Dumb Questions Thread
- Thread starter Liquid
- 763 comments
- 47,769 views
Joey D
Premium
- 46,710
- Boyne Falls, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Yes, but it's virtually unnoticeable since it's on the scale of microns.
- 28,545
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
I've spent a little bit of time trying to understand the princples of a steam engine and how it works; I've been able to follow that from reading about the first practical, working engine, the Newcomen engine as seen below.
Everything I've read about the Newcomen engine says that it, and other early steam engines, were used to pump water out of mines. From looking at the diagram I understand that steam enters the cylinder causing the piston to rise and allowing a partial spray of water condenses the steam causing the piston to fall again. This reciprocating piston action works with the chains and causes the lever to rise and fall in tandem.
Exactly how does this pump water out of a mine though? What is the lever arm on the left attached to that pumps water out of a mine? I've never found something which actually explains that bit.
Everything I've read about the Newcomen engine says that it, and other early steam engines, were used to pump water out of mines. From looking at the diagram I understand that steam enters the cylinder causing the piston to rise and allowing a partial spray of water condenses the steam causing the piston to fall again. This reciprocating piston action works with the chains and causes the lever to rise and fall in tandem.
Exactly how does this pump water out of a mine though? What is the lever arm on the left attached to that pumps water out of a mine? I've never found something which actually explains that bit.
Last edited:
- 7,527
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
The pump is a different component entirely. Think of the entire Newcomen engine as a cyclinder or collection of cylinders in an ICE engine. The cylinders are just generating power and it's up to you to harness that power, typically you'd do this with a transmission to covert reciprocal motion into linear motion.
The diagram that you posted could have another piston chamber on the left side that is submerged in water. When the right piston cools down and lowers, the left piston would rise and reduce the pressure in its chamber. This would mean the water would feel a pressure imbalance from atmospheric pressure pushing down on it outside of the chamber while sub atmospheric pressure pushes down on it inside the chamber, a partial vacuum (remember vacuums don't suck, they are just volumes that exert less pressure than their surroundings).
- 28,545
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
I know the pump is a different element altogether, I just don't know how the basic mine pump works or how the action of the steam engine influences what it does. From your diagram, I can understand the principle of a second cylinder in the water and using the upstroke of the piston to draw water up the cylinder and out of the mine but... where does that water go? Don't you just keep sloshing the same water up and down each time?
- 7,527
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
To be fair, as I drew it yes. However you could add a valve and pipe or something to the second cylinder so that the water would have a place to go once it's full. This would just direct the water to a different area, where you could leave it if it was not connected to the mine, or have people haul out the water with buckets or something. Or take Famine's idea and just have the engine pulling up buckets directly.
- 5,014
- Panama City, FL
The pump has an input and an output. Water is sucked into the input by the input of the pump being at lower pressure that the water is at, and the water is sent up a pipe by the output side being kept at a higher pressure than the weight of the water in the pipe going to the surface, or wherever it goes, like a side passage of the mine. If it's a reciprocating pump like Exorcet drew, it would need a check valve on the output to prevent backflow. The steam engine just turns the pump with a crankshaft. No different from a water pump on an engine, or even a turbocharger (which is just a centrifugal air pump.)
- 28,545
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
There's a flu going around the school I work at and it's very heavy and strong for those affected but it is disproportionately affecting the kids and hardly any of the adults in the building. This plague factory has also been riddled with covid (obviously) but covid was mostly asymptomatic with the kids.
I am surprised that this flu has, on the whole, affected the children more than covid has and it got me thinking about the low covid mortality rate in children and how bad it could have been had children been dying left, right and centre because of it.
Why is covid so relatively non-fatal to children? It goes against what you would think about compromised or undeveloped immune systems.
I am surprised that this flu has, on the whole, affected the children more than covid has and it got me thinking about the low covid mortality rate in children and how bad it could have been had children been dying left, right and centre because of it.
