TB vs TB Spacer?

Big friggin snip!

Tom, think about what you are doing for a minute.

Roy

And this from the self proclaimed trans expert who doesn't even know the fluid flow of a TC.

The point is that I do know you guy's, at least as far as this NG goes and I don't recall starting off calling any of you names on my first response.

Now thats funny. Qualifying when you call people names. Ya, thats nice of you to wait till your 2nd response before calling someone names! lol

Yep - and really clarifies your thinking on the matter. Again, you're thinking of a gas as a bunch of stationary molocules, and the space between the molocules shouldn't count when calculating it's volume. In reality, unless a gas is at absolute zero, it's molocules are constantly in motion, and by definition, the volume of said gas is the volume of the container that's holding it.

Nope - the same AMOUNT, mass, or moles, of gas - at different volumes, and therefore different pressures and/or temperatures.

Yes - but you seem to feel that SCF is a measure of volume (physical space ocupied), when it isn't - it's a measure of mass - the AMOUNT of gas that will occupy a cubic foot at a specific temperature and pressure. It's not a simple one-dimensional measurement. Volume is. Knowing the type of gas, if given the SCF, you can calculate the number of molocules of that gas. You can't do that with a volume measurement, because again, it's a single component, and varies based on the other two properties (pressure and temperature) of a gas.

Alrighty.... from a google search "define: volume"... first hit:

"the amount of 3-dimensional space occupied by an object; 'the gas expanded to twice it's original volume'" "Volume (also called capacity" is a quantification of how much space an object occupies" "The amount of space taken up by a substance or object"

Nope. I have a bottle of gas, 2cu.ft. in size. How much gas do I have? It's impossible to tell, because (here we go again... full freaking circle), "a gas will expand to fill it's container". The volume of that gas is 2cu.ft. Oh, it may be 250 SCF worth of gas, but I didn't tell you that (because that would be measuring it's quantity)... I measured it's volume (see definition above - the amount of 3D space occupied by an object, or in this case, a substance).

Well, as indicated earlier, SCF and STP are different standards (SCF at

60°F, and STP at 32°F), but aside from that, now you're finally correct.

Which is EXACTLY what we were originally talking about.... the container being the cylinder of an engine. You just agreed with myself and Max when we told you two days ago that you were incorrect. Back then, you claimed that the VOLUME of air in the cylinder was dependent on the amount of air that got into the cylinder.

Because SCF is not (just) a measure of volume. It's a hybrid measurement made up of three component measurements, those being volume, temperature, and pressure. In other words, it's a measure of mass.

Again - SCF is not a measure of volume alone. When that 80cu.ft. of gas is stored in a .59cu.ft. tank, it's VOLUME is .59cu.ft. It's MASS is 80SCF

Oh, so I'm wrong because I'm using the scientific term? Sorry, but we're talking about science here...

Definition 4 is a layman's use of the word "volume" to describe damn-near anything. It has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, in the relation to a given gas's temperature, pressure, mass, and physical space occupied at those various measurements. Heck, if we use definition #5, now we're talking about decibels.

Absolutely agreed - it's an easier concept to work with, and is, by it's very name, a "standard" in the various industries. But it is NOT justa measure of volume - as discussed above.

It all goes back to your original claim... that the VOLUME (not the SCF, not the mass, not the number of molocules... but the volume) of air in a cylinder was depedent on how much air was let in. Let's not lose sight of that.... that's what I, as well as others, pointed out as being incorrect. The VOLUME is always constant (well, of course the volume changes, as the piston moves, but we're assuming we're just talking about BDC here)... the density will vary depending on the efficiency of the intake manifold, the amount of time the valves are open, the overlap, etc. etc. - but the volume... the simple measurement of the space occupied by that air... is ALWAYS the volume of the cylinder containing it).

EXACTLY. Size (ie. volume) is variable... in other words, a gas will expand to fill it's container... it's volume will be that of it's container. Size=volume, mass=quantity. You want to try and interchange those... it's incorrect.

Nope... you're still confused. You can use the volume of the container (which IS the volume of the gas, when contained in said container), pressure, and temperature to calculate the MASS of the gas. Again, you think volume=amount, or volume=quantity. That's where you're tripping yourself.

Right - which is why the SCF is a measure of mass - NOT volume, which is variable based on the other two components (pressure/temperature). Just because the measure of a gas's volume is ambiguous, and not really meaningful without the other components, doesn't make it any less of a valid measurement. Just like knowing a torque measurement, without the associated RPM, isn't all that meaningful... doesn't mean the measurement of that torque is invalid.

No - it's volume is defined by the container holding it.

So what? Mass is the measure of the amount of matter. We all know that.

...who starred in a movie with Kevin Bacon.... what is this? Six degrees of definitions?? Mass and volume are only related when you know the density of a given material. As a gas's density is so easily changed, there's no correlation between the two. To a much smaller extent, the same is true of liquids and solids, as well. I have a 1cu.ft. chunk of steel. What's it's mass? you have no idea... because depending on whether it's at 0°F, or

1000°F, it's mass will be different. Taking the inverse of that, if I have a 1kg. cube of steel, it's volume will vary with it's temperature. Granted, not much, but the principle is the same.

That's the whole crux of the problem here, Tom... what "seems" to you to be correct.... isn't. Back to my steel example... are you going to claim that a cube of steel that measures 1.003"x1.003"x1.003" really has a volume of 1cu.in., and not 1.009cu.in., because it's hot? Volume isa measurement of space occupied... mass is a measure of molecular quantity. A 1kg. chunk of steel will measure 1kg. regardless of it's temperature. It's volume will not be constant. Volume does not equal mass.

try weighing a container with a 'hard' vacuum inside, then weighing it when it's filled with helium, Braniac

Steam isn't "gravitationally bound to the earth" either, but water definitly weighs something, and sticks pretty damn close to the earths surface, if not laying directly on it. I bet a vessel full of liquid helium drops like a rock.

What part of "lighter than" don't you get? Ooops, sorry, apparently all of it.

I'm stupified here.... do you REALLY believe that? Helium isn't dense enough for gravity to act on it, huh? Holy shit! In the words of Casey Kasem... "ponderous... f'ing PONDEROUS"....

Helium doesn't posess any special anti-gravity properties, Tom... it's just that the air around it is MORE dense, and pushes the helium up... just like the oil in salad dressing pushes the vinegar to the top.

Please explain how matter can have mass, but not have weight. Given that gravity acts upon ALL matter, I find this concept, err... intriguing.

Since there is no atmosphere surrounding the moon, both the helium and the CO2 will sink to the lunar surface.

Thats pretty funny! If something is lighter than air then it weighs nothing! I never knew that!

Really, got proof?

earths surface, if not

Yep, I do believe that I mentioned that as well but we are not talking about liquid helium and if you are, please point out a few pools of it that I can check out.

I do get it, what about you? Since we are surrounded by air, if something is lighter than air, then it has no downward force and therefore, no weight. This is the difference between weight and mass Maxi, mass is what it is but weight can be infinitely variable. Hell, the farther away you get from the planet, and depending on the object at hand, the weight could first increase and then decrease to the point of being zero as you get beyond the gravitational pull of the planet.

TBone, where you are going wrong is your belief that the amount something weighs is its relation to the weight of air.

How far away does one have to get from earth to be effectively weightless? Space Shuttle flies at about 120 miles or so up. That far enough?

You really need to work on that comprehention here Tom. I think that we can agree that weight is a force and to define it closer a downward force. It is also known that helium gas does not stay in the atmosphere as shown by the link I provided. If the only way out of the atmosphere is up and weight is a force pushing it down, it becomes clear that if helium does not stay in the atmosphere, it must have no weight.

But if that were all it was, then the outer atmosphere would consist of helium and hydrogen and that is not the case. Not only is helium so light that it rises to the top, gravity has so little grip on it, that anything at all can tear it away so for all intents and purposes, it has no weight.

Because weight is a force and if other forces around it negate it, it has no weight

Actually, if that were true, the moon would have a full atmosphere of it's own but it's gravitational force is simply not strong enough to hold any gas against the force of the solar winds so in reality, it would simply float away (no weight). There actually is a reason why the moon has no atmosphere.

Yup. You claimed that a gas that is "lighter than air" has no weight. Thus steam, which is lighter than air, as proven by its rising through the air from what ever object produces it, must also weigh nothing. Since steam is water, water must have no weight, since it can rise above the air. At least, according to your theory.......Unless you are wrong?

Because Miles, it is. Weight is a relative force and like any force, it can be canceled out by other forces and / or used up performing some action. In the case of lighter than air craft, it's weight is being used up displacing the air in the lower atmosphere so it's weight is zero and because of that, it floats.

Do you really think that the pull of the earths gravity goes on forever? Well actually it does but not to any statistical significance and if you think that the shuttle weighs the same 120 miles out that it does sitting on the launch pad, I have some beach front property not too far from your house that I think you might be interested in :-)

So...... um....... sorry...... I'm laughing to much.... can't think straight....... Tell me again why steam has weight and helium doesnt? Wait..... does hydrogen weigh anything? How about neon? If lead were in a gaseous state, would it be weightless?....

Wow....... I just can't do this anymore.....

Well, that might be true if steam always rises but that doesn't always happen and even when it does, it usually doesn't go very high so it must be gravitationally bound to the earth after all, just like the water it came from. But now that you mention it, water vapor has mass but also has no measurable weight since it is floating throughout most of the atmosphere. Even lighter than air aircraft do not go up forever. Once they get to a height where the air density is close to that in the aircrafts lift envelope, that is as high as it goes but until it begins to descend, it has no measurable weight.

Pulling it down, actually... but as usual, why be precise?

Untrue... as evidenced by Gary's example of weighing a bottle with a vacuum drawn on it, vs. a bottle filled with helium. When full, the bottle is heavier. Amazing, given that helium has no weight.

Gravity has little grip on it at that altitude (because yes, the gravitational force decreases the further you get from the planet). That doesn't mean it's weightless.

The ONLY way to make something weightless is to ALLOW gravity to act on it... ie. freefall. At any other time, a mass will always have weight.

Then explain how the moon's surface has absorbed a large quantity of Helium (He3, to be specific).

Nope- blown away by a force that acts upon the mass moreso than the moon's gravity does. No different than the person flying through the air, propelled by the 200MPH winds from a hurricane. Are they weightless, too? Unless they're falling at 9.8m/s², they aren't.

I'll agree with you on your thought processes but I doubt it has anything to do with laughing.

Where did I say what steam weighs?

It has less density than helium so you figure it out.

Nope, neon is heavier (atomic weight) than both nitrogen and oxygen which make up around 99% of our atmosphere

I doubt it. Why don't you try it and find out?

What do you mean "anymore". Like you ever could.

Ok, so if water has no weight, how exactly is it that it supports a 120,000 ton aircraft carrier?

You might look up the theory/definition of bouyancy. WAIT..... don't do that, you'll only add to your own confusion.