If D from BC were a plumber:
in [Design]
|
Prev: Will heating the platters beyond curie temp make disk-splicing impossible?
Next: Will heating the platters beyond curie temp make disk-splicing impossible?
From: krw on 17 Apr 2010 12:53 On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:47:07 +0100, Baron <baron.nospam(a)linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote: >krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz Inscribed thus: > >> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:44:54 +0100, Baron >> <baron.nospam(a)linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote: >> >>>Copacetic Inscribed thus: >>> >>>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:26:01 -0700, Charlie E. <edmondson(a)ieee.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Two possibilities. First, the hot and cold line for the shower may >>>>>be adjacent, so the cold line is slowly heated to the same temp as >>>>>the >>>>>hot line. then, when you run the hot line, it gets a little cooler >>>>>as the tank goes down, but the cold is still the same temp. >>>>> >>>>>OR >>>> >>>> >>>> That is silly. To heat the cold water pipe's water, said water >>>> would >>>> have to be stationary. >>>> >>>> Otherwise, the water temp flowing in the pipe RULES against any >>>> peripheral heating. >>>> >>>> A completely silly suggestion. >>> >>>I disagree. The transfer of heat would take place even if the water >>>were moving in either or both pipes. >>> >>>> So, IF the hot water is the ONLY water on for a LONG enough time >>>> to >>>> heat a siamesed pipe's water (A VERY LONG TIME), THEN said water >>>> would be warm or hot, but that would end IMMEDIATELY, once the water >>>> in that >>>> pipe is turned on. If the hot water is not ran constant, it too >>>> will cool to ambient temps. >>> >>>Its quite common to lag together both hot and cold pipes for a common >>>run. The idea is that the hot water flow prevents the cold water >>>freezing in its pipe and causing a burst. >> >> I have *never* seen anyone do such a stupid thing, even in Vermont >> where it does get cold (and there is an overabundance of stupid people >> - Demonicrats). > >Just because you have never seen it done, doesn't mean it isn't nor does >it make it stupid. There is no reason to do it and a lot of reasons not to do it. It certainly *is* stupid. >I don't see what it has to do with politics either ! Other than Demonicrats being stupid people, and even those in &cold_place aren't stupid enough to do it, not much. I suppose you're another example of a stupid Demonicrat. Figures. >>>Admittedly a much less common occurrence nowadays with the use of >>>plastic pipes. >>> >>>> A totally false claim you have made there.
From: Baron on 17 Apr 2010 14:34 Copacetic Inscribed thus: > On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:44:54 +0100, Baron > <baron.nospam(a)linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote: > >>I disagree. The transfer of heat would take place even if the water >>were moving in either or both pipes. >> > You do not understand at all. Once water begins moving, the > temperature of the water FEEDING that point in the pipe is the master > that defines the temperature of the flow from that point on. Flow or movement of a medium is required in order to transfer heat from one medium to another. Either way an equilibrium will be reached. > You need to understand how in-line water heaters work. I belive I do ! > They burn 1200 watts or more to heat water flowing directly over the > radiating heating element. I belive you are talking about "Instantaneous" water heaters where the water temperature is a function of the rate of flow. The higher the rate of flow the cooler the output water. A little bit like the old gas geysers. > The coupling between two pipes, even if they were soldered to each > other would come nowhere near ANY ability to transfer the thousands of > BTUs required to heat the water once in motion. I didn't realise that you were discussing efficiency of transferring thousands of BTU. > So, the HOT side would HAVE to be on, at at least a trickle, to > maintain its feed water temp. THAT heat would then require several > minutes to transfer over to JUST THAT SHORT segment of a pipe full of > non moving cold water. If it moves, the job is killed immediately. If > they are both moving, the job is killed. If neither is moving, the job > is killed by homogenization with each other and ambient air. > > Regardless, your contention is about as dubious as it gets. Mmm. Tell that to my central heating radiators ! The pumped coil feeding them is inside the tank of hot water. That hot water also feeds the shower in addition to all the hot taps in the house. Without water flowing in the pipes I wouldn't have heated radiators. > Even the operation of a simple water cooled PC CPU proves these > facts. > > If the water is not moving, the cpu only heats the water local to > the contact face. Once moving, the system water bath temp takes > over... > BIG TIME. I rather think that example suggests that heat transfer can take place between two pipes. > Think before you refute. Otherwise you re-size your mouth with your > foot. I don't think that you have said anything that proves me wrong. -- Best Regards: Baron.
From: Baron on 17 Apr 2010 14:39 krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz Inscribed thus: > On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:47:07 +0100, Baron > <baron.nospam(a)linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote: > >>krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz Inscribed thus: >> >>> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:44:54 +0100, Baron >>> <baron.nospam(a)linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote: >>> >>>>Copacetic Inscribed thus: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:26:01 -0700, Charlie E. >>>>> <edmondson(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Two possibilities. First, the hot and cold line for the shower >>>>>>may be adjacent, so the cold line is slowly heated to the same >>>>>>temp as the >>>>>>hot line. then, when you run the hot line, it gets a little >>>>>>cooler as the tank goes down, but the cold is still the same temp. >>>>>> >>>>>>OR >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That is silly. To heat the cold water pipe's water, said water >>>>> would >>>>> have to be stationary. >>>>> >>>>> Otherwise, the water temp flowing in the pipe RULES against any >>>>> peripheral heating. >>>>> >>>>> A completely silly suggestion. >>>> >>>>I disagree. The transfer of heat would take place even if the water >>>>were moving in either or both pipes. >>>> >>>>> So, IF the hot water is the ONLY water on for a LONG enough time >>>>> to >>>>> heat a siamesed pipe's water (A VERY LONG TIME), THEN said water >>>>> would be warm or hot, but that would end IMMEDIATELY, once the >>>>> water in that >>>>> pipe is turned on. If the hot water is not ran constant, it too >>>>> will cool to ambient temps. >>>> >>>>Its quite common to lag together both hot and cold pipes for a >>>>common >>>>run. The idea is that the hot water flow prevents the cold water >>>>freezing in its pipe and causing a burst. >>> >>> I have *never* seen anyone do such a stupid thing, even in Vermont >>> where it does get cold (and there is an overabundance of stupid >>> people - Demonicrats). >> >>Just because you have never seen it done, doesn't mean it isn't nor >>does it make it stupid. > > There is no reason to do it and a lot of reasons not to do it. It > certainly *is* stupid. OK ! Start by stating the reasons for and against. >>I don't see what it has to do with politics either ! > > Other than Demonicrats being stupid people, and even those in > &cold_place aren't stupid enough to do it, not much. I suppose you're > another example of a stupid Demonicrat. Figures. > >>>>Admittedly a much less common occurrence nowadays with the use of >>>>plastic pipes. >>>> >>>>> A totally false claim you have made there. -- Best Regards: Baron.
From: krw on 17 Apr 2010 14:41 On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:34:49 +0100, Baron <baron.nospam(a)linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote: >Copacetic Inscribed thus: >> Think before you refute. Otherwise you re-size your mouth with your >> foot. > >I don't think that you have said anything that proves me wrong. If you're agreeing with DimBulb, you're most likely wrong. DimBulb is particularly dense when it comes to thermodynamics (hence the name "DimBulb"). He's also known as AlwaysWrong, for good reason. I'll net MichaelT give you the complete list of Nymbecile's nyms (he's closing in on 100 of 'em), so you know who you're talking to, here, in the future.
From: Copacetic on 17 Apr 2010 14:53
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:34:49 +0100, Baron <baron.nospam(a)linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote: >I didn't realise that you were discussing efficiency of transferring >thousands of BTU. You are the idiot that claimed local thermal coupling. If that is to happen, then said coupling would have to transfer such a number, and it doesn't. Again you prove that your claim is ludicrous. |