Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84076
  • *Latest: kasim13

  • *Total Posts: 894642
  • *Total Topics: 15737
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 14
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: What's wrong with this  (Read 43120 times)

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5236
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #135 on: January 01, 2015, 03:58:09 AM »
  I have no doubt that ultimately Tinman will observe and accept the truth.
I hope this go's both way's Mark,despite what you may believe physics is trying to tell you..

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #135 on: January 01, 2015, 03:58:09 AM »

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #136 on: January 01, 2015, 03:59:29 AM »
I hope this go's both way's Mark,despite what you may believe physics is trying to tell you..
The data always tells the story.

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5236
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #137 on: January 01, 2015, 11:48:11 AM »
I decided to spend the $60,00 odd today,and throw together a quick device to show the effect taking place. The workings of the internals of this vessel are a very quick throw together job,and quite inefficient for the size of the vessel. But none the less,you can see what happens when i apply power to the internal working's. The effect is small,but it is there. I have run the test 11 times now,and the results are always the same. The one problem with running the device out of the water is the heat created,although it is very little with this one,as the P/in is only about 2 watts. Higher power levels produce much faster and higher result's in weight loss,but cooling is also needed when the power levels are that high.

It may be time to open up your mind's,and give rise to the possability that man hasnt tried all there is to try,regardless of his 2000 years experiance with buoyancy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhPVk0JaweA

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #137 on: January 01, 2015, 11:48:11 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #138 on: January 01, 2015, 12:09:33 PM »
Tinman:

I am not here to argue about the buoyancy issue you are discussing, but rather to comment on your experimental procedure.

Why didn't you place the device when not powered on the scale and wait a few minutes to see what happens?  You have to rule out the possibility that the scale readout will drift over time.

Also, why not put the device on a higher pedestal so that you can keep the electrical wires at least say nine inches away from the scale to rule out any electrical interference from the wires affecting the electronic guts of the scale?

MileHigh

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5236
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #139 on: January 01, 2015, 12:38:09 PM »
Tinman:

I am not here to argue about the buoyancy issue you are discussing, but rather to comment on your experimental procedure.

Why didn't you place the device when not powered on the scale and wait a few minutes to see what happens?  You have to rule out the possibility that the scale readout will drift over time.

Also, why not put the device on a higher pedestal so that you can keep the electrical wires at least say nine inches away from the scale to rule out any electrical interference from the wires affecting the electronic guts of the scale?

MileHigh
This is as far as im going with this here MH,but yes,you are right-we shouldnt ruel anything out.
Some things we see,and some things we dont. I have spent enough time and money on a backward step to where my (and others)reserch is at on this effect at the moment. In time to come the blindfolds will be lifted,and a new light will shine on what possabilities lie ahead. There is no claim of any OU event,nor will there ever be one-but more an untapped power source provided to us by nature. The one thing i can say for sure is that despite 2000 years of buoyancy experience,they havnt tried everything yet,and that holds true with fluids reactions with electrical current. Maybe people should look a little further into makeing spirits a little more electrically conductive,or something like that. ;)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #139 on: January 01, 2015, 12:38:09 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #140 on: January 01, 2015, 02:30:30 PM »
Nice demonstration, I can appreciate the time and effort that went into that. But let me relate a little story:

We had a very similar experiment presented to us at ISSO back in 1999 or 2000. Viktor Roznyay had been funded by Joe Firmage to the tune of nearly a million dollars, and he was applying for a renewal of his grant. He had an "antigravity" device that was supposed to work by passing a heavy arc inside a mercury ignitron tube. He made a completely self-contained demonstrator that could be set up on his balance. The device had batteries, a power supply, the ignitron tube and a load bank made of a row of standard cement power resistors, and could be turned on and off by remote control.  The balance was a symmetrical beam balance with a sensitive straingauge readout. We made a draftproof enclosure for it, used a totally wooden table with no metal fasteners, etc. The device was set on the scale and turned on by remote control. Sure enough, it got lighter according to the scale readout over the span of a few minutes, and even at about the same rate and by the same amount as what Tinman shows in the video above. It got lighter and lighter, the weight being continuously recorded by a LabView system on a laptop, making a  nice realtime graph of weight vs time. Ken Shoulders, Hal Puthoff, Hawkins Kirk, and some other big names were there witnessing the event. Viktor assured us all that it was not any kind of thermal effect. When the device was turned off the device slowly returned to its "normal" weight. I still remember Ken Shoulders saying "so antigravity has a memory?" His point was that perhaps a real AG device would have regained its full weight as soon as the power was off. Perhaps.
Well, everyone was amazed in different ways, and we broke for lunch. During the break, several of us thought of some further tests. Since the balance was a beam balance with equal arms and a counterweight on the other "pan", the first thing we did was to swap sides. We put the device on the other pan, and the CW where the device had been for the first test. But we made an " error " in setting it up: The front face of the device faced in the same direction as it had before. That is, the morning test had the device on the left pan, facing away from the balance fulcrum. For the afternoon test we placed it on the right pan, but we didn't turn the device around, and so it faced _toward_ the balance fulcrum.
So we all gathered around, with Viktor and his assistant sitting off to the side. We used the remote control to turn the device on. What do you suppose happened? You can probably guess... it proceeded to get _heavier_ according to the scale readout. Dead silence, eyes turned to Viktor. "Did you know about this?" he was asked. "Yes, but we couldn't explain it so we didn't report it."  Facepalms all round. Clearly there was something wrong. Some further experimentation showed that the weight result depended on the orientation of the device on the balance; if you rotated it to just the right angle, it showed no weight change. It could be made to show a heavier, or a lighter, result depending on the rotation angle.
I had already seen inside the device (I took the covers off to look inside the night before the testing) and I began to suspect what was happening. And we were able to confirm that my guess was right: the framework supporting the load bank resistors was warping slightly from the heat, and this changed the position of the center of mass of the device, tilting the bank towards, or away from, the balance fulcrum. Since Viktor's custom-made balance did _not_ have tilting pans, this effect changed the lever arm of the balance and so produced a false indication of actual weight change. Very subtle, an interaction between something moving inside the device and the odd design flaw in the balance itself.
Needless to say, Viktor didn't get his further million dollars, and went away mad and embarrassed.

I'm not suggesting the _exact_ thing could be happening with Tinman's apparatus, but the story is interesting, isn't it? A laboratory of smart people with a _lot of money_ to support them, over the span of a year, were thinking they had a real weight change effect in their apparatus, when in fact it was a subtle artifact of both the construction of the device and their measuring equipment. They were so confident that they travelled all the way from Hungary to California, set up their equipment in front of an "all star" team of scientists and investigators and a _deep pocket_ funder for a demonstration... and were shot down in flames in a single day of proper experimentation and analysis.

There are some big differences between Tinman's setup and Viktor's, the most easily observable one being the electronic scale, vs. Viktor's balance beam. However... since the time course and magnitude of the weight effect is so similar to what we saw then, it seems very important to me to rule out a similar cause or set of causes.
Remember, Viktor thought that he had ruled out thermal effects... but he hadn't. He thought his very sensitive beam balance was precise and accurate... and it was, but for the design flaw that allowed center-of-mass changes to affect the reading. He thought that his experiments were bulletproof... but they weren't, since he had not done the _critical control experiment_ of putting the device on the other pan, without rotating it. He thought he was a shoo-in for another million dollar grant... but he failed to get it, and in fact based on this experience JF decided not to fund him any more at all, and liquidated the remains of Viktor's local setup.

So the first thing I'd suggest to Tinman is to find another weight measurement system and see if the effect is the same, in both direction and magnitude and time course, with the different system. Vibration, for example from bubbles being released from a submerged heating element, can affect scales of the type used in the video, and this is something that has caused many researchers to believe that they have discovered something. Sandy Kidd, Dean, Cox, and other people have fallen for the vibration artifact-- but different weighing systems respond differently to the vibration effect. Next, I'd examine carefully the innards of the device to make absolutely sure that nothing is moving to change the center of gravity. The device is pretty tall and it is possible that a tilted force on the scale is altering its reading. It is also true that these kinds of scales are subject to faulty readings due to EMI from power supplies and other circuitry, although in that case one would expect the indications to be more strongly related to the on-off state of the power feed. Nevertheless it must be solidly ruled out; using a different weighing system should take care of that.

Good for you, Brad, for setting up your demonstration and showing the result. It's a very good starting point. I especially like the balloon, showing that there is not any buildup in pressure which might have swollen the outer container and produced some change in buoyancy in air. (Don't laugh... this buoyancy in air due to a swollen container was the cause of another reproducible measured weight loss in a device designed by Jim Woodward, that was finally tracked down by another scientist with a proper control experiment. The effect is larger than you might think, easily capable of producing a few grams change in a large device like Tinman's.) But the non-swollen balloon _probably_ rules out that effect here.

Cheers mate, and keep experimenting, and don't forget the +proper+ control experiment.
--TK   ;)

----------------------

"The easiest person to fool is... yourself."
--Richard Feynman

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #141 on: January 01, 2015, 03:07:15 PM »
I decided to spend the $60,00 odd today,and throw together a quick device to show the effect taking place. The workings of the internals of this vessel are a very quick throw together job,and quite inefficient for the size of the vessel. But none the less,you can see what happens when i apply power to the internal working's. The effect is small,but it is there. I have run the test 11 times now,and the results are always the same. The one problem with running the device out of the water is the heat created,although it is very little with this one,as the P/in is only about 2 watts. Higher power levels produce much faster and higher result's in weight loss,but cooling is also needed when the power levels are that high.

It may be time to open up your mind's,and give rise to the possability that man hasnt tried all there is to try,regardless of his 2000 years experiance with buoyancy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhPVk0JaweA
OK so so far we have an experiment where:

1) A vessel containing some liquid and (a heating element?) indicates an initial weight of 2.773
2) Over a period of several minutes powered the weight indication decreases to 2.768 or -0.18%
3) Statements that the experiment has been performed repeatedly with similar results each time
4) Statements that in prior runs if the heat is removed that the indicated weight returns to its original value  (I am not sure how that was obtained as the scale shuts off.)
5) A proposed conclusion that the heating process reduces the weight of the vessel plus contents

Is this correct?

I too like the experiment and the effort applied to obtain objective results.  I take it that the block of wood is intended to keep the weigh pan from heating up.

So, now we have the issue of how to perform adequate null experiments within your time and budget.  I have a couple of suggestions.  If the hypothesis is that state change of whatever liquid is being used reduces weight, then a shorter container with the same initial amount of liquid and a similar heating element should indicate weight loss at the same absolute rate.  If however, the CoG is shifting, then the absolute rate will probably change much more slowly with a shorter structure.  Alternatively, without building anything else, you might just repeat the experiment by carefully rotating the tower 90 degrees then 180, and then 270 degrees even before heating the innards to see how that affects your scale.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #141 on: January 01, 2015, 03:07:15 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #142 on: January 01, 2015, 06:30:39 PM »
TK:

Quote
Dead silence, eyes turned to Viktor. "Did you know about this?" he was asked. "Yes, but we couldn't explain it so we didn't report it."  Facepalms all round. Clearly there was something wrong. Some further experimentation showed that the weight result depended on the orientation of the device on the balance; if you rotated it to just the right angle, it showed no weight change. It could be made to show a heavier, or a lighter, result depending on the rotation angle.

Quote
Since Viktor's custom-made balance did _not_ have tilting pans, this effect changed the lever arm of the balance and so produced a false indication of actual weight change.

That's an amazing story.  For the first highlight the guy deserves a cut-off in funding and a kick in the ass as he went out the door.   That even looks like a scam for another million dollars so they could ultimately sit at their desks and surf the Internet and try to look busy like what I always speculated about Steorn.

The second highlight is again almost unbelievable because the moment you mention "beam balance" you see the "scales of justice" balance in your mind.  No pans and no fixed fulcrum for the pans means it is not even a beam balance.  It's a retarded Bizarro balance.  That deserves a second swift kick in the ass as the guy went out the door and consulting with the local district attorney.

That's just as bad as the university guy that made the "retarded rotating spaghetti laser interferometer experiment" in search of the ether but all that it did was deform under the varying stresses of gravity as it rotated through a complete cycle.  Or the 10-coiler powering a house!

MileHigh

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #143 on: January 01, 2015, 07:17:36 PM »
The difference with Tinman is that AFAICT he is honestly trying to approach the situation objectively. 

Another thought occurred to me:  Get a second scale, and place the tower on a stiff platform of plastic or wood that spans the two identical scales.  Take the sum of the readings from the two scales.  Then repeat the experiment with the platform rotated 90 degrees relative to the scales.  This will show any shift in CoG along one axis in each experiment.  It should also allow one to null out any shift in CoG in one axis during each experiment by using the sum of the readings from both scales.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #143 on: January 01, 2015, 07:17:36 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5236
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #144 on: January 02, 2015, 10:29:08 AM »
OK so so far we have an experiment where:

4) Statements that in prior runs if the heat is removed that the indicated weight returns to its original value  (I am not sure how that was obtained as the scale shuts off.)

I too like the experiment and the effort applied to obtain objective results.  I take it that the block of wood is intended to keep the weigh pan from heating up.

4)-I find it hard to believe that a man of your tallent and knowledge wouldnt know how something as simple as this could be done. When the scales switch off and then turned back on,they zero back out with the vessel still on them. When the vessel is removed the scales read a negative value that is equal to the weight value of the vessel. 2nd method-the vessel is removed from the scales,and then after cooling off,is placed back onto the scales to read a value that is the same as the test starting point value.

There is 3 pieces of timber glued under the vessel acting as feet, as there is two S/S bolts protruding out of the bottom cap of the vessel which are the conections to the cell inside the vessel.

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5236
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #145 on: January 02, 2015, 10:55:36 AM »
The difference with Tinman is that AFAICT he is honestly trying to approach the situation objectively. 

Another thought occurred to me:  Get a second scale, and place the tower on a stiff platform of plastic or wood that spans the two identical scales.  Take the sum of the readings from the two scales.  Then repeat the experiment with the platform rotated 90 degrees relative to the scales.  This will show any shift in CoG along one axis in each experiment.  It should also allow one to null out any shift in CoG in one axis during each experiment by using the sum of the readings from both scales.
The thought im haveing is to get away from the same old same old. What i mean by this is,insted of you top guns telling us wee little people what we should be doing as far as testing go's,would be to get off ya a-s and do them your self ;). What i and many others have found over time is that it dosnt matter what test we do,until our test show a result you top guns like to see,and meets your expected outcome,you just insist that we do more and more test. Saying things like the scales might read wrong if there is some sort of imballance of the device on the scale,is like saying a glass of water will weigh more on the left side of the scales than it dose on the right side of the scale-which it dosnt with these scales.

So like i said before,i have no intention of going backwards and carrying out test i have already done-like the buoyancy test. There is also the fact that there are eyes here that take other peoples ideas and run off with them ,hoping to make a quick buck. Some years back i did a very controlled test on a simple ssg pulse motor clearly showing that alternating magnets(N/S/N/S) were the most efficient way to go(video on my youtube account with time and date). So about a month later Arron the rookie and Peter blo-dy Lindermann come out with a new and far more efficient ssg setup that uses alternating magnets(N/S/N/S) on the rotor-->whats the chances of that after them saying for years that it must be all north fields out ::) There was also another design i came up with that used a water battery,and a way to reverse the electroplating effect with the copper and zink plates-and guess what,that was taken and used by some one else,and it is actually making them money. Chet knows about this one,but i wont take it any further because i still like the guy that is useing the effect to run his product.

For these reasons along with mechanical failure,i didnt release my video of the generator running on 70% water on the 1/1/15 like i was going to.

But i leave you with 2 questions Mark-what weighs more,a vessel with a vacuum of say negative 5psi,or the same vessel with 1atm of HHO gas inside it?2- How and what happens to HHO when it itself is under vacuum in that vessel-would the vessel be heaver or lighter when the HHO gas was at 1atm?. These are all test i have done,and will be doing again because it is called for at this time in a different place-a place where there is no one to run off with your work.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #145 on: January 02, 2015, 10:55:36 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Online Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #146 on: January 02, 2015, 08:42:31 PM »
@Tinman

I believe I owe you a debt on several accounts.  Additionally, I hope that you will accept this apology
for my poor behavior during some particular exchanges between us.  I was assuming, condescending, and insinuating etc. .  This was due only to my own perceptual experience, not your fault.  Sorry.

You have my respect.

My gratitude to you also for remaining on topic here.   


I don't know the following to be true with absolute certainty,  but I think

1. you may have been goaded into making your presentation prematurely,
                and
2. you may have been goaded into making your presentation out of the context that is your actual intention as well.

If so,  would you say something about it, in a reply and  from your perspective. ?

From where I'm standing it looks like my little topic here has been raided, and that you are being
artfully harassed.


          floor

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #147 on: January 02, 2015, 09:36:36 PM »
OK so so far we have an experiment where:

4) Statements that in prior runs if the heat is removed that the indicated weight returns to its original value  (I am not sure how that was obtained as the scale shuts off.)

I too like the experiment and the effort applied to obtain objective results.  I take it that the block of wood is intended to keep the weigh pan from heating up.

4)-I find it hard to believe that a man of your tallent and knowledge wouldnt know how something as simple as this could be done. When the scales switch off and then turned back on,they zero back out with the vessel still on them. When the vessel is removed the scales read a negative value that is equal to the weight value of the vessel. 2nd method-the vessel is removed from the scales,and then after cooling off,is placed back onto the scales to read a value that is the same as the test starting point value.
There are lots of things that I can guess.  It is far better for you to state your procedure and avoid assumptions.
Quote

There is 3 pieces of timber glued under the vessel acting as feet, as there is two S/S bolts protruding out of the bottom cap of the vessel which are the conections to the cell inside the vessel.
If you obtain a second scale and perform the tests that I suggested we will get closer to resolving what is behind your present observations.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #148 on: January 02, 2015, 10:12:19 PM »
The thought im haveing is to get away from the same old same old. What i mean by this is,insted of you top guns telling us wee little people what we should be doing as far as testing go's,would be to get off ya a-s and do them your self ;). What i and many others have found over time is that it dosnt matter what test we do,until our test show a result you top guns like to see,and meets your expected outcome,you just insist that we do more and more test. Saying things like the scales might read wrong if there is some sort of imballance of the device on the scale,is like saying a glass of water will weigh more on the left side of the scales than it dose on the right side of the scale-which it dosnt with these scales.
Do you know that for a fact?  Have you taken a 2 - 3 kg weight and weighed it in different positions on the scale?
Quote

So like i said before,i have no intention of going backwards and carrying out test i have already done-like the buoyancy test. There is also the fact that there are eyes here that take other peoples ideas and run off with them ,hoping to make a quick buck. Some years back i did a very controlled test on a simple ssg pulse motor clearly showing that alternating magnets(N/S/N/S) were the most efficient way to go(video on my youtube account with time and date). So about a month later Arron the rookie and Peter blo-dy Lindermann come out with a new and far more efficient ssg setup that uses alternating magnets(N/S/N/S) on the rotor-->whats the chances of that after them saying for years that it must be all north fields out ::) There was also another design i came up with that used a water battery,and a way to reverse the electroplating effect with the copper and zink plates-and guess what,that was taken and used by some one else,and it is actually making them money. Chet knows about this one,but i wont take it any further because i still like the guy that is useing the effect to run his product.

For these reasons along with mechanical failure,i didnt release my video of the generator running on 70% water on the 1/1/15 like i was going to.

But i leave you with 2 questions Mark-what weighs more,a vessel with a vacuum of say negative 5psi,or the same vessel with 1atm of HHO gas inside it?2- How and what happens to HHO when it itself is under vacuum in that vessel-would the vessel be heaver or lighter when the HHO gas was at 1atm?. These are all test i have done,and will be doing again because it is called for at this time in a different place-a place where there is no one to run off with your work.
The weight of an object at some height here on earth tracks the mass of the object and the atmospheric pressure.  For reasonably dense objects, the atmospheric pressure will have such a small effect that it will be below our measurement uncertainty.  For low density things like inflated balloons the atmospheric pressure will make a big percentage difference in the weight.  The mass is a function of the total number of moles of each material that composes the object.  It is independent of the state:  solid, liquid, gas, or plasma of the materials that compose the object.   None of that takes away from your thoughtfully constructed experiment.

There are opportunists out there, and Aaron seems to be one of them.  If you want to discuss things privately with me so that ideas you think are valuable stay away from prying eyes, that is fine with me.

PV = nRT, or P = nRT/V.  The pressure inside a given vessel that contains only gas depends on how many moles of gas are inside and at what temperature and the vessel's interior volume.  HHO (H2 and O2) is roughly 34g/2 moles ~= 17g/mole.  Dry air is denser at ~29g/mole.  So there is considerably less mass at any pressure in a gas mixture of "HHO" than there is dry air.  A volume of air at: 9.7psia * ~29g/mole is about 12% more dense than  the same volume of HHO at: 14.7psia * ~17g/mole.  In order to reduce the pressure inside a vessel you either have to: cool it down, make it bigger, or remove material.  For a vessel that has a constant interior volume and that is held at a constant temperature, the only variable left is the amount of material inside the volume.  When you remove material you reduce the mass inside the vessel.

Online Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
Re: What's wrong with this
« Reply #149 on: January 02, 2015, 10:15:15 PM »
@Tinman

I believe I owe you a debt on several accounts.  Additionally, I hope that you will accept this apology
for my poor behavior during some particular exchanges between us.  I was assuming, condescending, and insinuating etc. .  This was due only to my own perceptual experience, not your fault.  Sorry.

You have my respect.

My gratitude to you also for remaining on topic here.   


I don't know the following to be true with absolute certainty,  but I think

1. you may have been goaded into making your presentation prematurely,
                and
2. you may have been goaded into making your presentation out of the context that is your actual intention as well.

If so,  would you say something about it, in a reply and  from your perspective. ?

From where I'm standing it looks like my little topic here has been raided, and that you are being
artfully harassed.

                 Additionally, I would  like to acknowledge that this might not be the case. 
It may be that it's just a bunch of people hav'nt realized that they might not be having a
good effect on the forum ?


          floor

 

OneLink