Are Steam & Water Vapor Visible? - Science Forums

Jump to content Science Forums

• Sign In

1. Home
2. Education
3. Science Education
4. Are Steam & Water Vapor Visible?

• All Activity

NathanUT

Members

• 4 posts
• 0 Badges
• 1 Reputation

• Location: Austin

NathanUT Members

May 3, 201114 yr

May 3, 201114 yr

OK, I feel confident I know the answer to this, but my colleague refuses to accept my explanation. It's silly since the answer to this is not all that relevant, but as a teacher, I want to be sure I am not teaching concepts that are technically incorrect...

 

That being said, I believe water vapor & steam (steam is a common type of vapor, right?) are totally invisible. The argument/common misconception is that you can see steam in the form of the little white cloud rising above a tea kettle or steam vacuum. It is my understanding though, that the little white cloud is just that... a cloud. And a cloud is water in liquid form that is coming together & condensing, but not yet dense enough to fall. It is my understanding that when you boil water in a tea kettle, the vapor is invisible. However, as it moves farther away from the source of heat, the vapor starts to cool and condense into liquid drops. Those liquid drops are what you see, NOT water vapor. Can anyone confirm? This makes perfect sense to me, but I can totally see why there is such a misconception on this topic. Steam cleaners put out a white cloud of steam, and steam is water vapor... so water vapor must be visible

Cap'n Refsmmat

Administrators

• 11.8k posts
• 0 Badges
• 1.4k Reputation

• Location: Texas
• Mr. Wizard

Cap'n Refsmmat Administrators

May 3, 201114 yr

May 3, 201114 yr

You're right. If you want authority, here's the Oxford English Dictionary on the subject:

 

In popular language, applied to the visible vapour which floats in the air in the form of a white cloud or mist, and which consists of minute globules or vesicles of liquid water suspended in a mixture of gaseous water and air. [...] In modern scientific and technical language, applied only to water in the form of an invisible gas.

 

It's the difference between scientific and colloquial usage that makes it controversial.

NathanUT

Members

• 4 posts
• 0 Badges
• 1 Reputation

• Location: Austin

NathanUT Members

May 4, 201114 yr

• Author

May 4, 201114 yr

• Author

You're right. If you want authority, here's the Oxford English Dictionary on the subject:

 

 

 

It's the difference between scientific and colloquial usage that makes it controversial.

 

Sweet! I think that will settle it. Thanks for the response.

TonyMcC

Senior Members

• 801 posts
• 0 Badges
• 87 Reputation

• Location: Leicester, UK
• Quark

TonyMcC Senior Members

May 4, 201114 yr

May 4, 201114 yr

From what I remember from physics lessons at school if you look carefully at steam issuing from a boiling kettle the steam will seem to appear to form a little distance away from the spout. Therefore it cannot be seen until it starts to condense. That was in the days when kettles were boiled on a gas ring and could be kept boiling for the observation. These days with electric kettles which automatically shut off it's not so easy! (Not to mention 'elf an safety)

• 3 weeks later...

hermanntrude

Senior Members

• 1.4k posts
• 0 Badges
• 175 Reputation

• Chemistry Expert

hermanntrude Senior Members

May 25, 201114 yr

May 25, 201114 yr

From what I remember from physics lessons at school if you look carefully at steam issuing from a boiling kettle the steam will seem to appear to form a little distance away from the spout. Therefore it cannot be seen until it starts to condense. That was in the days when kettles were boiled on a gas ring and could be kept boiling for the observation. These days with electric kettles which automatically shut off it's not so easy! (Not to mention 'elf an safety)

 

however, steam has a different refractive index to air so it'd be visible by the way objects behind it would appear distorted. transparent, yes, invisible, i'd say not.

swansont

Moderators

• 56.4k posts
• 0 Badges
• 9.2k Reputation

• Location: Upstate NY
• Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

swansont Moderators

May 25, 201114 yr

May 25, 201114 yr

however, steam has a different refractive index to air so it'd be visible by the way objects behind it would appear distorted. transparent, yes, invisible, i'd say not.

 

I think at that level it's a matter of semantics of what invisible is. The air has a refractive index different from a vacuum, too, but for normal incidence of any refractive material there is no distortion. Also, air will scatter light according to frequency, so you could detect the presence of air by seeing if any blue light is scattered perpendicular to the light path; we see a blue sky, but we consider air to be invisible, don't we?

Basi

Members

• 18 posts
• 0 Badges
• 0 Reputation

• Location: Des Moines, IA

Basi Members

May 27, 201114 yr

May 27, 201114 yr

Steam is most definitely invisible (naked to the human eye). It only gives the appearance of being visible some distance from the source where the steam actually has the potential to condense and form liquid visible droplets (water) again.

 

Your colleagues are definitely misinformed if they think otherwise.

• 2 years later...

@sidhu

New Members

• 1 posts
• 0 Badges
• 0 Reputation

@sidhu New Members

November 14, 201312 yr

November 14, 201312 yr

yes u r right NathanUT, i also believe in the hypothesis u made from some time..........the visibility of vapors, i think can also depend on the size of vapours......bt i dont know that what size or in what range the size of water vapors or other liquid vapors have?.......could u plz post some data regarding the size of common liquid vapours......so that we can just see that they can be seen by naked eye?...................i think that the size will be far away from the range of our eyes ability to see them.......in my opinion.......

CaptainPanic

Moderators

• 4.7k posts
• 0 Badges
• 1.2k Reputation

• Location: The little swamp at the end of the river Rhine
• Usually himself

CaptainPanic Moderators

November 14, 201312 yr

November 14, 201312 yr !

Moderator Note

 

@sidhu,

 

Please note that the thread is already 2 years old. Some of the people responding to the thread may no longer be active. NathanUT has not logged in to this forum since May 4th 2011.

 

It is not against the rules to respond to an old thread like this. But you should realize that you are only doing it for your own entertainment, not to help the person who opened the thread.

swansont

Moderators

• 56.4k posts
• 0 Badges
• 9.2k Reputation

• Location: Upstate NY
• Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

swansont Moderators

November 14, 201312 yr

November 14, 201312 yr

yes u r right NathanUT, i also believe in the hypothesis u made from some time..........the visibility of vapors, i think can also depend on the size of vapours......bt i dont know that what size or in what range the size of water vapors or other liquid vapors have?.......could u plz post some data regarding the size of common liquid vapours......so that we can just see that they can be seen by naked eye?...................i think that the size will be far away from the range of our eyes ability to see them.......in my opinion.......

 

There are no atoms or molecules visible to the naked eye. If you can see it, it will because many of the molecules have coalesced.

npts2020

Senior Members

• 1.5k posts
• 0 Badges
• 166 Reputation

• Location: Pennsylvania
• Protist

npts2020 Senior Members

November 15, 201312 yr

November 15, 201312 yr

To throw a wrench into the explanation, it depends on whether the steam is saturated or superheated. I can state with 100% certainty that you cannot see the steam from a 1200 psi boiler on a US Navy ship because it is superheated. When the main steam line gets a break in it, the safest way of finding it is by running a broom along the line until it either bursts into flame or is sheared off. You will not see the leak by looking with your eyes.

• 2 weeks later...

John Cuthber

Resident Experts

• 18.4k posts
• 0 Badges
• 4.1k Reputation

• Location: England
• Chemistry Expert

John Cuthber Resident Experts

November 23, 201312 yr

November 23, 201312 yr

 

There are no atoms or molecules visible to the naked eye. If you can see it, it will because many of the molecules have coalesced.

Actually, there are plenty of molecules visible to the naked eye.

Here's a fairly well known one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cullinan_Diamond

And here's a more accessible one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quartz_synthese.jpg

swansont

Moderators

• 56.4k posts
• 0 Badges
• 9.2k Reputation

• Location: Upstate NY
• Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

swansont Moderators

November 23, 201312 yr

November 23, 201312 yr

Molecules are typically though of as the smallest unit of the substance. Quartz, for example, is given as SiO2 so the quartz crystal you can see is many, many molecules. Similar with diamond, or any other crystal structure.

John Cuthber

Resident Experts

• 18.4k posts
• 0 Badges
• 4.1k Reputation

• Location: England
• Chemistry Expert

John Cuthber Resident Experts

November 23, 201312 yr

November 23, 201312 yr

Molecules are neutral collections of atoms held together by chemical bonds.

"A molecule/ˈmɒlɪkjuːl/ is an electrically neutral group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds." from wiki

 

The bonds occur throughout a diamond.

All the bonds are the same, and all the atoms are held to eachother by chains of chemical bonds.

 

A diamond is a single molecule, even if it's big enough to hurt if you drop it on your foot.

 

Molecules vary depending on how the atoms are linked together. The simplest unit of diamond is a carbon atom, and yet the same is true of graphite.

So, if the molecule is the simplest unit then graphite and diamond, having the same simplest unit, must be the same sort of molecule.

swansont

Moderators

• 56.4k posts
• 0 Badges
• 9.2k Reputation

• Location: Upstate NY
• Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

swansont Moderators

November 23, 201312 yr

November 23, 201312 yr

Molecules are neutral collections of atoms held together by chemical bonds.

"A [/size]molecule [/size]/ˈmɒlɪkjuːl/[/size] is an electrically neutral group of two or more [/size]atoms held together by [/size]chemical bonds." from wiki[/size]

 

The bonds occur throughout a diamond.

All the bonds are the same, and all the atoms are held to eachother by chains of chemical bonds.

 

A diamond is a single molecule, even if it's big enough to hurt if you drop it on your foot.

 

Molecules vary depending on how the atoms are linked together. The simplest unit of diamond is a carbon atom, and yet the same is true of graphite.

So, if the molecule is the simplest unit then graphite and diamond, having the same simplest unit, must be the same sort of molecule.

 

Interesting that the wikipedia article doesn't list diamond as the largest molecule, and says the largest one on record is around 100 nm.

 

The structure of graphite and diamond differ. Molecules typically refer to the smallest repeating structure. Using your interpretation, a block of ice, or salt, would have to be considered a molecule. In fact, most solids would. However, we don't do that. When one refers to molecular formulas, one typically does not have to ask how big the sample is, because that defeats the purpose behind the concept.

John Cuthber

Resident Experts

• 18.4k posts
• 0 Badges
• 4.1k Reputation

• Location: England
• Chemistry Expert

John Cuthber Resident Experts

November 23, 201312 yr

November 23, 201312 yr

"Interesting that the wikipedia article doesn't list diamond as the largest molecule, and says the largest one on record is around 100 nm."

Interesting that it fails to notice that a typical DNA molecule is nearer a metre than 100nm.

 

 

"Using your interpretation, a block of ice, or salt, would have to be considered a molecule. "

No, blocks of ice are held together by hydrogen bonds, not covalent ones like diamond or quartz.

Salt crystals are held together by electrostatic forces between ions.

That's why I chose diamond and quartz.

 

I don't see anyone asking for the molecular formula of diamond, so that's irrelevant. However the molecular formulae of polymers are often given as things like (C2F4)n and you could call diamond Cn if you really wanted a molecular formula.

 

A diamond is a single molecule: it's not a very controversial point of view

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=171339

Sensei

Senior Members

• 8.2k posts
• 0 Badges
• 1.3k Reputation

Sensei Senior Members

November 28, 201312 yr

November 28, 201312 yr

Molecules are neutral collections of atoms held together by chemical bonds.

 

What with hydrogen bond?

Will we count it as "chemical bond" or not?

(it's mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bond )

If we count it as well, the largest "molecule" on Earth is ocean.

 

DNA molecule is using hydrogen bonds extensively.

Edited November 28, 201312 yr by Sensei

CaptainPanic

Moderators

• 4.7k posts
• 0 Badges
• 1.2k Reputation

• Location: The little swamp at the end of the river Rhine
• Usually himself

CaptainPanic Moderators

November 28, 201312 yr

November 28, 201312 yr

As far as know, a hydrogen bond is defined as a bond between molecules (or in certain cases between two groups of the same molecule). Hydrogen bonds do not turn our oceans into one giant molecule.

 

A DNA molecule has many hydrogen bonds. But it has covalent bonds that are the reason we call it a molecule.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

1. Home
2. Education
3. Science Education
4. Are Steam & Water Vapor Visible?

• All Activity

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Accept Cookies Reject Cookies

• Sign In
• Search
• Menu

Close panel

• Existing user? Sign In

Close panel

• Browse
  • Forums
  • Events
  • Guidelines
  • Staff
  • Online Users
  • Leaderboard
• Activity
• Leaderboard
• Store

1. Home
2. Education
3. Science Education
4. Are Steam & Water Vapor Visible?

Close panel Search Where: Everywhere This Forum This Topic Topics Events Products Members Search: Content titles and body Content titles only Date Created: Any date Past 24 hours Past week Past month Past six months Past year Use: All of these words Any of these words Last Updated: Any date Past 24 hours Past week Past month Past six months Past year Search... Search Everywhere This Forum This Topic Topics Events Products Members Find results in Search titles and body Search titles only Date Created Created any time Created past 24 hours Created past week Created past month Created past 6 months Created past year Last Updated Updated any time Updated past 24 hours Updated past week Updated past month Updated past 6 months Updated past year Close

Configure browser push notifications

close Chrome Safari Edge Firefox

Chrome (Android)

1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
3. Adjust your preference.

Chrome (Desktop)

1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
2. Select Site settings.
3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.

Safari (iOS 16.4+)

1. Ensure the site is installed via Add to Home Screen.
2. Open Settings App → Notifications.
3. Find your app name and adjust your preference.

Safari (macOS)

1. Go to Safari → Preferences.
2. Click the Websites tab.
3. Select Notifications in the sidebar.
4. Find this website and adjust your preference.

Edge (Android)

1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
2. Tap Permissions.
3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.

Edge (Desktop)

1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
2. Click Permissions for this site.
3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.

Firefox (Android)

1. Go to Settings → Site permissions.
2. Tap Notifications.
3. Find this site in the list and adjust your preference.

Firefox (Desktop)

1. Open Firefox Settings.
2. Search for Notifications.
3. Find this site in the list and adjust your preference.