Honda VTR coolant boiling ?
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: P plate training ...not
Next: Australian Standard 1698
From: Hammo on 17 Feb 2007 09:25 "Moike" <bmwmoike(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hammo wrote: >> "Moike" <bmwmoike(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hammo wrote: >>>> <bigiain(a)mightymedia.com.au> wrote: >>>>> Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: >>>>>> <bigiain(a)mightymedia.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>> Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: >>>>>>>> <bigiain(a)mightymedia.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Knobdoodle" <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "Peter Cremasco" <FirstName.LastName(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> It also expands when cooled below zero! >>>>>>>>>>>> [cue Twilight-Zone music] >>>>>>>>>>> Below 4 degrees C, I think. >>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> You're right; but I think it's negative 4. >>>>>>>>> Nope, plus 4, thats why ice floats... >>>>>>>> Eh? Flotation is based on temperature? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That makes no sense. >>>>>>> You are, of course, completely right Hammo, as usual. The expansion of >>>>>>> water as it drops below 4 degrees has absolutely nothing to do with why >>>>>>> ice floats, I must have forgotten to factor in the efficiency of the >>>>>>> cooling system, or the torque on the refrigerator compressor or some >>>>>>> other completely irrelevant detail. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lets see: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.google.com/search?q=why+ice+floats >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not a single one of the returns there says anything about temperature >>>>>>> having anything to do with why ice floats, does it? >>>>>> So your post and I quote.. >>>>>> >>>>>> BigIain: " Nope, plus 4, thats why ice floats..." >>>>>> >>>>>> Tell me what that was supposed to mean. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hammo : I'm, pretty sure that what I posted was "Eh? Flotation is based >>>>>> on >>>>>> temperature? "That makes no sense". >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm looking forward how you managed to interpret that to mean that it is, >>>>>> especially after you pointed out that a temp of "plus 4" was why ice >>>>>> floats. >>>>>> >>>>> I know you're a very busy guy Hamish, but it's all in the context, all >>>>> of which you've quoted up there. Try and follow along: >>>>> >>>>> Clem said "It also expands when cooled below zero!", >>>>> then Peter said "Below 4 degrees C, I think.", >>>>> then Clem said "You're right; but I think it's negative 4.", >>>>> then I said "Nope, plus 4, thats why ice floats..." - pointing out that >>>>> if you had to cool water down below -4 degrees until it started >>>>> expanding, ice _wouldn't_ float. >>>> I don't recall seeing this last bit of your explanation. Has it always >>>> been >>>> there? >>>> >>>> I disagree with you. The density of ice does change the colder it gets, >>>> and >>>> so even if the change started there, ice would "float". As you know how to >>>> google, look it up, or consult wikipedia for a way to calculate it. >> >>> No, you are wrong. If ice(water) did not begin to reduce its density >>> until -4 C (the assertion Big was rebutting) ice would not float until >>> it was cooled below -4 C. Ice at (say) -2 C would sink. >> >> Hmm, I didn't think that what Big was claiming. > > All big was doing was correcting the other poster's incorrect assertion > that the density peaks at -4C. >> It took what he said to >> mean that water increased in density at plus 4 degrees and this is why ice >> "floated". > >> you read too much into his simple words. Ice is less dense than > water. Most liquids become more dense when they solidify. I assume you > are aware of this. The effect becomes apparent at 4C. Um, moike, you do know that water density isn't static? You do know that ice density isn't static? > > >> Meaning that it was necessary to have a more dense solution to >> enable ice to float. > > No he didn't say that. That was what I thought he was trying to say. I believe John L commented on that as well? > >> To use the analogy of rocks in water (and leaving >> myself wide open) rocks have greater density and so don't float, water less >> dense cf rocks are above them. >> > > Not all rocks are less dense than water. The last 8 words of that > "sentence" defy decoding by any of the commonly accepted 'rules' of english. Insert a comma and it makes sense to me. Sorry if you had trouble with it. Cf =compared to. Water less dense, are above them. Them refers to the rocks. Did you miss the comment in the brackets? >> As per .. http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html >> >>> The oceans >>> would freeze from the bottom up and life (as we know it) would not exist >>> on this planet. >> >> No they wouldn't. That is just silly. > No it's not. most non-aqueous liquids solidify from the bottom > unless they are exposed to significant top surface cooling. Non-aqueous liquids? Can you point out a few to me, and with particular reference where in the "ocean" they'd be found? >> The pressure at the bottom of the >> ocean is that same at the surface? > No, I didn't say that. I said that if ice were more dense than water, > as is the case for most liquids that solidify, it would sink to the > bottom, causing