134a Refrigerant
#3091
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
My God, are you dense!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> "The volume change created by mixing is their new density"
>
> One of your best by far. FWIW, density is mass/volume. A change in
> volume may reflect a change in density, and a change in density may be
> reflected by a change in volume, but the two are not equivalent. I'm
> still waiting for you to stop trying to describe what has happened, and
> state why.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> "The volume change created by mixing is their new density"
>
> One of your best by far. FWIW, density is mass/volume. A change in
> volume may reflect a change in density, and a change in density may be
> reflected by a change in volume, but the two are not equivalent. I'm
> still waiting for you to stop trying to describe what has happened, and
> state why.
#3092
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
My God, are you dense!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> "The volume change created by mixing is their new density"
>
> One of your best by far. FWIW, density is mass/volume. A change in
> volume may reflect a change in density, and a change in density may be
> reflected by a change in volume, but the two are not equivalent. I'm
> still waiting for you to stop trying to describe what has happened, and
> state why.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> "The volume change created by mixing is their new density"
>
> One of your best by far. FWIW, density is mass/volume. A change in
> volume may reflect a change in density, and a change in density may be
> reflected by a change in volume, but the two are not equivalent. I'm
> still waiting for you to stop trying to describe what has happened, and
> state why.
#3093
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
My God, are you dense!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> "The volume change created by mixing is their new density"
>
> One of your best by far. FWIW, density is mass/volume. A change in
> volume may reflect a change in density, and a change in density may be
> reflected by a change in volume, but the two are not equivalent. I'm
> still waiting for you to stop trying to describe what has happened, and
> state why.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> "The volume change created by mixing is their new density"
>
> One of your best by far. FWIW, density is mass/volume. A change in
> volume may reflect a change in density, and a change in density may be
> reflected by a change in volume, but the two are not equivalent. I'm
> still waiting for you to stop trying to describe what has happened, and
> state why.
#3094
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
OK, I see your point. What I should have said was "the sum of the two
> compounds by definition would be heavier than either individual compound."
> That's what I meant so say.
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:crvBe.1388$zw4.332@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:PbudnTyfgr-Qn0jfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1M%Ae.808$Bo3.438@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
>
> 2 is not heavier than 1+1... that's the point.
>
> Never claimed it to be, I asked my question using a "per unit volume"
> frame
> of reference. The correct answer to my question is "not always."
Here's what you wrote:
> Nathan, quick question...if you mix two compounds, the sum of the two
> compounds by definition would be heavier
The mix of the two components would *not* be
heavier than the individual components weights
summed.
__
Steve
..
> compounds by definition would be heavier than either individual compound."
> That's what I meant so say.
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:crvBe.1388$zw4.332@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:PbudnTyfgr-Qn0jfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1M%Ae.808$Bo3.438@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
>
> 2 is not heavier than 1+1... that's the point.
>
> Never claimed it to be, I asked my question using a "per unit volume"
> frame
> of reference. The correct answer to my question is "not always."
Here's what you wrote:
> Nathan, quick question...if you mix two compounds, the sum of the two
> compounds by definition would be heavier
The mix of the two components would *not* be
heavier than the individual components weights
summed.
__
Steve
..
#3095
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
OK, I see your point. What I should have said was "the sum of the two
> compounds by definition would be heavier than either individual compound."
> That's what I meant so say.
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:crvBe.1388$zw4.332@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:PbudnTyfgr-Qn0jfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1M%Ae.808$Bo3.438@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
>
> 2 is not heavier than 1+1... that's the point.
>
> Never claimed it to be, I asked my question using a "per unit volume"
> frame
> of reference. The correct answer to my question is "not always."
Here's what you wrote:
> Nathan, quick question...if you mix two compounds, the sum of the two
> compounds by definition would be heavier
The mix of the two components would *not* be
heavier than the individual components weights
summed.
__
Steve
..
> compounds by definition would be heavier than either individual compound."
> That's what I meant so say.
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:crvBe.1388$zw4.332@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:PbudnTyfgr-Qn0jfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1M%Ae.808$Bo3.438@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
>
> 2 is not heavier than 1+1... that's the point.
>
> Never claimed it to be, I asked my question using a "per unit volume"
> frame
> of reference. The correct answer to my question is "not always."
Here's what you wrote:
> Nathan, quick question...if you mix two compounds, the sum of the two
> compounds by definition would be heavier
The mix of the two components would *not* be
heavier than the individual components weights
summed.
__
Steve
..
#3096
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
OK, I see your point. What I should have said was "the sum of the two
> compounds by definition would be heavier than either individual compound."
> That's what I meant so say.
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:crvBe.1388$zw4.332@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:PbudnTyfgr-Qn0jfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1M%Ae.808$Bo3.438@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
>
> 2 is not heavier than 1+1... that's the point.
>
> Never claimed it to be, I asked my question using a "per unit volume"
> frame
> of reference. The correct answer to my question is "not always."
Here's what you wrote:
> Nathan, quick question...if you mix two compounds, the sum of the two
> compounds by definition would be heavier
The mix of the two components would *not* be
heavier than the individual components weights
summed.
__
Steve
..
> compounds by definition would be heavier than either individual compound."
> That's what I meant so say.
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:crvBe.1388$zw4.332@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:PbudnTyfgr-Qn0jfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1M%Ae.808$Bo3.438@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
>
> 2 is not heavier than 1+1... that's the point.
>
> Never claimed it to be, I asked my question using a "per unit volume"
> frame
> of reference. The correct answer to my question is "not always."
Here's what you wrote:
> Nathan, quick question...if you mix two compounds, the sum of the two
> compounds by definition would be heavier
The mix of the two components would *not* be
heavier than the individual components weights
summed.
__
Steve
..
#3097
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
OK, I see your point. What I should have said was "the sum of the two
> compounds by definition would be heavier than either individual compound."
> That's what I meant so say.
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:crvBe.1388$zw4.332@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:PbudnTyfgr-Qn0jfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1M%Ae.808$Bo3.438@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
>
> 2 is not heavier than 1+1... that's the point.
>
> Never claimed it to be, I asked my question using a "per unit volume"
> frame
> of reference. The correct answer to my question is "not always."
Here's what you wrote:
> Nathan, quick question...if you mix two compounds, the sum of the two
> compounds by definition would be heavier
The mix of the two components would *not* be
heavier than the individual components weights
summed.
__
Steve
..
> compounds by definition would be heavier than either individual compound."
> That's what I meant so say.
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:crvBe.1388$zw4.332@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:PbudnTyfgr-Qn0jfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1M%Ae.808$Bo3.438@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
>
> 2 is not heavier than 1+1... that's the point.
>
> Never claimed it to be, I asked my question using a "per unit volume"
> frame
> of reference. The correct answer to my question is "not always."
Here's what you wrote:
> Nathan, quick question...if you mix two compounds, the sum of the two
> compounds by definition would be heavier
The mix of the two components would *not* be
heavier than the individual components weights
summed.
__
Steve
..
#3098
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7hvBe.1386$zw4.213@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
>> TRANSLATION --> "im wrong so ill spin a herring"
> Lame.
TRANSLATION --> "ill do it again"
> Why are we not drowning in Argon?
the concentration isnt enough to cause a problem.
> Because there's only 1% Argon? That's enough to kill us all!
stop making ---- up.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:7hvBe.1386$zw4.213@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
>> TRANSLATION --> "im wrong so ill spin a herring"
> Lame.
TRANSLATION --> "ill do it again"
> Why are we not drowning in Argon?
the concentration isnt enough to cause a problem.
> Because there's only 1% Argon? That's enough to kill us all!
stop making ---- up.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
#3099
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7hvBe.1386$zw4.213@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
>> TRANSLATION --> "im wrong so ill spin a herring"
> Lame.
TRANSLATION --> "ill do it again"
> Why are we not drowning in Argon?
the concentration isnt enough to cause a problem.
> Because there's only 1% Argon? That's enough to kill us all!
stop making ---- up.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:7hvBe.1386$zw4.213@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
>> TRANSLATION --> "im wrong so ill spin a herring"
> Lame.
TRANSLATION --> "ill do it again"
> Why are we not drowning in Argon?
the concentration isnt enough to cause a problem.
> Because there's only 1% Argon? That's enough to kill us all!
stop making ---- up.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
#3100
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7hvBe.1386$zw4.213@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
>> TRANSLATION --> "im wrong so ill spin a herring"
> Lame.
TRANSLATION --> "ill do it again"
> Why are we not drowning in Argon?
the concentration isnt enough to cause a problem.
> Because there's only 1% Argon? That's enough to kill us all!
stop making ---- up.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
news:7hvBe.1386$zw4.213@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
>> TRANSLATION --> "im wrong so ill spin a herring"
> Lame.
TRANSLATION --> "ill do it again"
> Why are we not drowning in Argon?
the concentration isnt enough to cause a problem.
> Because there's only 1% Argon? That's enough to kill us all!
stop making ---- up.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com