In article ,
says...
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:21:21 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:


The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.

---
As John Popelish remarked, boiling is only possible if the medium in
which the boiling is occurring is a liquid, so if the water has turned
into ice at 0°C, sublimation is the mechanism which water molecules
will use to evaporate from their parent structure.

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.

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

The tripple-point of water is ~4C, so the freezing point is dependent
on pressure, at least somewhat. Here is a phase diagram for water,
which shows that the freezing point isn't quite vertical:

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cch...phasesdgm.html

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.

It's *ALL* out there. Not *ALL* is correct though. ;-)

--
Keith

Don Lancaster has written many articles for electronics magazines. Also
regular columns for several electronics magazines (probably still
running). One of his books (CMOS cookbook) was a standard for many
years. You might be able to learn something from him too.

Bud--

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:41:47 -0700, Don Bowey
wrote:

He [Don Lancaster] has tutorials? You've got to be kidding.

John

Sam Goldwasser wrote:
John Popelish writes:


John Fields wrote:


BTW, from another thread and just as an aside, I went over to my
friend's sign shop and checked some known-good neon sign transformers
using the same meters I used to check the ones I have here, and it
turns out my transformers are defective. :-(

Sorry to hear that. I was surprised that I couldn't simply Google
this. But the elusive neon sign transformer voltage current curve
remains uncaptured.


No curve but some info:

http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/...lp.htm#clpnstc

Thanks, but this info is more confusing than clarifying.

The table of data at reduced voltage looks pretty linear, and if the
normal operating curve is not based on any nonlinear elements, then
this should extrapolate to something pretty close to the actual curve.

Table excerpted:
" Regulation - Between an open and a short circuit, the core and
winding construction results in a quasi-constant current
characteristic over much of this range. I did a test on a 12 kV, 30 mA
transformer at reduced voltage (I didn't have any way of providing a
variable load at full output so I used a Variac to set the no load
output voltage to 1,000 VAC):
Load Output Voltage Output Current
-------------------------------------------
Open 1,000 VAC 0.00 mA
R 560 VAC 1.43 mA
R/2 350 VAC 1.79 mA
R/3 250 VAC 1.91 mA
R/4 195 VAC 1.99 mA
R/5 160 VAC 2.04 mA
Short 0 VAC 2.10 mA"

But a few paragraphs later we read:
"(From: John De Armond ).)

Let me answer several questions at once. First, a 15 kV,
60 mA transformer will produce 60 ma almost up to
its rated voltage. The transformer is designed
to be a constant current device, to supply whatever
compliance voltage is needed to push the 60 ma
through the load. The 60 ma is nominal short-circuit.
All magnetic transformers made for use in the US
are designed for continuous use at no more than
80% of the short-circuit current.

I never actually sat down and plotted it out but I do
know this: With 1 foot of neon tubing on a transformer
(about 500 volt drop), it drives 60 mA. With over 60
feet of tubing on the tranny (more than specified),
it still outputs about 50 to 53 mA.
That's fairly constant current."

But 80% of short circuit current would be 48 mA, and the current did
not fall that far, even with an excessive 60 feet of tubing as a load.
So the various parts of this story do not add up. The low voltage
test indicates linearity, while the full voltage test indicates
current regulation. The specified operating current does not match
the measured current.

So I am still confused.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 05:44:34 -0700, Kitchen Man wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 03:36:15 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

It
is my belief that the widespread disagreement is due to participants
that just like to argue a lot.

---
No, they don't. ;^)

Look, this isn't an argument, it's just contradiction!

No, it's not! ;^j
--
The Pig Bladder from Uranus, still waiting for that hot babe to ask
what my favorite planet is...

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:32:21 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:
John Fields wrote:
....
But when a self-important know-nothing windbag like you comes along
making baseless proclamations and spouting opinions like they were
gospel it _does_ annoy me.

Er..the gospels are the biggest pile of erroneous nonsense one can come
up with. Its all about those imaginary beings, that can do anything, be
everywhere at once, knows everything etc...

Hey! Let's not knock the imaginary!

Where would electronics be today without sqrt(-1)? ;-)
--
Rich

for further information, please visit http://www.godchannel.com

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:23:39 -0500, Bud
wrote:

Don Lancaster has written many articles for electronics magazines. Also
regular columns for several electronics magazines (probably still
running). One of his books (CMOS cookbook) was a standard for many
years. You might be able to learn something from him too.

Bud--

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:41:47 -0700, Don Bowey
wrote:

He [Don Lancaster] has tutorials? You've got to be kidding.

John


Oh no, I thought someone was referring to The Phantom's tutorials.

Don always makes eminent sense. I have his Active Filter Cookbook
right here.


John

On 6/15/05 7:23 AM, in article ,
"Bud" wrote:

Don Lancaster has written many articles for electronics magazines. Also
regular columns for several electronics magazines (probably still
running). One of his books (CMOS cookbook) was a standard for many
years. You might be able to learn something from him too.

Bud--

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:41:47 -0700, Don Bowey
wrote:

He [Don Lancaster] has tutorials? You've got to be kidding.

John


The quoted posts were not as you have posted them. They did not include the
"[Don Lancaster)."

Shame on you, Bud.

Don

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:48:44 GMT, Pig Bladder
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 05:44:34 -0700, Kitchen Man wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 03:36:15 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

It
is my belief that the widespread disagreement is due to participants
that just like to argue a lot.

---
No, they don't. ;^)

Look, this isn't an argument, it's just contradiction!

No, it's not! ;^j

---
Yes, it is!^)

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 01:49:34 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

John Fields wrote:

---
Not at all. I'm always grateful when someone takes the time to
correct me and show me where I went wrong, since that increases my
store of stuff I know is right.

John, you can't have it both ways. You say the above is what you
do, but what you actually *do* is the next paragraph:

---
IKYABWAI? Come on Floyd, you can do better than that. Or can you?
---

But when a self-important know-nothing windbag like you comes along
making baseless proclamations and spouting opinions like they were
gospel it _does_ annoy me.

John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
^^^^^^^^^^^^

When will that begin?

Yeah, that's clever; attack the dotsig.

In an effort to find out a little more about you, I checked Google's
archives and here's one interesting article posted a year or so ago
which I found right away:

BEGIN QUOTE

(Eugene Miya) wrote:
In article ,
Jim Roberts wrote:
I've never met Floyd, though I'd like to. He thinks he knows a lot more
than he really does. He used to harrass me. I checked out some his
most aggressive assertions that I wasn't completely sure about with
aurhorities, and he came up pretty dry. Yet, he's likely to be an
interesting person, so long as you don't listen to him too attentively.

END QUOTE

So, it seems, a leopard can't change his spots...

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Don Bowey wrote:
On 6/15/05 7:23 AM, in article ,
"Bud" wrote:

Don Lancaster has written many articles for electronics magazines. Also
regular columns for several electronics magazines (probably still
running). One of his books (CMOS cookbook) was a standard for many
years. You might be able to learn something from him too.

Bud--

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:41:47 -0700, Don Bowey
wrote:

He [Don Lancaster] has tutorials? You've got to be kidding.

John


The quoted posts were not as you have posted them. They did not include the
"[Don Lancaster)."

Shame on you, Bud.

The standard English syntax for inserting edited text into a
quote, usually to show meaning that deleted context made clear,
is to enclose it between said square brackets.

Which is to say that, while not commonly used on Usenet, Bud's
quote is proper style. If you read newspapers or news magazines
you will see it used often.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

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.

John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 01:49:34 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

John Fields wrote:

---
Not at all. I'm always grateful when someone takes the time to
correct me and show me where I went wrong, since that increases my
store of stuff I know is right.

John, you can't have it both ways. You say the above is what you
do, but what you actually *do* is the next paragraph:

---
IKYABWAI? Come on Floyd, you can do better than that. Or can you?
---

But when a self-important know-nothing windbag like you comes along
making baseless proclamations and spouting opinions like they were
gospel it _does_ annoy me.

John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
^^^^^^^^^^^^

When will that begin?

Yeah, that's clever; attack the dotsig.

In an effort to find out a little more about you, I checked Google's
archives and here's one interesting article posted a year or so ago
which I found right away:

BEGIN QUOTE

(Eugene Miya) wrote:
In article ,
Jim Roberts wrote:
I've never met Floyd, though I'd like to. He thinks he knows a lot more
than he really does. He used to harrass me. I checked out some his
most aggressive assertions that I wasn't completely sure about with
aurhorities, and he came up pretty dry. Yet, he's likely to be an
interesting person, so long as you don't listen to him too attentively.

END QUOTE

So, it seems, a leopard can't change his spots...

What did Eugene have to say? And tell me, do you know who Jim
Roberts and Eugene Miya are?

If we have you using Roberts as a supporting witness, and Eugene
(yes Eugene and I have met) as mine... you do realize that
you're off the deep end again? (Roberts is somewhat of a net
loon. Eugene Miya is a net legend.)

You've proven that you aren't the first twit that I've poked
enough to cause erruption of tantrums. You can't say I didn't
warn you not to try a flame war...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:32:21 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:
John Fields wrote:
...
But when a self-important know-nothing windbag like you comes along
making baseless proclamations and spouting opinions like they were
gospel it _does_ annoy me.

Er..the gospels are the biggest pile of erroneous nonsense one can
come up with. Its all about those imaginary beings, that can do
anything, be everywhere at once, knows everything etc...

Hey! Let's not knock the imaginary!

Where would electronics be today without sqrt(-1)? ;-)

sqrt(-1) is just as imaginary as 1 is.

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:48:44 GMT, Pig Bladder
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 05:44:34 -0700, Kitchen Man wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 03:36:15 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

It
is my belief that the widespread disagreement is due to
participants that just like to argue a lot.

---
No, they don't. ;^)

Look, this isn't an argument, it's just contradiction!

No, it's not! ;^j

---
Yes, it is!^)

No it isnt. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to
establish a proposition...

next...


Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:09:04 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:48:44 GMT, Pig Bladder
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 05:44:34 -0700, Kitchen Man wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 03:36:15 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

It
is my belief that the widespread disagreement is due to
participants that just like to argue a lot.

---
No, they don't. ;^)

Look, this isn't an argument, it's just contradiction!

No, it's not! ;^j

---
Yes, it is!^)

No it isnt. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to
establish a proposition...

next...

---
I guess you missed the part about that I was disagreeing with Pig
Bladder about his contention that it wasn't just contradiction.

next...

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:30:33 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:
On 6/15/05 7:23 AM, in article ,
"Bud" wrote:

Don Lancaster has written many articles for electronics magazines. Also
regular columns for several electronics magazines (probably still
running). One of his books (CMOS cookbook) was a standard for many
years. You might be able to learn something from him too.

Bud--

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:41:47 -0700, Don Bowey
wrote:

He [Don Lancaster] has tutorials? You've got to be kidding.

John


The quoted posts were not as you have posted them. They did not include the
"[Don Lancaster)."

Shame on you, Bud.

The standard English syntax for inserting edited text into a
quote, usually to show meaning that deleted context made clear,
is to enclose it between said square brackets.

Nothing was deleted!


Which is to say that, while not commonly used on Usenet, Bud's
quote is proper style. If you read newspapers or news magazines
you will see it used often.

The style may be proper by your standards - certainly not mine - but
the [content] is dead wrong. Nowhere did I refer to Don. We were
talking about The Phantom.

John

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:00:00 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

John Fields wrote:

So, it seems, a leopard can't change his spots...

What did Eugene have to say? And tell me, do you know who Jim
Roberts and Eugene Miya are?

---
No, and I don't care. What I found was that someone, about a year
ago, pegged you for the same phony you are today. The phony, BTW, you
have proved yourself to be by making all sorts of ridiculous claims
which you later had to issue hasty disclaimers about when you were
caught.
---

If we have you using Roberts as a supporting witness, and Eugene
(yes Eugene and I have met) as mine... you do realize that
you're off the deep end again? (Roberts is somewhat of a net
loon. Eugene Miya is a net legend.)

---
Interesting. I need no "supporting witness" but, again, you seem to
have this need to latch on to someone's coat tails in order to be
considered credible. From your performance here I can certainly
understand why.
---

You've proven that you aren't the first twit that I've poked
enough to cause erruption of tantrums.

---
You either flatter yourself or you're used to playing with babies.
---

You can't say I didn't warn you not to try a flame war...

