Notices
Results 1 to 64 of 64
Like Tree7Likes
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By sculptor

Thread: gases question

  1. #1 gases question 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Hello all, I am presuming chemistry covers gases.

    Can someone tell me what gases are lighter than air and which gases are heavier than air<oxygen>.

    Meaning for example- carbon monoxide heavier or lighter and so on.....


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Try this.
    Gases - Densities


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Thank you for the link sir.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Hello all, I am presuming chemistry covers gases.
    Fairly extensively. Being that states of matter are explained by their chemistry, you can assume that all states are covered by chemistry. As well as almost every other interaction between atoms.

    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Can someone tell me what gases are lighter than air and which gases are heavier than air<oxygen>.

    Meaning for example- carbon monoxide heavier or lighter and so on.....
    No one should need a list to figure this out. If you're just memorizing properties or referring to a list, you're doing it wrong. You need to understand what "lighter than air" actually means and why some gasses are buoyant in our atmosphere. Also, I don't know if the <oxygen> part of your statement was to suggest that our "air" is oxygen, but our atmosphere is primarily nitrogen. Avogadro has a lot of relevant work in gasses that you might want to look into.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Fairly extensively. Being that states of matter are explained by their chemistry ...
    But remember that chemistry is just applied physics.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Fairly extensively. Being that states of matter are explained by their chemistry ...
    But remember that chemistry is just applied physics.
    Yeah, but I'm not smart enough for physics.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Hello all, I am presuming chemistry covers gases.
    Fairly extensively. Being that states of matter are explained by their chemistry, you can assume that all states are covered by chemistry. As well as almost every other interaction between atoms.

    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Can someone tell me what gases are lighter than air and which gases are heavier than air<oxygen>.

    Meaning for example- carbon monoxide heavier or lighter and so on.....
    No one should need a list to figure this out. If you're just memorizing properties or referring to a list, you're doing it wrong. You need to understand what "lighter than air" actually means and why some gasses are buoyant in our atmosphere. Also, I don't know if the <oxygen> part of your statement was to suggest that our "air" is oxygen, but our atmosphere is primarily nitrogen. Avogadro has a lot of relevant work in gasses that you might want to look into.
    Thank you flick for explaining Chemistry and the meanings. I have already determined that Nitrogen is the main content of our Atmosphere. And today I am looking to determine why there are different buoyant's in gases.

    I will look up Avogadro , I thank you.

    I have looked up clouds and also lightning, which at this time I am still unsure, so will carry on exploring that also.

    I already see lightning as some sort of cold fusion?

    I was shocked to see the earth gives of a negative charge making contact with a positive header. Then it looks like , an ionized trail, then reacts as the particles are already partly heated, creating lightning.

    I try to picture it all at the same time. I am looking at the layers of gases, and I think I understand how the cloud works.

    At this time, until I have researched into it more, I am presuming the buoyancy of gases is to do with the density, 2 hydrogen Atoms make one Helium Atom exhausting energy making less density.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I already see lightning as some sort of cold fusion?
    Absolutely not. It is just a very big electrical spark.

    At this time, until I have researched into it more, I am presuming the buoyancy of gases is to do with the density, 2 hydrogen Atoms make one Helium Atom exhausting energy making less density.
    Buoyancy is to do with relative density. I'm not sure why you are bringing fusion into it?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    You're still applying an incorrect method to understanding some of the larger concepts. What would make you think lightning had anything to do with fusion?

    And your idea of 2 H atoms making 1 He atom is strange. He is much more dense than H in equal volume.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    You're still applying an incorrect method to understanding some of the larger concepts. What would make you think lightning had anything to do with fusion?

    Lighting comes from the clouds, normally a cloud in a anvil formation gives the best lightning as I have read. I see as Strange says , a giant electrical spark.

    But I also see lightning as not one spark, but two sparks.
    The first spark starting in the clouds, the second spark ,when the first spark<header spark>, makes contact with the ground trailer, creating a second spark. As the positive charged Ions become heavier than is required for gravity, falling to earth, charging particles on the way.

    We know what creates the second spark, a collision of force, I look at the first spark and see fusion on a slightly lesser energy scale. As the clouds rise and gain density, they must surely rise through different layers of gas. I see one of these layers, or a combination of layers, could maybe start a chain reaction, that eventually creates a less energy spark<collision of Atoms or molecules>.

    And also the heat of the Sun as the clouds rise. maybe.....




    And your idea of 2 H atoms making 1 He atom is strange. He is much more dense than H in equal volume.
    My reason I say this, is that the energy of the fusion of hydrogen must take away something. You can not take away something, and not expect it to be less.

    He is maybe of smaller particles, so you can fit more in as such, so you would see more dense in volume would you not?

    Like putting footballs into a box, and then the same size box but filling that with marbles.

    The marble box would seem to have more density.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    But I also see lightning as not one spark, but two sparks. [/COLOR][COLOR=#ff0000]The first spark starting in the clouds, the second spark ,when the first spark<header spark>, makes contact with the ground trailer, creating a second spark.
    You are almost correct there (amazingly): Lightning in super DUPER slow motion - YouTube

    As the positive charged Ions become heavier than is required for gravity, falling to earth, charging particles on the way.
    Gravity is irrelevant. The electric forces involved are billions of times greater.

    We know what creates the second spark, a collision of force,
    "Colliosion force" has nothing to do with it. The energy is entirely electrical.

    I look at the first spark and see fusion on a slightly lesser energy scale.
    There is no fusion. Not even a little bit.

    Hang on, this is important.

    THERE IS NO FUSION.

    THERE IS NO FUSION.

    THERE IS NO FUSION.

    My reason I say this, is that the energy of the fusion of hydrogen must take away something. You can not take away something, and not expect it to be less.
    Again, you are both right and very, very wrong. The fusion of hydrogen releases energy. This energy comes from a reduction of mass. However, the scaling factor is c2. In other words the change in mass is 1/100000000000000000th of the amount of energy released.

    So, the helium atom is 4 times the mass of the hydrogen atom (minus a really, really tiny amount). Not less than the hydrogen atom.

    Again this shows that you need to learn more (a lot more) before speculating.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    This isn't really a method of learning at all. I know you like to claim that you have a unique way of going about it, but you just come here and incorrectly speculate, then someone says you're wrong, and you thank them only to come back and rinse and repeat two days later.

    I can appreciate the effort, but you need to stop postulating nonsense. If you're serious about learning the basics of chemistry, making these kind of speculations is only hurting you.
    Neverfly likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    This isn't really a method of learning at all. I know you like to claim that you have a unique way of going about it, but you just come here and incorrectly speculate, then someone says you're wrong, and you thank them only to come back and rinse and repeat two days later.

    I can appreciate the effort, but you need to stop postulating nonsense. If you're serious about learning the basics of chemistry, making these kind of speculations is only hurting you.
    I thank you Flick, and curious and thought is just my nature. Yes, I agree I should not speculate as much without knowing hard fact.
    I have reached that calmness now, I now know all the general categories of science, and can now concentrate on each category.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I thank you Flick, and curious and thought is just my nature. Yes, I agree I should not speculate as much without knowing hard fact.
    I have reached that calmness now, I now know all the general categories of science, and can now concentrate on each category.
    Even most PhDs in science wouldn't claim to know all the general categories of science.

    These threads would be far more productive if you stuck to one narrow topic and expand those ideas to connections to natural phenomena. For example, your initial question about density could have grown into a conversation about buoyancy and from there spread to all it's applications, measurements, and examples seen in everyday experiences, such as clouds, thunderstorms, sea-breezes, down slope mountain winds, and balloon rides.

