"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...
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.


Yup. The same one. Thin film optical interference coatings are often
designed as band pass filters, blocking filters selective wavelength
transmission, etc., and the Smith Chart is as much a tool to those guys as
it is to electronic circuit and microwave engineers. It should be as the
theory is basically the same, optics just operate at much, much shorter
wavelengths.

RCE

www.eisboch.com