Jim Kelley wrote:
Pascals law, just as any other natural law, always remains in effect.
The point is simply that a sealed column of liquid will NOT change
length by a factor of the square root of two at an inclination of 45
degrees. That was initially my issue with Cecil.

I was talking about sealed at the top but not at the bottom.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:08:48 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

wrote:
I believe Pascal's law remains in effect in a thermometer, but
is overshadowed by other factors, including the design you mention,
the details of which I don't know.

Pascals law, just as any other natural law, always remains in effect.
The point is simply that a sealed column of liquid will NOT change
length by a factor of the square root of two at an inclination of 45
degrees. That was initially my issue with Cecil.

A barometer on the other hand is obviously not sealed. The weight of
the column of mercury is balanced against the weight of the atmosphere
acting on an open reservoir of mercury at the bottom of the column. The
reservoir will act to maintain the column at a constant vertical height
by adjusting the length of the column as a funtion of tilt angle. A
sealed column does not act that way.

I disagree that it's specious to point out that rather significant and
fundamental difference.

73, ac6xg


Would you care to cite where he specified any kind of
thermometer-equivalent? That's a complete red herring you dragged into
a conversation where the parameters were quite clear to all other
participants.

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:29:43 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

wrote:

Would you care to cite where he specified any kind of
thermometer-equivalent? That's a complete red herring you dragged into
a conversation where the parameters were quite clear to all other
participants.

The parameters? Admittedly, I did miss seeing them posted until later
in the thread. I apologize that you found the phenomenological
descriptions to be inciteful rather than insightful. I intended only
the latter. It is my sincere hope that whoever it is will soon stop
urinating in your soup and/or bunching-up your underpants.


Your last sentence grants you permission to stuff your
apology.