Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 22, 2016, 06:41:45 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2016, 05:50:24 AM

The sooner you stop crying about it all and start getting to the basics of it, the sooner you will start to understand much more.

*Sigh*

What do you mean by "getting to the basics of it"? It's not ME who is teaching you, it's YOU who are teaching me (Or at least trying to explain it to me). Are you telling me that you have not been explaining the basics of it for me? If so, why? And why can't you just start explaining the basics, which is what I asked for from the beginning?

It's hard to help a child in tantrum. Stop throwing tantrums and start to understand the very basics like I showed at the start of the topic.
You pretended to know then skewed way off course to end up where you are right now - in a tantrum.

Okay, so there is micateria. Micateria under pressure can kind of swallow each other to form strateria. The amount of layers of micateria in strateria defines what material it is. Strateria binds to strateria, whilst micateria glides around rather freely and will always expand to fill out all the space, so that there are no vacuums. When a solid melts micateria is released from the strateria of the material and allows the strateria to glide around a little, which turns the solid into a liquid. This is what knowledge I have derived so far about your model from your explanations. If you see something that is wrong, please correct it. Saying that I need to learn the basics, but then completely skip explaining the basics, is not a way to teach me.

And please stop insulting me. I'm trying to keep this discussion civil, as per our promise.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2016, 06:53:47 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 22, 2016, 06:41:45 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2016, 05:50:24 AM

The sooner you stop crying about it all and start getting to the basics of it, the sooner you will start to understand much more.

*Sigh*

What do you mean by "getting to the basics of it"? It's not ME who is teaching you, it's YOU who are teaching me (Or at least trying to explain it to me). Are you telling me that you have not been explaining the basics of it for me? If so, why? And why can't you just start explaining the basics, which is what I asked for from the beginning?

It's hard to help a child in tantrum. Stop throwing tantrums and start to understand the very basics like I showed at the start of the topic.
You pretended to know then skewed way off course to end up where you are right now - in a tantrum.

Stop using this "throwing tantrum" bollocks to avoid answering basic questions.

He's clearly, calmly and politely asking questions - you're the one behaving like a spoilt 5 year old. Always stamping your little foot and demanding the adults play your game exactly as you want them to otherwise you'll start chucking your toys about.

If you want to discuss your bullshit model then do so, otherwise your're free to fuck off somewhere else.

Keep up the good work changing the nappies and wiping the snotty noses.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2016, 06:53:47 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 22, 2016, 06:41:45 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2016, 05:50:24 AM

The sooner you stop crying about it all and start getting to the basics of it, the sooner you will start to understand much more.

*Sigh*

What do you mean by "getting to the basics of it"? It's not ME who is teaching you, it's YOU who are teaching me (Or at least trying to explain it to me). Are you telling me that you have not been explaining the basics of it for me? If so, why? And why can't you just start explaining the basics, which is what I asked for from the beginning?

It's hard to help a child in tantrum. Stop throwing tantrums and start to understand the very basics like I showed at the start of the topic.
You pretended to know then skewed way off course to end up where you are right now - in a tantrum.

Okay, so there is micateria. Micateria under pressure can kind of swallow each other to form strateria. The amount of layers of micateria in strateria defines what material it is. Strateria binds to strateria, whilst micateria glides around rather freely and will always expand to fill out all the space, so that there are no vacuums. When a solid melts micateria is released from the strateria of the material and allows the strateria to glide around a little, which turns the solid into a liquid. This is what knowledge I have derived so far about your model from your explanations. If you see something that is wrong, please correct it. Saying that I need to learn the basics, but then completely skip explaining the basics, is not a way to teach me.

And please stop insulting me. I'm trying to keep this discussion civil, as per our promise.

Yes you are getting the gist in that but you're not taking in the further points I made and are jumping too far ahead of yourself that make you end up taking the two steps back.

Ok let's start from this point on and take it simply and slowly, then I can maybe explain what you want to know.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 22, 2016, 08:54:47 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2016, 06:53:47 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 22, 2016, 06:41:45 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2016, 05:50:24 AM

The sooner you stop crying about it all and start getting to the basics of it, the sooner you will start to understand much more.

*Sigh*

What do you mean by "getting to the basics of it"? It's not ME who is teaching you, it's YOU who are teaching me (Or at least trying to explain it to me). Are you telling me that you have not been explaining the basics of it for me? If so, why? And why can't you just start explaining the basics, which is what I asked for from the beginning?

It's hard to help a child in tantrum. Stop throwing tantrums and start to understand the very basics like I showed at the start of the topic.
You pretended to know then skewed way off course to end up where you are right now - in a tantrum.

Okay, so there is micateria. Micateria under pressure can kind of swallow each other to form strateria. The amount of layers of micateria in strateria defines what material it is. Strateria binds to strateria, whilst micateria glides around rather freely and will always expand to fill out all the space, so that there are no vacuums. When a solid melts micateria is released from the strateria of the material and allows the strateria to glide around a little, which turns the solid into a liquid. This is what knowledge I have derived so far about your model from your explanations. If you see something that is wrong, please correct it. Saying that I need to learn the basics, but then completely skip explaining the basics, is not a way to teach me.

And please stop insulting me. I'm trying to keep this discussion civil, as per our promise.

Yes you are getting the gist in that but you're not taking in the further points I made and are jumping too far ahead of yourself that make you end up taking the two steps back.

Ok let's start from this point on and take it simply and slowly, then I can maybe explain what you want to know.

Let's start with things falling and how we measure it, like we did at school.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 22, 2016, 08:54:47 AM

Okay, so there is micateria. Micateria under pressure can kind of swallow each other to form strateria. The amount of layers of micateria in strateria defines what material it is. Strateria binds to strateria, whilst micateria glides around rather freely and will always expand to fill out all the space, so that there are no vacuums. When a solid melts micateria is released from the strateria of the material and allows the strateria to glide around a little, which turns the solid into a liquid. This is what knowledge I have derived so far about your model from your explanations. If you see something that is wrong, please correct it. Saying that I need to learn the basics, but then completely skip explaining the basics, is not a way to teach me.

And please stop insulting me. I'm trying to keep this discussion civil, as per our promise.

Yes you are getting the gist in that but you're not taking in the further points I made and are jumping too far ahead of yourself that make you end up taking the two steps back.

Ok let's start from this point on and take it simply and slowly, then I can maybe explain what you want to know.

What further points? Please, explain. Don't just accuse, it does not help me understand. Explaining WHY I'm wrong does help me understand.

But, as I have asked many times before. Strateria binds to other strateria, this would include iron strateria right? Then, this is my question that I want answered. Why doesn't two blocks of iron bind when I push them together. I know you have said that there would be air in between, and I have in turn explained that it is possible to push them so hard that at least some of the surface irregularities would touch. Another example, I can push two bits of chewing gum together and they bind, so obviously some of the surfaces managed to touch and bind. Why does this not happen in the two blocks of iron?

Why doesn't two blocks of iron bind when I push them together.

Because you aren't doing it right.


Sorry, couldn't resist. 

Master_Evar: markjo has basically just answered your question in which I told you about earlier.

Master_Evar: markjo has basically just answered your question in which I told you about earlier.

*Sigh*

One more critique: You are really bad at remembering what we have already discussed. Please, PLEASE try to remember what we have already talked about. I explicitly said earlier that I do not mean cold (or in this case, friction) welding. Or any method that damages the surface. I have explicitly stated that I mean low pressure contact (and I have also explicitly stated what I mean by low pressure). PLEASE try to to answer the question I am actually asking.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2016, 11:57:02 PM

Master_Evar: markjo has basically just answered your question in which I told you about earlier.

*Sigh*

One more critique: You are really bad at remembering what we have already discussed. Please, PLEASE try to remember what we have already talked about. I explicitly said earlier that I do not mean cold (or in this case, friction) welding. Or any method that damages the surface. I have explicitly stated that I mean low pressure contact (and I have also explicitly stated what I mean by low pressure). PLEASE try to to answer the question I am actually asking.

I really tried to avoid this to let you grasp it  but anyway.
I'm assuming you mean just resting one block of metal onto another block of metal and applying light pressure then asking me why they don't just bond, right?

I'll assume this.

Now here's the key to why I keep telling you not to set yourself back.
The metals are already bonded by energy applied to make them what they are in both cases.
If you do not apply the same energy to change the molecular make up then you are not going to have a merging bond between both metals.

Why is it that you can't get this if you grasp the strateria or micateria?

I really tried to avoid this to let you grasp it  but anyway.
I'm assuming you mean just resting one block of metal onto another block of metal and applying light pressure then asking me why they don't just bond, right?

Yes, finally you got the question.

Now here's the key to why I keep telling you not to set yourself back.
The metals are already bonded by energy applied to make them what they are in both cases.
If you do not apply the same energy to change the molecular make up then you are not going to have a merging bond between both metals.

Why is it that you can't get this if you grasp the strateria or micateria?

Finally, you explain something. You NEVER brought this up when we were discussing strateria or micateria, so obviously I would never know anything about this. So, you need to apply energy to bind strateria.

But then I have another question. If energy is required to bond strateria, is energy released when I break apart strateria?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 23, 2016, 01:51:21 AM

I really tried to avoid this to let you grasp it  but anyway.
I'm assuming you mean just resting one block of metal onto another block of metal and applying light pressure then asking me why they don't just bond, right?

Yes, finally you got the question.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 23, 2016, 01:51:21 AM

Now here's the key to why I keep telling you not to set yourself back.
The metals are already bonded by energy applied to make them what they are in both cases.
If you do not apply the same energy to change the molecular make up then you are not going to have a merging bond between both metals.

Why is it that you can't get this if you grasp the strateria or micateria?

Finally, you explain something. You NEVER brought this up when we were discussing strateria or micateria, so obviously I would never know anything about this. So, you need to apply energy to bind strateria.

But then I have another question. If energy is required to bond strateria, is energy released when I break apart strateria?

The answer is, yes.
What you have to remember is, to release the strateria you have to apply enormous energy of friction by expansion for friction or contraction for friction.

For instance, heat or severe cold to our perception.
Or to make it simpler, fire or nitrogen as a extreme each way.

Imagine you have a metal bar. As it stands it is a formed bar. You want to change that bond so you use immense energy (your arm strength) to bend it. Once you bend that bar you are breaking apart some of the bond by massively creating molecular friction which releases (expands) the tight bond of the strateria from the micateria.
You're basically turning solids into liquids resting on solids, depending on the strength (energy) applied to the bending.

The oopposite is true with nitrogen, which as you know has already been under massive energy to cool it to the way it is to our perception.
Now it's as if we are now making the strateria compress away from the micateria allowing the frozen atmosphere (nitrogen) to take it's place in the void which weaken the bond, to our perception and causes the metal to be fragile and snap easily.

This requires much more explanation but I'm banking on you grasping some of it.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 23, 2016, 02:10:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 23, 2016, 01:51:21 AM

I really tried to avoid this to let you grasp it  but anyway.
I'm assuming you mean just resting one block of metal onto another block of metal and applying light pressure then asking me why they don't just bond, right?

Yes, finally you got the question.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 23, 2016, 01:51:21 AM

Now here's the key to why I keep telling you not to set yourself back.
The metals are already bonded by energy applied to make them what they are in both cases.
If you do not apply the same energy to change the molecular make up then you are not going to have a merging bond between both metals.

Why is it that you can't get this if you grasp the strateria or micateria?

Finally, you explain something. You NEVER brought this up when we were discussing strateria or micateria, so obviously I would never know anything about this. So, you need to apply energy to bind strateria.

But then I have another question. If energy is required to bond strateria, is energy released when I break apart strateria?

The answer is, yes.
What you have to remember is, to release the strateria you have to apply enormous energy of friction by expansion for friction or contraction for friction.

For instance, heat or severe cold to our perception.
Or to make it simpler, fire or nitrogen as a extreme each way.

Imagine you have a metal bar. As it stands it is a formed bar. You want to change that bond so you use immense energy (your arm strength) to bend it. Once you bend that bar you are breaking apart some of the bond by massively creating molecular friction which releases (expands) the tight bond of the strateria from the micateria.
You're basically turning solids into liquids resting on solids, depending on the strength (energy) applied to the bending.

The oopposite is true with nitrogen, which as you know has already been under massive energy to cool it to the way it is to our perception.
Now it's as if we are now making the strateria compress away from the micateria allowing the frozen atmosphere (nitrogen) to take it's place in the void which weaken the bond, to our perception and causes the metal to be fragile and snap easily.

This requires much more explanation but I'm banking on you grasping some of it.

2500 years of science and you think you can throw them all in the bin and replace it with your mad scribblings that explain nothing and is easily debunked.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 23, 2016, 02:34:23 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 23, 2016, 02:10:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 23, 2016, 01:51:21 AM

I really tried to avoid this to let you grasp it  but anyway.
I'm assuming you mean just resting one block of metal onto another block of metal and applying light pressure then asking me why they don't just bond, right?

Yes, finally you got the question.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 23, 2016, 01:51:21 AM

Now here's the key to why I keep telling you not to set yourself back.
The metals are already bonded by energy applied to make them what they are in both cases.
If you do not apply the same energy to change the molecular make up then you are not going to have a merging bond between both metals.

Why is it that you can't get this if you grasp the strateria or micateria?

Finally, you explain something. You NEVER brought this up when we were discussing strateria or micateria, so obviously I would never know anything about this. So, you need to apply energy to bind strateria.

But then I have another question. If energy is required to bond strateria, is energy released when I break apart strateria?

The answer is, yes.
What you have to remember is, to release the strateria you have to apply enormous energy of friction by expansion for friction or contraction for friction.

For instance, heat or severe cold to our perception.
Or to make it simpler, fire or nitrogen as a extreme each way.

Imagine you have a metal bar. As it stands it is a formed bar. You want to change that bond so you use immense energy (your arm strength) to bend it. Once you bend that bar you are breaking apart some of the bond by massively creating molecular friction which releases (expands) the tight bond of the strateria from the micateria.
You're basically turning solids into liquids resting on solids, depending on the strength (energy) applied to the bending.

The oopposite is true with nitrogen, which as you know has already been under massive energy to cool it to the way it is to our perception.
Now it's as if we are now making the strateria compress away from the micateria allowing the frozen atmosphere (nitrogen) to take it's place in the void which weaken the bond, to our perception and causes the metal to be fragile and snap easily.

This requires much more explanation but I'm banking on you grasping some of it.

2500 years of science and you think you can throw them all in the bin and replace it with your mad scribblings that explain nothing and is easily debunked.

What's easily debunked. Let's have some of your scientific know how on stuff. Not copy and paste crap. I mean "your" scientific mind.

The answer is, yes.
What you have to remember is, to release the strateria you have to apply enormous energy of friction by expansion for friction or contraction for friction.

For instance, heat or severe cold to our perception.
Or to make it simpler, fire or nitrogen as a extreme each way.

Imagine you have a metal bar. As it stands it is a formed bar. You want to change that bond so you use immense energy (your arm strength) to bend it. Once you bend that bar you are breaking apart some of the bond by massively creating molecular friction which releases (expands) the tight bond of the strateria from the micateria.
You're basically turning solids into liquids resting on solids, depending on the strength (energy) applied to the bending.

The oopposite is true with nitrogen, which as you know has already been under massive energy to cool it to the way it is to our perception.
Now it's as if we are now making the strateria compress away from the micateria allowing the frozen atmosphere (nitrogen) to take it's place in the void which weaken the bond, to our perception and causes the metal to be fragile and snap easily.

This requires much more explanation but I'm banking on you grasping some of it.

So, in order to break apart strateria you first need t apply some energy, then the strateria breaks apart and releases more energy.

