heat capacity for every degree of motion freedom,
where k i Boltzmann constant.
3 translational / linear
and various for vibration and rotation, according to mulecul symmetry.
Only linear part of KE and corresponding quadratic mean speed
is related to temperature.

> Therefore, KE is not the energy of gas
> molecules that is responsible for temperature.

Yes and No. Linear part of KE.

>
> In case you were hoping that a different initial velocity caused a
> difference in specific heat, consider that specific heat can change
> with gas temperature. "At higher temperatures, however, nitrogen gas
> gains two more degrees of internal freedom".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity

As I write above.

>
> >For real gases there are equations to, differing in precission and
> >complexity, e.g. Vand der Waals one as the simplests
> >( p + a/V^2 )( V - b ) = RT for 1 mole
> >
> >BTW the preasure is macroscopic statistical enttity too, same as
> >molecule speed.
> >
> You do realize that Van der Waals force is a FORCE BETWEEN MOLECULES.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic-molecular_theory

Sure it is,
one must pay attantion whe he speak about ideal gas
and when about real gases.
The parameter "a" in formula above discribes result of these forces.

> >this is not fuly true.
> >
> >If you compare 3 values of sound speed ( most probable, arithmetic and
> >quandratic mean speed valus, ( factor 2, 8/pi or 3 )
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_speed_distribution
> >thay are higher then sound speed ( factor 1.4 )
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Basic_formula
> >>
> Molecules are the carrier of sound through gas. Our ability to detect
> sound indicates that molecules do not have Maxwell Boltzmann speed
> distribution during sound propagation.

How did you come to this conclusion ??

>
> >
> The Bernoulli equation describes conversion of an energy that causes
> pressure into KE. For example, gravitational potential energy can
> convert to fluid KE.

KE of the gas as system, not KE of random moves of moleculs.
Typical molecule speed at room temperature is hundreds m/s.
If you take it space ships moving 10 km/s, it does not get temperature
5000 deg C because of this speed.

>
> In kinetic gas theory, molecular KE (collisions) cause pressure. The
> Venturi effect converts a molecule's initial KE into a higher KE (due
> to higher velocity.)

You mix 2 very different phenomena of the same name and units.

One thing is macroscopic speed of the whole gas system,
that has nothing to do with gas temperature.

Another thing is mean random speed of moleculs,
that is INVARIANT against GALILEO TRANSFORMATIONs.

It has nothing to do with gas system in move, related
to Venturi affect.

Venturi effect converts *macroscopic* pressure energy and kinetic
energy of gas system, saving their sum.
It is analogy to potencial and kinetic energy of a body in conservative
field, that are coverted each to other wit saving their sum too.

> The converted molecules simultaneously have
> lower speed, as indicated by lower temperature. Perhaps, the kinetic
> gas theory maintains the conservation of energy laws by simultaneously
> increasing and decreasing the speed of the same molecule.
> >>

This is perfectly OK. The gas cam move faster, while temperature OWN
momovent of moleculs gets slower,
related to frame system where gas is at the rest.

> There is no interaction between air molecules. A vacuum next to a
> 'kinetic' air molecule will not cause the air molecule (or an air
> mass) to move toward the vacuum.

It was you, who mentined VdW dorces, wasnt you ?

There IS such an interaction as for any real gas,
but it is significant for higher pressures a/o low temperatures.
Fo normal temperature and preasure can be omitted for less precise
calculations.

>
>
> I once lit a stick of incense in a basement room with a hot 4" steam
> pipe near the ceiling. The smoke rose straight up until it abruptly
> stopped at a plane about 2 feet from the ceiling, and spread within a
> very thin smoke layer. When I raised the incense, the hot air
> distorted the smoke plane (billowing bulges above the plane) but the
> smoke went to the smoke plane. When I raised the candle further, the
> smoke rose through the smoke plane, to the ceiling.

Typical effects well known to every meteorologist.
( I was serving as airborne meteorlogist during my army service )

>
> The smoke remained with its original air, because the smoke has low
> mass diffusivity. A body of air (containing smoke) continuously
> formed at the incense and remained intact while moving through the
> nearby air, to the smoke layer.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_diffusivity
>
> Note: I suspect the room air somehow stratified into layers of
> homogenous density, before I lit the incense.

Sure it can be stratifiled by diferrent density because of temperature.

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:05:30 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <mr5oh7hq6rqmmduid...@4ax.com>,
>richard....@comcast.net says...
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:49:15 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
>
>> >
>> Kinetic theory has two basic assumptions, Maxwell Boltzmann
>> distribution and thermal energy in the form of gas molecular KE (=
>> mv^2=3/2KT).
>
>Even if at some time all molecules had the same speed,
>by mutual random collisions their speed would get
>quickly redistributed by M-B distribution.
>>

Given, a gas with identical molecules, identical initial speed and
random directions. None of the (elastic) collisions between any two
molecules should result in higher than original speed.

>> 1. Maxwell Boltzmann: If 100 degree Celsius steam molecules had a
>> Maxwell Boltzmann velocity distribution, about half the molecules
>> would be ice (low velocity).
>> http://www.chm.davidson.edu/vce/KineticMolecularTheory/Maxwell.html
>
>It is badly understood.
>But the fact is the the significant part of molecules
>of 100 deg C warm gas has the same speed range
>as significant part of molecules of the same gas at 0 deg C range.
>
>Look at evaporation of liquid. The primary reason of the neededheat of
>phase change (l) to (g) is because there are evaporating primarily
>the fastest molecules, what is causing cooling the liquid, as the mean
>speed is decreasing.
>The same in opposing sense for gas condensation.
>

Sudden imposition of Maxwell Boltzmann distribution on uniform 100+
degree steam molecules would cause precipitation of ice molecules.
Density separation should occur.

Rarity of collisions would make hot molecule collisions with a cold
molecules rare. If any such collisions do occur, the conservation
laws (Carnot cycle) preserve their temperature difference.

>>
>> 2. Molecular KE: For two molecules with the same mass, but different
>> specific heat capacities, the same KE change would produce different
>> resulting temperatures.
>
>Yes, it is obvious. Every multiatom molecul gets in ideal case 1/2 k
>of heat capacity for every degree of motion freedom,
>where k i Boltzmann constant.
>3 translational / linear
>and various for vibration and rotation, according to mulecul symmetry.
>Only linear part of KE and corresponding quadratic mean speed
>is related to temperature.
>

This is the reason I think energy of PV cannot be in the form of
molecular mv^2. A fixed change of KE of 2 molecules with the same
molecular mass and pressure, but different specific heats (because of
molecular species) should result in a fixed change in volume, not a
change in volume that depends on specific heat.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/spesific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html

>> Therefore, KE is not the energy of gas
>> molecules that is responsible for temperature.
>
>Yes and No. Linear part of KE.
>

Each molecular species has a difference in specific heat. Activation
of a degrees of freedom (which requires the correct temperature range)
converts one molecular species to a different species.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node70.html

>
>>
>> In case you were hoping that a different initial velocity caused a
>> difference in specific heat, consider that specific heat can change
>> with gas temperature. "At higher temperatures, however, nitrogen gas
>> gains two more degrees of internal freedom".
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity
>
>As I write above.
>>
>> >For real gases there are equations to, differing in precission and
>> >complexity, e.g. Vand der Waals one as the simplests
>> >( p + a/V^2 )( V - b ) = RT for 1 mole
>> >
>> >BTW the preasure is macroscopic statistical enttity too, same as
>> >molecule speed.
>> >
>> You do realize that Van der Waals force is a FORCE BETWEEN MOLECULES.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic-molecular_theory
>
>Sure it is,
>one must pay attantion whe he speak about ideal gas
>and when about real gases.
>The parameter "a" in formula above discribes result of these forces.
>

Consider Debye force. The Ar in HCl + Ar must continuously exist as a
dipole, in order for the INDUCED DIPOLE of Ar to contribute to RT. The
'no gas molecular interaction' part of Kinetic gas theory does not
allow continuous interaction between Ar and HCl molecules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_force#Debye_.28induced_dipole.29_force

>> >this is not fuly true.
>> >
>> >If you compare 3 values of sound speed ( most probable, arithmetic and
>> >quandratic mean speed valus, ( factor 2, 8/pi or 3 )
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_speed_distribution
>> >thay are higher then sound speed ( factor 1.4 )
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Basic_formula
>> >>
>> Molecules are the carrier of sound through gas. Our ability to detect
>> sound indicates that molecules do not have Maxwell Boltzmann speed
>> distribution during sound propagation.
>
>How did you come to this conclusion ??
>>

A sound wave is a compression wave. Kinetic gas theory does not
include compression forces among gas molecules.

In kinetic gas theory, a speaker diaphragm would add or subtract from
the KE of air molecules with random (M-B) speed and direction.

1. Random molecular speed and directions would cause sound wave energy
dispersal. If collisions occur, then more dispersal occurs. The
random initial molecular travel speeds must result in modulated
molecules from one cycle arriving at the same time as modulated
molecules from a different cycle.

2. Modulated molecules would not have the continuum mechanics of a
wave. For example, modulated molecules that pass through a slit would
continue in their original path, instead of scattering into a
hemispheric pattern.

>> >
>> The Bernoulli equation describes conversion of an energy that causes
>> pressure into KE. For example, gravitational potential energy can
>> convert to fluid KE.
>
>KE of the gas as system, not KE of random moves of moleculs.
>Typical molecule speed at room temperature is hundreds m/s.
>If you take it space ships moving 10 km/s, it does not get temperature
>5000 deg C because of this speed.
>>

Frame dependent collisions can be evidence for compression based gas
energy (versus molecular KE.)

>> In kinetic gas theory, molecular KE (collisions) cause pressure. The
>> Venturi effect converts a molecule's initial KE into a higher KE (due
>> to higher velocity.)
>
>You mix 2 very different phenomena of the same name and units.
>
>One thing is macroscopic speed of the whole gas system,
>that has nothing to do with gas temperature.
>

Your macro and micro speeds are in different frames. When in the same
frame, they can be an intimate mixture. While a mixture, temperature
would be unchanged and uniform, albeit molecules have vastly different
speeds. An increase in temperature of the mixture could result from
conversion of molecular KE into an energy that could increase

temperature.

>Another thing is mean random speed of moleculs,
>that is INVARIANT against GALILEO TRANSFORMATIONs.
>
>It has nothing to do with gas system in move, related
>to Venturi affect.
>
>Venturi effect converts *macroscopic* pressure energy and kinetic
>energy of gas system, saving their sum.
>It is analogy to potencial and kinetic energy of a body in conservative
>field, that are coverted each to other wit saving their sum too.
>

Perhaps "Macroscopic pressure energy" equals gas molecule KE. Perhaps
the kinetic energy of the gas system is wind energy.

I think expansion of a gas molecule into a larger volume (Venturi
effect) will lower the molecule's temperature, because the converse
(increasing pressure) requires heat or work (the Carnot cycle).
Temperature corresponds to heat content. Kinetic theory fails to
account for heat lost during the Venturi effect. There is no heat
sink and neither collisions among gas molecules, nor collisions with a
container would not accelerate gas molecules to a higher average
velocity.

>> The converted molecules simultaneously have
>> lower speed, as indicated by lower temperature. Perhaps, the kinetic
>> gas theory maintains the conservation of energy laws by simultaneously
>> increasing and decreasing the speed of the same molecule.
>> >>
>
>This is perfectly OK. The gas cam move faster, while temperature OWN
>momovent of moleculs gets slower,
>related to frame system where gas is at the rest.
>

Regardless of frame, there is still a problem with (macroscopic)
acceleration.

How would kinetic molecules accelerate during Venturi effect
decompression? Collisions between Identical molecules with identical
mass and identical initial speed should not increase molecule speed
beyond original speed. Separation of fast molecules from slow
molecules does not account for the internal energy decrease during the
Venturi effect.

>
>> There is no interaction between air molecules. A vacuum next to a
>> 'kinetic' air molecule will not cause the air molecule (or an air
>> mass) to move toward the vacuum.
>
>It was you, who mentined VdW dorces, wasnt you ?
>

You mentioned VdW forces when you were describing "real gas," in your
post dated 1/17/12. I responded in a post dated 1/22/12, with the
claim that VdW is a force between molecules.

>There IS such an interaction as for any real gas,
>but it is significant for higher pressures a/o low temperatures.
>Fo normal temperature and preasure can be omitted for less precise
>calculations.
>>

Ok, a matter of degree. Which theory does a better job of moving a
molecule into an adjacent vacuum, stratifying the atmosphere into
density layers, or propagation of a compression (sound) wave?

1. Kinetic theory with small molecules with random speeds and
directions, average molecule speed near the speed of sound (depending
on temperature), with each molecule passing hundreds of molecular
diameters before a (elastic) collision occurs

2. Large molecules, under pressure on all sides by other molecules,
with compression energy and density that are functions of specific
heat

>>
>> I once lit a stick of incense in a basement room with a hot 4" steam
>> pipe near the ceiling. The smoke rose straight up until it abruptly
>> stopped at a plane about 2 feet from the ceiling, and spread within a
>> very thin smoke layer. When I raised the incense, the hot air
>> distorted the smoke plane (billowing bulges above the plane) but the
>> smoke went to the smoke plane. When I raised the candle further, the
>> smoke rose through the smoke plane, to the ceiling.
>
>Typical effects well known to every meteorologist.
>( I was serving as airborne meteorlogist during my army service )
>>
>> The smoke remained with its original air, because the smoke has low
>> mass diffusivity. A body of air (containing smoke) continuously
>> formed at the incense and remained intact while moving through the
>> nearby air, to the smoke layer.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_diffusivity
>>
>> Note: I suspect the room air somehow stratified into layers of
>> homogenous density, before I lit the incense.
>
>Sure it can be stratifiled by diferrent density because of temperature.

For me, the amount of mixing within an air mass is surprising (due to
vortices). I expected greater vertical density differences within a
layer.

[Poutnik]

In article <07pfi71sj1hkb0ip3...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
> >Even if at some time all molecules had the same speed,
> >by mutual random collisions their speed would get
> >quickly redistributed by M-B distribution.
> >>
> Given, a gas with identical molecules, identical initial speed and
> random directions. None of the (elastic) collisions between any two
> molecules should result in higher than original speed.

Concerning just pure kinetic energy and elastic collisions,
you are right.

Ideal gas is intentional further simplification to give basic formulas,
that are valid with good precision for normal gas conditions.
But I am afraid even ideal gas does not count with elastic only
collisions. It says there are no distant attracting/repulsing forces
and that molecul volumes is much smaller tah gas volume do we do not
need to count it.


Gas theory theoretical background comes from thermodynamics and energy
distribution, according to Boltzman law
N = N exp ( -E / k T ), integrated over degress of freedom.

>
> >
> Sudden imposition of Maxwell Boltzmann distribution on uniform 100+
> degree steam molecules would cause precipitation of ice molecules.
> Density separation should occur.

Not at all. Remember the molecule speed is chnaging all the time.
and even such molecules sits down,
further collision takes it back to game.
Gas theory is proven by many experiments and is incorporated
in many related area of physiscs.

>
> Rarity of collisions would make hot molecule collisions with a cold
> molecules rare. If any such collisions do occur, the conservation
> laws (Carnot cycle) preserve their temperature difference.
>

There is nothing like temperature of the molecules,
only temperature of the system. And collision are far from to be rare.

> >
> >Yes, it is obvious. Every multiatom molecul gets in ideal case 1/2 k
> >of heat capacity for every degree of motion freedom,
> >where k i Boltzmann constant.
> >3 translational / linear
> >and various for vibration and rotation, according to mulecul symmetry.
> >Only linear part of KE and corresponding quadratic mean speed
> >is related to temperature.
> >
> This is the reason I think energy of PV cannot be in the form of
> molecular mv^2. A fixed change of KE of 2 molecules with the same
> molecular mass and pressure, but different specific heats (because of
> molecular species) should result in a fixed change in volume, not a
> change in volume that depends on specific heat.
> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/spesific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html

You cannot think about temperature at level of 2 molecules,
it is statistical parameter.

Fixed change of KE with various sp. heat
causes various mean molecul speed,
leading to various statistical pressure,
leading to various volume at constant external pressure.

>
> >
> Each molecular species has a difference in specific heat. Activation
> of a degrees of freedom (which requires the correct temperature range)
> converts one molecular species to a different species.
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node70.html

And there are also franction degress, acording of quantization
of rotation and vibration modes.
I do not see any molecule conversions.

> >
> Consider Debye force. The Ar in HCl + Ar must continuously exist as a
> dipole, in order for the INDUCED DIPOLE of Ar to contribute to RT. The
> 'no gas molecular interaction' part of Kinetic gas theory does not
> allow continuous interaction between Ar and HCl molecules.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_force#Debye_.28induced_dipole.29_force

Taking HCl for accusation of ideal gas model is not fair. :-D

No gas interaction applies to ideal gas
as very useful simplifying model,
being like limit case
for low preasures and high temperatures.

Ar and definitely HCl are not ideal gases.

Gas theory for real gases takes into account interactions,
which complicate things pretty much.

>
> >> >this is not fuly true.
> >> >
> >> >If you compare 3 values of sound speed ( most probable, arithmetic and
> >> >quandratic mean speed valus, ( factor 2, 8/pi or 3 )
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_speed_distribution
> >> >thay are higher then sound speed ( factor 1.4 )
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Basic_formula
> >> >>
> >> Molecules are the carrier of sound through gas. Our ability to detect
> >> sound indicates that molecules do not have Maxwell Boltzmann speed
> >> distribution during sound propagation.
> >
> >How did you come to this conclusion ??
> >>
> A sound wave is a compression wave. Kinetic gas theory does not
> include compression forces among gas molecules.

There is no specific compression force. Pressure is macroscopic
statistical value over many molecules with mean speed/ moving energy,
and or their variablility in specific numbers.

In gas theory, even using ideal gas, thhere is nothing excluding
periodicity of density in gas, caused by external periodic changes
of pressure.

>
> In kinetic gas theory, a speaker diaphragm would add or subtract from
> the KE of air molecules with random (M-B) speed and direction.

Yes, but this randomity is at molecule level.
in macroscopic levels there are periodic density chnages.

>
> 1. Random molecular speed and directions would cause sound wave energy
> dispersal. If collisions occur, then more dispersal occurs. The
> random initial molecular travel speeds must result in modulated
> molecules from one cycle arriving at the same time as modulated
> molecules from a different cycle.

>
> 2. Modulated molecules would not have the continuum mechanics of a
> wave. For example, modulated molecules that pass through a slit would
> continue in their original path, instead of scattering into a
> hemispheric pattern.

You do not count with fact that these randomites are cancelling
each other, being integrated across all moleculs.
Do the air moves, because molecules have random speed hundreds m/s ?
Not at all.
Reegular macrosopic chnages are superimposed over local random chnages.

> Frame dependent collisions can be evidence for compression based gas
> energy (versus molecular KE.)

No, only that macroscopic gas speed creates temperature like effect,
having the same KE as random molecules at some temperature.
But moving air having 0 deg C, moving fast,
can have *effective inpact temperature* 5000 deg C.

> >
> >You mix 2 very different phenomena of the same name and units.
> >
> >One thing is macroscopic speed of the whole gas system,
> >that has nothing to do with gas temperature.
> >
> Your macro and micro speeds are in different frames. When in the same
> frame, they can be an intimate mixture. While a mixture, temperature
> would be unchanged and uniform, albeit molecules have vastly different
> speeds. An increase in temperature of the mixture could result from
> conversion of molecular KE into an energy that could increase
> temperature.

All speeds are in all frames, just jhaving different values in them.
Macroscopic oriented speed of gas movement
adds to random molecules speed.

Gas system speed varies with the frame.
Random part of molecule speed is frame invariant.
Convertion of oriented speed to random speed is of course possible,
when fast gas hits the obstacle.

The problem is molecules have never identical initial speed.
And if collisions are not isotropical regarding enegy and frequency,
molecules get accelerated.

> >
> >> There is no interaction between air molecules. A vacuum next to a
> >> 'kinetic' air molecule will not cause the air molecule (or an air
> >> mass) to move toward the vacuum.
> >
> >It was you, who mentined VdW dorces, wasnt you ?
> >
> You mentioned VdW forces when you were describing "real gas," in your
> post dated 1/17/12. I responded in a post dated 1/22/12, with the
> claim that VdW is a force between molecules.

Ok. Note that additional forces in real gas are in fact attracting,
not repulsing, unless very high pressure. So they will not help you
in creation of compression energy concept.

>
> >There IS such an interaction as for any real gas,
> >but it is significant for higher pressures a/o low temperatures.
> >Fo normal temperature and preasure can be omitted for less precise
> >calculations.
> >>
> Ok, a matter of degree. Which theory does a better job of moving a
> molecule into an adjacent vacuum, stratifying the atmosphere into
> density layers, or propagation of a compression (sound) wave?

Depends on detail level, gas theory at molecule one and fuild dynamics
at macroscopic one.

>
> 1. Kinetic theory with small molecules with random speeds and
> directions, average molecule speed near the speed of sound (depending
> on temperature), with each molecule passing hundreds of molecular
> diameters before a (elastic) collision occurs
>
> 2. Large molecules, under pressure on all sides by other molecules,
> with compression energy and density that are functions of specific
> heat

There is no extra compression energy between molecules in large
disctance. mechanic work converts to thermal energy of moleculs,
which gets later dissipated. Compression energy would de facto
avoid the gas condensation, as repulsing forces at short distance
would be enormous.

> >>
> >> Note: I suspect the room air somehow stratified into layers of
> >> homogenous density, before I lit the incense.
> >
> >Sure it can be stratifiled by diferrent density because of temperature.
>
> For me, the amount of mixing within an air mass is surprising (due to
> vortices). I expected greater vertical density differences within a
> layer.

That is matter of athmospheric physics, what is interesting topic.
Air affinity to turbulence due thermal effects and thermodynamics
is represented by gradient dt/dh.
Air creates thermic turbulence with gradient -3.4 degC / 100,
when density starts to grow with the altitude.
this gradient is calld Gamma in air physics.

But there is yet another, lower limit. For air without condensing
vapour it has value typically about -1.0degC/100m ( is not constant )
when adiabatic thermal changes, coused by random lifting/dropping
of air "bubble", are accelerating its vertical movement.

I.e. I have an air "bubble", of the same temperature and density
as its surrounding. I lift it by 2 meter. For gradient lower than
-1.0degC/100m it will be warmer and less dense than surrounding
and starts to climb until it hits the inversion layer.

For dynamic reasons of turbulence, there is Richardson parameter
for its probaility estimation
( Dry_gamma - gamma od air ) / ( dv/dz ) ^2

[richard....@comcast.net]

>> Given, a gas with identical molecules, identical initial speed and
>> random directions. None of the (elastic) collisions between any two
>> molecules should result in higher than original speed.
>
>Concerning just pure kinetic energy and elastic collisions,
>you are right.
>
>Ideal gas is intentional further simplification to give basic formulas,
>that are valid with good precision for normal gas conditions.
>But I am afraid even ideal gas does not count with elastic only
>collisions. It says there are no distant attracting/repulsing forces
>and that molecul volumes is much smaller tah gas volume do we do not
>need to count it.
>
>
>Gas theory theoretical background comes from thermodynamics and energy
>distribution, according to Boltzman law
>N = N exp ( -E / k T ), integrated over degress of freedom.

Compliance with the ideal gas laws requires that changes in gas
compression do not change gas energy. Decreasing the volume of a
kinetic gas container by half will double pressure V1/V2 = P2/P1.
Collisions with a piston does not change particle KE. Otherwise, the
added energy would make V1/V2 not equal to P2/P1.

For example, decreasing the volume of a mirrored container of photons
does not increase photon energy, because there is no force between the
photons.

