PDA

View Full Version : air is amazingly heavy



raaaid
07-11-2007, 07:51 AM
the weight of a column of air over a square m is 10000kg, 1 cubic meter of air weights something more than 1 kg

this means that if you have a vertical piston of 1 cubic m to half pressure you must double volume of it having to lift 10000 kg during one meter

but imagine this:

i have the 1 m3 of air in the piston and i double its temperature with 5 grams of fuel, from 20º to 40º, i dont let the piston expand so pressure doubles, i let half air out till pressure inside and outside equal and then close the piston again

i let it cool to 20º, now pressure inside will be half than before

now im in conditions to lift 10000 kg during half meter, and all with 5 grams of fuel

i think an incredibly effective pump could be made with this system

Skunk_438RCAF
07-11-2007, 08:02 AM
Going from 20 to 40 is not doubling its temperature. In science, temperature is measured in Kelvins, not degrees. Plus air is a compressible fluid, so pressure will vary.

Your logic is flawed, because if we follow what you are saying, in about 8 tries your pump will be empty of air.

Now go have a few drinks and drive home.

SeaFireLIV
07-11-2007, 08:04 AM
No wonder I couldn`t get up this morning!

raaaid
07-11-2007, 08:22 AM
all right then i let it go from 27º to 327º with 20 grams of fuel, id still rise 10000 kg of water half meter with 20 grams of fuel or maybe one ton 5 meters

im talking of just one step, never mentioned several steps

of course the key for it working is varying pressure of air

Bremspropeller
07-11-2007, 08:22 AM
So what?
A cubic metre of water weighs a ton.

Now go diving.

T_O_A_D
07-11-2007, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
No wonder I couldn`t get up this morning!

Yeh me too. that explains the heaviness in my chest today. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Divine-Wind
07-11-2007, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
No wonder I couldn`t get up this morning!
That's my excuse! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Crash_Moses
07-11-2007, 09:58 AM
Good thing it's really squishy....

LStarosta
07-11-2007, 09:58 AM
This thread is blown out of proportion.

MEGILE
07-11-2007, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:


Now go diving.

He's already fishing.

Alloy007P
07-11-2007, 10:50 AM
http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z149/Alloy007P/Air_Guitar-783783.jpg

Blood_Splat
07-11-2007, 11:51 AM
Water is amazingly heavy too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

luftluuver
07-11-2007, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
Water is amazingly heavy too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif And mixed with air..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

WhtBoy
07-11-2007, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
the weight of a column of air over a square m is 10000kg, 1 cubic meter of air weights something more than 1 kg

this means that if you have a vertical piston of 1 cubic m to half pressure you must double volume of it having to lift 10000 kg during one meter

but imagine this:

i have the 1 m3 of air in the piston and i double its temperature with 5 grams of fuel, from 20º to 40º, i dont let the piston expand so pressure doubles, i let half air out till pressure inside and outside equal and then close the piston again

i let it cool to 20º, now pressure inside will be half than before

now im in conditions to lift 10000 kg during half meter, and all with 5 grams of fuel

i think an incredibly effective pump could be made with this system

This post is wrong on many levels.

The first, and most obvious, is that the volume of a gas is dependent on the container. For example, I can take 1kg of of air and put it in a 1/2 cubic meter container, or a 1/3 cubic meter container, or a 50 cubic meter container, etc., and it's still 1kg of air.

Second, pistons don't act with their volume, they act with their area. The piston moves inside a CYLINDER, which, dependent on the bore and the piston geometry, displaces a volume.

Third, if (I did not check) the weight of a column of air over a square meter is 10000kg, that is a tremendous volume b/c it extends to the top of the atmosphere. It is much greater than 1 cubic meter.

Fourth, ... well, you get the idea.


Once again....WRONG.

--Outlaw.

Skunk_438RCAF
07-11-2007, 12:57 PM
Hey raaaid, does your head feel heavy?

mortoma
07-11-2007, 01:06 PM
I totally ignore threads like this and I refuse to post a comment........oops!!

slo_1_2_3
07-11-2007, 02:37 PM
Do you ever see a thread titl e and before seeing the poster know who started it?

