|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 1, 2014 21:04:31 GMT
Andrew: The addition of water continues the phase change so there is no pause.
This is the secret in all of this.
IF the water is stopped, the orchard freezes. The warmth of the applied water is very small, the warmth of the phase change is large enough to protect the orchard or field.
Even works on green beans which are very sensitive to frost.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 3, 2014 16:08:08 GMT
False. The objective is to provide an education about the meaning of latent heat, where: 1. ice cold water has no more heating ability per unit of time than unfrozen water of the same temperature *and* 2. latent heat of fusion cannot raise the temperature of water unless water is supercooled below 0C. *and* 3. Latent heat enables the heating ability available in 1. to be sustained from the warmth of 0C icey water for a longer period of time, without less heating ability becoming present, thru a fall in temperature, until freezing is completed Well number one is true. But the fact is the water was not heating anything before it started to freeze. The ability was there but was not being utilized because the air above was warmer. Once it started to freeze it stopped cooling. The air above was heating the surface because the surface was cooling. Now that it has stopped cooling the air above can only cool by radiation to space (which it was also doing all along). That means the surface stopped cooling and the air continues to cool. So the potential you speak of is a delta between the two surfaces. That delta has changed and flow now runs from the surface into the air. Since this interface is highly conductive it fills the radiation loss by the air to space (in addition to the radiation loss of the surface to space.) number two was never in contention. We intially were talking about water at least at -2C number three is false. An object that does not release latent heat has the same ability to heat something else at the x delta temperature as it always had. All latent heat does flow sensible heat to neutralize cooling. Since the air right above the surface was cooling to the surface it now is blocked and all that is left for the air is to cool to space. Since the surface is held flat by the release of latent heat, the latent heat must now increase to mitigate the loss of heat to the air. Not only is the latent heat mitigating and sustaining the radiation of the surface to space but it is mitigating and sustaining the loss of heat to the air. ice fisher , what the hell was going thru your mind when you wrote this? ?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 4, 2014 1:46:40 GMT
Well number one is true. But the fact is the water was not heating anything before it started to freeze. The ability was there but was not being utilized because the air above was warmer. Once it started to freeze it stopped cooling. The air above was heating the surface because the surface was cooling. Now that it has stopped cooling the air above can only cool by radiation to space (which it was also doing all along). That means the surface stopped cooling and the air continues to cool. So the potential you speak of is a delta between the two surfaces. That delta has changed and flow now runs from the surface into the air. Since this interface is highly conductive it fills the radiation loss by the air to space (in addition to the radiation loss of the surface to space.) number two was never in contention. We intially were talking about water at least at -2C number three is false. An object that does not release latent heat has the same ability to heat something else at the x delta temperature as it always had. All latent heat does flow sensible heat to neutralize cooling. Since the air right above the surface was cooling to the surface it now is blocked and all that is left for the air is to cool to space. Since the surface is held flat by the release of latent heat, the latent heat must now increase to mitigate the loss of heat to the air. Not only is the latent heat mitigating and sustaining the radiation of the surface to space but it is mitigating and sustaining the loss of heat to the air. ice fisher , what the hell was going thru your mind when you wrote this? ? I have no idea! I was probably trying to figure out what the difference between "ice cold water" and "unfrozen water of the same temperature" you were talking about. You expect me to remember what was on my mind 6 months ago? Why didn't you ask then?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 4, 2014 6:06:12 GMT
ice fisher , what the hell was going thru your mind when you wrote this? ? I have no idea! I was probably trying to figure out what the difference between "ice cold water" and "unfrozen water of the same temperature" you were talking about. You expect me to remember what was on my mind 6 months ago? Why didn't you ask then? You should be able to work out why you were telling me I was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 4, 2014 8:28:45 GMT
I have no idea! I was probably trying to figure out what the difference between "ice cold water" and "unfrozen water of the same temperature" you were talking about. You expect me to remember what was on my mind 6 months ago? Why didn't you ask then? You should be able to work out why you were telling me I was wrong. Probably because for the first time you had gotten it right and I was still arguing against your notion that the release of latent heat was entirely internal and heat does not rise out of freezing water. That was what the argument was for days before this post. Here you have heat rising externally from the latent heat, perhaps for the first time and I missed it. Your problem is you want everybody to forget you have been all over the place on this issue and continue to do so even today. Does heat rise out of freezing water or not? Is the source of that heat the latent heat in the water? Will that heat warm something colder? Those are the only points that have been in contention and are the only points still in contention.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 4, 2014 8:36:03 GMT
