In a chemical reaction, say combustion of propane, It releases energy by loosing mass, but how and where does it lose mass ?
Is the only thing that changes the energy levels of the electrons ?
And does this mean that the loss of mass is from electrons emitting photons?
And then can it be calculated using M=(hv)/(mc^2) - E=mc^2=hv ?? :s
Thanks guys
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 21 2011, 01:14 PM)
In a chemical reaction, say combustion of propane, It releases energy by loosing mass, but how and where does it lose mass ?
Is the only thing that changes the energy levels of the electrons ?
And does this mean that the loss of mass is from electrons emitting photons?
And then can it be calculated using M=(hv)/(mc^2) - E=mc^2=hv ?? :s
Thanks guys
Show us how you derived those equations again? The don't look right.
Is the only thing that changes the energy levels of the electrons ?
And does this mean that the loss of mass is from electrons emitting photons?
And then can it be calculated using M=(hv)/(mc^2) - E=mc^2=hv ?? :s
Thanks guys
Show us how you derived those equations again? The don't look right.
That one was wrong i think, mayb not but i think it is, Ive tried again below with these two equations
E=mc^2
E=hc/λ for a photon
so ;
E = mc^2 = hc/λ
So rearranging for m gives
m= hc/c^2*λ
Simpified gives, M= h/cλ
No one has told me where a loss of mass comes from yet haha
E=mc^2
E=hc/λ for a photon
so ;
E = mc^2 = hc/λ
So rearranging for m gives
m= hc/c^2*λ
Simpified gives, M= h/cλ
No one has told me where a loss of mass comes from yet haha
QUOTE
No one has told me where a loss of mass comes from yet haha
That's because there is no loss of mass in a chemical reaction.
http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/ch...hemicalrxn.html
http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/ch...nservation.html
http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/ch.../balancing.html
QUOTE (Why Not?+Nov 23 2011, 11:36 PM)
That's because there is no loss of mass in a chemical reaction.
http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/ch...hemicalrxn.html
http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/ch...nservation.html
http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/ch.../balancing.html
If you calculate the mass loss during an exothermic reaction using the E = M * C ^ 2 formula you will find the amount of mass change is so small "From a chemical perspective all mass is contained by atoms. Therefore, if atoms cannot be created or destroyed then neither can mass. This is known as the principle of "Conservation of mass"."
That was from one of the links. There is the general weighing of chemical, and calculating Energy Mass conversion. Their orders of scale are vastly different.
There is a loss in mass during a chemical reaction, but its just minutely small.
Any energy released means there has to be a loss of mass somewhere due to mass- energy conservation laws
Any energy released means there has to be a loss of mass somewhere due to mass- energy conservation laws
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 25 2011, 12:13 PM)
There is a loss in mass during a chemical reaction, but its just minutely small.
Any energy released means there has to be a loss of mass somewhere due to mass- energy conservation laws
If that is true you were now going to tell us where this loss is felt.
For it is not a Nuclear Reaction so it is not from the nucleus, and we were previously thinking it is from the changes in electron energy only.
Any energy released means there has to be a loss of mass somewhere due to mass- energy conservation laws
If that is true you were now going to tell us where this loss is felt.
For it is not a Nuclear Reaction so it is not from the nucleus, and we were previously thinking it is from the changes in electron energy only.
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 25 2011, 12:13 PM)
There is a loss in mass during a chemical reaction, but its just minutely small.
Any energy released means there has to be a loss of mass somewhere due to mass- energy conservation laws
Any energy released means there has to be a loss of mass somewhere due to mass- energy conservation laws
QUOTE (Why Not?+Nov 26 2011, 02:12 AM)
Wrong again.
http://www.fordhamprep.org/gcurran/sho/sho...ns/lesson16.htm
Well where does that heat come from in an exothermic reaction? Energy is mass isn't it?
http://www.fordhamprep.org/gcurran/sho/sho...ns/lesson16.htm
Well where does that heat come from in an exothermic reaction? Energy is mass isn't it?
Of course, you cant get energy from nowhere.
If you weight the products you will see they are minutely heavier than the products. its just simple laws of energy-mass conservation.
Oh, and do you know, a spring is compressed, it actually weighs more die to its potential energy
I think that is kinda cool
Anyhow, I'm still no wiser about where the mass loss comes from. I think a deeper understanding of mass-energy equivalence is needed lol.
We know the electron looses energy by emitting a photon. I think if we found the energy of that photon and popped it into M=E/(c^2) it would be equivalent to the mass loss .
So maybe we are thinking wrongly of mass and energy. Should we think of them as the same thing in this instance?
If you weight the products you will see they are minutely heavier than the products. its just simple laws of energy-mass conservation.
Oh, and do you know, a spring is compressed, it actually weighs more die to its potential energy
I think that is kinda cool
Anyhow, I'm still no wiser about where the mass loss comes from. I think a deeper understanding of mass-energy equivalence is needed lol.
We know the electron looses energy by emitting a photon. I think if we found the energy of that photon and popped it into M=E/(c^2) it would be equivalent to the mass loss .
So maybe we are thinking wrongly of mass and energy. Should we think of them as the same thing in this instance?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Nov 26 2011, 04:49 AM)
Well where does that heat come from in an exothermic reaction? Energy is mass isn't it?
Energy and mass are equivalent. The mass equivalent of the potential energy stored in a chemical system, when released in a chemical reaction, is not lost - it is converted from potential energy to kinetic energy, which is in turn absorbed by something else in the system (usually as heat or light). The total mass/energy of the system remains the same. For example, if I draw a bow, I use kinetic energy to impart potential energy into the bow. You can say that I weigh less and the bow weighs more but the mass/energy of the Why Not?/Bow system remains the same. There is no loss of mass or energy - ever.
Energy and mass are equivalent. The mass equivalent of the potential energy stored in a chemical system, when released in a chemical reaction, is not lost - it is converted from potential energy to kinetic energy, which is in turn absorbed by something else in the system (usually as heat or light). The total mass/energy of the system remains the same. For example, if I draw a bow, I use kinetic energy to impart potential energy into the bow. You can say that I weigh less and the bow weighs more but the mass/energy of the Why Not?/Bow system remains the same. There is no loss of mass or energy - ever.
its not lost, but there is changes between them, in nuclear reactions, energy released is from a drop in mass. the products weigh around 0.3% less.
But energy-mass equivalence is confusing :S
But energy-mass equivalence is confusing :S
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 29 2011, 03:27 PM)
its not lost, but there is changes between them, in nuclear reactions, energy released is from a drop in mass. the products weigh around 0.3% less.
But energy-mass equivalence is confusing :S
I'd be surprised if it was as high as that.
Can you show us your calculations please?
But energy-mass equivalence is confusing :S
I'd be surprised if it was as high as that.
Can you show us your calculations please?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93...ence#Efficiency
I hope Wikipedia is eneough evidence, if not i'd be more than happy to show you some workings.
I hope Wikipedia is eneough evidence, if not i'd be more than happy to show you some workings.
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 30 2011, 02:32 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93...ence#Efficiency
I hope Wikipedia is eneough evidence, if not i'd be more than happy to show you some workings.
This is a cut and paste from the Wikipedia article. 0.3% is mentioned but not in the right context.
Show me your workings please?
"In nuclear reactions, typically only a small fraction of the total mass–energy of the bomb is converted into heat, light, radiation and motion, which are "active" forms which can be used. When an atom fissions, it loses only about 0.1% of its mass (which escapes from the system and does not disappear), and in a bomb or reactor not all the atoms can fission. In a fission based atomic bomb, the efficiency is only 40%, so only 40% of the fissionable atoms actually fission, and only 0.04% of the total mass appears as energy in the end. In nuclear fusion, more of the mass is released as usable energy, roughly 0.3%. But in a fusion bomb (see nuclear weapon yield), the bomb mass is partly casing and non-reacting components, so that in practicality, no more than about 0.03% of the total mass of the entire weapon is released as usable energy (which, again, retains the "missing" mass).
In theory, it should be possible to convert all of the mass in matter into heat and light (which would of course have the same mass), but none of the theoretically known methods are practical. One way to convert all matter into usable energy is to annihilate matter with antimatter. "
I hope Wikipedia is eneough evidence, if not i'd be more than happy to show you some workings.
This is a cut and paste from the Wikipedia article. 0.3% is mentioned but not in the right context.
Show me your workings please?
"In nuclear reactions, typically only a small fraction of the total mass–energy of the bomb is converted into heat, light, radiation and motion, which are "active" forms which can be used. When an atom fissions, it loses only about 0.1% of its mass (which escapes from the system and does not disappear), and in a bomb or reactor not all the atoms can fission. In a fission based atomic bomb, the efficiency is only 40%, so only 40% of the fissionable atoms actually fission, and only 0.04% of the total mass appears as energy in the end. In nuclear fusion, more of the mass is released as usable energy, roughly 0.3%. But in a fusion bomb (see nuclear weapon yield), the bomb mass is partly casing and non-reacting components, so that in practicality, no more than about 0.03% of the total mass of the entire weapon is released as usable energy (which, again, retains the "missing" mass).
In theory, it should be possible to convert all of the mass in matter into heat and light (which would of course have the same mass), but none of the theoretically known methods are practical. One way to convert all matter into usable energy is to annihilate matter with antimatter. "
yeh, annihilation is the only way theoretically I suppose. Theres been major advancements in the storage of anti-matter recently. Its just been able to make enough of the stuff.
As for the calculations, ill get round to them in a little while tonight.
As for the calculations, ill get round to them in a little while tonight.
right then ill try explain my calculations lol
surely not the most accurate as possible but accurate enough.
The fusion process using tritium and deuterium
One tritium and deuterium molecule fuse and release one helium-4 and a neutron.
D + T = He + n
The atomic weights;
D= 2.01410178 u ________________ N= 1.00866491600 u
T= 3.0160492 u ________________ He= 4.002602 u
totals= 5.03015098 u - 5.011266916 u
0.018884064 u is the total mass lost . and thats 0.37541743925944743710257380783429 % of the original mass of the reactants.
surely not the most accurate as possible but accurate enough.
The fusion process using tritium and deuterium
One tritium and deuterium molecule fuse and release one helium-4 and a neutron.
D + T = He + n
The atomic weights;
D= 2.01410178 u ________________ N= 1.00866491600 u
T= 3.0160492 u ________________ He= 4.002602 u
totals= 5.03015098 u - 5.011266916 u
0.018884064 u is the total mass lost . and thats 0.37541743925944743710257380783429 % of the original mass of the reactants.
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 30 2011, 08:07 PM)
right then ill try explain my calculations lol
surely not the most accurate as possible but accurate enough.
The fusion process using tritium and deuterium
One tritium and deuterium molecule fuse and release one helium-4 and a neutron.
D + T = He + n
The atomic weights;
D= 2.01410178 u ________________ N= 1.00866491600 u
T= 3.0160492 u ________________ He= 4.002602 u
totals= 5.03015098 u - 5.011266916 u
0.018884064 u is the total mass lost . and thats 0.37541743925944743710257380783429 % of the original mass of the reactants.
I thought we were discussing chemical reactions not nuclear fusion reactions.
Everyone know that fusion and fission there is a loss of matter and this is converted to energy. But a chemical reaction is a less obvious situation.
surely not the most accurate as possible but accurate enough.
The fusion process using tritium and deuterium
One tritium and deuterium molecule fuse and release one helium-4 and a neutron.
D + T = He + n
The atomic weights;
D= 2.01410178 u ________________ N= 1.00866491600 u
T= 3.0160492 u ________________ He= 4.002602 u
totals= 5.03015098 u - 5.011266916 u
0.018884064 u is the total mass lost . and thats 0.37541743925944743710257380783429 % of the original mass of the reactants.
I thought we were discussing chemical reactions not nuclear fusion reactions.
Everyone know that fusion and fission there is a loss of matter and this is converted to energy. But a chemical reaction is a less obvious situation.
ha sorry, but were making no progress with chemical reactions lol
found out anything new ??
found out anything new ??
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 30 2011, 11:45 PM)
ha sorry, but were making no progress with chemical reactions lol
found out anything new ??
You would think this would be one of the simplest things to check.
I saw on Wikipedia where the standard for a kilogram mass is a metal at a certain temperature is slightly heavier every degree warmer it gets, so mass has to be defined say at 20 degrees.
So if heat weighs something when associated with mass, and that heat came from an exothermic reaction you could guarantee that the energy/mass came from the reactants.
Now if you agree that this is science and logical, it is just a matter of determining what happens when a chemical combines and gives off heat/light.
found out anything new ??
You would think this would be one of the simplest things to check.
I saw on Wikipedia where the standard for a kilogram mass is a metal at a certain temperature is slightly heavier every degree warmer it gets, so mass has to be defined say at 20 degrees.
So if heat weighs something when associated with mass, and that heat came from an exothermic reaction you could guarantee that the energy/mass came from the reactants.
Now if you agree that this is science and logical, it is just a matter of determining what happens when a chemical combines and gives off heat/light.
Given the conventions of chemistry:-
If you melt ice you add energy (from outside) and the resulting water will be heavier (though unmeasurably so) than the original ice.
-C2.
If you melt ice you add energy (from outside) and the resulting water will be heavier (though unmeasurably so) than the original ice.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused1+Dec 1 2011, 01:11 AM)
Given the conventions of chemistry:-
If you melt ice you add energy (from outside) and the resulting water will be heavier (though unmeasurably so) than the original ice.
-C2.
The measurabilty is the problem. 1 litre of petrol burnt in the air gives off a lot of heat, but how are you going to measure the mass of the reactants and the mass of all the gas given off.
If you melt ice you add energy (from outside) and the resulting water will be heavier (though unmeasurably so) than the original ice.
-C2.
The measurabilty is the problem. 1 litre of petrol burnt in the air gives off a lot of heat, but how are you going to measure the mass of the reactants and the mass of all the gas given off.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Dec 1 2011, 01:47 AM)
The measurabilty is the problem. 1 litre of petrol burnt in the air gives off a lot of heat, but how are you going to measure the mass of the reactants and the mass of all the gas given off.
The measurement is not the problem. Take, for example, the amount of energy required to split 2 mol of water into 2 mol of dihydrogen and 1 mol of dioxygen?
Plug that energy into E=mc^2 and you get the relative mass increase that water has over it's constituents gaseous molecules. It is incredibly small, but not incalculable and, at least in principle, not unmeasurable.
But when you see how incredibly small that number is, you may start to understand why using mass-energy equivalence in chemical reaction calculations is akin to killing flies with sledge hammers.
P.s. Hey C2, glad to see you're still alive and kicking! I'm recently returned and scratching my head...
The measurement is not the problem. Take, for example, the amount of energy required to split 2 mol of water into 2 mol of dihydrogen and 1 mol of dioxygen?
Plug that energy into E=mc^2 and you get the relative mass increase that water has over it's constituents gaseous molecules. It is incredibly small, but not incalculable and, at least in principle, not unmeasurable.
But when you see how incredibly small that number is, you may start to understand why using mass-energy equivalence in chemical reaction calculations is akin to killing flies with sledge hammers.
P.s. Hey C2, glad to see you're still alive and kicking! I'm recently returned and scratching my head...
QUOTE (Why Not?+Dec 2 2011, 04:38 AM)
The measurement is not the problem. Take, for example, the amount of energy required to split 2 mol of water into 2 mol of dihydrogen and 1 mol of dioxygen?
Plug that energy into E=mc^2 and you get the relative mass increase that water has over it's constituents gaseous molecules. It is incredibly small, but not incalculable and, at least in principle, not unmeasurable.
But when you see how incredibly small that number is, you may start to understand why using mass-energy equivalence in chemical reaction calculations is akin to killing flies with sledge hammers.
P.s. Hey C2, glad to see you're still alive and kicking! I'm recently returned and scratching my head...
Would you like to help us through that calculation? Please for I think you have suggested a very good method of proving the mass increase and the other way around mass loss.
Plug that energy into E=mc^2 and you get the relative mass increase that water has over it's constituents gaseous molecules. It is incredibly small, but not incalculable and, at least in principle, not unmeasurable.
But when you see how incredibly small that number is, you may start to understand why using mass-energy equivalence in chemical reaction calculations is akin to killing flies with sledge hammers.
P.s. Hey C2, glad to see you're still alive and kicking! I'm recently returned and scratching my head...
Would you like to help us through that calculation? Please for I think you have suggested a very good method of proving the mass increase and the other way around mass loss.
The enthalpy of a mol of water at standard temperature and pressure is -285.83 kJ. Since the energy required to electrolyze 1 mol of water is equal to the enthalpy of 1 mol of water, you will need 285.93 kJ. The mass equivalent of 285.93 kJ is 3.1814e-12 kg. (kg = 285,930 J / (299,792,458 m/s)^2)
That may seem like a lot, being that a proton's mass is considerably less (1.673e-27 kg). But when you consider that there are ~6.02e23 water molecules in a mol of water, the mass per molecule is ~5.284e-36 kg, which is five orders of magnitude less than the mass of an electron and just about the upper limit of the estimated mass of an electron neutrino.
That may seem like a lot, being that a proton's mass is considerably less (1.673e-27 kg). But when you consider that there are ~6.02e23 water molecules in a mol of water, the mass per molecule is ~5.284e-36 kg, which is five orders of magnitude less than the mass of an electron and just about the upper limit of the estimated mass of an electron neutrino.
QUOTE (Why Not?+Dec 2 2011, 10:14 PM)
The enthalpy of a mol of water at standard temperature and pressure is -285.83 kJ. Since the energy required to electrolyze 1 mol of water is equal to the enthalpy of 1 mol of water, you will need 285.93 kJ. The mass equivalent of 285.93 kJ is 3.1814e-12 kg. (kg = 285,930 J / (299,792,458 m/s)^2)
That may seem like a lot, being that a proton's mass is considerably less (1.673e-27 kg). But when you consider that there are ~6.02e23 water molecules in a mol of water, the mass per molecule is ~5.284e-36 kg, which is five orders of magnitude less than the mass of an electron and just about the upper limit of the estimated mass of an electron neutrino.
Well thank you for going through that calculation.
The fact that each of the chemical reactions would release a certain amount of net energy, have you any idea what might be happening at the atomic scale?
I am thinking like this:
When electrons share orbitals energy is released and because the wavelength is not just the one frequency it must the related to the loss of the kinetic energy of the combination.
Two molecules speeding towards each other, they collide but don't bounce but combine. Then resultant momentum will be less (but not a constant lesser amount) the momentum lost is given off as a photon that matches the energy loss.
As the reactants cool down more photons are lost.
So the energy change ends up the same and a calculable amount but it isn't defined by exact steps.
(White light produced shows there is no one single electron change.)
What do you think happens?
That may seem like a lot, being that a proton's mass is considerably less (1.673e-27 kg). But when you consider that there are ~6.02e23 water molecules in a mol of water, the mass per molecule is ~5.284e-36 kg, which is five orders of magnitude less than the mass of an electron and just about the upper limit of the estimated mass of an electron neutrino.
Well thank you for going through that calculation.
The fact that each of the chemical reactions would release a certain amount of net energy, have you any idea what might be happening at the atomic scale?
I am thinking like this:
When electrons share orbitals energy is released and because the wavelength is not just the one frequency it must the related to the loss of the kinetic energy of the combination.
Two molecules speeding towards each other, they collide but don't bounce but combine. Then resultant momentum will be less (but not a constant lesser amount) the momentum lost is given off as a photon that matches the energy loss.
As the reactants cool down more photons are lost.
So the energy change ends up the same and a calculable amount but it isn't defined by exact steps.
(White light produced shows there is no one single electron change.)
What do you think happens?
@Whynot?,
I was probably as surprized to see your name as you were to see mine. The problem is tricky and I'm not sure I'm up to it. I'll think before I attempt it.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I was probably as surprized to see your name as you were to see mine. The problem is tricky and I'm not sure I'm up to it. I'll think before I attempt it.
Best wishes,
-C2.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Dec 2 2011, 10:50 PM)
The fact that each of the chemical reactions would release a certain amount of net energy, have you any idea what might be happening at the atomic scale?
Yes, and it is nothing like your are thinking. First and foremost, not all chemical reactions produce net energy. Lots of reaction require energy.
Try Googling quantum chemistry or computational chemistry for further details.
Here's a question for you. To make ice, do you add or remove energy?
Yes, and it is nothing like your are thinking. First and foremost, not all chemical reactions produce net energy. Lots of reaction require energy.
Try Googling quantum chemistry or computational chemistry for further details.
Here's a question for you. To make ice, do you add or remove energy?
QUOTE (Why Not?+Dec 3 2011, 05:48 AM)
Yes, and it is nothing like your are thinking. First and foremost, not all chemical reactions produce net energy. Lots of reaction require energy.
Try Googling quantum chemistry or computational chemistry for further details.
Here's a question for you. To make ice, do you add or remove energy?
I'm not stupid!
It takes Energy to remove energy to produce ice from water (as in an ice making machine).
In nature energy would be radiated into the environment when water freezes.
Try Googling quantum chemistry or computational chemistry for further details.
Here's a question for you. To make ice, do you add or remove energy?
I'm not stupid!
It takes Energy to remove energy to produce ice from water (as in an ice making machine).
In nature energy would be radiated into the environment when water freezes.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Dec 3 2011, 02:31 AM)
I'm not stupid!
Highly debatable.
Highly debatable.
QUOTE (AlexG+Dec 3 2011, 09:28 PM)
Highly debatable.
I'll thrash you in a debate any time.
I'll thrash you in a debate any time.
@Robittybob,
Just because ~99% of Alexg's posts are at or below forum noise level doesn't mean occaisionally (~1%) he doesn't know what he's talking about. If he backed up his claims with references he might be a useful contributor - until and unless he does (as I'm sure you know) there's no point in getting caught up in an argument with one of the forum's dipsticks.
-C2.
Just because ~99% of Alexg's posts are at or below forum noise level doesn't mean occaisionally (~1%) he doesn't know what he's talking about. If he backed up his claims with references he might be a useful contributor - until and unless he does (as I'm sure you know) there's no point in getting caught up in an argument with one of the forum's dipsticks.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused1+Dec 4 2011, 12:02 AM)
@Robittybob,
Just because ~99% of Alexg's posts are at or below forum noise level doesn't mean occaisionally (~1%) he doesn't know what he's talking about. If he backed up his claims with references he might be a useful contributor - until and unless he does (as I'm sure you know) there's no point in getting caught up in an argument with one of the forum's dipsticks.
-C2.
He comes "out" now and then. He has been a bit of fun lately. I tease him too at times.
Just because ~99% of Alexg's posts are at or below forum noise level doesn't mean occaisionally (~1%) he doesn't know what he's talking about. If he backed up his claims with references he might be a useful contributor - until and unless he does (as I'm sure you know) there's no point in getting caught up in an argument with one of the forum's dipsticks.
-C2.
He comes "out" now and then. He has been a bit of fun lately. I tease him too at times.
LOL
QUOTE (Why Not?+Dec 3 2011, 05:48 AM)
Yes, and it is nothing like your are thinking. First and foremost, not all chemical reactions produce net energy. Lots of reaction require energy.