K_Freddie
07-11-2007, 02:53 PM
Now we know why girls with big boobs get the droop... Damm!, if only air was lighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2007, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
the weight of a column of air over a square m is 10000kg, 1 cubic meter of air weights something more than 1 kg

this means that if you have a vertical piston of 1 cubic m to half pressure you must double volume of it having to lift 10000 kg during one meter

but imagine this:

i have the 1 m3 of air in the piston and i double its temperature with 5 grams of fuel, from 20º to 40º, i dont let the piston expand so pressure doubles, i let half air out till pressure inside and outside equal and then close the piston again

i let it cool to 20º, now pressure inside will be half than before

now im in conditions to lift 10000 kg during half meter, and all with 5 grams of fuel

i think an incredibly effective pump could be made with this system

Look up the weight of light sometime http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It's amazing to think light can be weighed

AFSG_Bulldog
07-11-2007, 07:50 PM
Bell Labs Proves Existence of Dark Suckers

For years it has been believed that electric bulbs emitted light. However, recent information from Bell Labs has proven otherwise. Electric bulbs don't emit light, they suck dark. Thus they now call these bulbs dark suckers. The dark sucker theory, according to a Bell Labs spokesperson, proves the existence of dark, that dark has mass heavier than that of light, and that dark is faster than light.

The basis of the dark sucker theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. Take for example, the dark suckers in the room where you are. There is less dark right next to them than there is elsewhere. The larger the dark sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark suckers in a parking lot have a much greater capacity than the ones in this room. As with all things, dark suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the black spot on a full dark sucker.

A candle is a primitive dark sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You will notice that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark which has been sucked into it. If you hold a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, the tip will turn black because it got in the path of the dark flowing into the candle.

Unfortunately, these primitive dark suckers have a very limited range. There are also portable dark suckers. The bulbs in these can't handle all of the dark by themselves, and must be aided by a dark storage unit. When the dark storage unit is full, it must be either emptied or replaced before the portable dark sucker can operate again.

Dark has mass. When dark goes into a dark sucker, friction from this mass generates heat. Thus it is not wise to touch an operating dark sucker.

Candles present a special problem, as the dark must travel in the solid wick instead of through glass. This generates a great amount of heat. Thus it can be very dangerous to touch an operating candle. Dark is also heavier than light. If you swim deeper and deeper, you notice it gets slowly darker and darker. When you reach a depth of approximately fifty feet, you are in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the lighter light floats to the top. The immense power of dark can be utilized to mans advantage. We can collect the dark that has settled to the bottom of lakes and push it through turbines, which generate electricity and help push it to the ocean where it may be safely stored. Prior to turbines, it was much more difficult to get dark from the rivers and lakes to the ocean. The Indians recognized this problem, and tried to solve it. When on a river in a canoe travelling in the same direction as the flow of the dark, they paddled slowly, so as not to stop the flow of dark, but when they traveled against the flow of dark, they paddled quickly so as to help push the dark along its way.

Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you were to stand in an illuminated room in front of a closed, dark closet, then slowly open the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet, but since the dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet.

In conclusion, Bell Labs stated that dark suckers make all our lives much easier. So the next time you look at an electric bulb remember that it is indeed a dark sucker.

buzzsaw1939
07-11-2007, 11:20 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif... I love it!

Akronnick
07-11-2007, 11:27 PM
Wow,an engne that works by heating a gas and then using the expanding gas to to work, I wonder why no one has ever thought of that?!?! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

raaaid
07-12-2007, 04:58 AM
that sounds similar to eyes emmiting a ray of light, maybe we see negative and brain make it positive

but the reason for my post:

how much fuel you need to heat 1 m3 of air from 27º to 327º?

would be efficient to lift 1 ton of water 5 m with that fuel?

otlaw if you refuse to accept earth takes same time going from perigeum to aphelium than going from aphelium to perigeum theres no point in keeping discussing

vacuum engines were first to be used and in my opinion they are more efficient since they dont waste heat

SeaFireLIV
07-12-2007, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by AFSG_Bulldog:
Bell Labs Proves Existence of Dark Suckers...

.

Nice.

Perhaps I should mention the factual historical story of how everything used to be Black and White until the 1960s?

M_Gunz
07-12-2007, 05:22 AM
You got beat to this idea only better well over 200 years ago Raaid.
That would be be by Newcomen and Watt who used steam and later by the Stirling brothers who
used heated air only.

Stirling Engine Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine)

The thing is that when people actually built these kinds of machines found many practical
difficulties that even though they made them work well, there are limits on how well.

If I don't count what it takes to build a Stirling engine and mirror and I count sunlight
as free energy then I could use a Stirling Engine to generate "free" power. Perhaps in
only months the "free" power might cover the cost of the apparatus to generate it if the
price of electricity keeps going up while the cost of a Stirling Engine and generator or
alternator does not rise nearly so fast.
Even just to run the rig requires OIL and maintenance, how much is that worth compared
to KWPH you might get out of such an engine.

