Useless propeller
 

"Paladin" noneofyourbusiness.www wrote in message
...


And, they are incorrectly using the verb boil. If exposed to a
vacuum the human body will freeze and not boil or explode as
shown in some silly movies . And, if it should happen to out gas,
it would be due to a very temporary pressure differential and
will have little to do with temps.

There's nothing deceptive about a reasoned use of language.


Your grasp of things scientific is outstanding. Blood will not boil in space
because the blood vessels keep it under pressure.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...rs/970603.html

Are you a NASA scientist?

Useless propeller
 

"Gilligan" wrote in message . ..
|
| "Paladin" noneofyourbusiness.www wrote in message
| ...
|
|
| And, they are incorrectly using the verb boil. If exposed to a
| vacuum the human body will freeze and not boil or explode as
| shown in some silly movies . And, if it should happen to out gas,
| it would be due to a very temporary pressure differential and
| will have little to do with temps.
|
| There's nothing deceptive about a reasoned use of language.
|
|
| Your grasp of things scientific is outstanding. Blood will not boil in space
| because the blood vessels keep it under pressure.
|
| http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...rs/970603.html
|
| Are you a NASA scientist?
|
|

I'm with JPL. NASA is for second-rate minds.

Paladin



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Useless propeller
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message ...
| On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:49:10 -0600, "Gilligan"
| wrote:
|
|
| I can tell I am battling against a person of towering intellect who does not
| back down when guided by the light of truth.
|
| I must give in and say Uncle.
|
| Who is this man so knowledgeable in the ways of science?
|
|
| Neal
|
| CWM


A high compliment there CWM. Thanks. Capt. Neal was this group's
most learned subscriber.

Paladin

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Useless propeller
 

Paladin,

You've getting close but your not there yet. If we are using the same
prop, driven by the same engine, at the same RPM's under normal
conditions without cavitation; then why does cavitation happen to the
system in foul weather?

I think that, just maybe, you are about to learn something; along with
some others(g) The graph will show it, if you you can figure it out.
THINK FIRST and then prove you thought with the graph.

Again I'll say Bye, Bye and I'm sorry I didn't keep my word and stay out
of the discussion




http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

Useless propeller
 

Can't Help It Paladin,

If you're so Damn Smart, why are you rambling on about language and
boiling under the heading of: "USELESS PROPELLER!" That's stupid!




http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

Useless propeller
 

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message ...
| Can't Help It Paladin,
|
| If you're so Damn Smart, why are you rambling on about language and
| boiling under the heading of: "USELESS PROPELLER!" That's stupid!


You and most others here demonstrate shallowness of thinking. What's stupid
is to expect to even attempt to discuss the utility or uselessness of propellers
if folks are speaking different languages. And, mark my word, unless folks
can agree on word definitions they are speaking different languages.

1) The discussion media here is the written word.
2) Written words have specific and agreed upon meanings.
3) Unless those meanings are understood clearly by all concerned discussion is
confusing and meaningless.
4) I'm "rambling on about language and boiling" because the entire thread went the
wrong direction because of confusion about the meaning of words.
5) The only way to get things back on track is to agree on commonly accepted
definitions of the word "boil" in this case.
6) The only way to keep things on track in the future is by continually pointing
out that people must use words as defined and NOT as they, in their
imagination, think words are defined.
7) If a person as intelligent, well-versed, educated, and logical as Gilligan
is confused about the meaning of certain words just how lacking is the
understanding of the average subscriber here who lacks education beyond the
8th grade level.
8) Why should those of with Masters and Doctorates lower ourselves
the level of 8th graders. Isn't it more productive to attempt to raise
8th grader understanding to at least a high school graduate level?

If you'll recall Gilligan's original reply it stated something to the effect
that cavitation happens because the prop boils the water. I say any prop
that boils water is useless as a prop but handy as a water heater for
showers and such. Therefore such a prop is useless for moving a yacht
and, as such, discussing it under the heading of "Useless propeller" is
entirely correct.

Paladin

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Useless propeller
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:49:10 -0600, "Gilligan"
wrote:


I can tell I am battling against a person of towering intellect who does
not
back down when guided by the light of truth.

I must give in and say Uncle.

Who is this man so knowledgeable in the ways of science?


Neal

CWM

Capt Neal is touring the country in his fully restored Airstream trailer. He
visited the fine state of Colorado last month. No one, not even Paladin, can
be as brilliant as the good Capt, though Simple Simon came close.

Useless propeller
 

"Thom Stewart" wrote
| Can't Help It Paladin,
|
| If you're so Damn Smart, why are you rambling on about language and
| boiling under the heading of: "USELESS PROPELLER!" That's stupid!


Nail... Hammer...


Paladin wrote:
You and most others here demonstrate shallowness of thinking. What's stupid
is to expect to even attempt to discuss the utility or uselessness of propellers
if folks are speaking different languages. And, mark my word, unless folks
can agree on word definitions they are speaking different languages.

1) The discussion media here is the written word.
2) Written words have specific and agreed upon meanings.
3) Unless those meanings are understood clearly by all concerned discussion is
confusing and meaningless.
4) I'm "rambling on about language and boiling" because the entire thread went the
wrong direction because of confusion about the meaning of words.
5) The only way to get things back on track is to agree on commonly accepted
definitions of the word "boil" in this case.

Among some people, it is "commonly accepted" that the world
is flat. Does that make it so?

Your attempt to describe cavitation using a dictionary is
just plain dumb.

Here is a dictionary that defines "boil" perfectly, at least
with regard to you personally:
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...rticlekey=2498



If you'll recall Gilligan's original reply it stated something to the effect
that cavitation happens because the prop boils the water.

"Something to the effect"??
This is the internet. Why not quote his post exactly, unless
you are either too stupid to figure out how, or have a
spurious agenda to conceal his actual statement.



... I say any prop
that boils water is useless as a prop

If that were all it did, then you'd be totally correct.
However, under the specific circumstances, any propellor
will boil water.

