Which proves nothing except that you went to a seminar.

Tom
K0TAR

Richard Clark wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:24:26 GMT, Gary S. Idontwantspam@net wrote:


Holding it in your hands is more of an issue if
A) you have some sort of wound, and some could contact your
bloodstream, or more likely


Mercury can be forced through a solid plate of steel. Such is its
ability to migrate through barriers.


B) if you do not _thoroughly_ clean it off your hands before touching
food, rubbing your eyes, smoking a ciggie, etc.


Hi Gary,

I just attended a Nanotech seminar presentation 4 hours ago on "The
Collapse of Langmuir Monolayers" that showed the human body has
roughly 2M² of skin surface area, OR 100M² of Lung surface area, OR
300M² of Gastro Intestinal surface area. The later two have a
monomolecular air/water interface - the Langmuir layer.

The decay products of nuclear breakdown (the electron emission) is no
hazard due to its inability to puncture the dermal layer - inside the
body it leads to chromosomal breakdowns that gives rise to cancerous
growths. Same vector, two different paths separated by lack of
caution in the errant belief about exposure levels leads to grief.
[Another lesson learned in close proximity to the Boomers, and 24
Nuclear warheads stored within 10 feet of my workbench aboard ship.]

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:12:51 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

Which proves nothing except that you went to a seminar.

Tom
K0TAR

Hi Tom,

Then we can both agree that I speak from a point of knowledge (got the
experience too). So, what have you got to offer? ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cecil,

Could you clarify the dimensions of your column? Because the only
portion of a cylinder of Hg that would lengthen is the tiny portion at
the tip of the cylinder. Let's say the inner diameter of the tube was 1"
(kind of thick for a tube of Hg, but makes for really easy math here...
;) If the column of Hg was 4'long by 1" diameter, tilting it to a 45
degree off vertical would only allow the volume residing at the very end
to tilt (occupying 1" of cylinder length) and yes, it would (begging the
question it had no surface tension) find level again and the bottom
edge, effectively lengthening the metallic column by (1.414 * n) where
'n' is the affected volume. (roughly a length of column equal to the
diameter of the column) Our 4' column would only lengthen to about 4'
plus approx 1/2 an inch. The rest of the column is effectively captive
to the inner dimensions (and volume) of the vessel containing it.

Bob.




Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

By Golly, I have been looking for a cable stretcher. A tilted
mercury column will perform that function.


How so?


The gravity vector remains constant while the tilted mercury
vector varies with the angle of the tilt. Let's say theta
is the angle of the tilt, i.e. the angle between the mercury
column and the ground plane. At an angle of 45 degrees, the
mercury column length will be 1.414 times the length at 90 degrees,
At 10 degrees, the mercury column length will be 5.76 times the
length at 90 degrees. That sounds like something worth patenting.
--
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! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

David.Shrader wrote:

If it's a closed tube then the length does not change with angle.


I may be wrong, cuz I'm not very mechanical, but it seems to me
that a column of mercury in a tube with a vacuum at the top
and a reservoir of mercury at the bottom would change height
of column depending on the angle of the column's deviation from
vertical. It seems to me that when the column is horizontal,
there would be no vacuum at all in the tube.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

OK. A manometer as opposed to a thermometer.

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
By Golly, I have been looking for a cable stretcher. A tilted
mercury column will perform that function.

How so?

The gravity vector remains constant while the tilted mercury
vector varies with the angle of the tilt. Let's say theta
is the angle of the tilt, i.e. the angle between the mercury
column and the ground plane. At an angle of 45 degrees, the
mercury column length will be 1.414 times the length at 90 degrees,
At 10 degrees, the mercury column length will be 5.76 times the
length at 90 degrees. That sounds like something worth patenting.

I saw a further explanation in your later post. Important point - the
resevoir, open to air or a source of constant pressure for example. As
you tilt the vertical section, the height above ground remains constant
because it is balanced by the pressure on the reservoir. In order to
maintain the height above ground as the column is being tilted, the
column must increase in length.

It works beautifully by the way, Cecil. I just tried it with a mercury
barometer.
73, Jim AC6XG

Well, I gave an answer, farther down the thread, that actually is more
on subject, liquid antennas. I told him where to find a group that
knows about them and builds lots of them, which is more than anyone else
seems to have done.

Looks to me like most of the regulars on this newsgroup, except Roy and
a couple others, talk about anything except the subject/question that
started the thread. Which is their right. Just don't get annoyed if I
point out that fact occasionally. Also the fact that anyone with an IQ
above room temperature knows mercury has to be handled with some care.

tom
K0TAR

Richard Clark wrote:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:12:51 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

Hi Tom,

Then we can both agree that I speak from a point of knowledge (got the
experience too). So, what have you got to offer? ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
David.Shrader wrote:
If it's a closed tube then the length does not change with angle.

I may be wrong, cuz I'm not very mechanical, but it seems to me
that a column of mercury in a tube with a vacuum at the top
and a reservoir of mercury at the bottom would change height
of column depending on the angle of the column's deviation from
vertical. It seems to me that when the column is horizontal,
there would be no vacuum at all in the tube.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


It s good thing you clarified that you were taklking about the "barometer"
configuration. Sounds messy to me.

--
Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's.

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:17:14 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
How much does the length change when you tilt it at 45 degrees?

By the factor of the square root of two.

Sounds kinda like one of those mythical cable stretchers. :-)

By Golly, I have been looking for a cable stretcher. A tilted
mercury column will perform that function.

How so?

Pascal's law.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:10:00 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

David.Shrader wrote:

If it's a closed tube then the length does not change with angle.


I may be wrong, cuz I'm not very mechanical, but it seems to me
that a column of mercury in a tube with a vacuum at the top
and a reservoir of mercury at the bottom would change height
of column depending on the angle of the column's deviation from
vertical. It seems to me that when the column is horizontal,
there would be no vacuum at all in the tube.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

OK. A manometer as opposed to a thermometer.


No, a barometer.

1. Thermometer -- sealed at both ends -- height depends on
temperature.

2. Manometer -- open at both ends -- one end open to atmosphere; other
end open to space whose pressure you want to measure relative to
atmosphere; displacement from balanced level in each column dependent
on pressure differential.

3. Barometer -- sealed at top; open at bottom, which is submerged in
sizable puddle of mercury; vertical height, from surface of reservoir
to top of column (assuming adequately long tube and adequately large
mercury reservoir) dependent on pressure, but length of mercury column
dependent on tilt of tube. (sec or csc function, IIRC.)

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:29:46 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:


Also the fact that anyone with an IQ
above room temperature knows mercury has to be handled with some care.

So as room temperature drops, more inhabitants of the room
become aware of this important caution?

wrote:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:17:14 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
How much does the length change when you tilt it at 45 degrees?

By the factor of the square root of two.

Sounds kinda like one of those mythical cable stretchers. :-)

By Golly, I have been looking for a cable stretcher. A tilted
mercury column will perform that function.

How so?

Pascal's law.

Are you implying that any and every column of mercury must obey Pascal's
law?

73, ac6xg

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:57:59 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

How so?

Pascal's law.

Are you implying that any and every column of mercury must obey Pascal's
law?

Any column of any liquid should. Would you care to cite a
counter example?

If the best counterexample is a 'frozen' mass of Hg, it would be a wee
letdown.



wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:57:59 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

How so?

Pascal's law.

Are you implying that any and every column of mercury must obey Pascal's
law?


Any column of any liquid should. Would you care to cite a
counter example?

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:02:51 -0400, Bob wrote:

If the best counterexample is a 'frozen' mass of Hg, it would be a wee
letdown.


Hence my specification of "liquid".


wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:57:59 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

How so?

Pascal's law.

Are you implying that any and every column of mercury must obey Pascal's
law?


Any column of any liquid should. Would you care to cite a
counter example?

Bob wrote:

If the best counterexample is a 'frozen' mass of Hg, it would be a wee
letdown.


That's kind of chilly!! About -37F if my old reference books are still
accurate.

wrote:

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:57:59 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

How so?

Pascal's law.

Are you implying that any and every column of mercury must obey Pascal's
law?

Any column of any liquid should. Would you care to cite a
counter example?

You already cited one. (You can't apply pressure to a confined fluid if
it's sealed in an incompressible container.)

73, ac6xg

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:50:04 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:



wrote:

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:57:59 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

How so?

Pascal's law.

Are you implying that any and every column of mercury must obey Pascal's
law?

Any column of any liquid should. Would you care to cite a
counter example?

You already cited one. (You can't apply pressure to a confined fluid if
it's sealed in an incompressible container.)

73, ac6xg

OK, nice specious argument. You can't have read this far in
the thread without understanding the intended parameters. And since
you seem to be referring to the thermometer, pressure could indeed be
applied. In absolute terms, any container can be compressed, however
slightly. In addition, pressure can be applied without compression by
application of heat or of cold, depending on relative coefficients of
thermal expansion.

Old science class demonstration -- completely fill a heavy
pipe, capping both ends, with a substance; heat the pipe with a torch
and it explodes; toss the pipe into a container of dry ice and it
explodes. What is the mystery substance? It turns out to be water at 4
degrees Centigrade.

Finally, I strongly suspect the "column" of mercury in a
thermometer does indeed obey Pascal's law, but it's effect is
overshadowed by the much stronger effects of temperature and
capillarity.

Dave Shrader wrote:
Bob wrote:

If the best counterexample is a 'frozen' mass of Hg, it would be a wee
letdown.


That's kind of chilly!! About -37F if my old reference books are still
accurate.

Rumor has it, despite recent budgetary cutbacks, the freezing points of
Mercury, Water, and even good old Carbon Dioxide will remain unchanged
for the next fiscal year...

;-)



Now, enough humor. Who's tried any experiments yet?
Not entire mercury columns, but just a small quantity at each end of a
collinear or dipole.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:39:09 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

wrote:
OK, nice specious argument. You can't have read this far in
the thread without understanding the intended parameters.

And I'll assume the same is true for you.

I didn't drift off into the wild blue.


And since
you seem to be referring to the thermometer, pressure could indeed be
applied. In absolute terms, any container can be compressed, however
slightly.

(Speaking of specious)

Just following your lead.


In addition, pressure can be applied without compression by
application of heat or of cold, depending on relative coefficients of
thermal expansion.

Is your claim that the height of the column of liquid in a thermometer
determined by the angle of inclination of the column? You were partially
correct in that the barometer is illustrative of Pascals law.

Thanks for the table scraps.

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.

Old science class demonstration -- completely fill a heavy
pipe, capping both ends, with a substance; heat the pipe with a torch
and it explodes; toss the pipe into a container of dry ice and it
explodes. What is the mystery substance? It turns out to be water at 4
degrees Centigrade.

True, but not a demonstration of Pascals law.

Nor intended as such. It was in reference to your
incompressibility red herring.


Finally, I strongly suspect the "column" of mercury in a
thermometer does indeed obey Pascal's law, but it's effect is
overshadowed by the much stronger effects of temperature and
capillarity.

True, particularly in light of the fact that a good thermometer is
specifically designed to prevent it from demonstrating Pascals law - or
more to the point, from having its measurement dependent upon its
orientation.

73, ac6xg

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.