• AppleCentral Network:
  • Tech Support
  • |
  • Open Source
  • |
  • Apple News
  • |
  • Register Domains
  • |
  • SSL Certificates
  • |
  • iPod Deals
  • |
  • Mac Deals
  • |
  • Mac Book Shelf
  • AppleCentral Home
  • MacTech Magazine
    • About MacTech in Print
    • Issue Table of Contents
    • Subscribe
    • Risk Free Sample
    • Back Issues
    • MacTech DVD
    • MacTech Archives
    • MacTech Print Archives
    • MacMod
    • MacTutor
    • FrameWorks
    • develop
  • MacNews.com
    • MacNews News
    • Blog
    • MacTech Reviews and KoolTools
    • Whitepapers, Screencasts, Videos and Books
    • News Scanner
    • Rumors Scanner
    • Documentation Scanner
  • Apple Expo
    • by Category
    • by Company
    • by Product
  • MacForge.net
  • Job Board
  • Advertising
    • Benefits of MacTech
    • Mechanicals and Submission
    • Dates and Deadlines
    • Submit Apple Expo Entry
  • User
    • Register for Ongoing Raffles
    • Register new user
    • Edit User Settings
    • Logout
  • Contact
    • Customer Service
    • Webmaster Feedback
    • Submit News or PR
    • Suggest an article
  • Connect Tools
    • MacTech Live Podcast
    • RSS Feeds
    • Twitter
You are not logged in. [Log In] AppleCentral » Forums » General Discussion » Soapbox » BP finally admits that it's worse.
Register User    Forum List        Active Topics    FAQ
Page 14 of 15 < 1 2 ... 12 13 14 15 >
Go to page...
Topic Options
Hop to:
#523891 - 05/26/10 12:12 AM Re: BP finally admits that it's worse. [Re: keymaker]
six_of_one Offline
Pool Bar

Registered: 04/19/02
Posts: 4474
Loc: Alexandria, VA
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 ;-)

Top
#523895 - 05/26/10 12:54 AM Re: BP finally admits that it's worse. [Re: MacBozo]
Reboot Offline

Muhahahaha

Registered: 04/22/02
Posts: 15046
Loc: Columbus OH
You talk like you have experience in Geology. wink wink wink
_________________________
AppleCentral Trivia

MM-MCF Trivia

Call the Doctor

Top
#523909 - 05/26/10 04:03 AM Re: BP finally admits that it's worse. [Re: six_of_one]
SgtBaxter Offline
F'n HO.P.A.®

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 5249
Loc: Hampstead, MD, USA
Originally Posted By: six_of_one
I really do want to see if under more controlled conditions for some bizarre reason that experiment will actually produce the results you describe ;-)


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.
_________________________

Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®
twitter.com/SgtBaxter
facebook.com/Bryan.Eckert

Top
#523914 - 05/26/10 04:55 AM Re: BP finally admits that it's worse. [Re: katlpablo]
keymaker Offline


Registered: 12/14/07
Posts: 6026
Quote:
I see a big difference between one and the other and can't understand your equating in your experiment a ruptured well and an intact one. Isn't this all about the oil spill? Yet, you choose to ignore it in your model?

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

Top
#523915 - 05/26/10 04:55 AM Re: BP finally admits that it's worse. [Re: SgtBaxter]
six_of_one Offline
Pool Bar

Registered: 04/19/02
Posts: 4474
Loc: Alexandria, VA
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 ;-)

Top
#523916 - 05/26/10 05:25 AM Re: BP finally admits that it's worse. [Re: keymaker]
SgtBaxter Offline
F'n HO.P.A.®

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 5249
Loc: Hampstead, MD, USA
Originally Posted By: keymaker
Well, I made that point in relation to experiment 1 when I poured oil into water in a wine glass and it rose to the surface, which simulates the spill, of course. Since there's more pressure on water than on anything lighter than water such as oil it comes to the surface from a subaquatic source even through a pipe - that's what my experiments 2 and 3 prove.
km


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

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Since oil is lighter than water its always coming to surface and will come out of the pipe at the same pressure it goes in.


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:

Quote:
about 2,000 lbs psi at that depth.


