On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:27:48 +1100, Krypsis >
wrote:

>On 3/03/2012 9:42 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:06:01 -0500, > wrote:
>>
>>> Krypsis wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Riddle me this... If I boil water on a stove in an uncovered pot, why
>>>> will it eventually boil dry if, as we have been told by Brooklyn, no
>>>> steam is being produced? If no steam is being produced, we cannot be
>>>> having any loss of liquid, can we?
>>>>
>>>> Wait, maybe Brooklyn is wrong? Could that be possible? Did he flunk JHS
>>>> science classes? Maybe some new discovery has been made that turns the
>>>> old theory that I learnt on its head in more recent times?
>>>
>>> And what's up with a "steamy bathroom" after taking a long shower?
>>
>> That would be fog and condensate... were steam exiting your shower
>> head you'd be dead. It's fine to take poetic license by using "steam"
>> as a euphemisn as in steamy sex but not when trying to be precise with
>> heating water.
>
>Let's try this again...
>
>What is condensate if not steam that has been condensed?


Terlit condensate is from hot tap water vapor, and yer hot shit/****
(which you're full of), there is no steam in terlits. If your hot
water heater were to build up a head of steam your house would blow
up. Domestic hot water heaters don't even come close to boiling
water. Just because pinheads call visible water vapor steam doesn't
make it so, only proves they are uneducated.

Learn he
http://www.spiraxsarco.com/resources...t-is-steam.asp