Talk:Steam/Archive 1

Archive 1

steam engines

"atmospheric engines" use the contraciton of the condensation of steam, not its expansion.

To a physicist there's a fair amount of pseudo-science here - eg power produced by steam - hmm hardly - via steam perhaps. And the reason for the attractiveness of steam as a working medium surely lies in the fact that it's condensible so the pumping power at the cold reservoir temperature cen be very low. There should probably be some link out to the Rankine cycle (eg Zemansky, Heat & Thermodynamics, p224). Linuxlad 23:26, 20 November 2004 (UTC)

Er, why isn't steam a 'fluid', please? All the standard texts I was brought up on, treat is in the same classification as air... Linuxlad 19:53, 3 June 2005 (UTC)

On abzisse you must have für Entropie kJ/kg K. Now its without Kelvin.--82.82.236.1 09:44, 12 June 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, I fixed it

counter strike source

Shouldnt there be a direction type page because I was looking for a Steam page as in counter strike source and day of defeat, not this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aushog (talk • contribs) 23:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

wear vs erosion

I'm no expert on this, but the WP article on erosion is specifically about the action of the weather on geological formations (inc. soil), and hence is not appropriate here. I looked around and found that wear was much closer to the intended meaning, since that article describes the action of both 'solid on solid', but also 'liquid or gas on solid', as intended here.

At present, the link to erosion is utterly wrong. If wear is not correct, it would be better to unlink 'erosion' again.

EdJogg 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Try 'wet steam' and erosion together in Google. Bob aka Linuxlad 20:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not dispute that 'erosion' is the correct term to use. However, the WP article on erosion, good as it is, does not mention erosion of metal, only the various geological processes, and therefore is not an appropriate link with regard to steam. (And I should know now, as a result of this discussion I've just spent two hours tidying-up that article! Who'd be a WikiGnome?))

The article on 'wear', which is in a much poorer state, is much closer to the meaning of 'erosion' intended here. However, I think the safest course of action for now is to unlink it entirely...so I'll do just that!

EdJogg 01:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd have thought it more logical to disambiguate erosion into the term (often called erosion/corrosion IIRC) as used by engineers for nigh on a hundred years. Bob aka Linuxlad 09:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely – linking the word to the WP article corrosion (which is an engineering article) would be much more appropriate than erosion (which is a geology article). Please check out both articles and see which you think is more appropriate... ...and if you decide that corrosion is more appropriate, I will not complain! :o)

EdJogg 10:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Half-Life

(heading added later)--Tunheim 15:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Anything about the Valve Half-Life add on here? Mark Richards 22:15, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Put that in the disambiguation page if you want. 32.97.110.142 22:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Steam invisible?

Uhh, what? Steam is invisible? I was not aware of this.

Edit-Read the part about steam unmixed with air/in a vacuum. Nevermind.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HolyHandGrenadez (talk • contribs) 00:27, 12 January 2007.

I'm not so sure a picture of a geyser should be on the steam page. Yes, geysers are associated with steam, but the visible cloud shown consists of liquid water droplets that have formed as the water vapor mixes with the cold air, and portrays an incorrect idea of what is happening. -76.4.49.201 03:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Clouds

Maybe we ought to merge clouds and water with water vapor and steam. or maybe not. its the same stuff in different forms, rite? 68.36.214.143 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No. — Omegatron 22:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, no. - HRS IAM 01:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

New steam technology

This has just appeared on the talk:Steam car page. However I think it might be more appropriate to discuss it here.--John of Paris 09:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps new steam technology (steam production via the blending of methanol and hydrogen peroxide, instead of simple heating) might again propell steam cars. The technology has been produced by Tiancun Xiao and picked up by Oxford Catalysts

See also: * Oxford Catalysts Portable Steam

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.169.144 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 04 September 2007

The above comment may well have been a bit of 'self-promotion' on the part of Oxford Catalysts, but for those interested in the subject it is certainly worth a look. The reaction they have discovered is little short of 'magic'!

Also available from their site is a Press Release (?) apparently written by a freelance science writer. This gives a better idea about the practical applications of this technology. However, I can't help feeling that a spray applicator for domestic cleaning, that operates at room temperature, and produces a jet of steam at 800degC might be a tad dangerous!! (Their website demo video shows steam igniting a piece of paper!!)

The technology is too new to add anything on this page, but if suitable refs can be found, would be a good addition to the steam page...

EdJogg 17:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Those phase diagrams

The h-s & T-s diagrams are very interesting, but of limited use for ignorant pedestrians without definitions of some of the superimposed curves, if possible right in the associated captions. "X" in particular is obviously important, but no clue is given as to its meaning except that it must be a fraction of something, <100%. Can this be provided somehow, if not in the captions then in the text? thanks -- Wwheaton (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

the Mist or Gas edit

I adjusted to convoluted introduction that chose to emphasise the less-common meaning of the term without making it clear that it's actually ambiguous [as per webster dictionary 1913]. It was easy to do this, without resorting to lying-to-children. 203.45.103.88 (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's definitely an improvement --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

But we now need anther go, in the "Types of steam and conversion" section. Any knowledgeable volunteer, before I go blundering in? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Expansion volume

The volume increase when water evaporates is stated as 1600 times but if you do a calculation based on the ideal gas law it works out at 1699.47. Either the 1600 should be a 1700 or there is some reason why there is this disparity and the 1600 figure is a measured property. Also, the 1600 isn't referenced. I think the figure should either be corrected to 1700 or explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.45.117 (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct use of language

Is "Steam" really the technical term for "water vapor", and not vice-versa? It would be sane to think that the fact that "steam" is actually vaporized water needs some understanding of science and therefore technical knowledge. It is only a suggestion. --186.84.62.33 (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"Steam" has something of an implicit nature of not just being water vapour, but also of being at a raised temperature and pressure over atmospheric, whilst vapour is indeed water in gaseous form, but it's also in equilibrium with the normal atmospheric conditions. When only one of these holds, most obviously above a kettle, it's a bit less clear which is more appropriate to use. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of the ambiguity is: 1. "Steam" is used colloquially to mean the white mist you see from a boiling kettle or from your breath on a cold day. It is not vapor, but tiny droplets of condensed liquid water. 2. Physicists and chemists are usually happy for "steam" to be used colloquially in this way, and to prefer the term "water vapor" to mean water in its vapor phase. Water vapor is colorless, and may, but need not, be mixed with other gases. It does not have to be in equilibrium with anything, it is simply the vapor phase of water. 3. Engineers use "steam" to mean water vapor, usually under pressure. This is the source of the confusion, because there are many practical uses of pressured water vapor, so the word is quite widely used in this sense. One might prefer it if engineers didn't use the word like this, but engineers are busy people, and I never met one who would use six syllables where one would suffice. Dezaxa (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

For other uses

Hello User:Vsmith, User:Rklawton and User:Andy Dingley. Recently, you all undid my edit of Steam where I changed the {{other uses}} hatnote into {{About||the software distribution platform|Steam (software)|other uses}} which resulted in a change of "For other uses, see Steam (disambiguation)." into "For the software distribution platform, see Steam (software). For other uses, see Steam (disambiguation)."
In my edit summaries I've tried to explain why I made the change. Note that User:Andy Dingley undid my edit without an explanation (just "Restore original version."), and two of you are administrators. I cannot believe I need to explain to you why the change I made makes sense for various reasons. The Steam (software) article is by far the most popular steam-related article on Wikipedia. I pointed this out in an edit summary and you can verify its popularity yourself here. In October, it was viewed 79 thousand times; averaged over 2,500 views per day. This is not surprising, because, as I also wrote in an edit summary, the Steam software has 100 million active users. I hope you three agree that we try to be user-friendly and try to make it easy for visitors to quickly find the articles they are looking for. There is absolutely no reason to not include a link to the article about the Steam software in the hatnote. Why on earth would we not include a direct link because 'visitors can already reach it via the disambiguation page'; what kind of crazy reasoning is that. The popular - both the service itself and its article - Steam (software) is obviously something that visitors may be seeking instead of the article about the gaseous phase of water, because they share the same name, and, for example, smashing en.wikipedia.org/wiki/steam into a browser gives the article about the latter. Surely you know how popular the Steam software is. If you do not; 75% of games bought on-line for the PC are downloaded through Steam. Welcome to the real world. Who of you three is going to put back the content I tried to add? Of course it should say "For the software distribution platform, see Steam (software). For other uses, see Steam (disambiguation)." Why is there even any discussion necessary about this. This is all very disappointing. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

We do not do this.

We have disambig pages because otherwise the hatnote expands with every other article with a vague overlap and an anon editor to push its viewpoint. We do not do this.

We do not have "secondary" topics that get a privileged status in the hatnote before an otherwise global disambig. We do not do this.

If you claim that Steam (software) is the primary topic, same as the cartoon Magneto is, then seek to rename Steam to Hot wet stuff and rename the gaming platform as Steam alone. See how far you get. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Why did you repeat "We do not do this." three times? The Steam software article is not "every other article with a vague overlap", which should be clear by now - but apparently not to you. Why do you think {{About}} even allows me to do what I did; the 'for see ... for other uses see disambiguation'? That's rhetorical. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Not me, never heard of it. But then I don't reside in the real world of computer gaming. Vsmith (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The edit you undid had the summary "Has 100 million active users. Its WP article has several thousand views a day. In fact, a lot MORE views than this article about the gaseous phase of water." So the platform's popularity should have been clear nonetheless. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope, not clear - more likely simple promotion of a commercial product or so it seemed to me. Vsmith (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

So... next month some other Steam is more popular, and the month after - it's something else - and next year some new steam - and each time we're supposed to change the other uses in this article to reflect whatever is trending? In a word, No. Rklawton (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the (stats.grok.se) statistics, you'll see that Steam (software) has been the most popular steam-related article on Wikipedia for at least four years now, with thousands of daily views. It is not a subject that is trending for a month or two. You could've actually looked into this yourself before writing your "whatever is trending" statement. Why is it that I need to explain this to you? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I fear you've missed the point. If we look at trending, we have to draw the line somewhere - and then we have to monitor, and monitor, and monitor. The experienced editors here, myself included, would rather just point to the disambiguation page and be done with it. The last thing we want to do is give people yet another avenue to promote their product. Rklawton (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I am (also) an experienced editor. I've been editing WP from various IPs for about 10 years now. I'm afraid it is you who missed the point here. You are the editor who started talking about what is "trending", and you wrote about what is more popular "next month" and "the month after". What I've been pointing out is that Steam (software) has been by far the most popular steam-related article on Wikipedia for years. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion needs input from one or more editors who did not make the changes to (reversions of) the article in question on November 5th. Thanks. 11:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

So far we've got one editor who wants to promote software and several admins who don't think that's a good idea. The fact that we removed the promotion doesn't mean we're biased. We're just trying to keep things neutral. Given the overwhelming experience in opposition, this RFC is a waste of time. However, since it's started, let's do it. Rklawton (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we do have precedent for this (see Inflation), and it's specifically permitted under the disambiguation guideline (WP:2DABS: If a disambiguation page is needed, but one of the other topics is of particular interest, then it may be appropriate to link to it explicitly as well as linking to the disambiguation page.). The IP editor is correct in that the software page has consistently received far higher viewing figures to any of the other disambig pages (including this primary page), and while Google's not the ultimate arbiter of notability, a front page search for "Steam" throws back only one result that isn't about the software. I hate to throw the cat among the pigeons by opposing my fellow admins, but I actually think he has a point. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to "promote software". What I want is for WP to be user-friendly, and to make it easy for visitors to quickly find the articles they are looking for. You (Rklawton) write you are not biased, but I actually believe you are biased. If the extra link I added to the hatnote wasn't about a company's product, I believe you would not have objected to the change the way you are currently doing, with statements like "one editor who wants to promote software" and "we removed the promotion", and "we're just trying to keep things neutral". Also, your statement about the 'overwhelming opposition' is basically an argumentum ad populum. Given the arguments I've put forth, and the lack of substantive arguments by those opposing the change, this RFC is not a waste of time. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It's entirely inappropriate to call me biased and tell people what I would do under different circumstances. Rklawton (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You are the person that first mentioned the whole "biased" thing. I wrote that "I actually believe" and that "I believe". Since when am I not free to write what I believe. Nice going on derailing the discussion, by the way. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Average page views for steam, Steam_(disambiguation) and Steam (software) are about 700, 100, >2400 respectively. Those numbers don't really support a scenario where people end up at steam while trying to find Steam (software). That said, I actually agree with Anon, if there's a popular alterative meaning it seems strange not to link to it explicitly. Chemistry articles often have multiple hatnotes, see for example the related topics of Water, Hydrogen and Oxygen. --Project Osprey (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support I find no problem with adding just a hatnote, some users could certainly be misled. I made an article about a Steam game called StarForge which coincidentally is also a weapon in Star Wars. So, although the topics were way apart, just for the sake of anon SW fans, we added the hatnote. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 05:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support It seems like Steam (software) is the most popular alternative meaning for "steam" by a significant margin. I see no problem with adding it to the hatnote. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 12:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support hatnote including Steam (software) - it's not promotion when Wikipedia' policies lead to a company being linked, it would be promotion if Steam were also the name of a comic book store in Peoughkeepsie and that was the one we chose to add to the hatnote (i.e. it's not based on what category the subject of the other page falls into). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The bot sent me. I don't see a problem with adding a hatnote. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Legobot removed the RfC template. What's going to happen next? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We need to fix this situation regarding steam vs. water vapor

The first sentence of this article reads, "Steam is water in the gas phase." The first sentence of the Water vapor article reads, "Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor is the gaseous phase of water." As far as I can tell, this article does not even have a Wikilink to Water vapor, not even in See Also.

What should be done about this? @Dezaxa: made a comment many years ago about how "steam" generally refers to water vapor which has been raised above the ambient temperature and/or pressure, thereby making it a term more relevant to engineering. The term "steam" also appears to be used, at least colloquially, to situations the visible mist of water droplets visible above bodies of water being heated (either by natural or artificial means). However, I do not have any citations on hand to provide actual evidence for the term, except perhaps for an online dictionary like Merriam-Webster [1].

A comprehensive solution would involve both this article and also the Water vapor article. BirdValiant (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Water vapor is simply water in the vapor phase. Just like iodine vapor is iodine in the vapor phase, alcohol vapor is alcohol in the vapor phase, mercury vapor is mercury in the vapor phase, etc. A vapor is a gas that is below its critical point temperature. Water vapor is colorless, so it is invisible in air. If water vapor is cooled and condenses into tiny droplets then it becomes visible as a white 'cloud'. This is what you see when you breathe out on a cold day or when the hot water vapor from your kettle hits the colder air in the room. It would be correct to call this 'cloud' condensation, or one might call it an aerosol, but it is not vapor. Steam can simply mean water vapor, but engineers usually use the word steam to refer to water vapor that has been produced by boiling water, meaning that it is hot and under pressure. This is why we talk of steam engines, steam pumps, steam irons, etc. Steam that contains tiny droplets of liquid water is often referred to as 'wet steam'. Colloquially people sometimes use 'water vapor' to refer to the condensation, but this is scientifically incorrect. The current definitions given in the articles on water vapor and steam are not incorrect, though it would perhaps be helpful to provide clarification of the relationship between them. Dezaxa (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The current situation is simply broken, as the article leads give substantially the same definition for both terms. The bodies of the articles differ in that water vapor focuses on natural gaseous water in the hydrosphere, whereas steam solely discusses artificial gaseous water and its applications. Is artificiality the real difference between the concepts?

Here are the relevant (equilibrium) systems of water and air (excluding solid water), together with some terms that in my understanding can describe them:

Liquid phase of aerosol contains	Suspended in gas phase containing	Names
water	water, air	"steam" (everyday usage), "mist", "fog"
none	water, air	"(moist) air", "humid air", air containing "water vapor"
water	water	"wet steam"
none	water	"superheated steam", "steam" (engineering usage), "water vapor", "dry steam"

Another term mentioned is "saturated steam", but the definition given in the article is nonsensical (all of these are equilibrium systems) so I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean. 73.223.72.104 (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems that "water vapour" is a very clearly defined concept while "steam" has many definitions depending on context, but this is not sufficiently addressed in the article. All the Steam article needs is a short discussion near the start to disambiguate. As well as mentioning "wet steam", I think it should also mention that steam is a common term for water vapour that has been produced artificially by heating rather than pressure, and also that steam is a common term in engineering and industry. After reading through this talk page I think that's a far enough distinction, at least better than what we have currently in the article. Or if you disagree with this distinction, at least add something mentioning that "steam" (not "wet steam") is just a word for water vapour that is used in certain specific contexts. I think it would be useful for readers to know that "water vapour" is the more technically defined term while "steam" is more general. I'd like to make the changes myself, believe me, but I'm not experienced or confident enough to do a good job of it.

Also something to mention is that the second sentence starts "This may occur due to evaporation or due to boiling..." and yet the article on evaporation has no mention of steam and multiple mentions of water vapour, so I would also be tempted to remove "due to evaporation" from this sentence (if we are going down the steam is artificial water vapour route). Thoughts? Ambidextroid (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Steam, Mist, and Water Vapor

If I understand correctly, steam is gaseous water and when it mixes with air, it's called water vapor. But the "steam" you see above a pot of boiling water is actually liquid water that has condensed when the steam/vapor hit the cooler air above the pot. IF this is correct... then this paragraph is a little misleading:

In common speech, steam most often refers to the white mist that condenses above boiling water as the hot vapor ("steam" in the first sense) mixes with the cooler air. After gaseous steam has intermixed with air, it is no longer properly called steam and is instead referred to as water vapor.

That makes it seem like the stuff you see is water vapor instead of condensed, liquid water.

• You're right, and I fixed that. This page seems to have a lot of lying-to-children, but the topic has a both a complicated technical understanding, and a wide set of common ideas. There are a lot of common misconceptions about phases of matter and water. I've tried to fix up this page by putting the simple explanations first and the more complicated ones later. 32.97.110.142 22:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that this issue has been brought up before with regard to both this page and the water vapor page, so I'm almost afraid to ask, but I can't help it, so here goes: what the hell is the difference between steam and water vapor? I've wondered this for years, and haven't found the answer here, even after reading both pages and a lot of the discussion on the talk pages. Unfortunately neither page even attempts to answer this oft-posed riddle. Xezlec 20:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that below the critical point we talk of vapours (i.e. condensation may be brought about by the application of pressure without needing cooling as well), whereas above the critical point we talk of gases. So I'd refer to the invisible material close to a spout as steam or water vapour (but not gas), and to the white mist as 'condensed steam'. I regard 'steam' as a colloquialism rather than a scientific term. --80.189.133.60 (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The difference between steam and water vapor is that water vapor is an invisible gas and steam is a visible mist of liquid droplets.  :-) — Omegatron 01:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe your definition is incorrect Omegatron.

• Steam is "odourless, invisible gas consisting of vaporized water. It is usually interspersed with minute droplets of water, which gives it a white, cloudy appearance." (Encyclopædia Britannica (EB) on steam). So steam in itself is invisible.
• Water vapor is steam mixed with air or other gases (EB http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9074829)
• What you see when you puff a small cloud from your mouth in cold weather is neither. It is tiny suspended water droplets, and depending on where they are found can be called fog or cloud. I am not aware of a good general term for water droplets suspended in air.

--Tunheim 15:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I realized my above statement was somewhat blunt and categorical. It wasn't meant that way :P (long day...) --Tunheim 15:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is tiny suspended water droplets, and depending on where they are found can be called fog or cloud. I am not aware of a good general term for water droplets suspended in air.

I think the word you're looking for is "steam". Definition: "A mist of cooling water vapor."  :-) — Omegatron 16:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that steam is 100% water while a puff of breath is mainly nitrogen and such does not qualify as steam. Do you have a reference for your definition? --Tunheim 10:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continued in the "Article split" section. Nurg 04:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Water vapour is gaseous water. Like other colourless gases, it is invisible at normal pressures. Steam is a mixture of water vapour, liquid water droplets, and ambient gases. Grassynoel (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)