On Monday, January 6, 2014 4:56:38 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
Yes and the Weather Channel, City of Rochester, Univ of Illinois all
say you've lost:
Here, from the Weather Channel:
eezing, especially if there are cracks or openings that allow cold, outside
air to flow across the pipes. Research at the University of Illinois has s
hown that â€œwind chill,â€� 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
> "Pipes inside or outside walls, or in an enclosed area can freeze,
On 1/7/2014 8:32 AM, email@example.com wrote:
I read it on the internet so it is true.
No shit, we've said that. But the actual temperature must be below 32,
not just the wind chill factor.
With the wind chill below zero, the actual temperature will be below 32F
so pipes freeze. Nothing new, it has worked that way for centuries.
See "Law of Physics" Wind will ten to blow out warm air and bring in
cold air. But the chill factor is not a factor. Temperature must be
32F or below.
On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 11:43:37 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Typical canard. Does that make everything on the internet untrue?
NOAA is wrong? Univ of Illinois? City of Rochester? BTW, where
are your references, besides your flapping gums?
freezing, especially if there are cracks or openings that allow cold, outs
ide air to flow across the pipes. Research at the University of Illinois ha
s shown that â€œwind chill,â€� the c
ooling effect of air and wind that causes the human body to lose heat, can
play a major role in accelerating ice blockage, and thus bursting, in water
On Monday, January 6, 2014 3:40:02 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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,
freezing, especially if there are cracks or openings that allow cold, outsi
de air to flow across the pipes. Research at the University of Illinois has
shown that â€œwind chill,â€� the co
oling effect of air and wind that causes the human body to lose heat, can p
lay a major role in accelerating ice blockage, and thus bursting, in water
As someone else pointed out to you several posts ago, that
isn't true either. You're just adding to the confusion.
Any inanimate object with moisture that can evaporate can be
reduced to a temp below that of the air by evaporative cooling.
Many weather reports now use the "real feel"
No one said the thermometer changes. Only that in the case that started
this, where it's 0F with a windchill of -10F, that:
A - windchill does have an effect on inanimate objects
B - in cases like that, where it's below freezing, the lower the windchill,
the more likely pipes are to freeze in a drafty crawlspace, an unheated
Again, if all you heard on the weather report was that it was going
to drop to 20F overnight and the windchill, would you be more
concerned about pipes in a drafty crawlspace freezing with a reported
windchill of 20F, or with a windchill of 0F?
On 1/7/2014 8:30 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
My point is, wind chill does not cause the pipes to freeze. Wind may
make them freeze sooner but the overall affect is the same. If your
example was correct, a 35 degree temperature with a 20 degree wind chill
factor would freeze the pipes. PIPES HAVE NO FEELING
On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 11:38:04 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
BS. NOAA, Weather Channel, and Univ or Illinois, among others,
say you're wrong. How hard is it to understand that if it's
20F outside and the reported windchill is 0F, that it's more
likely that pipes in a drafty crawlspace, an unheated cabin,
will freeze? Apparently it's not that hard to understand, but
you refuse to answer the simple questions posed that show you're
Gee and when do you have wind? With a windchill that is the same
as the outside temp or with a windchill that is 20F BELOW the
outside temp? Again, as I've said many times now, suppose it's
35F outside. You have an unheated cabin or a drafy crawlspace.
Overnight, it forecasted to go down to 20F. Two cases:
A - windchill is 20F
B - windchill is -10F
Are you going to tell us that the liklihood of the pipes
freezing overnight are the same in both cases?
My example above is correct. And again, from the OP, the conditions
of the question were a temp of 0F and a winchill of -10F. So stop
with the 35F, idiot.
On 1/7/2014 12:10 PM, email@example.com wrote:
When you resort to name calling it shows you lack of understanding of
issues. Sorry you had to sink so low and lose respect of others. That
puts me out of this now as I'm not going to wallow in the mud with you.
But you still have refused to answer about the 35 degree temperature and
20 degree windchill. IT WON'T FREEZE
Get real! No one has said it would (though under the right
circumstances, water will freeze when the ambient air is above
"freezing"). The *fact* is that windchill also affects inanimate
objects. The numbers quoted by the newz are for *bare**human* skin
but the effect is relevant to all objects.
On 1/8/2014 12:29 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Trader keeps using specific numbers for wind chill. The numbers don't
apply to inanimate objects. Wind does carry heat away faster then when
there is no wind. No one is disputing that fact.
If Trader's windchill had the same effect on inanimate objects, then a
35 degree temperature with a 20 degree windchill could freeze pipes.
Windchill is a "feel" and can have a value assigned to it.
Wind affects the rate of cooling
If windchill was the same for humans, animas and inanimate objects, then
pipes woujld freeze anyh time the windchill go below 32. Since they do
not, yhou can condlude they are not affected.
Some people just refuse to see the difference
Don't take my word for it
With the bitterly cold air dominating our local news today, the phrase
“wind chill factor” is getting a great deal of well-deserved attention.
Some people are asking what it really means and when we started using it.
Before World War II, two scientists working in Antarctica first
developed the idea and coined the phrase. Paul Allman Siple and Charles
Passel based it on the cooling rate of a bottle of water that was
suspended above their hut. They developed a formula and made a chart
that was later released and became widely used in the 1970s. Then in
2001, the National Weather Service updated the formula used to calculate
the wind chill. That updated version is what we use today.
The idea behind the wind chill factor is to give people an idea of just
how quickly the cold temperatures mixed with the wind will affect humans
and animals alike. Frostbite and hypothermia are real dangers from
bitter cold, and the wind chill factor helps determine the level of
danger we face.
The formula takes into account the temperature and winds at five feet
above ground level, the average height of an adult’s face, which is
presumably the most exposed part of the body on a cold day. According to
the National Weather Service, it also “incorporates heat transfer
theory, heat loss from the body to its surroundings, during cold and
breezy/windy days.” The National Weather Service Windchill Chart states
that at a wind chill of about -19º, frost bite can occur in thirty
minutes. Of course, below that temperature, the colder it is, the faster
frostbite will happen.
You might have heard all the hype surrounding the Green Bay vs. San
Francisco game yesterday. Last week, some meteorologists were predicting
the wind chill would be colder than the famed Ice Bowl of 1967. In fact,
that forecast did not pan out, partially because in the 1960s, they were
still using the older formula, which caused the calculations to be
colder than they should have been. By the old index, the wind chill for
the Ice Bowl was -47º. By the new index, it was a warmer -36. Also, the
actual temperature in Green Bay yesterday was not nearly as cold as was
feared by some late last week.
Read more here:
But it is *still* windchill. The fact is that the numbers posted in
the NEWZ only are estimates for bare human skin, so if you're going to
play the pedantic pete role, it's not accurate for even dogs (a rather
Wrong. He's never said anything *close* to that.
WRONG. You're lying, now.
Wrong. It *IS* windchill. Wind is moving air. It has nothing to do
with temperature, real or imagined.
You can't even get it straight.
I *certainly* don't because you're *WRONG*.
Windchill and Wind Chill Factor are different things. One is a
specific formula (or table, really). The other is an effect.
AND IS NOT any different for animate or inanimate objects. A dog will
have a different correction than a human. If you're talking about a
specific table, so be it. That is *not* windchill. Windchill is more
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 01:05:42 -0500, email@example.com wrote:
No shit. This has been most of the problem here. Terminology must be
You are getting closer and at least realized there is wind and the
Wind Chill factor.
Now, the is a rapper named Windschill, but the dictionary does not
have that as one word like trader is making up.
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 5:59:42 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
It's not a problem of terminology. Gordon made the silly claim that
"windchill has no effect on inanimate objects". In a new post he just made
hours ago, he still maintains that is correct, which of course it isn't.
Or do you agree with him?
Oh please. We know that and have acknowledged it from the start.
Windchill is directly related to wind speed. Give me the windchill
number and the ambient temp and I can tell you the windspeed.
I made it up as one word?
Title of the chart: NWS Windchill Chart.
BTW, thanks for posting this gem:
"Before World War II, two scientists working in Antarctica first
If windchill has no effect on inanimate objects, how exactly did
they first measure it via the cooling rate of a bottle of water?
And as for it having no effect on whether something freezes, leave
a bottle of water that's 70F outside when it's 20F and the windchill
is 20F for two hours and it won't freeze solid. Do it when it's 20F
but the windchill is -10F and it will freeze solid. Capiche?
Now some pedantic loon will probably say, what size bottle, it can't
freeze in that amount of time, what if the temp was 35F, etc, but
clearly the effect is there and could be demonstrated. You just need
the right size bottle and the right amount of time. Ergo, the reported
windchill does have an effect on whether pipes may freeze, depending
on where those pipes are located.
On Friday, January 10, 2014 12:14:46 AM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
Wrong again. Perception is not required for windchill to have
" The only effect wind chill has on inanimate objects, such as car radiators and water pipes, is to shorten the amount of time for the object to cool. "
On 1/8/2014 12:29 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Not quite the same:
The human body loses heat through convection, evaporation, conduction,
and radiation. 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
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. 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.
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 1:33:25 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"I read it on the internet so it is true"
That's what you said when I gave you highly credible references like NOAA,
Weather Channel, City of Rochester, Univ of Illinois, etc. But then after
making that retort, you see fit to post from Wikepedia of all places and
that's cool, no problem.
And then it clearly says:
"For inanimate objects, the effect of wind chill is
to reduce any warmer objects to the ambient temperature more quickly. "
Now maybe you can explain it to Gordon. And how that effect can
sometimes cause pipes in a drafty location or an unheated cabin
to freeze overnight with a big windchill factor, while without the
windchill, they would not.
PS: I'm not talking about a night when it's 35F.
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.