    I'm not as critical as Flick about your learning style--I've found while teaching that's it's one of the most effective ways to learn--but both Flick are in our different ways suggesting you focus your speculations to the topic at hand.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I now know all the general categories of science, and can now concentrate on each category.
    Acarology, Actinobiology, Actinology, Aerobiology, Aerology, Aetiology, Agrobiology, Agrology, Agrostology, Algology, Allergology, Andrology, Anesthesiology, Angiology, Anthropology, Apiology, Arachnology, Archaeology, Archaeozoology, Areology, Astacology, Astrobiology, Astrogeology, Audiology, Autecology, Bacteriology, Bioecology, Biology, Bromatology, Cardiology, Cariology, Cetology, Climatology, Coleopterology, Conchology, Coniology, Craniology, Criminology, Cryology, Cynology, Cytology, Cytomorphology, Cytopathology, Dendrochronology, Dendrology, Dermatology, Dermatopathology, Desmology, Diabetology, Dipterology, Ecohydrology, Ecology, Ecophysiology, Edaphology, Electrophysiology, Embryology, Endocrinology, Entomology, Enzymology, Epidemiology, Ethology, Exobiology, Exogeology, Felinology, Fetology, Gastrology or Gastroenterology, Gemology, Geobiology, Geochronology, Geology, Geomorphology, Gerontology, Glaciology, Gynecology, Heliology, Helioseismology, Helminthology, Hematology, Hepatology, Herbology, Herpetology, Heteroptology, Hippology, Histology, Histopathology, Hydrogeology, Hydrology, Ichnology, Ichthyology, Immunology, Karyology, Kinesiology, Kymatology, Laryngology, Lepidopterology, Limnology, Lithology, Lymphology, Malacology, Mammalogy, Meteorology, Methodology, Metrology, Microbiology, Micrology, Mineralogy, Mycology, Myology, Myrmecology, Nanotechnology, Nanotribology, Nematology, Neonatology, Nephology, Nephrology, Neurology, Neuropathology, Neurophysiology, Nosology, Oceanology, Odonatology, Odontology, Oncology, Oology, Ophthalmology, Ornithology, Orology, Orthopterology, Osteology, Otolaryngology, Otology, Otorhinolaryngology, Paleoanthropology, Paleobiology, Paleobotany, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology, Paleontology, Paleophytology, Paleozoology, Palynology, Parapsychology, Parasitology, Pathology, Petrology, Pharmacology, Phenology, Phlebology, Phonology, Phycology, Physiology, Phytology, Phytopathology, Phytosociology, Planetology, Planktology, Pomology, Posology, Primatology, Proctology, Psychobiology, Psychology, Psychopathology, Psychopharmacology, Psychophysiology, Pulmonology, Radiology, Reflexology, Rheology, Rheumatology, Rhinology, Sarcology, Scatology, Sedimentology, Seismology, Selenology, Serology, Sexology, Sitiology, Sociobiology, Sociology, Somatology, Sometimes spelled foetology Formicology, Somnology, Speleology, Stomatology, Symptomatology, Synecology, Technology, Thermology, Tocology, Topology, Toxicology, Traumatology, Tribology, Trichology, Typology, Urology, Vaccinology, Virology, Volcanology (or vulcanology), Xenobiology, Xylology, Zooarchaeology, Zoology, Zoopathology, Zoopsychology, Zymology, and ...
    adelady likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I'm not as critical as Flick about your learning style--I've found while teaching that's it's one of the most effective ways to learn--but both Flick are in our different ways suggesting you focus your speculations to the topic at hand.
    If you're implying that teaching is the best way to learn, I couldn't agree more.

    What I find with theorist, however, is that we're not so much teaching anything as simply correcting wildly off-the-mark speculation. When it's mixed in with strange comments like, "I know understand the basics of all areas of science" (paraphrasing here), it just turns into an exercise in frustration.

    However, I certainly don't want to discourage learning or come off as a grumpy jerk. Sorry if I was a little harsh. Real world stress creeps into everything, ya know?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I'm not as critical as Flick about your learning style--I've found while teaching that's it's one of the most effective ways to learn--but both Flick are in our different ways suggesting you focus your speculations to the topic at hand.
    If you're implying that teaching is the best way to learn, I couldn't agree more.

    What I find with theorist, however, is that we're not so much teaching anything as simply correcting wildly off-the-mark speculation. When it's mixed in with strange comments like, "I know understand the basics of all areas of science" (paraphrasing here), it just turns into an exercise in frustration.

    However, I certainly don't want to discourage learning or come off as a grumpy jerk. Sorry if I was a little harsh. Real world stress creeps into everything, ya know?
    I thank you Flick for the harsh truth. It is my way with words that can easily be mistaken for my meanings, I apologize.

    Yes I do see by Strange's example, I am way of track from saying I know the entire science catologue.

    I meant and should of explained it better, that I have some basic understanding of some categories. I now know the basic principles of what each topic means,

    I apologize to you for poor English wording.
    Last edited by theorist; February 20th, 2013 at 06:47 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Honestly, I loathe poor English from native speakers, but I have no problem with a non-native speaker not having good spelling and grammar. It's pretty easy to tell the difference between a non-native speaker and someone who is just being lazy. So no worries about that.

