TexasCHLforum.com

I was watching a History Channel show about Neanderthals. I didn't catch it all but they were showing some pools of water from a volcanic source and said the water temperature was 300 Degrees F. Like new math I guess that's the new physics.

Perhaps it is due to anthropomorphic water boiling point cooling. Don't let the climate nuts know...

puma guy wrote:I was watching a History Channel show about Neanderthals. I didn't catch it all but they were showing some pools of water from a volcanic source and said the water temperature was 300 Degrees F. Like new math I guess that's the new physics.

They were undoubtedly scientists so they actually meant 300 degrees C.

WildBill wrote:

puma guy wrote:I was watching a History Channel show about Neanderthals. I didn't catch it all but they were showing some pools of water from a volcanic source and said the water temperature was 300 Degrees F. Like new math I guess that's the new physics.

They were undoubtedly scientists so they actually meant 300 degrees C.

Or maybe in a cave 30000 feet under ground.

puma guy wrote:

WildBill wrote:

puma guy wrote:I was watching a History Channel show about Neanderthals. I didn't catch it all but they were showing some pools of water from a volcanic source and said the water temperature was 300 Degrees F. Like new math I guess that's the new physics.

They were undoubtedly scientists so they actually meant 300 degrees C.

Or maybe in a cave 30000 feet under ground.

You mean meters?

Maybe you guys need to Google supercritical water. They indeed mean 300 degrees F.

MONGOOSE wrote:Maybe you guys need to Google supercritical water. They indeed mean 300 degrees F.

How all you have to do is explain how a pool of water could be pressurized to the point that the water reaches supercritical levels.

You don't think that the volcanic area doesn't produce enough pressure to super pressurize the water? What do you think pushes the magma out? Do you think pressure might have caused Mt St Helens to explode.

MONGOOSE wrote:You don't think that the volcanic area doesn't produce enough pressure to super pressurize the water? What do you think pushes the magma out? Do you think pressure might have caused Mt St Helens to explode.

Aside from your obvious attempt to belittle others, what happens when the pressure is gone? Doesn't the water then lose part of the combination required to be super critical? I thought a pool of standing water could not maintain any real pressure? I would think that your theory that it would be super critical water is invalid due to that.

Your assumption that I want to belittle others is rather presumptuous . I have no desire to do that. Since pressurized water can obtain temps of 700 degrees F, I don' think finding 300 degree water is too far a reach.

baldeagle wrote:

MONGOOSE wrote:Maybe you guys neeed to Google supercritical water. They indeed mean 300 degrees F.

How all you have to do is explain how a pool of water could be pressurized to the point that the water reaches supercritical levels.

I don't know any way to do that at 14.7 PSIA (sea level) much less in the elevated terrain they were exploring. The maximum sensible temperature of water at sea level is 212°F is what I was taught. Requires 180 BTU's to increase 32°F liquid water temperature to 212°F. It requires another 970 BTU's of heat to reach boiling point i.e. change it's state from liquid to vapor, but even then the sensible heat (measured temperature) of the boiling water is 212°F.

We produced saturated steam at 20PSIG, 125PSIG and 650PSIG in boilers at the refinery at which I was employed. The amount of heat required to produce steam increased relatively to those pressures. We also produced superheated steam. but not superheated/supercritical water from what I recall.

300F is the "feels like" temperature due to the humidity

opposite of wind chill when it's cold

Although I agree with the OP that the Discover Channel screwed up this one there is an interesting phenomena where you can indeed superheat (heat water above it's boiling point at the current pressure) purified or distilled water in a glass or smooth container given rare circumstances.

Given water without pre-existing bubbles and pure enough that the nucleation threshold is homogeneous throughout the fluid, the first and primary nucleation moment (think the formulation of the very first steam bubble) can require more energy than there is available at the boiling point. Once the first bubble forms and physically disturbs the superheated water it cascades to boiling.

http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu. ... eating.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_OXM4mr_i0

Gotta love science!

But I'm pretty sure that the Discovery Channel is NOT in any way referring to this phenomena.

esxmarkc wrote:Although I agree with the OP that the Discover Channel screwed up this one there is an interesting phenomena where you can indeed superheat (heat water above it's boiling point at the current pressure) purified or distilled water in a glass or smooth container given rare circumstances.

Given water without pre-existing bubbles and pure enough that the nucleation threshold is homogeneous throughout the fluid, the first and primary nucleation moment (think the formulation of the very first steam bubble) can require more energy than there is available at the boiling point. Once the first bubble forms and physically disturbs the superheated water it cascades to boiling.

http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu. ... eating.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_OXM4mr_i0

Gotta love science!

But I'm pretty sure that the Discovery Channel is NOT in any way referring to this phenomena.

Unfortunately my video application is not functioning properly on my laptop. Is this in a microwave? I've seen the demonstrations of water heated past boiling point without vaporization and then flashing when disturbed or a bubble forms. I need a science guy to figure out why my laptop displays videos as a green screen.

With all due respect, if you're watching the History Channel and expecting to find real history, or anything else accurately portrayed, you'd be better off watching Bugs Bunny. They have, pardon the pun, a pretty sad history of gross inaccuracies.