RE: Science anarchists

RE: Science anarchists (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 12:50:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Me? not me. Now snotty is having kittens because he thinks 10 seconds of applied heat to steel several inches thick will weaken it. He calls convection aspiration because he thrives on cockgargle. Nope its not me, tommy, felchboy, whore, and wittodick are the ones who are hung up LOL I just gave them and you the correct answer 2 posts above, maybe you didnt see it yet. No, the flame from a bic lighter or an open air flame such as a bon fire is not naturally aspirated, the correct process is called 'natural convection'. The distinction between natural and unnatural is 'contrivance' versus 'no contrivance'. Therefore an open air flame itself obtains oxygen by a completely different process called 'natural convection' not any sort of aspiration since there is no contrivance involved in a bic lighter (open air) flame or a camp fire, likewise with the war crimes committed when they targeted civilians burning an estimated 1/2 million people alive in the city of dresden in less than 24 hours. Of course that wont prevent snotty from chewing on his dog turd and neither will it help tommy the zionist whore because the lights are on but no one is home. "Any requirement for oxygen be it a flame or ICE, that uses only unassisted, ambient air...is naturally aspirated." aspiration can only be accomplished via contrivance, no other way. A wood burning furnace for instance is a naturally aspirated while a camp fire is not. Couple of people actually explained this, Epiphany, infoman not sure who maybe both. Not true, the flame has at its disposal, an abundance of the air around it...called ambient air. Convection is a transfer of heat...not air: 1. Physics. the transfer of heat by the circulation or movement of the heated parts of a liquid or gas. 2. Meteorology. the vertical transport of atmospheric properties, especially upward (distinguished from advection ). 3. the act of conveying or transmitting. There is no transport, movement, convection, advection or 'contrivance' necessary. The flame remains lit from the air already all around it...called ambient air.

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 12:59:43 AM)
So you dont understand what I and several others have explained? You need to sit back and think about why a camp fire is not aspirated and why a wood burning furnace is aspirated. Maybe look up the definition of contrivance, did you skip that word when you read my post? Heres a nugget: A change in temperature results from an exothermic reaction [fire] which changes the air density which results in a condition known as buoyancy, and this natural buoyancy is called 'convection' and its convection that causes [air] movement, not 'aspiration'. Purely natural no contrivances required.

MrRodgers -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 1:27:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne So you dont understand what I and several others have explained? You need to sit back and think about why a camp fire is not aspirated and why a wood burning furnace is aspirated. Maybe look up the definition of contrivance, did you skip that word when you read my post? Heres a nugget: A change in temperature results from an exothermic reaction which changes the air density and results in buoyancy, and this natural buoyancy is called convection and causes [air] movement, not aspiration. Ok, my last on the subject. Contrivance: 1. something contrived; a device, especially a mechanical one. 2. the act or manner of contriving; the faculty or power of contriving. To burn the lighter or stove, one needs no NO contriving, no mechanical device and no faculty of power necessary...for either to burn. Both the stove and the lighter use unassisted ambient air to burn. I've used both, all I had to do was light them...and they burned. I did and had to do...nothing else, thus they both were naturally aspirated. Both naturally burned and none of the actions we've covered were necessary. I lit them both, they burned and did so using an abundance of ambient air around them and needed no additional assistance or laws of physics to burn. It's called...naturally aspirated.

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 1:44:21 AM)
Sure and that load of bullshit works well in a bar conversation because it sounds really reasonable but wont fly in a physics conversation. The best thing to do then is take away the contrivance, that would be the mechanical device that provides 'additional' draft so you can burn your wood in an enclosed stove without it going out and without suffocating. So disconnect and plug your chimney and let me know how well it aspirates LOL Naturally aspirated is called such simply because its not forced induction. So your ICE change in volume cause the atmosphere outside to be pulled in, to obtain 'natural' equilibrium. Frankly I dont give a flying fuck if you people accept the laws of physics or not, I am not the one who laid out these principles. What did carlin say? Heres a pencil its physics. This is why I no longer get too deeply involved in 911 discussions anymore, I wind up typing pages teaching physics to people who dont want to know. Oh and because the fire is inside a tin can, your furnace, it does not change the fact that the 'flame itself' operates on the same identical principles regardless if its inside or outside as I previously described.

MrRodgers -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 2:03:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Sure and that load of bullshit works well in a bar conversation because it sounds really reasonable but wont fly in a physics conversation. The best thing to do then is take away the contrivance, that would be the mechanical device that provides 'additional' draft so you can burn your wood in an enclosed stove without it going out and without suffocating. So disconnect and plug your chimney and let me know how well it aspirates LOL Naturally aspirated is called such simply because its not forced induction. So your ICE change in volume cause the atmosphere outside to be pulled in, to obtain 'natural' equilibrium. Frankly I dont give a flying fuck if you people accept the laws of physics or not, I am not the one who laid out these principles. What did carlin say? Heres a pencil its physics. This is why I no longer get too deeply involved in 911 discussions anymore, I wind up typing pages teaching physics to people who dont want to know. When did an enclosed stove enter into this or a plugged chimney ? Not surprisingly, I give you no bullshit at all and your reply...changes the conversation. (subject) It's called outgassing or exhaust. Now RO, you know I don't get into such words but the only bullshit I see here is convection, contrivance and the like, even entering this conversion. Such things do occur but are wholly unnecessary for the lighter and the typical stove...to work as they are designed which accommodates such necessities. Doesn't change the fact that they are both naturally aspirated.

InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 4:42:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail perhaps when you study the natural sciences, particularly physics, you will find that gravity is natural in the world. Its one of the given components, like the speed of light. People on space ships under controlled conditions starting fires in outer space is not natural. The pedantic semantics displayed, although extremely untutored are nevertheless assumptively incorrect prima facie. You must naturally prove that convection is not natural. Again, I will quote Einstein at Princeton, when allowing a hapless undergraduate trying to explain relativity to a pretty girl in order to impress her, and while extremely eloquent, fundamentally and ubiquitously wrong in all aspects: Schlau, aber nicht wahr. Have someone throw you in a frame of reference, you need to study the natural sciences before commenting. Naturally Aspirated Fire by it's definition has to work with out the functions of convection. If it required the usage convection to remain lit, then you would be calling it a Convection Fire, rather then a Naturally Aspirated one. An example of a 'Naturally Aspirated Flame' would be a Blowtorch, as the velocity of the escaping fuel produces a partial vacuum that draws in air to take place as part of it's chemical reaction. This is why a Blowtorch can work in conditions where a normal flame cannot - such as abutted right up against a surface, where there would not be enough oxygen exchange to fuel the fire under convection.

InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 4:51:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan [image]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/GCrHwOX-IPM/hqdefault.jpg[/image] That photo looks grossly over exposed. Steel turns to liquid just about when it turns yellow orange, white would have a viscosity close to water. the color runs orange, orange yellow, yellow orange, then several shades of yellow and finally white. It is heated to ~1300 degrees c... in it's maximum forge range above the melting point of the steel but below the burning point, metals are brought to this stage when you want to heavily re-work the shape of something with out melting/casting the thing all over again.

InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 4:55:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Perhaps you could point out just where that distorted I beam is partially melted the parts where it is distorted. Distorted is not the same as melted dumbass. Metals, steel in particular, just don't automatically turn into a liquid when it reaches it's melting point That is the definition of melting dumbass. Jesus you are phoquing stupid.. So the instant you take ice out of the freezer it is automatically (spontaneously/very quickly) reduced to it's liquid form because room temp is well above the freezing point? Or does it instead require prolonged exposure over a period of time before it is rendered down to it's liquid form? Well when it does, it melts...turns to liquid. Before that...it doesn't. When it does - it is 'Melted', the past tense of melt 'melting' (present tense) is the process of changing from solid to liquid. the point is that melting to liquid form is not instantaneous, if it was instantanious - then the object in question would explode.

mnottertail -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 5:12:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail perhaps when you study the natural sciences, particularly physics, you will find that gravity is natural in the world. Its one of the given components, like the speed of light. People on space ships under controlled conditions starting fires in outer space is not natural. The pedantic semantics displayed, although extremely untutored are nevertheless assumptively incorrect prima facie. You must naturally prove that convection is not natural. Again, I will quote Einstein at Princeton, when allowing a hapless undergraduate trying to explain relativity to a pretty girl in order to impress her, and while extremely eloquent, fundamentally and ubiquitously wrong in all aspects: Schlau, aber nicht wahr. Have someone throw you in a frame of reference, you need to study the natural sciences before commenting. Naturally Aspirated Fire by it's definition has to work with out the functions of convection. If it required the usage convection to remain lit, then you would be calling it a Convection Fire, rather then a Naturally Aspirated one. An example of a 'Naturally Aspirated Flame' would be a Blowtorch, as the velocity of the escaping fuel produces a partial vacuum that draws in air to take place as part of it's chemical reaction. This is why a Blowtorch can work in conditions where a normal flame cannot - such as abutted right up against a surface, where there would not be enough oxygen exchange to fuel the fire under convection. Not in any definition in the English language by its definition. I have at several points provided the definition of naturally, aspirated and fire, in each there is no necessary and sufficient condition that forbids convection. That is a natural consequence of the fire. That bit of convection does not precede the fire initiation,it is resultant.

InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 5:16:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx That is white hot steel on the anvil. White hot steel is steel that is heated to ABOVE it's melting point. (1300-1400 c) Not according to this http://www.uddeholm.ee/english/files/Temperature_guide.pdf Yet - despite it being heated to above it's melting point, it is still a mostly solid material. it is just extremely malleable and workable. What did you think partially melted steel looks like? candle wax drippings? That is what melting means dumbass. The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt, its solidus, is 1,130 °C (2,070 °F). Steel never turns into a liquid below this temperature. Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt a t 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F). 'Steel' with more than 2.1% Carbon is no longer Steel, but is known as Cast iron. https://www.phase-trans.msm.cam.ac.uk/images/FeC.gif Melting is not instantaneous - it occurs slowly over time if you just barely meet the melting point of a material. this is true with all materials. The quick transition between solid and liquid only occurs when there as an extremely high heat difference which well exceeds the given melting point of the material. Such as ice in room temp, or steel when subjected to a thermal lance (which produces heats in excess of twice steels melting point). steel with 2.1% carbon begins melting at 1,130 C... blacksmith doing shape re forging or welding heat their steel up to 1200 degrees... http://www.blksmth.com/heat_colors.htm which is higher then your described melting point.

mnottertail -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 5:19:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Sure and that load of bullshit works well in a bar conversation because it sounds really reasonable but wont fly in a physics conversation. The best thing to do then is take away the contrivance, that would be the mechanical device that provides 'additional' draft so you can burn your wood in an enclosed stove without it going out and without suffocating. So disconnect and plug your chimney and let me know how well it aspirates LOL Naturally aspirated is called such simply because its not forced induction. So your ICE change in volume cause the atmosphere outside to be pulled in, to obtain 'natural' equilibrium. Frankly I dont give a flying fuck if you people accept the laws of physics or not, I am not the one who laid out these principles. What did carlin say? Heres a pencil its physics. This is why I no longer get too deeply involved in 911 discussions anymore, I wind up typing pages teaching physics to people who dont want to know. Oh and because the fire is inside a tin can, your furnace, it does not change the fact that the 'flame itself' operates on the same identical principles regardless if its inside or outside as I previously described. Yeah, you aint teaching anyone anything, you dont have the first fucking clue about physics. you say this: Naturally aspirated is called such simply because its not forced induction. So your ICE change in volume cause the atmosphere outside to be pulled in, to obtain 'natural' equilibrium. all so very true. Which is the sum of all that we have been trying to instruct you in. but then you blow a headpipe and start slobbering your 911 asswipe as if you have some knowledge of physics again, you do not, just a disconnected jumping around of a load of non-sequiturs and nothingnesses. Naturally aspirated is called such simply because its not forced induction. So your ICE change in volume cause the atmosphere outside to be pulled in, to obtain 'natural' equilibrium. Q.E.D.

InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 5:53:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Not in any definition in the English language by its definition. I have at several points provided the definition of naturally, aspirated and fire, in each there is no necessary and sufficient condition that forbids convection. That is a natural consequence of the fire. That bit of convection does not precede the fire initiation,it is resultant. And I have at several points refuted those point definitions. But because you continue to ignore those points and instead try and use the word 'natural' as meaning 'of nature' you believe yourself to holding the intellectual high ground. This is what happens when you moronically reduce phrases down to their core words because it allows you to subjectively interpret the definition the way you want to rather then the way it should be. Case in point - Natural Science. Natural- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural being in accordance with or determined by nature Science- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. Natural Science- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural%20science any of the sciences (such as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena. Notice how the definition of 'Natural Science' does not coincide with the definition of 'natural' or 'science'? This is what happens when you ignorantly reduce 'Naturally Aspirated' down to it's individual words.

mnottertail -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 6:36:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Not in any definition in the English language by its definition. I have at several points provided the definition of naturally, aspirated and fire, in each there is no necessary and sufficient condition that forbids convection. That is a natural consequence of the fire. That bit of convection does not precede the fire initiation,it is resultant. And I have at several points refuted those point definitions. But because you continue to ignore those points and instead try and use the word 'natural' as meaning 'of nature' you believe yourself to holding the intellectual high ground. This is what happens when you moronically reduce phrases down to their core words because it allows you to subjectively interpret the definition the way you want to rather then the way it should be. Case in point - Natural Science. Natural- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural being in accordance with or determined by nature Science- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. Natural Science- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural%20science any of the sciences (such as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena. Notice how the definition of 'Natural Science' does not coincide with the definition of 'natural' or 'science'? This is what happens when you ignorantly reduce 'Naturally Aspirated' down to it's individual words. no you havent refuted anything, not effectively, and not in anything approaching reality or science. it coincides considerably. Notice how naturally aspirated fire is so fundamental that it does not have anything to do with convection nor zero-gravity (microgravity you mean of course)

InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 7:47:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail no you havent refuted anything, not effectively, and not in anything approaching reality or science. it coincides considerably. Notice how naturally aspirated fire is so fundamental that it does not have anything to do with convection nor zero-gravity (microgravity you mean of course) When you combine the term 'Naturally' with 'Aspirated' it means that it aspirates with out outside influences through it's own nature. This is what happens when you combine words together into phrases. The word 'Naturally' MODIFIES 'Aspirated' giving a condition of how we come to understand 'aspirated'. As Such - Aspiration is the suction of air. Now - From a scientific stand point - Aspiration is the movement of fluid/gas from a high pressure system to a low pressure system, usually through the form of a creation of a partial vacuum, producing a Vacuum Effect. Going to the fundamentals of how fire works - the chemical reaction releases energy in the form of light and heat. The heat is absorbed by the air that is immediately surrounding the reaction, causing it to become less dense due to the principles of thermal expansion. This less dense air under the confines of gravity and as defined through buoyancy will float to the top of the surrounding atmosphere which is cooler and thus denser by relation. The displaced air then rushes in and replaces, effectively being pushed into the flame. This exchange is called Convection. From here - the very function of fire ALREADY Disproves the concept of an 'Aspirated' open flame - as convection is not the same as aspiration... it is the movement of air through 2 entirely different principles of physics. Of course - you have ignored this simple concept altogether because you don't understand how 'aspiration' works given that you've stated quite clearly: quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I also do not cause a vacuum when I aspirate despite medical science and physics telling us other wise. So then we go on to the modifying word: Naturally. In the confines of 'Naturally Aspirated' it means to happen with in the nature of it's own function - in that it does so with out any influence of mechanisms or forces outside the system. Because the mass of the chemical reaction is not so high in that it produces it's own gravitational field and that with out the force of gravity Convection does not naturally occur - We can further conclusively state that fire does not 'Naturally' aspirate in any way - as in order to aspirate naturally it would have to do so in the absence of gravity. But because you have reduced it down to it's core words 'Naturally' means by nature to you and 'aspirate' means breath. And because gravity is a natural force, and breathing is the movement of air - you have in turn fabricated the definition that Fire IS Naturally aspirated, Despite chemistry, physics, and natural sciences proving you wrong several times over. And rather then having the sense to realize this or the intelligence to not argue other wise in the first place - you have consistently gone back to using GRAMMAR to define the principles of Science. Because obviously if we spell oxygen incorrectly it will behave differently.

mnottertail -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 8:05:46 AM)
As Such - Aspiration is the suction of air. Now - From a scientific stand point - Aspiration is the movement of fluid/gas from a high pressure system to a low pressure system, usually through the form of a creation of a partial vacuum, producing a Vacuum Effect. I think we will end right there and await dictionaries and comprehension of Englische, as she is goodley spokene. Jeff Chaucer.

mnottertail -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 8:08:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I also do not cause a vacuum when I aspirate despite medical science and physics telling us other wise. As Such - Aspiration is the suction of air. Now - From a scientific stand point - Aspiration is the movement of fluid/gas from a high pressure system to a low pressure system, usually through the form of a creation of a partial vacuum, producing a Vacuum Effect. I think we will end right there and await dictionaries and comprehension of Englische, as she is goodley spokene. Jeff Chaucer.

mnottertail -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 8:12:34 AM)
As Such - Aspiration is the suction of air. Now - From a scientific stand point - Aspiration is the movement of fluid/gas from a high pressure system to a low pressure system, usually through the form of a creation of a partial vacuum, producing a Vacuum Effect. I think we will end right there and await dictionaries and comprehension of Englische, as she is goodley spokene. Jeff Chaucer. I will mix it up for you since you are saying exactly what I am saying and cant comprehend it. Using dyslexics we might break thru to you. Welcome to naturally aspirated fire.

InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 9:48:06 AM)
Aspiration: drawing in or out by suction. Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 9th edition. © 2009, Elsevier. as·pi·ra·tion (aspir-āshŭn) Removal, by suction, of a gas or fluid from a body cavity, from unusual accumulations, or from a container. Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing © Farlex 2012 Aspirate (Science: procedure) The material that is withdrawn with a negative pressure apparatus (syringe). http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Aspirate Aspirator - a device that aspirates; producing suction to remove fluids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirator_(pump) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirator_(medical_device) suc·tion ˈsəkSH(ə)n/ noun The production of a partial vacuum by the removal of air in order to force fluid into a vacant space or procure adhesion. suction [suk´shun] 1. the drawing of a fluid or solid into a space because the pressure inside it is lower than that outside. 2. aspiration of gas or fluid by mechanical means. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/suction yeah, medical and scientific definitions coincide with what i say about aspiration...

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 9:48:15 AM)
wow so indignant when you get your ass handed to you! hold nice and still and take it like a man!!! LOL

InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 9:53:54 AM)
quote: I think we will end right there and await dictionaries and comprehension of Englische, as she is goodley spokene. Jeff Chaucer. I will mix it up for you since you are saying exactly what I am saying and cant comprehend it. Using dyslexics we might break thru to you. Welcome to naturally aspirated fire. So because your ineptitude and incompetence is so vast to the point that you cannot come up with a cogent counter statement - you instead resort to insults and evade a bulk of what disproves you and discredits you... sounds about accurate for a person of your ilk.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875