Yes…Unless acted on by some outside force, like unequal pressure between the now pressurized interior of the kettle and the exterior atmospheric pressure. When he blows air in (see it bubble) it would pressurize the kettle body (if the lid was sealed) and push the water in the spout above the level in the body.

*doublepromote someone else finally telling the truth, even if it is just a fictional tv character. I’ve been saying the same thing since around 2000. If we went all in, halted all co2 emissions and all methane emissions 20 years ago, and invested in methods to catch and sequester what we already emitted, we might have avoided the tipping point where we are no longer in control….but instead we increased emissions every year, flooring it towards that cliff and hitting the nitrous button.
*quality if inconvenient truths

That tipping point was reached well over a decade ago when methane started to melt out of permafrost and the deep ocean where it has been frozen for eons. It’s capable of causing warming >80 times as much as co2 short term, >25 times as much long term, and is boiling out at rapidly increasing rates. Pre 2006 it’s estimated around .5 million tons per year…2006 it was measured at 3.8 million tons…by 2013 that was up to 17 million tons with the trend increasing. More recent estimates are hard to find, but it’s agreed that as temperatures climb not only are hydrates melting much more rapidly, bacteria are also accelerating decomposition in the thawed permafrost, and they emit methane. The Arctic is warming up to 5 times faster than the average global temperature. It’s likely over 50 million tons per year by now if not much higher.

Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 gigatonnes (Gt=1 billion tons) of carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5–10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve in one shot….game over.

Bear in mind, 1 cubic meter of hydrate contains >160 cubic meters of methane gas at atmospheric pressure.

The amount of increase from bacterial emissions in rotting permafrost is debatable, but even the lowest estimates are insurmountable.

This is only one of dozens of KNOWN feedback loops already in action, and there are definitely unknown feedback systems we can’t predict.

This does not mean there’s nothing to be done, we can still mitigate the damage somewhat, maybe slow the rate of change enough that some animals and plants more advanced than bacteria survive long term. It does mean a massive >99% culling of humanity, a total shift in civilization from a money based civilization to one focused on survival, and likely an unavoidable mass extinction rivaling any previous extinctions.

Interesting info.
...but don't atmospheric pressure and humidity also (slightly) effect the evaporation rate as well? Maybe not enough to make a difference with the lid on.

Does Steve know that a barometer measures atmospheric pressure?

Your video, Barrel Crush: Atmospheric pressure crushes a 55 gallon steel, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 41 Badge!

That's very true. The simple fact that because the pressure of the tire off the rim is going to be normalized with the atmospheric pressure, even if you seated the tire back on manually, you'd have a zero pressure delta between outside the tire and inside. For a tire to run properly, usually you have to have a difference of approximately 30 psi. So yea, case closed. THANKS!>> ^messenger:

That might work better, but to pressurize a tire, you need significantly more gas than just the little bit that comes out of the spray can, and it must be at ambient temperature too to count. Clearly, the only reason this inflates the tire at all is the heat. Here's a thought experiment that disproves the "stays inflated" myth:
Consider that you need to have much more gas inside the tire than outside for it to stay inflated at ambient temperature. Before lighting the gas, there's the same pressure inside and outside the tire because the two areas are contiguous. When she lights the fire, the gas inside expands rapidly, and lots of it escapes, so now, while there's a greater volume of gas inside the tire than before, this is due to a greatly reduced density, so there's actually less gas inside than before, which is why there was a vacuum. Using heat, there will always be less gas inside than before. It's not even worth experimenting. The only way something like this could work is with compressed gas, which you certainly wouldn't want to do because that would blow the tire up if it were lit on fire.
I think there are self-inflating tires already on the market that have compressed gas cartridges built in, triggered by a sensor that fixes flats by spraying a sealant inside, then lots of pressurized gas, probably CO2. They don't use fire.>> ^rottenseed:
So the limiting reactant would be the starter fluid and the air in the tire. Oxygen to be more exact. Because you want enough forces to seat the tire, but not so much it removes all of the gases from the tire, maybe they should have tried less starter fluid. If that's depleted in the reaction quickly leaving enough energy to seat the tire, but also enough oxygen left over from the reaction, you might end up with a working tire.
Somebody please double check my thought process, but I think it's definitely worth more experimentation.

This is gonna be long but please bare with me.

The pressure below the surface of any body of liquid is equal to the density of the liquid multiplied by the depth below the surface, multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity. The result is a quantity in pascals, or newtons per meter squared. To this number we add the pressure due to the atmosphere, 101325 pascals; the sum of the two is the pressure experienced by the koi.

The column of water is suspended by virtue of the vacuum that exists at the top of the column, ie. There is no atmospheric pressure pushing down on the column and hence you can 'support' up to 101325 pascals of water pressure within the column before water in the skyscraper would begin to displace water within the pond (this is how simple barometers work). Remember that the pond is under 101325 pascals of pressure, and that as long the pressure within the column is the same as outside there will be no net flow of water. For instance, the maximum possible height of the column would be 10.3 meters (101325/[9.8*1000]).

