Hal.

Realitycheck , it looks like post #4 is a question to me , at the time it was made nobody else had replied , there are duplicate threads so I don't know if a post or two has gone missing . In post #3 , I only mean that good coders are what is needed . Take a walk in the town near you . See the streetlights at night , camera's on buildings , locked doors , thick windows , security guards , high walls , steel spikes + railings , keep out signs , patrols + dogs , police , all to stop people getting into offices , banks , etc to have a look around . I don't know if you are old enough to recall what businesses were like 25 years ago , they all had a little room with paper records in it looking like a little library . They put that on a computer disk now , if ever it would be accessed I'd hope the perpetrator will find , ufhg7yb"bc7yc?7to5278ygtflknq;wj3298757g8ggghbvljlhde2hh287568972pgyyt7lbljd , and not know what it means and have no chance of ever knowing what it means .

CaptainPanic , any definition of melting independent of reversibility can't use observed irreversible aspects to show melting hasn't taken place , if it didn't . To do so would mean that the definition of melting independent of reversibility isn't independent of reversibility in practice . Other way's would have to be found .

If a guess would be appropriate , yes , no , yes , no , yes , no , yes , no , yes , no , yes , no ....................................................... Maybe melting could be irreversible because of the limitations of technology , irreversible because of undiscovered means , irreversible because it can't humanly or naturally be done is something that hasn't been shown yet , has it ?

I did not think it was practical to prove all instances of melting by proving the resultant melted material could be refrozen . But , people do rely on a previous instance of refreezing with the same material to ascert something has been melted . I however did think that any definition of melting which is how I think of melting is independent of any ascertion refreezing could or actually did take place . I think likewise of fusion . Plain and simply , if your definition of melting is dependent on reversibility it differs from my definition of melting which doesn't . If your definition of fusion depends on reversibility it differs from my definition of fusion which doesn't . I would not say , " it melted because it was refrozen to give the original material " , melting there being dependent on reversibility , I would say , " it melted because the material was the same material after the phase change " , melting there being independent of reversibility .

De heer Ophiolite , I am not allowed to call you a racist , my hypothesis was one of civility , there is a difference which you could learn sometime , so you really should be apologising to me for the ascertion I called you a racist , the penalty was based on a hypothetical , it was unilaterally imposed without any discussion , though I had noticed afterwards as an ordinary non-member user that you did want further replies , the rules had been applied either rightly or wrongly . I wouldn't ignore you Ophiolite , that wouldn't be nice . It doesn't matter to me if people report me , I can always communicate a defence to those who matter contrary of the assumption of guilt before innocence . Sincerely yours , goedemiddag ! , Hal.

People don't like the fact that last friday they had a bad friday so they think they are going to have a bad friday this friday . People don't like the fact they had a bad september 2001 and there is something about adding a decade , though did it happen with a 7 ?

John Cuthber , The definition of melting is the topic in the thread , the thread began with the discussion of the definition of melting in mind , that was it's desired theme , it can't therefore degenerate .

insane_alien , from what I read I would conclude that you would be of the opinion that reversibility is not a precondition for melting , but because reversibility is used conventionally as one means of confirming a phase change has originally taken place , without it another means of confirming the same material is in a different phase is required . The idea of melting , independent of any need to prove reversibility and it's opposite , namely fusion , independent of any need to prove reversibility , then becomes merely a problem of identification of the material before and after the phase change . I do not suggest that a phase change ( melting ) can take place without the opposite phase change ( freezing ) being possible afterwards . That would be a completely different argument to my argument that melting can take place independent of the need to prove reversibility .

I am not trying to define conventional melting , so the definition I am talking of is not the definition of which you think I am getting backwards . It is a new definition , a definition which is independent of reversibility , whether it is new or not is also open to debate . I had to make a new thread as discussions in the other did not , as far as I know , contain enough Chemists who are natural melters and freezers of substances . All agreeable to me ! I agree that this instance of a decomposition reaction is not a phase change , I never did say any decomposition reaction was a phase change . What I talk of is quite simple . An example may clear the minds of any confusion to make it clear what it is I talk of . If a person has solid ice which undergoes a phase change to liquid water I contend that the ice has been melted without any need to show that this is reversible , thus making the definition of melting independent of reversibility . I also contend that liquid water which undergoes a phase change to solid ice has been frozen without any need to show that this is reversible , thus making the definition of freezing independent of reversibility .

Change of state of matter is always a reversible process. Every time I go to the shops I always come back , so it looks like a reversible process . There is no need to show that it is possible to return or that I actually have returned from the shop , in order to show that I went to the shop . No, it could be a decomposition reaction or something. Maybe the wording could be changed to the following John as it is not the intention to deduce a conclusion of every instance . If a material undergoes a phase change from solid to liquid ( for example from ice to water ) , is it possible this show's melting has taken place , without having to show that the reverse phase change ( from liquid to ice ) is attainable ? as long as you prove the liquid material is actually the same substance it was before it was melted then you don't have to show that itis reversible because if it works one way then it will work the other. if it isn't the same substance when it is in the liquid state then it isn't melting. phase changes are always reversible InsaneAlien , do you then think that it is possible to define melting independent of reversibility ? The logical question also follows of , do you also think it is possible to define fusion independent of reversibility ?

If a material undergoes a phase change from solid to liquid ( for example from ice to water ) , does this show melting has taken place , without having to show that the reverse phase change ( from liquid to ice ) is attainable ?

nbfvjfj u[9u4g89gyCJ#BLURFFHRLIVNC,KVSNVLHG4R[FUYEIOU.tw..EsOISMXLKMLKMVKJFRH]IURUOIaYRUHVKJVBLHJ=;I=EIBVKJvxklmvvf0;'.v'.'.v][plrfjoijevi1ugriyvnm;lc;v,.vc'/.v;lejliwkj1xhkjsbksxwkureiorofyp5irpo90,340984789832409jvrflnv ,./knkjfvhgbvbfvphphg8p95t2ut009g8uhy827p588gi]g-ogbvkbmkhuhilvthutn;oi4j2ig8y5go8p8y509 Something like that !

Essay , the best piece of advice to you is that if you are in education you should do as you are told to do by your professors / lecturers . ................................................................................................................................................................................................ The following is my opinion , Your reference above gives the following , ΔfusH, enthalpy of fusion (melting) When I look at those words this is what I see . The enthalpy for fusion ( liquid to solid ) taking place is the same as the enthalpy for melting ( solid to liquid ) to take place . I do not see that as meaning that fusion is melting . They are opposites . The heat involved is the same though , use proper signs when calculating . I'm willing to accept that people use the term fusion to mean melting . Are they right or wrong ? , Does it matter ? , Will the two terms have to be clarified to mean the same thing because people either rightly or wrongly interchange them ? ............. Later , Essay , just because there is flow doesn't mean fusion can't be part of the flow . Think of a river that drains slowly and as it gets colder some parts freeze , fusion of water to make ice is happening , flow is still taking place but the parts where fusion has happened are flowing as larger pieces , finally the surface is all frozen and no flow is seen there , it is one piece . ............. Later , Latent heat of Fusion from Wolfram . http://scienceworld....atofFusion.html The heat absorbed as a substance changes phase from liquid to solid , a process called fusion or solidification . Fusion from Wolfram . http://scienceworld....ics/Fusion.html In physical chemistry, the word "fusion" is a synonym for solidification . Melting from Wolfram . http://scienceworld....cs/Melting.html The phase transition of a solid to a liquid . The opposite is freezing .

Would one physical manifestation of the USA loving science be the Atlas 5 Rocket shortly about to take off sending Juno the satellite to Jupiter . I'll give $20 for one of those !

Is there any chance that the USA can get a job to earn a few $ ? What is it good at , besides robbing it's own people ?

Yes , so printing money doesn't add value , though numerically it looks like it does , it actually dilutes it . Print for everybody a million dollars for christmas and your exchange rates will plummet while extreme inflation will make you wonder why you did it in the first place .

If a government prints money to pay it's debts surely this will weaken it's currency exchange rates even if it makes it look like they have more money .

CaptainPanic , if your coining of the phrase ' Hal.s melt ' is to be used , don't confuse the reader into thinking that materials which haven't been ' Hal.s melted ' or which haven't been shown to be possible to ' Hal.'s melt ' have actually been ' Hal.'s melted ' , ie wood . You can try to Hal.'s melt whatever you like , take an ice cube and place it on your table , maybe you could confirm what a strong body of evidence is likely to suggest , that it can Hal.'s melt . It's very similiar to ordinary conventional melting , there is just no assumption that if one were to take the liquid of the ' Hal.'s melted ' ice cube and put this liquid in the fridge to cool , one would finish with an ice cube . Lastly , CaptainPanic , can you get IUPAC onside ?

Simplicity , link This design is attributed to Andreas Strauss who can only be encouraging debate of his work by letting a picture of his design loose on the internet .

Here is a short post . There was a documentary on the television two weeks ago here in Western Europe which was 2 hours long and it claimed that the USA can't extract Wall Streets interests from the Houses of Government . They claim that Wall Street is running your country and taking your money . That's sad , if true , but not rare in these times when a lot of governments around the world have to put billions of $ and € into banks who made large bad debt portfolios while taking commissions for themselves . The people have to run the country for the people , not the bankers for the bankers .

Alas , that is the way I must be . The past is a lot of time . I doubt you can search it so quickly and thoroughly . I'd have no problem using it in parallel with convention or independently . The only thing I am doing contrary to accepted practice is that the process of phase change from , for example , in the case of water , solid ice to liquid , is regarded as melting without the need to prove that the reverse phase change can take place . Applied to wood , all it would mean is that a person who wants to melt wood does not have to prove that they can do the reverse phase change . Why should proof of two phase changes be required to show one phase change has taken place ? One last thing , Ophiolite likes to send sarcastic personal messages . If you have a problem don't send me any messages , send them to an administrator . I don't have to reply to your personal messages in private when they can so easily be answered in public . My penalties for any previous posts I have made regarding you have been dealt with a multiple of what should have been . I am making it now known that any personal message sent to me from now on will be made public in the thread to which it applies . Essay , Here is how I see Fusion , the type of Fusion occuring when steel goes from being liquid to being solid . When a weld electrode is melted it flows towards the piece of steel upon which it is to be bonded . It is in liquid form and is termed melted . Shortly after being deposited it cools while still being liquid but then changes to being solid . That short time period of transition from liquid to solid happens because of what is called Fusion . Melting is used to bring these objects together but the actual last step in changing from liquid to solid is Fusion . Fusion stops the flow .

Would the definition I speak of radically change any current instance of accepted melting ? , no , it would include it . It is a slight extension , a step , probably nothing new that may/may not have been used in the past , which would encourage those who think they can melt something not to worry about fusion .

Essay , I've seen that people on the internet are using fusion to mean melting and here is why I think this is so . When it is talked of that an object melts a value for heat that is applied to the situation is the heat of fusion ( the reverse , be careful with the signs ) . From always looking for values that refer to melting they are always looking for the term fusion . This has led to people thinking fusion is a word for melting . In a similiar way the heat of evaporation is being applied to condensation . Let's hope people don't try to call evaporation and condensation the same thing . Fusion when I use the term means to me solidification , freezing , crystallization . CaptainPanic , we differ in opinion because you're melting has been defined as reversible . I , and it is only I I speak of , see no problem in using a definition of melting that is reversible or irreversible , thus it can then be independent of any proof that the object can be refrozen . So , if a person is trying to prove that a piece of wood can be melted , with my definition , they don't have to prove that the piece of wood can be fused in a reverse process .

Essay , you are saying all things are there for all people and they aren't . If you define melting and freezing to include either the possibility or actual accomplishment of reversibility , then judging my usage of these terms using your definitions say I'm wrong . Don't say that technically I am correct and you are also correct when your meanings are not the same as mine . I don't believe reversibility is a requirement either for melting or for fusion . insane_alien , Let's not confuse the fact that my argument is of the requirements to show something has been melted and not whether it is possible to melt wood .

With reference to the original question of whether a piece of wood can be melted or not , it does not have to be shown that the process is reversible so that fusion then becomes a precondition for melting . If a piece of ice is heated to 10 degrees celsius under normal atmospheric pressure it will be liquid water and termed melted . It does not have to be shown that it is possible for it to be frozen to show it has been melted , it does not have to be frozen to show it has been melted .