Okay, so let's say your experiment 1 proves that oil is lighter than water and will rise when the two are mixed ... I'm not sure that really needed proving ... but okay ...

Your experiment 2 doesn't really prove anything in regards oil being lighter than water since the use of a balloon introduces the influence of water pressure on the balloon as the more probable cause of the oil rising in the tube ...

Your experiment 3 seems nonsensical to me in that I really have a hard time believing the results you report are due to the oil being lighter than the water -- since there isn't any water in the tube for the oil to rise in -- and not some other factor. I'm still looking around the house for something a little more secure than celophane rubber-banded to the wine glass -- that seems to me to be a point of weakness in the experiment.

Ideally, you'd want to use a vessel that can be stoppered with one of those rubber lab plugs with a hole in it that will allow a tube to be inserted while maintaining an airtight seal ... I may actually go out and find such equipment, since although it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, I really do want to see if under more controlled conditions for some bizarre reason that experiment will actually produce the results you describe ;-)

You talk like you have experience in Geology.

Controlled conditions would mean you have to place your equipment in a partial vacuum to scale back hydrostatic pressure, and also have the equipment dropping to scale back gravity to account for the reduced weight of the fluid column you're using.

BP aimed for a complete sealing of the ruptured pipe using a series of rubber baffles around the RITT pipe so there'd be no loss of oil into the ocean. The design of their siphoning procedure which aimed for a watertight seal is therefore the same as mine except I achieved it and they didn't. Their problem wasn't that water got into the riser but that oil escaped into the sea therefore letting water into wine glass would not have simulated their conditions. Although piercing the cellophane with a tube may have produced a breach to let water in that didn't in fact happen but even if it had the oil would still have risen to the surface as Bozo has pointed out. Experiment 3 is a fair simulation in that BP's procedure kept water out of the RITT and riser and I kept it out if my plastic tube.

km

Hence the reason I said *more* controlled =D

Plus, I'm merely looking to reproduce KM's home experiment with something more substantial than the cellophane, not to reproduce the actual environment of a wellhead a mile or so under the sea ;-)

What you proved is a balloon can squeeze oil up a short straw, which does not in any way translate into pressure required for lifting oil up a designated length of pipeline and dealing with head loss.

You've confused head, buoyancy and pressure. You've made completely false statements such as



which is mathematically impossible. It is a complete violation of the laws of physics for a fluid column to have the same pressure at higher altitude than it does at lower altitude.

Oil is also not lighter than water. One pound of oil weighs the same as one pound of water, which weighs the same as one pound of feathers. Oil has less density than water. As I explained already, the oil does not give two craps if water is around the pipe, if bricks are sitting on it, or Hugo from Lost is sitting on it. The working force is pressure, not buoyancy.

This entire discussion was raised because you pulled a number from your butt:



I simply replied that 2000psi is not enough pressure to raise oil one mile.

The math is easy.

One issue we have however is the density of the crude oil. It can vary anywhere from .87 (Texas) to .97(Mexico). Even though it's probably heavier, I'll be generous and use .9, which gives us pressure loss of .3906psi/ft

Multiply .3906 * 5280 and you get 2062.368 psi is required to lift oil exactly one mile -> however that is without factoring in major loss due to friction and turbulence of the fluid. Add several hundred more psi because I really don't feel like explaining it to you.

2062.368 psi is greater than 2000 psi.

Math doesn't lie, 2000 psi is not enough pressure to raise oil one mile, at best with no loss it would raise it 5120 feet, and at the top of the column of oil, the pressure will always be zero psi.

I can see you thinking of ways to twist this around now. However my statement of "like it or not, a pump is going to be involved" is unchanged and still true. Oil platforms have pumps for a reason.

There wasn't enough oil in the balloon for the squeezing effect you're thinking of. The fact that I got the same result using a solid container makes your squeezing theory the least, not most, probable cause.


There doesn't need to be water in the tube. The oil and gas come up to the surface because the pressure on the water outside the tube is greater than that on the oil and gas inside it.


No, that was watertight - I'm afraid you're proceeding from the false premise that I've misdescribed my experiments.


Well, when the wine glass was immersed into the water I observed that the cellophane remained watertight and that no water got past it.


You could save yourself a lot of trouble by repeating my experiment which took a couple of minutes instead of trying to improve upon it.


They wouldn't be more controlled - If you achieved a watertight seal with different equipment that would be equally controlled.

km

Noope, I've already explained that squeezing has nothing to do with it - re-read my posts.


No that's wrong - experiment 1 proved that when oil is submerged beneath water gravity only keeps it down when it hits the surface.


This could be where you're going wrong, Sarge (if not where you're getting more and more desperate for a winning line ) I said oil is lighter than water because it's a scientific truth.


Doh, wrong measure - one pint of oil is lighter than one pint of water.


I never said anything about buoyancy... but I have been quite clear about the relative effects of pressure.


Not really... because BP didn't need a pump to get oil into the tanker.


I suggest you read Bozo's 'gushing' posts and his link thereon. You keep ignoring the fact that the oil is submerged beneath water so there's upward pressure on it without a pump - that's what's happening in the gulf and that's what's proved by my experiments.


Yeah, maybe a little bit too easy, as poly has pointed out. What you need to do, with respect, is produce the math(s) that explain my experiments rather than the 'math' that attempts to deny them.


Yeah but not for that reason - my experiments prove that pumps aren't necessary to bring oil to the surface. In fact, what BP did was to connect the RITT and riser pipe to the old ruptured one and warm the oil with sea water to improve viscocity.

km

Well, that would be a different cause than the fact that oil is lighter* than water. I've been pointing out all this time that it was a matter of pressure.

*or less dense, as Sgt. Baxter points out, although that's what I've been interpreting "lighter" to mean in our discussions



Yeah, that's a personal decision on my part since I think the qualities of the cellophane not being rigid and as watertight as I would probably want might possibly be introducing unwanted factors into the experiment. Or perhaps I'll do it both ways =)

I see, you have proven that if in a well the riser pipe breaks and you fix it the well will work again!

And you have better technology that BP because your rubber band succeeded where their "series of rubber baffles" have failed.

Congratulations! BP should hire you immediately. Their well is still spilling.

WOW!

¡Nada más con el testigo!
[That will be all with this witness!]





This is an unexpected development.