Quotes in this post have been edited by application of
the DERF transform, whereby Dreck, Extraneousness,
Redundancy, and Foolishness are replaced with "[DERF]".

"Fred Bloggs" wrote in
message ...
Larry Brasfield wrote:
"Fred Bloggs" wrote in
message ...

Larry Brasfield wrote:

"John Fields" wrote in message ...


Since this a technical forum and we _do_ have ground rules, I believe
we generally agree that, unless otherwise specified, standard pressure
is defined as 760 millimeters of mercury and standard temperature is
defined as zero degrees celcius.

I believe that in this forum we assume temperature is a
variable that must be accommodated in design, unless
otherwise stated. I cannot imagine why any unstated
temperature would be assumed to be 0 oC. I suppose
sea-level atmospheric pressure is often assumed, but
where it matters, it should not be assumed at all.

While the boiling point of water is dependent on pressure, the
freezing point, I believe, is not.

You might want to consider the "triple point" of water,
below which pressure "melting point" is meaningless and
the "freezing point" varies considerably with pressure.

At least, not to a great extent. I don't have any data to support
that position, but I'd love to see some, if it's out there.

See: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html

Using the usual meaning of "freezing" which is the transition from liquid to solid, that graph shows "freezing" occurring at 273K
over a million to one range in pressure.

It does not. The straight part of the liquid/solid phase
boundary covers less than 5 orders of magnitude. "Over a
million to one" would be more than 6 orders of magnitude.

Bull- it goes from 10^3 to 10^9 Pa, idiot.

You have now demonstrated yourself to be either an idiot,
blind, or a liar. Not does the straight portion of that curve
fail to reach 10^9 Pa, no part of it reaches that pressure.

I would say that the statement "While the boiling point of water is dependent on pressure, the freezing point, I believe, is not"
is essentially true

In a discussion that has involved sublimation, to exclude
that part of the phase space would be essentially silly.

There is no discussion-

Actually, John's post to which I first responded in this
thread, mentioned "sublimation". So, again, ignoring
that whole phase change boundary would be silly.

the statement was about water "freezing",

The conversion of water vapor into ice is "freezing".
You cannot, by assertion and fiat, eliminate that part of
water's phase space. In your typically parochial manner,
you appear to confuse your familiarity with one meaning
of the word with comphrehensive knowledge. Anybody
less certain that they know everything can find several
additional meanings, including my usage, at:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...reeze&x=14&y=9

[DERF]

Have you ever considered why you are so prone to
spewing so much self-revealing vitriol?

--
--Larry Brasfield
email:
Above views may belong only to me.