Notices
Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: countering gravity

  1. #1 countering gravity 
    Forum Junior DivideByZero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    260
    Can someone please explain to me or give me links to find the answers of the following questions?

    1. How does a spaceship counter gravity?
    (what are the chemical reactions involved in making all those rocket propellants.)

    2. Is the mass of the payload directly proportional to how high a rocket ship will go?
    for example if a 50kg rocketship goes 2 miles up, will a 100kg rocketship go 4 miles up?
    my guess is "no because gravity pulls 9.8m/s/s" but I want exact numbers on proportions

    3. What other methods are there other than rockets to significantly escape Earth's gravity?


    note: these questions aren't homework or anything. I just want links or direct answers to the questions. Thanks.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: countering gravity 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by DivideByZero
    2. Is the mass of the payload directly proportional to how high a rocket ship will go?
    for example if a 50kg rocketship goes 2 miles up, will a 100kg rocketship go 4 miles up?
    my guess is "no because gravity pulls 9.8m/s/s" but I want exact numbers on proportions
    This doesn’t make sense. It ought to be that the heavier the rocket, the less high it could be propelled upwards.

    Anyway, if an object is propelled upward with speed v, then, ignoring air resistance, the height to which it will go is v<sup>2</sup> ⁄ 2g. (This can be derived using the principle of conservation of energy, ignoring the work done against air resistance.) Now suppose two rockets (masses m and 2m respectively) receive the same initial impulse to propel them upwards; supposed they are propelled with initial speeds u and v respectively. Then mu = 2mv, and so v = ½u. It follows that the heavier rocket will only reach one quarter of the height attained by the lighter rocket. The relationship is therefore not a linear one.

    I’m sorry I can’t answer the other two questions.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: countering gravity 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by DivideByZero
    Can someone please explain to me or give me links to find the answers of the following questions?

    1. How does a spaceship counter gravity?
    (what are the chemical reactions involved in making all those rocket propellants.)

    2. Is the mass of the payload directly proportional to how high a rocket ship will go?
    for example if a 50kg rocketship goes 2 miles up, will a 100kg rocketship go 4 miles up?
    my guess is "no because gravity pulls 9.8m/s/s" but I want exact numbers on proportions

    3. What other methods are there other than rockets to significantly escape Earth's gravity?


    note: these questions aren't homework or anything. I just want links or direct answers to the questions. Thanks.
    Gyro power. And you can use electricity to repulse ambient radiation in one direction, that can be dangerous though.

    Much like a bag of explosive gas, that is only a couple of grams, atomically, because it is actually lighter then air. This gas can hurl metal objects, much, heavier then itself. In many directions simultaneously. It does so by creating a diode, that directs ambient radiation, it decreases its velocity to gravity speeds.

    Part of my safety training included watching a fellow get blown through a wall, while cleaning up an anhydrous ammonia spill. This was back when in our home town they used to label standard ammonia NO2. Today they call it NH3 even though no one at the time could explain how hydrogen and nitrogen could bond. Under any circumstance.

    But anyhow the nearly silent pop, lifted a man, and in four feet accelerated him to a speed capable of blowing his body through a cinder block wall. The truly amazing thing is that he was outside and very much alive. Only minor injuries. Partially because of the liquid his body is made of. It takes an amazing amount of energy to turn a liquid into a solid. So for a split second to shatter stone, liquid is a clear winner.

    We know that if he was up against a solid object that accelerated that quickly he would have probably been squashed like a bug in a model rocket upon take off.

    But because he was moved by electrical gravitational energy, all the atoms that are actually just balls of electricity were repelled internally as well, and allowed him to live.

    Three other guys in the same room including the camera man were not affected, more then just experiencing a sudden movement, that caused the camera man to drop the camera. But he and the camera were just fine. He continued filming until he paned the camera over and saw his friend blown through the wall.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    This was back when in our home town they used to label standard ammonia NO2. Today they call it NH3 even though no one at the time could explain how hydrogen and nitrogen could bond. Under any circumstance.
    No offence, but have you ever lifted up a science book in your life? Please take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxide and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nh3.
    atoms that are actually just balls of electricity
    Huh? Where are you getting this from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms.

    Please don’t try and push off your own concocted “theories” onto others as fact.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    1) As a partial answer, most rocket fuels use an oxidation reaction. That is, combining something with oxygen. This is the same thing that happens when something burns. Since there is no oxygen in space, rocket fuels use chemicals called oxidizers. These release oxygen feuling the reaction. (Hydrogen peroxide is a common one, and correct me if I'm wrong, that part of the reaction goes something like: 2 H2O2 -> 2 H2O + O2)

    2) JaneBennet already answered this better than I could, except to say that this relationship would be stated as "the height is inversely proportional to the square of the mass".

    3) There are many other ways to get to space. It's just that none of them have been shown to work and work well so far. (Although that doesn't mean they'll never work. Future technology could make them more useful.) If you want to read more about this, try looking up mass drivers, space elevators, and space planes. There was one more interesting idea that I can't remember the name of (the rotating pole with one end passing near the ground and the other in space).

    Also, I would suggest the site Atomic Rocket for anyone interested in space flight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    I favour this one the most, take a look!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain
    They could built it NOW if they wanted and had the money, but nooo.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    This was back when in our home town they used to label standard ammonia NO2. Today they call it NH3 even though no one at the time could explain how hydrogen and nitrogen could bond. Under any circumstance.
    No offence, but have you ever lifted up a science book in your life? Please take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxide and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nh3.
    atoms that are actually just balls of electricity
    Huh? Where are you getting this from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms.

    Please don’t try and push off your own concocted “theories” onto others as fact.
    I know what you are saying, for over twenty years I have been on the Internet, originally Compuserve, talking about these things. But today most don't know to much about chemicals.

    Some fields in chemistry are just a sort of robotic, go through the motions of using a set bunch of chemicals, to decipher a certain proof.

    In 1992 I believe the Crash of a Cargo plane in Amsterdam that killed all on board and many other fire and rescue personnel as well as citizens. Had two substances that any hazardous waste driver knows not to put together or should know. They are hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acid.

    It used to be common practice to combine acids in lab pack drums. Even highly decorated chemists, that tried to save money by doing their own lab packs have made these errors. So it is not like I am worried about what I am saying. I used to talk to all kinds of chemists and got some of the most conflicting information you could ever imagine.

    I believe now that chemists and doctors have decided to just keep their stories straight, and forget the details.

    When mixed the hydrofluoric acid steals the water from the hydrochloric acid releasing the chlorine.

    While the heat from the reaction evaporates the hydrofluoric acid. The point is that even if there is a worse gas to breath in, it will only be marginally worse.

    Six drops of each substance can fill a small lab or room with lethal fumes. Yet the government and government agencies had claimed that no substances on the plane could have caused that damage. The news reported that both substances were on the plane. With a picture of a manifest showing hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acid.

    Maybe they just did not want to pay Amsterdam for the oversight. Or maybe they are really paranoid. Maybe the media was wrong or given false information. But either way it is a sign that any chemical could be any chemical.

    When people that go by the book hear conclusively that hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acid are not dangerous together. They make a note of it and it becomes real to them. Because a whole bunch of people said it was true.

    I guess my point is that if hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acid are not dangerous together. Could ammonia be NO2, nitric acid be NO3, Nitrous oxide NO4, and Ammonium nitrate NO5?

    I used to use nitrous oxide in my car years ago, and I put twenty pounds of NO4 into my tank, by cooling the tank and sucking the liquid into the chilled tank. It was labelled NO4. Ammonium hydroxide used to be NO.

    Most do not know, but if you have ever been to a high pressure gas supplier that fills tanks with pure gases from liquid tanks. Then you might know that you can put your face into rather pure nitrogen and enjoy the air for hours. Freshest you will ever find. I would stand in pure nitrogen as long as you like.

    What has thrown off most chemists is that they do not buy liquid nitrogen. They purchase the lesser quality scientific grade nitrogen gas.

    The problem is that the tank walls, contain oxygen. When they put the extremely pure nitrogen into these tanks, the tank walls leach oxygen into the nitrogen. This causes a substance that smells, and acts like nitrous oxide. I am not sure why this is exactly, however it is.

    I have tested both, gas from liquid nitrogen, and gas from liquid nitrogen stored in steel tanks, I personally found this to be true.

    These are some of my reasons for seriously doubting what anyone in any field has to say. Because if they don't have the guts to see something very wrong. Then they don't have the guts to stand up for little bits of reality.

