Revisiting the Candle Experiment

  • 58 Replies
  • 1694 Views
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #30 on: November 11, 2019, 04:39:04 AM »
Sag calculations are of great importance to electrical engineers designing overhead power transmission lines. In principle I can't see the difference between calculating power line sag and working out how much sag would be present in JD's experiment.

https://electricalengineerresources.com/2018/01/13/sample-calculation-of-sag-and-tension-of-transmission-line/

The parameters we need for the calculation are:

W1 = Unit weight of the line (N/m)
H1 = Tension in the line (N)
S = Span length (m)

And using these we will calculate the expected drop/sag (m) (D).

The calculation for drop is given in the quoted article as: D = H1/W1 (cosh(S / (2H1/W1)) -1)

Using this product: 3-Ply 84 lb. Tensile Strength Jute Tying Twine - 5,000 feet (https://www.interplas.com/84lb-jute-tying-twine-p-twj-500) we have a 5000 foot roll of 84lb tensile strength twine weighing in at 10lb. From this we can calculate...

W1 = 10lb / 5000ft = 0.002 lb per foot or 0.029 N/m
H1 = 84lb (i.e. we tension the line to 100% of its breaking point) or 373.78 N
S = 1320ft or 402.34m

Plugging these parameters in to the calculation gives an expected sag of 1.58m or 62 inches.

If we try to pull the twine any tighter, then according to the calculation, make no mistake, it will break. We could do better with something like dyneema, but JD did specify twine after all.

*

rvlvr

  • 1562
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #31 on: November 11, 2019, 04:57:50 AM »
Yeah, twine it is. Wouldnít want to mess that part up. We need to stay true.

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #32 on: November 11, 2019, 06:37:17 AM »
As my old grandma used to say:

If you ain't got the twine, then don't waste your time.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #33 on: November 12, 2019, 06:09:26 AM »
Why not use a laser pointer?

Measure the height of the laser above the clear riser, in the PVC pipe setup, at each end and in the middle.
Surely that would give the level of accuracy needed to prove the principal.

Just a thought.  :)
I donít agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39304
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #34 on: November 12, 2019, 06:22:09 AM »
Why not use a laser pointer?
Lasers are susceptible to atmoplanic refraction.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #35 on: November 12, 2019, 06:37:19 AM »
Why not use a laser pointer?
Lasers are susceptible to atmoplanic refraction.

Atmospheric refraction is due to variations in air density. Over a quarter of a mile, with no major change in height, I am pretty sure that there would be discernible effect.

Got to be far more accurate that stretching the shit out of a piece of string.  :P
I donít agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #36 on: November 12, 2019, 12:34:49 PM »
Didn't they try using a laser pointer on the behind the curve documentary on Netflix?

*

rabinoz

  • 25561
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #37 on: November 12, 2019, 06:07:46 PM »
Why not use a laser pointer?
Lasers are susceptible to atmoplanic refraction.

Atmospheric refraction is due to variations in air density. Over a quarter of a mile, with no major change in height, I am pretty sure that there would be discernible effect.

Got to be far more accurate that stretching the shit out of a piece of string.  :P
Far more accurate than a piece of string. piano wire or even the best Dyneema fibre but the Earth's curvature is less than any of those could detect.
You need something like a very high-quality level or theodolite.

So ask a Geodetic Surveyor, they know!

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #38 on: November 12, 2019, 09:33:44 PM »
Why not use a laser pointer?
Lasers are susceptible to atmoplanic refraction.

Atmospheric refraction is due to variations in air density. Over a quarter of a mile, with no major change in height, I am pretty sure that there would be discernible effect.

Got to be far more accurate that stretching the shit out of a piece of string.  :P
Far more accurate than a piece of string. piano wire or even the best Dyneema fibre but the Earth's curvature is less than any of those could detect.
You need something like a very high-quality level or theodolite.

So ask a Geodetic Surveyor, they know!


A level, theodolite or total station would do it in a heartbeat, you wouldn't need to do the quarter mile either.

If the modern instruments are off putting  a good old mechanical theodolite would be just as effective.

Simple measurements aswell so no need to set up a full survey. Position your instrument and set up the two poles, measure the vertical angle of each pole, bit of high school trig and a decent surveyor will get you Earths R to +/- 2mm
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

rvlvr

  • 1562
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #39 on: November 12, 2019, 11:11:33 PM »
As my old grandma used to say:

If you ain't got the twine, then don't waste your time.
If you canít do the time, donít do the twine.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2019, 11:27:40 PM by rvlvr »

*

Macarios

  • 1925
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #40 on: November 13, 2019, 02:27:02 AM »
What you need is long strong line with the specific weight matching water.
Such line you should be able to stretch in water without sagging.
Then you can see if it dives in the middle as you pull it straight through the curve.

