RCE wrote:
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:17:09 -0400, "RCE" wrote:



Simple explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam

Interesting that you example mentions wet steam....since that should
be visible.... it is, by your definition, water vapor.

In my younger years, I used to donate quite a bit of time running
historical steam engines. I can *assure* you that, without a
superheater, these engines were running on wet steam. If vapor was
incompressible, that couldn't have happened.....


Well, interesting discussion, anyway.

I've come across a few contradictions in the world of science and physics
over the years - at least to the level that my simple head can understand.
It seems that a particular theory or mathematical model that works for one
technical discipline may be at odds with those subscribed to in another
discipline. A good example is wavelength issues in electronics versus
optics. Although the rules are similar and both use Smith charts, etc., an
electronics engineer and an optical dude will debate how it works forever.

RCE

www.eisboch.com


Smith charts in Optics? Never heard of such. Tell me more. I have
used smith charts in electronics.

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”