2571: Hydraulic Analogy

|< < Prev Comic #2571 (January 21, 2022) Next > >|

Hydraulic Analogy

Title text: Current (water) running through the water (wires) causes it to boil, increasing the pressure (voltage), but resisting (impeding) the flow of hydroelectricity (water currents). This is the basis for Ohm's law.

Explanation

This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by a LIQUITRICITY DEVICE, mucn more on the watery version of Ohms law from the title text is needed. And more on the diagram drawn by Cueball - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon. If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

Electric flow is commonly represented by a "hydraulic analogy". In this analogy, the water pressure represents voltage and the flow of the water is the electric current. Electric resistance is represented by a constricted section of a pipe.

Miss Lenhart, is teaching a class and starts to explain this analogy, when Cueball suddenly has an idea and changes her diagrams - connecting the electrical diagram and the hydraulic diagram. In doing this, he has created a "liquitricity device", combining water flow and electric flow together. The last panel shows that Miss Lenhart and Cueball receives the Nobel Prize for their design.

The title text tries to explain how this device works and references Ohm's Law, one of the fundamental laws of electricity.

Transcript

This transcript is incomplete. Please help editing it! Thanks.

[Miss Lenhartstands next to a board with two diagrams, a schematic circuit diagram and a water flow diagram]

Miss Lenhart: Electric current is like water flowing in a pipe. The pressure represents-

(Cueball, off-screen): Wait, hold on.

[Pan sideways, Miss Lenhart stands next to the diagram. Cueball approaches the board with a marker.]

Cueball: Do you mind if I just...

[Zoomed in on Cueball, who is altering the diagram]

Scribble

Scribble

Scribble

[Miss Lenhart and Cueball stand next to a merged diagram, connecting the electrical one and the water flow one]

[Miss Lenhart and Cueball stand on a podium with a 2nd Cueball. The 2nd Cueball is holding two Nobel Prize medals.]

Cueball 2: And for the design and construction of the liquitricity device, the Nobel Prize goes to...

 add a comment! ⋅  add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅  refresh comments!

Discussion

Is it significant that the Cueball giving the prize just says "The Nobel Prize" without specifying which one? Did the Cueball who discovered this machine get all the Nobel Prizes? 172.70.131.214 05:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I would assume the Nobel Prize for Physics, but who knows. 172.70.211.26 06:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It can only be physics, and since they are both on stage and there are two prizes then of course Miss Lenhart also receives a prize, and they share the prize for their co-work. They probably worked together on the project after Cueball's idea. Even if not, it has been common that the professor shared the prize (or took it all) if one of their students (especially woman students) got the idea. That the one starting the teaching here is a woman here, just turns this around. --Kynde (talk) 07:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

That it was constructed implies more than just the out-of-thin-air novel theorisation by Cueball (a number of Physics prizes were won for things that couldn't be physically invoked - at least at the time) so I choose to believe that Miss L became an equal party (neither more nor less rightfully resposible for the eventual result) as it was developed from mad scribbling to (equally mad?) 'reality'. Well, that's my headcanon, but I'm sure that Randall wouldn't have any reason to disagree. (Especially if I'm pointing my headcannon at him at the time!) 172.70.91.126 09:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

For Science, of course! https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArtisticLicenseAwards Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

He just simply wins all of them. Beanie ^talk 23:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Do we need to pick apart the title text? Each initial bit is almost straight analogy ripped from the classic electrodynamic/hydronynamic comparison, though just as incompatible (and mixed up) as the diagram. Oh, and I linked wave-particle duality just for the awful second-order pun, but I was going to line up various other dualities (from electric/magnetic, to the T-/S-dualities of M-theory) and equivalences (esp. Mass-Energy) in an attempt to 'explain' what is somehow indicated to be going on. Doubtless future editors will oblige if they think they can do it better. 172.70.91.126 09:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It occurs to me that there is already an electrical component to the water-flow diagram -- the pump needs an electrical current to operate. And if the battery providing voltage to the electrical diagram is a wet cell, maybe there's a connection over there as well. LtPowers (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Pumps existed before electricity was harnessed. 172.70.110.81 15:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I will admit to wondering at times if pumping a conductive fluid rapidly, which was conducting an AC current would change frequency or amperage of the current, and how it would change. Caveat, don't mention that to recent engineering or physics graduates. Apparently, ionic conduction is not well explained to them, and they have to season a few years before they figure it out. Even though that's the entire meaning of "ground return" in AC current studies.172.70.126.65 10:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)