Is water wet?

[Bannan_mantis]

Is water wet?

[Khedrac]

That depends on your definition of "wet".

To a physical scientist, a "wetting liquid" like water is one that leaves residue behind when flowing across a surface. A "non-wetting" liquid like mercury is one that doesn't leave traces behind - the entire spill of liquid flows off.
So if you reckon that water has traces of something else on it (like oil) then the water is wet with the oil (just typing that makes my brain hurt).

So, let's try another definition: "something that is we is at least partially covered in water".
How then can water be wet? Surely a covering is part of the water and so is not a covering... (brain still hurts).
Well, ice can be wet (when the surface layer starts to melt) but for liquid water it becomes harder but not impossible!
Footage exists of underwater lakes (usually due to a major difference in salinity) formed when water separates into layers so you get water covered in water - i.e. wet water.

In conclusion I think we can certainly say that water can be wet, but it isn't necessarily wet.

[Razade]

It's actually more interesting than all of what Khedrec said, since "wetness" isn't a property of the water but a property of you and how you interact with water. Or any liquid for that matter. "Wet" is the adhesive force a liquid has on a solid.


The question you should be asking, because this is really the more interesting bit by far, is how much water do you need for that property to manifest? Because a single water molecule doesn't produce this adhesive force with solids. It needs more than that. So how many molecules of water (or any liquid) do you need before you get Wetness.

[Draconi Redfir]

Big question: Is something wet when it is completely submerged in water?

Something becomes wet when water is poured onto it while the object is in the air, water residue remains on the object, thus making it wet.

if the object is completely submerged in water, then there is no "Residue", just water. With no air around it, the residue can not exist.

So are objects completely under water in fact "Dry"?

[Razade]

Big question: Is something wet when it is completely submerged in water?

Something becomes wet when water is poured onto it while the object is in the air, water residue remains on the object, thus making it wet.

if the object is completely submerged in water, then there is no "Residue", just water. With no air around it, the residue can not exist.

So are objects completely under water in fact "Dry"?

No, because wet isn't just when water is poured on an object. Water is adhering to the object. Thus. It's wet.

[darkrose50]

If wet is being covered in liquid, then are the molecules on the surface edges wet, or only the ones one layer (or more) beneath?

[Murk]

I would say "being wet" is a state, which implies that anything that can be wet can also not be wet.
Water being wet sounds plausible, but water being dry sounds very implausible, which to me means that water also can not be wet.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Or, in RPG terms: water has no way to even attain the "wet" modifier, even if it can be used to apply the wet modifier to other objects and substances.

[Brother Oni]

I would say "being wet" is a state, which implies that anything that can be wet can also not be wet.
Water being wet sounds plausible, but water being dry sounds very implausible, which to me means that water also can not be wet.

I disagree since your definition requires wet or dry being a binary state.

In physical sciences, a substance being wet or dry is very much not a binary state and there are degrees of 'wetness', which is more commonly referred to as the moisture content. This is normally expressed as a percentage, with 0% being anhydrous (absolutely dry) material.

Since ultrapure water will have a 100% moisture content, it is by definition 'wet'. This leads to the oddity that 'normal' water, which has minerals and other substances dissolved in it, will have a lower moisture content compared to ultrapure water, so it is 'drier' than ultrapure water (although I concede that 99.999 rec% is pretty much 100% for all practical purposes).

[Some Android]

Well we're living in a simulation so if the simulation programed water to be wet it must be true. Unless the simulation got it wrong. What if chicken isn't programed correctly to make it so that chicken doesn't taste like actual chicken?:smalleek:

[enderlord99]

That's not the question you should be asking. What you SHOULD be ask is:

"Is fire burnt?"

[Rockphed]

"Is fire burnt?"

Not after I dump some water on it!

I swear we had this discussion just a couple weeks ago. Maybe a month. What thread was that in?

*goes off to think about where it was*

[Razade]

Not after I dump some water on it!

I swear we had this discussion just a couple weeks ago. Maybe a month. What thread was that in?

*goes off to think about where it was*

It was How to eat corn on the cob, and similar points of disagreement (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?559916-How-to-eat-corn-on-the-cob-and-similar-points-of-disagreement)

[Khedrac]

That's not the question you should be asking. What you SHOULD be ask is:

"Is fire burnt?"
Usually - flame is gases heated to the point where they emit visible light - and the gases are usually the combustion products which have definitely been burnt. There is a large difference between fire and combustion.


I swear we had this discussion just a couple weeks ago. Maybe a month. What thread was that in?
Yes, as soon as I posted the first reply I realised that there was a high chance I had just replied to a spam-bot (and the lack of OP contribution makes this more likely). I am more surprised that no-one else has popinted this out yet!

[Rockphed]

Yes, as soon as I posted the first reply I realised that there was a high chance I had just replied to a spam-bot (and the lack of OP contribution makes this more likely). I am more surprised that no-one else has popinted this out yet!

Hmmm, you are right. Except that he has started at least 1 thread in homebrew and, aside from his first couple posts, seems to be posting cogent thoughts. If he is a spam bot, he is the best spam bot ever.

On the other hand, wasn't there a poster that the mods had identified as a bot but weren't banning because it was making word salad replies that were almost cogent and it amused people? I swear I walked into a thread where Glyphstone was cackling about that. Or about the eldritch popcorn he was selling that would corrupt souls with its buttery, salty tastiness. It is hard to tell somethimes.

As to fire colors: is typical (wood or coal) fire emitting black body radiation, or does the reaction have a line in visible light? I know some things burn at certain colors (which is how they make colored fireworks), but I'm not sure if hydrocarbons are one of those things.

[The Ari-tificer]

Hmmm, you are right. Except that he has started at least 1 thread in homebrew and, aside from his first couple posts, seems to be posting cogent thoughts. If he is a spam bot, he is the best spam bot ever.

On the other hand, wasn't there a poster that the mods had identified as a bot but weren't banning because it was making word salad replies that were almost cogent and it amused people? I swear I walked into a thread where Glyphstone was cackling about that. Or about the eldritch popcorn he was selling that would corrupt souls with its buttery, salty tastiness. It is hard to tell somethimes.

As to fire colors: is typical (wood or coal) fire emitting black body radiation, or does the reaction have a line in visible light? I know some things burn at certain colors (which is how they make colored fireworks), but I'm not sure if hydrocarbons are one of those things.

now i wanna buy some eldritch popcorn...

[druid91]

Well, water can be covered in water. If two grains of sand are stacked atop each other it's not ONE grain of sand just because they're together. Water is similar, each molecule of water is in fact, covered with many more molecules of water. Therefor, water is generally wet. Unless you can separate out a single molecule of water and place it in isolation. In which case, that one molecule is dry.

[Goaty14]

Elementary, dear Watson! A single molecule of water is not wet, given that it is not covered in a liquid.

Now, I'll be off having my favorite sandwich (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/Hot_dog_with_mustard.png/1200px-Hot_dog_with_mustard.png) at the resturant down the street. Dare I say you might join me?[/bad british]

[JeenLeen]

I disagree since your definition requires wet or dry being a binary state.

In physical sciences, a substance being wet or dry is very much not a binary state and there are degrees of 'wetness', which is more commonly referred to as the moisture content. This is normally expressed as a percentage, with 0% being anhydrous (absolutely dry) material.

Since ultrapure water will have a 100% moisture content, it is by definition 'wet'. This leads to the oddity that 'normal' water, which has minerals and other substances dissolved in it, will have a lower moisture content compared to ultrapure water, so it is 'drier' than ultrapure water (although I concede that 99.999 rec% is pretty much 100% for all practical purposes).

I don't think that really negates a binary state. There is binary of 0 = dry and 1 = any degree of wetness. Using the scientific terms you used, I'd say only 0% is dry and all others are wet. There is, of course, a gradient within wet of how wet something is; and the fact that some low wetness levels are practically equivalent to being dry doesn't mean that they are in fact not dry but wet (say, 1 or 2%). But I don't think that negates a binary definition. Just we need to clarify what dry and wet mean.

[Khedrac]

Elementary, dear Watson! A single molecule of water is not wet, given that it is not covered in a liquid.

Now, I'll be off having my favorite sandwich (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/Hot_dog_with_mustard.png/1200px-Hot_dog_with_mustard.png) at the resturant down the street. Dare I say you might join me?[/bad british]

Please, the word is "restaurant"; also one has never seen one of 'them' described as a 'sandwich' before, but one doesn't feel one can argue with that appelation. The good Earl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Montagu,_4th_Earl_of_Sandwich) must be spinning in his grave!

(Actually I do dispute the term "sandwich" for the item in question - a sandwich is defined as have two slices of bread to contain other food, and that image looks as if the bun has not been completely separated.)

[Rockphed]

Please, the word is "restaurant"; also one has never seen one of 'them' described as a 'sandwich' before, but one doesn't feel one can argue with that appelation. The good Earl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Montagu,_4th_Earl_of_Sandwich) must be spinning in his grave!

(Actually I do dispute the term "sandwich" for the item in question - a sandwich is defined as have two slices of bread to contain other food, and that image looks as if the bun has not been completely separated.)

So you hold that a sub/hoagie/grinder is not a sandwich?

[enderlord99]

So you hold that a sub/hoagie/grinder is not a sandwich?

Presumably, it depends on whether it's cut all the way through or only part of the way.

[Rockphed]

Presumably, it depends on whether it's cut all the way through or only part of the way.

What if the back side of the cut rips halfway: does it become a sandwich halfway through eating if eaten starting at the un-ripped end?

[Khedrac]

What if the back side of the cut rips halfway: does it become a sandwich halfway through eating if eaten starting at the un-ripped end?

So it appears.

[elevate nose]Of course, one would not dream of consuming a vittle where such an eventuality is a conceivable outcome.[/elevate nose]

Also, it does raise questions about the "sandwich pockets" that some british supermarkets are now sellng for the teminally lazy.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

What if the back side of the cut rips halfway: does it become a sandwich halfway through eating if eaten starting at the un-ripped end?

Similarly, if you create a snack with two slices of bread and ingredients between them, but one of the ingredients is of the sticky type, and causes the two slices to merge together to the point were they'd tear if you tried to separate them, does that mean it is no longer a sandwich?

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/249/778/490.jpg

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/249/778/490.jpg

Grey Wolf

The visual does not help at all in telling me what the hell a "chip bitty" is.

[rooster707]

The visual does not help at all in telling me what the hell a "chip bitty" is.

Looks like a... french fry sandwich? Which is one of those foods that sounds simultaneously delicious and ****ing revolting. Why is that not a thing here?

[Grim Portent]

The visual does not help at all in telling me what the hell a "chip bitty" is.

A chip butty is basically a chip (fat french fries for the Americans) on buttered bread/roll sandwich, the butty part of the name referring to buttered bread. Mostly a UK thing to my knowledge.

Can include various sauces, but generally not any other solid ingredients.

[Keltest]

A chip butty is basically a chip (fat french fries for the Americans) on buttered bread/roll sandwich, the butty part of the name referring to buttered bread. Mostly a UK thing to my knowledge.

Can include various sauces, but generally not any other solid ingredients.

Eh, I can accept that as a sandwich. A bad sandwich, but still a sandwich.

[Peelee]

I stand with Keltest on this.

[Rockphed]

It sounds exactly as carbolicious as the time we made spaghetti stuffed bread. Don't get me wrong, it was tasty. Nevertheless, we could barely move after eating it.

[Grim Portent]

I've never eaten one, but my dad has them from time to time. They're sort of lazy food or the type of thing you'd get from a fish & chip shop.

[Khedrac]

In my (limited) experience the 'chip butty' is more of a Northern UK phenomenon than a general one - quite possibly because the chips tend to taste so much better there (or they did when I went to University in Liverpool - these days I live close to an award winning chip shop 'down South'). That said, even in Liverpool I don't recall ever seeing a chip shop selling any - about the only time I think I saw them pre-made was during the summer exam/revision period at uni when I think the hall of residence catering provided them once or twice.

And to get closer to our original topic - chip butties are wet inside - either from cooking oil that had not completely dried from the chips or from melting butter (or butter substitute) or from tomato ketchup (or equivalent).

[Keltest]

Sarcastic spambots. Just what the world needs.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Sarcastic spambots. Just what the world needs.

They're getting worryingly on-topic. Yes, I know some people think that might be mission accomplished (https://xkcd.com/810/), but given the agenda behind it, I really dislike this particular improvement.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

They're getting worryingly on-topic. Yes, I know some people think that might be mission accomplished (https://xkcd.com/810/), but given the agenda behind it, I really dislike this particular improvement.

Grey Wolf

Agreed. Skynet took a weird turn.

[Keltest]

They're getting worryingly on-topic. Yes, I know some people think that might be mission accomplished (https://xkcd.com/810/), but given the agenda behind it, I really dislike this particular improvement.

Grey Wolf

Eh, with one exception (which, AFAIK, hasn't actually spammed anything) I haven't seen any that weren't immensely transparent. Im pretty sure this particular case was just an amusing coincidence rather than an actual attempt at sarcasm by the bot.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Eh, with one exception (which, AFAIK, hasn't actually spammed anything) I haven't seen any that weren't immensely transparent. Im pretty sure this particular case was just an amusing coincidence rather than an actual attempt at sarcasm by the bot.

Yes, it wasn't a sarcasm attempt (I suspect I know what algorithm is using and why it came up with that particular sentence, but the mods prefer if we don't go into details about it). That wasn't my point. If you saw their post history, other than the last post in which the bot's actual fumum vendidi reveals itself, all the other posts are on topic, relevant and only suspicious because of their length.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

Yes, it wasn't a sarcasm attempt (I suspect I know what algorithm is using and why it came up with that particular sentence, but the mods prefer if we don't go into details about it). That wasn't my point. If you saw their post history, other than the last post in which the bot's actual fumum vendidi reveals itself, all the other posts are on topic, relevant and only suspicious because of their length.

Grey Wolf

I think you are perhaps being more generous in describing their posts than I am. Theyre incredibly general statements that wouldn't be out of place in any number of threads. The fact that you couldn't look at their posts without seeing the thread and have even the faintest guess as to what theyre talking about is one of the biggest gives.

[Peelee]

I think you are perhaps being more generous in describing their posts than I am. Theyre incredibly general statements that wouldn't be out of place in any number of threads. The fact that you couldn't look at their posts without seeing the thread and have even the faintest guess as to what theyre talking about is one of the biggest gives.

True, but the idea that we don't have any examples on this forum does not indicate that the progression isn't happening, and all that that implies.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I think you are perhaps being more generous in describing their posts than I am. Theyre incredibly general statements that wouldn't be out of place in any number of threads. The fact that you couldn't look at their posts without seeing the thread and have even the faintest guess as to what theyre talking about is one of the biggest gives.

They were not "incredibly general statements". Cannot give examples, since the mods already cleaned up, but the post in the Harry Potter thread mentioned HP explicitly, and correctly identified it as a book series. Similarly, I believe at least two or three other posts were also on topic. Yes, in this thread it was more generic and amusingly unintentionally sarcastic, but that was not the case everywhere else.

Grey Wolf

[Knaight]

Looks like a... french fry sandwich? Which is one of those foods that sounds simultaneously delicious and ****ing revolting. Why is that not a thing here?

Judging by your location it might be a thing there - I've seen french fries in sandwiches elsewhere in the States, most notably in the Fat Shack sandwich menu (https://www.fatshack.com/menu#menu-info).* It's not quite the same, but the existence of one variety of this sort of thing is usually a sign that there are others around.

*Which is an impressive compilation of disgusting food concepts.

[Peelee]

Judging by your location it might be a thing there - I've seen french fries in sandwiches elsewhere in the States, most notably in the Fat Shack sandwich menu (https://www.fatshack.com/menu#menu-info).* It's not quite the same, but the existence of one variety of this sort of thing is usually a sign that there are others around.

*Which is an impressive compilation of disgusting food concepts.

I appreciate the warning; I was intrigued at what a Fat Shack would serve, and I no longer am.

[Knaight]

I appreciate the warning; I was intrigued at what a Fat Shack would serve, and I no longer am.

I linked the menu, so you can find out for sure. It's interesting, if not exactly palatable. Plus the non sandwich side is somewhat more promising.

[Peelee]

I linked the menu, so you can find out for sure. It's interesting, if not exactly palatable. Plus the non sandwich side is somewhat more promising.

Yeah, and the asterisks is what saved me from reading it.

[avalkauskas]

"wet" is a construct by your consciousness. In fact you are assigning a label to the types of energy that are exerted on a molecular level between forces. These forces are sensed by your neurological network and signals are sent to your brain. Your consciousness interprets those cerebral electrical impulses as "wet". I hope this helps ;)

[DearJtheDM]

Water is a liquid. It is not able to make itself wet, it is a property that is imparted onto other objects by water.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Water is a liquid. It is not able to make itself wet, it is a property that is imparted onto other objects by water.

So water imparts wetness on other objects, you say, such as, I don't know, H20 molecules?

Grey Wolf

[Khedrac]

Water is a liquid. It is not able to make itself wet, it is a property that is imparted onto other objects by water.


So water imparts wetness on other objects, you say, such as, I don't know, H20 molecules?

Grey Wolf
You can certainly have blocks of (water) ice that are dry to the touch and others that are wet to touch - usually because the drier ones are cold enough to freeze any surface moisture, but this does illustrate that you can have we water.

[Sermil]

That's not the question you should be asking. What you SHOULD be ask is:

"Is fire burnt?"

Is wind moving? Is earth dirty?

[Peelee]

Is wind moving? Is earth dirty?

Well with as much as we've been trashing the place, of course it is!

[Khedrac]

Is wind moving?
Silly question - of course wind moves - that's why a storm can be trashing the Caribbean this week, flooding east coast USA next week and giving Europe strong winds the week after.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Silly question - of course wind moves - that's why a storm can be trashing the Caribbean this week, flooding east coast USA next week and giving Europe strong winds the week after.

Indeed, but I think Sermil asked it sarcastically: someone such as the OP might argue that wind doesn't move, air does, or some other semantic nonsense like "water isn't wet".

Grey Wolf

[Knaight]

Indeed, but I think Sermil asked it sarcastically: someone such as the OP might argue that wind doesn't move, air does, or some other semantic nonsense like "water isn't wet".

Grey Wolf

You could also argue that wind is the movement of air, and as such describing the wind itself as moving is a bit weird - or at least something that takes place over a longer time scale, that of the patterns of how air moves changing rather than just air moving. The same applies to currents; currents can move, if really slowly, but the movement of the currents is distinct from the movement of the water within the current.

[Khedrac]

Indeed, but I think Sermil asked it sarcastically: someone such as the OP might argue that wind doesn't move, air does, or some other semantic nonsense like "water isn't wet".

Grey Wolf
Indeed - but I thougth it was worthy of a serious response considering the rest of this thread...


You could also argue that wind is the movement of air, and as such describing the wind itself as moving is a bit weird - or at least something that takes place over a longer time scale, that of the patterns of how air moves changing rather than just air moving. The same applies to currents; currents can move, if really slowly, but the movement of the currents is distinct from the movement of the water within the current.

Absolutely - I once saw a weather front moving in nearly the opposite direction to the wind. There was an area of sky where clouds were forming in a line then racing away towards a solid mass of clould that had a straight line edge. THe edge of the solid cloud slowly advanced against the clouds racing towards it until it overtook the formation line - so the edge of the solid cloud area was moving against the wind - a great sight.

[vladimir520]

I take wet as "touched by water, water drops being on it", or as Google says "covered or saturated with water or another liquid." Water isn't covered by itself. That definition only applies to solid objects. Unless you think it doesn't. Then any water inside water is wet
👍

[Knaight]

I take wet as "touched by water, water drops being on it", or as Google says "covered or saturated with water or another liquid." Water isn't covered by itself. That definition only applies to solid objects. Unless you think it doesn't. Then any water inside water is wet
👍

The term "wet" is definitely not restricted to solids - liquid water dispersed in vapors is very much a thing, and the standard term to describe vapors with a lot of liquid water dispersed in them is "wet".

This comes up a lot when dealing with steam. Much like there is wet ice or wet snow, with some liquid water around the solid there is wet steam, with individual liquid droplets dispersed throughout the vapor phase. There is also dry steam, where there isn't liquid water, and the hole system is probably much hotter. If you're looking for exact numbers the term "Steam Quality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_quality)" is more likely to be used, but even in an engineering context here people throw that term around you'll hear "wet" used to describe low quality (high liquid water) steam.

[Zergh]

Water is not wet. It's made of hidrogen and oxygen, how could they get wet?

[Knaight]

Water is not wet. It's made of hidrogen and oxygen, how could they get wet?

Putting aside the misspelling of hydrogen and the idea that the properties of a chemical are similar to the properties of the elemental forms of its constituent atoms: Humidity.