PhotographyREVIEW.com Off-Topic Forum

Anything that's not related to photography, except religion and politics*. Discuss Britney Spears, your Kiss records, swing dancing, salsa recipes. The Off-Topic forum is moderated by walterick and adina.
*Religious and political threads will be deleted
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 29 of 29
  1. #26
    drg
    drg is offline
    la recherche de trolls drg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Route 66
    Posts
    3,404

    Re: Ack!

    Quote Originally Posted by mwfanelli
    Sorry, but a chemistry professor would never call fusion "burning." Burning is not vague, it requires oxidation. Fast and slow are relative terms. Slow oxidation is rust, fast oxidation would be fire, very fast would be an explosion. In all cases, the speed is subjective, the process is not. Fusion has nothing at all to do with oxidation. All chemical reactions that generate heat are NOT burning, they are just exothermic (as opposed to endothermic). Some burn, some do not.

    Burning is also a chemical reaction, fusion is a nuclear reaction. Burning involves the electrons, in fact, only the valence electrons. Fusion involves the nuclei of atoms, the electrons have already been stripped away long before fusion starts. Yeah, neutrons are created but I think you are getting mixed up with nuclear fission and chain reactions. That is not burning either but it is different than fusion. Trans-uranium atoms have nothing to do with fusion.

    Also, energy doesn't "float around"! Energy is always something specific that is being transfered from one form to another. Energy as a substance was disproven hundreds of years ago.

    By the way, IT IS SATURDAY!

    Your friend,
    Dr. Science. :-)

    You really might want to look up Sugarman (Google will work if you don‘t have access to A.A.S, or A.C.S. biographies).

    I can find numerous definitions of "burn" that include references to both fusion and fission. It is not the primary definition in any of them nor is the strict chemical exothermic process in question the first definition except in one section of the O.E.D. devoted to things Scientific and that in a section on common occurrences of science.

    At least one version of the Cambridge Dictionary refers to "burn" as a Physics term when referencing the fission and fusion processes. Source ranging from a Webster's dictionary version, to a number of online source all refer to at least the thermonuclear events as "burning". Curiously, the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics in the couple of editions available seem strangely quiet on this topic/definition/term-of-art(of course not on oxidation or combustion but on "burn".)

    One particularly applicable first definition for "burn" as provided by Random House refers to an event the produces heat and most usually light and consumes fuel. A star certainly produces heat and light and consumes fuel.

    I do not believe that a careful reading of what I wrote, even though it was offhanded and meant lightheartedly and not written for formal consumption, in any way is interpretable to imply that I subscribe to some outdated theory regarding the "ether". (I could make some comments regarding ether but will refrain to prevent further confusion or inducement of stupor). I'll grant that in a sense the phrase "floating around" isn't the most precise of terms, but was meant more in the metaphorical sense to refer to the large amounts of available energy produced by the (now don't get upset) "nuclear fire".

    Fission and Fusion have been included in the Chemistry Curricula on a regular basis since at least the early 1970's and in some detail if only in the theoretical realm. Gymer's Ecological Chemistry text of the early 70's (I have a 1973 version on hand) devotes considerable space and detail to the topic. The text was used for a Chemistry Section for Non-Science majors as a science-fulfilling requirement. Several California (including Fresno, Berkeley, SFSU,) schools used this text under different titles including CHEMISTRY: An Ecological Approach. I have other University Chemistry texts for General Chemistry that all make more than a passing mention of the fission and fusion topics.

    Perhaps, "inexact usage" referring to "burn" might have been more accurate in a very limited sense, but we were talking the Sun to begin with and not Chemistry. I then referred to Physical Chemistry, and here is where Sugarman might make a large difference in how my answer is viewed. The secondary clue is in my reference to a particular set of elements.


    Have a Nice Day!
    CDPrice 'drg'
    Biography and Contributor's Page


    Please do not edit and repost any of my photographs.






  2. #27
    Panarus biarmicus Moderator (Sports) SmartWombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,750

    Re: Pluto is NO LONGER CONSIDERED A PLANET

    Quote Originally Posted by drg
    all the electron shells.
    Hey, it's August and CostCo has their Xmas toys on the shelf, and the mail order catalogue for the flashing santa has arrived.
    So to get you int he mood ... geek Xmas songs

    "Rudolph the Bright Red Photon"
    "Deck the Halls with Spools of Wire"
    http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~mconte/xmas/song8.html
    http://www.wesleyan.edu/physics/misc/physcarols.htm
    PAul

    Scroll down to the Sports Forum and post your sports pictures !

  3. #28
    Poster Formerly Known as Michael Fanelli mwfanelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Perryville, MD
    Posts
    727

    Re: Ack!

    Quote Originally Posted by drg
    You really might want to look up Sugarman (Google will work if you don‘t have access to A.A.S, or A.C.S. biographies).

    I can find numerous definitions of "burn" that include references to both fusion and fission. It is not the primary definition in any of them nor is the strict chemical exothermic process in question the first definition except in one section of the O.E.D. devoted to things Scientific and that in a section on common occurrences of science.

    At least one version of the Cambridge Dictionary refers to "burn" as a Physics term when referencing the fission and fusion processes. Source ranging from a Webster's dictionary version, to a number of online source all refer to at least the thermonuclear events as "burning". Curiously, the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics in the couple of editions available seem strangely quiet on this topic/definition/term-of-art(of course not on oxidation or combustion but on "burn".)

    One particularly applicable first definition for "burn" as provided by Random House refers to an event the produces heat and most usually light and consumes fuel. A star certainly produces heat and light and consumes fuel.

    I do not believe that a careful reading of what I wrote, even though it was offhanded and meant lightheartedly and not written for formal consumption, in any way is interpretable to imply that I subscribe to some outdated theory regarding the "ether". (I could make some comments regarding ether but will refrain to prevent further confusion or inducement of stupor). I'll grant that in a sense the phrase "floating around" isn't the most precise of terms, but was meant more in the metaphorical sense to refer to the large amounts of available energy produced by the (now don't get upset) "nuclear fire".

    Fission and Fusion have been included in the Chemistry Curricula on a regular basis since at least the early 1970's and in some detail if only in the theoretical realm. Gymer's Ecological Chemistry text of the early 70's (I have a 1973 version on hand) devotes considerable space and detail to the topic. The text was used for a Chemistry Section for Non-Science majors as a science-fulfilling requirement. Several California (including Fresno, Berkeley, SFSU,) schools used this text under different titles including CHEMISTRY: An Ecological Approach. I have other University Chemistry texts for General Chemistry that all make more than a passing mention of the fission and fusion topics.

    Perhaps, "inexact usage" referring to "burn" might have been more accurate in a very limited sense, but we were talking the Sun to begin with and not Chemistry. I then referred to Physical Chemistry, and here is where Sugarman might make a large difference in how my answer is viewed. The secondary clue is in my reference to a particular set of elements.
    First of all, as I have stated ad nauseum in other threads, you can't look up words used in science in a dictionary of the vernacular. Science uses the same words but gives them very specific definitions. The wishy washy (sorry, "broad expanse") of meanings and nuances can't be used in science. This confuses people all the time. Words such as work, force, theory, energy, etc. are NOT the same as the vernacular. The Cambridge dictionary, and others like it, have never stated that they provide the scientific meanings of words.

    Yes, some chemistry classes do get involved with nuclear physics. That does not make it chemistry. Chemistry deals with electrons and their interactions. Chemists dabbling in physics is what gave us the fiasco of "cold fusion." In high schools, the two are mixed because so many students never go on to take physics. In colleges, the courses that mix physics and chemistry are often for general requirements (again, no physics classes for these students), specialties (such as rad techs), or it's appropriately called "physical science."

    The sun is not burning, there is no fire, no flames, no oxidation. Most of the sun is much too hot to even support chemical reactions of any type. The part of the sun you see is not undergoing fusion either, only the core has the heat and pressure (thanks to gravity) to fuse hydrogen. The rest of the sun is just transporting the energy, through all three processes, to the surface.

    The "particular set of elements" you mention, those with atomic numbers greater than uranium, have absolutely nothing to do with fusion. A binding energy chart will show you that. Large nuceli split, giving you fission, neutrons, chain reactions, and the rest. Fusion only involves small nuceli and require high temperature and pressure to overcome the repulsive forces of individual nuclei. In fact, a fusion ("hydrogen") bomb requires lots of atomic ("fission") bombs to even set it off.

    It is often difficult for non-scientists to understand the differences between various processes. Most people still believe the 19th century notion that the sun is a big fire. That's OK, nothing is really lost, no one will die from it! But I do have a tendency to correct people who promote ideas that are incorrect. Some people get annoyed, others don't care. In either case, there it is!
    "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." --Mark Twain

  4. #29
    Jedi Master masdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Somewhere north of US 10 and east of Wausau, WI, USA
    Posts
    1,282

    Re: Pluto is NO LONGER CONSIDERED A PLANET

    Quote Originally Posted by manacsa
    It's now a DWARF PLANET. Is that a politically correct statement???
    Its not dwarf planet, its Miniature Solar Object.

    In other news, still no solution to war, disease, hunger, and Kevin Federline.
    I think the first three would be easier to solve than that last one...
    Sean Massey
    Massey Photography

    Canon 20D
    Canon Digital Rebel XT (backup)
    Canon 70-200 f/2.8L
    Canon 50mm f/1.4
    Sigma 28-105 f/2.8-4.0
    Epson Stylus Photo R1800 Printer

    Blog:
    IT 4 Photography


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •