May 7th, 2008, 07:40 AM
U know , Critical temperature : is the temperature above which the gas can not be liquified irrespective to the pressure applied.
So . What is the Volume the gas reaches or that means that there will be a limit at which the gas becomes incompressible ??
Supercritical fluids are still compressible, but are neither liquid nor gas. They don't become incompressible until and unless you increase the pressure enough to get to the solid phase.
U mean we can get solid helium at a temperature higher than critical temperature by applying pressure ?
Â*
It is possible, but it takes extremely high pressures -- more than you can achieve in an ordinary laboratory. For example, the core of the planet Jupiter is believed to consist of hydrogen in a metallic state.
Â*
You are talking about something that would be highly unstable. I doubt highly if there is solid helium in the core of Jupiter.Originally Posted by SteveF
Sincerely,
William McCormick
why so? by the way, its supposed to be hydrogen not helium.You are talking about something that would be highly unstable. I doubt highly if there is solid helium in the core of Jupiter.
when root mean square speed of gas molecules is lesser than escape velocity (say, on Jupiter), gas is prevented from escaping its gravitational pull. Now, if the pull is too great, so great, that the gas molecules cannot move despite of high temperature, the gas becomes a solid. So, this 'condensation' doesn't require molecules to have van der walls forces. Hence, there is possibility of solidified helium in Jupiter's core.
I don't think solid hydrogen or helium would be a good thing as a planets core. And I certainly do not believe it is possible. As ambient radiation went to pass through a super, short of electron structure, like solid hydrogen or helium, an ARC ray would form that would wipe out most of the universe.why so? by the way, its supposed to be hydrogen not helium.You are talking about something that would be highly unstable. I doubt highly if there is solid helium in the core of Jupiter.
when root mean square speed of gas molecules is lesser than escape velocity (say, on Jupiter), gas is prevented from escaping its gravitational pull. Now, if the pull is too great, so great, that the gas molecules cannot move despite of high temperature, the gas becomes a solid. So, this 'condensation' doesn't require molecules to have van der walls forces. Hence, there is possibility of solidified helium in Jupiter's core.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
1. Why? Don't you need oxygen for combustion to work?
2. If so, doesn't that prove your ideas wrong?
3. What is a "super, short of electron structure"?
1. Why? Don't you need oxygen for combustion to work?
2. If so, doesn't that prove your ideas wrong?
3. What is a "super, short of electron structure"?
I am talking about shocking. Have you ever seen pure gases like nitrogen or oxygen, turn to a plasma ray? No burning, low voltage and high amperage actually, will do it. Once it is excited to conduction.
If you try to pass, that amount of natural ambient radiation, that passes through all things, through a frozen core, of helium or hydrogen, that size. The ARC or plasma ray would wipe out the solar system.
That is why they can float magnets on a super cold object. The object is already emitting an ARC ray. That the magnet just repels off of. Imagine a very large frozen object?
We were taught about absolute zero, as something very dangerous to play with. Because, if you shock something near absolute zero, minus 469 degrees or something there about's, the object will ARC till destruction. Much like a Cathode will. Both have the same polarity.
When you drop super frozen things on the ground, they shatter. Because the object is so dense. And ambient radiation that has to pass through it, has to shrink the atoms to expand the gap between the atoms. When it does this it loosens or breaks the bonds. So when a little bit of voltage from a fall, is put through the object, it is overloaded and shatters. Sometimes called an explosion.
It is just like heat treating. A sudden change in temperature causes the bonds of metal to break. So does super freezing.
I was working in a place, a scientific research center, and I put my ice cream in one of the cryogenic freezers. I was laughing because I was thinking about becoming the good humor bomber, ha-ha. My world is a lot funnier then yours.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
the hydrogen is not "Frozen", it is metallic! The immense pressure and heat causes the metallic hydrogen, not cold!
If a substance is solid it is in its frozen state. Upon the pressure coming off, assuming you can turn a liquid into a solid with pressure, it will absorb a tremendous amount of energy. As if it was frozen.
That is why so much energy is released when you compress something.
Compress a gas, it is more obvious, and easier to do and see the heat released. But the same would be true of compressing a liquid to a solid. I have never seen a pure element compressed to a solid. I have seen compounds compressed to a semi-solid state for split seconds.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
NOT THE SOLAR SYSTEM, BILLY!?!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Always wear a toque, Billy.When you drop super frozen things on the ground, they shatter. Because the object is so dense.
Yes, yes it is, Billy.ha-ha. My world is a lot funnier then yours.
Sorry for doing this again Will. You mentioned in a later post that if something is solid it is frozen. Ok I get that. However even if it is 'frozen' into a hyper-solid state it does not mean it is at absolute zero. Infact consider the centre of the earth with a solid iron core surrounded by liquid iron and sulphur. Understanding that the melting point of iron is 1538 °C or 1811 K if we're to deal with your absolute zero then the absolute centre of the earth should be liquid as it is surrounded by "the hot stuff". This is not the case however because of the amount of pressure maintained upon it. Now we observe hydrogen, an extremely stable atom, and we can understand that even though its melting point is even lower than that of Iron the amount of pressure on it on Jupiter would be far greater meaning that, yes infact, it could be compressed to a solid with out Jupiter 'Firin' it's Lazah' and destroying half the solar system.
I hope my explanation has calmed you all into thinking that Jupiter is not any time soon going to explode from an "Ambient Radiation" (Could someone please explain that to me?) disaster and rain a fiery death upon us all simply because of non-super-cold yet frozen Hydrogen.
I agree totally, that the temperature in a theoretical frozen or solid state, at abnormal pressure in theory could be higher. It probably will not change anything really though.Sorry for doing this again Will. You mentioned in a later post that if something is solid it is frozen. Ok I get that. However even if it is 'frozen' into a hyper-solid state it does not mean it is at absolute zero. Infact consider the centre of the earth with a solid iron core surrounded by liquid iron and sulphur. Understanding that the melting point of iron is 1538 °C or 1811 K if we're to deal with your absolute zero then the absolute centre of the earth should be liquid as it is surrounded by "the hot stuff". This is not the case however because of the amount of pressure maintained upon it. Now we observe hydrogen, an extremely stable atom, and we can understand that even though its melting point is even lower than that of Iron the amount of pressure on it on Jupiter would be far greater meaning that, yes infact, it could be compressed to a solid with out Jupiter 'Firin' it's Lazah' and destroying half the solar system.
I hope my explanation has calmed you all into thinking that Jupiter is not any time soon going to explode from an "Ambient Radiation" (Could someone please explain that to me?) disaster and rain a fiery death upon us all simply because of non-super-cold yet frozen Hydrogen.
In the case of hydrogen it would be the equivalent to absolute zero. And pose the same impossible high instability to keep it in that state.
More then likely for a split second under destructive conditions you could create a semi-solid condition.
I am not of the school that the core of the earth is solid iron. I am also not of the school that the pressures will solidify liquids and sustain that.
From a lot of testing they did, years ago, it showed that often the substance will undergo, destructive, destruction before turning into a solid at higher temperatures, and increased pressure.
If you take iron for instance. And you made a square bar of iron, 100 feet wide by 100 feet deep, by 1700 feet high. Under certain circumstance, the whole base of the iron might collapse upon itself. Actually semi-liquefy. Like during an earth quake.
So even if there was a condition in the core of the earth and it did have a huge amount of pressure upon it. Between the constant bombardment, of ambient radiation, the movements. A solid iron core to me would just seem impossible. It is more then likely a semi-solid.
That is what I was taught, and given many reasons for it being so. I do not remember them all to be honest. But there were a lot of reasons. The most likely is that the liquid in the core, keeps the planet at a reasonable speed.
I also believe that from thermal testing that the predictions were that the core was in fact molten.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
Wow that was my rainbow at the end of my parade. My happy place. Ha-ha.
I do not believe the core of Jupiter is hydrogen. And I certainly do not believe Jupiter is going to explode. When I was about ten, the estimated time for making Jupiter habitable was 50 years. Using perpetual motion, energy to heat or cool the surface, the core, or the atmosphere. Or blast or disintegrate materials into what we needed.
Some of the equipment to do this seemed a bit scary to some. Giant vacuum spheres lifting heavy loads into the stratosphere before kicking in the engines to create escape velocity. Giant disintegration equipment over the heads of less then moral individuals scared them.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
...Wow that was my rainbow at the end of my parade. My happy place. Ha-ha.
I do not believe the core of Jupiter is hydrogen. And I certainly do not believe Jupiter is going to explode. When I was about ten, the estimated time for making Jupiter habitable was 50 years. Using perpetual motion, energy to heat or cool the surface, the core, or the atmosphere. Or blast or disintegrate materials into what we needed.
Some of the equipment to do this seemed a bit scary to some. Giant vacuum spheres lifting heavy loads into the stratosphere before kicking in the engines to create escape velocity. Giant disintegration equipment over the heads of less then moral individuals scared them.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
...
......
making a joke?
Of course I was making a joke.
Making Jupiter HABITABLE!!!!!!!!!!
Mwahahahahaha
hahahahahah
omg
bwahahaha
it hurts...the laughing....make it stop
BwA HAH HA HA HA!
not you man the crazy guy... or at least i think hes crazy, i was askin if he was making a joke because im pretty sure he wasn't really just talking about disintegration rays there
He said 'then' rather than 'than'... I am in a bloodthirsty rage... You can whip about your pseudosciences all you want but don't insult the English language if you can help it (to people who's first language isn't English I can kind of understand but McCormick is a Celtic name so he should know better).
Yeah I see what you mean now medlakeguy.
"Plasma rays" and mysterious radiation are some of Will's favourite topics....even when talking about classical mechanics.not you man the crazy guy... or at least i think hes crazy, i was askin if he was making a joke because im pretty sure he wasn't really just talking about disintegration rays there
I’ve already made the point about “then” versus “than” here. Yes, I hate it. Another thing I hate is the confusion between “who’s” and “whose”!
whose = of whom
who’s = who is
All right, now flame me back! I’m ready.
Accepted at one time or another is "Than Whom" To me you can keep that one.
Then whom, works for me. A point in time is suggested. Like right now whom do you want to nominate?
Rather this than that is the accepted usage.
But in America we use then instead of than usually. I have some trouble with the definition of than.
"Rather then to get angry, I just reached over and smacked him in his head."
To me I am stating a point in time. The exact second I was going to get angry, I just reached over and smacked him in his head instead.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
No, we don't.But in America we use then instead of than usually.
yea not so much...But in America we use then instead of than usually.
You can certainly say "Better this then that".
Because the "then" can mean time. It could mean better "this" now, and not "that" now.
If I said "Better this than that", you would not know when I meant it. I could be referring to the Civil War.
If I said better this then that. I would certainly be talking about something happening right now.
I had an interesting technique for deciphering which words to use or not to use. Basically when a word was introduced, if I did not know the word, that was the first hint.
But secondly a word not to use in science is a word, that causes your teacher to cross her legs, play with her skirt, while babbling about how it might mean something different, maybe. If her shoe falls off, don't ever use it, unless you are very sure of the word.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
Take a look at these definitions. This is why I could never really use than. I was totally at a loss of why to use it.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
Ok well I think I might be able to solve our confusion... basically only use "than" when you are comparing to things. e.g.
"I am more than happy to discuss grammar with you."
You should use then pretty much every other time I think like
"I typed this reply... then pressed submit"
Yeah crap examples I know but they demonstrate the meaning..
"Giant disintegration equipment over the heads of less then moral individuals scared them.
The reason this was wrong was because when you say "less then moral" you mean people who are below moral, and therefore you are comparing the two - moral and being below moral - at least I think this is what you mean, I do sometimes find your sentences difficult to understand.
*waits to be corrected somehow*
Also did anyone else realise how "Theism" can also mean "excessive tea drinker"... if only all theist were merely caffeine addicts
I wouldn't flame you back Jane you know far more than me on the grammatical and literary subjects it would appearI’ve already made the point about “then” versus “than” here. Yes, I hate it. Another thing I hate is the confusion between “who’s” and “whose”!
whose = of whom
who’s = who is
All right, now flame me back! I’m ready.Thankyou for pointing out my mistake.
I was saying the people were < moral.
I thought then was acceptable use as in 2 is less then 4.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
more hair splittingI’ve already made the point about “then” versus “than” here. Yes, I hate it. Another thing I hate is the confusion between “who’s” and “whose”!
whose = of whom
who’s = who is
All right, now flame me back! I’m ready.
No, it would be "than" here... "then" just doesn't make senseI was saying the people were < moral.
I thought then was acceptable use as in 2 is less then 4.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
No, it would be "than" here... "then" just doesn't make senseI was saying the people were < moral.
I thought then was acceptable use as in 2 is less then 4.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
I do not know what you are saying exactly.
However I thought you could say two is less "then" four. In a directional sense of what is next.
Like in the sentence I used, "Giant disintegration equipment over the heads of less then moral individuals scared them.
I am saying "less" then moral. Like on a gradient using < showing what comes first and what comes next. I believe my usage is actually ok.
I am from the old school anyway, and in the old days it was then. I also use the word shewn occasionally. It is obsolete, however I use it. It is the same as shown.
I do not see the need for than over then. But I will try to blend in more. If it upsets people.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
| « Light and Mass | pressure » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
