Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

Are the gobstoppers the atmosphere is are made of quantified, does it gain one whole layer at a time or can there be fractions of a layer?

Fractions.
Good question and the first one to ever ask this.

In the diagram of the stack that Scepti massively offers up the gobstoppers appear to get larger as they get lower in the stack.
Is this correct that they get larger or are they all the same size and merely getting 'denser'?

They get denser. They have the fractions squeezed back in or out depending on the layering system they are in or placed into by applied energy.

The variations are basically off the scale, hence why we have so much in the life of dense mass in the configurations we basically observe.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 12:06:07 AM

Quote from: Stash on May 03, 2023, 03:34:29 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 29, 2023, 09:12:04 PM

Quote from: Stash on April 29, 2023, 11:11:51 AM

Kind of an aside, but maybe not. It's not clear to me that denpressure requires a flat earth. Experimentally and actually practically speaking as well.

You could have a globe earth, hermetically sealed like the membrane around a cell and all the properties of denpressure would function exactly the same way as on a domed flat earth. Or am I missing some element of denpressure that requires a planar earth?

Jack and i tried to reason that walking laterally would cause the same compressing of sponges.
So he ad hoc that it also requires something to push straight up in order to push down against.
A 'foundation'

I'm still thinking that a globe earth enshrouded in a membrane would provide the same "foundational" properties as a flat earth. I can see no difference. Also taking into consideration that there is no real up or down in terms of a flat earth relative to whatever it is floating in outside of a membrane. A flat earth could be _ , / , l, doesn't much matter. It just as well could be O, as long as it is encased.

I'm offering that one can completely separate denpressure from the shape of the earth. All that is required is sheath, skin, diaphragm, whatever you want to call it, that encloses the actual earth.

Your global Earth offers no foundation for a dome.

Explain what you mean by "foundation for a dome"?

Cells have membranes around them that separate the inside from the outside environment. A "dome" is not required. Why is a "dome" required here?

A foundation that can allow a build-up of layers.
To make this simpler.
You cannot build a house with a roof unless you have a foundation.
You can't have a dome without a foundation.

Your Earth globe in a space vacuum offers you nothing for a foundation to build up from.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 03, 2023, 10:36:16 AM

Why would thermite need atmosphere to carry out its reaction.

Because anything that expends energy has to have a medium to burn in, whether that's a liquid or a gas.

There are many exothermic and endothermic reactions that don’t require oxygen gas to react.

Nuclear fission doesn’t require a chemical reaction at all, nor an atmosphere. It requires nuclear reactions.
 
Heat transfer is as simple as two liquids in contact with each other, or in contact with the same surface.

Quote from: Stash on May 05, 2023, 12:58:47 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 12:06:07 AM

Quote from: Stash on May 03, 2023, 03:34:29 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 29, 2023, 09:12:04 PM

Quote from: Stash on April 29, 2023, 11:11:51 AM

Kind of an aside, but maybe not. It's not clear to me that denpressure requires a flat earth. Experimentally and actually practically speaking as well.

You could have a globe earth, hermetically sealed like the membrane around a cell and all the properties of denpressure would function exactly the same way as on a domed flat earth. Or am I missing some element of denpressure that requires a planar earth?

Jack and i tried to reason that walking laterally would cause the same compressing of sponges.
So he ad hoc that it also requires something to push straight up in order to push down against.
A 'foundation'

I'm still thinking that a globe earth enshrouded in a membrane would provide the same "foundational" properties as a flat earth. I can see no difference. Also taking into consideration that there is no real up or down in terms of a flat earth relative to whatever it is floating in outside of a membrane. A flat earth could be _ , / , l, doesn't much matter. It just as well could be O, as long as it is encased.

I'm offering that one can completely separate denpressure from the shape of the earth. All that is required is sheath, skin, diaphragm, whatever you want to call it, that encloses the actual earth.

Your global Earth offers no foundation for a dome.

Explain what you mean by "foundation for a dome"?

Cells have membranes around them that separate the inside from the outside environment. A "dome" is not required. Why is a "dome" required here?

A foundation that can allow a build-up of layers.
To make this simpler.
You cannot build a house with a roof unless you have a foundation.
You can't have a dome without a foundation.

Your Earth globe in a space vacuum offers you nothing for a foundation to build up from.

The point is that it doesn't have to be a "dome". How do cells have non-dome membranes that encase them without a foundation? It seems to work on a cellular level. Why not earth?

Ok.  Something that pen-pressure can’t move sideways to make the pins into a uniform surface.


But if you turn it perpendicular to the ground gravity pulls the pins uniformly.

The same action will occur in a vacuum.

Which is not how the atmosphere works where the atmosphere slips around an object as it’s pulled by gravity through the atmosphere.



With every indication the ball creates a wake of low pressure behind it.  Not consistently pushed down by pressure.

And you still have no answer when air resistance is made negligible why objects drop at the same rate.



And you utterly failed to shown any correlation between drop rates and density when air resistance is made negligible.

You have failed to explain way items drop faster when a vacuum is drawn in a vacuum chamber.

Den pressure is a useless delusion.

Says a person who thinks we spin on a ball in a space vacuum.
And you think I offer make-believe. I'd say the one you were massively indoctrinated into was akin to a fairy story of epic proportions.

And yet it leads to accurate modeling and predictions of thubgs like tides and the orbits of comets.

What’s you den pressure model that leads to the accurate mechanics and predictions for tides?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 04, 2023, 10:04:16 PM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 03, 2023, 10:36:16 AM

Why would thermite need atmosphere to carry out its reaction.

Because anything that expends energy has to have a medium to burn in, whether that's a liquid or a gas.

There are many exothermic and endothermic reactions that don’t require oxygen gas to react.

Everything can be construed as exo or endo because life itself is all about heat transfer and all require atmosphere in the stages.

Nuclear fission doesn’t require a chemical reaction at all, nor an atmosphere. It requires nuclear reactions.

It requires nothing because it's fiction.

 

Heat transfer is as simple as two liquids in contact with each other, or in contact with the same surface.

It seems as simple as that but you have to understand why liquids get hot to actually transfer that heat and also know what the heat actually is.
A clue: Vibration and frequencies by energy applied. Or to put it more bluntly, it's molecular friction.

 

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 01:02:52 AM

The variations are basically off the scale, hence why we have so much in the life of dense mass in the configurations we basically observe.

I have read this sentence over and over but I cannot make any sense of it, can you elaborate at all?

The variations in the breakdown of all molecules and expanded layers that are basically fragmented but always attached to the molecules they are expanded from or compressed into.

The point is that it doesn't have to be a "dome". How do cells have non-dome membranes that encase them without a foundation? It seems to work on a cellular level. Why not earth?

As I said. If you want to go with a cell or your globe then you have to offer something for it to sit in and not a vacuum of nothingness as you argue for.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 04, 2023, 11:06:23 PM

Ok.  Something that pen-pressure can’t move sideways to make the pins into a uniform surface.
But if you turn it perpendicular to the ground gravity pulls the pins uniformly.

Not what I'm arguing for.
This is about molecular energy and mass transfer.
That pin art is an analogy vision.

Exchanged to where?

The transfers of heat from a hotter liquid across the tube to the cooler liquid.

And what insulation would this be?

The pipe the process is in is the liquid and air tight barrier.  The insulation can be anything from fiberglass, mineral wool, or some type of calcium silicate.


The point being. Heat loss is not needed for many processes as it makes them less efficient, and can be minimized with insulation. 

Do you know of any storage tank that does not transfer energy external to it?

No.  But that’s not the same as it needing an atmosphere either.  And the transfer of energy is often not desirable, and a hindrance to a process.  And by no means needed for the process. 

Does it lose energy to the atmosphere?
If not then explain why not.

Has nothing to do with the fact the tars are not exposed to the atmosphere as indicated the don’t react. 

And reacting to atmosphere is not the same thing as heat loss that can occur through pipes and liquids.

So you need to define what you mean by atmosphere, its composition, and its reaction.

A hot pipe running through a river has ambient losses of heat and energy to the river water.  Heat transfer doesn’t require “atmosphere”.

The word you’re looking for is environment.  Not atmosphere.

Environment acknowledges all forms of heat loss.

There are four types of heat loss within any building. These include thermal radiation, conduction, convection, and air infiltration.

To understand these heat loss mechanisms or heat transfer, let’s start at the surface of a door inside a warm building with a cold outside temperature. The door itself is conducting heat out of the building because heat always flows from warm to cold. So the inside surface of the door is slightly cool because it is sending all of its heat outside. By contrast, the outside surface of the door is very warm relative to the air’s outside temperature. This is where radiation and convection come in.

Radiation under normal circumstances is driven by a surface’s emissivity, the area of a surface, and the temperature of that surface relative to the surrounding fluid. So with a big door and low outside temperatures, if the door is an excellent thermal conductor (meaning it is letting a lot of heat through it), then the radiation heat transfer will be sending all the heat away from the surface of the door quickly.

Convection will also be aiding in this transfer of thermal energy away from the door. If the air outside the door is moving quickly, in other words, if it is windy outside, then the heat will be whisked away from the surface of the door. By continually replacing the air at the door’s surface, the temperature difference between the door’s surface and the thin layer of air right next to it is never able to change, and the radiation heat transfer never slows down.

By contrast, if the air outside was not moving and convection was low, then the radiation heat transfer would slow down because the thin layer of air right next to the surface of the door would have a chance to warm slightly, thereby lowering the relative temperature difference between the surface of the door and the surrounding fluid.

Back on the inside surface of the door, similar principals are at work. Radiation and convection are functioning to send more heat to the surface of the door. Remember, the inside surface is cool because it is conducting heat from inside to the cold outside. The principle of thermal equilibrium demands that all objects and fluids in contact with one another come to the same temperature. This

Radiation can occur within the glazing of the windows, causing the heat to radiate outwards, escaping.

Conduction can move through all of the solid parts of the door. (Jambs, panels, sill, etc.). The heat that is lost from air movement near to and in the space between the glass or the door and frame is caused by convection.

With air infiltration, cracks within the joins or underneath the door can cause heat to move out of the building.

There is no way to stop heat loss through doors entirely, but there are ways to improve it significan

https://www.dawsonmetal.com/types-of-heat-loss#:~:text=There%20are%20four%20types%20of,%2C%20convection%2C%20and%20air%20infiltration.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 04, 2023, 10:06:40 PM

Says a person who thinks we spin on a ball in a space vacuum.
And you think I offer make-believe. I'd say the one you were massively indoctrinated into was akin to a fairy story of epic proportions.

And yet it leads to accurate modeling and predictions of thubgs like tides and the orbits of comets.

What’s you den pressure model that leads to the accurate mechanics and predictions for tides?

It leads to nothing of the sort.
It is a story told that is made to fit via a fictional load of stories. None are provable in any way shape or form.

Not what I'm arguing for.
This is about molecular energy and mass transfer.
That pin art is an analogy vision.

Still doesn’t take away why den pressure isn’t pushing the pins in all the way.  But gravity will move the pins uniformly when it’s turned perpendicular to the ground. 

It leads to nothing of the sort.
It is a story told that is made to fit via a fictional load of stories. None are provable in any way shape or form.

Yet tide predictions allow ships everyday to get in and out of harbors safely.

And it predicts why objects drop at the same rate when air resistance is made negligible…

Because anything that expends energy has to have a medium to burn in, whether that's a liquid or a gas.

And why can't that be the thermite? Why does it need to be the atmosphere?

Says a person who thinks we spin on a ball in a space vacuum.

You mean someone who accepts a model which words to describe, predict and explain reality. A model backed up by mountains of evidence which you are unable to show fault with?

So yes, YOU are the one who only offers make-believe.
You saying we are indoctrinated is just your pathetic defence mechanism because you cannot justify your delusional BS.

It depends which way it's looked at.
I've already told you

No, it doesn't.
The word is quite clearly defined, and you are lying about it.
You "telling" us doesn't mean anything. What you need to do is justify your insanity.

Why can't a closed system exist? Don't just tell us, explain why.

Your idea of a closed system is to offer  (for instance) a water pipe sealed at both ends

And do you think that is a closed system? Why or why not?

To be fair you might as well be saying that.

No, that isn't being fair at all.
I am using the accepted thermodynamic definition of the word.
In thermodynamics there are 3 types of systems, isolated, closed and open.
I am using this quite well established meaning.
You are entirely ignoring it and pretending to make up your own.
Quite different.

The molecules are always compressed and are more densely packed within themselves.

Only in your fantasy, where there should be no difference between liquids and gases.
You need to explain why there are such drastic differences, differences which are trivially explained by free space.

They are never free space.

Continually repeating the same pathetic assertion will not help you.
Explain how this differs without free space.

Unless you're trying to offer something else.

I have made my point incredibly clear.
With free space (and gravity), the vast majority of the molecules are in the liquid state with only a tiny portion in the gaseous state eventually going to the pump. This means the pump is only able to move a tiny portion of the molecules.
In your delusional fantasy with no free space, the molecules should simply expand to fill the available volume, which means the pump should be able to move the liquid just fine.

If you'd paid attention to the gobstopper explanation then you would understand a bit better.

Stop just throwing out these pathetic insults.
I understand your garbage, and understand that it doesn't work.

No. It doesn't work like that.

Dismissing the logical consequences of your model just shows your model doesn't work.

If you think it doesn't come from your model, then you need to explain it from your model, not just pathetically assert that your model doesn't indicate this clearly incorrect BS.

I'd say you still haven't grasped what I told you in all this time.

And I'd say you have run out of excuses, recognise that I grasp your model quite well and can easily demonstrate why your model is BS which fails to describe reality.
After all, that is why you are even attempting to explain your garbage and instead are just resorting to insults.

That depends on how you want to look at it.

Again, NO IT DOESN'T.
Transferring energy doesn't mean it is transferring mas.

Again, stop just pathetically asserting the same pathetic refuted BS and start trying to defend your BS.

If you mean the transfer of a liquid through a metal pipe just seeping out to the exterior as it being that mass transfer, then you can have that but it still doesn't offer a closed system for energy transfer.

Yes it does, even in your delusional fantasy.
The water molecules are capable of vibrating, including vibrating against the wall of the pipe. These vibrations can go through the pipe and to something outside it.
No matter has crossed the boundary (the wall of the pipe), but energy has.

Do you know those pin art things?

Something not used for transfer of energy? No thanks.
Lets stick to already existing examples, like a liquid cooling system for a PC.
Does this have the fluid rush out of the CPU itself, leaking out, only to go through the system to the radiator and leak out there? NO!
Instead heat, i.e. ENERGY, flows from the CPU into the system.
Then at the radiator, heat flows out of the system.

It is a CLOSED system, but still transfers energy.

Then don't offer a vacuum.

I will continue to speak English. If you don't like the definition of words, that is your problem.
In English (as opposed to BS Sceppy speak), a vacuum does not need it to be perfect.
Stop setting up pathetic strawmen based upon blatant lies about what words mean.

So, tell me how the liquid-cooled CPU works.

Already done above.

Or simply answer if it requires a fan.

Again, stop with the dishonest BS.
Showing the air is used in some point does NOT mean that the air is a must. It does NOT mean the air is involved in all transfer of energy. It does NOT mean you cannot have a closed system.
You do NOT need to have a fan.
If you want you can have it dumping the heat elsewhere.

And what do you think happens in water in order for the water to have a cooling effect?

It increases in temperature.

For example, if I take solid water at -20C, and put something at 80 C into it, the ice melts and warms up.

We aren't talking about slower of faster. We are talking about the actual transfer of energy.

And I'm demonstrating that contrary to your delusional BS, the air is NOT needed and actually serves to HINDER the transfer of energy.

What does thermal paste do?

It allows you to easily exclude the air from the contact between the CPU and whatever cooling setup you are using. This significantly improves the cooling performance and demonstrates your claims are pure BS.

Maybe, maybe not.

No maybe, it is certain.
Your claims reject so much of science it isn't funny.

my argument is whether real people are doing actual real science in some cases...not all cases.... or are we being sold and told stories behind certain things that are not exactly as true as they should be.

No, that is your pathetic claim, that you are yet to defend or justify in any meaningful manner.

I respect all genuine scientists.

Repeating the same pathetic lie wont help you.
You have no respect for any scientists who works demonstrates your delusional claims are pure garbage.
If you actually respected genuine scientists you wouldn't be discarding all their work.
You wouldn't repeating all your pathetic lies like the atmosphere is needed for everything, there can be no free space, there are no pulling forces, etc.

but at least you adit you're arguing for something you have no clue about except to be told this does that.

No, I'm not.
Again, just because YOU choose to remain wilfully ignorant about so many things, doesn't mean everyone else is.

I am not wilfully ignorant about reality like you are.

I can only go on my own experiments

Further demonstrating that you have no respect for scientists. You effectively dismiss all their work as lies and fake.
And you rely upon this same dishonest BS to pretend we know nothing, because we aren't you and haven't done those experiments with you.

You are also quite happy to entirely discard this "reasoning", and assert all sorts of delusional BS that you have absolutely no justification for.
So you don't go only on your own experiments; instead you go based upon your delusional fantasy.

It absolutely is.

Again, repeating the same pathetic assertion will not help you.
You need to justify your delusional BS. Otherwise you are just showing everyone how desperate you are.

Of course but the end result always comes back to the atmosphere.

No, that is a blatant lie.
The end result is that you can transfer energy WITHOUT the amtosphere.
But because that goes directly against your delusional BS you reject it.

Both are required.

No, they aren't.
As plenty of people don't use a liquid cooler.

Vacuums are fictional. Free space is fictional. Energy transfer through no medium is fictional. It really is as simple as that.

Your pathetic desperation is certainly simple, and simple to see.
Vacuums are real. Free space is real. Energy transfer through radiative process without a medium is real.

Your pathetic lies will not save you. They just demonstrate your desperation.

You're offering words that explain nothing.

No, that is you, yet again.
I have clearly defined what a pulling force is, and have given examples.
Your turn.
Explain how this is achieved without a pulling force.

Getting all angry and consistently offering up this useless dig is pointless.

I'm not angry and this isn't useless.
It is exposing your dishoensty. Every post you make here while avoiding the issue of why things fall is a pathetic deflection.

When you crash one ball into another or in this case a resistance of another 4 balls

You clearly see that there is a force acting to stop the ball.
Otherwise, it would keep going.

We see that this "resistance" BS you want to appeal to is actually a force.

I thought you said inertia was resistance to motion.

No, inertia is resistance to CHANGE in motion.

In the grand scheme of things nothing is negligible

Deal with what was said, by honestly responding to it, rather than just asserting pathetic BS.
You had had it explained why it CAN be negligible.
You not liking that doesn't magically change it.

There are always collisions because everything is always attached and under vibration/compression/expansion.

I'm talking about reality, not your delusional garbage. That comes next.

This is where you aren't paying attention.

Wrong again.
This is where I am paying attention, and use your own model against you, demonstrates how it yet again fails to match reality.

They get broken down and expanded

Broken down into what?

into the denser atmosphere and added into that pressure which creates more pressure back

So they negate the drop in pressure, making the pressure higher?
The exact opposite of what is observed and measured?

Your global Earth offers no foundation for a dome.

And another pathetic assertion. That truly is the bulk of your posts.
Why can't it?
What is so magically different about your flat fantasy and the real round Earth which means your flat fantasy can offer a foundation, but the RE can't?

Your Earth globe in a space vacuum offers you nothing for a foundation to build up from.

This is just repeating the same pathetic assertion. This in no way explains WHY.
Why can't the RE offer a foundation?

Everything can be construed as exo or endo because life itself is all about heat transfer and all require atmosphere in the stages.

And more disrespect to the scientists  you claim to respect.
Plenty of reactions do NOT require the atmosphere, at all.
Plenty are carried out in an inert atmosphere, excluding the natural atmosphere. And even then, it plays no part in the reaction.

Stop just asserting pathetic BS. Start justifying your BS.

As I said. If you want to go with a cell or your globe then you have to offer something for it to sit in and not a vacuum of nothingness as you argue for.

Easy, the VACUUM (English, not your delusional fake language) of space.

It leads to nothing of the sort.
It is a story told that is made to fit via a fictional load of stories. None are provable in any way shape or form.

Your wilful ignorance will not change reality.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 12:12:52 AM

Exchanged to where?

The transfers of heat from a hotter liquid across the tube to the cooler liquid.

How does this transfer?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 12:12:52 AM

And what insulation would this be?

The pipe the process is in is the liquid and air tight barrier.  The insulation can be anything from fiberglass, mineral wool, or some type of calcium silicate.

Why would an insulate be used that is basically geared to be porous and atmospherically saturated already?
Isn't it simply slow heat transfer just like a quilt would to a human body?

If not then explain what the insulation is doing.

The point being. Heat loss is not needed for many processes as it makes them less efficient, and can be minimized with insulation. 

The point being, if you don't have heat transfer you have no work being down.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 12:12:52 AM

Do you know of any storage tank that does not transfer energy external to it?

No.  But that’s not the same as it needing an atmosphere either.  And the transfer of energy is often not desirable, and a hindrance to a process.  And by no means needed for the process.

So what's happening outside the tank?
It seems like you're trying to offer a flask/thermos.
Do you think they get cold for no reason?
 

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 12:12:52 AM

Does it lose energy to the atmosphere?
If not then explain why not.

Has nothing to do with the fact the tars are not exposed to the atmosphere as indicated the don’t react. 

And reacting to atmosphere is not the same thing as heat loss that can occur through pipes and liquids.

So you need to define what you mean by atmosphere, its composition, and its reaction.

A hot pipe running through a river has ambient losses of heat and energy to the river water.  Heat transfer doesn’t require “atmosphere”.

The world you’re looking for is environment.  Not atmosphere.

Environment acknowledges all forms of heat loss.

Environmrnt includes atmosphere.

Quote

There are four types of heat loss within any building. These include thermal radiation, conduction, convection, and air infiltration.

To understand these heat loss mechanisms or heat transfer, let’s start at the surface of a door inside a warm building with a cold outside temperature. The door itself is conducting heat out of the building because heat always flows from warm to cold. So the inside surface of the door is slightly cool because it is sending all of its heat outside. By contrast, the outside surface of the door is very warm relative to the air’s outside temperature. This is where radiation and convection come in.

So it's still transferring energy...right?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

Radiation under normal circumstances is driven by a surface’s emissivity, the area of a surface, and the temperature of that surface relative to the surrounding fluid. So with a big door and low outside temperatures, if the door is an excellent thermal conductor (meaning it is letting a lot of heat through it), then the radiation heat transfer will be sending all the heat away from the surface of the door quickly.

Any friction or heat is radiation. Life is all about friction/heat. It's why we live and why Earth cell lives.

It doesn't matter if you want to argue negligible for some things. It's still friction through a medium as high or a low as that may seem to us.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

Convection will also be aiding in this transfer of thermal energy away from the door. If the air outside the door is moving quickly, in other words, if it is windy outside, then the heat will be whisked away from the surface of the door. By continually replacing the air at the door’s surface, the temperature difference between the door’s surface and the thin layer of air right next to it is never able to change, and the radiation heat transfer never slows down.

Convection cannot happen unless there is a medium to transfer the heat.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

By contrast, if the air outside was not moving and convection was low, then the radiation heat transfer would slow down because the thin layer of air right next to the surface of the door would have a chance to warm slightly, thereby lowering the relative temperature difference between the surface of the door and the surrounding fluid.

Basically you're arguing for a medium of higher or lower pressure that either slowly or largely dissipates heat, which is all the same thing. It's a transfer.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

Back on the inside surface of the door, similar principals are at work. Radiation and convection are functioning to send more heat to the surface of the door. Remember, the inside surface is cool because it is conducting heat from inside to the cold outside. The principle of thermal equilibrium demands that all objects and fluids in contact with one another come to the same temperature. This

Radiation can occur within the glazing of the windows, causing the heat to radiate outwards, escaping.

There is always radiation, no matter what.
Nothing can be isolated or closed from it...ever.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

Conduction can move through all of the solid parts of the door. (Jambs, panels, sill, etc.). The heat that is lost from air movement near and in the space between the glass or the door and frame is caused by convection.

You know wood and metal expand and contract. There's a reason for it. It's transferring heat.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

With air infiltration, cracks within the joins or underneath the door can cause heat to move out of the building.

That's a simple less dense transfer.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

There is no way to stop heat loss through doors entirely, but there are ways to improve it significan

https://www.dawsonmetal.com/types-of-heat-loss#:~:text=There%20are%20four%20types%20of,%2C%20convection%2C%20and%20air%20infiltration.

There's no way to stop heat loss, as you put it but heat loss is just a transfer of energy that was applied, and that transfer is not channeled in some cases to perform other functions for us but in terms of molecular level it's a natural transfer and a simple reaction to the action of energy applied.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 02:02:41 AM

Not what I'm arguing for.
This is about molecular energy and mass transfer.
That pin art is an analogy vision.

Still doesn’t take away why den pressure isn’t pushing the pins in all the way.  But gravity will move the pins uniformly when it’s turned perpendicular to the ground.

The pin art simply shows how energy is applied and reacted to equally showing an immediate transfer.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 04, 2023, 10:04:16 PM

Because anything that expends energy has to have a medium to burn in, whether that's a liquid or a gas.

And why can't that be the thermite? Why does it need to be the atmosphere?

Give me an example of how it can transfer its energy without it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 04, 2023, 11:07:10 PM

Both are required.

No, they aren't.
As plenty of people don't use a liquid cooler.

Not without an atmosphere to transfer the heat they don't.

Why would an insulate be used that is basically geared to be porous and atmospherically saturated already?

Because unlike your delusional fantasy, in reality there is lots of free space, and the main way the air transfers energy is by having the air molecules move around.
By trapping the air in small pockets, it makes that energy transfer much slower.
A rigid, porous structure with no air inside works even better.

If your delusional BS was true, these materials should be great conductors of heat.

The point being, if you don't have heat transfer you have no work being down.

No, the point being, the atmosphere is a detriment.

It seems like you're trying to offer a flask/thermos.
Do you think they get cold for no reason?

Do you think they try to remove as much air as possible for no reason?

Give me an example of how it can transfer its energy without it.

Or, how about you try to stay on topic, instead of just jumping ship?
This was an example of a reaction that doesn't need the atmosphere.

And it has already been explained how it can transfer energy without the atmosphere, DIRECT CONTACT!

Again, how about you try explaining why it needs the atmosphere, even though the atmosphere demonstrably makes it worse.

Not without an atmosphere to transfer the heat they don't.

Are you capable of honesty at all?
Again, this was demonstrating that your claim that BOTH are needed is wrong.
Both are not needed.

How does this transfer?

It was cited to you in the methods of heat transfer.

Why would an insulate be used that is basically geared to be porous and atmospherically saturated already?
Isn't it simply slow heat transfer just like a quilt would to a human body?

If not then explain what the insulation is doing.

You mean like why people wear jackets.

Or how people suffocate with a pillow.

Being porous doesn’t mean air movement from the pipe through the insulation through to the environment. The insulation is usually encased in a thin metal covering. But heat still can radiate out with no need for a gas, nor free flow of gas.

It still has nothing to do with heat transfer through an atmosphere is not required in a liquid filled heat exchanger.  In fact if it’s got trapped air, it works less efficiently.  Vent the atmosphere out, it becomes more efficient.

And still hasn’t anything to do with not everything requires atmosphere.  One.  Heat loss is a hindrance in many processes and not required.   Two.  Things like thermite with its own oxidizer don’t need an atmosphere for their reaction.

The point being, if you don't have heat transfer you have no work being down.

Again.  Thermite doesn’t need “atmosphere” to react.  And if used in welding, just needs to be in contact with the metals,  in fact, welds are better if you shield the weld from the atmosphere.  So.  Again what do you mean atmosphere and what composition of atmosphere do you mean.

So what's happening outside the tank?
It seems like you're trying to offer a flask/thermos.
Do you think they get cold for no reason?

Nothing useful to the process for the chemical stored in the tank before it’s injected into the process.

There's no way to stop heat loss,

Which has nothing to do with this…

The atmosphere is always needed. Nothing works unless there is an atmosphere.

Thermite in contact with a metal during it reaction could care less about atmosphere. 

The pin art simply shows how energy is applied and reacted to equally showing an immediate transfer.

Still doesn’t explain why den-pressure isn’t moving the pins.

Is the den pressure not there? 

The point being, if you don't have heat transfer you have no work being down.

The formula for work.

Work equals force multiplied by displacement.

Now.  How is “heat transfer” required to create work?

I can move an object by hydraulic jack with the displacement of liquid.


I can actuate the lever of the jack with gravity with dropping weights.


No heat required.  The process makes waste heat through friction that takes away the efficiency of the system.

Waste heat being created as a by product is not the same thing as saying waste heat is needed to run a process.  In fact, as materials and technologies become better, waste heat can me minimized maximizing the efficiency of the work that is produced. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 02:41:54 AM

Why would an insulate be used that is basically geared to be porous and atmospherically saturated already?

Because unlike your delusional fantasy, in reality there is lots of free space, and the main way the air transfers energy is by having the air molecules move around.

Molecules do move around and some more dense molecules aided by applied energy will move other molecules out of the way.
In all cases, the start and end result is friction and frequencies and the energy against a variation of dense masses of resistance to dense masses of force. Equal reaction to action throughout.

By trapping the air in small pockets, it makes that energy transfer much slower.

Yep, it's called porosity and increased vibration/friction due to expansion and compression.

A rigid, porous structure with no air inside works even better.

It can never happen. Heat has to transfer in some way and atmosphere has to be attained.

If your delusional BS was true, these materials should be great conductors of heat.

To conduct heat you need energy equalling vibration/friction and frequencies which determine what can be seen, felt, or not identified at an extremely lower molecular level but will always be a vibration.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 02:41:54 AM

The point being, if you don't have heat transfer you have no work being down.

No, the point being, the atmosphere is a detriment.

The point is the atmosphere is absolutely 100% needed and is the asset that makes us what we are and everything else.
Unfortunately, it also has the ability to create extreme highs and lows in pressure which can have a detrimental effect on its surroundings but that's just part and parcel of atmospheric Earth life in the cell we thrive and survive within.......and recycle within.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 02:41:54 AM

It seems like you're trying to offer a flask/thermos.
Do you think they get cold for no reason?

Do you think they try to remove as much air as possible for no reason?

They lower the pressure to slow heat transfer but the argument stays the same. Heat will always transfer because it always has a medium to transfer into. Guess what it is?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 02:47:26 AM

Give me an example of how it can transfer its energy without it.

Or, how about you try to stay on topic, instead of just jumping ship?
This was an example of a reaction that doesn't need the atmosphere.

Such as?

And it has already been explained how it can transfer energy without the atmosphere, DIRECT CONTACT!

Direct contact as in, how?

Again, how about you try explaining why it needs the atmosphere, even though the atmosphere demonstrably makes it worse.

I have explained. Your refusal to take notice of it is your affair.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 02:49:08 AM

Not without an atmosphere to transfer the heat they don't.

Are you capable of honesty at all?

Are you asking me or telling me?
You can decide whatever you wish about what you think I offer and you can tell all and sundry that you think I'm dishonest for as long as you feel the need to satisfy your appetite. But know one thing. It has no effect on what I say.

Again, this was demonstrating that your claim that BOTH are needed is wrong.
Both are not needed.

Both what is not needed?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 02:41:54 AM

How does this transfer?

It was cited to you in the methods of heat transfer.

No it wasn't. It offered nothing to how it transferred fully.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 02:41:54 AM

Why would an insulate be used that is basically geared to be porous and atmospherically saturated already?
Isn't it simply slow heat transfer just like a quilt would to a human body?

If not then explain what the insulation is doing.

You mean like why people wear jackets.

Or how people suffocate with a pillow.

Being porous doesn’t mean air movement from the pipe through the insulation through to the environment. The insulation is usually encased in a thin metal covering. But heat still can radiate out with no need for a gas, nor free flow of gas.

The reason heat transfers through a pipe are because it agitates the molecules within that pipe and transfers that heat from the inside to the outside.

It still has nothing to do with heat transfer through an atmosphere is not required in a liquid filled heat exchanger.

It's always required.

  In fact if it’s got trapped air, it works less efficiently.  Vent the atmosphere out, it becomes more efficient.

Atmosphere.

And still hasn’t anything to do with not everything requires atmosphere.  One.  Heat loss is a hindrance in many processes and not required.   Two.  Things like thermite with its own oxidizer don’t need an atmosphere for their reaction.

It requires an atmosphere.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 02:41:54 AM

The point being, if you don't have heat transfer you have no work being down.

Again.  Thermite doesn’t need “atmosphere” to react.  And if used in welding, just needs to be in contact with the metals,  in fact, welds are better if you shield the weld from the atmosphere.

It needs more than just being in contact with metals. You cannot shield welding from an atmosphere.

  So.  Again what do you mean atmosphere and what composition of atmosphere do you mean.

All.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 02:41:54 AM

So what's happening outside the tank?
It seems like you're trying to offer a flask/thermos.
Do you think they get cold for no reason?

Nothing useful to the process for the chemical stored in the tank before it’s injected into the process.

Whether something is slowed or accelerated, it still requires atmosphere, or no work gets done.
All work gets done for the reason of atmosphere.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 02:41:54 AM

There's no way to stop heat loss,

Which has nothing to do with this…

It has everything to do with it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 03, 2023, 05:33:35 AM

The atmosphere is always needed. Nothing works unless there is an atmosphere.

Thermite in contact with a metal during it reaction could care less about atmosphere.

It can't work without it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 02:44:09 AM

The pin art simply shows how energy is applied and reacted to equally showing an immediate transfer.

Still doesn’t explain why den-pressure isn’t moving the pins.

Is the den pressure not there?

No good with analogies I see. Ok, I'll leave them out when dealing with you.

It can't work without it.

What aspect of a thermite reaction requires atmosphere?

And why did the pins stop?  Why hasn’t den pressure pushed the pins in all the way?  Or at least return them to flat? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 05, 2023, 02:41:54 AM

The point being, if you don't have heat transfer you have no work being down.

The formula for work.

Work equals force multiplied by displacement.

Now.  How is “heat transfer” required to create work?

Heat transfer is work. It's always work. No heat transfer and now work.
Vibration/friction and any frequency is work and it's all heat for work.

I can move an object by hydraulic jack with the displacement of liquid.

Not without using energy you can't.
Energy equals vibration/friction and frequencies resulting in heat transfer to do work.

I can actuate the lever of the jack with gravity with dropping weights.

You can't drop weights without picking up weights by using energy to then cause a reaction to that action by transferring that heat to the friction of the jack, which is also resistant heat.

No heat required.  The process makes waste heat through friction which takes away the efficiency of the system.

No, it has to be.
You can never eliminate heat from a working system.
You can channel it to offer better-directed energy to a system but you still have to lose heat to the atmosphere.

Waste heat being created as a by product is not the same thing as saying waste heat is needed to run a process.

It depends on how you want to look at this.
You see you could have a so-called by-product of a machine running as so-called waste heat that warms a building. It's still an atmosphere required.
It doesn't matter what you refer it will always need atmosphere as an end product of work unless you offer a space vacuum which is fiction.

  In fact, as materials and technologies become better, waste heat can me minimized maximizing the efficiency of the work that is produced.

Of course you can channel it to aid a better process of work but you can never eliminate it, which is what we're arguing.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2023, 02:58:18 AM

It can't work without it.

What aspect of a thermite reaction requires atmosphere?

All of it and especially the heat.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 04, 2023, 11:06:23 PM

And why did the pins stop?  Why hasn’t den pressure pushed the pins in all the way?  Or at least return them to flat?

Don't waste another second on this. Analogies are not your thing.