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.
_________________________

Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®
twitter.com/SgtBaxter
facebook.com/Bryan.Eckert

Top
#523917 - 05/26/10 05:39 AM Re: BP finally admits that it's worse. [Re: six_of_one]
keymaker Offline


Registered: 12/14/07
Posts: 6026
Quote:
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

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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 ...

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

Quote:
I may actually go out and find such equipment, since although it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things

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.

Quote:
I really do want to see if under more controlled conditions for some bizarre reason that experiment will actually produce the results you describe

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

km

Top
#523918 - 05/26/10 06:35 AM Re: BP finally admits that it's worse. [Re: SgtBaxter]
keymaker Offline


Registered: 12/14/07
Posts: 6026
Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
You've confused head, buoyancy and pressure. You've made completely false statements such as ... "oil is lighter than water its always coming to surface and will come out of the pipe at the same pressure it goes in 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.

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

Quote:
Oil is also not lighter than water.

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

Quote:
One pound of oil weighs the same as one pound of water...

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

Quote:
The working force is pressure, not buoyancy.

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

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

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

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

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.

Quote:
The math is easy...

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.

Quote:
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.

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. laugh

km

Top
#523923 - 05/26/10 07:21 AM Re: BP finally admits that it's worse. [Re: keymaker]
six_of_one Offline
Pool Bar

Registered: 04/19/02
Posts: 4474
Loc: Alexandria, VA
Quote:
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.


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

Quote:
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.


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 =)

Top
#523948 - 05/26/10 02:06 PM Re: BP finally admits that it's worse. [Re: keymaker]
katlpablo Offline
aguakatle

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 684
Loc: borikén·Aẏtiyas AbyaYala...
Originally Posted By: keymaker

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


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!

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


crazy crazy shocked confused


This is an unexpected development.
_________________________

DSA—DSGB
 »[VIDEO]»

Top
Page 14 of 15 < 1 2 ... 12 13 14 15 >
Go to page...
Previous Topic
View All Topics Index
Next Topic

Tweet

Preview

Moderator:  Acumowchek, MacGizmo, Moderator, neil, Reboot 
Print Topic
Switch to Threaded Mode
Publications, Articles and Industry Discussion
   »MacTech/MacNews Article Discussions
   »Apple World
Marketplace
   »Deals and Special Offers
      »Expired Offers
   »Trading Warehouse
Mac
   »Hardware
   »Software
   »Servers, Security, and Networking
   »Programming, Web Dev & Scripting
   »Windows and Virtualization
   »Cloud and Online Services
Mobile Technologies
   »iPhone Apps, AppStore, and iTunes
   »iPad, iPhone, iPod and Apple TV Hardware
Mods and Hacks
   »General Mods
      »Techniques
      »Miscellaneous
      »Mod Logs
   »Laptop Mods
      »Case Mods
      »Hardware Mods
      »Misc. Mods
   »Desktop Mods
      »Case Mods
      »Hardware Mods
      »Misc. Mods
   »Peripheral Mods
      »iPod Mods
      »Misc Mods
   »Software Hacks & Mods
General Discussion
   »Site Feedback & Issues
   »Stan's Lounge
   »Soapbox
Now Software Support
   »Announcements
   »Now X
      »FAQs
      »Discussion
   »Now Up-to-Date & Contact
      »Community Help
      »Tips and tricks
View profile
Send a PM
Add to your Watched Users
View posts
View profile
Send a PM
Add to your Watched Users
View posts
View profile
Send a PM
Add to your Watched Users
View posts
View profile
Send a PM
Add to your Watched Users
View posts
View profile
Send a PM
Add to your Watched Users
View posts
View profile
Send a PM
Add to your Watched Users
View posts
View profile
Send a PM
Add to your Watched Users
View posts
View profile
Send a PM
Add to your Watched Users
View posts
View profile
Send a PM
Add to your Watched Users
View posts
View profile
Send a PM
Add to your Watched Users
View posts
Board Rules · Mark all read
Contact Us · AppleCentral · Top

MacTech Only Search:
Community Search:

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
  • SPREAD THE WORD:
  • Slashdot
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine
  • Generate a short URL for this page:



AppleCentral. www.applecentral.com
Main office: 805-494-9797
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.
Generated in 0.141 seconds in which 0.100 seconds were spent on a total of 14 queries. Zlib compression enabled.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.5.8