On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:52:56 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote:

I don't think heat of fusion has much to do with overall
temperatures. That's really just a little bit of hysteresis in the
freeze/melt cycle. But heat that has to be withdrawn from water to
solidify it also has to be returned before the water can re-liquify. A
zero sum game. And, since Earth's water is part liquid, and part solid,
the game is always giving at the same time it's taking. I can't see how
that would make much difference in average temperature. It might make a
tiny difference in how much water is solid, and how much is liquid, at
any given temperature; but it doesn't change the total kinetic energy
involved. Certainly, any effect it might have would zero out over the
length of a complete warming cooling cycle.

Kirk,
Part of the heat from the global warming is clearly going into
melting all of that ice as a first step ..... looks like the North
polar ice cap may be about halfway gone, perhaps a tad more,
as an example.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:44:10 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
wrote:

Water conducts heat, does ethylene glycol ?,

Water is not really a very good conductor of heat, John.
It may be a bit better in it's ice form ... I don't recall,
right off.
Try matweb.com G.
--
Cliff

On 27 Sep 2005 08:45:27 -0700, wrote:

Gear heads often use "Purple Ice" to boast the cooling capacity.
It allows waterr to carry more ehat, IE raises the specific heat,.

Not even per their seemingly silly claims.

See:
http://www.royalpurple.com/prodsa/prpice.html

See their "MSD sheet".
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:44:10 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
wrote:

Water conducts heat, does ethylene glycol ?,

Water is not really a very good conductor of heat, John.
It may be a bit better in it's ice form ... I don't recall,
right off.
Try matweb.com G.
--
Cliff

I asked which one transfers heat better, water or ethylene glycol.

John

Cliff wrote in newsfjij15djtbcadqecbune84r16ih6j87ie@
4ax.com:

On 26 Sep 2005 23:21:26 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Coversely if the sun were to get 6%
stronger than it is today things would get very ugly in a hurry.

Sort of like the CO2 trapping 6% more of the heat, eh?

You feeling alright today? Between the water thing and this statement, I'm
a little concerned. A six percent incease in the sun's energy is nothing at
all like a six percent increase in CO2 reflecting back infrared radiation
that was reflected off of the earths surface.


--

Dan

Cliff wrote in news:v8jij15191nkou21lg2fg28h4plf94ng4a@
4ax.com:

On 26 Sep 2005 23:21:26 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

So you say, CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Of course it is. The concentrations
seen at that time (seen by examining carbon content of sedimentary
calcium carbonate)

Umm ..... How does that tell anything?

If you are truly interested take a class or read a book. I'll provide a
link once you write a two part essay explaining isotopes, and the various
ways that scientists uses carbon isotopes.


--

Dan

On 28 Sep 2005 03:01:39 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
wrote in :

what is your explanation of glacier melting worldwide?

The ocean is warmer.

Imagine that. There's no global warming but the oceans
got warmer by magic which in turm melts the polar
ice caps and the high altitude (many) glaciers, also by magic.

He's pixilated I think.
--
Cliff

On 28 Sep 2005 03:08:15 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in news:q5bjj111jl53lob2v3e3mbekg7597u216n@
4ax.com:

What in the world makes you think that the TOTAL CO2 in
the atmosphere is increasing by 50% each year?

I don't.

Sorry, that's what your cryptic math seemed to be implying.

Just used your rateles numbers.


But do you grasp the effects of compounded growth?

Yes. It works well with money. Fortunately it doesn't work with CO2. IOW,
CO2 doesnt multiply on it's own.

So if you keep adding to it it gets smaller?

Why do you even bother writing such utter nonsense?

Examples abound.

Do a spot of calculus, assuming current projected grown rates.

I don't see where calculus could even remotely be helpful here.

Proof again that you don't begin to grasp what the subject is
then.

More like proof that you don't understand science. Tell me all of what
would be in the formula. Where would that data come from? How much would be
speculative?

When you are in denial?
--
Cliff

On 28 Sep 2005 03:16:22 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in news:q5bjj111jl53lob2v3e3mbekg7597u216n@
4ax.com:


Who sez? It's already up one degree F it seems.
How fast would that next doubling be?
Recall those saturation issues too. And that the existing (and
melting) polar caps reflect a bit which will change as they
finish melting.

