Talk:Water vapor/Archive 2

message: I'm not so sure it's right to equate water vapor with steam. At least in the case of "vapor pressure," the word "vapor" implies a gas--not a foggy suspension of droplets, such as steam. I think in common usage steam counts as water vapor, but I'm not so sure about the usage in physics and chemistry. Wherever the article references the phyical chemical constants that apply to water vapor, I think the substance should not be described in way that that does not apply to whatever substance physical chemists mean when they title a column in a book of constants "water vapor" 168...
==== Common usage of "steam" ====
It is easy to confuse a condensate with a vapor in saturation: ie. steam.
RadarCzar
==== What Steam Is Technically ====
168..., The actual physical description of steam may exceed the purpose and nature of this article. Its not merely a description of a vapor, but more of an example of a thermodynamic process.  Steam is a gaseous vapor in an excited state and may be in a locally super-saturated state.  In other words, collisions are occuring so frequently, that molecules can collide and stick together temporarily.  The the psuedo-condensates then fly apart because of their energy levels (temperature).  I say 'pseudo' because a vapor condensing can imply an overall temperature exchange.  Ok, that can sound like a loose argument, but if steam were a condensate, then it would 'rain' around a boiling pot of water, and not vanish into the air.  Of course this is a room temperature process I just described with a very simplified explanation.  For a more thorough derivation, look into a book on thermodynamics of gases.  Also, steam can occur during sublimation processes at temperatures close to or below freezing.  Maybe an article on steam should be written?
As far as my previous comment, there was no blame directed anywhere, just a comment directed at the difficulty in describing steam, clouds, fog, etc.
RadarCzar
Also, beware of my term 'temperature exchange', as the energy of the steam comes from kinetic as well as internal energies of the molecules.  According to the Equipartition Theorem, energy and temperature are related.  And there is an exchange of energy upon collision with other molecules.  The molecules involved in this process are Nitrogen, Oxygen, and unseen water vaper all at room temperature and other water molecules at boiling temperature.  
RadarCzar
Thanks for the elaboration, RadarCzar, which gives me a much better idea where you're coming from. On the other hand, you haven't quite won me over to your choice of wording. I take your point that steam's microdroplets are made from fleeting aggregates of molecules, and your point that there's hot vapor in the mix too, and your point that the atmosphere above the pot is supersaturated with water; but to me all this implies is that above the pot we have a heterogenous phase, one component of which is visible droplets, however short-lived, and yet still it's only the droplets that the ordinary person sees when he or she looks above the pot and calls it "steam" ("steam" is the visible stuff, in common speach is what I think).  Meanwhile, I'm sorry I did an instantaneous revert of one of your edits, which I wouldn't have done if I'd seen you were here at the talk page discussing things. Your edit removed content, but you justified it as for the sake of accuracy and to eliminate redundancy, which as I said in the heading of my revert I don't see at all. Would you mind saying what was wrong and repetitive? 168... 00:10, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common vs Technical Definition; "Vapor" & "Steam"  

message: 168..., The actual physical description of steam may exceed the purpose and nature of this article. Its not merely a description of a vapor, but more of an example of a thermodynamic process.  Steam is a gaseous vapor in an excited state and may be in a locally super-saturated state.  In other words, collisions are occuring so frequently, that molecules can collide and stick together temporarily.  The the psuedo-condensates then fly apart because of their energy levels (temperature).  I say 'pseudo' because a vapor condensing can imply an overall temperature exchange.  Ok, that can sound like a loose argument, but if steam were a condensate, then it would 'rain' around a boiling pot of water, and not vanish into the air.  Of course this is a room temperature process I just described with a very simplified explanation.  For a more thorough derivation, look into a book on thermodynamics of gases.  Also, steam can occur during sublimation processes at temperatures close to or below freezing.  Maybe an article on steam should be written?
As far as my previous comment, there was no blame directed anywhere, just a comment directed at the difficulty in describing steam, clouds, fog, etc.
RadarCzar
Also, beware of my term 'temperature exchange', as the energy of the steam comes from kinetic as well as internal energies of the molecules.  According to the Equipartition Theorem, energy and temperature are related.  And there is an exchange of energy upon collision with other molecules.  The molecules involved in this process are Nitrogen, Oxygen, and unseen water vaper all at room temperature and other water molecules at boiling temperature.  
RadarCzar
Thanks for the elaboration, RadarCzar, which gives me a much better idea where you're coming from. On the other hand, you haven't quite won me over to your choice of wording. I take your point that steam's microdroplets are made from fleeting aggregates of molecules, and your point that there's hot vapor in the mix too, and your point that the atmosphere above the pot is supersaturated with water; but to me all this implies is that above the pot we have a heterogenous phase, one component of which is visible droplets, however short-lived, and yet still it's only the droplets that the ordinary person sees when he or she looks above the pot and calls it "steam" ("steam" is the visible stuff, in common speach is what I think).  Meanwhile, I'm sorry I did an instantaneous revert of one of your edits, which I wouldn't have done if I'd seen you were here at the talk page discussing things. Your edit removed content, but you justified it as for the sake of accuracy and to eliminate redundancy, which as I said in the heading of my revert I don't see at all. Would you mind saying what was wrong and repetitive? 168... 00:10, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Steam Is Technically 

message: Golly, it's amazing views can differ so much. I thought it was MUCH better before you went to work on it. Unfortunately I don't have time now to go at it. I'd rather just revert, but I guess that's not kosher.  168... 03:40, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Thought Old Version Much Better 

message: But, I also took the phrasing, "...one of three basic states in which water molecules can stably exist en masse and in pure form... " as being ambiguous.  RadarCzar
What do you think it might be understood to mean that's wrong? 168... 05:26, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity Issue 

message: 168..., As you have stated "I'd rather just revert", and done so without discussion or mention of validation, I have edited mercilessly on a point by point basis correcting inaccuracies as I go.  I am basing all corrections on the  Natural Laws of the Universe.  As such, I will not discuss those physical laws on a point by point basis with someone who reverts without realizing their own mistake or first without discussing it in this forum first when the thermodynamics are obviously misunderstood by yourself.  But, if you can't tell, I find that annoying.  RadarCzar
Yes, I can tell you're annoyed, but you also seem to be criticizing me for things you started, which is to change scientific points without making a case for them. What are these ambiguities you mentioned without spelling them out, for example? You seem to accuse me of simply reverting, when actually I worked painstakingly with what you'd done. The only reverting I did was of specific portions that you had deleted without any real justification (e.g. never spelling out the ambiguities you alleged). You're also acting like you're the only person whose studied thermodynamics around here, which is audacious, not to mention wrong. We're disagreeing about the right way to _simplify_ something and you're assuming that's simply because the person you disagree with is an ignoramus with no idea the truth is more complicated. It may be I'm ignorant about something you have in mind, but show me the courtesy of explaining it. I can tell you right off from looking at your first paragraph that one of our differences of opinion comes down to different senses of the word "state." You obviously understood it in the sense of "equation of state", while I was using it as a plain-speech substitute for the more jargony "phase." In this sense water at it's triple point is three states and not one, as you counted it. We could work such stuff out if you were willing to take the time. 168... 06:26, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion or Discussion 

message: I think some of this info should be in the water page, and some in the water cycle page.  A little more focus on water vapor is needed here.
The "water vapor in the atmosphere" section should stay here, so the info about the size of WV contribution to the greenhouse effect is gathered in one place and umpteen estimates of percent of contribution are not splattered across many other pages. (SEWilco 07:37, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus on Water Vapor 

message: If you mean the recent stuff that goes beyond the 3 phases, I agree. I assume that RadarCzar put that there to make a point, by way of reductio ad absurdum. 168... 22:13, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limit to 3 phases of water 

message: The above paragraph I edited is ambiguous because:
:it implies water vapor only exists in one region of the P-T graph stably, but that is not true, you should check with a valid P-T phase graph RadarCzar
:::I disagree. Strictly it implies only that a pure collection of water molecules exists stably in as vapor and in neither of the other two phases under the conditions stated. Is that false? I notice that more or less the same sentence has remained unchanged through your many recent edits. 168...
I came to agree about this point. I'm pasting here my post about that (below). After posting it I made a change to the wording of the article, which reflected my appreciation of the point. It didn't take a big change. 168... 21:16, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh. But I see one way I was thinking fuzzily. In my water in the jar example you have pure water in two states in equilibrium, so of course you have two states "stable" under the one condition, it's just the liquid is more stable. So that sentence I wrote does have a problem. 168... 05:54, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water Vapor P-T Conditions 

message: Perhaps most of the initial paragraph, which is an overly detailed definition of the conditions under which water vapor exists, should be in a "Pressure and Temperature Influence" section. SEWilco 16:47, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pressure and Temperature Influence 

message: (William M. Connolley 10:57, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Changes 

message: I think the material about water vapor in space might be interesting, but I find it unclear and it doesn't seem at all oriented to water vapor. I think it needs some work, but since I don't understand it well, I'll leave that to others.168...
: Hmmm, water vapor is not associated to water vapor...are you in some way alluding to say that water molecules are fermions?? RadarCzar 06:36, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what fermions are, but not what you're getting at. Anyway, since you seem not to have understood my criticism or request, I made my own changes to fix the problem. As a result, water vapor is now the subject of both paragraphs, whereas it wasn't before. The point the comet paragraph makes about carbon monoxide is a little mysterious for my tastes. I didn't know what kind of measurement you were alluding too, so I couldn't elaborate. (Does CO not emit a signature detectable wavelength, so that you have to deduce its presence from water emission?) Also, I've been forced to assume that this is visible emission you were talking about and not radar measurements (such as are used to observe the shapes of asteroids). It troubles me that the paragraph presents water spectroscopy as if it is the primary or only tool that scientists have to study the chemical composition of comets. Is it really? 168... 23:54, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: Should we mention in the articles for each element, chemical, and mineral the fact that it is present in space in various ways?  Seems that should be in articles about facets of astronomical physics and chemistry. (SEWilco 06:05, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Water 

message: I suggest to William M. Connolley that you resist the temptation to characterize other people's written explanations as insane, as you did in the heading of a recent post. It's not civil, and it doesn't teach anything to the allegedly crazed author, assuming you do have something to teach. 168... 01:23, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 19:49, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K.. Thanks very much for the apology. I wouldn't still be here if I were really thin-skinned, but I think a little diplomacy makes the place a lot more pleasant and isn't a lot to ask for. 168... 00:01, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility 

message: I changed "complex" to "warming and cooling," because that made the paragraph more readable. Is that accurate? I suppose clouds also add a lot of heat capacity, so perhaps "warming, cooling and buffering" might be appropriate. If at all possible, I think it's best to avoid "complex" and to be explicit, even if only about the generalities. 168... 01:23, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "complex" is correct.  Clouds, not only shield (mostly), they also blanket (mostly). Heat capacity?? No, the thermal energies are moved vertically and clouds are formed, thus adding more complexity.  RadarCzar 06:36, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you read me closely, you'll see that I didn't ask whether "complex" is correct. In effect I asked if it's avoidable, or if their isn't some explicit generality or net effect that couldn't be said as well. "Complex" doesn't convey anything concrete to the reader, whereas "blocking" and "insulating" do. Your statement about thermal energies is unintelligible to me. 168... 15:05, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you re-read yourself more closely, I was answering your question more closely than the unintelligle response you have given.  Especially, concerning the article matter of the time.  And complex is absolutely corrrect.  So why change it, for idiomatic rhetorical purposes?  RadarCzar 05:54, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloud Effect Complexity