|
|
 Originally Posted by OngBonga
Understood, but if it's still steam and not water when it comes into contact with the handle, it's still not lost enough heat to be under 100c. It shouldn't matter how hot the steam is when it comes into contact with the handle, provided it is steam.
"Provided it is steam."
It isn't.
(Half a gold star for the phrasing, though. You identified your assumption explicitly.)
Clouds are not 100 C; they are made of water vapor and not steam.
I think it's time for another set of (annoying?) scientific definitions:
Steam - Invisible; temp is at least 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure
Water vapor - Visible; temp is no more than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure
Steam is transparent in the visible spectrum. What you see is water vapor, which is cooler than 100 C.
There is enough kinetic energy in the air to hold tiny molecules from falling, even if the tiny molecule technically is dense enough to precipitate from the fluid. Dust from Africa makes its way to South America.
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It will release heat when it condenses, and anything it is in contact with will be the first to benefit from that heat. The question is if that heat is significant enough to account for the noticable increase in temperature.
Excellent!
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I feel like it must be, because logically one would expect the handle to become cooler, not warmer, as the metal pan loses heat to the water. If we can't find another method of warming, then are we to assume it's a psychological thing? That it is a question of our perception of heat? That seems even more exotic than my proposal.
Not assume -> hypothesize and test.
|
Reply With Quote