Sentences with phrase «on air molecules»

This new invention runs solely on air molecules, eliminating the need for explosive gas propellants.

Not exact matches

Know it's not a chemical on its own but in contact with air, one of every two molecules of limonene turns into formaldehyde - hence I'm looking for an alternative!

Then, the drop recoils from the water - repellent molecules on the leaf's surface and snaps back, launching part of the drop into the air.

The formation of ice in the air depends on water molecules latching together in a very specific hexagonal pattern that resembles three - dimensional chicken wire.

A cubic yard of air contains hundreds of thousands of microscopic specks, but only about one in a million possesses the exact molecular geometry that will organize water molecules on its surface to spawn an ice crystal.

The particle avalanche also causes nitrogen molecules in the air to fluoresce, and on dark nights special telescopes can measure that light.

Even though 310 miles up is technically outer space, a few air molecules still float around — not enough to make the slightest difference to astronauts on a space shuttle or the space station, which orbit considerably lower, but sufficient to slow the GRACE satellites perceptibly.

Perfumers and astronomers can detect and recreate scents based on the chemical signatures of the molecules in the air, even if that air is very very far away.

There is some probability that all the air molecules in your room will suddenly cross over and end up on one half of the room and you won't be able to breathe.

This hypothesis is also based on the assumption that for the ancestors of recent insects, the ability to detect odor molecules in the air rather than dissolved in water was of vital importance.

Scientists have to use a scanning electron microscope, which must peer at objects in a vacuum because air molecules absorb the electrons that the microscope depends on to take the picture.

Every molecule of methane in the air has 25 times the effect on temperature rise compared to a molecule of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by burning coal, oil or gas.

Vapor pressure is the tendency of solid atoms or molecules on the substrate to vaporize and rise into the air.

NF3 lingers in the air for 550 years, on average, and is 17,000 times better at trapping heat than CO2 on a molecule - per - molecule basis.

Just to expand on that a little — the distribution of population among the quantum states of the greenhouse gas molecules is actually set in two ways; by collisons with air molecules (ie both greenhouse gas molecules and non-greenhouse gas molecules) and by excitation as a result of absorption in that greenhouse gases» bands.

Sensing traces of nerve gas or bomb - making chemicals in the air relies on specially designed polymers to capture and concentrate the right molecules.

The results quantify the nature of gas molecules containing carbon, hydrogen, and sulfur in the earliest atmosphere, but they shed no light on the much later rise of free oxygen in the air.

Rather than blowing hot air on your skin, she told me infrared heat warms up molecules in air, which warms your blood and organs, then the skin.

Also, this torque will depends on the quality of the air (I mean the less denser, more denser with the oxygen molecules)...?

If this turns out to be correct, once the fuel molecule combines with the air molecule, how does combustion occur from there?Does the fuel molecule just rapidly release energy, thus the nearby air molecule start moving rapidly, and push on the piston head to produce power?

(The temperature of air depends on the average kinetic energy of its molecules.)

Just to expand on that a little — the distribution of population among the quantum states of the greenhouse gas molecules is actually set in two ways; by collisons with air molecules (ie both greenhouse gas molecules and non-greenhouse gas molecules) and by excitation as a result of absorption in that greenhouse gases» bands.

What will the energy of the radiation emitted by a CO2 molecules in the atmosphere at NTP, and does it depend on the temperature of the air?

The study notes that «It is not physically possible for large enough volumes of air to interact with the surface under normal atmospheric conditions and therefore this method will not remove sufficient molecules of NO2 to have a significant impact on ambient concentrations.»

Almost immediately (nanoseconds) they relax from their excited state by either 1) emitting that energy as a new photon, some of which will continue up towards space, some of which will go back downward to be reabsorbed, thus keeping the energy in the atmosphere longer, or 2) by colliding with another gas molecule, most likely an O2 (oxygen) or N2 (nitrogen) molecule since they make up over 98 % of the atmosphere, thereby converting the extra vibrational energy into kinetic energy by transferring it to the other gas molecule, which will then collide with other molecules, and so on, making the air warmer.

It follows that air rising and expanding into a region of lower pressure need do no work on the surrounding molecules because it simply expands into the additional space made available by the reducing density gradient.

Two identical parcels of air in terms of # molecules, one rises and expands on cools the other to replace the former drops and compresses and warms.

John Carter August 8, 2014 at 12:58 am chooses to state his position on the greenhouse effect in the following 134 word sentence: «But given the [1] basics of the greenhouse effect, the fact that with just a very small percentage of greenhouse gas molecules in the air this effect keeps the earth about 55 - 60 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, and the fact that through easily recognizable if [2] inadvertent growing patterns we have at this point probably at least [3] doubled the total collective amount in heat absorption and re-radiation capacity of long lived atmospheric greenhouse gases (nearly doubling total that of the [4] leading one, carbon dioxide, in the modern era), to [5] levels not collectively seen on earth in several million years — levels that well predated the present ice age and extensive earth surface ice conditions — it goes [6] against basic physics and basic geologic science to not be «predisposed» to the idea that this would ultimately impact climate.»

He's assuming that the molecules in a column of air, under a gravitational field, will tend, on average, to have the same energy.

They have not only excised the water cycle, and excised rain from the carbon cycle, but have excised the whole atmosphere which is the heavy voluminous fluid ocean of real gas Air weighting a ton on our shoulders and in its place have empty space with imaginary ideal gas molecules travelling under their own molecular momentum at great speeds through this empty space miles apart from each other bouncing off each other in elastic collisions, no attraction, and so «thoroughly mixing».

Not being absorbed by real world water, visible is not only not capable because of its tiny scale of moving the whole molecule of water into vibration which is what it takes to heat water, but it isn't even able to be absorbed by the electrons of the water molecules as the electrons of the molecules of air absorb it, so water doesn't reflect / scatter visible light on the electrons of molecule level as does air, but gives up and passes it along, and so, visible is transmitted through, also, unchanged, but much delayed.

That mean a policy enacted 22 years ago called the Montreal Protocol is working: The 1989 ban on the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)-- toxic chemicals used in air conditioners and solvents that eat away at ozone molecules — has helped the Earth to regain some of its lost protective ozone.

The energy radiated downwards warms the earth (and air) below whilst that radiated upwards gets absorbed by other CO2 molecules and reradiated... and so on.

Because of the random position of the molecule 50 % goes back to space and that is why I observe cooling (on my skin) as the humidity in the air increases.

He asserts that temperature is related to kinetic energy only, and that kinetic energy on average «decreases» per molecule as one ascends the air column.

This gets ride of hundred of words about about molecules interacting etc Then we get the isothermal case You did not comment on the fact that in the adiabatc case it needs a negligable amount of energy to raise a parcel of air from botton to top but if your silver wire delivers heat from the bottom layer to the top layer the outside work must be done to restore DALR.

On the other hand, «perfectly still» air will, of course, have molecules moving at 100's of m / s, rearranging with no net motion on a macroscopic leveOn the other hand, «perfectly still» air will, of course, have molecules moving at 100's of m / s, rearranging with no net motion on a macroscopic leveon a macroscopic level.

* barring typo's and consistent with mass conservation, the molecule (s) mass does not change thus can assume E to mc ^ 2 in total energy is justifiably being ignored here by all posters on the original Willis» premise GHG - free air column.

The real explanation for the spread of scent of course is basic convection in a fluid medium, with the different weights and effects of the actual scent molecules which is alchohol and water, the alchohol having a triggering effect on water at the surface making it even lighter than air than it usually evaporates.

The MITS reasons that one molecule moving at ten times the average speed of air molecules at sea level must be much hotter than average, but this only shows a lack of appreciation for how something like temperature becomes meaningless without an abstraction on which to base it.

tomOmason: «We still have 10,000 particles (molecules and atoms if you must) of normal air but now we have 4 particles of CO2 in there, the sun shines on them, and PAP!!

Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and increasing the number of long term thermal radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.

Infrared radiation has a negligible influence on what happens to molecules in air.

We assumed only that due to the biological and physical effects the ratio fabsorbed (t) / (total CO2 content of then air) is more or less constant, hence a simple response pulse response exp -LRB-- t / lifetime) is applied to the anthropic time series of coal, gas, oil and cement which have different delta13C As the isotopic signature of (CO2 natural)(t) is slowly decreasing because plants living days or centuries ago are now rotting and degassing and as molecules entered in the ocean decades ago are now in the upwellings after a slow migration along the equal density surface from the high latitudes where those surface are surfacing at depth zero, there are common sense constraints or bounds on the possible evolution of the delta13C of the natural out - gassed CO2 molecules.

Jim, a very simple way to show you're right is to consider the case of a single air molecule bouncing perfectly elastically up and down on the surface, with enough energy to bounce say 20 km high.

The notes on this point are self - contradictory: This derivation of [CO2](t) does not assume any given equilibrium between ingress and egress...» ANSWER: the only assumption made is that absorption is proportional to the CO2 content of the air; it applies equally to the both parts or sets of molecules of the air, the anthropic (24 ppm) and the natural (376 ppm); this makes NO hypothesis about ingress»

«Here on Earth, environmental heat is transferred in the air primarily by conduction (collisions between individual air molecules) and convection (the circulation or bulk motion of air).»

The molecule will first use the heat energy in expansion and on cooling will again condense and sink because heavier, and it will cool when its heat expanded volume flows to colder air which absorbs the heat, the internal kinetic energy of vibration, which if strong enough will pass that heat to another colder (which is why visible light is not a thermal energy, it is not powerful enough to move a molecule of matter into vibration, it takes the bigger heat wave, longwave infrared, aka thermal infrared called that because it is the wavelength of heat)-- that is how convective heating warms the fluid gas air in a room, by circulation, in the rise and fall of molecules as they expand and condense, not by heat energy propelling molecules to hit other molecules..

Others accept (correctly) that that is unlikely due to the thermal inertia of our oceans and their cooling effect on the air so they propose an «ocean skin'theory whereby warming of the topmost molecules on the ocean surface from extra downwelling infra red radiation from extra human CO2 in the air is supposed to reduce the natural energy flow from sea to air so that the oceans get warmer and then heat the air and kill us off that way.

Conversely volumes of cooled air form areas of high pressure because as their individual molecules are condensing there are more of them in the same room their weight is more concentrated forming areas of high pressure, weighing down on us more heavily because there are more of them.