On 4/03/2012 12:40 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:27:48 +1100, >
> 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?
>

Think about how water evaporates from a puddle. Do you see clouds of
fog? No. The puddle of water is not at 100C however water molecules are
gaining enough energy to escape from the liquid state to the gaseous
state. They have a lot less energy than the gas evolved at 100C but
they are still gas. Ergo, rather than use the term steam, I should have
used the phrase, "H2O in its gaseous state".


--

Krypsis