RE: Science anarchists (Full Version)

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



Message


Nnanji -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 9:58:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

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.



Obviously the first part of that sentence is correct. You cannot teach they who will not learn.

The second part of the sentence; how would you know?




Nnanji -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 10:07:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan


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.



Why does that surprise you. You've been here long enough to understand that several people here are only here to vent bile. I'm just surprised you're still trying. Just tell the mental patient to switch to the female voice in his head and fuck himself. As he's a huge passive aggressive, he'll have to come back with an insult directed at you. But hey, you can append something to your post that predicts he will...because he can't help himself and always will, and enjoy the show he creates. Watch, he'll have to attack me for this post and the attack won't be original. It will copy a lot of what I say here and direct it back at me. I don't know which, but one of the voices in his head thinks that makes him wise. And, he resents you and I not accepting his self pronounced wisdom.




Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 10:16:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

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.




So like snotty you are going to call it aspirated despite scientific proof its not? For Serious? I expect that from the 3 board stooges.



Convection is convection current created due to the difference in density between two or more fluids whilst their mass is acted upon by a gravitational field, and can also refer to the heat transfer that occurs under these conditions. It is commonly known as natural convection or free convection because fluid motion is not induced by external forces, such as a fan, pump or the wind. When modeling this type of flow in fluid dynamics, a Boussinesq approximation is often used, neglecting density differences between fluid particles except when they are multiplied by terms including gravitational acceleration.

Convection:

[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Thermal-plume-from-human-hand.jpg[/img]

another:

Natural convection is a type of heat transport, in which the fluid motion is not generated by any external source (like a pump, fan, suction device, etc.) but only by density differences in the fluid occurring due to temperature gradients.

In nature, convection cells formed from air raising above sunlight-warmed land or water are a major feature of all weather systems. Convection is also seen in the rising plume of hot air from fire, oceanic currents, and sea-wind formation (where upward convection is also modified by Coriolis forces). In engineering applications, convection is commonly visualized in the formation of microstructures during the cooling of molten metals, and fluid flows around shrouded heat-dissipation fins, and solar ponds. A very common industrial application of natural convection is free air cooling without the aid of fans: this can happen on small scales (computer chips) to large scale process equipment.




mnottertail -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 10:38:00 AM)

what scientific proof of no aspiration is there, because it is not apparent anywhere from your cockgargling retardation.





WickedsDesire -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 12:46:05 PM)

ebb and flow - dont make me reach for the big stick all


Anyhoos who fancies is global warming real or not thread? Or we could go to https://www.physics.org/ drunk and bug the fuk out of those retards.




thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 8:12:35 PM)


ORIGINAL: InfoMan


the point is that melting to liquid form is not instantaneous, if it was instantanious - then the object in question would explode.

If one applies an oxy/ acetylene flame to steel it melts virtually instantaneously without exploding.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.






thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 8:16:59 PM)


ORIGINAL: InfoMan


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.


Perhaps you should try that experiment. You may not get the result you claim.




thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 8:27:36 PM)


ORIGINAL: InfoMan
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?

False premise will always lead to a false conclusion. Ice will melt when the ice reaches the melting point...the temperature of the room is not at issue.


the point is that melting to liquid form is not instantaneous, if it was instantanious - then the object in question would explode.


When an electric ark or an oxy/acetylene torch is applied to steel it melts instantly and does not explode.




thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 8:30:14 PM)


ORIGINAL: InfoMan


It is heated to ~1300 degrees c...


The link to the color chart I posted says you are full of shit.

in it's maximum forge range above the melting point of the steel but below the burning point,

Burning point is far lower than the melting temp of steel....Burning is how steel is cut with an oxy/acetylene torch.









thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/6/2017 8:33:52 PM)

ORIGINAL: InfoMan


And I have at several points refuted those point definitions.


Disagreement is not proof nor refutation.


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.

Do you mean as you tried unsuccessfully to do with your asinine contention about nas Norfolk being an international airport?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.








InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (5/7/2017 3:31:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: InfoMan


the point is that melting to liquid form is not instantaneous, if it was instantanious - then the object in question would explode.

If one applies an oxy/ acetylene flame to steel it melts virtually instantaneously without exploding.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.





actually it does, causing it to pop, bubble and spark excessively... it is just limited to a small point and not the entire object.




InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (5/7/2017 3:41:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Perhaps you should try that experiment. You may not get the result you claim.



I have, it is called 'smothering a flame'.
you can easily replicate it with camp fires.

in fact, it is one of the things you have to learn to avoid when starting a fire... just because your kindling is burning doesn't mean that it will readily ignite your fuel will just as quickly, and adding it directly on top of the flame can easily smother the flame forcing you to start all over.




InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (5/7/2017 3:58:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Do you mean as you tried unsuccessfully to do with your asinine contention about nas Norfolk being an international airport?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.


