Chewbacca wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Bill wrote:
There is, of course the ancillary question about why, if it's a
condensing boiler, we see so much 'steam' from it. If it were condensing
fully, surely we should see no visible exhaust.
It's water vapour - not steam.

Woss the difference then?...

Steam is a gas and invisible. You can sometimes not see it - as it is
invisible - a mm or 2 above the kettle spout when boiling hard. Above
this you see the foggy stuff we all call steam. Actually this is tiny
particles of liquid water - the steam has condensed as water droplets -
that are so small they float about in the air. Being hot water they
tend to evaporate and disappear.

I (along with, I assume, many of the people here) have been using that
approach since I was knee-high to something or other. But is it a
tenable approach? If, as you say, it is what "we all call steam", then
perhaps it is the definition of steam that requires revision to accord
with real language use?

I get the feeling that the clouds of water droplets emitted by most
steam vehicles have at least made that a reasonably sensible meaning.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org