Wind chill and water pipes

Page 6 of 9  
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 9:26:53 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I understand the issue perfectly well. So does NOAA, Weather Channel, University of Illinois, etc. They agree with my position.

When you keep droning on about windchill when the outside temperature is above freezing and the question was about a night where the outside temp will drop to 0F with a windchill of 0F, what do you expect?
That

I have answered it, but apparently you can't read:
Ed: "Yes, but they won't freeze if the air temperature is 33 degrees and the wind chill is 20. See the difference?
Trader: "Yes I do. But continuing to use cases where the temp is above freezing doesn't show that the lower the reported windchill, the more likely pipes in a drafty crawlspace or an unheated cabin are to freeze when the temps are well below freezing. Again the qustion posed wasn't about 35F. It was about a day with 0F actual, -10F windchill. "
No one here has argued that water pipes can freeze without the actual temp being below 32F. No one is arguing that. I never said otherwise. So, what about it. It has nothing to do with the fact that windchill has an effect on whether pipes will freeze overnight in the case that was posed: 0F, windchill -10F.
So, yeah, after enough of that, and then accusing me of not answering your question, when I did, I get annoyed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/7/2014 11:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

With wind chill, the pipes freeze sooner. That's good to know, because it's only cold and windy for certain number of hours. Thanks for the answer.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 11:38:04 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Now try thinking this through one step further. You agree that windchill can make pipes freeze sooner. So, it's very usual for the temp to drop below freezing overnight and then rise above freezing again in the morning. Let's say is 35F at 6PM and it's going to drop to a low of 20F overnight, before rising above freezing by 9AM. With a windchill of 0F, the pipes in that drafty crawspace may have enough time to freeze, while with no windchill they may not freeze. QED, windchill matters. On a night with a lower reported windchill number, the pipes are more likely to freeze. That is all that I, as well as the numerous references I've supplied are saying.
And I'd take it even further. Without regard to time, some areas of a drafty crawlspace might NEVER make it to below freezing, depending on the windchill. The house is supply some warmth. With a high windchill number you have wind. That wind might be necessary to produce a steadystate temperature below freezing where the pipes are. Without it, the pipes might never make it below freezing even if it stays 20F outside forever. Now, you're gonna say "But it's the wind..." Sure it's the wind, but the wind is reflected in the windchill. If I tell you the windchill is 0F, the outside temp is 20F, you can even calculate the actual windspeed. It's a proxy for windspeed. Ergo, when asked which number matters, the outside temp of 10F or the windchill number of 0F in determining if pipes will freeze, clearly the windchill number does matter. That was the question, was it not?
If your

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/6/2014 6:14 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

you expect the pipes to freeze more quickly. How much more quickly depends on many factors...ALL of which are more important than that number scrolling across the bottom of your TV screen.
In my crawlspace it's 55F year round virtually independent of wind speed...because I pay attention to all those other factors that are way more important than the windchill number scrolling across the TV.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, January 6, 2014 9:03:41 PM UTC-5, mike wrote:

You don't need the windspeed at the pipe. The windspeed at the pipe could be very low. The pipe could be out of the main wind. But a 35mph 15F wind blowing into a drafty crawlspace through a couple of openings could still drop the temp of the rest of the crawlspace low enough to freeze the pipes, even if the air around the pipes is barely moving. Your house gets heated/cooled from a relatively modest amount of air blowing out of registers.

Which doesn't change the fact that windchill has an effect on inanimate objects and can lead to pipes freezing where with no windchill, they would not have.
Here, from the Weather Channel:

>

air to flow across the pipes. Research at the University of Illinois has s hown that “wind chill,� the cool ing effect of air and wind that causes the human body to lose heat, can pla y a major role in accelerating ice blockage, and thus bursting, in water pi pes." >

> "Pipes inside or outside walls, or in an enclosed area can freeze,

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 05:38:06 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Your above statement is absolutely correct. The wind chill in your above example is unknown and irrelevant because the temp is 32° F or below. Because of the air temperature the pipes could freeze. The fact that the wind is blowing will only decrease the time required. That's all I've been saying.
<Snip>

Because you found it on the Internet doesn't make it true. Hell, the one example I gave earlier you picked apart.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 1:24:53 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:

That isn't all you've been saying. You told us that "windchill has no effect on inanimate objects" and you still won't admit that was flat out wrong.
The windchill is relative, because one more time, the lower the reported windchill, the higher the wind. Ergo, it's more likely the pipes will freeze with a lower reported windchill. Windchill is a proxy for windspeed.
And it's *not* just a matter of time. It's very common for people to be worried about whether pipes will freeze on a night where the temp goes significantly below zero. THAT was exactly the question posed by Stormin that started the thread. Now if windchill effects the amount of time it takes for pipes to freeze in a drafty crawlspace or an unheated cabing, then it follows that on nights where the temp drops below freezing overnight and then returns to above freezing at 9AM, with windchill the pipes may have enough time to freeze. With no windchill, they are less likely to have the time to freeze. Capiche? In one case you have frozen pipes, in the other with no windchill, you don't.
And I'd also note that it's not just a matter of time. In a drafty crawlspace under a heated house, in some cases, with no reported windchill, the pipes might never freeze, even if it stays 20F outside forever, while with a big windchill reported, they may very well freeze. Why? With the big windchill the wind may be necessary to drop the steady state temperature below freezing where the pipes are.

ide air to flow across the pipes. Research at the University of Illinois ha s shown that “wind chill,�? the cooling effect of air and w ind that causes the human body to lose heat, can play a major role in accel erating ice blockage, and thus bursting, in water pipes."

The one example you provided, NOAA proved you wrong. They clearly said flat out that wind chill has an effect on inanimate objects and they even said water pipes. Time to take off those rose colored glasses and read what's there, instead of what you want to make believe.
As for impeaching the internet, that canard won't fly. There isn't one source called "the internet". I gave you NOAA, Weather Channel, City of Rochester, etc, not some kook websites.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 06:09:13 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Wind chill has no effect on inanimate objects! Period. It's just a number in a chart -- nothing more.
Wind can have an effect on inanimate objects. A number in a chart cannot have an effect on an inanimate object. Period.

You need to understand the fundamental difference between "wind" (moving air) and "wind chill" (a composite index -- not air, just a number).

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 12:18:48 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:

Now you're lying and just digging your hole deeper. I put a brick that's 75F outside in air that's 20F. So, it cools just as fast with a windchill of -10F as it does if the windchill is 20F? Are you that dumb?

You really are dumber than a brick. From NOAA:
"While exposure to low wind chills can be life threatening to both humans a nd animals alike, the only effect that wind chill has on inanimate objects, such as vehicles, is that it shortens the time that it takes the object to cool to the actual air temperature (it cannot cool the object down below t hat temperature)."
Shortening the time it takes to cool is most definitely an effect, idiot.

Windchill is a number. Windspeed is a number too. You need to learn that just because something is a composite number, does not determine if it has an effect on something or not. Ask the NOAA, Univ of Illinois, Weather Channel, etc. Your argument is like saying that the reported UV in dex, because it's a derived number, has no effect on increased risk of skin cancer, chlorine diminishing in pools, etc. Good grief.

Non-response to the core of the issue noted.

utside air to flow across the pipes. Research at the University of Illinois has shown that “wind chill,�? the cooling effect of air an d wind that causes the human body to lose heat, can play a major role in ac celerating ice blockage, and thus bursting, in water pipes."

Non-response noted again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 05:23:26 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"
<Snip>

<Snip>

<Snip>

<Snip> You have no desire to listen and learn from another point of view. But you are certainly quick to resort to your strong suit, name calling. Your parents must be very proud.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 10:05:18 AM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:

It's *not* a point of view issue. Your insistance that windchill only affects inanimate objects is flat out wrong. You've been given numerous examples:
A brick that's 75F placed outside cools faster with windchill than it does without it.
Your buddy Ed even cited the first origin of the experiments to determine wind chill and the used a bottle of water hung outside. A water bottle is an inanimate object. The same bottle that is outside for a period of time may be frozen solid with a big windchill, while it's unfrozen with just a little windchill.
Pipes in a drafty crawlspace may freeze when the temp drops to 20F overnight if the windchill is -10F, while they may not freeze if the windchill is only 20F, ie no windchill.
Pipes in an unheated cabin can be more likely to freeze with a big windchill than without.
It takes more energy to keep a house at 70F with a big windchill than with little or no windchill.
Those are all effects on *inanimate* objects. And yeah, after enough silly denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, you make it to my list of dummies, incapable of either understanding science or admitting that you're wrong.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 07:27:26 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

All that proves is moving air will cool everything quicker than air that is not moving. I have never disputed that. Nor has anyone else.

Same answer as above.

I'll ignore the improper inclusion of the "chill" on your third instance of "windchill." Same answer as above.

Ditto.

Ditto. You are starting to bore me.

The evidence you speak of doesn't exist but I'm flattered to have made to one of your lists.
Let me try another approach to explain my point of view.
First scenario: The outside air temp is above 32 deg. F. The wind chill is any value you want it to be below 32 deg. F. Will the water freeze? I say no. What do you say?
Second scenario: The outside air temp is below 32 deg. F. The wind chill is any value you want it to be below 32 deg. F. Will the water freeze? I say yes. What do you say?
Third scenario: The outside air temp is above 32 deg. F. Take any or all of the wind chill chart an place it in a glass of water. Will the water in the glass get colder?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 1:17:38 PM UTC-6, Gordon Shumway wrote:

I thought you were going to tell him to place it somewhere else! *J*
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:23:21 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa

LOL!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, January 10, 2014 10:11:54 AM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:

Yes, laugh, it's what many idiots do, after all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 2:17:38 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:

Which is exactly what windchill is all about. Look at the formula.

Just as dumb as ever.

Saying 2 + 2 = 5 a few more times doesn't make it true either.

Saying 2 + 2 = 5 a few more times doesn't make it true either.

The clueless frequently get bored because they can't understand simple science. You can't even address the specifics of the examples.

Of course it exists, I've given it to you about 6 times now, idiot. Windchill has an effect not only on inanimate objects, but any object where it can take heat away, eg pipes or a house. Animate objects are *not* the only things that have heat that can be taken away. The effect of windchill that makes it feel colder with wind than without is due to the wind removing more heat from your body that without it. The exact same effect applies to a brick or a bottle of water. Ask Ed. He even showed you that a warm water bottle placed outside was used to first model and experiment with windchill. Now if windchill has no effect on inanimate objects, it's a very curious thing that scientists used a water bottle to measure it.

Are we back to this nonsense again? Do you even read what anyone posts here? I addressed this many times already. So did krw. Yet, here we are again. For water that is contained in a typical pipe example like we are talking about, the answer has been and continues to be no, which of course doesn't matter.
But as krw already pointed out, you've just made another obvious gaff by trying to apply the statement to water in general. If you put water that is 33F in a sheet pan and expose it outside when the windchill is 10F, then I would expect you would get some of it to freeze via evaporative cooling.
Now, I ask you, what does any of that have to do with your claim that windchill does not affect inanimate objects?

It depends on what the unstated starting temperature is of the water, the mass, how it's exposed, eg is it in a 50 gallon drum or is it spread out in a metal pan, etc and how long the water is then left at that cold temperature. Is temperature static in your part of the world? Or does it typically dip down at night? If the temp dips below freezing for a couple hours at night, it's very easy to see that with a big windchill water might freeze solid, where without a windchill, it might not freeze solid or it might not even start to freeze at all. On a night with major windchill you could have frozen pipes that burst and with no windchill you might not, because they either didn't freeze at all, or only partially started to freeze.

"Take any or all of the wind chill chart and place it in a glass of water?" Put the chart in a glass?? You're really losing it now.
And do note that I have addressed each and every example you've given, not ignored whole sections, or diverted the discussion to 35F, when the question was about windchill in freezing temperatures.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 04:41:28 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

You have not answered any of my three questions, all you have done is babble. They all require a one word answer, either "Yes" or "No."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, January 10, 2014 10:08:54 AM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:

You're a liar. Anyone can see that I've answered two of the three questions in detail. The third, I can't even parse, because it makes no sense. And the other two can't be answered with a simple yes or no, unless you believe that a 55 galllon drum of 75F water placed outside when it's 20F for an hour is going to freeze in like a tray of ice cubes would.
You just don't like the answers and can't refute the science, so the above pathetic non-response is all you're left with. I also note that you've edited out the questions and my specific answers, obviously because you want to run away from them.
You are indeed one of the village idiots.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:10:24 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"
<Snip>

Answer my three previous questions with a one word response, either a "Yes" or "No." Are you a Democrat? That would explain a lot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, January 10, 2014 12:55:14 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:

It figures you'd try to drag politics into a discussion where you've lost. There are plenty of Democrats that have a better grasp of science than you do. I did answer your questions, factually and completely. Your questions don't have simple yes or no answers, because you did not define all the conditions. It's like me asking you "Did you stop beating your wife, yes or no?", and then insisting on a yes or no answer.
Here's the questions and my answers, again:

Are we back to this nonsense again? Do you even read what anyone posts here? I addressed this many times already. So did krw. Yet, here we are again. For water that is contained in a typical pipe example like we are talking about, the answer has been and continues to be no, which of course doesn't matter.
But as krw already pointed out, you've just made another obvious gaff by trying to apply the statement to water in general. If you put water that is 33F in a sheet pan and expose it outside when the windchill is 10F, then I would expect you would get some of it to freeze via evaporative cooling.
Now, I ask you, what does any of that have to do with your claim that windchill does not affect inanimate objects?

It depends on what the unstated starting temperature is of the water, the mass, how it's exposed, eg is it in a 50 gallon drum or is it spread out in a metal pan, etc and how long the water is then left at that cold temperature. Is temperature static in your part of the world? Or does it typically dip down at night? If the temp dips below freezing for a couple hours at night, it's very easy to see that with a big windchill water might freeze solid, where without a windchill, it might not freeze solid or it might not even start to freeze at all. On a night with major windchill you could have frozen pipes that burst and with no windchill you might not, because they either didn't freeze at all, or only partially started to freeze.

"Take any or all of the wind chill chart and place it in a glass of water?" Put the chart in a glass?? You're really losing it now.
And do note that I have addressed each and every example you've given, not ignored whole sections, or diverted the discussion to 35F, when the question was about windchill in freezing temperatures.
Now I'd like an answer to a simple question. You have a house with a drafty crawlspace. The water pipes have been known to freeze occasionally on cold nights. Two situations:
A - It's 37F at 6PM, the temp is forecasted to drop slowly overnight and reach a low of 20F at 3AM with no windchill.
B - It's 37F at 6PM, the temp is forecasted to drop slowly overnight and reach a low of 20F at 3AM with a windchill of 5F.
That is all you're given. Would you be more concerned about the pipe possibly freezing in case A or B or do you think the probability is the same? And note I'm not demanding one word answers, you're free to explain yourself.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.