| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
13 Oct 2005 08:58:18 PM |
| Object: |
why don't certain things liquify? |
I would like to know why certain things (trees, humans, for example)
cannot be liquified or turned into gas. It seems that humans only
reduce to ash while water can be easily switched between water and gas.
.
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: why don't certain things liquify? |
14 Oct 2005 03:37:05 AM |
|
|
<metaperl@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129255098.299867.306420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I would like to know why certain things (trees, humans, for example)
cannot be liquified or turned into gas. It seems that humans only
reduce to ash while water can be easily switched between water and gas.
Humans and trees contain a lot of water. Some of the rest is carbon and I
think Carbon melts at about around 4000K and boils at 5000K (Not sure of the
exact figure).
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: why don't certain things liquify? |
14 Oct 2005 08:55:38 AM |
|
|
CWatters wrote:
<metaperl@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129255098.299867.306420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I would like to know why certain things (trees, humans, for example)
cannot be liquified or turned into gas. It seems that humans only
reduce to ash while water can be easily switched between water and gas.
Humans and trees contain a lot of water. Some of the rest is carbon and I
think Carbon melts at about around 4000K
3800 K
and boils at 5000K (Not sure of the
exact figure).
4300 K
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/C/heat.html
Carbon will oxidize or reduce, so an inert atmosphere is needed to do
this.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: why don't certain things liquify? |
14 Oct 2005 12:36:50 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I would like to know why certain things (trees, humans, for example)
cannot be liquified or turned into gas. It seems that humans only
reduce to ash while water can be easily switched between water and gas.
Macromolecules vs. a Born-Haber cycle to get them lofted before input
energy exceeds chemical bond strength. Crosslinked macromolecules,
etc.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: why don't certain things liquify? |
14 Oct 2005 01:18:10 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:434FECB2.AB9A7CEC@hate.spam.net...
Phuckwit!
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: why don't certain things liquify? |
14 Oct 2005 02:04:24 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:434FECB2.AB9A7CEC@hate.spam.net...
Phuckwit!
Androcles
Macromolecules vs. a Born-Haber cycle to get them lofted before input
energy exceeds chemical bond strength. Crosslinked macromolecules,
etc.
Point out the error and propose a correction, idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: why don't certain things liquify? |
14 Oct 2005 06:05:44 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:43500138.4B32F769@hate.spam.net...
| Androcles wrote:
| >
| > "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
| > news:434FECB2.AB9A7CEC@hate.spam.net...
| >
| > Phuckwit!
| > Androcles
|
| > Macromolecules vs. a Born-Haber cycle to get them lofted before
input
| > energy exceeds chemical bond strength. Crosslinked macromolecules,
| > etc.
|
| Point out the error and propose a correction, idiot.
I've never criticized your chemistry.
I said you are a phuckwit, that's not an error.
From: "Androcles" <androc...@home.com>
Subject: Re: E.R.R.O.R.
Date: 1999/03/16
Message-ID: yfsH2.1045$ww5.1588@news.rdc1.pa.home.com
"His "definition" of time does not
comport with mine :-)"
"His" means Einstein, but a stooopid ***** like you
believes textbooks and cannot understand mathematics.
From: Tom Roberts (tjrob@bluebird.flw.att.com)
Subject: A Physicist's Derivation of Special Relativity
View: Complete Thread (9 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: 1996/10/22
Roberts:
Many criticisms of Special Relativity center on the "assumption" that
the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. The derivation
given here does not make that assumption; the existence of a universal
speed (c) is a natural consequence of the Postulates forming the basis
of the derivation.
Androcles:
The definition given by Einstein in section 1 of "On the Electodynamics
of Moving Bodies" is: 'the "time" required by light to travel from A to
B equals the "time"
it requires to travel from B to A.'
Roberts:
General symmetry properties of space-time are
sufficient to determine the equations of the Lorentz Transformation
[to within a topological choice - see below]. The bottom line is that
it is IMPOSSIBLE to formulate an alternative to Special Relativity,
while obeying the observed symmetries of space-time and agreeing with
the experimental evidence [see below about the limitations of the
symmetry postulates used in this derivation].