Of course when you can just posit large frictionless machines that have no thermal properties
not part of the base theory and have amazing fuels to run them on, anything might begin
to seem possible.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When your little boat with the spinning weights "drive" did not begin to move with even a
small fraction of the energy you calculated, that should have been a clue that you didn't
have quite everything figured out.
Take the fact that with centuries of people trying the same things that you think about
then consider: Big Oil hasn't been Big all that long to stop everything different in the
face of history. What worked well enough got improved and even less efficient designs
have survived (hot air engines as opposed to steam engines, we have both still and others
even before internal combustion) but not the ones that are worthless except as notes and
the occasional example.
Give CREDIT to 100's and 100's of years of human endeavor! Even the bad ideas is at least
to show what does not work and with some tinkering of a good long look, why they failed.

You really want to repeat all that on your own? I stand more chance of becoming US President.

Krt_Bong
07-12-2007, 05:32 AM
MMM Riiight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Zeus-cat
07-12-2007, 05:33 AM
otlaw if you refuse to accept earth takes same time going from perigeum to aphelium than going from aphelium to perigeum theres no point in keeping discussing

I don't think I have ever seen raaaid tell someone there is no point in continuing the discussion. I don't know what he said, but we should bottle it!!!

raaaid
07-12-2007, 05:41 AM
i think if it was not because of dark we would see nothing

everything is a combination of dark and light

light in fact can be amplified equivalent to amplification of energy take a star invisible to the eye and bright as hell with a telescope using the same eye and nope telesopes dont use electricity

im discussing this as well here though there i dont get such fun answers:

http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8238

WhtBoy
07-12-2007, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
otlaw if you refuse to accept earth takes same time going from perigeum to aphelium than going from aphelium to perigeum theres no point in keeping discussing


I never said that. I said that your magic cannonball engine will do nothing but oscillate due to the time difference between the high tension period and the low tension period. YOU are the one refusing to accept the fact that you are incorrectly applying Kepler's planetary orbit laws to your idea.

--Outlaw.

Whirlin_merlin
07-12-2007, 05:54 AM
Hey if air is so heavy how come maltesers are the lighter way to enjoy chocolate?

Explain that boy Einstein!

WhtBoy
07-12-2007, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
how much fuel you need to heat 1 m3 of air from 27º to 327º?

That's a fairly simple calculation. Simply pick a fuel, look up it's properties, assume a realistic effeciency, and do the calc. Surely someone with your advanced education could easily do this.



Originally posted by raaaid:
would be efficient to lift 1 ton of water 5 m with that fuel?

Sure it would be, just neglect gravity and friction and add some free energy and you're GOLD.

--Outlaw.

x6BL_Brando
07-12-2007, 06:14 AM
....... some free energy and you're GOLD.

About time someone brought up alchemy..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

B

erco415
07-12-2007, 06:20 AM
They're using stirling engines in some submarines now.

WhtBoy
07-12-2007, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:

FROM RAAAID's POST ON THE PHYSICS FORUM...

my idea is not really for a pump but to turn heat to energy efficiently

i would have a 1000 m3 deposit a 10 m height id heat the air inside during a second as much as posible lettin excess air out, then id close the deposit let it cool to make a vacuum and use that vacuum to pump water

then use that water to power a turbine

no heat would be send to atmosphere like thermic centrals do in form of steam

How do you plan to, "...lettin excess air out...", and at the same time, "...no heat would be send to atmosphere...?"

Oh wait, you're going to use a adiabatic, frictionless, free energy, valve with solid gold (made from lead - but only by the oil police) wetted parts for that right?

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-12-2007, 10:53 AM
i think cold is more valuable than heat

vacuum better than pressure, dark better than light

education is a fraud where the lies of the system are inculcated into moldeable persons

raaaid
07-12-2007, 11:00 AM
to make half a spiral at 1000m/s and 1 m radius initially to 1 m/s an 1000 m radius finally takes the same time than the opositte sense

conservation of momentum states that doubling radius halfs speed and halving radius doubles speed

so speeds on mirror points along the longest axe of the trajectory are always the same however inwards or outwards the spiral

WhtBoy
07-12-2007, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
to make half a spiral at 1000m/s and 1 m radius initially to 1 m/s an 1000 m radius finally takes the same time than the opositte sense

conservation of momentum states that doubling radius halfs speed and halving radius doubles speed

so speeds on mirror points along the longest axe of the trajectory are always the same however inwards or outwards the spiral


All true, but, still WRONG. Just plot those equations of motion to see why.


--Outlaw.

WhtBoy
07-12-2007, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i think cold is more valuable than heat

vacuum better than pressure, dark better than light

education is a fraud where the lies of the system are inculcated into moldeable persons


Is this your answer to...

How do you plan to, "...lettin excess air out...", and at the same time, "...no heat would be send to atmosphere...?"

Also, please tell me the value of "cold".

--Outlaw.

Alloy007P
07-12-2007, 12:07 PM
I know this sounds childish but..... http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z149/Alloy007P/Owned.jpg

raaaid
07-12-2007, 12:21 PM
wow you sometimes are amazing

instead of lettin air out id use it to expand the deposit which woul be a piston

i double temperature of 1000 m3 of air doubling the volume of the piston to 2000 m3

i fixed the piston at 1 bar with a volume of 2000m3

i let it cool now i have 2000m3 at 0.5 bar i use this vacuum to lift 2000 tons of water 5 meters

now no heat would be sent to atmosphere contrary to thermic centrals that sends huge amounts of heat as steam

Alloy007P
07-12-2007, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
wow you sometimes are amazing


I know it comes naturally http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

WhtBoy
07-12-2007, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
wow you sometimes are amazing

instead of lettin air out id use it to expand the deposit which woul be a piston

i double temperature of 1000 m3 of air doubling the volume of the piston to 2000 m3

i fixed the piston at 1 bar with a volume of 2000m3

i let it cool now i have 2000m3 at 0.5 bar i use this vacuum to lift 2000 tons of water 5 meters

now no heat would be sent to atmosphere contrary to thermic centrals that sends huge amounts of heat as steam

Talk about amazing. raaaid can now, "...let it cool..." while at the same time "...no heat would be sent to atmosphere...".

Where do you plan for all this heat to go? Maybe you're going to put it in the same place you pulled this idea from?


Also, you are doubling the volume of the CYLINDER, NOT THE PISTON.

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-12-2007, 01:51 PM
a gallon of air has 132,000,000 jules

A gallon of gasoline contains about 132x106 joules of energy


specific heat of air is:

The specific heat of air is very roughly 1000 Joules per kg per degree C; that means that if you add 1000 Joules to a kg of air, you raise its temperature by 1 degree C.

raising temperature 300º means 300,000 joules per kg

being 1000 kg in 1000 m3 it would be necesary 300,000,000 joules to double the volume needing two and a half gallons of gasoline to raise 100,000 tons of water 5 m

the heat lost when it cools doesnt go to the atmosphere but is exchanged for work lifting 100,000 tons 5 meters

in an adiabatic procces Du=w

WhtBoy
07-12-2007, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:

in an adiabatic procces Du=w

raaaid, I'm trying to get you to think for a bit. Adiabatic means no heat transfer. If there is no heat transfer then the heated air never cools down.

Your whole concept REQUIRES dumping heat.

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-12-2007, 02:21 PM
no if you give heat to a 1 m3 it will expand rising the 10000 kg m2 column so all heat has been turned to work lifting 10000 kg 1 m

as it cools heat is transformed again into work lifting 10000 kg of water

adiabatic means globally theres no transference of heat with the atmosphere

as it expands heat is transform to work as it cools coolness is transformed into more work

if all Q is sent to atmosphere theres no way it can do work but it does and a lot

as for an inwards spiral being fastest than an outwards conservation of momentum states that if with 1 m radius it has a speed of 1000 m/s with 500 m radius it will go at 2 m/s and with 1000 m radius it will go at 1 m/s

at 500 m radius speed will be 2 m/s independently of starting at 1000 m at 1m/s or at 1 m at 1000 m/s so independently of bein an inwards or outwards spiral speeds in mirror points along the longest axe is the same and being exactly the same speed in each mirror point and trajectories mirrored it will stay exactly the same time in each half simmetrical spiral

SeaFireLIV
07-12-2007, 02:45 PM
Raaiid, please stop.

Alloy007P
07-12-2007, 02:52 PM
Face it http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z149/Alloy007P/aFu_YouGotPwned.gif by WhtBoy

raaaid
07-12-2007, 03:21 PM
W=Q if theres no q since its sent to atmosphere where does the work of lfting 100000 tons of water come from?

answer me this and ill admit i got pawned

in fact claiming heat is sent away is claiming i can recover that heat to repeat the process of lifting tons of water as many times as i want, i thought you didnt believe in free energy

outlaw would be wrong also saying this wouldnt work, did he got pawned? he says is not adiabatic i say so because otherwise being able to recover the spelt heat i could be lifting water forever, doesnt take a genious to see this is wrong

besides i proved with this system i can lift 100,000 tons of water 5 m with two and a half gallons of gasoline

you are just holding its not adiabatic that really doesnt matter

i can raise a column of water of 10*10*10 m with two and a half gallons of gasoline why you dont discuss this

do you think is effective?

Alloy007P
07-12-2007, 04:12 PM
It's PWNED not pawned.http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z149/Alloy007P/jacked.gif And it dosent take a genious to see that your wrong to. YOU ALL GOT PWNED. Runs out of the room screaming.....silence.......then..<span class="ev_code_RED">BANG</span>...never to be seen again.........

SeaVee
07-12-2007, 05:22 PM
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PTGPOD/346298a~Mad-Scientist-Posters.jpg

Akronnick
07-12-2007, 05:46 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v644/akronnick/norm.jpg

"...And remember, there is no more important safety rule than to wear these: safety glasses."

luftluuver
07-12-2007, 06:56 PM
Would be interesting to see raaid and Josf in a thread debate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

WhtBoy
07-12-2007, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
you are just holding its not adiabatic that really doesnt matter


From your favorite source, the Wikipedia...

"It should be noted that no process is truly adiabatic. Many processes are close to adiabatic and can be easily approximated by using an adiabatic assumption, but there is always some heat loss. There is no such thing as a perfect insulator."

Furthermore, only processes that happen very rapidly can be assumed to be adiabatic. Letting hot gases cool off slowly is NOT adiabatic. In fact, as I stated before, they WON'T cool off if it's adiabatic.

--Outlaw.

Zeus-cat
07-12-2007, 09:51 PM
Since we aren't supposed to insult other members of the community on these forums, I will simply post an insult we used to use in physics class. The gentle reader can fill in the name of the person that best fits the following:

Take someone's brain and multiply it by Avogadro's number, shove it up an ant's butt and it would still rattle around like a BB in a cement mixer.

FA_Retro-Burn
07-12-2007, 11:00 PM
Umm,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLZPIqwMmvk&mode=related&search=

Whirlin_merlin
07-13-2007, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:

i can raise a column of water of 10*10*10 m with two and a half gallons of gasoline why you dont discuss this



All together now 'Oh no you can't.'

Seriously build it, do it, film it, you-tube it, post it.

Condensing egines similar to what you describe have been used in the past. They always need to be 'cold down' ie have some where for the heat to flow. A perfectly insulated vessel (so not hat 'loss' to atmosphere) will never ever ever ever 'cool down'. Fortunatly a perfectly insulated vessel can't be made.

Cajun76
07-13-2007, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
the weight of a column of air over a square m is 10000kg, 1 cubic meter of air weights something more than 1 kg

this means that if you have a vertical piston of 1 cubic m to half pressure you must double volume of it having to lift 10000 kg during one meter

but imagine this:

i have the 1 m3 of air in the piston and i double its temperature with 5 grams of fuel, from 20º to 40º, i dont let the piston expand so pressure doubles, i let half air out till pressure inside and outside equal and then close the piston again

i let it cool to 20º, now pressure inside will be half than before

now im in conditions to lift 10000 kg during half meter, and all with 5 grams of fuel

i think an incredibly effective pump could be made with this system

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/attemptkirkladies.jpg

-HH-Quazi
07-13-2007, 01:25 AM
Are you guys talking about water cooling a computer?

Alloy007P
07-13-2007, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/attemptkirkladies.jpg

I promised my self I would not come back to this thread but...http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z149/Alloy007P/served-1.jpg

Now I gone for good

dirtdigger54
07-13-2007, 04:45 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
the weight of a column of air over a square m is 10000kg, 1 cubic meter of air weights something more than 1 kg

this means that if you have a vertical piston of 1 cubic m to half pressure you must double volume of it having to lift 10000 kg during one meter

but imagine this:

i have the 1 m3 of air in the piston and i double its temperature with 5 grams of fuel, from 20º to 40º, i dont let the piston expand so pressure doubles, i let half air out till pressure inside and outside equal and then close the piston again

i let it cool to 20º, now pressure inside will be half than before

now im in conditions to lift 10000 kg during half meter, and all with 5 grams of fuel

i think an incredibly effective pump could be made


Sorry, but I think you may be confusing volume and pressure here. Also weight and mass. You also dont have an effective way to reduce the size of the piston in order to change the pressure. Please don't misunderstand this, nor am I trying to take away a person's zeal here, but these issues have been unsucsssfully attempted by engineers in the past. The assumtions made here are based more on the characteristics of water, not air. Air density was not mentioned, nor was the calculation for converting chemical/molecular energy into mechanical energy considered(or the engine discussed). The classic example here would be to take a scuba tank... fill it to 3000psi. Drop it 150 feet under water.... does the volume of the tank change??? does the pressure in the tank??? or does the density of the available air change? At what point does that change occur?? as the outside factors (environment)change, or when the air in the tank is exposed in the outside environment.

I guess this is just my long winded way of determining just exactly what does this have to do with flying a sim???

: )
DD




A truly adiabatic vessel could never exist under current technological levels... to be truly adiabatic would be to take a cup of tea place it in this vessel and 1000 years from now drink that cup of tea at the same temperature as when it was initial placed in the vessel.

Zeus-cat
07-13-2007, 05:22 AM
I guess this is just my long winded way of determining just exactly what does this have to do with flying a sim???

Absolutely nothing. raaaid comes here and posts this kid of stuff because he gets banned from all the physics forums for posting this kind of stuff. He thinks schools and companies are part of a world wide conspiracy to supress ideas on free energy and other outlandish ideas. If you respond to him with facts he will ignore you.

raaaid
07-13-2007, 06:03 AM
back on more aviation related discussion lets talk on thrust engines

outlaw you accepted that the looping cannonball has less tension when being in an outwards spiral than in an inwards

you say though, it remains more time in the outwards one so less tension more time equals the other half that has more tension less time

well i loop the cannomball in a ellipse being me in the focus

you said increasing radius while spining = less tension and if it makes an ellipse the bottom half of the horizontal ellipse is growing radius with respect to the focus all the time

and the top half of the ellipse has a decreasing radius all the time

well this set up must obbey to conservation of angular momentum and behave as planets

kepler stated implicintely that it takes the same time from perigeum to aphelium than opposite

so my mechanical vortex shapes an horizontall ellipse where remaining same times in bottom and top half has a much greater tension in the top one than in the bottom half producing thrust

Whirlin_merlin
07-13-2007, 06:22 AM
Raaaid if you have any intention of being taken seriously you need to back up your ramblings.

Build your cannonball thrust engine thingy the film it working and post it.

Unfortunatly it won't work but you will learn why when you try and make it.

alert_1
07-13-2007, 07:09 AM
Disappointed - still no ten pager

SeaFireLIV
07-13-2007, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
Disappointed - still no ten pager

that`s biggest people are getting used to raaiiid and responding less.

Expect him to get worse as he vies for more and more attention.

The future of his posts could become... interesting....

That `biggest` was meant to be `because` damn I type too fast then do it phoenetically!

raaaid
07-13-2007, 07:29 AM
hell i have shared my idea of turning heat to work efficiently and my gyro thruster to 1300 persons, if i were an attention hore which im not i couldnt be happier

WhtBoy
07-13-2007, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
outlaw would be wrong also saying this wouldnt work, did he got pawned? he says is not adiabatic i say so because otherwise being able to recover the spelt heat i could be lifting water forever, doesnt take a genious to see this is wrong

It's amazing how quickly raaaid can change the subject eh?

Also, I NEVER stated that your idea would not "work". It could be used to lift water, although the principle is NOT the way you believe it to be.

What I did was to point out multiple glaring errors in your statements.

If you want to know if it's effecient, why don't you just draw the PV diagram and do a heat and mass balance on the system?


--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-13-2007, 09:45 AM
i just did the pv and i realize is not an adiabatic yet that was not my concept i meant all heat is turned into work

in the pv the process will be an horizontal segment starting on left extreme of the segment going to right extreme and returning to left

work will be 2 times the area under the segment

first time raisng the column of air and second raising the column of water

how many joules are needed to lift 100,000 tons 5 m? then i can see how efficient this idea would be

WhtBoy
07-13-2007, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i just did the pv and i realize is not an adiabatic yet that was not my concept i meant all heat is turned into work

in the pv the process will be an horizontal segment starting on left extreme of the segment going to right extreme and returning to left



It is not possible to turn all heat into work. Once again, you are simply neglecting things that you don't want to account for, namely mechanical work in this case.

Your PV diagram is inocrrect, try again.

--Outlaw.