Try Googling quantum chemistry or computational chemistry for further details.
Here's a question for you. To make ice, do you add or remove energy?
I would like to hear your view at some stage please.
Try Googling quantum chemistry or computational chemistry for further details.
Here's a question for you. To make ice, do you add or remove energy?
I would like to hear your view at some stage please.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Dec 4 2011, 02:39 AM)
I would like to hear your view at some stage please.
My view of what? Have you Googled quantum chemistry and read any of the articles (at least the wiki article)? Or would you rather I start picking apart:
Since you seem to have a bit of understanding regarding the formation of ice, maybe it would be a good idea if you took a shot at picking apart your above quote first.
And then maybe you can tackle these questions. At what temperature does water have the greatest density? Why that particular temperature? And then, how does density and temperature relate to relative mass?
My view of what? Have you Googled quantum chemistry and read any of the articles (at least the wiki article)? Or would you rather I start picking apart:
QUOTE
When electrons share orbitals energy is released and because the wavelength is not just the one frequency it must the related to the loss of the kinetic energy of the combination.
Two molecules speeding towards each other, they collide but don't bounce but combine. Then resultant momentum will be less (but not a constant lesser amount) the momentum lost is given off as a photon that matches the energy loss.
As the reactants cool down more photons are lost.
So the energy change ends up the same and a calculable amount but it isn't defined by exact steps.
(White light produced shows there is no one single electron change.)
Two molecules speeding towards each other, they collide but don't bounce but combine. Then resultant momentum will be less (but not a constant lesser amount) the momentum lost is given off as a photon that matches the energy loss.
As the reactants cool down more photons are lost.
So the energy change ends up the same and a calculable amount but it isn't defined by exact steps.
(White light produced shows there is no one single electron change.)
Since you seem to have a bit of understanding regarding the formation of ice, maybe it would be a good idea if you took a shot at picking apart your above quote first.
And then maybe you can tackle these questions. At what temperature does water have the greatest density? Why that particular temperature? And then, how does density and temperature relate to relative mass?
QUOTE (Why Not?+Dec 4 2011, 07:37 AM)
My view of what? Have you Googled quantum chemistry and read any of the articles (at least the wiki article)? Or would you rather I start picking apart:
Since you seem to have a bit of understanding regarding the formation of ice, maybe it would be a good idea if you took a shot at picking apart your above quote first.
And then maybe you can tackle these questions. At what temperature does water have the greatest density? Why that particular temperature? And then, how does density and temperature relate to relative mass?
No I haven't had time to study today.
I'll do it during the week, I promise.
As far as those other questions I'll answer them of the top of my head.
At what temperature does water have the greatest density? 4 degrees Celsius
Why that particular temperature? Temperature is the average kinetic energy. As water cools from 4.0 - 0.0 small rafts of ice are forming in the water and ice is less dense than water. Above that temperature the thermal agitation means on average the atoms are further apart. A thermally induced expansion occurs.
And then, how does density and temperature relate to relative mass? Through a calculated factor called the coefficient of expansion ( K)
Mass per unit volume gives density (basic)
so it could be Change in Density = K * Change in temperature.
Was that OK?
Since you seem to have a bit of understanding regarding the formation of ice, maybe it would be a good idea if you took a shot at picking apart your above quote first.
And then maybe you can tackle these questions. At what temperature does water have the greatest density? Why that particular temperature? And then, how does density and temperature relate to relative mass?
No I haven't had time to study today.
I'll do it during the week, I promise.
As far as those other questions I'll answer them of the top of my head.
At what temperature does water have the greatest density? 4 degrees Celsius
Why that particular temperature? Temperature is the average kinetic energy. As water cools from 4.0 - 0.0 small rafts of ice are forming in the water and ice is less dense than water. Above that temperature the thermal agitation means on average the atoms are further apart. A thermally induced expansion occurs.
And then, how does density and temperature relate to relative mass? Through a calculated factor called the coefficient of expansion ( K)
Mass per unit volume gives density (basic)
so it could be Change in Density = K * Change in temperature.
Was that OK?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice
An unusual property of ice frozen at atmospheric pressure is that the solid is approximately 8.3% less dense than liquid water. The density of ice is 0.9167 g/cm³ at 0°C, whereas water has a density of 0.9998 g/cm³ at the same temperature. Liquid water is densest, essentially 1.00 g/cm³, at 4°C and becomes less dense as the water molecules begin to form the hexagonal crystals[2] of ice as the freezing point is reached. This is due to hydrogen bonding dominating the intermolecular forces, which results in a packing of molecules less compact in the solid. Density of ice increases slightly with decreasing temperature and has a value of 0.9340 g/cm³ at −180 °C (93 K).[3]
An unusual property of ice frozen at atmospheric pressure is that the solid is approximately 8.3% less dense than liquid water. The density of ice is 0.9167 g/cm³ at 0°C, whereas water has a density of 0.9998 g/cm³ at the same temperature. Liquid water is densest, essentially 1.00 g/cm³, at 4°C and becomes less dense as the water molecules begin to form the hexagonal crystals[2] of ice as the freezing point is reached. This is due to hydrogen bonding dominating the intermolecular forces, which results in a packing of molecules less compact in the solid. Density of ice increases slightly with decreasing temperature and has a value of 0.9340 g/cm³ at −180 °C (93 K).[3]
What happens when super cooled water under ice caps escape to the surface? If it freezes does it release heat to the atmosphre? Or is it warming up to the usual ice temperature of 273 Kelvin and therefore taking heat from the air?
QUOTE (boit+Dec 4 2011, 05:36 PM)
What happens when super cooled water under ice caps escape to the surface? If it freezes does it release heat to the atmosphre? Or is it warming up to the usual ice temperature of 273 Kelvin and therefore taking heat from the air?
What happens when super cooled water under ice caps escape to the surface?
There is super cooled water under the icecaps? I think you are right, I read they were looking for life in the bodies of water and the temperatures were like -30 Celsius.
So there are two or three factors off the top my head at play here
1. The salinity
2. The pressure
3. And its density as super cooled water
The density of the super cooled saline water is denser than the ice covering it so I don't think it will escape as such. But if it was brought to the surface what would happen?
The pressure would drop, which is equivalent to cooling the liquid.
Depending on the surroundings it will either gain or loose radiant or conduction heat
Ice will begin to form, and that process releases latent heat of freezing which will warm the liquid and I imagine the warming due to ice formation will warm the liquid more than it cooled from the decrease in pressure. So it will loose heat to the surroundings and freeze fairly rapidly. A very concentrated brine may be left over.
No look it up.
If it freezes does it release heat to the atmosphre? Or is it warming up to the usual ice temperature of 273 Kelvin and therefore taking heat from the air?
What happens when super cooled water under ice caps escape to the surface?
There is super cooled water under the icecaps? I think you are right, I read they were looking for life in the bodies of water and the temperatures were like -30 Celsius.
So there are two or three factors off the top my head at play here
1. The salinity
2. The pressure
3. And its density as super cooled water
The density of the super cooled saline water is denser than the ice covering it so I don't think it will escape as such. But if it was brought to the surface what would happen?
The pressure would drop, which is equivalent to cooling the liquid.
Depending on the surroundings it will either gain or loose radiant or conduction heat
Ice will begin to form, and that process releases latent heat of freezing which will warm the liquid and I imagine the warming due to ice formation will warm the liquid more than it cooled from the decrease in pressure. So it will loose heat to the surroundings and freeze fairly rapidly. A very concentrated brine may be left over.
No look it up.
If it freezes does it release heat to the atmosphre? Or is it warming up to the usual ice temperature of 273 Kelvin and therefore taking heat from the air?
My original statement: "am thinking like this:
When electrons share orbitals energy is released and because the wavelength is not just the one frequency it must the related to the loss of the kinetic energy of the combination.
Two molecules speeding towards each other, they collide but don't bounce but combine. Then resultant momentum will be less (but not a constant lesser amount) the momentum lost is given off as a photon that matches the energy loss.
As the reactants cool down more photons are lost.
So the energy change ends up the same and a calculable amount but it isn't defined by exact steps.
(White light produced shows there is no one single electron change.)"
Those fields of Quantum Chemistry and Molecular Mechanics are very interesting. I find I am drawn to reading them, but a full understanding of the field is a degree plus years of practice, so you can't expect me to become an expert overnight.
But what I did see was the difficulty of analyzing atoms of 3 or more bodies. Does this mean H2O is a 3 body atom?
Can you give me a slow lesson in this field please?
For over the years I built an "upside down fire" One where the smoke is drawn through the embers and it achieved incredible high temperatures, to the point where at the time I didn't know what to build a working model out of.
I also had designs for a wood burning truck engine (named the "Tornado") but never fully resolved molecular physics of that either.
So these issues are important to me, even though those concepts will be left to a future generation to solve.
The concept of the "Tornado" came from extending the physics of the "upside down fire" to another level.
When electrons share orbitals energy is released and because the wavelength is not just the one frequency it must the related to the loss of the kinetic energy of the combination.
Two molecules speeding towards each other, they collide but don't bounce but combine. Then resultant momentum will be less (but not a constant lesser amount) the momentum lost is given off as a photon that matches the energy loss.
As the reactants cool down more photons are lost.
So the energy change ends up the same and a calculable amount but it isn't defined by exact steps.
(White light produced shows there is no one single electron change.)"
Those fields of Quantum Chemistry and Molecular Mechanics are very interesting. I find I am drawn to reading them, but a full understanding of the field is a degree plus years of practice, so you can't expect me to become an expert overnight.
But what I did see was the difficulty of analyzing atoms of 3 or more bodies. Does this mean H2O is a 3 body atom?
Can you give me a slow lesson in this field please?
For over the years I built an "upside down fire" One where the smoke is drawn through the embers and it achieved incredible high temperatures, to the point where at the time I didn't know what to build a working model out of.
I also had designs for a wood burning truck engine (named the "Tornado") but never fully resolved molecular physics of that either.
So these issues are important to me, even though those concepts will be left to a future generation to solve.
The concept of the "Tornado" came from extending the physics of the "upside down fire" to another level.
At this point, I am inclined to agree with AlexG.
I have had a thought.
In the old days we had clocks powered by clockwork that had to be wound up every 24 hours otherwise they would go flat. Such clocks went "tick-tock" unless they were flat.
I wish to place a clock in the flat state inside a bubble from which nothing can escape. Now measure the mass of the clock. Now poke a stick through the bubble and wind the clock up. And measure the mass of the clock again. Clearly something has gone into the bubble from which nothing can escape. Once the clock is wound we could, if we wished, allow "tick-tocks" to escape which would (I suggest) reduce the mass of the contents of the bubble.
By considering the clock I suggest it is fairly clear that the higher energy state will have a greater mass than the lower energy state.
-C2.
In the old days we had clocks powered by clockwork that had to be wound up every 24 hours otherwise they would go flat. Such clocks went "tick-tock" unless they were flat.
I wish to place a clock in the flat state inside a bubble from which nothing can escape. Now measure the mass of the clock. Now poke a stick through the bubble and wind the clock up. And measure the mass of the clock again. Clearly something has gone into the bubble from which nothing can escape. Once the clock is wound we could, if we wished, allow "tick-tocks" to escape which would (I suggest) reduce the mass of the contents of the bubble.
By considering the clock I suggest it is fairly clear that the higher energy state will have a greater mass than the lower energy state.
-C2.
QUOTE (Why Not?+Dec 4 2011, 11:26 PM)
At this point, I am inclined to agree with AlexG.
You are not allowed to renege on me. What did Alex say “highly doubtful”. Was that it? I have shown you the little I know so what can you offer to the discussion?
I’m sure Alex will join in as usual.
Did you not like the thought of harnessing the power of a "tornado"?
You are not allowed to renege on me. What did Alex say “highly doubtful”. Was that it? I have shown you the little I know so what can you offer to the discussion?
I’m sure Alex will join in as usual.
Did you not like the thought of harnessing the power of a "tornado"?
QUOTE (Confused1+Dec 4 2011, 11:31 PM)
I have had a thought.
In the old days we had clocks powered by clockwork that had to be wound up every 24 hours otherwise they would go flat. Such clocks went "tick-tock" unless they were flat.
I wish to place a clock in the flat state inside a bubble from which nothing can escape. Now measure the mass of the clock. Now poke a stick through the bubble and wind the clock up. And measure the mass of the clock again. Clearly something has gone into the bubble from which nothing can escape. Once the clock is wound we could, if we wished, allow "tick-tocks" to escape which would (I suggest) reduce the mass of the contents of the bubble.
By considering the clock I suggest it is fairly clear that the higher energy state will have a greater mass than the lower energy state.
-C2.
So you think you could get a balance sensitive enough to weigh the difference of the energy in a wound up spring?
Because it is a mechanical event you should be able to estimate the mass difference by using the E = MC^2 equation solving for M. It will be very small amount.
The action of touching the wing to wind the spring may rub off more molecules and hence mass than the energy gained by the spring.
So I am sceptical as to whether you'll be able to measure it.
In the old days we had clocks powered by clockwork that had to be wound up every 24 hours otherwise they would go flat. Such clocks went "tick-tock" unless they were flat.
I wish to place a clock in the flat state inside a bubble from which nothing can escape. Now measure the mass of the clock. Now poke a stick through the bubble and wind the clock up. And measure the mass of the clock again. Clearly something has gone into the bubble from which nothing can escape. Once the clock is wound we could, if we wished, allow "tick-tocks" to escape which would (I suggest) reduce the mass of the contents of the bubble.
By considering the clock I suggest it is fairly clear that the higher energy state will have a greater mass than the lower energy state.
-C2.
So you think you could get a balance sensitive enough to weigh the difference of the energy in a wound up spring?
Because it is a mechanical event you should be able to estimate the mass difference by using the E = MC^2 equation solving for M. It will be very small amount.
The action of touching the wing to wind the spring may rub off more molecules and hence mass than the energy gained by the spring.
So I am sceptical as to whether you'll be able to measure it.
QUOTE (Confused1+Dec 4 2011, 11:31 PM)
I wish to place a clock in the flat state inside a bubble from which nothing can escape. Now measure the mass of the clock. Now poke a stick through the bubble and wind the clock up. And measure the mass of the clock again. Clearly something has gone into the bubble from which nothing can escape. Once the clock is wound we could, if we wished, allow "tick-tocks" to escape which would (I suggest) reduce the mass of the contents of the bubble.
By considering the clock I suggest it is fairly clear that the higher energy state will have a greater mass than the lower energy state.
-C2.
Nice!
Though why allow the ticks and the tocks to escape? If "stuff" can fall in but not come out, the mass increases, regardless of whether the "stuff" is of the mass variety of the energy variety. If you don't allow the stuff to escape, the size of the bubble would increase, no? Hmmm, the size of the bubble being proportional to the mass contained therein... but I am getting off topic.
By considering the clock I suggest it is fairly clear that the higher energy state will have a greater mass than the lower energy state.
-C2.
Nice!
Though why allow the ticks and the tocks to escape? If "stuff" can fall in but not come out, the mass increases, regardless of whether the "stuff" is of the mass variety of the energy variety. If you don't allow the stuff to escape, the size of the bubble would increase, no? Hmmm, the size of the bubble being proportional to the mass contained therein... but I am getting off topic.
Where is my help?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Dec 11 2011, 08:52 AM)
Where is my help?
Anti spammer post only - Forum members should support a topic in each area of the index to take commercial spam posts off the index page top spots. Please assist.
But all the same where is the help I was promised?
Anti spammer post only - Forum members should support a topic in each area of the index to take commercial spam posts off the index page top spots. Please assist.
But all the same where is the help I was promised?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+)
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Dec 11 2011, 08:52 AM)
Where is my help?
Anti spammer post only - Forum members should support a topic in each area of the index to take commercial spam posts off the index page top spots. Please assist.
But all the same where is the help I was promised?
Anti spammer post only - Forum members should support a topic in each area of the index to take commercial spam posts off the index page top spots. Please assist.
But all the same where is the help I was promised?
(Robittybob1)
QUOTE (Robittybob1 @ Dec 11 2011, 08:52 AM)
Where is my help?[/quote]
Anti spammer post only - Forum members should support a topic in each area of the index to take commercial spam posts off the index page top spots. Please assist.
But all the same where is the help I was promised?
QUOTE (Robittybob1 @ Dec 11 2011, 08:52 AM)
Where is my help?[/quote]
Anti spammer post only - Forum members should support a topic in each area of the index to take commercial spam posts off the index page top spots. Please assist.
But all the same where is the help I was promised?
QUOTE (Lady Elizabeth+Jan 13 2012, 06:12 PM)
Yeah;- binary representation of "I'm a fully comprehensive example of an infathomly miniscule intellect, on par with 27 exocentury putrifying hamster braindeath"
A gold star for accuracy, mindfuck.
Don't be so hard on yourself.
A gold star for accuracy, mindfuck.
Don't be so hard on yourself.
QUOTE (Lady Elizabeth+Jan 13 2012, 06:12 PM)
Yeah;- binary representation of "I'm a fully comprehensive example of an infathomly miniscule intellect, on par with 27 exocentury putrifying hamster braindeath"
In fact, it's something like this:
The holiday shopping season is in full swing, and there's
a bigger threat to Christmas than the Grinch. Toxic
toys created in China are on U.S. store shelves and
pose a danger to the health and safety of American
children.
On Oct. 27, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) announced a settlement with Toronto-based
Spin Master because a line of its Chinese-made toys
Aqua Dots was coated with the chemical GHB, better
known as "the date-rape drug." A week earlier, Twist
and Sort wooden peg toys, made in China for Guidecraft
Inc., were recalled for having small parts that could
make toddlers choke. On Nov. 1, CPSC announced the
recall of 12,000 Disney Fairies plastic racing Trikes
for causing facial lacerations. On Nov. 2, 100,000
magnetic sketchbooks made by China's Rainbow Force
Plastic Products were taken off the market for being
hazardous.
In fact, it's something like this:
QUOTE
The holiday shopping season is in full swing, and there's
a bigger threat to Christmas than the Grinch. Toxic
toys created in China are on U.S. store shelves and
pose a danger to the health and safety of American
children.
On Oct. 27, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) announced a settlement with Toronto-based
Spin Master because a line of its Chinese-made toys
Aqua Dots was coated with the chemical GHB, better
known as "the date-rape drug." A week earlier, Twist
and Sort wooden peg toys, made in China for Guidecraft
Inc., were recalled for having small parts that could
make toddlers choke. On Nov. 1, CPSC announced the
recall of 12,000 Disney Fairies plastic racing Trikes
for causing facial lacerations. On Nov. 2, 100,000
magnetic sketchbooks made by China's Rainbow Force
Plastic Products were taken off the market for being
hazardous.
QUOTE (Matador+Jan 14 2012, 02:14 AM)
Cool,nice place！
What is going on here? This place is infested with spammers.
I just wrote a program to decipher the retarded binary spam-code(see procyon's post).
Link to the Windows version:
www.mediafire.com/?mhngb71uh0p181l
Source code is included(see Decipher.cpp file).
How to use:
1) Put binary babble into in.txt file(I already put the corrected version in there).
2) Launch Decipher.exe
3) Open out.txt to see the results.
What is going on here? This place is infested with spammers.
I just wrote a program to decipher the retarded binary spam-code(see procyon's post).
Link to the Windows version:
www.mediafire.com/?mhngb71uh0p181l
Source code is included(see Decipher.cpp file).
How to use:
1) Put binary babble into in.txt file(I already put the corrected version in there).
2) Launch Decipher.exe
3) Open out.txt to see the results.
QUOTE (Richard_Riddick+Jan 14 2012, 02:38 AM)
What is going on here? This place is infested with spammers.
I just wrote a program to decipher the retarded binary spam-code(see procyon's post).
Link to the Windows version:
www.mediafire.com/?mhngb71uh0p181l
Source code is included(see Decipher.cpp file).
How to use:
1) Put binary babble into in.txt file(I already put the corrected version in there).
2) Launch Decipher.exe
3) Open out.txt to see the results.
Richard, you're reading too much into the posting of the code. It's nothing than a convenient form of manure to bury commercial spam posts. It's common knowledge among spammers and chronic members of this forum that there is no moderation in place, so some of us have reverted to the law of the jungle and rediscovered the joy of throwing feces at the spammers.
I just wrote a program to decipher the retarded binary spam-code(see procyon's post).
Link to the Windows version:
www.mediafire.com/?mhngb71uh0p181l
Source code is included(see Decipher.cpp file).
How to use:
1) Put binary babble into in.txt file(I already put the corrected version in there).
2) Launch Decipher.exe
3) Open out.txt to see the results.
Richard, you're reading too much into the posting of the code. It's nothing than a convenient form of manure to bury commercial spam posts. It's common knowledge among spammers and chronic members of this forum that there is no moderation in place, so some of us have reverted to the law of the jungle and rediscovered the joy of throwing feces at the spammers.
Total crap, both of you. Richard probably didn't write the code, as there are many binary to ASCII translators around, and procyon's reverse translation was broken on a word boundary.
Tell us all if you fixed it by quoting the corrected portion.
Tell us all if you fixed it by quoting the corrected portion.
QUOTE (Granouille+Jan 14 2012, 03:48 AM)
Total crap, both of you. Richard probably didn't write the code, as there are many binary to ASCII translators around, and procyon's reverse translation was broken on a word boundary.
Tell us all if you fixed it by quoting the corrected portion.
Granouille, all I did was to take a portion of an article on Chinese toxic toys and run it through a code translator. It's the same article I used to ridicule toysmall in previous posts.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2011112...ION01/111290314
Like I said previously, the main purpose of the code was to fill the page in order to bury toysmall's commercial pitch. Although I did intentionally use the toxic toy text as a dig, I didn't expect those inclined to translate it to get all conspiracy over it.
Tell us all if you fixed it by quoting the corrected portion.
Granouille, all I did was to take a portion of an article on Chinese toxic toys and run it through a code translator. It's the same article I used to ridicule toysmall in previous posts.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2011112...ION01/111290314
Like I said previously, the main purpose of the code was to fill the page in order to bury toysmall's commercial pitch. Although I did intentionally use the toxic toy text as a dig, I didn't expect those inclined to translate it to get all conspiracy over it.
Woah, guys. I just wrote this little program for fun in 2 minutes and posted it for anyone who is interested, that is all. Also, I didn't know procyon wasn't a spammer. I saw a lot of spam around the forum and thought it was interesting that someone is posting spam in binary.
I think the mass loss problem can be answered by chemistry.Propane burns producing heat because the breaking of carbon-hydrogen bonds absorbs less energy than energy given out when carbon and hydrogen form new bonds with oxygen.check enthalpy in wikipedia.
QUOTE (carringtone kinyanjui+Jan 15 2012, 03:30 PM)
I think the mass loss problem can be answered by chemistry.Propane burns producing heat because the breaking of carbon-hydrogen bonds absorbs less energy than energy given out when carbon and hydrogen form new bonds with oxygen.check enthalpy in wikipedia.
Thank you for bringing the topic back in focus.
Thank you for bringing the topic back in focus.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.