The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is there a speed of heat?  (Read 17502 times)

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #25 on: 12/08/2012 12:36:01 »
The carbon arc lamp, is capable of temperatures up to 10,000 degrees. Carbon boils at around 6,500 degrees Fahrenheit. Boiling Carbon in a vacuum, with no oxygen may be what we are seeing.

Consider water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit, yet 800 degree Fahrenheit steam, is nothing to get excited about.

There is material still around about the temperature in an ARC, Union Carbide put the temperature of a Tungsten ARC in Argon at 35,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

The use of Carbon ARC cutting and welding was much more popular before, tungsten TIG welding was introduced. There are some wild temperatures obtained using carbon ARC.




                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick 
 

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #26 on: 12/08/2012 13:11:19 »
It is kind of funny, I go through a lot of trouble to bring people information that they at least should have, if not know. And I often do get accused of wanting to get people angry. It is just ridiculous. As scientists, or individuals who are striving to becoming scientists, there should only be interest in finding truth.

That document I presented is just an interesting document that is part of American history. Is it so agitating to you that you have to accuse me of some sort of game or charade to get attention? That is an attack on my character, and there is no sound reason for it.

If you check out this document, you will see during the war they decided that individuals on earth should not have the secret of the atom or the atom bomb. There was no conspiracy because they came out and said it. If you come out and tell people their government is going to make them as stupid as wood, there is no conspiracy. In the peoples defense they just thought the government was going to hide the bomb, not the atom. You know governments they are not always to smart, or truthful.

http://www.rockwelder.com/explosives/Hiroshimahalfton.PDF


Here is a short movie, it shows TIG welding. In the finale part of the film, the third demonstration, you are watching a tungsten electrode melt and boil. Using less then 100 amps of power. That is the power of an ARC.

In that third demonstration the particles of electricity are leaving the stainless steel work piece and hitting the electrode. That polarity is the same polarity that is used in ARC welding.


                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick 
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #27 on: 12/08/2012 14:07:37 »
Damocles,
did you have any trouble with the link I posted to the arc spectrum?
 

Offline CZARCAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #28 on: 12/08/2012 16:51:24 »
Kirchoff's law?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #29 on: 12/08/2012 17:27:35 »
Kirchoff's law?

What about it?
It's certainly no going to support William's assertion that the moon is made of green cheese or whatever it was that he said.
 

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #30 on: 12/08/2012 18:13:56 »
Kirchoff's law?

What about it?
It's certainly no going to support William's assertion that the moon is made of green cheese or whatever it was that he said.

You and I might just have a communication problem. I do not believe you would hate the things I know, and do everyday. I think coming at you with a different language may be causing a problem.

Today I checked out that link and it worked well. Last night I got a link broken on it.

I am not sure what point you are making though. Again most of that 100 KW of that lasers input, is going away as light not heat. With 100 kw of heat I can melt a hundred pound block of aluminum in seconds.

The infrared heaters are actually surrounded by quartz, or silicon dioxide, it is silicon.

                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #31 on: 12/08/2012 18:56:12 »
Is there any way of getting you to read what you type and see if it makes sense?
For example, the page I cited
http://www.pre.ethz.ch/facilities/vortec/
is about an arc lamp and not a laser (and "arc" still doesn't need capital letters).

If you look at the diagram you will see that there is a lot of effort dedicated to cooling it- because it really does generate more heat than light.

As for "The infrared heaters are actually surrounded by quartz, or silicon dioxide, it is silicon. "
You plainly have no idea what you are talking about. Since it is silicon dioxide it isn't silicon.
It's like saying the Hindenburg flew because it was full of water.
« Last Edit: 12/08/2012 20:37:09 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #32 on: 12/08/2012 20:10:48 »
ARC in America used to stand for (Anode, Rectified, Cathode). The people that went to the moon, used these terms to describe the usually white, blue or purple, excited self inducting gas cloud created by electricity, that gives off light. 