the ocians to freeze from the bottom up. Yes, the pressure is the same at the top as the bottom, only I this example of yours, so it isn't really an ocean, just a 3 cm deep pond of "non-aqueous liquid". >> You don't mention Debuye-Huckle (re >> salinity). > Salinity may vary with depth, but not significantly. If fresh water > were to become more dense when solidifying, salt water would do the > same, (albeit at a different temperature) since the density anomoly of > ice is related to the structure of the water molecule (as you are > presumably aware.) Salinity varies considerably with depth. This is why I mentioned Dubuye-Huckle. Please read up about it. Also water and hydrogen bonding are important to the structure of water. Ice is a very interesting kettle of fish. Are you aware of all the different types of "ice"? See below for the "insignificant variation of salinity. Consider Debuyue-Hucckle as well..... H<ttp://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/salinity_depth.html&edu= high> >> As a result, the density will increase as the depth of the ocean >> increases. > > No. as you presumably know, water is only very slightly compressible, so > while pressure might increase with depth, the change in density is > insignificant in this context. No. I don't know where you got that idea from but I don't agree and neither does science. What is the difference between water at say -4, 0 and 4 degrees? Don't take my word for it. http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/density.html&edu=high Here it is at atmospheric conditions.... http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/measurement/faq/water-density.s html ....and here we are at varying temps and salinity... Oh oh!! http://www.csgnetwork.com/h2odenscalc.html >> See also glacial theory. > irrelevant. Really? So having ice melt at depths far below the surface is irrelevant? I mean it freezes there, so having it melt there is irrelevant? >> Not to mention convection > > Convection is what causes cold liquids to sink. If water were to become > more dense as it freezes, this would be part of the reason it would > freeze from the bottom up. (but of course, it doesn't, does it.) No, density increase as the pressure increases. Ah, your ideas was that "oceans would freeze from the bottom up" re: water becoming denser at -4 C. Here is phase diagram for "aqueous solutions". http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html > > >> which would >> be a what, first year high school if not primary school concept? >> > you seem to think that there is a point to be made here. Yes, Moike. Where does water go or come from when convection is involved? It has to go one of two ways, it has to maintain an equilibrium. http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/deep_ocean.html&edu=high > >> See your own comment below. >>> What Big said was perfectly intelligible to anyone who had been >>> listening in year 9 science and who chose to read it in the context of >>> the thread. >> >> Yeah, it is that simple, eh. See your comment above. > Yes, it is relatively simple. I'm glad you agree. So are your > objections the result of your inability to understand simple concepts or > a desire to pretend to sound intelligent. I think I am beginning to > realise why you are no longer involved in scientific research, (if that > is what you did in the lab.) Would you care to elaborate on this point? Perhaps if you wish to discuss things that are ambiguous, you do it off the newsgroup. I anticipate receiving an email from you with your comments re: this. >>> It's sad that someone who lays claim to a scientific background protests >>> about his need to have someone else join the obvious dots for him. >> >> It is Usenet. Who cares? >> > > The "it's only usenet" is is generally the last refuge of failed > bullshit artists. > No, it is only Usenet. If it means that much to you, then you are welcome to it. I don't recall having to follow your rules in an discussion about anything ever. You have tried your best in refuting points with less than desirable outcomes. You have (unless you'd like to withdraw it) suggested that there is a reason I have not been involved in research, which I'd like to discuss with you. > You are the one that cared enough to raise objections. Because the way they were raised were bullshit. I believe you utilised the phrase Bullshit artist. > > Pity you only made yourself look silly. Yes Moike, Should we make a running total of all the claims you make re: denisty, water and my career? Lets not forget "non-aqueous" solutions. Shows the understanding you have about this topic. > > You really are becoming tiresome, Hamish. I expect better quiality bull > from someone like you. Sorry Moike. There is no bull in the above, it may have stemmed from a misunderstanding though your comments highlight that you are misinformed in several areas of this subject. It is easy to gloss over your limitations and engage in playful banter. However, you have no points to make and you are attempting to correct this with personal attacks. Hammo
From: Peter Cremasco on 17 Feb 2007 15:12 On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 21:11:41 +1100, "Dale Porter" <daleaporter(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message news:C1FCC940.125D7%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au... >> An interesting point, you also need to consider laminar vs turbulent flow. >> This IS important when considering "levels" of air. >> >> Hammo >> > >In the words of Ms Hanson.... "Please explain". What is laminar? Isn't that the stuff you use to line bathroom walls with? --- Cheers PeterC [aka MildThing] '01 Yamaha FJR1300 www.dmcsc.org.au http://eladesom.com.au/ulysses/ # 37181
From: Peter Cremasco on 17 Feb 2007 15:14 On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 22:29:35 +1100, Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: >I looked at Wiki as it has become the "benchmark" >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminar_flow > >However it has no reference re: airflow. Laminar, smooth, turbulent rough. In that case, if Wiki has no reference to it, it can't exist. --- Cheers PeterC [aka MildThing] '01 Yamaha FJR1300 www.dmcsc.org.au http://eladesom.com.au/ulysses/ # 37181
From: Hammo on 17 Feb 2007 18:30 On 18/2/07 7:14 AM, in article jfoet25rlolqfc8g0sacht3vt98nvqmrla(a)4ax.com, "Peter Cremasco" <FirstName.LastName(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 22:29:35 +1100, Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: > > >> I looked at Wiki as it has become the "benchmark" >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminar_flow >> >> However it has no reference re: airflow. Laminar, smooth, turbulent rough. > > In that case, if Wiki has no reference to it, it can't exist. > --- Case in point re: Wiki then, eh? Hammo
From: Moike on 17 Feb 2007 18:38
Hammo wrote: > "Moike" <bmwmoike(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Hammo wrote: >>> "Moike" <bmwmoike(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hammo wrote: >>>>> <bigiain(a)mightymedia.com.au> wrote: >>>>>> Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: >>>>>>> <bigiain(a)mightymedia.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: >>>>>>>>> <bigiain(a)mightymedia.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "Knobdoodle" <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> "Peter Cremasco" <FirstName.LastName(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It also expands when cooled below zero! >>>>>>>>>>>>> [cue Twilight-Zone music] >>>>>>>>>>>> Below 4 degrees C, I think. >>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>> You're right; but I think it's negative 4. >>>>>>>>>> Nope, plus 4, thats why ice floats... >>>>>>>>> Eh? Flotation is based on temperature? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That makes no sense. >>>>>>>> You are, of course, completely right Hammo, as usual. The expansion of >>>>>>>> water as it drops below 4 degrees has absolutely nothing to do with why >>>>>>>> ice floats, I must have forgotten to factor in the efficiency of the >>>>>>>> cooling system, or the torque on the refrigerator compressor or some >>>>>>>> other completely irrelevant detail. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lets see: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.google.com/search?q=why+ice+floats >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not a single one of the returns there says anything about temperature >>>>>>>> having anything to do with why ice floats, does it? >>>>>>> So your post and I quote.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BigIain: " Nope, plus 4, thats why ice floats..." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tell me what that was supposed to mean. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hammo : I'm, pretty sure that what I posted was "Eh? Flotation is based >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> temperature? "That makes no sense". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm looking forward how you managed to interpret that to mean that it is, >>>>>>> especially after you pointed out that a temp of "plus 4" was why ice >>>>>>> floats. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I know you're a very busy guy Hamish, but it's all in the context, all >>>>>> of which you've quoted up there. Try and follow along: >>>>>> >>>>>> Clem said "It also expands when cooled below zero!", >>>>>> then Peter said "Below 4 degrees C, I think.", >>>>>> then Clem said "You're right; but I think it's negative 4.", >>>>>> then I said "Nope, plus 4, thats why ice floats..." - pointing out that >>>>>> if you had to cool water down below -4 degrees until it started >>>>>> expanding, ice _wouldn't_ float. >>>>> I don't recall seeing this last bit of your explanation. Has it always >>>>> been >>>>> there? >>>>> >>>>> I disagree with you. The density of ice does change the colder it gets, >>>>> and >>>>> so even if the change started there, ice would "float". As you know how to >>>>> google, look it up, or consult wikipedia for a way to calculate it. >>>> No, you are wrong. If ice(water) did not begin to reduce its density >>>> until -4 C (the assertion Big was rebutting) ice would not float until >>>> it was cooled below -4 C. Ice at (say) -2 C would sink. >>> Hmm, I didn't think that what Big was claiming. >> All big was doing was correcting the other poster's incorrect assertion >> that the density peaks at -4C. >>> It took what he said to >>> mean that water increased in density at plus 4 degrees and this is why ice >>> "floated". >>> you read too much into his simple words. Ice is less dense than >> water. Most liquids become more dense when they solidify. I assume you >> are aware of this. The effect becomes apparent at 4C. > > Um, moike, you do know that water density isn't static? You do know that > ice density isn't static? >> >>> Meaning that it was necessary to have a more dense solution to >>> enable ice to float. >> No he didn't say that. > > That was what I thought he was trying to say. I believe John L commented on > that as well? >>> To use the analogy of rocks in water (and leaving >>> myself wide open) rocks have greater density and so don't float, water less >>> dense cf rocks are above them. >>> >> Not all rocks are less dense than water. The last 8 words of that >> "sentence" defy decoding by any of the commonly accepted 'rules' of english. > > Insert a comma and it makes sense to me. Sorry if you had trouble with it. > > Cf =compared to. Water less dense, are above them. Them refers to the > rocks. Did you miss the comment in the brackets? > >>> As per .. http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html >>> >>>> The oceans >>>> would freeze from the bottom up and life (as we know it) would not exist >>>> on this planet. >>> No they wouldn't. That is just silly. >> No it's not. most non-aqueous liquids solidify from the bottom >> unless they are exposed to significant top surface cooling. > > Non-aqueous liquids? Can you point out a few to me, and with particular > reference where in the "ocean" they'd be found? I didn't say there were non-aqueous solutions in the oceans. Discussion with you would be easier if you did not fabricate arguments I did not make. I pointed out that the behaviour of water in freezing from the top down sets it apart from most other substances that are capable of changing state from liquid to solid. > >>> The pressure at the bottom of the >>> ocean is that same at the surface? >> No, I didn't say that. I said that if ice were more dense than water, >> as is the case for most liquids that solidify, it would sink to the >> bottom, causing the ocians to freeze from the bottom up. > > Yes, the pressure is the same at the top as the bottom, only I this example > of yours, so it isn't really an ocean, just a 3 cm deep pond of "non-aqueous > liquid". Once again, you refute things that only exist in your imagination. You have taken what I said, drawn incorrect inferences, then tried to shoot down those inferences. > >>> You don't mention Debuye-Huckle (re >>> salinity). >> Salinity may vary with depth, but not significantly. If fresh water >> were to become more dense when solidifying, salt water would do the >> same, (albeit at a different temperature) since the density anomoly of >> ice is related to the structure of the water molecule (as you are >> presumably aware.) > > Salinity varies considerably with depth. This is why I mentioned > Dubuye-Huckle. Please read up about it. Also water and hydrogen bonding > are important to the structure of water. Ice is a very interesting kettle > of fish. Are you aware of all the different types of "ice"? All quite true, but none is relevent to the fact that water becomes significantly less dense when it changes to a solid, or to the fact that this behaviour (if I may call it that) is different from most other liquids. > > See below for the "insignificant variation of salinity. Consider > Debuyue-Hucckle as well..... > > H<ttp://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/salinity_depth.html&edu= > high> see above. It has no bearing on whether ice floats or whether this is remarkable. > >>> As a result, the density will increase as the depth of the ocean >>> increases. >> No. as you presumably know, water is only very slightly compressible, so >> while pressure might increase with depth, the change in density is >> insignificant in this context. > > No. I don't know where you got that idea from but I don't agree and neither > does science. What is the difference between water at say -4, 0 and 4 > degrees? water at -4 degrees is colder. It would necessarily be under more pressure (assuming that by 'water' you mean liquid water). I do not know precisely what its density would be, but I can confidently assert that the change in density would be a lot less than the ~10% difference between the density of ice and water. > > Don't take my word for it. > > http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/density.html&edu=high > > Here it is at atmospheric conditions.... > > http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/measurement/faq/water-density.s > html > > ...and here we are at varying temps and salinity... > Oh oh!! > > http://www.csgnetwork.com/h2odenscalc.html > once again, a collection of factoids that have no bearing on the question of how the freezing behaviour of water is anomolous. >>> See also glacial theory. >> irrelevant. > Really? > Yes. > So having ice melt at depths far below the surface is irrelevant? I mean it > freezes there, so having it melt there is irrelevant? Glaciers move. How and where it melts has little bearing on how and where it freezes, and certainly has no bearing on whether it freezes from the top down or the bottom up. Try another brand of bullshit. >>> Not to mention convection >> Convection is what causes cold liquids to sink. If water were to become >> more dense as it freezes, this would be part of the reason it would >> freeze from the bottom up. (but of course, it doesn't, does it.) > > No, density increase as the pressure increases. Very marginal increase, nothing like the ~10% difference in density between ice and water. > > Ah, your ideas was that "oceans would freeze from the bottom up" re: water > becoming denser at -4 C. No, I never alluded to anything of the sort. > > Here is phase diagram for "aqueous solutions". > > http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html Interesting, but has no logical bearing on the issue at hand. >> >>> which would >>> be a what, first year high school if not primary school concept? >>> >> you seem to think that there is a point to be made here. > > Yes, Moike. Where does water go or come from when convection is involved? > It has to go one of two ways, it has to maintain an equilibrium. > Interesting, but has no logical bearing on the issue at hand. > http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/deep_ocean.html&edu=high Interesting, but has no logical bearing on the issue at hand. >>> See your own comment below. >>>> What Big said was perfectly intelligible to anyone who had been >>>> listening in year 9 science and who chose to read it in the context of >>>> the thread. >>> Yeah, it is that simple, eh. See your comment above. >> Yes, it is relatively simple. I'm glad you agree. So are your >> objections the result of your inability to understand simple concepts or >> a desire to pretend to sound intelligent. I think I am beginning to >> realise why you are no longer involved in scientific research, (if that >> is what you did in the lab.) > > Would you care to elaborate on this point? You seem to have difficulty with simple logic, and chose to cover this with illogical complications in the hope of confusing others. Such behaviour might not incline one to enjoy scientific research. The qualification is simply because while I am aware that you once worked in a chem lab of some sort at a university, I have no idea in what capacity. You may have been doing research, you may have been washing glassware. > Perhaps if you wish to discuss things that are ambiguous, you do it off the > newsgroup. I anticipate receiving an email from you with your comments re: > this. > No ambiguity here >>>> It's sad that someone who lays claim to a scientific background protests >>>> about his need to have someone else join the obvious dots for him. >>> It is Usenet. Who cares? >>> >> The "it's only usenet" is is generally the last refuge of failed >> bullshit artists. >> > No, it is only Usenet. If it means that much to you, then you are welcome > to it. I don't recall having to follow your rules in an discussion about > anything ever. I've made no rules. I simply note that having taken the trouble to take a snipe at something you didn't immediately understand, and failed to raise any logical objections, you now resort to asserting that you don't really care about the issue. In my experience, that is commonly associated with failed bulldust. If that is what you want, please feel free to continue. you will not add significantly to the background static. > You have tried your best in refuting points with less than > desirable outcomes. No, I'd say I have achieved all I intended. My response was not expected to result in you acknowledging your error. I am simply placing on record the logical arguments, for the sake of those who might not be aware that the fact that someone behaves as if they understand scientific stuff doesn't mean that their knee-jerk snipes should be treated as factual or logical. >You have (unless you'd like to withdraw it) suggested > that there is a reason I have not been involved in research, which I'd like > to discuss with you. No, I have said that I don't know. Do you claim to have been involved in scientific research? > >> You are the one that cared enough to raise objections. > > Because the way they were raised were bullshit. I believe you utilised the > phrase Bullshit artist. Yes, that's what I said. The way you raised the objection was bullshit. >> Pity you only made yourself look silly. > > Yes Moike, Should we make a running total of all the claims you make re: > denisty, water and my career? Lets not forget "non-aqueous" solutions. > Shows the understanding you have about this topic. No, let's forget non=aqueous solutions. Your misreading of that expression and the context in which it was used, together with your readiness to assume that something you didn't read is evidence of someone else's ignorance is an annoying pointer to your high handedness. It has been said that "there is no arrogance like that born of ignorance". >> You really are becoming tiresome, Hamish. I expect better quiality bull >> from someone like you. > > Sorry Moike. There is no bull in the above, In my lexicon, "bull" includes attempts to fabricate and mislead. You have made untruthful assertions about what I wrote in order to give yourself a target. You have dragged in every irrelevant factoid about water that you can find, and presented them (without any logical argument) in order to attempt to add weight to your sniping. That is the essence of bulldust. > it may have stemmed from a > misunderstanding though your comments highlight that you are misinformed in > several areas of this subject. I suspect that this is about as close as we will ever come to you admitting that you may have not understood something. Your patheric attempts to attack imaginary gaps in what I wrote reflect a rather childish attitude. > It is easy to gloss over your limitations > and engage in playful banter. However, you have no points to make and you > are attempting to correct this with personal attacks. I only ever had one point to make. I made it. The rest was simply pointing out the developing tragedy of your 'argument'. If it makes you feel better, go and sook in a corner about imaginary personal attacks. (While you are there see if you can find the "rules" I tried to make you follow.) Moike |