Author Topic: Oh brother  (Read 11225 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Oh brother
« Reply #45 on: July 04, 2008, 09:09:54 PM »
Really?  And what about YOUR assumptions that Hattori's friend's evidence consistently and straightforwardly backed up the theory of the defence that Hattori had rushed BOTH the shooter and his wife?  Where are your facts?

I already posted an article which included facts gleaned from LexusNexus. I don't believe you have posted anything other than your opinion.

So what?  The fact remains the liquid is under more pressure in the closed system and under less pressure once the lid is off.

The pressure increases as the liquid cools. The total energy is the same (actually a bit less, since the insulation is imperfect and some energy escapes out of the system).

Energy was added to the system when the lid was removed.  It was equivalent to the engergy that could have been added in the form of intensified heating of the cup, raising the temperature to the point where the lid would have blown off.  Once the energy necessary to remove the lid was applied, in this case by muscle power rather than thermal energy, the vapour escaped, leaving a low pressure area behind.

How is energy added to a system by removing the lid? Actually, removing the lid REMOVES energy from the system. It allows heat to escape. This can (and has been) demonstrated. Put a liquid at room temperature in a sealed container attached to a sufficiently powerful vacuum pump. Turn on the pump until you've removed enough pressure (energy) from the air to allow the liquid to boil. Then turn off the pump and open the container - the liquid will immediately stop boiling. Unless there is enough energy in the liquid to boil at standard temperature, putting on and removing a lid will return the liquid to the same state it was at before the lid was put on - not boiling in this case.

Boiling results from a combination of two factors, temperature and air pressure.  When the air pressure made a sudden drop due to the escape of the water vapor, we don't know how long it took for the whole body of liquid to cool but if the drop in pressure lowered the boiling point to equal or less than the actual temperature of the liquid at that point in time, then boiling would occur.

Boiling results when the energy level of a liquid is higher than the energy level of the partial pressure above the liquid. The pressure above the liquid increases because the energy moves there FROM THE LIQUID. The drop in temperature of the liquid is PROPORTIONAL to the increase in pressure. THERE IS NO ENERGY GAIN, NOR CAN THERE BE ANY. Again, you're arguing that simply putting a lid on, then taking it off again will INCREASE the energy of the system. If so, we can build a machine that uses this increased energy to put a lid on a cup and take it off again (because the liquid will actually heat up). In other words, you're describing perpetual motion.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2008, 09:14:14 PM by Amianthus »
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Oh brother
« Reply #46 on: July 04, 2008, 09:32:08 PM »
<<I already posted an article which included facts gleaned from LexusNexus. I don't believe you have posted anything other than your opinion.>>

So what?  You posted an article which was obviously defective in some facts and the ones which it did show had holes big enough to drive a truck through, which I then did.  The only remaining source I can think of is the transcript of the trial, which might clear up some of the remaining mysteries (or depending on how adequate a job of cross-examination was done by the prosecuting attorney might not) and I've come to the only logical conclusion possible based on the limited evidence available:  that the story of this kid rushing first the wife and then the husband sounds implausible and cooked up, that the killer was, even by his own story, at the very best a fucking idiot for seeking a confrontation in the circumstances with a loaded gun in his hands (and guilty of criminal negligence causing death) or just as possibly a cold-blooded killer with a crooked lawyer who concocted a winning defence out of one or two words and possibly guilty of first degree murder.

As far as the McDonald's coffee cup argument goes, in a nutshell, you're trying to put this into a transfer of energy context, which it's not, it has to do with the amount of kinetic energy already present in the contents of the cup and whether or not boiling can occur without an increase in temperature.  I agree that if my argument called for additional thermal energy to make the liquid boil, I would be unable to show where the additional energy came from but muscle power removed the lid and thereby the resistance to the escape of the vapor.  Under the reduced pressure in the wake of the escaped vapor, no additional thermal energy was required to make the water boil, if the temperature was already sufficient to boil the water under the new and reduced pressure.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Oh brother
« Reply #47 on: July 04, 2008, 09:46:35 PM »
So what?  You posted an article which was obviously defective in some facts and the ones which it did show had holes big enough to drive a truck through, which I then did.

Except that your "truck" was purely speculation, and your speculations are frequently filled with impossibilities, which is how we got back to the boiling coffee. You have yet to present a single fact to bolster your argument.

As far as the McDonald's coffee cup argument goes, in a nutshell, you're trying to put this into a transfer of energy context, which it's not, it has to do with the amount of kinetic energy already present in the contents of the cup and whether or not boiling can occur without an increase in temperature.  I agree that if my argument called for additional thermal energy to make the liquid boil, I would be unable to show where the additional energy came from but muscle power removed the lid and thereby the resistance to the escape of the vapor.  Under the reduced pressure in the wake of the escaped vapor, no additional thermal energy was required to make the water boil, if the temperature was already sufficient to boil the water under the new and reduced pressure.

When the lid was removed, the pressure returned to where it was before the lid was applied - the pressure would not have been lower than the original atmospheric pressure. Unless there was a sudden 400 millibar pressure change in the atmosphere, but I don't remember you noting perforated eardrums and sudden difficulty breathing among all the people at that McDonalds; 400 millibars is about the pressure change required for 190 degree liquid to boil, roughly the pressure change from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest, and it would have had to occur pretty suddenly, between the time the lid was put on and it was removed.

If the pressure before the lid was added was enough to prevent boiling, then the pressure after the lid was removed will be enough to prevent boiling, especially since the temperature of the liquid has now dropped - the energy was transferred into the vapor above the liquid and subsequently escaped when the lid was removed, and some escaped through the walls of the cup.

How did that muscle power used to remove the lid get into the liquid to cause it to heat up?
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Oh brother
« Reply #48 on: July 04, 2008, 09:54:17 PM »
in a nutshell, you're trying to put this into a transfer of energy context, which it's not

Actually, a transfer of energy is exactly what it is. Trying to put it in any other context is not only incorrect, it's nonsensical.

The energy to increase the pressure between the liquid and the lid had to come from somewhere. It comes from the liquid.

When the lid is removed the pressure would instantly return to atmospheric pressure. If the pressure inside the cup was higher than atmospheric pressure, there would be an energy loss as that energy (warmer air inside the cup) is released into the atmosphere. If the pressure inside the cup is below atmospheric pressure, there would be an energy gain as energy (warmer air outside the cup in this case) is sucked into the cup.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Oh brother
« Reply #49 on: July 04, 2008, 11:19:51 PM »
Quote
When you become a killer, you get back to me on that. It is easy to watch westerns, read the NRA magazine, and shoot at targets. It is a hell of a lot different to actually take another person's life or attempt to do so.

I'll take you up on that. What part of the experience do you want to discuss?
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Oh brother
« Reply #50 on: July 05, 2008, 12:55:58 AM »
<<Except that your "truck" was purely speculation . . . >>

Yeah, like I "speculated" that the killer responded to an alleged report by his wife of an alleged intruder with alleged hostile intent by going out with a loaded gun on Halloween night to "investigate" and I further "speculated" that the killer shot an unarmed student and further "speculated" that the unarmed student died and further "speculated" that the cause of death was gunshot wounds and further "speculated" that said gunshot wounds were caused by the killer firing his gun as he himself admits.

Let's see what your speculations were:  that husband and wife were telling the truth and not some cockamamie story concocted in their lawyer's office, that because the victim wasn't wearing his contact lenses or one was broken or whatever that he therefore couldn't see the gun in the killer's hand pointed straight at him, that because the victim was sometimes known to run up to his friends and hugged them, that that must have been how he had responded to the killer and his wife that night, etc.

<< . . . and your speculations are frequently filled with impossibilities, which is how we got back to the boiling coffee. >>

Nice try at broadening the argument, but I hope you don't think I'm stupid enough to either (a) agree with your preposterous suggestion about my speculations or (b) embark on a minute examination of all my previous speculations to prove to you that they are NOT "frequently" (whatever the hell THAT means) filled with "impossibilities" (which apparently means reaching conclusions opposite to your own.)

<<You have yet to present a single fact to bolster your argument.>>

Oh, please.  Allow me.  Here are a few: a student, unarmed, posing no actual threat whatever, is killed by gunfire from a man who armed himself and left the safety of his own home to look for and confront him.  Starting from those basic facts, we are given a highly unlikely and improbable account of the fatal  events from the killer and his wife, clearly designed to demonstrate a perceived threat and backed up to some as yet unknown extent by the sole surviving eye-witness not related to the killer.  The facts that all can agree on clearly indicate a substantial possibility of deliberate murder.  Other facts, as yet unverifiable and emanating principally from the killer and his wife, purport to excuse the killing on the grounds of self-defence to a perceived threat.  The extent to which the killer's story is backed up by the independent eyewitness is basically unknown at this point.

A modicum of common sense would tell you that if there were no facts at all to bolster my argument, no charges would have been brought.  At least not in the real world, which you and your right-wing colleagues really ought to visit a little more often.



<<the pressure would not have been lower than the original atmospheric pressure. >>

It definitely could have been lower if the vapor escaped suddenly leaving a low-pressure area behind in the same way as a fast-moving automobile creates a low-pressure zone behind it, enabling "drafting."  Certainly the surrounding air would move quickly into the low-pressure area and restore it to normal ambient atmospheric pressure but there would likely be a brief moment of lower-than-atmospheric pressure on the surface of the liquid.  And in any event, the pressure on the surface of the liquid would be lower after the escape of the pent-up vapor than it was immediately before.

<<Unless there was a sudden 400 millibar pressure change in the atmosphere, but I don't remember you noting perforated eardrums . . . >>

Getting silly has never impressed me much as an argument, but I'm not against anyone having fun his own special way, so go for it.

<<especially since the temperature of the liquid has now dropped - the energy was transferred into the vapor above the liquid  . . . >>

Kinda forgetting that the energy was already transferred when the vapor trapped in the cup had vaporized.  After the escape of the vapor, there would be no corresponding sudden drop in the temperature of the liquid remaining in the cup from where it was already at when the maximum vaporization possible in the closed system had already occurred.

<<If the pressure before the lid was added was enough to prevent boiling, then the pressure after the lid was removed will be enough to prevent boiling . . . >>

That's absurd on the face of it, because obviously the pressure will be lower inside the cup once the cap is off.

<< especially since the temperature of the liquid has now dropped - the energy was transferred into the vapor above the liquid and subsequently escaped when the lid was removed . . . >>

I just finished demonstrating the falsity of that argument - - once the vapor had formed inside the cup with the lid still on, whatever energy in the liquid had gone into producing vapor had already been expended.  No further energy from the liquid was required to permit the vapor to exit once the lid was off.

<< . . . and some escaped through the walls of the cup.>>

Yes, that's a constant.  There was always energy escaping from the walls of the cup, starting when the cup was being filled.  The coffee remained hot enough, in my theory, to boil once the atmospheric pressure on it had fallen to a point where the new boiling point of the liquid became equal to or lesser than the actual temperature of the cup's contents, even after the escape of thermal energy through the walls of the cup.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Oh brother
« Reply #51 on: July 05, 2008, 09:58:45 AM »
Let's see what your speculations were:  that husband and wife were telling the truth and not some cockamamie story concocted in their lawyer's office, that because the victim wasn't wearing his contact lenses or one was broken or whatever that he therefore couldn't see the gun in the killer's hand pointed straight at him, that because the victim was sometimes known to run up to his friends and hugged them, that that must have been how he had responded to the killer and his wife that night, etc.

Those aren't speculation, those are the facts as reported via LexusNexus (which has the court transcripts).

It definitely could have been lower if the vapor escaped suddenly leaving a low-pressure area behind in the same way as a fast-moving automobile creates a low-pressure zone behind it, enabling "drafting."  Certainly the surrounding air would move quickly into the low-pressure area and restore it to normal ambient atmospheric pressure but there would likely be a brief moment of lower-than-atmospheric pressure on the surface of the liquid.  And in any event, the pressure on the surface of the liquid would be lower after the escape of the pent-up vapor than it was immediately before.

Hence the unfounded speculation. Drafting does not apply. There is a low pressure area behind a moving car happens because the car has pushed the air out of the way (and drafting only happens at high speed, not any speeds likely to be achieved by an old lady's arm). Since removing a lid does not push the air out of the space between the lid, drafting cannot happen (the lid would have to move through that space to create the temporary vacuum). In any case, any boiling would only last as long as the low pressure area existed, and as soon as the air pressure was "quickly" restored is would stop. So, a fraction of a second at most (though the whole guess is pretty preposterous).

Getting silly has never impressed me much as an argument, but I'm not against anyone having fun his own special way, so go for it.

That wasn't silly. That number was calculated based on the figures in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, which lists physical constants of all inorganic compounds (such as water) and most organic compounds. The book has the pressure variances required to drop the boiling point of pure water per degree, so it was a simple subtraction of degrees and multiplication against the constant. Then I looked up what the atmospheric difference of the result (about 400 millibars) would be, and it was over 32,000'. So, the difference in pressure would have to be like suddenly being transported from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest. I also calculated what stress that pressure difference would apply over the lid of a standard 16oz coffee cup and this was nearly 40kg. So, that cup and lid would have to be able to withstand that much pressure. I told you that if you could find a coffee cup that would support that much weight, I would believe you.

The conditions you suggest are what is silly, not my conclusions based on your preposterous suggestion.

Kinda forgetting that the energy was already transferred when the vapor trapped in the cup had vaporized.  After the escape of the vapor, there would be no corresponding sudden drop in the temperature of the liquid remaining in the cup from where it was already at when the maximum vaporization possible in the closed system had already occurred.

That's right. The temperature wouldn't drop because the lid was removed. The temperature drop in the liquid happens at the time the pressure buildup occurs - this is where the energy is transferred. The energy leaves the liquid and enters the air above the liquid, dropping the temperature of the liquid in proportion to the increase in pressure (assuming a perfect seal, and there is no additional energy loss). This is why I say the total energy of the system has not changed.

That's absurd on the face of it, because obviously the pressure will be lower inside the cup once the cap is off.

What's absurd is your claim. There was 1000 millibar (atmospheric pressure) above the liquid before the lid was added. The lid was placed on the cup. There would be some slight pressure buildup because of escaped heat in the form of water vapor, call it 2 or 3 millibars (though in reality it would be nowhere near that much). Once the lid is removed, the extra couple of millibars of pressure escape, and it immediately returns to 1000 millibars. Why would it be lower inside the cup without a lid on it than outside the cup?

I just finished demonstrating the falsity of that argument - - once the vapor had formed inside the cup with the lid still on, whatever energy in the liquid had gone into producing vapor had already been expended.  No further energy from the liquid was required to permit the vapor to exit once the lid was off.

Duh. The liquid has dropped in temperature from the time when it was placed in the cup until the time the lid was removed. I didn't say that it suddenly dropped because the lid was removed. It is YOUR claim that removing the lid changes the total energy of the system. MY claim is that the total energy (which includes the energy expended to increase pressure between the liquid and the lid) was not enough to cause boiling before it was handed to the woman, so the total energy after it was handed to the woman is not enough to cause boiling - unless she added energy in some way.

Yes, that's a constant.  There was always energy escaping from the walls of the cup, starting when the cup was being filled.  The coffee remained hot enough, in my theory, to boil once the atmospheric pressure on it had fallen to a point where the new boiling point of the liquid became equal to or lesser than the actual temperature of the cup's contents, even after the escape of thermal energy through the walls of the cup.

And this is where we get into the "perpetual motion" part of your argument. If the total energy is not enough to cause boiling at point in time A, then there will never be enough total energy at point in time A+X to cause boiling because of energy loss. If your argument is correct, then the total energy of the system increased somehow between time A and A+X without the addition of any outside energy - during that time somehow enough energy suddenly appeared in that system to cause boiling. This is the definition of perpetual motion.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2008, 10:01:11 AM by Amianthus »
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Oh brother
« Reply #52 on: July 05, 2008, 04:36:38 PM »
I can't believe we are still discussing that adiabatic cup of coffee.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Oh brother
« Reply #53 on: July 05, 2008, 04:43:05 PM »
Quote
When you become a killer, you get back to me on that. It is easy to watch westerns, read the NRA magazine, and shoot at targets. It is a hell of a lot different to actually take another person's life or attempt to do so.

I'll take you up on that. What part of the experience do you want to discuss?


I would imagine it was unpleasant.

Near the end of WWII the US Army discovered that more than 15% of its soldiers would not shoot to kill even in conditions of combat , training after then has " improved " this rate a lot.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Oh brother
« Reply #54 on: July 05, 2008, 04:46:22 PM »
I can't believe Tee is still trying to rearrange the laws of physics to support a lawsuit against Big .....Mac
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Oh brother
« Reply #55 on: July 06, 2008, 09:35:38 PM »
<<I can't believe Tee is still trying to rearrange the laws of physics to support a lawsuit against Big .....Mac>>

I can't believe I was dumb enough to get sucked into that same argument for what is now the third or fourth time by Ami in connection with a topic that once again has absolutely nothing to do with it.  Fool me once . . .


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Oh brother
« Reply #56 on: July 06, 2008, 11:11:56 PM »
<<I can't believe Tee is still trying to rearrange the laws of physics to support a lawsuit against Big .....Mac>>

I can't believe I was dumb enough to get sucked into that same argument for what is now the third or fourth time by Ami in connection with a topic that once again has absolutely nothing to do with it.  Fool me once . . .




Well....

You are wrong about it....

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Oh brother
« Reply #57 on: July 06, 2008, 11:54:44 PM »
<<Well....

<<You are wrong about it....>>

Be that as it may, at this point, I am not going to get sucked into it again.  I stated what I believe to be the case and whether I'm right or wrong, I've expended way too much time expounding the same POV over and over to no effect.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Oh brother
« Reply #58 on: July 07, 2008, 12:21:51 AM »
<<Well....

<<You are wrong about it....>>

Be that as it may, at this point, I am not going to get sucked into it again.  I stated what I believe to be the case and whether I'm right or wrong, I've expended way too much time expounding the same POV over and over to no effect.

Odd isn't it?

That something that should be such well established science , and so verifiable by experiment , is so hard to decide on.

Little wonder that we do so poorly at finding resolution on subjects more subjective.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Oh brother
« Reply #59 on: July 07, 2008, 12:46:25 AM »
<<That something that should be such well established science , and so verifiable by experiment , is so hard to decide on.>>

Well, obviously, I don't consider it "well-established science' and as far as I'm concerned, nobody to date has demonstrated that it is.   There are no experiments that I'm aware of that have demonstrated either for or against my theory, so the argument has proceeded to date on merely theoretical grounds.  I'd be the first to admit that this issue CAN be put to rest on either theoretical or experimental logic.  I'd also admit that the final answer to the problem is already known, and whether it were for my position or against my my position, I would immediately defer to it once it was demonstrated satisfactorily to me.

Moral issues aren't as easy to decide and there is no final answer unless, of course, there is a God, and even then, there is no guarantee that God has in fact decided the issue one way or the other.  For example, the issue "Am I my brother's keeper?" has, IMHO, no definitive final answer.  People like me feel we are, people like sirs probably feel they are not.  But there's no final "right" or "wrong" to this.  I just choose my position on this as sirs would choose his.  So these kinds of issue can never be decided on .