DC Wave Questions

I didn't do any thrashing - I went right for the answer:

------------------- Subject: Re: DC Wave Questi> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:37:49 GMT, Tom MacIntyre

According to the graph at

, approx.

10^3 Pa, whatever the hell that means. Obviously, an atmosphere is up there near the "annoying point", ;-) , between 10^8 and 10^9 Pa.

------------------

But you might have missed it because it wasn't from "Pig Bladder". ;-)

And, admittedly, at that point in time I hadn't realized that that's called the "triple point", but that _was_ the point I was referring to.

Cheers! Rich

Either what I wrote did not come out how I intended, or you disagree that de's can be used to solve a circuit. You almost alluded to de's before so probably that's not it. So to Mr. Kelly, let me rephrase that to a more bland "Yes. Although I guess one could use time domain." Apologies.

And to you, too, Al. I'm sorry. Sorry you got fired from the cafeteria at Motorola. After 30 years "in electronics" that's a pretty hard break for the "Kitchen Man".

j

Huh? The issue is not whether water can be a gas at 0C, rather can it

*boil*. Since there is nowhere in the phase diagram that the water and gas phase touch each other at 0C, my guess is that it cannot boil at 0C, at *any* pressure. It's only a guess though. ;-)

What? Evaporation only occurs between the liquid and gas phases. I suppose you're proposing that it somehow "tunnels" through the solid phase at 0C? Me thinks you need to go back to high school physics.

Squirming? Try reading the phase diagram that has been put right in front of your nose. Water cannot "boil" at 0C. ...not possible.

"Handy" labels like "gas", "liquid", "solid", "boil", "melt", and "sublimate"? I guess you have a point. We're being *so* judgemental. ...hurt your feelings?

--
  Keith

Did you even look at the charts? Did you read the many posts, all of which agreed that at 0.01C, water can be a solid, a liquid, or a gas.

Since what was specified was "0C", *not* 0.00C, arguing that 0.01 is different than 0C is silly. As noted, 0C covers anything from

-0.5 to +0.5C, because no decimal precison was specified.

Since at 0C it can be *any* of those... what's your point?

Learn to read. People cannot understand the statement 'Water can "boil" at 0C too.' have a problem with the English language. I you are going to claim you speak English as a second language, I'll listen, otherwise not.

All this pedantic nashing of teeth for people who can't even read common English syntax is amazing.

--
Floyd L. Davidson           
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com

I have no problem reading. OTOH, you have a problem with high school physics. At no pressure, at 0C, is water both a liquid and a gas, therefor water *CANNOT BOIL* at 0C. It must become a solid when transitioning between a liquid and gas at 0C.

Correct physics is pedantic? Nice try, but perhaps you want to look at the phase diagram again.

--
  Keith

--
Whether it's "correct" or not is moot.  What you were challenged to do
was to provide the _pressure_ required to make water boil at 0°C.  You
have't done that, and your ploy of using others' answers as if they
were your own is typical of your ilk:  know-nothing posers who are
shown how a magic trick works and then pretend they knew how it worked
all along. Positively Fourth Street.

--
LOL, learn to _write_, you idiotic fuck!

Not writing what *you* want to read is hardly an error on *my* part.

--
Floyd L. Davidson           
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com

The pressure is commonly known, was not the point, and your question was out of place and trivially ignored.

Which is to say, who cares if you asked a dumb question?

Learn to read. Your life won't be so filled with angst and bitterness.

--
Floyd L. Davidson           
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com

What a lot of you are missing though is that the diagrams you are looking at are equilibrium states. Take a large quantitiy of liquid water at 0.05 C and let it stand. Now, have it in a chamber at something like 1 kPa. Next,

*rapidly* reduce the pressure on the surface (maybe suddenly open it to a large vacumn chamber). You can then get evaporation to cool the liquid and at the same time get some of the water to violently change phase to a gas (i.e. 'boil'). You will also get a far amount of ice formation as the latent heat of vaporization is supplied by fusing some of the water into ice.

Of course, this is only a transitory phenomenon, but it is 'boiling'

daestrom

--
No one, but _everyone_ seems to be getting on _your_ case about _your_
dumb answers.

No, it sounds to me like he knows his phase diagrams. Water can indeed be made to both boil and freeze (simultaneously) near 0C if the pressure is appropriately low. I don't recall the exact pressure, but it's a medium vacuum (1 Torr, 50 Microns,... ???) That combination of temperature and pressure is called the triple point of water because all 3 phases of water exist in equilibrium there. It is a fundamental property of water that can be used to calibrate thermometers.

-

----------------------------------------------- Jim Adney snipped-for-privacy@vwtype3.org Madison, WI 53711 USA

-----------------------------------------------

--- Boy, are you an ignorant piece of shit! I'm not talking about what _I_ want to read, I'm talking about _your_ abysmal command of the language, as exemplified by that little outburst of yours to which I was responding.

Read it again, and if it still sounds OK to you then you've got a bigger problem than just being thick.

OK, I'll give you a break... The first sentence needs a "who" after "People" in order to make sense, although it's pretty humorous that you inadvertently chastised some folks' problem with being able to understand an improperly crafted sentence, while at the same time being the dumbass who crafted it, LOL!

And "nashing" of teeth??? Tsk, tsk, tsk...

BTW, asshole, how about let's see some of those flames you've been threatening about unleashing.

-- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer

In fact, that's all you *ever* talk about.

Perfect example!

--
Floyd L. Davidson           
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com

--
Learn to use the language and its subtleties properly if you want to
be considered learned or, at the very least, competent in American
English. 

The omission of the 'g' at the beginning of 'nashing' is inexcusable
and marks you as a churl.

Spelling flames, John, just *do* become you perfectly!

--
Floyd L. Davidson           
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com

This type of discussion is pointless and harmful. I've known brilliant people, some at Bell Labs, who had difficulty spelling. Some Engineers and Scientists had excellent command of the language (both English and English!), but weren't as "swift" as the ones with language usage or spelling problems. It's the luck of the draw either way.

It's quite difficult sometimes, but lets all try to be a bit nicer.

Awaiting flames.....

Don

Didn't get what you meant by "de's." It is now somewhat apparent that you mean "differential equations." So ok then, apologies all around.

Actually, I've never worked for Motorola. I didn't even know they had a cafeteria. They have some nice cafeterias at Microsoft, but I've never worked for them, either. You must have me confused with some other guy who's good in the kitchen *and* the garage. It happens.

--
Al Brennan

"If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9,
 then you would have a key to the universe." Nicola Tesla

The fundamental problem with the term "DC sine wave" is that it suggests a way of viewing the situation which is incompatible with finding answers to the posed questions.

To answer the question, the offset AC waveform has to be considered as the sum or a DC voltage and an AC component, with their effects on the R, L, and C analyzed seperately. The L and the C don't care about your DC offset, so you must still think of the signal as AC in order to understand their behavior. They don't care that the overall signal doesn't reverse polarity, they only care that derivative of voltage with respect to time is non-zero.