Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

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

Let me put it simply.
You get out of something exactly what you put in.
You get an equal amount of reaction from anything you use as an action. In equal measures, at all times.

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…

Quote

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.

It's pretty simple.
If you break down the atmosphere you create a lower pressure. This lower pressure is molecular breakdown as I explained a short while back.
I offered diagrams and pointed it out but it gets overlooked because nobody wants to argue it because they don't understand it.

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

Nope. It doesn't happen as far as I'm concerned. Not in the way we're told.

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

There isn't one. It's not real.

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.

Nothing is getting shot anywhere in a hot rock bath. It's fiction.

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.

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

Quote

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

It all still has to be vented into the atmosphere.

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.

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

And steam from pistons.

And that claim about fully closed systems is flat out wrong.

No it's not. You are simply looking at it differently from how I am.

Dome Earth, which you agree with, is a closed system, but it seems to be doing just fine.

Of course. It's a natural layered stacking system.

Air conditioners, refrigerators, and heat pumps are all closed systems of refrigerant.

No they're not.
They must vent in order to work. It requires an external atmosphere in order for that to happen.
Take that away and your fridge and anything else is rendered pointless.

They all work. And yes, these are all closed systems, despite the fact they receive external energy.

Then they are not closed systems.

A closed system is defined as a system in which mass cannot exit or enter, but energy can.

No matter which way it's looked at, for energy to enter it has to be in accordance with the atmosphere.

I never will because I believe in it.

And that is one of your big problems.
You are desperate for it to be true, so you make up whatever excuses you think are needed to pretend it works and ignore all the problems with it.

Your not understanding it is not my problem.

Recognising it is BS doesn't mean we don't understand.

Those words explain enough for those who want to take into account further thought.

No, they don't.
They explain nothing.
They fail to explain why the atmosphere is providing a directional force directly defying the pressure gradient of the atmosphere and all known laws of how gases behave.

And nobody has given any simple example of gravity.

They have, and you just dismiss it.
There is the simple one of objects falling, with a force proportional to their mass.
There are pressure gradients in fluids, with a gradient proportional to their density.
There is the cavendish experiment.

But you reject it all, even though you cannot provide an alternative explanation.

I said you cannot have a fully closed system without venting to the atmosphere to cool that system and allow it to work.

And you just ignore examples which show that to be wrong, and you cannot justify your delusional BS at all.

Because the very same dense masses dropped from much higher will not show the same. But then atmospheric resistance gets factored in, strangely.

Air resistance is factored in when it is significant.

If you take 2 objects which are made of the same material, and have the same mass, but drastically different geometry (e.g. an aluminium ball vs a piece of alfoil), then:
The reading on a scale will be the same will be the same regardless of which is placed on it.
Their acceleration in a vacuum will be the same.
But the air resistance on them will differ drastically because of their different geometry resulting in one accelerating in the atmosphere a lot faster than the other and this will also result in one having a much lower terminal velocity in the atmosphere.

But with your delusional garbage, why should this be the case at all?

It all still has to be vented into the atmosphere.

Repeating the same blatant lie will not help you.

The heat needs to be transferred into the atmosphere, but the air/steam inside it does not.

You are simply looking at it differently from how I am.

You could say that. We are looking at it honestly, based upon the evidence and logical reasoning.
You are looking at it and rejecting reality because it doesn't match your delusional fantasy.

Your wilful rejection of reality just shows how dishonest and desperate you are.

No matter which way it's looked at, for energy to enter it has to be in accordance with the atmosphere.

No, it doesn't. The atmosphere is not the only way to transfer energy.
Your delusional fantasy is not representative of reality.

Now again, care to explain why things fall, or why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere, or how the placement of one mass in a chamber causes another mass to be drawn towards it?

It's pretty simple.

It’s a meaningless word salad that shows no sign of existing.

You didn’t answer anything.

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…

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 01, 2023, 11:36:57 AM

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.

You’re a big fat liar.

You have always insisted the pressure had to be vented to atmosphere.  It’s not even a case of semantics. You clear only invoked releasing the steam to atmosphere. 

A steam boiler is never a closed system for long. It's just like a household pressure cooker. You create the pressure and then it has to be vented and then refilled and vented and refilled and so on and so on. It's an open system in reality to do work.

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

Nope. It doesn't happen as far as I'm concerned. Not in the way we're told.

I was in the navy and able to work with nuclear reactors.

With the rods in. The reactor shut down.  Very little radiation to none above background throughout the ship in the engine room/people spaces. Water chemistry, no short term fission products.

Start drawing the rods out that control the neutron flux.  Get the reactor to a steady state.  The core becomes a source of radiation and heat.  The reactor coolant is sampled for fission products, long term sources of radiation, and short term sources of radiation.

Areas that previously were at back ground radiation have an increase in radiation.

The fuel in the core lasts mission after mission.  No moving parts in the core except the control rods and coolant flow. 

So.  How does a nuclear reactor work.  If it’s not by the nuclear process of fission. 

Let me put it simply.
You get out of something exactly what you put in.
You get an equal amount of reaction from anything you use as an action. In equal measures, at all times.

Then what is going on in the wind tunnel?

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

Eye roll

And you have been shown they do.


And more importantly you have failed to model how density changes that rate at which objects fall.  You have failed to show there is any correlation between the rates objects fall and their densities, especially if air resistance becomes negligible. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 10:10:09 PM

I never will because I believe in it.

And that is one of your big problems.
You are desperate for it to be true, so you make up whatever excuses you think are needed to pretend it works and ignore all the problems with it.

I believe it to be closer to reality and especially where gravity is concerned.
The desperation is with gravity and its silly explanations.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 10:10:09 PM

And nobody has given any simple example of gravity.

They have, and you just dismiss it.
There is the simple one of objects falling, with a force proportional to their mass.

What does that even mean?

There are pressure gradients in fluids, with a gradient proportional to their density.

What does that even mean?
Can you actually explain what both the above actually mean?

There is the cavendish experiment.

That's so silly as to be rendered pointless but if it needs to be used then it proves atmospherically compressed molecular motion.

But you reject it all, even though you cannot provide an alternative explanation.

I have provided it but you dismiss it, which is fine.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 10:21:00 PM

I said you cannot have a fully closed system without venting to the atmosphere to cool that system and allow it to work.

And you just ignore examples which show that to be wrong, and you cannot justify your delusional BS at all.

It isn't wrong. There can never be a true closed system and what is claimed to be a closed system has to externally vent, rendering it anything but closed.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 10:21:00 PM

Because the very same dense masses dropped from much higher will not show the same. But then atmospheric resistance gets factored in, strangely.

Air resistance is factored in when it is significant.

When convenient you mean.
The reality is, it's factored in at all times but to do that from your side kills gravity, and gravity is needed to keep alive (in the minds of the masses) the spinning globe and space planets and suns...etc.
It's basically nonsense.

If you take 2 objects which are made of the same material, and have the same mass, but drastically different geometry (e.g. an aluminium ball vs a piece of alfoil), then:
The reading on a scale will be the same will be the same regardless of which is placed on it.

Not quite but so close as to be undetectable.

But for the sake of argument, we can go with that because generally, they would both displace the same amount of atmosphere, just about.

Their acceleration in a vacuum will be the same.

There's no such thing as a vacuum.
Use something else even though you argue that I know what you mean.
Use low pressure which I think you are getting at and if this is the case then, no their acceleration would never be the same....ever.

Only your fictional vacuum of nothingness would offer that but it only works in the mids of those who are duped by it.

But the air resistance on them will differ drastically because of their different geometry resulting in one accelerating in the atmosphere a lot faster than the other and this will also result in one having a much lower terminal velocity in the atmosphere.

Of course it will. Massively in some orientations when dropped.
This is because atmospheric resistance is what's happening at all times. No gravity is required for a real Earth, which certainly does not rotate within a space vacuum.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 10:33:01 PM

It all still has to be vented into the atmosphere.

Repeating the same blatant lie will not help you.

The heat needs to be transferred into the atmosphere, but the air/steam inside it does not.

Let me tell you what a closed system is. A closed system is a system of theoretics/hypotheticals.
It also goes alongside an isolated system which is also theoretics/hypotheticals.

The only argument with them is in one having to externally transfer heat to allow work but the key part is it can never be wholly closed from external reaction or action to enable it to be a source of work.

And isolated system plays into the vacuum nonsense. It simply cannot ever be.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 10:56:20 PM

You are simply looking at it differently from how I am.

You could say that. We are looking at it honestly, based upon the evidence and logical reasoning.
You are looking at it and rejecting reality because it doesn't match your delusional fantasy.

You could very well be looking at everything honestly. I'm not going to dismiss that. Most people may be doing exactly the same thing, just as I am.
But looking at something honestly and believing it, does not make it a fact, unless you are literally in possession of the facts.
Which you are certainly not. Not in these cases.
But of course, you're very welcome to believe in them just as I am with my stuff.
It doesn't mean I'm correct. It means I believe I'm closer to the truth than you are in regard to what we're arguing and vice versa.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 10:56:20 PM

No matter which way it's looked at, for energy to enter it has to be in accordance with the atmosphere.

No, it doesn't. The atmosphere is not the only way to transfer energy.
Your delusional fantasy is not representative of reality.

The atmosphere plays every part in energy transfer no matter where it is.

The only time it wouldn't play a part would be in the fantasy story of a space vacuum.

Quote from: scepti

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? 

All, depending on the energy applied. So many variations of change.

In what sense in conservation of matter?
 

Explain what you mean by conservation of matter.
In your own words.

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).

A candle breaks down its own molecular makeup and also the molecular makeup of the atmosphere it is in. So many variations going on with this and at the end of the candle's makeup.

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

Once again, explain what you mean.


 

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

So many variations all dependent on how the energy is started and finished.

 

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

Of course they change molecular makeup.
If you had a wooden table and made a wooden chair out of all the pieces, would it still be a wooden table?
What about transitioning it from a table to a chair but not being quite a table or a chair?

I'll let you think molecularly about that one.
I'm sure it'll pass right over.
Maybe you'll surprise me.

 

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

By consumed you mean molecularly altered into a different configuration.


 

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

Atmospheric resistance is never made negligible. It only becomes negligible to you by your mind on it or by acceptance by your eye of seeing something which you believe to be entirely accurate.
You're welcome to that but it does not make it a fact.

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…

You'll need to elaborate on what you're meaning by conservation of mass.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 10:21:00 PM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 01, 2023, 11:36:57 AM

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.

You’re a big fat liar.

Maybe calm down and take in what is being said and what I apply it to. It seems you like to jump the gun.

You have always insisted the pressure had to be vented to atmosphere.

And I stand by it.
But remember what I was offering.
A steam train and a pressure cooker. Both do different types of work but both need to be steam pressure vented in order to get the work done to an end product.
And then you have power stations and condensing towers and such which are still not closed systems, which is also what I'm arguing and they require venting also to get work done. Atmospheric pressure is absolutely required in order to make this work, along with water.
You're not paying attention because you're getting far to wound up and mad.
Calm down a little and give yourself time to take it all in.

  It’s not even a case of semantics. You clear only invoked releasing the steam to atmosphere.

It is what it is. You can call it what you like but I stand by everything I've said.
 

A steam boiler is never a closed system for long. It's just like a household pressure cooker. You create the pressure and then it has to be vented and then refilled and vented and refilled and so on and so on. It's an open system in reality to do work.

I stand by it.

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

And I stand by that as well.
Pay better attention.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 10:30:37 PM

Nope. It doesn't happen as far as I'm concerned. Not in the way we're told.

I was in the navy and able to work with nuclear reactors.

If I had a tenner for every time someone uses this line to argue against me I'd be a thousand pounds better off, roughly.
The number of times I've argued and a person can't gain any traction so they become nuclear physicists or navy or army snipers or nuclear submariners.
The list is long.
So please don't take it to heart if I don't take you seriously with this.

With the rods in. The reactor shut down.  Very little radiation to none above background throughout the ship in the engine room/people spaces. Water chemistry, no short term fission products.
Start drawing the rods out that control the neutron flux.  Get the reactor to a steady state.  The core becomes a source of radiation and heat.  The reactor coolant is sampled for fission products, long term sources of radiation, and short term sources of radiation.

Areas that previously were at back ground radiation have an increase in radiation.

The fuel in the core lasts mission after mission.  No moving parts in the core except the control rods and coolant flow. 

So.  How does a nuclear reactor work.  If it’s not by the nuclear process of fission.

A nuclear reactor doesn't work. They're fictional.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 10:23:57 PM

Let me put it simply.
You get out of something exactly what you put in.
You get an equal amount of reaction from anything you use as an action. In equal measures, at all times.

Then what is going on in the wind tunnel?

What do you think is going on? In your own words.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 10:21:00 PM

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

Eye roll

And you have been shown they do.


And more importantly you have failed to model how density changes that rate at which objects fall.  You have failed to show there is any correlation between the rates objects fall and their densities, especially if air resistance becomes negligible.

By all means eye roll but it doesn't change my earlier answers.

I believe it to be closer to reality and especially where gravity is concerned.
The desperation is with gravity and its silly explanations.

Just what do you hope to achieve with this crap?
We know you think your delusional BS is closer to reality than reality.
Telling us you believe is entirely useless.
Your belief doesn't make your delusional BS reality, nor does it magically make reality wrong.

The simple fact is that you are completely incapable of explaining so many simple things with your delusional garbage which gravity explains just fine.
You need to dismiss evidence and outright contradict reality to pretend your garbage is true.
And you cannot show a single fault with gravity.

So it is clear where the desperation lies, and it isn't with gravity.

What does that even mean?

Playing dumb wont help you.
Can you point out what part you don't understand?
Or can you just stupidly ask what things mean?

If a is proportional to b it means if you double a you double b.

The downwards force exerted on an object, such as what is measured on a scale, either in a near perfect vacuum or extrapolated to a vacuum condition, is proportional to mass.
This also results in the acceleration being not based upon the mass.

It also related directly to the observed pressure gradient (i.e. pressure being greater the lower down you are) being directly proportional to mass.
This is because the downwards force on each layer is proportional to the mass of each layer which is proportional to the density of the layer.

These clearly indicate a downwards force proportional to mass.
This is NOTHING like what is expected for air.
The force of pressure directly is proportional to the area, not the mass. The force of a pressure gradient is proportional to area and how far apart the points are in the gradient. If the gradient is uniform that makes it proportional to volume.
Neither is proportional to mass.

That's so silly as to be rendered pointless but if it needs to be used then it proves atmospherically compressed molecular motion.

The only thing silly about it is your pathetic dismissal.
It is testable, repeatable and easily observable.
It clearly demonstrates a force of attraction between masses.
You are yet to provide any alternative explanation, nor are you able to explain why it isn't a clear demonstration of gravity.

Instead you just assert that the air magically does it, which just demonstrates your desperation and wilful rejection of reality.

I have provided it but you dismiss it, which is fine.

I haven't dismissed anything.
I have clearly explained why the pathetic garbage you have provided is NOT an explanation.

There can never be a true closed system and what is claimed to be a closed system has to externally vent, rendering it anything but closed.

Again, your repeated pathetic assertions will not change reality.
You CAN have a closed system, which truly is a closed system, which can be used as a heat engine, without venting any of the working fluid to the atmosphere. It can also work as a heat pump, again, with the working entirely sealed in the system without venting it to atmosphere.

What is required is for energy to be transferred in an out, and that DOESN'T require venting anything to the atmosphere.

But yet again, notice how you just pathetically assert delusional BS and wilfully reject reality, where there are plenty of clear examples that you are wrong.
You can't explain what is wrong with these examples, or even justify your claim in any rational manner. Instead you just continue to assert delusional BS.

When convenient you mean.

No, I mean when it has a significant effect.
There are plenty of times where air resistance and buoyancy are negligible.

The reality is, it's factored in at all times but to do that from your side kills gravity, and gravity is needed to keep alive (in the minds of the masses) the spinning globe and space planets and suns...etc.

And more delusional BS, at pretty much every point.
Again, in reality it is factored in when it is significant, which is NOT all the time.
For plenty of things air resistance is negligible and does not need to be considered. Likewise for plenty of things buoyancy is negligible and does not need to be considered.
For example, if I am weighing a 1 kg ball of lead to an accuracy of 1 g, then as it is stationary the affect of air resistance is basically nothing unless there is a very strong breeze, and even then the large mass of the lead will make the air resistance quite negligible, and the buoyant force will change the reading by a mere 0.1 g, i.e. below the level of accuracy I am measuring to.
This means it is insignificant and can be ignored. It does not need to be factored in.

And if you do waste your time factoring it in, then you get the same result (within uncertainty), so it doesn't kill gravity at all.

But if you take a different object, like a small 1 g object flying through the air at Mach 1, then air resistance becomes significant. Likewise, if you take a helium filled balloon, buoyancy becomes significant (and almost any motion relative to the air means air resistance will be significant). In these cases, if you just use gravity and do not factor in these other forces you will get the wrong result.

And more importantly, as you have absolutely no explanation other than appealing to a foundation, your delusional BS works just as well in your flat fantasy as it does on a spinning round Earth orbiting the sun.
The only way in which gravity is needed is that so far it is the only viable explanation we know of. No one has been able to provide an alternative explanation which actually works to explain what is observed in reality. And that takes your delusional BS into consideration. There is no other explanation for why the above issues.

So every one of your points in that BS sentence of yours is entirely wrong.
This has been explained to you before, yet you happily repeat this same pathetic lie because you are desperate to pretend your delusional BS is true and gravity is fiction.

Not quite but so close as to be undetectable.

So you are claiming it will be different but you also claim you will NEVER be able to demonstrate it.

There's no such thing as a vacuum.

Yes there is. Again, no one is saying the vacuum is perfect, stop pretending they are.
You know exactly what is meant, you are just being dishonest to avoid the issue because you know you have no way to explain this.
And we can also extrapolate to no air at all.

Of course it will. Massively in some orientations when dropped.
This is because atmospheric resistance is what's happening at all times. No gravity is required for a real Earth, which certainly does not rotate within a space vacuum.

And the question is WHY?
Gravity, along with the know laws of how gases function explains it perfectly.
Because the mass is the same, the downwards force on a scale is the same (and as an extension, as the volume (which as above relates the buoyant) force is the same, the upwards force is also the same so there is no difference in the scale).
Because this force and the mass is the same, the acceleration is the same in a vacuum.
And because the geometry is different the air resistance is different so the acceleration in air will be drastically different.

But your delusional garbage has no way to explain this.

Let me tell you what a closed system is. A closed system is a system of theoretics/hypotheticals.
It also goes alongside an isolated system which is also theoretics/hypotheticals.

That is not telling me what it is at all.
Why don't you try again, and provide an actual definition.
Forget about if it can exist in reality, or only as a hypothetical concept. What defines a closed system? What defines an isolated system?

The only argument with them is in one having to externally transfer heat to allow work but the key part is it can never be wholly closed from external reaction or action to enable it to be a source of work.

WHY?
Again, you are just repeating the same pathetic BS with no explanation at all.

You may as well have had your entire post history be nothing more than just "Earth is flat", because that is effectively what you are doing, making a pathetic claim with no justification.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same pathetic claim, or in what ways you repeat it, it will still just be an empty, entirely baseless claim.

If you want to claim it can't be closed, you need to explain why the transfer of matter is required in order for it to be able to do work.

You could very well be looking at everything honestly. I'm not going to dismiss that. Most people may be doing exactly the same thing, just as I am.

If you are truly looking at this honestly, you are so deluded it isn't funny.
I refuse to believe anyone could truly be that delusional.
The way you continually reject reality because it doesn't fit your delusional BS; and how you repeat the same pathetic lies, even after it has been explained to you why they are wrong; demonstrates significant dishonesty or severe delusion.

So which is it? Are you deluded or are you lying?

The atmosphere plays every part in energy transfer no matter where it is.

Again, repeating the same pathetic lies wont help.

If your delusional BS was true, steam engines wouldn't use steam, they would just use air.
If your delusional BS was true, liquid cooling for computers wouldn't exist.
If your delusional BS was true, heatsinks (i.e. bits of metal to increase the surface area) wouldn't exist.

If you have a piece of metal in direct contact with another piece of metal, the atmosphere is not needed for energy transfer. Instead the 2 pieces of metal touching each other do.
There are also plenty of fluids other than the air which can transfer energy.
And there is radiative heat transfer which doesn't need the air or any fluid either.

What makes the air so magical that it is needed and nothing else can take its place?

And even if it is your magic air, why can't this magic air be contained in an airtight system to transfer energy without venting to the atmosphere?

Again, all you can do is desperately assert the same delusional BS with no justification or explanation at all.

Of course they change molecular makeup.
If you had a wooden table and made a wooden chair out of all the pieces, would it still be a wooden table?
What about transitioning it from a table to a chair but not being quite a table or a chair?

That is not changing the molecular makeup.
If you have ice and make a table out of it, and then melt that ice and re-freeze it into the shape of a chair, is it still ice?
Have you actually changed the MOLECULAR makeup, or have you just rearranged the molecules?

Of course they change molecular makeup.
Atmospheric resistance is never made negligible.

Again, repeating the same lie will not help you.
Simple experiments with dropping things in a vacuum chamber show it CAN be negligible.
These are experiments you can do yourself.

Maybe calm down and take in what is being said and what I apply it to.

How about you follow your own advice, take in what has been said to stop repeating the same pathetic lies; rather than continuing in your path of wilful rejection of any part of reality which doesn't fit your delusional fantasy?

A steam train and a pressure cooker. Both do different types of work but both need to be steam pressure vented in order to get the work done to an end product.

No, a steam train vents for convenience. A pressure cooker doesn't do any significant work, and it certainly doesn't need to be vented. The venting of a pressure cooker is done for safety. But if you use appropriate materials, you can have it entirely sealed once the food goes in, and only open it once it is finished doing its "work".

And then you have power stations and condensing towers and such which are still not closed systems, which is also what I'm arguing and they require venting also to get work done.

Do they REQUIRE it, or do they just use it?
If it needs to vent, then as already asked, where does your dome vent to?

A steam boiler is never a closed system for long.

A steam boiler is typically not a system.
A steam train is not just a boiler.
A powerplant is not just a boiler.

Appealing to various things connected to that to pretend it isn't closed to lie and claim it needs to vent to the atmosphere is just more dishonesty from you.

A nuclear reactor doesn't work. They're fictional.

Again, your wilful rejection of reality has no impact on reality. It will not magically your dreams come true, no matter how many times you repeat this lie.

So much for your claims about scientists.
It seems you hate them all.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 02, 2023, 03:08:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 10:23:57 PM

Let me put it simply.
You get out of something exactly what you put in.
You get an equal amount of reaction from anything you use as an action. In equal measures, at all times.

Then what is going on in the wind tunnel?

What do you think is going on? In your own words.

So.  I did this..



What is going on.  Gravity is pulling the ball down.  The ball drops.  There is a slight build up of pressure ahead of the dropping ball.  The pressure dissipates and vents/equalizes off before any kinda of pressure column can build up in front of it. 