When people who live in the mountains make their tea and/or
coffee, do they boil their water or does the lower
atmospheric pressure mean that they are "vaporizing" it?

A stove is a device for transferring energy from an outside
source into the food. A propellor is a device for
transferring energy from the boat's engine into the water.
Two devices for transferring energy, surely they can both be
said to "boil" things.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Useless propeller
 

"DSK" wrote in message .. .
| "Thom Stewart" wrote
| | Can't Help It Paladin,
| |
| | If you're so Damn Smart, why are you rambling on about language and
| | boiling under the heading of: "USELESS PROPELLER!" That's stupid!
|
|
| Nail... Hammer...
|
|
| Paladin wrote:
| You and most others here demonstrate shallowness of thinking. What's stupid
| is to expect to even attempt to discuss the utility or uselessness of propellers
| if folks are speaking different languages. And, mark my word, unless folks
| can agree on word definitions they are speaking different languages.
|
| 1) The discussion media here is the written word.
| 2) Written words have specific and agreed upon meanings.
| 3) Unless those meanings are understood clearly by all concerned discussion is
| confusing and meaningless.
| 4) I'm "rambling on about language and boiling" because the entire thread went the
| wrong direction because of confusion about the meaning of words.
| 5) The only way to get things back on track is to agree on commonly accepted
| definitions of the word "boil" in this case.
|
| Among some people, it is "commonly accepted" that the world
| is flat. Does that make it so?

Too stupid an analogy to merit comment...

|
| Your attempt to describe cavitation using a dictionary is
| just plain dumb.

Your thinking that's what I'm doing is just plain dumber...

One boils water by adding heat.

One doesn't boil water by reducing pressure. The verb
"to boil" simply does not apply to the vaporization of
water by reducing pressure. It follows that any process
that vaporizes water by heating it can correctly be said
to be boiling the water. Any process that vaporizes water
by lowering pressure cannot be said to be boiling water
by definition. It can only be said that lowering pressure
vaporizes water.

|
| Here is a dictionary that defines "boil" perfectly, at least
| with regard to you personally:
| http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...rticlekey=2498

Duh? Too dumb to differentiate between a noun and a verb?
You must be one of those 8th grade education individuals I
mentioned.

|
|
|
| If you'll recall Gilligan's original reply it stated something to the effect
| that cavitation happens because the prop boils the water.
|
| "Something to the effect"??
| This is the internet. Why not quote his post exactly, unless
| you are either too stupid to figure out how, or have a
| spurious agenda to conceal his actual statement.

Are you too stupid to follow the thread back and read it yourself?
Why should I do your research for you?

|
|
|
| ... I say any prop
| that boils water is useless as a prop
|
| If that were all it did, then you'd be totally correct.
| However, under the specific circumstances, any propellor
| will boil water.

The specific circumstances would have to be enough electricity
running through the prop to heat it up like the element in an
electric water heater.

|
| When people who live in the mountains make their tea and/or
| coffee, do they boil their water or does the lower
| atmospheric pressure mean that they are "vaporizing" it?

They are adding heat only so they are boiling it. The lower
atmospheric pressure only means they are able to boil water
usling fewer BTUs because the boiling point temp is lowered.

|
| A stove is a device for transferring energy from an outside
| source into the food. A propellor is a device for
| transferring energy from the boat's engine into the water.
| Two devices for transferring energy, surely they can both be
| said to "boil" things.


They cannot! The definition of the verb "to boil" precludes it.

Paladin

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Useless propeller
 

"Borked Pseudo Mailed" wrote in message d.net...
| Paladin wrote:
|
| | Suppose I have water in a beaker and place it in a bell jar. The air in the
| | bell jar is pumped out, lowering the pressure. Eventually the water begins
| | to boil.
| |
| | Where is the heat source causing it to boil?
|
| There is no heat source in that case but the water
| is not boiling.
|
| Clueless nonsense. The boiling point of water depends on ambient
| pressure, and with sufficient evacuation of air it's boiling point can
| be reduced to room temperature or lower. In fact in a vacuum water's
| boiling point and freezing point are the same. It's called being at
| "triple point". It's how thermometers are calibrated as a matter of
| fact.

The definition of boiling in English states that it's a process
induced by adding heat. It says nothing about reducing pressure.

To claim you can make water boil by reducing pressure is erroneous.
(where's the application of heat?)

You can only vaporize water by reducing pressure. You can't boil
water by reducing pressure. Saying "I'm gonna boil this water
by reducing pressure" is like saying, "I'm gonna drink this beer
by putting it up my ass via enema." Just as the verb "to drink" means
to ingest via the mouth and esophagus so does the verb "to boil"
mean vaporize by adding heat.

|
| Honestly, this is 7th grade general science in MOST school districts.
| Which tells us you not nearly as "brilliant" as you believe you are. :(
|

And, your lack of understanding of a simple word definition and its
implications means you're lacking insight.

Paladin

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Useless propeller
 

| ... I say any prop
| that boils water is useless as a prop
|
| If that were all it did, then you'd be totally correct.
| However, under the specific circumstances, any propellor
| will boil water.

Paladin wrote:
The specific circumstances would have to be enough electricity
running through the prop to heat it up like the element in an
electric water heater.


Is electricity the only thing in the universe which will
produce heat?


|
| When people who live in the mountains make their tea and/or
| coffee, do they boil their water or does the lower
| atmospheric pressure mean that they are "vaporizing" it?


Paladin wrote:
They are adding heat only so they are boiling it.

What about the energy expended in carrying it up the
mountainside?


.... The lower
atmospheric pressure only means they are able to boil water
usling fewer BTUs because the boiling point temp is lowered.


Hmm... and heat is energy... so therefor, if a propellor
adds energy to the water, and by doing so lowers the
pressure enough that the boiling point temp is lowered....

A DUCK!!






They cannot! The definition of the verb "to boil" precludes it.


Read it again! You're missing something, just like you
missed something in the two earlier examples I gave.

BTW I can think of a simple test to prove you are or are not
the Crapton®. Explain, in your own words, the term 'hull speed.'

DSK

Useless propeller
 

"DSK" wrote in message .. .
| | ... I say any prop
| | that boils water is useless as a prop
| |
| | If that were all it did, then you'd be totally correct.
| | However, under the specific circumstances, any propellor
| | will boil water.
|
| Paladin wrote:
| The specific circumstances would have to be enough electricity
| running through the prop to heat it up like the element in an
| electric water heater.
|
|
| Is electricity the only thing in the universe which will
| produce heat?

No but it's the only thing on earth I know of that has the ability to cause a propeller attached
to a yacht to boil water.

|
| |
| | When people who live in the mountains make their tea and/or
| | coffee, do they boil their water or does the lower
| | atmospheric pressure mean that they are "vaporizing" it?
|
|
| Paladin wrote:
| They are adding heat only so they are boiling it.
|
| What about the energy expended in carrying it up the
| mountainside?

What if it came down the mountain stream? Your question
and mine are equally nonsensical as neither are part of
the equation.

|
|
| .... The lower
| atmospheric pressure only means they are able to boil water
| usling fewer BTUs because the boiling point temp is lowered.
|
|
| Hmm... and heat is energy... so therefor, if a propellor
| adds energy to the water, and by doing so lowers the
| pressure enough that the boiling point temp is lowered....

Boiling temp. There's that boil word again. You're still guilty
of using a word that means to add heat. You can combine it
with another word but that doesn't change the meaning of
the word boil. As I argued with Gilligan, and he finally concurred,
a propeller does not add enough heat to the water to boil it. It
only lowers pressure in some cases enough to vaporize water and
cause cavitation, so to say a propeller boils water is just plain wrong
according to the definition of the verb "to boil".

|
| They cannot! The definition of the verb "to boil" precludes it.
|
|
| Read it again! You're missing something, just like you
| missed something in the two earlier examples I gave.
|
| BTW I can think of a simple test to prove you are or are not
| the Crapton®. Explain, in your own words, the term 'hull speed.'

For a displacement boat, a heavy deep-keel boat, the maximum speed a given hull can attain from wind power is called "hull speed"
and is largely dependent on the waterline length of the boat. Hull speed is expressed as 1.34 X the square root of LWL, or length of
waterline. If a cruising sailboat has a waterline length of 36 feet, she should be able to sail 1.34 x 6, or approximately eight
knots.
http://www.sailnet.com/collections/a...leid=colgat006

Paladin


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Useless propeller
 

"Borked Pseudo Mailed" wrote in message d.net...
|
| Honestly, this is 7th grade general science in MOST school districts.
| Which tells us you not nearly as "brilliant" as you believe you are. :(
|
|

Perhaps the liberal school system is guilty of yet another failure to educate.
What they provide, instead, is indoctrination...

Paladin

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Useless propeller
 

"Paladin" noneofyourbusiness.www wrote in message
...
|
| Is electricity the only thing in the universe which will
| produce heat?

No but it's the only thing on earth I know of that has the ability to
cause a propeller attached
to a yacht to boil water.


When an Atomic 4 explodes into flames I bet the heat conducted through the
propeller shaft tot he propeller can boil water.

Useless propeller
 

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:11:40 -0600, "Gilligan"
wrote:

Precision of language is most important.

Without it evil will rule.

"Liberal" use to mean a person for liberty until FDR usurped the term.

"Conservative" use to mean small government until Bush got a hold of that.

People who subvert language are using deception. Your brain is your only
defense against such slavery that will follow.


How do you feel about the current usage of the terms, "Decimate" and
"Clip instead of Magazine"?
Inquiring minds want to know. :o)
Mark E. Williams

Useless propeller
 

When water goes from liquid to vapor it is vaporization.

Boiling is a subset of vaporization. vaporization caused by heating.

When water goes from ice to vapor it is sublimation. It is not boiling.

Does frozen carbon dioxide cause water to boil when you throw it in? Is the
carbon dioxide boiling? Is it sublimating?

Useless propeller
 

"Maynard G. Krebbs" wrote in

How do you feel about the current usage of the terms, "Decimate" and
"Clip instead of Magazine"?


Decimate, my usage of that is mostly in digital signal processing:
decimation in time or frequency. Decimate to reduce by 1/10, which is not
true in DSP. The modern usage is wrong too, as is the use of quantum. A
"quantum leap" is actually the smallest leap possible, as quantum is the
smallest divisible unit. Here the use means the exact opposite of the word.

A clip is a clip as in the clip for the Garand Semi Automatic Rifle. Bullets
were fed into the clip, the clip loaded into the magazine. Stripper clips
are also used to load magazines. I call magazines magazines and clips clips.
Revolvers use speed loading clips. Clips hold bullets, magazines hold
bullets in the rifle.

Unless you are talking about "newsclip" as a magazine instead of a
periodical.

Useless propeller
 

Superheated water not boiling:

http://howthingswork.virginia.edu/page1.php?QNum=1465

Useless propeller
 

"TwistyCreek" wrote in message
...
Gilligan wrote:

When water goes from liquid to vapor it is vaporization.

Boiling is a subset of vaporization. vaporization caused by heating.

No. More accurately it's described as attaining a state where some of
the water vaporizes.

Is water superheated by a microwave oven (above 100C, yet no vaporization
because of lack of nucleation) considered boiling water?

That *can* be achieved by heating, indeed this
is the most common way of doing it. But it's not the only way, and even
heating water to the boiling point is something that varies under the
relatively insignificant differences in air pressure between sea level
and a moderate mountain.

Heating is the most common method for boiling water for a number of
reasons. It's convenient, and technically less complicated than
creating a sufficient vacuum. Also, boiling water is hardly ever a
goal, it's a step in a process where higher water temperatures are
desired for other things.

Sometimes boiling is undesirable as in hot water systems. The pressure is
kept high to raise the boiling point so no vapor forms in the system.



When water goes from ice to vapor it is sublimation. It is not boiling.

Does frozen carbon dioxide cause water to boil when you throw it in? Is
the
carbon dioxide boiling? Is it sublimating?

Irrelevant. A totally broken analogy. Two completely different processes
that only cause a visually similar effect.

Correct. I asked these questions to test understanding of the phenomena.


So the bottom line: Boiling water is water with vapor bubbles in it? It
doesn't matter what means induced these bubbles? Does boiling water have
some unique property?

Useless propeller
 

| Is electricity the only thing in the universe which will
| produce heat?


Paladin wrote:

No but it's the only thing on earth I know of that has the ability to cause a propeller attached
to a yacht to boil water.




Really? Ever heard of "fire"? It's the latest technology,
great for producing heat.



And now, just to show how truly impossible it is to actually
teach you something, I will continue to demonstrate how
wrong you are about "boiling"!



| | When people who live in the mountains make their tea and/or
| | coffee, do they boil their water or does the lower
| | atmospheric pressure mean that they are "vaporizing" it?
|
|
| Paladin wrote:
| They are adding heat only so they are boiling it.
|
| What about the energy expended in carrying it up the
| mountainside?


What if it came down the mountain stream? Your question
and mine are equally nonsensical as neither are part of
the equation.



What equation? So far you have insisted that whole issue can
be explained in plain English. Efforts to introduce math &
science have been rejected by you in favor of the dictionary
(and it's not even THE Scrabble Dictionary). Maybe you have
a problem with math? Anyway, I'm putting it in plain simple
English.

Energy has been added to the water. If it "came down the
mountain stream" then the Sun carried it up there. Either
way, the kettle on a mountain top is at a higher energy
state than water at atmospheric pressure at sea level.

The lower pressure means that less *additional* energy has
to be added to make it boil. But that energy has been added,
or the water would never boil

Wait a minute, let me back up a step for you. It takes a
fixed amount of energy to raise a given amount of water a
given temp, did you know that? Look up the term "specific
heat" in your dictionary.



|
|
| .... The lower
| atmospheric pressure only means they are able to boil water
| usling fewer BTUs because the boiling point temp is lowered.
|
|
| Hmm... and heat is energy... so therefor, if a propellor
| adds energy to the water, and by doing so lowers the
| pressure enough that the boiling point temp is lowered....


Paladin wrote:

Boiling temp. There's that boil word again. You're still guilty
of using a word that means to add heat.


Heat is energy. Did you know that?

.... You can combine it
with another word but that doesn't change the meaning of
the word boil.



I'm not changing the meaning of the word, I am pointing out
how it is applicable in cases where you don't think it is.



If water can be boiled at a lower temp on a mountain top,
then it can be boiled at a lower temp by a propeller, unless
your dictionary either defines a minimum possible temp or
specifically excludes propellors. Does it? What about in a
balloon far above the mountain top, that would be at a lower
pressure and thus lower temp even yet.... correct?

Now look at the another situation: ever hear of a cracking
column? It is how gasoline and diesel fuel are made. The
official name is "fractional distilling." Look it up in your
dictionary. A cracking column has heated fluid (such as
crude oil) pumped into it and then released into a lower
pressure vessel. Does it boil? You better believe it does,
if it didn't you'd be sitting in the dark instead of reading
this!



... As I argued with Gilligan, and he finally concurred


Actually, I don't think he concurred at all. I think he
preferred to retire from the discussion instead of showing
your folly.


a propeller does not add enough heat to the water to boil it. It
only lowers pressure in some cases enough to vaporize water and
cause cavitation, so to say a propeller boils water is just plain wrong
according to the definition of the verb "to boil".



Wrong

Water (or any fluid) can be boiled at a wide range of temps
& pressures. We agreed on this.

At low pressure, very little heat need be added. You agreed
that it takes less heat to boil water at the top of a
mountain because of the lower pressure. Now you are
insisting that there is some definite ratio of heat added to
pressure reduced or somehow it isn't "boiling."

Is that what your dictionary says? That it's only boiling if
X amount, or greater, of heat is added?



| BTW I can think of a simple test to prove you are or are not
| the Crapton®. Explain, in your own words, the term 'hull speed.'

For a displacement boat, a heavy deep-keel boat, the maximum speed a given hull can attain from wind power is called "hull speed" and is largely dependent on the waterline length of the boat. Hull speed is expressed as 1.34 X the square root of LWL, or length of waterline. If a cruising sailboat has a waterline length of 36 feet, she should be able to sail 1.34 x 6, or approximately eight knots.
http://www.sailnet.com/collections/a...leid=colgat006




I think you're an imposter. The real Crapton® would never
have cribbed an important definition like that.

DSK

Useless propeller
 

"DSK" wrote in message .. .
| | Is electricity the only thing in the universe which will
| | produce heat?
|
|
| Paladin wrote:
|
| No but it's the only thing on earth I know of that has the ability to cause a propeller attached
| to a yacht to boil water.
|
| Really? Ever heard of "fire"? It's the latest technology,
| great for producing heat.

But you can burn a boat to the waterline all day long and it will
never get the water around the propeller to boil. There's just
too much water to heat.

| And now, just to show how truly impossible it is to actually
| teach you something, I will continue to demonstrate how
| wrong you are about "boiling"!

Oh, I just can't wait for yet another display of speculation...

| | | When people who live in the mountains make their tea and/or
| | | coffee, do they boil their water or does the lower
| | | atmospheric pressure mean that they are "vaporizing" it?
| |
| |
| | Paladin wrote:
| | They are adding heat only so they are boiling it.
| |
| | What about the energy expended in carrying it up the
| | mountainside?
|
|
| What if it came down the mountain stream? Your question
| and mine are equally nonsensical as neither are part of
| the equation.
|
| What equation? So far you have insisted that whole issue can
| be explained in plain English. Efforts to introduce math &
| science have been rejected by you in favor of the dictionary
| (and it's not even THE Scrabble Dictionary). Maybe you have
| a problem with math? Anyway, I'm putting it in plain simple
| English.

The equation figurative speaking. You seem to have a real
problem with the English language. You've no imagination,
little comprehension and even less vocabulary. I suppose
I need to use simple 8th grade words so I can communicate
with you.

| Energy has been added to the water. If it "came down the
| mountain stream" then the Sun carried it up there. Either
| way, the kettle on a mountain top is at a higher energy
| state than water at atmospheric pressure at sea level.

Well, whoop-de-doo! You still need to heat the water up
in order to get it to boil.

| The lower pressure means that less *additional* energy has
| to be added to make it boil. But that energy has been added,
| or the water would never boil

Sorry, but energy is to vague a term. What if you put the
water into a container and onto a rail job and took it to
the drag strip and accelerated it to 200mph? It would have
more energy (kinetic) but it would be no closer to boiling.
Stick with "heat" as that's the word used in the definition
of boil. You're confusing yourself with your substituting
energy for heat. Heat is a form of energy but there are
lots of different kinds of energy.

| Wait a minute, let me back up a step for you. It takes a
| fixed amount of energy to raise a given amount of water a
| given temp, did you know that? Look up the term "specific
| heat" in your dictionary.

And what's this sidetrack got to do with boiling water or
more specifically the definition of boiling? If one could
put a cup of water in a rocketship and accelerate it to
99.9% of the speed of light one would be adding almost
infinite energy (E+mc2) but the water would be no closer
to boiling until one added heat. (BTUs). So please get
out of here with all this energy crap. It'll only confuse
you more...

| |
| | .... The lower
| | atmospheric pressure only means they are able to boil water
| | using fewer BTUs because the boiling point temp is lowered.
| |
| |
| | Hmm... and heat is energy... so therefore, if a propeller
| | adds energy to the water, and by doing so lowers the
| | pressure enough that the boiling point temp is lowered....

As I stated above heat is a form of energy but energy isn't
necessarily heat. You seem to equate the two.

If the definition of boil was to heat to the vaporization
point by adding energy as I stated above the cup of water
going 99.9% of the speed of light has almost infinite energy
but is no closer to boiling than it was at rest.

| Paladin wrote:
|
| Boiling temp. There's that boil word again. You're still guilty
| of using a word that means to add heat.
|
| Heat is energy. Did you know that?

Heat is a form or category of energy, yes. Since you seem to
like math equations, here's what you're saying: "Heat = energy."
Like any good math equation this can also be expressed as,
Energy = heat." WRONG! This proves the original equation is
incorrect as well. If you're gonna equate terms they'd damned
well be equal.

| .... You can combine it
| with another word but that doesn't change the meaning of
| the word boil.
|
|
| I'm not changing the meaning of the word, I am pointing out
| how it is applicable in cases where you don't think it is.

And I've pointed out by my 99.9% of C (speed of light) how
wrong you are...

| If water can be boiled at a lower temp on a mountain top,
| then it can be boiled at a lower temp by a propeller,

No, it cannot because the prop doesn't boil the water. The
low pressure zone created by the prop vaporizes water.
What's happening around a prop does not meet the definition
of boil.


| unless
| your dictionary either defines a minimum possible temp or
| specifically excludes propellers. Does it?

Yes, it does exclude propellers as there is no mention of
propellers and it's been made abundantly clear that props
cannot add enough heat to the water to boil it.

| What about in a
| balloon far above the mountain top, that would be at a lower
| pressure and thus lower temp even yet.... correct?

The boiling point of the water would be lower, yes! But,
you still need to add heat to get it to boil...

| Now look at the another situation: ever hear of a cracking
| column? It is how gasoline and diesel fuel are made. The
| official name is "fractional distilling." Look it up in your
| dictionary. A cracking column has heated fluid (such as
| crude oil) pumped into it and then released into a lower
| pressure vessel. Does it boil? You better believe it does,
| if it didn't you'd be sitting in the dark instead of reading
| this!

That's because heat has been added so therefore it boils.
If no heat had been added before the pressure was lowered
it would not boil.

| ... As I argued with Gilligan, and he finally concurred
|
|
| Actually, I don't think he concurred at all. I think he
| preferred to retire from the discussion instead of showing
| your folly.

Wrong! Gilligan has a keen intellect. He was able to see my
point and could not see any way to refute it. After all this
entire discussion is about a dictionary definition. You cannot
argue with words once you accept their definition.

You cannot call vaporization of water boiling of water and
that's what your who argument is attempting to do. Boiling,
by definition, means to vaporize by adding heat and not
to vaporize by lowering pressure...

| a propeller does not add enough heat to the water to boil it. It
| only lowers pressure in some cases enough to vaporize water and
| cause cavitation, so to say a propeller boils water is just plain wrong
| according to the definition of the verb "to boil".
|
|
| Wrong
|
| Water (or any fluid) can be boiled at a wide range of temps
| & pressures. We agreed on this.

Water at sea level upon which a yacht propeller operates cannot
be boiled by a propeller. Never has never will...

| At low pressure, very little heat need be added. You agreed
| that it takes less heat to boil water at the top of a
| mountain because of the lower pressure. Now you are
| insisting that there is some definite ratio of heat added to
| pressure reduced or somehow it isn't "boiling."

We're still talking about lowering pressure and not adding heat,
or at least not enough heat to bring the water to it's boiling point
which is dependent upon the atmospheric pressure at the
propeller. Sure, there is a modicum of heat added because the
water molecules are set in higher motion than before they were
agitated by the prop but this does not make enough heat to raise
the water to its boiling point under more than an atmosphere of
pressure (the depth of the water adds a % of an atmosphere).
As long as we're talking about vaporization via low pressure
we're, by definition, not talking about boiling.

| Is that what your dictionary says? That it's only boiling if
| X amount, or greater, of heat is added?

The dictionary defines boil this way: "to heat or become heated to a temperature (boiling point) at which vapor is formed and rises
in bubbles water ~s and changes to steam..."

|
| | BTW I can think of a simple test to prove you are or are not
| | the Crapton®. Explain, in your own words, the term 'hull speed.'
|
| For a displacement boat, a heavy deep-keel boat, the maximum speed a given hull can attain from wind power is called "hull
speed" and is largely dependent on the waterline length of the boat. Hull speed is expressed as 1.34 X the square root of LWL, or
length of waterline. If a cruising sailboat has a waterline length of 36 feet, she should be able to sail 1.34 x 6, or approximately
eight knots.
| http://www.sailnet.com/collections/a...leid=colgat006
|
| I think you're an imposter. The real Crapton® would never
| have cribbed an important definition like that.

Cribbed? I gave the link. How do you know I'm not Steve Colgate?

Paladin
|


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Useless propeller
 

"Nomen Nescio" wrote in message ...
| Undeniably so. If I were you I'd feel cheated.
|


If you were me you'd be four times more intelligent, five times more
handsome, and ten times richer. (And, you'd have a real news server...)

Paladin

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Useless propeller
 

Paladin, or Gilly?

I see and awful lot of posting about "Boiling water", "Vapors &
vaporization" and I'm yet to see a mention of "Steam".

What is Steam? Is it a Vapor? Is it a Gas? Is it uncondenced liquid?

What is "Humidity?" Is it a Vapor or a Gas?

The Symbol for Water is H2O; Two parts Hydrogen, one part Oxygen, What
is the Symbol for Water Vapor? What is the Symbol for "Relative
Humidity?"

Relating it to Cavitation and "Useless Propeller" , what is the chemical
composition of those bubbles formed in Cavitation?

A bum ASA member is asking the greater MINDS of this discussion?




http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

Useless propeller
 

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message ...
| Paladin, or Gilly?
|
| I see and awful lot of posting about "Boiling water", "Vapors &
| vaporization" and I'm yet to see a mention of "Steam".
|
| What is Steam? Is it a Vapor? Is it a Gas? Is it uncondenced liquid?

Steam is the vapor into which water is turned when heated to boiling.

| What is "Humidity?" Is it a Vapor or a Gas?

Humidity is the amount of atmosphic moisture usually expressed
as a percentage.

| The Symbol for Water is H2O; Two parts Hydrogen, one part Oxygen,
|What is the Symbol for Water Vapor?

H2O

|What is the Symbol for "Relative Humidity?"

Has an abreviation --- R.H. but, doesn't have a symbol as relative humidity is the
actual vapor density divided by the saturation vapor density times 100%

| Relating it to Cavitation and "Useless Propeller" , what is the chemical
| composition of those bubbles formed in Cavitation?

That's a difficult question as the bubbles contain water vapor, NaCl,
CaCl, some metal particals or ions from the propeller, some diatoms
and copapods, algae, etc. etc.

| A bum ASA member is asking the greater MINDS of this discussion?

Greater minds? That would certainly include me.

Paladin

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Useless propeller
 

DSK wrote:
| Is electricity the only thing in the universe which will
| produce heat?


Paladin wrote:

No but it's the only thing on earth I know of that has the ability to cause a propeller attached
to a yacht to boil water.




Really? Ever heard of "fire"? It's the latest technology,
great for producing heat.



And now, just to show how truly impossible it is to actually
teach you something, I will continue to demonstrate how
wrong you are about "boiling"!

Doug - remember the adage about pigs & singing.

PDW

Useless propeller
 

"Non scrivetemi" wrote in message
tonsmith.info...


And another aside, this is all pretty much academic quibbling anyway,
as the original disagreement was about cavitation.

What is the temperature inside of those cavitation bubbles when they
collapse?


Which doesn't have
anything to do with water vapor at face value. It can, but it can also
be other gaseous bubbling that produces cavitation as it does in low
pressure home plumbing when water from a smaller pipe is fed into a
larger pipe.

Nozzles!


:)

Useless propeller
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:42:47 -0400, "Paladin" noneofyourbusiness.www
wrote:


"DSK" wrote in message
...
| | Is electricity the only thing in the universe which will
| | produce heat?
|
|
| Paladin wrote:
|
| No but it's the only thing on earth I know of that has the ability to
cause a propeller attached
| to a yacht to boil water.
|
| Really? Ever heard of "fire"? It's the latest technology,
| great for producing heat.

But you can burn a boat to the waterline all day long and it will
never get the water around the propeller to boil. There's just
too much water to heat.


Ever do any underwater welding with a torch?

I certainly hope you were using a Whitworth torch.

Max

Useless propeller
 

Paladin wrote:
As long as we're talking about vaporization via low pressure
we're, by definition, not talking about boiling.


Nobody except you is istalking about vaporization via low
pressure. Everybody else seems to grasp the concept of
specific heat, heat being a form of energy, and
pressure/phase relationships. In other words, everybody but
you has a grasp of high school physics, which ia why I'm
still trying to explain it to you while everybody else has
moved on.


| Is that what your dictionary says? That it's only boiling if
| X amount, or greater, of heat is added?

Paladin wrote:
The dictionary defines boil this way: "to heat or become heated to a temperature (boiling point) at which vapor is formed and rises
in bubbles water ~s and changes to steam..."


But the water boils with less heat added when on a mountain
top, correct? That means that the *amount* of heat to be
added is not the determining factor in whether it is
boiling. It can be greater or lesser.

Unless your dictionary defines a minimum amount of heat to
be added, which it doesn't, then you cannot exclude
vaporizing fluid under circumstances of reduced pressure
from the term "boiling."

Just like your attempt to claim that your dictionary
definition excludes propellors as devices for boiling, on
which subject it is silent.... you just make stuff up.


| I think you're an imposter. The real Crapton® would never
| have cribbed an important definition like that.


Paladin wrote:
Cribbed? I gave the link. How do you know I'm not Steve Colgate?


I've met Steve Colgate.

DSK

Useless propeller
 

Peter wrote:
Doug - remember the adage about pigs & singing.


At this point, the pig is not only singing but also
tap-dancing. I happen to think it's funny, but then I have
low tastes.

DSK

Useless propeller
 

Our distresses being at an end, I now determined to rest the men in camp and
give the scientific department of the Expedition a chance. First I made a
barometric observation, to get our altitude, but I could not perceive that
there was any result.
I knew, by my scientific reading, that either thermometers or barometers
ought to be boiled, to make them accurate; I did not know which it was, so I
boiled both. There was still no result, so I examined these instruments and
discovered that they possessed radical blemishes: the barometer had no hand
but the brass pointer, and the ball of the thermometer was stuffed with tin
foil. I might have boiled those things to rags and never found out anything.

I hunted up another barometer: it was new and perfect. I boiled it half an
hour in a pot of bean soup which the cooks were making. The result was
unexpected: the instrument was not affected at all, but there was such a
strong barometer taste to the soup that the head cook, who was a most
conscientious person, changed its name in the bill of fare. The dish was so
greatly liked by all, that I ordered the cook to have barometer soup every
day. It was believed that the barometer might eventually be injured, but I
did not care for that.

I had demonstrated to my satisfaction that it could not tell how high a
mountain was: therefore I had no real use for it. Changes of the weather I
could take care of without it. I did not wish to know when the weather was
going to he good: what I wanted to know was when it was going to be bad, and
this I could find out from Harris's corns. Harris had had his corns tested
and regulated at the government observatory in Heidelberg, and one could
depend upon them with confidence.

So I transferred the new barometer to the cooking department to be used for
the official mess. It was found that even a pretty fair article of 'soup
could be made with the defective barometer: so I allowed that one to be
transferred to the subordinate messes.

I next boiled the thermometer, and got a most excellent result: the mercury
went up to about 200° F. In the opinion of the other scientists of the
Expedition, this seemed to indicate that we had attained the extraordinary
altitude of' 200,000 feet above sea level. Science places the line of
eternal snow at about 10,000 feet above sea level. There was no snow where
we were. Consequently it was proven that the eternal snow line ceases
somewhere above the 10,000 feet level and does not begin any more. This was
an interesting fact, and one which had not been observed by any observer
before

The success of my last experiment induced me to try an experiment with my
photographic apparatus. I got it out, and boiled one of my cameras, but the
thing was a failu it made the wood swell up and burst, and I could not
see that the lenses were any better than they were before..

We continued on up the mountain. The difficulties of the next morning were
severe. but our courage was high, for our goal was near. At noon we
conquered the last impediment - we stood at last upon the summit - and
without the loss of a single man, except the mule that ate the glycerine.
Our great achievement was achieved - the possibility of the impossible was
demonstrated.

Useless propeller
 

Oh Boy,
a lot of double talk, off topic rambling, lord knows what amount of
nonsense theory and yet no explanation of why a 2 blade propeller is
useless.

I don't know why a 4 blade fixed is a better propeller for a sail boat
(S) Guess I never will (g) So, rather than be a PITA, I'll retire from
this discussion.

I'll discuss Middle East Politics with my Dog. At lest we'll stay on
TOPIC (G)

Signing Off




http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

Useless propeller
 

Thom Stewart wrote:
Oh Boy,
a lot of double talk, off topic rambling, lord knows what amount of
nonsense theory and yet no explanation of why a 2 blade propeller is
useless.

I have two folding props and for ordinary weekend warrior heavy
weather there is no problem. However, in situations where the boat
can surf down large seas and achieve speeds greatly in excess of the
intended prop range, the water pressure will try to close the props.
However, in these cases you ordinarily would not be relying on the
engines. I've had it happen on two occasions, once when crossing Lake
Ontario with the mast down - it was downwind with 8-10 short chop
behind us and we were surfing up to 13+ knots. The other was also a
following sea - 8-10 foot swells on the beam with with 6 foot chop
from the 25+ wind on the stern. I ran the engines to make it easier
to control while reefing (my crew was quite under the weather at this
point) and again found that surfing would make the props act funny.

In cases where we've had to power against large waves, we don't
achieve the speeds that would cause this problem.



I don't know why a 4 blade fixed is a better propeller for a sail boat
(S) Guess I never will (g)

I thought this was a quiz. Why are you asserting that a 4 blade is
"better"? BC was just trolling with his post - he really has no idea.


So, rather than be a PITA, I'll retire from
this discussion.

You give up too easy.


I'll discuss Middle East Politics with my Dog. At lest we'll stay on
TOPIC (G)

Signing Off




http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

Useless propeller
 

"George Orwell" wrote in message ...
| Paladin wrote:
|
|
| "Nomen Nescio" wrote in message ...
| | Undeniably so. If I were you I'd feel cheated.
| |
|
|
| If you were me you'd be four times more intelligent, five times more
| handsome, and ten times richer.
|
| Relative to what? A garden slug?
|
| I couldn't give away that many IQ points on a bad day even if I had
| a case of swill you're on, my dog would commit suicide if I came home
| looking half a butt ugly as the best looking member of your banjo
| strumming inbred family, and I've ****ed away more money at the
| matinee stuffing fivers between your wife's floppy titties than you
| make in a year and a half at the truck stop.
|
| Your limp dick caliber of "wit" doesn't impress me at all sonny. You're
| not my equal in a battle of fact OR flame, and we can all see that. So
| just belly crawl back under whatever dung heap you call home base
| before I make it a 10 minute project to **** really hard in your
| Cheerios instead of givin' you little love spanks across the cheeks
| with it.
|

Whoa! Move over George Carlin...

Paladin

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Useless propeller
 

Thom, saturated steam is a vapor. Superheated steam is a gas.
Both have the symbol H2O.
Both are uncondensed liquid if you appreciate that most gases turn to liquid
if you cool them enough.
Humidity is not any substance. It is a measure of the amount of water vapor
in the air.
Relative humidity is the ratio betweeen the amount of water vapor in the air
(at a given temperature) and the amount that would give 100% humidity.
(100% humidity is the maximum the air could hold at that temperature without
producing condensation.)

Re your question about the composition of cavitation bubbles I give a
personal opinion that they are mostly air. Water contains dissolved air
(otherwise fishes could not breathe) and when the action of the propeller
blades reduces the pressure some air has to come out of solution and shows
as bubbles. All that talk about boiling is just BS.
IMO
Edgar

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Paladin, or Gilly?

I see and awful lot of posting about "Boiling water", "Vapors &
vaporization" and I'm yet to see a mention of "Steam".

What is Steam? Is it a Vapor? Is it a Gas? Is it uncondenced liquid?

What is "Humidity?" Is it a Vapor or a Gas?

The Symbol for Water is H2O; Two parts Hydrogen, one part Oxygen, What
is the Symbol for Water Vapor? What is the Symbol for "Relative
Humidity?"

Relating it to Cavitation and "Useless Propeller" , what is the chemical
composition of those bubbles formed in Cavitation?

A bum ASA member is asking the greater MINDS of this discussion?




http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

Useless propeller
 

"Edgar" wrote in message . ..
| Thom, saturated steam is a vapor. Superheated steam is a gas.
| Both have the symbol H2O.
| Both are uncondensed liquid if you appreciate that most gases turn to liquid
| if you cool them enough.
| Humidity is not any substance. It is a measure of the amount of water vapor
| in the air.
| Relative humidity is the ratio betweeen the amount of water vapor in the air
| (at a given temperature) and the amount that would give 100% humidity.
| (100% humidity is the maximum the air could hold at that temperature without
| producing condensation.)
|
| Re your question about the composition of cavitation bubbles I give a
| personal opinion that they are mostly air. Water contains dissolved air
| (otherwise fishes could not breathe) and when the action of the propeller
| blades reduces the pressure some air has to come out of solution and shows
| as bubbles. All that talk about boiling is just BS.
| IMO
| Edgar


B.S. is right. Check it out, folks (DSK, in particular) Edgar represents another informed mind.

Paladin

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Useless propeller
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Thom Stewart wrote:
Oh Boy,
a lot of double talk, off topic rambling, lord knows what amount of
nonsense theory and yet no explanation of why a 2 blade propeller is
useless.

I have two folding props and for ordinary weekend warrior heavy weather
there is no problem. However, in situations where the boat can surf down
large seas and achieve speeds greatly in excess of the intended prop
range, the water pressure will try to close the props. However, in these
cases you ordinarily would not be relying on the engines. I've had it
happen on two occasions, once when crossing Lake Ontario with the mast
down - it was downwind with 8-10 short chop behind us and we were surfing
up to 13+ knots. The other was also a following sea - 8-10 foot swells on
the beam with with 6 foot chop from the 25+ wind on the stern. I ran the
engines to make it easier to control while reefing (my crew was quite
under the weather at this point) and again found that surfing would make
the props act funny.

In cases where we've had to power against large waves, we don't achieve
the speeds that would cause this problem.



I don't know why a 4 blade fixed is a better propeller for a sail boat
(S) Guess I never will (g)

I thought this was a quiz. Why are you asserting that a 4 blade is
"better"? BC was just trolling with his post - he really has no idea.


Don't four blades have a greater Diameter Area Ratio than 2 or 3 blade
props. Doesn't the greater DAR give greater thrust?

Useless propeller
 

"Borked Pseudo Mailed" wrote in message d.net...
| Paladin wrote:
|
|
| "George Orwell" wrote in message ...
| | Paladin wrote:
| |
| |
| | "Nomen Nescio" wrote in message ...
| | | Undeniably so. If I were you I'd feel cheated.
| | |
| |
| |
| | If you were me you'd be four times more intelligent, five times more
| | handsome, and ten times richer.
| |
| | Relative to what? A garden slug?
| |
| | I couldn't give away that many IQ points on a bad day even if I had
| | a case of swill you're on, my dog would commit suicide if I came home
| | looking half a butt ugly as the best looking member of your banjo
| | strumming inbred family, and I've ****ed away more money at the
| | matinee stuffing fivers between your wife's floppy titties than you
| | make in a year and a half at the truck stop.
| |
| | Your limp dick caliber of "wit" doesn't impress me at all sonny. You're
| | not my equal in a battle of fact OR flame, and we can all see that. So
| | just belly crawl back under whatever dung heap you call home base
| | before I make it a 10 minute project to **** really hard in your
| | Cheerios instead of givin' you little love spanks across the cheeks
| | with it.
| |
|
| Whoa! Move over George Carlin...
|
| All your adolescent chest puffing about being superior and this is the
| very best you could come up with?


Don't confuse best with as much time as it's worth...

Paladin

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Useless propeller
 

Gilligan wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
I don't know why a 4 blade fixed is a better propeller for a sail boat
(S) Guess I never will (g)
I thought this was a quiz. Why are you asserting that a 4 blade is
"better"? BC was just trolling with his post - he really has no idea.


Don't four blades have a greater Diameter Area Ratio than 2 or 3 blade
props. Doesn't the greater DAR give greater thrust?


I think you mean "Disk Area Ratio." It is certainly easier to have a
larger DAR with a 4-blade prop, and that generally implies more thrust
in a low speed application.

But it does not necessarily follow that this is better for any boat
other than a tugboat.

Useless propeller
 

Jeff,

At surfing speeds or for that matter, any high Hull speeds you shouldn't
be using your engine. If you wanted as a back up, you should have had
the engine running at Idle an in "NEUTRAL" That would have kept the
Prop Blades Folded, eliminating Prop resistance. If you were motoring
without sails and surfing, You could adjusted course to prevent surfing.
I can believe the situation you describe and I bet it was a "Kick-In-the
Ass"! The folding Prop was doing just what it was supposed to do
(Eliminate drag) If you were traveling without a Mast you should have
been "Throttle Jockeying" and when you were going fast enough to effect
the prop blades, you should have been cutting back on the throttle. I'm
sure you were doing just that but even if you weren't the Prop would
have taken care of it self. May be causing a PITA engine cycling but
wouldn't be any worst than a fixed Prop cycle with the change of prop
resistance.

You do bring up a good point though, would you consider it anymore
"Useless" than a fixed Prop under these same condition?




http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage