"jt" wrote in message ...
I'd love to see any documents that prove this!

Bob must have contributed to OT post in the past, as he is in my kill file,
thus, I didnt see his post.

But if he would have quoted my entire reply, it would have shown I already
stated what he is now repeating.

No harm...take care.


--
-Netsock

"It's just about going fast...that's all..."
http://home.insight.rr.com/cgreen/



"Bob Dimond" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Netsock" wrote:


Wind could speed the process up, but remember, "wind chill effect" has
no
effect on inanimate objects. If its 33 degrees out, and there is a 50
mph
wind against the side of your engine, the engine temp would never go
below
33 degrees.


Close, but not completely true. Wind chill is not confined to living or
animate objects. It is related to evaporative cooling. Animals
radiate heat and moisture, as the moisture evaporates, temperature is
reduced. The wind hastens this process resulting in lower than ambient
temperatures.

If any object has moisture on its surface, it will be impacted by wind
chill.

Hmmm...

JT wasn't very specific , so I'm not sure if he doesn't subscribe to my
interpretation of wind chill, or if he doesn't believe in the concept of
evaporative cooling.

JT's statement made me question myself and look up wind chill. It seems
there may be multiple definitions for wind chill. One is not related
to an actual surface temperature, but a sensory perception of heat loss
that would apply only to living objects. The other is measuring
temperature loss resulting from moisture evaporating off of an object.
My guess is there's even a third definition which combines the two.

I've always though of wind chill as being the product of evaporative
cooling, but apparently that definition may be too narrow.

Don't know why I'm in Netsocks file, but I guess it really doesn't
matter. To the best of my recollection, I have rarely, if ever posted
off topic to any group, with the only ****ing contests I've gotten into
being started by others, who seem more hell bent on being right than
seeking any sort of truth.

As for my initial posting on this thread, I had overlooked Netsock's
clarification which followed the statement I made comment upon. When I
re-read his post I had discovered my error, and had canceled the
article, but apparently my news server does not support that feature.

My apologies.

Bob Dimond



In article ,
"Netsock" wrote:

"jt" wrote in message ...
I'd love to see any documents that prove this!

Bob must have contributed to OT post in the past, as he is in my kill file,
thus, I didnt see his post.

But if he would have quoted my entire reply, it would have shown I already
stated what he is now repeating.

No harm...take care.


--
-Netsock

Hi, I'm new around here. Bought myself a boat so I guess I can start typing
OT topic as well ;-) Although, this one started on topic :-)

There is another explanation for wind chill (I come from Québec so we have
more days with wind chill factor than with heat humidex :-( ).

Take a DRY object at room temperature and put outside at 0 Celcius with calm
wind and put another one outside with gusting wind. Guess which one will
reach 0 Celcius first? The one with gusting winds. Why? Because the ambiant
heat around it will dissipate faster when its windy than when it's calm,
hence cooling the object faster..

"Bob Dimond" wrote in message
...
Hmmm...

JT wasn't very specific , so I'm not sure if he doesn't subscribe to my
interpretation of wind chill, or if he doesn't believe in the concept of
evaporative cooling.

JT's statement made me question myself and look up wind chill. It seems
there may be multiple definitions for wind chill. One is not related
to an actual surface temperature, but a sensory perception of heat loss
that would apply only to living objects. The other is measuring
temperature loss resulting from moisture evaporating off of an object.
My guess is there's even a third definition which combines the two.

I've always though of wind chill as being the product of evaporative
cooling, but apparently that definition may be too narrow.

Don't know why I'm in Netsocks file, but I guess it really doesn't
matter. To the best of my recollection, I have rarely, if ever posted
off topic to any group, with the only ****ing contests I've gotten into
being started by others, who seem more hell bent on being right than
seeking any sort of truth.

As for my initial posting on this thread, I had overlooked Netsock's
clarification which followed the statement I made comment upon. When I
re-read his post I had discovered my error, and had canceled the
article, but apparently my news server does not support that feature.

My apologies.

Bob Dimond



In article ,
"Netsock" wrote:

"jt" wrote in message
...
I'd love to see any documents that prove this!

Bob must have contributed to OT post in the past, as he is in my kill
file,
thus, I didnt see his post.

But if he would have quoted my entire reply, it would have shown I
already
stated what he is now repeating.

No harm...take care.


--
-Netsock

Makes sense to me.

In article ,
"Sylvain Gagnon" wrote:



Hi, I'm new around here. Bought myself a boat so I guess I can start typing
OT topic as well ;-) Although, this one started on topic :-)

There is another explanation for wind chill (I come from Québec so we have
more days with wind chill factor than with heat humidex :-( ).

Take a DRY object at room temperature and put outside at 0 Celcius with calm
wind and put another one outside with gusting wind. Guess which one will
reach 0 Celcius first? The one with gusting winds. Why? Because the ambiant
heat around it will dissipate faster when its windy than when it's calm,
hence cooling the object faster..