What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

What if there was a forum for discussing these?

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Fire Brns » Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:15 pm UTC

speising wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:A photon to my understanding has an infinitesimally small amount of mass.


if it had, it couldn't go at the speed of light...
They are massless as to our ability to measure them. For practical purposes it is well and good to ignore hypothetical mass since if it exists it is still so ridiculously small as to be unnoticeable.
Now I can't fully wrap my head around the mechanisms but it is to my understanding that they have a theoretical upper limit of mass that is: m≲10−18 eV/c2 and if so then they don't travel at c.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4798
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:11 pm UTC

If light didn't travel at c, wouldn't that have shown up on the Michelson-Morley experiment?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Fire Brns » Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:24 am UTC

I'm not being serious, I'm not smart enough to be. But I find issue with there being a limit to energy density when it involves zero mass particles.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7551
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby phlip » Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:41 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:
KarenRei wrote:
Mikeski wrote:Move somewhere colder, then all the energy you're "wasting" by leaving chargers plugged in is subtracted from your heating bill.

Also applies to incandescent light bulbs vs. those expensive new mercury-delivery systems the gov't wants us to use.

There'd be less mercury emitted if you took a fluorescent bulb at end-of-life, smashed it open, put it into a plasma arc furnace to vaporize all of its mercury (when broken in real life, most of it stays with the glass), and vented it straight into the atmosphere,

And the power savings vs. incandescent when you add in this recycling method? Including transport costs? I'm not likely to wait until I have a back-seat-full of curlycue lightbulbs before I want to get them out of my house. I'm guessing we're burning more fossil fuels to use the "lower power" bulbs. (Pretty sure there's more power and materials used to manufacture the things, too.)

And the chances of everyone doing things the right way, vs. just throwing the things in the trash and polluting trash bins, trash trucks, and landfills?

Given how you cut the sentence in half, I think you may have been misunderstanding... he's not saying that that process is a "recycling method" you should be doing to dispose of CFLs... he's claiming that if you dispose of your CFL in exactly the wrong way, specifically extracting all the mercury and emitting it as pollution (thus emitting more mercury than disposing it even by just throwing it in the garbage), then you're still getting less mercury pollution than you get from burning coal to power an incandescent bulb.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4798
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:54 am UTC

Fire Brns wrote:I'm not being serious, I'm not smart enough to be. But I find issue with there being a limit to energy density when it involves zero mass particles.

They may have zero (rest) mass but they don't have zero energy, and their energy still varies even though they're all moving at the same speed, because their energy is not just a function of their mass times their velocity. Their energy is a function of their frequency, which is inverse to their wavelength, and there is a minimum wavelength (the Planck length), so there is a maximum frequency, and thus a maximum energy.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Fire Brns » Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:51 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:I'm not being serious, I'm not smart enough to be. But I find issue with there being a limit to energy density when it involves zero mass particles.

They may have zero (rest) mass but they don't have zero energy, and their energy still varies even though they're all moving at the same speed, because their energy is not just a function of their mass times their velocity. Their energy is a function of their frequency, which is inverse to their wavelength, and there is a minimum wavelength (the Planck length), so there is a maximum frequency, and thus a maximum energy.
Ok, that makes more sense.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

Mikeski
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Mikeski » Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:28 pm UTC

phlip wrote:Given how you cut the sentence in half, I think you may have been misunderstanding...

Yup, I did exactly that.

That changes no other part of my post, though. "We're doing it for the children", except when we aren't. Stupidity. (Unless you're a CFL manufacturer, I guess. Then your lobbying expenditures were dang smart.)

endolith
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:14 am UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby endolith » Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:40 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:The box is blasted upward because there is far more mass below the box getting superheated than above. Above the box is only the remainder of the atmosphere, while below the box is the entire surface and subsurface of the Earth. Thus, if the heat output is high enough, far more mass will be heated underneath than above, therefore any pressure from the expanding gases will tend to be pushing it upward from below.


So if you put a ball of iron underwater and then heat it enough, it will shoot up to the surface? If you heat it up on the surface of the ocean, it will shoot upward? Or does this depend on the indestructible dryer and box having very low density?

Mikeski
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Mikeski » Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:10 pm UTC

endolith wrote:
ijuin wrote:The box is blasted upward because there is far more mass below the box getting superheated than above. Above the box is only the remainder of the atmosphere, while below the box is the entire surface and subsurface of the Earth. Thus, if the heat output is high enough, far more mass will be heated underneath than above, therefore any pressure from the expanding gases will tend to be pushing it upward from below.


So if you put a ball of iron underwater and then heat it enough, it will shoot up to the surface? If you heat it up on the surface of the ocean, it will shoot upward? Or does this depend on the indestructible dryer and box having very low density?

It doesn't depend on the density of the box... consider a rocket with thrusters pointing in every direction... it will push off against the earth or the ocean's surface if it's near them and move away into the ocean/air until it's far enough away that it's effectively just surrounded by air (or water). Then gravity takes over until it's close enough again.

Whether the iron ball makes it to the surface, or beyond, depends on how deep it is and how hot it is.
Spoiler:
That's what she said!

User avatar
sehkzychic
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 3:50 am UTC
Location: ONI Orbital Facility Around [REDACTED PER COLE PROTOCOL]

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby sehkzychic » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:13 am UTC

orthogon wrote:
Plasma_Wolf wrote:So the cat is indestructible, which is a fatal flaw for Schrödinger's experiment.

1. It is well known that cats have nine lives.
2. Administering one fatal dose of poison (D) will only expend one of the cat's lives.
3. Hence, in order to actually kill the cat, you need nine fatal doses (9D)
4. Therefore a cat can be killed with a dose of 9D
5. Hence the fatal dose for a cat is 9D, by definition of fatal dose.
6. But cats have nine lives...
7. By induction, the fatal dose for a cat is infinite.
8. An infinite amount of poison would occupy an infinite volume.
9. Hence any finite size of vial will not contain a fatal dose.
10. Therefore, the cat is indestructible.
QED.


Pretty sure the logic doesn't hold up between lines 5 and 6. You're using "kill" and "actually kill" as separate ideas. In line 2, you're talking about removing one life of the cat. In lines 4 and 5, you're talking about removing all the cat's lives. But when you get to line 6 you conflate the two ideas. Put differently, it seems like when you say a cat has nine lives, for each of those lives, you don't consider it used until the cat has used 9 lives, and so on recursively.

I think it's more like if you kill a cat, it comes back as a ZombieCat. If you kill a ZombieCat, it comes back as a ZombieZombieCat (a.k.a. a (Zombie)2Cat). A killed (Zombie)2Cat comes back as a (Zombie)3Cat, and so on. But when you kill a (Zombie)8Cat, it stays dead. Depending on the mechanics of kitty-reanimation, the 9D dose of cat poison may need to be administered serially to each iteration of zombiehood.

I'm 90% sure that the proof was meant to have an obvious flaw, but I thought the idea of 9 lives implying infinite kitties was cute, so I wanted an excuse to draw attention to it again. :lol:

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:41 am UTC

This explains why cats aren't represented on the LD50 page on Wikipedia. They'd all be off almost by an order of magnitude.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

endolith
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:14 am UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby endolith » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:52 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:It doesn't depend on the density of the box... consider a rocket with thrusters pointing in every direction... it will push off against the earth or the ocean's surface if it's near them and move away into the ocean/air until it's far enough away that it's effectively just surrounded by air (or water). Then gravity takes over until it's close enough again.


So your claim is that a red hot steel ball will shoot upwards out of the ocean? I'm skeptical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWvuPDUd8T4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkfyj42f6EU

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:11 am UTC

God no. Red hot is way too cold. The comic clearly demonstrates the "white-hot" (a visible description of UV-hot) state happening before anything funky happens with convection pressure. The ball would need to be well into UV-hot before anything interesting happened.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

endolith
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:14 am UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby endolith » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:40 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:God no. Red hot is way too cold. The comic clearly demonstrates the "white-hot" (a visible description of UV-hot) state happening before anything funky happens with convection pressure. The ball would need to be well into UV-hot before anything interesting happened.


Red hot is sufficient to vaporize water on contact. What's the difference?

So your claim is that a white-hot or blue-hot ball of tungsten will move upwards in water due to the (isotropic) steam produced? Or this is due to convection of the surrounding water somehow carrying the ball upward?

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:12 pm UTC

Well, I should say, it's not my claim; I don't know the maths. The blog doesn't specify water, and neither does Mikeski. The blog says this:
The box is now soaring through the air. Each time it nears the ground, it superheats the surface, and the plume of expanding air hurls it back into the sky.

Which means the box was creating a sort of thermal. Mikeski is talking about something more like a trapped bubble of expanding air / steam between the surface and the box / ball / silly rocketship where the air / steam has higher pressure simply because it doesn't have any space to expand into. So the "thrust" is isotropic, but the environment is not.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

endolith
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:14 am UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby endolith » Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:05 am UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:Well, I should say, it's not my claim; I don't know the maths. The blog doesn't specify water, and neither does Mikeski. The blog says this:
The box is now soaring through the air. Each time it nears the ground, it superheats the surface, and the plume of expanding air hurls it back into the sky.

Which means the box was creating a sort of thermal. Mikeski is talking about something more like a trapped bubble of expanding air / steam between the surface and the box / ball / silly rocketship where the air / steam has higher pressure simply because it doesn't have any space to expand into. So the "thrust" is isotropic, but the environment is not.


Oh wait, I thought the blog said that the box was under the surface of a lake when it shoots out, but it actually says "bobbing in lake water", which sounds more like it's on the surface. So in both cases in which it shoots upwards, there's a surface (water or ground) under it, and gas above it.

So the thrust upward is due to the liquid or solid greatly increasing in volume as it phase changes into a plasma, while the gas above it only changes somewhat in volume. That sounds more plausible, but I'm still not convinced it would go shooting off into space.

elasto
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby elasto » Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:11 pm UTC

endolith wrote:So the thrust upward is due to the liquid or solid greatly increasing in volume as it phase changes into a plasma, while the gas above it only changes somewhat in volume. That sounds more plausible, but I'm still not convinced it would go shooting off into space.

I think it's more that the dense surface below it will be more 'reflective' of the momentum being fired at it than the sparse non-surface above it, resulting in a net upward force.

A rocket firing exhaust gasses in all directions is going to find its downward gasses bouncing off the ground below it, re-interacting with the rocket and pushing the rocket upwards.

That's my reading of it anyway.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Copper Bezel » Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:14 pm UTC

Yeah, "reflection" is a better way of describing that than "trapped." That makes a bit more sense.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
mojacardave
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:01 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby mojacardave » Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:24 am UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:Yeah, "reflection" is a better way of describing that than "trapped." That makes a bit more sense.


It's the exact same principle as standing right next to a wall, and suddenly throwing your arms out to the sides as fast as you can. You made the same movement towards the wall as away, but you're still going to be violently flung away from the wall.

endolith
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:14 am UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby endolith » Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:31 am UTC

elasto wrote:I think it's more that the dense surface below it will be more 'reflective' of the momentum being fired at it than the sparse non-surface above it, resulting in a net upward force.


This sounds like the old misconception about how rockets work, though. "In space, what do rockets push against?" The thrust of a rocket is from the matter being ejected from it in the opposite direction, not from that matter pushing against stationary objects.

A rocket firing exhaust gasses in all directions is going to find its downward gasses bouncing off the ground below it, re-interacting with the rocket and pushing the rocket upwards.


Perhaps, but does it produce much lift? Put two indestructible Saturn rockets nose-to-nose, with one blasting into the ground and one blasting upward. The "reflection" effect might make it hover above the Earth a little, but then the reflection effect drops off with height until it equals gravity, and that's about all that happens. I don't think it's going to go upward very far.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: What-if 0035: "Hair Dryer"

Postby Copper Bezel » Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:19 am UTC

Yeah, but that means that height goes up as mass goes down. The Saturn V thrust-to-weight ratio is substantially lower than that of a magical box that outputs arbitrary amounts of heat and thus thermal expansion in the surrounding air, so the box is going to skip along quite a bit more than the double rocket could. (Maybe not escape-velocity more, of course - that still seems fishy to me regardless of the amount of energy involved.)
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her


Return to “What If?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests