Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
"Captain Howdy" wrote in message
... Okay then, So,,,,,,,,,subs sound louder in the winter (in cold weather) because the air is less dense due to a lack of water in the air and there for moves with less effort ? no, in the winter the air is DENSER, less energy, and less water vapor. the more dense the less energy you need to keep the molecules moving. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
"Captain Howdy" wrote in message
... Okay fine, but wouldnt the water itself make the air denser? nope less dense, the H2O is bigger so it takes up space and energy. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
no, in the winter the air is DENSER,
Pressure is proportional to temperature. less energy, and less water vapor. Less water vapor would result in less density, not more. This is because vapor displaces air. the more dense the less energy you need to keep the molecules moving. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
Okay fine, but wouldnt the water itself make the air denser?
nope less dense, the H2O is bigger so it takes up space and energy. But the mere presence of the water is increasing density, when compared with the case where the water isn't there. You're not losing air molecules. You're just adding water. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
Sounds like you have this ass backwards. Anything water logged would be
denser/heavier and harder to move vs the samething that is dry In article , "Tha Ghee" wrote: "Captain Howdy" wrote in message ... Okay then, So,,,,,,,,,subs sound louder in the winter (in cold weather) because the air is less dense due to a lack of water in the air and there for moves with less effort ? no, in the winter the air is DENSER, less energy, and less water vapor. the more dense the less energy you need to keep the molecules moving. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
Do a search for Psychrometrics. Look at a psych chart or try the psych
calc at http://www.linric.com/webpsysi.htm There are two measures of temperature, wet bulb and dry bulb. Dry bulb is what a conventional thermometer measures (sensible heat). Wet bulb temp is caused by evaporating water. The humidity that is given on the weather is Relative humidity (as opposed to absolute humidity) and is dependent on temperature. It all relates the amount of energy (enthalpy) in the air. An example: at sea level, 101.325 kPa (will change with altitude and pressure) Starting with moist air, @ Dry bulb temp(Tdb) = 20deg C(68deg F), 60% RH Wet bulb temp (Twb) is 15.1deg C (59.2F) this is the temp that you would feel if you were wet in some way eg. perspiration. This is also how swamp coolers work. specific volume of this air is 0.84 m^3/kg the dewpoint (Tdp/100% RH) is 12.1 deg C If you were to drop the temp of the air mixture to 12.1C the RH would increase to 100% and you would start to get condensation. Decreasing the air temp to 12.1 decreases the specific volume to 0.82 m^3/kg. At 100% RH the Twb and Tdb are the same, 12.1 deg C and the reason perspiration doesn't cool you at high humidity rates. increasing the temp to Tdb = 39C (102.2F): RH ~ 20% Twb ~ 21.4C (70.5F) v ~ 0.9 m^3/kg The humidity ratio is ~ 8.8 g moisture/kg dry air. If anyone really wants (though I don't know why) I can send them a psych chart for various altitudes and the formulas to work it all out. Hope that helps a bit -Steve (who thought he'd never use this when he took it in school :-) (Captain Howdy) wrote in message ... Where is Lester, he's a scientific type of a noob, maybe he can draw us a chart or a graph on this issue. In article , "Peter" wrote: The temperature has nothing to do with the humidity level. Humidity is a measure of the moisture content of the air. Hell, it's been 100% humidity here for a couple of days now an it hasn't gotten over 43 degrees. Temperature has everything to do with humidity level. The warmer it is the more water vapor can air sustain without condensing. 100% humidity at 32F means there's lot less water vapor in air than 100% at 100F. Basic physics. Peter |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
Thanks Steve, That was a most interesting post. Its rare to learn anything
new in here. Especially since you always insist on clinging on to old ideas. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
And yet he keeps coming back.........
