Remember me
▼ Content

Scientific Challenge



Page 1 of 3123>
Scientific Challenge17-07-2017 20:36
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Wake, and others of similar opinion, stay out of this.
It is for AlGorians only.

Will pure water freeze in a container at 720 Torr and 0 degrees Centigrade?
17-07-2017 23:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
StarMan wrote:
Wake, and others of similar opinion, stay out of this.
It is for AlGorians only.

Will pure water freeze in a container at 720 Torr and 0 degrees Centigrade?


You don't see any of these "scientists" taking your challenge do you?
18-07-2017 03:23
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
I beg all readers' pardon. I meant to say 760 Torr but screwed up and wrote 720 Torr, or 1.000 atmosphere. Most people well-versed in chemistry would have understood my intention, but that is no excuse.
18-07-2017 04:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
StarMan wrote:
I beg all readers' pardon. I meant to say 760 Torr but screwed up and wrote 720 Torr, or 1.000 atmosphere. Most people well-versed in chemistry would have understood my intention, but that is no excuse.


No problem. I saw your intention. As you requested, I am staying out of this conversation since it was directed to supporters of Al Gore.


The Parrot Killer
18-07-2017 05:25
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Over twenty views to date, and nobody in the Al Gore camp has bellied up to the bar. On the subject of freezing water....

Wow. The ignorance is deafening. They sense a trap. Dumb if they do and dumb if they don't. Most amusing.
18-07-2017 06:11
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
There's not enough information provided to answer the question.

Liquid water at zero C won't freeze unless additional thermal energy is lost, the enthalpy of fusion, or "heat of fusion," of almost 80 calories per gram.

As to whether or not that energy will be lost, we need to know more about the surroundings.

High school chemistry stuff.

Then too, there's the possibility of supercooling. Surprising when you see it.

Any other possibilities?
18-07-2017 11:09
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
still learning wrote:
There's not enough information provided to answer the question.

Liquid water at zero C won't freeze unless additional thermal energy is lost, the enthalpy of fusion, or "heat of fusion," of almost 80 calories per gram.

As to whether or not that energy will be lost, we need to know more about the surroundings.

High school chemistry stuff.

Then too, there's the possibility of supercooling. Surprising when you see it.

Any other possibilities?

Assuming that energy continues to be lost, I'd also add that the strength of the container could also play a part. If the container were perfectly rigid, the water would remain liquid for a few degrees below zero since it would be unable to expand to form normal ice. The pressure inside the container would be enormous, though. But when a sufficiently low temperature is reached the water would still freeze to form a different kind of ice.

The phase diagram for water is a wonder to behold:



http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_phase_diagram.html
18-07-2017 17:14
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
StarMan wrote:
I beg all readers' pardon. I meant to say 760 Torr but screwed up and wrote 720 Torr, or 1.000 atmosphere. Most people well-versed in chemistry would have understood my intention, but that is no excuse.


The exact atmospheric pressure doesn't much matter at around one bar.
18-07-2017 17:17
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
still learning wrote:
There's not enough information provided to answer the question.

Says *still learning* before answering the question.

How, precisely, is "additional thermal energy" to be "lost" when all extant conditions have already been given?

Liquid water at zero C won't freeze unless additional thermal energy is lost, the enthalpy of fusion, or "heat of fusion," of almost 80 calories per gram.

As to whether or not that energy will be lost, we need to know more about the surroundings.

High school chemistry stuff.


Yes and no. The freezing point of water/melting point of ice is defined as 0 C, however it is incoherent that both phases could be going in opposite directions in a single container.

Therefore water freezes at something less than 0 and ice melts at something greater than 0. In fact, an ice cube would remain indefinitely at equilibrium floating in water in the environment I described.

Well over 50 views and only two Al Gorians rose to the challenge. What of all the others, hmmmm?
18-07-2017 17:22
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
StarMan wrote:
still learning wrote:
There's not enough information provided to answer the question.

