Things that get hotter the more in the air they are.

Kilns use air from multiple sides in order to achieve a warmer temperature.

ideas are always hotter when the answers are unknown.

planes run more efficiently at higher altitude because the air cools the engines.

In fact I have failed to think of a single example where the overall effect of air leads to less potential for heat making purposes.

Also works for strippers as I have heard.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have no idea what the point is or if there even is a point to this OP.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, planes operate more efficiently at higher altitudes because the air density is lower, so the same airspeed results in a much faster groundspeed.

No, electric kilns use as little air as possible to trap the heat inside.

Also not sure what the attempted point is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A kiln full of dirt would not get as hot as quick as one with air.

A plane on the ground at full burn would eventually result in engine failure where one in the air could produce more heat without the damaging side effects.

 

It is a mark on potential energy.

 

Agreed. But it would also be completely useless.

Kilns are only useful when they are full of dirt (i.e. clay, shaped into pottery.)

Nope, again not even close.

The pilots of Pinnacle Flight 3701 decided to have some fun, and push their (otherwise empty) CRJ-200 up to 41,000 feet - its service ceiling. That way they could join the "41 club" - a group of commercial pilots who have flown that high. They celebrated with a Pepsi.

Unfortuately they were not paying attention to their engine instruments, and both engines were overheating even while the plane was slowing down due to decreasing thrust from the engines. The autopilot tried to save the day by forcing the nose down (thereby trading altitude for airspeed) but they overrode it. Finally both engines flamed out, the plane stalled, and they started descending fast. The overheated core of the engines stayed overheated, the outside of the engines cooled quickly due to the low temperatures, and both engines experienced "core lock" - their cores became locked in place and could not be moved, and thus the engines could not be restarted. Both pilots died when their aircraft crashed into some houses.

Why post on things you are clueless about?

 

I’m sure the pilots were sweating fiercely in that hot situation and you’re telling me the engines didn’t run out of air at that altitude?

I’ve always been lead to believe flame outs were caused by thin air, but perhaps I am mistaken

There is a difference between being high up and being high up in the air.
The key differences being the amount and type of air. That and when something runs out of air it generates heat against the ground in this scenario.

tragic.

 

More examples:

Fireworks last longer in the air burning than quenched by dirt. And even if they do catch something on fire on the ground their initial flames are way hotter.

Space ships encountering the atmosphere generate a huge amounts of heat.

Planets with air surrounding them are generally warmer.

The sun is also “in the air”

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Good luck happy thoughts.

 

?? No they didn't "run out of air!" What are you talking about? They overheated and flamed out.

At altitude, as long as you keep the same AIRSPEED (i.e. a safe airspeed for the plane to fly at) and stay below the speed of sound you are getting the same amount of air. They demanded more of the engines than they could give, which caused them to overheat and reduce power.

So an airplane flying at 29,000 feet above the ocean is somehow seeing different air than an airplane flying 30 feet above Mt. Everest? (also at 29,000 feet above sea level.)

What is the difference in those two cases?

That's because they need oxygen to burn. If you cover something with dirt that does NOT need oxygen to burn (like a lithium ion battery) it will just keep burning.

That's due to friction, not "air."

The surface of the Moon during the day (no air) is 260 degrees F. The hottest temperature measured on the surface of the Earth is 134 degrees F. Which one has air?

 

The moon is further up in the air. So that kinda goes to prove my point as it is hotter.

The lithium might keep burning but the heat expunged would be less rapid and lower than in an oxygen rich environment.

 

You think the Moon is "in the air?"

This is a science forum. You'd probably be better off learning basic science before posting here.

 

All I’m saying is the further away from a source of heat, the more potential something has as long as there is thick air. I have given realistic examples in which the above is true.

If we put air around the moon it would be even hotter, because the solar winds would have more surface area to act upon. The moon would also have a greater mass.

 

Moose is trolling - saying whatever nonsense gets responses. He has already been warned about this and had another thread closed.

Don't feed the trolls.


C'mon Moose, you have nothing that interests you?


Reported.

 

There is no air on the Moon. But it's hotter than Earth.

I'd say your prediction fails.

. . . a lot more like the Earth, with fewer and smaller temperature extremes.

 

Idiot.

 

Fine I see you want the big guns.

I was hoping to not resort to this.

Particle colliders use extremely cold temperatures to facilitate a collision that mimics the hottest interactions.

 

Nope.

Particle colliders operate in a vacuum. There are no temperatures in a vacuum.

 

You would have a better chance convincing me that the stripper is hotter off the pole than a true vacuum exists.

 

Would that be a no true Scottish vacuum?

 

The magnets are why the cooling is needed, it has nothing to do with collisions themselves.