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

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

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.

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.

73, ac6xg

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.