With the Earth radius of 6371 km, and with the string of 1 km,
the middle should dip for about 2 cm (0.00002 km).
At 2 km string you should have 8 cm (0.00008 km) dip.

Is there such line?
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #41 on: November 13, 2019, 03:11:38 AM »
What you need is long strong line with the specific weight matching water.
Such line you should be able to stretch in water without sagging.
Then you can see if it dives in the middle as you pull it straight through the curve.

With the Earth radius of 6371 km, and with the string of 1 km,
the middle should dip for about 2 cm (0.00002 km).
At 2 km string you should have 8 cm (0.00008 km) dip.

Is there such line?

Dynema (Rab's suggestion) might match that. It has a density of 0.97 g/ml.
But as it is slightly less dense, it will curve up slightly due to buoyancy.

Of course, some people might complain that you can't use a candle under water.

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #42 on: November 13, 2019, 05:12:38 AM »
Anything over an extended distance will sag.
Super impractical experiment.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39304
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #43 on: November 13, 2019, 06:43:06 AM »
Didn't they try using a laser pointer on the behind the curve documentary on Netflix?
They probably didn't factor in aetherific eddification.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #44 on: November 13, 2019, 08:18:37 AM »
Anything over an extended distance will sag.
Super impractical experiment.

Well you might think that, I might think that too, however John Davis is quite convinced that the twine won't sag at all as far as I can see.

It would be quite interesting for someone (Gumwars said he was willing) to propose a properly specified experiment (e.g. type of twine/candle/sticks etc.) and a methodology to follow based on the little JD has explained and see if JD is willing to accept the chosen parameters and whatever results from the experiment.

I see two main problems, firstly, I doubt JD will be willing to unambiguously agree to anything proposed and secondly, there is a get-out clause in his original post:

If necessary, repeat this experiment a number of times and localities to rule out local variances skewing the results.

So how many times would the experiment have to be done to "rule out local variances" I wonder?

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #45 on: November 13, 2019, 01:07:31 PM »
What you need is long strong line with the specific weight matching water.
Such line you should be able to stretch in water without sagging.
Then you can see if it dives in the middle as you pull it straight through the curve.

With the Earth radius of 6371 km, and with the string of 1 km,
the middle should dip for about 2 cm (0.00002 km).
At 2 km string you should have 8 cm (0.00008 km) dip.

Is there such line?

Dynema (Rab's suggestion) might match that. It has a density of 0.97 g/ml.
But as it is slightly less dense, it will curve up slightly due to buoyancy.

Of course, some people might complain that you can't use a candle under water.

That's a very clever idea!

The buoyancy of Dyneema would be equivalent to line with a density of 0.03 g/ml, so it would be equivalent to line with more or less the same strength, but weighing only 3% as much (unless Dyneema loses significant strength when wet).
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #46 on: November 13, 2019, 01:46:15 PM »
The buoyancy of Dyneema would be equivalent to line with a density of 0.03 g/ml, so it would be equivalent to line with more or less the same strength, but weighing only 3% as much (unless Dyneema loses significant strength when wet).
Close. It would be equivalent to ~ -0.03 g/ml.
I wonder if any FEer would try to use this with the appropriate tension to keep it perfectly level and claim Earth is flat?

But that does also provide one key part:
If the region in the middle is lower than at the edges, then there is literally no way for a FE to explain it.
"Sag" in this case would be upwards.

It seems that at breaking point, over 1000 m, it would be higher by roughly 1.5 cm, while the curvature of Earth is roughly 2 cm.
That means it should still sag a big, but it would require 2.5 GPa.
Dropping it to 1 GPa would produce 3.7 cm upwards, meaning it would still go up.

So we need a heavier fibre.
Perhaps coat the fibre in something heavier than water to make it match water?

*

rabinoz

  • 25561
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #47 on: November 13, 2019, 02:58:46 PM »
The buoyancy of Dyneema would be equivalent to line with a density of 0.03 g/ml, so it would be equivalent to line with more or less the same strength, but weighing only 3% as much (unless Dyneema loses significant strength when wet).
Close. It would be equivalent to ~ -0.03 g/ml.
I wonder if any FEer would try to use this with the appropriate tension to keep it perfectly level and claim Earth is flat?

But that does also provide one key part:
If the region in the middle is lower than at the edges, then there is literally no way for a FE to explain it.
"Sag" in this case would be upwards.

It seems that at breaking point, over 1000 m, it would be higher by roughly 1.5 cm, while the curvature of Earth is roughly 2 cm.
That means it should still sag a big, but it would require 2.5 GPa.
Dropping it to 1 GPa would produce 3.7 cm upwards, meaning it would still go up.

So we need a heavier fibre.
Perhaps coat the fibre in something heavier than water to make it match water?
But what happens if there is the slightest movement of the water? It all goes awry.

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #48 on: November 14, 2019, 02:27:36 AM »
To anyone who has been involved in surveying on a professional basis, the idea of using lengths of string and candles to prove anything in regard to the topography of an area is just preposterous. The only thing it does prove is how divorced from reality the designer of this 'experiment' is.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #49 on: November 14, 2019, 02:43:03 AM »
To anyone who has been involved in surveying on a professional basis, the idea of using lengths of string and candles to prove anything in regard to the topography of an area is just preposterous. The only thing it does prove is how divorced from reality the designer of this 'experiment' is.

To be completley fair string is used quite a lot in surveying, but knowhere near the lengths suggested by the experiment.

Kerbs are set out with string prior to laying, and strings tangentially across kerbs are used to dip (calculate) the depths of bituminous materials required at 10m chainages
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #50 on: November 14, 2019, 05:01:31 AM »
No
JohnD put out a compleyely assinine experiement - either forgetting that gravity exists or expecting it to not exist...


*

Crutchwater

  • 2150
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #51 on: November 14, 2019, 10:09:34 AM »
No
JohnD put out a compleyely assinine experiement - either forgetting that gravity exists or expecting it to not exist...

...to the amazement of all who witnessed it!
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39304
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #52 on: November 14, 2019, 10:23:42 AM »
No
JohnD put out a compleyely assinine experiement - either forgetting that gravity exists or expecting it to not exist...
Or, he's using an unobtanium twine that is infinitely strong and nearly weightless.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Macarios

  • 1925
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #53 on: November 14, 2019, 11:24:49 AM »
So we need a heavier fibre.
Perhaps coat the fibre in something heavier than water to make it match water?

Dyneema / UHMWPE is 0.97
Nylon is 1.14

We can intertwine them in the desired proportion.
6D + 1N gives 0.9943, but then the used N can be slightly thicker for fine tuning.
Or the difference can still be kept to keep it floating until tense.

(Or we could skip Nylon and put series of rings on Dyneema with calculated spacing.)

But what happens if there is the slightest movement of the water? It all goes awry.

The experiment can be done on Bedford canal.

EDIT: It is 9.7 km long.

« Last Edit: November 14, 2019, 11:48:55 AM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #54 on: November 14, 2019, 01:13:57 PM »
In the winter with no refraction

*

rvlvr

  • 1562
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #55 on: November 15, 2019, 12:45:17 AM »
But it has to be safe from moonlight and heaven energies.

*

rabinoz

  • 25561
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #56 on: November 15, 2019, 02:16:18 AM »
But it has to be safe from moonlight and heaven energies.
I've heard that enclosing the experiment in a Bismuth box might shield it from "heaven energies".

*

rvlvr

  • 1562
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #57 on: November 15, 2019, 02:18:57 AM »
Yes, it might.

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #58 on: November 15, 2019, 02:44:56 AM »
To anyone who has been involved in surveying on a professional basis, the idea of using lengths of string and candles to prove anything in regard to the topography of an area is just preposterous. The only thing it does prove is how divorced from reality the designer of this 'experiment' is.

To be completley fair string is used quite a lot in surveying, but knowhere near the lengths suggested by the experiment.

Kerbs are set out with string prior to laying, and strings tangentially across kerbs are used to dip (calculate) the depths of bituminous materials required at 10m chainages

If you are into home improvements and laying out a patio/kerb then sure using 20 meters of mason's twine would be a good way to go, along with some other basic leveling items. The 'Clown' who started off this particular mad caper was suggesting using a line over 400 meters long! That's in a totally different ballpark. If you turned up on-site to do some meaningful measurements witha ball of string 400 meters plus, you would be medicated then sent home for your own good.
I'm not sure who the instigator of this stupidity was but one thing is for certain he knows less than nothing about basic surveying. Having read a few of the other discussions on this site it looks like it could be medication for quite a few is required.