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.