I'm just about done with this for the third time. I've supplied the
temperature records on a number of occasions. It's not one degree. It is .6
degree IF you don't adjust for the change in methodology that took place in
1920. It is between .3-.5 with various formula used to adjust the number to
account for the methodology change. Please explain the mystical
thermodynamics that causes air that warms by .6 degrees (giving you the max
number) to warm an immense volume of water by one degree.

So far only te surface waters have been much warmed and your
claimed air data is very suspect indeed.

You using the long inches or the short ones these days?

Do that and the
worlds energy problems can be solved with CO2.

??

BTW, current predictions are that the total warming will reach one degree
in sixty years.

The graph in the cite I posted showed about 7 degrees F *more* in
about 50 years IIRC. Do you have degrees F & C confused?

But how can you have any global warming at all when you deny it
exists?
--
Cliff

On 28 Sep 2005 03:48:43 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in newsfjij15djtbcadqecbune84r16ih6j87ie@
4ax.com:

On 26 Sep 2005 23:21:26 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Coversely if the sun were to get 6%
stronger than it is today things would get very ugly in a hurry.

Sort of like the CO2 trapping 6% more of the heat, eh?

You feeling alright today? Between the water thing and this statement, I'm
a little concerned. A six percent incease in the sun's energy is nothing at
all like a six percent increase in CO2 reflecting back infrared radiation
that was reflected off of the earths surface.

Sort of like 6% , right?
--
Cliff

On 28 Sep 2005 03:57:22 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in news:v8jij15191nkou21lg2fg28h4plf94ng4a@
4ax.com:

On 26 Sep 2005 23:21:26 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

So you say, CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Of course it is. The concentrations
seen at that time (seen by examining carbon content of sedimentary
calcium carbonate)

Umm ..... How does that tell anything?

If you are truly interested take a class or read a book. I'll provide a
link once you write a two part essay explaining isotopes, and the various
ways that scientists uses carbon isotopes.

Do you have Carbon & Calcium confused again?
C12 & C13 are fairly stable, C14 has a half life of
~5760 years.
C14 dating is only good for about 50,000 years into
the past. Even if. When porous things (like sediments)
have things like water perhaps flowing thru them
newer carbon 14 can replace part of the older carbon ....
Hence C14 dating is not very good under such conditions.

How old were those sediments again?

Now, Calcium Carbonate is Calcium Carbonate ...
the ratios of Calcium to Carbon seem a bit fixed ...
--
Cliff

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:47:32 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
wrote:


"BottleBob" wrote in message ...
Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:44:10 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
wrote:

Water conducts heat, does ethylene glycol ?,

Water is not really a very good conductor of heat, John.
It may be a bit better in it's ice form ... I don't recall,
right off.


Cliff:

That didn't sound right, so a quick look in the "Handbook of Chemistry
and Physics"

You got a copy at long last? Good.

(which has a thermal conductivity table of some 275
liquids) shows that only ONE liquid is a better thermal conductor than
water, and that liquid is Mercury.

Ice is a solid.
Liquid water at 20 degrees C has a thermal conductivity of
0.0014 (cal/sec)/(cm^2 C/cm).
Ice has a thermal conductivity of 0.005 (cal/sec)/(cm^2 C/cm).

Source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...les/thrcn.html

I seriously doubt that many people are going to be putting Mercury in
their radiators.


Bob, Yeah. I would say Cliffy is stumbling a wee bit would you say G

To my way of thinking, 0.005 is a bit larger than 0.0014.

Compare with Silver at 1.01 0.005 (cal/sec)/(cm^2 C/cm).

Like I said, water is not a very good conductor of heat and
ice might be a better one. I hereby retract my "may"
qualification VBG.

Sometimes my recall amazes me .....

And BB should learn what the terms mean .... LOL ....
--
Cliff

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:45:46 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:44:10 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
wrote:

Water conducts heat, does ethylene glycol ?,

Water is not really a very good conductor of heat, John.
It may be a bit better in it's ice form ... I don't recall,
right off.
Try matweb.com G.

I asked which one transfers heat better, water or ethylene glycol.

John,
You said "conducts heat". That's one thing.
"Transfers heat" is another and may involve multiple mechanisms.
In automotive engine applications the specific heat of water
is important, as is a bit of turbulance inside the engine's block
and in the radiator (partly due to the poor thermal conductivity
of water).

On the subject of specific heat, water is very good.
Ethylene Glycol (antifreeze) is not as good by any means
nor is Ethanol or Methanol (used to be used IIRC).

Heat capacity (specific heat):

Water 4.1819 J/(g-°C) = 0.999 BTU/lb-°F
Ethylene Glycol ~ 2.42 J/(g-°C)
Ethanol 2.460 J/(g-°C)
Methanol 2.450 J/(g-°C)

There's a chart on water/ethylene glycol mixtures
at http://media.fastclick.net/w/pc.cgi?mid=74414&sid=11489 .

Bear in mind that that is measured by unit of mass,
not volume, and the densities vary a bit.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:20:28 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:29:30 -0700, "Scott"
wrote:

"D Murphy" wrote in message
. ..

Cliff. I can't tell if you can't pay attention or you're being a jerk.

He's a jerk.


Indeed.

Because both of you looked so silly losing all of those
arguments & discussions? Or because of all of the easily
checked facts you get wrong over & over & over again?
Same ones much of the time .... copied from the same
old stolen blogs ..... over & over & over again ....

"Tehran was known as the Paris of the East" - Gunner on Nov 4 2004
"Tehran was known as the Paris of the East" - Gunner on Dec 3 2004
--
Cliff

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:20:55 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Church of CO2.

The Golden Cluestick award .....
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:

just like Ice ages and glaciers.

Which would just thrill the global economy, right?

When I hear your comments, it sure seems like you think you actually
can change natural events. If, by some existing natural cycle (they are
not Rare, look around you), we enter a true ice age with creeping
Glaciers, you act like you have some sort of "right" to try to stop it
from happening.

All you can think of is how terrible it would be to end up in an ice
age and have to use fossil fuels to keep warm. It sure is a funny
outlook.

Even though you do emit a larger than average amount of hot air, if it
is going to happen, its going to happen.

It appears you think that you feel you have some sort of "right" to
alter things that just might be a natural event, but, somehow you miss
the fact you might not have any control over it.

You could use a little "fair and balanced"....... :-)

Grummy

, , the sweeping, awful
tally-whacker, and animal trap setter, spewed:


When I hear your comments, it sure seems like you think you actually
can change natural events.

I can change natural events. I have to fill out an Environmental Impact
Statement every time I fart.

--
DISCLAIMER: The content does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either
my ISP, myself, my company or employer, my friends (if any,) my goldfish or
my neighbour's mad dog; don't quote me on that; don't quote me on anything;
all rights reserved; the page is distribution copyrighted to the extent that
you may distribute the page and all its associated parts freely but you may
not make a profit from it or include the page in commercial publications
without written permission from the Prime Minister of Hutt Province; other
copyright laws for specific pages apply wherever noted or not noted, either
deliberately, negligently, or otherwise; pages are subject to change without
notice; pages are slightly enlarged to show detail; any resemblance to
actual persons, living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental;
hand wash only, tumble dry on low heat; do not bend, fold, mutilate, or
spindle; do not pass go; do not collect $200; your mileage may vary; no
substitutions allowed; for a limited time only; the page is void where
prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted; the page is provided "as is"
without any warranties expressed or implied; user assumes full liabilities;
not liable for damages due to use or misuse; an equal opportunity abuse
employer; no shoes, no shirt; quantities are limited while supplies last;
if defects are discovered, do not attempt to fix them yourself but return
to an authorised page service centre; caveat emptor; read at your own risk;
parental advisory - explicit words; text may contain material some readers
may find objectionable, parental guidance is advised; keep away from
sunlight, pets and small children; limit one-per-family; no money down; no
purchase necessary; to approved purchasers only; facsimiles are acceptable
in South Australia; you need not be present to read these pages; some
assembly required; batteries not included; action figures sold separately;
no preservatives added; tools not included; safety goggles may be required
during use; sealed for your protection, do not use if the safety seal is
broken; call before you dig; for external use only; if a rash, redness,
irritation or swelling develops, discontinue use; use only with proper
ventilation; avoid extreme temperatures and store in a cool, dry place;
keep away from open flames and avoid inhaling fumes; avoid contact with
mucous membranes; do not puncture, incinerate, or store above 60 degrees
Centigrade; do not place near flammable or magnetic source; keep away from
naked flames, keep away from old flames; smoking the page may be hazardous
to your health; the best safeguard, second only to abstinence, is the use
of a good laugh; text used on the page is made from 100% recycled electrons
and magnetic particles; no animals were used to test the hilarity of this
post other than Synapse Syndrome; no salt, MSG, artificial colour or flavour
added; if ingested, do not induce vomiting, if symptoms persist, consult
your humourologist; page is ribbed for your pleasure; slippery when wet;
must be 18 to read; possible penalties for early withdrawal; page offer
valid only in participating newsgroups; slightly higher in South Australia;
allow four to six weeks for delivery; disclaimer does not cover hurricane,
lightning, tornado, tsunami, volcanic eruption, earthquake, flood, orgasm,
misuse, self-abuse, neglect, unauthorised repair, damage from improper
installation, broken antenna, marred cabinet, incorrect line voltage,
missing or altered serial numbers, sonic boom vibrations, electromagnetic
radiation from nuclear blasts or other Acts of God; incidents owing to
aeroplane crash, ship sinking, motor vehicle accidents, leaky roof, broken
glass, falling rocks, mud slides, forest fire, flying projectiles or
dropping the item are also excluded; other restrictions may apply. If
something offends you, lighten up, get a life, and move on. All conditions
apply. Not available in all stores. Facts have been changed to protect the
guilty.

Cliff wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:26:49 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote:


If the same salts are disolved in less water, the salt concentration
goes up, and freezing temps are reduced to even more extreme values -
WAY below 32F.


Actually, you may recall that below a certain temp they stop
salting the roads. No matter how much salt they might use it
would cause no melting.

Salt doesn't cause melting in the first place. What salt on the
roads actually does is PREVENT water from freezing, before it gets
frozen. When cars and trucks drive over pre-existing ice, they create
pressure, friction, and heat with their tires. Then the salt prevents
water melted that way from RE-freezing.

The decision about when to salt the roads or not is made on the
basis of whether you can deliver enough salt to prevent freezing
completely, all the way to the pavement. If it's cold enough, cars and
trucks only melt a thin bit of ice, right on the surface. Enough salt
will keep that liquid, but it'll cause WORSE driving conditions than
just plain ice. A thin layer of liquid water on top of solid ice acts
as a lubricant, and makes things sliperier than just plain ice would be.
If you can't get all the ice melted, and keep it that way, then
salting is ounterproductive. And, since the salt water on the surface
flows away, and gets splashed away by traffic, that thin layer of water
on top is all you'll get from a single salting. You'd have to keep
repeating the application again and again, to get the road actually
ice-free and driveable; and there are times when there just isn't enough
salt or time available to make that practical.

At ANY temperature cold enough to cause ice, salt doesn't cause
melting. There needs to be a source of heat to cause that. When you
take some salt outside and toss it on an icy sidewalk, it appears to
melt into the ice; but that only works because the salt has been inside
the house, or in the garage, and is warm enough to begin the melting
process by simple heat transfer. The same thing would happen with
gravel, or corn flakes. The only difference with salt is that, once a
bit of water has melted, it dissolves some salt and doesn't refreeze.

Here's a simple experiment, for those who are interested. Put a
small dish of water in the freezer, and also a small bag of salt. Let
them both chill completely overnight, so the water is frozen, and the
salt is equally cold. Then pour the salt on top of the ice, and leave
everything in the freezer for another few hours. Then have a look.
Because the salt was as cold as the ice, it won't have melted anything.
It'll still be sitting there on top of the ice.

Next, take the container out of the freezer, and let the ice melt a
little. Then put the whole thing back in the freezer. The water that
melted will stay melted, if there's enough salt; but the rest of the ice
- the part that never got liquid, and never got to dissolve any salt -
will still be solid the next day.

KG

Cliff wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:52:56 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote:

It's possible that even the most extreme
cold that can occur on this planet won't be cold enough to freeze all
the water, or to freeze out all the life-forms.

There seems to be liquid water in Antarctica below some of the
frozen lakes, perhaps a few miles down .....

Lake Vida, a sal****er lake, fairly shallow .....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2581485.stm

According to the article the Salinity is ten times that of seawater,
which would be ~ 350 0/00 and the temperature of the water
is -10 degrees C which is about 14 degrees F.

Lake Vostok, fresh water?, 3,500 metres of ice on top ..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1345583.stm

It says it is a 'freshwater lake', but it is not clear that the
water underneath has been sampled. I would not be surprised if
it were more saline than say, Lake Ontario. The article is
mostly about a negative result of a search for hot springs or
volcanic vents. It does not say _why_ there is liquid water
underneath. E.g. the article does not say if the ice and
water are in thermal equilibrium.

--

FF

wrote:



It says it is a 'freshwater lake', but it is not clear that the
water underneath has been sampled. I would not be surprised if
it were more saline than say, Lake Ontario. The article is
mostly about a negative result of a search for hot springs or
volcanic vents. It does not say _why_ there is liquid water
underneath. E.g. the article does not say if the ice and
water are in thermal equilibrium.


Artic ice cover is now the lowest since records began, average loss
estimated at 8% a year with a prediction that there will be no artic ice
by the summer of 2060.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4290340.stm

wrote:
John Scheldroup wrote:


Really cold weather and your engine can overheat from lack of water.
Really hot weather and your engine can overheat from lack of water.

Water conducts heat, does ethylene glycol ?,

Of course it does.

In a liquid cooled system convective heat transfer is far more
important than conduction, especially within the liquid itself.

Good convective cooling relies on turbulent flow. The heated
fluid near the surface being cooled is transported by the
turbulence out into the mainstream. That heated fluid mixed
out into the mainstream is replaced by cooler fluid and so
on. Turbulent flow is created by fast flow rates and narrow
passages. The fast flow rate also carries the heated fluid
faster to the radiator (actually a 'convector') transporting
heat out of the engine.

A high flow rate can mitigate the reduced effectiveness of a
coolant with a lower heat capacity, but engines, and therefor
the flowrates for their coolants are designed for a 50/50 water
ethylene glycol mixture. If you want to run on pure ethylene
glycol you need to pump the coolant faster through the engine.

Also, IIRC (please check) pure ethylene glycol has a lower
boiling and a higher freezing point than a 50/50 mix of
ethylene glycol and water. Adding water to the ethylene
glycol raises ehtylene glycols's boiling point and lowers
its freezing point too.

--

FF

"Cliff" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:45:46 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:44:10 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
wrote:

Water conducts heat, does ethylene glycol ?,

Water is not really a very good conductor of heat, John.
It may be a bit better in it's ice form ... I don't recall,
right off.
Try matweb.com G.

I asked which one transfers heat better, water or ethylene glycol.

John,
You said "conducts heat". That's one thing.


And your point was, conductivities vary for material being greatest for
metallic solids, lower for nonmetallic solids, very low for liquids,
which deviates from our original discussion regarding best liquid
for automotive radiators that conduct heat.

http://hypertextbook.com/physics/thermal/conduction/

Water has the highest thermal conductivity of any liquid.

John

A little more basic physics:

The highest possible concentration of a salt water solution is 23.3%. Any
higher and the salt starts precipitating out. At that concentration the
freezing point is -6F.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:26:49 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote:

If the same salts are disolved in less water, the salt concentration
goes up, and freezing temps are reduced to even more extreme values -
WAY below 32F.

Actually, you may recall that below a certain temp they stop
salting the roads. No matter how much salt they might use it
would cause no melting.
--
Cliff

wrote in message oups.com...

wrote:
John Scheldroup wrote:


Really cold weather and your engine can overheat from lack of water.
Really hot weather and your engine can overheat from lack of water.

Water conducts heat, does ethylene glycol ?,

Of course it does.


Water compared to what ?

The point being, which one Water or Ethylene Glycol will have
the highest thermal conductance, or which liquid has the highest
thermal conductivity ?

John

John Scheldroup wrote:
"Cliff" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:45:46 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:44:10 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
wrote:

Water conducts heat, does ethylene glycol ?,

Water is not really a very good conductor of heat, John.
It may be a bit better in it's ice form ... I don't recall,
right off.
Try matweb.com G.

I asked which one transfers heat better, water or ethylene glycol.

John,
You said "conducts heat". That's one thing.


And your point was, conductivities vary for material being greatest for
metallic solids, lower for nonmetallic solids, very low for liquids,
which deviates from our original discussion regarding best liquid
for automotive radiators that conduct heat.

http://hypertextbook.com/physics/thermal/conduction/

Water has the highest thermal conductivity of any liquid.


Really? Higher than mercury? How about molten sodium? ;-)

Not that I'd want either of those in MY engine!

When you have convective cooling, which is what you have
in a liquid cooled engine, thermal conductivity is less
important than other properties, like heat capacity and
viscosity.

Compared to other common liquids water has a high heat
capacity and a low viscosity which makes it an excellent
heat transfer fluid.

--

FF

wrote in message oups.com...

wrote:
John Scheldroup wrote:


Really cold weather and your engine can overheat from lack of water.
Really hot weather and your engine can overheat from lack of water.

Water conducts heat, does ethylene glycol ?,

Of course it does.


A high flow rate can mitigate the reduced effectiveness of a
coolant with a lower heat capacity, but engines, and therefor
the flowrates for their coolants are designed for a 50/50 water
ethylene glycol mixture. If you want to run on pure ethylene
glycol you need to pump the coolant faster through the engine.


See below for answer to above.

Also, IIRC (please check) pure ethylene glycol has a lower
boiling and a higher freezing point than a 50/50 mix of
ethylene glycol and water. Adding water to the ethylene
glycol raises ehtylene glycols's boiling point and lowers
its freezing point too.


John

John Scheldroup wrote:
wrote in message oups.com...

wrote:
John Scheldroup wrote:


Really cold weather and your engine can overheat from lack of water.
Really hot weather and your engine can overheat from lack of water.

Water conducts heat, does ethylene glycol ?,

Of course it does.

In a liquid cooled system convective heat transfer is far more
important than conduction, especially within the liquid itself.
...

Water compared to what ?

The point being, which one Water or Ethylene Glycol will have
the highest thermal conductance, or which liquid has the highest
thermal conductivity ?


No, the point being that in a liquid cooled system convective
heat transfer is far more important than conduction, especially
within the liquid itself.

--

FF

wrote in message oups.com...

John Scheldroup wrote:
wrote in message oups.com...

wrote:
John Scheldroup wrote:


Really cold weather and your engine can overheat from lack of water.
Really hot weather and your engine can overheat from lack of water.

Water conducts heat, does ethylene glycol ?,

Of course it does.

In a liquid cooled system convective heat transfer is far more
important than conduction, especially within the liquid itself.
...

Water compared to what ?

The point being, which one Water or Ethylene Glycol will have
the highest thermal conductance, or which liquid has the highest
thermal conductivity ?


No, the point being that in a liquid cooled system convective
heat transfer is far more important than conduction, especially
within the liquid itself.


Ok, lets phrase it this way, as far as auto radiators and auto cooling
systems in concern, water is the best conductor of heat, and water is
the best transfer medium of heat to the radiator. Do you have a liquid
substitute that can out perform conductance and heat transference better
then water ?
G


John

Kirk Gordon wrote:
Cliff wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:26:49 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote:


If the same salts are disolved in less water, the salt concentration
goes up, and freezing temps are reduced to even more extreme values -
WAY below 32F.


Actually, you may recall that below a certain temp they stop
salting the roads. No matter how much salt they might use it
would cause no melting.

Salt doesn't cause melting in the first place. What salt on the
roads actually does is PREVENT water from freezing, before it gets
frozen.

Calcium Chloride is exothermic upon dissolution. Actually,
many salts are, though some are endothermic.

When cars and trucks drive over pre-existing ice, they create
pressure, friction, and heat with their tires. Then the salt prevents
water melted that way from RE-freezing.


In locales where the folks who salt the roads actually know
what they are doing they put the salt down _beofor_ it
snows. That stops ice from forming and sticking to the
pavement in the first place.

If you sprinkle salt on top of ice it will make little pockmarks
around each of the crystals or flakes of salt.

--
FF

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:27:00 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote:


Salt doesn't cause melting in the first place.

Kirk,
Remember how to make ice cream with ice & salt?
Adding salt to ice (above a certain temp) does
indeed decrease it's melting point -- it gets colder
as it melts.
Recall that water that is more saline requires lower
temps to freeze out the salt?

Below a certain temp adding salt only gives a bit
more traction ... no melting g.

Recall that the ice atop all that sal****er at the North
pole is freshwater ice .... not sal****er. The water under it
is no doubt usually colder than the meltiog point of ice ....
--
Cliff

On 28 Sep 2005 07:31:31 -0700, wrote:

Lake Vostok, fresh water?, 3,500 metres of ice on top ..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1345583.stm

It says it is a 'freshwater lake', but it is not clear that the
water underneath has been sampled.

Hence my use of "fresh water?" g.
--
Cliff

On 28 Sep 2005 07:47:51 -0700, wrote:

Good convective cooling relies on turbulent flow.

If you look inside the water jacket of most
modern engines you will see features intended to
create turbulant flow.
You can often see these with the head(s) off.

How many wondered what those things were for?
--
Cliff

On 28 Sep 2005 07:47:51 -0700, wrote:

Also, IIRC (please check) pure ethylene glycol has a lower
boiling and a higher freezing point than a 50/50 mix of
ethylene glycol and water.

You might try matweb.com for some of it ....
--
Cliff

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:51:03 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
wrote:

Ok, lets phrase it this way, as far as auto radiators and auto cooling
systems in concern, water is the best conductor of heat, and water is
the best transfer medium of heat to the radiator. Do you have a liquid
substitute that can out perform conductance and heat transference better
then water ?

John,
The heat is not moved to the radiator by conduction.
It's moved by pumping the hot liquid.
How much heat per unit of fluid mass? That depends
mostly on the specific heat of the liquid.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:51:03 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
wrote:

Ok, lets phrase it this way, as far as auto radiators and auto cooling
systems in concern, water is the best conductor of heat, and water is
the best transfer medium of heat to the radiator. Do you have a liquid
substitute that can out perform conductance and heat transference better
then water ?

The specific heat of water is 4.186 Joule/(gram °C) .
The specific heat of liquid Hydrogen is about about 10 Joules/(gram
°C) per something I found (but have some doubts about).
Try other liquid forms of things you usually think of as light
gasses, such as Methane, Ethane, Helium, etc. Most are probably
worse than water I think.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:07:22 -0700, Stuart Grey
wrote:

Cliff wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:29:49 -0700, Stuart Grey
wrote:


So tell us what, if anything, YOU think that YOU know
about global warming.

You're a damned moron. I wouldn't waste my time with an idiot like you.
You're incapable of anything than your wet dream of a socialist society
where you're a damned slave, but you don't have to worry about starving
to death in a capitalist world where people live by their wits or their
labor.


No stolen whining wingerblogs now .... in your own words ...

This should be good G.

Yeah, yeah. All you commie assholes are about is ridicule and lies.


IOW You don't know anything to begin with, as usual.
But are more than happy to spew & vent ....... as usual.

HTH

I've posted many times on the amount of CO2 in the system being vastly
greater than the amount of CO2 made by man.

And have been shown to be a total (and clueless) idiot each time.

I've posted many times showing the strong correlation of earth
temperature to solar cycle.

Yep. It gets warmer in summer & colder at night, usually.

I've posted many times the error made by Jones, who's data were
debunked, but the leftist propagandist run with even 15 years after it
was proven they were bogus data points.

You seem a bit more confused than usual today.

I've posted many times about how nothing on earth can affect the solar
cycle, ergo either the solar cycle is the cause of the warming, or a
common cause outside this earth is causing the change in global
temperature and the solar cycle.

It's the flying saucers & the little green men from Mars
with their "WMDs" again, right?

I've posted many times about how the warming/cooling cycle with the high
CO2/low CO2 cycle of the earth has been going on for at LEAST 150,000
years, and we are at the leading edge of one such cycle. Man could not
possibly been the cause of any past event, nor is man needed to explain
this one.

It's all faith-based, right?
BTW, Are you a Southern Baptist? One of Falwell's Fleeced Flock?

I've posted how this outside cause is also causing warming on Mars, thus
supporting the outside cause theory.

Have you had your nuts today? Very important, full of vital
minerals.

I've posted many times on how CO2 is a trivial greenhouse gas, how most
of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor.

Happy now?

I've posted on the fallacy of unproven and contrived computer models,

What is 1+1?

and have pointed out the simple method of fourier analysis that can be
used to make them - which proves them worthless.

Where did you copy that one from?
Big words are beneath the likes of you.
Makes you sound a bit like an educated liberal, which would be
a rather blatent lie.

I've pointed out how these UNPROVEN computer models predict an UNSTABLE
system using sensitive positive feedback loops. We know our system is
stable because it has not gone and become unstable and pegged itself in
a venus like atmosphere. Thus, the models do NOT reflect the global
system. They are BOGUS.

Is that an acronym?

I've pointed out how it is global warming causing the rise in CO2, NOT
the other way around. CO2 comes out of the vast amounts of CO2 in the
oceans and in the ocean rocks.

It's nice to watch those rocks melt. And the oceans fizz.

I've pointed out how the amount of CO2 in the air does NOT agree with
the amount of CO2 made by man, due to the (probably intentional)
miscalculation of the size of the air-ocean-rock CO2 system

It's nice to see you grab for the Golden Cluestick & fumble.

And you're Too damn stupid to understand any of this, and then you
IGNORE it and post on with your stupid, commie drivel about man made
global warming. You're PROVEN to be a stupid, America hating commie
LIAR, spewing your idiot propaganda all over the usenet.

Damn you commie liars. Damn you to hell.

Are your shorts binding again?

BTW, Did you know that about anyone can probably sign you up as
a member of both the Democratic Party and the Communist Party?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:46:36 +0100, Hang Dog
wrote:

wrote:



It says it is a 'freshwater lake', but it is not clear that the
water underneath has been sampled. I would not be surprised if
it were more saline than say, Lake Ontario. The article is
mostly about a negative result of a search for hot springs or
volcanic vents. It does not say _why_ there is liquid water
underneath. E.g. the article does not say if the ice and
water are in thermal equilibrium.


Artic ice cover is now the lowest since records began, average loss
estimated at 8% a year with a prediction that there will be no artic ice
by the summer of 2060.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4290340.stm

Have you met little Stewie yet?
--
Cliff

"Kadaitcha Man" wrote in message
s.loose-women...
| , , the sweeping, awful
| tally-whacker, and animal trap setter, spewed:
|
|
| When I hear your comments, it sure seems like you think you actually
| can change natural events.
|
| I can change natural events. I have to fill out an Environmental Impact
| Statement every time I fart.


I'm confident that the amount of paperwork required for a permit and
accompanying EIS usually wastes far more trees than what you filled it all
out for. More paperwork driven by enviros means more trees getting cut down
to create that paper. More trees cut down means less CO2 being converted to
oxygen. More CO2 is more global warming, in their view, so as far as I'm
concerned, they're actually making it worse!
Life is a dynamic event, and they aren't looking at consequences, just
intentions.

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:04:55 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
wrote:

http://hypertextbook.com/physics/thermal/conduction/

Water has the highest thermal conductivity of any liquid.

Mercury 8.34
Water, liquid (273 K) 0.561

In my opine, 8.34 0.561.
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message news
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:04:55 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
wrote:

http://hypertextbook.com/physics/thermal/conduction/

Water has the highest thermal conductivity of any liquid.

Mercury 8.34
Water, liquid (273 K) 0.561


As far as auto radiators and auto cooling systems in concern,
do you have a liquid substitute that can out perform conductance and
heat transference better then water ?

In my opine, 8.34 0.561.
--
Cliff

John