|
Post by Andrew on Oct 21, 2016 12:45:49 GMT
Naut please stop, for your sanity. From what you have posted I think you have an engineering background and this stuff is central to your thinking but not to all on this site. Correct - and from the response, correct on both counts. Time to desist again. Just too funny. Obviously Nonentropic does not realise he is siding with the phreakophysics side of the argument.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 21, 2016 6:58:12 GMT
I just do not understand why you are suggesting there is something mysterious about water vapour having a terrible burning capacity when contacting colder human skin when it undergoes the phase change compared to a similar gas of similar heat capacity of the same temperature that does not undergo a phase change. Nearly all of your posts are alluding to something incredibly remarkable about the release of latent heat during the water phase change. Likewise this comment about sprayed apples not freezing. What you are doing is a bit weird and it is beyond me to make sense of what you doing. Well I know you will not believe anything I say so here are two of many descriptions of the release of latent heat of condensation. www.reference.com/health/steam-burns-severe-66303cc5b07d6a6d" A steam burn can cause more damage than boiling water of the same temperature. When boiling water makes contact with the skin, it decreases in temperature but does not undergo a phase change like steam, states the University of British Columbia. Steam decreases in temperature as it hits the skin, condensing into liquid and undergoing a phase change. This change releases energy quickly enough to damage skin cells more severely than boiling water, even when the water is the same temperature as the steam."c21.phas.ubc.ca/article/steam-burns "We will compare the amount of thermal energy transferred to your skin for the case of steam at 100 deg C versus an equivalent mass of boiling water at 100 degC.
When boiling water at intial temperature Ti = 100 degC hits your skin and cools to a final temperature of Tf = 25 degC the amount of energy, Q, transferred from the water to your skin is given by
$ Q = Mc\Delta T $
where M is the mass of the water, c = 4190 J kg-1K-1 is the specific heat of water 1, and $ \Delta T = T_{f} - T_{i} $. Taking M = 1 g the total heat transfer to your skin would be 314 J.
When 1 g of steam hits your skin at Ti = 100 degC it must first condense to liquid water undergoing a phase change before it will drop in temperature. The thermal energy released from the steam to your skin when condensing is given by M Lv, where Lv is the heat of vaporization and is 22.6 * 105 J kg-1 for water 1 and M is the mass of the steam in contact with your skin. For 1g of steam this gives M Lv = 2260 J. Once the steam has turned to liquid water additional thermal energy is transferred to the skin when the condensed water goes from Ti = 100 degC to Tf = 25 degC as calculated above. This means the steam lost an additional 2260 J of energy. This heat released due to condensation partially accounts for the severity of steam burns."If you and Nonentropic are unable to read we might as well just end right here. I have neither the time or the energy to read your mind to find out what that text is supposed to be telling me where there is nothing mysterious about steam burning human skin whatsoever. Likewise barycenters where there is nothing strange about what Svalgaard has said at all and yet you keep claiming there is and nobody can reason with you. I just do not understand why you are suggesting there is something mysterious about water vapour having a terrible burning capacity when contacting colder human skin when it undergoes the phase change compared to a similar gas of similar heat capacity of the same temperature that does not undergo a phase change. Nearly all of your posts are alluding to something incredibly remarkable about the release of latent heat during the water phase change. Likewise this comment about sprayed apples not freezing. What you are doing is a bit weird and it is beyond me to make sense of what you doing.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 19, 2016 3:25:17 GMT
still on track? Or just "cyclomania"? There will be a flattening out as the bottom below 1500 Gauss is disappearing. This may be happening already. But it is too early to be sure.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 19, 2016 3:15:00 GMT
Not making any sense to me. I had no awareness Europe was exceptionally hot this year. Last year yes but this year was not much to write home about at all. Here in Helsinki Finland this summer was definitely the coldest summer since 2009.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 18, 2016 12:34:08 GMT
Incredible painting of Barry Humphries for the 2016 Archibald prize.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 18, 2016 1:49:22 GMT
Andrew: I look forward to your update. Hard to believe, after so much time and effort there is totally no result so far.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 18, 2016 1:38:46 GMT
Andrew, You could try WSU, they don't have oranges in Wash, but they have a lot of apples. These latent heat threads have demonstrated that correct explanations are not going to help people who chose to rely on incorrect explanations.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 18, 2016 0:19:30 GMT
Still no reply from the authors of this article even though the coordinator has told me she will ensure she is copied on the reply and she will send it to me to make sure I get it. Meanwhile, since the article was reviewed in march 2016 I have asked if it is possible to know who did the review. I have not fully re-checked the article but it still has this misleading text:
Why Microsprinklers Provide Cold Protection
Several factors contribute to the cold protection effectiveness of microsprinkler systems. Most well water in Florida is around 68 to 70°F. This warm water contributes a small amount of sensible heat to the grove at it drops from the initial temperature to 32°F. When temperatures drop below freezing, the latent heat of fusion is released when the water freezes. Depending on the amount of ice that forms, the heat released can raise temperatures in the lower part of the canopy.
The text is just badly written. Spraying warm ground water onto plants is going to heat the canopy far better than the heat coming from freezing cold ice. The only way I can see the authors being happy with that text is if they do not properly understand the nature of the latent heat of freezing of water.
For the record,
of course the latent heat of freezing is helping to protect the plants by preventing the surface of the plants from falling in temperature to below the freezing point of water, and of course spraying water on plants as described in the article is beneficial for the plants.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 17, 2016 4:14:07 GMT
I just do not understand why you are suggesting there is something mysterious about water vapour having a terrible burning capacity when contacting colder human skin when it undergoes the phase change compared to a similar gas of similar heat capacity of the same temperature that does not undergo a phase change. Nearly all of your posts are alluding to something incredibly remarkable about the release of latent heat during the water phase change. Likewise this comment about sprayed apples not freezing. What you are doing is a bit weird and it is beyond me to make sense of what you doing. There is no known vapor that has the characteristics of H2O vapor. So there is nothing to compare it to. Sigurdur My point was there is nothing remarkable about steam causing terrible damage to our colder skin when our skin cannot cool the steam at the same rate it could do with a substance of similar heat capacity that had no phase change. That is a reasonable comparison. Perhaps you can clarify today what your position is on latent heat, and the rate of BTU release, where you told me at the beginning of this thread when water freezes the higher release rate of the BTU's is what causes the temperature to halt during the phase change? Andrew: The phase change of water to ice releases MORE BTU per second than cooling water. That is why it can HALT the temp drop, which cooling water can't do. It not only halts the temp drop on a plant, the phase change can warm the orchard as demonstrated in Florida. This works worldwide by the way. Should even work in Finland as physics doesn't recognize boundaries.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 17, 2016 3:57:38 GMT
My point about the barycenters is other than the tides we do not have a known explanation for any planetary cause, where Nautonnier is incorrectly claiming Svaalgard is lacking knowledge of even the most basic understanding of the Solar barycenter. Other than that I did not have much to say about barycenters
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 16, 2016 5:36:51 GMT
The conversations on this board are insanely weird 2013: solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/93468/thread Icefisher: Time of year when previously cooling temperatures are reversed by freezing solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/93473/thread Icefisher: it takes latent heat not heating the air and releases it so it does heat the air. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/93492/thread Andrew: yes ice can heat the environment but the water created greater heating solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/93493/thread Icefisher: not an acceptable answer solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/93494/thread Andrew: Warmer sea creates greater heating than freezing sea. NSIDC article claiming atmosphere is warmer because of freezing is muddled up. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/93498/thread Icefisher: not an acceptable answer. Article is not misleading. NSIDC director Serreze writes to me personally and says they messed up and need to try harder and need people like me to keep them on their toes and Icefisher just supports Mr 'the ice will all be gone by 2013' Serreze. How could it have got even weirder from that level of weirdness? Andrew: The phase change of water to ice releases MORE BTU per second than cooling water. That is why it can HALT the temp drop, which cooling water can't do.It not only halts the temp drop on a plant, the phase change can warm the orchard as demonstrated in Florida. This works worldwide by the way. Should even work in Finland as physics doesn't recognize boundaries. So special physics operate in North Dakota even one year after Mark Serreze apologises to me **The farming extension biologists are talking about an increase in environmental heating capacity when water freezes but they are also saying this is due to latent heating which strongly suggests they are not actually claiming to have discovered something new about the physics of water freezing, but instead they have got muddled up by something - or we are from reading their texts. you bot everything right there andrew except you are the only one muddled up. if we want to compare 1c degree water to another liquid that doesn't freeze but requires one calorie per degree per gram to warm or cool and the objective is to protect a fruit by preventing it from dipping below minus 3c degrees, the water has 21 times the heat capacity of the other liquid for warming the environment so that the fruit will stay in that range of temperatures. Of that heat capacity more than 95% of it is provided by latent heat of fusion. Another unacceptable answer to Icefisher even while it is totally obvious special physics are operating in North Dakota and elsewhere according to the farmers who he links to support what he appears to be talking about when he defended the muddled up Serreze who had to get expert help from Nasa to answer my email. Then there are barycenters................
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 16, 2016 4:51:27 GMT
Putin got extremely rich by doing something dodgy to get control of oil companies that were supposedly owned by the people of the Soviet Union so I very much doubt he is in any position to release damaging correspondence. Being able to use ones personal power to gain advantage is admired in Russia in a way that many westerners find distasteful. On the other hand the Americans are supposedly not in favour of people picking holes in rich people, so I suppose it amounts to the same thing one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 16, 2016 3:14:29 GMT
The kinetic energy of the molecules being lost/transferred due to collision is 'standard' conduction. The vibrational/rotational energy of the molecule is less simple to explain. All the papers state that it is 'released' on phase change on condensation or freezing but none explain that release at the molecular level. Yes it is released as a jet of steam at 100C will do far more damage than a jet of dry air at 100C, and sprayed apples do not freeze >>The kinetic energy of the molecules being lost/transferred due to collision is 'standard' conduction. The vibrational/rotational energy of the molecule is less simple to explain. I do not know why you are saying the vibrational/rotational energy is harder to explain unless you were mislead by what I said about kinetic temperature being only translational kinetic energy? My statement only appears to be true for a gas. 1. Therefore, in a liquid or solid, temperature is a measure of all forms of kinetic energy including the rotations and vibrations, so if water is in a cold environment, all of these motions are transferring energy to the surroundings. 2. Water molecules have the ability to form and maintain hydrogen bonds when their kinetic energy of collision is sufficiently low. Meanwhile, they have an electrostatic potential energy that decreases as they get nearer to being able to form a bond, where the potential energy decreases and the kinetic energy must increase. One way to visualise this, is the electrostatic force that creates the hydrogen bond accelerates the molecules towards each other so that their potential energy decreases and their kinetic energy increases as the captured molecules bounce back and forth after the initial acceleration. For melting, the hydrogen bond can be broken by increasing the kinetic energy of the bond until the molecules move apart and their potential (unused) electrostatic energy increases. 3. Whatever way we look at it, water contains potential unused electrostatic energy that ice does not contain, and as the molecules move closer to forming the mainly electrostatic hydrogen bond the potential energy must decrease and the kinetic energy must increase. 4. Ice formation does not release kinetic energy but rather creates kinetic energy which adds to the kinetic energy total of the water and ice mass, while simultaneously kinetic energy is being subtracted from the water and ice mass. 5. If ice formation released a particular heating energy out of the water that was not present before ice formation occured, then the ice water mix would become colder unless there was another source of heating of the ice water mix. In your conceptualisation an insulated mixed crushed ice water bath would be significantly warmer than an uninsulated mixed crushed ice water bath - instead what we find is when the cooling rate increases the latent heat release always matches exactly the cooling rate no matter what the circumstances are, where nobody** in hundreds of years has noticed any peculiarities to threaten the idea we are talking only about a latent heat. **The farming extension biologists are talking about an increase in environmental heating capacity when water freezes but they are also saying this is due to latent heating which strongly suggests they are not actually claiming to have discovered something new about the physics of water freezing, but instead they have got muddled up by something - or we are from reading their texts.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 15, 2016 16:29:00 GMT
The kinetic energy of the molecules being lost/transferred due to collision is 'standard' conduction. The vibrational/rotational energy of the molecule is less simple to explain. All the papers state that it is 'released' on phase change on condensation or freezing but none explain that release at the molecular level. Yes it is released as a jet of steam at 100C will do far more damage than a jet of dry air at 100C, and sprayed apples do not freeze I just do not understand why you are suggesting there is something mysterious about water vapour having a terrible burning capacity when contacting colder human skin when it undergoes the phase change compared to a similar gas of similar heat capacity of the same temperature that does not undergo a phase change. Nearly all of your posts are alluding to something incredibly remarkable about the release of latent heat during the water phase change. Likewise this comment about sprayed apples not freezing. What you are doing is a bit weird and it is beyond me to make sense of what you doing.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 13, 2016 14:18:21 GMT
1. I am not seeing how ice formation can stop vibration when it is vibration that causes melting and ice cannot spontaneously freeze until a large amount of a particular kind of vibration has been removed from the water. Ice might be bonding with molecules with low energy that are not vibrating in a particular way - bonds fail otherwise. Importantly we must be talking about a reversible equilibrium process here, where ice bonds are constantly forming and breaking, but once the direction of freezing in the equilibrium process is underway, more ice bonds form than are broken. 2. EM Radiation release when bonds form is very unusual rather than typical and here we are talking about bonds which are mainly electrostatic in nature and have very little ability to cause quantum energy jumps of the kind that create EMR. "I am not seeing how ice formation can stop vibration when it is vibration that causes melting and ice cannot spontaneously freeze until a large amount of a particular kind of vibration has been removed from the water" That is the nub of the problem. The initial motion is due to molecular motion itself and kinetic energy of the molecules when that kinetic energy has reduced that is it has been passed on to other molecules only the internal vibrational/rotational energy is left. Water molecules will align into groups at all temperatures but high energy collisions in gas mode break the alignments almost immediately, they only survive as aligned when the kinetic energy is reduced to a low 'freezing point'. This entire discussion is about where does that energy go and how is it transmitted. At the most basic level if ice bonds could stop vibration, then ice would be self cooling and it would be an endothermic reaction. Therefore it appears ice bonds have a great resistance to creating ice bonds unless some process removes the heat energy in the water - which of course is the standard scientific viewpoint, where you have to cool water to create ice. We are talking about a statistical result in a reversible equilibrium process. Some molecules will not be rotating and doing whatever prevents them from forming ice bonds. Ice bonds will form at all temperatures but will not survive more than a tiny amount of time. When the temperature is sufficiently low the direction of the reversible equilibrium is towards ice bond formation while at the same time ice bonds are being broken if sufficient energy is available to do that - which there will be at the microscopic level where some water molecules have very high energy at that instant of time - even so on balance ice bonds are building when sufficient heat can leave the mass of water and ice. You keep asking where the heat goes or the discussion is about where the heat goes. You are the only person wondering about that. Everybody else knows the heat is continually leaving the mass of water and ice in the same way it was leaving the mass of water before ice formation began.
|
|