And this is where you're wrong.
Supercritical water is a fluid, not a liquid. Water is a liquid. Water vapor is a gas. Past the supercritical point, distinct liquid and gas phases DO NOT EXIST.
Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?
- Thread starter Vulcan Logician
- Start date
And this is where you're wrong.
Supercritical water is a fluid, not a liquid. Water is a liquid. Water vapor is a gas. Past the supercritical point, distinct liquid and gas phases DO NOT EXIST.
Energy does. temperature is a measure of energy. 1800°F is a lot of energy. Walt says that the final temperature after erupting through the cracks is -459°F. He is asserting that we take a VERY high energy fluid and take it to a state that is just lightly above no energy at all. This happens through random cracks. You know as well as I do that there is no video of super critical water being released through a random crack. I think the that if what Walt proposes was true, we would see far more destruction to the Earths crust. Even odder is the notion that water at -459°F would be consider cold water. It would be rater solid at that temperature. Walt presupposes that prior to the flood there were no comets or meteors. This is a totally unsubstantiated claim. We have evidence that the Earth was struck by meteors before the flood happened. Walt's whole book is an attempt to make science conform to his preconceived ideas rather that an honest attempt to see what science reveals about the Earth.
But you won't explain how.
You've gotten almost nothing right
In this thread:
You're almost as bad as Fly, who rehashed an old argument while pretending he hadn't been answered there then tried to overturn the rampant use of "evolution" among scientists on his side. :chuckle:
But you won't explain how.
You've gotten almost nothing rightin this threadever.
In this thread:
You're almost as bad as Fly, who rehashed an old argument while pretending he hadn't been answered there then tried to overturn the rampant use of "evolution" among scientists on his side. :chuckle:
I haven't gotten anything wrong, I just don't agree with your unproven hypothesis. What I have said is represent the current best understanding of how the universe works. What I have said is actually backed with peer reviewed and tested scientific methods, not untested hypotheses.
It has been a long time since I have set up a thermal equation and this particular problem is even more complex than what I studied in college. While I may not be able to set up and solve the equations, I do know that Walt is asserting does not make sense from an energy balance point of view.
In any case, disagree with Stripe's world view does not make nor the scientists wrong. It means you have accepted a position based faith rather than an actual scientific process. I would suggest that instead of ranting about Walt being right, you start investing money in setting up experiments to prove Walt's hypothesis and submit the results to peer reviewed journals for review and comment. Address the comments and resubmit. Just imagine how you could rock the world of science when, and if, you prove that Walt is right. You claim to have truth on your side. Prove it.
I was only pointing out that the physics implied in your argument was incorrect. My intent is to help you not use that incorrect understanding of physics in the future. My pointing out your error absolutely does not automatically make Walt Brown correct.
I do not think that my physics is wrong. The physics you described is for relatively low temperatures and atmospheric pressure. A super critical fluid enters a completely different realm of physics. Super critical fluids do not follow the same laws as non-supercritical fluids. The question is what happens when you take a super critical fluid and suddenly breach the containment.
I was not addressing either supercritical fluids or extremes of pressure. I quoted and was responding only to your claim that water over 212 F and under pressure will flash to steam when the pressure is released. Just t’aint so, unless there is a huge surplus of energy in the vibrational and rotational energy of the molecules. For example, heating water 10 degrees above 212 F (under pressure so it remains in the water phase) will add a specific amount of energy to each kg of the water. Raise it another 10 degrees, then 10 more, and 10 more after that. That will be some really hot water. But if you do the calculations (or if you actually measure the energy you are putting into the water), you will find you still have not added enough energy to provide the energy required by the latent heat of vaporization for the full volume of water to go into a gas phase. It will not all flash to steam, unless you have provided enough energy to vaporize (under unpressurized conditions) the full volume of water. A few degrees above 212 isn’t enough added energy to do the job, nor is 10 or 20 or 30 degrees above 212. If you are distinctly above 212 and you suddenly release the pressure, bubbles will quickly form, and maybe even violently. Those bubbles may well spray scalding water onto you, but that itself would falsify your claim, since you say it would have all flashed to steam.
Do this - on the internet (or in any appropriate book), find out how much energy (in joules, for example) it takes to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1 deg (K, or C, or F – just be sure to keep your units straight so you aren’t talking degC when you started with degF, etc.) Then look up how much energy you have to add to 1 kg of water to vaporize the entire kg. Then figure how many degrees that same amount of energy would have raised the water.
Lots of youtube videos on the subject.
I am pretty sure you simply neglected to remember that the energy required for vaporization needs to be considered, in addition to simply talking about going above 212 F. Easy mistake to make, but it could be a whopper for an engineer dealing with the thermodynamics of fluids.
Walt Brown may be wrong (and I think he is), but don’t make the mistake of thinking he hasn’t long since considered most of the quickie disproofs people think they have spotted. And equally important, make sure you are not the one that is found to have gaps in the science you put forward. I’m pretty much on your side, kinda hoping to improve our team.
Ah. I get it now. You are wrong. When water is heated under pressure and that pressure is realeased, the water will flat to steam. Super heated water has more than enough energy to account for latent heat. Look up boiler explosions and see what happens when boiler she'll fails. During the era of steam engines, if the water keeping the boiler plates get to low and allows the plate to become uncovered, the plate fails and the water in the boiler instantly flashes to steam. The resulting steam explosion was powerful enough to completely blow the boiler and cab to smithereens. All that was left is the running gear.
Remember that temperature is a measure of energy. The higher the temperature is, the more energy is present.
CabinetMaker, I see an opportunity for one or the other – or both - of us to improve our understanding of thermodynamics. Let’s see where we agree first. At the end of your post you say:
Since we are talking about just the energy in water, yup. I kinda thought that was what I was saying when I spoke of adding enough energy to raise the temp by 10 or 20 or 30 degs, and also that was explicitly what I mentioned near the end of my post when asking about the number of joules (a unit of energy) it takes to raise the temp of 1 kg of water by 1 deg.
(I put the proviso about speaking only of the energy in water because if I pick up a piece of cake just out of the oven that is at 300 F, I may say ouch and drop it cause of the heat energy it has. But if I pick up a metal pan next to it that is at only 250 F – that’s 50 F cooler than the cake – I am gonna suffer a much more serious burn, cause the cooler pan has distinctly more energy than the hotter cake.)
I don’t know if a closely related issue will need to be made explicit here – but just in case – look at heat at the molecular scale, as though we had a really powerful microscope and could watch lots of the individual water molecules. As the water is heated up, what change would you see in what the molecules are doing? In other words, heat isn’t just an abstraction – adding heat is doing something that would probably be visible if we watch the molecules. What are they doing?
And on the issue of boiler explosions, I agree they can be dramatic and horrifically destructive. Much earlier in this thread it was mentioned – possibly by you – that a small volume of water is going to occupy immensely more space when it is turned to steam. In my first post in this thread I indicated the same thing when I pointed out that inside a rising bubble in boiling water are only tens of thousands of water molecules – occupying a volume that contained gazillions of molecules before the bubble formed.
But be careful and don’t get suckered into apocryphal explanations for what the temperature – pressure – heat relationships were that led to the boiler explosion. You assert
It is crucial to know what “too low” really means. How many kg of water remained before the rupture, and what were the temperature and pressure inside at that moment?
My discomfort with what you seem to be saying is in your repeated assertion that water under pressure and above 212 F will all flash to steam when the pressured is relieved. I contend that the conditions you specify are insufficient to guarantee it will all flash to steam.
A reasonable problem that could be given to students taking thermo in college would be to actually do the calculations involved. Specifically, assume 1 kg of water is being heated in a pressure vessel, and has just reached a temperature of 242 F. Assume the water started at ambient pressure and a temp of 200 F. How much energy has been added to the water, and how does that compare with the amount of energy that would be required to convert the entire 1 kg to a vapor?
I recommend you actually do that calculation. The equations are no more difficult than simple algebra. It should only take a few lines in a post in this thread to show your equations using the actual values. You can do?