Therefore, a cloud of electrons would not comply with kinetic gas
laws, except when electron KE is much greater than energy due to force
between electrons. For slow electrons, decreasing container volume
would increase cause a pressure increase almost entirely due to
increased force between electrons. In kinetic theory, force between
particles is zero.

Decreasing the volume of molecular gas ALWAYS requires WORK. Kinetic
gas compression does not increase particle KE. The work requirement
indicates that both electrons and gas molecules have force between
them.

SMALL MOLECULES
The space between small molecules within a large volume is too large
for compression of molecule volumes by adjacent molecules (required
for propagation of sound.) Therefore, a) Gas molecule volumes do not
overlap. b) No vacuum exists between gas molecules. c) A single gas
molecule's volume has no upper limit, except for the size of its
containment. Vacuums do not exist.

Induced dipoles (under rarefied conditions) and (gas) fluid dynamics
do not have fidelity with the 'small molecules within a large volume'
part of kinetic gas theory.
"However, the continuum assumption considers fluids to be continuous,
rather than discrete."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_dynamics

MOLECULAR GAS STRUCTURE
Increasing compression can increase gas internal energy. For example,
increased pressure can lower boiling points.

Vaporization is a quantized molecular change of energy state that will
only occur after a molecule acquires enough (internal) energy. H2O's
vaporization is similar to the change of energy state between any two
of the 15 know crystalline phases of water.

Heat of vaporization is a structure change, not a velocity change.
When a H2O liquid molecule converts to a gas molecule, the molecule's
gas 'structure' completely fills its external containment.


M-B SPEED DISTRIBUTION
Maintenance of M-B temperature distribution conflicts with thermal
conduction among gas molecules.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html

As mentioned before, adding M-B to a uniform temperature gas requires
an external energy source or heat source, to produce M-B differences
in temperature. Otherwise, a violation of the conservation of energy
law will occur, because a temperature difference is a source of energy
for the Carnot cycle.


Note: Molecules with temperature due solely to pure mv^2 should not
store internal energy during a temperature change.

[Poutnik]

In article <5m2aj79kc1rq2c91d...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
>
> Compliance with the ideal gas laws requires that changes in gas
> compression do not change gas energy.

Where did you come to this conclusion ?
Remember the isotermic and adiabatic changes,
both conforming to ideal gas model.

> Decreasing the volume of a
> kinetic gas container by half will double pressure V1/V2 = P2/P1.

Only for isotermic change, not adiabatic.

> Collisions with a piston does not change particle KE.

Since Galileo relativity principle is known we known
it does change. If an elastic ball collides
with counter moving piston, its KE energy increases.

Hint: Imagine reference frame where the piston is in the rest.

> Otherwise, the added energy would make V1/V2 not equal to P2/P1.

Yes, that is fully normal and observed for adiabatic changes.

>
> For example, decreasing the volume of a mirrored container of photons
> does not increase photon energy, because there is no force between the
> photons.

It is improper analogy.

It does increase particular photon energy,
not because of mentioned forces, but due Doppler effect.
On the other side, total photon thermodynamical equilibrium energy
will decrease due decreasing volume.

>
> Therefore, a cloud of electrons would not comply with kinetic gas
> laws, except when electron KE is much greater than energy due to force
> between electrons. For slow electrons, decreasing container volume
> would increase cause a pressure increase almost entirely due to
> increased force between electrons. In kinetic theory, force between
> particles is zero.

This is even more inproper analogy, I am afraid.

Applying kinetic gas theory to electron cloud
is principally out of gas theory scope,
as EM repulsive forces are major effect between electrons,
and also alectrons being fermions cannot shared the same quantum state.

>
> Decreasing the volume of molecular gas ALWAYS requires WORK.

I agree.

> Kinetic gas compression does not increase particle KE. The work
> requirement indicates that both electrons and gas molecules have
> force between them.

The work requirement indicates that every moving piston
increases KE of bouncing elastic particles,
no matter if molecules, or tennis balls.

Such throwing is causing effective pressure
requiring extra force applied to wall
and extra needed work transformed to KE of balls.

You neednot any repulsive forces to archive that.

If flying football balloon gits countermoving player leg,
do you try to say the balloon does not get KE when bounced ?

OTOH, work needed and pressure explained by repulsive forces
will have difficulties explaining increasing pressure
with temperature and given volume.

For kinetic pressure it is natural result.

>
> SMALL MOLECULES
> The space between small molecules within a large volume is too large
> for compression of molecule volumes by adjacent molecules (required
> for propagation of sound.)

Not required.

> Therefore, a) Gas molecule volumes do not overlap.

agree.

> b) No vacuum exists between gas molecules.

disagree

> c) A single gas molecule's volume has no upper limit, except for the
> size of its containment. Vacuums do not exist.

Ehm, I hope you do not mean this seriously.
You would hit here strong objections from multiple part of physics.

> Induced dipoles (under rarefied conditions) and (gas) fluid dynamics
> do not have fidelity with the 'small molecules within a large volume'
> part of kinetic gas theory.

Even some macrosoping effects are hard to explain without molecules.
E.g. increasing viscosity with temperature.

> "However, the continuum assumption considers fluids to be continuous,
> rather than discrete."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_dynamics

Sure, for most macroscopic calculations you need not consider moleculs.

>
> MOLECULAR GAS STRUCTURE
> Increasing compression can increase gas internal energy. For example,
> increased pressure can lower boiling points.

No, increased pressure causes always higher boiling point.
Remember that boiling point is temperature when preasure of vapours
reaches external pressure.

>
> Vaporization is a quantized molecular change of energy state that will
> only occur after a molecule acquires enough (internal) energy. H2O's
> vaporization is similar to the change of energy state between any two
> of the 15 know crystalline phases of water.

Hm, and what you consider by acquiring enough energy ?

>
> Heat of vaporization is a structure change, not a velocity change.
> When a H2O liquid molecule converts to a gas molecule, the molecule's
> gas 'structure' completely fills its external containment.

It is structure AND velocity chnage.
If not, than there is no change in potencial energy
and no evaporization heat.

The molecule has some potencial and kinetic energy.
When the temperature is high enough,
a part of molecules has high enough energy
to escape the potencial barrier of phase change,
converting part of its kinetic energy to escape jump.

>
>
> M-B SPEED DISTRIBUTION
> Maintenance of M-B temperature distribution conflicts with thermal
> conduction among gas molecules.
> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html

Not at all. Why should ?

>
> As mentioned before, adding M-B to a uniform temperature gas requires
> an external energy source or heat source, to produce M-B differences
> in temperature.

There are no temperature differences, as there is no temperature
of single molecule. Temperature is macroscopic statical parameter.

> Otherwise, a violation of the conservation of energy
> law will occur, because a temperature difference is a source of energy
> for the Carnot cycle.

As above.

>
>
> Note: Molecules with temperature due solely to pure mv^2 should not
> store internal energy during a temperature change.

Why not ?

[Poutnik]

In article <MPG.299fe52...@news.eternal-september.org>,
pou...@privacy.invalid says...

errata statistical, not statical

> There are no temperature differences, as there is no temperature

> of single molecule. Temperature is macroscopic statistical parameter.

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:39:15 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <5m2aj79kc1rq2c91d...@4ax.com>,
>richard....@comcast.net says...
>>
>>
>> Compliance with the ideal gas laws requires that changes in gas
>> compression do not change gas energy.
>
>Where did you come to this conclusion ?
>Remember the isotermic and adiabatic changes,
>both conforming to ideal gas model.
>

Reducing container size should not change elastic ball KE, unless a
piston added energy. A statistical way of achieving this is to time
the volume reduction to when the balls are only on one side of the
container. Therefore, increasing (collision) pressure does not
require work. KE is the same before and after compression and
pressure is not energy.

Concerning the conflict between temperature and KE:
Imagine balls elastically bouncing at random speeds and in random
directions within a container. Remove a ball or let that ball's speed
go to zero. All you did was remove KE. The ball and balls remain the
same temperature.

Otherwise, at what ball diameter does a ball's KE become the ball's
temperature? What number of balls does (automatic) M-B distribution
require? What number of balls before the ball's KE becomes the balls'
temperature?

If decreasing KE does not reduce temperature, increasing KE should
likewise leave temperature unchanged. A piston moving at relativistic
speed that cuts volume in half must add relativistic speeds to half of
the particles. For a slightly slower moving piston, particles that
collide with the piston a second time would attempt to achieve 2X
relativistic speed. A wide versus narrow cylinder can influence the
number of times a particle strikes the relativistic speed piston.
These are speed changes, not temperature changes. W/o a temperature
change, there is no internal energy change.

Unlike collisions, compression work = force x distance, regardless of
piston speed or container geometry. From empirical evidence, gas
compression does change temperature, thus changes internal energy.


Conflicts between specific heats v. elastic collisions, temperature v.
KE, indicate that kinetic gas theory is self-inconsistent. Part of
the self-inconsistency is that one kinetic scenario (above) supports
the idea that gas compression does not change gas energy; another
scenario (specific heat) requires the energy change. Perhaps I should
expand on the problems with collisions aspect of kinetic gas theory.

Pressure is a function of collision density. Therefore, pressure is a
function of surface area per volume ratio. Pressure due to
compression is not a function of surface area to volume ratio.

For example: The quantized nature of vaporization includes a fixed
initial gas volume. Heat of vaporization = structure change energy -
energy due to gas expansion. Decreased applied gas pressure lowers
BP, because as applied pressure decreases, energy released from gas
expansion will increase.

Because heat of vaporization includes expansion energy, liquid
molecules must detect pressure. A single liquid molecule cannot use
(sporadic) collisions as a measure of pressure. A molecule must
instead use the (pervasive, continuously applied) force due to
COMPRESSION energy, as a means of detecting pressure.

>> Decreasing the volume of a
>> kinetic gas container by half will double pressure V1/V2 = P2/P1.
>
>Only for isotermic change, not adiabatic.
>

Adiabatic expansion into a vacuum simply increases the distance gas
particles travel between collisions. Therefore, adiabatic expansion
of balls should NOT change ball temperature or velocity.

If temperature indeed decreases during an adiabatic molecular gas
volume increase, then temperature decreased w/o decreasing ball
velocity. This is a conflict with 1/2mv^2=3/2kT. In other words,
temperature decreased w/o a means of decreasing molecular velocity.

Collisions fail to explain 1. How gas temperature decreased w/o
changing velocity, 2. Disposition of heat energy loss during the
temperature decrease.

Substituting the energy of molecular compression for KE would solve
these problems. Gas molecule expansion lowers temperature and can
release force x distance energy (KE) to molecules.

>> Collisions with a piston does not change particle KE.
>
>Since Galileo relativity principle is known we known
>it does change. If an elastic ball collides
>with counter moving piston, its KE energy increases.
>
>Hint: Imagine reference frame where the piston is in the rest.
>

In your moving piston scenario, how fast is the piston moving?

>> Otherwise, the added energy would make V1/V2 not equal to P2/P1.
>
>Yes, that is fully normal and observed for adiabatic changes.
>

Yes, the self-inconsistency of kinetic gas theory (piston work v. no
piston work) make both compliance and non-compliance with V1/V2=P2/P1
reasonable.

>>
>> For example, decreasing the volume of a mirrored container of photons
>> does not increase photon energy, because there is no force between the
>> photons.
>
>It is improper analogy.
>
>It does increase particular photon energy,
>not because of mentioned forces, but due Doppler effect.
>On the other side, total photon thermodynamical equilibrium energy
>will decrease due decreasing volume.
>>

Open a connection between a container full of photons, and an equal
empty container. V/1V2 could equal P2/P1, w/o the Doppler effect.

BTW, If a particle traveling at relativistic speed emits a red shifted
photon, what became of the lost energy?

>> Therefore, a cloud of electrons would not comply with kinetic gas
>> laws, except when electron KE is much greater than energy due to force
>> between electrons. For slow electrons, decreasing container volume
>> would increase cause a pressure increase almost entirely due to
>> increased force between electrons. In kinetic theory, force between
>> particles is zero.
>
>This is even more inproper analogy, I am afraid.
>
>Applying kinetic gas theory to electron cloud
>is principally out of gas theory scope,
>as EM repulsive forces are major effect between electrons,
>and also alectrons being fermions cannot shared the same quantum state.
>

You are right.

>>
>> Decreasing the volume of molecular gas ALWAYS requires WORK.
>
>I agree.
>
>> Kinetic gas compression does not increase particle KE. The work
>> requirement indicates that both electrons and gas molecules have
>> force between them.
>
>The work requirement indicates that every moving piston
>increases KE of bouncing elastic particles,
>no matter if molecules, or tennis balls.
>

Are you claiming that collision based piston movement CANNOT reduce
particle KE, regardless of piston direction and frame?

>Such throwing is causing effective pressure
>requiring extra force applied to wall
>and extra needed work transformed to KE of balls.
>
>You neednot any repulsive forces to archive that.
>

A football and a sphere with the same volume, number of particles and
temperature, would not have the same number of collisions per surface
area. This pressure difference, due to the difference in collisions
per area should be measurable.

The kick induced gas collisions would create a momentum-based wind
within the football. After the kick, collision density would drop
until the wind collides with the opposite side of the ball, and then
returns to the kicked area.

Compressed molecules would INSTANTLY increase pressure THROUGHOUT THE
BALL, during the kick.

>If flying football balloon gits countermoving player leg,
>do you try to say the balloon does not get KE when bounced ?
>
>OTOH, work needed and pressure explained by repulsive forces
>will have difficulties explaining increasing pressure
>with temperature and given volume.
>

I think mechanical molecular repulsive force does not raise
temperature. I think the energy of molecular compression of the gas
in the football converts to an energy that could increase temperature.

>For kinetic pressure it is natural result.
>

An elastic collision between a cold ball the hot surface would not
raise KE any more than a collision with a cold surface. By
definition, ELASTIC pre-collision KE = post-collision KE.

>>
>> SMALL MOLECULES
>> The space between small molecules within a large volume is too large
>> for compression of molecule volumes by adjacent molecules (required
>> for propagation of sound.)
>
>Not required.
>

A single compression wave can bend around a corner during expansion. A
single sound modulated molecule would follow a straight-line path.

>> Therefore, a) Gas molecule volumes do not overlap.
>
>agree.
>
>> b) No vacuum exists between gas molecules.
>
>disagree
>
>> c) A single gas molecule's volume has no upper limit, except for the
>> size of its containment. Vacuums do not exist.
>
>Ehm, I hope you do not mean this seriously.
>You would hit here strong objections from multiple part of physics.
>

Then you should have an easy time proving me wrong, if you decide to
do so. The upper volume limit of compression energy (a force between
a molecule and its containment) is infinity.

>> Induced dipoles (under rarefied conditions) and (gas) fluid dynamics
>> do not have fidelity with the 'small molecules within a large volume'
>> part of kinetic gas theory.
>
>Even some macrosoping effects are hard to explain without molecules.
>E.g. increasing viscosity with temperature.
>

Kinetic gas theory is supposed to be a tool for predictions.

1. Kinetic theory fails to predict the occurrence of an induced
dipole.

Molecular compression predicts induced dipoles. An HCl molecule is a
dipole while being a gas. The closeness of HCl and Ar make polarized
Ar is no surprise.

2. The no particle interaction part of kinetic gas theory would
indicate that neither temperature, nor pressure would change gas
viscosity (except momentum or collision-based viscosity.)

The closeness of molecules in molecular compression allows a
temperature change to influence interaction between molecules, thus
influence viscosity.

3. A vacuum between gas molecules would cause zero electrical
conductivity. In solids, a vacuum between molecules or between
electrons and protons would prevent superconductivity. The no vacuum
between molecules part of 'compression' allows electrical and thermal
conductivity.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Conduction_of_Electricity_Through_Gases.html?id=x7KsD1GmIK0C

4. The no particle interaction part of kinetic gas theory would
prevent a 2H2+O2 mix from exploding.

>> "However, the continuum assumption considers fluids to be continuous,
>> rather than discrete."
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_dynamics
>
>Sure, for most macroscopic calculations you need not consider moleculs.
>>
>> MOLECULAR GAS STRUCTURE
>> Increasing compression can increase gas internal energy. For example,
>> increased pressure can lower boiling points.
>
>No, increased pressure causes always higher boiling point.
>Remember that boiling point is temperature when preasure of vapours
>reaches external pressure.
>>

Sorry about being dyslexic about the direction of BP changes with
pressure.

Normally, boiling water directly converts heat energy from the burner
into vaporization energy. A KE increase during vaporization would
require a molecule to accelerate itself. Self acceleration may
violate conservation of momentum.

Heat of vaporization = structure change energy - energy due to gas
expansion.

>> Vaporization is a quantized molecular change of energy state that will
>> only occur after a molecule acquires enough (internal) energy. H2O's
>> vaporization is similar to the change of energy state between any two
>> of the 15 know crystalline phases of water.
>
>Hm, and what you consider by acquiring enough energy ?
>>

Heat needed for evaporation = Heat needed for structure change - heat
released as steam molecules expand from liquid to gas.

>> Heat of vaporization is a structure change, not a velocity change.
>> When a H2O liquid molecule converts to a gas molecule, the molecule's
>> gas 'structure' completely fills its external containment.
>
>It is structure AND velocity chnage.
>If not, than there is no change in potencial energy
>and no evaporization heat.
>

A molecular structure change is a type of PE change and molecule
compression can influence gas temperature.

Complete evaporation at lower than boiling temperature indicates that
H2O structure can be more stable in gas form, than in liquid form. The
stability can enable the endothermic evaporation process.

>The molecule has some potencial and kinetic energy.
>When the temperature is high enough,
>a part of molecules has high enough energy
>to escape the potencial barrier of phase change,
>converting part of its kinetic energy to escape jump.
>>

What do you mean by escape jump? Are you claiming that gas molecules
move slower than liquid, or that part of a liquid molecule's KE
converts into gas structure energy?

>>
>> M-B SPEED DISTRIBUTION
>> Maintenance of M-B temperature distribution conflicts with thermal
>> conduction among gas molecules.
>> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html
>
>Not at all. Why should ?
>>

Thermal conductivity (k) of gases is a measure of conductivity, not
radiation or convection, albeit gas can have a heat of convection
coefficient. Conduction requires intermolecular transfers of heat and
ultimately conduction can produce uniform temperature. Heat
conduction among molecules is the opposite of inducing M-B temperature
distribution.

>> As mentioned before, adding M-B to a uniform temperature gas requires
>> an external energy source or heat source, to produce M-B differences
>> in temperature.
>
>There are no temperature differences, as there is no temperature
>of single molecule. Temperature is macroscopic statical parameter.
>

I think a single ball can have temperature and velocity. What is the
theoretical reason that 1/2mv^2=3/2kT can or cannot apply on both a
macro (big elastic balls) and a molecular (small elastic balls) scale,
or both a large number and a small number of elastic balls?

>> Otherwise, a violation of the conservation of energy
>> law will occur, because a temperature difference is a source of energy
>> for the Carnot cycle.
>
>As above.
>>

Are you are thinking that lack of intermolecular interaction stops
collisions, thus prevents conduction during collisions? Consider that
prevention of precipitation of ice (from M-B distribution) requires a
high frequency of, and a huge amount of intermolecular interaction
(collisions.)

>>
>> Note: Molecules with temperature due solely to pure mv^2 should not
>> store internal energy during a temperature change.
>
>Why not ?

A kinetic gas theory scenario indicates that gas can cool during
expansion w/o a means of changing gas molecule velocity.

[Poutnik]

In article <mfd2k7hc8k9sistqa...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>

> Reducing container size should not change elastic ball KE, unless a
> piston added energy. A statistical way of achieving this is to time
> the volume reduction to when the balls are only on one side of the
> container. Therefore, increasing (collision) pressure does not
> require work. KE is the same before and after compression and
> pressure is not energy.

Unfortunately piston always adds energy, because
it is too slow to stop before every molecule hit.
But even though, it is equivalent to isothermic decreasing of volume,
where all taken energy is dissipated as heat, therefore
the energy of the ( ideal ) gas is the same as before compression.
Real gas energy will change, as there are interaction attractive forces
and potential energy changes with distance.

>
> Concerning the conflict between temperature and KE:
> Imagine balls elastically bouncing at random speeds and in random
> directions within a container. Remove a ball or let that ball's speed
> go to zero. All you did was remove KE. The ball and balls remain the
> same temperature.

Sure. That is what I am trying to tell you all the time.

Speed and KE of the body, represented its centre of a mass,
has nothing to do with random speed and KE of body molecules,
that are related to frame of reference where the body is in the rest.

>
> Otherwise, at what ball diameter does a ball's KE become the ball's
> temperature? What number of balls does (automatic) M-B distribution
> require? What number of balls before the ball's KE becomes the balls'
> temperature?

You may did not get concept of temperature.
Ball temperature is given by mean KE of balls molecules
wrt to frame reference of resting ball.

Therefore the answer is : At no diameter,
not even if a ball becomes a single molecule.

>
> If decreasing KE does not reduce temperature, increasing KE should
> likewise leave temperature unchanged.

Decreasing of ball KE does not reduce temperature,
decreasing of KE of balls molecules in frame of resting ball does.

> A piston moving at relativistic
> speed that cuts volume in half must add relativistic speeds to half of
> the particles. For a slightly slower moving piston, particles that
> collide with the piston a second time would attempt to achieve 2X
> relativistic speed. A wide versus narrow cylinder can influence the
> number of times a particle strikes the relativistic speed piston.
> These are speed changes, not temperature changes. W/o a temperature
> change, there is no internal energy change.

If you persists to mix gas theory with SR,
that please do also SR aware calculations.
But SR is not necessary to examine gas theory.

Increase of KE of molecules after piston collision
is consistent with added piston work.

>
> Unlike collisions, compression work = force x distance, regardless of
> piston speed or container geometry. From empirical evidence, gas
> compression does change temperature, thus changes internal energy.

Not unlike, but as collisions.
And note that excess of real gas behaviour wrt ideal gas model
is due attraction forces, not due repulsive compression forces.
I am not sure where you come to conclusion that adiabatic compression
does not change internal energy.

>
>
> Conflicts between specific heats v. elastic collisions, temperature v.
> KE, indicate that kinetic gas theory is self-inconsistent. Part of
> the self-inconsistency is that one kinetic scenario (above) supports
> the idea that gas compression does not change gas energy; another
> scenario (specific heat) requires the energy change. Perhaps I should
> expand on the problems with collisions aspect of kinetic gas theory.

Adiabatic compression DOES increase gas internal energy.

Isothermic compression DOES NOT change gas energy
( ideal one, for real one it slightly decrease,
while for compression theory it is increased )

Your proposed thought experiment with stopping piston at collisions
is equivalent to isothermic compression ( infinitely slow one )
that does not change gas temperature nor energy,
as this energy is dissipated.

>
> Pressure is a function of collision density.

Agree.

> Therefore, pressure is a function of surface area per volume ratio.
> Pressure due to
> compression is not a function of surface area to volume ratio.

No, false conclusion.
No pressure is function of surface area to volume ratio.
Not even of surface area.

Given gas has at the given condition fixed collision frequency
per surface unit, giving force per surface unit, what is pressure.
Volume is irrelevant.

>
> For example: The quantized nature of vaporization includes a fixed
> initial gas volume. Heat of vaporization = structure change energy -
> energy due to gas expansion. Decreased applied gas pressure lowers
> BP, because as applied pressure decreases, energy released from gas
> expansion will increase.

All liquids have portion of molecules constantly leaving the liquid,
creating a partial vapour pressure, that is increasing exponentially
with temperature. when reaches external pressure, it boils.
Decreasing pressure makes the boiling sooner.

>
> Because heat of vaporization includes expansion energy, liquid
> molecules must detect pressure. A single liquid molecule cannot use
> (sporadic) collisions as a measure of pressure. A molecule must
> instead use the (pervasive, continuously applied) force due to
> COMPRESSION energy, as a means of detecting pressure.

It supposes internal intelligence of molecules.
Behaviour of molecules is driven by rules of statistic.

>
> >> Decreasing the volume of a
> >> kinetic gas container by half will double pressure V1/V2 = P2/P1.
> >
> >Only for isotermic change, not adiabatic.
> >
> Adiabatic expansion into a vacuum simply increases the distance gas
> particles travel between collisions. Therefore, adiabatic expansion
> of balls should NOT change ball temperature or velocity.

You have to decide, if you want to speak about balls or molecules.
Bouncing of Leaving/incoming molecules is principally the same
as bouncing leaving/incoming piston.
It does change their random KE and therefore temperature.

>
> If temperature indeed decreases during an adiabatic molecular gas
> volume increase, then temperature decreased w/o decreasing ball
> velocity. This is a conflict with 1/2mv^2=3/2kT. In other words,
> temperature decreased w/o a means of decreasing molecular velocity.

Stop mixing moving of ball and random moves of molecules.
They are completely independent. There is no conflict.

>
> Collisions fail to explain 1. How gas temperature decreased w/o
> changing velocity,

No, you just still do not understand.
It does not

2. Disposition of heat energy loss during the temperature decrease.


>
> Substituting the energy of molecular compression for KE would solve
> these problems. Gas molecule expansion lowers temperature and can
> release force x distance energy (KE) to molecules.
>
> >> Collisions with a piston does not change particle KE.
> >
> >Since Galileo relativity principle is known we known
> >it does change. If an elastic ball collides
> >with counter moving piston, its KE energy increases.
> >
> >Hint: Imagine reference frame where the piston is in the rest.
> >
> In your moving piston scenario, how fast is the piston moving?

speed is irrelevant, but but in both limit cases it converge
either to isothermic either adiabatic compression.

>
> >> Otherwise, the added energy would make V1/V2 not equal to P2/P1.
> >
> >Yes, that is fully normal and observed for adiabatic changes.
> >
> Yes, the self-inconsistency of kinetic gas theory (piston work v. no
> piston work) make both compliance and non-compliance with V1/V2=P2/P1
> reasonable.

Not at all, do not confuse inconsistency with misunderstanding.

> >>
> >> For example, decreasing the volume of a mirrored container of photons
> >> does not increase photon energy, because there is no force between the
> >> photons.
> >
> >It is improper analogy.
> >
> >It does increase particular photon energy,
> >not because of mentioned forces, but due Doppler effect.
> >On the other side, total photon thermodynamical equilibrium energy
> >will decrease due decreasing volume.
> >>
> Open a connection between a container full of photons, and an equal
> empty container. V/1V2 could equal P2/P1, w/o the Doppler effect.

Photons are totally out of scope of gas theory, and manifest totally
different behaviour.

>
> BTW, If a particle traveling at relativistic speed emits a red shifted
> photon, what became of the lost energy?

There is no lost energy. But it is another topic,
our posts are long even without it.

> >
> Are you claiming that collision based piston movement CANNOT reduce
> particle KE, regardless of piston direction and frame?

No, I am not.

> >
> A football and a sphere

All the purpose of football analogy was
that moving ball hitting moving obstacle changes its KE,
depending on move orientation.

>

> An elastic collision between a cold ball the hot surface would not
> raise KE any more than a collision with a cold surface. By
> definition, ELASTIC pre-collision KE = post-collision KE.

temperature is irrelevant here, movement of hot surface is not.

> >
> A single compression wave can bend around a corner during expansion. A
> single sound modulated molecule would follow a straight-line path.

Until next collision.

>

> Kinetic gas theory is supposed to be a tool for predictions.

Sure, within its scope.

>
> 1. Kinetic theory fails to predict the occurrence of an induced
> dipole.

Is not supposed to, but it is implied as real gas factors.

>
> Molecular compression predicts induced dipoles.

Hm, could you elaborate such a prediction ?

> An HCl molecule is a
> dipole while being a gas. The closeness of HCl and Ar make polarized
> Ar is no surprise.

This is not prediction CT provides.

>
> 2. The no particle interaction part of kinetic gas theory would
> indicate that neither temperature, nor pressure would change gas
> viscosity (except momentum or collision-based viscosity.)

No, it is your KT misunderstanding.
And, KT is not the same as ideal gas model.
IGM is intentional very useful simplification.

>
> The closeness of molecules in molecular compression allows a
> temperature change to influence interaction between molecules, thus
> influence viscosity.

Compression theory has paradox of cohesive versus repulsive forces.

>
> 3. A vacuum between gas molecules would cause zero electrical
> conductivity. In solids, a vacuum between molecules or between
> electrons and protons would prevent superconductivity. The no vacuum
> between molecules part of 'compression' allows electrical and thermal
> conductivity.
> http://books.google.com/books/about/Conduction_of_Electricity_Through_Gases.html?id=x7KsD1GmIK0C

This hearts....

>
> 4. The no particle interaction part of kinetic gas theory would
> prevent a 2H2+O2 mix from exploding.

But particle interaction part does.
You really do not know what KT is about.

>

> Sorry about being dyslexic about the direction of BP changes with
> pressure.
>
> Normally, boiling water directly converts heat energy from the burner
> into vaporization energy. A KE increase during vaporization would
> require a molecule to accelerate itself. Self acceleration may
> violate conservation of momentum.

What talked about selfaccelerating ?

>

>
> >> Heat of vaporization is a structure change, not a velocity change.
> >> When a H2O liquid molecule converts to a gas molecule, the molecule's
> >> gas 'structure' completely fills its external containment.
> >
> >It is structure AND velocity chnage.
> >If not, than there is no change in potencial energy
> >and no evaporization heat.
> >
> A molecular structure change is a type of PE change and molecule
> compression can influence gas temperature.

Compression forces would make gas condensation very difficult.

>
> Complete evaporation at lower than boiling temperature indicates that
> H2O structure can be more stable in gas form, than in liquid form. The
> stability can enable the endothermic evaporation process.

It is not about stability, but equilibrium.

>
> What do you mean by escape jump?

As simplification,
water(l) molecules are binded by potential energy
of van der Waals forces and hydrogen bonds.
It is like if a ball has enough KE, it able to escape
the potential trap of the Earth.

But for freedom, a part of KE is sacrifices.

> Are you claiming that gas molecules move slower than liquid,

YES and NO.

> or that part of a liquid molecule's KE converts into gas structure
energy?

No, part of liq molecul KE goes to overcome potential hole,
being trapped by cohesive bonds to other liquid molecules.

> Thermal conductivity (k) of gases is a measure of conductivity, not
> radiation or convection, albeit gas can have a heat of convection
> coefficient. Conduction requires intermolecular transfers of heat and
> ultimately conduction can produce uniform temperature. Heat
> conduction among molecules is the opposite of inducing M-B temperature
> distribution.

I did have suspicion you still do not understand what temperature is.

M-B distribution is about statistical distribution of KE of moleculs,
not about temperature distribution.
And not even spatial temperature distribution.

>
> >There are no temperature differences, as there is no temperature
> >of single molecule. Temperature is macroscopic statical parameter.
> >
> I think a single ball can have temperature and velocity.

Ball ? yes. Molecule ? No.

> What is the
> theoretical reason that 1/2mv^2=3/2kT can or cannot apply on both a
> macro (big elastic balls) and a molecular (small elastic balls) scale,
> or both a large number and a small number of elastic balls?

So, if you have 70 kg, moving 1 m/s,
then is your temperature 1.93 x 10^24 K ?

I am not sure, but Big Bang could envy you to be so hot.

> Are you are thinking that lack of intermolecular interaction stops
> collisions, thus prevents conduction during collisions?

No, neither KT suppose no interactions.
Only no cohesive/repulsive interactions and only in ideal gas model.

> Consider that
> prevention of precipitation of ice (from M-B distribution) requires a
> high frequency of, and a huge amount of intermolecular interaction
> (collisions.)

Try to count this frequency. It is really big.
And there is huge amount of collisions.

> >>
> >> Note: Molecules with temperature due solely to pure mv^2 should not
> >> store internal energy during a temperature change.
> >
> >Why not ?
>
> A kinetic gas theory scenario indicates that gas can cool during
> expansion w/o a means of changing gas molecule velocity.

Put your claim in proper context. Molecule velocity and
molecule velocity wrt frame of reference where gas is in rest
are 2 very different values.


--
Poutnik

People's selfconfidence is often reciprocal to their knowledge.

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 02:18:01 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <mfd2k7hc8k9sistqa...@4ax.com>,
>richard....@comcast.net says...
>>
>
>> Reducing container size should not change elastic ball KE, unless a
>> piston added energy. A statistical way of achieving this is to time
>> the volume reduction to when the balls are only on one side of the
>> container. Therefore, increasing (collision) pressure does not
>> require work. KE is the same before and after compression and
>> pressure is not energy.
>
>Unfortunately piston always adds energy, because
>it is too slow to stop before every molecule hit.

You added a piston? I described volume reduction through random
molecule motion, not a piston.

A shutter (instead of a piston) could provide containment at 1/2
volume. By chance, are you claiming that random motion CANNOT result
in all molecules being in only one side of a container?

I used the scenario of shutter compression v. piston compression to
show that the existence of a change in compression energy determines
existence of heat production, v. change in speed in the 'frame of
resting ball,' as a cause of heat production.

With the shutter, gas collision energy does not change during gas
compression and expansion. In reality, mechanical gas compression
does require work (against the repulsive force between molecules) and
results in a temperature increase. Kinetic theory does not recognize
compression energy and the 4 recognized intermolecular forces are
ATTRACTIVE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_force


No macroscopic gas molecule collision is elastic. Colliding molecules
cannot know if they are in the 'frame of resting ball,' or in a
macroscopic frame.

For example, let a fan accelerate air to the speed of sound within a
closed circuit wind tunnel. If all collisions were indeed elastic,
each cycle through the fan adds another speed of sound increment. If
the gas molecules travel in the 'frame of resting ball,' temperature
will correspondingly increase during each increment.

In compression theory, NO collision is elastic. Surface drag
(proportional to v^2) would dissipate the fan caused velocity (by
means of inelastic collisions) each cycle.

>But even though, it is equivalent to isothermic decreasing of volume,

In compression theory, piston compression includes conversion of
compression energy into internal energy. During isothermal
compression, some compression energy and some internal energy convert
to the heat energy being removed from the system.

In kinetic theory, random molecular motion can cause the reduction of
volume. Therefore, compression energy is zero. The two do not seem
equivalent.


I am not comfortable with the temperature changes that occur with
kinetic molecules. Kinetic theory assumes elastic collisions. "The
rapidly moving particles constantly collide among themselves and with
the walls of the container. All these collisions are perfectly
elastic"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases

Kinetic theory also assumes gas KE is a function of temperature. "The
average kinetic energy of the gas particles depends only on the
temperature of the system."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases

You claimed collisions located in the 'frame of resting ball,' can
change temperature. I claim that frame does give elastic collisions
the ability to change temperature. If a collision can increase
temperature, than the collision can contribute to change of phase
energy. Elastic collisions cannot convert KE into phase change energy
(heat of vaporization,) w/o violating the conservation of energy law.

I am not comfortable with a piston adding force x distance. Kinetic
theory substitutes intermittent collisions in all kinetic equations
that use force. Force x distance requires force along the entire
distance. The time between collisions with a container is much
greater than the time during (instantaneous) collisions.

"The time during collision of molecule with the container's wall is
negligible as compared to the time between successive collisions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases

Therefore, force x distance supplies ZERO energy. Kinetic theory
assumes zero compression energy. Piston velocity can supply KE and
kinetic theory temperature is supposed to be a function of KE.

>where all taken energy is dissipated as heat, therefore
>the energy of the ( ideal ) gas is the same as before compression.

Reducing volume of particles with elastic collisions requires no heat
dissipation and no generation of heat. A shutter closes when random
motion puts half the gas is on one side of a container.

>Real gas energy will change, as there are interaction attractive forces
>and potential energy changes with distance.
>>

For kinetic molecules that are dipoles, a shutter could capture
molecules with a small distance between dipoles. Subsequent expansion
to original volume would require piston energy or conversion of KE, to
pull the dipoles apart.

The known intermolecular forces (dipoles, induced dipoles, ion-dipole,
Van der Waals) are attractive and intimate. Compression of these
attractive forces does not necessarily increase temperature (reducing
distance between electrons does not change temperature.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_force

<clip>

>Isothermic compression DOES NOT change gas energy
>( ideal one, for real one it slightly decrease,
>while for compression theory it is increased )
>

The energy of the heat removed from gas, to make the process
isothermal is less than the mechanical energy that compressed the gas.
Therefore, isothermal compression results in more total energy than
the gas had before compression.

>Your proposed thought experiment with stopping piston at collisions
>is equivalent to isothermic compression ( infinitely slow one )
>that does not change gas temperature nor energy,
>as this energy is dissipated.
>

I suggested random movement caused all the gas molecules to be on one
side of the container. Compression by means of random movement
applies to kinetic aspects of a molecule, not the compression energy
within each molecule.

>
>>
>> Pressure is a function of collision density.
>
>Agree.
>

I was wrong. Collision duration makes collision density differ from
pressure.

A moving piston can add mv^2 to a gas molecule's KE, and independently
add force x distance to gas compression energy.

>> Therefore, pressure is a function of surface area per volume ratio.
>> Pressure due to
>> compression is not a function of surface area to volume ratio.
>
>No, false conclusion.
>No pressure is function of surface area to volume ratio.
>Not even of surface area.
>

A single molecule within a sphere with an activated carbon interior
surface has a lower collision frequency per surface area, than the
same molecule within a sphere with a smooth interior.

>Given gas has at the given condition fixed collision frequency
>per surface unit, giving force per surface unit, what is pressure.
>Volume is irrelevant.
>
>>
>> For example: The quantized nature of vaporization includes a fixed
>> initial gas volume. Heat of vaporization = structure change energy -
>> energy due to gas expansion. Decreased applied gas pressure lowers
>> BP, because as applied pressure decreases, energy released from gas
>> expansion will increase.
>
>All liquids have portion of molecules constantly leaving the liquid,
>creating a partial vapour pressure, that is increasing exponentially
>with temperature. when reaches external pressure, it boils.
>Decreasing pressure makes the boiling sooner.
>

Reducing pressure reduces steam molecules energy. Based on your
scenario, low energy steam molecules next to liquid molecules will
enable boiling at low temperature. In other words, REMOVING heat
energy (reducing steam pressure) from the system will ADD energy to
heat of vaporization.

Compression theory solves the paradox. Molecule expansion provides
energy towards heat of vaporization.

>>
>> Because heat of vaporization includes expansion energy, liquid
>> molecules must detect pressure. A single liquid molecule cannot use
>> (sporadic) collisions as a measure of pressure. A molecule must
>> instead use the (pervasive, continuously applied) force due to
>> COMPRESSION energy, as a means of detecting pressure.
>
>It supposes internal intelligence of molecules.
>Behaviour of molecules is driven by rules of statistic.
>

Energy balance at the time of reaction governs all molecular energy
state changes (including evaporation,) not intelligence. Based on the
lack of correlation between temperature and KE (within compression
theory,) gas molecules can have any KE value at any temperature.

>> If temperature indeed decreases during an adiabatic molecular gas
>> volume increase, then temperature decreased w/o decreasing ball
>> velocity. This is a conflict with 1/2mv^2=3/2kT. In other words,
>> temperature decreased w/o a means of decreasing molecular velocity.
>
>Stop mixing moving of ball and random moves of molecules.
>They are completely independent. There is no conflict.
>

The conflict between kinetic theory and compression theory occurs
during changes in compression energy and changes in temperature.
Kinetic theory does not include compression energy. Elastic
collisions do not change temperature.

>>
>> Collisions fail to explain 1. How gas temperature decreased w/o
>> changing velocity,
>
>No, you just still do not understand.
>It does not
>

In the frame of relativistic energy, each molecule has an exact amount
of KE. Adding phase change heat energy to the molecule travelling at
relativistic speed will not change the particle's relativistic speed
(unless mass changes.) Therefore, KE is not one of the energies that
can change temperature.

>2. Disposition of heat energy loss during the temperature decrease.
>
>
>>
>> Substituting the energy of molecular compression for KE would solve
>> these problems. Gas molecule expansion lowers temperature and can
>> release force x distance energy (KE) to molecules.
>>
>> >> Collisions with a piston does not change particle KE.
>> >
>> >Since Galileo relativity principle is known we known
>> >it does change. If an elastic ball collides
>> >with counter moving piston, its KE energy increases.
>> >
>> >Hint: Imagine reference frame where the piston is in the rest.
>> >
>> In your moving piston scenario, how fast is the piston moving?
>
>speed is irrelevant, but but in both limit cases it converge
>either to isothermic either adiabatic compression.

There is no convergence. Force x distance will contribute compression
energy and temperature; elastic collisions will contribute to KE.

>>
>> >> Otherwise, the added energy would make V1/V2 not equal to P2/P1.
>> >
>> >Yes, that is fully normal and observed for adiabatic changes.
>> >
>> Yes, the self-inconsistency of kinetic gas theory (piston work v. no
>> piston work) make both compliance and non-compliance with V1/V2=P2/P1
>> reasonable.
>
>Not at all, do not confuse inconsistency with misunderstanding.
>

Kinetic theory uses elastic collisions instead of compression energy
within gas expansion and compression equations. Elastic collisions do
not contribute to internal energy or phase change energy.

>> >>
>> >
>> A single compression wave can bend around a corner during expansion. A
>> single sound modulated molecule would follow a straight-line path.
>
>Until next collision.
>>

Let a particle travel along the X axis. Let it meet an equal particle
traveling along the Y axis. The X particle will begin travel in along
the Y axis and vice versa. Elastic collisions do not change momentum
in any specific direction, unless the particle hits the container.

>
>> Kinetic gas theory is supposed to be a tool for predictions.
>
>Sure, within its scope.
>
>>
>> 1. Kinetic theory fails to predict the occurrence of an induced
>> dipole.
>
>Is not supposed to, but it is implied as real gas factors.
>>

Kinetic theory does not have the tools to predict induced dipoles,
because 'no interaction between particles' and tiny kinetic particle
size.

>> Molecular compression predicts induced dipoles.
>
>Hm, could you elaborate such a prediction ?
>

If induced dipoles can occur in liquids and solids, they should also
occur in gas. In compression theory, gas molecules are 'big' liquid
molecules.

>> An HCl molecule is a
>> dipole while being a gas. The closeness of HCl and Ar make polarized
>> Ar is no surprise.
>
>This is not prediction CT provides.
>>

There is more to this and I might cover this later, in a different
thread.

Charging a capacitor (inducing a dipole) does not change emission
spectra, or bonding within its dielectric material. Therefore,
chemical dipoles differ from dipoles caused by electron-proton
separation. The distance rules that apply to 'electric' dipoles
(negative third power with distance) differ from chemical dipole
distance rules.

>> 2. The no particle interaction part of kinetic gas theory would
>> indicate that neither temperature, nor pressure would change gas
>> viscosity (except momentum or collision-based viscosity.)
>
>No, it is your KT misunderstanding.
>And, KT is not the same as ideal gas model.
>IGM is intentional very useful simplification.
>>

IGM fails to account for compression energy and the relation between
compression energy and specific heat. W/o compression energy, IGM
must use (elastic) collisions to account for temperature changes.

>> The closeness of molecules in molecular compression allows a
>> temperature change to influence interaction between molecules, thus
>> influence viscosity.
>
>Compression theory has paradox of cohesive versus repulsive forces.
>

By paradox, are you claiming that force due to molecule compression
and force due to dipole attraction is the same thing? Molecule
compression is certainly not the same thing as dipole attraction.
There is no paradox. Molecular compression is a unique type of
energy.

If you like paradoxes, consider the conflict between elastic
collisions and changes in internal energy.

>>
>> 3. A vacuum between gas molecules would cause zero electrical
>> conductivity. In solids, a vacuum between molecules or between
>> electrons and protons would prevent superconductivity. The no vacuum
>> between molecules part of 'compression' allows electrical and thermal
>> conductivity.
>> http://books.google.com/books/about/Conduction_of_Electricity_Through_Gases.html?id=x7KsD1GmIK0C
>
>This hearts....
>

If you like paradoxes in electrical stuff, consider the 'current'
paradox. A magnetic field cannot add energy to a moving electron, yet
changing magnetism within a transformer's primary winding will cause
current in the secondary windings.

How about the galvanic cell? Is the electrolyte conductive (during
current,) or an insulator (preventing an anode to cathode short
circuit through the electrolyte?)

>>
>> 4. The no particle interaction part of kinetic gas theory would
>> prevent a 2H2+O2 mix from exploding.
>
>But particle interaction part does.
>You really do not know what KT is about.
>>

In kinetic theory, the distance between adjacent gas molecules is 16 x
the distance between molecule centers in solids. The distance between
collisions is much greater than the distance between molecules. Do
you really expect diffuse kinetic particle collisions to occur at
about the same rate as collisions within a solid?

Gas chemical reactions can occur explosively, because gas molecules
are almost as intimate as liquid molecules.

>
>> Sorry about being dyslexic about the direction of BP changes with
>> pressure.
>>
>> Normally, boiling water directly converts heat energy from the burner
>> into vaporization energy. A KE increase during vaporization would
>> require a molecule to accelerate itself. Self acceleration may
>> violate conservation of momentum.
>
>What talked about selfaccelerating ?
>

How did a gas molecule acquire both speed (because of slightly higher
temperature in the 'frame of resting ball,' and heat of vaporization?
The extra speed seems to be the result of self-acceleration.

>>
>> >> Heat of vaporization is a structure change, not a velocity change.
>> >> When a H2O liquid molecule converts to a gas molecule, the molecule's
>> >> gas 'structure' completely fills its external containment.
>> >
>> >It is structure AND velocity chnage.
>> >If not, than there is no change in potencial energy
>> >and no evaporization heat.
>> >
>> A molecular structure change is a type of PE change and molecule
>> compression can influence gas temperature.
>
>Compression forces would make gas condensation very difficult.
>

The instantaneous molecular energy change from liquid to gas included
the energy of producing a full size gas molecule. Therefore, the
instant molecular energy change that converts a gas to liquid must
occur WHILE THE GAS MOLECULE IS BIG.

>>
>> Complete evaporation at lower than boiling temperature indicates that
>> H2O structure can be more stable in gas form, than in liquid form. The
>> stability can enable the endothermic evaporation process.
>
>It is not about stability, but equilibrium.
>>

Boiling is not the result of water's vapor's contribution to pressure
applied gas pressure. (The concentration of steam in the gas above
water does not influence boiling point.)

Formation of a steam molecule (heat of vaporization) requires the
combination of heat from expansion of the new gas molecule and heat
energy from nearby liquid molecules, because evaporation is
endothermic.

>> What do you mean by escape jump?
>
>As simplification,
>water(l) molecules are binded by potential energy
>of van der Waals forces and hydrogen bonds.

Not true. Van der Waals has a different influence than the chemical
bonds. Near its BP, water is a polymer (multiple H2O units within the
molecules.)

"Theoretical models suggest that the average cluster may encompass as
many as 90 H2O molecules at 0°C, so that very cold water can be
thought of as a collection of ever-changing ice-like structures. At
70° C, the average cluster size is probably no greater than about 25."
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/aboutwater.html

The clusters can enable superheating. Nucleation sites can break up
polymeric water structures. Heat divided among multiple H2O units
within a molecule can become concentrated within a molecule with a
single H2O.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cluster

>It is like if a ball has enough KE, it able to escape
>the potential trap of the Earth.
>
>But for freedom, a part of KE is sacrifices.
>
>> Are you claiming that gas molecules move slower than liquid,
>
>YES and NO.
>
>> or that part of a liquid molecule's KE converts into gas structure
>energy?
>
>No, part of liq molecul KE goes to overcome potential hole,
>being trapped by cohesive bonds to other liquid molecules.
>
>> Thermal conductivity (k) of gases is a measure of conductivity, not
>> radiation or convection, albeit gas can have a heat of convection
>> coefficient. Conduction requires intermolecular transfers of heat and
>> ultimately conduction can produce uniform temperature. Heat
>> conduction among molecules is the opposite of inducing M-B temperature
>> distribution.
>
>I did have suspicion you still do not understand what temperature is.
>
>M-B distribution is about statistical distribution of KE of moleculs,
>not about temperature distribution.
>And not even spatial temperature distribution.
>

The inherent non-compliance of even a single gas molecule with
KE=1/2mv^2=3/2kT indicates that molecule temperature cannot be a
function of molecule speed.

I think elastic collisions do not change temperature. Therefore, a
statistical average of elastic collisions will not correlate with
temperature.

>>
>> >There are no temperature differences, as there is no temperature
>> >of single molecule. Temperature is macroscopic statical parameter.
>> >
>> I think a single ball can have temperature and velocity.
>
>Ball ? yes. Molecule ? No.
>

At every instant, every gas molecule has a precise temperature. In
the frame used to measure relativistic speed, the gas molecule has a
precise velocity. That velocity is not necessarily a function of
temperature.

>> What is the
>> theoretical reason that 1/2mv^2=3/2kT can or cannot apply on both a
>> macro (big elastic balls) and a molecular (small elastic balls) scale,
>> or both a large number and a small number of elastic balls?
>
>So, if you have 70 kg, moving 1 m/s,
>then is your temperature 1.93 x 10^24 K ?
>
>I am not sure, but Big Bang could envy you to be so hot.
>

If KE=1/2mv^2=3/2kT predicts that a 70kg ball has temperature
1.93x10^24K is invalid on a macro scale, then the application of the
equation on a molecular scale is also invalid.

Kinetic theory does not include compression energy, thus kinetic
theory does not include compression energy's ability to change
temperature, or force x distance response to piston movement.

Unless collisions in the 'frame of resting ball' are no longer
elastic, collisions within the 'frame of resting ball' will not change
temperature.

>
>> Are you are thinking that lack of intermolecular interaction stops
>> collisions, thus prevents conduction during collisions?
>
>No, neither KT suppose no interactions.
>Only no cohesive/repulsive interactions and only in ideal gas model.
>

What is the relation between cohesive/repulsive force and thermal
conduction during collisions?

>
>> Consider that
>> prevention of precipitation of ice (from M-B distribution) requires a
>> high frequency of, and a huge amount of intermolecular interaction
>> (collisions.)
>
>Try to count this frequency. It is really big.
>And there is huge amount of collisions.
>
>> >>
>> >> Note: Molecules with temperature due solely to pure mv^2 should not
>> >> store internal energy during a temperature change.
>> >
>> >Why not ?
>>
>> A kinetic gas theory scenario indicates that gas can cool during
>> expansion w/o a means of changing gas molecule velocity.
>
>Put your claim in proper context. Molecule velocity and
>molecule velocity wrt frame of reference where gas is in rest
>are 2 very different values.

I think a change in compresion energy will change gas temperature.
Elastic collisions wil not.

[richard....@comcast.net]

>I am not comfortable with the temperature changes that occur with
>kinetic molecules. Kinetic theory assumes elastic collisions. "The
>rapidly moving particles constantly collide among themselves and with
>the walls of the container. All these collisions are perfectly
>elastic"
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases
>
>Kinetic theory also assumes gas KE is a function of temperature. "The
>average kinetic energy of the gas particles depends only on the
>temperature of the system."
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases
>
>You claimed collisions located in the 'frame of resting ball,' can
>change temperature. I claim that frame does give elastic collisions
>the ability to change temperature.

Correction: I claim that frame does NOT give elastic collisions the

[Poutnik]

In article <a0s3m7pl2o56uil7b...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 02:18:01 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <mfd2k7hc8k9sistqa...@4ax.com>,
> >richard....@comcast.net says...
> >>
> >
> >> Reducing container size should not change elastic ball KE, unless a
> >> piston added energy. A statistical way of achieving this is to time
> >> the volume reduction to when the balls are only on one side of the

> >> container. ........

> >
> >Unfortunately piston always adds energy, because
> >it is too slow to stop before every molecule hit.
>
> You added a piston? I described volume reduction through random
> molecule motion, not a piston.

No, you have added a piston, at least to conversation. :-)
But I do not insist on it.

To avoid big confusion:
Kinetic theory say collisions are elastic
only for ideal monooatomic gas.
Otherwise energy of speed is being nonelastically converted
to/from rotation, vibration and excitation energy.

KT says potential energy of for ideal gas moleculs
is independent on position of other molecules.
For real gases,it adds into account
attractive forces between moleculs, but of limited range.

There is BIG difference in consequences of your theory and KT.
Calorimetric experiments can easily show a gas does not store energy,
In your theory most of work would be stored in potential energy of
compressed gas.

>
> A shutter (instead of a piston) could provide containment at 1/2
> volume. By chance, are you claiming that random motion CANNOT result
> in all molecules being in only one side of a container?

Not at all, I do not.

To avoid another confusion, KT says for case of ideal gas
its energy after isothermic compression is the same as before,
the mechanical work needed to compress gas is dissipated as
thermal energy of surrounding.
The shutter case does not need any energy for compression,
therefore no energy to dissipate.

> I used the scenario of shutter compression v. piston compression to
> show that the existence of a change in compression energy determines
> existence of heat production, v. change in speed in the 'frame of
> resting ball,' as a cause of heat production.

Exactly, I agree, I just do not agree with your interpretation.
According to KT, bigger compression itself does mean bigger energy.
Shutter does not add energy.
Piston does add energy, that is as heat dissipated to surrounding.

>
> With the shutter, gas collision energy does not change during gas
> compression and expansion. In reality, mechanical gas compression
> does require work (against the repulsive force between molecules) and
> results in a temperature increase.

I disagree.
Needed work for compresion DOES NOT require repulsive forces.
Imagine a room with vacuum without gravity,
full of very many many bouncing balls.

Calorimetry can easily confirm,
that difference between added work and dissipated heat
does not show stored compression energy.
For "very real" gas heat can be even bigger than the work.

> Kinetic theory does not recognize compression energy

Neither experiments recognize compression energy.

> and the 4 recognized intermolecular forces are
> ATTRACTIVE.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_force

KT say the same - IM forces are attractive.

>
>
> No macroscopic gas molecule collision is elastic.

Either macroscopi, either molecule, you have to choose.
Some of colisions ARE elastic.

> Colliding molecules
> cannot know if they are in the 'frame of resting ball,' or in a
> macroscopic frame.
>

It has nothing to do with the frames.

>
> In compression theory, NO collision is elastic. Surface drag
> (proportional to v^2) would dissipate the fan caused velocity (by
> means of inelastic collisions) each cycle.

It can be easily determined, if gas stores compression energy or not.

>
>
> In kinetic theory, random molecular motion can cause the reduction of
> volume. Therefore, compression energy is zero. The two do not seem
> equivalent.

Yes, stored compression energy - change of internal energy
- is zero for isothermic ideal gas compresion,
and can be even negative for real gas.

>
>
> I am not comfortable with the temperature changes that occur with
> kinetic molecules. Kinetic theory assumes elastic collisions.
> "The
> rapidly moving particles constantly collide among themselves and with
> the walls of the container. All these collisions are perfectly
> elastic"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases

For ideal monoatomic gas.

>
> Kinetic theory also assumes gas KE is a function of temperature. "The
> average kinetic energy of the gas particles depends only on the
> temperature of the system."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases

Yes.

>
> You claimed collisions located in the 'frame of resting ball,' can
> change temperature.

It is frame invariant.
All frame related schemas are just for clear picture.

As said below, any elastic object
bouncing against countermoving obstacle
gets increased its kinetic energy,
therefore temperature in case of moleculs an large numbers.

> I claim that frame does give elastic collisions
> the ability to change temperature.

I agree. they have such ability independent on the frame.

> If a collision can increase temperature.

How do you think matter balances temperature, if not by collisions ?

> than the collision can contribute to change of phase energy.

Sure, how do you thing the water gets boiling,
if not by collisons with fast atoms of the glassware (e.g. ) ?

> Elastic collisions cannot convert KE into phase change energy
> (heat of vaporization,) w/o violating the conservation of energy law.

Explain.

>
> I am not comfortable with a piston adding force x distance. Kinetic
> theory substitutes intermittent collisions in all kinetic equations
> that use force. Force x distance requires force along the entire
> distance. The time between collisions with a container is much
> greater than the time during (instantaneous) collisions.

Not at all, force x distance is basic school physics.
It is Integral of VectorOfForce times differencial of VectorOfPath.
And again, it is macroscopic value.

>
> "The time during collision of molecule with the container's wall is
> negligible as compared to the time between successive collisions."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases

This is understood incorrectly. It means for the single molecule,
not for all molecules and the wall.
Furthermore, time is irrelevant, inportant is path integral of force.

>
> Therefore, force x distance supplies ZERO energy.

DO YOU REALLY THINK SO ?
Any trivial experiment of tyre inflating show you the opposite.

Kinetic theory
> assumes zero compression energy. Piston velocity can supply KE and
> kinetic theory temperature is supposed to be a function of KE.
>
>

> Reducing volume of particles with elastic collisions requires no heat
> dissipation and no generation of heat. A shutter closes when random
> motion puts half the gas is on one side of a container.

As said below, no experiments confirm
such molecularstructural chnages.

> For kinetic molecules that are dipoles, a shutter could capture
> molecules with a small distance between dipoles. Subsequent expansion
> to original volume would require piston energy or conversion of KE, to
> pull the dipoles apart.

Sure, with such a case of real gas, energy wil be released due dipole
attraction, and will be needed back for expansion.
It does not mean it will not self expand,
only that the temperature decrease will be higher.

>
> The known intermolecular forces (dipoles, induced dipoles, ion-dipole,
> Van der Waals) are attractive and intimate. Compression of these
> attractive forces does not necessarily increase temperature (reducing
> distance between electrons does not change temperature.)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_force
>

I guess by intimate you mean short range.

> >
> The energy of the heat removed from gas, to make the process
> isothermal is less than the mechanical energy that compressed the gas.
> Therefore, isothermal compression results in more total energy than
> the gas had before compression.

In fact, is is often greater, because of attractive forces.

> >
> I suggested random movement caused all the gas molecules to be on one
> side of the container. Compression by means of random movement
> applies to kinetic aspects of a molecule, not the compression energy
> within each molecule.
> >

Sure, compression couses increase of temperature in adiabatic
conditions, and there are no observation of molecul structural changes,
nor energy being stored.

Also, gas spectrum would be pressure dependent, but is not.

Not counting the enormouse amount of energy released by compressing
moleculs.

> I was wrong. Collision duration makes collision density differ from
> pressure.

Colission density of course is not pressure, it is only related.
Duration is not important, what is important is momentum.

Not at all. Thye just hit each other very frequently.
Solid explosived react much faster than gases,
with detonation speed up to 9 km/s, i.e near Mach 30.

> >> Normally, boiling water directly converts heat energy from the burner
> >> into vaporization energy. A KE increase during vaporization would
> >> require a molecule to accelerate itself. Self acceleration may
> >> violate conservation of momentum.
> >

Speed distribution is in both liqued and gas.
In fact, boiling water INDIRECTLY converts heat energy

from the burner into vaporization energy.

Fastest moleculeas are leaving at almost any temperature.
The only difference is that at boiling point
the pressure of leaving molecules reaches the external pressure.
Why accelerate itself, if others accelerate you ?

> >
> How did a gas molecule acquire both speed (because of slightly higher
> temperature in the 'frame of resting ball,' and heat of vaporization?
> The extra speed seems to be the result of self-acceleration.

Temperature is frame invariant.

Speed is microparameter.
Heat energy is macroparameter.
Temperature is macroparameter.
It is good not to mix them.

> >
> The instantaneous molecular energy change from liquid to gas included
> the energy of producing a full size gas molecule.

It would not be enough, not even close.

Electromagnetic forces within molecul
are MUCH stronger than intermolecul forces.

Not counting the fact you would have to deal with lack of evidence
of huge molecular structure change.

Therefore NOTHING :)

> instant molecular energy change that converts a gas to liquid must
> occur WHILE THE GAS MOLECULE IS BIG.
>

> Formation of a steam molecule (heat of vaporization)

No formation needed, it is the same.

> requires the combination of
> heat from expansion of the new gas molecule

Unverified assertion. If gas molecule is bigger, than gas
would have totally different absorption spectra,
what is not confirmed.

> >
> >As simplification,
> >water(l) molecules are binded by potential energy
> >of van der Waals forces and hydrogen bonds.
>
> Not true. Van der Waals has a different influence than the chemical
> bonds.

Did you notice the word "and" ?

> Near its BP, water is a polymer (multiple H2O units within the
> molecules.)

Not exactly in sense what polymer means.

> >
> The inherent non-compliance of even a single gas molecule with
> KE=1/2mv^2=3/2kT indicates that molecule temperature cannot be a
> function of molecule speed.

No, it only indicate your misunderstanding of temperature definition.
v as mean value has little to do with v of single molecule.
How many people have average salory ?

>
> I think elastic collisions do not change temperature. Therefore, a
> statistical average of elastic collisions will not correlate with
> temperature.



> >>
> >> >There are no temperature differences, as there is no temperature
> >> >of single molecule. Temperature is macroscopic statical parameter.
> >> >
> >> I think a single ball can have temperature and velocity.
> >
> >Ball ? yes. Molecule ? No.
> >
> At every instant, every gas molecule has a precise temperature. In

Not at all.

> the frame used to measure relativistic speed, the gas molecule has a
> precise velocity.

Velocity ? yes.

> That velocity is not necessarily a function of temperature.

Not velocity, but probability of velocity is function of temperature.

>
> >> What is the
> >> theoretical reason that 1/2mv^2=3/2kT can or cannot apply on both a
> >> macro (big elastic balls) and a molecular (small elastic balls) scale,
> >> or both a large number and a small number of elastic balls?
> >
> >So, if you have 70 kg, moving 1 m/s,
> >then is your temperature 1.93 x 10^24 K ?
> >
> >I am not sure, but Big Bang could envy you to be so hot.
> >
> If KE=1/2mv^2=3/2kT predicts that a 70kg ball has temperature
> 1.93x10^24K is invalid on a macro scale, then the application of the
> equation on a molecular scale is also invalid.

No, it does not predict anyting like that.
It should only illustrate how big nonsense is applying it to single
macroobject.

Temperature is STATISTICAL value ralated to LARGE count of moleculs.
v in formula above is mean value.

>
> Kinetic theory does not include compression energy, thus kinetic
> theory does not include compression energy's ability to change
> temperature, or force x distance response to piston movement.

Incorrect conclusion.
I am afraid you mix 2 possible meaning of compression energy:
work needed to compressing gas
and supposed potencial energy

Added piston work as Force integrated over the path
directly increase KE of moleculs and gas gets warmer.

As oversimplified analogy,
if you throw 1000 balls moving 10 m/s
against incoming wall moving 1 m/s
there will be 1000 balls moving 12 m/s.

If you replace balls by molecules, you must see
gas gets warmer.

OTOH, according to your theory, expanding gas
would not need to get colder, as it would use its stored energy.

>
> Unless collisions in the 'frame of resting ball' are no longer
> elastic, collisions within the 'frame of resting ball' will not change
> temperature.

KT does not say real gas with multiatomic molecules
performs elastic colisions..

But even elastic collisions with moving border
DO change speed of balls/moleculs, therefore their KE,
and average of KE of moleculs is measure of temperature.

> >
> >> Are you are thinking that lack of intermolecular interaction stops
> >> collisions, thus prevents conduction during collisions?
> >
> >No, neither KT suppose no interactions.
> >Only no cohesive/repulsive interactions and only in ideal gas model.
> >
> What is the relation between cohesive/repulsive force and thermal
> conduction during collisions?

No relation, I was responding only to your ideas about KT.

>
> I think a change in compresion energy will change gas temperature.
> Elastic collisions wil not.

BTW I am curious how compression theory ( CT ) defines gas temperature,
or temperature at all.

Furthermore, it completely ignores known structure of matter
and properties of atoms. they cannot deliberately blow up, or shrink
down. And even if they could, it would be connected wit enormous
amount of needed or released energy, as heat and light.
Or even X-rays, if you consider gas of heavy metal vapours.





--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <sds4m7t0bjou757l6...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...
>
I am afraid that before even consideration gas compression theory,
you have to deal with fact
experimental observation of molecular and atom behavior
do not agree with compression idea.

some from many......

How would large gas molecules difuse accoss very small bores,
as they do ? such diffusion would be much faster for liquid
than for gas, but the opposite is observed.

How to deal with not observed energy stored in compression ?

How to model gas diffusion ?

How to deal with impossible to overcome conflict
with atomic spectrometry results ?

How to deal with need of very different model of quantum physics ?



--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <MPG.29cd39d...@news.eternal-september.org>,
pou...@privacy.invalid says...

>
> How to deal with not observed energy stored in compression ?

.........

>
> How to deal with need of very different model of quantum physics ?
>

E.g. not only storage of energy is observed,

but such storage, related to shrinking atomic sizes
is in sharp conflict in behavior of charged particles.

It would lead to strong opposite,
releasing of very big amount of energy,
as electron would have to go to lower energy state.

It would be also causing reincarnation of paradoxes
of classical EM theory on atomic level.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <MPG.29cd3b9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
pou...@privacy.invalid says...

>
> In article <MPG.29cd39d...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> pou...@privacy.invalid says...

> >

> E.g. not only storage of energy is observed,

is NOT observed.

>
> but such storage, related to shrinking atomic sizes
> is in sharp conflict in behavior of charged particles.
>
> It would lead to strong opposite,
> releasing of very big amount of energy,

> as electrons would have to go to lower energy state.

Also, there are no free lower energy states,
atoms of gas already are at baseline level.

[richard....@comcast.net]

>To avoid another confusion, KT says for case of ideal gas
>its energy after isothermic compression is the same as before,
>the mechanical work needed to compress gas is dissipated as
>thermal energy of surrounding.

Heat balance is not energy balance. For example, SCUBA tanks are
filled isothermally. Underwater filling prevents over-heat. I think
the tank's compressed gas energy is much greater than original energy.
I think that through isothermal expansion, the gas can perform
mechanical work, as the gas returns to original energy, pressure and
temperature.

Is my understanding of what you wrote above correct? Do you think
that isothermally compressed gas (similar to within a filled SCUBA
tank) has the same energy as before compression?

[Poutnik]

In article <0gmcm75f3nmp8mume...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
> >To avoid another confusion, KT says for case of ideal gas
> >its energy after isothermic compression is the same as before,
> >the mechanical work needed to compress gas is dissipated as
> >thermal energy of surrounding.
>
> Heat balance is not energy balance.

Heat is not energy ?

> For example, SCUBA tanks are filled isothermally.

Not true. But it does not matter so much. Important is final state
of the same temeperature.

> Underwater filling prevents over-heat.

It is not filled underwater, but never mind, it is not relevant.

> I think
> the tank's compressed gas energy is much greater than original energy.

Why ?

> I think that through isothermal expansion, the gas can perform
> mechanical work, as the gas returns to original energy, pressure and
> temperature.

Sure it perform work.
And since it is isothermally, it is so slow, that all energy given to
work is added back from surrounding.


SCUBA tanks are not good example,
as gas compressed at such a pressure is far from ideal gas behavior.
Volume of moleculs plays role, so does potential energy of moleculs
starts to become dependent on other ones.

>
> Is my understanding of what you wrote above correct? Do you think
> that isothermally compressed gas (similar to within a filled SCUBA
> tank) has the same energy as before compression?

Yes, the same, or almost the same,
depending on state equation of real gas.
It can have even lower energy, e.g. in case of Carbon dioxide.


--
Poutnik

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:52:24 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <sds4m7t0bjou757l6...@4ax.com>,
>richard....@comcast.net says...
>>
>I am afraid that before even consideration gas compression theory,
>you have to deal with fact
>experimental observation of molecular and atom behavior
>do not agree with compression idea.
>
>some from many......
>
>How would large gas molecules difuse accoss very small bores,
>as they do ? such diffusion would be much faster for liquid
>than for gas, but the opposite is observed.

Compared to liquid gas molecules are bigger, have lower viscosity,
higher pliability (conformal) and less density. Is there anything
about compression theory that would make you think otherwise?

>
>How to deal with not observed energy stored in compression ?

Energy is stored during compression. SCUBA tanks are filled
isothermally. The cool filled tank has a lot of compression energy.

>
>How to model gas diffusion ?

It is about time we start modeling gas diffusion on the basis of
stationary molecules. I plan to, but need to talk more about
molecular structure first.

>
>How to deal with impossible to overcome conflict
>with atomic spectrometry results ?

What conflict?

>
>How to deal with need of very different model of quantum physics ?

Yes! Kinetic theory offers little on the energy changes that are
between quantized changes. Little is said about the physical
structure of each energy state. I plan to fill in the gaps, but we
have to be on the same wavelength.

To start with, compression energy exists. Therefore gas molecules
have large size. If you accept that, then I'll proceed to the
implications.

[Poutnik]

In article <beocm7l2mv7va9dd3...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:52:24 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <sds4m7t0bjou757l6...@4ax.com>,
> >richard....@comcast.net says...
> >>
> >I am afraid that before even consideration gas compression theory,
> >you have to deal with fact
> >experimental observation of molecular and atom behavior
> >do not agree with compression idea.
> >
> >some from many......
> >
> >How would large gas molecules difuse accoss very small bores,
> >as they do ? such diffusion would be much faster for liquid
> >than for gas, but the opposite is observed.
>
> Compared to liquid gas molecules are bigger, have lower viscosity,
> higher pliability (conformal) and less density. Is there anything
> about compression theory that would make you think otherwise?
> >
> >How to deal with not observed energy stored in compression ?
>
> Energy is stored during compression. SCUBA tanks are filled
> isothermally. The cool filled tank has a lot of compression energy.

No, it is not. All energy stored by work is dissipated as heat
( but minor differences of both signs,
depending on gas and conditions )

OTOH, all energy released is on expense of heat energy of gas.
but the same difference as above.

> >
> >How to model gas diffusion ?
>
> It is about time we start modeling gas diffusion on the basis of
> stationary molecules. I plan to, but need to talk more about
> molecular structure first.
> >
> >How to deal with impossible to overcome conflict
> >with atomic spectrometry results ?
>
> What conflict?

Disagreement with atomic and molecular spectra
will break compression theory apart.
They would have to be pressure dependnt, but they are not.

The theory would also have to explain,
why gas does not emit light or UV,
depending on pressure and gas,
and why released heat is so small.

> >
> >How to deal with need of very different model of quantum physics ?
>
> Yes! Kinetic theory offers little on the energy changes that are
> between quantized changes. Little is said about the physical
> structure of each energy state. I plan to fill in the gaps, but we
> have to be on the same wavelength.

There are no such gaps.
Remember there are QM variant of kinetic theory,
taking into acount quantized rotation and vibration energy,
for specific heat to be concerned.

>
> To start with, compression energy exists.

No but small amout of both signs due real behavior, as said above.

> Therefore gas molecules have large size.

Therefore they have not.
Experiments explude possibility of variable molecule size.

> If you accept that, then I'll proceed to the implications.

--
Poutnik

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:59:49 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

The classical EM theory is dead wrong on a molecular and an atomic
level.

Before resolving the paradoxes and describing a (non-electron)
replacement for EM theory, let us start with something simple; a
description of problems with the relation between electrons and
voltage.

1. The charges responsible for a capacitor's electrostatic energy have
ZERO (not near zero) influence (expected from kqq/r) on the
capacitor's other electrons and protons.

2.Connecting capacitors or batteries in series will INCREASE voltage,
w/o increasing electron or hole concentration within any of the
individual capacitors or batteries. That means charge concentration
is not the cause of voltage. It also means that charged capacitors do
not contain concentrated electrons or holes. How can current be a
flow of electrons when there are no excess of electrons on one side,
and excess of holes on the other side?

3. Separation of a capacitor's charges into an external circuit
requires energy. Therefore, (theoretically) a capacitor's charges
will remain in the capacitor and not discharge through an external
circuit.

4. The addition of (capacitor) plates to a charged piece of Styrofoam
does not change electron concentration within the plates. Otherwise,
the addition of plates must convert ALL the electrostatic energy
within the Styrofoam into potential energy due to force between
charges within the plates.

The plates will instantly assume the volts across any replacement
charged piece of Styrofoam, w/o electrostatic energy loss, gain, or
relocation (the electrostatic energy remains within the Styrofoam).
Adding plates to charged Styrofoam is equivalent to adding a
voltmeter. Electrostatic energy can also reside in a vacuum.

5. Every electron that passes through a resistor must simultaneously
produce charge separation (volts), magnetic energy, and thermal
energy. Impossible

PS, problems with the relation between magnetism and current

Maxwell and Ampere predicted that magnetism within a circuit is a
function of current. An inductor within a LC circuit can have high
magnetism AND zero current. Page 296 of the following reference
describes a LC circuit.
http://books.google.com/books?id=o6pn1Pdas1UC&pg=PA312&lpg=PA312&dq=%22current+reverses%22+oscillator&source=bl&ots=WdtSgqwLOU&sig=y0sQJwMt7lc0_RAIKJqWYvwBNEo&hl=en&ei=mEsiTtWiB8T40gGu4ajcAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22current%20reverses%22%20oscillator&f=false

Notice that the direction of energy conversion is a function of the
relative polarity of the capacitor and the inductor. Anytime the
polarity of volts applied to an inductor is the same polarity as the
inductor, electrostatic energy converts to magnetic energy until
exhaustion. Anytime volts applied to the inductor is opposite the
polarity of the inductor, magnetic energy converts to electrostatic
energy until exhaustion.

Therefore, applying continuous ZERO volts to an inductor should result
in no conversion of magnetic energy, regardless of the quantity of
magnetic energy in the inductor.

Therefore, in theory, adding an uncharged series resistor to a charged
inductor will INITIALLY convert zero magnetic energy to electrostatic
energy. Soon afterwards, the resistor's current will SLOWLY increase
FROM ZERO to a higher level. The rate of conversion is a function of
the resistor's capacitance and the inductor's inductance (as described
in the LC circuit). In other words, there is a conflict between
current corresponding to magnetic energy stored in the inductor (E =
1/2 LI^2), versus initial zero current within an added resistor.

Note: While initial current through the resistor is slowly increasing
above zero, magnetic energy is slowly decreasing.

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 23:53:18 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <0gmcm75f3nmp8mume...@4ax.com>,
>richard....@comcast.net says...
>>
>> >To avoid another confusion, KT says for case of ideal gas
>> >its energy after isothermic compression is the same as before,
>> >the mechanical work needed to compress gas is dissipated as
>> >thermal energy of surrounding.
>>
>> Heat balance is not energy balance.
>
>Heat is not energy ?
>
>> For example, SCUBA tanks are filled isothermally.
>
>Not true. But it does not matter so much. Important is final state
>of the same temeperature.
>
>> Underwater filling prevents over-heat.
>
>It is not filled underwater, but never mind, it is not relevant.

My sister owns a skin diving shop and she profits comes from filling
tanks for divers. The tanks do get hot and MUST be filled under
water.

>
>> I think
>> the tank's compressed gas energy is much greater than original energy.
>
>Why ?

Sorry, I thought it was intuitive that adiabatic expansion of
compressed air could be harnessed as work.

For example, a single compressed air tank can power a car for a
distance of 100 miles
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/vehicles/air-car3.htm

>
>> I think that through isothermal expansion, the gas can perform
>> mechanical work, as the gas returns to original energy, pressure and
>> temperature.
>
>Sure it perform work.
>And since it is isothermally, it is so slow, that all energy given to
>work is added back from surrounding.

With speed as a goal, the proper engine desing can rapidly release the
energy in an air powered car's air tank.

>
>
>SCUBA tanks are not good example,
>as gas compressed at such a pressure is far from ideal gas behavior.
>Volume of moleculs plays role, so does potential energy of moleculs
>starts to become dependent on other ones.

Perhaps the car is a better example.

[Poutnik]

In article <22qcm71o0586384ea...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:59:49 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <MPG.29cd39d...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >pou...@privacy.invalid says...
> >>
> >> How to deal with not observed energy stored in compression ?
> >.........
> >>
> >> How to deal with need of very different model of quantum physics ?
> >>
> >E.g. not only storage of energy is observed,
> >
> >but such storage, related to shrinking atomic sizes
> >is in sharp conflict in behavior of charged particles.
> >
> >It would lead to strong opposite,
> >releasing of very big amount of energy,
> >as electron would have to go to lower energy state.
> >
> >It would be also causing reincarnation of paradoxes
> >of classical EM theory on atomic level.
>
> The classical EM theory is dead wrong on a molecular and an atomic
> level.

That is exactly the reason why I have mentioned that.

>
> Before resolving the paradoxes and describing a (non-electron)
> replacement for EM theory, let us start with something simple; a

Now here you leave reality and come to dream land, no offence.

> description of problems with the relation between electrons and
> voltage.
>
> 1. The charges responsible for a capacitor's electrostatic energy have
> ZERO (not near zero) influence (expected from kqq/r) on the
> capacitor's other electrons and protons.

Really ? Than why a capacitor needs more and more energy
for being charges by the same amont of a charge,
depending on charge already present ?

If it is like you say, the capacitor energy would grow linear with a
change, and not quadratically as observed.

It is not wise to create hypothesis, being conflict with observations
since the start.

>
> 2.Connecting capacitors or batteries in series will INCREASE voltage,
> w/o increasing electron or hole concentration within any of the
> individual capacitors or batteries. That means charge concentration
> is not the cause of voltage.

Does unchanges amount of charge change the voltage of a single
capacitor ? No. So you idea is incorrect, it is simple addition of

voltage.

> It also means that charged capacitors do
> not contain concentrated electrons or holes.

therefore its consequences are flawed, I am afraid.

> How can current be a
> flow of electrons when there are no excess of electrons on one side,
> and excess of holes on the other side?

and this too.

>
> 3. Separation of a capacitor's charges into an external circuit
> requires energy. Therefore, (theoretically) a capacitor's charges
> will remain in the capacitor and not discharge through an external
> circuit.

Well, did you ever touched a charged Leiden flash, using your body
as an external circuit ?
Please, keep touch with observations while creating hypothesis.

>
> 4. The addition of (capacitor) plates to a charged piece of Styrofoam
> does not change electron concentration within the plates.

It does.

> Otherwise,
> the addition of plates must convert ALL the electrostatic energy
> within the Styrofoam into potential energy due to force between
> charges within the plates.

It need not.
And, every charged body has its potential energy
depending on electrostatic potential.

The rest is not needed to be evaluated, you should start
from beginning.

>
> The plates will instantly assume the volts across any replacement
> charged piece of Styrofoam, w/o electrostatic energy loss, gain, or
> relocation (the electrostatic energy remains within the Styrofoam).
> Adding plates to charged Styrofoam is equivalent to adding a
> voltmeter. Electrostatic energy can also reside in a vacuum.
>
> 5. Every electron that passes through a resistor must simultaneously
> produce charge separation (volts), magnetic energy, and thermal
> energy. Impossible
>
> PS, problems with the relation between magnetism and current

I am afraid only in understanding, no offence.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <5r1dm7p2hl03k3c6s...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>

> >> Underwater filling prevents over-heat.
> >
> >It is not filled underwater, but never mind, it is not relevant.
>
> My sister owns a skin diving shop and she profits comes from filling
> tanks for divers. The tanks do get hot and MUST be filled under
> water.

OK, I am not diver, it may be needed, depending on speed of filling.
But only the final state is relevant, not the way to reach it.

> >
> >> I think
> >> the tank's compressed gas energy is much greater than original energy.
> >
> >Why ?
>
> Sorry, I thought it was intuitive that adiabatic expansion of
> compressed air could be harnessed as work.

Sure it is, in expense of heat energy of air moleculs.
air gets colder immediately, for free air in atmosphere it is
about 1 K per 100 meters of increased high.

>
> For example, a single compressed air tank can power a car for a
> distance of 100 miles
> http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/vehicles/air-car3.htm

Well, work stored at isothermic compression of ideal gas is
W = P2 . V2 * ln ( p2/p1 )
for V = 0.05 m3 and p2 15 MPa the work done is about 3.75 MJ,
comparable to 1 L of petrol. For air it will be probably somewhaty
higher. this work gets dissipated as heat.

>
> >
> >> I think that through isothermal expansion, the gas can perform
> >> mechanical work, as the gas returns to original energy, pressure and
> >> temperature.

Not only can, but does. The difference between idiabatic and isothermic
expansion is, that the workk is done at expense of gas heat energy in
the former, and at expense of surrounding heat energy in the latter.

> >
> >Sure it perform work.
> >And since it is isothermally, it is so slow, that all energy given to
> >work is added back from surrounding.
>
> With speed as a goal, the proper engine desing can rapidly release the
> energy in an air powered car's air tank.

than it is not isothermic, but never mind, all it is about
where the gas takes the heat energy for work to be done.

--
Poutnik

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:01:35 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <5r1dm7p2hl03k3c6s...@4ax.com>,
>richard....@comcast.net says...
>>
>
>> >> Underwater filling prevents over-heat.
>> >
>> >It is not filled underwater, but never mind, it is not relevant.
>>
>> My sister owns a skin diving shop and she profits comes from filling
>> tanks for divers. The tanks do get hot and MUST be filled under
>> water.
>
>OK, I am not diver, it may be needed, depending on speed of filling.
>But only the final state is relevant, not the way to reach it.
>> >
>> >> I think
>> >> the tank's compressed gas energy is much greater than original energy.
>> >
>> >Why ?
>>
>> Sorry, I thought it was intuitive that adiabatic expansion of
>> compressed air could be harnessed as work.
>
>Sure it is, in expense of heat energy of air moleculs.
>air gets colder immediately, for free air in atmosphere it is
>about 1 K per 100 meters of increased high.
>

During adiabatic compression, a piston converts force x distance into
two types of energy, gas compression energy, and internal energy. The
gas's increase in heat energy equals the amount of heat energy removed
during isothermal compression. The remaining compression energy can
propel a car 100 miles.

During the 100-mile drive, the internal energy change during gas
expansion should approximately equal (in magnitude) the internal
energy change during compression. In other words, the contribution
from internal energy is small, compared to stored compression energy.
Any change in compression energy causes a change in internal energy
and vice versa. However, as shown in the case of piston compression,
the added compression energy does not necessarily equal added internal
energy. Compression energy is not internal energy. The difference in
type of energy between compression energy and internal energy is as
fundamental as the difference between KE and internal energy.

[Poutnik]

In article <1b3hm75r03dtdeof8...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
> >
> >Sure it is, in expense of heat energy of air moleculs.
> >air gets colder immediately, for free air in atmosphere it is
> >about 1 K per 100 meters of increased high.
> >
> During adiabatic compression, a piston converts force x distance into
> two types of energy, gas compression energy, and internal energy.

Unless it is external energy, it must be internal energy.
But it is none of that.

All energy is converted to heat energy = kinetic energy of molecules.

> gas's increase in heat energy equals the amount of heat energy removed
> during isothermal compression.

Exactly.

> The remaining compression energy can propel a car 100 miles.

There are almost no remains.
The remains due nonideality are too small for that by several orders.

You can verify that
by calorimetric measurements, compared to added work.

>
> During the 100-mile drive, the internal energy change during gas
> expansion should approximately equal (in magnitude) the internal
> energy change during compression.

During expansion heat energy of compressed gas is spent for work to be
done, and by isotropic process
( any process between the opposite extremes isothermic and adiabatic )
this heat energy is slowly regained from the surrounding.

Again, you can verify that by calorimetric measurements,
compared to done work.

> In other words, the contribution
> from internal energy is small, compared to stored compression energy.

Compression energy, if had existed,
would have been form of internal energy.

> Any change in compression energy causes a change in internal energy
> and vice versa.

True, if had existed, as the former would be part of the latter

> However, as shown in the case of piston compression,
> the added compression energy does not necessarily equal added internal
> energy. Compression energy is not internal energy. The difference in
> type of energy between compression energy and internal energy is as
> fundamental as the difference between KE and internal energy.

I guess we will not agree in what is internal energy.
We have to use the same meaning for the same term.

As I said before, compression HYPOTHESIS can be easily
falsified by non-agreement of calorimetric and mechanic measurements,
as there is lack of the "lost" energy,
stored as potential compression energy.


--
Poutnik

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:46:43 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <1b3hm75r03dtdeof8...@4ax.com>,
>richard....@comcast.net says...
>>
>> >
>> >Sure it is, in expense of heat energy of air moleculs.
>> >air gets colder immediately, for free air in atmosphere it is
>> >about 1 K per 100 meters of increased high.
>> >
>> During adiabatic compression, a piston converts force x distance into
>> two types of energy, gas compression energy, and internal energy.
>
>Unless it is external energy, it must be internal energy.
>But it is none of that.
>
>All energy is converted to heat energy = kinetic energy of molecules.
>

One could directly add an equivalent amount of heat energy (instead of
piston energy) to the original gas, and then remove the heat energy
(to make the process isothermal.) Would the resulting gas have enough
energy to propel a car 100 miles?

Kinetic theory equations do not account for compression energy.

[Poutnik]

In article <0e1jm71q85ab9msd5...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:46:43 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <1b3hm75r03dtdeof8...@4ax.com>,
> >richard....@comcast.net says...
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Sure it is, in expense of heat energy of air moleculs.
> >> >air gets colder immediately, for free air in atmosphere it is
> >> >about 1 K per 100 meters of increased high.
> >> >
> >> During adiabatic compression, a piston converts force x distance into
> >> two types of energy, gas compression energy, and internal energy.
> >
> >Unless it is external energy, it must be internal energy.
> >But it is none of that.
> >
> >All energy is converted to heat energy = kinetic energy of molecules.
> >
> One could directly add an equivalent amount of heat energy (instead of
> piston energy) to the original gas, and then remove the heat energy
> (to make the process isothermal.) Would the resulting gas have enough
> energy to propel a car 100 miles?

Does added heat shrink the gas by the same way ?
If not, than it is not equivalent operation.

>
> Kinetic theory equations do not account for compression energy.

Sure, it does not exist in sense of potential energy,
unless small amount for unideality. It exists only
in sense of added mechanical energy, that is converted.

Your hypothesis must agree with all known experiments.
Calorimetry easily refute your hypothesis.


--
Poutnik

[poutni...@gmail.com]

This is short comment about speed distribution and kinetic gas theory:

Lets have 2 balls/monoatomic molecules of the same mass
and initial speed and kinetic energy.

After elastic collission they keep
the same speed and kinetic energy

IF AND ONLY IF

the collision is symmetrical.

E.g.
frontal collision, optionally with offset
general angle collision with mutual symmetrical approaching.

For general collison with general timing
the mutual hitting angles differ
with respect to direction of movement.

Therefore there are asymmetrical changes of kinetic energy,
with keeping total momentum and kinetic energy constant.

wi

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:52:35 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>

wrote:

>In article <0e1jm71q85ab9msd5...@4ax.com>,
>richard....@comcast.net says...
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:46:43 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1b3hm75r03dtdeof8...@4ax.com>,
>> >richard....@comcast.net says...
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Sure it is, in expense of heat energy of air moleculs.
>> >> >air gets colder immediately, for free air in atmosphere it is
>> >> >about 1 K per 100 meters of increased high.
>> >> >
>> >> During adiabatic compression, a piston converts force x distance into
>> >> two types of energy, gas compression energy, and internal energy.
>> >
>> >Unless it is external energy, it must be internal energy.
>> >But it is none of that.
>> >
>> >All energy is converted to heat energy = kinetic energy of molecules.
>> >
>> One could directly add an equivalent amount of heat energy (instead of
>> piston energy) to the original gas, and then remove the heat energy
>> (to make the process isothermal.) Would the resulting gas have enough
>> energy to propel a car 100 miles?
>
>Does added heat shrink the gas by the same way ?
>If not, than it is not equivalent operation.
>>

Conversion of gas compression energy to piston movement energy has no
heat sink requirement. The gas can become cold and remain cold. In
other words, zero internal energy conversion to piston movement
energy.

[Poutnik]

In article <5k6km7l7i2epbslga...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:52:35 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <0e1jm71q85ab9msd5...@4ax.com>,
> >richard....@comcast.net says...
> >>
> >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:46:43 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <1b3hm75r03dtdeof8...@4ax.com>,
> >> >richard....@comcast.net says...
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Sure it is, in expense of heat energy of air moleculs.
> >> >> >air gets colder immediately, for free air in atmosphere it is
> >> >> >about 1 K per 100 meters of increased high.
> >> >> >
> >> >> During adiabatic compression, a piston converts force x distance into
> >> >> two types of energy, gas compression energy, and internal energy.
> >> >
> >> >Unless it is external energy, it must be internal energy.
> >> >But it is none of that.
> >> >
> >> >All energy is converted to heat energy = kinetic energy of molecules.
> >> >
> >> One could directly add an equivalent amount of heat energy (instead of
> >> piston energy) to the original gas, and then remove the heat energy
> >> (to make the process isothermal.) Would the resulting gas have enough
> >> energy to propel a car 100 miles?
> >
> >Does added heat shrink the gas by the same way ?
> >If not, than it is not equivalent operation.
> >>
> Conversion of gas compression energy to piston movement energy has no
> heat sink requirement.

As there is no gas compression energy, it does not it.

> The gas can become cold and remain cold.

Not only can, it has to, as heat is its only energy source.

> In other words, zero internal energy conversion to piston movement
> energy.

If compression energy had existed,
it would have been gas internal energy.

Calorimetric measurement of gas expansion will show you,
all gas energy spent on expansion is being retrieved back.
from surrounding.

>
> >> Kinetic theory equations do not account for compression energy.
> >
> >Sure, it does not exist in sense of potential energy,
> >unless small amount for unideality. It exists only
> >in sense of added mechanical energy, that is converted.
> >
> >Your hypothesis must agree with all known experiments.
> >Calorimetry easily refute your hypothesis.

--
Poutnik

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:17:05 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>

I question the nature of elastic collisions. During gas expansion
(into a vacuum,) every gas molecule cools. Can you describe how
elastic collisions result in all molecules cooling?

[Poutnik]

In article <magkm79bu5lrsq9qi...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>

>
> I question the nature of elastic collisions.

> During gas expansion (into a vacuum,) every gas molecule cools.

> Can you describe how
> elastic collisions result in all molecules cooling?

I would question your understanding of what is temperature.

The statement above it not true,
as temperature for single molecule is not defined.
Many of them will move even faster than befory,
yet still small minority.

But, if you consider expansion to vacuum,
the "outer gas" between "inner gas" and vacuum
plays a role of expanding piston,
toward which the inner gas performs work.

Inner gas molecules are pushing outer gas layers,
giving them kinetic energy in expanse of own heat.

Because molecules, returning from pushing of leaving "air wall",
are moving more slowly, than when flying to push.

It is the same as if a tennis ball would be thrown
against a wall moving away.
It would be returned at slower speed.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <MPG.29d46d3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
pou...@privacy.invalid says...

>
> In article <magkm79bu5lrsq9qi...@4ax.com>,
> richard....@comcast.net says...
> >
>
> >
> > I question the nature of elastic collisions.
>
> > During gas expansion (into a vacuum,) every gas molecule cools.
>
> > Can you describe how
> > elastic collisions result in all molecules cooling?
>

.......

>
> But, if you consider expansion to vacuum,
> the "outer gas" between "inner gas" and vacuum
> plays a role of expanding piston,
> toward which the inner gas performs work.
>
> Inner gas molecules are pushing outer gas layers,
> giving them kinetic energy in expanse of own heat.
>

OTOH, compression hypothesis does not need expense of heat energy,
as it says energy is stored as potential enetgy of compressed moleculs.

So, gas should not cool itself, or could even get slightly warmer, as
by friction part of potential energy should be converted to heat.

The hypothesis shoould also explain, why molecule structure
measurements, based on spectroskopy of various kind,
are not pressure independent.

And calorimetry issue persists.

I do not see anything supporting this hypothesis.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <MPG.29d46fe...@news.eternal-september.org>,
pou...@privacy.invalid says...

ERRATA:

......

> The hypothesis shoould also explain, why molecule structure

> measurements, based on spectroscopy of various kind,
> are not pressure independent.

.... are not pressure DEPENDENT.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <magkm79bu5lrsq9qi...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...
>

> >If compression energy had existed,
> >it would have been gas internal energy.
>
> I question the nature of elastic collisions. During gas expansion
> (into a vacuum,) every gas molecule cools. Can you describe how
> elastic collisions result in all molecules cooling?
> >

Note that for atoms gets compressed,
there is needed pressure many orders higher than you suppose.
You need a gravity of collapsing star.

--
Poutnik

[poutni...@gmail.com]

Dne středa, 21. března 2012 19:02:55 UTC+1 poutni...@gmail.com napsal(a):

>

> Therefore there are asymmetrical changes of kinetic energy,
> with keeping total momentum and kinetic energy constant.
>

If one molecule frontally hits the other
directly from right angle to its movement,
the former stops, and the latter overtakes
all the momentum and kinetic energy.

Then, EVEN IF there had been uniform initial molecule speed
for given temperature, it would have quickly redistributed itself
according some statistical distribution.

It was mathematically proven to be Boltzmann-Maxwell one.

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:14:13 -0700 (PDT), poutni...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Dne st?eda, 21. b?ezna 2012 19:02:55 UTC+1 poutni...@gmail.com napsal(a):

Given, a gas with identical molecules, identical initial speed and
random directions. None of the (elastic) collisions between any two
molecules should result in higher than original speed, abeit direction
can change.

Billiard ball collisions may differ from molecule collisions. The cue
ball adds energy to other balls, including energy from side english.
In molecules with equal mass and speed, the collisions are more like a
cue balls hitting cue balls. The cue balls exchange an equal amount
of energy.

Side english, is not equivalent to degrees of freedom.
http://www.jimloy.com/billiard/phys.htm

[Poutnik]

In article <igbpm71ako0eo63ks...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:14:13 -0700 (PDT), poutni...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >Dne st?eda, 21. b?ezna 2012 19:02:55 UTC+1 poutni...@gmail.com napsal(a):
> >>
> >
> >> Therefore there are asymmetrical changes of kinetic energy,
> >> with keeping total momentum and kinetic energy constant.
> >>
> >If one molecule frontally hits the other
> >directly from right angle to its movement,
> >the former stops, and the latter overtakes
> >all the momentum and kinetic energy.
> >
> >Then, EVEN IF there had been uniform initial molecule speed
> >for given temperature, it would have quickly redistributed itself
> >according some statistical distribution.
> >
> >It was mathematically proven to be Boltzmann-Maxwell one.
>
> Given, a gas with identical molecules, identical initial speed and
> random directions. None of the (elastic) collisions between any two
> molecules should result in higher than original speed, abeit direction
> can change.

I am afraid this is your fatal mistake,
based on basic school examples.

It is correct for SYMMETRICAL collisions.

You seem have not read or understood my recent posts.

For asymmetrical collisions
one ball is slowed down,
and the other speeded up.

Imagine yourself such a collision
one molecule hit the other
into its rear hemisphere
by its front hemisphere.

The former is speeded up,
the latter is slowed down.

It is basic vector arithmetics.

I could provide you Excel simulation sheet,
where the resulting speed can vary
from zero speed to sqrt(2) * orig. speed.

The molecules can interchange kinetic energy in any ratio,
yeat still preserve total kinetic energy and linear momentum.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <MPG.29d72ea...@news.eternal-september.org>,
pou...@privacy.invalid says...

> Imagine yourself such a collision
> one molecule hit the other
> into its rear hemisphere
> by its front hemisphere.
>
> The former is speeded up,
> the latter is slowed down.
>
> It is basic vector arithmetics.
>

Or imagine it hits the other directly in right angle
in both senses of movement direction and hit point.

The result is the same
as for Newton hanging balls pendulum,
with the difference the ball
being hit has also tangential speed.

So, in case of speed ( 1, 0 ) hitting ball
and ( 0, 1 ) of being hit ball,

the former ends with ( 0,0 ) and latter as ( 1, 1 )
keping total linear momentum ( 1, 1 )
and kinetical energy 2 * 0.5 * m.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <igbpm71ako0eo63ks...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...
>

>

> Billiard ball collisions may differ from molecule collisions. The cue
> ball adds energy to other balls, including energy from side english.
> In molecules with equal mass and speed, the collisions are more like a
> cue balls hitting cue balls. The cue balls exchange an equal amount
> of energy.
>

For balls ideal case I suppose zero friction,
so zero torsion due tangential forces.

I have intentionally omottined the rotation of moleculs,
as it is quantizied, in opposite to linear movement.

Linear and angular speed and related energies can mutually convert,
respecting both momentum conservation laws
and total kinetic energy conservation law for elastic collisions.

But overall net effect of rotation to speed is zero.


--
Poutnik

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:57:43 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <magkm79bu5lrsq9qi...@4ax.com>,
>richard....@comcast.net says...
>>
>
>>
>> I question the nature of elastic collisions.
>
>> During gas expansion (into a vacuum,) every gas molecule cools.
>
>> Can you describe how
>> elastic collisions result in all molecules cooling?
>
>I would question your understanding of what is temperature.
>
>The statement above it not true,
>as temperature for single molecule is not defined.
>Many of them will move even faster than befory,
>yet still small minority.
>

Yes, kinetic theory claims temperature is a function of M-B
distribution. How do elastic collisions result in cooling during
expansion?

>But, if you consider expansion to vacuum,
>the "outer gas" between "inner gas" and vacuum
>plays a role of expanding piston,
>toward which the inner gas performs work.
>
>Inner gas molecules are pushing outer gas layers,
>giving them kinetic energy in expanse of own heat.
>

Are you saying that after an inner molecule collides with an outer gas
layer, the slowed inner-gas molecule is cool, and the accelerated
outer layer molecule temperature did not increase?

>Because molecules, returning from pushing of leaving "air wall",
>are moving more slowly, than when flying to push.
>
>It is the same as if a tennis ball would be thrown
>against a wall moving away.
>It would be returned at slower speed.

You seem to be saying that inner molecules accelerate an air wall.
Perhaps the same collision that cools an inner molecule must
accelerate a molecule in the air wall, w/o heating the air wall. I
claim expansion changes collision density, not necessarily collision
energy distribution.

[Poutnik]

In article <n7bqm7latbji0jis9...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:57:43 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <magkm79bu5lrsq9qi...@4ax.com>,
> >richard....@comcast.net says...
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> I question the nature of elastic collisions.
> >
> >> During gas expansion (into a vacuum,) every gas molecule cools.
> >
> >> Can you describe how
> >> elastic collisions result in all molecules cooling?
> >
> >I would question your understanding of what is temperature.
> >
> >The statement above it not true,
> >as temperature for single molecule is not defined.
> >Many of them will move even faster than befory,
> >yet still small minority.
> >
> Yes, kinetic theory claims temperature is a function of M-B
> distribution.

No, exactly the opposite.

> How do elastic collisions result in cooling during
> expansion?

I have already explained this.

>
> >But, if you consider expansion to vacuum,
> >the "outer gas" between "inner gas" and vacuum
> >plays a role of expanding piston,
> >toward which the inner gas performs work.
> >
> >Inner gas molecules are pushing outer gas layers,
> >giving them kinetic energy in expanse of own heat.
> >
> Are you saying that after an inner molecule collides with an outer gas
> layer, the slowed inner-gas molecule is cool, and the accelerated
> outer layer molecule temperature did not increase?

Do not mix temperature and speed of particular molecule.
And, do not mix gas speed and speed of moleculs.

Also remember, that every molecule is here simulataneously
inner and outer.

>
> >Because molecules, returning from pushing of leaving "air wall",
> >are moving more slowly, than when flying to push.
> >
> >It is the same as if a tennis ball would be thrown
> >against a wall moving away.
> >It would be returned at slower speed.
>
> You seem to be saying that inner molecules accelerate an air wall.
> Perhaps the same collision that cools an inner molecule must
> accelerate a molecule in the air wall, w/o heating the air wall.

slows <> cools
micro <> macro

Remember that the gas mass is expanding in every point.
And, every elastic ball bounciong the leaving obstacle gets ( in
average ) slowed itself, compared to standing obstacle.

> I claim expansion changes collision density, not necessarily
> collision energy distribution.

Do you deny Newton laws ?

IF you throw elastic ball 10 m/s
toward wall leaving 1 m/s,
it will return with speed 8 m/s.






--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <n7bqm7latbji0jis9...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...
>

> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:57:43 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <magkm79bu5lrsq9qi...@4ax.com>,
> >richard....@comcast.net says...
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> I question the nature of elastic collisions.
> >
> >> During gas expansion (into a vacuum,) every gas molecule cools.
> >
> >> Can you describe how
> >> elastic collisions result in all molecules cooling?
> >
> >I would question your understanding of what is temperature.
> >
> >The statement above it not true,
> >as temperature for single molecule is not defined.
> >Many of them will move even faster than befory,
> >yet still small minority.
> >
> Yes, kinetic theory claims temperature is a function of M-B
> distribution.

No, exactly the opposite.

> How do elastic collisions result in cooling during
> expansion?

I have already explained this.
>

> >But, if you consider expansion to vacuum,
> >the "outer gas" between "inner gas" and vacuum
> >plays a role of expanding piston,
> >toward which the inner gas performs work.
> >
> >Inner gas molecules are pushing outer gas layers,
> >giving them kinetic energy in expanse of own heat.
> >
> Are you saying that after an inner molecule collides with an outer gas
> layer, the slowed inner-gas molecule is cool, and the accelerated
> outer layer molecule temperature did not increase?

Do not mix temperature and speed of particular molecule.

And, do not mix gas speed and speed of molecules.

Also remember, that every molecule is here subcutaneously
inner and outer.

>
> >Because molecules, returning from pushing of leaving "air wall",
> >are moving more slowly, than when flying to push.
> >
> >It is the same as if a tennis ball would be thrown
> >against a wall moving away.
> >It would be returned at slower speed.
>
> You seem to be saying that inner molecules accelerate an air wall.
> Perhaps the same collision that cools an inner molecule must
> accelerate a molecule in the air wall, w/o heating the air wall.

slows <> cools
micro <> macro

Remember that the gas mass is expanding in every point.

And, every elastic ball bouncing the leaving obstacle gets ( in

average ) slowed itself, compared to standing obstacle.

> I claim expansion changes collision density, not necessarily
> collision energy distribution.

[Poutnik]

In article <MPG.29d740c...@news.eternal-september.org>,
pou...@privacy.invalid says...

>
> In article <igbpm71ako0eo63ks...@4ax.com>,
> richard....@comcast.net says...
> >
>
> >
> > Billiard ball collisions may differ from molecule collisions. The cue
> > ball adds energy to other balls, including energy from side english.
> > In molecules with equal mass and speed, the collisions are more like a
> > cue balls hitting cue balls. The cue balls exchange an equal amount
> > of energy.
> >
>
> For balls ideal case I suppose zero friction,
> so zero torsion due tangential forces.
>
> I have intentionally omottined the rotation of moleculs,
> as it is quantizied, in opposite to linear movement.

And, for monoatomic molecule one need not to consider rotation at all.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <n7bqm7latbji0jis9...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...
>
> >

> ....How do elastic collisions result in cooling during expansion?
>

For kinetic energy it is natural consequence of Newton laws of motion.

Average distance of molecules to other molecules is increasing,
and bouncing from in average leaving moleculs leads in average
to decreasing speed of molecules bounced back from them.

See bouncing balls from leaving wall.

But I would turn it around now....

How compression hypothesis explains cooling during expansion ?
Qualitatively AND quantitatively.

How it interprets the cooling is equivalent to done work ?

How it explains heating is equivalent to work accepted ?

How it explains ignoring all the facts known
about structure of atoms and molecules ?

How it defines molucule size in vacuum ?

How it explains molucules can pass a hole
much smaller than their supposed size at low pressure ?

How it explains such comp./exp. is in contrary to QM ?

How it explains such comp./exp. regarded classically
would lead to MUCH HIGHER energy needed/released
due coulomb force and potential energy ?

How it interprets gas spectra does not depend on pressure ?

Far IR for molecule rotation spectra....
Near IR for rotation-vibration spectra....
Visible-near UV for electron excitation/emission spectra..
Far UV for inner electron emission spectra..

There would be possible to construct
very precise spectra based manometers..

OTOH, there would not be possible to constuct
atomic clocks, based on interaction of spins
of cesium kernel and valence electron.

All of this would vary very much with expanding molecules.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <igbpm71ako0eo63ks...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

> Given, a gas with identical molecules, identical initial speed and
> random directions. None of the (elastic) collisions between any two
> molecules should result in higher than original speed, abeit direction
> can change.

What is according to you
*quantitative* outcome of side hit scenario,
concerning conservation laws ?

A ball moving 1 m/s along axis y ( 0, 1 )
is hit to its side at right angle
by a bal moving 1 m/2 along axis x ( 1 , 0 ).

For simplicity, you cannot get them to change rotation,
what is valid for helium.

For balls it can be simulated.
Either by thought zero friction of surfaces,
either by supposing their rotation speed match,
so no angular momentum is interchanged.

If rotation energy must be counted as in billiard:

Rotation of balls has positive effect to speed of balls
and total translation kinetic energy,
if opposite angular momentums are mutually cancelled,
decreasing rotation kinetic energy.

and negative effect
if the opposite angular momentums are created.

.
>
> Billiard ball collisions may differ from molecule collisions. The cue
> ball adds energy to other balls, including energy from side english.
> In molecules with equal mass and speed, the collisions are more like a
> cue balls hitting cue balls. The cue balls exchange an equal amount
> of energy.
>
> Side english, is not equivalent to degrees of freedom.
> http://www.jimloy.com/billiard/phys.htm
>

Rotation symmetry of cue ball is not equivalent
neither to monoatomic, neither to polyatomic molecules.

E.g. He as the former has zero angular momentum,
that is not possible to change without electron excitation.
High energy is needed for that.

And for latter, 2+ cue balls are seldom connected by a spring.




--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <n7bqm7latbji0jis9...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

> Are you saying that after an inner molecule collides with an outer gas
> layer, the slowed inner-gas molecule is cool, and the accelerated
> outer layer molecule temperature did not increase?
>

Particular single molecule speed belong to wide range of temperatures,
with different probability.

For vacuum expansion,
each molecule is being pushed by the ones being "inner" to it,
and pushed ones being "outer" to it.

the total energy outcame is negative, as molecules in average
are departing each other, and bouncing of departing obstacles
in avg decreases kinetic energy of a ball.

The kinetic energy of moleculs is spent either to work on piston,
either to increased kinetic energy of the gas mass.

Not to be confused with heat kinetic energy of molecules.

Gas speed is Galileo transformation variant.
Heat energy is Galileo transformation invariant.



--
Poutnik

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 01:07:37 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

You did notice that I addressed asymmetric collisions by mentioning
'side english.' Asymmetric collisions can add 'spin,' a form of
degrees of freedom.

Why even consider asymmetrical collisions; some gas molecules are
spherical, yet all gas is supposed to have M-B distribution.

Note: Perhaps if someone quantifies the force keeps some assymetric
molecules from having 'spin,' it would be worth a nobel and an
extension of Einstein's theories.

[Poutnik]

In article <16grm7d16lr72998k...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>

> >
> >I am afraid this is your fatal mistake,
> >based on basic school examples.
> >
> >It is correct for SYMMETRICAL collisions.
> >
> >You seem have not read or understood my recent posts.
> >
> >For asymmetrical collisions
> >one ball is slowed down,
> >and the other speeded up.
> >
> >Imagine yourself such a collision
> >one molecule hit the other
> >into its rear hemisphere
> >by its front hemisphere.
> >
> >The former is speeded up,
> >the latter is slowed down.
> >
> >It is basic vector arithmetics.
> >
> >I could provide you Excel simulation sheet,
> >where the resulting speed can vary
> >from zero speed to sqrt(2) * orig. speed.
> >
> >The molecules can interchange kinetic energy in any ratio,
> >yeat still preserve total kinetic energy and linear momentum.
>
> You did notice that I addressed asymmetric collisions by mentioning
> 'side english.'

No, you did not.
You are escaping calculations and quantifications.

> Asymmetric collisions can add 'spin,' a form of
> degrees of freedom.

Sure, I count with that.

But it does not change the fact they redistribute
translation kinetic energy, as you have to respect 3 conservation laws.

>
> Why even consider asymmetrical collisions; some gas molecules are
> spherical, yet all gas is supposed to have M-B distribution.

I am afraid you have yet got what I mean by asymmetrical collision,
for monoatomic moleculs - and especially for them.

2 even spherically symmetric molecules
having DIFFERENT colission angle
with respect to their direction of movement.

>
> Note: Perhaps if someone quantifies the force keeps some assymetric
> molecules from having 'spin,' it would be worth a nobel and an
> extension of Einstein's theories.

I have never denied rotation of them,
in fact I can use it in context of IR spectroscopy,
to deny compression hypothesis.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <MPG.29d7ee0...@news.eternal-september.org>,
pou...@privacy.invalid says...

> I am afraid you have yet got what I mean by asymmetrical collision,
> for monoatomic moleculs - and especially for them.
>
> 2 even spherically symmetric molecules
> having DIFFERENT colission angle
> with respect to their direction of movement.
>

If the 2 balls are moving by such a way
they are going to reach collision point at the SAME time,
it is symmetric collision ( still able to influence spin ).

If the 2 balls are moving by such a way
they are going to reach collision point at DIFFERENT time,
it is asymmetric collision.

Each of them is pushed from different angle.
Pushing from different angle leads
to different final speeds.

If you try to collide 2 balls with random timing,
the outcome of their speeds will be also random,
even if their speed was the same.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <MPG.29d7f80...@news.eternal-september.org>,
pou...@privacy.invalid says...

> If the 2 balls are moving by such a way
> they are going to reach collision point at the SAME time,
> it is symmetric collision ( still able to influence spin ).
>
> If the 2 balls are moving by such a way
> they are going to reach collision point at DIFFERENT time,
> it is asymmetric collision.
>

Note that practically ALL collisions are asymmetrical
in in the sense above.



--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <16grm7d16lr72998k...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

> Why even consider asymmetrical collisions; some gas molecules are
> spherical, yet all gas is supposed to have M-B distribution.
>

Lets have 2 balls of the same speed....

You will push one to its rear side
and the other by the same force to its front side.

Will the result speed be the same ?
Because this is what asymmetric collisions do.

--
Poutnik

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:19:58 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <n7bqm7latbji0jis9...@4ax.com>,
>richard....@comcast.net says...
>>
>> >
>> ....How do elastic collisions result in cooling during expansion?
>>
>
>For kinetic energy it is natural consequence of Newton laws of motion.
>
>Average distance of molecules to other molecules is increasing,
>and bouncing from in average leaving moleculs leads in average
>to decreasing speed of molecules bounced back from them.
>
>See bouncing balls from leaving wall.
>
>But I would turn it around now....
>
>How compression hypothesis explains cooling during expansion ?
>Qualitatively AND quantitatively.
>

As indicated by coefficients of thermal expansion, expansion
(including gas expansion) requires heat energy. If no external source
provides heat for expansion, internal energy within gas molecules must
convert to the energy that expands gas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_expansion#Coefficient_of_thermal_expansion

>How it interprets the cooling is equivalent to done work ?
>

Compression energy converts into work in the air car. Heat loss in
the air tank during propulsion is parasitic. The cooling reduces gas
pressure, thus reduces gas compression energy. Pressure is a property
of gas compression energy.

>How it explains heating is equivalent to work accepted ?
>

Piston work can store compression energy before car use. The heat
energy that gas gains during piston compression is parasitic. The
heat increases the tank pressure, thus reduces piston efficiency.

For an internal combustion engine, heat energy from combustion will
convert to compression energy at a useful time. However, compression
energy (pressure) moves the piston, not heat energy itself.

>How it explains ignoring all the facts known
>about structure of atoms and molecules ?
>

The vacuum within molecules and the vacuum between point charges will
prevent kinetic molecules from creating 'pressure' (compression
energy.) Kinetic particles substitute collisions for pressure.

>How it defines molucule size in vacuum ?
>

A molecule's compression energy is a function of its volume. Molecule
volume can increase until the molecule fills its confinement, or until
the molecule's pressure is zero.

>How it explains molucules can pass a hole
>much smaller than their supposed size at low pressure ?
>

Gas molecules are highly pliable.

>How it explains such comp./exp. is in contrary to QM ?
>

QM applies to heat of vaporization and changes of phase. Heat of
vaporization is a function of pressure (compression energy.)

What is the conflict with QM?

>How it explains such comp./exp. regarded classically
>would lead to MUCH HIGHER energy needed/released
>due coulomb force and potential energy ?
>

Compression energy and pressure are not necessarily functions of
coulomb force. Perhaps chemical dipoles differ from electric dipoles,
especially in distance effects. For example, induced dipoles within
gas.

>How it interprets gas spectra does not depend on pressure ?
>
>Far IR for molecule rotation spectra....
>Near IR for rotation-vibration spectra....
>Visible-near UV for electron excitation/emission spectra..
>Far UV for inner electron emission spectra..
>

Heat energy can trigger vaporization, a quantized energy change that
accounts for compression energy (pressure.) Vaporization does not
include photon emission. Other types of stimulus can trigger photon
emission.

>There would be possible to construct
>very precise spectra based manometers..
>

Manometers are not spectra based.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_measurement

Photon energy can include a change in amount of compression energy
(between reactant and product,) not the total compression energy
within a molecule.

>OTOH, there would not be possible to constuct
>atomic clocks, based on interaction of spins
>of cesium kernel and valence electron.
>

I am not sure if you are referring to the low temperature environment
of an atomic clock, or energy balance during radiation.

>All of this would vary very much with expanding molecules.

I think I am missing your point. Otherwise, I suppose that a low
temperature vacuum environment should minimize the influence of
temperature and pressure.

[Poutnik]

In article <s312n75io5f076p70...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:19:58 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <n7bqm7latbji0jis9...@4ax.com>,
> >richard....@comcast.net says...
> >>
> >> >
> >> ....How do elastic collisions result in cooling during expansion?
> >>
> >
> >For kinetic energy it is natural consequence of Newton laws of motion.
> >
> >Average distance of molecules to other molecules is increasing,
> >and bouncing from in average leaving moleculs leads in average
> >to decreasing speed of molecules bounced back from them.
> >
> >See bouncing balls from leaving wall.
> >
> >But I would turn it around now....
> >
> >How compression hypothesis explains cooling during expansion ?
> >Qualitatively AND quantitatively.
> >
> As indicated by coefficients of thermal expansion, expansion
> (including gas expansion) requires heat energy. If no external source
> provides heat for expansion, internal energy within gas molecules must
> convert to the energy that expands gas.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_expansion#Coefficient_of_thermal_expansion

Yes, it is valid from kinetic principles of Newton laws,
because no other energy source like compression energy is available.

If it was, releasing of pressure should leave even to slight heating up
by non idea energy conversion.

>
> >How it interprets the cooling is equivalent to done work ?
> >
> Compression energy converts into work in the air car. Heat loss in
> the air tank during propulsion is parasitic. The cooling reduces gas
> pressure, thus reduces gas compression energy. Pressure is a property
> of gas compression energy.

No, it is not parasitic, as you can measure.

Compression of 3 m3 air to 150 atm / about 20 L
at isothermic conditions needs about 1500 kJ,
that is able to heat water about 357 L of water per 1 deg C,
i.e. cca 18 L per 20 deg C.

As you have said yourself there is need for water cooling
for diver cylinder compression, it is hardly parasitic.

BTW, how compression hypothesis calculates
ratio of heat energy to needed/provided work ?

>
> >How it explains heating is equivalent to work accepted ?
> >
> Piston work can store compression energy before car use. The heat
> energy that gas gains during piston compression is parasitic. The
> heat increases the tank pressure, thus reduces piston efficiency.

As above.

>
> For an internal combustion engine, heat energy from combustion will
> convert to compression energy at a useful time. However, compression
> energy (pressure) moves the piston, not heat energy itself.

As above, you are going against experiment results.

>
> >How it explains ignoring all the facts known
> >about structure of atoms and molecules ?
> >
> The vacuum within molecules and the vacuum between point charges will
> prevent kinetic molecules from creating 'pressure' (compression
> energy.)

Not at all. How did you come to that ?

> Kinetic particles substitute collisions for pressure.

Pressure p = F / S = ( d"linear momentum"/dt) / S
Does have particles change their linear momentum at collision ?
You are denying validity of Newton laws.

>
> >How it defines molucule size in vacuum ?
> >
> A molecule's compression energy is a function of its volume. Molecule
> volume can increase until the molecule fills its confinement, or until
> the molecule's pressure is zero.

So, if pressure is low enough gas gets ionized, is it correct ?
Your hypothesis is in contrary to many measurement
and no is confessing in favour of compression theory.

>
> >How it explains molucules can pass a hole
> >much smaller than their supposed size at low pressure ?
> >
> Gas molecules are highly pliable.

any confirming experiment ?

>
> >How it explains such comp./exp. is in contrary to QM ?
> >
> QM applies to heat of vaporization and changes of phase. Heat of
> vaporization is a function of pressure (compression energy.)
>
> What is the conflict with QM?

That volume of gas would have to be quantized
in very well observable steps, and that volume
would not be smooth function of pressure.

>
> >How it explains such comp./exp. regarded classically
> >would lead to MUCH HIGHER energy needed/released
> >due coulomb force and potential energy ?
> >
> Compression energy and pressure are not necessarily functions of
> coulomb force. Perhaps chemical dipoles differ from electric dipoles,
> especially in distance effects. For example, induced dipoles within
> gas.
>

Dipoles are dipoles, permanent or induced.
They are guesses and wishes, having no ground in experiments.

> >How it interprets gas spectra does not depend on pressure ?
> >
> >Far IR for molecule rotation spectra....
> >Near IR for rotation-vibration spectra....
> >Visible-near UV for electron excitation/emission spectra..
> >Far UV for inner electron emission spectra..
> >
> Heat energy can trigger vaporization, a quantized energy change that
> accounts for compression energy (pressure.) Vaporization does not
> include photon emission. Other types of stimulus can trigger photon
> emission.

the spectra are matter of single molecules.
All the spectra above are dependent of molecule size.

>
> >There would be possible to construct
> >very precise spectra based manometers..
> >
> Manometers are not spectra based.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_measurement

Of course they are not, but could be, if you hypothesis is correct.

>
> Photon energy can include a change in amount of compression energy
> (between reactant and product,) not the total compression energy
> within a molecule.

But they do not.

>
> >OTOH, there would not be possible to constuct
> >atomic clocks, based on interaction of spins
> >of cesium kernel and valence electron.
> >
> I am not sure if you are referring to the low temperature environment
> of an atomic clock, or energy balance during radiation.

It is not at all low temperature, they are often even slightly heated.
At it is not about energy balance.

It is about atomic clock principle, interaction of
magnetic momentum of unpaired electrons
with magnetic momentum of atom kernel.

If compression hypothesis is valid,
the precision precision of atomic clock pressure
would be MUCH higher than required precision of the clocks.

>
> >All of this would vary very much with expanding molecules.
>
> I think I am missing your point. Otherwise, I suppose that a low
> temperature vacuum environment should minimize the influence of
> temperature and pressure.

I am afraid you stick with compression hypothesis,
because supposed analogy with rubber is so obvious.
But you do not see it is in contrary with many known facts
and experiment results, and there is no experiment,
preferring prediction of compression hypothesis.


P.S.: I hope you have already understood,
why gas molecules have never uniform speed.

--
Poutnik

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 06:55:01 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

In compression theory, there is no vacuum between or within gas
molecules. Therefore, gas molecules fill virtually all voids. Gas
molecules are huge, compared to liquid molecules.

[Poutnik]

In article <s312n75io5f076p70...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...
>
> >

> >How compression hypothesis explains cooling during expansion ?
> >Qualitatively AND quantitatively.
> >
> As indicated by coefficients of thermal expansion, expansion
> (including gas expansion) requires heat energy. If no external source
> provides heat for expansion, internal energy within gas molecules must
> convert to the energy that expands gas.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_expansion#Coefficient_of_thermal_expansion

It requires heat energy as there is no compression energy.

For gases the difference between

molar thermal capacity at constant pressure Cp

and

molar thermal capacity at constant volume Cv

is

Cp - Cv = R,

what is energy needed for the extra work.

Where did come change of compression energy,
that would have to lead to different number ?


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <cmm2n7tfjdu3qrnuv...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

I would not dare to call it theory,
as it is is contrary to facts already known.....

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <cmm2n7tfjdu3qrnuv...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...
>

than you suppose.
> >You need a gravity of collapsing star.
>
> In compression theory, there is no vacuum between or within gas
> molecules. Therefore, gas molecules fill virtually all voids. Gas
> molecules are huge, compared to liquid molecules.

In contrary to measured difraction of photons or electrons.
Also, moleules of various size cannot have
identical size invariant behavior.

You cannot point out measuring
a pressure dependent molecular behavior.

Compression hyporhesis is a fiction
without experiment confirmation.

If you undertood kinetic theory,
you would realize
gas behavior is direct consequence
of Newton laws and laws of statistics.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <cmm2n7tfjdu3qrnuv...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...
>

I also omit the fact
the smaller the molecule would be, the lower energy it had.

Exactly the opposite you hypothesis needs to store compression energy.
You would have to ADD energy for expansion.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <cmm2n7tfjdu3qrnuv...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...
>

Any observation that has lead you to this idea ?

Before rebuilding of at least half of the whole physics,
it is good to understand basic principles.

I am not sure you understand kinetic theory,
or even to basics as Newton motion laws,
if you stick at constant and identical molecule speed.

I am afraid you stick at compression hypothesis,
because kinetic theory
is for you hard to understand for some reasons.
( no offence intended ).

It is experimentally proven than mass consists from charged particles,
that atoms are almost empty,
and the very majority of mass is in very small atom kernel.

Current atoms have the smallest size and the lowest energy that is
allowed to them. Any expansion lead to need of putting in energy,
based on laws of EM interaction.




--
Poutnik

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:15:56 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <igbpm71ako0eo63ks...@4ax.com>,
>richard....@comcast.net says...
>
>> Given, a gas with identical molecules, identical initial speed and
>> random directions. None of the (elastic) collisions between any two
>> molecules should result in higher than original speed, abeit direction
>> can change.
>
>What is according to you
>*quantitative* outcome of side hit scenario,
>concerning conservation laws ?
>
>A ball moving 1 m/s along axis y ( 0, 1 )
>is hit to its side at right angle
>by a bal moving 1 m/2 along axis x ( 1 , 0 ).
>

Under the 'no-spin' specification, in the xy case, one ball could
stop, and the other could acquire the stopped ball's KE. In the xyz
case, 2 balls could stop (corresponding to the x ball gaining KE from
the y and z balls. The x ball acquired all the KE from 2 stopped
balls.

>For simplicity, you cannot get them to change rotation,
>what is valid for helium.
>
>For balls it can be simulated.
>Either by thought zero friction of surfaces,
>either by supposing their rotation speed match,
>so no angular momentum is interchanged.
>
>If rotation energy must be counted as in billiard:
>
>Rotation of balls has positive effect to speed of balls
>and total translation kinetic energy,
>if opposite angular momentums are mutually cancelled,
>decreasing rotation kinetic energy.
>
>and negative effect
>if the opposite angular momentums are created.
>.

I have been claiming that the properties of kinetic molecules do not
necessarily comply with the properties of gas. I think the use of
degrees of freedom to describe phase changes within gas likely
resulted from a lack of kinetic properties that could explain phase
changes.

The 'no-spin' specification requires instantaneous collisions. Force
x distance requires time. During that time, the balls can acquire
spin. Zero 'force x distance' during collisions indicates that
collisions are quantized, and molecules are ridged. In other words,
the no-spin requirement is a tough requirement, even for kinetic
molecules.

The no-spin specification also requires zero force between molecules.
Repulsive force can deflect before contact; perhaps attraction can
cause electrons to crash into protons, or cause gravitational
acceleration, similar to a satellite passing close to a planet, to
increase speed.

[Poutnik]

In article <o226n7l9falroa45l...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

I chosen no-spin for keeping it simple for you,
with danger you will catch it as argument, what happened.

For balls, they WILL spin, but it does not change the principle
of speed and both momentum distribution.
Linear momentum and translation kinetic energy
will be intechanged in less extent,
to be able to have some energy for rotation degrees of freedom.

>
> Under the 'no-spin' specification, in the xy case, one ball could
> stop, and the other could acquire the stopped ball's KE. In the xyz
> case, 2 balls could stop (corresponding to the x ball gaining KE from
> the y and z balls. The x ball acquired all the KE from 2 stopped
> balls.

We speak about 2 balls collisions, as 3 balls colissions are much less
probable and does not bring pricipally nothing new.

> >.
> I have been claiming that the properties of kinetic molecules do not
> necessarily comply with the properties of gas.

Could you explain what you mean by that ?

> I think the use of
> degrees of freedom to describe phase changes within gas likely
> resulted from a lack of kinetic properties that could explain phase
> changes.

What do you mean phase changes within gas ?

Kinetic gas theory is supposed to explaned phase changes,
but anyway thermodynamic, molecule kinetics and molecule
speed distributin can.

>
> The 'no-spin' specification requires instantaneous collisions.

> x distance requires time.

False.

Even instantneous collision could create rotation,
if there is tangential inpulse.
Importand is Integral ( F * r * dt ) = delta P * r

OTOH If there is not tangetial impulse,
it does not matter hpw long the collision lasts.

> During that time, the balls can acquire spin.

Yes.

> Zero 'force x distance' during collisions indicates that
> collisions are quantized, and molecules are ridged.

False. ut nobody has supposed zero time collision.

> In other words,
> the no-spin requirement is a tough requirement, even for kinetic
> molecules.

Itr is, the problem is atoms are not balls.
Helium atoms cannot spin.

>
> The no-spin specification also requires zero force between molecules.

No, but you must not imagine atoms as balls.

> Repulsive force can deflect before contact

Could, and do, at very high pressure.

> perhaps attraction can cause electrons to crash into protons

No

> or cause gravitational acceleration, similar to a satellite passing
> close to a planet, to increase speed.

You seem constantly ignoring EM force,
in your compression hypothesis and even now.
Gravitation between particles is MANY orders weaker
than coulombic force.


I am afraid your ideas are armchair hypothesis
having no ground in observations.





--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <MPG.29dd68b...@news.eternal-september.org>,
pou...@privacy.invalid says...

> Kinetic gas theory is supposed to explaned phase changes,
> but anyway thermodynamic, molecule kinetics and molecule
> speed distributin can.
>

Errata:

Kinetic gas theory is NOT supposed.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <o226n7l9falroa45l...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

> I have been claiming that the properties of kinetic molecules do not
> necessarily comply with the properties of gas. I think the use of
> degrees of freedom to describe phase changes within gas likely
> resulted from a lack of kinetic properties that could explain phase
> changes.
>

There is nothing mysterious about kinetics and phase changes
between liquid and gas ( within gas are no phase changes ).

Molecules of liquid have at least similar speed distribution as
molecules of gas, combined with binding energy due attractive forces.

Those part of surface molecules, that gain by random processes speed
that can overcome the binding, and have right direction,
are escaping the liquid.

As they had above average energy, the result is cooling of liquid.
E.g. wet cloth has typically several deg C lower temperature
than its surrounding.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <MPG.29de0a0...@news.eternal-september.org>,
pou...@privacy.invalid says...

> Those part of surface molecules, that gain by random processes speed
> that can overcome the binding, and have right direction,
> are escaping the liquid.
>

It is similar as gas atmosphere of planets/moon.

Some molecules gain according to M-B distribution
speed higher than escape speed of planet.
Those can escape "gravitational binding",
as analog of vdW binding, polar binding or hydrogen bond binding.

--
Poutnik

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:58:37 -0400, richard....@comcast.net
wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:15:56 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <igbpm71ako0eo63ks...@4ax.com>,
>>richard....@comcast.net says...
>>
>>> Given, a gas with identical molecules, identical initial speed and
>>> random directions. None of the (elastic) collisions between any two
>>> molecules should result in higher than original speed, abeit direction
>>> can change.
>>
>>What is according to you
>>*quantitative* outcome of side hit scenario,
>>concerning conservation laws ?
>>
>>A ball moving 1 m/s along axis y ( 0, 1 )
>>is hit to its side at right angle
>>by a bal moving 1 m/2 along axis x ( 1 , 0 ).
>>
>Under the 'no-spin' specification, in the xy case, one ball could
>stop, and the other could acquire the stopped ball's KE. In the xyz
>case, 2 balls could stop (corresponding to the x ball gaining KE from
>the y and z balls. The x ball acquired all the KE from 2 stopped
>balls.

Albeit balls can travel faster than original speed, if all balls have
the same orignal KE, no collision with a single container wall can
reflect more than original KE. In other words, a ball with xyz energy
strikes the x wall, the wall reflects only x energy.

The same applies to the inside of a spherical surface. No collision
with a surface will reflect more than original KE.

[poutni...@gmail.com]

Dne čtvrtek, 29. března 2012 14:42:47 UTC+2 (neznámé) napsal(a):

>
> Albeit balls can travel faster than original speed, if all balls have
> the same orignal KE, no collision with a single container wall can
> reflect more than original KE. In other words, a ball with xyz energy
> strikes the x wall, the wall reflects only x energy.

>
> The same applies to the inside of a spherical surface. No collision
> with a surface will reflect more than original KE.

It is not true.
If it were true, there would never be possible heat transfer.

Gas molecules are not the only ones moving,
but so do move atoms of the container.

There is no principal difference
between gas-gas and gas-container collisions.

It is again simple application of Newton laws and laws of conservation.

[poutni...@gmail.com]

Dne čtvrtek, 29. března 2012 14:42:47 UTC+2 (neznámé) napsal(a):

> Albeit balls can travel faster than original speed, if all balls have
> the same orignal KE, no collision with a single container wall can
> reflect more than original KE. In other words, a ball with xyz energy
> strikes the x wall, the wall reflects only x energy.
>
> The same applies to the inside of a spherical surface. No collision
> with a surface will reflect more than original KE.

But it can be said,
that IF gas in is thermal equilibrium with container,
than AVERAGE KE exchange between gas molecul and container atoms is ZERO.

It is the same as for gas molecules themselves.

[Poutnik]

In article <unl8n75sckqpnaopu...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
>
> Albeit balls can travel faster than original speed, if all balls have
> the same orignal KE, no collision with a single container wall can
> reflect more than original KE. In other words, a ball with xyz energy
> strikes the x wall, the wall reflects only x energy.
>
> The same applies to the inside of a spherical surface. No collision
> with a surface will reflect more than original KE.

Incorrect - there is no principle difference
in gas-gas and gas-container collissions.

In the same temperature conditions,
only AVERAGE KE exchange is zero.

The exchange for particular gas molecule
can be both positive or negative with the same probability.

Different temperature cause unequal probability.

This is the same for gas itself, if 2 volumes
of gas with different or equal temperature are in contact.

--
Poutnik

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:04:03 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>

wrote:

>In article <s312n75io5f076p70...@4ax.com>,
>richard....@comcast.net says...
>>
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:19:58 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <n7bqm7latbji0jis9...@4ax.com>,
>> >richard....@comcast.net says...
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> ....How do elastic collisions result in cooling during expansion?
>> >>
>> >
>> >For kinetic energy it is natural consequence of Newton laws of motion.
>> >
>> >Average distance of molecules to other molecules is increasing,
>> >and bouncing from in average leaving moleculs leads in average
>> >to decreasing speed of molecules bounced back from them.
>> >
>> >See bouncing balls from leaving wall.
>> >
>> >But I would turn it around now....
>> >
>> >How compression hypothesis explains cooling during expansion ?
>> >Qualitatively AND quantitatively.
>> >
>> As indicated by coefficients of thermal expansion, expansion
>> (including gas expansion) requires heat energy. If no external source
>> provides heat for expansion, internal energy within gas molecules must
>> convert to the energy that expands gas.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_expansion#Coefficient_of_thermal_expansion
>
>Yes, it is valid from kinetic principles of Newton laws,
>because no other energy source like compression energy is available.

In reality, mechanical compression increases force between molecules
by pushing molecules closer together. Increasing thermal energy
increases the (compression) force to distance ratio of each molecule.
In kinetic theory, there is no force between molecules, thus gas
expansion results in decreased collision frequency, and PERFORMS NO
WORK. The 'perform no work' applies to moving a piston while
collision frequency decreases. Gas molecules do not necessarily add
or subtract KE from a piston during gas expansion.

Mechanical compression energy NEVER completely converts to thermal
energy or compression energy. In the air car, both can contribute to
propulsion. The percentage of mechanical energy that converts to
thermal energy is a function of molecular species. For example, in
solids, temperature can either increase or decrease (negative thermal
expansion) during compression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_thermal_expansion


Molecule compression energy exists in solids, why not gas? For
example, molecular intertwining should keep speeds between the
molecules within polymers, crystals and metals near zero. Therefore,
thermal expansion of polymers will more likely increase molecule size,
than increase the speed between molecules.

>
>If it was, releasing of pressure should leave even to slight heating up
>by non idea energy conversion.

Gas compression and expansion have the same pattern as a positive
coefficient of expansion.

>>
>> >How it interprets the cooling is equivalent to done work ?

After mechanical compression, compression energy is usually greater
than the thermal energy that gas molecules emit as they adjust to
their increased compression energy.

>> >
>> Compression energy converts into work in the air car. Heat loss in
>> the air tank during propulsion is parasitic. The cooling reduces gas
>> pressure, thus reduces gas compression energy. Pressure is a property
>> of gas compression energy.
>
>No, it is not parasitic, as you can measure.

I meant heat loss to the environment is parasitic. That heat could
have been used for propulsion.

>
>Compression of 3 m3 air to 150 atm / about 20 L
>at isothermic conditions needs about 1500 kJ,
>that is able to heat water about 357 L of water per 1 deg C,
>i.e. cca 18 L per 20 deg C.

Why are you talking about heat gain during compression, in response to
the claim that "Heat LOSS in the air tank during propulsion
(decompression) is parasitic?" Compression and heating occurs while
filling the car's tank, not during PROPULSION.


Why did you apply the 1500kJ to the water, instead of the 3 m3 of gas?
The constant pressure molar heat capacity of air is 29J per mole
degree C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity

3m3 x 1000L/m3 x 1mole/22.4L = 134 moles

1500kJ x 1000J/kJ x 1mol//29J / 134 moles = 386 deg C

>
>As you have said yourself there is need for water cooling
>for diver cylinder compression, it is hardly parasitic.

Any heat gain or loss during compression can pass to the environment,
instead of propelling the air car.

>
>BTW, how compression hypothesis calculates
>ratio of heat energy to needed/provided work ?
>

All the heat energy generated during compression could contribute to
propulsion if the tank had perfect insulation. As gas expansion cools
the tank, cold air passes through air car's engine, and into the
exhaust. Expansion after exiting the engine does not contribute to
propulsion. Therefore, cooling during propulsion can be parasitic. >>

>> >How it explains heating is equivalent to work accepted ?

The entire 1500 KJ generated during compression (your calculation)
becomes waste heat if the tank reaches ambient temperature before
propulsion begins.

>> >
>> Piston work can store compression energy before car use. The heat
>> energy that gas gains during piston compression is parasitic. The
>> heat increases the tank pressure, thus reduces piston efficiency.
>
>As above.
>>
>> For an internal combustion engine, heat energy from combustion will
>> convert to compression energy at a useful time. However, compression
>> energy (pressure) moves the piston, not heat energy itself.
>
>As above, you are going against experiment results.

Please explain why you think compression theory contradicts
experimental results in a combustion engine.

You might not believe that gas has compression energy, but an air car
exists and the car uses energy due to force between gas molecules. The
heat energy lost to the environment during compression and expansion
is no more useful than heat generated and lost during compression and
expansion of the rubber bumpers of a pool table.

>>
>> >How it explains ignoring all the facts known
>> >about structure of atoms and molecules ?
>> >
>> The vacuum within molecules and the vacuum between point charges will
>> prevent kinetic molecules from creating 'pressure' (compression
>> energy.)
>
>Not at all. How did you come to that ?

Technically, force x distance does not occur during instantaneous
elastic collisions. An elastic collision can add KE to the end of a
spring. After the collision, the spring's KE can convert to force x
distance. If elastic (molecule) collisions were not instantaneous, KE
could convert to angular momentum (spin.)

In other words, an increase in compression energy requires force x
distance. Instantaneous elastic collisions do not directly provide
force x distance.

>
>> Kinetic particles substitute collisions for pressure.
>
>Pressure p = F / S = ( d"linear momentum"/dt) / S
>Does have particles change their linear momentum at collision ?
>You are denying validity of Newton laws.

The collisions that comply with kinetic theory require a change in
momentum instantaneously. Otherwise, spin can occur. An
instantaneous change in momentum violates Newton laws.

>>
>> >How it defines molucule size in vacuum ?
>> >
>> A molecule's compression energy is a function of its volume. Molecule
>> volume can increase until the molecule fills its confinement, or until
>> the molecule's pressure is zero.
>
>So, if pressure is low enough gas gets ionized, is it correct ?

No. Superconductivity (no 'insulating' vacuum between molecules or
between electrons and protons) and compression energy are evidence of
3D molecules, instead of point charge based molecules.

>Your hypothesis is in contrary to many measurement
>and no is confessing in favour of compression theory.

I am not aware of any measurement that is directly contradictory to
compression theory (versus kinetic particles.) I am looking for
contradictions.

>>
>> >How it explains molucules can pass a hole
>> >much smaller than their supposed size at low pressure ?
>> >
>> Gas molecules are highly pliable.
>
>any confirming experiment ?

Move your arm through air or water.

>>
>> >How it explains such comp./exp. is in contrary to QM ?
>> >
>> QM applies to heat of vaporization and changes of phase. Heat of
>> vaporization is a function of pressure (compression energy.)
>>
>> What is the conflict with QM?
>
>That volume of gas would have to be quantized
>in very well observable steps, and that volume
>would not be smooth function of pressure.

Heat energy does not inherently exist in quantized levels. Compression
energy corresponds to a coefficient of thermal expansion.

For all phase changes and chemical reactions, QM products greatly
differ from reactants (albeit reactants and products may appear to be
the same.) A single electron's change in distance from its proton
cannot account for the difference between (fully known) reactants and
products.

Notice that the electron's instantaneous change in position does not
account for the electron's mass. In any chemical reaction, there is
no time for atoms within the structure to move to their new locations.
The sudden change in electron speed conflicts with inertia.

For example, in a galvanic cell with a salt bridge, consider how fast
an oxygen (or hydrogen) atom travels the (entire) distance between the
cell's anode and cathode. (Assuming oxygen atoms do not exist in the
salt bridge.)

>>
>> >How it explains such comp./exp. regarded classically
>> >would lead to MUCH HIGHER energy needed/released
>> >due coulomb force and potential energy ?
>> >
>> Compression energy and pressure are not necessarily functions of
>> coulomb force. Perhaps chemical dipoles differ from electric dipoles,
>> especially in distance effects. For example, induced dipoles within
>> gas.
>>
>
>Dipoles are dipoles, permanent or induced.
>They are guesses and wishes, having no ground in experiments.
>
>> >How it interprets gas spectra does not depend on pressure ?
>> >
>> >Far IR for molecule rotation spectra....
>> >Near IR for rotation-vibration spectra....
>> >Visible-near UV for electron excitation/emission spectra..
>> >Far UV for inner electron emission spectra..
>> >
>> Heat energy can trigger vaporization, a quantized energy change that
>> accounts for compression energy (pressure.) Vaporization does not
>> include photon emission. Other types of stimulus can trigger photon
>> emission.
>
>the spectra are matter of single molecules.
>All the spectra above are dependent of molecule size.

I do not know how molecular rotation and vibration convert to
quantized energy or a change electron-proton distance.

Note: Heat of vaporization is a fixed quantity of energy, even when
applied pressure or temperature changes. Therefore, heat energy and
compression energy are not inherently quantized.

>>
>> >There would be possible to construct
>> >very precise spectra based manometers..
>> >
>> Manometers are not spectra based.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_measurement
>
>Of course they are not, but could be, if you hypothesis is correct.
>>
>> Photon energy can include a change in amount of compression energy
>> (between reactant and product,) not the total compression energy
>> within a molecule.
>
>But they do not.

If a water molecule absorbed a high-energy photon, some of the
photon's energy could convert to heat of vaporization. Reactant
energy must equal product energy, including a change in compression
energy.

>>
>> >OTOH, there would not be possible to constuct
>> >atomic clocks, based on interaction of spins
>> >of cesium kernel and valence electron.
>> >
>> I am not sure if you are referring to the low temperature environment
>> of an atomic clock, or energy balance during radiation.
>
>It is not at all low temperature, they are often even slightly heated.
>At it is not about energy balance.
>
>It is about atomic clock principle, interaction of
>magnetic momentum of unpaired electrons
>with magnetic momentum of atom kernel.

There is evidence that movement of point charges (unpaired electrons)
does not cause magnetism. Consider that magnetism cannot change
(free) electron KE or speed. Therefore, magnetic induction does not
change electron KE. For example, a free electron can pass near a
magnet w/o changing the energy in the magnet or changing speed.

There is also a conflict between E = 1/2 LI^2, versus actual current
within the inductor.

In an LC circuit, anytime the polarity of volts applied to an inductor
is the same polarity as the inductor, electrostatic energy converts to
magnetic energy until exhaustion. Anytime volts applied to the
inductor is opposite the polarity of the inductor, magnetic energy
converts to electrostatic energy until exhaustion.

The amount of current to or from the magnet is not a function of the
amount of magnetic energy already within the magnet. Current stops at
the same time magnetism reaches its maximum level; because that is
when polarity reverses (capacitor energy becomes zero.) This is why
superconductive magnet power supplies so often produce magnetic
quench. Current to or from a magnet is not a function of the amount
of magnetic energy already within the magnet.

>
>If compression hypothesis is valid,
>the precision precision of atomic clock pressure
>would be MUCH higher than required precision of the clocks.
>

Heat, pressure and magnetism do not directly correspond to quantized
energies.

>>
>> >All of this would vary very much with expanding molecules.
>>
>> I think I am missing your point. Otherwise, I suppose that a low
>> temperature vacuum environment should minimize the influence of
>> temperature and pressure.
>
>I am afraid you stick with compression hypothesis,
>because supposed analogy with rubber is so obvious.
>But you do not see it is in contrary with many known facts
>and experiment results, and there is no experiment,
>preferring prediction of compression hypothesis.
>

I do not know of any experimental result that favors kinetic theory
over compression theory. Perhaps your references to atomic clocks or
IR radiation characteristics could lead to evidence favoring kinetic
theory. Please be more explicit.

>
>P.S.: I hope you have already understood,
>why gas molecules have never uniform speed.

Yes, a kinetic particle can retain its momentum, while acquiring
additional KE during a collision.

[Poutnik]

In article <301un7pabgrfga2iq...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:04:03 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Yes, it is valid from kinetic principles of Newton laws,
> >because no other energy source like compression energy is available.
>
> In reality, mechanical compression increases force between molecules
> by pushing molecules closer together.

It is valid for liquids and solids, as molecules are close each other
and there is minimum of free space. There are present both
atracting forces ( ion, polar, van der Waals, hydrogen bonds... )
and repulsing forces as electron start to repusl each other.

> Increasing thermal energy
> increases the (compression) force to distance ratio of each molecule.

Yes, but I will not mess her with non gas phase, our post are
too long even without that.

> In kinetic theory, there is no force between molecules, thus gas

Only for idea gas.

> expansion results in decreased collision frequency, and PERFORMS NO
> WORK. The 'perform no work' applies to moving a piston while
> collision frequency decreases.

No, you are mistaken. It is pure newtonian physics.
dA = p * dV = F / S * dV = delta momentum / delta t / S * dV

> Gas molecules do not necessarily add
> or subtract KE from a piston during gas expansion.

They do it necesserily.
Colission of objects with other objects, that are inaverage leaving
DO lead to in average decreasing of KE of bounced back objects.

If I were walking away and you are throwing elastic balls at me,
they would bounce back at LOWERED KE, bacause they perform work on me.

>
> Mechanical compression energy NEVER completely converts to thermal
> energy or compression energy.

So, to which energy is converted the rest ?

>
> Molecule compression energy exists in solids, why not gas?

Yes, but at very different quantity level, not in form you would like.

> For
> example, molecular intertwining should keep speeds between the
> molecules within polymers, crystals and metals near zero.

Not true. But I am not going to talk solids in thios thread.

>
> >>
> >> >How it interprets the cooling is equivalent to done work ?
>
> After mechanical compression, compression energy is usually greater
> than the thermal energy that gas molecules emit as they adjust to
> their increased compression energy.

No. Measure it.

> >> >
> >> Compression energy converts into work in the air car. Heat loss in
> >> the air tank during propulsion is parasitic. The cooling reduces gas
> >> pressure, thus reduces gas compression energy. Pressure is a property
> >> of gas compression energy.
> >
> >No, it is not parasitic, as you can measure.
>
> I meant heat loss to the environment is parasitic. That heat could
> have been used for propulsion.

I do not mean parasitic in context of usage, but of quantity.

> >

> Why are you talking about heat gain during compression, in response to
> the claim that "Heat LOSS in the air tank during propulsion
> (decompression) is parasitic?" Compression and heating occurs while
> filling the car's tank, not during PROPULSION.

I mean the heat released during compression is nearly equal
to work done by compressing, so either no compression energy is stored,
either energy conservation law is not valid.

>
>
> Why did you apply the 1500kJ to the water, instead of the 3 m3 of gas?

It is obvious - with water the calcilation is easy and gives you good
picture about practical procedure of cylinder cooling
as you said the sister lets them cooled in water.

> >
> >As you have said yourself there is need for water cooling
> >for diver cylinder compression, it is hardly parasitic.
>
> Any heat gain or loss during compression can pass to the environment,
> instead of propelling the air car.

If or how the heat is or is not used is not relevant.
the point is law odf energy conservation will show you
there is no energy left for compresion energy.

> >
> >BTW, how compression hypothesis calculates
> >ratio of heat energy to needed/provided work ?
> >
> All the heat energy generated during compression could contribute to
> propulsion if the tank had perfect insulation.

No doubts.

> As gas expansion cools
> the tank, cold air passes through air car's engine, and into the
> exhaust. Expansion after exiting the engine does not contribute to
> propulsion. Therefore, cooling during propulsion can be parasitic.

The rate of decreasing thermal energy of gas yet stored in tank
equals to current engine power ( at 100% efficiency )

> The entire 1500 KJ generated during compression (your calculation)
> becomes waste heat if the tank reaches ambient temperature before
> propulsion begins.

Yes, it becomes. You got the point.

>
> Please explain why you think compression theory contradicts
> experimental results in a combustion engine.

Heat engines are directly based on gas kinetic theory.

>
> You might not believe that gas has compression energy, but an air car
> exists and the car uses energy due to force between gas molecules. The
> heat energy lost to the environment during compression and expansion
> is no more useful than heat generated and lost during compression and
> expansion of the rubber bumpers of a pool table.

You still count with idea compressed air of given temperature
has much more energy than uncompressed.
It does not have and it was MEASURED many times.
Make some measurements and calculation with diver cylinders
and you will see.

>
> Technically, force x distance does not occur during instantaneous
> elastic collisions.

Then you deny the 2nd Newton motion law.

Mathematically, limit of ( force * distance )
for distance giong to zero
is still force * distance

Also see above...

> >
> >> Kinetic particles substitute collisions for pressure.
> >
> >Pressure p = F / S = ( d"linear momentum"/dt) / S
> >Does have particles change their linear momentum at collision ?
> >You are denying validity of Newton laws.
>
> The collisions that comply with kinetic theory require a change in
> momentum instantaneously. Otherwise, spin can occur. An
> instantaneous change in momentum violates Newton laws.

No, they do not require that.

>
> >Your hypothesis is in contrary to many measurement
> >and no is confessing in favour of compression theory.
>
> I am not aware of any measurement that is directly contradictory to
> compression theory (versus kinetic particles.) I am looking for
> contradictions.

I have already noted many.

> >>
> >> >How it explains molucules can pass a hole
> >> >much smaller than their supposed size at low pressure ?
> >> >
> >> Gas molecules are highly pliable.
> >
> >any confirming experiment ?
>
> Move your arm through air or water.

Hm, maybe I am not sure about a waord pliable.
Macromovent in air says nothing about molecule behavior.

>
> For all phase changes and chemical reactions, QM products greatly
> differ from reactants (albeit reactants and products may appear to be
> the same.) A single electron's change in distance from its proton
> cannot account for the difference between (fully known) reactants and
> products.

Could you alaborate this ?

>
> Notice that the electron's instantaneous change in position does not
> account for the electron's mass. In any chemical reaction, there is
> no time for atoms within the structure to move to their new locations.
> The sudden change in electron speed conflicts with inertia.

In nature nothing is instaneous.
And common sense is not much applicable in QM.

>
> For example, in a galvanic cell with a salt bridge, consider how fast
> an oxygen (or hydrogen) atom travels the (entire) distance between the
> cell's anode and cathode. (Assuming oxygen atoms do not exist in the
> salt bridge.)

Not fast and not entire distance.

> >the spectra are matter of single molecules.
> >All the spectra above are dependent of molecule size.
>
> I do not know how molecular rotation and vibration convert to
> quantized energy or a change electron-proton distance.

They do not convert to quantizied energy, THEIR energy is quantizied.
Rotation do not practically change those distances.
Vibration does, as molecule orbitals are get deformed,
as atom kernels changes their distance.

>
> Note: Heat of vaporization is a fixed quantity of energy, even when
> applied pressure or temperature changes. Therefore, heat energy and
> compression energy are not inherently quantized.

It is not fixed, it is temperature dependent.

>
> There is evidence that movement of point charges (unpaired electrons)
> does not cause magnetism.

False. DC current along a wire creates static M field,
rotation around the wire.

> Consider that magnetism cannot change (free) electron KE or speed.

Sure, as the force is perpendicular.
But I refuse forking the topic, as our posts are already long enough.
You may create another thread if interested.

> Heat, pressure and magnetism do not directly correspond to quantized
> energies.

Heat DOES correspond to quantizied rotation and vibration.
Presure would correspond if compression hypothesis is right.

> >
> I do not know of any experimental result that favors kinetic theory
> over compression theory.

Your ideas about compression hypothesis
( to theory is far way to pass )
ignores most known fact about matter structure
and behavior at atomic and molecular level.

Added heat energy almost exactly equals work done,
therefore no compression energy released.

Released heat energy almost exactly equals work accepted,
therefore no compression energy stored.

Difference of real gases molar specific heat
at constant pressure ( Cp ) and volume ( Cv )
is very close to R, what is by chance the work
done by expansion, therefore no compression energy released.

Compression of gas molecules is in STRONG contradiction
with quantum chemistry/mechnics rules, molecules already are is basic
energetic state.

Even if it was possible, compression of molecules would lead
to RELEASE of BIG AMOUNT of energy, MUCH bigger tha just observed heat.
Compresion of Xenon gas molecules, if it was possible,
would lead to X-ray emission.

> Perhaps your references to atomic clocks or
> IR radiation characteristics could lead to evidence favoring kinetic
> theory. Please be more explicit.

Frequency used in atomic clock, and Ir frequencies related to vibration
and rotation of gas molecules are DIRECTLY related to its sizes.
But there is NO significant change in these spectra, related to
pressure changes.

IF gas molecules were chnaging their size with pressure,
than classical wrist watches would be more precise than atomic clock.

> >
> >P.S.: I hope you have already understood,
> >why gas molecules have never uniform speed.
>
> Yes, a kinetic particle can retain its momentum, while acquiring
> additional KE during a collision.

No, it intechanges both momentum and KE.



--
Poutnik

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:46:59 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <n7bqm7latbji0jis9...@4ax.com>,
>richard....@comcast.net says...
>
>> Are you saying that after an inner molecule collides with an outer gas
>> layer, the slowed inner-gas molecule is cool, and the accelerated
>> outer layer molecule temperature did not increase?
>>
>Particular single molecule speed belong to wide range of temperatures,
>with different probability.
>
>For vacuum expansion,
>each molecule is being pushed by the ones being "inner" to it,
>and pushed ones being "outer" to it.

Conservation of momentum. Collisions transfer KE w/o decreasing KE.

>
>the total energy outcame is negative, as molecules in average
>are departing each other, and bouncing of departing obstacles
>in avg decreases kinetic energy of a ball.

The expansion is toward a vacuum, w/o a departing piston (obstacle.)
Otherwise, conservation of X, Y, and Z momentum applies.

>
>The kinetic energy of moleculs is spent either to work on piston,
>either to increased kinetic energy of the gas mass.

No piston.

If a molecule has an initial velocity component in the X direction,
elastic collisions do not decrease that velocity, until a collision
with the container reverses direction.

>
>Not to be confused with heat kinetic energy of molecules.
>
>Gas speed is Galileo transformation variant.
>Heat energy is Galileo transformation invariant.

Are you claiming that a Galilean transformation is responsible for
reducing gas temperature during expansion?

[Poutnik]

In article <7umun7t1gdavbanva...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
> >
> >For vacuum expansion,
> >each molecule is being pushed by the ones being "inner" to it,
> >and pushed ones being "outer" to it.
>
> Conservation of momentum. Collisions transfer KE w/o decreasing KE.

During expansion to vacuum, gas is interchanging momentum
with neighbourhood - see rocket principle.
Heat KE of !inner! molecules is transformed to macroscopic KE
of "outer" gas.

> >
> >the total energy outcame is negative, as molecules in average
> >are departing each other, and bouncing of departing obstacles
> >in avg decreases kinetic energy of a ball.
>
> The expansion is toward a vacuum, w/o a departing piston (obstacle.)
> Otherwise, conservation of X, Y, and Z momentum applies.

Outer layers of gas are the piston wrt inner gas.

> >
> >The kinetic energy of moleculs is spent either to work on piston,
> >either to increased kinetic energy of the gas mass.
>
> No piston.

No solid piston.

>
> If a molecule has an initial velocity component in the X direction,
> elastic collisions do not decrease that velocity, until a collision
> with the container reverses direction.

Not true. I hoped you have got principle of elastic collisions....

> >
> >Not to be confused with heat kinetic energy of molecules.
> >
> >Gas speed is Galileo transformation variant.
> >Heat energy is Galileo transformation invariant.
>
> Are you claiming that a Galilean transformation is responsible for
> reducing gas temperature during expansion?

No.


--
Poutnik

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:21:14 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

PV=nRT, V1/V2=P2/P1, means there is not supposed to be any changes in
temperature and or any work done during compression. Cp, Cv and R
apply to changes in temperature.

In other words, kinetic particles do not have the same properties as
gas molecules.

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:36:35 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <cmm2n7tfjdu3qrnuv...@4ax.com>,
>richard....@comcast.net says...
>>
> than you suppose.
>> >You need a gravity of collapsing star.
>>
>> In compression theory, there is no vacuum between or within gas
>> molecules. Therefore, gas molecules fill virtually all voids. Gas
>> molecules are huge, compared to liquid molecules.
>
>In contrary to measured difraction of photons or electrons.

Do you mean gas electron diffraction?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_electron_diffraction

>Also, moleules of various size cannot have
>identical size invariant behavior.

Please be more definitive.

>
>You cannot point out measuring
>a pressure dependent molecular behavior.

BP lowering can be a function of pressure

>
>Compression hyporhesis is a fiction
>without experiment confirmation.

Compression hypothesis might explain the Venturi effect (cooling
during gas expansion.)

The implications of compression hypothesis (conflicts with point
charge structure of molecules) are a big problem. I hope I can handle
the conflicts that you might identify.

>
>If you undertood kinetic theory,
>you would realize
>gas behavior is direct consequence
>of Newton laws and laws of statistics.

Kinetic theory ignores compression energy. The air car runs on
compression energy.

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:31:48 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>

wrote:

>In article <cmm2n7tfjdu3qrnuv...@4ax.com>,
>richard....@comcast.net says...
>>
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 06:55:01 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <magkm79bu5lrsq9qi...@4ax.com>,
>> >richard....@comcast.net says...
>> >>
>> >
>> >> >If compression energy had existed,
>> >> >it would have been gas internal energy.
>> >>
>> >> I question the nature of elastic collisions. During gas expansion
>> >> (into a vacuum,) every gas molecule cools. Can you describe how
>> >> elastic collisions result in all molecules cooling?
>> >> >
>> >
>> >Note that for atoms gets compressed,
>> >there is needed pressure many orders higher than you suppose.
>> >You need a gravity of collapsing star.
>>
>> In compression theory, there is no vacuum between or within gas
>> molecules. Therefore, gas molecules fill virtually all voids. Gas
>> molecules are huge, compared to liquid molecules.
>
>I also omit the fact
>the smaller the molecule would be, the lower energy it had.

The lower the temperature, the lower the molecule size. Is that what
you are talking about?

>
>Exactly the opposite you hypothesis needs to store compression energy.
>You would have to ADD energy for expansion.

Depends on the type of energy you add. Adding mechanical compression
energy will directly increase compression energy while decreasing
molecule size.

Adding thermal energy can expand gas while increasing compression
energy. The thermal energy increases force per distance.

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:25:36 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>

wrote:

>In article <cmm2n7tfjdu3qrnuv...@4ax.com>,
>richard....@comcast.net says...
>>
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 06:55:01 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <magkm79bu5lrsq9qi...@4ax.com>,
>> >richard....@comcast.net says...
>> >>
>> >
>> >> >If compression energy had existed,
>> >> >it would have been gas internal energy.
>> >>
>> >> I question the nature of elastic collisions. During gas expansion
>> >> (into a vacuum,) every gas molecule cools. Can you describe how
>> >> elastic collisions result in all molecules cooling?
>> >> >
>> >
>> >Note that for atoms gets compressed,
>> >there is needed pressure many orders higher than you suppose.
>> >You need a gravity of collapsing star.
>>
>> In compression theory, there is no vacuum between or within gas
>> molecules. Therefore, gas molecules fill virtually all voids. Gas
>> molecules are huge, compared to liquid molecules.
>
>Any observation that has lead you to this idea ?

1. The non-zero conductivity of air.
2, Storage of more compression energy than heat energy in an air tank,
3, The Venturi effect. Kinetic particles that do not change velocity
during expansion into a vacuum.
4, Conflict between macroscopic collisions and collisions in the frame
of resting ball
5. Compression during sound travel through air.

>
>Before rebuilding of at least half of the whole physics,
>it is good to understand basic principles.
>
>I am not sure you understand kinetic theory,
>or even to basics as Newton motion laws,
>if you stick at constant and identical molecule speed.
>
>I am afraid you stick at compression hypothesis,
>because kinetic theory
>is for you hard to understand for some reasons.
>( no offence intended ).
>
>It is experimentally proven than mass consists from charged particles,
>that atoms are almost empty,
>and the very majority of mass is in very small atom kernel.

A vacuum between the charged particles would prevent
superconductivity.

>
>Current atoms have the smallest size and the lowest energy that is
>allowed to them. Any expansion lead to need of putting in energy,
>based on laws of EM interaction.

It takes energy to increase or decrease (a refrigerator) an object's
temperature. Therefore, molecules assume one of the stable
configurations that comply with their current energy.

[Poutnik]

In article <0m2vn79tnhta13slk...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>

>
> PV=nRT, V1/V2=P2/P1, means there is not supposed to be any changes in
> temperature and or any work done during compression. Cp, Cv and R
> apply to changes in temperature.

No, it is wrong. The formula does not directly determine the way,
how the other 2 parameters change when you change the 3rd.

>
> In other words, kinetic particles do not have the same properties as
> gas molecules.

Therefore the last sentence is not relevant.

Observed properties of gas molecules are pressure independent.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <pravn7pno9t1gp86f...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:36:35 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <cmm2n7tfjdu3qrnuv...@4ax.com>,
> >richard....@comcast.net says...
> >>
> > than you suppose.
> >> >You need a gravity of collapsing star.
> >>
> >> In compression theory, there is no vacuum between or within gas
> >> molecules. Therefore, gas molecules fill virtually all voids. Gas
> >> molecules are huge, compared to liquid molecules.
> >
> >In contrary to measured difraction of photons or electrons.
>
> Do you mean gas electron diffraction?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_electron_diffraction

Whatever difraction.
You would have to explain, by what this space is filled.
All the matter composes from very smal atom kernels and electrons.
Both sizes are many orders smaller than size of atom.

>
> >Also, moleules of various size cannot have
> >identical size invariant behavior.
>
> Please be more definitive.

OK, things claimed to be different
cannot behave as things being the same.
Measurements based on atom/molecule gas properties
are pressure independent.

> >
> >You cannot point out measuring
> >a pressure dependent molecular behavior.
>
> BP lowering can be a function of pressure

This is not a molecule property.
BTW, macroscopic parameter vapour tension
is pressure independent.

> >
> >Compression hyporhesis is a fiction
> >without experiment confirmation.
>
> Compression hypothesis might explain the Venturi effect (cooling
> during gas expansion.)

But cannot explain breaking of energy conservation law.
Cannot explain constant pressure independent molecule behavior.
Calorimetric measurents falsify the hypothesis clearly.

>
> >
> >If you undertood kinetic theory,
> >you would realize
> >gas behavior is direct consequence
> >of Newton laws and laws of statistics.
>
> Kinetic theory ignores compression energy. The air car runs on
> compression energy.

If you measure work - heat difference, you will realize there is NO
compresion energy. Measure it, if you do not believe.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <d7bvn7l099o80ulgs...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>

> >I also omit the fact
> >the smaller the molecule would be, the lower energy it had.
>
> The lower the temperature, the lower the molecule size. Is that what
> you are talking about?

No. I have meant the charge energy in the central EM field.

> >
> >Exactly the opposite you hypothesis needs to store compression energy.
> >You would have to ADD energy for expansion.
>
> Depends on the type of energy you add. Adding mechanical compression
> energy will directly increase compression energy while decreasing
> molecule size.

And that is exactly the opposite, if it was possible.

>
> Adding thermal energy can expand gas while increasing compression
> energy. The thermal energy increases force per distance.

A calorimeter is waiting for you.....
The supposed compression energy is difference between heat and work.
You will see you are not able to power car by this difference.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <pldvn7tspnmtqr6mi...@4ax.com>,
richard....@comcast.net says...

>

> >>
> >> In compression theory, there is no vacuum between or within gas
> >> molecules. Therefore, gas molecules fill virtually all voids. Gas
> >> molecules are huge, compared to liquid molecules.
> >
> >Any observation that has lead you to this idea ?
>
> 1. The non-zero conductivity of air.

Than you still do not understand kinetic theory.
Are not supposed collisions between molecules ?
Have not you agreed before elastic particles DO exchange KE ?

> 2, Storage of more compression energy than heat energy in an air tank,

Measure. Measure. Measure :-)
Measure given work. Measure released heat.
Calculate the difference.
And try use this difference to power the car.

> 3, The Venturi effect. Kinetic particles that do not change velocity
> during expansion into a vacuum.

They do, as I have shown you, but I am not sure
if you have understood that.

> 4, Conflict between macroscopic collisions and collisions in the frame
> of resting ball

Please explain what conflict do you have in the mind ?

> 5. Compression during sound travel through air.

Periodic chnages of pressure making periodic compression,
nothing strange.

> >
> >It is experimentally proven than mass consists from charged particles,
> >that atoms are almost empty,
> >and the very majority of mass is in very small atom kernel.
>
> A vacuum between the charged particles would prevent
> superconductivity.

Why ?

> >
> >Current atoms have the smallest size and the lowest energy that is
> >allowed to them. Any expansion lead to need of putting in energy,
> >based on laws of EM interaction.
>
> It takes energy to increase or decrease (a refrigerator) an object's
> temperature. Therefore, molecules assume one of the stable
> configurations that comply with their current energy.

Thay electron configuration remains the same.
What is chnaging is their KE.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article <MPG.29e9ed9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
pou...@privacy.invalid says...

> > 1. The non-zero conductivity of air.
>
> Than you still do not understand kinetic theory.
> Are not supposed collisions between molecules ?
> Have not you agreed before elastic particles DO exchange KE ?
>

If you had in mind electric conductivity,
there is always some amount of ions in air.

--
Poutnik

[richard....@comcast.net]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:26:29 +0100, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <MPG.29d7ee0...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>pou...@privacy.invalid says...
>> I am afraid you have yet got what I mean by asymmetrical collision,
>> for monoatomic moleculs - and especially for them.
>>
>> 2 even spherically symmetric molecules
>> having DIFFERENT colission angle
>> with respect to their direction of movement.
>>
>
>If the 2 balls are moving by such a way
>they are going to reach collision point at the SAME time,
>it is symmetric collision ( still able to influence spin ).
>
>If the 2 balls are moving by such a way
>they are going to reach collision point at DIFFERENT time,
>it is asymmetric collision.

In every collision between 2 balls, the balls reach their collision
point at the same time.
>
>Each of them is pushed from different angle.
>Pushing from different angle leads
>to different final speeds.

>
>If you try to collide 2 balls with random timing,
>the outcome of their speeds will be also random,
>even if their speed was the same.

A hit at 90 deg. will stop one ball and give the other ball its full
KE. There is an orthogonal limit of 3X original KE, because of
conservation of motion in each direction.