On 1/4/2014 8:37 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 23:01:32 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 15:39:20 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/4/2014 9:12 AM, wrote:

That's like saying the pipes will freeze if they will freeze.
Sure, if you want to define ambient to be the temperature at the
pipes. But who measures that? The point is if one hears that
it's going to be 20F tonight, is there valid reason to be more
concerned about pipes in an outside wall, a drafty crawlspace,
etc freezing if the reported windchill is 0F versus 17F? The
answer to that is yes.

Let's change the parameters. Outside temperature is 35 degrees, but
because of the wind, the weatherman says the wind chill factor is 29
degrees. Will the pipe freeze? No.

No, but it will cool faster. Wind chill is still relevant to
inanimate objects, even above freezing.

You would have been 100% correct if you had left off the word "chill."

YEP!!!
Wind CHILL is an empirical determination of what happens to humans
in cold wind. It's the same principle, but the NUMBER is relatively
useless for freezing pipes in unspecified configurations. It is likely
that lower wind chill number
will be harder on pipes, for the same wind direction relative to the
structure. How much depends.


In your example you use an example of 17 and 0. The only difference
that may have a minor effect is if the wind is actually moving the air
away from the pipes.

...or the wall (and the pipes indirectly)

Many factors come into play on how the wind moves
around the pipes inside the crawlspace. It does not determine if the
pipes will freeze, on;y how fast. Rate of heat transfer is the only
difference, the temperature never goes below ambient.

Right but that's not the issue at hand.

Here's another question. If inanimate objects are not affected
by windchill, then on a night when the outside temp is 20F,
the same house is going to use the same amount of energy to
keep it at 70F when the windchill is 0F as it does if the windchill
is 17F?


The big difference is how well sealed the house is. Radiational cooling
difference will be minimal, but convection can be considerable.

Well, wind chill has no bearing on radiation cooling.

On 1/4/2014 11:50 PM, mike wrote:
On 1/4/2014 8:37 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 23:01:32 -0500, wrote:

No, but it will cool faster. Wind chill is still relevant to
inanimate objects, even above freezing.

You would have been 100% correct if you had left off the word "chill."

YEP!!!
Wind CHILL is an empirical determination of what happens to humans
in cold wind. It's the same principle, but the NUMBER is relatively
useless for freezing pipes in unspecified configurations. It is likely
that lower wind chill number
will be harder on pipes, for the same wind direction relative to the
structure. How much depends.


Wind chill describes rate of heat loss of objects.
Doesn't matter if they are living or dead. Ask the
pilots in alaska, if wind chill is important when
they land a plane in cold weather. Wind chill has
a big effect on how long they can be there, before
the oil is too cold to allow the plane to restart.

In the case of water pipes, it has a big effect on
how fast they freeze. Which is the question of this
thread.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

You have it exactly.

Wind chill affects the RATE of heat loss, not the temperature an object will cool down to.

If you put an inanimate object, like a cinder block, outdoors then it will cool down to the ambient temperature. The stronger the wind, the higher the wind chill, and the faster that cinder block will cool down to the ambient temperature, which is the temperature without considering wind chill.

People experience heat loss from their skin as the sensation "cold". The more rapidly heat is lost from the skin, the colder it feels to us. So, an outdoor temperature of -20 deg. F. can "feel like" an outdoor temperature of -30 deg. F. if there is a wind. The wind accelerates heat loss from the skin, thereby making it "feel" colder to us.

However, long story short, an inanimate object will never cool down to a temperature below the ambient temperature because of the wind. Lack of any wind will just mean that it will take longer for that inanimate object to cool down to ambient temperatures.

And, wind chill works in the opposite direction as well. If you defrost your fridge and put the ice outside on a warm summer day to melt, the stronger the wind, the faster that ice will melt. The less wind there is, the longer it will take that ice to melt.

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...snipped...

.... Rate of heat transfer is the only
difference, the temperature never goes below ambient.

So evaporative cooling doesn't really work?



--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry W. - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On 1/4/2014 10:15 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 1/4/2014 11:50 PM, mike wrote:
On 1/4/2014 8:37 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 23:01:32 -0500, wrote:

No, but it will cool faster. Wind chill is still relevant to
inanimate objects, even above freezing.

You would have been 100% correct if you had left off the word "chill."

YEP!!!
Wind CHILL is an empirical determination of what happens to humans
in cold wind. It's the same principle, but the NUMBER is relatively
useless for freezing pipes in unspecified configurations. It is likely
that lower wind chill number
will be harder on pipes, for the same wind direction relative to the
structure. How much depends.


Wind chill describes rate of heat loss of objects.
Doesn't matter if they are living or dead. Ask the
pilots in alaska, if wind chill is important when
they land a plane in cold weather. Wind chill has
a big effect on how long they can be there, before
the oil is too cold to allow the plane to restart.

In the case of water pipes, it has a big effect on
how fast they freeze. Which is the question of this
thread.

We're gonna have to disagree on that.
The thermodynamics are the same, but the conditions
are very different.
The number scrolling across your TV screen and what's happening
inside the walls of your house may be different and different from
what's happening inside
the walls of my house.

In article ,
nestork wrote:
...snipped...
However, long story short, an inanimate object will never cool down to a
temperature below the ambient temperature because of the wind. Lack of
any wind will just mean that it will take longer for that inanimate
object to cool down to ambient temperatures.


I would disagree with that somewhat. I believe that an inanimate object,
say a cinder block for instance, if soaked in water and exposed to
wind in low humidity, will reach a temperature somewhat below
ambient until all the water evaporates.


--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry W. - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On 1/4/2014 11:29 PM, Larry W wrote:
In article ,
nestork wrote:
...snipped...
However, long story short, an inanimate object will never cool down to a
temperature below the ambient temperature because of the wind. Lack of
any wind will just mean that it will take longer for that inanimate
object to cool down to ambient temperatures.


I would disagree with that somewhat. I believe that an inanimate object,
say a cinder block for instance, if soaked in water and exposed to
wind in low humidity, will reach a temperature somewhat below
ambient until all the water evaporates.


Well, you're making up different conditions.
Pipes don't have humidity, unless they're very leaky.

And that's the whole point of this ****ing contest.
Wind chill is a made up number based on empirical experiments
on humans using measurements at the airport, looked up in a table,
and posted on your TV screen.

The other way to get it is to calculate it directly from
your own measurements inside your walls and that table lookup.
But if you have those measurements, use 'em.
Don't make up another number you don't need.

You can certainly imagine cases where wind blows directly on the pipes.
If you live in a cold climate that's a no-no.

Right now it's 31F outside. My crawl space is at 54F.
And it will be close to 55F next week and in June.
And that's not by accident. The ground temp is very stable,
and I don't let the wind blow under there.

Changing the subject...
There's an experiment you can do.
Turn off the water and wait several hours for it to
stabilize.
The water at different points in the system may be
at different temperatures.

Take a small container, like the lid of a spray can
and stick a thermometer in it.
Turn on the water into the container.
You can see the temperature change as water from
different parts of the pipe reaches the spigot.
There's a tradeoff. You want it to flow fast,
so the temperature changes little along the way,
but not so fast that the thermometer can't keep up.
The further the distance, the less the accuracy.

I did the experiment a few weeks ago when we had record
low temps around 15F. Water never got below 50F.
And that happened just where it should have where the
pipe goes thru an area closest to an outside wall.

When you want an answer, make a direct measurement on the
thing you're measuring.
Conditions at the airport aren't very direct when you have
rivers and hills in between.

'Nother change of subject.
My neighbor had his water meter changed.
I got there late, so didn't see the start, but they
put a collar around the pipe, pumped something cold into
it to freeze the water so they could remove the meter.
Way cool...

On 1/5/2014 1:43 AM, nestork wrote:

However, long story short, an inanimate object will never cool down to a
temperature below the ambient temperature because of the wind. Lack of
any wind will just mean that it will take longer for that inanimate
object to cool down to ambient temperatures.


Such as a "wet bulb" used in sling psychrometers.
Will never cool below ambient, right? Or, a wet
beach towel, hung from a line, or a media pad in
a swamp cooler, or a wet forehead, under a brim of
a hat.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 1/5/2014 3:16 AM, mike wrote:

'Nother change of subject.
My neighbor had his water meter changed.
I got there late, so didn't see the start, but they
put a collar around the pipe, pumped something cold into
it to freeze the water so they could remove the meter.
Way cool...

I've heard of electric operated "pipe freezer"
for this. May also have been some eco friendly
low boiling point suff like freon, or carbon
dioxide.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 5:01:22 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 11:15:56 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



Well, no **** Sherlock. Apparently windchill does have

an effect on an inanimate object.... And let's look at the context,

before you try to hijack it into something else. The question that

was asked was if wind chill was a consideration in pipes posssibly

freezing.



"Wind chill" has no effect on inanimate objects. Period, if I may

quote our fearless leader.



BS as already proven with the simple examples:

A brick that's 75F when placed outside when it's 20F is going
to cool faster with a windchill of 0F, than with a windchill of
15F. A house is going to take more energy to keep it warm on
a night when the windchill is 0F, than when the windchill is
20F, even if the outside temp both nights is 20F. That's because
windchill has a direct bearing on how heat is removed from
any object, without regard to whether it's alive or not.




Your answer, which you apparently cling to, is that wind chill

has no effect on inanimate objects.



Wrong, as demonstated by physics and my various examples.



Your various examples are merely demonstrating the effect of wind, not

wind chill.

You only get wind chill if there is wind. Go look at the formula
for the USA. The only components are temp and wind speed. Wind chill
cools that brick or house cited in the example.

And in the context of the discussion, I'll ask the simple question
again. If you have water pipes in a crawlspace that has some vent openings, drafts, etc and it's 20F outside, are those pipes more likely to freeze on
a night when the windchill is 0F or when it's 20F?




Until you can understand the difference there is no

further point in this conversation.



Nonsense. Why would windchill only remove heat from things that are alive?
Good grief.





If I may paraphrase another of our presidents, It's the wind, stupid.



If I may paraphrase, you're as dumb as the brick in the example.






No, I didn't contradict myself but you just did. "Wind chill" has no



effect on an inanimate object. Wind chill is just how cold ambient



temperature feels to exposed flesh.







BS. Wind chill is an index that indicates how wind and in some

cases evaporation, factors in to cooling things. Those "things"

could be you or an inaminate object that is above the outside temp.



Are you really saying that a house with no heat, there is no

reason to be more concerned on a night when the wind chill is 0F,

as opposed to 20F, even if the outside temp is the same?

Yes or no?



Failure to answer the simple, direct question noted. That's a sure
sign that you know you're wrong.

On 01/05/2014 07:28 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 1/5/2014 1:43 AM, nestork wrote:

However, long story short, an inanimate object will never cool down to a
temperature below the ambient temperature because of the wind. Lack of
any wind will just mean that it will take longer for that inanimate
object to cool down to ambient temperatures.


Such as a "wet bulb" used in sling psychrometers.
Will never cool below ambient, right? Or, a wet
beach towel, hung from a line, or a media pad in
a swamp cooler, or a wet forehead, under a brim of
a hat.


Wow Stormy, you're knockin them outta the park this morning. ;-)

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 3:39:20 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/4/2014 9:12 AM, wrote:



That's like saying the pipes will freeze if they will freeze.

Sure, if you want to define ambient to be the temperature at the

pipes. But who measures that? The point is if one hears that

it's going to be 20F tonight, is there valid reason to be more

concerned about pipes in an outside wall, a drafty crawlspace,

etc freezing if the reported windchill is 0F versus 17F? The

answer to that is yes.



Let's change the parameters. Outside temperature is 35 degrees, but

because of the wind, the weatherman says the wind chill factor is 29

degrees. Will the pipe freeze? No.



I agree and it's a valid point. But that doesn't mean that windchill
index doesn't have an effect on inanimate objects, which is what Gordon is claiming. Here is the context of the original question:

"Tonight in NYS supposed to be 0F, and wind
chill -10 or so. Which number is the one
which concerns water pipes freezing?

I know the pipes won't get below the actual
temp, but are they more likely to freeze,
with wind? "

So, you have Gordon claiming windchill has no effect on inanimate
objects. Listening to that, should Stormin conclude that there is
no possible effect of that lower reported windchill on pipes in a crawlspace?
That is what Gordon is claiming, forget about the windchill, it only
effects inanimate objects.





In your example you use an example of 17 and 0. The only difference

that may have a minor effect is if the wind is actually moving the air

away from the pipes.

I would say it's going to have an effect if it's moving cold air
from outside into the crawlspace. That happens if there is wind,
which is reflected in the reported windchill index. Even if the
air doesn't make it inside, the temp inside the crawlspace is likely
to be lower with a higher windchill, because it's moving around the
outside of the foundation too. Therefore, in certain conditions,
the lower the windchill, the more likely it can be that pipes will
freeze.




Many factors come into play on how the wind moves

around the pipes inside the crawlspace. It does not determine if the

pipes will freeze, on;y how fast.

It could very well determine if they will freeze. Let's say you
forgot to drain the pipes and won't be back for a day. If the temps
go below freezing overnight, down to 20F, with a significant reported
windchill, the pipes in the crawlspace may freeze. With no windchill,
they might not have enough time to freeze before the temp rises again
in the morning.





Rate of heat transfer is the only

difference, the temperature never goes below ambient.


I agree and never suggested otherwise. Note that rate of heat transfer
is an effect on inanimate objects.









Here's another question. If inanimate objects are not affected

by windchill, then on a night when the outside temp is 20F,

the same house is going to use the same amount of energy to

keep it at 70F when the windchill is 0F as it does if the windchill

is 17F?





The big difference is how well sealed the house is. Radiational cooling

difference will be minimal, but convection can be considerable.

Which shows that windchill applies to inanimate objects too.

On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 06:24:14 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 5:01:22 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 11:15:56 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:

Well, no **** Sherlock. Apparently wind chill does have
an effect on an inanimate object.... And let's look at the context,
before you try to hijack it into something else. The question that
was asked was if wind chill was a consideration in pipes possibly
freezing.

"Wind chill" has no effect on inanimate objects. Period, if I may
quote our fearless leader.

BS as already proven with the simple examples:

A brick that's 75F when placed outside when it's 20F is going
to cool faster with a windchill of 0F, than with a windchill of
15F. A house is going to take more energy to keep it warm on
a night when the windchill is 0F, than when the windchill is
20F, even if the outside temp both nights is 20F. That's because
windchill has a direct bearing on how heat is removed from
any object, without regard to whether it's alive or not.

Your answer, which you apparently cling to, is that wind chill
has no effect on inanimate objects.
Wrong, as demonstrated by physics and my various examples.

Your various examples are merely demonstrating the effect of wind, not
wind chill.

You only get wind chill if there is wind. Go look at the formula
for the USA. The only components are temp and wind speed. Wind chill
cools that brick or house cited in the example.

And in the context of the discussion, I'll ask the simple question
again. If you have water pipes in a crawlspace that has some vent openings, drafts,
etc. and it's 20F outside, are those pipes more likely to freeze on
a night when the wind chill is 0F or when it's 20F?

Until you can understand the difference there is no
further point in this conversation.

Nonsense. Why would wind chill only remove heat from things that are alive?
Good grief.

If I may paraphrase another of our presidents, It's the wind, stupid.

If I may paraphrase, you're as dumb as the brick in the example.

No, I didn't contradict myself but you just did. "Wind chill" has no
effect on an inanimate object. Wind chill is just how cold ambient
temperature feels to exposed flesh.

BS. Wind chill is an index that indicates how wind and in some
cases evaporation, factors in to cooling things. Those "things"

could be you or an inaminate object that is above the outside temp.
Are you really saying that a house with no heat, there is no
reason to be more concerned on a night when the wind chill is 0F,
as opposed to 20F, even if the outside temp is the same?
Yes or no?

Failure to answer the simple, direct question noted. That's a sure
sign that you know you're wrong.

Here is my last hope at getting you to understand the difference
between "Wind" and "Wind Chill."

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/windchill/windchillfaq.shtml

Pay particular attention to the frequently asked question number 12.

On 01/05/2014 09:57 AM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
XXXand "Wind Chill."

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/windchill/windchillfaq.shtml

Pay particular attention to the frequently asked question number 12.




If point #12 does not settle this argument once and for all, nothing will!

On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 10:10:00 -0600, philo* wrote:

On 01/05/2014 09:57 AM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
XXXand "Wind Chill."

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/windchill/windchillfaq.shtml

Pay particular attention to the frequently asked question number 12.




If point #12 does not settle this argument once and for all, nothing will!

Oh, no it won't! ;-)

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:57:44 AM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 06:24:14 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



On Saturday, January 4, 2014 5:01:22 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 11:15:56 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:



Well, no **** Sherlock. Apparently wind chill does have

an effect on an inanimate object.... And let's look at the context,

before you try to hijack it into something else. The question that

was asked was if wind chill was a consideration in pipes possibly

freezing.



"Wind chill" has no effect on inanimate objects. Period, if I may

quote our fearless leader.



BS as already proven with the simple examples:



A brick that's 75F when placed outside when it's 20F is going

to cool faster with a windchill of 0F, than with a windchill of

15F. A house is going to take more energy to keep it warm on

a night when the windchill is 0F, than when the windchill is

20F, even if the outside temp both nights is 20F. That's because

windchill has a direct bearing on how heat is removed from

any object, without regard to whether it's alive or not.



Your answer, which you apparently cling to, is that wind chill

has no effect on inanimate objects.

Wrong, as demonstrated by physics and my various examples.



Your various examples are merely demonstrating the effect of wind, not

wind chill.



You only get wind chill if there is wind. Go look at the formula

for the USA. The only components are temp and wind speed. Wind chill

cools that brick or house cited in the example.



And in the context of the discussion, I'll ask the simple question

again. If you have water pipes in a crawlspace that has some vent openings, drafts,

etc. and it's 20F outside, are those pipes more likely to freeze on

a night when the wind chill is 0F or when it's 20F?



Until you can understand the difference there is no

further point in this conversation.



Nonsense. Why would wind chill only remove heat from things that are alive?

Good grief.



If I may paraphrase another of our presidents, It's the wind, stupid.



If I may paraphrase, you're as dumb as the brick in the example.



No, I didn't contradict myself but you just did. "Wind chill" has no

effect on an inanimate object. Wind chill is just how cold ambient

temperature feels to exposed flesh.



BS. Wind chill is an index that indicates how wind and in some

cases evaporation, factors in to cooling things. Those "things"



could be you or an inaminate object that is above the outside temp.

Are you really saying that a house with no heat, there is no

reason to be more concerned on a night when the wind chill is 0F,

as opposed to 20F, even if the outside temp is the same?

Yes or no?



Failure to answer the simple, direct question noted. That's a sure

sign that you know you're wrong.



Here is my last hope at getting you to understand the difference

between "Wind" and "Wind Chill."



http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/windchill/windchillfaq.shtml



Pay particular attention to the frequently asked question number 12.

Pay particular attention to the fact that just like you, they
contradicted themselves. Anyone can see that:

"Q: Does wind chill only apply to people and animals?

Yes. The only effect wind chill has on inanimate objects, such as car radiators and water pipes, is to more quickly cool the object to cool to the current air temperature. Object will NOT cool below the actual air temperature.. For example, if the temperature outside is -5 degrees Fahrenheit and the wind chill temperature is -31 degrees Fahrenheit, then your car's radiator will not drop lower than -5 degrees F."


First they say it only applies to people and animals, then
they say windchill does affect radiators and water pipes. Which of course
is exactly what I and other here have been saying. They say it has an
effect. What you said was:

"Wind chill" has absolutely no effect on inanimate objects."


Thanks for proving my point.

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 11:10:00 AM UTC-5, philo* wrote:
On 01/05/2014 09:57 AM, Gordon Shumway wrote:

XXXand "Wind Chill."



http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/windchill/windchillfaq.shtml



Pay particular attention to the frequently asked question number 12.









If point #12 does not settle this argument once and for all, nothing will!

It does settle it. They clearly say that windchill does have an effect
on radiators and "water pipes", causing them to cool faster. Radiators
and water pipes are inanimate objects. Therefore, Gordon's statement:

"Wind chill" has absolutely no effect on inanimate objects."

is clearly wrong. Precisely what I've been saying.

On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 08:42:12 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 11:10:00 AM UTC-5, philo* wrote:
On 01/05/2014 09:57 AM, Gordon Shumway wrote:

XXXand "Wind Chill."



http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/windchill/windchillfaq.shtml



Pay particular attention to the frequently asked question number 12.









If point #12 does not settle this argument once and for all, nothing will!

It does settle it. They clearly say that windchill does have an effect
on radiators and "water pipes", causing them to cool faster.

Wind, NOT wind chill (two words) has an effect on everything cooling
faster.

Wind chill is just a number in a chart!

I'm done.

Radiators
and water pipes are inanimate objects. Therefore, Gordon's statement:

"Wind chill" has absolutely no effect on inanimate objects."

is clearly wrong. Precisely what I've been saying.

In the scenario at hand, does jacking up the interior heat mean much if
you are worried about a pipe on an outside wall? I am away and have
already jacked the temp from the standard 50 to around 70 (thanks WiFi
thermostat). Any real reason to kick it up further.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On 1/4/2014 11:37 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 23:01:32 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 15:39:20 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/4/2014 9:12 AM, wrote:

That's like saying the pipes will freeze if they will freeze.
Sure, if you want to define ambient to be the temperature at the
pipes. But who measures that? The point is if one hears that
it's going to be 20F tonight, is there valid reason to be more
concerned about pipes in an outside wall, a drafty crawlspace,
etc freezing if the reported windchill is 0F versus 17F? The
answer to that is yes.

Let's change the parameters. Outside temperature is 35 degrees, but
because of the wind, the weatherman says the wind chill factor is 29
degrees. Will the pipe freeze? No.

No, but it will cool faster. Wind chill is still relevant to
inanimate objects, even above freezing.

You would have been 100% correct if you had left off the word "chill."


Reread FAQ 12. Their statement is, 'The only effect wind chill has on
inanimate objects, such as car radiators and water pipes, is to more
quickly cool the object to cool to the current air temperature. Object
will NOT cool below the actual air temperature.' I know in their first
statement they confirmed wind chill only applies to people and animals,
but they can't have it both ways.

It appears you and the NWS are not in agreement either.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say wind chill temperature only
applies to people and animals since it describes a felt condition (I
don't subscribe to the idea that inanimate objects 'feel'). And, that
wind chill describes the condition where the wind sucks the heat out of
anything.

Whatever.

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 12:36:25 PM UTC-5, Mike wrote:
On 1/4/2014 11:37 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 23:01:32 -0500, wrote:



On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 15:39:20 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:



On 1/4/2014 9:12 AM, wrote:



That's like saying the pipes will freeze if they will freeze.

Sure, if you want to define ambient to be the temperature at the

pipes. But who measures that? The point is if one hears that

it's going to be 20F tonight, is there valid reason to be more

concerned about pipes in an outside wall, a drafty crawlspace,

etc freezing if the reported windchill is 0F versus 17F? The

answer to that is yes.



Let's change the parameters. Outside temperature is 35 degrees, but

because of the wind, the weatherman says the wind chill factor is 29

degrees. Will the pipe freeze? No.



No, but it will cool faster. Wind chill is still relevant to

inanimate objects, even above freezing.



You would have been 100% correct if you had left off the word "chill."





Reread FAQ 12. Their statement is, 'The only effect wind chill has on

inanimate objects, such as car radiators and water pipes, is to more

quickly cool the object to cool to the current air temperature. Object

will NOT cool below the actual air temperature.' I know in their first

statement they confirmed wind chill only applies to people and animals,

but they can't have it both ways.



Thank you. Another person who sees the contradiction and that what
NOAA says is consistent with what I've been saying.




It appears you and the NWS are not in agreement either.



Perhaps it would be more accurate to say wind chill temperature only

applies to people and animals since it describes a felt condition (I

don't subscribe to the idea that inanimate objects 'feel').

It doesn't just reflect "feel". Wind taking heat away from a human
being is what causes the feeling. It's not some majical effect confined
to living things. It's caused by wind removing heat faster with a higher
wind speed.

The same exact effect applies to inanimate objects, like a bucket of
75F water placed outside when it's 20F. With a lower windchill number,
it's going to freeze faster. Clearly that is an effect.




And, that

wind chill describes the condition where the wind sucks the heat out of

anything.



It sucks the heat above the air temp out of anything, that is correct.
NOAA says it. Therefore Gordon's statement that:

"Wind chill" has no effect on inanimate objects. Period, if I may
quote our fearless leader. "

is wrong. His own link from NOAA says so.


A bucket of 75F water placed outside when it's 20F with a windchill of
0F is going to freeze faster than if the windchill is 20F.

A house is going to take more energy to keep warm on a night when it's
20F outside, but the windchill is 0F instead of 20F.

And pipes in a drafty crawlspace are more likely to freeze on that 20F
night with a windchill of 0F, instead of 20F.

He won't even address any of those. Instead of manning up and admitting
he's wrong, he just keeps digging his hole deeper, like some others.
We;ve seen it before

On 1/5/2014 2:29 AM, Larry W wrote:

I would disagree with that somewhat. I believe that an inanimate object,
say a cinder block for instance, if soaked in water and exposed to
wind in low humidity, will reach a temperature somewhat below
ambient until all the water evaporates.


We're talking about dry inanimate objects though. You are posing a
different situation entirely. You are in swamp cooler territory.

On 1/5/2014 2:20 AM, Larry W wrote:
In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...snipped...

.... Rate of heat transfer is the only
difference, the temperature never goes below ambient.

So evaporative cooling doesn't really work?



Sure, but there is nothing here to evaporate.

On 1/5/2014 9:24 AM, wrote:


Nonsense. Why would windchill only remove heat from things that are alive?
Good grief.

I think we are confusing definitions. When the weatherman give wind
chill or "real feel" temperatures he is talking about how exposed human
flesh feels the temperature. Think evaporative cooling.

Drop the word "chill" and I think we can all agree that wind removes
heat faster. There is no evaporative cooling, but faster movement of
heat energy from the object.

No matter how you term things, it does not change the laws of physics. .

On 1/5/2014 12:33 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In the scenario at hand, does jacking up the interior heat mean much if
you are worried about a pipe on an outside wall? I am away and have
already jacked the temp from the standard 50 to around 70 (thanks WiFi
thermostat). Any real reason to kick it up further.


As the temperature differential increases the movement of heat energy
speeds up. Increasing the inside temp to 70 will allow more heat to
escape into the interior of the wall. Yes, it can help prevent freezing.

On 1/5/2014 9:41 AM, wrote:



Rate of heat transfer is the only

difference, the temperature never goes below ambient.


I agree and never suggested otherwise. Note that rate of heat transfer
is an effect on inanimate objects.


Yes, but that is an efect of the wind, not the wind chill the weatherman
talks about how we feel in the wind.








The big difference is how well sealed the house is. Radiational cooling

difference will be minimal, but convection can be considerable.

Which shows that windchill applies to inanimate objects too.


No, it shows the effects of wind but has nothing to do with the
windchill factor on the 11 o'clock news

On 1/5/2014 11:10 AM, philo wrote:
On 01/05/2014 09:57 AM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
XXXand "Wind Chill."

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/windchill/windchillfaq.shtml

Pay particular attention to the frequently asked question number 12.




If point #12 does not settle this argument once and for all, nothing will!

12. Does wind chill only apply to people and animals?

Yes. The only effect wind chill has on inanimate objects,
such as car radiators and water pipes, is to more quickly
cool the object to cool to the current air temperature.
Object will NOT cool below the actual air temperature.
For example, if the temperature outside is -5 degrees
Fahrenheit and the wind chill temperature is -31 degrees
Fahrenheit, then your car's radiator will not drop lower
than -5 degrees F.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

With people and pets, we want to keep the core temp at
98.6, much cooler than that will result in hypothermia.
Will a low wind chill make for hypothermia faster? I
guess yes.

With water lines, we want to keep at or higher than
32F. Will a low wind chill make for frozen pipes
faster? I guess yes.



--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 15:14:51 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/5/2014 9:24 AM, wrote:


Nonsense. Why would windchill only remove heat from things that are alive?
Good grief.

I think we are confusing definitions. When the weatherman give wind
chill or "real feel" temperatures he is talking about how exposed human
flesh feels the temperature. Think evaporative cooling.

Drop the word "chill" and I think we can all agree that wind removes
heat faster. There is no evaporative cooling, but faster movement of
heat energy from the object.

No matter how you term things, it does not change the laws of physics. .

Exactly.

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/windchill/index.shtml
"The NWS Windchill Temperature (WCT) index uses advances in science,
technology, and computer modeling to provide an accurate,
understandable, and useful formula for calculating the dangers from
winter winds and freezing temperatures. The index:
€¢Calculates wind speed at an average height of five feet, typical
height of an adult human face, based on readings from the national
standard height of 33 feet, typical height of an anemometer
€¢Is based on a human face model
€¢Incorporates heat transfer theory, heat loss from the body to its
surroundings, during cold and breezy/windy days
€¢Lowers the calm wind threshold to 3 mph
€¢Uses a consistent standard for skin tissue resistance
€¢Assumes no impact from the sun (i.e., clear night sky)."

So the term "windchill" has been "appropriated" by the NWS for
application to human skin.
If you want to use it for pipes in an accurate manner, you need to
specify type of pipe, heat transfer rate, etc.
I'm sure it has been done by engineers who design things where it's
relevent. But they don't call it "windchill."

Yes, and I would agree, but the drop below ambient temperature cannot be attributed to wind chill, but to evaporative cooling.

When water evaporates, it absorbs heat. In this case, it would be absorbing heat from the cinder block, and that's what would cause the temperature of the block to dip below ambient.

Evaporative cooling is how a dog's tongue works to cool the blood of the dog, and therefore cool the dog down on a hot day.

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 22:37:04 -0600, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 23:01:32 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 15:39:20 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/4/2014 9:12 AM, wrote:

That's like saying the pipes will freeze if they will freeze.
Sure, if you want to define ambient to be the temperature at the
pipes. But who measures that? The point is if one hears that
it's going to be 20F tonight, is there valid reason to be more
concerned about pipes in an outside wall, a drafty crawlspace,
etc freezing if the reported windchill is 0F versus 17F? The
answer to that is yes.

Let's change the parameters. Outside temperature is 35 degrees, but
because of the wind, the weatherman says the wind chill factor is 29
degrees. Will the pipe freeze? No.

No, but it will cool faster. Wind chill is still relevant to
inanimate objects, even above freezing.

You would have been 100% correct if you had left off the word "chill."

I don't know if you're just being pedantic, but you're wrong.

On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 07:43:02 +0100, nestork
wrote:


'Stormin Mormon[_10_ Wrote:
;3177195']
Wind chill describes rate of heat loss of objects.
Doesn't matter if they are living or dead. Ask the
pilots in alaska, if wind chill is important when
they land a plane in cold weather. Wind chill has
a big effect on how long they can be there, before
the oil is too cold to allow the plane to restart.

In the case of water pipes, it has a big effect on
how fast they freeze. Which is the question of this
thread.


You have it exactly.

Wind chill affects the RATE of heat loss, not the temperature an object
will cool down to.

Well, if you're adding heat to an object, it does affect the
equilibrium temperature. That's the whole point of cooling fans.

On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 15:41:27 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/5/2014 9:41 AM, wrote:



Rate of heat transfer is the only

difference, the temperature never goes below ambient.


I agree and never suggested otherwise. Note that rate of heat transfer
is an effect on inanimate objects.


Yes, but that is an efect of the wind, not the wind chill the weatherman
talks about how we feel in the wind.

The multiplier may be different but the concept is *exactly* the same.



The big difference is how well sealed the house is. Radiational cooling

difference will be minimal, but convection can be considerable.

Which shows that windchill applies to inanimate objects too.


No, it shows the effects of wind but has nothing to do with the
windchill factor on the 11 o'clock news

Nonsense. The slopes may be different but the physics is the same.

It occurrs to me that if we were all having this conversation live and in
real time, within about 15 minutes tops we would all have explained
our qualifiers and lack of precision in language and would likely all
agree with each other about the effect wind has on the rate of tmeperature
change of any object, animate or inaminate.


--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry W. - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 06:24:14 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 5:01:22 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 11:15:56 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:

Well, no **** Sherlock. Apparently wind chill does have
an effect on an inanimate object.... And let's look at the context,
before you try to hijack it into something else. The question that
was asked was if wind chill was a consideration in pipes possibly
freezing.

"Wind chill" has no effect on inanimate objects. Period, if I may
quote our fearless leader.

BS as already proven with the simple examples:

A brick that's 75F when placed outside when it's 20F is going
to cool faster with a windchill of 0F, than with a windchill of
15F. A house is going to take more energy to keep it warm on
a night when the windchill is 0F, than when the windchill is
20F, even if the outside temp both nights is 20F. That's because
windchill has a direct bearing on how heat is removed from
any object, without regard to whether it's alive or not.

Your answer, which you apparently cling to, is that wind chill
has no effect on inanimate objects.
Wrong, as demonstrated by physics and my various examples.

Your various examples are merely demonstrating the effect of wind, not
wind chill.

You only get wind chill if there is wind. Go look at the formula
for the USA. The only components are temp and wind speed. Wind chill
cools that brick or house cited in the example.

And in the context of the discussion, I'll ask the simple question
again. If you have water pipes in a crawlspace that has some vent openings, drafts,
etc. and it's 20F outside, are those pipes more likely to freeze on
a night when the wind chill is 0F or when it's 20F?

Until you can understand the difference there is no
further point in this conversation.

Nonsense. Why would wind chill only remove heat from things that are alive?
Good grief.

If I may paraphrase another of our presidents, It's the wind, stupid.

If I may paraphrase, you're as dumb as the brick in the example.

No, I didn't contradict myself but you just did. "Wind chill" has no
effect on an inanimate object. Wind chill is just how cold ambient
temperature feels to exposed flesh.

BS. Wind chill is an index that indicates how wind and in some
cases evaporation, factors in to cooling things. Those "things"

could be you or an inaminate object that is above the outside temp.
Are you really saying that a house with no heat, there is no
reason to be more concerned on a night when the wind chill is 0F,
as opposed to 20F, even if the outside temp is the same?
Yes or no?

Failure to answer the simple, direct question noted. That's a sure
sign that you know you're wrong.

Here is my last hope at getting you to understand the difference
between "Wind" and "Wind Chill."

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/windchill/windchillfaq.shtml

Pay particular attention to the frequently asked question number 12.

There is another wind chill factor. When I drove in the desert with no air,
it was often cooler to keep most windows closed. Your evaporative system
can only produce so much sweat.

Greg

On 1/5/2014 9:29 PM, gregz wrote:

There is another wind chill factor. When I drove in the desert with no air,
it was often cooler to keep most windows closed. Your evaporative system
can only produce so much sweat.

Greg

I've not had that experience, but it sounds
reasonable. I'll remember that for the
future.

I've heard that it's wise to have a LOT of
drinking water in the vehicle with you. The
one time I drove through Nebraska, I was really
glad there was other traffic. A town about every
50 miles, that was some wide open space.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 1/5/2014 9:38 AM, Mike Hunt-Hertz wrote:
On 01/05/2014 07:28 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Such as a "wet bulb" used in sling psychrometers.
Will never cool below ambient, right? Or, a wet
beach towel, hung from a line, or a media pad in
a swamp cooler, or a wet forehead, under a brim of
a hat.


Wow Stormy, you're knockin them outta the park this morning. ;-)

I'll try not to do that again. Sorry.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 20:28:19 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 22:37:04 -0600, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 23:01:32 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 15:39:20 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/4/2014 9:12 AM, wrote:

That's like saying the pipes will freeze if they will freeze.
Sure, if you want to define ambient to be the temperature at the
pipes. But who measures that? The point is if one hears that
it's going to be 20F tonight, is there valid reason to be more
concerned about pipes in an outside wall, a drafty crawlspace,
etc freezing if the reported windchill is 0F versus 17F? The
answer to that is yes.

Let's change the parameters. Outside temperature is 35 degrees, but
because of the wind, the weatherman says the wind chill factor is 29
degrees. Will the pipe freeze? No.

No, but it will cool faster. Wind chill is still relevant to
inanimate objects, even above freezing.

You would have been 100% correct if you had left off the word "chill."

I don't know if you're just being pedantic, but you're wrong.

I had to look up pedantic. No I'm not to both statements.

Thanks for playing.

On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 20:28:19 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 22:37:04 -0600, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 23:01:32 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 15:39:20 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/4/2014 9:12 AM, wrote:

That's like saying the pipes will freeze if they will freeze.
Sure, if you want to define ambient to be the temperature at the
pipes. But who measures that? The point is if one hears that
it's going to be 20F tonight, is there valid reason to be more
concerned about pipes in an outside wall, a drafty crawlspace,
etc freezing if the reported windchill is 0F versus 17F? The
answer to that is yes.

Let's change the parameters. Outside temperature is 35 degrees, but
because of the wind, the weatherman says the wind chill factor is 29
degrees. Will the pipe freeze? No.

No, but it will cool faster. Wind chill is still relevant to
inanimate objects, even above freezing.

You would have been 100% correct if you had left off the word "chill."

I don't know if you're just being pedantic, but you're wrong.

I was getting ready for bed, sitting on the throne and the figurative
light bulb came on! I think I have a way to get my point across once
and for all.

I'm sure many of us have done some investigation on this topic. We
have probably found that the term wind chill was coined by the
American geographer Paul A. Siple sometime in 1939.

Let's pretend that we have all gone over to Mr. Peabody's with Sherman
and we climb into the WABAC machine and travel back in time before
1939, let's say the roaring '20's. Long before this thing called wind
chill existed. Now let's assume one of you, and I believe Stormy was
the sinister individual that started this, is worried about his pipes
freezing.

We all know wind chill doesn't exist, because Al Capone says it
doesn't, so what would make Stormy's pipes freeze then?

On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 20:47:48 -0600, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 20:28:19 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 22:37:04 -0600, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 23:01:32 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 15:39:20 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/4/2014 9:12 AM, wrote:

That's like saying the pipes will freeze if they will freeze.
Sure, if you want to define ambient to be the temperature at the
pipes. But who measures that? The point is if one hears that
it's going to be 20F tonight, is there valid reason to be more
concerned about pipes in an outside wall, a drafty crawlspace,
etc freezing if the reported windchill is 0F versus 17F? The
answer to that is yes.

Let's change the parameters. Outside temperature is 35 degrees, but
because of the wind, the weatherman says the wind chill factor is 29
degrees. Will the pipe freeze? No.

No, but it will cool faster. Wind chill is still relevant to
inanimate objects, even above freezing.

You would have been 100% correct if you had left off the word "chill."

I don't know if you're just being pedantic, but you're wrong.

I had to look up pedantic. No I'm not to both statements.

Then you're simply wrong.

Thanks for playing.

No play.

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:14:51 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/5/2014 9:24 AM, wrote:





Nonsense. Why would windchill only remove heat from things that are alive?

Good grief.



I think we are confusing definitions. When the weatherman give wind

chill or "real feel" temperatures he is talking about how exposed human

flesh feels the temperature. Think evaporative cooling.



First, it's not based on "evaporative cooling", at least in the USA.
If it were, then it would need to have a component to reflect
the moisture in the air. Dry air removes more heat than high
humidity air. But windchill here is based on a formula that uses wind
speed and temp alone. Hence, that reported windchill index affects inanimate
objects too. The question was asked in the following context:

"Tonight in NYS supposed to be 0F, and wind
chill -10 or so. Which number is the one
which concerns water pipes freezing? "

The answer is both of them. At 0F, it's cold enough to freeze
pipes. And depending on where the pipes are, they can be
affected by the windchill. Again, just two examples:

A - Pipes are in a cabin with no heat. Do you think the cabin
inside temp will be the same overnight as the temp drops without
regard to what the windchill is? If the reported windchill was
large, would you not agree that the pipes are going to be
more likely to freeze?

B - Pipes in a drafty crawlspace.





Drop the word "chill" and I think we can all agree that wind removes

heat faster. There is no evaporative cooling, but faster movement of

heat energy from the object.



Then why won't Gordon just admit he's wrong, even after his
own reference from NOAA says that inanimate objects can be affected
by windchill?



No matter how you term things, it does not change the laws of physics. .

Again, tell that to Gordon. He's the one that said windchill had
absolutely no effect on inanimate objects and won't just admit that
he's wrong. Apparently you agree he's wrong too.