Do they still have the "clitoris" mouse between the G, H, B keys? I remember preferring that one to the trackpad on my ancient P166 Thinkpad.
That's what feminism did for us. Before feminism, nobody knew where to find it.
Do they still have the "clitoris" mouse between the G, H, B keys? I remember preferring that one to the trackpad on my ancient P166 Thinkpad.
That's what feminism did for us. Before feminism, nobody knew where to find it.
I fail to see how Obama has done anything different from Bush.
Well, he didn't give nearly as much money to Halliburton, there is that.
I haven't got enough information available to evaluate this statement specifically, but taken as a general statement, one of the things that causes real gases to differ from the ideal gas law is differences in molecular size. With that under consideration, and the fact that you used the word "exactly" I'm going to call you an idiot.
The more you write, the more you give away that you don't actually understand chemistry.
Note that I said "disregarding intermolecular forces". It is mainly these in real gases that cause the density to diverge from ideal.
The methane molecule has a diameter almost exactly 0.4nM. The carbon dioxide molecule is linear and actually a bit smaller, in very rough terms 0.3 by 0.2nM. So I have to agree that there will be a tiny difference at STP; your nitpicking that the equivalence is not "exact", however, is just that.
Your calculation shows that methane works out at around 44.6 moles/m3 and carbon dioxide, 44.92 at 273K/1at. That's a difference of well under 1%, and of itself is obviously not going to affect well replacement - if you're that worried, add a little air to the CO2. In the context of @flabdablet 's comment about maintaining gasfield pressure, this is insignificant. On the other hand you wrote
My point is: mentioning that you get one molecule of CO2 from burning one molecule of CH4 is idiotic. They don't take up the same amount of space! Stop trotting this stupid argument out like it matters!
My point was that yes, they do take up very nearly the same amount of space and yes, it does matter - if burning methane resulted in the hypothetical molecule dioxyethene O=C=C=O, then the result would be only half the volume and well replacement wouldn't be very practical. A 0.7% difference in volumes, however (though it will be different at higher pressures) really doesn't matter.
So you may think I am an idiot because I used the word "exactly" instead of "almost exactly", but your own obvious lack of understanding of physical chemistry doesn't exactly cover you in glory. Nor does your inability to respond without abusive language. Being able to use the word "idiot" doesn't actually add any validity to anything you write.
They really do not need to compromise everyone else in the process.
But (puts on tinfoil hat) it has worked very well so far, hasn't it?
It reminds me of my own security training, where we were told that in the modern world, Minox cameras and the like were far less probable attack devices than the humble photocopier, or (in really primitive places) the extra carbon copy.
Meanwhile a lot of people are suddenly focussed on dodgy certificates being added to the pool, thus deflecting attention from the huge issue of SIM encryption theft by NSA/GCHQ, or their actual infiltration of the CAs.
Based on this, we can see that one mol of CO2 takes up less space than one mol of CH4.My point is: mentioning that you get one molecule of CO2 from burning one molecule of CH4 is idiotic. They don't take up the same amount of space! Stop trotting this stupid argument out like it matters!
The ideal gas equation is PV = nRT, where P is pressure, V is volume, n is number of moles, R is the gas constant, and T is temperature. If you hold P and T constant, you can see that V is proportional to n.
As they teach you at school to help remember, "Equal voles, equal moles".
At STP and neglecting the small differences due to intermolecular forces, one molecule of gaseous CO2 takes up exactly the same amount of room as one molecule of gaseous CH4. Flabdablet is saying this, but not perhaps in a way that will be obvious to non-physicists.
So burning methane to carbon dioxide results in the same number of molecules as before, which means that the carbon dioxide will take up the same amount of room at the same pressure. However, as the carbon dioxide has more mass, the pressure difference between the top and bottom of the well will be greater. So the carbon dioxide will have less volume, but by an amount which depends on that pressure difference. If the well pressure is high, the volume difference should be small.
Wow. The authors of Komodia are bad and should feel bad.
Looking at who they are, I would say that their paymasters in Mossad would disagree with you.
First, review your math. 0.7% is not "well under" 1%. Try to be consistent when being an ass.
0.7% is 70% of 1% or in round figures 2/3. Would you say that $700 wasn't "well under" $1000? Let's try it; you give me $1000 and I'll give you $700 back; on your way of thinking it's not much less (whereas apparently if carbon dioxide has only 99.3% of mole-for-molecule methane, that's a significant difference which would affect well refilling. So in your world, 99.3% is very different from 100% but 0.7% isn't significantly less than 1%.)
You seem to have an obsession with numerical exactitude without considering for a moment whether the things being compared are significantly different. This reminds me of a board meeting once with a new CEO. The finance director put up a lot of historical figures, all to 1dp. The screen was full of them. The CEO strode over to the screen, pretended to pull out a magnifying glass, and said "So last month labor was 27.3% of overheads and this month it's 27.4. Do I really need to wreck my eyesight looking at teeny tiny differences? I just want to know, is that good or bad".
I side with the CEO. Ass perhaps, idiot perhaps (you do seem to have quite a thing about name calling), but I leave it to the other readers of these posts to decide who is actually making the most sense.
My point was that yes, they do take up very nearly the same amount of space and yes, it does matter - if burning methane resulted in the hypothetical molecule dioxyethene O=C=C=O, then the result would be only half the volume and well replacement wouldn't be very practical
Yeah, you haven't really refuted any of the chemistry related points I made, so I'm not sure what your point here is.
I think this makes my point - you clearly don't understand my explanation, or how it "refutes" your claim that the formula of carbon dioxide is irrelevant. Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas, so I guess on that basis I'm winning on the happiness stakes.
First, review your math. 0.7% is not "well under" 1%. Try to be consistent when being an ass.
0.7% is 70% of 1% or in round figures 2/3. Would you say that $700 wasn't "well under" $1000? Let's try it; you give me $1000 and I'll give you $700 back; on your way of thinking it's not much less (whereas apparently if carbon dioxide has only 99.3% of mole-for-molecule methane, that's a significant difference which would affect well refilling. So in your world, 99.3% is very different from 100% but 0.7% isn't significantly less than 1%.)
You seem to have an obsession with numerical exactitude without considering for a moment whether the things being compared are significantly different. This reminds me of a board meeting once with a new CEO. The finance director put up a lot of historical figures, all to 1dp. The screen was full of them. The CEO strode over to the screen, pretended to pull out a magnifying glass, and said "So last month labor was 27.3% of overheads and this month it's 27.4. Do I really need to wreck my eyesight looking at teeny tiny differences? I just want to know, is that good or bad".
I side with the CEO. Ass perhaps, idiot perhaps (you do seem to have quite a thing about name calling), but I leave it to the other readers of these posts to decide who is actually making the most sense.
My point was that yes, they do take up very nearly the same amount of space and yes, it does matter - if burning methane resulted in the hypothetical molecule dioxyethene O=C=C=O, then the result would be only half the volume and well replacement wouldn't be very practical
Yeah, you haven't really refuted any of the chemistry related points I made, so I'm not sure what your point here is.
I think this makes my point - you clearly don't understand my explanation, or how it "refutes" your claim that the formula of carbon dioxide is irrelevant. Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas, so I guess on that basis I'm winning on the happiness stakes.
I fail to see how Obama has done anything different from Bush.
Well, he didn't give nearly as much money to Halliburton, there is that.
I thought of the rodent.
You were meant to.
While at U one of us came up with a replacement system of units that would be popular with bankers, based on the unit vole. The unit of length would be nose to tail, the unit of mass would be the mass of the vole, and the unit of time, its respiration rate. The unit vole would be kept in a temperature-controlled cage and fed on a carefully regulated diet.
Even so, every day the units would be slightly different, the prices of commodities would therefore vary, and quants would spend their time trying to predict the behaviour of the vole and so benefit from market movements.
(The catch, of course, is that measurements of the vole would have to be carried out in something else, such as the SI system, to permit transfer from standards lab to the real world.)
I haven't got enough information available to evaluate this statement specifically, but taken as a general statement, one of the things that causes real gases to differ from the ideal gas law is differences in molecular size. With that under consideration, and the fact that you used the word "exactly" I'm going to call you an idiot.
The more you write, the more you give away that you don't actually understand chemistry.
Note that I said "disregarding intermolecular forces". It is mainly these in real gases that cause the density to diverge from ideal.
The methane molecule has a diameter almost exactly 0.4nM. The carbon dioxide molecule is linear and actually a bit smaller, in very rough terms 0.3 by 0.2nM. So I have to agree that there will be a tiny difference at STP; your nitpicking that the equivalence is not "exact", however, is just that.
Your calculation shows that methane works out at around 44.6 moles/m3 and carbon dioxide, 44.92 at 273K/1at. That's a difference of well under 1%, and of itself is obviously not going to affect well replacement - if you're that worried, add a little air to the CO2. In the context of @flabdablet 's comment about maintaining gasfield pressure, this is insignificant. On the other hand you wrote
My point is: mentioning that you get one molecule of CO2 from burning one molecule of CH4 is idiotic. They don't take up the same amount of space! Stop trotting this stupid argument out like it matters!
My point was that yes, they do take up very nearly the same amount of space and yes, it does matter - if burning methane resulted in the hypothetical molecule dioxyethene O=C=C=O, then the result would be only half the volume and well replacement wouldn't be very practical. A 0.7% difference in volumes, however (though it will be different at higher pressures) really doesn't matter.
So you may think I am an idiot because I used the word "exactly" instead of "almost exactly", but your own obvious lack of understanding of physical chemistry doesn't exactly cover you in glory. Nor does your inability to respond without abusive language. Being able to use the word "idiot" doesn't actually add any validity to anything you write.
Based on this, we can see that one mol of CO2 takes up less space than one mol of CH4.My point is: mentioning that you get one molecule of CO2 from burning one molecule of CH4 is idiotic. They don't take up the same amount of space! Stop trotting this stupid argument out like it matters!
The ideal gas equation is PV = nRT, where P is pressure, V is volume, n is number of moles, R is the gas constant, and T is temperature. If you hold P and T constant, you can see that V is proportional to n.
As they teach you at school to help remember, "Equal voles, equal moles".
At STP and neglecting the small differences due to intermolecular forces, one molecule of gaseous CO2 takes up exactly the same amount of room as one molecule of gaseous CH4. Flabdablet is saying this, but not perhaps in a way that will be obvious to non-physicists.
So burning methane to carbon dioxide results in the same number of molecules as before, which means that the carbon dioxide will take up the same amount of room at the same pressure. However, as the carbon dioxide has more mass, the pressure difference between the top and bottom of the well will be greater. So the carbon dioxide will have less volume, but by an amount which depends on that pressure difference. If the well pressure is high, the volume difference should be small.
They really do not need to compromise everyone else in the process.
But (puts on tinfoil hat) it has worked very well so far, hasn't it?
It reminds me of my own security training, where we were told that in the modern world, Minox cameras and the like were far less probable attack devices than the humble photocopier, or (in really primitive places) the extra carbon copy.
Meanwhile a lot of people are suddenly focussed on dodgy certificates being added to the pool, thus deflecting attention from the huge issue of SIM encryption theft by NSA/GCHQ, or their actual infiltration of the CAs.
Wow. The authors of Komodia are bad and should feel bad.
Looking at who they are, I would say that their paymasters in Mossad would disagree with you.
Do they still have the "clitoris" mouse between the G, H, B keys? I remember preferring that one to the trackpad on my ancient P166 Thinkpad.
That's what feminism did for us. Before feminism, nobody knew where to find it.