Androcles:
The bottom line is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to DEFINE time such that
t1 = AB/c and t2 = BA/(-c), and is FALSE that ABA/(t'A-tA) =
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
in agreement with experience.
Roberts:
This article will, I hope, show why physicists believe in Special
Relativity (within its applicable domain), and are extremely
sceptical of "alternative descriptions".
Androcles:
This article will, I hope, show why "physicists" [ha ha] who believe in
The Holy Church of Special Relativity (within its applicable domain) are
extreme phuckwits, suckered in by Einstein's hoax.
Roberts:
Historically, it took a long time for physicists to accept Special
Relativity.
Androcles:
Historically, it took a long time for astronomomers to accept the
Copernican view of the solar system over the Ptolemaic view, supported
by the true believers of the ***** brigade.
Roberts:
Even today, the compelling derivation given here is usually not
presented in textbooks; I don't know why.
Androcles:
Even today, text book derivations are not compelling, being the work of
a Phuckwit. Science is not about persuasion, but empirical evidence.
Roberts:
I claim no originality for this derivation; I do not know who originally
discovered it; I have re-created it based upon dimly-remembered ideas
from graduate school.
Androcles:
"Dimly remembered" is an inappropriate term to apply to Roberts, he's
forgotten basic algebra.
Written by:
Tom Roberts
Lucent Technologies / Bell Laboratories
original date: sometime 1989-1990
Colloquially, a Lorentz Transformation is called a "boost".
This derivation will be heavy going, in algebra; I hope it will be
understandable to most people with a good understanding of elementary
algebra, and a smattering of common sense.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of
eighteen. - Albert Einstein.
Roberts:
This is NOT a rigorous mathematical derivation,
Androcles:
That's right, Roberts, it isn't a deriviation at all.
Roberts:
but one at the level of rigor common to physicists.
Androcles:
Right again, Roberts, a REAL physicist isn't gullible and you are. The
"derivation" offered isn't mathematical, merely some symbol shuffling
without defining the symbols correctly. 2AB is not AB + BA, it is zero.
Roberts:
NOTATION:
F(x) F is a function of x
a*b a multiplied by b
A**2 A squared (raised to the 2nd power == A*A)
== "is identical to", or "is the same as"
= mathematical equality (NOT the FORTRAN meaning)
First, four Postulates will be given, with a brief discussion.
Then, the general form of the transformation equations will be derived,
followed by a brief discussion of their implications.
THE MAPPING POSTULATE
When two observers observe the same physical space-time, they assign
individual coordinate systems to THE SAME points of space-time. There is
a relation between the assignments they (separately) make, which is
called a coordinate transformation, usually expressed as a consistent
set of mathematical formulas relating the coordinates of one observer
to the coordinates of the other. The coordinate transformation from one
system to the other MUST be one-to-one and onto the other, BECAUSE THEY
ARE DESCRIBING THE SAME PHYSICAL SPACE-TIME; the transformation must
be invertible (see Relativity Postulate, below).
Androcles:
That is what the Galilean Transformation does, and perfectly.
Nor does the Galilean transformation have a "limited domain of
applicability".
Roberts:
[Mathematicians worry about a lot of conditions for this, and
for the other Postulates; this is a Physicist's derivation, and
will assume that physical systems satisfy the mathematical
conditions necessary (continuity, etc.).]
Androcles:
Roberts refers to himself as a "Physicist". He means "Phuckwitist".
Roberts:
THE ISOTROPY/HOMOGENEITY POSTULATE
Space is isotropic, in that there is no "preferred direction" in
space. The transformation must have the same mathematical form
for a boost in any (spatial) direction. Space is also homogeneous,
in that there is no "preferred position" in space. The
transformation must have the same mathematical form for any origin
of coordinates; this applies to time, as well.
THE RELATIVITY POSTULATE
There is no "preferred velocity", or "Preferred coordinate system" -
only relative velocities are observable.