Says *still learning* before answering the question.

How, precisely, is "additional thermal energy" to be "lost" when all extant conditions have already been given?

Liquid water at zero C won't freeze unless additional thermal energy is lost, the enthalpy of fusion, or "heat of fusion," of almost 80 calories per gram.

As to whether or not that energy will be lost, we need to know more about the surroundings.

High school chemistry stuff.


Yes and no. The freezing point of water/melting point of ice is defined as 0 C, however it is incoherent that both phases could be going in opposite directions in a single container.

Therefore water freezes at something less than 0 and ice melts at something greater than 0. In fact, an ice cube would remain indefinitely at equilibrium floating in water in the environment I described.

Well over 50 views and only two Al Gorians rose to the challenge. What of all the others, hmmmm?


Ask them about liquid water at 70,000 torr.
18-07-2017 17:30
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
StarMan wrote:
Therefore water freezes at something less than 0 and ice melts at something greater than 0.

No, this is simply wrong. You should have learned this in school. Water (at standard pressure) both freezes and melts at 0 C. If you keep withdrawing heat from a container full of water, the water will cool until it reaches 0 C, it will then remain at 0 C until all the water has turned to ice; only then will the temperature of the now ice-filled container fall below 0 C. Similarly, if you add heat to an ice-filled container, its temperature will rise above 0 C only when all the ice has melted.

In fact, an ice cube would remain indefinitely at equilibrium floating in water in the environment I described.

That is true so long as no heat is entering or leaving the container. You didn't specify this in the original question though.
Edited on 18-07-2017 17:31
18-07-2017 17:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
StarMan wrote:
Therefore water freezes at something less than 0 and ice melts at something greater than 0.

No, this is simply wrong. You should have learned this in school. Water (at standard pressure) both freezes and melts at 0 C. If you keep withdrawing heat from a container full of water, the water will cool until it reaches 0 C, it will then remain at 0 C until all the water has turned to ice; only then will the temperature of the now ice-filled container fall below 0 C. Similarly, if you add heat to an ice-filled container, its temperature will rise above 0 C only when all the ice has melted.

In fact, an ice cube would remain indefinitely at equilibrium floating in water in the environment I described.

That is true so long as no heat is entering or leaving the container. You didn't specify this in the original question though.


Give it to him Starman. He is working from high school chemistry as he has everything else.
18-07-2017 23:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
What exactly was the point of this high school chemistry question, StarMan?
19-07-2017 00:18
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1435)
OK I'm not exactly tops in science but I was thinking perfect pure water with no nucleation could go to nearly -40C? My understanding is that nucleation is key below 0C? Oh I should crack a book now and then....
19-07-2017 00:26
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
OK I'm not exactly tops in science but I was thinking perfect pure water with no nucleation could go to nearly -40C? My understanding is that nucleation is key below 0C? Oh I should crack a book now and then....


Remember - you are supposed to stay out of this since you're not a True Believer.
19-07-2017 00:37
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1435)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
OK I'm not exactly tops in science but I was thinking perfect pure water with no nucleation could go to nearly -40C? My understanding is that nucleation is key below 0C? Oh I should crack a book now and then....


Remember - you are supposed to stay out of this since you're not a True Believer.


Not so fast. I'm coming around to their way of thinking. Fartsong has been quite convincing lately....NOT!



I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
19-07-2017 00:41
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
OK I'm not exactly tops in science but I was thinking perfect pure water with no nucleation could go to nearly -40C? My understanding is that nucleation is key below 0C? Oh I should crack a book now and then....

Yeah, that's supercooling, as "still learning" mentioned. I don't know how low you could go without looking it up, but -40 C sounds a bit extreme.
19-07-2017 01:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
OK I'm not exactly tops in science but I was thinking perfect pure water with no nucleation could go to nearly -40C? My understanding is that nucleation is key below 0C? Oh I should crack a book now and then....

