-- wrote:
> Note: your table link does not have the viscosity of water at or near either
> temperature I cited. It does, however, illustrate the validity of the times
> two statement for water viscosity at surface vs internal cooking temps.

And in the real world, to the hand and eye, the difference is
indiscernible. And irrelevant.

> (My illustration as to viscosity range was only to the variation in the
> viscosity and thus to the effects on intercellular transport,

And it would be a guess, not a useful fact. Angels on pinheads.

Pastorio

> etc., not a
> source document for a research paper. The "times 2", as I remember it, is
> from an engineering rule of thumb for resistance to flow in branch potable
> water pipes, to account for the difference in resistance and drop seen
> between summer ground temperature and winter ground temperatures.)
>
> For the actual lab values, see below -
>
>
> The chemistry value of the viscosity of water measured in a Saybolt-type
> device which removes capillary and wall effects, from P 6-10 of the
> Chemistry Handbook
>
> at 45 F = 1550 uPas
> at 55 F = 1150 uPas
>
> which is not double, but only a 35% change.
>
> Still significant when the viscosity of the surface liquid is 280 and the
> interior viscosity is above 600.
>
> "Del Cecchi" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"--" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>5) The rate of the fluid passing thru the fibers depends on the
>
> viscosity
>
>>>of
>>>water, capillary action, gravity, and pressure. The "thinner" the water,
>>>the
>
> m> > more rapid the transfer. (water at 55F is half as viscous as water at
>
>>>45F.
>>>HALF as "thick")
>>
>>This seemed totally preposterous to me, since it would be noticable in
>
> water
>
>>from the tap. So I looked it up
>>
>>According to the table at
>>http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cch...23/liquid.html
>>
>>it is 1.002 cP at 20C and .653 at 40C. Your 10 degrees F is about 5C, so
>>you would get a change of about 0.1 cP, not a factor of 2.
>>
>>Clearly you are not worth arguing with.
>>
>>
>
>
>