On 14 Feb 2012 12:54:23 GMT, Han wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
m:

On 2/13/2012 7:50 AM, Leon wrote:
On 2/13/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

That cool air hitting the warm iron results in almost instant
condensation on the iron.

Generally, warm and moist air hitting a cool surface is what cuases
condensation on the cool object. Cool air hitting a warm surface
does NOT give condensation.


Bull ****!

Sorry Han, To explain my response, and where I have witnessed your
second statement being not true "all of the time" is in Swingman's
shop.

I understand how the condensation principal works.

BUT a few years ago Swingman and I were working in his shop, it had
been quite warm. We had a cold front blow in suddenly at the end of
the day and the temperature dropped quickly. "Heavy" Condensation
formed on the iron machine surfaces with in minutes, something we do
not often see.

Why? I have no idea.

Did you have the windows open, it got cold (and the iron cooled down),
then you shut the windows and opened the doors to the rest of the humid,
warm house?
More likely the garage was open, the cold front hit, and they pulled
the garage door down. The cold damp air cooled the metal and the now
"supersaturated" air condensed out on the cool surface. See previous
post RH and dew point.

Han wrote:


I believe I have responded to that, maybe excessively so.

Yup - and I read it... all of it!

--

-Mike-

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:57:47 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 2/14/2012 7:34 AM, Leon wrote:
On 2/14/2012 7:28 AM, Swingman wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

Do you remember the day you and I were working in your garage and a cold
front blew in at the end of the day. You Iron had condensation all over
it before we quit. We had to dry it off and you ended having lite rust.

Yep, I remember the incident, well. LOL. It was at Ruskin, and I remember
the cause was opening the shop door, when it had been cooler the day
before, onto a foggy, relatively warmer morning. I also remember being
****ed because I had not covered the tools the night before with those
special covers that I have for that exact situation, a weather report
that
calls for much warmer, foggy conditions the next morning.


That all happened at the end of the day, you and I had been working
together. You stayed late to finish drying and protecting the surfaces.
And IIRC you bought the covers after that when I pointed to the HTC
clearance sale.

OK ... you certainly got me scratching my head.

I distinctly remember having two, weather related, shop rust incidents
of that nature, one indeed at the Ruskin location... both, in my memory,
being _immediately upon_ "opening the overhead door".

You sure it was Ruskin ... we moved the equipment there in late Oct/2008?

AAMOF, that combination, to this day, always making me reluctant to open
the overhead door without checking/being aware of a temperature
differential, especially after the first time it happened after my 24/7
wall mounted fan went out at Oberlin, which moved enough air for it to
not normally be an issue.

I simply do not recall a "cold front" ever being the cause, but hey, it
wouldn't be the first time I wore shorts and t-shirt in 30 degree
weather without noticing the cold.

... but that STILL doesn't explain why, drumroll:

The _science_ is on _my_ side!

g,d &r
You guys down there in (central?) Florida have a lot of high humidity
-We get it up here in Central Ontario for a couple of weeks a year -
and I experienced it a LOT when I was in Zambia. Didn't know you COULD
have RH over 100% - but under certain conditions it happens - it's not
raining, or even really "misty" but swing anything through the air at
any speed and it gets wet (instead of drying off).
A drop in temperature and everything in the shop got wet -
particularly if a slight breeze and the shade of the roof kept the
inside shop temp just below the outside air temperature (Thermal mass
of concrete shop cooled off over-night and sun on the ground in the
yard heated the air above - nothing to have air temp out in the yard
46C, (115F) and the shop a relatively comfortable 35C (95F) or even
cooler, then have the clouds and breeze move in and the outside
temperture drop a few degrees.

With Victoria Falls, the worlds largest humidifier 10 Km down the
road, October was HELL. The humidity was aproaching 100%, and you
KNEW it wasn't going to rain for another 6 weeks!!!

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:32:38 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/14/2012 12:17 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2012 11:44 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Han wrote:


That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
least one who is on the side of science.


So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what does it
mean
to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase comes
from
people who are not really all that scientific in their approach, but
rather
like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With all of
the
dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole
concept of
peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific" has any
real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific community world
wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so how can a woodworkers
newsgroup even pretend to use the word "scientific" in regards to any
discussion in this forum? To take a phrase from m II - Bull****.

Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter" (which
were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by woodworkers,
woodworkers with science degrees, among other things, and contrary to
your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case stands for "science"
g) are well understood and pretty universally "accepted science" for
the past few hundred years... at least, so far.

Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze your
food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other things.

I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ...



That't it! Thai's what caused the cold front to cause condensation on
the tools! GLOBAL WARMING!

My nephew's wife swears that Globel Warming is causing global cooling.
Yup that right you heard that for the first time right here. LOL

It's Butches fault.
The "correct" term is "climate change"
Her in Ontario we've had a pretty "warm" winter, while eastern Europe
is MUCH colder than normal.
"Climate Change" appears to be causing extremes much more noticeable
than the reported 2? degree average world temperature increase over
how many years?.

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:15:34 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 2/14/2012 3:45 PM, Han wrote:

I thought about that a LONGGG time. And this is my hypothesis: It had
been a hot, Houston and sweaty type of day. You had the doors open and
the front came through. It got cold(er) and you, Leon, closed the doors,
but both you and Karl were so sweaty that you instantly caused the
ambient (absolute) humidity to increase beyond the dewpoint at the
"iron" as you called it. Of course the effects of beverages consumed is
unknown to me ...

Except of course, it was morning and a warm foggy front, after a cold
night. LOL

As soon as you both get to Fair Lawn, I'll treat you to a few in the
Dutch Househttp://www.dutchhousetavern.com/. Alternatively, I'll
treat you as soon as I get to Houston ...

You're on ... you know how to find us. And bring Marlow with you, the
boy needs some "scientifically" prepared food and beverage.


