Ellie C

Hatunen wrote:

    > On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:48:30 GMT, devil <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 04:07:35 -0700, Jeremy wrote:
    >>>[email protected] (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn) wrote in message news:<1gm18tj.2ho02p1bmv7k7N%this_address_is_for_s [email protected]>...
    >>>>Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>Ellie C writes:
    >>>>>>>Humidity changes everything. Edges become blurrier, aerial
    >>>>>>>perspetive has more effect the higher the humidity.
    >>>>>>Water vapor is invisible.
    >>>>>What were those white puffy things I saw in the sky today?
    >>>>Mxsmanic is, in fact, correct.
    >>>>David
    >>>Correct in the narrow sense that what he said is, in isolation, true.
    >>>Incorrect in the larger sense that, as he might put it "I am unable to
    >>>find the words 'water vapor' in Ellie's post".
    >>>Humidity obviously has an effect, as it implies a greater likelihood
    >>>that condensation will occur locally, with the consequences described
    >>>by Ellie.
    >>>Mixup is playing his usual infantile game of deliberately
    >>>misunderstanding the point of a posting in order to create an
    >>>argument. A poor substitute for a life, but there ya go...
    >>It's more complex than that. Humidity can have an effect in the form of
    >>fog obviously (which is more or less what we are talking about here).
    >
    >
    > Are we? All of us?
    >
    > I don't often agree with Mxxx but I do here. Humidity is water
    > vapor and it is transparent (not, as Mxxx seems to belirve,
    > invisible).

I think we'd all agree that clear glass is transparent. Look through one
pane of glass and it seems to be so. Look through two layered togther
and the same is true. Add another, and another, and another. Keep doing
this and soon you'll have enough layers of glass so that they no longer
seem completely transparent.

nitram

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:46:32 +0200, Ellie C <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> Ellie C writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>>... I see the sun rising over the hill where Rennes le Chateau is.
    >>
    >>
    >> Doesn't the hill catch fire?
    >>
    >Every morning. And again at sunset.

and twice on Sundays :-)

It didn't catch fire the last time I was there, it was much too wet.
In fact it was a bit like the weather here today.
web cam here http://213.84.90.101/


So, do you spend your days painting sunsets Ellie?

Have you a website full of your work?
--
Martin

Ellie C

Frank F. Matthews wrote:
    > Ellie C wrote:
    >
    >> Mxsmanic wrote:
    >>> devil writes:
    >
    >
    >>>> What you see is freshly formed condensate. In contrast, one of the
    >>>> things
    >>>> that make superheated steam more dangerous than saturated steam is that
    >>>> since it takes some cooling until it would condense, it's invisible.
    >
    >
    >>> One of my relatives used to work around superheated steam and considered
    >>> it extremely dangerous, since it could be leaking from the system and
    >>> you wouldn't know it until you walked through the leak and had your
    >>> flesh burned away.
    >
    >
    >> You may call it "freshly formed condensate" but for most people,
    >> "water vapor" refers to visible droplets of water in the air. And
    >> that's what we were talking about - the humidity that changes how
    >> things look.
    >
    >
    > There's always a problem with folks who use technical terms carelessly.
    > I've heard that priests complain when politicians refer to evil.
    >

Sometimes technical terms become common terms, and other times it works
the other way arouns - a common term can be given a particular meaning
in a technical context because of the need for preciseness in
terminology. Some people can have a hard time distinguishing between the
two, evidently, or - heaven forbid - they could be trying to show off
and make themselves feel smart. Nah... Couldn't possibly be that. ;-)

nitram

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:58:47 +0200, Ellie C <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Frank F. Matthews wrote:
    >> Ellie C wrote:
    >>
    >>> Mxsmanic wrote:
    >>>> devil writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>> What you see is freshly formed condensate. In contrast, one of the
    >>>>> things
    >>>>> that make superheated steam more dangerous than saturated steam is that
    >>>>> since it takes some cooling until it would condense, it's invisible.
    >>
    >>
    >>>> One of my relatives used to work around superheated steam and considered
    >>>> it extremely dangerous, since it could be leaking from the system and
    >>>> you wouldn't know it until you walked through the leak and had your
    >>>> flesh burned away.
    >>
    >>
    >>> You may call it "freshly formed condensate" but for most people,
    >>> "water vapor" refers to visible droplets of water in the air. And
    >>> that's what we were talking about - the humidity that changes how
    >>> things look.
    >>
    >>
    >> There's always a problem with folks who use technical terms carelessly.
    >> I've heard that priests complain when politicians refer to evil.
    >>
    >Sometimes technical terms become common terms, and other times it works
    >the other way arouns - a common term can be given a particular meaning
    >in a technical context because of the need for preciseness in
    >terminology. Some people can have a hard time distinguishing between the
    >two, evidently, or - heaven forbid - they could be trying to show off
    >and make themselves feel smart. Nah... Couldn't possibly be that. ;-)

as if? -)

Could be just utterly confused :-)
--
Martin

Hatunen

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:50:20 +0200, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Deep Frayed Morgues writes:
    >> Wouldn't that mean that it is NOT invisible?
    >It's invisible to human eyes and visual imaging devices.

