Remember me
▼ Content

KE = 3/2kT and PV = nRT


KE = 3/2kT and PV = nRT02-02-2024 20:14
James_
★★★★★
(2251)
These 2 equations have similar meanings. It is important to understand this.
Nominal air pressure and temperature is considered as;

NIST uses a temperature of 20 °C (293.15 K, 68 °F) and an absolute pressure of 1 atm (14.696 psi, 101.325 kPa).


The relationship between KE = 3/2kT and PV = nRT needs to be known. Maybe
sealover will have an opinion about this? If we work 2 or 3 problems, will that
help us to understand the relationship between those 2 equations?
I'll explain why I think this is important. With KE = 3/2kT, the energy that 1º kelvin
or Celsius has. PV = nRT explains what fills a volume. Both equations together
describes what's happening in that volume of atmosphere. I am not sure if the mainstream view in science has mentioned this before or not.
Edited on 02-02-2024 20:15
02-02-2024 20:39
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1643)
James_ wrote:
These 2 equations have similar meanings. It is important to understand this.
Nominal air pressure and temperature is considered as;

NIST uses a temperature of 20 °C (293.15 K, 68 °F) and an absolute pressure of 1 atm (14.696 psi, 101.325 kPa).


The relationship between KE = 3/2kT and PV = nRT needs to be known. Maybe
sealover will have an opinion about this? If we work 2 or 3 problems, will that
help us to understand the relationship between those 2 equations?
I'll explain why I think this is important. With KE = 3/2kT, the energy that 1º kelvin
or Celsius has. PV = nRT explains what fills a volume. Both equations together
describes what's happening in that volume of atmosphere. I am not sure if the mainstream view in science has mentioned this before or not.


Just tell us how much pressure will make Heaven shatter you low life.


03-02-2024 01:35
James_
★★★★★
(2251)
For something like this, KE = 3/2kT and PV = nRT, it'll require other things to be discussed as well.
Since 3/2kT = 1/2mv^2, gasses in the tropopause will have a slightly greater/faster velocity than
gasses at or near ground level. This will give gasses higher in the atmosphere more kinetic energy.
Then if the orbital velocity of the Earth's gravitational field is considered, that's more kinetic energy for gasses closer to the Earth's surface. 10km up and that's (6,381 km/6,371 km) x 1,600km/h = 1,602.5 km/h.
Then there's the mass of air (28.5 grams at sea level, 59º F . (about) and at 30 Hg's of vacuum air pressure. When considering that the tropopause is composed of denser, faster spinning molecules,
someone (that's me) needs to come up with an answer. Science requires a working theory/null hypothesis to establish the plausibility of any such theory.
And with clouds, they are water vapor. Apparently water vapor is not as dense as N2. O2, etc.
Then where does water get its energy to stay as a gas (steam at 100º C., 212º F.) yet it will be a gas at room temperature. This gets into conservation of momentum/energy.
There is a possible answer for water vapor in the atmosphere, there really is a vacuum in the Earth's atmosphere. Molecules like N2 and O2 have atomic masses of 14.007 x 2 and 15.999 x 2.
With water vapor, its atomic mass is (1.008 x 2) + 15.999 = 18.015. Water while denser is obviously lighter than gas molecules in the Earth's atmosphere.
And when water which is lighter than N2 type nitrogen cannot rise into the tropopause, this would have to do with the linear and angular momentum. It's simply not being transferred to water vapor or other gasses that want to rise into the tropopause.
And maybe now Swon, spong iris or sealover would like to discuss science? We can start with thermodynamics and how the heat water vapor has wants to rise but can't. They say as a person rises in the atmosphere that it gets thinner. What if it gets "thicker" or denser and the gas molecules have less linear velocity need to support 1/2mv^2 = KE. The kinetic energy atmospheric gasses have is entirely dependent on velocity unless energy is being conserved (transferred from an external source of energy).
Can you help me out sealover? After this it starts getting complicated. And most of these guys have heard this already. What do you think?

@sealover(?), With how much of my work focuses on kinetic energy, I think
scientists will start considering how often momentum and not heat dictates thermodynamics. The tropopause shows that moment can dictate thermodynamics. When scientists missed this basic observation they left the door open for me to walk through.

p.s., Being allowed to post freely allows me to consider my thoughts and get feedback. Also all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Can't be serious and solely focused on work.
Edited on 03-02-2024 01:41
03-02-2024 02:20
James_
★★★★★
(2251)
This gets into the Joule Thomson throttling process https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Physical_Chemistry_(Fleming)/04%3A_Putting_the_First_Law_to_Work/4.05%3A_The_Joule-Thomson_Effect

When pressure is reduced (number of molecules per given volume) the temperature will drop. I have just shown where science supports that as well.
And yet I'll say there are more molecules per given volume of space in the tropopause than the troposphere.
This would have to do with how N2 is conserving momentum in the tropopause.
79% of the troposphere is composed on nitrogen (N2). Oxygen is 21% which means that water vapor is a trace gas like CO2. And since most of the Earth's atmosphere is nitrogen, how likely is it for a band of it to form?
Not likely would be the right answer. Then this gets into the Earth's gravitational field, the Van Allen radiation belts as well as the gravity of both the Moon and the Sun.
Science requires it to be known how EVERYTHING influences the atmosphere. We're
simply not there yet.

p.s., the Earth rotating underneath the atmosphere might transfer some of its momentum to the atmosphere? Land and sea are a minimum about 800 times denser than atmospheric gasses. Can the rising or flowing tide influence the air above it?
Science requires EVERYTHING to be considered. Understanding science allows you to better understand what EVERYTHING is.

p.s.s., To consider CO2, then let's consider it like water. How do dense molecules
cause N2 and O2 in the atmosphere to react? They say that CO2 and H2O are the #1 and the #2 (not in that order) greenhouse gasses.
OOokkaaayyyy, we'll go with that one Wilbur, got your parka on? Time to go ice fishing.

What changes do CO2 and H2O cause in a field of N2 and O2 specifically?
HHHHAAAHHH, you can't tell me because you don't know. I say climate change is happening but it's not that simple. And always be mindful, I don't like ODSs which includes but not limited to NOx and SOx.
03-02-2024 08:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21945)
James_ wrote:
These 2 equations have similar meanings. It is important to understand this.
Nominal air pressure and temperature is considered as;

NIST uses a temperature of 20 °C (293.15 K, 68 °F) and an absolute pressure of 1 atm (14.696 psi, 101.325 kPa).


The relationship between KE = 3/2kT and PV = nRT needs to be known. Maybe
sealover will have an opinion about this? If we work 2 or 3 problems, will that
help us to understand the relationship between those 2 equations?
I'll explain why I think this is important. With KE = 3/2kT, the energy that 1º kelvin
or Celsius has. PV = nRT explains what fills a volume. Both equations together
describes what's happening in that volume of atmosphere. I am not sure if the mainstream view in science has mentioned this before or not.

Math error: Unit error.
Logic errors: Buzzword fallacies.

There is no such thing as 'mainstream science'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-02-2024 08:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21945)
James_ wrote:
This gets into the Joule Thomson throttling process https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Physical_Chemistry_(Fleming)/04%3A_Putting_the_First_Law_to_Work/4.05%3A_The_Joule-Thomson_Effect

When pressure is reduced (number of molecules per given volume) the temperature will drop. I have just shown where science supports that as well.
And yet I'll say there are more molecules per given volume of space in the tropopause than the troposphere.
This would have to do with how N2 is conserving momentum in the tropopause.
79% of the troposphere is composed on nitrogen (N2). Oxygen is 21% which means that water vapor is a trace gas like CO2. And since most of the Earth's atmosphere is nitrogen, how likely is it for a band of it to form?
Not likely would be the right answer. Then this gets into the Earth's gravitational field, the Van Allen radiation belts as well as the gravity of both the Moon and the Sun.
Science requires it to be known how EVERYTHING influences the atmosphere. We're
simply not there yet.

p.s., the Earth rotating underneath the atmosphere might transfer some of its momentum to the atmosphere? Land and sea are a minimum about 800 times denser than atmospheric gasses. Can the rising or flowing tide influence the air above it?
Science requires EVERYTHING to be considered. Understanding science allows you to better understand what EVERYTHING is.

p.s.s., To consider CO2, then let's consider it like water. How do dense molecules
cause N2 and O2 in the atmosphere to react? They say that CO2 and H2O are the #1 and the #2 (not in that order) greenhouse gasses.
OOokkaaayyyy, we'll go with that one Wilbur, got your parka on? Time to go ice fishing.

What changes do CO2 and H2O cause in a field of N2 and O2 specifically?
HHHHAAAHHH, you can't tell me because you don't know. I say climate change is happening but it's not that simple. And always be mindful, I don't like ODSs which includes but not limited to NOx and SOx.

The last two posts of yours were nothing more than random disconnected phrases and buzzword.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 03-02-2024 08:06
03-02-2024 11:53
James_
★★★★★
(2251)
Into the Night wrote:

The last two posts of yours were nothing more than random disconnected phrases and buzzword.



Ok Mr. Science Guy, while water is denser than atmospheric gasses, it's not
as energetic so it gets carried by the air. And while CO2 is both heavier and denser than air, it is not as energetic as air.
This means that what is most excited (O2 oxygen and N2 nitrogen) transfers energy to what is less excitable (water, CO2). Because water is adhesive it forms clouds.

p.s., Because chances are the surface of the Earth itself has kinetic energy, could
that excite the air closer to the surface of the Earth? At its equator the Earth's surface is moving close to 1,000 mph/1,600 km/h. That's a lot of energy, right?
Because of conduction, atmospheric gasses interacting with the surface of the Earth, can solid molecules transfer energy to gas molecules at the molecular level.
This gets into some "strange" thoughts. Because the Earth literally rotates it treats the atmosphere exposed to its surface like it's a tumbler in a machine shop.
This link goes to a tumbler working; https://youtu.be/X8Y3pJM1VEA?t=246
With air and the ground or sea, the media in the tumbler. And that could help to explain why the Earth is warm. Kinetic energy from the Earth's surface is transferred to its atmosphere.
Edited on 03-02-2024 12:23
03-02-2024 22:31
James_
★★★★★
(2251)
What I posted in the other thread should've been posted in here. This is the gas constant R; The value of R at atm that is at standard atmospheric pressure is R = 8.3144598 J.mol-1.K-1.
R is also the heat rating for different gasses, right Harvey? ; https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/individual-universal-gas-constant-d_588.html

When considering PV = NrT, should the universal gas constant be used or the individual gas constant? If the individual gas constant is used, is that more likely to agree with the Joule Thomson coefficient? That's how gasses react to a change in pressure and temperature.
Then if the Earth is exciting atmospheric gasses, then does that help the tropopause to exist? And with the 2 equations, it does seem that KE + 3/2kT
describes how fast a molecule is moving while NrT describes force in joules which is what pressure is.
Now does this help us to understand a volume of air? The number of molecules can increase in a given volume (1 mol or liter as examples) while both pressure and volume decrease. This is something that the Joule Thomson coefficient suggests. And the mistake that scientists made was considering the Joule Thomson throttling process as an example of a decrease in pressure and temperature.
They didn't consider gasses whose elements have a lower state (n = 1, 2, etc.) will occupy less space. And with doing new work in science, it is like doing a new build, it's a work in progress. If you consider that water is about 800 times denser than air, there is high and low tide. Does that apply to the atmosphere as well?
Just some of the things that need to be found out.

p.s., If between gravity and states of matter, if it is found that they influence the troposphere and why it is warm, then that will be a major change. A basic example is when oceans like the Pacific have a high and low tide, work is mass x distance.
How much water is moving what distance to allow for high and low tides? That is work that is also transferred to atmospheric gasses. This IMHO is what discussing climate change should involve.

p.s.s., What happens when a person is published or has had their work cited.
This is the kind of "junk" I get in my inbox everyday. And one day maybe it will be my paper being cited. For the science aspect that might be what's most telling. It'll be about my work being accepted.
Attached image:


Edited on 03-02-2024 22:44
04-02-2024 03:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21945)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

The last two posts of yours were nothing more than random disconnected phrases and buzzword.



Ok Mr. Science Guy, while water is denser than atmospheric gasses, it's not
as energetic so it gets carried by the air. And while CO2 is both heavier and denser than air, it is not as energetic as air.

Density is not material. CO2 is part of the atmosphere. The air consists of CO2 and other gases.
James_ wrote:
This means that what is most excited (O2 oxygen and N2 nitrogen) transfers energy to what is less excitable (water, CO2).

Unit error.
James_ wrote:
Because water is adhesive it forms clouds.

Not how clouds form, and water isn't always adhesive.
James_ wrote:
p.s., Because chances are the surface of the Earth itself has kinetic energy, could
that excite the air closer to the surface of the Earth? At its equator the Earth's surface is moving close to 1,000 mph/1,600 km/h. That's a lot of energy, right?

Because of conduction, atmospheric gasses interacting with the surface of the Earth, can solid molecules transfer energy to gas molecules at the molecular level.

This gets into some "strange" thoughts. Because the Earth literally rotates it treats the atmosphere exposed to its surface like it's a tumbler in a machine shop.

With air and the ground or sea, the media in the tumbler.

And that could help to explain why the Earth is warm.

The atmosphere is not a tumbler. Kinetic energy has no temperature.
James_ wrote:
Kinetic energy from the Earth's surface is transferred to its atmosphere.

Good. It would be awfully windy if it wasn't!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-02-2024 03:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21945)
James_ wrote:
What I posted in the other thread should've been posted in here. ...

Random words and phrases won't work, James.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-02-2024 23:17
James_
★★★★★
(2251)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
What I posted in the other thread should've been posted in here. ...

Random words and phrases won't work, James.



An American is an armourer. He calls his "ticker" "Apple, inc.", it does rain in Spain on the plains. Ersatz is an artificial form of stupidity. (for your friend Sawn)

Of course I'll need to map out the Earth's orbit around the Sun. This gets into
how fast the Earth is moving and amount of solar radiation. This might help to show how much work (added heat) to the atmosphere is a result of ocean currents and tides.
And those same forces also act on air (atmospheric gasses) just as they do the oceans, right? Understanding the change in the amount of kinetic energy in the Earth's atmosphere might be possible because of the roll the Earth's specific orbit around the Sun plays into everything.
Edited on 04-02-2024 23:39
05-02-2024 23:20
James_
★★★★★
(2251)
Accidental double post so will post some "filler". https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/joc.3370020104

Ceara is in northeastern Brazil. This means when it doesn't get rain then neither does the canal. When the Coriolis effect is considered, what doesn't create tropical storms in Florida (people really do live there?) goes south of Brazil.
If Brazilians considered a sustainable approach to the rainforest, then could the trade winds south of the equator move back to where they belong? See what happens when I stay up all night to make sure I'll be awake for my ride to surgery.
And the painkillers and the trauma from surgery is obvious in my posts. What can we do to shift/move the trade winds while supporting Brazil's economy which is in decline because of water.
https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/brazil-faces-economic-pain-amazon-forest-destruction-dries-up-water-supplies-2021-11-25/

Yep, you can see where a lack of sleep (?) and drugs makes for some wild posting.
Edited on 05-02-2024 23:59




Join the debate KE = 3/2kT and PV = nRT:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact