Ellie C

[email protected] wrote:
    > 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?
Actually, I rarely paint sunsets since they are so fleeting. I do have a
website full of my work: http://www.ellieclemens.com

Ellie C

Hatunen wrote:

    > 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 *
Yes, I noticed that long ago.

Ellie C

Hatunen wrote:

    >
    > 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.

I actually said that "humidity" affected the way things look. Then
Mixmanic said that water vapor is invisible (or something like that)
thus bringing up the term in the previous context. And I don't care what
you call it. Edges are blurrier, colors are bluer when it's humid. I'm
an empiricist at heart. ;-)

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

Ellie C

Mxsmanic wrote:

    > 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.
    >
What's not humidity? These visual effects occur when the air is humid.
If you were interested in imparting - rather than flaunting - some
particular knowledge you might have about this then you could have said,
back at the beginning, something like, "Well, yes, it does seem that
these changes are caused by himidity, but in fact there's an interesting
other phenomenon, concurrent with himidity, that is actually the cause,
and here's what it is. [insert explanation here]. Isn't that fascinating?"

Ellie C

Jeremy Henderson wrote:

    > On 2004-10-24 08:03:47 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]> said:
    >
    >> Jeremy Henderson writes:
    >>> Girls look prettier when the temperature is high ...
    >> Do they? I don't consider sweat attractive.
    >
    >
    > Plus they smell more - stale perfume, tobacco, sex ... wonderful.
    >
    > J;
;-) Hmmm. A question, though - Do you actually find the tobacco smell of
a smoker attractive? Since quitting smoking, about 20 years ago, I found
that smokers started to smell - well - I'll just be kind and say
"unattractive".

Jeremy Henderson

On 2004-10-25 08:13:04 +0200, Ellie C <[email protected]> said:

    > [email protected] wrote:
    >>
    >> Have you a website full of your work?
    > Actually, I rarely paint sunsets since they are so fleeting. I do have
    > a website full of my work: http://www.ellieclemens.com

You're new around here, ainch?! You're supposed to drop coy clues to
the URL of your website into the discussion, along with false leads.

Nice paintings, though.

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

Jeremy Henderson

On 2004-10-25 08:33:24 +0200, Ellie C <[email protected]> said:

    > Jeremy Henderson wrote:
    >
    >> On 2004-10-24 08:03:47 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]> said:
    >>
    >>> Jeremy Henderson writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Girls look prettier when the temperature is high ...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Do they? I don't consider sweat attractive.
    >>
    >>
    >> Plus they smell more - stale perfume, tobacco, sex ... wonderful.
    >>
    >> J;
    > ;-) Hmmm. A question, though - Do you actually find the tobacco smell
    > of a smoker attractive? Since quitting smoking, about 20 years ago, I
    > found that smokers started to smell - well - I'll just be kind and say
    > "unattractive".

Just teasing Mixup :-) I'm waiting for him to tell me that smelling of
sex isn't attractive.

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

nitram

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 08:13:04 +0200, Ellie C <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >> 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?
    >Actually, I rarely paint sunsets since they are so fleeting. I do have a
    >website full of my work: http://www.ellieclemens.com

a real artist :-)
--
Martin

nitram

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:04:32 +0200, Jeremy Henderson <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >On 2004-10-25 08:13:04 +0200, Ellie C <[email protected]> said:
    >> [email protected] wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Have you a website full of your work?
    >> Actually, I rarely paint sunsets since they are so fleeting. I do have
    >> a website full of my work: http://www.ellieclemens.com
    >You're new around here, ainch?! You're supposed to drop coy clues to
    >the URL of your website into the discussion, along with false leads.
    >Nice paintings, though.

Yes really nice. BUT is this the real website or should we be looking
at the sig on the paintings and googling for the real website :-)

Oh my gawd it works! :-)
--
Martin

Ellie C

Jeremy Henderson wrote:
    > On 2004-10-25 08:13:04 +0200, Ellie C <[email protected]> said:
    >
    >> [email protected] wrote:
    >>> Have you a website full of your work?
    >> Actually, I rarely paint sunsets since they are so fleeting. I do have
    >> a website full of my work: http://www.ellieclemens.com
    >
    >
    > You're new around here, ainch?! You're supposed to drop coy clues to the
    > URL of your website into the discussion, along with false leads.
    >
    > Nice paintings, though.
    >
    > J;
I've been here off and on for a few years, but more off than on. I
hadn't picked up on the coy hiding of URL's. ;-)

nitram

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:45:15 +0200, Ellie C <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Jeremy Henderson wrote:
    >> On 2004-10-25 08:13:04 +0200, Ellie C <[email protected]> said:
    >>
    >>> [email protected] wrote:
    >>>> Have you a website full of your work?
    >>> Actually, I rarely paint sunsets since they are so fleeting. I do have
    >>> a website full of my work: http://www.ellieclemens.com
    >>
    >>
    >> You're new around here, ainch?! You're supposed to drop coy clues to the
    >> URL of your website into the discussion, along with false leads.
    >>
    >> Nice paintings, though.
    >>
    >> J;
    >I've been here off and on for a few years, but more off than on. I
    >hadn't picked up on the coy hiding of URL's. ;-)

Off you go then .... :-)
--
Martin

Mxsmanic

Ellie C writes:

    > What's not humidity? These visual effects occur when the air is humid.

No, they occur when there is liquid water or other non-gaseous matter in
the atmosphere.

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

Hatunen

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:06:11 +0200, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Hatunen writes:
    >> Um. That's what I'm talking about.
    >Perhaps, but they are not a feature of normal weather.
    >> BTW, during my career as a power plant construction
    >> engineer I've seen steamline blowdowns, and beleive
    >> me, the st4eam is quite visible.
    >Steamline blowdowns are not a part of normal terrestrial meteorology.

Really? I didn't know that.

So, I guess you are willing to modify your claim as to the
invisibilty of water vapor and steam to restrict its validity to
meteorological phenomena..


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

Hatunen

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:02:48 +0200, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Hatunen writes:
    >> Almost all glasses have a color when you look in them edgewise,
    >> but not necessarily quartz.
    >The glasses used for optical fibers don't.

Thus the deliberate use of the qualifier "almost all". But are
you very sure about optical fiber glass? It is transparent enough
to use as a fiber optic, but I suspect in long enough lengths it
too will show some color or dimness. The history of fiber optics
has been one of searching for ever less absorptive glasses.

    >You can look through
    >kilometres of that glass and see no color at all. In fact, if the ocean
    >were filled with that glass instead of water, you'd easily be able to
    >see the bottom, and it would be lit with sunshine.

Well, that puts a limit on it, but I suspect it still has an
absorption.

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

Hatunen

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 03:30:59 +0100,
[email protected] (chancellor of the duchy of
besses o' th' barn) wrote:

    >Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> 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.
    >As a non-specialist, I wouldn't mind being persuaded. All the googling I
    >do comes up with "water vapo(u)r is invisible" and "water vapo(u)r is
    >transparent to light" and so on- that's on sites that seem fairly up on
    >the subject. So, assuming this isn't just an exercise in semantics,
    >what's the deal?

Have you checked for the absorption curves in a physics handbook?

Consider, for instance, that water has a color.

For instance, water and water vapor are quite opaque across much
of the infrared sepectrum. Meteorologically, this is quite
important.

It appears LIDAR depends on the fact the water vapor has diffent
electromagnetic absorption lines.
http://www.etl.noaa.gov/et2/research...DIAL_dial.html

In other words, nothing is perfectly tranparent and consequently
nothing is invisible (save, perhaps, a perfect vacuum); many
substances are very transparent, though. But transparency has a
technical definition; "invisible" needs definition and may be
rather like "unique", in that a thing is either invisible or it's
not.

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