Jump to content

Mallow

Meteorologist
  • Content count

    5,457
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mallow

  • Rank
    Here today, gone to Mallow
  • Birthday 10/16/1985

Profile Information

  • Four Letter Airport Code For Weather Obs (Such as KDCA)
    KUNV
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    State College, PA

Recent Profile Visitors

2,300 profile views
  1. Mallow

    WxChallenge 2016-2017

    Have 44/31/23/0 for tomorrow.
  2. Mallow

    WxChallenge 2016-2017

    Went with 44/34/18/0, gunning for that late 06z low.
  3. Mallow

    Exceptional Arctic Warmth

    That is incredible.
  4. Mallow

    Greenhouse Effect 101

    For the third time, please do not assume my intentions. What is it that you specifically disagree with in my conclusions for experiment 2b?
  5. Mallow

    Greenhouse Effect 101

    I'm sorry, I was not clear. I was not talking about the first simpler experiment, I mean my second simpler experiment, in which I claim that the final equilibrium level would be higher than in the first simpler experiment. To make things cleaner, let's call my original experiment "Experiment 1", and then let's call the two simpler experiments "Experiments 2a and 2b". We clearly disagree about experiment 1. However, as you noted, you have agreed with my conclusions about experiment 2a. Do you also agree with my conclusions about experiment 2b?
  6. Mallow

    Greenhouse Effect 101

    Again, please do not make assumptions about my intentions. We are not discussing my original experiment at the moment. Do you agree with my conclusions about my second simpler experiment above?
  7. Mallow

    Greenhouse Effect 101

    Although my question was addressed to blizzard1024, thank you for responding. It was not clear to me that you had agreed with this particular experimental design, as your responses always seemed to be about something different. Please do not assume where I am going with this experiment. I was not going to suggest that the next step was to change the aperture size after reaching an equilibrium, as you state. As you can see, it makes the discussion much more difficult when assumptions about intentions are made. I still absolutely disagree with the notion that decreasing the size of the aperture does not change the water flow through the aperture, as it is completely unphysical and unintuitive, and you have not demonstrated any actual evidence that this occurs (you have claimed it's true in the hose example, and I strongly disagree with the assertion that flow rate is unchanged even in that example--regardless, that experiment does not have any relevance towards mine). However, let us ignore that point of contention for the moment, since it is not relevant to the experiment we are currently discussing. Since we agree that the experiment I have described above would lead to the outcome I have described above (that is, starting from an empty tank, the water would fill up until it reaches an equilibrium level where the increased water pressure in the bottom allows the flow rate to match the constant incoming flow rate), my next question is as follows. Experiment 2b: Start with an empty tank, with a very slightly smaller hole in the bottom than in experiment 2a. Let water flow into the top of the tank via a tap at the same (near-) constant rate as in experiment 2a. In experiment 2b, because the hole in the bottom of the tank is slightly smaller than in experiment 2a, the initial outflow rate is slightly lower. Therefore, the rate at which the water flows into the top is still a little faster at first than the rate at which it exits the bottom of the tank, and the initial differential is slightly larger in experiment 2b than in 2a. I think we can all agree that the tank would again begin to fill with water, as the inflow rate is still greater than the outflow rate. But what will happen after that? To me, it is clear that, as the water level increases, the water pressure in the bottom of the tank increases, increasing the outflow rate, just as in experiment 2a. Eventually, the outflow rate will match the inflow rate, however, since the hole in the bottom is smaller, a higher pressure will be needed to reach this equilibrium level. At that point, the water level has reached an "equilibrium" level which is slightly higher than in experiment 2a. Does this seem reasonable?
  8. Mallow

    Greenhouse Effect 101

    blizzard1024, if you would, could you let me know what you think about this experiment? It's a simpler one than the one I originally posted in the 2016 temperatures thread, and I do not know if you've seen this one yet. Experiment 2a: Start with an empty tank, with a small hole in the bottom. Let water flow into the top of the tank via a tap at a (near-) constant rate, such that the rate at which the water flows into the top is a little faster at first than the rate at which it exits the bottom of the tank. I think we can all agree that the tank would begin to fill with water, as the inflow rate is greater than the outflow rate. But what will happen after that? Will the tank continue to fill at the same rate perpetually? Or will something else happen? To me, it is clear that, as the water level increases, the water pressure in the bottom of the tank increases, increasing the outflow rate. Eventually, the outflow rate will match the inflow rate. At that point, the water level has reached an "equilibrium" level. Can we agree that this is what would happen in this experiment?
  9. Mallow

    2016 Global Temperatures

    I would be happy to discuss this topic further with blizzard1024. However, I believe that while my explanations and justifications have been more than adequate towards Mr. BillT, my main points weren't being sufficiently addressed and discussed. I was unable to ascertain whether or not he even agreed with a simpler experimental design which avoided some of the complications of my original experiment, a question I posed multiple times with no forthcoming discussion. While disappointed that I was unable to clarify my point with Mr. BillT, I no longer believe that this inability was due to my own lack of communication ability, as my attempts to clarify were never addressed. Therefore, I believe it is in my best interest to end this particular dialogue with that individual, as I do not believe any further understanding can be achieved on either side when one party does not even acknowledge the existence of the others' main points. If there is another individual who is reading this thread, and would like additional clarification about any point that Mr. BillT brought up, or to discuss any other point regarding my analogy (perhaps there is a design flaw that I'm unaware of, perhaps there is a concept that I can help to clarify, or anything else), please feel free to respond. I would be happy to discuss it further!
  10. Mallow

    2016 Global Temperatures

    Again, I don't understand this. I never constrained my experiment to maintain a constant pressure in the tank. And I have since simplified my experiment to not include changing the size of the hole. You have not yet addressed whether you agree with my conception of the new experiment yet. I had hoped that removing the need to change the size of the hole during the experiment would remove that source of your concern. Please let me know if you agree with my statements about my simpler experiment. And again, when done in the real world, there is absolutely no physical mechanism or reason to suspect that the flow rate through two different sized holes at constant pressure would be the same. In fact, physically speaking, it is guaranteed that the flow rate under equal pressure through a larger hole would be greater. And that, I feel, is also intuitive. A large hole in the bottom of a tank would be associated with a greater water flow rate than a smaller hole in the same tank. I don't understand what could lead someone to conclude otherwise.
  11. Mallow

    2016 Global Temperatures

    I do not think you have answered my questions at all. Did you agree that the water would reach an equilibrium level in the experiment I described above where you start with an empty tank and keep the hole size constant (yes or no)? I do not understand the rest of your comment. As far as I can tell, you are arguing that the water pressure in my tank depends on the city water pressure? If so, that is simply incorrect. Water pressure is not a conserved variable, the water does not somehow "remember" the pressure level from whence it originated. And there is no physical mechanism by which water pressure must change to keep flow rate constant--if that were the case, than a change to an infinitesimally small hole would cause the hole to be under an infinitesimally large pressure to maintain a constant flow rate. There is no physical basis by which this could or should occur.
  12. Mallow

    2016 Global Temperatures

    A tap is sufficiently steady. But there are many other ways if you want a more precise flow rate. For one, you can use a very large tank as a source, with an output (that would serve as an input for my experiment) at a given level in the tank, such that the level in the very large tank doesn't change substantially through the course of the experiment. This would provide a very steady flow. However, again, a tap should be sufficiently steady for the flow rate in my experiment. Will you please tell me whether you agree or disagree with my above questions?
  13. Mallow

    2016 Global Temperatures

    I have explained to the best of my ability why I do not believe the experiments are equivalent. The problem is with water pressure, not water flow rate, which should be constant enough for my experiment. In other words, in my experiment, the water pressure in the tank does not depend on the city water pressure. The water pressure in the hose is almost completely determined by the city water pressure. This is why I am not interested in the hose design. So please in the future, let us discuss my design. If you believe the two designs are equivalent, then please couch your argument in the terms of my design rather than that of the hose example, since I do not agree that they are equivalent, and the hose example is thus irrelevant to me. In order to understand where we disagree, I am trying to ascertain what parts of my experiment you agree with and what parts you don't agree with. So I will repeat the questions I asked above. Start with an empty tank, with a small hole in the bottom. Let water flow into the top of the tank via a tap at a (near-) constant rate, such that the rate at which the water flows into the top is a little faster at first than the rate at which it exits the bottom of the tank. I think we can all agree that the tank would begin to fill with water, as the inflow rate is greater than the outflow rate. But what will happen after that? Will the tank continue to fill at the same rate perpetually? Or will something else happen? To me, it is clear that, as the water level increases, the water pressure in the bottom of the tank increases, increasing the outflow rate. Eventually, the outflow rate will match the inflow rate. At that point, the water level has reached an "equilibrium" level. Can we agree that this is what would happen in this experiment?
  14. Mallow

    2016 Global Temperatures

    I am sorry, but I do not wish to discuss the scenario with the hose attached directly to the city water system anymore. It is far too complicated a system and not relevant to my experiment, as the physical mechanisms at play are different. I have addressed my concerns with it to the best of my ability, and I would like to focus on the experiment that I proposed. I am sure you will understand if I do not address this side-topic in the future. If you feel that I am talking down to you, I apologize. However, I would like to know if you agree with my assertion in the post you quoted, as I am trying to understand what is unclear about my experiment. Do you agree?
  15. Mallow

    2016 Global Temperatures

    Since it appears that the explanation of my analogous experiment was not as easy to comprehend as I had intended, I'll ask another, related question. Start with an empty tank, with a small hole in the bottom. Let water flow into the top of the tank via a tap at a (near-) constant rate, such that the rate at which the water flows into the top is a little faster at first than the rate at which it exits the bottom of the tank. I think we can all agree that the tank would begin to fill with water, as the inflow rate is greater than the outflow rate. But what will happen after that? Will the tank continue to fill at the same rate perpetually? Or will something else happen? To me, it is clear that, as the water level increases, the water pressure in the bottom of the tank increases, increasing the outflow rate. Eventually, the outflow rate will match the inflow rate. At that point, the water level has reached an "equilibrium" level. Can we agree that this is what would happen in this experiment?
×