    In school we learned that there is no reason for nitrogen to bond to hydrogen.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I favour this one the most, take a look!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain
    They could built it NOW if they wanted and had the money, but nooo.
    Roy Grummans lunar rock collector, used a laser like ARC device to expand a fluid so many times its normal size that it could propel a device much more efficiently then anything we have today.

    If you have ever watched high speed video of gases in an ARC, you can see that an atom or two, can expand to the size of a large pin head.

    The mathematical ratio is so tremendous that you can use a small tank of specialized fluids to propel a ship to the moon and back. Without the giant rocket. In hours not days.

    Roy used to do it before lunch. Then there were the clowns dreaming of it going to Washington for a total recall. Me included. They cancelled the space program, chained down the special trainer in Florida that used a similar principle. And cut short the Apollo missions.

    You have to pardon me but, in my world looking at the lame projects they were creating, I assumed that scientists had taken up eating poison mushrooms.

    But this project of Roy's was made with a specialized titanium that could get so hot it burned air. Even at those temperatures it still would function. That is how good Roy Grumman was. He built that on a shoe string budget.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Oh dear. DivideByZero, I hope you don't believe anything that William McCormick has to say? This is as bad as my uncle refusing to believe that 50 m<sup>2</sup> does not mean 50m X 50m, even after I explained it to him using floor tiles.

    By the way William, if you where truly immersed in pure Nitrogen gas for more than 4 minutes, you'd be dead. We need oxygen remember?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    This was back when in our home town they used to label standard ammonia NO2. Today they call it NH3 even though no one at the time could explain how hydrogen and nitrogen could bond. Under any circumstance.
    No offence, but have you ever lifted up a science book in your life? Please take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxide and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nh3.
    atoms that are actually just balls of electricity
    Huh? Where are you getting this from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms.

    Please don’t try and push off your own concocted “theories” onto others as fact.
    I left school and forfeited any scholarships I had, when I was fifteen. I make no claim to being college trained. However, in all fairness I would not want to be college trained.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Oh dear. DivideByZero, I hope you don't believe anything that William McCormick has to say? This is as bad as my uncle refusing to believe that 50 m<sup>2</sup> does not mean 50m X 50m, even after I explained it to him using floor tiles.

    By the way William, if you where truly immersed in pure Nitrogen gas for more than 4 minutes, you'd be dead. We need oxygen remember?
    You claim you need oxygen. I do not.

    The human body produces more then likely, carbon monoxide, ammonia, carbonic acids, that need to be removed. All of those are forms of oxygen by chemical composition, or they were at one time.

    O2 tends to remove these types of gases, by mixing with them and being light it helps to expel them. Other gases will do the same. In deep sea subs they were able to breath high concentrations of helium. Well over 90 percent.

    I would also stand in pure helium gas if you give me a brown paper bag to keep some of the poisons formed in my lungs in the bag. Otherwise, I would get giddy and hyperventilated.

    When I was as kid, one day in March. I live on Long Island. We had a summer day, not to be believed. It was actually hot outside. I was actually sweating from the walk home from school, in the sun with my friend Glenn.

    We were walking home from school, we went into his backyard, that was on a canal. I lived further down the block closer to the bay. The water in the winter was as clear as bottled water. Normally we get a lot of algae in the summer, and have poor visibility. It looked so cool.

    I felt the water and it felt like a hot bathtub. I said I am going in. He said no way. I took off my clothes down to my tidy whities, and jumped in. Oh, my God! Only the surface was warm. I kind of shook, just shook, it had no effect. I was just stunned into a new state. I had never felt anything like that. The water was probably around 45 degrees.

    Once I was in, I said what the heck, I am swimming home. And besides my undershorts were wet.

    So I start swimming home. I decided to go under and get a good look around. It was beautiful. I started swimming home underwater. I was looking left and right. Making notes that there were no crabs where you would normally expect to see them. I was really having a good time.

    I went closer to the bottom and it was even a bit colder. Anyway I am just swimming and feeling unbelievable to be honest with you. In fact I noted that I must have swam already over two hundred feet by the number of piling I passed.

    I know I cannot swim that far underwater at the high rate I was swimming at. I am thinking maybe I am in shock or something. I checked my lungs, they felt fine, no problem no burning. Nothing to worry about. I was super alert.

    I swim on about another 200 feet, wow, what is going. I really think that maybe my mind cut off my nervous system. I swim about another 150 feet underwater. And at that point my reality was getting a bit stressed and I figured that I should come up for air. Not that I needed it.

    So I do and I hear my friend from up the block yell, "Holy Sh&t". Wow you swam far. I did the rest of the way home on top. When I got out at home the shivers came back bad. But I felt good.

    My point is that the body does not need oxygen, it needs to get rid of acid gases that are probably more reactive at higher temperatures.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Sorry, but about the only sane reaction I can give to that is this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    There are many other ways to get to space. It's just that none of them have been shown to work and work well so far.
    That is not true. The systems that are very good are also the easiest most reliable systems, most powerful, and cheapest.

    How are a bumbling bunch of fuel burners going to defend tyrant law makers against things like that? They could not.

    You don't think George Washington is standing outside on his own land, occupied by British forces, launching a turtle submarine, because the British let them have weapons and high tech stuff?

    Most do not know but the French and Indian war, allowed Americans to start manufacturing their own guns. England never allowed it, and left laws in place to forbid it, even after it saved England from defeat. Any guns had to come from England.

    After the French and Indian war the colonists realized that they don't need no stinking Holy English technology to make guns anymore. American guns were better.

    Colonists were kept stupid. If you got too smart they hit you on the head and took you off to sea as a sailor.

    That is what John Adam's, was really famous for. During the early hostilities he successfully defended American colonists who stood against English sailers that tried to impress/intern them. Basically kidnap them.

    Some sailors would not be paid for as long as 15 years. So that they could not or would not leave the ship.

    These particular American sailors killed their kidnapper and were sent to trial.
    Everyone in town prepared for their hanging.

    Because of the violence and destruction started with the Boston Tea party. The English decided that the Americans would move to be independent. And made a half effort to increase their rights.

    During the trial, England released new laws that made impressment illegal. John Adam's had the latest laws, and the court did not. The laws actually did not in anyway condone killing impressor's.

    However the court did not know that. John Adams knew the court did not know this either, and that they only had the same rumors he had, that the laws ended impressment. That is when he made his famous opening statement.

    "May it please your Excellencies and your Honors, my defence of the prisoners, is, that the melancholy action for which they stand accused is justifiable homicide, and therefore no crime at all"

    The court was immediately adjourned, but the town grew dismal in hope, that the murderers would be set free.

    The court appeared, the prisoners were ordered to the bar. The president arose, and pronounced the unanimous sentence of the court,-That the killing of Lieutenant Panton was justifiable homicide in necessary self-defence. Wooooo! Wooooo!

    That is what America is about.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    You claim you need oxygen. I do not.

    The human body produces more then likely, carbon monoxide, ammonia, carbonic acids, that need to be removed. All of those are forms of oxygen by chemical composition, or they were at one time.

    O2 tends to remove these types of gases, by mixing with them and being light it helps to expel them. Other gases will do the same. In deep sea subs they were able to breath high concentrations of helium. Well over 90 percent.

    I would also stand in pure helium gas if you give me a brown paper bag to keep some of the poisons formed in my lungs in the bag. Otherwise, I would get giddy and hyperventilated.

    When I was as kid, one day in March. I live on Long Island. We had a summer day, not to be believed. It was actually hot outside. I was actually sweating from the walk home from school, in the sun with my friend Glenn.

    We were walking home from school, we went into his backyard, that was on a canal. I lived further down the block closer to the bay. The water in the winter was as clear as bottled water. Normally we get a lot of algae in the summer, and have poor visibility. It looked so cool.

    I felt the water and it felt like a hot bathtub. I said I am going in. He said no way. I took off my clothes down to my tidy whities, and jumped in. Oh, my God! Only the surface was warm. I kind of shook, just shook, it had no effect. I was just stunned into a new state. I had never felt anything like that. The water was probably around 45 degrees.

    Once I was in, I said what the heck, I am swimming home. And besides my undershorts were wet.

    So I start swimming home. I decided to go under and get a good look around. It was beautiful. I started swimming home underwater. I was looking left and right. Making notes that there were no crabs where you would normally expect to see them. I was really having a good time.

