DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Mucho on January 02, 2007, 02:06:39 PM
-
Voice Of God Revealed To Be Cheney On Intercom
December 7, 2005 | Issue 41•49
WASHINGTON, DC—Telephone logs recorded by the National Security Agency and obtained by Congress as part of an ongoing investigation suggest that the vice president may have used the Oval Office intercom system to address President Bush at crucial moments, giving categorical directives in a voice the president believed to be that of God.
President Bush sits at his desk in the Oval Office, where he received messages from an intercom voice identifying itself as "God" and thought to have been Vice President Cheney (below).
While journalists and presidential historians had long noted Bush's deep faith and Cheney's powerful influence in the White House, few had drawn a direct correlation between the two until Tuesday, when transcripts of meetings that took place in March and April of 2002 became available.
In a transcript of an intercom exchange recorded in March 2002, a voice positively identified as the vice president's identifies himself as "the Lord thy God" and promotes the invasion of Iraq, as well as the use of torture in prisoner interrogations.
A close examination of Bush's public statements and Secret Service time logs tracking the vice president reveals a consistent pattern, one which links Bush's belief that he had received word from God with Cheney's use of the White House's telephone-based intercom system.
Officials privately acknowledged that there is reason to believe that the vice president, as God, urged Bush to sign legislation benefiting oil companies in 2005.
"There's a lot of religious zeal in the West Wing," said a former White House staffer who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It's possible that the vice president has taken advantage of that to fast-track certain administration objectives."
An ex-Treasury Department official and longtime friend of Cheney was asked to comment on the vice president's possible subterfuge. "I don't know. I certainly don't think it's something [Cheney] planned," he said. "I do know that Mr. Bush was unfamiliar with a phone-based intercom, and I suppose it is possible that Dick took advantage of that."
A highly placed NSA official who has reviewed the information released Tuesday said Cheney masked his clipped monotone, employing a deeper, booming voice.
Vice President Cheney.
Said the NSA source: "It sounded as though the speaker, who identified himself as God, stood away from the intercom to create an echo effect."
On Capitol Hill, sources are expressing surprise that Cheney, a vice president with more influence than any other in U.S. history, would have resorted to such deception.
"The vice president has a lot of sway in this administration," said a former White House aide. "But perhaps when President Bush was particularly resolute and resistant to mortal persuasion, the vice president chose to quickly resolve disputes in his favor with a half-decent God impression."
For many, the revelation explains Bush's confusion in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
"I was very surprised by the president's slow response in New Orleans," political commentator Bill Kristol said. "The president told me that he was praying every day in his office, but had received no reply. I had no idea what he meant, but of course, it all makes sense now."
At the time of Katrina, Cheney was on a fly-fishing trip, from which he returned on Sept. 1.
According to highly placed White House sources, Bush's senior advisers are trying to shield the president from the news. Aides are concerned that too harsh an awakening might shake Bush's faith, which has been a central part of his life for nearly 20 years.
"It's hard to tell the leader of the free world that he has been the butt of an elaborate and long-term ruse," a former staffer said. "Maybe it would be easier to take if it came from Cheney's God voice."
© Copyright 2006, Onion, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Onion is not intended for readers under 18 years of age.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43189/print/
-
I have a hard time believing that you "understand" anything.
-
I have a hard time believing that you "understand" anything.
:D
-
<<I have a hard time believing that you "understand" anything.>>
Not as hard as we do in believing that you and your sycophantic little yes-man in the Amen Corner have a sense of humour about anything.
-
Not as hard as we do in believing that you and your sycophantic little yes-man in the Amen Corner have a sense of humour about anything.
You know, if you keep defending Ms. Knuttia, I'm gonna start suspecting that you and she are the same person.
-
<<I have a hard time believing that you "understand" anything.>>
Not as hard as we do in believing that you and your sycophantic little yes-man in the Amen Corner have a sense of humour about anything.
Tweedle Dum & Tweedle Dummer is what I call them. They are far too stupid & vacuous to waste our time on is what I think.
-
They are far too stupid & vacuous to waste our time on is what I think.
And compared to you, we're the smart ones.
:-*
-
They are far too stupid & vacuous to waste our time on is what I think.
And compared to you, we're the smart ones.
:-*
ROFL
-
This is funny as Hell. Cheney pretending to be God, deluding the Dummy Juniorbush. hee hee ha ha hoo hoo!
-
This is funny as Hell. Cheney pretending to be God, deluding the Dummy Juniorbush. hee hee ha ha hoo hoo!
Thanx , XO. At least a couple folks in here have a sense of humor.
-
<<You know, if you keep defending Ms. Knuttia, I'm gonna start suspecting that you and she are the same person.>>
Which would be the least of your factual misconceptions
-
Which would be the least of your factual misconceptions
Care to point out where I claimed it was a fact?
But then, you're not exactly well acquainted with fact anyway, Mr. "water boiling at 190 degrees".
-
<<But then, you're not exactly well acquainted with fact anyway, Mr. "water boiling at 190 degrees".>>
Make that "Mr. water boiling at a temperature which depends on the atmospheric pressure on it" and that'd put you about as close to a real fact as you've ever been.
-
<<But then, you're not exactly well acquainted with fact anyway, Mr. "water boiling at 190 degrees".>>
Make that "Mr. water boiling at a temperature which depends on the atmospheric pressure on it" and that'd put you about as close to a real fact as you've ever been.
Ami actually knows a lot of facts. It is the meaning of them that always eludes him. That is how I know he is an idiot savant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistic_savant
-
Make that "Mr. water boiling at a temperature which depends on the atmospheric pressure on it" and that'd put you about as close to a real fact as you've ever been.
As I said, water does not boil at 190 degrees at any atmospheric pressure below the summit of Mt. Everest. And it won't do so, there, either.
So, tell me, where was the McDonalds located? The Moon?
Fact. ROFL.
Go to your local college chemistry department and have them verify it. I told you do so years ago.
-
Ami actually knows a lot of facts. It is the meaning of them that always eludes him.
Ahh, so you're saying that I don't lie all the time, as you do?
-
<<As I said, water does not boil at 190 degrees at any atmospheric pressure below the summit of Mt. Everest. And it won't do so, there, either.>>
As I recall, the issue depended on was what was the atmospheric pressure on the surface of the liquid when the cap was suddenly removed, and the surface rapidly decompresses - - which nobody seems to know. Furthermore, you were talking about the boiling point of water and I was talking about the boiling point of a colloidal suspension of coffee in water; apples and oranges. Furthermore, if I accepted 190 degrees as the actual boiling point, it was for the sake of the argument only, so as not to engage in a side issue. The real point I was making was that it was - - and remains - - a theoretical possibility for a liquid to boil over at less than its normal boiling point under conditions of sudden decompression - - as any idiot would recognize if he or she ever unscrewed the cap of a ginger ale bottle.
<<So, tell me, where was the McDonalds located? The Moon?>>
Yours, maybe. Stella's was somewhere in the U.S.A.
-
As I recall, the issue depended on was what was the atmospheric pressure on the surface of the liquid when the cap was suddenly removed, and the surface rapidly decompresses - - which nobody seems to know.
Oh, I know. First, when I was majoring in chemistry in college, we did some of these experiments. Besides that, the physical properties are all known, and I looked them up in my Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (http://www.hbcpnetbase.com/). The pressure differential on a coffee cup would be the equivalent of about 80 pounds. Have you found a Styrofoam coffee cup that would withstand 80 pounds yet?
Furthermore, you were talking about the boiling point of water and I was talking about the boiling point of a colloidal suspension of coffee in water; apples and oranges.
And if you knew any chemistry, you would that suspensions and solutions increase the boiling point, not decrease it. Basic chemistry. You're gonna get your lowest boiling point with a pure liquid. That's actually the point of adding salt to boiling water when cooking - it increases the boiling point a degree or two for better cooking.
Furthermore, if I accepted 190 degrees as the actual boiling point, it was for the sake of the argument only, so as not to engage in a side issue. The real point I was making was that it was - - and remains - - a theoretical possibility for a liquid to boil over at less than its normal boiling point under conditions of sudden decompression - - as any idiot would recognize if he or she ever unscrewed the cap of a ginger ale bottle.
And if you knew any chemistry, you would know that the ginger ale bottle reaction is due to a chemical reaction, and not "boiling" in any way.
A chemical reaction that cannot occur in a cup of coffee.
Sorry, you have no facts on your side in this argument.
Go talk to a chemistry professor at your local college so he can explain it to you, as I suggested years ago.
-
the physical properties are all known, and I looked them up in my Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (http://www.hbcpnetbase.com/). The pressure differential on a coffee cup would be the equivalent of about 80 pounds. Have you found a Styrofoam coffee cup that would withstand 80 pounds yet?....if you knew any chemistry, you would (I'm assuming the word "know" goes here) that suspensions and solutions increase the boiling point, not decrease it. Basic chemistry. You're gonna get your lowest boiling point with a pure liquid. That's actually the point of adding salt to boiling water when cooking - it increases the boiling point a degree or two for better cooking.....if you knew any chemistry, you would know that the ginger ale bottle reaction is due to a chemical reaction, and not "boiling" in any way. A chemical reaction that cannot occur in a cup of coffee. Sorry, you have no facts on your side in this argument.
OUCH......Ami with a major spanking
-
which nobody seems to know.
Oh yeah, and this statement right here is total BULLSHIT.
YOU don't know. Fortunately, YOU are not the repository for all human knowledge, even though you'd like everyone to think so.
-
More bullshit from the master of BS - - first of all, 80 lbs pressure is a lotta fuckin pressure and you have produced no evidence whatsoever to prove that a liquid decompressing rapidly from 80 psi would not boil over. So your whole bullshit argument should be ended right there. Particularly as my argument was expressly stated to be in theoretical terms, but even putting it into your experimental terms, you have produced no data whatsoever to back it up.
The colloidal suspension argument is bullshit. Raised or lowered by the colloidal suspension, the fact remains that the boiling point of whatever's in the cup will be reached at a lower temperature if the atmospheric pressure is decreased. My sole point in mentioning that we were dealing with a colloid was that you had probably no experimental or published data to support your boiling point or atmospheric pressure figures.
The ginger ale phenomenon is NOT a chemical reaction, it is the physical change of state occasioned by dissolved CO2 gas coming out of solution (i.e. boiling) solely because of a sudden decrease in the atmospheric pressure caused by the removal of the cap - - analogous to the removal of the lid of the coffee cup.
You are a perfect example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing - - a college chemistry course enables you to deny the basic principles of physics. Sorry, but BS is BS. I'm glad you are able to convince sirs, though - - he's a fitting acolyte for your chemistry lectures.
-
More bullshit from the master of BS - - first of all, 80 lbs pressure is a lotta fuckin pressure and you have produced no evidence whatsoever to prove that a liquid decompressing rapidly from 80 psi would not boil over.
I don't have to. I never said 80psi, that was your bullshit. I said that it would be 80 pounds total. Last time I checked, a Styrofoam cup was more than one inch square of surface area.
So your whole bullshit argument should be ended right there. Particularly as my argument was expressly stated to be in theoretical terms, but even putting it into your experimental terms, you have produced no data whatsoever to back it up.
Don't need to. I provided the source of the data - my copy of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Unfortunately, that text is not provided on-line, so you'll have to go look it up in the library. Or buy a copy - I think they're running about $150 a piece right now.
The colloidal suspension argument is bullshit. Raised or lowered by the colloidal suspension, the fact remains that the boiling point of whatever's in the cup will be reached at a lower temperature if the atmospheric pressure is decreased.
No duh. I even calculated the approximate pressure differential required, I believe it was 450 millibars.
My sole point in mentioning that we were dealing with a colloid was that you had probably no experimental or published data to support your boiling point or atmospheric pressure figures.
Sure they're published. As I said, the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics has the physical constants at various pressures for pure water. The modification of the boiling point is (first year chemistry) modified by 1 degree centigrade for every mole of impurities. A mole, BTW, (again, first year chemistry) is Avogadro's number of molecules. What do you think, chemists are idiots? They've been working on this stuff for centuries.
The ginger ale phenomenon is NOT a chemical reaction, it is the physical change of state occasioned by dissolved CO2 gas coming out of solution (i.e. boiling) solely because of a sudden decrease in the atmospheric pressure caused by the removal of the cap - - analogous to the removal of the lid of the coffee cup.
Actually, the carbonic acid / water balance in soda water is held steady by the pressure of the container. When the container is opened and the pressure released, the carbonic acid breaks down into water and carbon dioxide. The equilibrium expression for carbonated water is H2CO3 <=> CO2 + H2O.
Oh yeah, boiling is not "a gas coming out of solution." It is the conversion of a substance from it's liquid state to it's gaseous state. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with "a gas coming out of solution."
You are a perfect example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing - - a college chemistry course enables you to deny the basic principles of physics. Sorry, but BS is BS. I'm glad you are able to convince sirs, though - - he's a fitting acolyte for your chemistry lectures.
Actually, "major in chemical engineering with a minor in physics" is a more accurate statement. My father is so embarrassed that I decided to work with computers for a living instead of being an engineer - he said at the time that computers were a "passing fad."
-
Oh yeah, before you respond Mikey, I'd like to clarify something.
In the last post, when I said "first year chemistry" I wasn't talking about college chemistry. All of that stuff you were assumed to know before starting college chemistry. That stuff is first year high school chemistry.
-
Well, you're right about boiling - - - it IS the vaporization (change of state) from liquid (water in this case) to gas (water vapor.)
I will go back to my theory: the liquid is hot and the surface is under pressure from water vapor produced by heat and trapped between the liquid surface and the inside of the lid and the cup. The pressure inside the cup is greater than the atmospheric pressure outside. The pressure inside the cup raises the boiling point of the liquid above what it would be at ambient outside atmospheric pressure. The lid is removed suddenly. Water vapor escapes from the cup, lowering the atmospheric pressure inside the cup at least to the ambient outside atmospheric pressure and possibly temporarily lower because of heated air and vapor being sucked out in the wake of the escaping vapor. As the pressure drops rapidly on the liquid, the boiling point also diminishes and boiling occurs.
I don't see that as fanciful in the least. There's no data on the atmospheric pressure inside the cup, particularly after a lid is suddenly removed and it's a theoretical possibility. I don't say that's what happened but there is no scientific argument that it couldn't happen, absent the data on boiling points, pressure inside the cup and the effect of sudden removal of the lid and escape of air and vapor.
-
No wonder I've stuck to the humanities.
-
This is pretty basic stuff. Given Ami's background, I wouldn't want to get into anything complicated with him.
-
No, what I mean is that I simply don't have the drive to understand things like this; in other words I find it boring.
-
"...which nobody seems to know..."
No MT, actually Amianthus is right, a stirofoam coffee cup cannot withstand enough pressure differential to cause the effect you are talking about, if you ever find one that seals at all you have found an unusual one .
If you were to place a bit of dry ice into a styrofoam cup and place a lid on it the CO2 would sublime and raise the pressure on the cups interior untill the lid would come off with a pop, this pop would represent less than one half of one LbPSI.
Lets assume that when the cup was filled with hot coffe the liquid was ten degrees cooler than boiling, then the lid would be applied, a well designed lid will vent , but assumeing that the lid would not vent ,the sealed hot liquid and vapor would tend to develop a reduced pressure as it lost heat and the vapor condensed .
I recall my mother canning tomato , beans , jelly etc. The usual procedure is to bring the liquid in the jars up to a high tempreture and then apply a lid loosely , when the heat is removed the contraction of the vapor and air and the liquid within the jar causes the lid to pop down in a vacuum seal.
There are a few things that can be done that seem like the effect that you are speaking of , but they canot be done with a coffee urn.
Check out what happens when you drop three "Mentos" into a two liter diet drink.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1450915772177922792
Note that water holds almost no disolved gas at 190 degrees.
Water brought to the boiling point will not necessacerily boil if undisturbed. Then when it is disturbed it can boil suddenly.
http://www.snopes.com/science/microwave.asp
Note that this couldn't be done with a coffee urn .
-
"...which nobody seems to know..."
No MT, actually Amianthus is right, a stirofoam coffee cup cannot withstand enough pressure differential to cause the effect you are talking about, if you ever find one that seals at all you have found an unusual one .....If you were to place a bit of dry ice into a styrofoam cup and place a lid on it the CO2 would sublime and raise the pressure on the cups interior untill the lid would come off with a pop, this pop would represent less than one half of one LbPSI.....Lets assume that when the cup was filled with hot coffe the liquid was ten degrees cooler than boiling, then the lid would be applied, a well designed lid will vent , but assumeing that the lid would not vent ,the sealed hot liquid and vapor would tend to develop a reduced pressure as it lost heat and the vapor condensed. There are a few things that can be done that seem like the effect that you are speaking of , but they canot be done with a coffee urn.
OW, Plane goes and fact-slaps the other side of Tee :D
-
Recently we had a problem in a hangar where the F-15s are repaired.
Someone put some dry ice into two liter bottles and left them in the garbage , this caused loud bangs .
Which brought in security to question everyone in the hangar.
Glad I was not involved , everything is a federal case here.
-
(Note: modified. shouldn't post before drinking morning coffee. replaced all occurances of "second law of thermodynamics" with "first law of thermodynamics".)
I don't see that as fanciful in the least.
The theory is fanciful, because it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.
You cannot get a pressure increase into the cup after the lid is put on it to cause enough of a pressure drop to cause boiling, without adding thermal energy after the cup is sealed. I mean, it's pretty simple to understand, as well. The pressure increase is caused by evaporation of the coffee. Evaporation of the coffee causes a temprature drop in the liquid. Removing the lid will then cause a temporary decrease in the vapor pressure above the coffee. However, the First Law of Thermodynamics says that the total energy transfer will always be at a loss - so therefore the initial temperature drop will never be overcome by the decrease in vapor pressure caused by the removal of the lid.
You're ignoring some pretty basic chemistry and physics.
If only we didn't have that pesky First Law of Thermodynamics. Then we'd have perpetual motion machines.
-
The bottom line in the McDonalds coffee case was whether the woman was seriously burned, and she was.
All she asked for in the beginning was the cost of visiting her doctor: under $200. If Mc Donald's has paid this small amount, the later lawsuit would not have occurred, and they would have saved a fortune in legal bills.
-
The bottom line in the McDonalds coffee case was whether the woman was seriously burned, and she was.
I can understand McDonald's point, however. The lady should have know that coffee is hot and would burn her if she spilled it on herself.
All she asked for in the beginning was the cost of visiting her doctor: under $200. If Mc Donald's has paid this small amount, the later lawsuit would not have occurred, and they would have saved a fortune in legal bills.
I agree. However, the result of the lawsuit is that now McDonald's has signs up at the cash register and on their coffee cups saying that coffee is hot and you can burn yourself if you spill it on yourself. And they're pretty much insulated from lawsuits now.
-
Here's the First Law of Thermodynamics from Wikipaedia:
The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings.
Basically, it's a restatement of the law of conservation of energy, that in a closed system energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This does not prevent a transformation of energy from one form to another.
In the closed coffee cup, the heat energy of the liquid molecules acts to evaporate surface water into vapor, effectively converting the kinetic energy of the liquid into the kinetic energy of the vapor (increasing the atmospheric pressure inside the system) until an equilibrium is reached - - because of the interior atmospheric pressure, no more evaporation is possible. (Since the cup is not a perfect insulator, heat will be lost to the exterior over time, but we are talking of a very short interval here where that factor should be ignored for the purposes of the discussion.)
Of course the evaporation requires energy, which cools the contents; but the energy which evaporated water from the surface was not lost - - it was converted to the kinetic energy of the vapor, so that as the temperature dropped, the internal atmospheric pressure rose.
An exterior force then acts upon the system - - the lid is dislodged, the vapor escapes, the pressure drops, the boiling point lowers and (theoretically, depending on the numbers) the liquid boils. The First Law of Thermodynamics remains intact as does its broader incarnation, the law of conservation of energy, Stella suffers terrible burns and the law of torts now comes into play.
Q.E.D.
BTW, to XO as well: bottom line was that a simple governor available at a cost of under $200 per unit could have prevented the superheated water which did so much damage to poor old Stella; and to Ami, EVERYBODY knows coffee is hot but that still doesn't stop the statistically inevitable spill. It was for failing to take reasonable consequences against that inevitabilty, and in fact condemning the most careless fractional percentage of its customers to suffer otherwise avoidable third-degree burns, that McDonalds was eventually nailed.
-
Of course the evaporation requires energy, which cools the contents; but the energy which evaporated water from the surface was not lost - - it was converted to the kinetic energy of the vapor, so that as the temperature dropped, the internal atmospheric pressure rose.
An exterior force then acts upon the system - - the lid is dislodged, the vapor escapes, the pressure drops, the boiling point lowers and (theoretically, depending on the numbers) the liquid boils. The First Law of Thermodynamics remains intact as does its broader incarnation, the law of conservation of energy, Stella suffers terrible burns and the law of torts now comes into play.
Q.E.D.
First of all, adding kinetic energy (removing the lid) only acts on the lid, it will not add thermal energy to the rest of the system. If there was not enough energy in the system to boil the liquid before the lid was put on, there will not be enough energy in the system when the lid is removed to boil the liquid because of inherent energy losses. The liquid may have been hot, but it was no closer to boiling when Stella removed the lid than it was when it was poured originally - actually, it is required to be further from the boiling point. Superheating does not apply (is not possible) in this situation.
Q.E.D.
-
and in fact condemning the most careless fractional percentage of its customers to suffer otherwise avoidable third-degree burns, that McDonalds was eventually nailed.
Stella did not have third-degree burns. Had she had third-degree burns (characterized by skin charring and the destruction of nerve endings in the skin) she would not have been in pain. Third-degree burns involve a loss of feeling the area.
Her testimony included the intense pain associated with scalding and second-degree burns.
-
<<Stella did not have third-degree burns. Had she had third-degree burns (characterized by skin charring and the destruction of nerve endings in the skin) she would not have been in pain. Third-degree burns involve a loss of feeling the area.>>
from the Wikipedia article on Stella Liebeck-
<<Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[5] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[6] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed.>>
-
<<Stella did not have third-degree burns. Had she had third-degree burns (characterized by skin charring and the destruction of nerve endings in the skin) she would not have been in pain. Third-degree burns involve a loss of feeling the area.>>
from the Wikipedia article on Stella Liebeck-
<<Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[5] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[6] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed.>>
Michael- You see what I mean. The idiot savant, Ami , knows facts , but not the meaning. It never occurs to these anal retentives that there can be more than one degree of anything. They dont do nuance, remmber? That means that they dont do thinking . Probly since they are incapable of any of that needless thinking stuff.
-
<<First of all, adding kinetic energy (removing the lid) only acts on the lid, it will not add thermal energy to the rest of the system. >>
Nice reasoning, but kind of a waste since I did not argue that the removal of the lid added kinetic energy to the system. The lid in place was a nice illustration of Newton's Third Law - - the kinetic energy of the vapor and hot air pressing up on the lid was met with the downward pressure exerted by the lid on the combined gases. When the lid was removed, the kinetic energy of the gas molecules was transferred to the ambient air molecules outside the cup and there was significantly less kinetic energy to provide atmospheric pressure on the surface of the liquid.
<<If there was not enough energy in the system to boil the liquid before the lid was put on, there will not be enough energy in the system when the lid is removed to boil the liquid because of inherent energy losses. >>
Forgetting that in theory at least, the decrease in atmospheric pressure on the surface of the liquid lowers the boiling point so that less thermal energy is required to bring it to a boil.
<<The liquid may have been hot, but it was no closer to boiling when Stella removed the lid than it was when it was poured originally - >>
Sure it was - - because of the decrease in atmospheric pressure.
Q.E.D.
-
<<No MT, actually Amianthus is right, a stirofoam coffee cup cannot withstand enough pressure differential to cause the effect you are talking about, if you ever find one that seals at all you have found an unusual one .>>
You don't need a perfect seal for the heated gases inside to increase the atmospheric pressure.
<<If you were to place a bit of dry ice into a styrofoam cup and place a lid on it the CO2 would sublime and raise the pressure on the cups interior untill the lid would come off with a pop, this pop would represent less than one half of one LbPSI.>>
Meaningless test unless conducted on the actual cup and lid used by McDonalds and given to Stella. Remember, plane, the debate was (on my side) only about the theoretical possibility. I had no idea how much pressure would be exerted on the lid from within.
<<Lets assume that when the cup was filled with hot coffe the liquid was ten degrees cooler than boiling, then the lid would be applied, a well designed lid will vent , but assumeing that the lid would not vent ,the sealed hot liquid and vapor would tend to develop a reduced pressure as it lost heat and the vapor condensed .>>
Again you're assuming without any factual basis that the liquid will lose heat faster than the vapor condenses.
<<I recall my mother canning tomato , beans , jelly etc. The usual procedure is to bring the liquid in the jars up to a high tempreture and then apply a lid loosely , when the heat is removed the contraction of the vapor and air and the liquid within the jar causes the lid to pop down in a vacuum seal.>>
No one is denying the eventual result, plane, but that says nothing regarding how long the lid can stay in place while the gas mixture inside the cup is still hot.
<<There are a few things that can be done that seem like the effect that you are speaking of , but they canot be done with a coffee urn.>>
Check out what happens when you drop three "Mentos" into a two liter diet drink.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1450915772177922792
<<Note that water holds almost no disolved gas at 190 degrees.>>
Dissolved gas was my error, but recall that I backtracked and the argument still works on the classical definition of boiling - - which is a simple change-of-state process depending for each liquid only on temperature and atmospheric pressure.
<<Water brought to the boiling point will not necessacerily boil if undisturbed. Then when it is disturbed it can boil suddenly.>>
Thanks for pointing that out - - another argument in favour of Stella.
http://www.snopes.com/science/microwave.asp
<<Note that this couldn't be done with a coffee urn .>>
I don't know about that but all of this was happening in a cup anyway.
-
The fact is that this old lady was burned becausae McDonald's failed to take proper precautions and give proper warnings, and they should pay. The effing laws of thermoeffingdynamics have nothing to do with the case.
On the other hand, drive-through food is idiotic. I never buy food at the drive-through. The odds of beihng overcharged or served the wrong thing are far too high to diddle with drive-through food.
Anyone who thinks they need drive-through coffee is too lazy to deserve any coffee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have noticed that because people have slipped and fell on wet floors, nearly every dry floor in every public place in Florida has clusters of those annoying yellow "slippery when wet" signs scattered all over the place.
I slipped and fell at the Auto Show three years ago and had an aching back for about a week. I failed to sue the bastards. Last year they raised the parking fee from $5 to $10 and I wished I had.
The Law Firm of Cohen and Cohen was advertising every night on TV, and I guess I just coiuldn't decide which Cohen to call.
-
Sure it was - - because of the decrease in atmospheric pressure.
When did the atmospheric pressure decrease? Was there a sudden pressure drop between the inside of the McDonalds and the car?
-
<<When did the atmospheric pressure decrease? Was there a sudden pressure drop between the inside of the McDonalds and the car?>>
No, the atmospheric pressure inside the cup dropped after the lid came off.
-
No, the atmospheric pressure inside the cup dropped after the lid came off.
Perhaps you want to re-evaluate your terms? "Atmospheric pressure" is pressure related to the atmosphere. "Partial pressure" or "vapor pressure" is the term you're looking for.
And when you release the lid holding in the vapor pressure, the pressure will only lower to atmospheric pressure - which is unchanged.
-
Thanks for pointing that out - - another argument in favour of Stella.
Not really. That can only be done with distilled water - any impurities prevent superheating from happening.
Unless you want to ammend your statement and claim that McDonalds handed her a cup of superheated distilled water instead of coffee?
-
<<Perhaps you want to re-evaluate your terms? "Atmospheric pressure" is pressure related to the atmosphere. "Partial pressure" or "vapor pressure" is the term you're looking for.>>
I don't see it making much difference. The atmospheric pressure varies with location, it's one thing in the Mojave Desert and something else on top of Mount St. Helen's. I was talking about the atmospheric pressure inside Stella's cup, which references a relatively small atmosphere but IMHO an atmosphere none the less. But by all means we can call it vapor pressure inside the cup.
<<And when you release the lid holding in the vapor pressure, the pressure will only lower to atmospheric pressure - which is unchanged.>>
Well, in a previous post in this thread, I said that the release of the lid would bring the vapor pressure at least down to atmospheric pressure, but possibly lower if vapor and gases inside the cup are sucked out in the wake of the exiting mixed gases, kind of like the Bernouilli effect in a coffee cup. Admittedly speculative but not IMHO impossible.
-
Admittedly speculative but not IMHO impossible.
Yes, it is impossible.