In message , Rod
writes
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?

Or rather, people need to be less lazy in their use of language

.... like people who talk about "dry joints" when they mean cracked
joints

--
geoff