    I went closer to the bottom and it was even a bit colder. Anyway I am just swimming and feeling unbelievable to be honest with you. In fact I noted that I must have swam already over two hundred feet by the number of piling I passed.

    I know I cannot swim that far underwater at the high rate I was swimming at. I am thinking maybe I am in shock or something. I checked my lungs, they felt fine, no problem no burning. Nothing to worry about. I was super alert.

    I swim on about another 200 feet, wow, what is going. I really think that maybe my mind cut off my nervous system. I swim about another 150 feet underwater. And at that point my reality was getting a bit stressed and I figured that I should come up for air. Not that I needed it.

    So I do and I hear my friend from up the block yell, "Holy Sh&t". Wow you swam far. I did the rest of the way home on top. When I got out at home the shivers came back bad. But I felt good.

    My point is that the body does not need oxygen, it needs to get rid of acid gases that are probably more reactive at higher temperatures.
    Your story doesn’t prove your claim. You were only underwater temporarily. It might seem a long time to you, but it’s still only temporarily. Your body was still making use of the oxygen in the air you were holding in your lungs. The energy for your swimming activity was provided by processes such as the conversion of stored glycogen into glucose. But you couldn’t have stayed underwater for ever. The oxygen in the air in your lungs would eventually be exhausted, and then – like it or not – you would have to come back to the surface obtain some more.

    You do need oxygen. Just because you can hold your breath for a super long time doesn’t mean that you don’t.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Your story doesn’t prove your claim. You were only underwater temporarily. It might seem a long time to you, but it’s still only temporarily. Your body was still making use of the oxygen in the air you were holding in your lungs. The energy for your swimming activity was provided by processes such as the conversion of stored glycogen into glucose. But you couldn’t have stayed underwater for ever. The oxygen in the air in your lungs would eventually be exhausted, and then – like it or not – you would have to come back to the surface obtain some more.

    You do need oxygen. Just because you can hold your breath for a super long time doesn’t mean that you don’t.
    Well I was swimming as fast as I could, because it was cold. I swam for about three minutes under water. If that is not proof, I don't know what is. I could have gone on even longer.
    I was just scared that I would learn some new lesson in life the really hard way. Ha-ha. They would pull me out, and some old timer, would say, "Yup, he didn't realize that his nervous system failed at those temperatures". Ha-ha.

    In class I could hold my breath for over two minutes, actually 2.75 minutes. I thought that was amazing, even though I was sitting still.

    There was almost nothing left to learn by the forth grade in school, so I would hold my breath or plan evil deeds to upset the teacher. I needed to get out there and get some real hands on knowledge.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Well I was swimming as fast as I could, because it was cold. I swam for about three minutes under water. If that is not proof, I don't know what is. I could have gone on even longer.
    If ever you spend a couple of hours beneath the sea without oxygen, then you can come back and make the claim the body doesn't need oxygen. Until then, we'll keep you at arms length.

    In class I could hold my breath for over two minutes, actually 2.75 minutes. I thought that was amazing, even though I was sitting still.

    There was almost nothing left to learn by the forth grade in school, so I would hold my breath or plan evil deeds to upset the teacher. I needed to get out there and get some real hands on knowledge.
    I think we just discovered your problem. Oxygen deprivation.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    My point is that the body does not need oxygen,
    Do me a favour then. Hold your breath after you read this. Keep holding it for 24 hours and then post a reply.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    If ever you spend a couple of hours beneath the sea without oxygen, then you can come back and make the claim the body doesn't need oxygen. Until then, we'll keep you at arms length.
    Who is we'll? Is he a highly decorated professor.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    If ever you spend a couple of hours beneath the sea without oxygen, then you can come back and make the claim the body doesn't need oxygen. Until then, we'll keep you at arms length.
    Who is we'll? Is he a highly decorated professor.
    "We" are simply those not surrounded by padded walls.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by UKDutyPaid
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    My point is that the body does not need oxygen,
    Do me a favour then. Hold your breath after you read this. Keep holding it for 24 hours and then post a reply.
    I claim that the body needs to alleviate oxygen compounds from the body. Something that pure O2 can do. However other gases can as well. I have stood in nitrogen fumes, from liquid nitrogen. It is very refreshing.

    There was research done in a light vacuum that showed some proof that the body is actually expelling gases. Not bringing them in for use.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Ever heard of ATP, the Krebs cycle, or respiration in general William? How is glucose metabolised? What function does mitochondria have?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Ever heard of ATP, the Krebs cycle, or respiration in general William? How is glucose metabolised? What function does mitochondria have?
    I used to love biology. But I am a bit rusty. I would have to brush up on it a bit. Because none of that is hitting me like a hammer.

    Food contains oxygen. Water contains oxygen.

    Here is something you should see. About water.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/WMV/KitchenOilFire.wmv

    By weight oxygen/hydrogen is 8/1

    Here is another proof. Sometimes someone will say that the hot oil is absorbing oxygen as it moves upwards and that is why it turns blue, showing signs of oxygen. That is not true and I demonstrated that in this short movie below.

    I feed air containing oxygen into a stream of acetylene gas. You can see the nice blue flame. Next I shut off the air to the flame. And you can see you do not get any blue flame even when the acetylene is shooting way out of the tube.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/WMV/hydrocarbonburn.wmv



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    If ever you spend a couple of hours beneath the sea without oxygen, then you can come back and make the claim the body doesn't need oxygen. Until then, we'll keep you at arms length.
    Who is we'll? Is he a highly decorated professor.
    "We" are simply those not surrounded by padded walls.
    There are no padded walls around me. Now. Ha-ha.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Food contains oxygen. Water contains oxygen.
    Sure they do, but you need much more oxygen and it has to be much more readily available. Oxygen is used to metabolise glucose and that produces ATP which is the energy molecule of the body. CO<sub>2</sub> and water vapour is some of the by-products that you exhale. These are all well established and demonstrated FACTS.
    I feed air containing oxygen into a stream of acetylene gas. You can see the nice blue flame. Next I shut off the air to the flame. And you can see you do not get any blue flame even when the acetylene is shooting way out of the tube.
    What were you trying to prove there? Combustion does not need oxygen? Your acetylene flame there can burn, because it combines with oxygen from the atmosphere (+- 20%). When you provide it with more readily available oxygen from you other tank, it can burn more efficiently and burns blue. No mystery there.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    What were you trying to prove there? Combustion does not need oxygen? Your acetylene flame there can burn, because it combines with oxygen from the atmosphere (+- 20%). When you provide it with more readily available oxygen from you other tank, it can burn more efficiently and burns blue. No mystery there.
    Did you see the blue flame ejected from the pan of hot oil. A lot of oxygen in that flame. Where did it come from? The water.

    Many look at the hot oil fire movie. And say that the water was not supplying the oxygen to create the blue flame. I say it definitely was.

    And that is why I showed another boiling aromatic hydrocarbon, the acetylene, with and without oxygen. To show that even if the water forced the hydrocarbon out of the pot. That it would have burned yellow not blue as it did in the hot oil fire movie.

    I used to do the HAZMAT thing for a while, and we used to go and clean out contaminated grease traps. Part of the reason is that sometimes someone at a restaurant gets a grease clogged grease trap. And rather then clean it out, they opt to try powerful chemicals.

    Sometimes the chemicals can ignite the grease. If they do, the grease burns, heats the metal box, the grease, and then the water can react at those temperatures. Fueling it or acting as a catalyst at the temperature of an oxygen and acetylene cutting torch. You often cannot even extinguish them with water. Because of this reason. They often take down a building.

    My point is that in the body at a molecular level the body is capable of those kinds of conversions, a low temp incineration. The body can take water, and fuel and burn it. The only problem is the waste or by product. Which is water, and some of the nasty gases and acids that make our lungs call for a clean out.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Here is a picture of one frame of the hot oil fire in the that movie.




    http://www.Rockwelder.com/WMV/KitchenOilFire.wmv

    The water is doing more then just blowing it out of the pot. It is supplying oxygen. That is why the flame is blue.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/WMV/hydrocarbonburn.wmv

    This movie just backs up my claim by showing that with no air/oxygen, that the gaseous aromatic hydrocarbon flame is all yellow. Not blue. Even when ejected from the pot or tube in a gaseous form.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    So, William, you gonna work on oil platforms next?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    So, William, you gonna work on oil platforms next?
    I have been asked to work on ships, but never off shore oil platforms. With all that time on my hands I would get into trouble.

    It would be cool, I could make an old fashioned Argon telescope and probably see other planets and maybe even life.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •