iWitness - Air Pressure and Weight

Cathode Ray Tube worked in TV sets for almost a century before it was replaced by current thin screens.
Some of tubes actally worked for decades, especially if TV was watched just a few hours a day.
Vacuum in CRT is mandatory. The electron beam that draws picture on screen (front surface of CRT) must go freely inside.

For decades no gasses were entering such Tubes, keeping internal vacuum preserved.
So, glass is good barrier against atmosphere.

Now, take empty glass bottle with good cap.
Close it, turn it upside down so every top surfaces are only continuous glass, and measure weight.
After that, fill it completely with water. For example submerge it in bath tub, and close still under water when all air is out.
Keep it closed, so air has no access. You can even dry edges of cap and seal it with super glue. Super glue gets hard like glass.
Turn it upside down again, so cap and possible opening are below, and measure it.
If the nominal capacity of the bottle is 1 liter, it will physically accept a bit more, and weigh about 1.1 kg more than empty.

What caused the additional weight of enclosed water if air pressure had no access?

~~~~~

BTW, I didn't give up obtaining vacuum chamber.

Then there's the liars and fibbers, or story telling sci-fi writers that probably don't see what they do as telling lies. They maybe see it as portraying something to the minds of those that want an alternate reality but can only have the concept of it through fantasy mind bending/brainwashing.

You won't  know if I'm lying or not until you can understand what I'm saying and you honestly are clearly not understanding anything, even after all this time.
Hand waving and screaming will not hasten your absorption of what I'm saying. You really have to want to take it in instead of fighting against it, without actually knowing what you're fighting against.

I wonder if you realize how hypocritical you are being. How can you claim the RE model is false if you do not understand it?

You willfully resist even learning about it. Why is that?

I may disagree with you, but every single question I ask you is so that I can better understand your model. You have not once asked me a question about the RE model with the intention of learning anything. You give me zero respect.

Cathode Ray Tube worked in TV sets for almost a century before it was replaced by current thin screens.
Some of tubes actally worked for decades, especially if TV was watched just a few hours a day.
Vacuum in CRT is mandatory. The electron beam that draws picture on screen (front surface of CRT) must go freely inside.

For decades no gasses were entering such Tubes, keeping internal vacuum preserved.
So, glass is good barrier against atmosphere.

Now, take empty glass bottle with good cap.
Close it, turn it upside down so every top surfaces are only continuous glass, and measure weight.
After that, fill it completely with water. For example submerge it in bath tub, and close still under water when all air is out.
Keep it closed, so air has no access. You can even dry edges of cap and seal it with super glue. Super glue gets hard like glass.
Turn it upside down again, so cap and possible opening are below, and measure it.
If the nominal capacity of the bottle is 1 liter, it will physically accept a bit more, and weigh about 1.1 kg more than empty.

What caused the additional weight of enclosed water if air pressure had no access?

~~~~~

BTW, I didn't give up obtaining vacuum chamber.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 01:01:55 PM

Then there's the liars and fibbers, or story telling sci-fi writers that probably don't see what they do as telling lies. They maybe see it as portraying something to the minds of those that want an alternate reality but can only have the concept of it through fantasy mind bending/brainwashing.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 01:06:01 AM

You won't  know if I'm lying or not until you can understand what I'm saying and you honestly are clearly not understanding anything, even after all this time.
Hand waving and screaming will not hasten your absorption of what I'm saying. You really have to want to take it in instead of fighting against it, without actually knowing what you're fighting against.

I wonder if you realize how hypocritical you are being. How can you claim the RE model is false if you do not understand it?

You willfully resist even learning about it. Why is that?

I may disagree with you, but every single question I ask you is so that I can better understand your model. You have not once asked me a question about the RE model with the intention of learning anything. You give me zero respect.

You need to calm down and stop having a dig and you'll get some respect.

The globe model is killed off with very simple things. The atmosphere to solid on the spin in unison kills it dead before anything else.
Of course it can be argued but the arguments are weak and - quite frankly - pathetic.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 01:21:48 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 01:01:55 PM

Then there's the liars and fibbers, or story telling sci-fi writers that probably don't see what they do as telling lies. They maybe see it as portraying something to the minds of those that want an alternate reality but can only have the concept of it through fantasy mind bending/brainwashing.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 01:06:01 AM

You won't  know if I'm lying or not until you can understand what I'm saying and you honestly are clearly not understanding anything, even after all this time.
Hand waving and screaming will not hasten your absorption of what I'm saying. You really have to want to take it in instead of fighting against it, without actually knowing what you're fighting against.

I wonder if you realize how hypocritical you are being. How can you claim the RE model is false if you do not understand it?

You willfully resist even learning about it. Why is that?

I may disagree with you, but every single question I ask you is so that I can better understand your model. You have not once asked me a question about the RE model with the intention of learning anything. You give me zero respect.

You need to calm down and stop having a dig and you'll get some respect.

The globe model is killed off with very simple things. The atmosphere to solid on the spin in unison kills it dead before anything else.
Of course it can be argued but the arguments are weak and - quite frankly - pathetic.

The earth is a globe.  Fact.

The atmosphere to solid on the spin in unison kills it dead before anything else.

Could you try expressing your thoughts more coherently? This is pure gibberish.

Of course it can be argued but the arguments are weak and - quite frankly - pathetic.

You need to calm down and stop having a dig and maybe you'll earn some respect.

Gotta give respect to get it.

Quote from: SpJunk on August 09, 2016, 01:08:06 PM

...
Now, take empty glass bottle with good cap.
Close it, turn it upside down so every top surfaces are only continuous glass, and measure weight.
After that, fill it completely with water. For example submerge it in bath tub, and close still under water when all air is out.
Keep it closed, so air has no access. You can even dry edges of cap and seal it with super glue. Super glue gets hard like glass.
Turn it upside down again, so cap and possible opening are below, and measure it.
If the nominal capacity of the bottle is 1 liter, it will physically accept a bit more, and weigh about 1.1 kg more than empty.

What caused the additional weight of enclosed water if air pressure had no access?
...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Water inside the bottle is completely isolated from the air.
And yet, it has weight and adds it to the glass bottle.
How?
What causes the weight of that water?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 01:28:04 PM

Quote from: SpJunk on August 09, 2016, 01:08:06 PM

...
Now, take empty glass bottle with good cap.
Close it, turn it upside down so every top surfaces are only continuous glass, and measure weight.
After that, fill it completely with water. For example submerge it in bath tub, and close still under water when all air is out.
Keep it closed, so air has no access. You can even dry edges of cap and seal it with super glue. Super glue gets hard like glass.
Turn it upside down again, so cap and possible opening are below, and measure it.
If the nominal capacity of the bottle is 1 liter, it will physically accept a bit more, and weigh about 1.1 kg more than empty.

What caused the additional weight of enclosed water if air pressure had no access?
...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Water inside the bottle is completely isolated from the air.
And yet, it has weight and adds it to the glass bottle.
How?
What causes the weight of that water?

The bottle was empty, right?
That bottle when empty contained atmospheric pressure equal to the external atmospheric pressure, right?
You can now say that the bottle is saturated with air.
The weight is measured on a scale by how much atmospheric pressure is pushed against by any dense object.
This means that the bottle itself is only resisting the atmosphere by the skin it's made from (plastic) due to the inner being atmosphere.

Fill it with water and you change that to now having the atmosphere pushed out of the bottle and into the atmosphere to push back onto the actual bottle and the contents inside (water).

The bottle was empty, right?
That bottle when empty contained atmospheric pressure equal to the external atmospheric pressure, right?
You can now say that the bottle is saturated with air.
The weight is measured on a scale by how much atmospheric pressure is pushed against by any dense object.
This means that the bottle itself is only resisting the atmosphere by the skin it's made from (plastic) due to the inner being atmosphere.

Fill it with water and you change that to now having the atmosphere pushed out of the bottle and into the atmosphere to push back onto the actual bottle and the contents inside (water).

Thanks.
Considering that, my next step would be slowly
reducing air pressure inside the bottle
and watching how its weight raises.

Meanwhile, I have to resolve another question:
Will bottle with vacuum make it same weight as bottle with water?

Ok, it means I would have to measure how weight raises depending
on inner pressure reduction, and then draw the diagram of dependency.
IT will show if the function is linear or exponential.

Can't do it today, have to work tomorrow, no time to look for vacuum pump and manometer.

Quote from: SpJunk on August 09, 2016, 03:55:58 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 01:28:04 PM

Quote from: SpJunk on August 09, 2016, 01:08:06 PM

...
Now, take empty glass bottle with good cap.
Close it, turn it upside down so every top surfaces are only continuous glass, and measure weight.
After that, fill it completely with water. For example submerge it in bath tub, and close still under water when all air is out.
Keep it closed, so air has no access. You can even dry edges of cap and seal it with super glue. Super glue gets hard like glass.
Turn it upside down again, so cap and possible opening are below, and measure it.
If the nominal capacity of the bottle is 1 liter, it will physically accept a bit more, and weigh about 1.1 kg more than empty.

What caused the additional weight of enclosed water if air pressure had no access?
...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Water inside the bottle is completely isolated from the air.
And yet, it has weight and adds it to the glass bottle.
How?
What causes the weight of that water?

The bottle was empty, right?
That bottle when empty contained atmospheric pressure equal to the external atmospheric pressure, right?
You can now say that the bottle is saturated with air.
The weight is measured on a scale by how much atmospheric pressure is pushed against by any dense object.
This means that the bottle itself is only resisting the atmosphere by the skin it's made from (plastic) due to the inner being atmosphere.

Fill it with water and you change that to now having the atmosphere pushed out of the bottle and into the atmosphere to push back onto the actual bottle and the contents inside (water).

You are saying that the air inside the bottle becomes displaced by the water, thereby increasing the internal air pressure, causing the bottle to weigh more? To cause this effect, the air and water would need to be the same density, right?

Are you saying that 1L of water and 1L of air have the same density?

You are saying that the air inside the bottle becomes displaced by the water, thereby increasing the internal air pressure, causing the bottle to weigh more?

A simple question. Are you doing this deliberately or are you just not reading?

To cause this effect, the air and water would need to be the same density, right?

Are you saying that 1L of water and 1L of air have the same density?

No. Can you show me where I said that?

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 04:39:24 PM

You are saying that the air inside the bottle becomes displaced by the water, thereby increasing the internal air pressure, causing the bottle to weigh more?

A simple question. Are you doing this deliberately or are you just not reading?

It was a simple yes or no question, no need to get snippy with me. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 04:39:24 PM

To cause this effect, the air and water would need to be the same density, right?

Are you saying that 1L of water and 1L of air have the same density?

No. Can you show me where I said that?

OK so you have a 1L glass bottle. You weigh it, and this bottle weighs 50g. You know of course that 1L of water has a density of 1kg/L. After weighing the bottle according to SpJunk's experiment, it weighs 1.05 kg. Now to your explanation,

"Fill it with water and you change that to now having the atmosphere pushed out of the bottle and into the atmosphere to push back onto the actual bottle and the contents inside (water)."

You are saying that the change in the force of the atmosphere in the room is equal to the apparent weight of the water placed into the bottle. Your explanation for this change in force seems to stem from the air that has been displaced from the bottle.

Since density and pressure is the source of apparent weight, you seem to be suggesting that 1L of air has the same density as 1L of water. Please correct me if there's something I missed.

Never. I will continue to refute your points one by one until you leave this site in shame.

It's already happened once.

If I heard correctly, he tried telling this theory to Wild Heretics and he got laughed off the forum.

No, you've got it all wrong.
LOL

When it is air inside, the bottle is pressured from outside and from inside.
Diference is those 50g.
When you fill it with water, it removes air from inside, you have only
pressure from OUTSIDE, and that's why full bottle is heavier.

Unfortunately mercury is too toxic, and too expensive,
so I would leave it out of the experiment.

Just skip it.

What would happen if we take a glass bottle or similar an suck as much air as we can out of it?  I do not want to say create a near vaccum because apparently that can not be a thing.

Scepti's explanation seems to be the air pushing from the inside of an empty container causes it to weigh less. I think mass plays a role also.  So sucking out the air will cause less mass and pressure to be in the container.

Fill it with water and you change that to now having the atmosphere pushed out of the bottle and into the atmosphere to push back onto the actual bottle and the contents inside (water).

Does this statement mean one reason the bottle would weigh more is that there would be more atmosphere to push against the bottle?  To clarify the atmosphere that was inside the bottle is now outside adding to the atmosphere already pushing against the bottle. Leading to the weight increase.

Quote

Fill it with water and you change that to now having the atmosphere pushed out of the bottle and into the atmosphere to push back onto the actual bottle and the contents inside (water).

Does this statement mean one reason the bottle would weigh more is that there would be more atmosphere to push against the bottle?  To clarify the atmosphere that was inside the bottle is now outside adding to the atmosphere already pushing against the bottle. Leading to the weight increase.

I came to the same conclusion. Good to know I'm not totally crazy?

People, let me remind you:

"... take empty glass bottle with good cap.
Close it, turn it upside down so every top surfaces are only continuous glass, and measure weight.

After that, fill it completely with water. For example submerge it in bath tub, and close still under water when all air is out.
Keep it closed, so air has no access.
You can even dry edges of cap and seal it with super glue. Super glue gets hard like glass.

Turn it upside down again, so cap and possible opening are below, and measure it."

So, if air is somehow still pressuring water inside SEALED BOTTLE, it presses from below.

Please, gentlemen, READ.
LOL

Quote from: Woody on August 09, 2016, 07:56:55 PM

Quote

Fill it with water and you change that to now having the atmosphere pushed out of the bottle and into the atmosphere to push back onto the actual bottle and the contents inside (water).

Does this statement mean one reason the bottle would weigh more is that there would be more atmosphere to push against the bottle?  To clarify the atmosphere that was inside the bottle is now outside adding to the atmosphere already pushing against the bottle. Leading to the weight increase.

I came to the same conclusion. Good to know I'm not totally crazy?

I think he may have just poorly explained it.  I just asked because I am not 100% sure that is the case.

People, let me remind you:

"... take empty glass bottle with good cap.
Close it, turn it upside down so every top surfaces are only continuous glass, and measure weight.

After that, fill it completely with water. For example submerge it in bath tub, and close still under water when all air is out.
Keep it closed, so air has no access.
You can even dry edges of cap and seal it with super glue. Super glue gets hard like glass.

Turn it upside down again, so cap and possible opening are below, and measure it."

So, if air is somehow still pressuring water inside SEALED BOTTLE, it presses from below.

Please, gentlemen, READ.
LOL

Look man, nobody is disputing this experiment except for Scepti. Woody and I are trying to decipher what Scepti even meant when he tried to dispute your experiment.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 12:46:58 PM

If aluminum is "porous or saturated or whatever" (very defined, scientific terminology btw)  how can it form a sealed tank?

Because the tank is not a porous tea bag. The atmosphere is already trapped within the metal.
The molecules trapped in the metal are much smaller than the atmospheric or water molecules that are up against the tank, so it stays air tight as we perceive it.

Not really, an aluminium tank is made of nearly pure aluminium or an alloy of aluminium, there's no trapped atmosphere in its crystalline metal structure, none, nada, zilch, nothing.

What would happen if we take a glass bottle or similar an suck as much air as we can out of it?

There's no such thing as suck. Everything is a push. Figure this out and you will understand it better, seriously.

I do not want to say create a near vaccum because apparently that can not be a thing.

Not where we reside is can't.

Scepti's explanation seems to be the air pushing from the inside of an empty container causes it to weigh less. I think mass plays a role also.

Nope. I mentioned a balloon and the right conditions to give a sort of buoyancy due to excited matter.
I also said that tests using this method are inconclusive.



 

So sucking out the air will cause less mass and pressure to be in the container.

There is no sucking. All you're doing with a container is allowing atmosphere to expand out of it by use of energy - as in - a pump.

Fill it with water and you change that to now having the atmosphere pushed out of the bottle and into the atmosphere to push back onto the actual bottle and the contents inside (water).

 

Does this statement mean one reason the bottle would weigh more is that there would be more atmosphere to push against the bottle?  To clarify the atmosphere that was inside the bottle is now outside adding to the atmosphere already pushing against the bottle. Leading to the weight increase.

Let's use water in a bath to explain this.

In a bath you have an empty bottle. You know that in that bottle, is atmosphere. You also know that the atmosphere inside that bottle is acting with the bottle to displace the water in that bath. For instance:, if you keep the bottle under the water, it will displace the bottle and the atmospheric pressure in it, of water.
Basically by pushing it down with energy, you make the bath water rise meaning you have exerted that extra pressure upon the bottle and air which now crushes/squeezes that bottle with the extra force your energy is pushing against that bottle.

Now your energy is your hand pushing that bottle down into the bath because if you didn't do that, your bottle would simply float on the top and only displace the water the bottle is pushed against, leaving the atmosphere inside the bottle to effect what we see as a float, or buoyancy.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 12:58:50 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 12:46:58 PM

If aluminum is "porous or saturated or whatever" (very defined, scientific terminology btw)  how can it form a sealed tank?

Because the tank is not a porous tea bag. The atmosphere is already trapped within the metal.
The molecules trapped in the metal are much smaller than the atmospheric or water molecules that are up against the tank, so it stays air tight as we perceive it.

Not really, an aluminium tank is made of nearly pure aluminium or an alloy of aluminium, there's no trapped atmosphere in its crystalline metal structure, none, nada, zilch, nothing.

In simple terms and using a simple analogy, can you explain what a crystalline metal structure is, please.

In simple terms and using a simple analogy, can you explain what a crystalline metal structure is, please.

Why do you always need an analogy?

All this means is the particles are arranged in a very compact structure. This structure is symmetrical and usually forms a lattice pattern.

In other words, it isn't porous.

It's like you hate looking things up.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 10, 2016, 12:24:57 AM

In simple terms and using a simple analogy, can you explain what a crystalline metal structure is, please.

Why do you always need an analogy?

All this means is the particles are arranged in a very compact structure. This structure is symmetrical and usually forms a lattice pattern.

In other words, it isn't porous.

It's like you hate looking things up.

He can argue with things posted here, more difficult to claim respected sources are wrong.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 10, 2016, 12:24:57 AM

In simple terms and using a simple analogy, can you explain what a crystalline metal structure is, please.

Why do you always need an analogy?

All this means is the particles are arranged in a very compact structure. This structure is symmetrical and usually forms a lattice pattern.

In other words, it isn't porous.

It's like you hate looking things up.

lattice pattern? Explain what you mean by lattice pattern. Oh and also try again with the crystalline.

I'm sure you have heard of a lattice fence? Strips of wood in a crisscrossing pattern? That lattice pattern describes how the particles are stacked together. It is a tightly  packed uniform formation. It is perfect for use in gas tanks because it is incredibly airtight.

I'm sure you have heard of a lattice fence? Strips of wood in a crisscrossing pattern? That lattice pattern describes how the particles are stacked together. It is a tightly  packed uniform formation. It is perfect for use in gas tanks because it is incredibly airtight.

So sort of a mesh like structure but on a very extreme tiny level. Is this right?

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 10, 2016, 01:28:50 AM

I'm sure you have heard of a lattice fence? Strips of wood in a crisscrossing pattern? That lattice pattern describes how the particles are stacked together. It is a tightly  packed uniform formation. It is perfect for use in gas tanks because it is incredibly airtight.

So sort of a mesh like structure but on a very extreme tiny level. Is this right?

Not quite a mesh. Remember these materials are known for their ability to remain airtight/watertight. This is why they are used in SCUBA tanks.

It is called a lattice not because of any gaps that would be in a lattice fence. The term lattice here refers to the diagonal crisscross pattern the atoms form. This pattern is extremely rigid, uniform, and symmetrical.

Crystalline in this case defines the symmetrical nature of the arrangement of atoms.

Crystals like diamonds and sapphires are rated on their symmetry. Naturally symmetrical stones are rare, and thus valuable. It is easier to create symmetrical structures in a lab under controlled settings.