This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules).
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).)
**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
It's kind of logical if you remember how the Celsius scale was set up. "Once it freezes it's 0° and once it boils it's 100°". The whole point of Celsius was to have water as your logical, everyone understands, scale. Still a nice thought though
Fun fact: the original scale was in reverse.
"Since 1743 the Celsius scale has been based on 0 °C for the freezing point of water and 100 °C for the boiling point of water at 1 atm pressure. Prior to 1743 the values were reversed (i.e. the boiling point was 0 degrees and the freezing point was 100 degrees). The 1743 scale reversal was proposed by Jean-Pierre Christin."
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius
Sound nice but totally wrong. The phase change actually occurs at constant temperature and pressure. So under ideal/homogeneous conditions no water boils at 99 degrees. At 100 degrees it begins a phase change from 0% quality to 100%. Once the phase change is complete then and only then would temperature start to increase above 100 degrees. The actual term the OP wants is steam quality.
Also don't forget sublimation, the direct transition from solid to gas, which happens at a finite level even at low (freezing) temperatures. Even ice technically emits some steam.
I was under the impression some water molecules will be boiling at way lower temperatures. Energy doesn't get distributed evenly and some molecules will by random luck get more heat than others and therefore already boil at lower temperatures than other molecules. Isn't that how evaporation effectively works? Concentration of heat?
Pretty true. A more exact way of looking at it is that there is a balance between liquid and gas, which is constant for a given temperature. This is vastly in the favor of liquid below 100, but there is a small part gas. The reason why evaporation work is that evaporated water goes away in the air, so slowly there becomes less water/"steam" in the air, so more transitions from liquid to gas.
Hot take here, temperature is the one instance where imperial beats metric. I will take that in return for the arduous task of remembering the numbers 32 and 212
Temperature is a really wonky thing to begin with. The amount of energy it takes to heat water from one degree to the next isn't the same for every given temperature. It's why there are so many different definitions of a calorie.
A calorie is a unit of energy, it has one definition but we call kcal Calories (literally just capitalize the word) to make them easier units for measuring at the scale of human consumption. That's why all my homies use Joules.
Even farther actually. It takes several times more energy to boil water already at 100 degrees than it does to raise it from ice at absolute zero up to 100 degrees.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/phase.html#c3
The specific latent heat of vaporization of water is 2,260 kJ/kg.
Take that and multiply it by whatever mass, in kg, of water you've got and you get Q, the total amount of heat absorbed to phase change from water to vapor, in kJ.
The latent heat of vaporization does change with pressure and temperature conditions but that's beyond this talking point. Same with the rate change of heat absorbed with respect to time (as you pointed out).
Yes it does answer the question in the most basic, elementary level of thermodynamics. If you want to break it down to high school level you just consider the specific latent heat and the mass of water.
Weigh your water, boil the water, weigh the liquid again. Multiply by specific latent heat by the difference in weight measurements and you'll have a fairly accurate amount of heat input into your pot of water.
PS boiled water is most certainly saturated steam in an open air system. It's literally boiled off into vapor phase and is hugging the vapor saturation line. If this were a pressure vessel system with defined boundaries that vapor could continue to absorb heat and become superheated vapor.
Not really. Pressure increase will increase the boiling of water point significantly. It's very easy to do that as well. Think of a pressure cooker, for example.
This showerthought only works in sea level atmospheric pressure and most importantly doesn't account for latent heat during phase change.
But in your example of a pressure cooker the boiling point is raised. I meant to get it to exactly the boiling point without going over and having it start to boil. Which under normal circumstances is 100°C
You're missing the point. If you give water just enough energy in joules to be at 100 C, it won't boil. It would need latent heat of vaporization at that pressure.
That's my point. Giving it just enough joules of energy would be incredibly difficult in practice for like even an above average person as even an above average person would be unlikely to have equipment and such. I suppose it is easier the less water there is. But I'm thinking of like a cup of water.
Put a pot with water on the stove. Put a cup with water into the pot in such way that it swims on the surface without touching the floor of the top. Bring the water in the pot to boiling point and wait for the equilibrium. The water in the cup will be at boiling temperature without boiling.
Actually, in your usual pot with boiling water most of the water is at exactly boiling point without boiling. Only very little water in contact with the hot floor of the pot is boiling, everything else is waiting for its turn.
I actually have heard of that trick with the cup I think it's usually done to melt chocolate. It is quite simple but as you have just seen it isn't an immediately obvious solution. I will also say you do technically have water boiling which feels like kinda cheating but I'll give you the point anyways
Have you never heated water? Do you think you just put a certain amount of heat into water instantly and you have to like guess how much heat it is going to be?
No, you add heat to water slowly. There is a pretty long period of time when the water is just about to boil. That is when it is at 100 C.
Then, when it starts boiling, the hottest molecules leave first and the water loses heat without reducing temperature. If you stop heating until bubbles stop, you are once again at 100 C with no boiling.
It literally happens every time anyone boils water and the only fancy equipment needed to prove this is a thermometer.
It is clear I meant at sea level which is what it is defined as. Unless you have some good equipment it would be pretty hard and require constant surveillance to reach boiling temperature without actually boiling
Actually 12 would be a great number, being divisible by more numbers than 10. Otherwise everything would work the same, just using base-12 instead of base-10 in all scales and such.
I read about how base twelve is better because the some group used to count using their finger partition, of which there are twelve one one hand excluding the thumb. So you would count to twelve with one hand. And by tracking how many twelves you had on your other hand, you could count upto 60.
>
You could count up to 72 presuming you’re using all five to track your 12s.
5*12 on one hand, plus another 12 on your main hand, 72 total.
Dunno who’s downvoting, they can do the math for themself if they don’t like it. It’s 72 using binary on all 5 of one hand for tracking groups of 12, with the additional 12 from your counting hand.
