![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DC-3 parts to give away | Robert Little | Restoration | 2 | November 23rd 06 03:30 AM |
Who can give a checkout? | Mark S Conway | General Aviation | 2 | May 9th 05 12:15 AM |
Winch give-away | KP | Soaring | 6 | January 11th 05 08:04 PM |
Did you ever give up on an IR? | No Such User | Piloting | 24 | November 26th 03 02:45 PM |
FS 2004 give away | Ozzie M | Simulators | 0 | November 23rd 03 03:50 PM |