Talk:Water vapor/Archive 3

Cloud Effect Complexity
I changed "complex" to "warming and cooling," because that made the paragraph more readable. Is that accurate? I suppose clouds also add a lot of heat capacity, so perhaps "warming, cooling and buffering" might be appropriate. If at all possible, I think it's best to avoid "complex" and to be explicit, even if only about the generalities. 168... 01:23, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually, "complex" is correct. Clouds, not only shield (mostly), they also blanket (mostly). Heat capacity?? No, the thermal energies are moved vertically and clouds are formed, thus adding more complexity.  RadarCzar 06:36, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you read me closely, you'll see that I didn't ask whether "complex" is correct. In effect I asked if it's avoidable, or if their isn't some explicit generality or net effect that couldn't be said as well. "Complex" doesn't convey anything concrete to the reader, whereas "blocking" and "insulating" do. Your statement about thermal energies is unintelligible to me. 168... 15:05, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you re-read yourself more closely, I was answering your question more closely than the unintelligle response you have given. Especially, concerning the article matter of the time.  And complex is absolutely corrrect.  So why change it, for idiomatic rhetorical purposes?  RadarCzar 05:54, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

On "reflection"
(William M. Connolley 20:31, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)) The "atmos water" section is very poor. Fortunately, its so obviously poor that it won't confuse too many people. But who reverted to longwave radiation being *reflected* from the earths surface, please don't do this again, its not reflected, its emitted. Good grief.


 * Good grief indeed. Have you really never heard of "albido" or of "reflectivity"? Do you think the big blue marble that astronauts see when they look back from space is lit by a giant lightbulb beneath Earth's mantle? Well, a good way to avoid planting that idea in the minds of school kids is to avoid using "emitted," especially when there's nothing wrong with "reflected." 168... 01:24, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I've heard of Albedo, yes. But the Albedo for longwave radiation is so low that for all practical purposes its zero, for the earths sfc. Hence, upwelling LW radiation is *emitted* not reflected. SW radiation is (partially) reflected.

Well, I can believe you've heard how to spell albedo, since you've taught me I spelled it wrong, but I can't figure out what this "upwelling" is that you're talking about. I associate it with weather, but I'm sure that's not it, so you'd have to tell me more. I doubt you're talking about black body radiation from Earth's interior, because I wouldn't have lumped that in with the greenhouse effect, which I understood to be the subject of the sentence in question. So if it isn't geothermic radiation that you want to talk about being retained by atomspheric water, I assume it must be (as I was talking about) energy that arrived on Earth just moments earlier from the sun. I can't figure out why you don't want to call the space-ward motion of this radiation a "reflection" from the Earth, even if the bounce occurred deep beneath the surface. And anyway, isn't the peak of solar energy in the visible range of wavelengths? I'm prepared to believe that the "greenhouse effect" extends to very long wavelengths, but it seems to me the meat and potatoes has to pertain to the incident visible rays. Am I wrong about that? Else, why do the climate modellers fuss about snow and clouds and things that reflect in the visible?168...


 * (William M. Connolley 19:00, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)) In fact in my first draft I included "I've heard of it and can even spell it" but decided that would be too gratuitously offensive, esp since I make numerous typos :-). Anyway. You seem to be fairly sure that you don't know wahts going on, and thats a good start. This is an odd place to write an atmospheric radiation primer, but here goes: short wave (SW) radiation arrives from the sun. Some is relfected from the atmos; some absorbed by it. The rest hits the earths surface. Some is again reflected, some absorbed. The absorbed fraction warms the surface directly (more heat comes from long wave (LW) radiation from the atmos; geothermal is trivial). The sfc, being a warm body, emits LW radiation appropriate to its temperature (planck (sp?), etc). But the LW radiation emitted by the sfc is *not* just the SW reflected; it is absorbed, then (later) re-radiated at a different frequency, etc. To speak of it as the SW reflected is quite wrong. The SW albedo varies, up to 0.9 for fresh snow. AFAIK the LW albedo is always very close to 0. I hope thats clear.

Yes, very clear, and thanks. It sounds like our issue is that you don't like the word "reflection" being applied to what a physicist would call the inelastic scattering of a photon.


 * (William M. Connolley 09:29, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)) Because it isn't. The photon is absorbed. It warms the surface. It sits around for an indeterminate period of time and then something that cannot meaningfully be traced back to the original photon is emitted as LW, probably not even by the same molecule as absorbed the original photon. Its unphysical and unhelpful to call it reflecting.


 * (William M. Connolley 13:54, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)) Hmm, I may have allowed my enthusiasm to run past my certain knowledge above. Let me rephrase it: in terms of upwelling (ie, going upwards; nothing to do with geothermal, thats negligible) radiation, at the earths surface, there is reflected SW radiation and there is emitted LW radiation. The SW is thermal radiation from the sun. The LW is thermal radiation from the earth, and corresponds to a (nearly) black body at the sfc temperature. Thus, it is most physically useful to describe the LW up at the sfc in terms of emitted black body radiation.


 * What you call the "reflected SW" I expect we're both happy to ignore as irrelevant to the greenhouse effect, because it's no more filtered heading back out towards space than it was coming in, being the same wavelength as ever. I take your point about the "indeterminate period of time" and how that makes "reflection" seem inapt. Your point "the LW ... corresponds to a (nearly) black body at the sfc temperature" registered only on a second read, but I find that hard to resist--maybe even harder to resist than the wrongness I would feel in saying that a fluorophore can "reflect." So your intuition (and/or "knowledge") may be right.


 * OK, good. We are in agreement at last! [WMC]
 * Well, strictly, one would have to read farther to reach the point of agreement (I'm not sure about the above line of reasoning), but overall yes. 168...


 * Regarding energy bouncing around before being emitted, that doesn't bother me so much. Perhaps it should. It seems conceivable to me, if we're talking about a material like sand (which I assume doesn't absorb nearly so broad a range of energies as a pure metal), that the rate at which energy is conducted away from Earth's surface nonradiatively may be insufficient to prevent saturation of the excited states of either a) the atoms/molecules that are absorbing the incident photons or b) the atoms/molecules that are absorbing the less energetic photons the initial absorbers absorb. In that case, at steady state, while on the one hand you will be getting BB radiation in accordance with the steady state temperature, you will also be getting a kind of "rejection" of photons and energy that wouldn't be rejected out of steady state, such as when the clouds first part above a cold patch of Earth. I don't think I'd mind say that was "reflection."


 * But maybe these points are too fine to bear on the rightness of "reflection." On rereading it occurred to me that in this discussion I was conflating (as you sensed) the (unarguable) reflection of SWs that gives astronauts their blue-marble image of Earth with the (dubiously titled) "reflection" of LWs  that is retained by the atmosphere. The two reflections are obviously different processes, as you say, and I think I wouldn't want to conflate them in the article. 168... 20:57, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's been my intuition all along that a physicist would not mind this application, but not being one, I can't say for sure.


 * Don't trust your intuition until you know some of the facts. And not even then.


 * "Intuition" is a word I sometimes use in place of "know" when it's been a long time since I learned pertinent facts. I don't "trust" it, but I often put stock in it--especially when there's little else to go on that looks authoritative. Since you caught yourself speaking beyond what you were later prepared to claim to know for a fact, I'd say you too are prepared to put stock in your intuitions at times. Good for you. 168... 21:10, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I know I wouldn't want to say that a fluorescent material "reflects" the incident light it absorbs--probably because it seems to miss the point about fluorescence (whereas the point is a different one in the greenhouse-effect context). But it's true that fluorescence lifetimes are long, which makes me hesitate to say "reflect," and yet I suspect it wouldn't be incorrect to do so in the right context. I'm sorry I didn't I realize until just before your latest post that you probably thought I was talking about absorption and emission of the same wavelength (elastic scattering). Maybe my invocation of albedo was misleading. I don't know that it applies to situations where light is absorbed and reemitted at a longer wavelength. I assumed it did apply, because for most things with less than perfect albedo, I assume they're reemitting part of what they absorb at longer wavelengths. 168... 23:55, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've been trying to find evidence on the Web to support my intuition that "reflectance" includes inelastic backscatter (not being able to find an unambiguous definition of reflectance), because I think that suggests the verb "reflect" would be O.K. to apply to inelastically backscattering photons. Haven't had a whole lot of luck, but did find this:


 * "The analytic oceanic reflectance model is based on the work of Sathendranath and Platt (1998). ... the model is based on several assumptions ...(iii) VRS contributes to the wavelength of interest through various source wavelengths... (v) only first order VRS is computed."

where "VRS" they seem to define as "inelastic Vibrational Raman Scattering (VRS)" That's from "Inelastic scattering in ocean water and its impact on trace gas retrievals from satellite data. M. Vountas, A. Richter, F. Wittrock, and J. P. Burrows. 2 June 2003"

To me that 'suggests' "reflectance" includes fluorescence and other inelastic backscatter, but I dunno. Clearly it's at least rare to use the word "reflect" in the context of inelastic scattering. But then how much spectroscopy gets written for popular consumption? 168... 00:43, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But you don't know? Then why are you trying to copy edit here?? "Clearly"?? On what basis?? RadarCzar 05:57, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Complexity of WV and article
Complex would be best but, sigh, warm or cool will do. There are some really weird bits in the thunderstorms section that deserve to die. I've noted one.

I've tried to avoid using terms like CAP, boundary layer, Skew-T sounding, Theta-E, convergence, dynamic lifting, but tried to justify the difference between a dry updraft and a moisture laden updraft--ie. all the thunderstorm inits. Even with all of these variables in favorable condition, if no water vapor exists at the surface (below the boundary layer), then no thunderstorm can be produced. These should be better explained in a thunderstorm article. However, Theta-E would actually fit best into that section since it is related to heat and moisture in an air parcel.....and is good in figuring atmospheric instability......hmmm....but it is, itself, a complex calculation/derivation... RadarCzar 01:35, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Important point: I have to give one reason why not to discuss the above variables in detail. That is to preserve some sense of public safety as this is open discussion forum. Since, knowing all of the details of the variables required (not all listed above or discussed) does not give license to a person to understand the dynamics of the situation or the possible situations. Which if not understood, a person could put themselves into accidental peril. I think for the sake of argument, that perfect clarity of variables need not be addressed here. RadarCzar 01:59, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * "Peril"?! That sounds interesting. Or are you being facetious? Anyway, even if you get a high off the complexity, I think it was a good choice not to turn the article into a textbook chapter or vocabulary lesson. Actually, I think you pushed it just a little in that direction with the order in which you chose to present some of your points, so I moved them around a bit. 168... 00:10, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Too much meteorology
(William M. Connolley 19:49, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)) There is far too much meteorology in the atmos water vapour section. This is no place for the discussion of thunderstorms or a whole pile of other stuff that is there: there is a meteorology page with links to thnuderstorms: why have it here. Someone braver than I feel tonight should delete it from here and move anything of value across.


 * (SEWilco 06:01, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)) Yes, there are things wandering far afield. The "Evaporation" and "Sublimation" sections probably should be under water or in the existing articles for those topics.  Several other issues also such as the triple point which is already in water.  You mentioned thunderstorm, and there are other issues which could be in articles related to meteorology.  I think we agree that WV is significant in many ways.

-

(William M. Connolley 22:54, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)) I've made some fairly major hacks at this article, principally in the atmos water sections.

Water vapor dissipates    RadarCzar 04:17, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Water doesn't *dissolve* in the air
 * Thunderstorms and much else have gone.
 * Why would supersaturated air expand?
 * The dew point is the temperature to which you have to cool a given parcel of air to get it to condense.
 * Etc

Anyway, since I've deleted large amounts of other peoples text I won't be too surprised if people revert. But I believe the current version is more accurate than previous ones. And shorter, too :-)

RadarCzar 02:09, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC) THANK YOU! I like the CCN section...needs to stay...around 40C sounds right. Yes, dew point is a temperature. It can be reached two ways, temperature change, and pressure change....at constant temperature, etc. etc... Also see Theta-e calculation. Hmmm...this whole article can be shortened to 8 words... ; )

REVERT, NEVER! Just get it right the first time.... :O

I've just made a lot of iterative changes, beginning with a matter of accuracy regarding steam but afterward mostly with the goal of improving the structural logic and readability. 168... 23:36, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

- Atmospheric water vapor is water vapor. RadarCzar 03:32, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

-

Phase Transition
The definition at the beginning of the article is physically elusive. Actually, it defines an astable state. It is incorrect because entropy will not allow it to remain. So it is safe to say that all water vapor is not at 100 &deg; C. That is actually a boundary condition, and does not reflect a stable state in all cases.

After leaving the boundary conditions as prescribed in the text, the laws of physics take over. Therefore, water vapor exists at the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere. That becomes the stable state.

Thus leaving it as is, is in fact wrong. RadarCzar 03:46, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to say I don't understand you. For reference, I'm going to paste the text in question here so we can refer to specific words or sentences:


 * Water vapor is the gas phase of water. It arises either through evaporation of liquid water or sublimation from solid ice. By the reverse processes of condensation and deposition, the vapor converts to water or ice. Although two or more phases may coexist in equilibrium, above 100 °C (212 °F) and below sea-level pressure, most water molecules assume the vapor phase.


 * Besides the pure gas, "water vapor" also refers to water molecules in air and other mixed gases. Humid air is sometimes, imprecisely, said to "contain" water vapor in some percentage, for example.


 * My first guess of what you're talking about is that you are reading the first paragraph as if it means "water vapor" in a sense different than it does, i.e. what it's actually about is 100% pure water, and I think you are saying that what it says is incorrect about air that contains water in some percentage. But that's just a guess. If I'm wrong, you'll have to do a little more work if you want me to understand your point, which I'd like to. 168... 06:13, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Just to make my own first move in the direction of explicitness, my disconnect with what you wrote is that a)I think it can only be about the words "above 100 °C (212 °F) and below sea-level pressure, most water molecules assume the vapor phase" b) that's not a state or a single boundary condition, but just a couple parameters consistent with a whole continuum of distinct conditions or "states", depending how you mean the word, and c)I can't for the life of me, no matter how you mean the word, see what's false about that particular piece of text. 168... 06:29, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * No! 100 degrees celsius is a boundary condition at 1 atm, as per the discussion warrants.  Boiling point is a boundary condition.  That boundary condition is variable with atmospheric pressure.  Again, considering the fact that this is the nature and locality of this discussion.  Where is the problem??

Why are you writing legalese? You wrote "a state" twice. The sentence is not about "a state," and so you confused me. Still you leave me clueless as to why you are bringing up boundary conditions. 168... 15:27, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * So you are arguing what? RadarCzar 05:37, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

...and while you are thinking about what you are arguing...throughout this entire article and discussion, you have been confusing yourself with thermodynamically stable states and thermodynamically unstable states


 * "Although two or more phases may coexist in equilibrium, above 100 °C (212 °F) and below sea-level pressure, most water molecules assume the vapor phase" is wrong!! It is nonsense, it does not reflect the physics available on this planet in an open atmosphere, it is misleading and inaccurate.  RadarCzar 03:43, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why are you talking about an open atmosphere? Obviously the paragraph is about a closed system of pure water. It's the second paragraph that brings up the other usage of "water vapor" to refer to water mixed with air. 168... 15:27, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * What premise are you fantacizing about? There's no mention of that premise anywhere.  Thusly, completely an unprovable statement by you.  RadarCzar 05:37, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * So that's it then. A misunderstanding that could have been a one or two word fix--throw in the word "pure"--and which I offered as an explanation for our disagreement many times, but you consistently ignored, and chose instead to call me ignorant and insult me and to drag this on forever. Boy, I'm so glad we've had this discussion. 168... 07:33, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

- As far as "reductio ad absurdum" is considered, only a fool would make that mistake of tagging me with that term. Mainly, I would use reductio ad absurdum when evidence of a scientific/logic process is not available during an explanation of another scientific/logic process. But, and however, as I re-read this, I find no examples of reductio ad absurdum. So, surely you must have been kidding? right. RadarCzar 04:03, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * A fool? What kind of person would think a sentence constructed like that one is O.K. around here, where there's a policy against calling people names? Anyway, from the way this "reductio ad absurdum" business seems to have irked you, I think you still must not understand why I invoked the term. You had made edits that added an amount of technical detail that I sincerely thought _anybody_ would regard as patently absurd for this kind of article; i.e. such that you too must have realized they were absurd. "Why did he make this absurd edit?" I asked myself. "He's frustrated by the process of trying to argue his point on the talk page (the point that something--I can't remember what--represented more detail than was apt for the article) and so he's making his point by example," I thought. "See," he's tryiing to show, "see how unreadable an article this would be if we open the door to the level of detail you're asking for?" That's a reductio ad absurdum argument. I meant nothing derogatory by it whatsoever. In fact, I was paying you a compliment by assuming that you hadn't made those edits in seriousness. 168... 06:13, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

-

Gas Law Expansion
From WMC's previous question:


 * Why would supersaturated air expand?