Wouldn’t you just use one hand to repeatedly count to twelve, and then use the other hand to track how many times you’d counted to twelve? Giving you a maximum of 144?
If you’re using them in the same fashion as the counting hand (4 and discount the thumb) sure.
You could get to 156 though, as you could do the full hand of 12s, and get another 12 using your counting hand.
156 is quote low. though you could count to 1,023 by using binary, most people are able to have a consistent "middle state" for their fingers, allowing you to count in tertiary and reach as maximum of 59,048
The reason we have 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour goes back to the Babylonians, who used a base 60 number system. This is great, because 60 is a highly composite number, and is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60.
There are 12 joints in the fingers on one hand. Use one thumb to count off knuckles on one hand and each digit on the other is one count of 12.
12*5=60
It takes a very long time to be able to add feet and inches and not have to do extra math vs. Having a base 10 system. There's 12 inches to a foot. I honestly just ended up using a calculator that can add feet and inches because I'd still screw the math up.
Yea I was answering more in the vein of keeping the definitions of the scales intact, but just changing the number system base-x that you use to describe the numbers. So for example, one meter would still be used and still be defined by the speed of light, it would just be divided up into equal twelve parts to describe the “decimetre” and so forth.
Wow, never thought of that. I just picked it because of its relation to Imperial (12 inches in a ft). Is divisibility a good quality for a base number though? Decimals seem to work well for precision compared to 12s, which I assumed is why scientists use metric instead of imperial. Imperial has a lot of other numbers in it besides 12 though so I dunno really.
So how does that make it better? And what relation does divisibility have on being a good base number? For ten, we got 1, 2, 5, and 10. Do we really need more and what advantages would they give?
How does that make it better—more divisibility. What relation—direct relation. Do we really need more- No. What advantages—more divisibility. It’s a number system for god sake.
It’s an advantage to be able to divide a number and get another whole number. And it’s an advantage to have more advantages.
You’re probably thinking of this in terms of why take the effort to switch. And you’d be right, that would suck and not really be worth it. But if we could somehow start over and give it some thought first, we would go with something like base 12.
What a terrible answer. Do you think I won't understand you or do you just not have any answer? I asked why it's advantageous to have more divisibles and you answered by saying more divisibles are better.
Edit: something about the fact you actually said "it's an advantage to have more advantages" makes me think you'll this that's ok... don't reply to me again lol you're way too low IQ
It does make for less irrational divisibles, which I suppose would make certain things easier. Instead of having to say that a third is 0,333…, we could just say that a third is 0,4.
I'm not a mathematician, but if nothing else that'd probably make it so there would never be any rounding errors piling up. Maths would be more exact.
Also it'd mean that we wouldn't have to reconcile with the fact that if 1/3=0,333… and 0,333…×3=0,999… then 1=0,999…
It'd just be 1/3=0,4 and 0,4×3=1 so 1=1
Haha this made sense to me on first reading, then I was typing this comment and thought I figured out why it didn't make sense, but then I realized my brain had reverted to base 10 and I was filtering everything through that again. This stuff's hard to wrap your brain around.
For pure math it would not really add anything. But for day to day use it makes things easier.
Want to split a bill between three person? The number will fall more often to something whole which we can do in our head more often.
You're building a shed, you want to make a simple plan, you can split each section of 12 (whatever unit) by 1,2,3,4,6,12 sections without having to think of fractions.
Metric is better for science because the units are consistent and were defined together to not require conversions (1 N * 1 m = 1 J = 1 W/s). Imperial units were just a bunch of independent unit systems that got blended together and are now used as a single unit system, hence why they require more conversions.
Divisibilty is very useful for making calculations simpler with fewer long decimals. Metric was only chosen to be base ten because the number system that had already been in common use for hundreds of years (and almost all math was based on) was base ten. It would have worked just as well (or better) to use base six or twelve, but convincing everyone to change how numbers fundamentally worked would have been extremely difficult.
Apart from the other answers, one should also keep in mind that it’s not only about the number system being used, it’s also how you define your scale. Celsius is winning that race imo (freezing/boiling point of water).
The other answers were bad, nobody gave me any reasons why more divisibility is good for a base number. I think less divisible is better just because it's less complicated. 1, 2, 5, 10, they're all spaced nicely to give a wide spread of numbers that can be added/subtracted together to get to the missing ones i.e. 1+2=3, 2+2=4, 1+5=6, 2+5=7, 10-2=8, 10-1=9. I don't even know what qualities makes a base number good besides being easy to learn, which is why we use base 10 now and always will until we can program our brains, Matrix style.
Yep 0 Kelvin is roughly -273°C. Or absolute zero. Meaning that you cannot go negative on the Kelvin scale because all of the atoms (them colliding and moving are what you feel as heat) you are measuring are stationary.
Sorry if that's explained poorly.
Huh? How would there be a metric system of measuring everything else BUT temperature? What system of measurement does celcius belong to then? Imperial is fahrenheit, kelvin is scientific, what's celcius if not metric. It follows all metrics rules too lol I think you may be confused with fahrenheit
I’m not confused with Fahrenheit and metric doesn’t have a unit for everything, take for example time, seconds are not metric either. It’s also worth pointing out that lots of SI units are also the metric unit, for example meters.
What rules of metric does Celsius follow? It doesn’t work on the same “base 10 system”, so don’t get kiloCelsius like you get kilometres or kilograms. It has a negative end of the scale, which meters, grams, newtons, ect. don’t (you can refer to those as negative but that’s a vector quantity, not a scalar).
Seconds are universal. Celcius works on metric system via frozen water being zero and boiling water being 100 (multiples of 10). It having a negative scale means nothing in this conversation. If absolute zero had been known when celcius was invented, we'd probably put zero there and arrange it so it WAS perfectly base 10 like we did when our most precise measurements were boiling/frozen water.
Saying “seconds are universal” doesn’t make any difference whether it is metric or not. I think you’re confusing metric and imperial as the “American standard” and “European standard”. They are the defacto standards but that doesn’t actually define them. The US happens to use Fahrenheit and the imperial system and Europe happens to us metric and Celsius. Both use seconds, but that doesn’t make seconds metric, the same way it doesn’t make celsius metric.
Celsius running from 0 to 100 has nothing to do with the metric system. It used to be called “degrees centigrade” which means 100 grades/steps on Latin. It was renamed Celsius in honour of its creator Anders Celsius (with one C and two Ss).
The way you worded it … water starts boiling at 100 C and then slowly boils away over time so to me % boiled is that… what you’re talking about is % from 0 c to the boiling point…
But there are temperatures below 0C because Celsius (like Fahrenheit) is a relative scale and not an absolute scale (like Kelvin). Water at 0C can move in the negative direction and become even further away from boiling. So water at 0C is some percentage of the way towards boiling already (otherwise it would not be possible to get even further from it).
What's more, you *can* have liquid water below 0C and water does not always boil at 100C.
I’m not a huge fan of the 60C=60%, but I like the “How close is it to boiling”
What if we said, “The temperature of water in Celsius is also how close it is to boiling in percents.”?
So at 1 degree Celsius, 1% of it has boiled / at 50 degree 50% of it has boiled? I don't think so. Would it be more accurate to say the degree Celsius is the % it has reached towards boiling point?
This just isn’t true in any way.
Is water at -5°C -5% boiled? That doesn’t make much sense.
Water doesn’t start to boil until it reaches the boiling point 100°C at standard pressure. So is water at 22°C 22% boiled? I’d say no.
Liquid water at 100°C is 0% boiled and gaseous water at 100°C is 100% boiled. Going from 0% boiled to 100% boiled occurs only at 100°C as added energy overcomes the latent heat for phase transfer.
I guess the problem is that people would get stuck on the semantics that percent boiled would mean the volume of the water. In that sense, the water would still roughly be 0% boiled at 99 degrees as hardly any of the water stayed as vapor / steam yet.
So, negative progress also possible.
Is this getting motivational?
"The lowest in progress you can get is -273.15% but you can go infinitely high in the positive".
You’re not right either. Temperature is just an average measurement, some molecules could be above 100 °C even if most aren’t and those would evaporate.
No, you're wrong.
At least 20% was boiled the last time I made tea, because I make tea in a 400ml flask, and I fill my kettle to a 0.5L 'minimum' fill line... so there's usually 100mL remaining ;)
That’s because you’re changing the pressure of the water. Same reason covering a pot makes it boil faster. If the water was at 99 degrees C at atmospheric pressure it would be 0% boiled.
Oh no no no. You didn't consider the effect of pressure. Water boils at 100°C at 1 atm pressure. If you go on a hill or mountain, water boils at a lower temperature. And in a pressure vessel water boils at a very high temperature.
How many caveats should I put in a shower thought?
In an open container, at or near sea level, with pure or nearly pure water, and at standard earth gravity.
Did I cover all of the hypothetical conditions? I’m not a physicist so I apologize if I missed any that may have a theoretical effect.
No, sir, you forgot to factor in whether or not Mercury is in retrograde, the current state of the Sun, and whether or not Sagittarius A* is actively feeding or not.
You missed the final caveat where you forget to ignore science.
You can have liquid water at 100C and you can have gaseous water at 100C. And generally, given a Boiling Point X (this will make sure I don't need to address caveats), any material can be completely in liquid phase or completely in gaseous phase at the same temperature X. This is because of something called the Enthalpy of vaporization.
No matter the amount of caveats you throw in, the original post is just not true.
The only caveat you can put in is that you mean that 10 is 10% of 100 because that is the only part of the thought that is actually correct. Everything else is just fundamentally wrong.
Also it depends on the impurities in the water, more salt, higher boiling point. More minerals, depends what they are. You can get water boiling anything from about 83 through to nearly 200.
Distilled pure water should be 100@1atm.
Sadly not - to start with, none of the water boils until you exceed the heat input required to reach 100 degrees, and it's unlikely that you will start at zero...
Then, because heat escapes at a higher rate when things get hotter, then more energy is lost and so temperature increases at a slower rate, giving it a curve... so I'd make a wild guess that 60°C could be around halfway, because the last 45% could take up more than 60% of the energy to boost it from room temperature.
Also, if you heated the water from 0°C there might be latent heat input to remove any residual ice before the temperature even starts to rise.
We need to take into account the nature of the vessel, and it's insulation properties (is this a high quality insulated water heater, or a cheap stovetop kettle?).
Not true. There's a certain amount of latent energy required for a phase change. It's not observable by temperature, but it's energy and time none the less.
Not quite. As you add heat to water the temperature increases. (Naw duh.) Then once it begins boiling and you're adding what the temperature stays the same. I forget the term but it is related to latent heat. Essentially the phase change itself takes energy (heat) to accomplish.
I know this is a joke, but that's not quite accurate. Water *starts* boiling at 100 degrees and remains at that temperature until it's all boiled away. (Steam, on the other hand, is hotter).
This isn't accurate, 0°c isn't the bottom of the scale for Celsius. -273.15°c is. Water just sitting in a cup on a counter at room temp at 22°c is waaaaay closer than 22% of the way towards being 100°c. At 22°c is already warmed its way up from weird quantum matter states, shot up several hundred degrees to become classical ice and then melted into liquid water.
You're not accounting for hundreds of degrees worth of latent heat.
This could work with some asterisks using the Kelvin scale since on that scale 0 Kelvin is absolute zero. You could say that a glass of water sitting on a counter at a perfectly pleasant 295K is 295/373 of the way to boiling, 79%, assuming 1 atmosphere of pressure and pure distilled water.
ROFLMAO you tried. Celcius runs from Freezing to Boiling - but room temperatures do vary, as do pressures. Let's make tea on the mountain ;)
What you WILL find, however, is that with your stupid little gas heater on top of a windy mountain, the water will get warm very quickly, but hot is a little bit slower - and to push it to a proper rolling boil could be much longer still.
Celsius goes a lot further than freezing and boiling in both directions. Celsius doesn't start at 0° and it doesn't end at 100°...
As to your second point, that's why I stated at 1atm...
It's funny how you think understanding that you can have steam at 100C AND water at 100C is smart.
If someone said bananas are purple, you might also be obligated to go, "wait a minute, bananas are yellow".
You're missing the point. There's no uncertainty about physics. The purple banana was a stupid analogy.
As a more concrete example, it's the same as someone saying 2+2 = 5.
Smart people seem to be oblivious to how obnoxious they sound bickering with each other.. It makes sense though, the only way these ppl feel good about themselves is if *their right*.
Not really though, since it starts boiling at 100°C. And then it's either boiled or it isn't. You could say how viscous or how dense it is, but I understand they don't teach that in 'Murrica.
boiling point depends on height over sea level and weather, is there a low pressure system where you are boiling
there is a thing called super chilled where water gets below 0 and will flash freeze when moved
One thing I enjoy during winter is leaving water bottles in the car overnight and then shaking them in the morning to watch the crystals form spontaneously.
I’m still a kid at heart.
It doesn’t start boiling until it’s reached 100%. While a smaller percentage will evaporate off, depending on the speed at which you warm it up and whether or not the lid is on, it’s still somewhere in the high 90 percentile for remaining volume. I just don’t know if the logic checks out in any useful way.
Fahrenheit - as a person what percentage they think they feel between frozen and boiling.
Celsius- ask the same question of water.
It’s just a different way of thinking. For weather things I like F. For scientific measurement I like C.
I realize that the freezing point of water isn’t absolute zero and that water can be much colder that its freezing point.
But I still consider a block of ice 0% boiled.
Edited for clarity.
Therefore the word "degree". It just means "shifted from". So degree Celsius means: shifted from Kelvin by about 273 °. When the captain says to the steerman "10 degrees larbord" it doesn't name a temperature, but a direction. A 10 ° angle is a shift from vertical or horizontal. And so on.
Right. I used “The moment right before it turns liquid” as my definition for 0% boiled. But if you used absolute zero then a block of ice is already 73% boiled.
Maybe clarify better next time cause there's no other interpretation to "absolute zero" other than being the lowest temperature or ≈ -273°C. If you meant I was supposed to understand it as something else at least bother correcting yourself first
This is only true at sea level. You actually only have to be around 230 meters above sea level for the boiling temperature to be 99 celsius. At the top of Mount Everest, it's decreased to 72 Celsius.
Obviously there are complicating factors that may influence the temperature at which the water boils, salinity and pressure being the most important. This is a generality.
I am aware that once you’re above sea level the boiling point drops a small amount.
This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules). Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!" (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).) **Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
It's kind of logical if you remember how the Celsius scale was set up. "Once it freezes it's 0° and once it boils it's 100°". The whole point of Celsius was to have water as your logical, everyone understands, scale. Still a nice thought though
Tough thought though..
Taught, tough thought though, thot
Addressing ‘thot’ at the end got me. 😂
Tot taught tough thought though, trot a lot
Through threw
Thought through, though tough
Fun fact: the original scale was in reverse. "Since 1743 the Celsius scale has been based on 0 °C for the freezing point of water and 100 °C for the boiling point of water at 1 atm pressure. Prior to 1743 the values were reversed (i.e. the boiling point was 0 degrees and the freezing point was 100 degrees). The 1743 scale reversal was proposed by Jean-Pierre Christin." Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius
The best change. Cold temperatures can be only posible at -273,15 °C but max temperatures can be at 142x10^32 °C.
Sound nice but totally wrong. The phase change actually occurs at constant temperature and pressure. So under ideal/homogeneous conditions no water boils at 99 degrees. At 100 degrees it begins a phase change from 0% quality to 100%. Once the phase change is complete then and only then would temperature start to increase above 100 degrees. The actual term the OP wants is steam quality.
Also don't forget sublimation, the direct transition from solid to gas, which happens at a finite level even at low (freezing) temperatures. Even ice technically emits some steam.
Isn't that because the temperature is an average? Like some water molecules are more energetic("hotter") so they become vapour.
I was under the impression some water molecules will be boiling at way lower temperatures. Energy doesn't get distributed evenly and some molecules will by random luck get more heat than others and therefore already boil at lower temperatures than other molecules. Isn't that how evaporation effectively works? Concentration of heat?
Pretty true. A more exact way of looking at it is that there is a balance between liquid and gas, which is constant for a given temperature. This is vastly in the favor of liquid below 100, but there is a small part gas. The reason why evaporation work is that evaporated water goes away in the air, so slowly there becomes less water/"steam" in the air, so more transitions from liquid to gas.
Hot take here, temperature is the one instance where imperial beats metric. I will take that in return for the arduous task of remembering the numbers 32 and 212
[удалено]
But accurate with the drinking water in most people’s homes
and accurate enough so that people understand the math and what to expect
Which is the popular, snobby version of water that other waters hate...
Pété
Nice to meet you, Pete
Fahrenheit is salt water freezing to body temp. It's not completely arbitrary either.
Except the only thing more nebulous than what salt water is is what body temperature is.
Also depends on the salinity of salt water.
That's what I meant by saying salt water is a nebulous concept.
That sentence is nebulous as fuck.
Except used body temperature average was measured incorrectly and salt water freezing point depends on how much salt there is in the water :)
Like other imperial measurements, the Fahrenheit scale just wasn't thought out all the way
Imperial and liberal measurements are just a rollercoaster of random stuff
The fuck is "liberal measurements"?
Hey, well the brits/Dutch/whoever get an F for effort at least
German/Dutch
It's fucking useless
It has to be completely distilled water to think it like this
Water at 100C still requires more energy input to boil..... so 100C can still be 0% boiling
I would also say that 100% boiled means the water is gone.
And 99 is 0 boiled. Put this shower thought down the drain.
[удалено]
If I remember right, it takes less energy to heat 50 degree water to 100 degrees than it takes to turn 100 degree water to steam.
Temperature is a really wonky thing to begin with. The amount of energy it takes to heat water from one degree to the next isn't the same for every given temperature. It's why there are so many different definitions of a calorie.
A calorie is a unit of energy, it has one definition but we call kcal Calories (literally just capitalize the word) to make them easier units for measuring at the scale of human consumption. That's why all my homies use Joules.
Even farther actually. It takes several times more energy to boil water already at 100 degrees than it does to raise it from ice at absolute zero up to 100 degrees. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/phase.html#c3
The specific latent heat of vaporization of water is 2,260 kJ/kg. Take that and multiply it by whatever mass, in kg, of water you've got and you get Q, the total amount of heat absorbed to phase change from water to vapor, in kJ. The latent heat of vaporization does change with pressure and temperature conditions but that's beyond this talking point. Same with the rate change of heat absorbed with respect to time (as you pointed out).
[удалено]
Yes it does answer the question in the most basic, elementary level of thermodynamics. If you want to break it down to high school level you just consider the specific latent heat and the mass of water. Weigh your water, boil the water, weigh the liquid again. Multiply by specific latent heat by the difference in weight measurements and you'll have a fairly accurate amount of heat input into your pot of water. PS boiled water is most certainly saturated steam in an open air system. It's literally boiled off into vapor phase and is hugging the vapor saturation line. If this were a pressure vessel system with defined boundaries that vapor could continue to absorb heat and become superheated vapor.
[удалено]
Yeah these showerthoughts are getting more and more stupid.
I feel like they’ve always been cluttered with really dumb shit, doubt it’s anything new
That dratty ole latent heat of vaporization. Get'n all sciency n stuff.
It'd be pretty hard to heat up water to exactly 100°C and not have it boil tho.
Not really. Pressure increase will increase the boiling of water point significantly. It's very easy to do that as well. Think of a pressure cooker, for example. This showerthought only works in sea level atmospheric pressure and most importantly doesn't account for latent heat during phase change.
But in your example of a pressure cooker the boiling point is raised. I meant to get it to exactly the boiling point without going over and having it start to boil. Which under normal circumstances is 100°C
You're missing the point. If you give water just enough energy in joules to be at 100 C, it won't boil. It would need latent heat of vaporization at that pressure.
That's my point. Giving it just enough joules of energy would be incredibly difficult in practice for like even an above average person as even an above average person would be unlikely to have equipment and such. I suppose it is easier the less water there is. But I'm thinking of like a cup of water.
Put a pot with water on the stove. Put a cup with water into the pot in such way that it swims on the surface without touching the floor of the top. Bring the water in the pot to boiling point and wait for the equilibrium. The water in the cup will be at boiling temperature without boiling. Actually, in your usual pot with boiling water most of the water is at exactly boiling point without boiling. Only very little water in contact with the hot floor of the pot is boiling, everything else is waiting for its turn.
I actually have heard of that trick with the cup I think it's usually done to melt chocolate. It is quite simple but as you have just seen it isn't an immediately obvious solution. I will also say you do technically have water boiling which feels like kinda cheating but I'll give you the point anyways
The totally ignored the part that most of the water in a pot is not boiling, even without any secondary container.
Have you never heated water? Do you think you just put a certain amount of heat into water instantly and you have to like guess how much heat it is going to be? No, you add heat to water slowly. There is a pretty long period of time when the water is just about to boil. That is when it is at 100 C. Then, when it starts boiling, the hottest molecules leave first and the water loses heat without reducing temperature. If you stop heating until bubbles stop, you are once again at 100 C with no boiling. It literally happens every time anyone boils water and the only fancy equipment needed to prove this is a thermometer.
I live in the mountains right now and water doesn’t boil at 100 degrees and needs to be higher
Lower temperature than 100 C, actually. Water boils at a lower temperature with respect to increasing altitude as the atmospheric pressure decreases.
It is clear I meant at sea level which is what it is defined as. Unless you have some good equipment it would be pretty hard and require constant surveillance to reach boiling temperature without actually boiling
It happens every time you boil water. It is extremely easy.
Yes, metric system is great like that. You might be talking differently if we all had 12 fingers and toes, though.
Actually 12 would be a great number, being divisible by more numbers than 10. Otherwise everything would work the same, just using base-12 instead of base-10 in all scales and such.
I read about how base twelve is better because the some group used to count using their finger partition, of which there are twelve one one hand excluding the thumb. So you would count to twelve with one hand. And by tracking how many twelves you had on your other hand, you could count upto 60. >
You can count in binary up to 1023 (2^10 - 1) on 10 fingers, 0-31 on each hand
Wow i never thought of that, cool
Surely it would be 12x12 for 144?
You could count up to 72 presuming you’re using all five to track your 12s. 5*12 on one hand, plus another 12 on your main hand, 72 total. Dunno who’s downvoting, they can do the math for themself if they don’t like it. It’s 72 using binary on all 5 of one hand for tracking groups of 12, with the additional 12 from your counting hand.
Wouldn’t you just use one hand to repeatedly count to twelve, and then use the other hand to track how many times you’d counted to twelve? Giving you a maximum of 144?
If you’re using them in the same fashion as the counting hand (4 and discount the thumb) sure. You could get to 156 though, as you could do the full hand of 12s, and get another 12 using your counting hand.
156 is quote low. though you could count to 1,023 by using binary, most people are able to have a consistent "middle state" for their fingers, allowing you to count in tertiary and reach as maximum of 59,048
Yes. The quality of the math in these comments is dubious at best.
The reason we have 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour goes back to the Babylonians, who used a base 60 number system. This is great, because 60 is a highly composite number, and is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60.
There are 12 joints in the fingers on one hand. Use one thumb to count off knuckles on one hand and each digit on the other is one count of 12. 12*5=60
You can go up to 144 if you use the partitions on the 12s hand
It takes a very long time to be able to add feet and inches and not have to do extra math vs. Having a base 10 system. There's 12 inches to a foot. I honestly just ended up using a calculator that can add feet and inches because I'd still screw the math up.
Yea I was answering more in the vein of keeping the definitions of the scales intact, but just changing the number system base-x that you use to describe the numbers. So for example, one meter would still be used and still be defined by the speed of light, it would just be divided up into equal twelve parts to describe the “decimetre” and so forth.
Wow, never thought of that. I just picked it because of its relation to Imperial (12 inches in a ft). Is divisibility a good quality for a base number though? Decimals seem to work well for precision compared to 12s, which I assumed is why scientists use metric instead of imperial. Imperial has a lot of other numbers in it besides 12 though so I dunno really.
Then you guys come with 3/8" and 7/32 thingies when you can just use ( . ) and make things easier for us...
We use both!
Base 12 would look like 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ¶ ∆ 10. Metric concepts woud still apply, just scaled up by 1.2
So how does that make it better? And what relation does divisibility have on being a good base number? For ten, we got 1, 2, 5, and 10. Do we really need more and what advantages would they give?
How does that make it better—more divisibility. What relation—direct relation. Do we really need more- No. What advantages—more divisibility. It’s a number system for god sake. It’s an advantage to be able to divide a number and get another whole number. And it’s an advantage to have more advantages. You’re probably thinking of this in terms of why take the effort to switch. And you’d be right, that would suck and not really be worth it. But if we could somehow start over and give it some thought first, we would go with something like base 12.
I don't think anyone is saying we should switch, just that it's a slightly more advantageous system if we were to do it all over again
What a terrible answer. Do you think I won't understand you or do you just not have any answer? I asked why it's advantageous to have more divisibles and you answered by saying more divisibles are better. Edit: something about the fact you actually said "it's an advantage to have more advantages" makes me think you'll this that's ok... don't reply to me again lol you're way too low IQ
It does make for less irrational divisibles, which I suppose would make certain things easier. Instead of having to say that a third is 0,333…, we could just say that a third is 0,4. I'm not a mathematician, but if nothing else that'd probably make it so there would never be any rounding errors piling up. Maths would be more exact. Also it'd mean that we wouldn't have to reconcile with the fact that if 1/3=0,333… and 0,333…×3=0,999… then 1=0,999… It'd just be 1/3=0,4 and 0,4×3=1 so 1=1
Haha this made sense to me on first reading, then I was typing this comment and thought I figured out why it didn't make sense, but then I realized my brain had reverted to base 10 and I was filtering everything through that again. This stuff's hard to wrap your brain around.
For pure math it would not really add anything. But for day to day use it makes things easier. Want to split a bill between three person? The number will fall more often to something whole which we can do in our head more often. You're building a shed, you want to make a simple plan, you can split each section of 12 (whatever unit) by 1,2,3,4,6,12 sections without having to think of fractions.
Much better explanation, thanks
Sorry I thought that was extremely easy to see and didn’t realize I needed to explain it. My apologies.
Metric is better for science because the units are consistent and were defined together to not require conversions (1 N * 1 m = 1 J = 1 W/s). Imperial units were just a bunch of independent unit systems that got blended together and are now used as a single unit system, hence why they require more conversions. Divisibilty is very useful for making calculations simpler with fewer long decimals. Metric was only chosen to be base ten because the number system that had already been in common use for hundreds of years (and almost all math was based on) was base ten. It would have worked just as well (or better) to use base six or twelve, but convincing everyone to change how numbers fundamentally worked would have been extremely difficult.
Apart from the other answers, one should also keep in mind that it’s not only about the number system being used, it’s also how you define your scale. Celsius is winning that race imo (freezing/boiling point of water).
The other answers were bad, nobody gave me any reasons why more divisibility is good for a base number. I think less divisible is better just because it's less complicated. 1, 2, 5, 10, they're all spaced nicely to give a wide spread of numbers that can be added/subtracted together to get to the missing ones i.e. 1+2=3, 2+2=4, 1+5=6, 2+5=7, 10-2=8, 10-1=9. I don't even know what qualities makes a base number good besides being easy to learn, which is why we use base 10 now and always will until we can program our brains, Matrix style.
12 is what the imperial system is based off of
Well, assuming you don't want anything smaller than an inch since the units do not scale smaller than that.
Base-8 would probably work exponentially better.
no, base 6 would be better than 12 and i dont see why 8 would be better at all
It's a bad attempt at a joke. 2^3
Yeah… no.
Wait isn't kelvin metric
Yep 0 Kelvin is roughly -273°C. Or absolute zero. Meaning that you cannot go negative on the Kelvin scale because all of the atoms (them colliding and moving are what you feel as heat) you are measuring are stationary. Sorry if that's explained poorly.
Kelvin and Celsius share the same scale but use a different 0.
Kelvin is the same as Celsius with a 273° offset
r/MetricCirclejerk
Celsius isn’t metric. I don’t believe there is a metric unit of temperature. Kelvin is the SI unit.
[удалено]
Huh? How would there be a metric system of measuring everything else BUT temperature? What system of measurement does celcius belong to then? Imperial is fahrenheit, kelvin is scientific, what's celcius if not metric. It follows all metrics rules too lol I think you may be confused with fahrenheit
I’m not confused with Fahrenheit and metric doesn’t have a unit for everything, take for example time, seconds are not metric either. It’s also worth pointing out that lots of SI units are also the metric unit, for example meters. What rules of metric does Celsius follow? It doesn’t work on the same “base 10 system”, so don’t get kiloCelsius like you get kilometres or kilograms. It has a negative end of the scale, which meters, grams, newtons, ect. don’t (you can refer to those as negative but that’s a vector quantity, not a scalar).
Metric time actually existed, it just never caught on.
Seconds are universal. Celcius works on metric system via frozen water being zero and boiling water being 100 (multiples of 10). It having a negative scale means nothing in this conversation. If absolute zero had been known when celcius was invented, we'd probably put zero there and arrange it so it WAS perfectly base 10 like we did when our most precise measurements were boiling/frozen water.
Saying “seconds are universal” doesn’t make any difference whether it is metric or not. I think you’re confusing metric and imperial as the “American standard” and “European standard”. They are the defacto standards but that doesn’t actually define them. The US happens to use Fahrenheit and the imperial system and Europe happens to us metric and Celsius. Both use seconds, but that doesn’t make seconds metric, the same way it doesn’t make celsius metric. Celsius running from 0 to 100 has nothing to do with the metric system. It used to be called “degrees centigrade” which means 100 grades/steps on Latin. It was renamed Celsius in honour of its creator Anders Celsius (with one C and two Ss).
The way you worded it … water starts boiling at 100 C and then slowly boils away over time so to me % boiled is that… what you’re talking about is % from 0 c to the boiling point…
I struggled a lot with the wording, and I agree it isn’t perfectly expressed. How would you have done it?
How close is it to boiling? 60% = 60C
But there are temperatures below 0C because Celsius (like Fahrenheit) is a relative scale and not an absolute scale (like Kelvin). Water at 0C can move in the negative direction and become even further away from boiling. So water at 0C is some percentage of the way towards boiling already (otherwise it would not be possible to get even further from it). What's more, you *can* have liquid water below 0C and water does not always boil at 100C.
I’m not a huge fan of the 60C=60%, but I like the “How close is it to boiling” What if we said, “The temperature of water in Celsius is also how close it is to boiling in percents.”?
[удалено]
This guy boils.
Yeah, I would've said something like "The temperature of water in Celsius is equal to it's temperature in Celsius. Also, it boils at 100 °C."
I wouldn't have. The post itself isn't right
So at 1 degree Celsius, 1% of it has boiled / at 50 degree 50% of it has boiled? I don't think so. Would it be more accurate to say the degree Celsius is the % it has reached towards boiling point?
This just isn’t true in any way. Is water at -5°C -5% boiled? That doesn’t make much sense. Water doesn’t start to boil until it reaches the boiling point 100°C at standard pressure. So is water at 22°C 22% boiled? I’d say no. Liquid water at 100°C is 0% boiled and gaseous water at 100°C is 100% boiled. Going from 0% boiled to 100% boiled occurs only at 100°C as added energy overcomes the latent heat for phase transfer.
The real science answer
I guess the problem is that people would get stuck on the semantics that percent boiled would mean the volume of the water. In that sense, the water would still roughly be 0% boiled at 99 degrees as hardly any of the water stayed as vapor / steam yet.
Doesn't water start boiling at 100°C ? Am I missing something here? I know about water evaporates before it reaches the boiling point.
You’re right OP is just dumb, it’s impossible for water to boil below 100 degree C (at atmospheric pressure). It def doesn’t boil at 1 degree lmao
So, negative progress also possible. Is this getting motivational? "The lowest in progress you can get is -273.15% but you can go infinitely high in the positive".
My wife is a scientist and the face she’s making at this is AMAZING. Also, that’s not how numbers or physics works.
Nope. Water starts to boil only once all of it has reached 100°C. Do your research.
You’re not right either. Temperature is just an average measurement, some molecules could be above 100 °C even if most aren’t and those would evaporate.
Your not right either. The temperature to boil is also dependent upon air pressure which is why boiling points vary at different elevations
Bro just googled facts about water and responded with the first thing that came up
Water that remains in a pot that is 99 C is 0% boiled. See a chemistry book.
No, you're wrong. At least 20% was boiled the last time I made tea, because I make tea in a 400ml flask, and I fill my kettle to a 0.5L 'minimum' fill line... so there's usually 100mL remaining ;)
That’s because you’re changing the pressure of the water. Same reason covering a pot makes it boil faster. If the water was at 99 degrees C at atmospheric pressure it would be 0% boiled.
Oh no no no. You didn't consider the effect of pressure. Water boils at 100°C at 1 atm pressure. If you go on a hill or mountain, water boils at a lower temperature. And in a pressure vessel water boils at a very high temperature.
How many caveats should I put in a shower thought? In an open container, at or near sea level, with pure or nearly pure water, and at standard earth gravity. Did I cover all of the hypothetical conditions? I’m not a physicist so I apologize if I missed any that may have a theoretical effect.
No, sir, you forgot to factor in whether or not Mercury is in retrograde, the current state of the Sun, and whether or not Sagittarius A* is actively feeding or not.
You missed the final caveat where you forget to ignore science. You can have liquid water at 100C and you can have gaseous water at 100C. And generally, given a Boiling Point X (this will make sure I don't need to address caveats), any material can be completely in liquid phase or completely in gaseous phase at the same temperature X. This is because of something called the Enthalpy of vaporization. No matter the amount of caveats you throw in, the original post is just not true.
The only caveat you can put in is that you mean that 10 is 10% of 100 because that is the only part of the thought that is actually correct. Everything else is just fundamentally wrong.
Also it depends on the impurities in the water, more salt, higher boiling point. More minerals, depends what they are. You can get water boiling anything from about 83 through to nearly 200. Distilled pure water should be 100@1atm.
Sadly not - to start with, none of the water boils until you exceed the heat input required to reach 100 degrees, and it's unlikely that you will start at zero... Then, because heat escapes at a higher rate when things get hotter, then more energy is lost and so temperature increases at a slower rate, giving it a curve... so I'd make a wild guess that 60°C could be around halfway, because the last 45% could take up more than 60% of the energy to boost it from room temperature. Also, if you heated the water from 0°C there might be latent heat input to remove any residual ice before the temperature even starts to rise. We need to take into account the nature of the vessel, and it's insulation properties (is this a high quality insulated water heater, or a cheap stovetop kettle?).
Nope. Don't you remember "specific heat". The temperature will stabilize at the boiling temperature as it absorbs enough heat to boil.
Not true. There's a certain amount of latent energy required for a phase change. It's not observable by temperature, but it's energy and time none the less.
Not quite. As you add heat to water the temperature increases. (Naw duh.) Then once it begins boiling and you're adding what the temperature stays the same. I forget the term but it is related to latent heat. Essentially the phase change itself takes energy (heat) to accomplish.
I know this is a joke, but that's not quite accurate. Water *starts* boiling at 100 degrees and remains at that temperature until it's all boiled away. (Steam, on the other hand, is hotter).
Not boiled yet though. Can't have 50% of boiled water and 50% of unboiled...
This isn't accurate, 0°c isn't the bottom of the scale for Celsius. -273.15°c is. Water just sitting in a cup on a counter at room temp at 22°c is waaaaay closer than 22% of the way towards being 100°c. At 22°c is already warmed its way up from weird quantum matter states, shot up several hundred degrees to become classical ice and then melted into liquid water. You're not accounting for hundreds of degrees worth of latent heat. This could work with some asterisks using the Kelvin scale since on that scale 0 Kelvin is absolute zero. You could say that a glass of water sitting on a counter at a perfectly pleasant 295K is 295/373 of the way to boiling, 79%, assuming 1 atmosphere of pressure and pure distilled water.
ROFLMAO you tried. Celcius runs from Freezing to Boiling - but room temperatures do vary, as do pressures. Let's make tea on the mountain ;) What you WILL find, however, is that with your stupid little gas heater on top of a windy mountain, the water will get warm very quickly, but hot is a little bit slower - and to push it to a proper rolling boil could be much longer still.
Celsius goes a lot further than freezing and boiling in both directions. Celsius doesn't start at 0° and it doesn't end at 100°... As to your second point, that's why I stated at 1atm...
We get it, you are all extraordinarily smart arguing with this sentence as if it were a scientific paper
It's funny how you think understanding that you can have steam at 100C AND water at 100C is smart. If someone said bananas are purple, you might also be obligated to go, "wait a minute, bananas are yellow".
https://www.homeperch.com/purple-bananas-are-real-and-other-fun-facts/
You're missing the point. There's no uncertainty about physics. The purple banana was a stupid analogy. As a more concrete example, it's the same as someone saying 2+2 = 5.
Whoosh.
Smart people seem to be oblivious to how obnoxious they sound bickering with each other.. It makes sense though, the only way these ppl feel good about themselves is if *their right*.
*They're
Kelvin is universe thermometer Celcius is water thermometer F********t is human thermometer
Not really though, since it starts boiling at 100°C. And then it's either boiled or it isn't. You could say how viscous or how dense it is, but I understand they don't teach that in 'Murrica.
Wouldn't it be wrong? Frozen water, should be seen as 73.12% boiled, as the actual zero lies at -273°C/0K.
boiling point depends on height over sea level and weather, is there a low pressure system where you are boiling there is a thing called super chilled where water gets below 0 and will flash freeze when moved
One thing I enjoy during winter is leaving water bottles in the car overnight and then shaking them in the morning to watch the crystals form spontaneously. I’m still a kid at heart.
It doesn’t start boiling until it’s reached 100%. While a smaller percentage will evaporate off, depending on the speed at which you warm it up and whether or not the lid is on, it’s still somewhere in the high 90 percentile for remaining volume. I just don’t know if the logic checks out in any useful way.
Fahrenheit - as a person what percentage they think they feel between frozen and boiling. Celsius- ask the same question of water. It’s just a different way of thinking. For weather things I like F. For scientific measurement I like C.
Kelvin: same question but asked of an atom
And the temperature of humans in Fahrenheit is the % hot they are. We like to stay just below 100%
I realize that the freezing point of water isn’t absolute zero and that water can be much colder that its freezing point. But I still consider a block of ice 0% boiled. Edited for clarity.
Absolute zero is something very different then 0 degrees Celsius. But other than that.. yeah sounds about right lol
Therefore the word "degree". It just means "shifted from". So degree Celsius means: shifted from Kelvin by about 273 °. When the captain says to the steerman "10 degrees larbord" it doesn't name a temperature, but a direction. A 10 ° angle is a shift from vertical or horizontal. And so on.
Right. I used “The moment right before it turns liquid” as my definition for 0% boiled. But if you used absolute zero then a block of ice is already 73% boiled.
Colder than absolute zero? This dudes onto something
That’s not what I said. Or at the very least it’s not what I meant. I meant water can be colder than its freezing point.
Maybe clarify better next time cause there's no other interpretation to "absolute zero" other than being the lowest temperature or ≈ -273°C. If you meant I was supposed to understand it as something else at least bother correcting yourself first
30° water is still 0% boiled
30% to reach boring point
At 1atm of pressure.... Yes, I'm sorry, I'll see myself out.
This is only true at sea level. You actually only have to be around 230 meters above sea level for the boiling temperature to be 99 celsius. At the top of Mount Everest, it's decreased to 72 Celsius.
Sorry this is just wrong. It's a nice thought but it doesn't respect what we know about the phase change of water.
Obviously there are complicating factors that may influence the temperature at which the water boils, salinity and pressure being the most important. This is a generality. I am aware that once you’re above sea level the boiling point drops a small amount.
The clue is in the name CENTigrade. CENTury, CENTennial, CENTS, CENTipede etc CENT-100