On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig <decra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is not a part of our life experiences to have witnessed steam at anytime > having this anywhere near this liquid water content. > It depends on your life experience. It is certainly part of Mitra et al's experience as documented in IEEE Sensors Journal 11 (2011) 1214, where they not only produce steam more than 95% wet by mass, but find a way to measure it. Keep the eyes open to what everyday experience teaches us about the physical > world we live in. > The sort of wet steam that I'm talking about is produced in confined conduits with rapidly moving steam; just the sort of thing that could exist inside the ecat, and not the sort of thing that is part of most people's life experience; at least not that they would be aware. As there is not information on the WWW on what to expect on steam wetness, > but we can resort to our life experiences in boyancy in regards to our > encounters with steam to infer what we should expect in a rough way. > Why exactly would you expect your experience with buoyancy in a static, unconfined fluid inform your idea of what happens with a rapidly moving 2-phase fluid in a confined volume? > > The key word is boyancy. What is the densest thing you have ever seen > floating in a vapor of steam, Joshua? > I don't claim to have seen 97% wet steam (by mass); I claim its existence in the ecat is entirely plausible -- even likely. In any case, even styrofoam is denser than 97% wet steam (by mass), and I don't know any solids with lower density than that.
