 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / July 2005TB vs TB Spacer?
Would like to get a little more out of my '90 model 3.9 Dak. and the most common suggestion that I see on the WEB is change out the TB to either an improved V6 or a V8. When I start Shopping around (EBay etc.) I see a lot of TB Spacers but no TBs. They are not the same thing are they? What difference? Thanks No, they are not the same thing. The TB or throttle body controls the amount of air entering the intake manifold. A TB spacer fits between the throttle body and the manifold with the idea of smoothing out the airflow into the intake for better fuel atomization and allowing more air to get into the cylinders.  SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Would like to get a little more out of my '90 model 3.9 Dak. and the most > common suggestion that I see on the WEB [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks > No, they are not the same thing. The TB or throttle body controls the > amount of air entering the intake manifold. Yup. > A TB spacer fits between the > throttle body and the manifold with the idea of smoothing out the airflow Perhaps, but more likely its to add length to the intake tract in an effort to get more low end torque. Not that it always works thta way. Smoothing air flow by adding a second mating point seems a bit odd. Better idea is to use something that will produce laminar air flow, which could be added with the spacer, but usually is not. > into the intake for better fuel atomization and allowing more air to get > into the cylinders. Atomization, perhaps yes. More air into the cylinders? Nope. As you just said, the TB regulates that, not the spacer. Ultimately, the spacer is a debatable add on, but a cheap experiment. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > No, they are not the same thing. The TB or throttle body controls the > amount of air entering the intake manifold. A TB spacer fits between the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> Thanks > > No, they are not the same thing. The TB or throttle body controls the > > amount of air entering the intake manifold. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Atomization, perhaps yes. More air into the cylinders? Nope. As you just > said, the TB regulates that, not the spacer. While the TB regulates air flow, that flow is ultimately limited by the efficiency of the intake system as well. The spacer as you said, increases the length which should, but not always, increase air speed and reduce turbulence which should get more air into the cylinders. Why do you think that they are said to increase lower end torque, debatable or not? > Ultimately, the spacer is a debatable add on, but a cheap experiment. Agreed. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> > No, they are not the same thing. The TB or throttle body controls the >> > amount of air entering the intake manifold. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > turbulence which should get more air into the cylinders. Why do you think > that they are said to increase lower end torque, debatable or not? The op stated he had a '90 3.9l engine. IIRC this motor used the barrel shaped intake manifold. If you take this manifold off and take the bottom plate off, you'll see that as the air comes thru the t/b it enters a chamber roughly the size of a gallon milk jug. The intake runners start at the bottom of this cavern and go up and over the top of the manifold to the opposite bank of cyls. I fail to see how adding a half inch spacer at the top of this cavern would make didly squat difference in the airflow thru the manifold. I could see how a spacer could work on a single or double plane manifold but this???? Take a look at hughesengines.com and read how they modify the manifold for higher flow. Notice they don't sell spacers but they do sell other performance enhancing items. This tells me they probably know more about these engines than J.C. Whitney. Denny > The op stated he had a '90 3.9l engine. IIRC this motor used the barrel > shaped intake manifold. If you take this manifold off and take the bottom [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > thru the manifold. I could see how a spacer could work on a single or > double plane manifold but this???? Bingo. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >>> > No, they are not the same thing. The TB or throttle body controls the >>> > amount of air entering the intake manifold. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Denny >>> > No, they are not the same thing. The TB or throttle body controls the >>> > amount of air entering the intake manifold. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > thru the manifold. I could see how a spacer could work on a single or > double plane Plane??? WTF are you talking about? This is supposed to be about a spacer! Now your confusing the issue with planes, not just a single plane, but your also talking about a couple of them. Looking back at your post, I see you are also talking about joggers, and milk jugs, caverns and being over the top. I also see you mentioned taking a plate off. Now that is something I'm sure you have expertise in, taking a dinner plate off the table. I'm just throughly confused by your explanation, do you think you could clear it up a bit? I'm glad somebody is paying attention and trying to correct some of the misinformation that has been tossed out here recently, keep up the good work. <GBMFG> Roy > Denny > Plane??? WTF are you talking about? This is supposed to be about a spacer! > Now your confusing the issue with planes, not just a single plane, but > your also talking about a couple of them. Well hot damm!!!!! Ole Pudge of the East looks like he's trying to think again. Stand up there Pudge, it'll go better for ya.. > Looking back at your post, I see you are also talking about joggers, and > milk jugs, caverns and being over the top. I also see you mentioned taking > a plate off. Now that is something I'm sure you have expertise in, taking > a dinner plate off the table. > I'm just throughly confused by your explanation, do you think you could > clear it up a bit? I told you to stand up before you try thinking. Or maybe you're just thinking bout another pack of Twinkys. > I'm glad somebody is paying attention and trying to correct some of the > misinformation that has been tossed out here recently, keep up the good > work. I'll leave that up to 'bone. He has more time than I do. > <GBMFG> Great Brownies Made For Gobbling????? Roy, please quit dwelling on food all the time. If not for Sue, for the dog..... Have fun friend.. Got a meet tomorrow am, maybe I'll get lucky and finish higher than next to last.... Denny >> Plane??? WTF are you talking about? This is supposed to be about a >> spacer! Now your confusing the issue with planes, not just a single >> plane, but your also talking about a couple of them. > > Well hot damm!!!!! Ole Pudge of the East looks like he's trying to think > again. Stand up there Pudge, it'll go better for ya.. Hey! I can't help it if I get confused when you take a thread from a truck to airplanes! Geeeeze >> Looking back at your post, I see you are also talking about joggers, and >> milk jugs, caverns and being over the top. I also see you mentioned [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I told you to stand up before you try thinking. Or maybe you're just > thinking bout another pack of Twinkys. Twinky's??? Do they still make those things? I liked the 2 things that had cocanut on them. >> I'm glad somebody is paying attention and trying to correct some of the >> misinformation that has been tossed out here recently, keep up the good >> work. > I'll leave that up to 'bone. He has more time than I do. > >> <GBMFG> > > Great Brownies Made For Gobbling????? Roy, please quit dwelling on food > all the time. If not for Sue, for the dog..... Not bad fur face, not bad at all. > Have fun friend.. Got a meet tomorrow am, maybe I'll get lucky and finish > higher than next to last.... Best of luck Mr Hathcock.<G> Roy > Denny > >> > No, they are not the same thing. The TB or throttle body controls the > >> > amount of air entering the intake manifold. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > do sell other performance enhancing items. This tells me they probably know > more about these engines than J.C. Whitney. You are not going to gat an argument out of me. I simply answered his question as to what a spacer was, not how effective it would be on his engine. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > No, they are not the same thing. The TB or throttle body controls the > > > amount of air entering the intake manifold. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > the length which should, but not always, increase air speed and reduce > turbulence which should get more air into the cylinders. so the law of 'negative entropy ' kicks in and longer piping = less resistance ? > Why do you think > that they are said to increase lower end torque, debatable or not? it's a proven fact that longer intake runners increase low-end torque just as 3 % / 2 % = 150 % > > Ultimately, the spacer is a debatable add on, but a cheap experiment. > > Agreed. > > > > No, they are not the same thing. The TB or throttle body controls the > > > > amount of air entering the intake manifold. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > so the law of 'negative entropy ' kicks in and longer piping = less > resistance ? LOL, perhaps you need to do a little research there buddy. There is more than one resistance going on here and a slight increase in one resistance can be more than made up for by overcomming another one. > > Why do you think > > that they are said to increase lower end torque, debatable or not? > > it's a proven fact that longer intake runners increase low-end torque I never said different but do you know how? I realise that this is another flow question so you may once again be baffled. > just as 3 % / 2 % = 150 % Hey, did you figure out the fluid flow in that TC yet, Mr. Trans expert????? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > While the TB regulates air flow, that flow is ultimately limited by the > efficiency of the intake system as well. By the time the air flow gets to the cylinder runners in the typical Mopar manifold, the TB is long past being the cause of turbulance. Too much has happened to the air by that point to blame the TB for the turbulance. However, inducing a laminar flow at that point can ease some of the rough trip ahead. > The spacer as you said, increases > the length which should, but not always, increase air speed and reduce > turbulence which should get more air into the cylinders. Why do you think > that they are said to increase lower end torque, debatable or not? The volume of air in the cylinder will always be the same. Again, the TB spacer is so far upstream as to have little effect on the engine itself. Changing the TB may have an effect, but from what I've seen, read, heard, etc, most times a larger TB drops low end torque and boosts HP. Money is better spent on intake manifolds, be it a better one or simply porting and port matching on the stock one. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > No, they are not the same thing. The TB or throttle body controls the >> > amount of air entering the intake manifold. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Agreed. > > While the TB regulates air flow, that flow is ultimately limited by the > > efficiency of the intake system as well. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > However, inducing a laminar flow at that point can ease some of the rough > trip ahead. You do know that this is not always true, right? Turbulence tends to be cumulative and amplified in it's travels so the sooner you can reduce or eliminate it, the better off you are. Now I am not saying that it will work for his manifold but they do work well for some and that is the reason why their effectiveness is so arguable, pretty much like the performance increase claims of a K&N filter. > > The spacer as you said, increases > > the length which should, but not always, increase air speed and reduce > > turbulence which should get more air into the cylinders. Why do you think > > that they are said to increase lower end torque, debatable or not? > > The volume of air in the cylinder will always be the same. No, the volume of the cylinders will always be the same. The volume of air in those cylinders is always changing or there would be no need for the TB. > Again, the TB spacer is so far upstream as to have little effect on the engine itself. While not always true, it may very well be the case of the current run of DC engines. > Changing the TB may have an effect, but from what I've seen, read, heard, > etc, most times a larger TB drops low end torque and boosts HP. Which probably is not the best idea for a truck. > Money is better spent on intake manifolds, be it a better one or simply > porting and port matching on the stock one. Agreed but that wasn't his question. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> By the time the air flow gets to the cylinder runners in the typical >> Mopar [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You do know that this is not always true, right? Its always true in the Dodge manifold, given its design. Turbulence tends to be > cumulative and amplified in it's travels so the sooner you can reduce or > eliminate it, the better off you are. Hence my suggestion at causing laminar air flow. > Now I am not saying that it will work > for his manifold Nor did I. > but they do work well for some and that is the reason why > their effectiveness is so arguable, pretty much like the performance > increase claims of a K&N filter. Never said anything different. >> The volume of air in the cylinder will always be the same. > > No, the volume of the cylinders will always be the same. The volume of > air > in those cylinders is always changing or there would be no need for the > TB. Um, no. Air is elestic. It'll ALWAYS be the same volume. Different density, but SAME volume. >> Changing the TB may have an effect, but from what I've seen, read, heard, >> etc, most times a larger TB drops low end torque and boosts HP. > > Which probably is not the best idea for a truck. Hence the uproar when Kibucki used to hawk his wares with no solid dyno proof. >> Money is better spent on intake manifolds, be it a better one or simply >> porting and port matching on the stock one. > > Agreed but that wasn't his question. Heance the reason why I didn't suggest it til after I answered his question. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > >> By the time the air flow gets to the cylinder runners in the typical > >> Mopar [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Its always true in the Dodge manifold, given its design. Really? Do you have the dyno and airflow results to back this up? I am not arguing with you, I just want to know where you are getting this from. > Turbulence tends to be > > cumulative and amplified in it's travels so the sooner you can reduce or [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Um, no. Air is elestic. It'll ALWAYS be the same volume. Different density, > but SAME volume. Um, no. The volume is based on the amount of air that manages to get into the cylinder in any given cycle and there is nothing all that consistant about that. If this were true, there would be no need for a throttle body. > >> Changing the TB may have an effect, but from what I've seen, read, heard, > >> etc, most times a larger TB drops low end torque and boosts HP. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Heance the reason why I didn't suggest it til after I answered his question. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Really? Do you have the dyno and airflow results to back this up? I am > not > arguing with you, I just want to know where you are getting this from. Tom Lawrence did some testing of TB's a while ago, not sure what all it included, but the results were minimal improvements at best. > Um, no. The volume is based on the amount of air that manages to get into > the cylinder in any given cycle and there is nothing all that consistant > about that. If this were true, there would be no need for a throttle > body. LOL, nope. If you were correct, compression ratio and cylinder pressure would mean nothing. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > > Really? Do you have the dyno and airflow results to back this up? I am > > not > > arguing with you, I just want to know where you are getting this from. > > Tom Lawrence did some testing of TB's a while ago, not sure what all it > included, but the results were minimal improvements at best. Cool, now I know not to waste my money on false claims. > > Um, no. The volume is based on the amount of air that manages to get into > > the cylinder in any given cycle and there is nothing all that consistant [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > LOL, nope. If you were correct, compression ratio and cylinder pressure > would mean nothing. LOL, do you even know what a compression ration is? Here is a hint, it is the change in cylinder volume between bottom and top dead center and has nothing to do with the amount of air in the cylinder. Adding a blower or turbo does not change the compression ratio of an engine but it does drastically increase the volume of air pushed into the cylinders, hence, the recommended drop in compression ratio to a reasonable level on engines where they are used. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > LOL, do you even know what a compression ration is? Here is a hint, it is > the change in cylinder volume between bottom and top dead center and has > nothing to do with the amount of air in the cylinder. But I'll assume that the engines that you "know" about are the same as the ones I've actually fixed, built, torn down, etc, and that the voulume of the cylinder is the same on each and every cylinder and stroke. > Adding a blower or > turbo does not change the compression ratio of an engine but it does [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > where > they are used. Sorry, no. It increases the density of the air in the cylinder, but again, ALL cylinders have the same volume on each and every stroke. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > > LOL, do you even know what a compression ration is? Here is a hint, it is > > the change in cylinder volume between bottom and top dead center and has [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ones I've actually fixed, built, torn down, etc, and that the voulume of the > cylinder is the same on each and every cylinder and stroke. Well, in order for the volume to be the same on each cylinder, that would mean that every cylinder, connecting rod and piston is EXACTLY the same size and we all know that is impossible. Now besides that, unless the pistons don't move in your maxworld engines, the volume between all cylinders is never the same and the volume in any one cylinder is constantly changing (with the exception of the small instant in time while the piston changes direction) as the crankshaft turns. How do you think that an engine compresses the air fuel mixture? > > Adding a blower or > > turbo does not change the compression ratio of an engine but it does [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Sorry, no. It increases the density of the air in the cylinder, but again, > ALL cylinders have the same volume on each and every stroke. Wrong again! A cylinder does not have the same volume at TDC as it does at BDC and if you think that it does, lets see you get the same volume of water into the cylinder at both TDC and BDC. I think that is why they call it compression :-) SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Well, in order for the volume to be the same on each cylinder, that would > mean that every cylinder, connecting rod and piston is EXACTLY the same > size > and we all know that is impossible. ???? Once again proving you are full of sh.t. > Now besides that, unless the pistons > don't move in your maxworld engines, the volume between all cylinders is > never the same and the volume in any one cylinder is constantly changing Ok, lets go into idiocy with this. In Tbone world, the volume is never the same from cylinder to cylinder, despite all cylinders, rods, and pistons having the same dimensions within .001". Now, unless you are concerned with such minute diferences as .0005" or so, I think we can move on. Regarding the "constantly changing", thats rubbish. There are two points where the piston will "dwell", at BDC and TDC, at these points the piston is still. Regarding "changing" the volume of each cylinder is referred to as the "swept volume", and is the same from cyinder to cylinder, and is noted by the moniker most enhgines pick up, eaither CID or Litre, both of which refer to a volume measurement, and are NEVER changed unless the engine is modified. > (with the exception of the small instant in time while the piston changes > direction) as the crankshaft turns. How do you think that an engine > compresses the air fuel mixture? With a piston. The cylinder remains at the same volume. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > LOL, do you even know what a compression ration is? Here is a hint, it > is [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > into the cylinder at both TDC and BDC. I think that is why they call it > compression :-) > > Well, in order for the volume to be the same on each cylinder, that would > > mean that every cylinder, connecting rod and piston is EXACTLY the same > > size > > and we all know that is impossible. > > ???? Once again proving you are full of sh.t. You keep complaining about my mastery of the language but don't loke it when your childish actions are used on you. Exact means exact and unless there is absolutly no difference in any measurments between cylinders, they cannot be exactly the same. > > Now besides that, unless the pistons > > don't move in your maxworld engines, the volume between all cylinders is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > same from cylinder to cylinder, despite all cylinders, rods, and pistons > having the same dimensions within .001". The fact that you have that variance says that they cannot be "exactly" the same and since all of the pistons are never in exactly the same position in their bores as the others, the volume cannot be the same in all cylinders. > Regarding > the "constantly changing", thats rubbish. > There are two points where the > piston will "dwell", at BDC and TDC, at these points the piston is still. I believe I already said that. > Regarding "changing" the volume of each cylinder is referred to as the > "swept volume", and is the same from cyinder to cylinder, and is noted by > the moniker most enhgines pick up, eaither CID or Litre, both of which refer > to a volume measurement, and are NEVER changed unless the engine is > modified. LOL, while true, it has nothing to do with the actual volume of each cylinder in a given point in time. The CID refers to the total volume of all cylinders at their maximum capacity and unless the engine is modified, that as you say will never change. As for the actual volume of each individual cylinder, that changes according to the position of the piston. > > (with the exception of the small instant in time while the piston changes > > direction) as the crankshaft turns. How do you think that an engine > > compresses the air fuel mixture? > > With a piston. Correct, by reducing the volume of each cylinder or compressing the volume and the gas contained within it. > The cylinder remains at the same volume. LOL, impossible. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> Um, no. Air is elestic. It'll ALWAYS be the same volume. Different >> density, but SAME volume. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > about that. If this were true, there would be no need for a throttle > body. You're confusing volume and mass, or moles... the VOLUME of air in the cylinder is ALWAYS equal to the volume of that cylinder (unless it's a complete vacuum, which doesn't happen). A gas will always expand to fill it's container. Whether a gas is at 2psi, or 20psi, if it's in a 20cu.in. container, it's volume is 20cu.in. > >> Um, no. Air is elestic. It'll ALWAYS be the same volume. Different > >> density, but SAME volume. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > complete vacuum, which doesn't happen). A gas will always expand to fill > it's container. Sorry Tom, but you are incorrect here and your vacuum description proves that. The volume of a cylinder is a DIMENSIONAL measurement of space within the cylinder while the volume of a material whether liquid, gas, or solid, is the AMOUNT of that material. within the space If I were to put 1 molecule of oxygen into a 20 cu in container, it most definitely would not have a volume of 20 cu in. It would take up the same molecular amount of space that a single oxygen molecule always takes up, it would just be in a 20 cu in space. > Whether a gas is at 2psi, or 20psi, if it's in a 20cu.in.container, it's volume is 20cu.in. No, unless the pressure was zero at sea level, it would be X cu in of gas compressed or decompressed into a 20 cu in container. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Sorry Tom, but you are incorrect here and your vacuum description proves > that. The volume of a cylinder is a DIMENSIONAL measurement of space > within > the cylinder while the volume of a material whether liquid, gas, or solid, > is the AMOUNT of that material. within the space Wrong. Material is measured in weight or fluid increments. Volume will always be the amount of space the material can fill, not the amount of material. > If I were to put 1 > molecule of oxygen into a 20 cu in container, it most definitely would not > have a volume of 20 cu in. It would take up the same molecular amount of > space that a single oxygen molecule always takes up, it would just be in a > 20 cu in space. Thats terrific, but we aren't talking about one molecule, we're talking about millions. As such, we are also talking about density. >> Whether a gas is at 2psi, or 20psi, if it's in a 20cu.in.container, it's > volume is 20cu.in. Wrong. Refrigerent is not sold by volume, its sold by weight. Welding gas is not sold by volume, its sold by weight. Liquids are not sold by volume, they are sold by fluid measure. > No, unless the pressure was zero at sea level, it would be X cu in of gas > compressed or decompressed into a 20 cu in container. Bullshit. Try buying some compressed gas sometime. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> >> Um, no. Air is elestic. It'll ALWAYS be the same volume. Different >> >> density, but SAME volume. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > No, unless the pressure was zero at sea level, it would be X cu in of gas > compressed or decompressed into a 20 cu in container. > > Sorry Tom, but you are incorrect here and your vacuum description proves > > that. The volume of a cylinder is a DIMENSIONAL measurement of space [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > always be the amount of space the material can fill, not the amount of > material. LOL, material is not always measured in weight and fluid increments are a volume measurment and you can get 100 oz of liquid in a 200 oz container and it is still sold or measured as 100 oz. The same goes for gas although gas is usually sold in a compressed or liquid form, IOW, more CU IN of gas than the cu in volume of the container. > > If I were to put 1 > > molecule of oxygen into a 20 cu in container, it most definitely would not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thats terrific, but we aren't talking about one molecule, we're talking > about millions. As such, we are also talking about density. It doesn't matter. If the rule works for millions, it also has to work for just one or the rule is invalid. > >> Whether a gas is at 2psi, or 20psi, if it's in a 20cu.in.container, it's > > volume is 20cu.in. > > Wrong. Refrigerent is not sold by volume, its sold by weight. It is also in a liquid form when sold, LOL, and the container does have a volume measurment as well. > Welding gas is > not sold by volume, its sold by weight. Liquids are not sold by volume, they > are sold by fluid measure. And a fluid measure is a volume of liquid, genius. Actually 1 oz = 1.7338714 ci so your argument is once again, nothing but semantics. > > No, unless the pressure was zero at sea level, it would be X cu in of gas > > compressed or decompressed into a 20 cu in container. > > Bullshit. Try buying some compressed gas sometime. I have. It is either measure as just CU FT where it usually has a large number or by the size of the container along with the pressure. If it is in a liquid form, it is sold by weight but then again, that would not be a compressed gas now would it... SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> > Sorry Tom, but you are incorrect here and your vacuum description proves >> > that. The volume of a cylinder is a DIMENSIONAL measurement of space [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >is usually sold in a compressed or liquid form, IOW, more CU IN of gas than >the cu in volume of the container. Any volume measurement of a gas is meaningless if the density is not taking into consideration. Take a CO2 cartridge for example. At high pressure (high density) the gas is in a liquid form and occupies but a small amount of space (volume) which will equal the interior dimensions of the particular containment cylinder and will weigh "X" amount. Poke a hole in that container, the pressure inside far exceeds atmospheric pressure (here on the surface of the earth), therefore the CO2 escapes until the pressure in the container equals ambient atmospheric pressure. If you capture this gas as it leaves the container, say in a ballon, and discounting any amount lost due to leakeage, the weight of the gas in the ballon will equal the original weight of the gas in the cylinder, but the volume will increase dramatically. >> > If I were to put 1 >> > molecule of oxygen into a 20 cu in container, it most definitely would [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> Thats terrific, but we aren't talking about one molecule, we're talking >> about millions. As such, we are also talking about density. Why not talk about one molecule? First, to accomplish what Boner suggests, he must first evacuate *ALL* other matter from the 20 ci container. In other words, create a total and complete vacuum (good luck). Then inject one molecule of oxygen. Indeed, you will end up with a 20 ci container "full" of oxygen at a very low density. Put another molecule of O in there and you've doubled the density but you still have only 20 ci of oxygen, add a million or a zillion, same story, only the density changes... >It doesn't matter. If the rule works for millions, it also has to work for >just one or the rule is invalid. >> >> Whether a gas is at 2psi, or 20psi, if it's in a 20cu.in.container, >it's >> > volume is 20cu.in. Corrrect, if you are simply trying to measure how much room the gas occupies at the given pressure, but to complete the measurement you must also specify what the pressure inside the container is. If what Boner is saying is true, the same amount of gas would have to be present at 2 psi as it would at 200 psi. Hey, Boner, you are about to go to a wrecking yard to dismantle an old truck with your O/A cutting torch. You have two 80 cf O2 containers. One is pretty light in weight, the other relatively heavy. The job is expected to take several hours and is an hour's drive from your home/work. You only have room for one of your O2 cyllinders. Which one do you take and why? They both contain 80 cf of O2, correct? If that is true, it shouldn't matter which cylinder you take, choose the lighter one, it will be easier to move around... According to Boner's theory, why use a turbo charger or super charger? If a engine's cylinder will only hold "X" amount of air/fuel, it would be futile to attempt to try to get more in there, right? Oh, crap, we forgot about the density of the A/F mixture entering the cylinder didn't we? In a 6.0 liter engine, each cylinder is only capable of holding .75L of A/F mixture. Hey, .75L is .75L, right, it should produce the identical amount of HP whether it is at sea level or at 10,000' right? Oh crap, we forgot about the differences in ambient air pressure and density of the air between 10K and 0K altitude... <snip> >I have. It is either measure as just CU FT where it usually has a large >number or by the size of the container along with the pressure. If it is in >a liquid form, it is sold by weight but then again, that would not be a >compressed gas now would it... All gasses subject to atmospheric pressure are compressed dude, it's all relative, it's all about density and pressure, not how much space a gas occupies. DJ > >> > Sorry Tom, but you are incorrect here and your vacuum description proves > >> > that. The volume of a cylinder is a DIMENSIONAL measurement of space [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Any volume measurement of a gas is meaningless if the density is not > taking into consideration. And that is my point, pinhead. Because the density can change, the volume of gas within the cylinder can change as well, even if the volume of the cylinder is fixed. > Poke a hole in that container, the pressure inside far exceeds > atmospheric pressure (here on the surface of the earth), therefore the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > weight of the gas in the cylinder, but the volume will increase > dramatically. LOL, wrong. It will have the same mass but a very different weight. You do know the difference between the two, don't you. > >> > If I were to put 1 > >> > molecule of oxygen into a 20 cu in container, it most definitely would [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > container. In other words, create a total and complete vacuum (good > luck). Regardless of the difficulty, the theory holds, just the same. > Then inject one molecule of oxygen. Indeed, you will end up > with a 20 ci container "full" of oxygen at a very low density. No, perhaps you need to look up the definition of full. While the container may have nothing but oxygen it it, it will not be full. BYW, why do you keep calling me Boner? Are you trying to tell me something, homo. > Put another molecule of O in there and you've doubled the density but you > still have only 20 ci of oxygen, add a million or a zillion, same > story, only the density changes... Wrong, a ci of oxygen is a volumetric measurment based on pressure and temperature specification . Perhaps you should do a little research before making a complete idiot of yourself. > >It doesn't matter. If the rule works for millions, it also has to work for > >just one or the rule is invalid. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Boner is saying is true, the same amount of gas would have to be > present at 2 psi as it would at 200 psi. Where did you come up with this idiotic statement or do you just not know how to follow a thread. I said that the volume of gas within a container is not dependent on the size of the container mainly due to the compressable nature of a gas. That was max with his 2psi, 20psi being the same amount BS. > Hey, Boner, you are about to go to a wrecking yard to dismantle an old > truck with your O/A cutting torch. You have two 80 cf O2 containers. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is true, it shouldn't matter which cylinder you take, choose the > lighter one, it will be easier to move around... That is not true and I never said that, sh.t for brains. I in fact said quite the opposit. While the container may have an internal volume of 80 cf (which is quite large, moron), there could and better be considerably more O2 than that (remember that it is compressed) and the heavier one would have a greater volume of gas and hey look, the same size container. > According to Boner's theory, why use a turbo charger or super charger? Because a supercharger and a turbocharger are capable of squeezing a much larger VOLUME of air into the cylinders, like I said. It is becoming clear that you really don't have a clue on how to follow a thread or are you just so desperate to make me look bad, that you have no problem making yourself look like an idiot doing it. And people say that I'm bad. > If a engine's cylinder will only hold "X" amount of air/fuel, it would > be futile to attempt to try to get more in there, right? Oh, crap, we > forgot about the density of the A/F mixture entering the cylinder > didn't we? And the density increases because you are packing a large VOLUME of air / fuel mixture than the cylinder would normally hold. You do know the meaning of compression, don't you? Well. you didn't know the meaning of weight so I guess not. > In a 6.0 liter engine, each cylinder is only capable of holding .75L > of A/F mixture. No, each cylinder has .75L of space. The amount of mixture it can contain within that space is variable. > Hey, .75L is .75L, right, it should produce the > identical amount of HP whether it is at sea level or at 10,000' right? > Oh crap, we forgot about the differences in ambient air pressure and > density of the air between 10K and 0K altitude... No, you are just being an a.shole, imagine that. I have always said that the volume of air is not dependant on the volume of the cylinder it is in and all your childish ranting does is prove it so I guess that I should thank you but with what you are calling me, if I did you would probably want to go out on a date. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > all relative, it's all about density and pressure, not how much space > a gas occupies. Duh, no sh.t but the atmospheric pressure at sea level is a reference point. When you get natural gas in your home, it is measured in cubic feet. How would this be possible without a reference point to base the measurement on. One standard cu ft of gas is the amount of gas contained in one cu ft at at 60 degrees F at 14.73 psia and this is a volume measurement. If you increase the pressure and / or lower the temp, you can get 2 or 20 or even more cu ft of gas into that same 1 cu ft container but you still have 2 or 20 or more cu ft of gas, not just 1cu ft. More gas * less space = compression. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> >> > Sorry Tom, but you are incorrect here and your vacuum description >proves [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >of gas within the cylinder can change as well, even if the volume of the >cylinder is fixed. I thought I was trying to be nice, a bit sarcastic maybe, but nice nonetheless. With a handle like TBone, you've got to expect some variations on it being thrown back at you, don't be so freakin' sensitive Dipshit... I suspect you have somewhat of a grasp of the issue, you just haven't a clue as to how to express it in a coherent manner, much like your math in the Great K&N Debate. >> Poke a hole in that container, the pressure inside far exceeds >> atmospheric pressure (here on the surface of the earth), therefore the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >LOL, wrong. It will have the same mass but a very different weight. You do >know the difference between the two, don't you. Can't wait for this one, please explain, in detail, how and in what manner the weight will change and how this will not affect mass. You've got "X" weight of CO2 in the original container (compressed in a cylinder) , you simply transfer it to a larger container (uncompressed in a balloon). Where do you gain/lose weight? If the weight changes how does the mass not change? <snip> >> Hey, Boner, you are about to go to a wrecking yard to dismantle an old >> truck with your O/A cutting torch. You have two 80 cf O2 containers. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >quite the opposit. While the container may have an internal volume of 80 cf >(which is quite large, moron), To start with Dipshit, you apparently have never dealt with common gas cylinders, 80CF is a standard size. Who's playing the moron now? > there could and better be considerably more >O2 than that (remember that it is compressed) and the heavier one would have >a greater volume of gas and hey look, the same size container. Wrong Dipshit, there is still 80CF of gas in there regardless of what the internal pressure is, or do you not accept the proven scientific fact that gas will expand to fill whatever is containing it? <snip voodoo interpretation of science> DJ > >> >> > Sorry Tom, but you are incorrect here and your vacuum description > >proves [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I thought I was trying to be nice, a bit sarcastic maybe, but nice > nonetheless. Nice my a.s, shithead. Since I don't know you, where do you get off starting with the name calling, especially since it appears that you don't like getting it back. > With a handle like TBone, you've got to expect some > variations on it being thrown back at you, don't be so freakin' > sensitive Dipshit... Really, why, because you are too immature not to use them. > I suspect you have somewhat of a grasp of the issue, you just haven't > a clue as to how to express it in a coherent manner, much like your > math in the Great K&N Debate. Pretty lame response there buddy. I apparently have a much greater on than you since I actually know how large of an area 80CF is. > >> Poke a hole in that container, the pressure inside far exceeds > >> atmospheric pressure (here on the surface of the earth), therefore the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Can't wait for this one, please explain, in detail, how and in what > manner the weight will change and how this will not affect mass. Because weight is measurement of a force acting on that mass (gravity) and is influenced by both the density of that mass and the mass of things around it. While you may not have affected the mass, you did affect the density which will affect the weight. > You've got "X" weight of CO2 in the original container (compressed in > a cylinder) , High density, more weight. > you simply transfer it to a larger container Which reduces the density and the weight. If this CO2 were instead He, it would still have a weight in compressed or liquid form, but when allowed to expand back into a gas, it would have no weight at all and actually carry your balloon away, and yet, still have the same mass it always did. You have seen a blimp, right? > (uncompressed in a balloon). Where do you gain/lose weight? If the > weight changes how does the mass not change? Because weight is a measurment of a force, not a volume or mass. Lesson 101 completed. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > To start with Dipshit, you apparently have never dealt with common gas > cylinders, 80CF is a standard size. Who's playing the moron now? Once again, that would be you. You do know big 80CF is, don't you??? Unless your tank is 3' X 3' X 9' or some like dimensions to equal 80CF, the rating is not the physical size of the tank, it is the maximum amount of compressed gas the tank is designed to hold. The physical tank size is only a few CF. > > there could and better be considerably more > >O2 than that (remember that it is compressed) and the heavier one would have > >a greater volume of gas and hey look, the same size container. > > Wrong Dipshit, there is still 80CF of gas in there regardless of what > the internal pressure is, Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, I must say, you do make me laugh. Unless your tank happens have an interior space of 80CF, this from the very start is complete BS. An 80CF scuba tank is about 7" wide and around 29" tall which has an interior volume of around 2 CF, not the 80CF it is rated to contain and I would think that other tanks with this rating are around the same physical size depending on what they are containing. If the tank itself does not have a volume of 80CF, how could it contain 80CF "at any pressure", ROFLMAO!!! BTW, how old are you, 15 maybe? > or do you not accept the proven scientific fact that gas will expand to fill whatever is containing it? Actually, it is you that does not understand this "proven scientific fact" or perhaps it is simple math that alludes you and you have the nerve to criticize me, LOL Your "scientific fact" as you call it simply says that a gas will "fill" or expand to all areas of whatever container it is in. In reality, it does not always fill the container by definition because if you can still put more gas into it, the container was not full. As for the volume of gas, since the volume of a material is a measurement of the amount of mass, unless the mass changes (and it does not), the volume of gas does not change either as indicated by a container with an actual internal volume of around 2CF being labeled as containing up to 80CF of gas. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving so tom, you have made yet another "friend"? the only thing you left out this time is one of your patented "LOL", which i think is the written form of a stutter for you. >> >> >> > Sorry Tom, but you are incorrect here and your vacuum description >> >proves [quoted text clipped - 147 lines] >not change either as indicated by a container with an actual internal volume >of around 2CF being labeled as containing up to 80CF of gas. But why would I need another friend, I already have you. And if you bother to look, the LOL is in there, especially after his last comical post. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > so tom, you have made yet another "friend"? the only thing you left > out this time is one of your patented "LOL", which i think is the [quoted text clipped - 151 lines] > >not change either as indicated by a container with an actual internal volume > >of around 2CF being labeled as containing up to 80CF of gas. >But why would I need another friend, I already have you. And if you bother >to look, the LOL is in there, especially after his last comical post. well now.......you probably do consider me a friend because i give you some attention. i understand that you tried to pretend to be sarcastic but i think you are reallybeing serious. i am convinced that we are the only "friends" that you have. hey, i supposse you just have to take what you can get, but then you would be a better judge of that. >so tom, you have made yet another "friend"? the only thing you left >out this time is one of your patented "LOL", which i think is the >written form of a stutter for you. He called me a "homo", he called me a "homo", or lordy, is there anything worse he could do to me? I give up, there is nothing good that can emerge from debating anything even remotely mathematical or scientific with an imbecile who's train of logic (if you could call it "logic") is this far out of whack with the rest of the thinking world... <snip> DJ David - 05 KTM 200EXC djones<at>LSidaho.com http://www.spodefest.net/rmd http://www.spodefest.net/forum > >so tom, you have made yet another "friend"? the only thing you left > >out this time is one of your patented "LOL", which i think is the > >written form of a stutter for you. > > He called me a "homo", he called me a "homo", or lordy, is there > anything worse he could do to me? Pretty much like you keep thinking of a boner while talking to me, just questioning your reasons, that's all. > I give up, there is nothing good that can emerge from debating > anything even remotely mathematical or scientific with an imbecile > who's train of logic (if you could call it "logic") is this far out of > whack with the rest of the thinking world... Hehehehehe, yea, a comment on my logic from the person who says that a 2CF container has to somehow contain 80CF of gas at any pressure and doesn't know the difference between mass and weight. Sorry buddy, but with your apparent math and scientific skills, to run and hide after the crap in your last post is the wisest move that you could make right now. Perhaps you are not quite so dumb after all, bye :-) SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Hehehehehe, yea, a comment on my logic from the person who says that a 2CF > container has to somehow contain 80CF of gas at any pressure and doesn't > know the difference between mass and weight. Sorry buddy, but with your > apparent math and scientific skills, to run and hide after the crap in your > last post is the wisest move that you could make right now. Perhaps you are > not quite so dumb after all, bye :-) this from someone who has trouble with 3% / 2% = 150% > > Hehehehehe, yea, a comment on my logic from the person who says that a 2CF > > container has to somehow contain 80CF of gas at any pressure and doesn't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > this from someone who has trouble with 3% / 2% = 150% And this from the self proclaimed trans expert who doesn't even know the fluid flow of a TC. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving <snip> >> >> Poke a hole in that container, the pressure inside far exceeds >> >> atmospheric pressure (here on the surface of the earth), therefore the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >your balloon away, and yet, still have the same mass it always did. You >have seen a blimp, right? What a fuckin' idiot! Helium has no weight? The only reason the helium filled balloon would rise is the fact an equal amount of helium is lighter than the surrounding atmosphere it is displacing. Does a hot air balloon weigh anything? The only reason a hot air balloon rises is the fact the air contained in the envelope is lighter (less dense) than the surrounding atmosphere it displaces. The air in the envelope loses density when it is heated. Gee, I wonder why they are called hot air balloons? I hold a commercial pilot's license and have for well over 30 years with thousands of hours in aircraft ranging from hang gliders to light/medium weight twins, including ultralights and sailplanes in between. Please do school me on air density and how it affects aircraft you fuckin' hick... Blimps and hot air balloons fall into the category of "lighter than air" aircraft. They do indeed have weight, which is supported by the pressure of the air surrounding the gas filled envelope. The gas in the envelope does indeed have weight and therefore mass, it just happens to weigh less than the equal amount of the atmosphere it displaces, just like a thousand ton ship will float in water. --------------->> "If this CO2 were instead He, it would still have a weight in compressed or liquid form, but when allowed to expand back into a gas, it would have no weight at all and actually carry your balloon away, and yet, still have the same mass it always did." <<-------------- What a freakin' gem of an idiotic statement. Do yourself and the rest of us a huge favor, call your local high school, college or university, ask for the physics department, tell them what you just told us, see if they agree with the above quoted statement. If they do, I will personally travel to wherever you live and kiss your a.s in public. Here are some links to explanations your feeble mind may be able to both comprehend and accept as scientific fact, you need not take my word for it: http://travel.howstuffworks.com/blimp.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/helium1.htm http://travel.howstuffworks.com/hot-air-balloon.htm Or, cut to the chase here: http://travel.howstuffworks.com/hot-air-balloon5.htm Take some time, go back and at least get your GED, high school may be easier on you this time around if you pay attention. <snip> I was mistaken, I must take back what I said about you possibly having a grasp but are unable to convey these thoughts into intelligble writings. From what you just said above, it's all too clear you definitely do not understand what we are talking about here. Like I replied to "the guy", I give up, no sense wrestling with a pig, the pig has a good time and all you get is dirty. Over and out... DJ David - 05 KTM 200EXC djones<at>LSidaho.com http://www.spodefest.net/rmd http://www.spodefest.net/forum > >> Can't wait for this one, please explain, in detail, how and in what > >> manner the weight will change and how this will not affect mass. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > filled balloon would rise is the fact an equal amount of helium is > lighter than the surrounding atmosphere it is displacing. LOL, while true, it still doesn't change the fact that helium has NO weight. It does have mass and it also has an atomic weight but as far as actual weight goes, it has N O N E. http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele002.html Read the third paragraph where it says that helium is not gravitationally bound to the earth. Why do you think that is? > Does a hot air balloon weigh anything? Not while it is rising or did the term "lighter than air" get by you. Does it have mass, yep, does it weigh anything, nope, at least not according to any earth bound scale. Remember, weight is a force and it is being canceled out by the denser air around it. > The only reason a hot air balloon rises is > the fact the air contained in the envelope is lighter (less dense) > than the surrounding atmosphere it displaces. The air in the envelope > loses density when it is heated. Gee, I wonder why they are called hot > air balloons? Which is exactly what I said about weight vs mass and density. Reduce the density, and you reduce the weight. I believe that I also mentioned that the density was also in relation to the density of objects around it, like maybe the air itself. Funny how you deleted that away. > I hold a commercial pilot's license and have for well over 30 years > with thousands of hours in aircraft ranging from hang gliders to > light/medium weight twins, including ultralights and sailplanes in > between. Please do school me on air density and how it affects > aircraft you fuckin' hick... Now, now, just because you are wrong is no reason to get angry. With what you seem to know, I really hope you only fly cargo and only over open areas. This has nothing to do with aircraft but everything to do with the weigh of gasses or lack of it relative to the weight of the same material in a compressed or liquid form. > Blimps and hot air balloons fall into the category of "lighter than > air" aircraft. They do indeed have weight, which is supported by the > pressure of the air surrounding the gas filled envelope. Which means that they have no weight in respect to the air around them. > The gas in > the envelope does indeed have weight and therefore mass, it just > happens to weigh less than the equal amount of the atmosphere it > displaces, The gas does have mass but unless it has enough density for gravity to pull it toward the earth, it has NO WEIGHT. Helium does not have enough density or atomic weight for the force of gravity on this planet to hold it down so it has NO WEIGHT here. Take it and your CO2 to the moon and neither will have any weight in gaseous form but they will both have the same mass there as they do here or anywhere else in the universe. > just like a thousand ton ship will float in water. Yes, because weight is a force and it takes a force to displace water. Once any object begins to float, it has used up all of the force it has to displace the liquid so in effect, it is weightless from that point. Hell, take your thousand ton ship to the moon and it will only weigh around 166 tons but still has the same mass which clearly demonstrates mass is not weight. > --------------->> > "If this CO2 were instead He, it would still have a weight in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > do, I will personally travel to wherever you live and kiss your a.s in > public. The link that I supplied above shows that they would agree because weight is not mass but I suspect that you are just looking for an excuse to get to my a.s. I guess I was right about you after all. > Like I replied to "the guy", I give up, no sense wrestling with a pig, > the pig has a good time and all you get is dirty. > > Over and out... LOL, you have said this before and yet, here you are. BTW, I am still waiting for your explanation of how a cylinder with an internal capacity of less than 2CF will always be holding 80CF of some gas, regardless of the pressure. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > LOL, while true, it still doesn't change the fact that helium has NO weight. > It does have mass and it also has an atomic weight but as far as actual [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > any earth bound scale. Remember, weight is a force and it is being canceled > out by the denser air around it. try weighing a container with a 'hard' vacuum inside, then weighing it when it's filled with helium, Braniac > try weighing a container with a 'hard' vacuum inside, then weighing it when > it's filled with helium, Braniac Thats pretty funny! If something is lighter than air then it weighs nothing! I never knew that! >> try weighing a container with a 'hard' vacuum inside, then weighing it when >> it's filled with helium, Braniac > >Thats pretty funny! If something is lighter than air then it weighs >nothing! I never knew that! I sorta, kinda understand TBones logic, although it's rather bizzare, twisted and confusing. Maybe TBone lives in Bizzarro World, who knows... Something is being left out here. The assertion that once a "lighter than air" aircraft has enough differential in density to become bouyant in our atmosphere that it becomes weightless, ignores the fact the airship is indeed still pushing down on the atmosphere with the same force it was pushing down on terra firma as it sat before being filled with "gas". The idea that once something is "supported" by external forces, it is rendered "weightless" is just plain silly. By this reasoning, I should be able to pick up a bowling ball, hold it above the ground and render it weightless. After all, it is truly being supported by a force acting in direct oppositoin to gravity. The bowling ball now weighs nothing, but I now weigh 16 lbs more than I did prior to lofting the ball. The same thing holds true for the hot air balloon. The atmosphere is supporting the weight of the balloon but suddenly that very atmosphere now weighs more than it did before it took on the load of supporting the balloon. The theory of equal and opposite reactions would dictate if the air is pushing upwards on the balloon, it must be pushing down on the surface of the earth with exactly the same amount of force. DJ > The idea that once something is "supported" by external forces, it is > rendered "weightless" is just plain silly. Absolutely. This is easily demonstrated at home. Fill a glass with water, about 3/4 full. Put it on a scale. Now add an ice cube. The ice cube is floating in the water (because it is slightly less dense than the water, just like a balloon is less dense than the air around it). The scale shows the added weight of the ice cube. Most reasonable people understand this concept, almost intuitively. Others claim selective application of the laws of gravity. Do you recall anything that happened BEFORE slipping and hitting your head while in the shower yesterday morning? "Deega-Voo, I will 'Splain it to you." If you know what I mean Vern. >>> try weighing a container with a 'hard' vacuum inside, then weighing it when >>> it's filled with helium, Braniac [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >DJ Joe Brophy CountryTech Computer email: pcfixr@spiretech.com > LOL, while true, it still doesn't change the fact that helium has NO > weight. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Read the third paragraph where it says that helium is not gravitationally > bound to the earth. Why do you think that is? Steam isn't "gravitationally bound to the earth" either, but water definitly weighs something, and sticks pretty damn close to the earths surface, if not laying directly on it. I bet a vessel full of liquid helium drops like a rock. >> Blimps and hot air balloons fall into the category of "lighter than >> air" aircraft. They do indeed have weight, which is supported by the >> pressure of the air surrounding the gas filled envelope. > > Which means that they have no weight in respect to the air around them. What part of "lighter than" don't you get? Ooops, sorry, apparently all of it. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > > LOL, while true, it still doesn't change the fact that helium has NO > > weight. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Steam isn't "gravitationally bound to the earth" either, Really, got proof? > but water definitly weighs something, and sticks pretty damn close to the earths surface, if not > laying directly on it. I bet a vessel full of liquid helium drops like a > rock. Yep, I do believe that I mentioned that as well but we are not talking about liquid helium and if you are, please point out a few pools of it that I can check out. > >> Blimps and hot air balloons fall into the category of "lighter than > >> air" aircraft. They do indeed have weight, which is supported by the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What part of "lighter than" don't you get? Ooops, sorry, apparently all of > it. I do get it, what about you? Since we are surrounded by air, if something is lighter than air, then it has no downward force and therefore, no weight. This is the difference between weight and mass Maxi, mass is what it is but weight can be infinitely variable. Hell, the farther away you get from the planet, and depending on the object at hand, the weight could first increase and then decrease to the point of being zero as you get beyond the gravitational pull of the planet. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > I do get it, what about you? Since we are surrounded by air, if something > is lighter than air, then it has no downward force and therefore, no weight. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and then decrease to the point of being zero as you get beyond the > gravitational pull of the planet. TBone, where you are going wrong is your belief that the amount something weighs is its relation to the weight of air. How far away does one have to get from earth to be effectively weightless? Space Shuttle flies at about 120 miles or so up. That far enough? > > I do get it, what about you? Since we are surrounded by air, if something > > is lighter than air, then it has no downward force and therefore, no weight. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > TBone, where you are going wrong is your belief that the amount > something weighs is its relation to the weight of air. Because Miles, it is. Weight is a relative force and like any force, it can be canceled out by other forces and / or used up performing some action. In the case of lighter than air craft, it's weight is being used up displacing the air in the lower atmosphere so it's weight is zero and because of that, it floats. > How far away does one have to get from earth to be effectively > weightless? Space Shuttle flies at about 120 miles or so up. That far > enough? Do you really think that the pull of the earths gravity goes on forever? Well actually it does but not to any statistical significance and if you think that the shuttle weighs the same 120 miles out that it does sitting on the launch pad, I have some beach front property not too far from your house that I think you might be interested in :-) SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Because Miles, it is. Weight is a relative force and like any force, it can > be canceled out by other forces and / or used up performing some action. No Tom. Take a bottle and pull a vacuum on it. Place the bottle inside a vacuum chamber on top of a scale and weigh it. Now fill the bottle with helium and while still in the vacuum chamber weigh it again. It now weighs more...hmm...helium has weight! Weight is not definded as a relation to the weight of air. You are WRONG! But VERY funny that you define it this way!! > Well actually it does but not to any statistical significance and if you > think that the shuttle weighs the same 120 miles out that it does sitting on > the launch pad, Nope, it's slightly less computed as a ratio from the distance to the center of the earth. We are about 4,000 miles from the center. The shuttle is about 4,120 miles from the center. Now Tom, can you explain to us all why astronauts float around in the shuttle? Is it because gravity is so weak at 120 miles up? > > Because Miles, it is. Weight is a relative force and like any force, it can > > be canceled out by other forces and / or used up performing some action. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with helium and while still in the vacuum chamber weigh it again. It > now weighs more...hmm...helium has weight! LOL, you just don't understand what weight is, do you? Yes, in a complete vacuum where there are no other forces acting on the helium, gravity will cause it to apply a downward force (weight), as minimal as it is. But in reality, not only does it not apply a downward force (weightless), it actually has lift so while it has a atomic weight (as everything with a mass does) it has no weight on this planet under normal conditions and is so weightless as to not even be able to be held in the atmosphere by this planets gravitational force. So while it has both mass and from that atomic weight, if you can't get a reading on a scale under normal conditions, then it has no downward force and no weight. You really need to stop confusing weight and mass or weight and atomic weight. > Weight is not definded as a relation to the weight of air. You are > WRONG! But VERY funny that you define it this way!! Weight is a downward force under whatever conditions exist. Since this planet is not currently in a vacuum, lighter than air gasses have no weight on the earths surface. If a scale cannot measure it, then it simply has no significant weight. > > Well actually it does but not to any statistical significance and if you > > think that the shuttle weighs the same 120 miles out that it does sitting on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to us all why astronauts float around in the shuttle? Is it because > gravity is so weak at 120 miles up? Nope, it is because the shuttle is in orbit and basically in a constant free-fall. The constant change in direction cancels out the force of gravity so the shuttle and its contents have no weight. Do they have mass, of course they do, that doesn't change but since mass is not weight .... SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > LOL, you just don't understand what weight is, do you? LOL, Ya, I and most others here do. You don't. You think weight is strictly a relation to air. > You really need to stop confusing > weight and mass or weight and atomic weight. Um Tom, I work in this very exact field. I write software for the aerospace industry for measuring mass and force. To compute an items known mass to force (weight) you figure in the local gravity as well as local bouyancy for the environment the object is placed in be it air, water or whatever. > > LOL, you just don't understand what weight is, do you? > > LOL, Ya, I and most others here do. You don't. You think weight is > strictly a relation to air. Uh, no. I said that weight is a downward force and if the air eliminates that force, then it doesn't have any weight. > > You really need to stop confusing > > weight and mass or weight and atomic weight. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > local bouyancy for the environment the object is placed in be it air, > water or whatever. And exactly what part does buoyancy have in your equation? Think about it. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > How far away does one have to get from earth to be effectively > weightless? Space Shuttle flies at about 120 miles or so up. That far > enough? nope but at that orbital distance, the vehicle is effectively 'falling' toward earth in a curve (ellipse) that never reaches earth; or you could say that centrifugal force balances gravity either way, the shuttle and everything in it is effectively WEIGHTLESS it is, however, not MASSLESS as Bone-Head would have us believe > > How far away does one have to get from earth to be effectively > > weightless? Space Shuttle flies at about 120 miles or so up. That far [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > it is, however, not MASSLESS as Bone-Head would have us believe Please show me exactly where I said that the mass EVER changes. Oh, that's right, you cant! Maybe someday you will figure out that very complex equation. LOL SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Please show me exactly where I said that the mass EVER changes. Oh, that's > right, you cant! Maybe someday you will figure out that very complex > equation. LOL right here: " Because weight is a measurment of a force, not a volume or mass." since weight = mass x acceleration, the only way you can have 'no weight' is for either mass OR acceleration OR both to equal zero since you were talking about helium 'having no weight', we see that you are comparing it to 'other things' which 'have weight', therefore, acceleration (gravity) is still present therefore, acceleration does NOT equal zero, so for 'mass x acceleration ' to equal zero, mass must be zero now, I know this is heavy math/logic for somebody that doesn't understand percentages, but read it REAL slow, and maybe it will sink in > > Please show me exactly where I said that the mass EVER changes. Oh, > that's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > " Because weight is a measurment of a force, not a volume or mass." Which is correct. > since weight = mass x acceleration, the only way you can have 'no weight' is > for either mass OR acceleration OR both to equal zero Now, please read what you wrote, mass OR acceleration. We will get back to this later. > since you were talking about helium 'having no weight', we see that you are > comparing it to 'other things' which 'have weight', therefore, acceleration > (gravity) is still present Hahahahahahaha, you really are an idiot. Acceleration is more than just gravity. Acceleration is a net force where in a perfect world gravity would be it but in reality, gravity is only a part of it. If other forces acting on the mass are opposed to the force of gravity, g gets smaller and if they are greater than the force of gravity in the opposite vector or direction, g becomes zero or even funnier, a negative number which would give our object a negative weight such as "lighter than air". Now the problem is that the density of air at ground level and pretty much through our entire atmosphere is more dense than helium which causes it to place a force on the helium greater than the force of gravity and in the opposite direction. Remember "g" of the equation. If you now add these forces at the point of measure to get the actual value of "g", you will get a number that is less than zero for this particular gas which when plugged into your equation, will give a weight of less than zero as well, hence, the gas floats away. > therefore, acceleration does NOT equal zero, so for 'mass x acceleration ' > to equal zero, mass must be zero I guess that you really are this dumb or at least as mathematically/logically challenged as you accuse me of being. But to make this even simple enough for you to understand, if you put your quantity of helium or any other substance on a scale under normal conditions, and get no reading, then it has no downward force or no weight, PERIOD. > now, I know this is heavy math/logic for somebody that do |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message