Androcles:
EXCEPT the velocity of light. That is very much a preferred velocity.
However, only relative velocities (INCLUDING THAT OF LIGHT) are
observable.
Roberts:
If coordinate system S' is moving with velocity v, as observed in
coordinate system S, then S is moving with velocity -v, as observed in
S'.
[This is Einstein's fundamental departure from classical physics.
Today, it seems natural.]
Androcles:
Actually, what Roberts said is so stupid as to be laughable. If the Sun
apppears to move from East To West across the sky, then the Earth is
rotating from West to East; we've known that since Copernicus. Nor does
Einstein depart from classical physics in that.
Roberts:
THE GROUP POSTULATE
The collection of all possible Transformations must form a
group under composition by successive application of transformations.
This is the key postulate, and the one that makes a general derivation
of the transformation equations possible; it imposes severe constraints
on the form of the equations. It has four important implications:
1. An identity transformation exists, which maps a coordinate system
to itself.
2. Any transformation has an inverse, which is also a transformation.
3. The result of applying two transformations in succession is itself
a transformation.
4. The application of three transformations in succession follows the
law of associativity [ABC = (AB)C = A(BC)].
[This is a more modern approach to the subject than was common
in Einstein's day; Einstein was instrumental in pointing out
how important symmetries are in physics, which leads naturally
to group theory.]
Those are the Postulates; make sure you understand and believe in them
now, because they are sufficient to derive the general form of the
transformation equations.
Androcles:
Yeah, sure:
(c+v)/ (1 + v/c) = (c+v+w)/ (1 + (v+w)/c) = c.
Highly associative in phuckwits, but not in mathematics.
Roberts:
[It may be a surprise to some readers that no postulate includes
a statement that light has the same speed in all frames; such
a statement is not required. This is just one example of the
power of group theory.]
Androcles:
That is correct. There is a definition instead, 'the "time" required
by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel
from B to A' which holds true because Einstein says so, and that is his
departure from classical physics. If you send a signal to Mars and then
move, the time for the signal to reach Mars equals the time for the
return, no matter where you move to. Your clock will automatically
adjust itself to compensate.
Roberts:
Now for the math...
Androcles:
Now for the excrement of the male bovine...
Roberts:
This derivation will be done in "1+1" dimensions, that is, for one space
coordinate and one time coordinate. The derivation would follow similar
lines in "3+1" dimensions, but the extra complexity would exhibit no
additional features.
There are three frames of reference (or coordinate systems) of interest;
they will be called S, S', and S"; their coordinates will be called
x and t, x' and t', and x" and t", respectively. They are constructed
so that their x, x', and x" axes are all collinear, with the origins
of coordinates coincident (i.e. in the exact same place in the real
(i.e. physical) space-time); that is, the coordinates x=0,t=0 and
x'=0,t'=0 and x"=0,t"=0 all refer to the same point (event) in the
real space-time. The Homogeneity Postulate guarantees that no special
significance arises from their coincident origins of coordinates.
All three frames will use the same scales for length and time (these
simplifications are not necessary, but relaxing them would add
unenlightening complexity).
The difference between the three frames is their relative velocities.
We will call the velocity of S' as measured in S, u; S" as measured
in S' is v; S" as measured in S is w. The physical situation ensures
that these assignments can all be made. Implicit is the assumption
that the relative velocities are constant (but arbitrary).
The Mapping Postulate and the Homogeneity postulate imply that the
transformation equations are linear, with coefficients independent
of position. That is
x' = A(u)*x + D(u)*t + E(u) 1
t' = B(u)*x + C(u)*t + F(u) 2
The coefficients (A,B,C,D,E,F) can depend upon the relative velocity
between S' and S (i.e. upon u), but there is no other quantity that
can have physical relevance. Thus, eqn 1 & 2 are the most general
possible transformation equations satisfying the postulates.
Androcles:
x'' = A'(v)*x' + D'(v)*t' + E'(v) 1'
t'' = B'(v)*x' + C'(v)*t' + F'(v) 2'
Roberts:
This is important; if there were other powers of x or t on
the right-hand side, the transformation would not be one-to-one
everywhere. If the coefficients depended upon x or t (as they
do in General Relativity - see below), then space-time would
not be homogeneous and isotropic.
[Some other derivations use a postulate that straight lines
are transformed into straight lines to deduce the linearity
of the transformation equations.]
Androcles:
Or the function tau() would not be linear, which it isn't.
Roberts:
The translation terms (E(u) and F(u)) can easily be calculated,
based upon the construction of the systems S and S'; they are both 0.
They are not functions of u, because we arranged for coincident
coordinate
origins independently of u (i.e. for each value of u, the origins were
individually arranged to be coincident). This is true also for the
other transformations (S' to S", and S to S"). The Homogeneity Postulate
guarantees that this choice has no physical significance.
Since S' is moving with velocity u relative to S, the point x'=0
is moving with velocity u (with respect to S); this allows us to
solve for D(u), with no loss in generality:
x' = A(u) * (x - u*t) 3
t' = B(u)*x + C(u)*t 4
Androcles:
x" = A'(v) * (x' - v*t') 3'
t" = B'(v)*x + C'(v)*t' 4'
Roberts:
Note: u=0 is certainly possible, in which case S'==S, so A(0)=1,
B(0)=0, C(0)=1 (i.e. x'=x and t'=t). In the following, u and v will
be assumed to be non-zero, but w will have no such restriction.
The transformations S' to S", and S to S" follow similarly:
x" = A(v) * (x' - v*t') 5
t" = B(v)*x' + C(v)*t' 6
x" = A(w) * (x - w*t) 7
t" = B(w)*x + C(w)*t 8
Androcles:
Roberts has not shown A'(u) = A(u).
Also note that he has chosen w = v+u, and not w = (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) as
required,
and wt = (ut + vt')
So ist klar and in agreement with experience Roberts has about as much
knowledge of mathematics as Einstein. Zilch.
Roberts:
We will now use the Group Postulate to compose Eqns 3 and 4 with
Eqns 5 and 6, to get 7 and 8 (i.e. u and v are arbitrarily fixed,
and w will be determined from them).
Substituting 3 and 4 into 5 and 6:
x" = [A(v)*A(u) - A(v)*v*B(u)]*x - [A(v)*v*C(u) + A(v)*A(u)*u]*t 9
t" = [B(v)*A(u) + C(v)*B(u)]*x + [(-u)*B(v)*A(u) + C(v)*C(u)]*t 10
Comparing 9 and 10 with 7 and 8, and equating coefficients of
x and t (Eqns 7-10 are each valid for ALL x and ALL t), we conclude:
Androcles:
We conclude that Roberts is a phuckwit who has already gone disastrously
wrong.
(c+v)/(1+v/c) = c doesn't make the composition operator and the set R
a group.
Compelling derivation failed. Must try harder. 1 out of 10 for effort.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: why don't certain things liquify? |
15 Oct 2005 09:50:30 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip]
From: "Androcles" <androc...@home.com>
Subject: Re: E.R.R.O.R.
Date: 1999/03/16
Message-ID: yfsH2.1045$ww5.1588@news.rdc1.pa.home.com
[snip
Androcles
http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
Google Groups
group:sci.physics author:Androcles
2890 examples of your utter stooopidity - a garbage midden of
ineducable faith-based spew and frank psychosis.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: ***** YOU TOO |
15 Oct 2005 01:44:19 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:43511736.612119A6@hate.spam.net...
| Androcles wrote:
| [snip]
|
| > From: "Androcles" <androc...@home.com>
| > Subject: Re: E.R.R.O.R.
| > Date: 1999/03/16
| > Message-ID: yfsH2.1045$ww5.1588@news.rdc1.pa.home.com
|
| [snip
| > Androcles
|
| http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
|
| Google Groups
| group:sci.physics author:Androcles
|
| 2890 examples of your utter stooopidity - a garbage midden of
| ineducable faith-based spew and frank psychosis.
|
| --
| Uncle Al
| http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
| (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
| http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
If you follow threads from March 1999 when Androcles posted the
orginal bug in relativity you will see an increasingly hysterical and
vicious collusion of bitter little people who deny the process of
scientific inquiry and are utterly rabid about the disclosure being
done. They literally drool foaming spit.
They don't care about the results. They scream, threaten, and attempt
assassination to prevent the disclosure from ever taking place. What
do they fear? They fear their own exposure as the small people they
are.
The critic trolls and idiot vituperators have lost. Androcles
has all his ducks in a row - raw theory, support, calculation, public
disclosure, and no army. Not even the final result remains.
LITLE PEOPLE LIKE UNCLE SNIPCRAP HATE THAT and will
throw any tantrum and invent any lie to prevent the inevitable.
They cannot prevent the inevitable. The disclosure proceeds and the
final knowledge will be had. A null result is the historic Gold
Standard
of performance, but the truth is a Platinum result. The net result is
the
trivially reproducible falsification of Special Relativity in existing
mathematics
all over the world. Professionals call this "science." We don't care
what
god-fearing witch burners and wog haters call it.
Credit for a successful disclosure cannot be stolen by an unsuccessful
rogue
researcher.
It's happening. Let the universe decide.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** YOU TOO |
16 Oct 2005 01:59:57 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]
Androcles <=>Jämmerlichkeit
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** YOU TOO |
16 Oct 2005 04:56:34 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4352A32D.9EB42C01@hate.spam.net...
| Androcles wrote:
| [snip crap]
|
| Androcles <=>Jämmerlichkeit
|
|
| --
| Uncle Al
| http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
| (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
| http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
If you follow threads from March 1999 when Androcles posted the
orginal bug in relativity you will see an increasingly hysterical and
vicious collusion of bitter little people who deny the process of
scientific inquiry and are utterly rabid about the disclosure being
done. They literally drool foaming spit.
They don't care about the results. They scream, threaten, and attempt
assassination to prevent the disclosure from ever taking place. What
do they fear? They fear their own exposure as the small people they
are.
The critic trolls and idiot vituperators have lost. Androcles
has all his ducks in a row - raw theory, support, calculation, public
disclosure, and no army. Not even the final result remains.
LITLE PEOPLE LIKE UNCLE SNIPCRAP HATE THAT and will
throw any tantrum and invent any lie to prevent the inevitable.
They cannot prevent the inevitable. The disclosure proceeds and the
final knowledge will be had. A null result is the historic Gold
Standard
of performance, but the truth is a Platinum result. The net result is
the
trivially reproducible falsification of Special Relativity in existing
mathematics
all over the world. Professionals call this "science." We don't care
what
god-fearing witch burners and wog haters call it.
Credit for a successful disclosure cannot be stolen by an unsuccessful
rogue
researcher.
It's happening. Let the universe decide.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: why don't certain things liquify? |
14 Oct 2005 07:54:46 PM |
|
|
They do when they burn.
But seprating like gettin the H out would nead the same amount of
energy to break the thermal ballance holding it in place.
You would loose energy and should have just burnt the log.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: why don't certain things liquify? |
13 Oct 2005 11:09:18 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I would like to know why certain things (trees, humans, for example)
cannot be liquified or turned into gas. It seems that humans only
reduce to ash while water can be easily switched between water and gas.
Humans are mostly water
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: why don't certain things liquify? |
14 Oct 2005 09:10:38 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I would like to know why certain things (trees, humans, for example)
cannot be liquified or turned into gas. It seems that humans only
reduce to ash while water can be easily switched between water and gas.
Presumably you are refering to a phase change rather than, for example,
grinding a tree/human into pulp.
The simple answer is that trees and humans are made up of many
materials, each of which has different physical properties.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: why don't certain things liquify? |
14 Oct 2005 03:05:01 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I would like to know why certain things (trees, humans, for example)
cannot be liquified or turned into gas. It seems that humans only
reduce to ash while water can be easily switched between water and gas.
Water is a pure subtance, so it all goes to gas at the same
temperature. Cars, bananas, and Persian cats are mixtures of
substances, and so the substances turn into gas at different
temperatures. With bananas and Persian cats, the first thing to turn
into gas is water, which turns out to be most of the stuff, but the
rest will go eventually.
Humans near the epicenter of Hiroshima were not reduced to ash. They
were completely vaporized.
Kitchen physics you can do at home! Put one Tbsp of salt in one Cup
water and boil the saltwater. When the water is boiled away, what's
left?
SAFETY NOTE: Do NOT attempt to boil away the remainder. Your mother
will be mad.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: why don't certain things liquify? |
14 Oct 2005 10:01:56 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I would like to know why certain things (trees, humans, for example)
cannot be liquified or turned into gas. It seems that humans only
reduce to ash while water can be easily switched between water and gas.
Well, I smell homework, but what the heck. Please note that the
following is all very loose and descriptive. If you want any
accurate and quantitative description, you need statistical
mechanics. That is often not taught till university, 2nd year
or 3rd year.
Pure elements and pure compounds often have a melting point
and a boiling point. Though some don't have a melting point
at normal atmospheric pressure, such as CO2. CO2 turns from
solid to gas at normal atmo.
Complicated objects, such as trees and humans, are made of
many compounds. If you heat them, their internal nature
changes in complicated ways. In some cases, some of the
materials will melt, some will turn to vapour. Humans have
some fat in them that will melt. Both trees and humans
have water that will boil.
The different amounts of different compounds means that the
behaviour of different parts of these objects are different
under different temperatures. Bones behave very differently
to soft tissue.
A solid can have very heterogeneous characteristics. The atoms
in it are not moving very far, so complicated structures can
be retained. The bonds that hold structures together are of
energy that is far larger than the typical heat energy of a
molecule.
A liquid is a very different thing. The atoms all have to move
around with much less resistance than in a solid. The interactions
between molecules have to mostly be within some range of energy
for the liquid to be a liquid. If they get much stronger, then the
liquid turns to a solid. If they get much weaker, the liquid
turns to a gas. This range depends in a complicated fashion on
the temperature of the compound, the content of the compound,
and the pressure of the system. As mentioned previously, not all
compounds have a liquid state at any given pressure.
In a liquid, molecules can bump around inside the liquid, and
wander around. But they have a hard time getting out of the
liquid.
A gas is a different thing again. The molecules in a gas are
all interacting mostly by bumping off eachother. There is little
"sticking" of one molecule to another, at least for long times.
If you get a compound hot enough, eventually most compounds will
turn to a gas. They may undergo a variety of chemical reactions
first. But eventually the heat energy of the typical molecule will
be larger than the interaction energy. So the compound will lose
any cohesive interaction. Any tendancy of the molecules to clump
will be overwhelmed by the heat energy of the molecules.
Socks
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: why don't certain things liquify? |
14 Oct 2005 09:00:43 AM |
|
|
Melting and boiling are terms usually reserved to describe the effects
of heat on relatively pure (homogeneous) substances.
Trees and humans are not homogeneous. Water is. You are comparing
apples to ice cubes.
If you vaporize water and cool it down again, you get your water
back.Trees and people don't work that way.
Mixtures will 'fuse' or distill or separate or decompose, altering the
composition permanently.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LZ" |
|
| Title: Re: why don't certain things liquify? |
14 Oct 2005 08:23:48 AM |
|
|
Under sufficient heating, a human would undergo combustion (a chemical
process) instead of vaporization. It is because the activation energy of
such that chemical reaction is lower than the energy required to
vaporize the human. The product of the reaction are mostly carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide and carbon (the ashes). That's why we don't
normally see a human vaporize like a gas.
Though if the energy input is very high and sudden (like in a nuclear
explosion), a human might really be vaporized.
metaperl@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to know why certain things (trees, humans, for example)
cannot be liquified or turned into gas. It seems that humans only
reduce to ash while water can be easily switched between water and gas.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
