You may be referring to the difference between superheated steam (not visible) and saturated steam (visible)… They are both however, steam. On the other end of the steam spectrum, fog, is considered steam (at times), as in the poetic “steamy” lakes of Winnemuckahaha.
Steam is invisible, water vapor is visible.
Steam=water vapor in colloquial English.
Since when, says who? (Other than you and Chronos).
Perhaps some technical interpretation of “steam” necessitates the requirement of “invisibility” to the phenomenon of it’s existence, as related to humans.
Of this, I am not aware.
When I crack a valve on a 300# steam line at work… Steam comes out:smack:
Mr Wizard himself
[quote=“SigMan, post:27, topic:775068”]
Mr Wizard himself
[/QUOTE]Absolutely correct from a technical perspective, but absolutely incorrect from a colloquial perspective related to the definition of “steam”.
That is the point, related to the OP.
So, According to you, Mr. Wizard is correct in stating that we don’t have 300# of steam pressure at our header?
Sort of like defining light. We cannot see various wavelengths of infrared or ultraviolet, yet we have the human ability to see “visible” light. However, it is
our convention that all is nonetheless considered… LIGHT.
We cannot see superheated steam, yet we can observe saturated steam… It is our convention that **all **is, nonetheless, considered steam.