Yeah, that's supercooling, as "still learning" mentioned. I don't know how low you could go without looking it up, but -40 C sounds a bit extreme.


With your high school chemistry why isn't anything possible?
19-07-2017 07:01
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1435)
Surface Detail wrote:
-40 C sounds a bit extreme.


Yep, I was wrong, it's -48 C.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111123133123.htm


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
19-07-2017 07:22
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Surface Detail wrote:
No, this is simply wrong. You should have learned this in school. Water (at standard pressure) both freezes and melts at 0 C. If you keep withdrawing heat from a container full of water, the water will cool until it reaches 0 C, it will then remain at 0 C until all the water has turned to ice; only then will the temperature of the now ice-filled container fall below 0 C. Similarly, if you add heat to an ice-filled container, its temperature will rise above 0 C only when all the ice has melted.


"If you keep withdrawing heat" from the container, the temperature drops below 0 C. I SPECIFICALLY STATED the temperature was 0. What part of "0" do you not understand?

"Similarly, if you add heat... its temperature will RISE above 0 C."
But I expressly stated otherwise. It's 0. Period. It remains 0. The water cannot freeze, and ice cannot bypass the water thawing concurrently. Similarly, the three phases can coexist indefinitely at the Triple Point.

Now go to the Fun Zone and solve the prisoners' dilemma... if you can.
19-07-2017 10:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
-40 C sounds a bit extreme.


Yep, I was wrong, it's -48 C.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111123133123.htm

Interesting.
19-07-2017 10:46
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
StarMan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
No, this is simply wrong. You should have learned this in school. Water (at standard pressure) both freezes and melts at 0 C. If you keep withdrawing heat from a container full of water, the water will cool until it reaches 0 C, it will then remain at 0 C until all the water has turned to ice; only then will the temperature of the now ice-filled container fall below 0 C. Similarly, if you add heat to an ice-filled container, its temperature will rise above 0 C only when all the ice has melted.


"If you keep withdrawing heat" from the container, the temperature drops below 0 C. I SPECIFICALLY STATED the temperature was 0. What part of "0" do you not understand?

"Similarly, if you add heat... its temperature will RISE above 0 C."
But I expressly stated otherwise. It's 0. Period. It remains 0. The water cannot freeze, and ice cannot bypass the water thawing concurrently. Similarly, the three phases can coexist indefinitely at the Triple Point.

Now go to the Fun Zone and solve the prisoners' dilemma... if you can.

Why are you misquoting me by missing words out so that my sentences appear to refer to your example rather than the general case? If you wish to quote me, please quote full sentences.

Referring directly to your example, what happens to the water in the container depends on factors that you have not specified, as "still learning" has stated.

If the environment outside the container is warmer than 0 C, the water will simply warm.

If the environment outside the container is colder than 0 C, what happens next depends on whether nucleation centres are present on the inside of the container so as to prevent supercooling, as mentioned by "still learning" and GasGuzzler.

If nucleation centres are not present, the water will initially cool below 0 C without freezing. If nucleation centres are present, the water water will begin to freeze, but the temperature of the ensuing water/ice mixture will remain at 0 C until all the water has frozen. Only then will the temperature inside the container fall below 0 C.

Now, is there any particular point you are trying to make with this thread?
19-07-2017 18:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
StarMan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
No, this is simply wrong. You should have learned this in school. Water (at standard pressure) both freezes and melts at 0 C. If you keep withdrawing heat from a container full of water, the water will cool until it reaches 0 C, it will then remain at 0 C until all the water has turned to ice; only then will the temperature of the now ice-filled container fall below 0 C. Similarly, if you add heat to an ice-filled container, its temperature will rise above 0 C only when all the ice has melted.


"If you keep withdrawing heat" from the container, the temperature drops below 0 C. I SPECIFICALLY STATED the temperature was 0. What part of "0" do you not understand?

"Similarly, if you add heat... its temperature will RISE above 0 C."
But I expressly stated otherwise. It's 0. Period. It remains 0. The water cannot freeze, and ice cannot bypass the water thawing concurrently. Similarly, the three phases can coexist indefinitely at the Triple Point.

Now go to the Fun Zone and solve the prisoners' dilemma... if you can.


What, are you arguing with high school chemistry?
19-07-2017 18:48
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
StarMan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
No, this is simply wrong. You should have learned this in school. Water (at standard pressure) both freezes and melts at 0 C. If you keep withdrawing heat from a container full of water, the water will cool until it reaches 0 C, it will then remain at 0 C until all the water has turned to ice; only then will the temperature of the now ice-filled container fall below 0 C. Similarly, if you add heat to an ice-filled container, its temperature will rise above 0 C only when all the ice has melted.


"If you keep withdrawing heat" from the container, the temperature drops below 0 C. I SPECIFICALLY STATED the temperature was 0. What part of "0" do you not understand?

"Similarly, if you add heat... its temperature will RISE above 0 C."
But I expressly stated otherwise. It's 0. Period. It remains 0. The water cannot freeze, and ice cannot bypass the water thawing concurrently. Similarly, the three phases can coexist indefinitely at the Triple Point.

Now go to the Fun Zone and solve the prisoners' dilemma... if you can.

Why are you misquoting me by missing words out so that my sentences appear to refer to your example rather than the general case? If you wish to quote me, please quote full sentences.

Referring directly to your example, what happens to the water in the container depends on factors that you have not specified, as "still learning" has stated.

If the environment outside the container is warmer than 0 C, the water will simply warm.

If the environment outside the container is colder than 0 C, what happens next depends on whether nucleation centres are present on the inside of the container so as to prevent supercooling, as mentioned by "still learning" and GasGuzzler.

If nucleation centres are not present, the water will initially cool below 0 C without freezing. If nucleation centres are present, the water water will begin to freeze, but the temperature of the ensuing water/ice mixture will remain at 0 C until all the water has frozen. Only then will the temperature inside the container fall below 0 C.

Now, is there any particular point you are trying to make with this thread?


Another bit of that high school chemistry I see. But you forgot to add a little high school reading and comprehension.

You were wrong stupid and perhaps you should admit it.
19-07-2017 19:02
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Surface Detail wrote:
What exactly was the point of this high school chemistry question, StarMan?



My POINT is that what everyone THINKS they know isn't necessarily true.
It is quite impossible, and intuitive, that water freezes at precisely the same ambient temperature that ice melts. This is confirmed visually with the graph showing the Triple Point, where perpetual equilibrium is indeed the case.

Now YOU might pretend "IF" this and "IF" that. Nobody but YOU stated all these "IFs'. Conditions can be maintained as described.

Now we go on to another quote from you:

No, this is simply wrong. You should have learned this in school. Water (at standard pressure) both freezes and melts at 0 C. If you keep withdrawing heat from a container full of water, the water will cool until it reaches 0 C, it will then remain at 0 C until all the water has turned to ice; only then will the temperature of the now ice-filled container fall below 0 C. Similarly, if you add heat to an ice-filled container, its temperature will rise above 0 C only when all the ice has melted.


Heat CANNOT be added to the container without raising its temperature above 0.
Heat CANNOT be withdrawn from a container without lowering its temperature below 0.

It's so simple it eluded you repeatedly. That is the lesson. Everyone has access to the same information, but they arrive at different conclusions. Somebody is wrong. That would be you, deny it as much as you wish.
19-07-2017 20:13
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
StarMan wrote:
Heat CANNOT be withdrawn from a container without lowering its temperature below 0.

No, that is simply wrong. If you have a container of water at 0 C and withdraw heat from it, its temperature will remain at 0 C until all of the water has turned to ice. The heat withdrawn is provided by the enthalpy (or latent heat) of fusion of water.

Honestly, this is really basic stuff. See e.g. here if you wish to learn:

Changing state
19-07-2017 21:17
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
For anyone else reading this thread, try explaining to this individual that you CANNOT "withdraw heat" from a substance at 0 degrees by putting it into contact with another substance at 0 degrees. Nor can you "add heat" to 0 degree water with a 0 degree container. Moreover, the very pretense suggests that the ice cube floating in the water melts while the water is freezing.

It makes no sense, but some people don't care. They insist on the absurd and call themselves "progressive" (sic).

Surface Detail will hencforth be completely ignored.
19-07-2017 21:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
StarMan wrote:
For anyone else reading this thread, try explaining to this individual that you CANNOT "withdraw heat" from a substance at 0 degrees by putting it into contact with another substance at 0 degrees. Nor can you "add heat" to 0 degree water with a 0 degree container. Moreover, the very pretense suggests that the ice cube floating in the water melts while the water is freezing.

It makes no sense, but some people don't care. They insist on the absurd and call themselves "progressive" (sic).

Surface Detail will hencforth be completely ignored.

There's a lot of frantic goalpost moving going on here. Where did you or I say anything about withdrawing heat from a substance at 0 degrees by putting it into contact with another substance at 0 degrees? You seem awfully confused.
19-07-2017 23:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
StarMan wrote:
For anyone else reading this thread, try explaining to this individual that you CANNOT "withdraw heat" from a substance at 0 degrees by putting it into contact with another substance at 0 degrees. Nor can you "add heat" to 0 degree water with a 0 degree container. Moreover, the very pretense suggests that the ice cube floating in the water melts while the water is freezing.

It makes no sense, but some people don't care. They insist on the absurd and call themselves "progressive" (sic).

Surface Detail will hencforth be completely ignored.

There's a lot of frantic goalpost moving going on here. Where did you or I say anything about withdrawing heat from a substance at 0 degrees by putting it into contact with another substance at 0 degrees? You seem awfully confused.


There's your high school reading and writing interfering with your high school chemistry again.
20-07-2017 00:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
StarMan wrote:
Heat CANNOT be added to the container without raising its temperature above 0.
Heat CANNOT be withdrawn from a container without lowering its temperature below 0.


Actually, it can. It is called 'latent' heat. It is the heat going into a material (or coming from a material) that does not result in a change of temperature.

Supercooled liquid water is pretty trifty stuff. Water must have some point of nucleation to start the crystal forming process. In other words, somewhere in that water, molecules have to somehow gain enough room to form that first hexagon.

If you carefully cool water, you can get it well below 0 deg C and have it remain liquid. Any physical shock to it will trigger instant ice. Any contaminants in the water can provide a nucleation point, so use pure water (such as distilled water) to do it.

All of it takes place at one standard atmosphere of pressure.

Surface Detail happens to be more correct on this one.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-07-2017 00:25
20-07-2017 00:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
StarMan wrote:
Heat CANNOT be added to the container without raising its temperature above 0.
Heat CANNOT be withdrawn from a container without lowering its temperature below 0.


Actually, it can. It is called 'latent' heat. It is the heat going into a material (or coming from a material) that does not result in a change of temperature.

Supercooled liquid water is pretty trifty stuff. Water must have some point of nucleation to start the crystal forming process. In other words, somewhere in that water, molecules have to somehow gain enough room to form that first hexagon.

If you carefully cool water, you can get it well below 0 deg C and have it remain liquid. Any physical shock to it will trigger instant ice. Any contaminants in the water can provide a nucleation point, so use pure water (such as distilled water) to do it.

All of it takes place at one standard atmosphere of pressure.

Surface Detail happens to be more correct on this one.


Only because you're Surface Defect and have been signing on under multiple names forever.

Tell us, what is water like at 2 degrees C and 70,000 bar?
Edited on 20-07-2017 00:40
21-07-2017 06:36
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Wake wrote:


Tell us, what is water like at 2 degrees C and 70,000 bar?



Off the top of my head, I was going to say solid. But rather than give doofi (certainly not you) something to giggle about, I looked it up and confirmed my hypothemisis.


Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong, spot, Into The Night
21-07-2017 10:35
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
StarMan wrote:
Wake wrote:


Tell us, what is water like at 2 degrees C and 70,000 bar?



Off the top of my head, I was going to say solid. But rather than give doofi (certainly not you) something to giggle about, I looked it up and confirmed my hypothemisis.

You could simply have read it from the phase diagram that I posted above. Water at 2 C and 70,000 bar would be close to the boundary between ice-seven and ice-eight.
21-07-2017 13:03
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
StarMan wrote:

.....Heat CANNOT be withdrawn from a container without lowering its temperature below 0.......



To freeze any ice in that zero degree container of water thermal energy must be withdrawn. About 80 calories of thermal energy must be withdrawn for every gram of ice formed.

One way that can be done even when the surroundings are also at zero degrees is by evaporation of the water. Even at zero degrees water does have a vapor pressure, about 4.6 torr. If the container has an open top (not specified initially) and the humidity of the surrounding air low enough (not specified initially) then there will be evaporation. Slow, but still some evaporation. That evaporation carries away thermal energy from the container of water. (The molecules of water leaving the surface of the water are the faster moving ones, the "hotter" ones, leaving behind "cooler" ones.) Carries away about 596 calories for every gram of water evaporated at 0 degrees. Will form over 7 grams of ice for every gram of liquid water vaporized.
21-07-2017 17:10
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"stuffedman" stuttered:
I looked it up and confirmed my hypothemisis.
Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong
///////
litesong wrote:
"stuffedman" also ignores spelling, & ignores the following:
February 1, 2017 Arctic sea ice VOLUME was ~ 2500 cubic kilometers less than to date February 1, 2016. As a TREND, February 1, 2017 Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 10,600 cubic kilometers LESS than the average February 1, year sea ice VOLUME of the 1980's.
Adding to:
New & old data is nice:
For 390(+?) STRAIGHT months, global Earth temperatures have been above the 20th century average. This has occurred DESPITE the solar TSI energy output being languid for decades, & below normal for 10 years (including a 3+ year period of low solar TSI energy setting a 100 year low). When the sun returns to normal (& it will because it has INCREASED very slowly for 5 billion years), AGW effects will increase strongly. In late 2016, the Present High Arctic Berserker, or PHAB, or FAB ( over- temperatures on nearly 4 million square kilometers of the High Arctic), jumped to 20degC over-temperature. MIND YOU!! This is NOT a local city temperature over say a 20 kilometer by 20 kilometer square. It is over a square almost 2000 kilometers by 2000 kilometers. Within the last 2 years in the MIDDLE OF WINTER, our Earth's North Pole heated above the freezing point of water for short times, on three occasions.
Repeating & adding to: presently, Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 11,000+ cubic kilometers LESS than the to date Arctic sea ice average year for the 1980's. The energy to melt such a cube of ice (almost 22 kilometers by 22 kilometers by 65000 feet high) is about 33 times the annual energy used by the United States of America. Lesser ice losses are occurring in the Antarctic (but increasing).
21-07-2017 17:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
still learning wrote:
StarMan wrote:

.....Heat CANNOT be withdrawn from a container without lowering its temperature below 0.......



To freeze any ice in that zero degree container of water thermal energy must be withdrawn. About 80 calories of thermal energy must be withdrawn for every gram of ice formed.

One way that can be done even when the surroundings are also at zero degrees is by evaporation of the water. Even at zero degrees water does have a vapor pressure, about 4.6 torr. If the container has an open top (not specified initially) and the humidity of the surrounding air low enough (not specified initially) then there will be evaporation. Slow, but still some evaporation. That evaporation carries away thermal energy from the container of water. (The molecules of water leaving the surface of the water are the faster moving ones, the "hotter" ones, leaving behind "cooler" ones.) Carries away about 596 calories for every gram of water evaporated at 0 degrees. Will form over 7 grams of ice for every gram of liquid water vaporized.

Yes, nice catch! Mind you, the ice would be limited to a very thin layer since its very formation would create a barrier that would prevent the loss of any further energy though evaporation.
21-07-2017 21:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
StarMan wrote:
Heat CANNOT be added to the container without raising its temperature above 0.
Heat CANNOT be withdrawn from a container without lowering its temperature below 0.


Actually, it can. It is called 'latent' heat. It is the heat going into a material (or coming from a material) that does not result in a change of temperature.

Supercooled liquid water is pretty trifty stuff. Water must have some point of nucleation to start the crystal forming process. In other words, somewhere in that water, molecules have to somehow gain enough room to form that first hexagon.

If you carefully cool water, you can get it well below 0 deg C and have it remain liquid. Any physical shock to it will trigger instant ice. Any contaminants in the water can provide a nucleation point, so use pure water (such as distilled water) to do it.

All of it takes place at one standard atmosphere of pressure.

Surface Detail happens to be more correct on this one.


Only because you're Surface Defect and have been signing on under multiple names forever.
Wow. You really are reaching on this one! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Wake wrote:
Tell us, what is water like at 2 degrees C and 70,000 bar?

Solid.


The Parrot Killer
21-07-2017 21:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
StarMan wrote:
Wake wrote:


Tell us, what is water like at 2 degrees C and 70,000 bar?



Off the top of my head, I was going to say solid. But rather than give doofi (certainly not you) something to giggle about, I looked it up and confirmed my hypothemisis.


Don't you my hypothermisis?


The Parrot Killer
21-07-2017 21:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
litesong wrote:
"stuffedman" stuttered:
I looked it up and confirmed my hypothemisis.
Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong
///////
litesong wrote:
"stuffedman" also ignores spelling, & ignores the following:
February 1, 2017 Arctic sea ice VOLUME was ~ 2500 cubic kilometers less than to date February 1, 2016. As a TREND, February 1, 2017 Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 10,600 cubic kilometers LESS than the average February 1, year sea ice VOLUME of the 1980's.
Adding to:
New & old data is nice:
For 390(+?) STRAIGHT months, global Earth temperatures have been above the 20th century average. This has occurred DESPITE the solar TSI energy output being languid for decades, & below normal for 10 years (including a 3+ year period of low solar TSI energy setting a 100 year low). When the sun returns to normal (& it will because it has INCREASED very slowly for 5 billion years), AGW effects will increase strongly. In late 2016, the Present High Arctic Berserker, or PHAB, or FAB ( over- temperatures on nearly 4 million square kilometers of the High Arctic), jumped to 20degC over-temperature. MIND YOU!! This is NOT a local city temperature over say a 20 kilometer by 20 kilometer square. It is over a square almost 2000 kilometers by 2000 kilometers. Within the last 2 years in the MIDDLE OF WINTER, our Earth's North Pole heated above the freezing point of water for short times, on three occasions.
Repeating & adding to: presently, Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 11,000+ cubic kilometers LESS than the to date Arctic sea ice average year for the 1980's. The energy to melt such a cube of ice (almost 22 kilometers by 22 kilometers by 65000 feet high) is about 33 times the annual energy used by the United States of America. Lesser ice losses are occurring in the Antarctic (but increasing).


Getting bored of people ignoring you in the other threads litebeer?


The Parrot Killer
23-07-2017 21:27
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
"He is not only dull himself; he is the cause of dullness in others." - Samuel Johnson
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Scientific Challenge:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
2020 Hackaday Challenge2525-05-2019 07:18
White House eyes nuclear weapons expert to lead challenge to climate science019-04-2019 19:15
There is no scientific basis doubling CO2 concentration increases temperature.312-03-2019 13:23
Scientific Consensus14126-05-2018 20:34
A "challenge" for you, IB and Into9218-10-2016 22:30
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact