Talk:2775: Siphon - Revision history

108.162.245.42 at 15:22, 13 May 2024

2024-05-13T15:22:16Z

Miamiclay: Typos

2023-05-18T03:00:12Z

Typos

198.41.242.149: Add a funny little self-reference

2023-05-16T19:23:15Z

Add a funny little self-reference

162.158.158.170 at 18:29, 16 May 2023

2023-05-16T18:29:29Z

Dextrous Fred: Just a note to a community member

2023-05-15T17:18:27Z

Just a note to a community member

141.101.99.121 at 13:06, 15 May 2023

2023-05-15T13:06:20Z

172.70.91.151 at 13:04, 15 May 2023

2023-05-15T13:04:53Z

TianHanFei: time

2023-05-15T01:57:32Z

time

TianHanFei: forgot to sign

2023-05-15T01:56:12Z

forgot to sign

TianHanFei: my fault

2023-05-14T23:48:20Z

my fault

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:22, 13 May 2024
Line 53:		Line 53:
	Re:Actor: Siphon heat rocks water is the basis for my workflow. Randall please add a option, so siphon heat rocking can be re-enabled on demand.		Re:Actor: Siphon heat rocks water is the basis for my workflow. Randall please add a option, so siphon heat rocking can be re-enabled on demand.
	[[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.149\|198.41.242.149]] 19:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC) PicassoCT		[[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.149\|198.41.242.149]] 19:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC) PicassoCT
		+
		+	siphon't [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.42\|108.162.245.42]] 15:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 Agree, capillary action does not seem to be referenced or implied in the comic, presenting only the (not "functioning") siphon phenomenon. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.134.142|172.68.134.142]] 16:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
-:Seconded/thirded. Capillary action isn't even what they were expecting. The small amount of water in the lowe receptical indicates they correctly ''filled'' the tube, but then as the longer length drained it did not then induce further flow up and over through the shorter length. e.g. nature no longer abhored the resulting vacuum (or there was increased negative-pressure vapourisation, beyond that previously expected, or other method of seepage 'airlock'-breaking) and thus the short-end also drained straight back out again instead of becoming a potentially self-sustaining inflow to the whole siphoning setup.
+:Seconded/thirded. Capillary action isn't even what they were expecting. The small amount of water in the lower recepticle indicates they correctly ''filled'' the tube, but then as the longer length drained it did not then induce further flow up and over through the shorter length. e.g. nature no longer abhored the resulting vacuum (or there was increased negative-pressure vapourisation, beyond that previously expected, or other method of seepage 'airlock'-breaking) and thus the short-end also drained straight back out again instead of becoming a potentially self-sustaining inflow to the whole siphoning setup.
 ::If the upper end got restricted (say by touching the side of the bucket) the loss of flow would allow air to enter the bottom end and drain out the tube. I've done this. :-( [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 19:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 :::Indeed, even having an especially large diameter "tube" (/pipe etc) can allow air from the bottom to flow up to the peak & break the siphon effect. For reliable results, the lower end needs to be kept immersed or the hose needs to be relatively small in diameter. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 14:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:23, 16 May 2023
Line 48:		Line 48:

	[[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.48\|172.71.151.48]] 06:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.48\|172.71.151.48]] 06:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
		+
		+	Relevant xkcd: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1172:_Workflow
		+
		+	Re:Actor: Siphon heat rocks water is the basis for my workflow. Randall please add a option, so siphon heat rocking can be re-enabled on demand.
		+	[[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.149\|198.41.242.149]] 19:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC) PicassoCT

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 :::In order for accumulating ores to not just start a low-level fizzle (as above), over millenia, you might need separate ore-patches either side of a fault to come together in a suddenish techtonic slip, rather than a slow buckling of layers to increase effective ore-densities. And then you've got earthquakes, already, so not sure if the very low-grade nuclear explosion that is awfully close to being possible in this chance contrived example (at one end of the probability curve, unless U<sup>238</sup> content is somehow preferentially leached out?) is going to be noticable.
 :::But ''just'' hot enough for lava? If not already close to melting, anyway, under local temperatures and pressures? Not sure we've seen anything like it, even if it is technically feasible given enough happenstance setups by geology(/exo-geology), since planets formed. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.152|172.70.91.152]] 09:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 == Title Text-Radiation ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:18, 15 May 2023
Line 21:		Line 21:

	I guess I was wrong that siphons work because of capillary action. [[User:TianHanFei\|TianHanFei]] ([[User talk:TianHanFei\|talk]]) 1:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)		I guess I was wrong that siphons work because of capillary action. [[User:TianHanFei\|TianHanFei]] ([[User talk:TianHanFei\|talk]]) 1:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
		+
		+	::As someone who's been publicly wrong here before, it can be stressful, but if it's any consolation, you're one of today's (probably much fewer than) 10,000: https://xkcd.com/1053/ -- thanks for having a sense of humor about it [[User:Dextrous Fred\|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred\|talk]]) 17:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

	== Potential inspiration ==		== Potential inspiration ==

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 Bug report 6EQUJ5: Odd signal emitted from Sagittarius constellation. Status: Closed - could not reproduce. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.69|172.71.26.69]] 03:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 :(I get that reference... :) However, launching off that to say: ) There's an old (short?) story... H.G. Wells era, possibly, but not him I think... where someone (who happened to be the first decent but amateur astronomer to get a cloudless patch of sky, one night) realises the Moon is in the wrong place, and the news then reaches (and troubles) the professional community who get a chance to observe/notice the change for the first fime and confirm it.. A 'glitch' seems to have passed through space and moved/retimed it, for a limited time, before it later snaps back to where (in the orbit) it now should be.
-:The trace of the glitch are seen further afield (implying a 'beam' of 'wrongness'), and ultimately it spawns something like Experimental Theology whereby observations of such clear "hand of the Creator" changes (implying we're essentially in a simulated universe being operated by a 'universal programmer', but in pre-computer terms) merge oruddy the boundaries between scientific rationalism (which clearly falls short) and religious philosophy (where undeniable 'proof' of something godlike is now suddenly an ironically confounding factor).
+:The trace of the glitch are seen further afield (implying a 'beam' of 'wrongness'), and ultimately it spawns something like Experimental Theology whereby observations of such clear "hand of the Creator" changes (implying we're essentially in a simulated universe being operated by a 'universal programmer', but in pre-computer terms) merge or muddy the boundaries between scientific rationalism (which clearly falls short) and religious philosophy (where undeniable 'proof' of something godlike is now suddenly an ironically confounding factor).
 :Cannot remember much about where I read it, I may be presuming some details about it that aren't actually there (even removing obvious mix-ups with similar brands of tale) and my Google-Fu fails to establish any obvious online reference to it (even just title+synoposis), so instead I'm setting down the 'spoilers' without reservation. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.151|172.70.91.151]] 13:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:04, 15 May 2023
Line 14:		Line 14:

	Bug report 6EQUJ5: Odd signal emitted from Sagittarius constellation. Status: Closed - could not reproduce. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.69\|172.71.26.69]] 03:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)		Bug report 6EQUJ5: Odd signal emitted from Sagittarius constellation. Status: Closed - could not reproduce. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.69\|172.71.26.69]] 03:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
		+	:(I get that reference... :) However, launching off that to say: ) There's an old (short?) story... H.G. Wells era, possibly, but not him I think... where someone (who happened to be the first decent but amateur astronomer to get a cloudless patch of sky, one night) realises the Moon is in the wrong place, and the news then reaches (and troubles) the professional community who get a chance to observe/notice the change for the first fime and confirm it.. A 'glitch' seems to have passed through space and moved/retimed it, for a limited time, before it later snaps back to where (in the orbit) it now should be.
		+	:The trace of the glitch are seen further afield (implying a 'beam' of 'wrongness'), and ultimately it spawns something like Experimental Theology whereby observations of such clear "hand of the Creator" changes (implying we're essentially in a simulated universe being operated by a 'universal programmer', but in pre-computer terms) merge oruddy the boundaries between scientific rationalism (which clearly falls short) and religious philosophy (where undeniable 'proof' of something godlike is now suddenly an ironically confounding factor).
		+	:Cannot remember much about where I read it, I may be presuming some details about it that aren't actually there (even removing obvious mix-ups with similar brands of tale) and my Google-Fu fails to establish any obvious online reference to it (even just title+synoposis), so instead I'm setting down the 'spoilers' without reservation. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.151\|172.70.91.151]] 13:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

	Siphoning is NOT because of capillary action! That should be changed!! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.127.90\|172.70.127.90]] 15:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)		Siphoning is NOT because of capillary action! That should be changed!! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.127.90\|172.70.127.90]] 15:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 Siphoning is NOT because of capillary action! That should be changed!! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.127.90|172.70.127.90]] 15:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
-I guess I was wrong that siphons work because of capillary action. [[User:TianHanFei|TianHanFei]] ([[User talk:TianHanFei|talk]])
+I guess I was wrong that siphons work because of capillary action. [[User:TianHanFei|TianHanFei]] ([[User talk:TianHanFei|talk]]) 1:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 == Potential inspiration ==