Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 15:56:38 -0600, Gordon Shumway
wrote: On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 15:40:02 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 1/6/2014 9:14 AM, wrote: The problem still goes back to definition. It has become diluted from the original intent of how the body feels. Yes, wind can carry heat away faster, but it will never reduce it below actual temperature on an inanimate object. Many weather reports now use the "real feel" designation and it considers how hot you feel on a warm and dry versus warm and humid day. Same with cold. But the thermometer does not change. It's a losing battle, Ed. Because you have nothing in your quiver. You're wrong. |
#122
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes (stormy's froze)
On 1/7/2014 4:56 PM, SteveF wrote:
2 PM, the truck finally started. Ether didn't help. My mechanic suggested heat on the distributor cap. I had cleaned and WD-40 several multi pin connections. I think the one that helped was either on the ignition coil, or ignition module. Drove around the block, and check the mail. Hope that helps for a while. You might want to yank the battery out and let it warm up a bit, then charge it. When you need the vehicle reinstall. I've heard of people doing that. It's a very real help. I haven't done it, yet. But who can tell. -- .. Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus www.lds.org .. |
#123
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes (stormy's froze)
On 1/7/2014 10:22 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Nobody's cheering when you write stuff like this..."and will some day maybe wrap the pipes back there, which are not wrapped." Duh! And perhaps you might want to ask why? Naah, don't bother. The "Duh" had nothing to do with wondering why the pipes aren't wrapped. The "Duh" had to do with you telling us that some day you'll wrap the pipes and then saying "which are not wrapped". I'm pretty sure that most us knew that they weren't wrapped as soon as you told that some day you'll wrap them. Considering that I'd been frozen in the wind chill pretty much all that day, I'm an easy target for a netpick. -- .. Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus www.lds.org .. |
#124
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes (stormy's froze)
On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 06:58:05 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote: On 1/7/2014 4:56 PM, SteveF wrote: 2 PM, the truck finally started. Ether didn't help. My mechanic suggested heat on the distributor cap. I had cleaned and WD-40 several multi pin connections. I think the one that helped was either on the ignition coil, or ignition module. Drove around the block, and check the mail. Hope that helps for a while. You might want to yank the battery out and let it warm up a bit, then charge it. When you need the vehicle reinstall. I've heard of people doing that. It's a very real help. I haven't done it, yet. But who can tell. At -20 a battery puts out about 1/4 of it's regular output. Not 100% sure of the fraction - but close. |
#125
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 1:19:50 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 05:20:02 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 1/5/2014 9:41 AM, wrote: Snip The reported windchill is directly dependent on the wind. Let's say the weatherman was giving his report and you missed what he said about the wind. Let's look at two different reports: A - It's currently 35F and it's going to drop to 20F overnight with a windchill of 20F. B - It's currently 35F and it's going to drop to 20F overnight with a windchill of 0F. You have a drafty crawlspace or an unheated cabin. Would you think there is more reason to be concerned about pipes freezing overnight in case A or B? Either scenario could result in frozen pipes. What's your point? Try answering the actual question, instead of avoiding it. The question was in which case are PIPE MORE LIKELY TO FREEZE? Scenario B is more likely to result in frozen pipes. And I've provided credible references that say so. Why don't you just man up and admit that you were wrong when you said that "Wind chill has no effect on inanimate objects"? Snip BS. The windchill is directly dependent on windspeed. It can be used as a proxy for windspeed. If the forecasted temp is 20F and the windchill is also 20F, what does that tell you about the wind?: no wind. If it's forecsted to be 20F with a windchill of 0F, that tells you there is going to be a strong wind and you should be more concerned about pipes freezing in a draft crawspace, unheated cabin, etc. The only difference in either scenario is time. Wind chill is irrelevant. Are you totally stupid? Does the temperature stay constant in your world? Or does it typically vary, very commonly going down overnight? Let's say it's 35F out at 6PM. Overnight the temp is going down to 20F. At 6AM it starts to rise and by 9AM, it's above freezing again. That is a very common occurrence. If the only effect on the pipes of windchill is how long it takes to freeze, then with a large windchill, in that drafty crawlspace or unheated cabing they may have enough time to freeze. Without that windchill, the pipes are less likely to HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO FREEZE. Good grief. BTW, apparently you now agree that inanimate objects are affected by windchill. That's a start. The Weather Channel, NOAA, Univ of Illinois, City of Rochester all say windchill has an effect on inanimate objects and the freezing of pipes: Here, from the Weather Channel: http://www.weather.com/activities/ho...e_prevent.html "Pipes in attics, crawl spaces and outside walls are all vulnerable to freezing, especially if there are cracks or openings that allow cold, outside air to flow across the pipes. Research at the University of Illinois has shown that €œwind chill,€� the cooling effect of air and wind that causes the human body to lose heat, can play a major role in accelerating ice blockage, and thus bursting, in water pipes. " From City of Rochester: http://www.rochesternh.net/public_Do...ER%20PIPES.pdf "Pipes inside or outside walls, or in an enclosed area can freeze, especially when the wind-chill factor is well below zero and heat is not circulating in those areas." |
#126
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 11:38:04 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/7/2014 8:30 AM, wrote: Yes, but they won't freeze if the air temperature is 33 degrees and the wind chill is 20. See the difference? Yes I do. But continuing to use cases where the temp is above freezing doesn't show that the lower the reported windchill, the more likely pipes in a drafty crawlspace or an unheated cabin are to freeze when the temps are well below freezing. Again the qustion posed wasn't about 35F. It was about a day with 0F actual, -10F windchill. My point is, wind chill does not cause the pipes to freeze. Wind may make them freeze sooner but the overall affect is the same. Now try thinking this through one step further. You agree that windchill can make pipes freeze sooner. So, it's very usual for the temp to drop below freezing overnight and then rise above freezing again in the morning. Let's say is 35F at 6PM and it's going to drop to a low of 20F overnight, before rising above freezing by 9AM. With a windchill of 0F, the pipes in that drafty crawspace may have enough time to freeze, while with no windchill they may not freeze. QED, windchill matters. On a night with a lower reported windchill number, the pipes are more likely to freeze. That is all that I, as well as the numerous references I've supplied are saying. And I'd take it even further. Without regard to time, some areas of a drafty crawlspace might NEVER make it to below freezing, depending on the windchill. The house is supply some warmth. With a high windchill number you have wind. That wind might be necessary to produce a steadystate temperature below freezing where the pipes are. Without it, the pipes might never make it below freezing even if it stays 20F outside forever. Now, you're gonna say "But it's the wind..." Sure it's the wind, but the wind is reflected in the windchill. If I tell you the windchill is 0F, the outside temp is 20F, you can even calculate the actual windspeed. It's a proxy for windspeed. Ergo, when asked which number matters, the outside temp of 10F or the windchill number of 0F in determining if pipes will freeze, clearly the windchill number does matter. That was the question, was it not? If your example was correct, a 35 degree temperature with a 20 degree wind chill factor would freeze the pipes. PIPES HAVE NO FEELING |
#127
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 1:24:53 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 05:38:06 -0800 (PST), " wrote: You don't need the windspeed at the pipe. The windspeed at the pipe could be very low. The pipe could be out of the main wind. But a 35mph 15F wind blowing into a drafty crawlspace through a couple of openings could still drop the temp of the rest of the crawlspace low enough to freeze the pipes, even if the air around the pipes is barely moving. Your house gets heated/cooled from a relatively modest amount of air blowing out of registers. Your above statement is absolutely correct. The wind chill in your above example is unknown and irrelevant because the temp is 32� F or below. Because of the air temperature the pipes could freeze. The fact that the wind is blowing will only decrease the time required. That's all I've been saying. That isn't all you've been saying. You told us that "windchill has no effect on inanimate objects" and you still won't admit that was flat out wrong. The windchill is relative, because one more time, the lower the reported windchill, the higher the wind. Ergo, it's more likely the pipes will freeze with a lower reported windchill. Windchill is a proxy for windspeed. And it's *not* just a matter of time. It's very common for people to be worried about whether pipes will freeze on a night where the temp goes significantly below zero. THAT was exactly the question posed by Stormin that started the thread. Now if windchill effects the amount of time it takes for pipes to freeze in a drafty crawlspace or an unheated cabing, then it follows that on nights where the temp drops below freezing overnight and then returns to above freezing at 9AM, with windchill the pipes may have enough time to freeze. With no windchill, they are less likely to have the time to freeze. Capiche? In one case you have frozen pipes, in the other with no windchill, you don't. And I'd also note that it's not just a matter of time. In a drafty crawlspace under a heated house, in some cases, with no reported windchill, the pipes might never freeze, even if it stays 20F outside forever, while with a big windchill reported, they may very well freeze. Why? With the big windchill the wind may be necessary to drop the steady state temperature below freezing where the pipes are. Snip Here, from the Weather Channel: http://www.weather.com/activities/ho...e_prevent.html "Pipes in attics, crawl spaces and outside walls are all vulnerable to freezing, especially if there are cracks or openings that allow cold, outside air to flow across the pipes. Research at the University of Illinois has shown that €œwind chill,�? the cooling effect of air and wind that causes the human body to lose heat, can play a major role in accelerating ice blockage, and thus bursting, in water pipes." From City of Rochester: http://www.rochesternh.net/public_Do...ER%20PIPES.pdf "Pipes inside or outside walls, or in an enclosed area can freeze, especially when the wind-chill factor is well below zero and heat is not circulating in those areas." Because you found it on the Internet doesn't make it true. Hell, the one example I gave earlier you picked apart. The one example you provided, NOAA proved you wrong. They clearly said flat out that wind chill has an effect on inanimate objects and they even said water pipes. Time to take off those rose colored glasses and read what's there, instead of what you want to make believe. As for impeaching the internet, that canard won't fly. There isn't one source called "the internet". I gave you NOAA, Weather Channel, City of Rochester, etc, not some kook websites. |
#128
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
|
#129
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes (stormy's froze)
On 1/7/2014 4:56 PM, SteveF wrote:
You might want to yank the battery out and let it warm up a bit, then charge it. When you need the vehicle reinstall. Back about 40 years ago, I had a Karmann Ghia and not a lot of money. I'd take the battery out every night and bring it in the house, put it back in the morning. Did that most of January one year |
#130
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 06:09:13 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 1:24:53 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote: On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 05:38:06 -0800 (PST), " wrote: You don't need the windspeed at the pipe. The windspeed at the pipe could be very low. The pipe could be out of the main wind. But a 35mph 15F wind blowing into a drafty crawlspace through a couple of openings could still drop the temp of the rest of the crawlspace low enough to freeze the pipes, even if the air around the pipes is barely moving. Your house gets heated/cooled from a relatively modest amount of air blowing out of registers. Your above statement is absolutely correct. The wind chill in your above example is unknown and irrelevant because the temp is 32� F or below. Because of the air temperature the pipes could freeze. The fact that the wind is blowing will only decrease the time required. That's all I've been saying. That isn't all you've been saying. You told us that "windchill has no effect on inanimate objects" and you still won't admit that was flat out wrong. Wind chill has no effect on inanimate objects! Period. It's just a number in a chart -- nothing more. Wind can have an effect on inanimate objects. A number in a chart cannot have an effect on an inanimate object. Period. The windchill is relative, because one more time, the lower the reported windchill, the higher the wind. Ergo, it's more likely the pipes will freeze with a lower reported windchill. Windchill is a proxy for windspeed. You need to understand the fundamental difference between "wind" (moving air) and "wind chill" (a composite index -- not air, just a number). And it's *not* just a matter of time. It's very common for people to be worried about whether pipes will freeze on a night where the temp goes significantly below zero. THAT was exactly the question posed by Stormin that started the thread. Now if windchill effects the amount of time it takes for pipes to freeze in a drafty crawlspace or an unheated cabing, then it follows that on nights where the temp drops below freezing overnight and then returns to above freezing at 9AM, with windchill the pipes may have enough time to freeze. With no windchill, they are less likely to have the time to freeze. Capiche? In one case you have frozen pipes, in the other with no windchill, you don't. And I'd also note that it's not just a matter of time. In a drafty crawlspace under a heated house, in some cases, with no reported windchill, the pipes might never freeze, even if it stays 20F outside forever, while with a big windchill reported, they may very well freeze. Why? With the big windchill the wind may be necessary to drop the steady state temperature below freezing where the pipes are. Snip Here, from the Weather Channel: http://www.weather.com/activities/ho...e_prevent.html "Pipes in attics, crawl spaces and outside walls are all vulnerable to freezing, especially if there are cracks or openings that allow cold, outside air to flow across the pipes. Research at the University of Illinois has shown that €œwind chill,�? the cooling effect of air and wind that causes the human body to lose heat, can play a major role in accelerating ice blockage, and thus bursting, in water pipes." From City of Rochester: http://www.rochesternh.net/public_Do...ER%20PIPES.pdf "Pipes inside or outside walls, or in an enclosed area can freeze, especially when the wind-chill factor is well below zero and heat is not circulating in those areas." Because you found it on the Internet doesn't make it true. Hell, the one example I gave earlier you picked apart. The one example you provided, NOAA proved you wrong. They clearly said flat out that wind chill has an effect on inanimate objects and they even said water pipes. Time to take off those rose colored glasses and read what's there, instead of what you want to make believe. As for impeaching the internet, that canard won't fly. There isn't one source called "the internet". I gave you NOAA, Weather Channel, City of Rochester, etc, not some kook websites. |
#131
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 05:25:50 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 1:19:50 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote: On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 05:20:02 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 1/5/2014 9:41 AM, wrote: Snip The reported windchill is directly dependent on the wind. Let's say the weatherman was giving his report and you missed what he said about the wind. Let's look at two different reports: A - It's currently 35F and it's going to drop to 20F overnight with a windchill of 20F. B - It's currently 35F and it's going to drop to 20F overnight with a windchill of 0F. You have a drafty crawlspace or an unheated cabin. Would you think there is more reason to be concerned about pipes freezing overnight in case A or B? Either scenario could result in frozen pipes. What's your point? Try answering the actual question, instead of avoiding it. The question was in which case are PIPE MORE LIKELY TO FREEZE? Scenario B is more likely to result in frozen pipes. And I've provided credible references that say so. Why don't you just man up and admit that you were wrong when you said that "Wind chill has no effect on inanimate objects"? See my other reply. Snip BS. The windchill is directly dependent on windspeed. It can be used as a proxy for windspeed. If the forecasted temp is 20F and the windchill is also 20F, what does that tell you about the wind?: no wind. If it's forecsted to be 20F with a windchill of 0F, that tells you there is going to be a strong wind and you should be more concerned about pipes freezing in a draft crawspace, unheated cabin, etc. The only difference in either scenario is time. Wind chill is irrelevant. Are you totally stupid? Does the temperature stay constant in your world? Or does it typically vary, very commonly going down overnight? You call me stupid when you ask questions like that? Let's say it's 35F out at 6PM. Overnight the temp is going down to 20F. At 6AM it starts to rise and by 9AM, it's above freezing again. That is a very common occurrence. If the only effect on the pipes of windchill is how long it takes to freeze, then with a large windchill, in that drafty crawlspace or unheated cabing they may have enough time to freeze. Without that windchill, the pipes are less likely to HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO FREEZE. Good grief. BTW, apparently you now agree that inanimate objects are affected by windchill. That's a start. The Weather Channel, NOAA, Univ of Illinois, City of Rochester all say windchill has an effect on inanimate objects and the freezing of pipes: Here, from the Weather Channel: http://www.weather.com/activities/ho...e_prevent.html "Pipes in attics, crawl spaces and outside walls are all vulnerable to freezing, especially if there are cracks or openings that allow cold, outside air to flow across the pipes. Research at the University of Illinois has shown that €œwind chill,€? the cooling effect of air and wind that causes the human body to lose heat, can play a major role in accelerating ice blockage, and thus bursting, in water pipes. " From City of Rochester: http://www.rochesternh.net/public_Do...ER%20PIPES.pdf "Pipes inside or outside walls, or in an enclosed area can freeze, especially when the wind-chill factor is well below zero and heat is not circulating in those areas." |
#133
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On 1/8/2014 12:29 PM, wrote:
Get real! No one has said it would (though under the right circumstances, water will freeze when the ambient air is above "freezing"). The *fact* is that windchill also affects inanimate objects. The numbers quoted by the newz are for *bare* *human* skin but the effect is relevant to all objects. Trader keeps using specific numbers for wind chill. The numbers don't apply to inanimate objects. Wind does carry heat away faster then when there is no wind. No one is disputing that fact. If Trader's windchill had the same effect on inanimate objects, then a 35 degree temperature with a 20 degree windchill could freeze pipes. Windchill is a "feel" and can have a value assigned to it. Wind affects the rate of cooling If windchill was the same for humans, animas and inanimate objects, then pipes woujld freeze anyh time the windchill go below 32. Since they do not, yhou can condlude they are not affected. Wind---yes Windchill---NO Some people just refuse to see the difference Don't take my word for it With the bitterly cold air dominating our local news today, the phrase “wind chill factor” is getting a great deal of well-deserved attention. Some people are asking what it really means and when we started using it. Before World War II, two scientists working in Antarctica first developed the idea and coined the phrase. Paul Allman Siple and Charles Passel based it on the cooling rate of a bottle of water that was suspended above their hut. They developed a formula and made a chart that was later released and became widely used in the 1970s. Then in 2001, the National Weather Service updated the formula used to calculate the wind chill. That updated version is what we use today. The idea behind the wind chill factor is to give people an idea of just how quickly the cold temperatures mixed with the wind will affect humans and animals alike. Frostbite and hypothermia are real dangers from bitter cold, and the wind chill factor helps determine the level of danger we face. The formula takes into account the temperature and winds at five feet above ground level, the average height of an adult’s face, which is presumably the most exposed part of the body on a cold day. According to the National Weather Service, it also “incorporates heat transfer theory, heat loss from the body to its surroundings, during cold and breezy/windy days.” The National Weather Service Windchill Chart states that at a wind chill of about -19º, frost bite can occur in thirty minutes. Of course, below that temperature, the colder it is, the faster frostbite will happen. You might have heard all the hype surrounding the Green Bay vs. San Francisco game yesterday. Last week, some meteorologists were predicting the wind chill would be colder than the famed Ice Bowl of 1967. In fact, that forecast did not pan out, partially because in the 1960s, they were still using the older formula, which caused the calculations to be colder than they should have been. By the old index, the wind chill for the Ice Bowl was -47º. By the new index, it was a warmer -36. Also, the actual temperature in Green Bay yesterday was not nearly as cold as was feared by some late last week. Read more he http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/...#storylink=cpy |
#134
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On 1/8/2014 12:29 PM, wrote:
Get real! No one has said it would (though under the right circumstances, water will freeze when the ambient air is above "freezing"). The *fact* is that windchill also affects inanimate objects. The numbers quoted by the newz are for *bare* *human* skin but the effect is relevant to all objects. Not quite the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_chill The human body loses heat through convection, evaporation, conduction, and radiation.[1] The rate of heat loss by a surface through convection depends on the wind speed above that surface. As a surface heats the air around it, an insulating boundary layer of warm air forms against the surface. Moving air disrupts the boundary layer, allowing for new, cooler air to replace the warm air against the surface. The faster the wind speed, the more readily the surface cools. The speed of cooling has different effects on inanimate objects and biological organisms. For inanimate objects, the effect of wind chill is to reduce any warmer objects to the ambient temperature more quickly. It cannot, however, reduce the temperature of these objects below the ambient temperature, no matter how great the wind velocity. For most biological organisms, the physiological response is to maintain surface temperature in an acceptable range so as to avoid adverse effects. Thus, the attempt to maintain a given surface temperature in an environment of faster heat loss results in both the perception of lower temperatures and an actual greater heat loss increasing the risk of adverse effects.[citation needed] A surface that is wet, such as a person wearing wet clothes, will lose heat quickly because the wet cloth will conduct heat away from the body more rapidly, and because the evaporating moisture carries away heat.[citation needed] Conversely, humid air slows evaporation and makes a surface feel warmer, and this is incorporated into longer wind chill formulas. During warm months, this effect can be described in the heat index or humidex. |
#135
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 13:29:58 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/8/2014 12:29 PM, wrote: Get real! No one has said it would (though under the right circumstances, water will freeze when the ambient air is above "freezing"). The *fact* is that windchill also affects inanimate objects. The numbers quoted by the newz are for *bare* *human* skin but the effect is relevant to all objects. Trader keeps using specific numbers for wind chill. The numbers don't apply to inanimate objects. Wind does carry heat away faster then when there is no wind. No one is disputing that fact. But it is *still* windchill. The fact is that the numbers posted in the NEWZ only are estimates for bare human skin, so if you're going to play the pedantic pete role, it's not accurate for even dogs (a rather animate object). If Trader's windchill had the same effect on inanimate objects, then a 35 degree temperature with a 20 degree windchill could freeze pipes. Wrong. He's never said anything *close* to that. Windchill is a "feel" and can have a value assigned to it. Wind affects the rate of cooling If windchill was the same for humans, animas and inanimate objects, then pipes woujld freeze anyh time the windchill go below 32. Since they do not, yhou can condlude they are not affected. WRONG. You're lying, now. Wind---yes Windchill---NO Wrong. It *IS* windchill. Wind is moving air. It has nothing to do with temperature, real or imagined. Some people just refuse to see the difference You can't even get it straight. Don't take my word for it I *certainly* don't because you're *WRONG*. With the bitterly cold air dominating our local news today, the phrase “wind chill factor” is getting a great deal of well-deserved attention. Some people are asking what it really means and when we started using it. Before World War II, two scientists working in Antarctica first developed the idea and coined the phrase. Paul Allman Siple and Charles Passel based it on the cooling rate of a bottle of water that was suspended above their hut. They developed a formula and made a chart that was later released and became widely used in the 1970s. Then in 2001, the National Weather Service updated the formula used to calculate the wind chill. That updated version is what we use today. The idea behind the wind chill factor is to give people an idea of just how quickly the cold temperatures mixed with the wind will affect humans and animals alike. Frostbite and hypothermia are real dangers from bitter cold, and the wind chill factor helps determine the level of danger we face. Windchill and Wind Chill Factor are different things. One is a specific formula (or table, really). The other is an effect. The formula takes into account the temperature and winds at five feet above ground level, the average height of an adult’s face, which is presumably the most exposed part of the body on a cold day. According to the National Weather Service, it also “incorporates heat transfer theory, heat loss from the body to its surroundings, during cold and breezy/windy days.” The National Weather Service Windchill Chart states that at a wind chill of about -19º, frost bite can occur in thirty minutes. Of course, below that temperature, the colder it is, the faster frostbite will happen. AND IS NOT any different for animate or inanimate objects. A dog will have a different correction than a human. If you're talking about a specific table, so be it. That is *not* windchill. Windchill is more general. You might have heard all the hype surrounding the Green Bay vs. San Francisco game yesterday. Last week, some meteorologists were predicting the wind chill would be colder than the famed Ice Bowl of 1967. In fact, that forecast did not pan out, partially because in the 1960s, they were still using the older formula, which caused the calculations to be colder than they should have been. By the old index, the wind chill for the Ice Bowl was -47º. By the new index, it was a warmer -36. Also, the actual temperature in Green Bay yesterday was not nearly as cold as was feared by some late last week. Utterly irrelevant. Read more he http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/...#storylink=cpy |
#136
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
|
#137
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 9:26:53 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/7/2014 12:10 PM, wrote: If your example was correct, a 35 degree temperature with a 20 degree wind chill factor would freeze the pipes. PIPES HAVE NO FEELING My example above is correct. And again, from the OP, the conditions of the question were a temp of 0F and a winchill of -10F. So stop with the 35F, idiot. When you resort to name calling it shows you lack of understanding of issues. I understand the issue perfectly well. So does NOAA, Weather Channel, University of Illinois, etc. They agree with my position. Sorry you had to sink so low and lose respect of others. When you keep droning on about windchill when the outside temperature is above freezing and the question was about a night where the outside temp will drop to 0F with a windchill of 0F, what do you expect? That puts me out of this now as I'm not going to wallow in the mud with you. But you still have refused to answer about the 35 degree temperature and 20 degree windchill. IT WON'T FREEZE I have answered it, but apparently you can't read: Ed: "Yes, but they won't freeze if the air temperature is 33 degrees and the wind chill is 20. See the difference? Trader: "Yes I do. But continuing to use cases where the temp is above freezing doesn't show that the lower the reported windchill, the more likely pipes in a drafty crawlspace or an unheated cabin are to freeze when the temps are well below freezing. Again the qustion posed wasn't about 35F. It was about a day with 0F actual, -10F windchill. " No one here has argued that water pipes can freeze without the actual temp being below 32F. No one is arguing that. I never said otherwise. So, what about it. It has nothing to do with the fact that windchill has an effect on whether pipes will freeze overnight in the case that was posed: 0F, windchill -10F. So, yeah, after enough of that, and then accusing me of not answering your question, when I did, I get annoyed. |
#138
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 12:18:48 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 06:09:13 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 1:24:53 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote: On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 05:38:06 -0800 (PST), " wrote: You don't need the windspeed at the pipe. The windspeed at the pipe could be very low. The pipe could be out of the main wind. But a 35mph 15F wind blowing into a drafty crawlspace through a couple of openings could still drop the temp of the rest of the crawlspace low enough to freeze the pipes, even if the air around the pipes is barely moving. Your house gets heated/cooled from a relatively modest amount of air blowing out of registers. Your above statement is absolutely correct. The wind chill in your above example is unknown and irrelevant because the temp is 32� F or below. Because of the air temperature the pipes could freeze. The fact that the wind is blowing will only decrease the time required. That's all I've been saying. That isn't all you've been saying. You told us that "windchill has no effect on inanimate objects" and you still won't admit that was flat out wrong. Wind chill has no effect on inanimate objects! Period. It's just a number in a chart -- nothing more. Now you're lying and just digging your hole deeper. I put a brick that's 75F outside in air that's 20F. So, it cools just as fast with a windchill of -10F as it does if the windchill is 20F? Are you that dumb? Wind can have an effect on inanimate objects. A number in a chart cannot have an effect on an inanimate object. Period. You really are dumber than a brick. From NOAA: "While exposure to low wind chills can be life threatening to both humans and animals alike, the only effect that wind chill has on inanimate objects, such as vehicles, is that it shortens the time that it takes the object to cool to the actual air temperature (it cannot cool the object down below that temperature)." Shortening the time it takes to cool is most definitely an effect, idiot. The windchill is relative, because one more time, the lower the reported windchill, the higher the wind. Ergo, it's more likely the pipes will freeze with a lower reported windchill. Windchill is a proxy for windspeed. You need to understand the fundamental difference between "wind" (moving air) and "wind chill" (a composite index -- not air, just a number). Windchill is a number. Windspeed is a number too. You need to learn that just because something is a composite number, does not determine if it has an effect on something or not. Ask the NOAA, Univ of Illinois, Weather Channel, etc. Your argument is like saying that the reported UV index, because it's a derived number, has no effect on increased risk of skin cancer, chlorine diminishing in pools, etc. Good grief. And it's *not* just a matter of time. It's very common for people to be worried about whether pipes will freeze on a night where the temp goes significantly below zero. THAT was exactly the question posed by Stormin that started the thread. Now if windchill effects the amount of time it takes for pipes to freeze in a drafty crawlspace or an unheated cabing, then it follows that on nights where the temp drops below freezing overnight and then returns to above freezing at 9AM, with windchill the pipes may have enough time to freeze. With no windchill, they are less likely to have the time to freeze. Capiche? In one case you have frozen pipes, in the other with no windchill, you don't. And I'd also note that it's not just a matter of time. In a drafty crawlspace under a heated house, in some cases, with no reported windchill, the pipes might never freeze, even if it stays 20F outside forever, while with a big windchill reported, they may very well freeze. Why? With the big windchill the wind may be necessary to drop the steady state temperature below freezing where the pipes are. Non-response to the core of the issue noted. Snip Here, from the Weather Channel: http://www.weather.com/activities/ho...e_prevent.html "Pipes in attics, crawl spaces and outside walls are all vulnerable to freezing, especially if there are cracks or openings that allow cold, outside air to flow across the pipes. Research at the University of Illinois has shown that €œwind chill,�? the cooling effect of air and wind that causes the human body to lose heat, can play a major role in accelerating ice blockage, and thus bursting, in water pipes." From City of Rochester: http://www.rochesternh.net/public_Do...ER%20PIPES.pdf "Pipes inside or outside walls, or in an enclosed area can freeze, especially when the wind-chill factor is well below zero and heat is not circulating in those areas." Because you found it on the Internet doesn't make it true. Hell, the one example I gave earlier you picked apart. The one example you provided, NOAA proved you wrong. They clearly said flat out that wind chill has an effect on inanimate objects and they even said water pipes. Time to take off those rose colored glasses and read what's there, instead of what you want to make believe. As for impeaching the internet, that canard won't fly. There isn't one source called "the internet". I gave you NOAA, Weather Channel, City of Rochester, etc, not some kook websites. Non-response noted again. |
#139
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 5:59:42 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 01:05:42 -0500, wrote: Windchill and Wind Chill Factor are different things. One is a specific formula (or table, really). The other is an effect. No ****. This has been most of the problem here. Terminology must be properly used. It's not a problem of terminology. Gordon made the silly claim that "windchill has no effect on inanimate objects". In a new post he just made hours ago, he still maintains that is correct, which of course it isn't. Or do you agree with him? You are getting closer and at least realized there is wind and the Wind Chill factor. Oh please. We know that and have acknowledged it from the start. Windchill is directly related to wind speed. Give me the windchill number and the ambient temp and I can tell you the windspeed. Now, the is a rapper named Windschill, but the dictionary does not have that as one word like trader is making up. I made it up as one word? http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/windchill/index.shtml Title of the chart: NWS Windchill Chart. Good grief. BTW, thanks for posting this gem: "Before World War II, two scientists working in Antarctica first developed the idea and coined the phrase. Paul Allman Siple and Charles Passel based it on the cooling rate of a bottle of water that was suspended above their hut. They developed a formula and made a chart that was later released and became widely used in the 1970s." If windchill has no effect on inanimate objects, how exactly did they first measure it via the cooling rate of a bottle of water? And as for it having no effect on whether something freezes, leave a bottle of water that's 70F outside when it's 20F and the windchill is 20F for two hours and it won't freeze solid. Do it when it's 20F but the windchill is -10F and it will freeze solid. Capiche? Now some pedantic loon will probably say, what size bottle, it can't freeze in that amount of time, what if the temp was 35F, etc, but clearly the effect is there and could be demonstrated. You just need the right size bottle and the right amount of time. Ergo, the reported windchill does have an effect on whether pipes may freeze, depending on where those pipes are located. |