Why is covid so relatively non-fatal to children? It goes against what you would think about compromised or undeveloped immune systems.
Barra333
Premium
- 6,447
- London, ON
- barra333
Without doing any searching/reading right now, here is my first thought....
One of the things that can make covid so bad is that it can trigger your immune system to go bat**** crazy, which what leads it to having every non-specific symptom under the sun. Kids, having this underdeveloped, idiot immune system just starting out the window, therefore dodge that bullet.
One of the things that can make covid so bad is that it can trigger your immune system to go bat**** crazy, which what leads it to having every non-specific symptom under the sun. Kids, having this underdeveloped, idiot immune system just starting out the window, therefore dodge that bullet.
- 19,431
- HSV
I think human children just rapidly developed a strong immune defense system as a product of evolution. They're also growing up until the ages of 17-21 (give or take) so perhaps that momentum is a part of it.
But they're also quite vulnerable in the first few months of life, so they're not indestructible. Kids do get plenty of illnesses and there's plenty of diseases that primarily affect younger children rather than most adults.
There's definitely something more to it than that but I'm nowhere near an expert in the matter.
But they're also quite vulnerable in the first few months of life, so they're not indestructible. Kids do get plenty of illnesses and there's plenty of diseases that primarily affect younger children rather than most adults.
There's definitely something more to it than that but I'm nowhere near an expert in the matter.
- 1,788
- Turkey
So, with it it being Winter and all: Let's say you're in a car equipped with summer tyres. Conditions are snowy and you're waiting at the lights, when you're suddenly rear-ended by someone who failed to stop in time. How would the opposing insurance rule in this case? Would they say:
A: The fact that you're on summer tyres played no role in the accident, the other party is fully responsible.
B: You're on summer tyres and shouldn't have driven in the first place. And if you hadn't driven, you wouldn't have gotten involved in this accident. Liability will be split between the two parties.
C: [Something else]
Also, let's say the other car is in fact equipped with snow tyres. The driver just misjudged their stopping distance.
I know the answers might differ depending on where you're from. Just wanted to have a little thought experiment
A: The fact that you're on summer tyres played no role in the accident, the other party is fully responsible.
B: You're on summer tyres and shouldn't have driven in the first place. And if you hadn't driven, you wouldn't have gotten involved in this accident. Liability will be split between the two parties.
C: [Something else]
Also, let's say the other car is in fact equipped with snow tyres. The driver just misjudged their stopping distance.
I know the answers might differ depending on where you're from. Just wanted to have a little thought experiment
Last edited:
- 19,965
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
I cannot imagine insurance would do anything other than A. B would be a foolish argument and would be shot down. If you rear-ended the other car, then B could apply.So, with it it being Winter and all: Let's say you're in a car equipped with summer tyres. Conditions are snowy and you're waiting at the lights, when you're suddenly rear-ended by someone who failed to stop in time. How would the opposing insurance rule in this case? Would they say:
A: The fact that you're on summer tyres played no role in the accident, the other party is fully responsible.
B: You're on summer tyres and shouldn't have driven in the first place. And if you hadn't driven, you wouldn't have gotten involved in this accident. Liability will be split between the two parties.
C: [Something else]
Also, let's say the other car is in fact equipped with snow tyres. The driver just misjudged their stopping distance.
I know the answers might differ depending on where you're from. Just wanted to have a little thought experiment
- 5,644
- Ulricehamn
We have winter tyre laws. In this scenario the driver on the winter tyres would get all the blame. The driver rear ended would get a ticket for not having winter tyres.
With the possibility of him being standing still at a green light because he couldn't get traction. Then the blame might be split in some portion
With the possibility of him being standing still at a green light because he couldn't get traction. Then the blame might be split in some portion
- 5,014
- Panama City, FL
Just the right? I keep hearing the White House press secretary tell me how great the economy is, as groceries approach sometimes 50% higher prices than 2020, and retirement savings have lost 1/3 of their value. Evaporated. Gone.
Personally, I feel the same thing as your sig line, but applied to liberalism.
Personally, I feel the same thing as your sig line, but applied to liberalism.
Last edited:
- 28,807
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
This is where I'd normally ask that you indicate where I said only the right is guilty of this.
But I'm not going to ask that you do that because a) I know you can't (...because I didn't) and b) you've demonstrated a propensity to nope the **** out of discussion when your position is compromised, like when you explained from strictly a biological point of view (opting to wholly disregard the sociological) why what makes a woman isn't complicated and then declined to respond to complications to strictly the biological point of view. Remember that? It happened in this very thread. I even quoted and responded to you asserting victimhood preemptively.
No, it's not just the right. Having said that, there's an ocean of difference in degree and frequency.
I'm definitely not surprised that a connie would get triggered by such an assertion that I didn't make, even when your bronzer daddy embodies the firehose of falsehoods.
I don't pay much attention to the WH press secretary but I think you're probably right that she has bragged about economic positives (that aren't likely to be the result of administrative action), and did so even while disregarding economic negatives (that may or may not be the fault of administrative action, and certainly are not exclusively).
Good thing I didn't say it was just the right, rather I asked why the right is so driven to perpetuate falsehoods.
I believe you.
It's a sentiment that I've observed (indeed it's a sentiment of which I've been on the receiving end) for something like thirty years, and I'm certain it's one that has been felt for much longer. It's actually a sentiment that I've co-opted and adjusted accordingly. What is it they say of turnabout? I've added the "modern" qualifier, though, because I think it may not have always been the case, but with reefer madness, satanic panic, attitudes about gender and sexuality, and even the way the right rails against music they find distasteful having been around for many decades, I don't actually know when it wasn't.
So, to co-opt another phrase from the right, and one I don't have to change...**** your feelings.
Last edited:
- 5,014
- Panama City, FL
Well, your question was literally, "Why is the right..." Not, "Why are so many people..." or something more general. That's what I answered. You saying that I interpreted you to say "only the right" is putting words in my mouth. While it may be true that only saying "the right" is not the same as saying "only the right," it is implied in the way it was phrased, and that's how I answered it.
As to an actual answer to your question, in a more generalized form of "Why are so many people," history is filled with people pushing lies as facts, trying to convince the masses that "We're here to help," or whatever their agenda happens to be.
- 5,644
- Ulricehamn
Both sides actually. Not all of both sides but the extremes and loudest of both sides are living in a "reality" where they are constantly being confirmed in their believes by their own kinds and both thinking that their truth and how they feel about it is more important than facts
- 28,807
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Nope. Those are literally the first four words of my question. More followed, of course, and your inclusion of an ellipsis is an acknowledgement of that fact.
Do you realize my question remains on the page as it was originally asked, unaltered, or are your cognitive faculties grievance-addled to such a degree that you're incapable of observing it in that unaltered state?
Correct. My observation is that the right is driven to greater frequency and degree (indicated in the original question by the adverb "so") than the left to perpetuate obvious falsehoods, not that the right does so exclusively.
Nope. You responded by deflecting.
Yep.
Inferred.
If my intent was to allege that only the right does so, I would have stated it explicitly. I'm very blunt.
Acknowledging that it hasn't been answered. Good. That's progress.
Again deflecting from the question that was asked.
A mere observation that doesn't answer even the question that you posed in an effort to deflect from the question that I asked.
You're bad at this.
- 16,491
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
I disagree. When leading leftwing politicians start amplifying obvious and easily unprovable falsehoods as a matter of policy, as right wing leaders have repeatedly done concerning the pandemic, election results, paedophile rings who meet in non-existent basements of pizza shops and Twitter supposedly censoring tweets pushing the Hunter Biden laptop conspiracy, perhaps then we can start talking equivalence.
The difference with the right is that the crazies are in power, or at the very least it appears that those elected to positions of power by them actively seek to court their craziness for political gain.
Last edited:
