Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site Glacier.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!Glacier!reid
From: reid@Glacier.ARPA (Brian Reid)
Newsgroups: net.cooks
Subject: Re: Why boil cold water
Message-ID: <7541@Glacier.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 16-May-85 23:44:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: Glacier.7541
Posted: Thu May 16 23:44:56 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 19-May-85 06:14:46 EDT
References: <707@dedalus.UUCP> <7285@Glacier.ARPA> <502@panda.UUCP>
Organization: Stanford University, Computer Systems Lab
Lines: 26

Pete Peterson writes, in response to my report of my water-boiling
experiment:

> Am I confused or do the first and last parts of this paragraph say opposite
> things about which boils faster?
> ....
> It appears that Brian's results agree with the counter-intuitive statement
> of the original article; the APPARENT disagreement results from an unusual
> use of the terms "hot" and "cold".
> 
> 		Pete Peterson

Very funny. Yes, the real reason is that it was late at night when I typed
the data into the machine, and I had burned my fingers on one of the hot
pans, and as a result I got distracted and got the "hot" and "cold"
temperatures reversed. Not even in California is 60F "hot" while 135F is
"cold". Here is the true table, which has the "Initial temp" numbers
unreversed:

	     Initial  Time to   Kilojoules   joules/ <-- you can think of
	      temp     boil      absorbed    second    this number as the
Hot water    135F      204sec      184        901     "boiling efficiency"
Cold water    60F      365sec      347        950
-- 
	Brian Reid	decwrl!glacier!reid
	Stanford	reid@SU-Glacier.ARPA