Actually it is exactly like that.
An International Airport is by definition an airport that sends and receives International Flights and Cargo - The Military Base Norfolk Naval Station being the primary distribution point for Mail and Troop Transport by air to places over seas fits that very definition.

If I remember correctly - your attempted counter point is that it is not an 'International Airport' because the FAA doesn't call it that.




InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (5/7/2017 4:07:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: InfoMan


It is heated to ~1300 degrees c...


The link to the color chart I posted says you are full of shit.

in it's maximum forge range above the melting point of the steel but below the burning point,

Burning point is far lower than the melting temp of steel....Burning is how steel is cut with an oxy/acetylene torch.



And what does that chart concern? Reforging? reshaping? hardening? Casting? Pressing?
And what metal are you talking about specifically? Wrought Iron? Cast Iron? Carbon Steel? Low Carbon Steel? High Carbon Steel?

It is interesting how a picture which is just used as a generic 'rule of thumb' some how is immutable law to you...
but hell - you're a master blacksmith right?

So, how about you tell us what the Burn Point of steel is... And no i don't mean ignition point where steel filing and steel wool catch on fire - It is an actual metal working term, where you 'Burn' metals that you're working with (which for steel is something like 1400 C.) Explain to us what it is.




Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (5/7/2017 4:12:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

When an electric ark or an oxy/acetylene torch is applied to steel it melts instantly and does not explode.




bullshit tommy, lay off the booze.




InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (5/7/2017 4:12:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: InfoMan
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?

False premise will always lead to a false conclusion. Ice will melt when the ice reaches the melting point...the temperature of the room is not at issue.


the point is that melting to liquid form is not instantaneous, if it was instantanious - then the object in question would explode.


When an electric ark or an oxy/acetylene torch is applied to steel it melts instantly and does not explode.



at 32.5 degrees ice will often be reduced to slush for a prolonged period of time rather then converting to a pure liquid.
So the ambient temp is an issue.




WickedsDesire -> RE: Science anarchists (5/7/2017 9:02:27 AM)

Triple point of water - see i teach some of you things and stuff at times

Dissecting Trump: A List of Every Vacant Science Position in This Administration

President Trump wants to send a man to Mars. He hopes to “kill illnesses that plague us.” He’s promised to, quite literally, “give us anything.” ( i agree and its scary)

How the hell is he supposed to accomplish this without a single staffer grounded in the science community?

It’s no secret the President has struggled to fill his office. The man’s managed to staff a meager 21 key administration positions, ranging from the ever-controversial Betsy DeVos to climate-skeptic and EPA head Scott Pruitt. Another 40 presidential nominees currently await senate confirmation—none of which to a science-centric department.

In all, over 1,000 positions remain empty—significantly behind the pace of former President Obama’s transition—and 492 of these are considered essential to the role of a functioning government, according to Partnership of Public Policy, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that strives for a more effective government for the American people.

Currently, more than 40 Senate-confirmed science-centric posts are vacant, including administrators to NASA and the NOAA, along with a chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. There are also dozens upon dozens of positions to be filled in the Departments of Agriculture, Every, and Health and Human Services. Hell, Trump still hasn’t named a science adviser, something Obama appointed a month prior to his inauguration




thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/7/2017 10:23:30 AM)


ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx


the point is that melting to liquid form is not instantaneous, if it was instantanious - then the object in question would explode.

If one applies an oxy/ acetylene flame to steel it melts virtually instantaneously without exploding.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.


actually it does, causing it to pop, bubble and spark excessively...


Maybe next year when you get to high school you might take a shop class where they teach welding.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.


it is just limited to a small point and not the entire object


Learn to read dumb ass. It melts where the fame is.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.





thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/7/2017 10:30:13 AM)

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
e]ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Do you mean as you tried unsuccessfully to do with your asinine contention about nas Norfolk being an international airport?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.


Actually it is exactly like that.
An International Airport is by definition an airport that sends and receives International Flights and Cargo - The Military Base Norfolk Naval
Station being the primary distribution point for Mail and Troop Transport by air to places over seas fits that very definition.


Since the traffic goes from military base to military base which are considered amerikan property it is not international dumbass.
No passport needed and no customs documents needed.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.


If I remember correctly - your attempted counter point is that it is not an 'International Airport' because the FAA doesn't call it that.

You claim that dhs is the designator of international airports and they have not so designated it as such.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid
.




thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/7/2017 10:33:33 AM)


ORIGINAL: InfoMan
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?

False premise will always lead to a false conclusion. Ice will melt when the ice reaches the melting point...the temperature of the room is not at issue.


the point is that melting to liquid form is not instantaneous, if it was instantanious - then the object in question would explode.


When an electric ark or an oxy/acetylene torch is applied to steel it melts instantly and does not explode.

[/quote]

at 32.5 degrees ice will often be reduced to slush for a prolonged period of time rather then converting to a pure liquid.
So the ambient temp is an issue.


Tell that to your jr. high general science teacher as he points out that you are a dumbass.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.





Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875