RE: Science anarchists

RE: Science anarchists (Full Version)

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

Message

InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (4/29/2017 7:01:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Schlau, aber nicht wahr. How does the sun work then? Nuclear Fusion which converts Hydrogen to Helium through intense gravitational pressure, producing a massive amount of energy in the process. how did you think the sun works?

mnottertail -> RE: Science anarchists (4/29/2017 7:14:43 AM)
so it doesnt aspirate (not really a fire in the common sense), but if any oxygen is present it certainly will use it. ok. that works.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Science anarchists (4/29/2017 7:36:02 AM)
In theory two Hydrogen atoms colliding/fuse produce very little energy, or about 1/100th of their potential, for reasons I completely forget. And even then it takes about 1 billion years for two of the stubborn fukers too collide and ~ 1million years for the energy/photons to radiate/escape to us earthlings.

mnottertail -> RE: Science anarchists (4/29/2017 7:57:35 AM)
when you see the fog in the spring and the fall think of all the atomic explosions if they were gathered.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Science anarchists (4/29/2017 9:15:07 AM)
was just a general type of statement aimed at the ether and the sun is more complex than most people know. Yet I am fond of simply saying it is trying to crush tself together and blow itself a part - at the same time If fusion was easy it would flash one moment and be-gone for the rest of time. Lond long time since I have seen the northern lights - I get that you can see them - at my latitude in my country 56N 12ish times/year if it wasnt fuking cloudy on almost all of those occasions....you can see them further south in America due to the magnetic pole being of Ellesmere island or that other island whose names I forget. Helps if you keep track of the activity and alerts and yet another part of me is too well aware we are ill prepared for a coronal mass ejection and I mean a biggish one striking us full on. When I last saw them I was out a run and it was like a river torrent of pure plasma - 2002 I think that "event" was. 1998-2002 I cant quite remember here is one from a couple of years ago someone sent me from the Shetland islands these are about 60 degree north which is just about as north as you can get here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltasound [image]http://collarspace.com/attachments/042917/863D5F84-6BEB-448F-B468-0181FD0E9C111.jpg[/image]

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (4/29/2017 7:38:24 PM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: thompsonx The cite from wiki pretty clearly defines what you claim it does not. If the oxidizer is oxygen from the surrounding air, the presence of a force of gravity, or of some similar force caused by acceleration, is necessary to produce convection, which removes combustion products and brings a supply of oxygen to the fire. Without gravity, a fire rapidly surrounds itself with its own combustion products and non-oxidizing gases from the air, which exclude oxygen and extinguish the fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire odd, the cite from the wiki pretty clearly defines what I claim as entirely correct. I think we are agreed that no convection takes place in micro gravity. We do not live in micro gravity and micro gravity did not exist at Dresden. Isn't this discussion about how hot a naturally aspirated flame can get? Isn't the issue whether a naturally aspirated flame can melt steel?

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (4/30/2017 8:46:49 AM)
there is no such thing as a naturally aspirated open air flame idjimit.

MrRodgers -> RE: Science anarchists (4/30/2017 12:26:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: thompsonx Can you tell us again how the vacuum produced by an ic engine is different than the vacuum produced by a flame? Jesus you are phoquing stupid An internal combustion engine's piston is pulled down via momentum of the drive shaft which it is connected to through it's control arm, as it is drawn down, it produces a cavity that produces a partial vacuum which sucks air in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdW1t8r8qYc Fire does not produce a vacuum, which has been demonstrated via the NASA video fire being ignited in zero gravity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQQ1OHW1_F4 Actually it does. As the fuel and air mixture burn the combustion process draws oxygen from the atmosphere to support combustion. When the fuel is exhausted the flame goes out. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. Actually and again, not to too fine a point on all of this. In an ICE and in the effort to produce a maximized and most efficient combustion, the 'combustion chamber' is closed at the point of ignition. Thus, only the air and the fuel in that chamber at the time, is what 'fires' or burns and produces pressure on the piston. In fact, the greater the 'seal' within that combustion chamber, the better the 'burn' and the greater the pressure and the higher the horsepower produced. To add to the concept of 'aspiration' and how it pertains to the ICE, the whole idea behind turbocharging (exhaust gas driven air) or in some cases, supercharging, crank driven blower, is to force as much fuel/air mixture as efficiently possible into the combustion chamber prior to ignition to further maximize horsepower.

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (4/30/2017 12:32:03 PM)
ORIGINAL: Real0ne there is no such thing as a naturally aspirated open air flame idjimit.[/color] So you say but when we ask you to tell us what a flame like a candle is you tell us that we are not smart enough to understand your definition. Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (4/30/2017 12:34:43 PM)
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Actually and again, not to too fine a point on all of this. In an ICE and in the effort to produce a maximized and most efficient combustion, the 'combustion chamber' is closed at the point of ignition. Thus, only the air and the fuel in that chamber at the time, is what 'fires' or burns and produces pressure on the piston. In fact, the greater the 'seal' within that combustion chamber, the better the 'burn' and the greater the pressure and the higher the horsepower produced. To add to the concept of 'aspiration' and how it pertains to the ICE, the whole idea behind turbocharging (exhaust gas driven air) or in some cases, supercharging, crank driven blower, is to force as much fuel/air mixture as efficiently possible into the combustion chamber prior to ignition to further maximize horsepower. You have not put too fine a point on it at all. You have in fact explained exactly how it works.

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (4/30/2017 1:44:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Actually and again, not to too fine a point on all of this. In an ICE and in the effort to produce a maximized and most efficient combustion, the 'combustion chamber' is closed at the point of ignition. Thus, only the air and the fuel in that chamber at the time, is what 'fires' or burns and produces pressure on the piston. In fact, the greater the 'seal' within that combustion chamber, the better the 'burn' and the greater the pressure and the higher the horsepower produced. To add to the concept of 'aspiration' and how it pertains to the ICE, the whole idea behind turbocharging (exhaust gas driven air) or in some cases, supercharging, crank driven blower, is to force as much fuel/air mixture as efficiently possible into the combustion chamber prior to ignition to further maximize horsepower. no blower = naturally aspirated blower = forced induction beer farts and belches = tommy and snotty [8D]

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/1/2017 6:51:42 PM)
ORIGINAL: Real0ne there is no such thing as a naturally aspirated open air flame idjimit. So you say but when we ask you to tell us what a flame like a candle is you tell us that we are not smart enough to understand your definition. Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (5/2/2017 12:57:26 PM)
if you were intelligent enough to understand it you would have comprehended the physics way back when you brought your stupidity into the holocaust remembreance thread where I explained it. you didnt understand it then and certainly wont now.

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/2/2017 2:44:24 PM)
ORIGINAL: Real0ne if you were intelligent enough to understand it you would have comprehended the physics way back when you brought your stupidity into the holocaust remembreance thread where I explained it. you didnt understand it then and certainly wont now. That is your constant m.o. You are a lying little Nazi punk too stupid to walk and chew gum. You get caught in lie after lie and all you can do is double down on stupid. You have never explained anything. You have been caught in lie after lie. We all get a kick out of watching you do your little dance where you claim to be so smart that no one on this board can begin to comprehend your explanations so that is why you give none. Jesus you are phoquing stupid

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (5/2/2017 2:46:41 PM)
why tommy are you asking me to explain your error to you? again?

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/2/2017 2:50:56 PM)
ORIGINAL: Real0ne why tommy are you asking me to explain your error to you? again? If you could you would you can't so you don't Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

Nnanji -> RE: Science anarchists (5/2/2017 3:24:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: klmpong Are these the same "scientists" that have promoted the blatant lie of evolution? Just the same old political bullshit. I love just how fun and different educational culture is in the USA to the civilised world. [:)] We agree on little, but we agree on that.

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (5/2/2017 3:27:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Real0ne why tommy are you asking me to explain your error to you? again? If you could you would you can't so you don't Jesus you are phoquing stupid. but I already did. I dont supply the brains for you to comprehend the explanation however. Its a case of everyone else knows but you. infoman appears to know, shotty has a good idea, and you remain clueless. I dont care if you know or not. I have no reason to explain it again. unless of course you want an explanation, I might be willing to give you one.

Nnanji -> RE: Science anarchists (5/2/2017 3:37:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: InfoMan Gravity is an outside force - By displaying how fire behaves in zero gravity it scientifically brings into question your definition: How can it be 'Natural' as in not requiring an outside force (Gravity) to feed it oxygen? Can you tell us again how gravity feeds oxygen to the flame? How can it be Aspirated if it does not produce a suction or air movement through it's own functions? Can you tell us again how gravity produces suction? a Naturally Aspirated Internal Combustion Engine works in zero G. As the piston moves down it creates a partial vacuum which draws in air regardless of the gravity. Can you tell us again how the vacuum produced by an ic engine is different than the vacuum produced by a flame? Jesus you are phoquing stupid Thompson...there is no such thing as suction, no matter how much the girls at the butt hut use the term. There is a low pressure area and a high pressure area. The low pressure area doesn't suck, the high pressure area pushes. An inverted siphon would be an example of gravity producing a low pressure and high pressure differential which would lead to what you erroneously call suction created by gravity. Here's a calculator to help you design one. Although I'd argue that it's an old calculator because the mannings numbers pretty much don't fit modern materials. I guess you can say they're used as "an average" and may get you close enough. http://www.lmnoeng.com/Channels/InvertedSiphon.php

Nnanji -> RE: Science anarchists (5/2/2017 3:54:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 In positive gravity the heat of a flame heats All gasses nearby, N2, remaining O2, and the various combustion products. These all Rise, by Boyle's gas law, being heated, the given mass expands and cooler, denser air comes in below. The cooler air may feed new O2 to whatever fuel is present to continue the flame. If the fuel is another gas or vaporized liquid mixed in the atmosphere, the flame front moves far faster than expanding hot gases can create a lifting force, and may become an explosion. If the fuel is stationary (wood in a pile) or a gas/liquid feed from a pipe (kitchen gas stove burner), the flame base is stationary but all the involved heated gases rise rapidly ("sucking" in cooler air from the sides or below) till reaching the ceiling, if indoors, or till cooled and finding atmospheric equilibrium outdoors, as in smoke from a campfire or other larger conflagration. In a vacuum, 'things' are different, Sorry, Boyle's law is a description of the relationship between the volume and pressure of a gas in a closed container. It has nothing to do with gas rising or descending. You might be confusing the Ideal Gas Law from thermodynamics or even possibly bouyancy if the container is not a stable size.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625