Related to this, and also to issues you have expressed about what happens when pressurized substances are released through throttling nozzles, I ran across a website for a company that actually does that:
https://www.tlv.com/global/TI/steam-theory/flash-steam.html
A few excerpts from their page, with my emphasis added:
Note they specify that only a percentage, not all, of the material flashes to steam.
Later they go on to say:
That’s what I said in my original post. Release the pressure and you get some steam, and the rest of the stuff is back at normal boiling temperature and pressure.
Please, please, please, keep track of the energy involved, and actually do the math. There’s enuff problem with lots of nutso YECs in these forums, without you muddying the water.
Since we are talking about just the energy in water, yup. I kinda thought that was what I was saying when I spoke of adding enough energy to raise the temp by 10 or 20 or 30 degs, and also that was explicitly what I mentioned near the end of my post when asking about the number of joules (a unit of energy) it takes to raise the temp of 1 kg of water by 1 deg.
(I put the proviso about speaking only of the energy in water because if I pick up a piece of cake just out of the oven that is at 300 F, I may say ouch and drop it cause of the heat energy it has. But if I pick up a metal pan next to it that is at only 250 F – that’s 50 F cooler than the cake – I am gonna suffer a much more serious burn, cause the cooler pan has distinctly more energy than the hotter cake.)
I don’t know if a closely related issue will need to be made explicit here – but just in case – look at heat at the molecular scale, as though we had a really powerful microscope and could watch lots of the individual water molecules. As the water is heated up, what change would you see in what the molecules are doing? In other words, heat isn’t just an abstraction – adding heat is doing something that would probably be visible if we watch the molecules. What are they doing?
And on the issue of boiler explosions, I agree they can be dramatic and horrifically destructive. Much earlier in this thread it was mentioned – possibly by you – that a small volume of water is going to occupy immensely more space when it is turned to steam. In my first post in this thread I indicated the same thing when I pointed out that inside a rising bubble in boiling water are only tens of thousands of water molecules – occupying a volume that contained gazillions of molecules before the bubble formed.
But be careful and don’t get suckered into apocryphal explanations for what the temperature – pressure – heat relationships were that led to the boiler explosion. You assert
It is crucial to know what “too low” really means. How many kg of water remained before the rupture, and what were the temperature and pressure inside at that moment?
My discomfort with what you seem to be saying is in your repeated assertion that water under pressure and above 212 F will all flash to steam when the pressured is relieved. I contend that the conditions you specify are insufficient to guarantee it will all flash to steam.
A reasonable problem that could be given to students taking thermo in college would be to actually do the calculations involved. Specifically, assume 1 kg of water is being heated in a pressure vessel, and has just reached a temperature of 242 F. Assume the water started at ambient pressure and a temp of 200 F. How much energy has been added to the water, and how does that compare with the amount of energy that would be required to convert the entire 1 kg to a vapor?
I recommend you actually do that calculation. The equations are no more difficult than simple algebra. It should only take a few lines in a post in this thread to show your equations using the actual values. You can do?
Related to this, and also to issues you have expressed about what happens when pressurized substances are released through throttling nozzles, I ran across a website for a company that actually does that:
https://www.tlv.com/global/TI/steam-theory/flash-steam.html
A few excerpts from their page, with my emphasis added:
Flash steam is a name given to the steam formed from hot condensate when the pressure is reduced.
Flash steam is no different from normal steam, it is just a convenient name used to explain how the steam is formed. Normal or “live” steam is produced at a boiler, steam generator, or waste heat recovery generator – whereas flash steam occurs when high pressure / high temperature condensate is exposed to a large pressure drop such as when exiting a steam trap.
High temperature condensate contains an excess of energy which prevents it from remaining in liquid form at a lower pressure. The result is that the excess energy causes a percentage of the condensate to flash.
Flash steam is no different from normal steam, it is just a convenient name used to explain how the steam is formed. Normal or “live” steam is produced at a boiler, steam generator, or waste heat recovery generator – whereas flash steam occurs when high pressure / high temperature condensate is exposed to a large pressure drop such as when exiting a steam trap.
High temperature condensate contains an excess of energy which prevents it from remaining in liquid form at a lower pressure. The result is that the excess energy causes a percentage of the condensate to flash.
Note they specify that only a percentage, not all, of the material flashes to steam.
Later they go on to say:
So what happens when condensate kept under pressure at 184 °C (363 °F) is released to atmosphere? The condensate contains too much energy (enthalpy) to remain entirely liquid, and a portion of it evaporates, causing the temperature of the remaining condensate to drop to the saturation temperature (i.e., 100 °C or 212 °F if discharging to atmosphere). This phenomenon is known as flash evaporation.
That’s what I said in my original post. Release the pressure and you get some steam, and the rest of the stuff is back at normal boiling temperature and pressure.
Please, please, please, keep track of the energy involved, and actually do the math. There’s enuff problem with lots of nutso YECs in these forums, without you muddying the water.
Walt's theory does not have water 10, 20 or 40 degrees above boiling, he has water at 1,600 degrees above boiling. I forget wht pressure he he postulates but at the temperatures and pressures in his model we are well off the steam tables we came to know and love in thermodynamics. We have entered the realm of super critical fluids where a slight change in pressure can have a significant impact on the density of the fluid.
What are they doing considering that they have 1600° of energy above the energy required for boiling. Those little suckers are moving and want nothing more than to be as far apart from each other as they can get!
True but ultimately meaningless in understanding what Walt is proposing.
Complicated things boilers. Pressure and temperature is known, they have gauges to measure that. The typical failure method is for the train to start up a hill. The water sloshes to the back of the boiler which uncovers the boiler plate immediately above the fire box. Without the water to keep the plate cool, the fire quickly burns through the plate resulting in a rupture. The sudden drop in pressures allows the remaining water to flash to steam and the resulting increase in volume is seen as an explosion. Will all the water flash to steam? That answer depends on a great many factors as you said.
I'm not sure why you think 1800° is the same as 212°. And I never said all would flash to steam. I said that the water would flash to steam when the fountains opened, we would not see liquid fountains.
We did a bunch of thermo problems like this in college. That is why I am so very skeptical of Walt's assertions in his hypothesis.
I looked at those manufacturing process pages as well and I do not feel that they accurately represent what Walt is attempting to describe. A lot of engineering went into designing those chambers and a lot of thermo was done to get the throttle valve just right. I also did not see where they operated at anything near Walt's initial conditions nor ended anywhere near his final conditions. You example starts at 363°F and ends at 212°F. That is a 151° degree difference. Walt starts at 1,800°F and ends at -469°F which represents a difference of 2,269°F through random "fountains."
I ask you to do the same. Look at Walt's initial and final conditions. What happens at the instant 1800°F fluid is released? What is the state of water at -469°F?
It's obvious that you don't even know what Walt's theory says, otherwise you wouldn't make the arguments you're making right now.
:darwinism:
:mock: Cabinet
The numbers came from the links you posted.
"random fountains"
:mock:
:mock:
It would be interesting to see the YEC theories if It said it rained cats and dogs for fourth days and fourth nights.
I think you need a refresher course on what the theory actually says.
Here is a video playlist for you to use to understand at least the basics for the theory.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpl6E8stJTiIi8wdLgYj1eXpp-4o1UUkZ
CabinetMaker, I am coming to the uncomfortable suspicion that you simply refuse to admit a mistake you made. I have said nothing about whether Walt’s ideas are scientifically defensible. I might be far more amenable to following your logic against Walt if you had shown you were competent in the thermodynamics of modest thermal environments. So I am going to repeat yet again - it is an error in what YOU are asserting about water above 212 F always flashing to steam that I am contesting. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT WALT, I am not talking about Mr. Brown, I am not talking about the fellow that originated the hydroplate theory. Your responses have been little more than “but Walt says”, “That is not what Walt is proposing”, “Walt is the one that is wrong”. Whether Walt is right or wrong, you clearly have one heck of a mote in your own eye that you really need to have looked at. Until you demonstrate more scientific competence than you have so far, Walt has nothing to fear from you.
Your erroneous claim about water above 212 F entirely flashing to steam is not dependent on anything Walt’s theory says.
Your erroneous claim about water above 212 F entirely flashing to steam is not dependent on the temperature Walt’s water is at.
Your erroneous claim about water above 212 F entirely flashing to steam is not dependent on the temperatures and pressures in Walt’s model.
Your erroneous claim about water above 212 F entirely flashing to steam is nowhere near conditions of super-critical fluids.
Your erroneous claim about water above 212 F entirely flashing to steam is not a case where a slight change in pressure will have a significant impact on the density of the water.
Your erroneous claim about water above 212 F entirely flashing to steam is almost 1400 degrees lower than 1600 deg above boiling.
When I asked for what change we would see, if we could see the individual water molecules, as water is heated.
If that is as deep as your understanding of thermo is, then you have taken another big stride away from credibility. I will give you a hint – you have accounted for probably 1/3 of the involved heat energy.
Well, a month ago you said:
No qualifications on how much water flashes to steam, just the unadorned claim that “those water molecules will flash to steam.” That is the exact claim that first caught my attention. I pointed out the error in saying that all the water above 212 F will all flash to steam, but you doubled down on your initial claim by replying:
Again no mention or hint that anything other than all the over-212 F water will flash to steam.
Now suddenly you are warming up to the possibility that not all of the water will flash to steam. That has been my sole objection to your original statement that I quoted (and your repeating the unqualified statement that all the over-212 F water will flash to steam.)
I didn’t even hint that I was dealing with 1800 deg. I have not veered for one second from pointing out your over-212 F claim.
When I came back and very carefully and specifically showed that not all the water would flash to steam, you got all huffy and repeated the same nonsense I originally objected to. Read it, it’s just above.
Your erroneous claim about water above 212 F entirely flashing to steam was a blanket statement that made no mention of or dependence on fountains.
Then it should be a breeze for you to show the steps in the specific problem I asked you to solve in my last post. I would be far more impressed if you would actually show that math here, than “come on, just take my word for it, I did this back in college.” So far it is braggadocio and hot air instead of showing the simple algebra that is needed.
I am so very skeptical of your assertions that you know thermodynamics.
Your claim about water above 212 F entirely flashing to steam is false no matter what Walt is attempting to describe.
Yup, and that is 151 degrees above the 212 degrees that you said water would flash to steam at. That company makes their living doing this, and they disagree with you and confirm what I have been trying from word one to get across – not all the water will flash. Only some will, and that part that doesn’t flash will be back at ambient pressure and 212 F.
Far below the 212 F you specified is the must-flash threshold.
You can show the math for the thermo condition that I specified that meets your criteria, or you can say “Walt … ”, “Walt … ”, “Walt … ”, “Walt … ”, “Walt … ”, - which I will take as an admission that you can’t (or won’t) (or dare not) move past vague claims about thermo into the nitty-gritty that real scientist must deal with.
Your erroneous claim about water above 212 F entirely flashing to steam is not dependent on anything Walt’s theory says.
Your erroneous claim about water above 212 F entirely flashing to steam is not dependent on the temperature Walt’s water is at.
Your erroneous claim about water above 212 F entirely flashing to steam is not dependent on the temperatures and pressures in Walt’s model.
Your erroneous claim about water above 212 F entirely flashing to steam is nowhere near conditions of super-critical fluids.
Your erroneous claim about water above 212 F entirely flashing to steam is not a case where a slight change in pressure will have a significant impact on the density of the water.
Your erroneous claim about water above 212 F entirely flashing to steam is almost 1400 degrees lower than 1600 deg above boiling.
When I asked for what change we would see, if we could see the individual water molecules, as water is heated.
If that is as deep as your understanding of thermo is, then you have taken another big stride away from credibility. I will give you a hint – you have accounted for probably 1/3 of the involved heat energy.
Well, a month ago you said:
No qualifications on how much water flashes to steam, just the unadorned claim that “those water molecules will flash to steam.” That is the exact claim that first caught my attention. I pointed out the error in saying that all the water above 212 F will all flash to steam, but you doubled down on your initial claim by replying:
Again no mention or hint that anything other than all the over-212 F water will flash to steam.
Now suddenly you are warming up to the possibility that not all of the water will flash to steam. That has been my sole objection to your original statement that I quoted (and your repeating the unqualified statement that all the over-212 F water will flash to steam.)
I didn’t even hint that I was dealing with 1800 deg. I have not veered for one second from pointing out your over-212 F claim.
When I came back and very carefully and specifically showed that not all the water would flash to steam, you got all huffy and repeated the same nonsense I originally objected to. Read it, it’s just above.
Your erroneous claim about water above 212 F entirely flashing to steam was a blanket statement that made no mention of or dependence on fountains.
Then it should be a breeze for you to show the steps in the specific problem I asked you to solve in my last post. I would be far more impressed if you would actually show that math here, than “come on, just take my word for it, I did this back in college.” So far it is braggadocio and hot air instead of showing the simple algebra that is needed.
I am so very skeptical of your assertions that you know thermodynamics.
Your claim about water above 212 F entirely flashing to steam is false no matter what Walt is attempting to describe.
Yup, and that is 151 degrees above the 212 degrees that you said water would flash to steam at. That company makes their living doing this, and they disagree with you and confirm what I have been trying from word one to get across – not all the water will flash. Only some will, and that part that doesn’t flash will be back at ambient pressure and 212 F.
Far below the 212 F you specified is the must-flash threshold.
You can show the math for the thermo condition that I specified that meets your criteria, or you can say “Walt … ”, “Walt … ”, “Walt … ”, “Walt … ”, “Walt … ”, - which I will take as an admission that you can’t (or won’t) (or dare not) move past vague claims about thermo into the nitty-gritty that real scientist must deal with.
Go get a pressure cooker and fill it with water and put the lid on and seal the pressure release valves. Heat the water to 300 degrees and remove the lid (I recommend you do this with ropes from a safe distance.). Please report to us the results of this experiment.
First, I have never said that all the water will flash to steam. But some portion of that water will flash to steam. How much depends on many factors. The point is that I do not believe that what was coming out of fountains would be liquid water at all.
Finally, you are attempting to deal with gradual ling heating water to boiling. I am talking about a closed system that is already well above 212 degrees. There is enough energy in the water to more than account for the latent heat of vaporization need to convert liquid water to steam. How much flashes to steam depends on many factors. It is not a well ordered process.
Would you you care to discuss the actual conditions I am referring to or would ou prefer to continue chasing your strawman?
I see an opportunity for one or the other — or both — of us to improve our understanding of thermodynamics. Let’s see if you agree with my critique of your description:
For the same reason a blanket can feel warm, but a suit of armor at the same temperature could feel cold.
This is because of conductivity — inherent to the material — not energy.
Cabinethead has a long history of not responding at all well to correction. He'll do anything to maintain a pretence of relevancy and thinks an error being pointed out diminishes his contributions.
It's not YECs you have to worry about being anti-science "nuts." That is, unless you're going to make the mistake Darwinists always do, saying that people's beliefs characterize their ability to be scientifically relevant.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Regarding the bolded part, you're not going to get a worse burn because of the greater energy (assuming the pan has greater mass). It is the conductivity of the metal that quickly transfers heat compared with the cake that does the damage.
For the same reason a blanket can feel warm, but a suit of armor at the same temperature could feel cold.
This is because of conductivity — inherent to the material — not energy.
Cabinethead has a long history of not responding at all well to correction. He'll do anything to maintain a pretence of relevancy and thinks an error being pointed out diminishes his contributions.
It's not YECs you have to worry about being anti-science "nuts." That is, unless you're going to make the mistake Darwinists always do, saying that people's beliefs characterize their ability to be scientifically relevant.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk