The Law of Conservation of Energy

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

That is what clouds and rain are...evaporation.
Still goes somewhere and takes a form.
Though I am sure someone on ATS has posted and said this already.
Elementary my dear...

Lol Every1 knows that. Looks like you have missed on the topic of discussion.
You may read the entire thread to get the gist here on the conservation of energy

Or I can go and watch paint dry.
Choosing the latter.

It is the prettiest red...

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by john_bmth

 

People have taken the time out to answer your questions yet you dismiss them all as "not convincing enough".And you ARE asking questions. Questions are sentences that end with a question mark.

Pl look up again. Whereever I've said not convincing, it is pretty obvious why it is not convincing and the question may have been to indicate to the person, why his post was not convincing.
Although this thread is a glaring example of a simple thought experiment that violates the law of conservation of energy and it is your choice to participate in the discussion or abstain

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Meaning the same frame of refrence. Containment is assumed as in my earlier post as not to confuse open and closed system. Yes gravity is still there. But as a homogeneous gas, it can be considered that all particles have the same mean energy. All particles in a gas move randomly and lower particle can go higher and vice versa.
So the law of conservation is already broken

In a gravitational field, gas is not homogeneous in equilibrium.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection


In a gravitational field, gas is not homogeneous in equilibrium.

It can be considered as such. The gravitational force at ground level is not all that different than at 10 miles high.
You can take the mean height as 5 miles

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by mbkennel

In a gravitational field, gas is not homogeneous in equilibrium.

It can be considered as such. The gravitational force at ground level is not all that different than at 10 miles high.
You can take the mean height as 5 miles

In a homogeneous gravitational field, gas will not be homogeneous in equilibrium.

Don't get me wrong OP but this is one confusing thread. Its similar to twenty question except with answers. Can you enlighten us with what you want or better still give us your version of the answer.
In anticipation
MJ2

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by mbkennel


In a homogeneous gravitational field, gas will not be homogeneous in equilibrium.

edit on 31-10-2010 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

Dont know what you mean by equilibrium. Gas molecules always move about randomly

Originally posted by majestictwo
Don't get me wrong OP but this is one confusing thread. Its similar to twenty question except with answers. Can you enlighten us with what you want or better still give us your version of the answer.
In anticipation
MJ2

My version as explained earlier was always that this expt is conducted in vacuum in a cylidrical containment assumed to be 10 miles high and both samples contained within this containment

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Dont know what you mean by equilibrium. Gas molecules always move about randomly

If you're assuming gravity has no effect on gases, then you're not putting any energy into the "higher" sample in the first place. Not sure why you're so confused about this.

But of course gravity does have an effect on gases, which is why denser gases settle and displace less dense gases.

reply to post by FatherLukeDuke


it will drift towards the nearest local gravity well, its potential energy will then be realized. Unless of course it falls into the imaginary concept of a blackhole.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Dont know what you mean by equilibrium. Gas molecules always move about randomly

If you're assuming gravity has no effect on gases, then you're not putting any energy into the "higher" sample in the first place. Not sure why you're so confused about this.

But of course gravity does have an effect on gases, which is why denser gases settle and displace less dense gases.

I'm not confused.
But here we are talking about only water vapour and not gasses with dissimilar densities

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Dont know what you mean by equilibrium. Gas molecules always move about randomly

If you're assuming gravity has no effect on gases, then you're not putting any energy into the "higher" sample in the first place. Not sure why you're so confused about this.

But of course gravity does have an effect on gases, which is why denser gases settle and displace less dense gases.

I'm not confused.
But here we are talking about only water vapour and not gasses with dissimilar densities

Doesn't matter what we're talking about. Gravity imparts acceleration to it, and that's where your energy goes.

It's simple.

If you evaporate a bucket of water at ground level, you get some water vapor at ground level.

If you evaporate it at the top of a building, you have some water vapor at the level of the top of the building. Water vapor doesn't magically stop having mass, so it contains all the potential energy that the water did when it was in the bucket.

What happens from then on is more difficult to keep track of because it's the friggin' weather.

Originally posted by mdiinican
It's simple.

If you evaporate a bucket of water at ground level, you get some water vapor at ground level.

If you evaporate it at the top of a building, you have some water vapor at the level of the top of the building. Water vapor doesn't magically stop having mass, so it contains all the potential energy that the water did when it was in the bucket.

What happens from then on is more difficult to keep track of because it's the friggin' weather.

Yes but in any containment, the 2 qater vapours will mix and homogenise leaving the PE of higher sample unaccounted for.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Yes but in any containment, the 2 qater vapours will mix and homogenise leaving the PE of higher sample unaccounted for.

In a completely isolated system, the water vapor from both sources will settle on the surface of the more massive object. Thus, the acceleration imparted to each individual molecule accounts for the potential energy (it takes more energy to move the molecules from the higher source).

In an open system, the potential energy gets harder to track, given all the possible interactions, but that doesn't mean it's unaccounted for.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


It isn't unaccounted for. If any given molecule moves down in a gravitational field, it's gravitational potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. Generally the kinetic energy will be spread to all the air molecules it runs into along the way down, raising their temperature by an imperceptibly small amount.

Generally it's hard to keep track of, because the water molecule will be running into trillions of other molecules, but that doesn't mean that the energy is lost or unaccounted for. It just means that complex fluid dynamics are difficult, and best modeled more abstractly than keeping track of the motion of every individual atom.

Originally posted by mdiinican
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

It isn't unaccounted for. If any given molecule moves down in a gravitational field, it's gravitational potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. Generally the kinetic energy will be spread to all the air molecules it runs into along the way down, raising their temperature by an imperceptibly small amount.

Generally it's hard to keep track of, because the water molecule will be running into trillions of other molecules, but that doesn't mean that the energy is lost or unaccounted for. It just means that complex fluid dynamics are difficult, and best modeled more abstractly than keeping track of the motion of every individual atom.

All well and good, although if both samples evaporated at the ground level, you end up with the same end result of homogeneous gas and molecules moving randomly and the mixture at the same temperature

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


no you don't. In a system that is closed except for the energy input to evaporate the water, the system with the higher gravitational potential energy at the start ends up with the homogeneous mix of gases at a higher temperature.

Molecules don't stop being affected by gravity when they are in a gas.

Originally posted by mdiinican
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

no you don't. In a system that is closed except for the energy input to evaporate the water, the system with the higher gravitational potential energy at the start ends up with the homogeneous mix of gases at a higher temperature.

Molecules don't stop being affected by gravity when they are in a gas.

Thats debatable. Gas molecules with higher gravitational potential energy dont end up at higher temperature and there is no reason for them to end up having a higher temperature

Welcome back Savvy84!! I see you made another profile again.

Also I see that your left field theories are back with you!

How is the Anti-gravity machine in your avatar coming along?

Anyway, Phase-change of materials has nothing to do with creating or destroying matter.

Here is your old profile and matching picture!!

Savvy84