Why do you think molecular weight and mass density are equivalent?
He didn't say they were. But they're related. Don't Avogadro's law, and the ideal gas law, support the connection he was making?
By the way your link didn't contradict anything from the other poster, but it wasn't particularly useful. Most of us aren't running when it's over 107C in water vapour.
Why do you think molecular weight and mass density are equivalent?
He didn't say they were. But they're related. Don't Avogadro's law, and the ideal gas law, support the connection he was making?
By the way your link didn't contradict anything from the other poster, but it wasn't particularly useful. Most of us aren't running when it's over 107C in water vapour.
They aren't ideal gasses, but the ideal gas law isn't appropriate here
Why do you think molecular weight and mass density are equivalent?
He didn't say they were. But they're related. Don't Avogadro's law, and the ideal gas law, support the connection he was making?
By the way your link didn't contradict anything from the other poster, but it wasn't particularly useful. Most of us aren't running when it's over 107C in water vapour.
He didn't even bother to realize that his graph, er tabular data, had nothing to do with the topic. It was a graph of superheated gas from 220F to 900F.
I provided the correct formulaic solution, the same one used by MIT and at my junior high school, which was a breeding ground for NASA scientists in the shadow of Goddard Space Center.
When he was caught in his own sciolistic fog he threw up that graph, I mean tabular data, that was unrelated to the topic at hand.
He didn't say they were. But they're related. Don't Avogadro's law, and the ideal gas law, support the connection he was making?
By the way your link didn't contradict anything from the other poster, but it wasn't particularly useful. Most of us aren't running when it's over 107C in water vapour.
He didn't even bother to realize that his graph, er tabular data, had nothing to do with the topic. It was a graph of superheated gas from 220F to 900F.
I provided the correct formulaic solution, the same one used by MIT and at my junior high school, which was a breeding ground for NASA scientists in the shadow of Goddard Space Center.
When he was caught in his own sciolistic fog he threw up that graph, I mean tabular data, that was unrelated to the topic at hand.
That was my mistake for assuming you could extrapolate to realize that your incorrect formulaic solution didn't account for the fact that air and water vapor are not ideal gasses. Amazing that you're still not understanding such a simple concept...
Many years ago on a hot, gray, September day I saw Southern Cal play at Florida Field. They wilted. The humidity was too thick. SEC teams are used to it.
I disagree with the posters saying it really doesn't do anything. I lived in Florida for a summer and would get destroyed by the heat. Normally my training pace was around 6:30-45, when I trained in Florida I would do my runs at almost 8-minute pace. Ripping for me in Florida during the summer and hot times a day was 6:59 pace. When I came back up North that Fall I felt really strong. My workouts and runs were trash all summer but I just ran by effort. I ended up running in the 15:20s for the 5k that fall which was a pr at the time, when all my runs and workouts did not remotely reflect that type of fitness while in Florida for the summer.
Excellent anecdote but I’m not sure it shows clear benefits to training in humidity. It does seem to say that your workouts in humidity should be graded on a curve and that you actually got more out of them than your times reflected. Consider that you may have been just as well off training in the North that summer, the only difference being that your 15:20 would’ve come as less of a surprise.
He didn't even bother to realize that his graph, er tabular data, had nothing to do with the topic. It was a graph of superheated gas from 220F to 900F.
I provided the correct formulaic solution, the same one used by MIT and at my junior high school, which was a breeding ground for NASA scientists in the shadow of Goddard Space Center.
When he was caught in his own sciolistic fog he threw up that graph, I mean tabular data, that was unrelated to the topic at hand.
That was my mistake for assuming you could extrapolate to realize that your incorrect formulaic solution didn't account for the fact that air and water vapor are not ideal gasses. Amazing that you're still not understanding such a simple concept...
while the composition of the atmosphere will not be a perfectly ideal gas, I think assuming the ideal gas law will get you close enough. Water: 18 lb/mole while the atmosphere is 28+ as noted. If ideal gases each mole should be 359 ft3 if I remember correctly. So water vapor would have density of 18/359 (0.05 lb/ft3 or 0.8 g/L) while the atmosphere would be 28+/359 (~0.08 lb/ft3 or ~1.28 g/L). Shockingly(!!) if you look up the densities you get 0.8 and 1.27 g/L at standard temperature and pressure (0 C and 1 atm). Even at 100 C the ratio of the densities does not stray much, but at very very high temperatures the ratio will change.
Many years ago on a hot, gray, September day I saw Southern Cal play at Florida Field. They wilted. The humidity was too thick. SEC teams are used to it.
A study showed that sitting in a sauna post-run for 30 minutes at 200F improved run performance significantly in temperate conditions, probably through increased blood volume
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.