Wind chill and frozen pipes again

[Stormin Mormon]

Weather forecast for this week is windy, gusts
up to 45 MPH, and also temps near zero F.

Will the wind chill make it more likely for me
to freeze pipes? Compared to still air?

When it's near zero F, and winds of 45 MPH,
should I leave a faucet dripping?

Would it be better to leave a hot drip, or a
cold drip?

What was the agreement, last time I asked? I think
we all on the list agreed about our answers.

I vaguely remember someone called me an idiot.

--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

[Bob_Villa]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 6:35:58 AM UTC-6, Stormin Mormon wrote:

> Will the wind chill make it more likely for me
> to freeze pipes?

It all depends how intent you are to freeze them...best of luck!

[Norminn]

On 1/20/2014 7:35 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> Weather forecast for this week is windy, gusts
> up to 45 MPH, and also temps near zero F.
>
> Will the wind chill make it more likely for me
> to freeze pipes? Compared to still air?
>
> When it's near zero F, and winds of 45 MPH,
> should I leave a faucet dripping?
>
> Would it be better to leave a hot drip, or a
> cold drip?
>
> What was the agreement, last time I asked? I think
> we all on the list agreed about our answers.
>
> I vaguely remember someone called me an idiot.
>

The routine here is to surround mobile home with straw bales, leave
faucets running at a trickle, leave cabinet doors open. Good luck.

[philo]

On 01/20/2014 06:35 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> Weather forecast for this week is windy, gusts
> up to 45 MPH, and also temps near zero F.
>
> Will the wind chill make it more likely for me
> to freeze pipes? Compared to still air?
>
> When it's near zero F, and winds of 45 MPH,
> should I leave a faucet dripping?
>
> Would it be better to leave a hot drip, or a
> cold drip?
>
> What was the agreement, last time I asked? I think
> we all on the list agreed about our answers.
>
> I vaguely remember someone called me an idiot.
>

It was stated numerous times that water freezes at 32 degrees F


and if the temp is above 32F no matter what the wind chill is...
the temp is still above 32F and the pipes will not freeze.


Wind chill is nothing more than how the body perceives the temperature.

[Bob_Villa]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 7:16:11 AM UTC-6, philo  wrote:

> and if the temp is above 32F no matter what the wind chill is...
>
> the temp is still above 32F and the pipes will not freeze.
>
> Wind chill is nothing more than how the body perceives the temperature.

This is too logical for this thread/forum/poster...please take your common sense elsewhere! 8^)

[philo]

Yeah I know.


Maybe we should discuss windshield temp.

[tra...@optonline.net]

It's been stated numerous times that wind chill also affects how
heat is removed from any object that is above ambient temp.
And hence on a night when the
windchill is 5F and the actual outdoor temp is 25, pipes may freeze
in certain circumstances when they will not freeze if it were 25F
with no windchill.

Simple question. There is an unheated cabin or a house with
a drafty crawlspace. Two cases:

A - The forecast if for temps overnight to dip down to 25, no windchill.

B - The forecast is for temps overnight to dip down to 25, 5F windchill.

That's all the info you have.

Do you believe the probability of water pipes freezing is equal in
both cases, yes or no?

BTW, thanks for taking the obvious bait from Stormin and starting this all
over again.

[Bob_Villa]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 8:11:13 AM UTC-6, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> Simple question. There is an unheated cabin or a house with
>
> a drafty crawlspace. Two cases:
>
>
>
> A - The forecast if for temps overnight to dip down to 25, no windchill.
>
>
>
> B - The forecast is for temps overnight to dip down to 25, 5F windchill.
>
>
>
> That's all the info you have.
>
>
>
> Do you believe the probability of water pipes freezing is equal in
>
> both cases, yes or no?
>
>
>
> BTW, thanks for taking the obvious bait from Stormin and starting this all
>
> over again.

It would be nil in both cases since the threshold is below 20 degrees for pipes to burst.
BTW, you have also taken the bait! *L*

[Pat]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:11:13 -0800 (PST), "tra...@optonline.net"
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:


>
>It's been stated numerous times that wind chill also affects how
>heat is removed from any object that is above ambient temp.
>And hence on a night when the
>windchill is 5F and the actual outdoor temp is 25, pipes may freeze
>in certain circumstances when they will not freeze if it were 25F
>with no windchill.
>
>Simple question. There is an unheated cabin or a house with
>a drafty crawlspace. Two cases:
>
>A - The forecast if for temps overnight to dip down to 25, no windchill.
>
>B - The forecast is for temps overnight to dip down to 25, 5F windchill.
>
>That's all the info you have.
>
>Do you believe the probability of water pipes freezing is equal in
>both cases, yes or no?
>
>BTW, thanks for taking the obvious bait from Stormin and starting this all
>over again.

Windchill and wind are not the same thing. Windchill is a calculation
of the effect of wind on human skin and should be reserved for
discussing that effect. As you point out, however, wind affects other
things. Not by the evaporative effect skin is vulnerable to, but by
warm air being moved away to be replaced by cold air. In your example
above, of course the pipes could be more likely to freeze if the wind
can get to the pipes because it could lower the pipe temperature to
25. But that doesn't mean the willchill number (5F in your example)
means anything to pipes. Use another example of 40 degree air on a
very windy day. The windchill might be well below freezing, but the
pipes will never freeze because no amount of wind can lower the
temperature of a dry pipe to below the 40 degree air temperature.

Use windchill only when discussing the feel on your skin. But sealing
your house to protecting pipes from the cold air blown in by the wind
is a very good idea.

[Stormin Mormon]

Life is made memorable by what goes wrong.
OTOH, boring can be good thing. I'd rather
be warm and bored indoors, compared to using
a heat gun in +2F cold wind.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 1/20/2014 7:59 AM, Norminn wrote:
>
> The routine here is to surround mobile home with straw bales, leave
> faucets running at a trickle, leave cabinet doors open. Good luck.

If the pipes freeze, close the cabinet doors
and light the bales on fire?

[Stormin Mormon]

By golly, that means stuff won't freeze over 32F?
Really? Supposed to get into the single digits in
the next couple days.

[Norminn]

But..........in windier conditions, a structure that isn't sealed up
tight would likely get colder inside than it would without wind.

[Harry K]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 5:16:11 AM UTC-8, philo  wrote:
> On 01/20/2014 06:35 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
>

<snip>

> It was stated numerous times that water freezes at 32 degrees F
> and if the temp is above 32F no matter what the wind chill is...
> the temp is still above 32F and the pipes will not freeze.

> Wind chill is nothing more than how the body perceives the temperature.

And if that pipe is kept wet and exposed to the breeze?

Harry K

[Gordon Shumway]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 07:35:58 -0500, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Weather forecast for this week is windy, gusts
>up to 45 MPH, and also temps near zero F.
>
>Will the wind chill make it more likely for me
>to freeze pipes? Compared to still air?
>
>When it's near zero F, and winds of 45 MPH,
>should I leave a faucet dripping?
>
>Would it be better to leave a hot drip, or a
>cold drip?
>
>What was the agreement, last time I asked? I think
>we all on the list agreed about our answers.
>
>I vaguely remember someone called me an idiot.

You are the Southbound end of a Northbound horse! You just had to
rattle trader4's cage again didn't you? Karma is gonna get you!

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 07:35:58 -0500, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Weather forecast for this week is windy, gusts
>up to 45 MPH, and also temps near zero F.
>
>Will the wind chill make it more likely for me
>to freeze pipes? Compared to still air?
>
>When it's near zero F, and winds of 45 MPH,
>should I leave a faucet dripping?
>
>Would it be better to leave a hot drip, or a
>cold drip?
>
>What was the agreement, last time I asked? I think
>we all on the list agreed about our answers.
>
>I vaguely remember someone called me an idiot.

Buy a couple of those "quebec garages" and a few rolls of gorilla
tape. Set the garages up over your trailer to keep the wind off,
taping them together with gorilla tape to make one BIG garage. Then
leave a window open in the trailer to let some heat into the garage to
keep it above 33F, and your pipes won't freeze. Make it long enough
to park your Blazer inside too, and let it run to keep warm. The
exhaust will put you to sleep so you won't feel the cold.

How's that for an Allegheny redneck solution???

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:24:32 -0500, Norminn <nor...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Stormy's "redneck bungalow" will loose heat a lot faster in the wind
than on a still day of the same temperature.

[tra...@optonline.net]

You failed the test. The question was about *freezing*, not bursting.

>
> BTW, you have also taken the bait! *L*

No, I only responded after philo decided to start this discussion
all over again. I saw the other responses and was going to say nothing
to start it up again, as did other posters. But if philo wants to
go over it again, then here we are.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 9:32:58 AM UTC-5, Pat wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:11:13 -0800 (PST), "tra...@optonline.net"
>
> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >It's been stated numerous times that wind chill also affects how
>
> >heat is removed from any object that is above ambient temp.
>
> >And hence on a night when the
>
> >windchill is 5F and the actual outdoor temp is 25, pipes may freeze
>
> >in certain circumstances when they will not freeze if it were 25F
>
> >with no windchill.
>
> >
>
> >Simple question. There is an unheated cabin or a house with
>
> >a drafty crawlspace. Two cases:
>
> >
>
> >A - The forecast if for temps overnight to dip down to 25, no windchill.
>
> >
>
> >B - The forecast is for temps overnight to dip down to 25, 5F windchill.
>
> >
>
> >That's all the info you have.
>
> >
>
> >Do you believe the probability of water pipes freezing is equal in
>
> >both cases, yes or no?
>
> >
>
> >BTW, thanks for taking the obvious bait from Stormin and starting this all
>
> >over again.
>
>
>
> Windchill and wind are not the same thing.

No one ever said they were. But windchill together with temp are
a proxy for windspeed.

Windchill is a calculation
>
> of the effect of wind on human skin and should be reserved for
>
> discussing that effect. As you point out, however, wind affects other
>
> things. Not by the evaporative effect skin is vulnerable to,

It's not primarily an evaporative effect on skin, unless you think people sweat
when it's 15F out. Wind produces it's chill by taking more heat away
from any object that's above ambient. That includes not only humans,
but other objects as well.

>but by
>
> warm air being moved away to be replaced by cold air.

Which is the same effect that windchill has on humans, a hot brick
placed outside, or a metal pipe sticking outside a wall. YEs, it
was created as a guide to how much colder it feels to humans, but
that doesn't mean it's effect doesn't apply to cats, bricks and pipes.

In your example
>
> above, of course the pipes could be more likely to freeze if the wind
>
> can get to the pipes because it could lower the pipe temperature to
>
> 25. But that doesn't mean the willchill number (5F in your example)
>
> means anything to pipes.

It does if it's a warm pipe and it's placed outside. I have a copper
water pipe that's exposed and it runs 25 ft outside. I have some
small amount of water flow moving through it to prevent it from
freezing. Do you think the same amount of water flow that's just
sufficient to keep it from freezing when it's 20F and no windchill is
going to be sufficient to keep it from freezing when the windchill is
0F? If I told you that the windchill was 20F or 0F you would not
be more concerned about the pipe freezing in one situation versus
the other?

Use another example of 40 degree air on a
>
> very windy day. The windchill might be well below freezing, but the
>
> pipes will never freeze because no amount of wind can lower the
>
> temperature of a dry pipe to below the 40 degree air temperature.
>
>

Neither I nor anyone else here ever said that windchill can cool a pipe
below ambient.

>
> Use windchill only when discussing the feel on your skin. But sealing
>
> your house to protecting pipes from the cold air blown in by the wind
>
> is a very good idea.

The fact that you don't understand that windchill has a similar effect on
objects other than humans doesn't mean it's not valuable information
that can be used in other situations. I noticed you didn't give an
answer to the simple questions posed either.

[tra...@optonline.net]

I was thinking of saying something along those lines too, but
didn't want to complicate it. I agree, evaporative effect of
cooling is going to increase with windchill. But even
in humans, I don't think the primary cooling effect is evaporation,
unless you believe people's exposed skin sweats when it's 15F.
In the winter temps
when windchill is most frequently used, I would think the main
component is that wind removes more heat from a human just like it
would more quickly remove heat from a hot brick placed outside.

In fact, in the other long thread on this, someone pointed out that
long ago when scientists first tried to come up with a windchill index,
they used water bottles exposed outside and how fast they froze.
Strange, if windchill only affects humans, how you can measure it
by how long it takes to freeze a bottle of water.

[tra...@optonline.net]

He didn't rattle my cage. The first response from a rattled cage
was from philo. Everyone up to that point, had ignored it.

[micky]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 07:35:58 -0500, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Weather forecast for this week is windy, gusts
>up to 45 MPH, and also temps near zero F.
>
>Will the wind chill make it more likely for me
>to freeze pipes? Compared to still air?

If your pipes don't perspire or leak, if they're not wet on the outside,
wind chill is not a factor. It doesn't exist for pipes that are not
wet on the outside. Even though plenty of people talk like it does.

It doesn't exist for cars, either, unless they are wet on the outside.
Not "were wet" but "are wet".

It exists for people, who perspire, a little bit everywhere I think.
The wind blows across the wet skin, even so slightly wet that it doesn't
feel wet, and the water draws heat from the skin as it evaporates.
The quantity of heat needed to make water evaporate, the heat of
vaporization, is the same as the heat required to raise the temperature
of the same amount of water by 15 or 20 degrees, iirc. It's the same
amount of heat needed by water about to boil on a stove, to go from
water to water vapor, although I guess one cannot tell by looking how
much heat that is.

I don't know about other animals. Dogs pant, but do they in very cold
weather? Probably not, and I've never heard of a dog's tongue freezing
because of wind chill. They probably keep their tongues in their
mouths.

>When it's near zero F, and winds of 45 MPH,

The wind doesn't matter, but the 0F does.

>should I leave a faucet dripping?

If it is actually zero where the pipe is, yes.

LIke under the trailer maybe, where it's not heated? What do other
people with trailers do? If you live in a trailer park, you'd find more
people who know abou tthis there than you willl here. Or at least they
should know what they do and what happens to their pipes when they do
it. Even if you don't live in one, go visit one and ask them. Isn't
there usually a manager. He should know what to do.

>Would it be better to leave a hot drip, or a
>cold drip?

Whichever pipe is exposed to the very cold temperature. Both of them,
if that is the case.

>What was the agreement, last time I asked? I think
>we all on the list agreed about our answers.
>
>I vaguely remember someone called me an idiot.

Perhaps, but that won't cause the pipes to freeze.

[micky]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:23:00 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
<pheeh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>It would be nil in both cases since the threshold is below 20 degrees for pipes to burst.

How can that be. Water expands iirc between 33 and 32^F. So it
reaches its greatest volume at 32. What does 20 have to do with it?

I know that warmer things surrounding the water continue to heat the
water, but that's only if the things are warmer. They are losing heat
too for the same reason the water is.

[micky]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:40:34 -0800 (PST), "tra...@optonline.net"
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Monday, January 20, 2014 10:51:49 AM UTC-5, Harry K wrote:
>> On Monday, January 20, 2014 5:16:11 AM UTC-8, philo  wrote:
>>
>> > On 01/20/2014 06:35 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>> > It was stated numerous times that water freezes at 32 degrees F
>>
>> > and if the temp is above 32F no matter what the wind chill is...
>>
>> > the temp is still above 32F and the pipes will not freeze.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Wind chill is nothing more than how the body perceives the temperature.
>>
>>
>>
>> And if that pipe is kept wet and exposed to the breeze?
>>
>>
>>
>> Harry K
>
>I was thinking of saying something along those lines too, but
>didn't want to complicate it. I agree, evaporative effect of
>cooling is going to increase with windchill. But even
>in humans, I don't think the primary cooling effect is evaporation,
>unless you believe people's exposed skin sweats when it's 15F.
>In the winter temps

It's reasonable to doubt this, but I think it's true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wind_chill.png If you check the 15F
column, a 5MPH wind lowers the perceived temp to 7F and 10MPH to 3F.

>when windchill is most frequently used, I would think the main
>component is that wind removes more heat from a human just like it
>would more quickly remove heat from a hot brick placed outside.
>
>In fact, in the other long thread on this, someone pointed out that
>long ago when scientists first tried to come up with a windchill index,
>they used water bottles exposed outside and how fast they froze.
>Strange, if windchill only affects humans, how you can measure it
>by how long it takes to freeze a bottle of water.

I feel like it is cheating to look it up but
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windchill

The human body loses heat through convection, evaporation, conduction,
and radiation.[1] The rate of heat loss by a surface through convection
depends on the wind speed above that surface. As a surface heats the air
around it, an insulating boundary layer of warm air forms against the
surface. Moving air disrupts the boundary layer, allowing for new,
cooler air to replace the warm air against the surface. The faster the
wind speed, the more readily the surface cools.

The speed of cooling has different effects on inanimate objects and
biological organisms. For inanimate objects, the effect of wind chill is
to reduce any warmer objects to the ambient temperature more quickly. It
cannot, however, reduce the temperature of these objects below the
ambient temperature, no matter how great the wind velocity. For most
********************************************************************
biological organisms, the physiological response is to maintain surface
temperature in an acceptable range so as to avoid adverse effects. Thus,
the attempt to maintain a given surface temperature in an environment of
faster heat loss results in both the perception of lower temperatures
and an actual greater heat loss increasing the risk of adverse
effects.[citation needed]

A surface that is wet, such as a person wearing wet clothes, will lose
heat quickly because the wet cloth will conduct heat away from the body
more rapidly, and because the evaporating moisture carries away
heat.[citation needed] Conversely, humid air slows evaporation and makes
a surface feel warmer, and this is incorporated into longer wind chill
formulas. During warm months, this effect can be described in the heat
index or humidex.

[DerbyDad03]

micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

...snip...

>
> I don't know about other animals. Dogs pant, but do they in very cold
> weather? Probably not, and I've never heard of a dog's tongue freezing
> because of wind chill. They probably keep their tongues in their
> mouths.

Not my pug! His tongue is almost always hanging out his mouth, from as
little as an inch to as much as 4".

I don't know about windchill, but I do know that his tongue will stick to a
cold metal pole if he gets too close.

This isn't my dog, but I've seen this situation in real life more than
once.

https://d2npbuaakacvlz.cloudfront.net/images/uploaded/large-present/2012/12/19/adorable-pug-christmas-card-1355973015.jpg

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:14:33 -0500, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

Wind chill is not just about evaporation. It is "removal of heat"
period. On a human body it is how quickly the body gets below it's
normal temperature to the point you get frostbite. Evaporation is PART
of it - but evaporation would be faster in a "dry cold" which does not
feel as cold as a "damp cold"

The standard Wind Chill formula for Environment Canada is:
TWC=13.12+0.6215Ta-(11.37V+0.16)+(0.3965TaV +0.16)

where TWC is the wind chill index, based on the Celsius temperature
scale, Ta is the air temperature in degrees Celsius (°C), and V is
the wind speed at 10 metres (standard anemometer height), in
kilometres per hour (km/h).[10]
The equivalent formula in US customary units is:[11]
TWC=35.4+0.6215Ta-(35.75V+0.16) + (0.4275Ta(V+0.16)


where TWC is the wind chill index, based on the Fahrenheit scale, is
the air temperature, measured in °F, and is the wind speed, in
mph.[12]
Windchill temperature is defined only for temperatures at or below 10
°C (50 °F) and wind speeds above 4.8 kilometres per hour (3.0
mph).[11]

So, in North America humidity has no "input" into the calculation.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:45:45 -0500, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:40:34 -0800 (PST), "tra...@optonline.net"
><tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, January 20, 2014 10:51:49 AM UTC-5, Harry K wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 20, 2014 5:16:11 AM UTC-8, philo  wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 01/20/2014 06:35 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > It was stated numerous times that water freezes at 32 degrees F
>>>
>>> > and if the temp is above 32F no matter what the wind chill is...
>>>
>>> > the temp is still above 32F and the pipes will not freeze.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Wind chill is nothing more than how the body perceives the temperature.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And if that pipe is kept wet and exposed to the breeze?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Harry K
>>
>>I was thinking of saying something along those lines too, but
>>didn't want to complicate it. I agree, evaporative effect of
>>cooling is going to increase with windchill. But even
>>in humans, I don't think the primary cooling effect is evaporation,
>>unless you believe people's exposed skin sweats when it's 15F.
>>In the winter temps
>
>It's reasonable to doubt this, but I think it's true.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wind_chill.png If you check the 15F
>column, a 5MPH wind lowers the perceived temp to 7F and 10MPH to 3F.

It is heat loss by CONDUCTION that is affected by wind "chill" as it
strips off the "boundary layer" of warm air that naturally clings to
the body.

>
>>when windchill is most frequently used, I would think the main
>>component is that wind removes more heat from a human just like it
>>would more quickly remove heat from a hot brick placed outside.
>>
>>In fact, in the other long thread on this, someone pointed out that
>>long ago when scientists first tried to come up with a windchill index,
>>they used water bottles exposed outside and how fast they froze.
>>Strange, if windchill only affects humans, how you can measure it
>>by how long it takes to freeze a bottle of water.
>

How FAST is the critical point. How FAST does a bottle of water at
96F freeze???? The windier it is, the faster it will freeze at any
given temperature (32F or below)

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 2:45:45 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:40:34 -0800 (PST), "tra...@optonline.net"
>
> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Monday, January 20, 2014 10:51:49 AM UTC-5, Harry K wrote:
>

> >> On Monday, January 20, 2014 5:16:11 AM UTC-8, philo� wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > On 01/20/2014 06:35 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> > It was stated numerous times that water freezes at 32 degrees F
>
> >>
>
> >> > and if the temp is above 32F no matter what the wind chill is...
>
> >>
>
> >> > the temp is still above 32F and the pipes will not freeze.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> > Wind chill is nothing more than how the body perceives the temperature.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> And if that pipe is kept wet and exposed to the breeze?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Harry K
>
> >
>
> >I was thinking of saying something along those lines too, but
>
> >didn't want to complicate it. I agree, evaporative effect of
>
> >cooling is going to increase with windchill. But even
>
> >in humans, I don't think the primary cooling effect is evaporation,
>
> >unless you believe people's exposed skin sweats when it's 15F.
>
> >In the winter temps
>
>
>
> It's reasonable to doubt this, but I think it's true.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wind_chill.png If you check the 15F
>
> column, a 5MPH wind lowers the perceived temp to 7F and 10MPH to 3F.
>
>

Reasonable to doubt what? I didn't say that wind doesn't lower
the preceived and actual skin temperature. I just said that
I doubt the dominant factor there is *evaporation*, because IDK
about you, but my exposed skin doesn't sweat at 15F. But the
blowing wind sure carries heat off of skin, just like it does
from any other object that is above ambient, including water
pipes.

Totally consistent with everything I've said. And note that they
do say it affect *inanimate* objects, which is exactly what I
have been saying and which was the main point
of contention in the previous long thread about this. You had
a certain poster claiming that windchill has no effect on
inanimate objects, which is wrong.

>
> A surface that is wet, such as a person wearing wet clothes, will lose
>
> heat quickly because the wet cloth will conduct heat away from the body
>
> more rapidly, and because the evaporating moisture carries away
>
> heat.[citation needed] Conversely, humid air slows evaporation and makes
>
> a surface feel warmer, and this is incorporated into longer wind chill
>
> formulas. During warm months, this effect can be described in the heat
>
> index or humidex.

Again, totally consistent.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 1/20/2014 12:37 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 07:35:58 -0500, Stormin Mormon
>>

>> I vaguely remember someone called me an idiot.
>
> You are the Southbound end of a Northbound horse! You just had to
> rattle trader4's cage again didn't you? Karma is gonna get you!
>

Yep, it's going to be near zero a couple days
this week, which is -17c for centigrade folks.

With the wind chill so far below zero, I think
it's a good couple days to leave a faucet drip
over night. I'm trying to decide to drip the
hot or cold. So far, been thinking hot.

Might also cardboard and staple over some windows
that don't really need light coming in.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 1/20/2014 1:05 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> Buy a couple of those "quebec garages" and a few rolls of gorilla
> tape. Set the garages up over your trailer to keep the wind off,
> taping them together with gorilla tape to make one BIG garage. Then
> leave a window open in the trailer to let some heat into the garage to
> keep it above 33F, and your pipes won't freeze. Make it long enough
> to park your Blazer inside too, and let it run to keep warm. The
> exhaust will put you to sleep so you won't feel the cold.
>
> How's that for an Allegheny redneck solution???

Best I've heard in ages. You're first rate,
in spite of what people say.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Dripping the hot will still allow the cold to freeze - I'd keep them
all dripping, or drain them all.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 1/20/2014 5:03 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:49:59 -0500, Stormin Mormon
>>

>> Might also cardboard and staple over some windows
>> that don't really need light coming in.

> Dripping the hot will still allow the cold to freeze - I'd keep them
> all dripping, or drain them all.
>

That's wise counsell. I do remember a friend of
mine who left one drip, and the other froze.

[Bob_Villa]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 1:19:25 PM UTC-6, micky wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:23:00 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa

>

> >It would be nil in both cases since the threshold is below 20 degrees for pipes to burst.
>
>
>
> How can that be. Water expands iirc between 33 and 32^F. So it
>
> reaches its greatest volume at 32. What does 20 have to do with it?
>

From the old post:

"This has nothing to do with wind chill...but it gives you pretty much the magic number for a pipe to burst. From "The Weather Channel"!

When should homeowners be alert to the danger of freezing pipes? That depends, but in southern states and other areas where freezing weather is the exception rather than the rule (and where houses often do not provide adequate built-in protection), the temperature alert threshold is 20°F.

This threshold is based upon research conducted by the Building Research Council at the University of Illinois. Field tests of residential water systems subjected to winter temperatures demonstrated that, for un-insulated pipes installed in an unconditioned attic, the onset of freezing occurred when the outside temperature fell to 20°F or below.

This finding was supported by a survey of 71 plumbers practicing in southern states, in which the consensus was that burst-pipe problems began to appear when temperatures fell into the teens.
(Note: Please disregard any wind chill! *J*)"

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Note - that is with pipes in an ATTIC. Heat rises.
We are talking pipes in and under a "redneck bungalow" - close to
ground level. My guess is 20F is about 5 degrees late on a breezy day
and 7 degrees late on a windy one.

A good row of hay bales around the bottom of the trailer before the
snow fell would have helped considerably - likely making 25F safe.
Mabee better. And a couple of 100 watt bulbs would then help keep them
from feezing to quite a bit lower temp.
Then again, I don't know just how BAD Stormy's trailer is. I know some
I've seen down around Ellicotville and south would hardly pass as
chicken coops up here. Likely cost twice as much to heat as my 3
bedroom two story.up here in Central Ontario

[gregz]

Stormin Mormon <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Weather forecast for this week is windy, gusts
> up to 45 MPH, and also temps near zero F.
>
> Will the wind chill make it more likely for me
> to freeze pipes? Compared to still air?
>

> When it's near zero F, and winds of 45 MPH,

> should I leave a faucet dripping?
>

> Would it be better to leave a hot drip, or a
> cold drip?
>

> What was the agreement, last time I asked? I think
> we all on the list agreed about our answers.
>

> I vaguely remember someone called me an idiot.

I was doing some more sealing cracks at my old house.
The wind gets into them.

Greg

[micky]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 20:38:57 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
<teama...@eznet.net> wrote:

>micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>...snip...
>>
>> I don't know about other animals. Dogs pant, but do they in very cold
>> weather? Probably not, and I've never heard of a dog's tongue freezing
>> because of wind chill. They probably keep their tongues in their
>> mouths.
>
>Not my pug! His tongue is almost always hanging out his mouth, from as
>little as an inch to as much as 4".

Well, that makes it one to nothing in favor of panting in cold weather.
I had never paid attention, so I was just guessing.

Tongues probably have a good blood supply, I'll bet. Is that what makes
them red?

>I don't know about windchill, but I do know that his tongue will stick to a
>cold metal pole if he gets too close.

No kidding? How often has he done that? Were you there to free him?

>
>This isn't my dog, but I've seen this situation in real life more than
>once.
>
>https://d2npbuaakacvlz.cloudfront.net/images/uploaded/large-present/2012/12/19/adorable-pug-christmas-card-1355973015.jpg

I can see why a dog wouldn't anticipate this problem. Chidren don't
either Really, how could they unless they red a lot?

[micky]

Okay. So it's the temperature in practice. Which is affected by all
the factors.

It makes sense. I know pipes don't burst the moment the temp hits 32,
or even 31.

Thanks.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 10:58:57 PM UTC-5, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:04:20 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
>
> <pheeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Monday, January 20, 2014 1:19:25 PM UTC-6, micky wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:23:00 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >It would be nil in both cases since the threshold is below 20 degrees for pipes to burst.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> How can that be. Water expands iirc between 33 and 32^F. So it
>
> >>
>
> >> reaches its greatest volume at 32. What does 20 have to do with it?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >From the old post:
>
> >
>
> >"This has nothing to do with wind chill...but it gives you pretty much the magic number for a pipe to burst. From "The Weather Channel"!
>
> >
>

> >When should homeowners be alert to the danger of freezing pipes? That depends, but in southern states and other areas where freezing weather is the exception rather than the rule (and where houses often do not provide adequate built-in protection), the temperature alert threshold is 20�F.
>
> >
>
> >This threshold is based upon research conducted by the Building Research Council at the University of Illinois. Field tests of residential water systems subjected to winter temperatures demonstrated that, for un-insulated pipes installed in an unconditioned attic, the onset of freezing occurred when the outside temperature fell to 20�F or below.

>
> >
>
> >This finding was supported by a survey of 71 plumbers practicing in southern states, in which the consensus was that burst-pipe problems began to appear when temperatures fell into the teens.
>
> >(Note: Please disregard any wind chill! *J*)"
>
> Note - that is with pipes in an ATTIC. Heat rises.
>
> We are talking pipes in and under a "redneck bungalow" - close to
>
> ground level. My guess is 20F is about 5 degrees late on a breezy day
>
> and 7 degrees late on a windy one.
>
>

+1 The poster took what is clearly offered as a general guideline
for outside temps and freezing pipes in an *attic* and made it
appear it applies to freezing pipes in general. If you have a
piece of exposed pipe filled with water outside, I agree that I
would expect it could easily freeze and bust long before 20F.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 2:14:33 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 07:35:58 -0500, Stormin Mormon
>
> <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Weather forecast for this week is windy, gusts
>
> >up to 45 MPH, and also temps near zero F.
>
> >
>
> >Will the wind chill make it more likely for me
>
> >to freeze pipes? Compared to still air?
>
>
>
> If your pipes don't perspire or leak, if they're not wet on the outside,
>
> wind chill is not a factor.

BS. Following that theory, a car radiator is transfering just
as much heat with no air moving through it as it is with a high
volume of air moving through it.

> It doesn't exist for pipes that are not
>
> wet on the outside.

Wrong. If you have a brick that is 100F and you put it
outside when it's 50F, does it cool off faster with or without
a fan blowing on it?

Even though plenty of people talk like it does.
>
>
>
> It doesn't exist for cars, either, unless they are wet on the outside.
>
> Not "were wet" but "are wet".
>
>

Then feel free to block the airflow to your radiator. It will
still transfer the same amount of heat, right?

>
> It exists for people, who perspire, a little bit everywhere I think.
>
> The wind blows across the wet skin, even so slightly wet that it doesn't
>
> feel wet, and the water draws heat from the skin as it evaporates.

You completely ignore the heat removed by *convection*. It doesn't
have to be wet. If it is wet, then yes that increases the heat
transfer.

>
> The quantity of heat needed to make water evaporate, the heat of
>
> vaporization, is the same as the heat required to raise the temperature
>
> of the same amount of water by 15 or 20 degrees, iirc. It's the same
>
> amount of heat needed by water about to boil on a stove, to go from
>
> water to water vapor, although I guess one cannot tell by looking how
>
> much heat that is.
>
>

Which has nothing to do with the situation at hand.

>
> I don't know about other animals. Dogs pant, but do they in very cold
>
> weather? Probably not,

And people don't sweat on their exposed skin when it's 15F either.

and I've never heard of a dog's tongue freezing
>
> because of wind chill. They probably keep their tongues in their
>
> mouths.
>
>
>
>
>
> >When it's near zero F, and winds of 45 MPH,
>
>
>
> The wind doesn't matter, but the 0F does.
>
>

Of course the wind matters. You think it takes just as much
energy to heat a house when it 0 with a 45 MPH wind and without?
Good grief.

>
> >should I leave a faucet dripping?
>
>
>
> If it is actually zero where the pipe is, yes.
>
>

Just if it's zero? Just a drip? Good grief.

>
> LIke under the trailer maybe, where it's not heated? What do other
>
> people with trailers do? If you live in a trailer park, you'd find more
>
> people who know abou tthis there than you willl here. Or at least they
>
> should know what they do and what happens to their pipes when they do
>
> it. Even if you don't live in one, go visit one and ask them.

Yes, great idea. I live in a house and I should go survey
folks who live in a trailer. Good grief.

Isn't
>
> there usually a manager. He should know what to do.
>
>
>
> >Would it be better to leave a hot drip, or a
>
> >cold drip?
>
>
>
> Whichever pipe is exposed to the very cold temperature. Both of them,
>
> if that is the case.
>
>

And I'll bet if the pipes are really exposed to the very cold, eg 0F
number you cited, that they will freeze with just a drip anyway.
The lower the temp, the more exposed, the more water you need flowing.

>
> >What was the agreement, last time I asked? I think
>
> >we all on the list agreed about our answers.
>
> >
>
> >I vaguely remember someone called me an idiot.
>
>

I can see why.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 1/20/2014 10:58 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> Note - that is with pipes in an ATTIC. Heat rises.
> We are talking pipes in and under a "redneck bungalow" - close to
> ground level. My guess is 20F is about 5 degrees late on a breezy day
> and 7 degrees late on a windy one.
>
> A good row of hay bales around the bottom of the trailer before the
> snow fell would have helped considerably - likely making 25F safe.
> Mabee better. And a couple of 100 watt bulbs would then help keep them
> from feezing to quite a bit lower temp.
> Then again, I don't know just how BAD Stormy's trailer is. I know some
> I've seen down around Ellicotville and south would hardly pass as
> chicken coops up here. Likely cost twice as much to heat as my 3
> bedroom two story.up here in Central Ontario

I've not seen hay bales any where else in the
trailer park, not sure it's allowed. I'd have
to ask, some time. Might be able to rig some thing
with fiberglass, behind the skirting.

Some years ago, a couple friends and I blew cellulose
into the ceiling, and that helped a lot. Used to have
icicles down to the ground. From the lost heat.

When I go out for more than an hour or so, I turn
down the heat to 60F, figure that cuts my heat bill
a bit. Only runs two or three minutes to recover when
I get back. Sometimes, I'll light a stove burner during
the warmup period.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 1/21/2014 12:19 AM, gregz wrote:
>
>
> I was doing some more sealing cracks at my old house.
> The wind gets into them.
>
> Greg
>

Caulk is good, and that "great Stuff" foam is also good.
I figure any where cold air blows in, hot air has to be
blowing out the other side.

[Norminn]

On 1/20/2014 9:46 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> On 1/20/2014 7:59 AM, Norminn wrote:
>>
>> The routine here is to surround mobile home with straw bales, leave
>> faucets running at a trickle, leave cabinet doors open. Good luck.
>
> If the pipes freeze, close the cabinet doors
> and light the bales on fire?
>

LOL. The point is to keep colder air out....a line of bales all around
the perimeter of the home would hold some of the heat lost from pipes
and floor inside the space, I presume. With faucets running slowly,
that would likely add at least more heat to the space than minus-degree
wind blowing through.

When I lived in a house on slab and without much insulation, the
prevailing north wind in winter made floors and walls at north end much
cooler.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

My brother skirted his trailer near Huntsville/Parry Sound ontario
with 1 inch lumber,sealed with typar (on the inside) and backed with 3
inches of insulation and the temperature under his trailer never got
below 42F - even when it is -40 out and blowing up a storm. He is on
dry sand.
He just installed an outdoor boiler to heat the trailer and his new
shop - and running the heat line under the trailer heats the
"crawlspace" enough that the floor is warm and the circulator fan on
the heat exchanger (in the "furnace" hardly runs.
It is an OLD trailer - was 2X3 framed - he built another 2X3 wall
inside the living room and added 3 inches of insulation, as well as
6inches or more extra in the roof - the kitchen and bedrooms are still
the original 3" walls and standard roof insulation.
He is hoping to get the new house built next summer.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 8:16:11 AM UTC-5, philo  wrote:

> On 01/20/2014 06:35 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
>
> > Weather forecast for this week is windy, gusts
>
> > up to 45 MPH, and also temps near zero F.
>
> >
>
> > Will the wind chill make it more likely for me
>
> > to freeze pipes? Compared to still air?
>
> >
>

> > When it's near zero F, and winds of 45 MPH,
>

> > should I leave a faucet dripping?
>
> >
>

> > Would it be better to leave a hot drip, or a
>
> > cold drip?
>
> >
>

> > What was the agreement, last time I asked? I think
>
> > we all on the list agreed about our answers.
>
> >
>
> > I vaguely remember someone called me an idiot.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> It was stated numerous times that water freezes at 32 degrees F
>

Sure

>
>
>
> and if the temp is above 32F no matter what the wind chill is...
>
> the temp is still above 32F and the pipes will not freeze.
>
>

A pipe that is outside and exposed may very well freeze and
burst overnight when the windchill is severe, while it might
not burst without the windchill. Temperature isn't static.
It's typical in many locations for temps to dip down below
freezing for some period overnight. If the temperature dips
below freezing for a couple of hours, you certainly could have
instances where a pipe will freeze and burst with windchill,
while it would not without it. That's because windchill
affects how fast heat is removed from any object, not just
humans.

>
>
>
> Wind chill is nothing more than how the body perceives the temperature.

Wrong. The windchill index was created to reflect that but the
effects of windchill extend to any object above ambient temperature.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:08:47 -0500, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 1/20/2014 10:58 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> Note - that is with pipes in an ATTIC. Heat rises.
>> We are talking pipes in and under a "redneck bungalow" - close to
>> ground level. My guess is 20F is about 5 degrees late on a breezy day
>> and 7 degrees late on a windy one.
>>
>> A good row of hay bales around the bottom of the trailer before the
>> snow fell would have helped considerably - likely making 25F safe.
>> Mabee better. And a couple of 100 watt bulbs would then help keep them
>> from feezing to quite a bit lower temp.
>> Then again, I don't know just how BAD Stormy's trailer is. I know some
>> I've seen down around Ellicotville and south would hardly pass as
>> chicken coops up here. Likely cost twice as much to heat as my 3
>> bedroom two story.up here in Central Ontario
>
>I've not seen hay bales any where else in the
>trailer park, not sure it's allowed. I'd have
>to ask, some time. Might be able to rig some thing
>with fiberglass, behind the skirting.

Are these pipes exposed, like the supply line for the trailer? If so,
you really need to wrap it with heat tape and insulation. If they're
buried in the floor or walls, it's a little harder. In your area you
shouldn't be worried about 20F, though.

>Some years ago, a couple friends and I blew cellulose
>into the ceiling, and that helped a lot. Used to have
>icicles down to the ground. From the lost heat.
>
>When I go out for more than an hour or so, I turn
>down the heat to 60F, figure that cuts my heat bill
>a bit. Only runs two or three minutes to recover when
>I get back. Sometimes, I'll light a stove burner during
>the warmup period.

How fast does it cool down? You can estimate your savings by taking
the average of the difference between the outside and inside
temperature (minus 10F , or so, for misc heat sources) times the time
(divided by the hours in a month, times your bill).

If the average temperature for the month is 30F and you keep the
inside at 70F, turning it down to 69F will save about 3%. Turning the
temperature down to 68F for half the time will save about the same.

[Vic Smith]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:31:52 -0800 (PST), "tra...@optonline.net"
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Monday, January 20, 2014 8:16:11 AM UTC-5, philo  wrote:

>
>A pipe that is outside and exposed may very well freeze and
>burst overnight when the windchill is severe, while it might
>not burst without the windchill. Temperature isn't static.
>It's typical in many locations for temps to dip down below
>freezing for some period overnight. If the temperature dips
>below freezing for a couple of hours, you certainly could have
>instances where a pipe will freeze and burst with windchill,
>while it would not without it. That's because windchill
>affects how fast heat is removed from any object, not just
>humans.

How fast for copper? How fast for galvanized? Pex?

>>
>>
>> Wind chill is nothing more than how the body perceives the temperature.
>
>Wrong. The windchill index was created to reflect that but the
>effects of windchill extend to any object above ambient temperature.

So when there's a windchill of 30F how cold does galvanized pipe feel?
What's the correlation with the windchill index?
Of course when it's windy there's convective heat transfer.
But the numbers used to develop the "windchill index" are based on how
human skin "feels" the wind.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 1/21/2014 11:49 AM, Norminn wrote:
>> If the pipes freeze, close the cabinet doors
>> and light the bales on fire?
>>
>
> LOL. The point is to keep colder air out....a line of bales all around
> the perimeter of the home would hold some of the heat lost from pipes
> and floor inside the space, I presume. With faucets running slowly,
> that would likely add at least more heat to the space than minus-degree
> wind blowing through.
>
> When I lived in a house on slab and without much insulation, the
> prevailing north wind in winter made floors and walls at north end much
> cooler.

Today is going to be in the cold end of the
spectrum. High near 7F, and cold, well, colder.
Reminds me, I've got some cardboard to apply
here and there, to help with the cold blast.
I mean, draft.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:18:46 -0600, Vic Smith
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:31:52 -0800 (PST), "tra...@optonline.net"
><tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, January 20, 2014 8:16:11 AM UTC-5, philo  wrote:
>
>>
>>A pipe that is outside and exposed may very well freeze and
>>burst overnight when the windchill is severe, while it might
>>not burst without the windchill. Temperature isn't static.
>>It's typical in many locations for temps to dip down below
>>freezing for some period overnight. If the temperature dips
>>below freezing for a couple of hours, you certainly could have
>>instances where a pipe will freeze and burst with windchill,
>>while it would not without it. That's because windchill
>>affects how fast heat is removed from any object, not just
>>humans.
>
>How fast for copper? How fast for galvanized? Pex?
>

Faster for copper than galvanized, and faster for galvanized than PEX
because of the difference in heat transfer between the 3 materials.

>>>
>>>
>>> Wind chill is nothing more than how the body perceives the temperature.
>>
>>Wrong. The windchill index was created to reflect that but the
>>effects of windchill extend to any object above ambient temperature.
>
>So when there's a windchill of 30F how cold does galvanized pipe feel?
>What's the correlation with the windchill index?
>Of course when it's windy there's convective heat transfer.
>But the numbers used to develop the "windchill index" are based on how
>human skin "feels" the wind.

Galvanized or whatever will never feel colder than ambient - wind or
no wind - but it will get down to ambient more quickly in the wind.

[Gordon Shumway]

Now, don't keep sayin' that! Trader4 is gonna start callin' you a
liar and all kinds of other stuff too. Don't say I didn't warn you.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 1/21/2014 7:16 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
>> Galvanized or whatever will never feel colder than ambient - wind or
>> no wind - but it will get down to ambient more quickly in the wind.
>
> Now, don't keep sayin' that! Trader4 is gonna start callin' you a
> liar and all kinds of other stuff too. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Oh, gosh. Then we'll have people killfiling
each other right and left. It will be the
wild west, all over again. I got my low slung,
tied down filter. Don't make me slap mouse
on you, rustler.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Trader's called me worse, but unless someone replies to him I won't
see his posts.

[Gordon Shumway]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 19:30:59 -0500, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 1/21/2014 7:16 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
>>> Galvanized or whatever will never feel colder than ambient - wind or
>>> no wind - but it will get down to ambient more quickly in the wind.
>>
>> Now, don't keep sayin' that! Trader4 is gonna start callin' you a
>> liar and all kinds of other stuff too. Don't say I didn't warn you.
>
>Oh, gosh. Then we'll have people killfiling
>each other right and left. It will be the
>wild west, all over again. I got my low slung,
>tied down filter. Don't make me slap mouse
>on you, rustler.

Oh yeah, I'll sick my two cats on yer mouse, you sidewinder!

[Gordon Shumway]

Yup, it's just like stormy predicted. Kill files are flying left and
right!

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 21:25:49 -0600, Gordon Shumway

Trader's been on my list for months.

[micky]

I've decided that your saying Good grief is reason enough not to reply.

You like insults better than a real discussion, and I don't.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:18:46 PM UTC-5, Vic Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:31:52 -0800 (PST), "tra...@optonline.net"
>
> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Monday, January 20, 2014 8:16:11 AM UTC-5, philo  wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >A pipe that is outside and exposed may very well freeze and
>
> >burst overnight when the windchill is severe, while it might
>
> >not burst without the windchill. Temperature isn't static.
>
> >It's typical in many locations for temps to dip down below
>
> >freezing for some period overnight. If the temperature dips
>
> >below freezing for a couple of hours, you certainly could have
>
> >instances where a pipe will freeze and burst with windchill,
>
> >while it would not without it. That's because windchill
>
> >affects how fast heat is removed from any object, not just
>
> >humans.
>
>
>
> How fast for copper? How fast for galvanized? Pex?
>
>

That's right, the rate of heat transfer from a pipe
that's above ambient will vary based on the material.

>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Wind chill is nothing more than how the body perceives the temperature.
>
> >
>
> >Wrong. The windchill index was created to reflect that but the
>
> >effects of windchill extend to any object above ambient temperature.
>
>
>
> So when there's a windchill of 30F how cold does galvanized pipe feel?
>
> What's the correlation with the windchill index?
>
> Of course when it's windy there's convective heat transfer.

And there is the correlation.

>
> But the numbers used to develop the "windchill index" are based on how
>
> human skin "feels" the wind.

It's not just a "feel". Skin exposed with wind blowing on it is
also going to be colder than skin without wind blowing on it. And
I've said and agreed that the index was developed for humans. That
doesn't mean the effect is not present on other objects that are
above ambient and in the wind. The original question that started
all this was if one should just use the outside temp or reported
windchill numbers when trying to figure out if pipes will freeze.
I say both are useful. I'd be more concerned about pipes in a
drafty crawlspace freezing when the temp is 25F and the windchill
is 5F than I would if the temp was 25F with no windchill.

[tra...@optonline.net]

Is that why I didn't get a Xmas card this year? Figures you'd now
start in with this BS. Here I am saying the exact same things you're
saying in this thread and you take the opportunity to start in with
this crap. BTW, if you'd actually read my posts, you'd have seen
that I've been right about this from the beginning and my position
is no different than yours. But go ahead, feel free to add more
and more people to your "killfile" so you can wander in the wilderness
alone.

[tra...@optonline.net]

Yeah, good idea. Focus on that instead of the fact that you
have the science wrong.

>
> You like insults better than a real discussion, and I don't.
>
>

Good grief is an insult? What you don't like is being told
that you're wrong and having it explained to you.
Otherwise, you'd be discussing and replying
to the two examples I just gave you. Wind removes heat from
exposed skin via convection, just like it does from any object
that is above ambient temperature. Evaporation is not necessary.
The cooling of exposed skin
is *not* driven primarily by evaporation, unless you're sweating
when it's 15F out. Seems hundreds of millions of years of
evolution has figured that out. It's driven by convection,
just like using *moving* air through a car radiator works.
And BTW, I figured the good grief was appropriate because
I've clearly explained this to you ten times now, here and
in the other thread. CL told you the same thing.

[Stormin Mormon]

Wed Jan 22, 2014
Weather page says western NY at -4F.

My outdoor thermometer says -5.

Fortunately, I left a faucet dripping last night,
and I have water. I'd dare to guess the water
bottles in the truck are frozen solid.

[Bob_Villa]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 6:55:16 AM UTC-6, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

>
> Is that why I didn't get a Xmas card this year? Figures you'd now
>
> start in with this BS. Here I am saying the exact same things you're
>
> saying in this thread and you take the opportunity to start in with
>
> this crap. BTW, if you'd actually read my posts, you'd have seen
>
> that I've been right about this from the beginning and my position
>
> is no different than yours. But go ahead, feel free to add more
>
> and more people to your "killfile" so you can wander in the wilderness
>
> alone.

You are totally anal...you think by repeating yourself over and over and over that you win the point. You only wear ppl out of your ranting so then you can feel smug.
It's you more than your point that we dislike...just learn how to present it!
.02

[Gordon Shumway]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 05:05:32 -0800 (PST), "tra...@optonline.net"
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

<Snip>

>Yeah, good idea. Focus on that instead of the fact that you
>have the science wrong.

One would think that with a growing number of voices in opposition to
your "science" that there may be a chance you have it wrong.

[k...@attt.bizz]

Sorry, but in this case, Trader is 100% correct.

[Robert Green]

"DerbyDad03" <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in message
news:1592694350411942662.967...@nntp.aioe.org...
> micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> ...snip...

> >
> > I don't know about other animals. Dogs pant, but do they in very cold

> > weather? Probably not, and I've never heard of a dog's tongue freezing

> > because of wind chill. They probably keep their tongues in their
> > mouths.
>

> Not my pug! His tongue is almost always hanging out his mouth, from as
> little as an inch to as much as 4".
>
> I don't know about windchill, but I do know that his tongue will stick to
a
> cold metal pole if he gets too close.

Is that one of those DAMHIKT statements? What did you do to free him?

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

<tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:2f29c90e-9f4c-4c4b-bb95-

<stuff snipped>

It pains me to do this, but Trader's right about this. The concept of
higher air flow resulting in greater heat transfer is the guiding principle
behind the calculation of the wind chill index. Any restrictions placed on
what wind chill means are irrespective of the science behind its
calculation.

The clearest example I can think of heat transfer via moving air is like
Trader's car fan example. Faster computer CPU speeds (and power
consumption) forced the industry to mount fans atop their CPUs. They did
that because passive cooling, even from massive heat sinks, caused the
faster CPUs to burn up. Moving air removes heat more quickly than still
air, whether it's a CPU, a pipe or a human being. Hair dryers would
incinerate themselves without a fan to transfer heat from the heating coils.

> Wind removes heat from exposed skin via convection, just like it does
from any object
> that is above ambient temperature. Evaporation is not necessary.

Correct, but evaporation does play a small role, as do many other things.
Ask yourself whether you'd rather be stranded outside at 0F with a wet
jacket or a dry one. (-: (And yes, I know that wet clothes transfer heat
more rapidly than dry ones and insulation loses R-value when wet.)

Evaporative cooling is more important to windchill's fraternal twin, the
heat index. That's when sweating in a humid environment does not cool the
skin well and so 100F degrees in Atlanta or DC can feel like 110F in the
desert. It seems that the two concepts got slightly mashed up in this
thread. There's fascinating reading at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_chill

that describes a number of controversies associated with calculating
wind-chill, windchill, wind chill, wind chill index or the wind chill factor
(the fact that no one can agree what to call it speaks volumes about its
controversial nature).

<<The method for calculating wind chill has been controversial because
experts disagree on whether it should be based on whole body cooling either
while naked or while wearing appropriate clothing, or if it should be based
instead on local cooling of the most exposed skin, such as the face. The
internal thermal resistance is also a point of contention. It varies widely
from person to person. Had the average value for the subjects been used,
calculated WCET's would be a few degrees more severe.
The 2001 WCET is a steady state calculation (except for the time to
frostbite estimates).[13] There are significant time-dependent aspects to
wind chill because cooling is most rapid at the start of any exposure, when
the skin is still warm.>>

While there can be some defintional arguments about whether wind chill can
be used when discussing non-human objects, there's no argument that air
moving over something will transfer heat faster than no air movement.

Generally, wind chill cannot lower the temperature of something lower than
the ambient temperature *unless* there's enough liquid evaporating (think
Great Lakes) to account for a substantial temperature drop. If my wife
hadn't declared a moratorium on freezer-related experiments, I would even
try hooking up some thermocouples to both wet and dry pipe sections in the
freezer to see whether a wet pipe had a noticeable temperature difference
due to evaporation. Maybe some bachelor will do "the science" for us. (-:

Definitional purists would be correct in saying that wind chill does not
apply to inanimate objects but the scientific formula for computing it still
remains in place and that says the faster the wind, the greater the heat
transfer. For humans, pipes, dogs and CPU's alike.

The Aussies have created an AAT (Aussie Apparent Temperature) just to
confuse things further.

http://www.weather-watch.com/smf/index.php?topic=52051.0


--
Bobby G.

[tra...@optonline.net]

I really don't care what you like or don't like. Go back to the
beginning of this whole discussion on windchill. I presented facts,
science, perfectly civily. When you still have some idiots who
insist that windchill is all about evaportation, that it's effects
don't extend to inanimate objects, and are still insisting that they
are right, well, then it's not my problem. I suppose if they wanted
to argue that Ohm's Law is V=IR^2, I should just accept that and
not get annoyed after about 20 posts. And even then, what did IO
say? "good grief". If you can't handle that, you should grow up.

And for further proof, go look at who started this all up again
after it was covered in another thread. One person made a post,
clearly trolling and trying to revive it all over again. I didn't take the
bait. Neither did a bunch of other posters, but then someone else,
who was involved in the previous thread and should have known better,
had to chime in and start it up again. So, perhaps you should
save your comments for them.

[tra...@optonline.net]

Thanks for the support. And I'd also point out that I'm not impressed
by the number of voices. It's not the number, it's if what they
are saying follows physics or is just nonsense. If a growing number
of people say that V=IR^2, does that make it right? good grief.

[tra...@optonline.net]

Thank you for the support. It's good to see we can agree on something.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 10:25:41 -0800 (PST), "tra...@optonline.net"
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 8:49:13 AM UTC-5, Bob_Villa wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 6:55:16 AM UTC-6, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Is that why I didn't get a Xmas card this year? Figures you'd now
>>
>> >
>>
>> > start in with this BS. Here I am saying the exact same things you're
>>
>> >
>>
>> > saying in this thread and you take the opportunity to start in with
>>
>> >
>>
>> > this crap. BTW, if you'd actually read my posts, you'd have seen
>>
>> >
>>
>> > that I've been right about this from the beginning and my position
>>
>> >
>>
>> > is no different than yours. But go ahead, feel free to add more
>>
>> >
>>
>> > and more people to your "killfile" so you can wander in the wilderness
>>
>> >
>>
>> > alone.
>>
>>
>>
>> You are totally anal...you think by repeating yourself over and over and over that you win the point. You only wear ppl out of your ranting so then you can feel smug.
>>
>> It's you more than your point that we dislike...just learn how to present it!
>>
>> .02
>
>I really don't care what you like or don't like. Go back to the
>beginning of this whole discussion on windchill. I presented facts,
>science, perfectly civily. When you still have some idiots who
>insist that windchill is all about evaportation, that it's effects
>don't extend to inanimate objects, and are still insisting that they
>are right, well, then it's not my problem. I suppose if they wanted
>to argue that Ohm's Law is V=IR^2, I should just accept that and
>not get annoyed after about 20 posts. And even then, what did IO
>say? "good grief". If you can't handle that, you should grow up.

Well, Ohm's law is E=IR, but you've got the rest. ;-)

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 10:29:16 -0800 (PST), "tra...@optonline.net"

<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:57:51 AM UTC-5, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:46:33 -0600, Gordon Shumway
>>
>> <Rho...@Planet.Melmac> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 05:05:32 -0800 (PST), "tra...@optonline.net"
>>
>> ><tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> ><Snip>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>Yeah, good idea. Focus on that instead of the fact that you
>>
>> >>have the science wrong.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >One would think that with a growing number of voices in opposition to
>>
>> >your "science" that there may be a chance you have it wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but in this case, Trader is 100% correct.
>
>Thanks for the support. And I'd also point out that I'm not impressed
>by the number of voices. It's not the number, it's if what they
>are saying follows physics or is just nonsense. If a growing number
>of people say that V=IR^2

V=IR

>, does that make it right? good grief.

Apparently it makes Global Warming "right".