Is water wet?

[Bannan_mantis]

Is water wet?

[Khedrac]

That depends on your definition of "wet".

To a physical scientist, a "wetting liquid" like water is one that leaves residue behind when flowing across a surface. A "non-wetting" liquid like mercury is one that doesn't leave traces behind - the entire spill of liquid flows off.
So if you reckon that water has traces of something else on it (like oil) then the water is wet with the oil (just typing that makes my brain hurt).

So, let's try another definition: "something that is we is at least partially covered in water".
How then can water be wet? Surely a covering is part of the water and so is not a covering... (brain still hurts).
Well, ice can be wet (when the surface layer starts to melt) but for liquid water it becomes harder but not impossible!
Footage exists of underwater lakes (usually due to a major difference in salinity) formed when water separates into layers so you get water covered in water - i.e. wet water.

In conclusion I think we can certainly say that water can be wet, but it isn't necessarily wet.

[Razade]

It's actually more interesting than all of what Khedrec said, since "wetness" isn't a property of the water but a property of you and how you interact with water. Or any liquid for that matter. "Wet" is the adhesive force a liquid has on a solid.


The question you should be asking, because this is really the more interesting bit by far, is how much water do you need for that property to manifest? Because a single water molecule doesn't produce this adhesive force with solids. It needs more than that. So how many molecules of water (or any liquid) do you need before you get Wetness.

[Draconi Redfir]

Big question: Is something wet when it is completely submerged in water?

Something becomes wet when water is poured onto it while the object is in the air, water residue remains on the object, thus making it wet.

if the object is completely submerged in water, then there is no "Residue", just water. With no air around it, the residue can not exist.

So are objects completely under water in fact "Dry"?

[Razade]

Big question: Is something wet when it is completely submerged in water?

Something becomes wet when water is poured onto it while the object is in the air, water residue remains on the object, thus making it wet.

if the object is completely submerged in water, then there is no "Residue", just water. With no air around it, the residue can not exist.

So are objects completely under water in fact "Dry"?

No, because wet isn't just when water is poured on an object. Water is adhering to the object. Thus. It's wet.

[darkrose50]

If wet is being covered in liquid, then are the molecules on the surface edges wet, or only the ones one layer (or more) beneath?

[Murk]

I would say "being wet" is a state, which implies that anything that can be wet can also not be wet.
Water being wet sounds plausible, but water being dry sounds very implausible, which to me means that water also can not be wet.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Or, in RPG terms: water has no way to even attain the "wet" modifier, even if it can be used to apply the wet modifier to other objects and substances.

[Brother Oni]

I would say "being wet" is a state, which implies that anything that can be wet can also not be wet.
Water being wet sounds plausible, but water being dry sounds very implausible, which to me means that water also can not be wet.

I disagree since your definition requires wet or dry being a binary state.

In physical sciences, a substance being wet or dry is very much not a binary state and there are degrees of 'wetness', which is more commonly referred to as the moisture content. This is normally expressed as a percentage, with 0% being anhydrous (absolutely dry) material.

Since ultrapure water will have a 100% moisture content, it is by definition 'wet'. This leads to the oddity that 'normal' water, which has minerals and other substances dissolved in it, will have a lower moisture content compared to ultrapure water, so it is 'drier' than ultrapure water (although I concede that 99.999 rec% is pretty much 100% for all practical purposes).

[Some Android]

Well we're living in a simulation so if the simulation programed water to be wet it must be true. Unless the simulation got it wrong. What if chicken isn't programed correctly to make it so that chicken doesn't taste like actual chicken?

[enderlord99]

That's not the question you should be asking. What you SHOULD be ask is:

"Is fire burnt?"

[Rockphed]

"Is fire burnt?"

Not after I dump some water on it!

I swear we had this discussion just a couple weeks ago. Maybe a month. What thread was that in?

*goes off to think about where it was*

[Razade]

Not after I dump some water on it!

I swear we had this discussion just a couple weeks ago. Maybe a month. What thread was that in?

*goes off to think about where it was*

It was How to eat corn on the cob, and similar points of disagreement

[Khedrac]

That's not the question you should be asking. What you SHOULD be ask is:

"Is fire burnt?"

Usually - flame is gases heated to the point where they emit visible light - and the gases are usually the combustion products which have definitely been burnt. There is a large difference between fire and combustion.

I swear we had this discussion just a couple weeks ago. Maybe a month. What thread was that in?

Yes, as soon as I posted the first reply I realised that there was a high chance I had just replied to a spam-bot (and the lack of OP contribution makes this more likely). I am more surprised that no-one else has popinted this out yet!

[Rockphed]

Yes, as soon as I posted the first reply I realised that there was a high chance I had just replied to a spam-bot (and the lack of OP contribution makes this more likely). I am more surprised that no-one else has popinted this out yet!

Hmmm, you are right. Except that he has started at least 1 thread in homebrew and, aside from his first couple posts, seems to be posting cogent thoughts. If he is a spam bot, he is the best spam bot ever.

On the other hand, wasn't there a poster that the mods had identified as a bot but weren't banning because it was making word salad replies that were almost cogent and it amused people? I swear I walked into a thread where Glyphstone was cackling about that. Or about the eldritch popcorn he was selling that would corrupt souls with its buttery, salty tastiness. It is hard to tell somethimes.

As to fire colors: is typical (wood or coal) fire emitting black body radiation, or does the reaction have a line in visible light? I know some things burn at certain colors (which is how they make colored fireworks), but I'm not sure if hydrocarbons are one of those things.

[The Ari-tificer]

Hmmm, you are right. Except that he has started at least 1 thread in homebrew and, aside from his first couple posts, seems to be posting cogent thoughts. If he is a spam bot, he is the best spam bot ever.

On the other hand, wasn't there a poster that the mods had identified as a bot but weren't banning because it was making word salad replies that were almost cogent and it amused people? I swear I walked into a thread where Glyphstone was cackling about that. Or about the eldritch popcorn he was selling that would corrupt souls with its buttery, salty tastiness. It is hard to tell somethimes.

As to fire colors: is typical (wood or coal) fire emitting black body radiation, or does the reaction have a line in visible light? I know some things burn at certain colors (which is how they make colored fireworks), but I'm not sure if hydrocarbons are one of those things.

now i wanna buy some eldritch popcorn...

[druid91]

Well, water can be covered in water. If two grains of sand are stacked atop each other it's not ONE grain of sand just because they're together. Water is similar, each molecule of water is in fact, covered with many more molecules of water. Therefor, water is generally wet. Unless you can separate out a single molecule of water and place it in isolation. In which case, that one molecule is dry.

[Goaty14]

Elementary, dear Watson! A single molecule of water is not wet, given that it is not covered in a liquid.

Now, I'll be off having my favorite sandwich at the resturant down the street. Dare I say you might join me?[/bad british]

[JeenLeen]

I disagree since your definition requires wet or dry being a binary state.

In physical sciences, a substance being wet or dry is very much not a binary state and there are degrees of 'wetness', which is more commonly referred to as the moisture content. This is normally expressed as a percentage, with 0% being anhydrous (absolutely dry) material.

Since ultrapure water will have a 100% moisture content, it is by definition 'wet'. This leads to the oddity that 'normal' water, which has minerals and other substances dissolved in it, will have a lower moisture content compared to ultrapure water, so it is 'drier' than ultrapure water (although I concede that 99.999 rec% is pretty much 100% for all practical purposes).

I don't think that really negates a binary state. There is binary of 0 = dry and 1 = any degree of wetness. Using the scientific terms you used, I'd say only 0% is dry and all others are wet. There is, of course, a gradient within wet of how wet something is; and the fact that some low wetness levels are practically equivalent to being dry doesn't mean that they are in fact not dry but wet (say, 1 or 2%). But I don't think that negates a binary definition. Just we need to clarify what dry and wet mean.

[Khedrac]

Elementary, dear Watson! A single molecule of water is not wet, given that it is not covered in a liquid.

Now, I'll be off having my favorite sandwich at the resturant down the street. Dare I say you might join me?[/bad british]

Please, the word is "restaurant"; also one has never seen one of 'them' described as a 'sandwich' before, but one doesn't feel one can argue with that appelation. The good Earl must be spinning in his grave!

(Actually I do dispute the term "sandwich" for the item in question - a sandwich is defined as have two slices of bread to contain other food, and that image looks as if the bun has not been completely separated.)

[Rockphed]

Please, the word is "restaurant"; also one has never seen one of 'them' described as a 'sandwich' before, but one doesn't feel one can argue with that appelation. The good Earl must be spinning in his grave!

(Actually I do dispute the term "sandwich" for the item in question - a sandwich is defined as have two slices of bread to contain other food, and that image looks as if the bun has not been completely separated.)

So you hold that a sub/hoagie/grinder is not a sandwich?

[enderlord99]

So you hold that a sub/hoagie/grinder is not a sandwich?

Presumably, it depends on whether it's cut all the way through or only part of the way.

[Rockphed]

Presumably, it depends on whether it's cut all the way through or only part of the way.

What if the back side of the cut rips halfway: does it become a sandwich halfway through eating if eaten starting at the un-ripped end?

[Khedrac]

What if the back side of the cut rips halfway: does it become a sandwich halfway through eating if eaten starting at the un-ripped end?

So it appears.

[elevate nose]Of course, one would not dream of consuming a vittle where such an eventuality is a conceivable outcome.[/elevate nose]

Also, it does raise questions about the "sandwich pockets" that some british supermarkets are now sellng for the teminally lazy.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

What if the back side of the cut rips halfway: does it become a sandwich halfway through eating if eaten starting at the un-ripped end?

Similarly, if you create a snack with two slices of bread and ingredients between them, but one of the ingredients is of the sticky type, and causes the two slices to merge together to the point were they'd tear if you tried to separate them, does that mean it is no longer a sandwich?



Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

Grey Wolf

The visual does not help at all in telling me what the hell a "chip bitty" is.

[rooster707]

The visual does not help at all in telling me what the hell a "chip bitty" is.

Looks like a... french fry sandwich? Which is one of those foods that sounds simultaneously delicious and ****ing revolting. Why is that not a thing here?

[Grim Portent]

The visual does not help at all in telling me what the hell a "chip bitty" is.

A chip butty is basically a chip (fat french fries for the Americans) on buttered bread/roll sandwich, the butty part of the name referring to buttered bread. Mostly a UK thing to my knowledge.

Can include various sauces, but generally not any other solid ingredients.

[Keltest]

A chip butty is basically a chip (fat french fries for the Americans) on buttered bread/roll sandwich, the butty part of the name referring to buttered bread. Mostly a UK thing to my knowledge.

Can include various sauces, but generally not any other solid ingredients.

Eh, I can accept that as a sandwich. A bad sandwich, but still a sandwich.

[Peelee]

I stand with Keltest on this.