    I also have to commend you on your patience and understanding. Regardless of how we may react, you've at least been pleasant to speak to.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I also have to commend you on your patience and understanding. Regardless of how we may react, you've at least been pleasant to speak to.
    True. Theorist has put up with a lot with great calmness!
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman Thrylix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    16
    I think helium is the lightest?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I also have to commend you on your patience and understanding. Regardless of how we may react, you've at least been pleasant to speak to.
    True. Theorist has put up with a lot with great calmness!
    I have learnt to control full emotions, and do not see anything offensive from any of you. You are just putting me straight, I do not have the superior knowledge to not listen on the given subjects.

    I thank you for your patience and understanding, and yes , sometimes my posts are lazy and wild. I apologize, from the lack of use, in written form of the English language, I have simply forgot correct grammar. I have replaced it with a laziness of slang, new meanings for a word at times.

    That is due to the surroundings of my culture and area where I live. I do not think anyone speaks correctly anymore where I live.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I do not think anyone speaks correctly anymore where I live.
    Don't get me started on that!

    I'm absolutely certain that most of them speak correctly most of the time. They just may not speak the same dialect as you, either because the language has changed over time or people have arrived from other places. Or both.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I do not think anyone speaks correctly anymore where I live.
    Don't get me started on that!

    I'm absolutely certain that most of them speak correctly most of the time. They just may not speak the same dialect as you, either because the language has changed over time or people have arrived from other places. Or both.

    I meant in the context that where I live every one seems to be a gangsta wannabe, hence lots of slang meanings and poor dialect.
    I live in the UK a place called stoke on trent....where the spitfire designer Mitchell comes from.
    I live on a huge council estate in the middle of stoke on trent, one of the biggest council estates there is.

    So urban life as its own language at times. I am sure that they all know English, but using it is another story.

    I believe He is the most Buoyant, although dense?

    I do not believe lighter or heavier exist, only as a relative sense?

    I also believe most gases have anti gravity properties?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I believe He is the most Buoyant, although dense?

    I do not believe lighter or heavier exist, only as a relative sense?

    I also believe most gases have anti gravity properties?
    None of this makes sense. Buoyancy is directly related to the density. Helium is denser than hydrogen, so it is less buoyant in air. When people refer to a gas as lighter or heavier, what they mean is less or more dense. Gases do not have anti gravity properties. They may be less dense than air in which case they will rise. If they are denser than air, they will sink.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    And, to be clear, a balloon filled with helium or hydrogen would fall to the ground in a vacuum.

    poor dialect
    There is no such thing as a "poor" dialect. There are dialects which are more or less prestigious, but none are "better" or "worse" in any linguistic sense.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I believe He is the most Buoyant, although dense?

    I do not believe lighter or heavier exist, only as a relative sense?

    I also believe most gases have anti gravity properties?
    None of this makes sense. Buoyancy is directly related to the density. Helium is denser than hydrogen, so it is less buoyant in air. When people refer to a gas as lighter or heavier, what they mean is less or more dense. Gases do not have anti gravity properties. They may be less dense than air in which case they will rise. If they are denser than air, they will sink.
    You say that gases do not have anti gravity properties!, so why do gases not stick to the surface of the earth like more denser mass doe's.

    Looking at the layers of the Atmosphere , He the most buoyant leads the way....followed by the other gases generally off more electrons and protons,

    what you refer to as Buoyancy I see as less electrons ,less, protons,

    I see the less there is, the more anti gravitational properties.

    My thought's are probably way of logic and fact as we know. However in my mind, I am saying there is something that doe's not make sense to me, and I just can't quite put my finger on it.

    So forgive the apparent assumptions ...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And, to be clear, a balloon filled with helium or hydrogen would fall to the ground in a vacuum.


    NOw that as confused my thoughts....however I do have a thought on it, but will hold that thought at this time ..I do have a blueprint picture in mind of everything lol..
    I am also remembering the facts that you tell me and keep changing my picture.

    poor dialect
    There is no such thing as a "poor" dialect. There are dialects which are more or less prestigious, but none are "better" or "worse" in any linguistic sense.
    Your better English as confused me, I stand down..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    You say that gases do not have anti gravity properties!, so why do gases not stick to the surface of the earth like more denser mass doe's
    Buoyancy means floating. In the same way that oil (less dense than water) will rise to the top of water, so less dense gases will float in the atmosphere.

    This is not antigravity (unless you are going to call tables and picture hooks examples of antigravity).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    You say that gases do not have anti gravity properties!, so why do gases not stick to the surface of the earth like more denser mass doe's
    Buoyancy means floating. In the same way that oil (less dense than water) will rise to the top of water, so less dense gases will float in the atmosphere.

    This is not antigravity (unless you are going to call tables and picture hooks examples of antigravity).
    Doe's oil have more electrons or less electrons than water?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    You say that gases do not have anti gravity properties!, so why do gases not stick to the surface of the earth like more denser mass doe's.
    They do stick to the surface of the earth. They aren't flying off into outer space are they?
    Looking at the layers of the Atmosphere , He the most buoyant leads the way....followed by the other gases generally off more electrons and protons,
    No. It's hydrogen.
    what you refer to as Buoyancy I see as less electrons ,less, protons,

    I see the less there is, the more anti gravitational properties.
    No, it's mainly neutrons and protons that make the element heavier. Electrons weigh very little.
    My thought's are probably way of logic and fact as we know. However in my mind, I am saying there is something that doe's not make sense to me, and I just can't quite put my finger on it.

    So forgive the apparent assumptions ...
    Look up bouyancy and study it. Then you will be able to put your finger on it. You are trying to invent an explanation for something that is already well understood. Don't try to reinvent the wheel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Doe's oil have more electrons or less electrons than water?
    That makes no sense. A million gallons of oil has more electrons than a drop of water. A million gallons of water has more electrons than a drop of oil.

    And it isn't relevant.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    You say that gases do not have anti gravity properties!, so why do gases not stick to the surface of the earth like more denser mass doe's.
    They do stick to the surface of the earth. They aren't flying off into outer space are they?
    Looking at the layers of the Atmosphere , He the most buoyant leads the way....followed by the other gases generally off more electrons and protons,
    No. It's hydrogen.
    what you refer to as Buoyancy I see as less electrons ,less, protons,

    I see the less there is, the more anti gravitational properties.
    No, it's mainly neutrons and protons that make the element heavier. Electrons weigh very little.

    Yes I do know this, There is equal electrons to protons so I just asked the question a bit opposite sorry.


    My thought's are probably way of logic and fact as we know. However in my mind, I am saying there is something that doe's not make sense to me, and I just can't quite put my finger on it.

    So forgive the apparent assumptions ...
    Look up bouyancy and study it. Then you will be able to put your finger on it. You are trying to invent an explanation for something that is already well understood. Don't try to reinvent the wheel.
    I thank you I will look up Buoyancy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    [QUOTE=Harold14370;396659]
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    You say that gases do not have anti gravity properties!, so why do gases not stick to the surface of the earth like more denser mass doe's.
    They do stick to the surface of the earth. They aren't flying off into outer space are they?
    [quote]


    This is what I am considering and why they do not drift off into space.

    I will tell you were I am with my thinking....

    I see that the earth gives off a negative charge as when the trailer comes out of the earth to connect with a header in lightning.
    This trailer is a negative. A negative force as a repelling effect.

    I think the gases, elements in our atmosphere are been repelled and then as the force of repel lessens, at distance, altitude....gravity then holds them in place.

    And I think this is something to do with less protons,less electrons, less buoyancy..less hold on gravity.

    As for a balloon filled with He that in a vacuum falls to the floor, this is because there is no other connecting elements to help lift the balloon to equal the balloons .density.

    Just a thought......not fact I know
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    When it comes to gases, you don't need to factor gravity in so much.

    The He balloon in a vacuum falls to the ground because there is no denser air around it to support it.

    If you REALLY want to play with gasses and buoyancy, you can do a little trick I did for my cousin's career day in 4th grade. You can take sulfur hexafluoride, fill a small container with it, and float an aluminum foil boat on top. This is because SF6 is exceptionally heavy for a gas. So heavy that it can displace some light solids. Even though it is invisible, it will stay in a pitcher and you can actually pour it into the boat and cause it to sink as the levels of SF6 even out.

    I used it as a good way to visualize gas buoyancy. Plus, the kids liked my theatrics (dressed as a mad scientist).
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    speaking of lightning
    by what mechanism does lightning fix nitrogen in the soil?
    Last edited by sculptor; February 23rd, 2013 at 10:30 AM.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    This trailer is a negative. A negative force as a repelling effect.
    A negative charge only repels a negative charge. It attracts a positive charge. Gases are neutral so any such charge will have no effect.

    I think the gases, elements in our atmosphere are been repelled and then as the force of repel lessens, at distance, altitude....gravity then holds them in place.

    And I think this is something to do with less protons,less electrons, less buoyancy..less hold on gravity.
    You are overcomplicating things. It is simply due to differing densities. You can do the same with liquids:
    9296047-some-multi-colored-puff-cocktails-on-a-white-background.jpg
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    speaking of lightning
    by what mechanism does lightning fix nitrogen in the soil?
    I believe the huge amounts of energy in a lightning strike can separate the diatomic nitrogen gas and allow it to form ammonium and nitrate with other atmospheric compounds. I've heard about the process, but honestly I don't know the specifics. I bet one of the resident meteorologists could explain it.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    When it comes to gases, you don't need to factor gravity in so much.

    The He balloon in a vacuum falls to the ground because there is no denser air around it to support it.

    I thought that is what I said, the balloon can not fall in the none vacuum because there are no elements to sit the balloon on as such.

    If you REALLY want to play with gasses and buoyancy, you can do a little trick I did for my cousin's career day in 4th grade. You can take sulfur hexafluoride, fill a small container with it, and float an aluminum foil boat on top. This is because SF6 is exceptionally heavy for a gas. So heavy that it can displace some light solids. Even though it is invisible, it will stay in a pitcher and you can actually pour it into the boat and cause it to sink as the levels of SF6 even out.

    I used it as a good way to visualize gas buoyancy. Plus, the kids liked my theatrics (dressed as a mad scientist).
    I think I may have to try that it sounds a pretty cool trick..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    This trailer is a negative. A negative force as a repelling effect.
    A negative charge only repels a negative charge. It attracts a positive charge. Gases are neutral so any such charge will have no effect.

    I think the gases, elements in our atmosphere are been repelled and then as the force of repel lessens, at distance, altitude....gravity then holds them in place.

    And I think this is something to do with less protons,less electrons, less buoyancy..less hold on gravity.
    You are overcomplicating things. It is simply due to differing densities. You can do the same with liquids:
    9296047-some-multi-colored-puff-cocktails-on-a-white-background.jpg
    I do understand your example of buoyancy in your glass example. And I do understand the different densities and why a brick sinks in water.

    You say a negative charge repels a negative charge, exactly my thinking.

    Gases have a Neutral state, so less or no positive charge.

    However what about the Electrons, they are negative, so could the Electrons ,in gases which have no +charge, be actually a negative and repel, as less density,
    so less protons..been repelled by a stronger force.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    985
    theorist: A lot of scientific thought has to do with careful, exact, definitions. Language is an inherently inexact tool but it is what we communicate with so we try to be precise about our words. For example; salt, sugar and flour are all common white powders. We combine them with water on a daily basis. But we say that salt and sugar dissolve in water but when we put flour in water it does not dissolve but rather mixes and becomes suspended in water. This is an important distinction.

    You are running into problems with inexact definitions of words and the fact that English uses words differently in differing context. "Negative" can mean "bad", "evil", "wrong", "a quantity less than zero", "a label to identify one of the two possible electric charges". Confusion results if you drag the meaning from one context into another. A negative electrical charge is not 'repulsive' in a moral or aestheic sense. It is attractive toward a oppositly charged thing, but being "attractive" does not make it beautiful.
    In terms of chemical interactions and electrons it is important to remember that elctrons are not absolutly bound to their atoms but rather are more or less loosely associated with their atoms.
    A relatively minor amount of external energy can dissociate them from the atom they are part of. When you pet a cat on a dry winters day the motion of your hand drags electons from the skin of your hand to the fur of the cat. This temporarily negatively charges the fur and positively charges your hand. If you then touch the cat's skin, say at his nose, there will be a spark as the charges will neutralize each other through the cat. The cat will tolerate only a limited amount of this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    However what about the Electrons, they are negative, so could the Electrons ,in gases which have no +charge, be actually a negative and repel, as less density,
    so less protons..been repelled by a stronger force.
    The electrons and protons are tightly bound together in atoms which, therefore, have zero net charge. However, the electric charge around atoms is what makes things solid, for example. Put your hand on the table. The reason you can feel it is because the electrons in the surface of the wood repel the electrons in your skin.

    But buoyancy is just due to relative density.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    thanx flick and Ph

    in one of the face studies
    (I believe it was with loblolly pines)
    the trees grew much faster--sequestered more carbon--up to 1000ppm of CO2 concentrations, then faltered when they ran out of useable nitrogen
    and
    I had thought, when reading the article, that a mixed planting of legumes, or creating a "lightning field" as an artist had done, might be the ticket for more growth.......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Is there any gases or chemical reaction that turn the elements into hot liquid anything similar to volcanic lava, magna , which ever term explains the red runny stuff that burns.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Chilakaluripet,Guntur(District),Andhra Pradesh(State),India
    Posts
    56
    Lightning plays a minor part in the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen. The extreme heat of a lightning flash causes nitrogen to combine with oxygen of the air to form nitrogen oxides. The oxides combine with moisture in the air. The fixed nitrogen is carried by rain to the earth, where, in the form of nitrates, it is used by plants.for complete source visit these links
    HowStuffWorks "Nitrogen Fixation"
    Nitrogen fixation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/biological-nitrogen-fixation-23570419
    nitrogencycle.jpg
    Attachment 0
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Chilakaluripet,Guntur(District),Andhra Pradesh(State),India
    Posts
    56
    volcanic lava or magma is molten rock and minerals its physical change not chemical.i dont no any chemical reaction that produce lava .may be there are some exothermic reactions which melts metals thats all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Is there any gases or chemical reaction that turn the elements into hot liquid anything similar to volcanic lava, magna , which ever term explains the red runny stuff that burns.
    Magma is under the crust, lava is on the surface. It's sort of like the name change when a meteoroid enters the atmosphere and becomes a meteorite.

    Magma is formed deep within the Earth as rocks are subjected to high temperature and pressure. It's not so much caused by a chemical rxn, although many rxns take place during extrusive events.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    the land of pie
    Posts
    4
    hello, I wanted to ask that how would the particles in a helium and argon filled balloon be arranged? would they all be randomly arranged or would the helium be above the argon particles?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    If it was kept still, most of the helium would rise to the top and most of the argon would sink to the bottom. There would be an area in the middle with a mixture of the two. Think milk and cream...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    the land of pie
    Posts
    4
    oh thankyou !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    After reading several articles on the effect of gravity on gases , I understand that gravity has no effect on gases is that correct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post



    You obviously haven't understood them then.
    Gravity affects all mass, do gas molecules have mass? How massive is an average gas molecule? (Clue: not very) How much gravitational force will this mass feel? (Clue not f@@@ing much). How much will this force change the magnitude of the speed/kinetic energy (clue look up kinetic theory of gases) of the gas molecule? (Clue: not much) Which factor will dominate (even though the other one is there you can't say it has no effect). Gravity does affect gases it's just quite a small but important effect (see edit)

    EDIT: PS if gases felt no gravity how do you think we have an atmosphere, is it stuck on with duct tape?
    I thank you for the interesting answer.

    I do not think duct tape.

    Question 1 - I understand that all gases expand, is this so?

    Question 2 - Is "He", forced to the outer layer by more dense gases? "two particles can not occupy the same space".

    Question 3- If not yes to the above question, how is "He" , not on the surface layers of our atmosphere?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Question 1 - I understand that all gases expand, is this so?
    "All gasses expand" is a meangless statement. Look at a balloon or a bubble. It is full of gas. Is it constantly getting bigger and bigger as the gas expands?

    I think it has already been suggested that you red about Boyle's Law and Charle's Law (not that I expect you to undertand any of it).

    Question 2 - Is "He", forced to the outer layer by more dense gases?
    That is basically the principle of buoyancy: lighter fluids float to the top (think oil and water, or Tequila Sunrise). This is how we lose most of the hydrogen, helium and other light gases in the atmosphere.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    I see we have given slightly different answers to Q2. This may confuse theorist as he doesn't understand any of this...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Question 1 - I understand that all gases expand, is this so?
    "All gasses expand" is a meangless statement. Look at a balloon or a bubble. It is full of gas. Is it constantly getting bigger and bigger as the gas expands?

    I think it has already been suggested that you red about Boyle's Law and Charle's Law (not that I expect you to undertand any of it).

    Question 2 - Is "He", forced to the outer layer by more dense gases?
    That is basically the principle of buoyancy: lighter fluids float to the top (think oil and water, or Tequila Sunrise). This is how we lose most of the hydrogen, helium and other light gases in the atmosphere.
    I thank you,

    So gases can stay at a "constant state", no expansion, until heated or been pressured by other heated gases? is this what you are saying, and a simple definition of the various laws?.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    So gases can stay at a "constant state", no expansion, until heated or been pressured by other heated gases? is this what you are saying, and a simple definition of the various laws?.
    That is so garbled that I will not say yes. It is so garbled I cannot even begin to correct it.

    Yet more evidence that you understand about 0.01% of what you read.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Yet more evidence that you understand about 0.01% of what you read.[/QUOTE]

    That is why I try to clarify what I have read, so I do understand, I think we are saying the same thing.


    I am a lateral thinker, I have recently discovered the term.

    Re-worded

    The gases stay the same shape unless heat conduction happens?

    Gases, will stand still and not move, if there was no heat or no pressure in a surrounding medium?


    Gravity, draws the heavier more dense gases towards the surface?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    FFS look up the ideal gas law



    If you're too lazy here it is:

    PV=nRT

    P is pressure
    V is volume
    n is number of moles (not the furry animals it is an amount of substance)
    R is a constant (the gas constant 8.314 J/K/mol)
    T is absolute temperature.

    For a fixed amount of gas (n) if P goes up at constant T, V has to decrease, if T goes up at constant V, P increases if T goes up at constant P, V increases etc. It's actually very basic and should have been learned at school.
    I do have the bookmark for the ideal gas law.

    I thank you for your explanation of example.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I am a lateral thinker, I have recently discovered the term.
    hmmmm....

    The gases stay the same shape unless heat conduction happens?
    Look at bubbles, they can wibble and wobble and change their shape with no heat conduction required.

    So, no.

    Gases, will stand still and not move, if there was no heat or no pressure in a surrounding medium?
    Look at bubbles, they move quite freely without the application of heat or pressure. (Although if there was no pressure, they would burst, of course).

    If you burst a bubble or a balloon, the gas won't stay there still and motionless; it will diffuse away.

    So, no.

    Gravity, draws the heavier more dense gases towards the surface?
    Crudely, and inaccurately, I suppose that is roughly right.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Personally, I think de Bono is a fool and the whole idea of "lateral thinking" is a load of tosh. But what do I know...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    You are not really any type of thinker as you show again and again and again.

    Gases stay the same volume, pressure and temperature (nothing to do with shape) unless something happens to change the pressure, temperature or volume (it doesn't have to be heat conduction). This is obvious from the very basic eqution given above if you don't understand this how you hope to understand more difficult branches of physics is beyond me.

    Second part is bollocks, gases are composed of molecules that are in constant motion (this is what causes pressure among other things) and their average speed defines the temperature you really have no clue - did you look up the kinetic theory of gases like I suggested? It covers this.

    Heavier denser gases feel more gravitational attraction - again a shockingly simple bit of physics that seems to have passed you by.
    Thank you for your answer. I was not thinking about molecule movement, I know that there is a constant movement of electrons and molecules in gas state.

    I was considering the V "squashed by P".

    That is why I said change of shape. Strange's bubble example of the bubble, the bubble changes shape because of the difference in P, is that correct?

    The V stays the same?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Not something I've thought about...

    After a quick google though I agree, it doesn't seem to be a good way of solving science problems.

    "Critical thinking is primarily concerned with judging the true value of statements and seeking errors. Lateral thinking is more concerned with the movement value of statements and ideas."

    I'll stick with critical thinking thanks...
    Hmmmm, critical thinking, interesting, I could agree with that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Movement of electrons has nothing to do with pressure volume or temperature

    Crudely an increase in P does squash the gas and cause a decrease in V

    Not sure where your going with the bubbles stuff
    Yes I understand that that the electrons have nothing to do with PV or T.

    My bubbles are not going any where, not yet, I have not switched to lateral thinking, I am on critical thinking, I thank you both for helping me understand myself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Why don't you try it. You might get hammered less if you did...
    Critical thinking is - It is a way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false.

    The Honey and Mumford style of learning, ""theorist", I have to have facts, then I critical think, then I lateral think.

    What is the context of normal thinking called?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I am on critical thinking, I thank you both for helping me understand myself.
    This could be the most wrong statement you have ever made. If you need evidence just look at any of you posts you made in your light reflecting of mass thread.
    Agreed, but in my opening title alone, I explained it wrong. So my lateral thinking was not understood. We were on the wrong wavelength.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. volume of gases
    By STEPHANkIM5 in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2009, 09:48 AM
  2. Gases
    By Mars in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 17th, 2009, 01:11 PM
  3. Collecting Gases
    By darmic in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 5th, 2008, 06:30 AM
  4. Importance of greenhouse gases???
    By rct1718 in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 18th, 2006, 10:17 PM
  5. Gases?
    By Benzene in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 5th, 2005, 02:44 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •