Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

Troll.  Trains usually don’t have condensers.

You say usually. So let's deal with the ones that do have condensers and offer no venting of steam.
Which ones would they be?

In a closed steam cycle like for ships and power plants, the boiler  vents to the condenser via a turbine where the steam is condensed to water, collected, and pumped back to the boiler.

Can you offer me a steamship that does not vent its steam?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 03:11:50 AM

You know external heat can cause higher pressure inside a container.

Which has nothing to do with my point.

A fixed amount mass of a gas trapped in a static volume like a gas bottle will stay the same density as pressure changes from heating up and cooling down.

It'll stay very close to the same density but the pressure will always fluctuate.

 You say usually. So let's deal with the ones that do have condensers and offer no venting of steam.

The train is what you injected as a troll.

I have based my argument on the very real closed steam cycle used by ships and power plants.

The Rankine cycle is an idealized thermodynamic cycle describing the process by which certain heat engines, such as steam turbines or reciprocating steam engines, allow mechanical work to be extracted from a fluid as it moves between a heat source and heat sink. The Rankine cycle is named after William John Macquorn Rankine, a Scottish polymath professor at Glasgow University.




https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rankine_cycle_layout.png

Anyway…

Condensing steam locomotive

A condensing steam locomotive is a type of locomotive designed to recover exhaust steam, either in order to improve range between taking on boiler water, or to reduce emission of steam inside enclosed spaces. The apparatus takes the exhaust steam that would normally be used to produce a draft for the firebox, and routes it through a heat exchanger, into the boiler water tanks. Installations vary depending on the purpose, design and the type of locomotive to which it is fitted. It differs from the usual closed cycle condensing steam engine, in that the function of the condenser is primarily either to recover water, or to avoid excessive emissions to the atmosphere, rather than maintaining a vacuum to improve both efficiency and power.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensing_steam_locomotive

How do you not get in a closed steam cycle the steam is created, used to do work with a steam turbine and the steam  vents to a condenser so the mass of the water can be maintained and reused?  Instead of just venting the steam to the atmosphere. 

Air resistance is absolutely never made negligible.

Then why did the steel ball and ping pong ball drop at the same rate.

Den pressure is just stupid.  And a stupid hill to die on. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 03:25:34 AM

 You say usually. So let's deal with the ones that do have condensers and offer no venting of steam.

The train is what you injected as a troll.

I have based my argument on the very real closed steam cycle used by ships and power plants.


The Rankine cycle is an idealized thermodynamic cycle describing the process by which certain heat engines, such as steam turbines or reciprocating steam engines, allow mechanical work to be extracted from a fluid as it moves between a heat source and heat sink. The Rankine cycle is named after William John Macquorn Rankine, a Scottish polymath professor at Glasgow University.




https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rankine_cycle_layout.png

Idealised is the operative word.

Condensing steam locomotive

A condensing steam locomotive is a type of locomotive designed to recover exhaust steam, either in order to improve range between taking on boiler water, or to reduce emission of steam inside enclosed spaces. The apparatus takes the exhaust steam that would normally be used to produce a draft for the firebox, and routes it through a heat exchanger, into the boiler water tanks. Installations vary depending on the purpose, design and the type of locomotive to which it is fitted. It differs from the usual closed cycle condensing steam engine, in that the function of the condenser is primarily either to recover water, or to avoid excessive emissions to the atmosphere, rather than maintaining a vacuum to improve both efficiency and power.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensing_steam_locomotive

So we have a steam train that condenses its steam to basically catch some of the vented steam used to drive it can travel a bit further without refilling..
Not a closed system and nor is any steam-operated effort, including power stations and steamships and so on and so on.

How do you not get in a closed steam cycle the steam is created, used to do work with a steam turbine and the steam  vents to a condenser so the mass of the water can be maintained and reused?  Instead of just venting the steam to the atmosphere.

As I mentioned above. You are always venting to the atmosphere, you're just doing it with less frequency due to condensing.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 03:22:51 AM

Air resistance is absolutely never made negligible.

Then why did the steel ball and ping pong ball drop at the same rate.

Clearly you didn't read what I said in the last post you offered about this.
Try reading back to the part where I offered a small height drop.

Your attempts get weaker by the second when you try this stuff time and time again.

Den pressure is just stupid.  And a stupid hill to die on.

A hill that requires it and not silly gravity.

Idealised is the operative word.

Which has what to do with you can vent the full load of a boiler to a properly sized steam condenser?  Instead of the atmosphere?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 01, 2023, 03:37:04 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 03:22:51 AM

Air resistance is absolutely never made negligible.

Then why did the steel ball and ping pong ball drop at the same rate.

Clearly you didn't read what I said in the last post

Which has noting to do with why your den pressure can’t predict why objects of different densities fall at the same rate when air resistance is made negligible.

A hill that requires it and not silly gravity.

Then achieve the same accuracy with den pressure as modeling a simple ball drop with gravity in physics 101. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 03:54:28 AM

Idealised is the operative word.

Which has what to do with you can vent the full load of a boiler to a properly sized steam condenser?  Instead of the atmosphere?

You will never have a fully closed system with anything and get it to do work. It has to be vented.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 03:55:59 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 01, 2023, 03:37:04 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 03:22:51 AM

Air resistance is absolutely never made negligible.

Then why did the steel ball and ping pong ball drop at the same rate.

Clearly you didn't read what I said in the last post

Which has noting to do with why your den pressure can’t predict why objects of different densities fall at the same rate when air resistance is made negligible.

You are getting weaker with every post.

You will never have a fully closed system with anything and get it to do work. It has to be vented.

And it vents the steam to the condenser.  Not the atmosphere

Do you understand the condenser at all?

And I’m referring to mass of the system.

The steam condenser had lots of tubes.  Cooling water from a large body like a lake or ocean is pumped through the cooling tubes of the condenser and returned to the body of water.  Or a cooling tower can be used. This is how waste heat is removed.  Energy not extracted from the turbine.

The steam with waste heat from the turbine (the turbine itself also removes energy from the steam) goes into the condenser from the condensing action of the steam to water which creates a vacuum.  The steam contacts the tubes with cooling water inside them and cools, changes the state of water.  The waste heat with the cooling water is moved to the ocean, lake, or cooling tower.

But the steam itself doesn’t have to be released to the atmosphere.  It’s collected in the condenser, changed to water, waste heat removed, and fed to the boiler.  Maintaining the mass in the system.

[/quote]

You are getting weaker with every post.

By posting evidence that when objects have air resistance made negligible they fall at the same rate.


And you can’t explain in den-pressure why a steel ball that is easily twenty times the density of a ping pong ball (probably closer to a 100 times more dense than the ping pong ball) isn’t falling twenty times faster than the ping pong ball. 

And you have to ignore and lie about the reality they are falling at the same rate. 

You are getting weaker with every post.

So. Nuclear fuel can undergo a nuclear reaction to create heat to heat up a boiler and make pressure in a closed system.

What’s the opposite and equal reaction for the nuclear process…

Added…

Like, the core is shooting off all those nuclear products and radiation.  But the core just sits there stationary acting like a hot rock in a water bath. 

You argued pressure was not the reason for the weight measure. I just gave you a simple and easy reason why it is.

No, you gave an example so far removed and convoluted it shows pressure is not the typical reason for weight.
If pressure was really the reason for weight, you wouldn't need such a convoluted example.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 29, 2023, 04:05:12 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 29, 2023, 05:26:02 AM

Nothing will fall apart if you take away the gravity nonsense.

So you admit gravity is not needed to explain the rotating RE orbiting the sun? And that your prior allegations that gravity was invented to hold that together is nothing more than a blatant lie to try and dismiss gravity?

You trying to put internet words into my internet forum mouth does not help you.

I'm not putting words in your mouth.
You said nothing will fall apart.
I provided an example where you have repeatedly said something would fall apart.

But again, as you are yet to be able to explain the pressure gradient or why things fall without implicitly appealing to gravity, even your nonsense falls apart without gravity.
If it didn't, and your nonsense worked, then gravity wouldn't even be needed for a RE in space.

you attempting to do what you regularly do and try to twist the argument in your favour.

I never need to twist the argument in my favour. Your arguments fall apart and you routinely contradict yourself.

I explain the stack pretty well for those who want to take the time to understand it.

No, you don't.
You just assert it exists, with no explanation for why it is a lower pressure higher up.
I fully understand your claim, the problem is that your claim is NOT an explanation.
Saying it stacks so it is a higher pressure at the bottom is not explaining why it is a higher pressure at the bottom.

If it never had to be vented then steam trains would never need to be topped up.

Pure nonsense.
A particular design operating in a particular way does not mean that is the only way.

Steam trains vent to the atmosphere because that is easier.
This way they use the steam to eject a large amount of heat as the system runs. Otherwise, they need some way to transfer that heat to let the system cool down, which would significantly add to the weight and complexity.

It just comes down to what you believe I suppose.

Only for people like you. For those who actually care about the truth it comes down to what is supported by logical reasoning and evidence.

Air resistance is absolutely never made negligible.

Repeating the same pathetic assertions will not help you. Air resistance can certainly be made negligible and plenty of experiments with simple vacuum chambers demonstrate that quite well.

It would fall significantly faster. Why would you think it wouldn't?
Are you trying to tell me if you dropped a steel ball and a ping pong ball off a skyscraper in the calmest weather, the ping ball will hit the ground at the same time as the steel ball?

And this is now you trying to twist something.
It is dropping them in a vacuum chamber where air resistance is negligible.
The main reason a ping pong ball falls slower in air is air resistance.
But if you remove the vast majority of those molecules, it that air resistance drops dramatically to a point where it is negligible.

It isn't calm they are going for.

They don't. Vacuums do not exist and can never exist.

Stop playing semantics. No one is saying a perfect vacuum.

No copy and paste.

Why do you keep appealing to this as if proves anything?
You are basically saying that if someone else has already explained something, that explanation must be wrong and can never be used. It is pure stupidity.
If there is already an explanation, what is wrong with using it?

You say usually. So let's deal with the ones that do have condensers and offer no venting of steam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensing_steam_locomotive

Idealised is the operative word.

You mean for you to use as a way to deflect form the issue rather than even attempt to address it?

Not a closed system and nor is any steam-operated effort, including power stations and steamships and so on and so on.

Just where are you getting that from?
Yet again, you are just making up whatever delusional garbage fits your fantasy with no concern for reality.

You will never have a fully closed system with anything and get it to do work. It has to be vented.

You most certainly can. What you can't have is an isolated system, as such a system couldn't have energy enter or leave either.

Would a stirling engine be a better example for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

n normal operation, the engine is sealed and no gas enters or leaves; no valves are required, unlike other types of piston engines

Now care to explain how the air magically defies the pressure gradient so the weaker push from above magically pushes down against the much greater resistance below?
Or explain how the atmosphere stacks, to explain why the pressure is greater at the bottom rather than merely asserting it is?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 04:13:38 AM

You will never have a fully closed system with anything and get it to do work. It has to be vented.

And it vents the steam to the condenser.  Not the atmosphere

Take another look at a steam train and get back to me.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 04:14:13 AM

You are getting weaker with every post.

So. Nuclear fuel can undergo a nuclear reaction to create heat to heat up a boiler and make pressure in a closed system.

What’s the opposite and equal reaction for the nuclear process…

Added…

Like, the core is shooting off all those nuclear products and radiation.  But the core just sits there stationary acting like a hot rock in a water bath.

Fiction.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 01, 2023, 04:30:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 04:13:38 AM

You will never have a fully closed system with anything and get it to do work. It has to be vented.

And it vents the steam to the condenser.  Not the atmosphere

Take another look at a steam train and get back to me.

Which still has nothing to do with you can vent the full load of a boiler to a properly sized steam condenser?  Instead of the atmosphere?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 01, 2023, 04:44:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 04:14:13 AM

You are getting weaker with every post.

So. Nuclear fuel can undergo a nuclear reaction to create heat to heat up a boiler and make pressure in a closed system.

What’s the opposite and equal reaction for the nuclear process…

Added…

Like, the core is shooting off all those nuclear products and radiation.  But the core just sits there stationary acting like a hot rock in a water bath.

Fiction.

How is nuclear power fiction.  Funny the subs in the Navy have these hot rocks (uranium fuel pellets) in a reactor core that last years, require no refueling from year to year, require no atmosphere for the reaction other than a cooling medium for safe operation.  The heat from the core is the only source to make steam for propulsion and steam to generate electricity.  And the steam is condensed in a condenser cooled by sea water instead of being vented through in the atmosphere of the engine room.  Or being noisily discharge overboard.  The mass of water is saved, preventing having to waste water to continuously purify sea water to make clean condensate.  Hot boilers don’t last long using sea water. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on April 28, 2023, 10:22:41 AM

The physics that all physicists and engineers work with has gravity as a fundamental force.  Newton’s laws are absolutely central to mechanics. If they were wrong, literally everything else would fall apart.  Particularly gas pressure, which you want to give the job of pushing things down that gravity does in real science.

Nothing will fall apart if you take away the gravity nonsense.
It works as it does in spite of the made-up gravity word.

Hilarious.  If you put the tiniest effort into understanding the things you talk about, you’d see how ridiculous denpressure is.  But you never will.

Quote from: Unconvinced

Stand on some scales.  Gravity is the thing that causes the dial to move.  Is that simple enough?

It seems simple enough for you but then again you're told gravity causes the scale dial to move and you have no need to question it.

However, it's the dense mass displacement of the atmosphere using a moveable scale plate foundation to that dense mass that offers a reading based on a spring resistance which offers a weight for the dense mass minus the natural volume.

Yous ee yours isn't explainable, mine is.

Your “explanation” is nothing but a bunch of words.  It doesn’t explain anything, because it’s not how anything works.

But you said that no one uses gravity, and that I couldn’t give a simple example.  Wrong on both counts.  You just don’t like it, which is your problem and no one else’s.

Quote from: Unconvinced

So power stations, wind farms, solar panels, etc aren’t real either?

I never said they weren't real.

Whatever.

Fiction.

So?  The only way den-pressure can work is by you not believing a boiler can vent to a condenser instead of the atmosphere, nuclear power is fiction, making air resistance negligible is fiction, and you thinking objects of different densities dropping at the same rate is a lie?  With you having no understanding of gas laws.  You having no understanding that candles don’t break the atmosphere down as in the context all mass is accounted for.  By the guy that keeps going on about opposite and equal reactions? 

Note.  Added..

Weirdly the very reason we can't reach escape velocity for molecules and for rockets, is quite simple. Really simple.
It's that very stack I mentioned.
It's the change in molecular make up of matter that continually loses resistive pressure due to expansion the more that matter sits higher on that stack as opposed to the larger pressure and subsequent crushing of the molecules below by the continued stacking by the crushing up of the more compressed molecules against the more dense matter that's continually breaking down underground to create that energy push against resistance to it.

What molecules are being changed and broken down?  In what sense in conservation of matter? 

A candle burning burns a carbon fuel is a chemical reaction that uses diatomic oxygen and produces CO2 and heat.

The heat of the flame vaporizes the liquid wax (turns it into a hot gas), and starts to break down the hydrocarbons into molecules of hydrogen and carbon. These vaporized molecules are drawn up into the flame, where they react with oxygen from the air to create heat, light, water vapor (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2).

So?  What “cycle” of conservation of mass is carrying out in your den pressure delusion.

For your “change in molecular make”, what is the diatonic oxygen and nitrogen make up changing into?

Are they turning into different molecules?  Is the distribution which are the percentages that make up the atmosphere changing? 

What is “continually breaking down underground”?  Why is it not totally consumed over time like a candle. 

What are the by products.



When air resistance is made negligible, and a steel ball and a ping pong ball drop at the same rate….



For an atmosphere of mostly diatomic nitrogen and oxygen.

What change in molecular make up is occurring for the gasses in the atmosphere.

Where “continually breaking down underground”?

Producing what byproducts using what energy.  To what measured consumption of atmosphere.  And what is breaking down but conservation of mass is maintained? Mr there is an equal and opposite reaction…

I’m not sure opposite and equal means exactly what you think it means. 

Take a large steel column and a ping pong ball.  I throw a ping pong with normal person ability, it hits the steel column, bounces off.

Example:

Suppose that a ball of mass $m$ and speed $u_i$ strikes an immovable wall normally and rebounds with speed $u_f$. See Fig. 52. Clearly, the momentum of the ball is changed by the collision with the wall, since the direction of the ball's velocity is reversed. It follows that the wall must exert a force on the ball, since force is the rate of change of momentum. This force is generally very large, but is only exerted for the short instance in time during which the ball is in physical contact with the wall. As we have already mentioned, physicists generally refer to such a force as an impulsive force.

https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node75.html

Opposite and equal doesn’t always mean measurable.

Take the ping pong ball hitting the steel column.  It wouldn’t cause a measure change in the column.  It didn’t do work on the column because the column didn’t move nor does it deform.

I’m guessing the force of the ping pong ball didn’t even cause the steel column to invoke its elastic properties.

At some fundamental level, charges and atoms interacted so the mass of the two couldn’t occupy the same space. 

Probably some energy went to heat up the steel column that is unmeasurable.  And sound energy would be created.

But on the large scale, other than sound and heat, hitting the steel column resulted in no work on the steel column because it don’t move or deform.

You can push all you want on a 100 ton steal column with its foundation in the ground.  But if you failed to move the column, you failed to produce work.

The other problem.  You’re trying to treat the atmosphere that is free to flow around objects like it’s a trapped liquid in a fixed volume exerting an undiminished force. 


Look at this…

What is the opposite and equal reaction of the stream of air molecules encountering the target in the wind tunnel.

The air isn’t bouncing of the front making a huge area of stagnant air in front of the target.  Especially one that is forming a “high pressure column” to the foundation of the wind tunnel where there is a measurable “change in molecular make up” and “continually breaking down”.


The high pressure is small and localized in front of the target. 

The flow of air maintains the overall slip stream of flow over the target in the wind tunnel.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 01, 2023, 04:30:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 04:13:38 AM

You will never have a fully closed system with anything and get it to do work. It has to be vented.

And it vents the steam to the condenser.  Not the atmosphere

Take another look at a steam train and get back to me.

That's smoke from the coal fire in the boiler, not steam.

And that claim about fully closed systems is flat out wrong. Dome Earth, which you agree with, is a closed system, but it seems to be doing just fine. Air conditioners, refrigerators, and heat pumps are all closed systems of refrigerant. They all work. And yes, these are all closed systems, despite the fact they receive external energy. A closed system is defined as a system in which mass cannot exit or enter, but energy can.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 05:16:30 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 01, 2023, 04:30:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 04:13:38 AM

You will never have a fully closed system with anything and get it to do work. It has to be vented.

And it vents the steam to the condenser.  Not the atmosphere

Take another look at a steam train and get back to me.

Which still has nothing to do with you can vent the full load of a boiler to a properly sized steam condenser?  Instead of the atmosphere?

Then I'm sure you can show me a steam train that can offer this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 05:17:33 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 01, 2023, 04:44:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 04:14:13 AM

You are getting weaker with every post.

So. Nuclear fuel can undergo a nuclear reaction to create heat to heat up a boiler and make pressure in a closed system.

What’s the opposite and equal reaction for the nuclear process…

Added…

Like, the core is shooting off all those nuclear products and radiation.  But the core just sits there stationary acting like a hot rock in a water bath.

Fiction.

How is nuclear power fiction.  Funny the subs in the Navy have these hot rocks (uranium fuel pellets) in a reactor core that last years, require no refueling from year to year, require no atmosphere for the reaction other than a cooling medium for safe operation.  The heat from the core is the only source to make steam for propulsion and steam to generate electricity.  And the steam is condensed in a condenser cooled by sea water instead of being vented through in the atmosphere of the engine room.  Or being noisily discharge overboard.  The mass of water is saved, preventing having to waste water to continuously purify sea water to make clean condensate.  Hot boilers don’t last long using sea water.

I'm sure you can show me a diagram of this steam condenser that can cool down a sub's supposed nuclear reactors, right?

Hilarious.  If you put the tiniest effort into understanding the things you talk about, you’d see how ridiculous denpressure is.  But you never will.

I never will because I believe in it.
Your not understanding it is not my problem.
You stick to gravity even though you also have no clue what it actually is.

Quote

Quote from: Unconvinced

Stand on some scales.  Gravity is the thing that causes the dial to move.  Is that simple enough?

It seems simple enough for you but then again you're told gravity causes the scale dial to move and you have no need to question it.

However, it's the dense mass displacement of the atmosphere using a moveable scale plate foundation to that dense mass that offers a reading based on a spring resistance which offers a weight for the dense mass minus the natural volume.

You see yours isn't explainable, mine is.

Your “explanation” is nothing but a bunch of words.  It doesn’t explain anything, because it’s not how anything works.

Of course it's a bunch of words. Those words explain enough for those who want to take into account further thought. You are hell-bent on strict denial of anything outside of a fictional gravity that was indoctrinated into us all and has stuck for most to the point of a religious kind of adherence.

But you said that no one uses gravity, and that I couldn’t give a simple example.  Wrong on both counts.  You just don’t like it, which is your problem and no one else’s.

And nobody has given any simple example of gravity.
I laugh when someone drops a ball and says: "There you go; gravity."

You simply do not know what it is but you daren't say that.

Quote

Quote from: Unconvinced

So power stations, wind farms, solar panels, etc aren’t real either?

I never said they weren't real.

Whatever.

Never mind whatever. I didn't say that.

So?  The only way den-pressure can work is by you not believing a boiler can vent to a condenser instead of the atmosphere, nuclear power is fiction, making air resistance negligible is fiction, and you thinking objects of different densities dropping at the same rate is a lie?

I never said a boiler can't vent to a condenser.
I said you cannot have a fully closed system without venting to the atmosphere to cool that system and allow it to work.

A for nuclear power. It's fiction as far as I'm concerned. In how we're told it works.

And yes, objects of different dense masses do not drop at the same rate...ever.

If you want to use a drop of a few feet as some kind of told you so then you go for that but don't expect to think it proves anything from your side.
Why?
Because the very same dense masses dropped from much higher will not show the same. But then atmospheric resistance gets factored in, strangely.