It threw me at first too. Helps to think of it as wetness being an interaction between a liquid and solid. Water makes things wet, it isn’t itself wet.
You’d have to ask a physicist. I would be surprised if you couldn’t make other liquids “wet”. The solid analogy helps with conceptualising an interface, one material on another. I suppose you could make water wet, by freezing a block and then splashing said block with water but that doesn’t equate to it being wet itself, if that makes sense.
Wetting is a rather complex topic. Basically, yes.
Not all solids can be wetted. Wax, for example: water beads up on a waxed surface; it does not actually wet the surface.
Not all “wetting” involves water. Soldering and brazing involve “wetting” base materials with a molten filler metal. Dripping molten metal on the base material does not necessarily “wet” it either: the molten filler can “bead” just like water on wax. When it solidifies, the filler metal is not bonded to the unwetted base metal.
This describes very specifically how water makes other things wet. Nowhere, does it describe water making itself wet, because it can’t. Wetness is a property that water can only give to other things, not to itself.
Look, I don’t agree with the rest of the statement either, but tell me, what is the water touching? Oh, more water? Water is wet.
When water touches water you get more water, not wet water
thats because water is already wet 😂
Water can’t be wet. Wetness is a property that water gives to something else.
like water
Not at all
id argue its the same as saying fire isnt hot, just whatever fire touches becomes hot
And you would be wrong. That is called the Association fallacy and false equivalence fallacy.
Fire is not a liquid.
i didnt say it was a liquid
It threw me at first too. Helps to think of it as wetness being an interaction between a liquid and solid. Water makes things wet, it isn’t itself wet.
So only solids can be wet?
You’d have to ask a physicist. I would be surprised if you couldn’t make other liquids “wet”. The solid analogy helps with conceptualising an interface, one material on another. I suppose you could make water wet, by freezing a block and then splashing said block with water but that doesn’t equate to it being wet itself, if that makes sense.
Wetting is a rather complex topic. Basically, yes.
Not all solids can be wetted. Wax, for example: water beads up on a waxed surface; it does not actually wet the surface.
Not all “wetting” involves water. Soldering and brazing involve “wetting” base materials with a molten filler metal. Dripping molten metal on the base material does not necessarily “wet” it either: the molten filler can “bead” just like water on wax. When it solidifies, the filler metal is not bonded to the unwetted base metal.
Water is wet. The fact that this is an argument is ridiculous.
This describes very specifically how water makes other things wet. Nowhere, does it describe water making itself wet, because it can’t. Wetness is a property that water can only give to other things, not to itself.
water is wet. water contains moisture, because water is moisture.
Or you can go the chemical route, which is so eloquently put by Professor Richard Saykally:
https://gizmodo.com/what-makes-water-wet-1713082349
Or if you’re more into videos you can watch an entire lecture on it. https://vimeo.com/11854837
Because water is fucking wet.
I see where you’re mistaken: water isn’t wet, it just makes things wet.
Tru fax