Paul Vina "Captain Howdy" wrote in message news Thanks Steve, That was a most interesting post. Its rare to learn anything new in here. In article , (Stephen Shoihet) wrote: Do a search for Psychrometrics. Look at a psych chart or try the psych calc at http://www.linric.com/webpsysi.htm There are two measures of temperature, wet bulb and dry bulb. Dry bulb is what a conventional thermometer measures (sensible heat). Wet bulb temp is caused by evaporating water. The humidity that is given on the weather is Relative humidity (as opposed to absolute humidity) and is dependent on temperature. It all relates the amount of energy (enthalpy) in the air. An example: at sea level, 101.325 kPa (will change with altitude and pressure) Starting with moist air, @ Dry bulb temp(Tdb) = 20deg C(68deg F), 60% RH Wet bulb temp (Twb) is 15.1deg C (59.2F) this is the temp that you would feel if you were wet in some way eg. perspiration. This is also how swamp coolers work. specific volume of this air is 0.84 m^3/kg the dewpoint (Tdp/100% RH) is 12.1 deg C If you were to drop the temp of the air mixture to 12.1C the RH would increase to 100% and you would start to get condensation. Decreasing the air temp to 12.1 decreases the specific volume to 0.82 m^3/kg. At 100% RH the Twb and Tdb are the same, 12.1 deg C and the reason perspiration doesn't cool you at high humidity rates. increasing the temp to Tdb = 39C (102.2F): RH ~ 20% Twb ~ 21.4C (70.5F) v ~ 0.9 m^3/kg The humidity ratio is ~ 8.8 g moisture/kg dry air. If anyone really wants (though I don't know why) I can send them a psych chart for various altitudes and the formulas to work it all out. Hope that helps a bit -Steve (who thought he'd never use this when he took it in school :-) (Captain Howdy) wrote in message ... Where is Lester, he's a scientific type of a noob, maybe he can draw us a chart or a graph on this issue. In article , "Peter" wrote: The temperature has nothing to do with the humidity level. Humidity is a measure of the moisture content of the air. Hell, it's been 100% humidity here for a couple of days now an it hasn't gotten over 43 degrees. Temperature has everything to do with humidity level. The warmer it is the more water vapor can air sustain without condensing. 100% humidity at 32F means there's lot less water vapor in air than 100% at 100F. Basic physics. Peter |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
That's because my day isn't complete without a little bit of Paul and Mark
controversy. In article HxGOb.80533$Rc4.290728@attbi_s54, "Paul Vina" wrote: And yet he keeps coming back......... Paul Vina "Captain Howdy" wrote in message news Thanks Steve, That was a most interesting post. Its rare to learn anything new in here. In article , (Stephen Shoihet) wrote: Do a search for Psychrometrics. Look at a psych chart or try the psych calc at http://www.linric.com/webpsysi.htm There are two measures of temperature, wet bulb and dry bulb. Dry bulb is what a conventional thermometer measures (sensible heat). Wet bulb temp is caused by evaporating water. The humidity that is given on the weather is Relative humidity (as opposed to absolute humidity) and is dependent on temperature. It all relates the amount of energy (enthalpy) in the air. An example: at sea level, 101.325 kPa (will change with altitude and pressure) Starting with moist air, @ Dry bulb temp(Tdb) = 20deg C(68deg F), 60% RH Wet bulb temp (Twb) is 15.1deg C (59.2F) this is the temp that you would feel if you were wet in some way eg. perspiration. This is also how swamp coolers work. specific volume of this air is 0.84 m^3/kg the dewpoint (Tdp/100% RH) is 12.1 deg C If you were to drop the temp of the air mixture to 12.1C the RH would increase to 100% and you would start to get condensation. Decreasing the air temp to 12.1 decreases the specific volume to 0.82 m^3/kg. At 100% RH the Twb and Tdb are the same, 12.1 deg C and the reason perspiration doesn't cool you at high humidity rates. increasing the temp to Tdb = 39C (102.2F): RH ~ 20% Twb ~ 21.4C (70.5F) v ~ 0.9 m^3/kg The humidity ratio is ~ 8.8 g moisture/kg dry air. If anyone really wants (though I don't know why) I can send them a psych chart for various altitudes and the formulas to work it all out. Hope that helps a bit -Steve (who thought he'd never use this when he took it in school :-) (Captain Howdy) wrote in message ... Where is Lester, he's a scientific type of a noob, maybe he can draw us a chart or a graph on this issue. In article , "Peter" wrote: The temperature has nothing to do with the humidity level. Humidity is a measure of the moisture content of the air. Hell, it's been 100% humidity here for a couple of days now an it hasn't gotten over 43 degrees. Temperature has everything to do with humidity level. The warmer it is the more water vapor can air sustain without condensing. 100% humidity at 32F means there's lot less water vapor in air than 100% at 100F. Basic physics. Peter |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
Is that bad ?
In article , "Mark Zarella" wrote: Thanks Steve, That was a most interesting post. Its rare to learn anything new in here. Especially since you always insist on clinging on to old ideas. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
Is that bad ?
When doing so in the face of overwhelming evidence, yes. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
What overwhelming evidence?
In article , "Mark Zarella" wrote: Is that bad ? When doing so in the face of overwhelming evidence, yes. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
Any overwhelming evidence. I'm referring to when someone refuses to change
their viewpoint even after being presented with evidence to the contrary. "Captain Howdy" wrote in message ... What overwhelming evidence? In article , "Mark Zarella" wrote: Is that bad ? When doing so in the face of overwhelming evidence, yes. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
... no, in the winter the air is DENSER, Pressure is proportional to temperature. less energy, and less water vapor. Less water vapor would result in less density, not more. This is because vapor displaces air. the more dense the less energy you need to keep the molecules moving. that's what I said, look. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
"Captain Howdy" wrote in message
... Sounds like you have this ass backwards. Anything water logged would be denser/heavier and harder to move vs the samething that is dry you're getting air and solid materials confused, two worlds apart. just think about it and you won't get backwards. just take it step by step and you may understand. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
... Any overwhelming evidence. I'm referring to when someone refuses to change their viewpoint even after being presented with evidence to the contrary. "Captain Howdy" wrote in message ... What overwhelming evidence? In article , "Mark Zarella" wrote: Is that bad ? When doing so in the face of overwhelming evidence, yes. I don't think Capt.. Howdy is keeping up I think he's looking thru purple tinted glasses. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
news Okay fine, but wouldnt the water itself make the air denser? nope less dense, the H2O is bigger so it takes up space and energy. But the mere presence of the water is increasing density, when compared with the case where the water isn't there. You're not losing air molecules. You're just adding water. not necessarily is depends on the ambient temp. you can never loose molecules just move them around or to a different state. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
It looks like you said the opposite. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your words.
"Tha Ghee" wrote in message ... "Mark Zarella" wrote in message ... no, in the winter the air is DENSER, Pressure is proportional to temperature. less energy, and less water vapor. Less water vapor would result in less density, not more. This is because vapor displaces air. the more dense the less energy you need to keep the molecules moving. that's what I said, look. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
But the mere presence of the water is increasing density, when compared
with the case where the water isn't there. You're not losing air molecules. You're just adding water. not necessarily is depends on the ambient temp. you can never loose molecules just move them around or to a different state. Right. So if it's more humid, then the density should increase because the water is participating in the transmission process, rather than sitting in the lake. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
... It looks like you said the opposite. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your words. yes you did. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
... But the mere presence of the water is increasing density, when compared with the case where the water isn't there. You're not losing air molecules. You're just adding water. not necessarily is depends on the ambient temp. you can never loose molecules just move them around or to a different state. Right. So if it's more humid, then the density should increase because the water is participating in the transmission process, rather than sitting in the lake. density is less, there is more energy so the air is more spaced out. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
Right. So if it's more humid, then the density should increase because
the water is participating in the transmission process, rather than sitting in the lake. density is less, there is more energy so the air is more spaced out. How does density decrease by ADDING molecules? As I said before, you're talking about adding water molecules. So unless the volume is getting bigger or the air molecules are being displaced, the density of air is increasing. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
not sure if i have read everything in this thread, this may have been
addressed, but sound does travel better through liquids than solids, it's a proven SCIENTIFIC fact..."Sound travels through gases, liquids, and solids at different speeds. Sound travels through air at about 340 meters per second; through water at about 1,500 meters per second, and through iron at about 5,100 meters per second." (http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/...?DOC=wondernet %5Cgrownups%5Cgu_sound.html) |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
That makes me want to drop my sub box into a fish tank for more spl In article , "michael hardie" wrote: not sure if i have read everything in this thread, this may have been addressed, but sound does travel better through liquids than solids, it's a proven SCIENTIFIC fact..."Sound travels through gases, liquids, and solids at different speeds. Sound travels through air at about 340 meters per second; through water at about 1,500 meters per second, and through iron at about 5,100 meters per second." (http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/...?DOC=wondernet %5Cgrownups%5Cgu_sound.html) |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
i think you'd have to fill your car with water for the full effect.
btw my post should have been "... travels better through liquids and solids than air"; damn my inability to type and think at the same time Captain Howdy wrote in message ... That makes me want to drop my sub box into a fish tank for more spl In article , "michael hardie" wrote: not sure if i have read everything in this thread, this may have been addressed, but sound does travel better through liquids than solids, it's a proven SCIENTIFIC fact..."Sound travels through gases, liquids, and solids at different speeds. Sound travels through air at about 340 meters per second; through water at about 1,500 meters per second, and through iron at about 5,100 meters per second." (http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/...l?DOC=wonderne t %5Cgrownups%5Cgu_sound.html) |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
i think you'd have to fill your car with water for the full effect.
That's correct. The interface between two different acoustical impedances causes reflections which can result in significant attenuation. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
... Right. So if it's more humid, then the density should increase because the water is participating in the transmission process, rather than sitting in the lake. density is less, there is more energy so the air is more spaced out. How does density decrease by ADDING molecules? As I said before, you're talking about adding water molecules. So unless the volume is getting bigger or the air molecules are being displaced, the density of air is increasing. if your displacing something your making the density smaller. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
How does density decrease by ADDING molecules? As I said before, you're
talking about adding water molecules. So unless the volume is getting bigger or the air molecules are being displaced, the density of air is increasing. if your displacing something your making the density smaller. sigh Nevermind. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
Mark do you have stress problems due to these conversations?
"Mark Zarella" wrote in message ... How does density decrease by ADDING molecules? As I said before, you're talking about adding water molecules. So unless the volume is getting bigger or the air molecules are being displaced, the density of air is increasing. if your displacing something your making the density smaller. sigh Nevermind. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
Mark do you have stress problems due to these conversations?
No, it was his third strike. I shouldn't have to repeat the same thing over and over yet have him continually ignore what I say. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
... Mark do you have stress problems due to these conversations? No, it was his third strike. I shouldn't have to repeat the same thing over and over yet have him continually ignore what I say. Is it my fault you don't make sense half the time so it takes a while to get the point of your post who's fault is that?? |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
No, it was his third strike. I shouldn't have to repeat the same thing
over and over yet have him continually ignore what I say. Is it my fault you don't make sense half the time so it takes a while to get the point of your post who's fault is that?? No one else seems to have a problem. I'm guessing that the person who actually realizes that punctuation exists (and actually makes an attempt to form coherent sentences) is probably making more sense than the person who writes the sort of drivel that you post. So what is it exactly that you didn't understand? |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
You're welcome, though it doesn't seem to have cleared things up much. (not
surprisingly :-) I'll add a couple of things that might help further: Two things decrease density, increasing temp and increasing humidity ratio (grams moisture/kg dry air). Recognize that this is shown on a psychrometric chart as an increase in specific volume which is the reciprocal of density ( 1/rho). Similarly enthalpy (kJ/kg dry air) increases with increasing temp and humidity ratio, requiring energy to cool the air and dehumidify it. Hot humid air has higher energy than cold dry air. Lastly, recall conservation of mass. There is no conservation of volume. Clear as mud -Steve "Captain Howdy" wrote in message news Thanks Steve, That was a most interesting post. Its rare to learn anything new in here. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
... No, it was his third strike. I shouldn't have to repeat the same thing over and over yet have him continually ignore what I say. Is it my fault you don't make sense half the time so it takes a while to get the point of your post who's fault is that?? No one else seems to have a problem. I'm guessing that the person who actually realizes that punctuation exists (and actually makes an attempt to form coherent sentences) is probably making more sense than the person who writes the sort of drivel that you post. So what is it exactly that you didn't understand? trust me Mark plenty of people can't understand what you say but are scared to say something because you and other jump all over them. I sorry Mark but my writing skills are not great but they're worlds better than yours. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
trust me Mark plenty of people can't understand what you say but are
scared to say something because you and other jump all over them. I sorry Mark but my writing skills are not great but they're worlds better than yours. If you say so. Or, translated into "gheeish": i u say, so |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
I sorry Mark but my writing skills are not great but they're worlds better than yours. Ghee, maybe in your mind you writing skills are good but TRUST ME they are not. But hey I don't fault you for it because it would seem that English is not your first langauge. Right? Les |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
trust me Mark plenty of people can't understand what you say but are
scared to say something because you and other jump all over them. I sorry Mark but my writing skills are not great but they're worlds better than yours. There are definetely times that I don't understand what Mark is saying, but that has absolutely nothing to do with his grammar. His electrical knowledge is far beyond me sometimes. As far as Ghee claiming that his writing skills are superior to ANYONE..... all I can do is laugh. Nick |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
Hey Lester, you're one to talk.
In article , othanks (Soundfreak03) wrote: I sorry Mark but my writing skills are not great but they're worlds better than yours. Ghee, maybe in your mind you writing skills are good but TRUST ME they are not. But hey I don't fault you for it because it would seem that English is not your first langauge. Right? Les |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Cold temperatures vs. sub surround
"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
... trust me Mark plenty of people can't understand what you say but are scared to say something because you and other jump all over them. I sorry Mark but my writing skills are not great but they're worlds better than yours. If you say so. Or, translated into "gheeish": i u say, so if you don't believe me just look at your old post and run them near a spell checker and it'll choke. but its cool. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Surround & Throughout House? | General | |||
How to Achieve Best Surround Sound Results without a Processor | General | |||
How to go Surround Sound?? | Car Audio | |||
Surround glue?? | Car Audio | |||
Punch XLC 8"...broken surround...HELP! | Car Audio |