From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Dec 31 12: 6:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CCFD37B401 for ; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:06:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E108A43EA9 for ; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:06:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from swear@attbi.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([12.242.158.67]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with ESMTP id <2002123120063105100i70n3e>; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 20:06:31 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gBVK928S097613; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:09:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from swear@attbi.com) Received: (from jojo@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gBVK7fQn097600; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:07:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from swear@attbi.com) X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: jojo set sender to swear@attbi.com using -f To: Chuck Swiger Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Water Damage References: <20021230110818.A91089-100000@cactus.fi.uba.ar> <3E11070B.5000306@jcdurham.com> <3E11E7A3.5070404@mac.com> From: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen) Date: 31 Dec 2002 12:07:41 -0800 In-Reply-To: <3E11E7A3.5070404@mac.com> Message-ID: Lines: 37 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Chuck Swiger writes: > Jim Durham wrote: > [ ... ] > > That's an excellent idea because the alcohol will "absorb" the water > > (I believe the correct term is that water is "misable" in alcohol), so > > when the alcohol evaporates it takes the water with it. But that "so" there seems unjustified. Maybe the last part is true, but does the fact that two liquids are misable mean that the lighter one will carry off the heavier one in evaporation? One could as easily guess that the heavier one keeps the lighter one's evaporation rate down to the heavier one's -- or anywhere in between. Or they each evaporate at their own rates, separating at the moment of evaporation. > Yes, water and alcohol are misable in any proportions, but there's > slightly more to it than that. You cannot get 100% pure alcohol via > distillation-- this is why isopropyl rubbing alcohol goes up to 91% > alcohol, and why ethanol like grain only goes up to 195 proof (~98%). From that I'd guess that alcohol evaporates from a water mixture at or near it's normaly fast rate, carrying off a small fraction of it's weight or volume (9%) of water and leaving water behind unless there's more than about 10 times the alcohol as water. Just guessing, tho. Do the two molocules act like one which evaporates faster than water but slower than alcohol? Do they stay together after evaporating? Wouldn't that give 50%, not 91%? My first guess was that the alcohol would leave all of the water behind in evaporation and that one must flush with enough alcohol to remove the absorbed water in the form of flushed-away liquid mixture. I now suspect the truth is somewhere in between. I kinda doubt that I could dry up a half cup of water much faster by mixing in a half cup of alcohol. But I guess I can see how a thick layer of alcohol could evaporate away a bit of dampness. It's certainly a widespread practice; it must be true. Anybody know for sure how this works (especially in the cup example)? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message