Supersaturated condition is also an astable state. One could try to argue the probability of a stable supersaturated condition, but it would in fact become a circular argument for an open atmosphere. Sure, in a closed jar expansion is impossible (unless abrupt). But the question stems from an open type environment.

Why would it expand?  In a locality, the air can become supersaturated (by whatever means). This implies one of a few things have happened.
 * i) More molecules have dumped into the local atmosphere and more energy has been dumped into the local atmosphere (with the water vapor). So more energy and more molecules means pressure must rise.  But since this is not a closed container, expansion occurs.  Dissipation is also a key factor, especially at the boundaries of this supersaturated locality.


 * ii) The overall temperature or pressure has quasi-statically (slowly) dropped so that the actual number of water molecules remains the same (no precip or condensation) in a localized atmosphere. The interesting thing is, this example has the same answer as i).  But, the extra energy that you are trying to account for comes from the heat capacity of water.  So, the locality has a higher energy with a supersaturation condition than the surrounding atmosphere, and expansion occurs.

But, expansion will stop when the supersaturation is dissipated. Also, this follows an analysis of steam and why it is a gas. RadarCzar 04:48, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ideal Gas Law
$$\begin{matrix}P \cdot V = n \cdot R \cdot T \\ P = \mbox{pressure} \\ V = \mbox{volume} \\ n = \mbox{number of molecules} \\ R = \mbox{constant} \\ T = \mbox{temperature} \end{matrix}$$

By inspection of the above Gas Law, when more molecules n are added to the system, P or V must increase also. But, again, since this is the open air case, we know that pressure P remains the same, so only the volume increases...expansion.

Just to further complicate things, water vapor is also dissipating away from the saturation while the expansion is going on. Add this factor into the dynamics, it also implies a cooling of the water vapor. So!! water vapor doesn't stay at 100 degrees celsius in the atmosphere. Only!! steam is at 100 degrees celsius, and it is still a gas. RadarCzar 03:34, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

But!!, I should clarify that only that steam has come from boiling water at 1 atm!! RadarCzar 03:34, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)  Whew!

- ''Ref. Section 1.1 of the WV article''

Different (water) clouds are composed of: i) microscopic ice crystals suspended in air.    ii) microscopic water droplets suspended in air. iii) combinations of i) and ii).    iv) water droplets of varying size, bigger than microscopic. v) ice, hail, etc.    vi) snow. vii) any or all combinations of the above.

Water vapor is usually less visible than all of the above examples of cloud compositions. Steam is a gas. A better (more complex) defintion of steam is: A supersaturated water vapor core at 100 degrees celsius, surrounded by a pseudo-condensation cloud whose temperature varies from 100 degrees celsius to room temperature and whose relative humidity varies from 100% to room humidity.  RadarCzar 04:17, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What is a pseudo-condensation cloud? Google seems never to have heard of it in this context. Are you saying there aren't real droplets of water in steam? What are we looking at then? 168... 05:57, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * You really don't know what you are talking about or questioning. I believe you are nowhere near expert enough to have been editing this article.  I am right, aren't I.  RadarCzar 02:50, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that I should regard you as an expert? Why on Earth should I, when you avoid questions and seem unable to express a clear idea? Anyway, as for who is entitled to edit this article, it wouldn't matter if you had won a Nobel Prize for discovering water vapor if you have no skill or patience for explaining. 168... 03:09, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You are right, 100%. I refuse to be trapped in a battle with a person to whom I have explained thoroughly the physics of things. You have illegitamately reverted good text by others with your poor excuse for english grammatical usage, poor excuse for scientific language, and poor excuse for article style. And complete lack of knowledge of subject matter. PEOPLE ARE NOT HERE TO TEACH YOU HOW TO RE-WRITE THIS ARTICLE IN YOUR POORLY SELECTED WORDS!!!

Others have been painfully patient with you...oh booo-hooo...I have no need to be. You have made the dire mistake of insulting an expert on the subject matter from the start...oh but then you gleefully say later...that you were joking. I say "Get Lost!"  RadarCzar 03:54, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Huh? When did I insult an expert and when did I say I was joking or anything remotely like that? And do please remind me the last time I felt glee in connection with this discussion. If I ever did it's an all too distant memory. 168... 15:52, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

And for information to all those involved with this article. I can tell the various levels that everyone is at. And I am not here to absolutely walk all over everyone's good ideas and contributions. But, 168..., you have erred. RadarCzar 04:00, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

FYI, definition 1b of "water vapor" in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edn is "A mist of cooling water vapor," and many readers of this article will be speakers of the English language. 168... 04:10, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Point 1: You have just contradicted yourself by reciting that definition, concerning the "analysis" of steam THAT you have mangle, pushed, and mangled some more into this article.

Point 2: We are not here to re-write, summarize, paraphrase, nor plagerise the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edn.

Point 3: The quote you have given from American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edn is not really applicable, other than an example of its usage in a sentence fragmant, it is completely irrelevant.

Point 4: You really make me laugh. I really do get where you are coming from, and it really makes me laugh. Are you trying to get school credit for this or something??

Point 5: Too many people have explained too much scientific study for you to be anything near capable of expert enough on the subject matter to be a copy editor of the subject matter.

Point 6: Your copy edits are i) irrelevant.                   ii) grammatically incorrect. iii) scientifically twisted.                   iv) bullish. v) lacking in articulate style.

Point 7: Why do people here have to teach YOU anything?? I really think thats a passive-aggresive tool and attempt to keep people from copy-editing your junk out.

RadarCzar 05:37, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's hard to have a conversation with someone who ignores questions and hurls insults. Pardon me if I treat your points with the respect that they deserve. 168... 07:23, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Lets add a Header for ease of editing
(William M. Connolley 21:01, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)) I've reverted the para on measuring atmos water. Becuase:


 * a device that measures atmos water vapour *is* generically a hygrometer, by definition. Like things measuring air pressure are baromoters. Not typically, but by definition. Its minor point, but since we can be accurate, why be blurred.


 * the point about the mirror was that cn's don't have to be obvious "nuclei" shaped objects.


 * dep pt is the temperature at which it *begins* to condense.

ps: this page is too long. Would some brave soul care to archive the old talk?

I did indeed get that it is a generic term, I just didn't think the word "generic" was necessary to convey generic-ness. I left it out again in the latest paragraphs I've proposed, but hopefully hammered the generic-ness a little more. Also I've elaborated on measurement, because I thought the mirror remark was too big and distracting for parantheses, and because we seemed to have devices coming up twice. I added that dew forms on surfaces, which somehow I forgot in reading the paragraphs as they were written before, even though this is the very essence of dew (I think I forgot because reading "nuclei" I picture them floating in space--things on surfaces I call "nucleation sites"). What bothered me when I ran into that paragraph in the first place is that it takes the subject of the article from water vapor to appliances without transition or warning. Since the article title is "water vapor" and since it seemed very easy to recast the paragraph in question so that water vapor was its subject (grammatically/syntactically), it seemed the right kind of change to make.168... 02:16, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 09:38, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)) I've reverted the para, for the moment, because you introduced inaccuracies. Elegance is a splendid thing, but doesn't supercede correctness. Specifically: (a) "The propensity with which dew forms depends on the surface onto which water vapor is condensing." isn't a sentence; (b) "For a given surface, the "dew point" of the air around it is..." dew point isn't dependent on the surface, its a property of the atmos (c) "Many measuring devices deduce the humidity of air from the temperature at which dew forms on a standard mirror..." I'm not sure that "many" is correct, really only one class of instrument does this.

O.K., I tweaked it again. I take it as proof that the original was unclear that my extrapolations about nucleation went so far afield. I can't figure out what your issue with the "propensity" sentence is (and wouldn't count not being a sentence as an inaccuracy if I did), but anyway it's a non-issue as I've rewritten the paragraph. I've corrected the potentially inaccurate "many" to the unquestionably spot-on "some." 168... 05:29, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 09:32, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)) Well, thinking a bit harder you might realise that if you're "extrapolating" about nucleation it means you're writing about something you don't understand. Hey ho, I dislike your current formulation, but will give up for the time being.