From ice core analysis to temperature curves

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > From ice core analysis to temperature curves > Page 7

Page 7 of 7

03-09-2021 04:58
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Hi James, Just some numbers I pulled... Here's one from a NY times article "By one estimate, a person who weighs 150 pounds on the surface of the earth would weigh approximately 149.92 pounds at 10,000 feet above sea level." The air pressure in Denver now looks like 12.1 psi, and in San Francisco 14.72 psi Regarding Gravity and altitude The NY Times article gave the explanation... "The more distance you put between yourself and the bulk of the mass of the earth, the less gravitational force it exerts on your body." This made sense to me, the way I imagine gravity works, as a push from all directions. I don't believe just flying 55 miles up, beyond almost all air, would cancel gravity forces by much at all. They say satellites are using gravity, but just going forward so fast that they miss hitting the ground. Another interesting point to me is you weigh a 1 pound less at the equator than at the north pole.
03-09-2021 05:24
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Spongy Iris wrote: Hi James, Just some numbers I pulled... Here's one from a NY times article "By one estimate, a person who weighs 150 pounds on the surface of the earth would weigh approximately 149.92 pounds at 10,000 feet above sea level." The air pressure in Denver now looks like 12.1 psi, and in San Francisco 14.72 psi Regarding Gravity and altitude The NY Times article gave the explanation... "The more distance you put between yourself and the bulk of the mass of the earth, the less gravitational force it exerts on your body." This made sense to me, the way I imagine gravity works, as a push from all directions. I don't believe just flying 55 miles up, beyond almost all air, would cancel gravity forces by much at all. They say satellites are using gravity, but just going forward so fast that they miss hitting the ground. Another interesting point to me is you weigh a 1 pound less at the equator than at the north pole. Maybe a new thread isn't warranted but we need to get into the math. We need to have constants. Delta in calculus signifies change. Why there are always 2 deltas. It shows a relationship of change. dx/dt is the basic formula and d/t = ma. What is the change in acceleration? Myself, I think I can make the math understandable to everyone. For something as complex as what you described, a step by step process will be necessary. The variations that you mentioned shows what needs to be accounted for. With this, the moment of inertia will need to be considered. Just math people need to know to consider something like this. And I will do my best so everyone will be able to understand it.
03-09-2021 05:53
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	James___ wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Hi James, Just some numbers I pulled... Here's one from a NY times article "By one estimate, a person who weighs 150 pounds on the surface of the earth would weigh approximately 149.92 pounds at 10,000 feet above sea level." The air pressure in Denver now looks like 12.1 psi, and in San Francisco 14.72 psi Regarding Gravity and altitude The NY Times article gave the explanation... "The more distance you put between yourself and the bulk of the mass of the earth, the less gravitational force it exerts on your body." This made sense to me, the way I imagine gravity works, as a push from all directions. I don't believe just flying 55 miles up, beyond almost all air, would cancel gravity forces by much at all. They say satellites are using gravity, but just going forward so fast that they miss hitting the ground. Another interesting point to me is you weigh a 1 pound less at the equator than at the north pole. Maybe a new thread isn't warranted but we need to get into the math. We need to have constants. Delta in calculus signifies change. Why there are always 2 deltas. It shows a relationship of change. dx/dt is the basic formula and d/t = ma. What is the change in acceleration? Myself, I think I can make the math understandable to everyone. For something as complex as what you described, a step by step process will be necessary. The variations that you mentioned shows what needs to be accounted for. With this, the moment of inertia will need to be considered. Just math people need to know to consider something like this. And I will do my best so everyone will be able to understand it. Hey go easy on me with the math I was just thinking if one could get high enough in space, ones vessel would no longer be attracted to the earth... It might become attracted to whatever body of force pushes the opposite way of Earth...
03-09-2021 06:21
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Spongy Iris wrote: James___ wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Hi James, Just some numbers I pulled... Here's one from a NY times article "By one estimate, a person who weighs 150 pounds on the surface of the earth would weigh approximately 149.92 pounds at 10,000 feet above sea level." The air pressure in Denver now looks like 12.1 psi, and in San Francisco 14.72 psi Regarding Gravity and altitude The NY Times article gave the explanation... "The more distance you put between yourself and the bulk of the mass of the earth, the less gravitational force it exerts on your body." This made sense to me, the way I imagine gravity works, as a push from all directions. I don't believe just flying 55 miles up, beyond almost all air, would cancel gravity forces by much at all. They say satellites are using gravity, but just going forward so fast that they miss hitting the ground. Another interesting point to me is you weigh a 1 pound less at the equator than at the north pole. Maybe a new thread isn't warranted but we need to get into the math. We need to have constants. Delta in calculus signifies change. Why there are always 2 deltas. It shows a relationship of change. dx/dt is the basic formula and d/t = ma. What is the change in acceleration? Myself, I think I can make the math understandable to everyone. For something as complex as what you described, a step by step process will be necessary. The variations that you mentioned shows what needs to be accounted for. With this, the moment of inertia will need to be considered. Just math people need to know to consider something like this. And I will do my best so everyone will be able to understand it. Hey go easy on me with the math I was just thinking if one could get high enough in space, ones vessel would no longer be attracted to the earth... It might become attracted to whatever body of force pushes the opposite way of Earth... We're talking atmospheric gasses and not mass escape velocity (MeV). Escape velocity gets into orbital mechanics (rocket science) and the momentum necessary to escape the Earth's gravity. With atmospheric air pressure, that would play a role but it would be more about your vacuum cleaner doing its job. That's different.
03-09-2021 06:30
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Spongy, just know, in Earth sciences such an observation would be extremely important. And yet here we are being anarchists. With the math, it defines the world that we live in. When gfm does something, math defines his taking money from his checking account. If he has direct deposit, math determines that as well. Our atmosphere uses a different math. It's not "pure" math. Just food for thought; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt1YkGO2Ieo Edited on 03-09-2021 06:53

03-09-2021 07:12
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	With sub-orbital mechanics, matter does not have the necessary velocity to escape the Earth's gravitational field. This is what will help to define the Earth's atmosphere as we know it. A sub-orbital velocity means that something will come crashing down back to Earth. This tends to generate heat. And that heat increases the KE of other matter pursuing orbital velocity. While this isn't rocket science, rocket science tends to define it. So you will get a basic understanding of rocket science.
03-09-2021 08:03
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	James___ wrote: Spongy, just know, in Earth sciences such an observation would be extremely important. And yet here we are being anarchists. With the math, it defines the world that we live in. When gfm does something, math defines his taking money from his checking account. If he has direct deposit, math determines that as well. Our atmosphere uses a different math. It's not "pure" math. Just food for thought; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt1YkGO2Ieo Math defines nothing, it describes a concept. Math was developed, to help us describe, and understand the nature of the world we live in. Math doesn't define how nature works. We don't control nature, we only adapt to it.
03-09-2021 08:28
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: James___ wrote: Spongy, just know, in Earth sciences such an observation would be extremely important. And yet here we are being anarchists. With the math, it defines the world that we live in. When gfm does something, math defines his taking money from his checking account. If he has direct deposit, math determines that as well. Our atmosphere uses a different math. It's not "pure" math. Just food for thought; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt1YkGO2Ieo Math defines nothing, it describes a concept. Math was developed, to help us describe, and understand the nature of the world we live in. Math doesn't define how nature works. We don't control nature, we only adapt to it. And you need a better security camera. I watch NCIS and it's too grainy. Math helps us to understand how nature works. Kind of why orbital and sub-orbital velocities matter. After I have my "fun" with wood working, MeV (mass escape velocity) is just basic math. I did post about m1 and m2 and Newton. That's like 1687, right? That's when Newton published his book En Principia. With mass escape velocity, inertia vs gravity. I think you guys can understand this. We are here, right? And Harvey, that is rocket science. It's not complicated. Someone else did the work. Why it's easy for us. p.s., I'll post what MeV is at altitude next week. This is not a 1 day and I will know it type of thing. We're talking 6 months to a year. Could be longer. But we're here, right? Edited on 03-09-2021 08:38
03-09-2021 09:23
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	The MeV (mass escape velocity) of the Earth is 11.2 km/s or 25,000 mph. Any matter (atmospheric gas) will simply fall back to Earth. And then it will accelerate again. And of course the vacuum of space will play a role in this. You bank, right? They have that tube that just moves with no one touching it. That's vacuum moving it. Pressure differentiation.
03-09-2021 16:13
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	James___ wrote: That's vacuum moving it. Pressure differentiation. The vacuum moves nothing. Air pushes the cylinder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHa_WxzYWDI Your welcome. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-09-2021 16:38
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: That's vacuum moving it. Pressure differentiation. The vacuum moves nothing. Air pushes the cylinder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHa_WxzYWDI Your welcome. OMG, Data is my 2nd favorite person on Star Trek right after Quark. Although it is a "matter" of perspective. Vacuum is the inverse (opposite) potential of pressure. And we also know that nature abhors a vacuum. And in the troposphere, gravity only accelerates atmospheric gasses to about 17,000 mph. And the Earth rotates at ~1,000 mph. And now we're getting into "is atmospheric pressure really that high?". If atmospheric pressure on Earth is really about 0.0177 psi, that changes the entire perspective of atmospheric chemistry. It would show minimal compression.
03-09-2021 21:45
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	With our atmosphere, gravity is what prevents it from going out into space. This is why it's doubtful that atmospheric air pressure is 14.7 psi. At the same time solid objects are difficult to lift with a vacuum unless that vacuum is controlled like the tubes they use for banking. Also, 30 he's of mercury is atmospheric air pressure at 59° F. 30 cubic inches of mercury weighs 14.7 lbs. And a column of water water about 33 feet tall and has a 1 square inch of surface area weighs 14.7 kbs. Some online articles about barometer will use a column of water as a reference. This is because a barometer is portable. And it's ability to expand or contract depending on atmospheric air pressure is relative to that of water. It's interesting what's been written that has been overlooked.
03-09-2021 22:07
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: That's vacuum moving it. Pressure differentiation. The vacuum moves nothing. Air pushes the cylinder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHa_WxzYWDI Your welcome. OMG, Data is my 2nd favorite person on Star Trek right after Quark. Although it is a "matter" of perspective. Vacuum is the inverse (opposite) potential of pressure. And we also know that nature abhors a vacuum. And in the troposphere, gravity only accelerates atmospheric gasses to about 17,000 mph. And the Earth rotates at ~1,000 mph. And now we're getting into "is atmospheric pressure really that high?". If atmospheric pressure on Earth is really about 0.0177 psi, that changes the entire perspective of atmospheric chemistry. It would show minimal compression. Wow, imagine 15 lbs of air per square inch hitting the top of your head at 17,000 miles per hour... Also considering... Air hitting you sideways, say a hefty wind gust of 20 mph, can feel a bit heavy if you try to walk against it... A heavy wind gust of 200 mph is enough to knock over trees and houses Edited on 03-09-2021 22:55
04-09-2021 00:10
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Spongy Iris wrote: James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: That's vacuum moving it. Pressure differentiation. The vacuum moves nothing. Air pushes the cylinder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHa_WxzYWDI Your welcome. OMG, Data is my 2nd favorite person on Star Trek right after Quark. Although it is a "matter" of perspective. Vacuum is the inverse (opposite) potential of pressure. And we also know that nature abhors a vacuum. And in the troposphere, gravity only accelerates atmospheric gasses to about 17,000 mph. And the Earth rotates at ~1,000 mph. And now we're getting into "is atmospheric pressure really that high?". If atmospheric pressure on Earth is really about 0.0177 psi, that changes the entire perspective of atmospheric chemistry. It would show minimal compression. Wow, imagine 15 lbs of air per square inch hitting the top of your head at 17,000 miles per hour... Also considering... Air hitting you sideways, say a hefty wind gust of 20 mph, can feel a bit heavy if you try to walk against it... A heavy wind gust of 200 mph is enough to knock over trees and houses With a gust of air hitting you, think of the surface area. Then multiply that by the force of the wind. That's be the total force that you're being hit with. With atmospheric gasses, consider https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4fC-f0xkV4 with more air pressure, the number of molecules would increase and everything would slow down. I did some quick math and a 20 mph wind would have 160 psi of force. I think I red about the experiment a long time ago. The metric system was adopted in 1795. I have let some scientists know that if they had a column of water 9.81 meters tall that the water pressure at the bottom would be 1.033 kgf/cm^2. That's the same as 14.7 psi. Another reason why I think that is this; http://www.scuba-tutor.com/dive-physics/pressure/ With what I'd be suggesting is that gravity pressurizes what it can't accelerate. Yet dive charts and depth charts both do not show an increase in pressure above a constant value. That's where showing a pressure greater than the weight of the water would get their attention. I think this is the actual reason they say perpetual motion is impossible. Yet we know gravity accelerates objects at 9.81 m/s and gives mass weight. But is that all it does? In a week or 2 I'll be doing my next test. If it works then it will explain why 8 knocking sounds were heard for every rotation of his wheel. And with a working wheel, I could ask a scientist to conduct the column of water experiment. And if the water pressure is 1.033 kgf/cm^2 then atmospheric chemistry will change. Edited on 04-09-2021 00:17
04-09-2021 00:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: That's vacuum moving it. Pressure differentiation. The vacuum moves nothing. Air pushes the cylinder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHa_WxzYWDI Your welcome. OMG, Data is my 2nd favorite person on Star Trek right after Quark. Although it is a "matter" of perspective. Vacuum is the inverse (opposite) potential of pressure. And we also know that nature abhors a vacuum. And in the troposphere, gravity only accelerates atmospheric gasses to about 17,000 mph. And the Earth rotates at ~1,000 mph. And now we're getting into "is atmospheric pressure really that high?". If atmospheric pressure on Earth is really about 0.0177 psi, that changes the entire perspective of atmospheric chemistry. It would show minimal compression. Wow, imagine 15 lbs of air per square inch hitting the top of your head at 17,000 miles per hour... Also considering... Air hitting you sideways, say a hefty wind gust of 20 mph, can feel a bit heavy if you try to walk against it... A heavy wind gust of 200 mph is enough to knock over trees and houses With a gust of air hitting you, think of the surface area. Then multiply that by the force of the wind. That's be the total force that you're being hit with. With atmospheric gasses, consider https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4fC-f0xkV4 with more air pressure, the number of molecules would increase and everything would slow down. I did some quick math and a 20 mph wind would have 160 psi of force. I think I red about the experiment a long time ago. The metric system was adopted in 1795. I have let some scientists know that if they had a column of water 9.81 meters tall that the water pressure at the bottom would be 1.033 kgf/cm^2. That's the same as 14.7 psi. Another reason why I think that is this; http://www.scuba-tutor.com/dive-physics/pressure/ With what I'd be suggesting is that gravity pressurizes what it can't accelerate. Yet dive charts and depth charts both do not show an increase in pressure above a constant value. That's where showing a pressure greater than the weight of the water would get their attention. I think this is the actual reason they say perpetual motion is impossible. Yet we know gravity accelerates objects at 9.81 m/s and gives mass weight. But is that all it does? In a week or 2 I'll be doing my next test. If it works then it will explain why 8 knocking sounds were heard for every rotation of his wheel. And with a working wheel, I could ask a scientist to conduct the column of water experiment. And if the water pressure is 1.033 kgf/cm^2 then atmospheric chemistry will change. Random gibberish. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

04-09-2021 02:14
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	James___ wrote: [quote] I did some quick math and a 20 mph wind would have 160 psi of force. How did you calculate this? Force equals mass times acceleration?
04-09-2021 02:51
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	James___ wrote: And the Earth rotates at ~1,000 mph. And now we're getting into "is atmospheric pressure really that high?". 1000 mph is extremely fast for an object the size of human being. For an object the size of Earth, spinning around 1000 mph is extremely slow. It's one of the reasons why I think gravity is a weak force.
04-09-2021 03:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	Spongy Iris wrote:1000 mph is extremely fast for an object the size of human being. For an object the size of Earth, spinning around 1000 mph is extremely slow. The size does not matter. A rotation of 360-degrees every 24 hours is slow to humans. Planets don't have any sense of "fast" or "slow." However, the earth is able to make 121 complete rotations within the amount of time that a continent can move only one inch. Spongy Iris wrote: It's one of the reasons why I think gravity is a weak force. On the other hand, gravity is a superpower that can affect time. Not many forces can make that claim.
04-09-2021 07:18
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Spongy Iris wrote: James___ wrote: And the Earth rotates at ~1,000 mph. And now we're getting into "is atmospheric pressure really that high?". 1000 mph is extremely fast for an object the size of human being. For an object the size of Earth, spinning around 1000 mph is extremely slow. It's one of the reasons why I think gravity is a weak force. With the force of the wind, 20 mph is 29.2 ft/s or 8.9 m/s. If air pressure is 14.7 psi, then it's 14.7 * .91 = 13.4 ft/lbs. 8.9 becomes .91 because 8.9 m/s divided by 9.81 gives its value. And if something is moving faster than 9.81 m/s, then it's force will be greater than its mass. There is a possible explanation why the atmosphere and people can move at ~1,000 mph and no one notices it. The gravitational field so close to the Earth's surface rotates with it. Satellites are over 100 miles up. And this means that that part of the Earth's gravitational field is spinning faster. And that might be getting into the Earth's magnetic field. If you consider how far the Van Allen radiation belts are away from the Earth's surface, they are a part of the Earth's magnetic field. https://spacecenter.org/what-are-the-van-allen-radiation-belts/ Basically, our atmosphere and anything near or on the Earth's surface might be "grounded".
04-09-2021 23:00
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	James___ wrote: With the force of the wind, 20 mph is 29.2 ft/s or 8.9 m/s. If air pressure is 14.7 psi, then it's 14.7 * .91 = 13.4 ft/lbs. 8.9 becomes .91 because 8.9 m/s divided by 9.81 gives its value. And if something is moving faster than 9.81 m/s, then it's force will be greater than its mass. 9.81 m/s/s being the acceleration force of gravity... Why do you divide wind speed of 8.9 m/s by acceleration force of gravity? 14.7 is psi. But .91, what units is that number in? And why did the answer from multiplying those convert to ft/lbs? Sorry if I'm being obtuse...
04-09-2021 23:38
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Spongy Iris wrote: James___ wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Hi James, Just some numbers I pulled... Here's one from a NY times article "By one estimate, a person who weighs 150 pounds on the surface of the earth would weigh approximately 149.92 pounds at 10,000 feet above sea level." The air pressure in Denver now looks like 12.1 psi, and in San Francisco 14.72 psi Regarding Gravity and altitude The NY Times article gave the explanation... "The more distance you put between yourself and the bulk of the mass of the earth, the less gravitational force it exerts on your body." This made sense to me, the way I imagine gravity works, as a push from all directions. I don't believe just flying 55 miles up, beyond almost all air, would cancel gravity forces by much at all. They say satellites are using gravity, but just going forward so fast that they miss hitting the ground. Another interesting point to me is you weigh a 1 pound less at the equator than at the north pole. Maybe a new thread isn't warranted but we need to get into the math. We need to have constants. Delta in calculus signifies change. Why there are always 2 deltas. It shows a relationship of change. dx/dt is the basic formula and d/t = ma. What is the change in acceleration? Myself, I think I can make the math understandable to everyone. For something as complex as what you described, a step by step process will be necessary. The variations that you mentioned shows what needs to be accounted for. With this, the moment of inertia will need to be considered. Just math people need to know to consider something like this. And I will do my best so everyone will be able to understand it. Hey go easy on me with the math I was just thinking if one could get high enough in space, ones vessel would no longer be attracted to the earth... It might become attracted to whatever body of force pushes the opposite way of Earth... This actually happens with space craft going to the Moon or out in the solar system around other planets. There is a sling shot effect that they use to help accelerate space craft that way. Basically if the space craft passes a celestial body then that body will pull the space craft towards it. The planet has to be moving away from the space craft in order for it to work. https://www.space.fm/astronomy/planetarysystems/rockets.html p.s., anything going to the Moon gets a gravity assist from the Moon. And if it returns to the Earth, first it has to get away from the Moon's gravity so it will be attracted to the Earth. Edited on 04-09-2021 23:46
04-09-2021 23:44
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Spongy Iris wrote: James___ wrote: With the force of the wind, 20 mph is 29.2 ft/s or 8.9 m/s. If air pressure is 14.7 psi, then it's 14.7 * .91 = 13.4 ft/lbs. 8.9 becomes .91 because 8.9 m/s divided by 9.81 gives its value. And if something is moving faster than 9.81 m/s, then it's force will be greater than its mass. 9.81 m/s/s being the acceleration force of gravity... Why do you divide wind speed of 8.9 m/s by acceleration force of gravity? 14.7 is psi. But .91, what units is that number in? And why did the answer from multiplying those convert to ft/lbs? Sorry if I'm being obtuse... If 29.2 ft/s is divided by 32.185 ft/s, it's the same value or %. If a mass falls but is not moving at 9.81 m/s, it will have less force than its rest mass. This is because its moving. I think this shows that gravity will increase the potential force/pressure of what it cannot accelerate.
05-09-2021 03:28
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	James___ wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: James___ wrote: With the force of the wind, 20 mph is 29.2 ft/s or 8.9 m/s. If air pressure is 14.7 psi, then it's 14.7 * .91 = 13.4 ft/lbs. 8.9 becomes .91 because 8.9 m/s divided by 9.81 gives its value. And if something is moving faster than 9.81 m/s, then it's force will be greater than its mass. 9.81 m/s/s being the acceleration force of gravity... Why do you divide wind speed of 8.9 m/s by acceleration force of gravity? 14.7 is psi. But .91, what units is that number in? And why did the answer from multiplying those convert to ft/lbs? Sorry if I'm being obtuse... If 29.2 ft/s is divided by 32.185 ft/s, it's the same value or %. If a mass falls but is not moving at 9.81 m/s, it will have less force than its rest mass. This is because its moving. I think this shows that gravity will increase the potential force/pressure of what it cannot accelerate. Why does 14.7 pounds per square inch times multiplier of .91 convert to 13.4 feet per pounds. I'm confused why psi changed to ft/lbs... Then did you multiply 13.4 by 12 to get 160.8 psi of 20 mph wind?
05-09-2021 03:55
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Spongy Iris wrote: James___ wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: James___ wrote: With the force of the wind, 20 mph is 29.2 ft/s or 8.9 m/s. If air pressure is 14.7 psi, then it's 14.7 * .91 = 13.4 ft/lbs. 8.9 becomes .91 because 8.9 m/s divided by 9.81 gives its value. And if something is moving faster than 9.81 m/s, then it's force will be greater than its mass. 9.81 m/s/s being the acceleration force of gravity... Why do you divide wind speed of 8.9 m/s by acceleration force of gravity? 14.7 is psi. But .91, what units is that number in? And why did the answer from multiplying those convert to ft/lbs? Sorry if I'm being obtuse... If 29.2 ft/s is divided by 32.185 ft/s, it's the same value or %. If a mass falls but is not moving at 9.81 m/s, it will have less force than its rest mass. This is because its moving. I think this shows that gravity will increase the potential force/pressure of what it cannot accelerate. Why does 14.7 pounds per square inch times multiplier of .91 convert to 13.4 feet per pounds. I'm confused why psi changed to ft/lbs... Then did you multiply 13.4 by 12 to get 160.8 psi of 20 mph wind? It'd be psi, my bad. What needs to be remembered is that if something is 6 ft tall and 1 ft wide, then that's 12 x 12 x 6 x 13.4 = 11,577.6 lbs of force. That's a lot of force. The first 3 numbers= a surface area of 864 square inches. With what I'm considering, 11,566.7 divided by 830 = about 13 lbs of force. That's if air pressure is based on a column of water. Of course, with the wind, it will have mass. Basically pressure can increase when it meets an object in it's path.
06-09-2021 05:22
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	If anyone reads my comments, Nikola Tesla might have realized something about inverse functions that is still not understood today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvLm6iAYK9Q&list=LL&index=1 Edited on 06-09-2021 05:23
08-09-2021 22:34
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	James___ wrote: Just food for thought; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt1YkGO2Ieo And the boys get the girls in the back. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. I'm just sipping on chamomile... To soothe my vagus nerve Edited on 08-09-2021 23:26
09-09-2021 01:41
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Spongy Iris wrote: James___ wrote: Just food for thought; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt1YkGO2Ieo And the boys get the girls in the back. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. I'm just sipping on chamomile... To soothe my vagus nerve I'll drink tea once in a while. And here I thought Vegas nerve was bucking the odds.

Page 7 of 7

Join the debate From ice core analysis to temperature curves:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Can we trust the satellite and surface-based temperature records?	1	23-04-2024 16:21
The new President elect of Haagen Dazs, demonstrating an ice cream filled donut	0	17-11-2023 14:07
Present temperature spike July '23	31	27-09-2023 00:27
Surface temperature of earth according to Boltzmann law	56	10-05-2023 15:46
Greenhouse gases cool better and cause lower surface temperature of earth than non greenhouse gases	3	10-05-2023 08:27