On 06/09/2011 06:27 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 19:32:49 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, but under /normal/ circumstances, it boils at 100°C, which is why
>>>> it's defined that way. :-P
>>>
>>> Not here at 4,000 feet - "normal" circumstances here have it boiling at
>>> a slightly lower temperature. :P
>>
>> 96.2°C, a piffling 3.8° lower.
>
> Which is still not 100C no matter how you slice it.  The difference in
> humidity, altitude, and other things makes cooking things that require
> precise measurements (usually baked goods) slightly different than at
> other altitudes and in other conditions.

I would suggest that the wild variations in oven temperatures have a 
vastly bigger impact than a 4% difference in the boiling point of water.

Post a reply to this message

On 9/5/2011 6:12 PM, Alain wrote:
> If you slowly heat very pure water, it can bet a good bit warmer that
> 100°C before it start to boil. There will be vapour escaping from the
> surface, but no ebulition, even in a open container. It's a dangerous
> situation, as any disturbance can cause explosive ebulition projecting
> scalding water everywhere.
>
Or, very fast, by heating it all more or less at the same time (i.e., 
with something like a microwave oven.

Post a reply to this message

On 06/09/2011 02:12 AM, Alain wrote:

> If you slowly heat very pure water, it can bet a good bit warmer that
> 100°C before it start to boil. There will be vapour escaping from the
> surface, but no ebulition, even in a open container. It's a dangerous
> situation, as any disturbance can cause explosive ebulition projecting
> scalding water everywhere.

Legend has it that boiling water in a microwave oven has this effect. I 
don't know of an authoritative source which can confirm or refute that...

Post a reply to this message

On 9/6/2011 1:04 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 06/09/2011 06:25 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 21:12:15 -0400, Alain wrote:
>>
>>> You can have water that stay liquid down to -10°C and possibly even
>>> less. You need a container with very smooth surface and no particles in
>>> suspention. In this state, a vibration can be just enough to cause
>>> almost instant crystalisation.
>>
>> Which is actually quite cool
>
> I see what you did there.
>
> I've got a box of hand warmers at home. They contain a super-saturated
> solution (of what I don't know). Once you provide a nucleation point,
> the whole lot crystallises within a few seconds. It also gets quite warm
> in the process. (This is what makes it good for warming your hands.)
Seen those. There is also some expensive shirt that was made for 
joggers, which uses a similar principle, though, in that case, I get the 
impression they formulated the material so it crystalized faster than 
normal in cold temperatures, releasing heat, but softening faster than 
normal too, absorbing it, thus keeping you cooler, or warmer, depending 
on conditions.

Always wondered, in the case of the whole "heat pack" thing though if 
you couldn't make one that did the reverse, and was "recoolable", or 
whatever. The principle being, of course, than it is rechargable, so 
long as the solution doesn't change (often the plastic is 
semi-permiable, so loses moister over time, and stops working), so when 
you let it cool slowly, it "holds" the excess energy. When you apply 
kinetic energy to it, it instantly starts losing all of what it 
retained, and crystallizes. You would basically need to do the reverse, 
somehow, for a "cold pack", crystallizing it, so as to "lose" more heat 
than it needs in a stable state, then.. there comes the rub. Other than 
that it would liquify as it absorbed the heat, instead of crystallizing, 
like the supersaturation, I am not clear how you would manage to make it 
so it could recharge effectively.

Post a reply to this message

On 9/6/2011 2:36 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 06/09/2011 02:12 AM, Alain wrote:
>
>> If you slowly heat very pure water, it can bet a good bit warmer that
>> 100°C before it start to boil. There will be vapour escaping from the
>> surface, but no ebulition, even in a open container. It's a dangerous
>> situation, as any disturbance can cause explosive ebulition projecting
>> scalding water everywhere.
>
> Legend has it that boiling water in a microwave oven has this effect. I
> don't know of an authoritative source which can confirm or refute that...
Uh.. Mythbusters? They tried it, and it did. lol

Post a reply to this message

> Always wondered, in the case of the whole "heat pack" thing though if
> you couldn't make one that did the reverse, and was "recoolable", or
> whatever.

Hmm. Plausibly.

I would imagine, like with other refrigeration technologies, the key is 
to find a material which has a phase change at the right temperature. 
Normal hand warmers become super-saturated solutions at very high 
temperatures. If you wanted to make something cold, you'd need something 
that becomes super-saturated at a low temperature.

I'm also not completely sure of the kinetics: a hand warmer releases 
heat quickly, and absorbs it slowly. That may or may not be useful for 
cooling purposes.

Unrelated, but I note that dissolving ammonia in water is an endothermic 
reaction. That, apparently, is how Victorian icecream was made. So I 
guess the question is, WOULD YOU EAT IT? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 02:41:12 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 9/6/2011 2:36 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> On 06/09/2011 02:12 AM, Alain wrote:
>>
>>> If you slowly heat very pure water, it can bet a good bit warmer that
>>> 100°C before it start to boil. There will be vapour escaping from the
>>> surface, but no ebulition, even in a open container. It's a dangerous
>>> situation, as any disturbance can cause explosive ebulition projecting
>>> scalding water everywhere.
>>
>> Legend has it that boiling water in a microwave oven has this effect. I
>> don't know of an authoritative source which can confirm or refute
>> that...
> Uh.. Mythbusters? They tried it, and it did. lol

I've also had it happen to me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 09:05:23 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> On 06/09/2011 06:27 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 19:32:49 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yes, but under /normal/ circumstances, it boils at 100°C, which is
>>>>> why it's defined that way. :-P
>>>>
>>>> Not here at 4,000 feet - "normal" circumstances here have it boiling
>>>> at a slightly lower temperature. :P
>>>
>>> 96.2°C, a piffling 3.8° lower.
>>
>> Which is still not 100C no matter how you slice it.  The difference in
>> humidity, altitude, and other things makes cooking things that require
>> precise measurements (usually baked goods) slightly different than at
>> other altitudes and in other conditions.
> 
> I would suggest that the wild variations in oven temperatures have a
> vastly bigger impact than a 4% difference in the boiling point of water.

My point is that 4% is still 4%.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 09:04:13 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> On 06/09/2011 06:25 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 21:12:15 -0400, Alain wrote:
>>
>>> You can have water that stay liquid down to -10°C and possibly even
>>> less. You need a container with very smooth surface and no particles
>>> in suspention. In this state, a vibration can be just enough to cause
>>> almost instant crystalisation.
>>
>> Which is actually quite cool
> 
> I see what you did there.

Wow, *completely* unintentional, that one.  Honest. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 9/6/2011 11:34, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I've also had it happen to me.

Me too.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message