---
Yeah, like a Chihuahua yapping at a Rottweiler, LOL!

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

"John Fields" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:09:04 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:48:44 GMT, Pig Bladder
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 05:44:34 -0700, Kitchen Man wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 03:36:15 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

It
is my belief that the widespread disagreement is due to
participants that just like to argue a lot.

---
No, they don't. ;^)

Look, this isn't an argument, it's just contradiction!

No, it's not! ;^j

---
Yes, it is!^)

No it isnt. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to
establish a proposition...

next...

---
I guess you missed the part about that I was disagreeing with Pig
Bladder about his contention that it wasn't just contradiction.

next...

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

No he didn't.

Ken

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
. uk...
John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:48:44 GMT, Pig Bladder
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 05:44:34 -0700, Kitchen Man wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 03:36:15 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

It
is my belief that the widespread disagreement is due to
participants that just like to argue a lot.

---
No, they don't. ;^)

Look, this isn't an argument, it's just contradiction!

No, it's not! ;^j

---
Yes, it is!^)

No it isnt. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to
establish a proposition...

next...


Kevin Aylward


Sorry, your time's up.......

Ken

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:00:00 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
John Fields wrote:
[some stuff]
You've proven that you aren't the first twit that I've poked
enough to cause erruption of tantrums. You can't say I didn't
warn you not to try a flame war...

Problem is, you're losing miserably... ;-P
--
The Pig Bladder from Uranus

"John Fields" wrote in message
...

I guess you missed the part about that I was disagreeing with Pig
Bladder about his contention that it wasn't just contradiction.

next...


http://neptune.spaceports.com/~words/beavis.html

N

John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:30:33 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:41:47 -0700, Don Bowey
wrote:

He [Don Lancaster] has tutorials? You've got to be kidding.

John


The quoted posts were not as you have posted them. They did not include the
"[Don Lancaster)."

Shame on you, Bud.

The standard English syntax for inserting edited text into a
quote, usually to show meaning that deleted context made clear,
is to enclose it between said square brackets.

Nothing was deleted!

So? Did anyone claim there was?

Which is to say that, while not commonly used on Usenet, Bud's
quote is proper style. If you read newspapers or news magazines
you will see it used often.

The style may be proper by your standards - certainly not mine - but

Bud's useage meets widely accepted and well known English.
What *you* think about it is immaterial.

the [content] is dead wrong. Nowhere did I refer to Don. We were
talking about The Phantom.

Provide some context that demonstrates it then, because it doesn't
appear to be what you are now claiming.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:01:02 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:30:33 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:41:47 -0700, Don Bowey
wrote:

He [Don Lancaster] has tutorials? You've got to be kidding.

John


The quoted posts were not as you have posted them. They did not include the
"[Don Lancaster)."

Shame on you, Bud.

The standard English syntax for inserting edited text into a
quote, usually to show meaning that deleted context made clear,
is to enclose it between said square brackets.

Nothing was deleted!

So? Did anyone claim there was?

Which is to say that, while not commonly used on Usenet, Bud's
quote is proper style. If you read newspapers or news magazines
you will see it used often.

The style may be proper by your standards - certainly not mine - but

Bud's useage meets widely accepted and well known English.
What *you* think about it is immaterial.

the [content] is dead wrong. Nowhere did I refer to Don. We were
talking about The Phantom.

Provide some context that demonstrates it then, because it doesn't
appear to be what you are now claiming.



The only person that matters here is Don, and that he knows I didn't
insult him.

Get a life.

John

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:21:21 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:


The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.

---
Since, by your own admission, the boiling and freezing point
temperatures of water are pressure dependent, I invite you to state
what pressure would be required to be exerted on a volume of liquid
water in order to cause it to boil at 0°C.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

On 6/15/05 10:30 AM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:
On 6/15/05 7:23 AM, in article ,
"Bud" wrote:

Don Lancaster has written many articles for electronics magazines. Also
regular columns for several electronics magazines (probably still
running). One of his books (CMOS cookbook) was a standard for many
years. You might be able to learn something from him too.

Bud--

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:41:47 -0700, Don Bowey
wrote:

He [Don Lancaster] has tutorials? You've got to be kidding.

John


The quoted posts were not as you have posted them. They did not include the
"[Don Lancaster)."

Shame on you, Bud.

The standard English syntax for inserting edited text into a
quote, usually to show meaning that deleted context made clear,
is to enclose it between said square brackets.

Which is to say that, while not commonly used on Usenet, Bud's
quote is proper style. If you read newspapers or news magazines
you will see it used often.

I apparently did not make myself clear. My comment was not about Don
Lancaster, nor did my post in any way allude to Don Lancaster, nor did the
post I WAS commenting on refer to Don Lancaster.

Bud's post did not make a damned thing clear by screwing up and adding
adding "[Don Lancaster]."

Did I make it abundantly clear?

On the other hand, it's nice to hear he did it using proper style.

Don

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:01:02 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:30:33 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:41:47 -0700, Don Bowey
wrote:

He [Don Lancaster] has tutorials? You've got to be kidding.

John


The quoted posts were not as you have posted them. They did not include the
"[Don Lancaster)."

Shame on you, Bud.

The standard English syntax for inserting edited text into a
quote, usually to show meaning that deleted context made clear,
is to enclose it between said square brackets.

Nothing was deleted!

So? Did anyone claim there was?

Which is to say that, while not commonly used on Usenet, Bud's
quote is proper style. If you read newspapers or news magazines
you will see it used often.

The style may be proper by your standards - certainly not mine - but

Bud's useage meets widely accepted and well known English.
What *you* think about it is immaterial.

the [content] is dead wrong. Nowhere did I refer to Don. We were
talking about The Phantom.

Provide some context that demonstrates it then, because it doesn't
appear to be what you are now claiming.

---
So, you miserable, troublemaking piece of ****, you've decided to take
on John Larkin?

Big mistake.

There's no way you can even begin to think about getting close to his
track record, let alone even get into the stadium, so why don't you
just quit before you embarrass yourself by not even being able to
leave the starting blocks?

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:01:25 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:21:21 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:


The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.

---
Since, by your own admission, the boiling and freezing point
temperatures of water are pressure dependent, I invite you to state
what pressure would be required to be exerted on a volume of liquid
water in order to cause it to boil at 0°C.

The boiling and freezing points are pressure dependent. Not only that,
a certain amount of heat must be lost or gained (latent heat, I
believe, is the term) before the change of state occurs. I am simply
going by memory of my old Physics classes, and I have no idea what
pressure would be required to allow water to boil at 0 C. I think
other substances have boiled at lower temperatures than that at STP
though.

Tom

"Tom MacIntyre" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:01:25 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:21:21 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.

Since, by your own admission, the boiling and freezing point
temperatures of water are pressure dependent, I invite you to state
what pressure would be required to be exerted on a volume of liquid
water in order to cause it to boil at 0°C.

The boiling and freezing points are pressure dependent. Not only that,
a certain amount of heat must be lost or gained (latent heat, I
believe, is the term) before the change of state occurs.

Strictly speaking, the change of state occurs as the
latent heat is transferred, not after.

I am simply
going by memory of my old Physics classes, and I have no idea what
pressure would be required to allow water to boil at 0 C. I think
other substances have boiled at lower temperatures than that at STP
though.

If you peruse the phase space of water at
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html
you will see that there is no liquid/vapor boundary
at 0 oC. At a range of pressure well below standard
atmospheric, it could happen near 0.01 oC.

John's challenge is a bit of a trick and appears
to show he knows how to read that graph and
accompanying table.

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

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:01:25 -0500, the renowned John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:21:21 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:


The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.

---
Since, by your own admission, the boiling and freezing point
temperatures of water are pressure dependent, I invite you to state
what pressure would be required to be exerted on a volume of liquid
water in order to cause it to boil at 0°C.

Good one, John!


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:37:49 GMT, Tom MacIntyre
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:01:25 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:21:21 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:


The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.

---
Since, by your own admission, the boiling and freezing point
temperatures of water are pressure dependent, I invite you to state
what pressure would be required to be exerted on a volume of liquid
water in order to cause it to boil at 0°C.

The boiling and freezing points are pressure dependent. Not only that,
a certain amount of heat must be lost or gained (latent heat, I
believe, is the term) before the change of state occurs.

---
At one atmosphere of pressure, the "latent heat of vaporization" of
water is 540 calories per gram and is the amount of heat required to
change liquid water at 100°C into steam at 100°C. That's used to
great advantage, in reverse, in steam heating systems where steam
which has been generated in a boiler is forced to condense into liquid
water in a remotely located radiator and release that heat into the
environment surrounding the radiator when it (the steam) changes
state.
---

I am simply
going by memory of my old Physics classes, and I have no idea what
pressure would be required to allow water to boil at 0 C. I think
other substances have boiled at lower temperatures than that at STP
though.

---
Yes. Liquefied gases, in particular, do that, and I'm anxiously
awaiting Floyd Davidson's response which will nail down the pressure
required to allow water to boil at 0°C.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

On 6/15/05 2:01 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson" wrote:

Provide some context that demonstrates it then, because it doesn't
appear to be what you are now claiming.

Why should he or I? The error wasn't ours and I for one don't need to prove
it to anyone. You are out of line for asking for it.

In other words, go research it yourself.

Don (B)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:52:15 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

Good one, John!

---
:-)

--
John

"Larry Brasfield" wrote:
"Tom MacIntyre" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:01:25 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:21:21 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.

Since, by your own admission, the boiling and freezing point
temperatures of water are pressure dependent, I invite you to state
what pressure would be required to be exerted on a volume of liquid
water in order to cause it to boil at 0°C.

The boiling and freezing points are pressure dependent. Not only that,
a certain amount of heat must be lost or gained (latent heat, I
believe, is the term) before the change of state occurs.

Strictly speaking, the change of state occurs as the
latent heat is transferred, not after.

I am simply
going by memory of my old Physics classes, and I have no idea what
pressure would be required to allow water to boil at 0 C. I think
other substances have boiled at lower temperatures than that at STP
though.

If you peruse the phase space of water at
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html
you will see that there is no liquid/vapor boundary
at 0 oC. At a range of pressure well below standard
atmospheric, it could happen near 0.01 oC.

John's challenge is a bit of a trick and appears
to show he knows how to read that graph and
accompanying table.

Are you saying that it could happen at 0.01C but not at 0.00C,
because you see something in that chart which says water is liquid
at 0.01C and not at 0.00C?

I don't see that in the chart at all. The chart does not have
sufficient resolution. It doesn't discuss that in the text
either.

Did you mean something else?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:21:21 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.

---
Since, by your own admission, the boiling and freezing point
temperatures of water are pressure dependent, I invite you to state
what pressure would be required to be exerted on a volume of liquid
water in order to cause it to boil at 0°C.

The answer of course is: not much.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:


Er..the gospels are the biggest pile of erroneous nonsense one can come
up with. Its all about those imaginary beings, that can do anything, be
everywhere at once, knows everything etc...


Hey! Let's not knock the imaginary!

Where would electronics be today without sqrt(-1)? ;-)

Up the paddle without a creek? ;-}

Ed

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:35:17 -0500, John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:37:49 GMT, Tom MacIntyre

The boiling and freezing points are pressure dependent. Not only that,
a certain amount of heat must be lost or gained (latent heat, I
believe, is the term) before the change of state occurs.

At one atmosphere of pressure, the "latent heat of vaporization" of
water is 540 calories per gram and is the amount of heat required to
change liquid water at 100°C into steam at 100°C. That's used to
great advantage, in reverse, in steam heating systems where steam
which has been generated in a boiler is forced to condense into liquid
water in a remotely located radiator and release that heat into the
environment surrounding the radiator when it (the steam) changes
state.

Well, it takes one calorie per gram to raise liquid water one degree
centigrade - I wonder if, at an ambient pressure of, say, 10^3 Pa, it
still takes 540 calories per gram to transform a gram of liquid water at
0degC to a gram of gaseous steam at 0degC.

I am simply
going by memory of my old Physics classes, and I have no idea what
pressure would be required to allow water to boil at 0 C. I think other
substances have boiled at lower temperatures than that at STP though.

Yes. Liquefied gases, in particular, do that, and I'm anxiously awaiting
Floyd Davidson's response which will nail down the pressure required to
allow water to boil at 0°C.

According to the graph at http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html ,
approx. 10^3 Pa, whatever the hell that means. Obviously, an atmosphere
is up there near the "annoying point", ;-) , between 10^8 and 10^9 Pa.

Hope This Helps! :-)
Rich

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:52:15 -0400, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:01:25 -0500, the renowned John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:21:21 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:


The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.

---
Since, by your own admission, the boiling and freezing point
temperatures of water are pressure dependent, I invite you to state
what pressure would be required to be exerted on a volume of liquid
water in order to cause it to boil at 0°C.

Good one, John!

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Lame.

Approx. 10^3 Pa.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html
;^j
--
The Pig Bladder from Uranus, still waiting for that hot babe to
ask what my favorite planet is! ;-J

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 01:54:45 +0000, ehsjr wrote:
Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

Er..the gospels are the biggest pile of erroneous nonsense one can come
up with. Its all about those imaginary beings, that can do anything, be
everywhere at once, knows everything etc...

Hey! Let's not knock the imaginary!

Where would electronics be today without sqrt(-1)? ;-)

Up the paddle without a creek? ;-}

From "Channeling Class":
"...You will know how to interpret the information in my energy because
it will show up as a pattern in your imagination.

"Channeling, like all other inner phenomena happens in the imagination.
This is the faculty humans use to access the inner planes, spiritual
worlds, divine reality or whatever you wish to call what is beyond the
external, material world. We'll make use of the imagination to establish
contact with each other, and to carry out the channeling process. You can
think of the imagination as a permeable membrane located right at the
water line in the metaphor of the iceberg in the introduction to this
class. Being between the two major parts of the mind, it is shared by
both.

"New ideas, insights, creative inspiration and intuition all begin in the
unconscious mind. As these kinds of impressions, including the energy you
will be interpreting, rise to awareness, they pass through the
imagination. The conscious, aware mind perceives these impressions as
representations in the imagination. Sometimes the impressions are
represented visually as images or pictures, sometimes auditorily as
sounds or words, and sometimes sensorially as feelings or energy."
-- http://www.godchannel.com/chanclass1.html

So, don't knock the imagination. ;-D
--
Love,
Rich

for further information, please visit http://www.godchannel.com

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 01:54:45 +0000, ehsjr wrote:
Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
[in response to someone else whom ehsjr has failed to attribute]
Er..the gospels are the biggest pile of erroneous nonsense one can come
up with. Its all about those imaginary beings, that can do anything, be
everywhere at once, knows everything etc...

Hey! Let's not knock the imaginary!

Where would electronics be today without sqrt(-1)? ;-)

Up the paddle without a creek? ;-}

That's another interesting question - is there really a "hole" in
the donut, or are you buying a hole, with donut around it?

The hole was there first, you know. ;-p
--
Cheers!
Rich
------
"A nubile female virtually never experiences difficulty in finding
willing sexual partners, and in a natural habitat nubile females are
probably always married. The basic female "strategy" is to obtain the
best possible husband, to be fertilized by the fittest available male
(always, of course, taking risk into account), and to maximize the
returns on sexual favors bestowed: to be sexually aroused by the sight of
males would promote random matings, thus undermining all of these aims,
and would also waste time and energy that could be spent in economically
significant activities and in nurturing children. A female's reproductive
success would be seriously compromised by the propensity to be sexually
aroused by the sight of males."
-- Donald Symons, "The Evolution of Human Sexuality", attempting to
explain the lack of female interest in pornography.

[And you wondered why "Diamonds are a girl's best friend?"]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 02:55:51 GMT, the renowned Pig Bladder
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:52:15 -0400, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:01:25 -0500, the renowned John Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:21:21 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:


The idea that water boils at 100C and freezes at 0C, without
some mention of pressure, has little meaning. Water can "boil"
at 0C too.

---
Since, by your own admission, the boiling and freezing point
temperatures of water are pressure dependent, I invite you to state
what pressure would be required to be exerted on a volume of liquid
water in order to cause it to boil at 0°C.

Good one, John!

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Lame.

Approx. 10^3 Pa.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html
;^j

Do you happen to know what the triple-point of water is?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com