I suggest that if you were to release a some failry dense gas,
including water vapor, inot the vauum of space you would see
alterations in the stars behnd the stream of gases.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:50:46 +0200, Ellie C
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >I think we'd all agree that clear glass is transparent. Look through one
    >pane of glass and it seems to be so. Look through two layered togther
    >and the same is true. Add another, and another, and another. Keep doing
    >this and soon you'll have enough layers of glass so that they no longer
    >seem completely transparent.

Most glass is green; try looking inot the edge of a sheet of
glass.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:45:46 +0200, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Hatunen writes:
    >> Wrong.
    >Well, that's certainly persuasive.

I'm not trying to persuade you.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:52:58 +0200, Ellie C
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:56:17 +0200, Ellie C <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Mxsmanic wrote:
    >>>>Ellie C writes:
    >>>>>Maybe not if your taking photos, but it sure makes a difference
    >>>>>when you're looking at the sunset.
    >>>>What difference is that?
    >>>>>Humidity changes everything. Edges become blurrier, aerial
    >>>>>perspetive has more effect the higher the humidity.
    >>>>Water vapor is invisible.
    >>>THen I must be having hallucinations when the hills disappear because of
    >>>little droplets of water. I wonder why people buy fog lights. I wonder
    >>>what that stuff is that makes it hard to see through my windshield on
    >>>rainy days. Why do weather reports talk of visibility?
    >>>What are you drinking?
    >>
    >>
    >> I'm suffering from a bit of elementary scientific education about 50
    >> years ago.
    >>
    >> Most things have three states solid, liquid and gas
    >>
    >> For H2O
    >>
    >> solid = ice
    >> liquid =water
    >> gaseous = steam.
    >If you had also payed attention in language classes you might have
    >learned that words and phrases often have formal and informal meanings,
    >and you'd know how to recognize the proper meaning by context. Or maybe
    >not...

And if you are properly educated you know how to recognize when
the formal and informal usages are appropriate. We all know that
many people think that the cloud emerging from a boiling teapot
is water vapor, or even steam, so it's not a matter of
recognizing informal usages.

But in stating that wator vapor in the atmosphere can influence
sunsets and the appearance of distant objects, you must account
for both versions, and that is best done by beign clear which is
which.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:18:15 +0200, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Hatunen writes:
    >> I suggest that if you were to release a some failry dense gas,
    >> including water vapor, inot the vauum of space you would see
    >> alterations in the stars behnd the stream of gases.
    >Actually, no, you wouldn't. You need localized, sharp gradients in
    >refractive indices to see noticeable distortions.

Um. That's what I'm talking about. BTW, during my career as a
power plant construction engineer I've seen steamline blowdowns,
and beleive me, the st4eam is quite visible.

    >Relative humidity
    >provides neither of these, and a gas of any density in space doesn't
    >either.

You are aware that sunsets seen from low orbit are affected by
the atmosphere, and look quite different from sunsets on airless
bodies, due to the refraction of the air?

    >Note that water vapor is lighter than dry air.

And...?

I mentioned that elsewhere.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:15:32 +0200, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Ellie C writes:
    >> I think we'd all agree that clear glass is transparent. Look through one
    >> pane of glass and it seems to be so. Look through two layered togther
    >> and the same is true. Add another, and another, and another. Keep doing
    >> this and soon you'll have enough layers of glass so that they no longer
    >> seem completely transparent.
    >That depends on the kind of glass.

Almost all glasses have a color when you look in them edgewise,
but not necessarily quartz.

Note that "glass" is technical term for a wide variety of
amorphous, brittle substances, e.g., obsidian, which is scarcely
transparent at all; I trust we are only dealing here with the
types of glass used to provide "windows".

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Mxsmanic

Ellie C writes:

    > Some people can have a hard time distinguishing between the
    > two, evidently, or - heaven forbid - they could be trying to show off
    > and make themselves feel smart.

And sometimes people really do know what they are talking about.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

Ellie C writes:

    > You need to have your eyes examined, or you have to learn to look with
    > your eyes instead of your preconceptions. Painting in the desert is very
    > different from painting in the humid southeast of the US - humidity
    > makes colors in the distance become less saturated and bluer, makes
    > edges less distinct.

That's not humidity.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

Ellie C writes:

    > I think we'd all agree that clear glass is transparent. Look through one
    > pane of glass and it seems to be so. Look through two layered togther
    > and the same is true. Add another, and another, and another. Keep doing
    > this and soon you'll have enough layers of glass so that they no longer
    > seem completely transparent.

That depends on the kind of glass.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

Hatunen writes:

    > I suggest that if you were to release a some failry dense gas,
    > including water vapor, inot the vauum of space you would see
    > alterations in the stars behnd the stream of gases.

Actually, no, you wouldn't. You need localized, sharp gradients in
refractive indices to see noticeable distortions. Relative humidity
provides neither of these, and a gas of any density in space doesn't
either.

Note that water vapor is lighter than dry air.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Jeremy Henderson

On 2004-10-23 12:19:14 +0200, [email protected]
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn) said:

    > Jeremy Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2004-10-23 10:22:07 +0200, [email protected]
    >> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn) said:
    >>
    >>> Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> No. He's correct in the sense that he is, well, correct.
    >>
    >> But irrelevant, since the OP didn't mention water vapour.
    >
    > Yes, the OP did. Think about it.
    >
    > David

Just go look:

Ellie C wrote:

    > Humidity changes everything. Edges become blurrier, aerial
    > perspetive has more effect the higher the humidity.

Mixup replied:

Water vapor is invisible.


--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG