I give up, after many, many years!

On May 30, 5:34*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
terry writes:
Its not a bad thing at all, as long as you are sure the other person
is indeed wrong.

Why do I have to be sure? *(Although I typically am.)

well if you are not sure, it would be polite to say so instead of
using your usual authorative tone, but that is an issue of normal
human interaction and ettiquette, I dont expect you would understand
that.

But where you have gone wrong on this group is too
many times you have told people incorrectly that they were wrong, that
will really **** a lot of people off.

Why would I care about that? *People who react in that way are reliably
stupid, and I'm not interested in talking to stupid people.

That pretty much says it all. You want people to help you but you
dont give a **** what they feel or how you treat them.
No wonder you live your life in front of a computer screeen, but I'm
guessing it wont be long before your computer even walks out on you.

And then to make it worse,
there have been people who would still take the time to explain to you
why you were wrong, and you would refuse to accept it or acknowledge
you were wrong.

Examples?

I gave you an example, cacluculating the density of a parcel of
atmosphere from the gas laws. remember?

Come to think of it I cant recall a single time you admitted you
were wrong.

That's because I'm not often wrong, but I admit it when it is the case.

I'd like to see that.

Example? * would you like
to tell us again why we cant apply the ideal gas law to calculate the
air density of a parcel of air we want to fly in.

You cannot use the combined laws (note the nuance) because the volume of the
atmosphere is not constrained.


PV=nRT
substitue n for m/M

gives m/V ( density ) = PM/RT

notice how volume is now removed from the equation?

so for any parcel of air where the pressure and temp are effectively
constant, ie like at an airport that might interest a pilot, you can
calculate density by simply knowing the pressure and temperature, this
can then be related to density height and performance of the
aircraft. Explain why the non constrainment effects that
relationship?

Of course most pilots dont get out the calcuator and do this
calculation, they use tables that do effectively the same thing. But
they use the measured pressure ( the altimeter is effectively a
pressure meter) and read outside temperature from the thermometer, and
then use tables to read off density altitude ( density) which would
give you the same result as if I measured the pressure with a
barometer, temperature with a thermometer and used the ideal gas
equation in the form as given above, to calculate density and then
refer this density to the ISA atmosphere.

I suggest you cross understanding of gas laws off your list of non
trivial knowldege

Terry
PPL Downunder

terry writes:

well if you are not sure, it would be polite to say so instead of
using your usual authorative tone ...

There's nothing authoritative about my tone.

That pretty much says it all. You want people to help you but you
dont give a **** what they feel or how you treat them.

I care much more about them than they do about me.

I gave you an example, cacluculating the density of a parcel of
atmosphere from the gas laws.

You just plug in the numbers and do the arithmetic by rote for most
calculations. Nothing particularly advanced or difficult about that.

On May 31, 1:02*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
terry writes:
well if you are not sure, it would be polite to say so instead of
using your usual authorative tone ...

There's nothing authoritative about my tone.

That pretty much says it all. *You want people to help you but you
dont give a **** what they feel or how you treat them.

I care much more about them than they do about me.

I gave you an example, cacluculating the density of a parcel of
atmosphere from the gas laws.

You just plug in the numbers and do the arithmetic by rote for most
calculations. *Nothing particularly advanced or difficult about that.

I neither said it was advanced or difficult, only that it was correct,
and obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of the gas laws. In fact it
was I who made the point in my original thread that it was nothing
more than high school science. But the point is you claimed ( again)
to know what you really didnt. My gut feel is that you probably do
understand you were wrong now, but as I said in my previous post and
others have noted ad nauseum, you will not admit to being wrong. You
have confirmed this once again. And yes Anthony , I do arithmetic by
rote. How do you do arithmetic, by first principles?
Terry
PPL Downunder





Terry

terry writes:

And yes Anthony , I do arithmetic by
rote. How do you do arithmetic, by first principles?

I've at least examined it theoretically.

Anyway, all the air pressure on our planet results from gravity, not
temperature or confinement or anything else.

On May 31, 5:51*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
terry writes:
And yes Anthony , I do arithmetic by
rote. *How do you do arithmetic, by first principles?

I've at least examined it theoretically.

Anyway, all the air pressure on our planet results from gravity, not
temperature or confinement or anything else.

I dont doubt you analysed it Anthony, but you still havent seen, or
aren't willing to admit , that you had it all wrong. Now what has the
SOURCE of the air pressure got to do with the discussion ? Change of
subject no 3.
Last chance Anthony. Why would the non containment of the atmosphere
prevent the ideal gas law in its form used by me not allow one to
calculate the air density in the vicinity of an airport? That is
what you have stated twice remember Anthony?

terry writes:

I dont doubt you analysed it Anthony, but you still havent seen, or
aren't willing to admit , that you had it all wrong. Now what has the
SOURCE of the air pressure got to do with the discussion?

A great deal. Without gravity, air pressure would be zero, and volume would
be infinite.

On Jun 1, 5:37 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
terry writes:
I dont doubt you analysed it Anthony, but you still havent seen, or
aren't willing to admit , that you had it all wrong. Now what has the
SOURCE of the air pressure got to do with the discussion?

A great deal. Without gravity, air pressure would be zero, and volume would
be infinite.

Well, no. The gas 'laws' are approximations and fail to be predictive
except within certain ranges, just as Newtonian physics are valid only
in certain ranges..

On Jun 1, 7:37*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
terry writes:
I dont doubt you analysed it Anthony, *but you still havent seen, or
aren't willing to admit , that you had it all wrong. *Now what has the
SOURCE of the air pressure got to do with the discussion?

A great deal. *Without gravity, air pressure would be zero, and volume would
be infinite.

Slithering away again Anthony, what was the real challenge put to
you?