Hi guys, was just wondering what you thought the definition of a fuel is, descriptions welcome too. The more fundamental the better really.
I was thinking on the line of "A fuel is a substance that has the ability to react exothermically or change potential energy into kinetic energy"but i believe its too vague and a bit rubbish. Incorporating changes of mass and fundamental methods of releasing energy would be nice
Thank for your time
Jonathan Slater (undergraduate)
Your definition works well with all the old forms of energy 'generation' but not the modern. What you can apply to cow sh¡t can not be applied to, say, hydrogen fuel cell.
A fuel is a material which stores energy that can be released in some form of reaction.
That's pretty much as fundamental as it gets.
That's pretty much as fundamental as it gets.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 16 2011, 03:22 PM)
A fuel is a material which stores energy that can be released in some form of reaction.
That's pretty much as fundamental as it gets.
A fuel is a material which stores energy that can be released in some form of reaction or interaction. (To include mechanical fuels like compressed air.)
That's pretty much as fundamental as it gets.
A fuel is a material which stores energy that can be released in some form of reaction or interaction. (To include mechanical fuels like compressed air.)
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Nov 16 2011, 11:48 AM)
A fuel is a material which stores energy that can be released in some form of reaction or interaction. (To include mechanical fuels like compressed air.)
The air is not a fuel in compressed air systems. It is a conveyor of energy. It is analogous to the wires in an electrical system, not the electricity.
You can verify this by simply asking how the air is compressed in the first place: Though a mechanical device that has another power source (human powered, diesel powered, electrically powered, etc).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel
You can verify this by simply asking how the air is compressed in the first place: Though a mechanical device that has another power source (human powered, diesel powered, electrically powered, etc).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 16 2011, 11:22 AM)
A fuel is a material which stores energy that can be released in some form of reaction.
That's pretty much as fundamental as it gets.
Are there any types of fuel that don't store energy in chemical or nuclear form?
If not, then you could say that a fuel is simply "stored chemical or nuclear energy".
That's pretty much as fundamental as it gets.
Are there any types of fuel that don't store energy in chemical or nuclear form?
If not, then you could say that a fuel is simply "stored chemical or nuclear energy".
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 16 2011, 12:16 PM)
Are there any types of fuel that don't store energy in chemical or nuclear form?
If not, then you could say that a fuel is simply "stored chemical or nuclear energy".
If not, then you could say that a fuel is simply "stored chemical or nuclear energy".
Not that I know of.
But in order for it to be a fuel, we have to be able to extract that energy, so that needs to be mentioned. Also, the stored energy itself is not the fuel, but the material which carries it is.
It's really a semantic thing, which is why I didn't bash robbity for suggesting compressed air. Fuel is what it is because experts all agree that it is.
But in order for it to be a fuel, we have to be able to extract that energy, so that needs to be mentioned. Also, the stored energy itself is not the fuel, but the material which carries it is.
It's really a semantic thing, which is why I didn't bash robbity for suggesting compressed air. Fuel is what it is because experts all agree that it is.
oryt guys, Aint rely what im looking for, how do fuels store energy ?? I don't think energy can really be "stored". Uranium doesn't "store" energy, can anyone explain in a quantum mechanics kind of way ??
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 16 2011, 03:38 PM)
I don't think energy can really be "stored".
Please expand on this.
Please expand on this.
ermmm . . lol, well lets say in a normal chemical reaction, burning some propane or whatever.
C3H8 + 5 O2 → 3 CO2 + 4 H2O + heat
We put energy into the "system" (the arrow) to break bonds between the propane and oxygen molecules . Then the atoms react with each other and release more energy than we put in.
I think the way it does this is, when a molecule is formed, the atomic space single atoms occupy, overlap when they bond with one another. The atomic space of the single atoms is more than the sum of atomic space occupied when there bonded. It is the loss of atomic space when they bond which is proportional to the energy released.
I think ha ha If not please correct me !
I just don't think of that as "stored energy", maybe potential energy yes.
C3H8 + 5 O2 → 3 CO2 + 4 H2O + heat
We put energy into the "system" (the arrow) to break bonds between the propane and oxygen molecules . Then the atoms react with each other and release more energy than we put in.
I think the way it does this is, when a molecule is formed, the atomic space single atoms occupy, overlap when they bond with one another. The atomic space of the single atoms is more than the sum of atomic space occupied when there bonded. It is the loss of atomic space when they bond which is proportional to the energy released.