The drag of the ball making a chaotic low pressure area behind the ball leaving a swirling wake.  With no indication the atmosphere is acting like a piston pushing the ball down.     Especially the wake is almost parallel with the direction of the balls travel.  And the swirling of the wake shows the momentary low pressure void left behind the ball.


There is no evidence the atmosphere is the force pushing the ball down.


Every indication gravity is pulling the ball down.  Creating maybe a slight area of high pressure ahead of the ball that quickly equalizes with the atmosphere.  No indication of a created high pressure column building in front of the ball. 

The ball slips through the atmosphere, creating a wake that is a low pressure void that is parallel to the balls travel.  Leaving swirls of turbulence behind the ball.

With no indication of “change in molecular make up” and no indication of continually breaking down underground

By all means eye roll but it doesn't change my earlier answers.

You answer by no means dispels the evidence provided that objects of different densities can fall at the same rate.  And highlights you have no explanation why den pressure can’t create a model where the rate at which an object falls corresponds to its density.

What should the change is rate at which a 2” lead ball falls be compared to a 2” aluminum ball in the den pressure delusion. 

They're fictional.

From the troll that never worked around a reactor, never had to map out radiation hotspots in piping, never had to do radiation surveys, never had to wear a radiation dosimeter, and never had to read personnel dosimeters.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 01, 2023, 01:22:16 PM

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

Let me put it simply.
You get out of something exactly what you put in.
You get an equal amount of reaction from anything you use as an action. In equal measures, at all times.

Back to the condenser in a system system and it running at a vacuum.

So vacuum above the water that collects at the tank bottom form the condensed steam.


In a power plant, the pump that draws out the water of the condensate hot well is pumping from a tank at vacuum.


Now how goes the water still drain to the bottom of the tank / collection well in a vacuum.  And how does a pump have enough suction head to get the water to the pump when sucking / drawing water from a tank at vacuum?

Pumping from vacuum
Fluid Handling

Pumping liquids from a tank with a negative pressure or even with (high) vacuum is not an easy task. The only driving force that still exists to get the liquid into the pump is gravity. In such cases, the so-called NPSHa (“net positive suction head available”) is usually very low. Then it is extremely important that the pump has an even lower NPSHr (net positive suction head required).

https://en.suurmond.com/products/pumping-from-vacuum/

Den pressure makes no sense.

The ball drop exercise and no indication the atmosphere acts like a piston got me thinking about true fluid power.  And air is a fluid.

In hydraulics.  You can have a hydraulic jack at 10,000 psi.  But if the fluid doesn’t actually cause the output piston to move, the system doesn’t actually cause motion.  A hydraulic jack can be at a static state.  Until…. The output piston will not move until an input piston moves to cause a displacement of fluid that moves the output piston. 



The atmosphere to cause a ball to fall straight down must literally act like a moving piston to push the ball down in den pressure. 

Example.  Drop a ball in a sealed container.  It still falls down despite the static atmosphere with no downward flow of gasses to transport the object down. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 04:38:57 AM

Let me tell you what a closed system is. A closed system is a system of theoretics/hypotheticals.
It also goes alongside an isolated system which is also theoretics/hypotheticals.

That is not telling me what it is at all.
Why don't you try again, and provide an actual definition.
Forget about if it can exist in reality, or only as a hypothetical concept. What defines a closed system? What defines an isolated system?

Nothing defines a closed system or and isolated system, except hypotheticals..

If you want to claim it can't be closed, you need to explain why the transfer of matter is required in order for it to be able to do work.

Easy. In your condenser effort, it's a simple case of requiring the atmosphere to create the energy to boil the water to create the steam and then the steam cannot do any work unless it depressurises through a turbine (in this power station instance).
For this to happen it must depressurise through the condenser which is atmospherically cooled water through pipes.
You cannot transfer heat if you do not have an external atmosphere.
It renders your closed system, not closed.

If your delusional BS was true, steam engines wouldn't use steam, they would just use air.

Steam engines use water and atmosphere plus a fuel source. Generally coal.
This is direct steam venting.

If your delusional BS was true, liquid cooling for computers wouldn't exist.

Does it have a fan?
What does the fan do?
Does it have a heatsink?
What does the heatsink do?

If your delusional BS was true, heatsinks (i.e. bits of metal to increase the surface area) wouldn't exist.

As above.
Think about what they do and why they transfer heat.
A clue, they require help to dissipate the heat.
Any idea?

If you have a piece of metal in direct contact with another piece of metal, the atmosphere is not needed for energy transfer.

It absolutely is.
No molecular movement means no transfer. It's really simple.

Instead the 2 pieces of metal touching each other do.