#140
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 1:33:25 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/8/2014 12:29 PM, wrote: Get real! No one has said it would (though under the right circumstances, water will freeze when the ambient air is above "freezing"). The *fact* is that windchill also affects inanimate objects. The numbers quoted by the newz are for *bare* *human* skin but the effect is relevant to all objects. Not quite the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_chill The human body loses heat through convection, evaporation, conduction, and radiation.[1] The rate of heat loss by a surface through convection depends on the wind speed above that surface. As a surface heats the air around it, an insulating boundary layer of warm air forms against the surface. Moving air disrupts the boundary layer, allowing for new, cooler air to replace the warm air against the surface. The faster the wind speed, the more readily the surface cools. The speed of cooling has different effects on inanimate objects and biological organisms. For inanimate objects, the effect of wind chill is to reduce any warmer objects to the ambient temperature more quickly. It cannot, however, reduce the temperature of these objects below the ambient temperature, no matter how great the wind velocity. For most biological organisms, the physiological response is to maintain surface temperature in an acceptable range so as to avoid adverse effects. Thus, the attempt to maintain a given surface temperature in an environment of faster heat loss results in both the perception of lower temperatures and an actual greater heat loss increasing the risk of adverse effects.[citation needed] A surface that is wet, such as a person wearing wet clothes, will lose heat quickly because the wet cloth will conduct heat away from the body more rapidly, and because the evaporating moisture carries away heat.[citation needed] Conversely, humid air slows evaporation and makes a surface feel warmer, and this is incorporated into longer wind chill formulas. During warm months, this effect can be described in the heat index or humidex. "I read it on the internet so it is true" That's what you said when I gave you highly credible references like NOAA, Weather Channel, City of Rochester, Univ of Illinois, etc. But then after making that retort, you see fit to post from Wikepedia of all places and that's cool, no problem. And then it clearly says: "For inanimate objects, the effect of wind chill is to reduce any warmer objects to the ambient temperature more quickly. " Now maybe you can explain it to Gordon. And how that effect can sometimes cause pipes in a drafty location or an unheated cabin to freeze overnight with a big windchill factor, while without the windchill, they would not. PS: I'm not talking about a night when it's 35F. |
#141
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 05:23:26 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: Snip Are you that dumb? Snip You really are dumber than a brick. Snip idiot. Snip You have no desire to listen and learn from another point of view. But you are certainly quick to resort to your strong suit, name calling. Your parents must be very proud. |
#142
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 10:05:18 AM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 05:23:26 -0800 (PST), " wrote: Snip Are you that dumb? Snip You really are dumber than a brick. Snip idiot. Snip You have no desire to listen and learn from another point of view. But you are certainly quick to resort to your strong suit, name calling. Your parents must be very proud. It's *not* a point of view issue. Your insistance that windchill only affects inanimate objects is flat out wrong. You've been given numerous examples: A brick that's 75F placed outside cools faster with windchill than it does without it. Your buddy Ed even cited the first origin of the experiments to determine wind chill and the used a bottle of water hung outside. A water bottle is an inanimate object. The same bottle that is outside for a period of time may be frozen solid with a big windchill, while it's unfrozen with just a little windchill. Pipes in a drafty crawlspace may freeze when the temp drops to 20F overnight if the windchill is -10F, while they may not freeze if the windchill is only 20F, ie no windchill. Pipes in an unheated cabin can be more likely to freeze with a big windchill than without. It takes more energy to keep a house at 70F with a big windchill than with little or no windchill. Those are all effects on *inanimate* objects. And yeah, after enough silly denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, you make it to my list of dummies, incapable of either understanding science or admitting that you're wrong. |
#143
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 07:27:26 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On Thursday, January 9, 2014 10:05:18 AM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote: On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 05:23:26 -0800 (PST), " wrote: Snip Are you that dumb? Snip You really are dumber than a brick. Snip idiot. Snip You have no desire to listen and learn from another point of view. But you are certainly quick to resort to your strong suit, name calling. Your parents must be very proud. It's *not* a point of view issue. Your insistance that windchill only affects inanimate objects is flat out wrong. You've been given numerous examples: A brick that's 75F placed outside cools faster with windchill than it does without it. All that proves is moving air will cool everything quicker than air that is not moving. I have never disputed that. Nor has anyone else. Your buddy Ed even cited the first origin of the experiments to determine wind chill and the used a bottle of water hung outside. A water bottle is an inanimate object. The same bottle that is outside for a period of time may be frozen solid with a big windchill, while it's unfrozen with just a little windchill. Same answer as above. Pipes in a drafty crawlspace may freeze when the temp drops to 20F overnight if the windchill is -10F, while they may not freeze if the windchill is only 20F, ie no windchill. I'll ignore the improper inclusion of the "chill" on your third instance of "windchill." Same answer as above. Pipes in an unheated cabin can be more likely to freeze with a big windchill than without. Ditto. It takes more energy to keep a house at 70F with a big windchill than with little or no windchill. Ditto. You are starting to bore me. Those are all effects on *inanimate* objects. And yeah, after enough silly denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, you make it to my list of dummies, incapable of either understanding science or admitting that you're wrong. The evidence you speak of doesn't exist but I'm flattered to have made to one of your lists. Let me try another approach to explain my point of view. First scenario: The outside air temp is above 32 deg. F. The wind chill is any value you want it to be below 32 deg. F. Will the water freeze? I say no. What do you say? Second scenario: The outside air temp is below 32 deg. F. The wind chill is any value you want it to be below 32 deg. F. Will the water freeze? I say yes. What do you say? Third scenario: The outside air temp is above 32 deg. F. Take any or all of the wind chill chart an place it in a glass of water. Will the water in the glass get colder? |
#144
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 1:17:38 PM UTC-6, Gordon Shumway wrote:
Third scenario: The outside air temp is above 32 deg. F. Take any or all of the wind chill chart an place it in a glass of water. Will the water in the glass get colder? I thought you were going to tell him to place it somewhere else! *J* |
#145
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 05:59:42 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 01:05:42 -0500, wrote: Windchill and Wind Chill Factor are different things. One is a specific formula (or table, really). The other is an effect. No ****. This has been most of the problem here. Terminology must be properly used. You are getting closer and at least realized there is wind and the Wind Chill factor. Wind is simply moving air! Windchill is the effect of that moving air on the cooling of objects (whether they be animate or inanimate). Now, the is a rapper named Windschill, but the dictionary does not have that as one word like trader is making up. I can't parse that sentence. |
#146
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
In article ,
wrote: On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 05:59:42 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 01:05:42 -0500, wrote: Windchill and Wind Chill Factor are different things. One is a specific formula (or table, really). The other is an effect. No ****. This has been most of the problem here. Terminology must be properly used. You are getting closer and at least realized there is wind and the Wind Chill factor. Wind is simply moving air! Windchill is the effect of that moving air on the cooling of objects (whether they be animate or inanimate). bull****: Wind chill (popularly wind chill factor) is the perceived decrease in air temperature felt by the body on exposed skin due to the flow of air. inanimate objects cannot perceive anything Now, the is a rapper named Windschill, but the dictionary does not have that as one word like trader is making up. I can't parse that sentence. |
#147
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 2:17:38 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 07:27:26 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Thursday, January 9, 2014 10:05:18 AM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote: On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 05:23:26 -0800 (PST), " wrote: Snip Are you that dumb? Snip You really are dumber than a brick. Snip idiot. Snip You have no desire to listen and learn from another point of view. But you are certainly quick to resort to your strong suit, name calling. Your parents must be very proud. It's *not* a point of view issue. Your insistance that windchill only affects inanimate objects is flat out wrong. You've been given numerous examples: A brick that's 75F placed outside cools faster with windchill than it does without it. All that proves is moving air will cool everything quicker than air that is not moving. I have never disputed that. Nor has anyone else. Which is exactly what windchill is all about. Look at the formula. Your buddy Ed even cited the first origin of the experiments to determine wind chill and the used a bottle of water hung outside. A water bottle is an inanimate object. The same bottle that is outside for a period of time may be frozen solid with a big windchill, while it's unfrozen with just a little windchill. Same answer as above. Just as dumb as ever. Pipes in a drafty crawlspace may freeze when the temp drops to 20F overnight if the windchill is -10F, while they may not freeze if the windchill is only 20F, ie no windchill. I'll ignore the improper inclusion of the "chill" on your third instance of "windchill." Same answer as above. Saying 2 + 2 = 5 a few more times doesn't make it true either. Pipes in an unheated cabin can be more likely to freeze with a big windchill than without. Ditto. Saying 2 + 2 = 5 a few more times doesn't make it true either. It takes more energy to keep a house at 70F with a big windchill than with little or no windchill. Ditto. You are starting to bore me. The clueless frequently get bored because they can't understand simple science. You can't even address the specifics of the examples. Those are all effects on *inanimate* objects. And yeah, after enough silly denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, you make it to my list of dummies, incapable of either understanding science or admitting that you're wrong. The evidence you speak of doesn't exist but I'm flattered to have made to one of your lists. Of course it exists, I've given it to you about 6 times now, idiot. Windchill has an effect not only on inanimate objects, but any object where it can take heat away, eg pipes or a house. Animate objects are *not* the only things that have heat that can be taken away. The effect of windchill that makes it feel colder with wind than without is due to the wind removing more heat from your body that without it. The exact same effect applies to a brick or a bottle of water. Ask Ed. He even showed you that a warm water bottle placed outside was used to first model and experiment with windchill. Now if windchill has no effect on inanimate objects, it's a very curious thing that scientists used a water bottle to measure it. Let me try another approach to explain my point of view. First scenario: The outside air temp is above 32 deg. F. The wind chill is any value you want it to be below 32 deg. F. Will the water freeze? I say no. What do you say? Are we back to this nonsense again? Do you even read what anyone posts here? I addressed this many times already. So did krw. Yet, here we are again. For water that is contained in a typical pipe example like we are talking about, the answer has been and continues to be no, which of course doesn't matter. But as krw already pointed out, you've just made another obvious gaff by trying to apply the statement to water in general. If you put water that is 33F in a sheet pan and expose it outside when the windchill is 10F, then I would expect you would get some of it to freeze via evaporative cooling. Now, I ask you, what does any of that have to do with your claim that windchill does not affect inanimate objects? Second scenario: The outside air temp is below 32 deg. F. The wind chill is any value you want it to be below 32 deg. F. Will the water freeze? I say yes. What do you say? It depends on what the unstated starting temperature is of the water, the mass, how it's exposed, eg is it in a 50 gallon drum or is it spread out in a metal pan, etc and how long the water is then left at that cold temperature. Is temperature static in your part of the world? Or does it typically dip down at night? If the temp dips below freezing for a couple hours at night, it's very easy to see that with a big windchill water might freeze solid, where without a windchill, it might not freeze solid or it might not even start to freeze at all. On a night with major windchill you could have frozen pipes that burst and with no windchill you might not, because they either didn't freeze at all, or only partially started to freeze. Third scenario: The outside air temp is above 32 deg. F. Take any or all of the wind chill chart an place it in a glass of water. Will the water in the glass get colder? "Take any or all of the wind chill chart and place it in a glass of water?" Put the chart in a glass?? You're really losing it now. And do note that I have addressed each and every example you've given, not ignored whole sections, or diverted the discussion to 35F, when the question was about windchill in freezing temperatures. |
#148
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Friday, January 10, 2014 12:14:46 AM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article , wrote: On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 05:59:42 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 01:05:42 -0500, wrote: Windchill and Wind Chill Factor are different things. One is a specific formula (or table, really). The other is an effect. No ****. This has been most of the problem here. Terminology must be properly used. You are getting closer and at least realized there is wind and the Wind Chill factor. Wind is simply moving air! Windchill is the effect of that moving air on the cooling of objects (whether they be animate or inanimate). bull****: Wind chill (popularly wind chill factor) is the perceived decrease in air temperature felt by the body on exposed skin due to the flow of air. inanimate objects cannot perceive anything Wrong again. Perception is not required for windchill to have an effect. From NOAA: " The only effect wind chill has on inanimate objects, such as car radiators and water pipes, is to shorten the amount of time for the object to cool. " Now, the is a rapper named Windschill, but the dictionary does not have that as one word like trader is making up. I can't parse that sentence. |
#149
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 04:41:28 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On Thursday, January 9, 2014 2:17:38 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote: On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 07:27:26 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Thursday, January 9, 2014 10:05:18 AM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote: On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 05:23:26 -0800 (PST), " wrote: Snip Are you that dumb? Snip You really are dumber than a brick. Snip idiot. Snip You have no desire to listen and learn from another point of view. But you are certainly quick to resort to your strong suit, name calling. Your parents must be very proud. It's *not* a point of view issue. Your insistance that windchill only affects inanimate objects is flat out wrong. You've been given numerous examples: A brick that's 75F placed outside cools faster with windchill than it does without it. All that proves is moving air will cool everything quicker than air that is not moving. I have never disputed that. Nor has anyone else. Which is exactly what windchill is all about. Look at the formula. Your buddy Ed even cited the first origin of the experiments to determine wind chill and the used a bottle of water hung outside. A water bottle is an inanimate object. The same bottle that is outside for a period of time may be frozen solid with a big windchill, while it's unfrozen with just a little windchill. Same answer as above. Just as dumb as ever. Pipes in a drafty crawlspace may freeze when the temp drops to 20F overnight if the windchill is -10F, while they may not freeze if the windchill is only 20F, ie no windchill. I'll ignore the improper inclusion of the "chill" on your third instance of "windchill." Same answer as above. Saying 2 + 2 = 5 a few more times doesn't make it true either. Pipes in an unheated cabin can be more likely to freeze with a big windchill than without. Ditto. Saying 2 + 2 = 5 a few more times doesn't make it true either. It takes more energy to keep a house at 70F with a big windchill than with little or no windchill. Ditto. You are starting to bore me. The clueless frequently get bored because they can't understand simple science. You can't even address the specifics of the examples. Those are all effects on *inanimate* objects. And yeah, after enough silly denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, you make it to my list of dummies, incapable of either understanding science or admitting that you're wrong. The evidence you speak of doesn't exist but I'm flattered to have made to one of your lists. Of course it exists, I've given it to you about 6 times now, idiot. Windchill has an effect not only on inanimate objects, but any object where it can take heat away, eg pipes or a house. Animate objects are *not* the only things that have heat that can be taken away. The effect of windchill that makes it feel colder with wind than without is due to the wind removing more heat from your body that without it. The exact same effect applies to a brick or a bottle of water. Ask Ed. He even showed you that a warm water bottle placed outside was used to first model and experiment with windchill. Now if windchill has no effect on inanimate objects, it's a very curious thing that scientists used a water bottle to measure it. Let me try another approach to explain my point of view. First scenario: The outside air temp is above 32 deg. F. The wind chill is any value you want it to be below 32 deg. F. Will the water freeze? I say no. What do you say? Are we back to this nonsense again? Do you even read what anyone posts here? I addressed this many times already. So did krw. Yet, here we are again. For water that is contained in a typical pipe example like we are talking about, the answer has been and continues to be no, which of course doesn't matter. But as krw already pointed out, you've just made another obvious gaff by trying to apply the statement to water in general. If you put water that is 33F in a sheet pan and expose it outside when the windchill is 10F, then I would expect you would get some of it to freeze via evaporative cooling. Now, I ask you, what does any of that have to do with your claim that windchill does not affect inanimate objects? Second scenario: The outside air temp is below 32 deg. F. The wind chill is any value you want it to be below 32 deg. F. Will the water freeze? I say yes. What do you say? It depends on what the unstated starting temperature is of the water, the mass, how it's exposed, eg is it in a 50 gallon drum or is it spread out in a metal pan, etc and how long the water is then left at that cold temperature. Is temperature static in your part of the world? Or does it typically dip down at night? If the temp dips below freezing for a couple hours at night, it's very easy to see that with a big windchill water might freeze solid, where without a windchill, it might not freeze solid or it might not even start to freeze at all. On a night with major windchill you could have frozen pipes that burst and with no windchill you might not, because they either didn't freeze at all, or only partially started to freeze. Third scenario: The outside air temp is above 32 deg. F. Take any or all of the wind chill chart an place it in a glass of water. Will the water in the glass get colder? "Take any or all of the wind chill chart and place it in a glass of water?" Put the chart in a glass?? You're really losing it now. And do note that I have addressed each and every example you've given, not ignored whole sections, or diverted the discussion to 35F, when the question was about windchill in freezing temperatures. You have not answered any of my three questions, all you have done is babble. They all require a one word answer, either "Yes" or "No." |
#150
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:23:21 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
wrote: On Thursday, January 9, 2014 1:17:38 PM UTC-6, Gordon Shumway wrote: Third scenario: The outside air temp is above 32 deg. F. Take any or all of the wind chill chart an place it in a glass of water. Will the water in the glass get colder? I thought you were going to tell him to place it somewhere else! *J* LOL! |
#151
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Friday, January 10, 2014 10:08:54 AM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 04:41:28 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Thursday, January 9, 2014 2:17:38 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote: On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 07:27:26 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Thursday, January 9, 2014 10:05:18 AM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote: On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 05:23:26 -0800 (PST), " wrote: Snip Are you that dumb? Snip You really are dumber than a brick. Snip idiot. Snip You have no desire to listen and learn from another point of view. But you are certainly quick to resort to your strong suit, name calling. Your parents must be very proud. It's *not* a point of view issue. Your insistance that windchill only affects inanimate objects is flat out wrong. You've been given numerous examples: A brick that's 75F placed outside cools faster with windchill than it does without it. All that proves is moving air will cool everything quicker than air that is not moving. I have never disputed that. Nor has anyone else. Which is exactly what windchill is all about. Look at the formula. Your buddy Ed even cited the first origin of the experiments to determine wind chill and the used a bottle of water hung outside. A water bottle is an inanimate object. The same bottle that is outside for a period of time may be frozen solid with a big windchill, while it's unfrozen with just a little windchill. Same answer as above. Just as dumb as ever. Pipes in a drafty crawlspace may freeze when the temp drops to 20F overnight if the windchill is -10F, while they may not freeze if the windchill is only 20F, ie no windchill. I'll ignore the improper inclusion of the "chill" on your third instance of "windchill." Same answer as above. Saying 2 + 2 = 5 a few more times doesn't make it true either. Pipes in an unheated cabin can be more likely to freeze with a big windchill than without. Ditto. Saying 2 + 2 = 5 a few more times doesn't make it true either. It takes more energy to keep a house at 70F with a big windchill than with little or no windchill. Ditto. You are starting to bore me. The clueless frequently get bored because they can't understand simple science. You can't even address the specifics of the examples. Those are all effects on *inanimate* objects. And yeah, after enough silly denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, you make it to my list of dummies, incapable of either understanding science or admitting that you're wrong. The evidence you speak of doesn't exist but I'm flattered to have made to one of your lists. Of course it exists, I've given it to you about 6 times now, idiot. Windchill has an effect not only on inanimate objects, but any object where it can take heat away, eg pipes or a house. Animate objects are *not* the only things that have heat that can be taken away. The effect of windchill that makes it feel colder with wind than without is due to the wind removing more heat from your body that without it. The exact same effect applies to a brick or a bottle of water. Ask Ed. He even showed you that a warm water bottle placed outside was used to first model and experiment with windchill. Now if windchill has no effect on inanimate objects, it's a very curious thing that scientists used a water bottle to measure it. Let me try another approach to explain my point of view. First scenario: The outside air temp is above 32 deg. F. The wind chill is any value you want it to be below 32 deg. F. Will the water freeze? I say no. What do you say? Are we back to this nonsense again? Do you even read what anyone posts here? I addressed this many times already. So did krw. Yet, here we are again. For water that is contained in a typical pipe example like we are talking about, the answer has been and continues to be no, which of course doesn't matter. But as krw already pointed out, you've just made another obvious gaff by trying to apply the statement to water in general. If you put water that is 33F in a sheet pan and expose it outside when the windchill is 10F, then I would expect you would get some of it to freeze via evaporative cooling. Now, I ask you, what does any of that have to do with your claim that windchill does not affect inanimate objects? Second scenario: The outside air temp is below 32 deg. F. The wind chill is any value you want it to be below 32 deg. F. Will the water freeze? I say yes. What do you say? It depends on what the unstated starting temperature is of the water, the mass, how it's exposed, eg is it in a 50 gallon drum or is it spread out in a metal pan, etc and how long the water is then left at that cold temperature. Is temperature static in your part of the world? Or does it typically dip down at night? If the temp dips below freezing for a couple hours at night, it's very easy to see that with a big windchill water might freeze solid, where without a windchill, it might not freeze solid or it might not even start to freeze at all. On a night with major windchill you could have frozen pipes that burst and with no windchill you might not, because they either didn't freeze at all, or only partially started to freeze. Third scenario: The outside air temp is above 32 deg. F. Take any or all of the wind chill chart an place it in a glass of water. Will the water in the glass get colder? "Take any or all of the wind chill chart and place it in a glass of water?" Put the chart in a glass?? You're really losing it now. And do note that I have addressed each and every example you've given, not ignored whole sections, or diverted the discussion to 35F, when the question was about windchill in freezing temperatures. You have not answered any of my three questions, all you have done is babble. They all require a one word answer, either "Yes" or "No." You're a liar. Anyone can see that I've answered two of the three questions in detail. The third, I can't even parse, because it makes no sense. And the other two can't be answered with a simple yes or no, unless you believe that a 55 galllon drum of 75F water placed outside when it's 20F for an hour is going to freeze in like a tray of ice cubes would. You just don't like the answers and can't refute the science, so the above pathetic non-response is all you're left with. I also note that you've edited out the questions and my specific answers, obviously because you want to run away from them. You are indeed one of the village idiots. |
#152
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Friday, January 10, 2014 10:11:54 AM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:23:21 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa wrote: On Thursday, January 9, 2014 1:17:38 PM UTC-6, Gordon Shumway wrote: Third scenario: The outside air temp is above 32 deg. F. Take any or all of the wind chill chart an place it in a glass of water. Will the water in the glass get colder? I thought you were going to tell him to place it somewhere else! *J* LOL! Yes, laugh, it's what many idiots do, after all. |
#153
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:10:24 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: Snip You have not answered any of my three questions, all you have done is babble. They all require a one word answer, either "Yes" or "No." You're a liar. Anyone can see that I've answered two of the three questions in detail. The third, I can't even parse, because it makes no sense. And the other two can't be answered with a simple yes or no, unless you believe that a 55 galllon drum of 75F water placed outside when it's 20F for an hour is going to freeze in like a tray of ice cubes would. You just don't like the answers and can't refute the science, so the above pathetic non-response is all you're left with. I also note that you've edited out the questions and my specific answers, obviously because you want to run away from them. You are indeed one of the village idiots. Answer my three previous questions with a one word response, either a "Yes" or "No." Are you a Democrat? That would explain a lot. |
#154
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Friday, January 10, 2014 12:55:14 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:10:24 -0800 (PST), " wrote: Snip You have not answered any of my three questions, all you have done is babble. They all require a one word answer, either "Yes" or "No." You're a liar. Anyone can see that I've answered two of the three questions in detail. The third, I can't even parse, because it makes no sense. And the other two can't be answered with a simple yes or no, unless you believe that a 55 galllon drum of 75F water placed outside when it's 20F for an hour is going to freeze in like a tray of ice cubes would. You just don't like the answers and can't refute the science, so the above pathetic non-response is all you're left with. I also note that you've edited out the questions and my specific answers, obviously because you want to run away from them. You are indeed one of the village idiots. Answer my three previous questions with a one word response, either a "Yes" or "No." Are you a Democrat? That would explain a lot. It figures you'd try to drag politics into a discussion where you've lost. There are plenty of Democrats that have a better grasp of science than you do. I did answer your questions, factually and completely. Your questions don't have simple yes or no answers, because you did not define all the conditions. It's like me asking you "Did you stop beating your wife, yes or no?", and then insisting on a yes or no answer. Here's the questions and my answers, again: First scenario: The outside air temp is above 32 deg. F. The wind chill is any value you want it to be below 32 deg. F. Will the water freeze? I say no. What do you say? Are we back to this nonsense again? Do you even read what anyone posts here? I addressed this many times already. So did krw. Yet, here we are again. For water that is contained in a typical pipe example like we are talking about, the answer has been and continues to be no, which of course doesn't matter. But as krw already pointed out, you've just made another obvious gaff by trying to apply the statement to water in general. If you put water that is 33F in a sheet pan and expose it outside when the windchill is 10F, then I would expect you would get some of it to freeze via evaporative cooling. Now, I ask you, what does any of that have to do with your claim that windchill does not affect inanimate objects? Second scenario: The outside air temp is below 32 deg. F. The wind chill is any value you want it to be below 32 deg. F. Will the water freeze? I say yes. What do you say? It depends on what the unstated starting temperature is of the water, the mass, how it's exposed, eg is it in a 50 gallon drum or is it spread out in a metal pan, etc and how long the water is then left at that cold temperature. Is temperature static in your part of the world? Or does it typically dip down at night? If the temp dips below freezing for a couple hours at night, it's very easy to see that with a big windchill water might freeze solid, where without a windchill, it might not freeze solid or it might not even start to freeze at all. On a night with major windchill you could have frozen pipes that burst and with no windchill you might not, because they either didn't freeze at all, or only partially started to freeze. Third scenario: The outside air temp is above 32 deg. F. Take any or all of the wind chill chart an place it in a glass of water. Will the water in the glass get colder? "Take any or all of the wind chill chart and place it in a glass of water?" Put the chart in a glass?? You're really losing it now. And do note that I have addressed each and every example you've given, not ignored whole sections, or diverted the discussion to 35F, when the question was about windchill in freezing temperatures. Now I'd like an answer to a simple question. You have a house with a drafty crawlspace. The water pipes have been known to freeze occasionally on cold nights. Two situations: A - It's 37F at 6PM, the temp is forecasted to drop slowly overnight and reach a low of 20F at 3AM with no windchill. B - It's 37F at 6PM, the temp is forecasted to drop slowly overnight and reach a low of 20F at 3AM with a windchill of 5F. That is all you're given. Would you be more concerned about the pipe possibly freezing in case A or B or do you think the probability is the same? And note I'm not demanding one word answers, you're free to explain yourself. |
#155
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:47:45 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On Friday, January 10, 2014 12:55:14 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote: On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:10:24 -0800 (PST), " wrote: Snip Did I strike a nerve? Answer the questions with a "yes" or "no" only. Anything else would be as you have claimed, a non answer. |
#156
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 05:01:44 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On Friday, January 10, 2014 12:14:46 AM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote: In article , wrote: On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 05:59:42 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 01:05:42 -0500, wrote: Windchill and Wind Chill Factor are different things. One is a specific formula (or table, really). The other is an effect. No ****. This has been most of the problem here. Terminology must be properly used. You are getting closer and at least realized there is wind and the Wind Chill factor. Wind is simply moving air! Windchill is the effect of that moving air on the cooling of objects (whether they be animate or inanimate). bull****: Wind chill (popularly wind chill factor) is the perceived decrease in air temperature felt by the body on exposed skin due to the flow of air. inanimate objects cannot perceive anything Wrong again. Perception is not required for windchill to have an effect. Not wrong, just lying, again. He's a pathological liar, incapable of anything else. From NOAA: " The only effect wind chill has on inanimate objects, such as car radiators and water pipes, is to shorten the amount of time for the object to cool. " Now, the is a rapper named Windschill, but the dictionary does not have that as one word like trader is making up. I can't parse that sentence. |
#157
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Friday, January 10, 2014 8:42:39 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:47:45 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Friday, January 10, 2014 12:55:14 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote: On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:10:24 -0800 (PST), " wrote: Snip Did I strike a nerve? No, I just enjoy seeing you continue to run away from any discussion of the science involved. Answer the questions with a "yes" or "no" only. Anything else would be as you have claimed, a non answer. Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer with a yes or no only. I answered all your questions, in detail, with the science behind it. I just posed a question to you that goes to the core of the original question and you totally ignored it. So, who again is not being responsive? Idiot. |
#158
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 05:41:24 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: Snip So, who again is not being responsive? Idiot. I know the answer to that question. Why don't you ask the rest of the group? |
#159
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Wind chill and water pipes
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 09:29:39 -0600, Gordon Shumway
wrote: On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 05:41:24 -0800 (PST), " wrote: Snip So, who again is not being responsive? Idiot. I know the answer to that question. Why don't you ask the rest of the group? You are, of course. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Storing wind in fart pipes | Home Repair | |||
Water pump motor for wind turbine project? | UK diy | |||
This will send a chill down your spine... | Electronic Schematics | |||
Phrases that chill the spine..... | UK diy | |||
Freezing Pipes or Pipes frozen could the Instant Hot Water Recirculator from RedyTemp work | Home Repair |