I think ha ha If not please correct me !
I just don't think of that as "stored energy", maybe potential energy yes.
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 16 2011, 02:55 PM)
I think the way it does this is, when a molecule is formed, the atomic space single atoms occupy, overlap when they bond with one another. The atomic space of the single atoms is more than the sum of atomic space occupied when there bonded. It is the loss of atomic space when they bond which is proportional to the energy released.
I think ha ha If not please correct me !
You are incorrect.
1. The space the atoms occupy has no special significance.
2. You're drawing a meaningless distinction between potential energy and stored energy.
I think ha ha If not please correct me !
You are incorrect.
1. The space the atoms occupy has no special significance.
2. You're drawing a meaningless distinction between potential energy and stored energy.
The space atoms occupy is significant isn't it?
I've read, the reason why an electron doesn't spiral into the nucleus is related to the atomic space. Or is it to do with its own energy state ?
Well how does this chemical reaction release energy ?? :s
No need to be so harsh man, I'm only asking ! (Bet you have no friends )
I've read, the reason why an electron doesn't spiral into the nucleus is related to the atomic space. Or is it to do with its own energy state ?
Well how does this chemical reaction release energy ?? :s
No need to be so harsh man, I'm only asking ! (Bet you have no friends )
and i said correct me ! not just say im wrong !
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 16 2011, 03:15 PM)
No need to be so harsh man, I'm only asking ! (Bet you have no friends )
I was not in any way harsh. I gave you a straightforward response with two qualifiers. If you wanted me to expound on those two qualifiers, you might try asking instead of having a little tit fit.
Read it and learn or ignore it and remain ignorant, it's up to you, douchebag.
Read it and learn or ignore it and remain ignorant, it's up to you, douchebag.
There was nothing to learn !! write something I can learn please ?
What, in a reaction, is the cause for energy to be released ?
What, in a reaction, is the cause for energy to be released ?
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 16 2011, 04:28 PM)
What, in a reaction, is the cause for energy to be released ?
The energy "stored" in a molecule is related to the strength of the bonds in that molecule. When a strong bond forms, energy is released. Conversely, it requires energy to break bonds, with strong bonds requiring more energy to break than weak bonds.
The energy "stored" in a molecule is related to the strength of the bonds in that molecule. When a strong bond forms, energy is released. Conversely, it requires energy to break bonds, with strong bonds requiring more energy to break than weak bonds.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 16 2011, 08:07 PM)
You are incorrect.
1. The space the atoms occupy has no special significance.
2. You're drawing a meaningless distinction between potential energy and stored energy.
I tended to side with the idea that all stored energy is stored as Gravitational potential energy, in fact as various forms in the Gravitational potential energy - structural energy unification. Like molecules release energy when their nuclei end up being closer together, same for Nuclear Energy, the arrangement of the neutrons/protons will mean a closer packed arrangement. Fission or fusion the same argument applies.
OK I might not have support for this but that was my analysis. The hypothesis to be developed was that all GPE is stored in matter as Mass. E = MC^2 suggests this.
So in a so called chemical reaction there will be a slight reduction in mass in exothermic reactions. (surely this can be proven!)
1. The space the atoms occupy has no special significance.
2. You're drawing a meaningless distinction between potential energy and stored energy.
I tended to side with the idea that all stored energy is stored as Gravitational potential energy, in fact as various forms in the Gravitational potential energy - structural energy unification. Like molecules release energy when their nuclei end up being closer together, same for Nuclear Energy, the arrangement of the neutrons/protons will mean a closer packed arrangement. Fission or fusion the same argument applies.
OK I might not have support for this but that was my analysis. The hypothesis to be developed was that all GPE is stored in matter as Mass. E = MC^2 suggests this.
So in a so called chemical reaction there will be a slight reduction in mass in exothermic reactions. (surely this can be proven!)
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 16 2011, 03:28 PM)
There was nothing to learn !! write something I can learn please ?
There were two (count em: 2!) reasons why what you think about it is wrong in that post.
There were two (count em: 2!) reasons why what you think about it is wrong in that post.
QUOTE
What, in a reaction, is the cause for energy to be released ?
Energy and mass are interchangeable, and when something happens to reduce the mass of some material, it results in a release of energy. That's the PG version. FBM gave you the PG-13 version, and if you really want to know, we can get into the rated R version. Ask waitedavid if you want the rated X version.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What, in a reaction, is the cause for energy to be released ? |
Energy and mass are interchangeable, and when something happens to reduce the mass of some material, it results in a release of energy. That's the PG version. FBM gave you the PG-13 version, and if you really want to know, we can get into the rated R version. Ask waitedavid if you want the rated X version.
I tended to side with the idea that all stored energy is stored as Gravitational potential energy,
I tended to side with the idea that all stored energy is stored as Gravitational potential energy,
You also tended to side with the idea that aliens wanted to anally probe you. Neither is accurate.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 16 2011, 08:57 PM)
QUOTE (Robittybob1+)
I tended to side with the idea that all stored energy is stored as Gravitational potential energy,
You also tended to side with the idea that aliens wanted to anally probe you. Neither is accurate.
Is that what they were after! Just as well I evaded them wasn't it?
So that was a mild response. We are being "nice" to each other today!
Is that what they were after! Just as well I evaded them wasn't it?
So that was a mild response. We are being "nice" to each other today!
"stored" energy is gravitation potential energy ? Gravity is far too weak to release much potential energy on an atomic scale isnt it :S ?
Is it always a change in mass that releases energy in an exothermic reaction ?(nuclear or chemical)
Is it always a change in mass that releases energy in an exothermic reaction ?(nuclear or chemical)
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 17 2011, 12:24 PM)
"stored" energy is gravitation potential energy ? Gravity is far too weak to release much potential energy on an atomic scale isnt it :S ?
You are correct. Robbitybob is... Well, he's not all there.
You are correct. Robbitybob is... Well, he's not all there.
QUOTE
Is it always a change in mass that releases energy in an exothermic reaction ?(nuclear or chemical)
Yes. If you capture the byproduct from any such reaction, you will always find it's mass to be less than that of the material which fueled it. In fact, if you punch in the amount of energy you got from the reaction to E=mc^2, you'll find the exact amount of missing mass.
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 17 2011, 05:24 PM)
"stored" energy is gravitation potential energy ? Gravity is far too weak to release much potential energy on an atomic scale isnt it :S ?
Is it always a change in mass that releases energy in an exothermic reaction ?(nuclear or chemical)
You do some calculations - the nuclei are very dense material and the radius factor is so extremely small the 1/r^2 factor becomes useful. I thought I did some provisional calculations but many years ago and got excited by the results. that is why I came to this conclusion.
OK maybe I did them wrong so why not do some calculations yourself.
Is it always a change in mass that releases energy in an exothermic reaction ?(nuclear or chemical)
You do some calculations - the nuclei are very dense material and the radius factor is so extremely small the 1/r^2 factor becomes useful. I thought I did some provisional calculations but many years ago and got excited by the results. that is why I came to this conclusion.
OK maybe I did them wrong so why not do some calculations yourself.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Nov 17 2011, 12:42 PM)
I thought I did some provisional calculations but many years ago and got excited by the results. that is why I came to this conclusion.
OK maybe I did them wrong so why not do some calculations yourself.
Gravity is about 10^-36 the strength of the strong nuclear force. So your 'provisional' calculations were about as effective as trying to extinguish the sun with a water hose.
OK maybe I did them wrong so why not do some calculations yourself.
Gravity is about 10^-36 the strength of the strong nuclear force. So your 'provisional' calculations were about as effective as trying to extinguish the sun with a water hose.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 17 2011, 05:54 PM)
Gravity is about 10^-36 the strength of the strong nuclear force. So your 'provisional' calculations were about as effective as trying to extinguish the sun with a water hose.
Well that doesn't look that promising does it!
Well that doesn't look that promising does it!
hahaha poor fire hose 
I cant see gravity storing any sort of energy at atomic levels, F=G(m1*m2)/r^2
although the distances involved are minute (^-11), the mass is still small enough to make any force insignificant (^-27!!!).
anyway . . How can we give a suitable, fundamental definition to a fuel ? lol
Now we know it is only loss in mass that can release energy?
I cant see gravity storing any sort of energy at atomic levels, F=G(m1*m2)/r^2
although the distances involved are minute (^-11), the mass is still small enough to make any force insignificant (^-27!!!).
anyway . . How can we give a suitable, fundamental definition to a fuel ? lol
Now we know it is only loss in mass that can release energy?
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 17 2011, 02:11 PM)
hahaha poor fire hose
I cant see gravity storing any sort of energy at atomic levels, F=G(m1*m2)/r^2
although the distances involved are minute (^-11), the mass is still small enough to make any force insignificant (^-27!!!).
I cant see gravity storing any sort of energy at atomic levels, F=G(m1*m2)/r^2
although the distances involved are minute (^-11), the mass is still small enough to make any force insignificant (^-27!!!).
That is exactly right.
"A fuel is a material which stores energy that can be released in some form of reaction.
That's pretty much as fundamental as it gets."
QUOTE
anyway . . How can we give a suitable, fundamental definition to a fuel ? lol
As I said before: "A fuel is a material which stores energy that can be released in some form of reaction.
That's pretty much as fundamental as it gets."
i want more fundemental ! lol
A system which has the ability to convert atomic mass into kinetic energy ?
oh, and im looking for a good introductory particle physics book, I've heard "introduction to elementary particles" by Griffiths is highly rated, buts its a bit expensive for now, any other recommendations ?
A system which has the ability to convert atomic mass into kinetic energy ?
oh, and im looking for a good introductory particle physics book, I've heard "introduction to elementary particles" by Griffiths is highly rated, buts its a bit expensive for now, any other recommendations ?
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 18 2011, 12:26 PM)
i want more fundemental ! lol
A system which has the ability to convert atomic mass into kinetic energy ?
oh, and im looking for a good introductory particle physics book, I've heard "introduction to elementary particles" by Griffiths is highly rated, buts its a bit expensive for now, any other recommendations ?
I want "A system which has the ability to convert atomic mass into kinetic energy"
And so does the rest of the world.
A system which has the ability to convert atomic mass into kinetic energy ?
oh, and im looking for a good introductory particle physics book, I've heard "introduction to elementary particles" by Griffiths is highly rated, buts its a bit expensive for now, any other recommendations ?
I want "A system which has the ability to convert atomic mass into kinetic energy"
And so does the rest of the world.
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 18 2011, 07:26 AM)
i want more fundemental ! lol
A system which has the ability to convert atomic mass into kinetic energy ?
A system which has the ability to convert atomic mass into kinetic energy ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter#Fuel
That's the system. It's not a definition, though. It just doesn't get any more fundamental than what I said.
That's the system. It's not a definition, though. It just doesn't get any more fundamental than what I said.
QUOTE
oh, and im looking for a good introductory particle physics book, I've heard "introduction to elementary particles" by Griffiths is highly rated, buts its a bit expensive for now, any other recommendations ?
Go to your local library, they'll have a bunch. Failing that, wikipedia has a lot of good information. You can start here.
From Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales
Google might have close to a million servers. Yahoo has something like 13,000 staff. We have 679 servers and 95 staff.
Wikipedia is the #5 site on the web and serves 450 million different people every month – with billions of page views.
Commerce is fine. Advertising is not evil. But it doesn't belong here. Not in Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others.
When I founded Wikipedia, I could have made it into a for-profit company with advertising banners, but I decided to do something different. We’ve worked hard over the years to keep it lean and tight. We fulfill our mission, and leave waste to others.
If everyone reading this donated $5, we would only have to fundraise for one day a year. But not everyone can or will donate. And that's fine. Each year just enough people decide to give.
This year, please consider making a donation of $5, €10, ¥1000 or whatever you can to protect and sustain Wikipedia.
Thanks,
Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia Founder
PS: Everyone uses the site but who pays! I hope Physforum members cough up!
Google might have close to a million servers. Yahoo has something like 13,000 staff. We have 679 servers and 95 staff.
Wikipedia is the #5 site on the web and serves 450 million different people every month – with billions of page views.
Commerce is fine. Advertising is not evil. But it doesn't belong here. Not in Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others.
When I founded Wikipedia, I could have made it into a for-profit company with advertising banners, but I decided to do something different. We’ve worked hard over the years to keep it lean and tight. We fulfill our mission, and leave waste to others.
If everyone reading this donated $5, we would only have to fundraise for one day a year. But not everyone can or will donate. And that's fine. Each year just enough people decide to give.
This year, please consider making a donation of $5, €10, ¥1000 or whatever you can to protect and sustain Wikipedia.
Thanks,
Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia Founder
PS: Everyone uses the site but who pays! I hope Physforum members cough up!
haha i didnt mean like all the atomic mass, just a proportion ,
As for the small amount of mass which is manipulated into energy, which part of the atom does the mass loss come from ?
Does this mean that the potential, or "stored" energy of a system is somehow proportional to a certain aspect of its mass ? and could possibly draw an equation for it ?
I'm guessing questions like that provide pretty advanced answers if there is one.
But I'm finding it rather interesting to research
Oh and ive been to my university library and visited the physics section
"On Space and time", "Ideas about particle physics" and "Elegant universe" are what I took out.
As for the small amount of mass which is manipulated into energy, which part of the atom does the mass loss come from ?
Does this mean that the potential, or "stored" energy of a system is somehow proportional to a certain aspect of its mass ? and could possibly draw an equation for it ?
I'm guessing questions like that provide pretty advanced answers if there is one.
But I'm finding it rather interesting to research
Oh and ive been to my university library and visited the physics section
"On Space and time", "Ideas about particle physics" and "Elegant universe" are what I took out.
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 18 2011, 05:46 PM)
haha i didnt mean like all the atomic mass, just a proportion ,
As for the small amount of mass which is manipulated into energy, which part of the atom does the mass loss come from ?
Does this mean that the potential, or "stored" energy of a system is somehow proportional to a certain aspect of its mass ? and could possibly draw an equation for it ?
I'm guessing questions like that provide pretty advanced answers if there is one.
But I'm finding it rather interesting to research
Oh and ive been to my university library and visited the physics section
"On Space and time", "Ideas about particle physics" and "Elegant universe" are what I took out.
You know I said before I thought all energy was stored as Gravitational potential energy but it was clearly shown it wasn't enough for the neutrons and protons are held together are held together by Strong Force, and other forces Weak force??
Atoms are held together by Van der Vaals forces.
So the Energy released was stored as Energy in the atoms when they were separate but release energy (light or heat) because the electrons share orbitals (covalent bonds) which is a lower energy set up. Electrons loose energy by giving off a photon. So that holds them together because to separate them you would have to apply the right sort of energy.
So the Energy released was stored as Energy in the atoms when they were separate but release energy (light or heat) because the electrons share orbitals (covalent bonds) which is a lower energy set up. Electrons loose energy by giving off a photon. So that holds them together because to separate them you would have to apply the right sort of energy.
A covalent bond is a form of chemical bonding that is characterized by the sharing of pairs of electrons between atoms. The stable balance of attractive and repulsive forces between atoms when they share electrons is known as covalent bonding.[1]
There doesn't seem to be a force involved in covalent bonds.
As for the small amount of mass which is manipulated into energy, which part of the atom does the mass loss come from ?
Does this mean that the potential, or "stored" energy of a system is somehow proportional to a certain aspect of its mass ? and could possibly draw an equation for it ?
I'm guessing questions like that provide pretty advanced answers if there is one.
But I'm finding it rather interesting to research
Oh and ive been to my university library and visited the physics section
"On Space and time", "Ideas about particle physics" and "Elegant universe" are what I took out.
You know I said before I thought all energy was stored as Gravitational potential energy but it was clearly shown it wasn't enough for the neutrons and protons are held together are held together by Strong Force, and other forces Weak force??
Atoms are held together by Van der Vaals forces.
QUOTE
In physical chemistry, the van der Waals force (or van der Waals interaction), named after Dutch scientist Johannes Diderik van der Waals, is the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces between molecules (or between parts of the same molecule) other than those due to covalent bonds or to the electrostatic interaction of ions with one another or with neutral molecules.[1] The term includes:
force between two permanent dipoles (Keesom force)
force between a permanent dipole and a corresponding induced dipole (Debye force)
force between two instantaneously induced dipoles (London dispersion force)
It is also sometimes used loosely as a synonym for the totality of intermolecular forces. Van der Waals forces are relatively weak compared to normal chemical bonds, but play a fundamental role in fields as diverse as supramolecular chemistry, structural biology, polymer science, nanotechnology, surface science, and condensed matter physics. Van der Waals forces define the chemical character of many organic compounds. They also define the solubility of organic substances in polar and non-polar media. In low molecular weight alcohols, the properties of the polar hydroxyl group dominate the weak intermolecular forces of van der Waals. In higher molecular weight alcohols, the properties of the nonpolar hydrocarbon chain(s) dominate and define the solubility. Van der Waals-London forces grow with the length of the nonpolar part of the substance.
force between two permanent dipoles (Keesom force)
force between a permanent dipole and a corresponding induced dipole (Debye force)
force between two instantaneously induced dipoles (London dispersion force)
It is also sometimes used loosely as a synonym for the totality of intermolecular forces. Van der Waals forces are relatively weak compared to normal chemical bonds, but play a fundamental role in fields as diverse as supramolecular chemistry, structural biology, polymer science, nanotechnology, surface science, and condensed matter physics. Van der Waals forces define the chemical character of many organic compounds. They also define the solubility of organic substances in polar and non-polar media. In low molecular weight alcohols, the properties of the polar hydroxyl group dominate the weak intermolecular forces of van der Waals. In higher molecular weight alcohols, the properties of the nonpolar hydrocarbon chain(s) dominate and define the solubility. Van der Waals-London forces grow with the length of the nonpolar part of the substance.
So the Energy released was stored as Energy in the atoms when they were separate but release energy (light or heat) because the electrons share orbitals (covalent bonds) which is a lower energy set up. Electrons loose energy by giving off a photon. So that holds them together because to separate them you would have to apply the right sort of energy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In physical chemistry, the van der Waals force (or van der Waals interaction), named after Dutch scientist Johannes Diderik van der Waals, is the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces between molecules (or between parts of the same molecule) other than those due to covalent bonds or to the electrostatic interaction of ions with one another or with neutral molecules.[1] The term includes: force between two permanent dipoles (Keesom force) force between a permanent dipole and a corresponding induced dipole (Debye force) force between two instantaneously induced dipoles (London dispersion force) It is also sometimes used loosely as a synonym for the totality of intermolecular forces. Van der Waals forces are relatively weak compared to normal chemical bonds, but play a fundamental role in fields as diverse as supramolecular chemistry, structural biology, polymer science, nanotechnology, surface science, and condensed matter physics. Van der Waals forces define the chemical character of many organic compounds. They also define the solubility of organic substances in polar and non-polar media. In low molecular weight alcohols, the properties of the polar hydroxyl group dominate the weak intermolecular forces of van der Waals. In higher molecular weight alcohols, the properties of the nonpolar hydrocarbon chain(s) dominate and define the solubility. Van der Waals-London forces grow with the length of the nonpolar part of the substance. |
So the Energy released was stored as Energy in the atoms when they were separate but release energy (light or heat) because the electrons share orbitals (covalent bonds) which is a lower energy set up. Electrons loose energy by giving off a photon. So that holds them together because to separate them you would have to apply the right sort of energy.
A covalent bond is a form of chemical bonding that is characterized by the sharing of pairs of electrons between atoms. The stable balance of attractive and repulsive forces between atoms when they share electrons is known as covalent bonding.[1]
There doesn't seem to be a force involved in covalent bonds.
That confused me , had to read it a few times ha, I'm still not sure what "VAN DER VAAL " forces are haha.
Right, so the energy released in a reaction is something to do with the bonds between atoms. ahh im now all confused ha, i feel like i need to take chemistry all over again
When the covalent bonds form, the Electrons loose energy. . When the electron releases this energy as photons, does it also reduce in mass then ?
Right, so the energy released in a reaction is something to do with the bonds between atoms. ahh im now all confused ha, i feel like i need to take chemistry all over again
When the covalent bonds form, the Electrons loose energy. . When the electron releases this energy as photons, does it also reduce in mass then ?
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 18 2011, 07:17 PM)
That confused me , had to read it a few times ha, I'm still not sure what "VAN DER VAAL " forces are haha.
Right, so the energy released in a reaction is something to do with the bonds between atoms. ahh im now all confused ha, i feel like i need to take chemistry all over again
When the covalent bonds form, the Electrons loose energy. . When the electron releases this energy as photons, does it also reduce in mass then ?
yes by the mass of a photon E= mC^2 = frequency* planck's constant is that right?
I know you will say a photon has no mass but the mass of the chemical has lost a little. (I think).
There is conservation of energy and momentum but not mass.
Most on here treat my science as being slightly suspect - got that!
Right, so the energy released in a reaction is something to do with the bonds between atoms. ahh im now all confused ha, i feel like i need to take chemistry all over again
When the covalent bonds form, the Electrons loose energy. . When the electron releases this energy as photons, does it also reduce in mass then ?
yes by the mass of a photon E= mC^2 = frequency* planck's constant is that right?
I know you will say a photon has no mass but the mass of the chemical has lost a little. (I think).
There is conservation of energy and momentum but not mass.
Most on here treat my science as being slightly suspect - got that!
I just found a website called alternative physics dot com , The chapter named "matter-energy conversion" is rather interesting.
Its a whole book actually. Some of it far beyond my knowledge but could be interesting for you guys.
Its a whole book actually. Some of it far beyond my knowledge but could be interesting for you guys.
Ha i'm still confused :s
So the "massless photon" is the cause of the electron to loose mass ? Are we sure its the electron that looses mass ?
So the "massless photon" is the cause of the electron to loose mass ? Are we sure its the electron that looses mass ?
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 18 2011, 07:48 PM)
Ha i'm still confused :s
So the "massless photon" is the cause of the electron to loose mass ? Are we sure its the electron that looses mass ?
My middle name isn't Einstein. It looses Energy, so it looses momentum, it may or may not loose mass.
But the whole amount of material will have lost mass.
Where are the others???? help/
So the "massless photon" is the cause of the electron to loose mass ? Are we sure its the electron that looses mass ?
My middle name isn't Einstein. It looses Energy, so it looses momentum, it may or may not loose mass.
But the whole amount of material will have lost mass.
Where are the others???? help/
momentum is mv, and loosing energy just decreases its velocity I suppose lol. i know kinetic energy is 0.5 mv^2 but have no idea if that applies in this case.
Yeh ! the others should help lol !
Yeh ! the others should help lol !
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Nov 18 2011, 02:35 PM)
There is conservation of energy and momentum but not mass.
Mass and energy are interchangeable, so conservation of energy is all that matters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation
QUOTE
So the "massless photon" is the cause of the electron to loose mass ? Are we sure its the electron that looses mass ?
In the case of matter-antimatter reactions, it's not just photons which are produced.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 19 2011, 12:57 AM)
Mass and energy are interchangeable, so conservation of energy is all that matters.
In the case of matter-antimatter reactions, it's not just photons which are produced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation
He was trying to understand in the case of an exothermic reactions where does the energy come from. If there is a change in mass what actually changes in mass.
I was thinking in covalent bonds was a electron thing so the energy was from the electron energy, then is it the electron that changes in mass?
It is probably on the web but who looks it up?
We have a saying "if all else fails read the instructions". Time for assistance.
In the case of matter-antimatter reactions, it's not just photons which are produced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation
He was trying to understand in the case of an exothermic reactions where does the energy come from. If there is a change in mass what actually changes in mass.
I was thinking in covalent bonds was a electron thing so the energy was from the electron energy, then is it the electron that changes in mass?
It is probably on the web but who looks it up?
We have a saying "if all else fails read the instructions". Time for assistance.
E=MC^2
E=hv for a photon
so E=MC^2=hv
therfore ;
M=hv/C^2 ???
Could you use that to calculate the mass lost when its emmited from the electron ?
E=hv for a photon
so E=MC^2=hv
therfore ;
M=hv/C^2 ???
Could you use that to calculate the mass lost when its emmited from the electron ?
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 19 2011, 11:53 AM)
E=MC^2
E=hv for a photon
so E=MC^2=hv
therefore ;
M=hv/C^2 ???
Could you use that to calculate the mass lost when its emitted from the electron ?
That does look like an equation I have seen before so it might work.
Check it out with a known amount of fuel and see it if holds (experimentally hold true).
E=hv for a photon
so E=MC^2=hv
therefore ;
M=hv/C^2 ???
Could you use that to calculate the mass lost when its emitted from the electron ?
That does look like an equation I have seen before so it might work.
Check it out with a known amount of fuel and see it if holds (experimentally hold true).
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 19 2011, 06:53 AM)
E=MC^2
E=hv for a photon
so E=MC^2=hv
therfore ;
M=hv/C^2 ???
Could you use that to calculate the mass lost when its emmited from the electron ?
Let's break it down, we'll start with E=mc^2:
E is the amount of energy in Joules.
m is the amount of mass in kilograms.
c is the speed of light, in meters per second (299,792,458).
Now, as for E=hv, this doesn't give you the energy of a photon in this situation. What it does, is derive the energy from the wavelength of the photon. For our purposes, the wavelength is pretty irrelevant, but since you brought it up, I may as well define it:
h is Planck constant, expressed in Joules per second (6.62606957(29)×10^-34).
v is the wavelength of the photon.
In the case of matter-antimatter annihilation, the amount of mass lost will be the same as the amount of mass involved. If you throw 1 gram of matter into 1 gram of antimatter, the total emitted energy will be equal to 179,751,035,747,363.528 Joules, or 2 grams of matter.
So once again, the only equation you need to derive the amount of mass lost from any reaction (assuming perfect efficiency, which only exists with matter-antimatter annihilation so far*) is E=mc^2. Plug in the amount of energy gotten, then derive the amount of mass lost.
*This stage is pretty simply, you simply multiply the energy by the efficiency expressed as 1/n before plugging it into E=mc^2.
E=hv for a photon
so E=MC^2=hv
therfore ;
M=hv/C^2 ???
Could you use that to calculate the mass lost when its emmited from the electron ?
Let's break it down, we'll start with E=mc^2:
E is the amount of energy in Joules.
m is the amount of mass in kilograms.
c is the speed of light, in meters per second (299,792,458).
Now, as for E=hv, this doesn't give you the energy of a photon in this situation. What it does, is derive the energy from the wavelength of the photon. For our purposes, the wavelength is pretty irrelevant, but since you brought it up, I may as well define it:
h is Planck constant, expressed in Joules per second (6.62606957(29)×10^-34).
v is the wavelength of the photon.
In the case of matter-antimatter annihilation, the amount of mass lost will be the same as the amount of mass involved. If you throw 1 gram of matter into 1 gram of antimatter, the total emitted energy will be equal to 179,751,035,747,363.528 Joules, or 2 grams of matter.
So once again, the only equation you need to derive the amount of mass lost from any reaction (assuming perfect efficiency, which only exists with matter-antimatter annihilation so far*) is E=mc^2. Plug in the amount of energy gotten, then derive the amount of mass lost.
*This stage is pretty simply, you simply multiply the energy by the efficiency expressed as 1/n before plugging it into E=mc^2.
yeh i know all that, i put up a new question if ya wanna help me out there please
QUOTE (7slaterj+Nov 21 2011, 02:45 PM)
yeh i know all that, i put up a new question if ya wanna help me out there please
Your new question contains the e=hv formula. Unless you're trying to calculate wavelength, it's wrong.
Your new question contains the e=hv formula. Unless you're trying to calculate wavelength, it's wrong.
To (maybe) reduce confusion:-
E=hν where ν is a Greek character (Nu) is probably best written as:-
E=hf [ where E is energy, h is Planck's constant and f is frequency ]
Planck's constant has the dimensions of Joule.s (Joule seconds not Joules per second)
-C2
E=hν where ν is a Greek character (Nu) is probably best written as:-
E=hf [ where E is energy, h is Planck's constant and f is frequency ]
Planck's constant has the dimensions of Joule.s (Joule seconds not Joules per second)
-C2
QUOTE (Confused1+Nov 21 2011, 11:49 PM)
To (maybe) reduce confusion:-
E=hν where ν is a Greek character (Nu) is probably best written as:-
E=hf [ where E is energy, h is Planck's constant and f is frequency ]
Planck's constant has the dimensions of Joule.s (Joule seconds not Joules per second)
-C2
But have you thought of what happens when a photon of the right frequency combines with an electron and puts it into another orbital. What does the extra energy do? Does it get more Kinetic Energy (KE)? Does it get more momentum? Does it get more mass? Does it get more of something else?
E=hν where ν is a Greek character (Nu) is probably best written as:-
E=hf [ where E is energy, h is Planck's constant and f is frequency ]
Planck's constant has the dimensions of Joule.s (Joule seconds not Joules per second)
-C2
But have you thought of what happens when a photon of the right frequency combines with an electron and puts it into another orbital. What does the extra energy do? Does it get more Kinetic Energy (KE)? Does it get more momentum? Does it get more mass? Does it get more of something else?
new post has different equation, looks more correct lol
Im confused with this post now, has too many questions and misunderstandings, everone discuss on the new one, "mass loss"
Im confused with this post now, has too many questions and misunderstandings, everone discuss on the new one, "mass loss"
QUOTE (Confused1+Nov 21 2011, 06:49 PM)
To (maybe) reduce confusion:-
E=hν where ν is a Greek character (Nu) is probably best written as:-
E=hf [ where E is energy, h is Planck's constant and f is frequency ]
Planck's constant has the dimensions of Joule.s (Joule seconds not Joules per second)
-C2
You are correct.
I need to proof-read my posts more thoroughly.
E=hν where ν is a Greek character (Nu) is probably best written as:-
E=hf [ where E is energy, h is Planck's constant and f is frequency ]
Planck's constant has the dimensions of Joule.s (Joule seconds not Joules per second)
-C2
You are correct.
I need to proof-read my posts more thoroughly.
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.