Jump to content
Gness

Melting Wood?

Recommended Posts

insane_alien ,

 

if it were shown to be possible that the separated individual constituents or groups of constituents mentioned in post #99 could subsequently be used to remake the original material , would you then agree with the suggestion in post #99 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no i wouldn't.

 

the reason being, while those compounds may melt perfectly fine individually, they may not melt fine when together. not only that, but the range of different melting and boiling points is likely to mean that upon recombination you will again end up with a multiphase system.

 

you haven't got a simple melting process there, you have separation, melting, recombination.

 

and again, there are many components of wood that it is impossible to melt as they would not survive the temperatures involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

insane_alien ,

 

if the material in question had it's constituents melted either in individual parts or groups of parts and then the material was recombined to give a material the same as what was started with , would you then deem the material as having been melted before recombination ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again, no.

 

when you seperate the material into its component parts it is no longer that material.

 

for instance, if we take ice, cool it to near absolute zero and split it into solid hydrogen and solid oxygen then melt the hydrogen and oxygen then recombine in a way the product will be solid phase water, you still haven't melted the water, you've melted hydrogen and oxygen, but not water.

 

same applies to composite materials such as wood or cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CaptainPanic ,

 

Do you think you speak for everybody in the thread and the scientific community . Free yourself , Vrijheid zoals een kraai door de lucht .

 

An ice cube on a table takes heat from it's surroundings and a puddle is formed . Do you agree it has been Hal.'s melted ?

 

ok just to be clear

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

and NO yes the ice has been melted

but our definition already calls that melting. and for the purpose of this conversation anything that fits our definition does not fit yours. to be clear all of your examples have been melting or been absolute nonsense like melting something that is clearly not melting.

you are saying that ice melts when heated to it's melting point weather you freeze it or not. (which is true) but if you cooled it again then it would freeze again (so this is melting and not hals melting) if I said that not all dogs have spots and i can give u an example of this by showing you a dalmatian you would not be the only one scratching your head and saying "WTF" or...maybe YOU would be the only one not.

Edited by dragonstar57

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to make a suggestion .

 

I'll suggest that if a person has a material which is composed of different parts , a piece of mahogany for instance , if they show that they can separate and melt each constituent individually or in groups , then the overall total material shall be deemed to have melted . Does anyone disagree with this ?

I disagree.

 

The individual components may melt, and then we say "the material was separated into individual components, which subsequently melted".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dragonstar57 ,

 

The information required to understand Hal.'s melting is there , if you would like to choose what it does or does not mean based on what you think it does or does not mean , you are welcome to do so . Walk around with the wrong idea and you will be none the wiser . Because I am the person who has the point of view which Hal.'s melting refers to , I am the person who can tell you whether something does or does not conform to Hal.'s melting , unless you totally understand the point of view , in which case you wouldn't need clarity , which I think you don't .

 

If you think that examples I have given are examples of melting and are also , because you understand the point of view , examples of Hal.'s melting , then there is no issue of disagreement as far as these examples are concerned .

 

If there are examples I have given which you clearly think are not examples of conventional melting and I have said they are examples of conventional melting , I can explain .

 

If you understand Hal.'s melting and you think an example I have given does not conform to Hal.'s melting , explain the issue and which post it is in , I shall try to change your view .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could the concept of Hal's melting make anything in science more clear or more convenient? To be useful it must because it doesn't contribute to theory in any meaningful way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mississippichem ,

 

Hal.'s melting is simple , think of conventional melting and all that has to be done to prove it . Think of taking away any part of it's proof which is dependent on the reverse phase change . So , if for instance you extracted heat and the reverse phase change happened and you used the fact that you had the original material again to show you melted the material after only one of the two phase changes , your proof would be dependent on reversibility of the phase change .

 

Hal.'s melting is simply what you get when this proof is taken away .

 

Is it of use ? Is it convenient ? Use it at your convenience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mississippichem ,

 

Hal.'s melting is simple , think of conventional melting and all that has to be done to prove it . Think of taking away any part of it's proof which is dependent on the reverse phase change . So , if for instance you extracted heat and the reverse phase change happened and you used the fact that you had the original material again to show you melted the material after only one of the two phase changes , your proof would be dependent on reversibility of the phase change .

 

Hal.'s melting is simply what you get when this proof is taken away .

 

Is it of use ? Is it convenient ? Use it at your convenience .

Ok, then what's the difference between Hal.'s melting and liquifying something? Both are words that just describe the fact that something became liquid, without bothing much about how that happened, and whether it is reversible.

 

What does Hal's Melting have to add that we don't already have in that word?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CaptainPanic ,

 

Should it be so simple as to equate liquification with Hal.'s melting in simple equality , life would be so much the easier . An example of why liquification would be inappropriate now follows . Confusion could exist if the term liquification were to be used to describe Hal.'s melting . If water was condensed from the gaseous to the liquid phase , the condensing would not be Hal.'s melting , though liquification would have taken place .

 

I am happy that Hal.'s melting describes my view of melting .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CaptainPanic ,

 

Should it be so simple as to equate liquification with Hal.'s melting in simple equality , life would be so much the easier . An example of why liquification would be inappropriate now follows . Confusion could exist if the term liquification were to be used to describe Hal.'s melting .

 

Liquification is exactly what you're describing. Sure, life might be easier if we didn't have to prove that a substance can reversibly turn into a liquid to show that it melts. What it comes down to is scientific rigor and the need to properly justify yourself to be able to claim something as being true. Melting describes a reversible phase change from solid to liquid, so to properly prove that something is melted you should be able to see the reverse phase change as well. This being said, in organic chemistry, unless the compound decomposes at or around its melting temperature, there is generally no need to watch the sample re-solidify (although it's usually quite obvious).

 

What would be easy and convenient would be if we did away with superfluous terms such as "Hal's melting" and just call things what they are; in your case, liquification.

 

 

If water was condensed from the gaseous to the liquid phase , the condensing would not be Hal.'s melting , though liquification would have taken place .

 

I am happy that Hal.'s melting describes my view of melting .

 

No, that would be condensation, not liquification. The latter very strictly defines the process of a solid changing into a liquid whereas the former is the process of a gas changing into a liquid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hypervalent_iodine ,

 

I am describing melting .

 

Also , when a gas liquifies it has become a liquid and is termed liquified . Liquifying is when a material changes to become a liquid . Liquified petroleum gas is when a petroleum gas is liquified from the gaseous state and held under enough pressure to maintain the state of being a liquid . Condensing is liquification .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The terms you are attempting to describe already have set definitions, which are very specific in respect to what they encompass. You cannot change these preset definitions or argue them based on personal opinion of what it "should be" or what would be more "convenient". That's all there is to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hypervalent_iodine ,

 

If you take a gas and change it's phase to a liquid it has been condensed and also a term applied to what has happened is liquified . I don't choose this , this is what it is , the gas has liquified .

 

Your problem hypervalent_iodine is that you didn't know that condensation is a liquification example .

Edited by Hal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, the definition if liquefy and liquefaction depends on where you look, so I am willing to concede this point. In any case, my point from above still stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confusion could exist if the term liquification were to be used to describe Hal.'s melting . If water was condensed from the gaseous to the liquid phase , the condensing would not be Hal.'s melting , though liquification would have taken place .

 

I am happy that Hal.'s melting describes my view of melting .

 

So, Hal's Melting is a convenient term only if you often mistake solids for gases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hypervalent_iodine ,

 

Because it would be proper for you now to have to take into account anything you have posted above that is based on a fallacy , I will give you the opportunity to repost any objections you have , whether they be based on non fallacious science or purely political objections .

 

 

 

 

 

So, Hal's Melting is a convenient term only if you often mistake solids for gases?

 

 

Groetjes ,

 

Het spijt me jongen , ik zeker weet het niet wat er hier bedoeld is . Hal.'s melting is a convenient term to apply if you understand what it means and you would like to apply it correctly .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hal,

 

Congratulations, you've hosted the silliest thread to ever appear on sfn. Now what is your agenda? You are playing semantics now with the whole liquification/condensation thing. Give one example of how Hal's melting is worth a damn.

We don't just make up terms for giggles like linguists. Scientific vocabulary is functional and precise. There must be a need for a new term and your term is exactly synonymous with liquification.

Seriously, you must be trolling right? Stop trying to make hypervalentiodine and captain panic look stupid. I assure you that their knowledge of chemistry is superior to yours.

Edited by mississippichem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hal,

 

Congratulations, you've hosted the silliest thread to ever appear on sfn. Now what is your agenda? You are playing semantics now with the whole liquification/condensation thing. Give one example of how Hal's melting is worth a damn.

We don't just make up terms for giggles like linguists. Scientific vocabulary is functional and precise. There must be a need for a new term and your term is exactly synonymous with liquification.

Seriously, you must be trolling right? Stop trying to make hypervalentiodine and captain panic look stupid. I assure you that their knowledge of chemistry is superior to yours.

I think Hal's whole argument is based on the freedom of opinion or something. We cannot do anything to change this mind, and that's the only point he seems to make.

 

As far as I can see, there is not a single sentence that would ever appear in any scientific text which would improve if we would use Hal's Melting. Existing definitions are simply sufficient. So, I believe we're only arguing Hal's freedom to use words the way he likes (although even on that I disagree with him). I've said before already that he does not have that freedom on a science forum... perhaps on a poetry forum you can use language more freely... but we (I speak for the entire scientific world) like to keep definitions strict.

 

Btw, I agree that this thread is the silliest ever, but please don't close it. It long ago stopped being interesting from a thermodynamics point of view, but I find it quite entertaining anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If three buses always arrived so punctually wouldn't we all be happy ?

 

hypervalent_iodine ,

 

You have learned a little to add to all you already know .

 

mississippichem ,

 

You dropped in for a quick comment or two that have no effect on my overall impression of the quality of the replies from other people .

 

CaptainPanic ,

 

You have a good contribution to make when uninfluenced by the boys at the back of the class .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If three buses always arrived so punctually wouldn't we all be happy ?

Hahaha! Brilliant comment.

 

hypervalent_iodine ,

 

You have learned a little to add to all you already know .

 

mississippichem ,

 

You dropped in for a quick comment or two that have no effect on my overall impression of the quality of the replies from other people .

 

CaptainPanic ,

 

You have a good contribution to make when uninfluenced by the boys at the back of the class .

LOL!

And what makes you think you're the teacher? I get the impression that you see the classroom in reverse: the boys in the back are the teachers, and you're actually the kid in the back. :)

We have explained you about the definitions used in science, and how that works. And you stubbornly keep using your private method. Not exactly a teacher's attitude.

Edited by CaptainPanic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.