Nav wrote:

Flying Tadpole wrote:


Nav wrote:

Flying Tadpole wrote:


katysails wrote:


MC snorted: Nah, I believe his boat is on a fresh water lake.

Good one! LOL

Another one who doesn't know what they're talking about when it comes to the
Great Lakes....


I'd fire up antoher verse of Edmund Fitzgerald, but it's far too
good and far too serious for this forum...


You missed the pun too? You must be tired!



Your salty pun was just too deep for me. Now that I've gone back
and looked at it again, I wish I hadn't...

Even a poor pun is better than no fun!


Fun? FUN?? What do you think you're doing??? Have you learnt
_nothing_ from your time on this newsgroup????

--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Break Away, Sail Away and putz away
now at http://music.download.com/internetopera

OzOne wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:04:09 +1200, Nav
scribbled thusly:



OzOne wrote:


On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:50:54 +1200, Nav
scribbled thusly:



OK so is there a big difference in viscosity?

Cheers


Nah. bugger all...but there is a diference.


So you'll accept it's all in the osmotic pressure?

Cheers


All?
Nope.

So if there were no osmotic pressures there would still be blistering
below the waterline???

Cheers

Flying Tadpole wrote:


Nav wrote:

Flying Tadpole wrote:


Nav wrote:


Flying Tadpole wrote:



katysails wrote:



MC snorted: Nah, I believe his boat is on a fresh water lake.

Good one! LOL

Another one who doesn't know what they're talking about when it comes to the
Great Lakes....


I'd fire up antoher verse of Edmund Fitzgerald, but it's far too
good and far too serious for this forum...


You missed the pun too? You must be tired!



Your salty pun was just too deep for me. Now that I've gone back
and looked at it again, I wish I hadn't...

Even a poor pun is better than no fun!



Fun? FUN?? What do you think you're doing??? Have you learnt
_nothing_ from your time on this newsgroup????


Actaully a few things but not having fun was not among them -despite the
CN rant. You?

Cheers

Nav wrote:

Flying Tadpole wrote:


Nav wrote:

Flying Tadpole wrote:


Nav wrote:


Flying Tadpole wrote:



katysails wrote:



MC snorted: Nah, I believe his boat is on a fresh water lake.

Good one! LOL

Another one who doesn't know what they're talking about when it comes to the
Great Lakes....


I'd fire up antoher verse of Edmund Fitzgerald, but it's far too
good and far too serious for this forum...


You missed the pun too? You must be tired!



Your salty pun was just too deep for me. Now that I've gone back
and looked at it again, I wish I hadn't...

Even a poor pun is better than no fun!



Fun? FUN?? What do you think you're doing??? Have you learnt
_nothing_ from your time on this newsgroup????


Actaully a few things but not having fun was not among them -despite the
CN rant. You?

Cheers

Funny you should say that?
--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Break Away, Sail Away and putz away
now at http://music.download.com/internetopera

OzOne wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:38:09 +1200, Nav
scribbled thusly:



OzOne wrote:


On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:04:09 +1200, Nav
scribbled thusly:



OzOne wrote:



On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:50:54 +1200, Nav
scribbled thusly:




OK so is there a big difference in viscosity?

Cheers


Nah. bugger all...but there is a diference.


So you'll accept it's all in the osmotic pressure?

Cheers


All?
Nope.

So if there were no osmotic pressures there would still be blistering
below the waterline???

Cheers


I believe so.


Beleif is wonderful but how so -enquiring minds want to know!

Cheers

Flying Tadpole wrote:


Nav wrote:

Flying Tadpole wrote:


Nav wrote:


Flying Tadpole wrote:



Nav wrote:



Flying Tadpole wrote:




katysails wrote:




MC snorted: Nah, I believe his boat is on a fresh water lake.

Good one! LOL

Another one who doesn't know what they're talking about when it comes to the
Great Lakes....


I'd fire up antoher verse of Edmund Fitzgerald, but it's far too
good and far too serious for this forum...


You missed the pun too? You must be tired!



Your salty pun was just too deep for me. Now that I've gone back
and looked at it again, I wish I hadn't...

Even a poor pun is better than no fun!



Fun? FUN?? What do you think you're doing??? Have you learnt
_nothing_ from your time on this newsgroup????


Actaully a few things but not having fun was not among them -despite the
CN rant. You?

Cheers


Funny you should say that?

Well it tickles your fancy doesn't it?

Cheers

OzOne wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:16:39 -0400, Martin Baxter
scribbled thusly:



Thinner? You have some viscosity data to back this up?


Yep
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/21_397.html

Hmm.... Fresh water @60F, 1.13 Centistokes, sea water @? 1.15 cSt, looks like fresh water is in fact thinner?

Pretty small difference though, plus a huge variation with temperature, surely this is not the explanation?
Instead of the insipid one word repartee, why not be a little less obtuse and simply provide us with your explanation for
the problem at hand?

Cheers
Marty


More likely fresh water exhibits a higher osmotic pressure because the difference in water
concentration is greater in fresh than brine. (osmotic pressure being proportional to the differences in concentration on either side of the membrane)






Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

OzOne wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:42:43 -0400, Martin Baxter
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote:




The "thinner" water is able to permeate smaller viods and set up the
initial reactions for the beginnings of true osmosis?
I'm not an expert, just an interested bystander.

Of course you do realize that while molecular size has something to do with viscosity, molecular shape and charge distribution play a much larger
role? Not being a chemist I don't know if there is a difference between the H20 molecules in fresh and salt water, hell maybe the Na and Cl ions
somehow bind to the porosities of the gel coat and tend to "clog" them thus slowing the process.

Just another interested bystander:

Cheers
Marty

OzOne wrote:

The "thinner" water is able to permeate smaller viods and set up the
initial reactions for the beginnings of true osmosis?
I'm not an expert, just an interested bystander.

I'm not an expert either... but it seems to me that the vapor pressure would have more to do with it than viscosity.

Of course, if you want *real* answer, just ask Navvie...

DSK

OzOne wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:00:04 +1200, Nav
scribbled thusly:



OzOne wrote:


On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:38:09 +1200, Nav
scribbled thusly:



OzOne wrote:



On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:04:09 +1200, Nav
scribbled thusly:




OzOne wrote:




On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:50:54 +1200, Nav
scribbled thusly:





OK so is there a big difference in viscosity?

Cheers


Nah. bugger all...but there is a diference.


So you'll accept it's all in the osmotic pressure?

Cheers


All?
Nope.

So if there were no osmotic pressures there would still be blistering
below the waterline???

Cheers


I believe so.


Beleif is wonderful but how so -enquiring minds want to know!

Cheers


Actually Nav, without the osmotic pressure there would probably NOT be
blistering below the waterline.
Water would still penetrate the gelcoat, react with the chemicals in
the resins and provide the circumstances for osmosis, but if the
pressure didn't exist then thers wouldn't be enough force built up to
produce the blister.


Yes, I'd say that's right 'cos I've rarely seen blisters above the water
line...

Cheers