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.