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