Your states all use the same city names over and over. I thought you
guys were in Florida - but the Texas Gulf has all the same issues,
temperature and humidity-wise. ( Along with the same place names, it
appears)

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:10:49 -0500, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

On 2/13/2012 7:59 PM, dpb wrote:
That's why moisture condenses on the tea glass surface--it's below the
dewpoint in the room at a comfortable or even, perhaps, cool temperature.

That is ice tea. Remember there are those on this newsgroup that drink
tea hot.
But seldom from a glass- - - - - -

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 02/14/2012 06:31 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in
:

On 2/14/2012 3:45 PM, Han wrote:

I thought about that a LONGGG time. And this is my hypothesis: It
had been a hot, Houston and sweaty type of day. You had the doors
open and the front came through. It got cold(er) and you, Leon,
closed the doors, but both you and Karl were so sweaty that you
instantly caused the ambient (absolute) humidity to increase beyond
the dewpoint at the "iron" as you called it. Of course the effects
of beverages consumed is unknown to me ...

Except of course, it was morning and a warm foggy front, after a cold
night. LOL

As soon as you both get to Fair Lawn, I'll treat you to a few in the
Dutch Househttp://www.dutchhousetavern.com/. Alternatively, I'll
treat you as soon as I get to Houston ...

You're on ... you know how to find us. And bring Marlow with you, the
boy needs some "scientifically" prepared food and beverage.

My "as soon as I get to Houston" is unlikely to be soon ... Marlow is
on
his own, I don't really know him, ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

An alternate theory: The air in the shop was warm, and saturated with
moisture. When the cold air arrived, it dropped the temperature of the
air
in the shop enough that it could no longer hold as much moisture as
before.
That moisture precipitated out onto horizontal surfaces in the shop.
Kerry
email address is valid



Warm air saturated with moisture? Any air saturated with moisture?

- Doug in Arizona


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of
misery" -Winston Churchill

Doug in Arizona,
I was theorizing that the air in the shop was saturated with moisture, and
warmer than the air arriving. Warmer air can hold more moisture than colder
air can.
Kerry

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:90edf$4f3b34a7
:

Han wrote:


I believe I have responded to that, maybe excessively so.

Yup - and I read it... all of it!

THANKS!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

wrote in news:6hdmj7tlue0jatr1drt3jgvbl9g7mgs5kk@
4ax.com:

The "correct" term is "climate change"
Her in Ontario we've had a pretty "warm" winter, while eastern Europe
is MUCH colder than normal.
"Climate Change" appears to be causing extremes much more noticeable
than the reported 2? degree average world temperature increase over
how many years?.

I don't care about "correct" terms. Indeed globally averaged, temps are
apparently slowly increasing. IMNSHO, that is likely to be partly caused
by increases in CO2 (and probably CH4 from erupting cattle as well).
Another factor may well be the increasing urbanization and paving with
blacktop ("city island effect"). Everywhere incidental temp fluctuations
from year to year get attention much more. There was great excitement in
Holland during the recent cold spell about the possibility of an
Elfstedentocht (11 cities race and tour on natural ice of some 200 km/120
miles), but the ice was by far not thick enough over great stretches of
the route http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elfstedentocht. The last race
was in 1997. I remember listening to the radio reports of the progress
of some of these races, before TV ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 02/14/2012 11:16 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote:
"Doug wrote in message
eb.com...
On 02/14/2012 06:31 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in
:

On 2/14/2012 3:45 PM, Han wrote:

I thought about that a LONGGG time. And this is my hypothesis: It
had been a hot, Houston and sweaty type of day. You had the doors
open and the front came through. It got cold(er) and you, Leon,
closed the doors, but both you and Karl were so sweaty that you
instantly caused the ambient (absolute) humidity to increase beyond
the dewpoint at the "iron" as you called it. Of course the effects
of beverages consumed is unknown to me ...

Except of course, it was morning and a warm foggy front, after a cold
night. LOL

As soon as you both get to Fair Lawn, I'll treat you to a few in the
Dutch Househttp://www.dutchhousetavern.com/. Alternatively, I'll
treat you as soon as I get to Houston ...

You're on ... you know how to find us. And bring Marlow with you, the
boy needs some "scientifically" prepared food and beverage.

My "as soon as I get to Houston" is unlikely to be soon ... Marlow is
on
his own, I don't really know him, ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

An alternate theory: The air in the shop was warm, and saturated with
moisture. When the cold air arrived, it dropped the temperature of the
air
in the shop enough that it could no longer hold as much moisture as
before.
That moisture precipitated out onto horizontal surfaces in the shop.
Kerry
email address is valid



Warm air saturated with moisture? Any air saturated with moisture?

- Doug in Arizona


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of
misery" -Winston Churchill

Doug in Arizona,
I was theorizing that the air in the shop was saturated with moisture, and
warmer than the air arriving. Warmer air can hold more moisture than colder
air can.
Kerry


Kerry,

I was just joking that in Arizona we don't see much moisture - in the
air or otherwise, although we stared out the window yesterday as
something called a "shower" occurred. :-)



--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 02/14/2012 02:32 PM, Leon wrote:
On 2/14/2012 12:17 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2012 11:44 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Han wrote:


That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
least one who is on the side of science.


So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what does it
mean
to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase comes
from
people who are not really all that scientific in their approach, but
rather
like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With all of
the
dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole
concept of
peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific" has
any
real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific community
world
wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so how can a woodworkers
newsgroup even pretend to use the word "scientific" in regards to any
discussion in this forum? To take a phrase from m II - Bull****.

Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter" (which
were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by woodworkers,
woodworkers with science degrees, among other things, and contrary to
your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case stands for "science"
g) are well understood and pretty universally "accepted science" for
the past few hundred years... at least, so far.

Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze your
food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other things.

I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ...



That't it! Thai's what caused the cold front to cause condensation on
the tools! GLOBAL WARMING!

My nephew's wife swears that Globel Warming is causing global cooling.
Yup that right you heard that for the first time right here. LOL

It's Butches fault.


Well, it's a fact that warming started about 10,000 years ago at the end
of the last ice age and the earth has been warming ever since. As soon
as those mastadon farts are cleared from the atmosphere, we'll probably
experience another ice age. Maybe it's happening now?


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 2/14/2012 10:03 PM, wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012 12:54:23 GMT, wrote:

Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 2/13/2012 7:50 AM, Leon wrote:
On 2/13/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

That cool air hitting the warm iron results in almost instant
condensation on the iron.

Generally, warm and moist air hitting a cool surface is what cuases
condensation on the cool object. Cool air hitting a warm surface
does NOT give condensation.


Bull ****!

Sorry Han, To explain my response, and where I have witnessed your
second statement being not true "all of the time" is in Swingman's
shop.

I understand how the condensation principal works.

BUT a few years ago Swingman and I were working in his shop, it had
been quite warm. We had a cold front blow in suddenly at the end of
the day and the temperature dropped quickly. "Heavy" Condensation
formed on the iron machine surfaces with in minutes, something we do
not often see.

Why? I have no idea.

Did you have the windows open, it got cold (and the iron cooled down),
then you shut the windows and opened the doors to the rest of the humid,
warm house?
More likely the garage was open, the cold front hit, and they pulled
the garage door down. The cold damp air cooled the metal and the now
"supersaturated" air condensed out on the cool surface. See previous
post RH and dew point.

Close but the door stayed open when this all happened.

On 2/14/2012 9:51 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:50:25 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/13/2012 7:50 AM, Leon wrote:
On 2/13/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

That cool air hitting the warm iron results in almost instant
condensation on the iron.

Generally, warm and moist air hitting a cool surface is what cuases
condensation on the cool object. Cool air hitting a warm surface does NOT
give condensation.


Bull ****!

Sorry Han, To explain my response, and where I have witnessed your
second statement being not true "all of the time" is in Swingman's shop.

I understand how the condensation principal works.

BUT a few years ago Swingman and I were working in his shop, it had been
quite warm. We had a cold front blow in suddenly at the end of the day
and the temperature dropped quickly. "Heavy" Condensation formed on the
iron machine surfaces with in minutes, something we do not often see.

Why? I have no idea.

"Quite warm" was likely pretty humid too.
The cold front dropped the temp of the air which cooled the steel,
and the absolute humidity (mg of water per cubic meter, or oz per
cubic yard) stayed the same - raising the relative humidity - and the
dew point and surface temperature met.
The relative humidity of the cold air was likely 90+ %.
If you had simply cooled the metal quickly to the same temperature,
without changing the air temp, you would most likely also have
experienced the condensation or "sweating" of the metal.

Very humid it was! Sounds like you may have the answer here.

On 2/14/2012 10:01 PM, wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012 12:52:31 GMT, wrote:

Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

Do you remember the day you and I were working in your garage and a cold
front blew in at the end of the day. You Iron had condensation all over
it before we quit. We had to dry it off and you ended having lite rust.

Sorry, Leon. That still means the "iron" had cooled down, and the air was
warmer and more moist. Seems like the equipment was outside, cooled down,
and then was brought into a warm, humid room.
No moving required Han. Say it was 30C and 55% humidity. and the cold
front dropped the air temp to 20C. The relative humidity would be 102%

If it's 90F and 55% RH, anything cooler than 71F will get wet.
If it's 30C and 55% RH, anything cooler than 19.96C will get wet.

Reduce the RH to 50% and it happens at 18.42C

The RH was probably closer to 80~90%, common in Houston. And we
probably saw a 20 degree temp drop in 10~15 minutes.

On 2/14/2012 4:15 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2012 3:45 PM, Han wrote:

I thought about that a LONGGG time. And this is my hypothesis: It had
been a hot, Houston and sweaty type of day. You had the doors open and
the front came through. It got cold(er) and you, Leon, closed the doors,
but both you and Karl were so sweaty that you instantly caused the
ambient (absolute) humidity to increase beyond the dewpoint at the
"iron" as you called it. Of course the effects of beverages consumed is
unknown to me ...

Except of course, it was morning and a warm foggy front, after a cold
night. LOL

As soon as you both get to Fair Lawn, I'll treat you to a few in the
Dutch Househttp://www.dutchhousetavern.com/. Alternatively, I'll
treat you as soon as I get to Houston ...

You're on ... you know how to find us. And bring Marlow with you, the
boy needs some "scientifically" prepared food and beverage.



Nooo LOL It was late afternoon, we were finishing up for the day.

Claire came up with some likely thoughts.

But here is what I noticed. Late afternoon, warm day and humid. We
were finishing up and I was getting ready to leave when the front
started blowing in. You IIRC were still working in the vicinity of the
TS I think on the work bench behind the TS. The BS near the door was
the first Item that I noticed getting wet as I was leaving. IIRC the
jointer was getting the condensation too. Remember also that you shop
points south so a north wind would be slow to penetrate the interior.
So I am thinking the front cooled the machines closest to the garage
door first and the warm a humid air in the shop condensed on the cooled
surfaces. IIRC you told me not to worry with drying all the equipment
surfaces and that you would stay and deal with them. You mentioned
later that eventually all the cast iron surfaces got wet.

I can easily understand how you would not remember if this was a
constant problem you had to deal with.

On 2/14/2012 3:45 PM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 2/14/2012 3:23 PM, Han wrote:
"Mike wrote in
:

Swingman wrote:


Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter"
(which were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by
woodworkers, woodworkers with science degrees, among other things,

Agreed - except that my point was that among the most elite of the
scientific minds within any discipline, there is disagreement. So -
here's these greatest of minds, with the fullness of their
educations, and they somehow do no agree on theories, and ideas.
How then can a group of woodworkers that even with their
professional background (which are generally not in that elite
realm), expect to define "scientific" in any better way? When the
best of the best use "scientific" processes to defend their
positions, and find themselves in disagreement, how can this forum
hope to achieve any better? And then someone comes up with the
phrase that this is "scientific" - BS. On which side of the
argument? Both sides use science to defend their position.

and contrary to your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case
stands for "science"g) are well understood and pretty universally
"accepted science" for the past few hundred years... at least, so
far.

Science is by no means understood universally. If it were, there
would not be contradictory theories within the real of scientific
study. The scientific community is in no way in complete accord.
Methinks we throw this word "scientific" around way too loosely. We
tend to use it in attempt to defend our own position with no regard
to how much discord there is within the true world of scientific
discourse.


Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze
your food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among
other things.

Well - we never disagreed on the value of science. I'm only
challenging the use of the term "scientific" as thrown about here.


I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ...

Me too - but that was not my point.

I got a PhD in 1976 in biochemistry, from the University of Utrecht
with Professor Laurens L.M. van Deenen. You can google him, he's
dead now. That's by way of saying it wasn't from a matchbook cover
diploma mill. I have also been co-author of many good scientific
articles, of which I am proud. Look up M.J. Broekman in PubMed.

So with all that knowledge, please explain what happened in Swingman's
garage that afternoon. ;~)

I thought about that a LONGGG time. And this is my hypothesis: It had
been a hot, Houston and sweaty type of day. You had the doors open and
the front came through. It got cold(er) and you, Leon, closed the doors,
but both you and Karl were so sweaty that you instantly caused the
ambient (absolute) humidity to increase beyond the dewpoint at the
"iron" as you called it. Of course the effects of beverages consumed is
unknown to me ...

grin.

As soon as you both get to Fair Lawn, I'll treat you to a few in the
Dutch Househttp://www.dutchhousetavern.com/. Alternatively, I'll
treat you as soon as I get to Houston ...


I think I have the answer, I responded below Swingman. LOL

I/ we will be looking forward to getting together! Come at Christmas an
maybe we can include Nailshooter! ;~)

On 2/14/2012 7:31 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in
:

On 2/14/2012 3:45 PM, Han wrote:

I thought about that a LONGGG time. And this is my hypothesis: It
had been a hot, Houston and sweaty type of day. You had the doors
open and the front came through. It got cold(er) and you, Leon,
closed the doors, but both you and Karl were so sweaty that you
instantly caused the ambient (absolute) humidity to increase beyond
the dewpoint at the "iron" as you called it. Of course the effects
of beverages consumed is unknown to me ...

Except of course, it was morning and a warm foggy front, after a cold
night. LOL

As soon as you both get to Fair Lawn, I'll treat you to a few in the
Dutch Househttp://www.dutchhousetavern.com/. Alternatively, I'll
treat you as soon as I get to Houston ...

You're on ... you know how to find us. And bring Marlow with you, the
boy needs some "scientifically" prepared food and beverage.

My "as soon as I get to Houston" is unlikely to be soon ... Marlow is on
his own, I don't really know him, ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

An alternate theory: The air in the shop was warm, and saturated with
moisture. When the cold air arrived, it dropped the temperature of the air
in the shop enough that it could no longer hold as much moisture as before.
That moisture precipitated out onto horizontal surfaces in the shop.
Kerry
email address is valid




I think that since the tools that were closest to the south facing
garage door were the ones first affected that their surfaces cooled down
initially and the warm humid air in the shop condensed on them first.

On 2/14/2012 10:37 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:32:38 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/14/2012 12:17 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2012 11:44 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Han wrote:


That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
least one who is on the side of science.


So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what does it
mean
to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase comes
from
people who are not really all that scientific in their approach, but
rather
like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With all of
the
dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole
concept of
peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific" has any
real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific community world
wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so how can a woodworkers
newsgroup even pretend to use the word "scientific" in regards to any
discussion in this forum? To take a phrase from m II - Bull****.

Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter" (which
were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by woodworkers,
woodworkers with science degrees, among other things, and contrary to
your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case stands for "science"
g) are well understood and pretty universally "accepted science" for
the past few hundred years... at least, so far.

Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze your
food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other things.

I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ...



That't it! Thai's what caused the cold front to cause condensation on
the tools! GLOBAL WARMING!

My nephew's wife swears that Globel Warming is causing global cooling.
Yup that right you heard that for the first time right here. LOL

It's Butches fault.
The "correct" term is "climate change"
Her in Ontario we've had a pretty "warm" winter, while eastern Europe
is MUCH colder than normal.
"Climate Change" appears to be causing extremes much more noticeable
than the reported 2? degree average world temperature increase over
how many years?.



I believe that if we had data available to us 150 years ago like we do
today and if we lived to be 200 years old and could remember back to our
child hood this "climate change" would be a normal cycle.

Even with crude records and data we have always witnessed summers that
were hotter and cooler than normal for several years in a row and we
have witnessed winters that are colder and warmer than for several years
in a row.

AND because every thing that we are doing to put an end to this "ending
of the world as we know it" is not helping one iota, read that as things
are observed as getting worse faster, we have no clue what causes
extended temperature changes, up or down. Weather extremes? You can
fond worse weather extremes in the past using Google.

I assure you if government was not involved or if there was no money to
be made off of this latest world problem there would not be another word
said about it.

On 2/15/2012 7:17 AM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 02/14/2012 02:32 PM, Leon wrote:
On 2/14/2012 12:17 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2012 11:44 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Han wrote:


That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
least one who is on the side of science.


So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what does it
mean
to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase comes
from
people who are not really all that scientific in their approach, but
rather
like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With all of
the
dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole
concept of
peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific" has
any
real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific community
world
wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so how can a woodworkers
newsgroup even pretend to use the word "scientific" in regards to any
discussion in this forum? To take a phrase from m II - Bull****.

Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter" (which
were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by woodworkers,
woodworkers with science degrees, among other things, and contrary to
your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case stands for "science"
g) are well understood and pretty universally "accepted science" for
the past few hundred years... at least, so far.

Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze your
food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other things.

I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ...



That't it! Thai's what caused the cold front to cause condensation on
the tools! GLOBAL WARMING!

My nephew's wife swears that Globel Warming is causing global cooling.
Yup that right you heard that for the first time right here. LOL

It's Butches fault.


Well, it's a fact that warming started about 10,000 years ago at the end
of the last ice age and the earth has been warming ever since. As soon
as those mastadon farts are cleared from the atmosphere, we'll probably
experience another ice age. Maybe it's happening now?


Exactly! Money exploits normal events.

On 2/14/2012 10:25 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:57:47 -0600, wrote:

On 2/14/2012 7:34 AM, Leon wrote:
On 2/14/2012 7:28 AM, Swingman wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

Do you remember the day you and I were working in your garage and a cold
front blew in at the end of the day. You Iron had condensation all over
it before we quit. We had to dry it off and you ended having lite rust.

Yep, I remember the incident, well. LOL. It was at Ruskin, and I remember
the cause was opening the shop door, when it had been cooler the day
before, onto a foggy, relatively warmer morning. I also remember being
****ed because I had not covered the tools the night before with those
special covers that I have for that exact situation, a weather report
that
calls for much warmer, foggy conditions the next morning.


That all happened at the end of the day, you and I had been working
together. You stayed late to finish drying and protecting the surfaces.
And IIRC you bought the covers after that when I pointed to the HTC
clearance sale.

OK ... you certainly got me scratching my head.

I distinctly remember having two, weather related, shop rust incidents
of that nature, one indeed at the Ruskin location... both, in my memory,
being _immediately upon_ "opening the overhead door".

You sure it was Ruskin ... we moved the equipment there in late Oct/2008?

AAMOF, that combination, to this day, always making me reluctant to open
the overhead door without checking/being aware of a temperature
differential, especially after the first time it happened after my 24/7
wall mounted fan went out at Oberlin, which moved enough air for it to
not normally be an issue.

I simply do not recall a "cold front" ever being the cause, but hey, it
wouldn't be the first time I wore shorts and t-shirt in 30 degree
weather without noticing the cold.

... but that STILL doesn't explain why,drumroll:

The _science_ is on _my_ side!

g,d&r
You guys down there in (central?) Florida have a lot of high humidity
-We get it up here in Central Ontario for a couple of weeks a year -
and I experienced it a LOT when I was in Zambia. Didn't know you COULD
have RH over 100% - but under certain conditions it happens - it's not
raining, or even really "misty" but swing anything through the air at
any speed and it gets wet (instead of drying off).
A drop in temperature and everything in the shop got wet -
particularly if a slight breeze and the shade of the roof kept the
inside shop temp just below the outside air temperature (Thermal mass
of concrete shop cooled off over-night and sun on the ground in the
yard heated the air above - nothing to have air temp out in the yard
46C, (115F) and the shop a relatively comfortable 35C (95F) or even
cooler, then have the clouds and breeze move in and the outside
temperture drop a few degrees.

With Victoria Falls, the worlds largest humidifier 10 Km down the
road, October was HELL. The humidity was aproaching 100%, and you
KNEW it wasn't going to rain for another 6 weeks!!!


I believe you have also witnessed the situation!

On 2/14/2012 11:25 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:57:47 -0600, wrote:

On 2/14/2012 7:34 AM, Leon wrote:
On 2/14/2012 7:28 AM, Swingman wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

Do you remember the day you and I were working in your garage and a cold
front blew in at the end of the day. You Iron had condensation all over
it before we quit. We had to dry it off and you ended having lite rust.

Yep, I remember the incident, well. LOL. It was at Ruskin, and I remember
the cause was opening the shop door, when it had been cooler the day
before, onto a foggy, relatively warmer morning. I also remember being
****ed because I had not covered the tools the night before with those
special covers that I have for that exact situation, a weather report
that
calls for much warmer, foggy conditions the next morning.


That all happened at the end of the day, you and I had been working
together. You stayed late to finish drying and protecting the surfaces.
And IIRC you bought the covers after that when I pointed to the HTC
clearance sale.

OK ... you certainly got me scratching my head.

I distinctly remember having two, weather related, shop rust incidents
of that nature, one indeed at the Ruskin location... both, in my memory,
being _immediately upon_ "opening the overhead door".

You sure it was Ruskin ... we moved the equipment there in late Oct/2008?

AAMOF, that combination, to this day, always making me reluctant to open
the overhead door without checking/being aware of a temperature
differential, especially after the first time it happened after my 24/7
wall mounted fan went out at Oberlin, which moved enough air for it to
not normally be an issue.

I simply do not recall a "cold front" ever being the cause, but hey, it
wouldn't be the first time I wore shorts and t-shirt in 30 degree
weather without noticing the cold.

... but that STILL doesn't explain why,drumroll:

The _science_ is on _my_ side!

g,d&r
You guys down there in (central?) Florida have a lot of high humidity
-We get it up here in Central Ontario for a couple of weeks a year -
and I experienced it a LOT when I was in Zambia. Didn't know you COULD
have RH over 100% - but under certain conditions it happens - it's not
raining, or even really "misty" but swing anything through the air at
any speed and it gets wet (instead of drying off).
A drop in temperature and everything in the shop got wet -
particularly if a slight breeze and the shade of the roof kept the
inside shop temp just below the outside air temperature (Thermal mass
of concrete shop cooled off over-night and sun on the ground in the
yard heated the air above - nothing to have air temp out in the yard
46C, (115F) and the shop a relatively comfortable 35C (95F) or even
cooler, then have the clouds and breeze move in and the outside
temperture drop a few degrees.

With Victoria Falls, the worlds largest humidifier 10 Km down the
road, October was HELL. The humidity was aproaching 100%, and you
KNEW it wasn't going to rain for another 6 weeks!!!


Relative humidifies over 100% are possible, and can happen with quick
change in temperatures. They can also happen when there is nothing to
cause the formation of the precipitant,(condensation).

Supersaturation is use a lot in the chemical industry when the product
requires a precipitation of purify the product. In some incidences the
supersaturation is produced by boiling, either at room temperature, to
reduce the volume and increase the concentration of the material.

On 2/14/2012 12:48 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Swingman wrote:

Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter"
(which were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by
woodworkers, woodworkers with science degrees, among other things,
are well understood and pretty universally
"accepted science" for the past few hundred years... at least, so far.

Science is by no means understood universally. If it were, there would not
be contradictory theories within the real of scientific study. The
scientific community is in no way in complete accord. Methinks we throw
this word "scientific" around way too loosely. We tend to use it in attempt
to defend our own position with no regard to how much discord there is
within the true world of scientific discourse.

And "methinks" you paint with too broad a brush, and perhaps miss some
important distinctions in scientific methods and terminology. While
there is always someone around who will *hypothesize* that the world is
flat, there is ample *empirical evidence*, and very little "scientific
discourse" and "discord", that this is NOT the case.

As I alluded to previously, many of the various *theories* and *laws* on
states of matter with regard to liquids, gases and solids (and more
specifically "condensation", "sublimation", etc - as discussed in this
thread), have the benefit of centuries of *empirical evidence*, and upon
whose shoulders entire branches of science are founded, specifically do
not fit into your above supposition of being in the realm of "much
discord" in "scientific discourse".


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Swingman wrote:


And "methinks" you paint with too broad a brush, and perhaps miss some
important distinctions in scientific methods and terminology. While
there is always someone around who will *hypothesize* that the world
is flat, there is ample *empirical evidence*, and very little
"scientific discourse" and "discord", that this is NOT the case.

As I alluded to previously, many of the various *theories* and *laws*
on states of matter with regard to liquids, gases and solids (and more
specifically "condensation", "sublimation", etc - as discussed in this
thread), have the benefit of centuries of *empirical evidence*, and
upon whose shoulders entire branches of science are founded,
specifically do not fit into your above supposition of being in the
realm of "much discord" in "scientific discourse".

You and I are in more agreement than you may think, as it relates to
theories and laws. I was only trying to point out that even within the
esteemed scientific community, there is indeed a great deal of zeal and
unproven belief which results in a huge amount of discord and that cannot be
denied - just look at competing therories on various topics. Not all are
completely objective.

As it relates to this thread - that got off target. I never intended to
suggest or imply a question about condensation or sublimation, etc. Hell -
I never once took exception to any of those. Again - my response was in
reply to Han's statement - not to yours.

Beauty and meaning are both in the eye of the beholder, so let me just say
that you misunderstood what I was trying to say in my reply to Han. I was
not talking about condensation when I replied to Han.

--

-Mike-

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 2/14/2012 10:37 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:32:38 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/14/2012 12:17 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2012 11:44 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Han wrote:


That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is
at least one who is on the side of science.


So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what
does it mean
to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase
comes from
people who are not really all that scientific in their approach,
but rather
like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With
all of the
dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole
concept of
peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific"
has any real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific
community world wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so
how can a woodworkers newsgroup even pretend to use the word
"scientific" in regards to any discussion in this forum? To take a
phrase from m II - Bull****.

Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter"
(which were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by
woodworkers, woodworkers with science degrees, among other things,
and contrary to your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case
stands for "science" g) are well understood and pretty
universally "accepted science" for the past few hundred years... at
least, so far.

Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze
your food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among
other things.

I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ...



That't it! Thai's what caused the cold front to cause condensation
on the tools! GLOBAL WARMING!

My nephew's wife swears that Globel Warming is causing global
cooling. Yup that right you heard that for the first time right
here. LOL

It's Butches fault.
The "correct" term is "climate change"
Her in Ontario we've had a pretty "warm" winter, while eastern
Europe
is MUCH colder than normal.
"Climate Change" appears to be causing extremes much more noticeable
than the reported 2? degree average world temperature increase over
how many years?.



I believe that if we had data available to us 150 years ago like we do
today and if we lived to be 200 years old and could remember back to
our child hood this "climate change" would be a normal cycle.

Even with crude records and data we have always witnessed summers that
were hotter and cooler than normal for several years in a row and we
have witnessed winters that are colder and warmer than for several
years in a row.

AND because every thing that we are doing to put an end to this
"ending of the world as we know it" is not helping one iota, read that
as things are observed as getting worse faster, we have no clue what
causes extended temperature changes, up or down. Weather extremes?
You can fond worse weather extremes in the past using Google.

I assure you if government was not involved or if there was no money
to be made off of this latest world problem there would not be another
word said about it.

The only thing about global warming (on a global scale and averaged over
the globe) is whether human generated gases (such as CO2 and CH4)
contribute more or less. Many people forget the globally averaged thing.
The theories have long predicted also an increase in more local outliers
and increasingly severe weather, again on a global averaged scale.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 2/15/2012 12:41 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:


As it relates to this thread - that got off target. I never intended to
suggest or imply a question about condensation or sublimation, etc. Hell -
I never once took exception to any of those. Again - my response was in
reply to Han's statement - not to yours.

Beauty and meaning are both in the eye of the beholder, so let me just say
that you misunderstood what I was trying to say in my reply to Han. I was
not talking about condensation when I replied to Han.

I misunderstood? LOL Only because Han was indeed talking about
"condensation" when he replied to my post, and there was no indication
that you had arbitrarily changed the subject when replying to him before
flatly stating "Bull****!"

Hey, that's what discussion is about ... trying to to find a common
ground and remove grounds for misunderstanding.

So take this series of posts in that context.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Swingman wrote:


I misunderstood? LOL Only because Han was indeed talking about
"condensation" when he replied to my post,

Eye of the beholder - I did not see that in Han's reply. Perhaps that's
where the misunderstanding is rooted.


and there was no indication
that you had arbitrarily changed the subject when replying to him
before flatly stating "Bull****!"

Ummmmm... I do not recall flatly stating "Bull****". Did I really do that?
BTW - I did never intend to, or even realize or think that I had arbitrarily
changed the subject. Was never the intent. Eye of the beholder?



So take this series of posts in that context.

Well - hell yeah...!

--

-Mike-

Han wrote:

Not that far-fetched. There is a theory (ahum) that says that if the
Arctic gets too ice-free (which may happen with global warming,
increases in ocean levels, and changes to ocean circulation, it (the
Arctic Ocean) will evaporate so much that it will snow and asnow and
snow and another ice-age will result. As I said, a theory ...

Your post shows a distinct misunderstanding of scientific terminology.

In science, the word "theory" is NOT speculation, guesswork, or probability.
A scientific theory is virtually a fact, as in "The Theory of Universal
Gravitation," or "The Theory of Electricity," or the "Theory of Conservation
of Energy."

After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without any
contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law", as in "The
Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side Down." In fact,
"Theory" and "Law" are often interchangable.

On 2/15/2012 1:26 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:

Not that far-fetched. There is a theory (ahum) that says that if the
Arctic gets too ice-free (which may happen with global warming,
increases in ocean levels, and changes to ocean circulation, it (the
Arctic Ocean) will evaporate so much that it will snow and asnow and
snow and another ice-age will result. As I said, a theory ...

Your post shows a distinct misunderstanding of scientific terminology.

And perhaps yours? ... see below

In science, the word "theory" is NOT speculation, guesswork, or probability.
A scientific theory is virtually a fact, as in "The Theory of Universal
Gravitation," or "The Theory of Electricity," or the "Theory of Conservation
of Energy."

After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without any
contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law", as in "The
Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side Down." In fact,
"Theory" and "Law" are often interchangable.

Not exactly ... there is none of the hierarchy, of a "theory being
elevated to a law" in all scientific disciplines that you imply with the
above statement:

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

HeyBub wrote:


Your post shows a distinct misunderstanding of scientific terminology.

In science, the word "theory" is NOT speculation, guesswork, or
probability. A scientific theory is virtually a fact, as in "The
Theory of Universal Gravitation," or "The Theory of Electricity," or
the "Theory of Conservation of Energy."


I do not work in the field of science but as I understand things, your
statement above is pure bull****. A theory is an unproven idea in the world
of science. I even googled it, so I know it's right, because it's on the
internet!

Since when did the word theory become virtually a fact? Unless you have a
new defintion of terms, the word theory has never been accpeted as any kind
of a fact.


After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without
any contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law",

Only if you want to assume things without the underlying understanding of
whether that assumption is correct, or if it can be affected by other
factors not yet considered.


as in "The Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side
Down." In fact, "Theory" and "Law" are often interchangable.

Oh please... are you really a scientist?

--

-Mike-

On 2/15/2012 1:40 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
HeyBub wrote:


Your post shows a distinct misunderstanding of scientific terminology.

In science, the word "theory" is NOT speculation, guesswork, or
probability. A scientific theory is virtually a fact, as in "The
Theory of Universal Gravitation," or "The Theory of Electricity," or
the "Theory of Conservation of Energy."


I do not work in the field of science but as I understand things, your
statement above is pure bull****. A theory is an unproven idea in the world
of science. I even googled it, so I know it's right, because it's on the
internet!

Since when did the word theory become virtually a fact? Unless you have a
new defintion of terms, the word theory has never been accpeted as any kind
of a fact.


After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without
any contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law",

Only if you want to assume things without the underlying understanding of
whether that assumption is correct, or if it can be affected by other
factors not yet considered.


as in "The Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side
Down." In fact, "Theory" and "Law" are often interchangable.

Oh please... are you really a scientist?


ROTFLMAO ... you are exactly correct. The difference between a "law" and
a "theory", are most definitely NOT statically defined across various
scientific disciplines ...

thank you, Dean Clarence Zener, for making that point forcefully some
45 years ago.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 02/14/2012 11:16 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote:
"Doug wrote in message
eb.com...
On 02/14/2012 06:31 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in
:

On 2/14/2012 3:45 PM, Han wrote:

I thought about that a LONGGG time. And this is my hypothesis: It
had been a hot, Houston and sweaty type of day. You had the doors
open and the front came through. It got cold(er) and you, Leon,
closed the doors, but both you and Karl were so sweaty that you
instantly caused the ambient (absolute) humidity to increase beyond
the dewpoint at the "iron" as you called it. Of course the effects
of beverages consumed is unknown to me ...

Except of course, it was morning and a warm foggy front, after a cold
night. LOL

As soon as you both get to Fair Lawn, I'll treat you to a few in the
Dutch Househttp://www.dutchhousetavern.com/. Alternatively, I'll
treat you as soon as I get to Houston ...

You're on ... you know how to find us. And bring Marlow with you, the
boy needs some "scientifically" prepared food and beverage.

My "as soon as I get to Houston" is unlikely to be soon ... Marlow is
on
his own, I don't really know him, ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

An alternate theory: The air in the shop was warm, and saturated with
moisture. When the cold air arrived, it dropped the temperature of the
air
in the shop enough that it could no longer hold as much moisture as
before.
That moisture precipitated out onto horizontal surfaces in the shop.
Kerry
email address is valid



Warm air saturated with moisture? Any air saturated with moisture?

- Doug in Arizona


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of
misery" -Winston Churchill

Doug in Arizona,
I was theorizing that the air in the shop was saturated with moisture,
and
warmer than the air arriving. Warmer air can hold more moisture than
colder
air can.
Kerry


Kerry,

I was just joking that in Arizona we don't see much moisture - in the air
or otherwise, although we stared out the window yesterday as something
called a "shower" occurred. :-)



--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of
misery" -Winston Churchill

Doug in Arizona,
Ah, got it. You're in the home of "it's a dry heat"
Thanks, sorry for being humor impaired,
Kerry

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

Not that far-fetched. There is a theory (ahum) that says that if the
Arctic gets too ice-free (which may happen with global warming,
increases in ocean levels, and changes to ocean circulation, it (the
Arctic Ocean) will evaporate so much that it will snow and asnow and
snow and another ice-age will result. As I said, a theory ...

Your post shows a distinct misunderstanding of scientific terminology.

In science, the word "theory" is NOT speculation, guesswork, or
probability. A scientific theory is virtually a fact, as in "The
Theory of Universal Gravitation," or "The Theory of Electricity," or
the "Theory of Conservation of Energy."

After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without
any contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law",
as in "The Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side
Down." In fact, "Theory" and "Law" are often interchangable.

OK, ok, I used theory where I should have used hypothesis.
I apologize.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:


Your post shows a distinct misunderstanding of scientific
terminology.

In science, the word "theory" is NOT speculation, guesswork, or
probability. A scientific theory is virtually a fact, as in "The
Theory of Universal Gravitation," or "The Theory of Electricity," or
the "Theory of Conservation of Energy."


I do not work in the field of science but as I understand things, your
statement above is pure bull****. A theory is an unproven idea in the
world of science. I even googled it, so I know it's right, because
it's on the internet!

Since when did the word theory become virtually a fact? Unless you
have a new defintion of terms, the word theory has never been accpeted
as any kind of a fact.


After about a hundred years of reliance on a named "theory" without
any contradiction or paradox, a theory might be elevated to a "Law",

Only if you want to assume things without the underlying understanding
of whether that assumption is correct, or if it can be affected by
other factors not yet considered.


as in "The Newtonian Laws of Motion," or the "Law of Butter-Side
Down." In fact, "Theory" and "Law" are often interchangable.

Oh please... are you really a scientist?

Well, in my book, you can brainstorm an idea, formulate a(n) hypothesis,
perform experiments trying to prove the hypothesis, and if supported
formulate a theory. Then once totally vetted, tested, and pulled through
the wringer, if nothing untowards appears, it becomes "law". Even then
you need to be careful, as shown by the recent instance of (not so)
random number generation in the RSA algorithm involved in money
transactions via the internet.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:40:18 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

Since when did the word theory become virtually a fact? Unless you
have a new defintion of terms, the word theory has never been accpeted
as any kind of a fact.

Well ....

the reference Swingman gave defines theory as:

"A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial
body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and
as a basis for future discussion or investigation."

I'd say that places it a lot closer to a fact than to an opinion or
belief. Those are often not supported by much of anything :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Han wrote:


Well, in my book, you can brainstorm an idea, formulate a(n)
hypothesis, perform experiments trying to prove the hypothesis, and
if supported formulate a theory. Then once totally vetted, tested,
and pulled through the wringer, if nothing untowards appears, it
becomes "law". Even then you need to be careful, as shown by the
recent instance of (not so) random number generation in the RSA
algorithm involved in money transactions via the internet.

I agree.

--

-Mike-

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:40:18 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

Since when did the word theory become virtually a fact? Unless you
have a new defintion of terms, the word theory has never been
accpeted as any kind of a fact.

Well ....

the reference Swingman gave defines theory as:

"A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a
substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of
observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation."

I'd say that places it a lot closer to a fact than to an opinion or
belief. Those are often not supported by much of anything :-).

I'll certainly relinquish the use of the word "belief" (perhaps a poorly
chosen word earlier...), but even Swing's text above does not make a theory
virtually a fact - regardless of how close it may appear to be.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:40:18 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

Since when did the word theory become virtually a fact? Unless you
have a new defintion of terms, the word theory has never been
accpeted as any kind of a fact.

Well ....

the reference Swingman gave defines theory as:

"A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a
substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of
observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation."

I'd say that places it a lot closer to a fact than to an opinion or
belief. Those are often not supported by much of anything :-).

I'll certainly relinquish the use of the word "belief" (perhaps a poorly
chosen word earlier...), but even Swing's text above does not make a
theory virtually a fact - regardless of how close it may appear to be.

--

-Mike-


Mike,
I agree with you that Swingman's text above does not make a theory virtually
a fact. A theory is not virtually a fact, it is as Swingman stated.
Kerry

Kerry Montgomery wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:40:18 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

Since when did the word theory become virtually a fact? Unless
you have a new defintion of terms, the word theory has never been
accpeted as any kind of a fact.

Well ....

the reference Swingman gave defines theory as:

"A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a
substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of
observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or
investigation." I'd say that places it a lot closer to a fact than to an
opinion or
belief. Those are often not supported by much of anything :-).

I'll certainly relinquish the use of the word "belief" (perhaps a
poorly chosen word earlier...), but even Swing's text above does not
make a theory virtually a fact - regardless of how close it may
appear to be. --

-Mike-


Mike,
I agree with you that Swingman's text above does not make a theory
virtually a fact. A theory is not virtually a fact, it is as Swingman
stated.

Correct - review the thread above for context.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Kerry Montgomery wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:40:18 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

Since when did the word theory become virtually a fact? Unless
you have a new defintion of terms, the word theory has never been
accpeted as any kind of a fact.

Well ....

the reference Swingman gave defines theory as:

"A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a
substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of
observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or
investigation." I'd say that places it a lot closer to a fact than to
an opinion or
belief. Those are often not supported by much of anything :-).

I'll certainly relinquish the use of the word "belief" (perhaps a
poorly chosen word earlier...), but even Swing's text above does not
make a theory virtually a fact - regardless of how close it may
appear to be. --

-Mike-


Mike,
I agree with you that Swingman's text above does not make a theory
virtually a fact. A theory is not virtually a fact, it is as Swingman
stated.

Correct - review the thread above for context.

--

-Mike-



Mike,
Sorry, I had misattributed that bit.
Kerry

Kerry Montgomery wrote:


Mike,
Sorry, I had misattributed that bit.
Kerry

It happens. The only time that really has ever bothered me was when it was
associated with the phrase "I'm pregnant..."

--

-Mike-