Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Heat Vs. Energy  
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11653 posts, RR: 15
Posted (4 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 1772 times:

I was watching NatGeo last week or so. The show about the total solar eclipse on Easter Island. I didn't realize it was pretty much live-ish. They were talking about hydrogen reactions on the sun causing the heat. I started thinking about it. Using water as a model, H20 is a solid at 0C and a gas at 100C. What about when an element is exerting or has no force being exerted upon it is in a solid state. In the case of water, that would be ice. When water goes from having no force exterted upon it to having more and more, water becomes more able to move. When water reaches 100C, the energy becomes too much and the element needs to escape the source. A micro-reaction to the energy exerted upon it. Also, the energy that we know as heat is also energy being exerted on other molecules as the original molicules escape the source. I know I am not good at explaining well, so maybe someone could help explain and let me know if this way of thinking has been explored.


Life in the wall is a drag.
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4619 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 1741 times:

Quoting seb146 (Thread starter):
They were talking about hydrogen reactions on the sun causing the heat. I

This is Fusion. The hydrogen combines under extreme pressure to form Helium and other heavy elements, but mostly Helium. It needs a lot of gravity to happen. It also releases a tremendous amount of energy. (You may have heard of the Hydrogen Bomb). This is the Holy Grail of energy research as Fusion would pretty much be the ultimate in renewable energy. Unfortunately obtaining a self sustaining Fusion Reaction AND keeping it in containment is rather difficult. Hopefully by 2050 or 2075 it will be possible.


The rest of your example requires energy to obtain these transitions. They are not producing energy, but rather reacting to it.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineAznMadSci From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 3667 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 1739 times:

Quoting seb146 (Thread starter):
When water reaches 100C, the energy becomes too much and the element needs to escape the source

Water is a molecule, while the hydrogen and oxygen are the elemental parts. As a solid, the water molecules in ice have less vibration or motion as opposed to water in it's liquid state or gas state. If you have a closed container when the water reaches 100C, the molecules are not "escaping" they're just moving much faster than when water is a liquid or solid. As you apply heat, you increase the movement of the molecules, reducing intermolecular forces.

Use this scenario. Think of a pool table and the balls nicely racked, each ball representing a water molecule. Think of the cue ball as heat. If you apply less heat, the cue ball will travel slow and will dislodge the balls on the edge. If you increase heat, striking the cue ball real fast can cause the balls to disperse in different directions.



The journey of life is not based on the accomplishments, but the experience.
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3038 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 7 hours ago) and read 1719 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 1):
Unfortunately obtaining a self sustaining Fusion Reaction AND keeping it in containment is rather difficult. Hopefully by 2050 or 2075 it will be possible



Fusion has been pretty much promoted as the "Holy Grail" since the mid 1970's and with research and development was promoted as sustainable and producing more energy than consumed within 10 years and operational within 20 years.
I think they finally reached the breakeven point on output just missing on the sustainable and containment point. Things are not coming along nearly as fast as predicted. On the other hand in the 50's, Fission was promoted as being so economical to produce electricity that there would not even be a need for electric meters.

If the world growth of electric usage continues at near exponential rates and the only likely source at this time for production is Fission, by 2075 wars could be fought over uranium deposits.

Okie


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19699 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 1696 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 1):
Unfortunately obtaining a self sustaining Fusion Reaction AND keeping it in containment is rather difficult. Hopefully by 2050 or 2075 it will be possible.

It's possible now. The next reactor to be built will be capable of infinite ratios. It just won't be for 15-20 years.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10024 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 1689 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seb146 (Thread starter):
A micro-reaction to the energy exerted upon it.

"Reaction" might be the wrong word, at least in chemistry/physics terminology. It's a phase change, from solid to liquid. It's not a chemical reaction, as the actual molecule isn't changing.

Quoting seb146 (Thread starter):
Also, the energy that we know as heat is also energy being exerted on other molecules as the original molicules escape the source.

Indeed, heat is a form of energy. In our lives, it's most commonly manifested as temperature, which is technically a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules of a substance (that is to say, how much they're vibrating). It's the random kinetic energy, as in, not a measure of a whole group of molecules moving together, but instead how much they're vibrating within their motion (or when stationary).

Quoting seb146 (Thread starter):
When water reaches 100C, the energy becomes too much and the element needs to escape the source.

It's worth noting that water won't all evaporate the second it reaches 100C. There's also more energy required to enable it to boil - that's called the latent heat of vaporization. It goes into breaking the bond between molecules that keeps the water a liquid. And while the latent heat energy is being provided, the energy all goes into breaking those bonds - you can't actually raise the temperature of the water any higher until it is vaporized.

It's always interesting to me how energy is transformed. Example being your car brakes. They absorb the kinetic energy from the car's motion, and convert it to heat - hence brakes getting really hot when you slam on them.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineMingToo From Zimbabwe, joined Jun 2009, 464 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 1673 times:

Quoting AznMadSci (Reply 2):
As you apply heat, you increase the movement of the molecules, reducing intermolecular forces.

I'd phrase it that the increase in the movement of the molecules makes the intermolecular forces less significant. They aren't reduced.

Quoting okie (Reply 3):
If the world growth of electric usage continues at near exponential rates and the only likely source at this time for production is Fission, by 2075 wars could be fought over uranium deposits.

The available energy from global Uranium reserves is around 6 times the energy from all remaining fossil fuels.

Plus Uranium isn't the only option, although its the main one. It is also possible to produce a nuclear fuel cycle with Thorium. India has large reserves of Thorium. It would make sense to assist them in developing the technology.


User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1623 times:

At its most basic level, there is only one kind of energy, kinetic energy, and it is due to motion. Heat and work are both forms of energy -- in heat the motion is random; in work, the motion is directed -- but they are both forms of energy (motion). When energy is in a bound state, it takes the form of matter.

A very important principle is the conservation of energy (including mass) -- basically the total amount of energy in a system doesn't change. When heat/work is liberated in a reaction (whether chemical or nuclear) it means that the components of the system gave up a certain amount of energy. This could mean that the kinetic energy was reduced (temperature drop) and/or a small amount of matter was converted into energy. Similarly, when heat/work is absorbed, it means that the components become more active (higher temperature) or some additional mass was created (the energy entered a bound state).


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1588 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 3):
Fusion has been pretty much promoted as the "Holy Grail" since the mid 1970's and with research and development was promoted as sustainable and producing more energy than consumed within 10 years and operational within 20 years.
I think they finally reached the breakeven point on output just missing on the sustainable and containment point. Things are not coming along nearly as fast as predicted. On the other hand in the 50's, Fission was promoted as being so economical to produce electricity that there would not even be a need for electric meters.

The current international fusion research reactor ITER, which is being built in southern France is expected to be the last step before full commercial use of fusion energy. Reactions have been selfsustaining for a while in smaller machines, but ITER will bring the economics ofd scale into play (more volume for less surface area, through which heat can dissipate).
It is expected to deliver much more energy than it consumes to get bthe process started (e.g. cooling of supra conductive coils for magnetic field generation for containment of the reacting plasma), but due to it´s experimental nature it will not be connected to the European power grid. It is intened to be used for tweaking the process for commercial use, therefore it will often be shut down and switched on again after modifications have been made to improve economics and thus can´t be a reliable power source in the European system.

Jan


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6651 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1571 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
It's possible now. The next reactor to be built will be capable of infinite ratios. It just won't be for 15-20 years.

Possible now ? I know only of ITER as a serious fusion reactor, and it isn't built yet (and they're already having problems).



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Dry Heat VS. High Humidity posted Sun Jul 25 2004 12:17:28 by Delta767300ER
Iphone Vs. HTC Desire posted Thu May 13 2010 10:47:13 by signol
Apple Vs. Adobe, Round Xxix posted Fri Apr 30 2010 20:17:39 by Revelation
May Day Protests Vs. Tea Party Protests posted Wed Apr 28 2010 16:28:10 by JCS17
Glossy Screen Vs Anti-Glare Screen posted Wed Apr 28 2010 03:44:15 by Elite
F1 Round 5 Vs Vulcano Eruption posted Mon Apr 19 2010 00:08:05 by sudden
CNN Vs Al Jazeera posted Mon Apr 5 2010 14:42:49 by racko
Grilling VS Pan Frying A Steak posted Sat Apr 3 2010 20:14:52 by United Airline
Rhapsody Of The Seas VS Norwegian Star posted Mon Mar 29 2010 04:11:40 by United Airline
Swiss Vs Islam: Here We Go Again... posted Sun Mar 14 2010 18:18:52 by Dreadnought