From: utzoo!decvax!duke!harpo!seismo!rocheste!FtG
Newsgroups: net.physics
Title: teabag answer
Article-I.D.: rocheste.341
Posted: Tue Dec 21 17:23:58 1982
Received: Wed Dec 22 04:32:51 1982

The responses to my teabag question were basically depressing with
few exceptions. In general the responses fell into four categories:
1. Redundant (4) These people suggested explanations that I had already
listed (something that happens too often on the net- READ BEFORE YOU
LEAP!) or Suggested PV=nRT, which is an APPROXIMATION. The figure of .0038...
is from the CRC manual and is correct for atmos. pressure from 0 to 100 C.
I know what I'm talking about so less accurate information doesn't help.

2. Useless (1) No real information content.

3. Irrellevant (3). People sure send mail for the oddest reasons. Try dev.null
next time.

4. Helpful (2). Two people (err, three people, two messages. Hello Aloha!) gave
facts and insights.

None suggested a fifth explanation for the phenomenon, which I think makes the
others more viable. I overestimated the size of the bubble, mentally projecting
it into the tea, when in fact the bubble is flat on the bottom and barely goes
under the surface. Hence there is really less air in the bag than it appears-
a kind of optical illusion. This coupled with the fact pointed out by one
of the correspondents in group 4 suggests that water vapour mixed with air
is all that is neccessary. The key point is that once the vapour mixes
with the leftover air, it takes quite a while for it to condense.

			Thankyou for your time and trouble
			FtG, rochester.