seb146
Topic Author
Posts: 14060
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Heat Vs. Energy

Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:29 am

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.
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5393
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Heat Vs. Energy

Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:55 am

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.
 
aznmadsci
Posts: 1643
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:02 pm

RE: Heat Vs. Energy

Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:06 am

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.
 
Okie
Posts: 3555
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

RE: Heat Vs. Energy

Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:20 am

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 avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19822
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Heat Vs. Energy

Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:52 am

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11860
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Heat Vs. Energy

Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:26 am

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.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
MingToo
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:07 am

RE: Heat Vs. Energy

Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:17 am

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.
 
NoWorries
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:55 am

RE: Heat Vs. Energy

Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:40 pm

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).
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Heat Vs. Energy

Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:46 pm

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
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7702
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Heat Vs. Energy

Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:31 pm

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aesma, Google [Bot], LMP737, vikkyvik and 12 guests