| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sea Squid" |
| Date: |
24 Feb 2005 02:26:54 AM |
| Object: |
What is the water pressure on top of the pipe? |
Now I have a bottle with water, and a pipe is inserted into the lid
and drain water to the ground. What will be the absolute water pressure
.
|
|
| User: "Sea Squid" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the water pressure on top of the pipe? |
24 Feb 2005 02:29:58 AM |
|
|
Now I have a bottle half full of water, and a pipe is inserted into the lid
and drain water to the ground. What will be the absolute water pressure
at the top of the pipe(at the lid)? If I install a mini-pump at the top and
drain water out of it, will it save any energy compared to pumping water
from the bottle itself?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the water pressure on top of the pipe? |
24 Feb 2005 04:31:15 AM |
|
|
"Sea Squid" <Sea.Squid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:421d8f31$1@news.starhub.net.sg...
Now I have a bottle half full of water, and a pipe is inserted into
the lid
and drain water to the ground. What will be the absolute water
pressure
at the top of the pipe(at the lid)? If I install a mini-pump at the
top and
drain water out of it, will it save any energy compared to pumping
water
from the bottle itself?
No. You'll pay for the heat wasted in the pump motor.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the water pressure on top of the pipe? |
24 Feb 2005 09:51:19 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]
Androcles
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EnergyConservation.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HopeThatHelps.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PrizeYours.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CoverUp.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GDefence.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OneDim.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gullible.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelativityCancer.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Androrgasm.html>
Androcyst is a spewing psychotic idiot troll.
Why are you having so much trouble with basic algebra?
Let L = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary
frame.
Let L' = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the moving
frame.
Let v = speed of Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary frame
(with Joe in front of Sam).
Let L_1 = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_1' = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_1 = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_1' = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured
in the moving frame.
Let L_2 = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_2' = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_2 = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_2' = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured
in the moving frame.
What people are saying to you is that
1) L_1 = cL/(c-v)
2) L_1/T_1 = c
3) L_1' = L'
4) L_1'/T_1' = c
5) L_2 = cL/(c+v)
6) L_2/T_2 = c
7) L_2' = L'
8) L_2'/T_2' = c
So
L_1 is *not* equal to L_2
L_1 is *not* equal to L
L_1 is *not* equal to L'
L_1 is *not* equal to L_1'
L_2 is *not* equal to L
L_2 is *not* equal to L'
L_2 is *not* equal to L_2'
T_1 is *not* equal to T_2
T_1 is *not* equal to L/c
T_1 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_1 is *not* equal to T_1'
T_2 is *not* equal to L/c
T_2 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_2 is *not* equal to T_2'
On the other hand,
L_1' is equal to L_2'
L_1' is equal to L'
L_2' is equal to L'
T_1' is equal to T_2'
T_1' is equal to L'/c
T_2' is equal to L'/c
Is there yet another way for you to misunderstand?
Einstein:
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Taking a = x, b = t + x'/(c-v), the functional equation above becomes:
tau(0,0,0,b-a/(c-v)) + tau(0,0,0,b+a/(c+v)) = 2 tau(a,0,0,b).
Defining the function F(k) = 2 tau(0,0,0,k), it then follows that
tau(a,0,0,b) = F(b-a/(c-v)) + F(b+a/(c+v)).
Conversely, taking a = 0 in the equation above, it follows that
tau(0,0,0,b) = F(b) + F(b) = 2F(b).
Therefore, the general solution to the functional equation above is:
tau(a,0,0,b) = F(b-a/(c-v)) + F(b+a/(c+v))
where F is otherwise arbitrary.
(Further restrictions cited in the paper then narrow down the function
F(x); this also shows that the assumption in the paper of
differentiability is entirely superfluous. The derivation above
proceeds without any assumption about tau being differentiable or even
continuous.)
Thus, going back to Einstein's notation with x' = x - vt, it follows
that
tau(x-vt,0,0,t) = F((ct-x)/(c-v)) + F((ct+x)/(c-v))
which shows that the natural coordinates that enter into play are ct-x
and ct+x.
In terms of these the Lorentz transformation simplifies substantially:
ct-x -> sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) (ct-x)
ct+x -> sqrt((c-v)/(c+v)) (ct+x)
involving, respectively, a blue shift and red shift factor and
directly representing the Relativistic Doppler effect.
If two Lorentz transformation are done along the x axis at velocities
v1 and v2 respectively, then the factors would multiple:
sqrt((c+v1)/(c-v1)) sqrt((c+v2)/(c-v2))
which reduces to a Lorentz transform with a velocity v given by:
sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) = sqrt((c+v1)/(c-v1)) sqrt((c+v2)/(c-v2))
Solving this for v, you get:
v = (v1 + v2)/(1 + v1 v2/c^2)
So the velocity addition rule becomes the addition rule for the
"rapidity":
u = c/2 ln((c+v)/(c-v))
with
u = u1 + u2.
Rapidity and velocity are virtually identical. For a vessel going at
v= 3km/second,
|v - u| ~~ 6 microns/second.
Therefore, velocities (redefined as rapidities) add as usual in
Relativity, as well as in Newtonian physics.
Hey idiot Androcles,
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>
reposting the same idiot drool that has been so thoroughly, utterly
publicly discredited by those who can do math (e.g., Randy Poe, in
disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely demonstrates what an
intractible idiot you are.
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical observation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.
Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles. Your ignorance, incompetence, and
psychosis are not of interest to the world at large. Quite the
contrary. You are not even an interesting laughingstock.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are fucked,
idiot Androcles.
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are fucked, idiot
Androcles.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf>
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-fucked psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.
Androcyst and logs:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogsHuh.html
Androcyst and vectors:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorSpaces.html
Androcyst and limits:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegativeInfinity.html
Androcyst and equations:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroDistri.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ToothlessBite.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UseTrans.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sheesh.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DivZero.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Think.html
Androcyst and square roots:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/STILL.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CanSpecify.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nearly.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Quadratic.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GrowUp.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Tautology.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Material.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GIVEN.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PythagoRescue.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtRev.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html
Androcyst and exclusive ors:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
Androcyst and partial differential equations:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the water pressure on top of the pipe? |
24 Feb 2005 10:08:26 AM |
|
|
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer (Alan Schwartz),
the royal fuckwit, "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:421CA8D5.202258D0@hate.spam.net...
Why are you having so much trouble with basic algebra?
Let L_1 = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the stationary frame.
1) L_1 = cL/(c-v)
What a right royal stooopid *****.
See the peeing puppy moortel, he'll not be glad to add
you to his list of truly IMMORTAL fumbles. I will, though.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alex Hunsley" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the water pressure on top of the pipe? |
25 Feb 2005 07:29:14 AM |
|
|
Sea Squid wrote:
Now I have a bottle with water, and a pipe is inserted into the lid
and drain water to the ground. What will be the absolute water pressure
15.879
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the water pressure on top of the pipe? |
27 Feb 2005 11:54:37 AM |
|
|
I have a 20 inch pipe up 1100 feet in 3 miles.
A sliding vane slides up and blocks the water 100% with a 20x30 inch
plate.
300,000 pounds of thrust as the plate is pushed forward at 35 mph it
turns the 48 inch wheel at 35 mph with 300,000 T.
150 tons of thrust on a 48 inch wheel that rides against a 30 foot
sliding vane rotor that is pushed by 500 psi against a 20 x 30 inch
sliding vane.
600,000 foot pounds at 24 inch R at 500 rpm
is 57,000 HP .
Electric cost $ 1 per HP day .
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the water pressure on top of the pipe? |
24 Feb 2005 03:16:15 PM |
|
|
Sea Squint
Ask any jarhead. The vaccume wount let much water out and the psi
is equal the vacume minus the wieght of the water.
the jug has about 1/4 psi max so the max vacume is 1/4 psi and the gage
at the pipe top is allmost 0 and more vaccume might cause it to suck
some air and the psi would be less than 0 .
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the water pressure on top of the pipe? |
24 Feb 2005 03:15:22 PM |
|
|
Sea Squint
Ask any jarhead. The vaccume wount let much water out and the psi
is equal the vacume minus the wieght of the water.
the jug has about 1/4 psi max so the max vacume is 1/4 psi and the gage
at the pipe top is allmost 0.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sea Squid" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the water pressure on top of the pipe? |
24 Feb 2005 07:18:03 PM |
|
|
Don't understand.
Basically what is needed to drain water from a high place to a low place
is the volume of water going into the pipe is the same as the volume of
water coming out of the other end. Here is a plan to drain water from the
dam to a 10m higher.
I put a pipe one end of which merged in the dam, another end is merged in a
another dam whose water level is 1m lower than source dam. The pipe goes
above a hill of 10m above the water level of my source dam. On the top of
the hill, a pump is used to draw water from the pipe. Another pump is used
on a level of 2m above water level of destination dam and mix clay and sand
into the pipe to create a 2000kg/cubic-m mixture liquid. As a result, 1000kg
of clay will transport 1000kg of water to the top of the hill.
Does my plan work? ;)
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21567-421E43EA-156@storefull-3215.bay.webtv.net...
Sea Squint
Ask any jarhead. The vaccume wount let much water out and the psi
is equal the vacume minus the wieght of the water.
the jug has about 1/4 psi max so the max vacume is 1/4 psi and the gage
at the pipe top is allmost 0.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the water pressure on top of the pipe? |
27 Feb 2005 11:44:22 AM |
|
|
If the hill is less than the vacume made by a longer down out slope you
wount nead a pump to syphen water over a small hill to a lower pond.
But the clay wount work ,,thats near retarted.
I still dont know what your doing..why dont you just tell us what's
going on ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sea Squid" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the water pressure on top of the pipe? |
27 Feb 2005 07:26:27 PM |
|
|
I was daydreaming. lol.
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21775-422206F6-31@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net...
If the hill is less than the vacume made by a longer down out slope you
wount nead a pump to syphen water over a small hill to a lower pond.
But the clay wount work ,,thats near retarted.
I still dont know what your doing..why dont you just tell us what's
going on ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the water pressure on top of the pipe? |
24 Feb 2005 07:29:38 PM |
|
|
Sea Squid wrote:
Don't understand.
Basically what is needed to drain water from a high place to a low place
is the volume of water going into the pipe is the same as the volume of
water coming out of the other end. Here is a plan to drain water from the
dam to a 10m higher.
I put a pipe one end of which merged in the dam, another end is merged in a
another dam whose water level is 1m lower than source dam. The pipe goes
above a hill of 10m above the water level of my source dam. On the top of
the hill, a pump is used to draw water from the pipe. Another pump is used
on a level of 2m above water level of destination dam and mix clay and sand
into the pipe to create a 2000kg/cubic-m mixture liquid. As a result, 1000kg
of clay will transport 1000kg of water to the top of the hill.
Does my plan work? ;)
[snip]
Sucking water 10 meters up to the top of a siphon is cutting it very
close. In the best of all worlds you might get 10.33 meters. Pumping
it up is, of course, totally OK.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