Two pieces of metal will be nothing in terms of transfer unless they possessed a heat source and you can't have one if you have no atmosphere.

There are also plenty of fluids other than the air which can transfer energy.

Not without atmospheric intervention.

And there is radiative heat transfer which doesn't need the air or any fluid either.

No atmosphere means no radiative heat transfer.

What makes the air so magical that it is needed and nothing else can take its place?

Atmosphere is life itself.
It is everything required for any work to be done.

And even if it is your magic air, why can't this magic air be contained in an airtight system to transfer energy without venting to the atmosphere?

Because everything is attached. There's no free space and through liquids and solids and gases, it's all required to transfer energy.
From start to finish you need atmosphere in order to initiate a force of energy to get your reaction to that action all the way through to the end product.

Of course they change molecular makeup.
If you had a wooden table and made a wooden chair out of all the pieces, would it still be a wooden table?
What about transitioning it from a table to a chair but not being quite a table or a chair?

That is not changing the molecular makeup.
If you have ice and make a table out of it, and then melt that ice and re-freeze it into the shape of a chair, is it still ice?
Have you actually changed the MOLECULAR makeup, or have you just rearranged the molecules?
[/quote]yes.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 04:58:35 AM

Of course they change molecular makeup.
Atmospheric resistance is never made negligible.

Again, repeating the same lie will not help you.
Simple experiments with dropping things in a vacuum chamber show it CAN be negligible.
These are experiments you can do yourself.

No such thing as a vacuum chamber.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 05:14:14 AM

A steam train and a pressure cooker. Both do different types of work but both need to be steam pressure vented in order to get the work done to an end product.

No, a steam train vents for convenience.

No. It vents for work, otherwise, it goes nowhere.

A pressure cooker doesn't do any significant work, and it certainly doesn't need to be vented.

Of course it needs to be vented.
No venting while still under energy will blow it apart.

The venting of a pressure cooker is done for safety. But if you use appropriate materials, you can have it entirely sealed once the food goes in, and only open it once it is finished doing its "work".

It's still venting as it's doing its work. It is never a closed system.
Take away the external atmosphere and you would have a closed system.
But you and I both know this would never be the case unless you somehow manage to heat the pressure cooker up in your space vacuum, somehow and then manage to somehow get work out of it against your vacuum.

You see how silly it all is.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 05:14:14 AM

And then you have power stations and condensing towers and such which are still not closed systems, which is also what I'm arguing and they require venting also to get work done.

Do they REQUIRE it, or do they just use it?
If it needs to vent, then as already asked, where does your dome vent to?

Everything requires a vent when under atmospheric pressure because atmospheric pressure is the vent.

The dome is a natural stacking system that everything else vents into.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 05:14:14 AM

A steam boiler is never a closed system for long.

A steam boiler is typically not a system.
A steam train is not just a boiler.
A powerplant is not just a boiler.

No, but we are dealing with the overall energy to power and the steam is the energy required to do work.

Appealing to various things connected to that to pretend it isn't closed to lie and claim it needs to vent to the atmosphere is just more dishonesty from you.

It's far from dishonesty.

So much for your claims about scientists.
It seems you hate them all.

Try not to be so dramatic.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 05:20:47 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 02, 2023, 03:08:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 10:23:57 PM

Let me put it simply.
You get out of something exactly what you put in.
You get an equal amount of reaction from anything you use as an action. In equal measures, at all times.

Then what is going on in the wind tunnel?

What do you think is going on? In your own words.

So.  I did this..



What is going on.  Gravity is pulling the ball down.  The ball drops.  There is a slight build up of pressure ahead of the dropping ball.  The pressure dissipates and vents/equalizes off before any kinda of pressure column can build up in front of it. 

The drag of the ball making a chaotic low pressure area behind the ball leaving a swirling wake.  With no indication the atmosphere is acting like a piston pushing the ball down.     Especially the wake is almost parallel with the direction of the balls travel.  And the swirling of the wake shows the momentary low pressure void left behind the ball.


There is no evidence the atmosphere is the force pushing the ball down.


Every indication gravity is pulling the ball down.  Creating maybe a slight area of high pressure ahead of the ball that quickly equalizes with the atmosphere.  No indication of a created high pressure column building in front of the ball. 

The ball slips through the atmosphere, creating a wake that is a low pressure void that is parallel to the balls travel.  Leaving swirls of turbulence behind the ball.

With no indication of “change in molecular make up” and no indication of continually breaking down underground

Tell me in simple terms what pulls your ball down and how.
I need to know what your force is.
I don't want answers like this.

Well, it just is.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 05:22:00 AM

By all means eye roll but it doesn't change my earlier answers.

You answer by no means dispels the evidence provided that objects of different densities can fall at the same rate.  And highlights you have no explanation why den pressure can’t create a model where the rate at which an object falls corresponds to its density.

What should the change is rate at which a 2” lead ball falls be compared to a 2” aluminum ball in the den pressure delusion.

It depends on the height when dropped.
Let's put it this way.
If you had 100 2" balls ranging from polystyrene to plastic to wood to varying metals from ferrous to none ferrous metals and so on, they would not all fall at the same rate from height.


The only issue is in how high for some against others.
It's fine to drop a ball from a few feet and claim gravity ensures they fall at the same rate and funnily enough not use atmospheric pressure in that argument because it suits you but then change it when those balls are dropped from a great height, then suddenly atmospheric pressure plays a part.


Well here's the thing.
Atmospheric pressure always plays the part of resistance all ways and gravity is never required unless fantasy needs to be used.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 05:19:43 AM

They're fictional.

From the troll that never worked around a reactor, never had to map out radiation hotspots in piping, never had to do radiation surveys, never had to wear a radiation dosimeter, and never had to read personnel dosimeters.

Radiation exists everywhere.
Just not nuclear.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2023, 10:23:57 PM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 01, 2023, 01:22:16 PM

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

Let me put it simply.
You get out of something exactly what you put in.
You get an equal amount of reaction from anything you use as an action. In equal measures, at all times.

Back to the condenser in a system system and it running at a vacuum.

So vacuum above the water that collects at the tank bottom form the condensed steam.


In a power plant, the pump that draws out the water of the condensate hot well is pumping from a tank at vacuum.

No it's not. There's no such thing as a vacuum.

Now how goes the water still drain to the bottom of the tank / collection well in a vacuum.

It doesn't.

And how does a pump have enough suction head to get the water to the pump when sucking / drawing water from a tank at vacuum?

Pumps do not suck.

Pumping from vacuum
Fluid Handling

Pumping liquids from a tank with a negative pressure or even with (high) vacuum is not an easy task. The only driving force that still exists to get the liquid into the pump is gravity. In such cases, the so-called NPSHa (“net positive suction head available”) is usually very low. Then it is extremely important that the pump has an even lower NPSHr (net positive suction head required).

https://en.suurmond.com/products/pumping-from-vacuum/

Low pressure allows more dense liquid to overcome it.

Quote from: Magicalus on May 01, 2023, 02:55:06 PM

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.

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

And steam from pistons.

Quote from: Magicalus

And that claim about fully closed systems is flat out wrong.

No it's not. You are simply looking at it differently from how I am.

Quote from: Magicalus

Dome Earth, which you agree with, is a closed system, but it seems to be doing just fine.

Of course. It's a natural layered stacking system.

Quote from: Magicalus

Air conditioners, refrigerators, and heat pumps are all closed systems of refrigerant.

No they're not.
They must vent in order to work. It requires an external atmosphere in order for that to happen.
Take that away and your fridge and anything else is rendered pointless.

Quote from: Magicalus

They all work. And yes, these are all closed systems, despite the fact they receive external energy.

Then they are not closed systems.

Quote from: Magicalus

A closed system is defined as a system in which mass cannot exit or enter, but energy can.

No matter which way it's looked at, for energy to enter it has to be in accordance with the atmosphere.

This is the definition of a closed system:

A closed system, on the other hand, can exchange only energy with its surroundings, not matter. If we put a very tightly fitting lid on [a pot], it would approximate a closed system.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/cellular-energetics/cellular-energy/a/the-laws-of-thermodynamics

If energy can't move in and out, then it's not a closed system. And those systems vent nothing. And air conditioner is moving energy between two points in the closed system before releasing it, same for a heat pump and a fridge. The fan, if there even is one, is just to get that energy (or lack of energy) to disperse and have an effect faster. The closed system there is one of refrigerant, not one of air.

No, that's not a hypothetical. We have names for these situations. That's how we define words. An open system allows transfer of mass and energy. A closed system allows for transfer of energy, but not of mass. An isolated system allows for no transfer of mass or energy (and isn't necessarily a vacuum. After all, the universe ain't infinite, so it's one big isolated system, however big you think it is.) Enough with the word-fuckery. Just use dictionary definitions, please. Same for denpressure. Make up some new words, and actually TELL PEOPLE WHAT YOU MEAN. Wasting three days because you refuse to reveal how you define the word density is inane.


Alright, gravity time. It's not really a force. Einstein's theory of general relativity explains it like a bowling ball on a mattress, except the mattress is also 3 dimensional.

Radiation exists everywhere.
Just not nuclear.

If radiation is everywhere, why wouldn't we harness that power? A nuclear power plant is just a steam engine with a funky heat source, and a some extra valves and tanks for safety.