What all this means is that the water within the column is at a LOWER pressure (and getting increasingly lower towards the top) than the water within the rest of the pond; in a 10.3 meter column the pressure at the top would be 101325 pascals less than at the surface of the pond. So, if a fish looking for food or perhaps increased warmth were to come across the column and swim inside it they would find themselves at a lower pressure than they are designed for. Their air bladders would swell in the decreased pressure, this would in turn lower the density of the fish consequently increasing they're buoyancy forcing them higher into even lower pressure water, eventually trapping them at the top. As more fish find the tower, more fish are forced to the top where they begin to compete for the rapidly dwindling oxygen supply. Furthermore, freshly oxygenated water would not reach the top of the tower as the water flow would be severely limited through such a constriction. In the third clip you can see what MAY be the fish gasping for air.

In conclusion it seems likely that our German friend has succeeded in creating a fascinating death trap for his fish, and I'd bet that he got up the next morning to find that he had killed thousands of dollars worth of koi. This would also explain why we/I have never seen this design before. Of course, I am assuming that the fish lack the necessary muscle power to get themselves out of this situation, which they may well have, but the number of fish so close to one another seems odd to me. I would of thought that if they could easily get out of the column then they would, if simply to find a less crowded location.
Tl;dr IT'S A TRAP

EDIT: I guess I lost that bet as it would seem that the fish do have the necessary oomph to escape. Though I wish no ill will towards our fishy friends I would still be morbidly curious to see the effects of a ten meter tower.

That's not actually true. Blood is kept pressurized by the vascular system. By the time you lost enough blood pressure for it to actually boil, you'd already be dead.

>> ^nock:

Pretty sure everything liquid starts to boil (or vaporize), including your blood. So you essentially get the bends.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^NaMeCaF:
>> ^Morganth:
In a vacuum the boiling point drops of all liquids drops significantly so your body temperature is more than enough to boil the saliva off of your tongue.

Thank you! I always wondered why your tongue would boil in a vacuum, and now I dont have the bother searching on Google

The boiling point is directly linked to atmospheric pressure. Higher PSI = higher boiling point. Lower PSI = lower boiling point.
A lot of people make the assumption that water boiling in a vacuum is "boiling hot", as in ~100C. The water doesn't get hotter in the vacuum, it boils at a lower temperature. It's one of those things that you can explain to people until you're blue in the face and they'll just never get it.

Pretty sure everything liquid starts to boil (or vaporize), including your blood. So you essentially get the bends.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^NaMeCaF:
>> ^Morganth:
In a vacuum the boiling point drops of all liquids drops significantly so your body temperature is more than enough to boil the saliva off of your tongue.

Thank you! I always wondered why your tongue would boil in a vacuum, and now I dont have the bother searching on Google

The boiling point is directly linked to atmospheric pressure. Higher PSI = higher boiling point. Lower PSI = lower boiling point.
A lot of people make the assumption that water boiling in a vacuum is "boiling hot", as in ~100C. The water doesn't get hotter in the vacuum, it boils at a lower temperature. It's one of those things that you can explain to people until you're blue in the face and they'll just never get it.

>> ^NaMeCaF:

>> ^Morganth:
In a vacuum the boiling point drops of all liquids drops significantly so your body temperature is more than enough to boil the saliva off of your tongue.

Thank you! I always wondered why your tongue would boil in a vacuum, and now I dont have the bother searching on Google


The boiling point is directly linked to atmospheric pressure. Higher PSI = higher boiling point. Lower PSI = lower boiling point.

A lot of people make the assumption that water boiling in a vacuum is "boiling hot", as in ~100C. The water doesn't get hotter in the vacuum, it boils at a lower temperature. It's one of those things that you can explain to people until you're blue in the face and they'll just never get it.

Suction doesn't imply any type of pulling force... it's just the flow of a fluid from high pressure to low pressure, so it technically implies a pushing force.

I think people generally think of suction as a pulling force because actions like sucking on a straw use a pulling motion to produce a low pressure in the mouth, even though the fluid is pushed into the mouth by (usually) atmospheric pressure.

>> ^deathcow:

If you can focus that much with a single 2 meter paraboloid, wouldn't it be more efficient to heat water with power like that than to use solar panels?


That's the general idea behind thermal solar collection, though I think they molten salt instead of water since it won't boil at normal atmospheric pressures.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

>> ^harry:
And as a herp derp Yurpean, I'm struck by that little American flag there. Is that a fairly normal thing in classrooms?

Students are lead in the pledge of allegiance (to the flag) every morning. So every room where students may start the day needs a flag.


Only in some states. The number of such states increased a bit in the post-911 jingoism. For example in Missouri we had to say the pledge daily until about 1992, then it was removed in favor of actually spending that time learning something, and then in 2002 Missouri's congress passed a law that forced my school district to do the pledge once a week. I think the pledge of allegiance is creepy because it simultaneously resembles both Nazi Germany and The Borg.

>> ^harry:
And as a herp derp Yurpean, I'm struck by that little American flag there. Is that a fairly normal thing in classrooms?


Students are lead in the pledge of allegiance (to the flag) every morning. So every room where students may start the day needs a flag.

>> ^residue:

I liked the part where he said the molecules of air outside of the bag are equal in number to the molecules of air inside the bag
...uh.. no.

No that's true...it was a really really really really really really high pressure bag