You should be able to work out why you were telling me I was wrong. Probably because for the first time you had gotten it right and I was still arguing against your notion that the release of latent heat was entirely internal and heat does not rise out of freezing water. That was what the argument was for days before this post. Here you have heat rising externally from the latent heat, perhaps for the first time and I missed it. Your problem is you want everybody to forget you have been all over the place on this issue and continue to do so even today. Does heat rise out of freezing water or not? Is the source of that heat the latent heat in the water? Will that heat warm something colder? Those are the only points that have been in contention and are the only points still in contention. Mate you are the most tedious person of all time! I have not been all over the place! You have simply been unable to read or understand what is being explained to you! Latent heat is an internal energy transfer that cannot heat anything more than the warmer unfrozen water can do unless you evoke super cooling which you are inclined to evoke at every opportunity every single time i do not put it into the damn sentence. Freezing cannot create higher temperatures in a cooling arctic atmosphere. Some other change is needed at the same time such as for example a howling wind to appear. The NSIDC authors and most of the writers on the internet are muddled up. It is not possible to create an engine that can cool water so it freezes that can collect any heat elsewhere whatoever, unless a heat pump is used. All Serreze is looking at is a sea that is warmer because it has less ice than an ice bound sea. Most of the things he says are correct however. The atmosphere is warmer because of ice formation than it would be if the ice formed and had no latent heat. The reason for that though is because the ice would be colder rather than kept warmer because of the hidden heat contained in the water before it freezes.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 4, 2014 15:41:48 GMT
Mate you are the most tedious person of all time! I have not been all over the place! You have simply been unable to read or understand what is being explained to you! Latent heat is an internal energy transfer that cannot heat anything more than the warmer unfrozen water can do unless you evoke super cooling which you are inclined to evoke at every opportunity every single time i do not put it into the damn sentence. Freezing cannot create higher temperatures in a cooling arctic atmosphere. Some other change is needed at the same time such as for example a howling wind to appear. Can you come up with a scientific reference that some degree of supercooling is NOT involved in every freezing event? If not then you are just howling at the wind. And howling winds, is that a rare event in the Arctic winter?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2014 7:45:40 GMT
Mate you are the most tedious person of all time! I have not been all over the place! You have simply been unable to read or understand what is being explained to you! Latent heat is an internal energy transfer that cannot heat anything more than the warmer unfrozen water can do unless you evoke super cooling which you are inclined to evoke at every opportunity every single time i do not put it into the damn sentence. Freezing cannot create higher temperatures in a cooling arctic atmosphere. Some other change is needed at the same time such as for example a howling wind to appear. Can you come up with a scientific reference that some degree of supercooling is NOT involved in every freezing event? If not then you are just howling at the wind. And howling winds, is that a rare event in the Arctic winter? My views are the same as when we began. According to three science graduates, nsidc and the farmers were muddled up and obviously so. Supercooling is irrelevant. Neither NSIDC or the farmers are talking about supercooling or howling winds to justify their freakophysics.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 5, 2014 15:11:55 GMT
Can you come up with a scientific reference that some degree of supercooling is NOT involved in every freezing event? If not then you are just howling at the wind. And howling winds, is that a rare event in the Arctic winter? My views are the same as when we began. According to three science graduates, nsidc and the farmers were muddled up and obviously so. Supercooling is irrelevant. Neither NSIDC or the farmers are talking about supercooling or howling winds to justify their freakophysics. Thats your opinion for which you have zero support. Supercooling and winds (howling or not) are certainly relevant to all they discuss because they are discussing real world phenomena and not a single chapter in a physics book. With regards to the real world you cannot discard the notions of air moving or supercooling as much as you may want to at this moment to justify your insane attacks on real world researchers and members of the forum. I am also not hearing a peep from the other 2 college graduates on this topic. They long ago probably realized that the path you had chosen was going to lead nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2014 17:45:13 GMT
My views are the same as when we began. According to three science graduates, nsidc and the farmers were muddled up and obviously so. Supercooling is irrelevant. Neither NSIDC or the farmers are talking about supercooling or howling winds to justify their freakophysics. Thats your opinion for which you have zero support. Sigh Obviously the articles are talking about latent heat heating, rather than latent heat buffering. It is insane that you keep resisting me on this
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 6, 2014 4:05:15 GMT
Thats your opinion for which you have zero support. Sigh Obviously the articles are talking about latent heat heating, rather than latent heat buffering. It is insane that you keep resisting me on this Its insane that you still don't see that as wrong. Latent heat buffering only occurs in limited ways. The buffering is limited to the freezing medium (the water) only and only is buffering the freezing water when the water is at the temperature of the melting point. The environment that is causing the freezing is warming, and the freezing medium (the water) is warming when ever supercooling is involved, which some scientists believe is 100% of the time when freezing is occurring. . . .such that if true. . . .there may be no release of latent heat at the melting temperature because there is no freezing at that point.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 6, 2014 4:23:52 GMT
