Hello Jo,
I hold a PhD Degree in Chemistry.
And I stick to my lack of manners, because the main reason for
such nonsense is the misuse of anything “super” when writing
to the lay public. This is disgusting.

“Marine biologist Dr Jon Copley said: “Seeing the world’s deepest black-smoker vents looming out of the darkness was awe-inspiring.”

He added: “Super-heated water was gushing out of their two-storey-high mineral spires, more than three miles beneath the waves.” ”

He’s there, actually on the ship, doing the research. I guess he knows what he is a) seeing and b) talking about. ‘Superheated’ is the term all the scientists doing the research have used to describe water coming from hydrothermal vents. It is the term the scientists used to describe that water to non-scientists: presumably they have a reason for doing so – so we can access the concept without having the detailed scientific knowledge. It’s called ‘communication’.

Georg displayed a complete lack of manners by describing the scientists as ‘know-nothings’ when they are professionals who are working on the site and have been doing this work for many years. He came across as an arrogant ‘know-nothing’ himself.

Do you have a qualification in vent geology/chemistry/physics/biology, Georg? Do you Richard? Do you, Richard, know what actually happens in a hydrothermal vent other than the information you find available on Wikipedia, which is not recognised as an acceptably verified information source by anyone engaged in scientific research.

No, I think not. And you know, I don’t, either. But if the scientists working on the ground want to describe that water as ‘superheated’ as an easily comprehensible terminology for us ignorant lay people. then I guess they can do so. They’re the ones risking their lives doing the science: they don’t just work in the sunny Caribbean you know, but all over the world including in Antarctica. Look at the weblog for the RRS James Cook, for Cruise 42, which was working on vents near South Georgia. This is serious, cutting edge science: a little respect for the people working at it would be good here.

I’m perfectly happy to be polite, but why should I let someone get away with that level of ignorant discourtesy?

The term ‘superheated’ in physics means hotter than the boiling point, and yet not boiling ( because of lack of nucleation sites.) It is metastable. See wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheating The vent is most certainly not superheated in this sense.

The term ‘superheated’ in other contexts tends to mean above 100 C but not boiling because of the high pressure. See wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheated_water. That is the sense that the article was using the term.

But in fact it is more complicated than that: This vent’s temperature is probably above the critical point for water. See wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheated_water. In that case the water from this vent isn’t superheated even in the latter sense of the word.

I wish people would be more polite here; there is no need for insults.

a) the water is i) superheated and ii) liquid not gas, because of the pressure of water at that depth. The boiling point of water is 100 degrees celsius at atmospheric pressure at sea level. On Everest, where atmospheric pressure is less, water ‘boils’ – which is simply the word for its change of physical state from liquid to gas, and has very little to do with its temperature – at less than 100 degrees celsius. At higher atmospheric pressure – in the depth of the ocean – it ‘boils’ at higher than 100 degrees celsius. At very high atmospheric pressure it is unable to effect the physical change of state at all.

b) go to the website thesearethevoyages.net and check out an instrument called the CTD which measures temperature at that depth. It has measured the water at that temperature at that depth. Are you saying the machine can be tricked?

And before you call people who have spent a large proportion of their adult lives researching these things ‘know nothings’ consider, in your ignorant arrogance, that a little research into elementary physics and chemistry on your part would have made YOU appear less of a ‘know-nothing’.