Winter?

On Thursday, 3 March 2016 11:14:54 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:03:49 +0000, John Hall
wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes
On 02/03/2016 11:05, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 09:20:52 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

It's always the upper part of the water that freezes first.

as everybody knows.

But why?

Because water is an unusual substance in being at its densest at
4C.
That allows a shallow layer at the surface in contact with the -
below
zero air - to continue to cool without sinking and being replaced,
until
it reaches freezing point.

Why is that? Did God fix it to ensure the fishes would have liquid
water to swim in?

Maybe he did in a atto-second 13.8billion years ago, and the fish of course.


--
Max Demian

In message , R.
Mark Clayton writes
On Thursday, 3 March 2016 11:14:54 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:03:49 +0000, John Hall
wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes
On 02/03/2016 11:05, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 09:20:52 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

It's always the upper part of the water that freezes first.

as everybody knows.

But why?

Because water is an unusual substance in being at its densest at
4C.
That allows a shallow layer at the surface in contact with the -
below
zero air - to continue to cool without sinking and being replaced,
until
it reaches freezing point.

Why is that? Did God fix it to ensure the fishes would have liquid
water to swim in?

Maybe he did in a atto-second 13.8billion years ago, and the fish of course.

All the reasons stated will contribute to the water freezing first at
the top.

Another is if it suddenly becomes frosty, it will be coldest at the
surface. Even without the '4 degree maximum density' effect, lower down
the sheer thermal mass of the water and the ground beneath it will tend
to keep the lower water warmer.


--
Ian

Max Demian wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:03:49 +0000, John Hall
wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes
On 02/03/2016 11:05, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 09:20:52 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

It's always the upper part of the water that freezes first.

as everybody knows.

But why?

Because water is an unusual substance in being at its densest at
4C.
That allows a shallow layer at the surface in contact with the -
below
zero air - to continue to cool without sinking and being replaced,
until
it reaches freezing point.

Why is that? Did God fix it to ensure the fishes would have liquid
water to swim in?

The anomalous behaviour of freezing water was seriously put to us as
a 'proof' of the existence of some god or other in RI class by an ordained
cleric,
ca. 1964.

--
Bill Findlay

On 03/03/2016 11:15, Max Demian wrote:
Why is that? Did God fix it to ensure the fishes would have liquid water
to swim in?

If the oceans had frozen to the bottom back in the ice ages they'd
probably still be frozen to the bottom. And we'd have no fish. Nor, most
likely, any other life as they've probably frozen over several times.

See "weak anthropic principle".

Andy

brightside S9 wrote:
On 3 Mar 2016 20:54:17 GMT, Anonymous
wrote:

Max Demian wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:03:49 +0000, John Hall
wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes
On 02/03/2016 11:05, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 09:20:52 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

It's always the upper part of the water that freezes first.

as everybody knows.

But why?

Because water is an unusual substance in being at its densest at
4C.
That allows a shallow layer at the surface in contact with the -
below
zero air - to continue to cool without sinking and being replaced,
until
it reaches freezing point.

Why is that? Did God fix it to ensure the fishes would have liquid
water to swim in?

The anomalous behaviour of freezing water was seriously put to us as
a 'proof' of the existence of some god or other in RI class by an ordained
cleric,
ca. 1964.

So what did he reckon about liquid iron?


That's a trick question, isn't it?
Everyone knows iron is solid.

--
Bill Findlay

On 04/03/2016 02:10, Anonymous wrote:

That's a trick question, isn't it?
Everyone knows iron is solid.

My mam's was when she chucked it my head in 1963.

Bill

On 03/03/2016 13:02, Martin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 13:55:06 +0100, wrote:


Depends on your definition of Upper Thames. :-)

Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire parts of the Thames seem to be
referred to as Upper Thames, AKA Midsomer Murders country :-)

Isn't the Thames renamed the Isis near Oxford?

Jim

On Friday, 4 March 2016 02:10:02 UTC, Anonymous wrote:
brightside S9 wrote:
On 3 Mar 2016 20:54:17 GMT, Anonymous
wrote:

Max Demian wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:03:49 +0000, John Hall
wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes
On 02/03/2016 11:05, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 09:20:52 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

It's always the upper part of the water that freezes first.

as everybody knows.

But why?

Because water is an unusual substance in being at its densest at
4C.
That allows a shallow layer at the surface in contact with the -
below
zero air - to continue to cool without sinking and being replaced,
until
it reaches freezing point.

Why is that? Did God fix it to ensure the fishes would have liquid
water to swim in?

The anomalous behaviour of freezing water was seriously put to us as
a 'proof' of the existence of some god or other in RI class by an ordained
cleric,
ca. 1964.

So what did he reckon about liquid iron?


That's a trick question, isn't it?
Everyone knows iron is solid.

Not when it pours out of a blast furnace it isn't.

AFAIK solid iron is denser than the liquid, so cast parts are slightly smaller then their moulds.

OTOH certain alloys will expand on freezing, most notably [and usefully] the alloy formerly used for the hot metal print process.

--
Bill Findlay

On 04/03/2016 12:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
Isn't the Thames renamed the Isis near Oxford?

The Romans called it Thamesis.

Andy

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 21:20:11 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 04/03/2016 12:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
Isn't the Thames renamed the Isis near Oxford?

The Romans called it Thamesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Isis#History

Historically, and especially in Victorian times, gazetteers and
cartographers insisted that the river Thames was correctly named the
river Isis[1] from its source down to Dorchester-on-Thames, where
the river meets the River Thame and becomes the "Thame-isis" (from
which the Latin, and perhaps pre-Roman Celtic, name Tamesis was said
to be derived), subsequently abbreviated to Thames; current Ordnance
Survey maps still label the Thames as "River Thames or Isis" down to
Dorchester. Since the early 20th century this distinction has been
lost in common usage even in Oxford, and some historians[2] suggest
the name Isis is nothing more than part of Tamesis, the Latin name
for the Thames.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)