Sigh Obviously the articles are talking about latent heat heating, rather than latent heat buffering. It is insane that you keep resisting me on this Its insane that you still don't see that as wrong. Latent heat buffering only occurs in limited ways. The buffering is limited to the freezing medium (the water) only and only is buffering the freezing water when the water is at the temperature of the melting point. The environment that is causing the freezing is warming, and the freezing medium (the water) is warming when ever supercooling is involved, which some scientists believe is 100% of the time when freezing is occurring. . . .such that if true. . . .there may be no release of latent heat at the melting temperature because there is no freezing at that point. Freezing cannot raise the temperatures of a cooling environment. The farmers are talking about latent heat heating, rather than latent heat buffering. The california article is specifically saying freezing of the spray raises the temperature of the plants and the plants cool after the rotating spray moves away and rewarms when it returns due to freezing. The farmers are not claiming science is wrong and they are not claiming that the plants warm only because they were supercooled. sig referred to the florida article to point out latent heat was warming the upper canopy. That article is totally muddled in the way it presents the beneficial use of water for frost protection
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 6, 2014 17:03:55 GMT
Its insane that you still don't see that as wrong. Latent heat buffering only occurs in limited ways. The buffering is limited to the freezing medium (the water) only and only is buffering the freezing water when the water is at the temperature of the melting point. The environment that is causing the freezing is warming, and the freezing medium (the water) is warming when ever supercooling is involved, which some scientists believe is 100% of the time when freezing is occurring. . . .such that if true. . . .there may be no release of latent heat at the melting temperature because there is no freezing at that point. Freezing cannot raise the temperatures of a cooling environment. The farmers are talking about latent heat heating, rather than latent heat buffering. The california article is specifically saying freezing of the spray raises the temperature of the plants and the plants cool after the rotating spray moves away and rewarms when it returns due to freezing. The farmers are not claiming science is wrong and they are not claiming that the plants warm only because they were supercooled. sig referred to the florida article to point out latent heat was warming the upper canopy. That article is totally muddled in the way it presents the beneficial use of water for frost protection Freezing will absolutely and certainly will warm a cooling environment. Whether that raises the temperature of that environment or not is wholly and completely dependent upon whether the rate of cooling by that environment is greater or less than than rate of heat extraction from the surface. Heat extraction from the surface by the canopy environment is occurring via radiation, conduction, convection, evaporation, and sublimation. Heat loss of the canopy environment is via radiation, conduction and convection to the environment above the canopy. You simply don't know if the cooling of the canopy environment is greater or less than the heat extraction from the surface, yet like a moron you think you know the answer.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 6, 2014 18:08:14 GMT
Freezing cannot raise the temperatures of a cooling environment. The farmers are talking about latent heat heating, rather than latent heat buffering. The california article is specifically saying freezing of the spray raises the temperature of the plants and the plants cool after the rotating spray moves away and rewarms when it returns due to freezing. The farmers are not claiming science is wrong and they are not claiming that the plants warm only because they were supercooled. sig referred to the florida article to point out latent heat was warming the upper canopy. That article is totally muddled in the way it presents the beneficial use of water for frost protection Freezing will absolutely and certainly will warm a cooling environment. Whether that raises the temperature of that environment or not is wholly and completely dependent upon whether the rate of cooling by that environment is greater or less than than rate of heat extraction from the surface. Heat extraction from the surface by the canopy environment is occurring via radiation, conduction, convection, evaporation, and sublimation. Heat loss of the canopy environment is via radiation, conduction and convection to the environment above the canopy. You simply don't know if the cooling of the canopy environment is greater or less than the heat extraction from the surface, yet like a moron you think you know the answer. I no longer have any idea what you are talking about. Yesterday you were telling me the word latent was totally redundant. The act of freezing alone cannot raise falling temperatures unless supercooling is involved. >>The california article is specifically saying freezing of the spray raises the temperature of the plants above zero and the plants cool below zero after the rotating spray moves away and the plants rewarm above zero when it returns due to freezing. As described they are describing the impossible. ObviouslySigurdur says this is an accurate description and it is just physics.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 7, 2014 2:20:54 GMT
I no longer have any idea what you are talking about. Yesterday you were telling me the word latent was totally redundant. Don't be such a moron! The word "latent" isn't redundant being used alone! The word "latent" is redundant when attaching it to the front of the "heat of fusion". The heat of fusion is a latent heat. Thats why it was ridiculous that you wrote the Univ of Florida and asked them to modify their paper by inserting the word latent in front of "heat of fusion". The act of freezing alone cannot raise falling temperatures unless supercooling is involved. >>The california article is specifically saying freezing of the spray raises the temperature of the plants above zero and the plants cool below zero after the rotating spray moves away and the plants rewarm above zero when it returns due to freezing. As described they are describing the impossible. ObviouslySigurdur says this is an accurate description and it is just physics. I would guess you garbled it as its basically unintelligible in your sentence. A link to the paragraph you are talking about would be helpful.
|
|