Then, I have the next question. If I add energy to water, it heats up. Eventually I will reach the boiling point, where the heat energy is enough to break the strateria apart so that the water becomes vapor. And as you said, when strateria breaks apart energy is released. Then why is it that the temperature of the water does not increase after reaching the boiling point, if the vaporization of the water would release energy? The energy I'm applying to the water is disappearing somewhere, together with the energy released from the vaporization. So, what is happening?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 23, 2016, 02:34:23 AM

The answer is, yes.
What you have to remember is, to release the strateria you have to apply enormous energy of friction by expansion for friction or contraction for friction.

For instance, heat or severe cold to our perception.
Or to make it simpler, fire or nitrogen as a extreme each way.

Imagine you have a metal bar. As it stands it is a formed bar. You want to change that bond so you use immense energy (your arm strength) to bend it. Once you bend that bar you are breaking apart some of the bond by massively creating molecular friction which releases (expands) the tight bond of the strateria from the micateria.
You're basically turning solids into liquids resting on solids, depending on the strength (energy) applied to the bending.

The oopposite is true with nitrogen, which as you know has already been under massive energy to cool it to the way it is to our perception.
Now it's as if we are now making the strateria compress away from the micateria allowing the frozen atmosphere (nitrogen) to take it's place in the void which weaken the bond, to our perception and causes the metal to be fragile and snap easily.

This requires much more explanation but I'm banking on you grasping some of it.

So, in order to break apart strateria you first need t apply some energy, then the strateria breaks apart and releases more energy.

Then, I have the next question. If I add energy to water, it heats up. Eventually I will reach the boiling point, where the heat energy is enough to break the strateria apart so that the water becomes vapor. And as you said, when strateria breaks apart energy is released. Then why is it that the temperature of the water does not increase after reaching the boiling point, if the vaporization of the water would release energy? The energy I'm applying to the water is disappearing somewhere, together with the energy released from the vaporization. So, what is happening?

Think of that boiling water as breaking up like you say. It breaks up by expansion and creates a push on push in to each other. The result is steam and that steam was the result of massive energy applied to the water when the water was more solidly bonded as opposed to what it is when expanding from the water pot.

Think of that boiling water as breaking up like you say. It breaks up by expansion and creates a push on push in to each other. The result is steam and that steam was the result of massive energy applied to the water when the water was more solidly bonded as opposed to what it is when expanding from the water pot.

Yes, as I said.

Lead is heavier than steel, but you can't compress lead more than metal.

Lead is heavier than steel, but you can't compress lead more than metal.

Can you elaborate a little bit on this just so I know what you are actually meaning.

@sceptimatic, you have not answered my question yet regarding the vaporization of water - You said that breaking apart strateria releases energy. So if I heat water to the boiling point, shouldn't the vaporization heat the water up even more? Why won't the water get hotter than 100°C?

@sceptimatic, you have not answered my question yet regarding the vaporization of water - You said that breaking apart strateria releases energy. So if I heat water to the boiling point, shouldn't the vaporization heat the water up even more? Why won't the water get hotter than 100°C?

The vapour is expanded molecules squeezed up and separated as they are squeezed higher by atmospheric pressure.

Quote from: Master_Evar on December 05, 2016, 06:42:12 AM

@sceptimatic, you have not answered my question yet regarding the vaporization of water - You said that breaking apart strateria releases energy. So if I heat water to the boiling point, shouldn't the vaporization heat the water up even more? Why won't the water get hotter than 100°C?

The vapour is expanded molecules squeezed up and separated as they are squeezed higher by atmospheric pressure.

Yes, I understood that 2 replies ago. I'm asking why water can't heat above boiling point, and why the vaporization doesn't seem to further heat anything up.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2016, 08:41:00 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on December 05, 2016, 06:42:12 AM

@sceptimatic, you have not answered my question yet regarding the vaporization of water - You said that breaking apart strateria releases energy. So if I heat water to the boiling point, shouldn't the vaporization heat the water up even more? Why won't the water get hotter than 100°C?

The vapour is expanded molecules squeezed up and separated as they are squeezed higher by atmospheric pressure.

Yes, I understood that 2 replies ago. I'm asking why water can't heat above boiling point, and why the vaporization doesn't seem to further heat anything up.

I don't know what you want me to say. I've answered your question. What can't you grasp?

Quote from: Master_Evar on December 05, 2016, 10:00:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2016, 08:41:00 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on December 05, 2016, 06:42:12 AM

@sceptimatic, you have not answered my question yet regarding the vaporization of water - You said that breaking apart strateria releases energy. So if I heat water to the boiling point, shouldn't the vaporization heat the water up even more? Why won't the water get hotter than 100°C?

The vapour is expanded molecules squeezed up and separated as they are squeezed higher by atmospheric pressure.

Yes, I understood that 2 replies ago. I'm asking why water can't heat above boiling point, and why the vaporization doesn't seem to further heat anything up.

I don't know what you want me to say. I've answered your question. What can't you grasp?

Why can't I heat my pot of water above 100 degrees celsius, and why won't the water keep boiling with the energy it releases on it's own after I've heated it enough?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2016, 10:30:14 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on December 05, 2016, 10:00:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2016, 08:41:00 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on December 05, 2016, 06:42:12 AM

@sceptimatic, you have not answered my question yet regarding the vaporization of water - You said that breaking apart strateria releases energy. So if I heat water to the boiling point, shouldn't the vaporization heat the water up even more? Why won't the water get hotter than 100°C?

The vapour is expanded molecules squeezed up and separated as they are squeezed higher by atmospheric pressure.

Yes, I understood that 2 replies ago. I'm asking why water can't heat above boiling point, and why the vaporization doesn't seem to further heat anything up.

I don't know what you want me to say. I've answered your question. What can't you grasp?

Why can't I heat my pot of water above 100 degrees celsius, and why won't the water keep boiling with the energy it releases on it's own after I've heated it enough?

At 100 degrees your water molecules expand into normal atmospheric pressure. This is where your dense water molecules break down into steam.
If you want a higher temperature than you have to add more pressure to suppress the expansion of the water molecules.
A pressure cooker is a good indication of something like this.
 As for vapour not heating anything else up, I don't know what you're getting at.

How about giving me some examples of what you're thinking and I'll see what your mindset is.

Quote from: Master_Evar on December 05, 2016, 10:57:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2016, 10:30:14 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on December 05, 2016, 10:00:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2016, 08:41:00 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on December 05, 2016, 06:42:12 AM

@sceptimatic, you have not answered my question yet regarding the vaporization of water - You said that breaking apart strateria releases energy. So if I heat water to the boiling point, shouldn't the vaporization heat the water up even more? Why won't the water get hotter than 100°C?

The vapour is expanded molecules squeezed up and separated as they are squeezed higher by atmospheric pressure.

Yes, I understood that 2 replies ago. I'm asking why water can't heat above boiling point, and why the vaporization doesn't seem to further heat anything up.

I don't know what you want me to say. I've answered your question. What can't you grasp?

Why can't I heat my pot of water above 100 degrees celsius, and why won't the water keep boiling with the energy it releases on it's own after I've heated it enough?

At 100 degrees your water molecules expand into normal atmospheric pressure. This is where your dense water molecules break down into steam.
If you want a higher temperature than you have to add more pressure to suppress the expansion of the water molecules.
A pressure cooker is a good indication of something like this.
 As for vapour not heating anything else up, I don't know what you're getting at.

How about giving me some examples of what you're thinking and I'll see what your mindset is.

You see, the steam is just a little above 100 degrees celsius while the water is at about 100 degrees celsius. But I'm constantly adding energy, where is that energy going? Why doesn't the water heat up even more? As you said, energy is released when the strateria breaks apart, like during the vaporization. So the vapor should be much hotter after breaking loose from the water, but it has not gained much heat at all.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2016, 02:22:56 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on December 05, 2016, 10:57:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2016, 10:30:14 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on December 05, 2016, 10:00:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2016, 08:41:00 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on December 05, 2016, 06:42:12 AM

@sceptimatic, you have not answered my question yet regarding the vaporization of water - You said that breaking apart strateria releases energy. So if I heat water to the boiling point, shouldn't the vaporization heat the water up even more? Why won't the water get hotter than 100°C?

The vapour is expanded molecules squeezed up and separated as they are squeezed higher by atmospheric pressure.

Yes, I understood that 2 replies ago. I'm asking why water can't heat above boiling point, and why the vaporization doesn't seem to further heat anything up.

I don't know what you want me to say. I've answered your question. What can't you grasp?

Why can't I heat my pot of water above 100 degrees celsius, and why won't the water keep boiling with the energy it releases on it's own after I've heated it enough?

At 100 degrees your water molecules expand into normal atmospheric pressure. This is where your dense water molecules break down into steam.
If you want a higher temperature than you have to add more pressure to suppress the expansion of the water molecules.
A pressure cooker is a good indication of something like this.
 As for vapour not heating anything else up, I don't know what you're getting at.

How about giving me some examples of what you're thinking and I'll see what your mindset is.

You see, the steam is just a little above 100 degrees celsius while the water is at about 100 degrees celsius. But I'm constantly adding energy, where is that energy going? Why doesn't the water heat up even more? As you said, energy is released when the strateria breaks apart, like during the vaporization. So the vapor should be much hotter after breaking loose from the water, but it has not gained much heat at all.

Yes you are constantly adding energy but you are adding a CONSTANT energy and getting a CONSTANT breakdown of molecules into normal atmospheric resistance.
The molecular expansion is at it's most expanded and cannot expand any faster because the energy applied is the same. It's constant against a constant atmospheric pressure/resistance to it.

See what I'm saying?

If energy was required to break the bonds between the strateria to vaporizes the water, I'd totally understand it. But in your model adding energy to vaporize the water should release more energy, which can vaporizes even more water and release even more energy and simply escalate.

Lol

So now steam is broken down water?

Lol

Sceptictank go buy distilled water and report back.

Lol

If energy was required to break the bonds between the strateria to vaporizes the water, I'd totally understand it. But in your model adding energy to vaporize the water should release more energy, which can vaporizes even more water and release even more energy and simply escalate.

But you aren't adding energy. You are using a set energy to gain a set molecular expansion into normal atmospheric conditions.


You do not get more energy out of something than you put into it. It's equal and opposite reaction to action.
Once you turn your water to vapour then your energy has reached its peak for that vapour but your energy will now be doing the same to the same water to turn it to vapour in the same way until there's no more water.

Quote from: Master_Evar on December 05, 2016, 03:00:23 PM

If energy was required to break the bonds between the strateria to vaporizes the water, I'd totally understand it. But in your model adding energy to vaporize the water should release more energy, which can vaporizes even more water and release even more energy and simply escalate.

But you aren't adding energy. You are using a set energy to gain a set molecular expansion into normal atmospheric conditions.

If I put water on the stove and turn it on, surely the stove that is heating up must be constantly adding energy to the water? And what happens to the energy that is gained from the vaporisation?

You do not get more energy out of something than you put into it. It's equal and opposite reaction to action.
Once you turn your water to vapour then your energy has reached its peak for that vapour but your energy will now be doing the same to the same water to turn it to vapour in the same way until there's no more water.

What do you mean "has reached it's peak", I can certainly make the vapour hotter than 100 degrees celsius. So what is this peak? And why will it not keep going after I turn off the stove, since once the water has started boiling it should be releasing energy on it's own?

Ok, look here - let's say we have enough energy input to vaporise 100 water molecules/strateria per second. Now, you said that breaking them apart required energy, but afterwards they also release energy. So let's say that the vaporisation of 100 water molecules/strateria released enough energy to vaporise another 10 water molecules/strateria per second. Now we have 110 per second releasing energy, enough to vaporize 111 per second. So basically, we are now vaporising a little more than 10% more water vapor than we would get from just the stove thanks to the released energy from the vaporisation. I would also assume that the steam in this case would be hotter thanks to that extra energy. But do you also see that if the 100 strateria released enough energy to vaporise another 100 strateria, that it would escalate to 200, 300, 400... etc.