Cool Experiment Idea

James___ wrote:
deleted the experiment.

GasGuzzler wrote:

James___ wrote:
deleted the experiment.

How many fingers do you have left?

James___ wrote: You guys might not get it but a lead weight shouldn't sink below a depth of 365 feet. At that point the pressure is greater than the density of lead. But the lead weight will sink all the way to the seafloor.

James___ wrote:
You guys might not get it but a lead weight shouldn't sink below a depth of 365 feet. At that point the pressure is greater than the density of lead. But the lead weight will sink all the way to the seafloor.

HarveyH55 wrote:Does pressure only effect water, and not the lead?

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Does pressure only effect water, and not the lead?

The pressure obviously applies to both the lead and the water. The mistake James__ made is by presuming that the water compresses with increased pressure like air does while intuitively recognizing that the lead will not compress any further.

Water does not compress like air. The lead does not therefore increase in buoyancy as the pressure increases.



.

HarveyH55 wrote:
You just touch on why laboratory results, and real world results, are never the same... We live in a very noisy, dynamic world. All kinds of stuff moving around, by different forms of energy. Laboratories try to reduce the noise, and just focus on whatever it is they are trying to study, without the outside influences. The theoretical guys, just ignore everything, they subjectively determine, to no be of no consequence to the subject at hand.

Sure, you can warm CO2 in a jar, with infrared light. Of course, you are also going to warm the jar, the table it's sitting on, and everything else under the 'heat' lamp. We are on concerned about the CO2 warming, the table heating up, doesn't matter.

Past 365 feet, does the rate of the lead falling, increase or decrease, do to the pressure?

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
You just touch on why laboratory results, and real world results, are never the same... We live in a very noisy, dynamic world. All kinds of stuff moving around, by different forms of energy. Laboratories try to reduce the noise, and just focus on whatever it is they are trying to study, without the outside influences. The theoretical guys, just ignore everything, they subjectively determine, to no be of no consequence to the subject at hand.

Sure, you can warm CO2 in a jar, with infrared light. Of course, you are also going to warm the jar, the table it's sitting on, and everything else under the 'heat' lamp. We are on concerned about the CO2 warming, the table heating up, doesn't matter.

Past 365 feet, does the rate of the lead falling, increase or decrease, do to the pressure?

Actually with your first part, I am pursuing an experiment, right? And it will be conducted outside with outside physically observable influences cancelled out.
And if as I suspect something happens when nothing should, for some people, that will be exciting. For people like you, just something else to complain about.
You say we are on concerned about CO2. The correct grammar would be we are all concerned. Myself, I really don't engage myself in the global warming debate.
My main interest is the ozone layer and if what I'm pursuing might help us to better understand atmospheric chemistry.

James___ wrote:
If you read my posts, I often cite that the climate has changed in the past as well. Kind of why I'll discuss the Gulf Stream and geology.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
You just touch on why laboratory results, and real world results, are never the same... We live in a very noisy, dynamic world. All kinds of stuff moving around, by different forms of energy. Laboratories try to reduce the noise, and just focus on whatever it is they are trying to study, without the outside influences. The theoretical guys, just ignore everything, they subjectively determine, to no be of no consequence to the subject at hand.

Sure, you can warm CO2 in a jar, with infrared light. Of course, you are also going to warm the jar, the table it's sitting on, and everything else under the 'heat' lamp. We are on concerned about the CO2 warming, the table heating up, doesn't matter.

Past 365 feet, does the rate of the lead falling, increase or decrease, do to the pressure?

Actually with your first part, I am pursuing an experiment, right? And it will be conducted outside with outside physically observable influences cancelled out.
And if as I suspect something happens when nothing should, for some people, that will be exciting. For people like you, just something else to complain about.
You say we are on concerned about CO2. The correct grammar would be we are all concerned. Myself, I really don't engage myself in the global warming debate.
My main interest is the ozone layer and if what I'm pursuing might help us to better understand atmospheric chemistry.

Buzzword fallacies. Word salad.

James___ wrote:
If you read my posts, I often cite that the climate has changed in the past as well. Kind of why I'll discuss the Gulf Stream and geology.

Define 'climate change'. You had better learn geography first.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
You just touch on why laboratory results, and real world results, are never the same... We live in a very noisy, dynamic world. All kinds of stuff moving around, by different forms of energy. Laboratories try to reduce the noise, and just focus on whatever it is they are trying to study, without the outside influences. The theoretical guys, just ignore everything, they subjectively determine, to no be of no consequence to the subject at hand.

Sure, you can warm CO2 in a jar, with infrared light. Of course, you are also going to warm the jar, the table it's sitting on, and everything else under the 'heat' lamp. We are on concerned about the CO2 warming, the table heating up, doesn't matter.

Past 365 feet, does the rate of the lead falling, increase or decrease, do to the pressure?

Actually with your first part, I am pursuing an experiment, right? And it will be conducted outside with outside physically observable influences cancelled out.
And if as I suspect something happens when nothing should, for some people, that will be exciting. For people like you, just something else to complain about.
You say we are on concerned about CO2. The correct grammar would be we are all concerned. Myself, I really don't engage myself in the global warming debate.
My main interest is the ozone layer and if what I'm pursuing might help us to better understand atmospheric chemistry.

Buzzword fallacies. Word salad.

James___ wrote:
If you read my posts, I often cite that the climate has changed in the past as well. Kind of why I'll discuss the Gulf Stream and geology.

Define 'climate change'. You had better learn geography first.

An example of climate change are the brown bears now found in territory that used to be exclusive polar bear territory.

James___ wrote:
That demonstrates that that climate has changed.

James___ wrote:
Brown bears prefer warmer weather while polar bears prefer arctic conditions.

James___ wrote:
That's like the white whale migrating from around the south of Greenland into the Hudson Bay which is fed by the cold Labrador Current. White whales also prefer arctic conditions.

James___ wrote:
Also sharks are now common off of Cape Cod in Massachusetts.

James___ wrote:
When the movie Jaws was released in 1975, it was based on a shark attack, the shark killed quite a few kids in New Jersey in the early 1900s.

James___ wrote:
Just a rare event 100 years ago but today it has become normal for sharks to be further north.

James___ wrote:
I think when the territory that fauna are found in changes that represents climate change.

James___ wrote:
You need to get out of Seattle more.

James___ wrote:
The Pacific Northwest is a very beautiful area (maybe too many people live there now?) but other parts of the country/world are nice as well.

Into the Night wrote:
In their own way. Some people can't stand the Pacific Northwest. The long dark gray winters kinda get to them.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Most animal follow the food... Not all places produce food all year, for some animal, which usually end up as food, for some other species. Of course, you can hunt Kentucky-style, and just scrape up, whatever fuzzy, off the interstate...

It's not really the climate, it's the available resources, food, water, shelter. I'm down to one cat, the older hasn't been back since Christmas day, so he's probably gone for good. The you cat, stays indoors mostly, so no need to leave out food or water. Still have opossums, but no raccoons for a while. Fortunately, they found a more reliable source of food and water.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Most animal follow the food... Not all places produce food all year, for some animal, which usually end up as food, for some other species. Of course, you can hunt Kentucky-style, and just scrape up, whatever fuzzy, off the interstate...

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's not really the climate, it's the available resources, food, water, shelter. I'm down to one cat, the older hasn't been back since Christmas day, so he's probably gone for good. The you cat, stays indoors mostly, so no need to leave out food or water. Still have opossums, but no raccoons for a while. Fortunately, they found a more reliable source of food and water.