It turns out that Benjamin Franklin was totally correct on his views of electricity. Modern science labels batteries and cathode ray tubes backwards. Benjamin Franklin replaced Du Fays theory, of two types of electricity, and rightly so. Since that time colleges have flip flopped on the subject, incorporating a little of everyone's wrong theories into the finale catastrophe.

Benjamin Franklin did create the first transistor and he turned lightning on and off with it. Benjamin Franklin did fly a kite in a lightning storm. Using a piece of silk to isolate himself from the kite string. All the myths about that being impossible are coming from people that should know better.

A carbon laser is created with an ARC. An argon laser is created with an ARC. That is just how it is.

                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #33 on: 12/08/2012 20:35:38 »
Nope it didn't.
Since, in the history of the world only a couple of dozen people have been to the moon their point of view wouldn't really count for much.
Also the word was in wide use before then
This patent from 1898 (rather a long time before NASA)
http://www.google.com/patents?id=gjVMAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false
 is for an alternating current arc lamp so there's plainly no rectification involved. The invention of the word is credited to Sir Humphrey Davy. He didn't know anything about rectification.
A quick look on Google suggests that only welders use that construct.

"It turns out that Benjamin Franklin was totally correct on his views of electricity"
Nope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_theory_of_electricity

"Benjamin Franklin did create the first transistor and he turned lightning on and off with it. "
Nope (and just plain silly no such transistor exits, even today.).

"A carbon laser is created with an ARC."
as far as I know the only carbon lasers are xray lasers and are created with a small atom bomb. Details are sketchy.

"An argon laser is created with an ARC."
Nope,
"The typical noble gas ion laser plasma consists of a high-current-density glow discharge in a noble gas, "
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon_laser#Argon_laser

(and as far as I can tell, CO2 lasers do the same.)
 

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #34 on: 13/08/2012 03:17:18 »
My father worked at Grumman Aero Space. The people that built the Lunar module, the only vessel that performed flawlessly each time in actual space, not just high orbit.

It did so because they understood the ARC, friction, vacuum, compression, magnetism, ambient radiation, electricity, induction, you name they had it.

Have you ever looked at AC current, it is just DC current, changing direction, a set number of times a second. Nothing more to it, nothing fancy about it. Each half cycle of the AC current, creates an ARC when you create a short through air. Each cycle creates two ARC's, first on one electrode then the other. That is the only difference between pure DC and AC. Alternating current just means alternating DC current.

There is one more thing I have to throw at you, this is Benjamin Franklin's claim to fame. He found that by using points and flats, that he could easily dissect electricity, and decipher which way it was going. And how and why ARC's are formed. I am talking about the physical shape of the electrodes. One is pointed one is flat.

Did you see that movie I posted earlier. I made that to show people how electricity works. In the first part of that movie, the torch is charged (-) like on a modern American car battery. Pure DC current. You might note that except to initiate the ARC with a high frequency system that cuts out after an ARC is formed, the beam is totally silent. There is no ARC, or arc sound, that is a silent Anode beam. Because the flat work piece does not boil off and create an ARC. 

In the second part of the movie I feed the torch with AC current. You can hear the 120 cycles created from the 60 hertz power, messing with the audio.

As I explained there is an ARC formed, and you can see that the tip of the torch starts to melt, or balls up because it is being hit with electricity from the work piece or flat shaped electrode. AC creates very high surface heat, and does boil the surface of the flat metal work piece. Giving you 120 hertz.

In the last part of the movie the torch is charged (+) as marked on a modern American car battery. Pure DC current. You can see that there is also an ARC noise. You can see that the tungsten melts and even starts to boil, it recedes into the torch. Because the tungsten does not boil as much as a steel consumable electrode, the tungsten actually melts faster then a consumable steel electrode. Because the Tungsten is hardly boiling, it is not self cooling. The consumable steel ARC rod, boils and cools the rod. So you get a super hot ARC ray created at the tip of the consumable rod.

If you watch that a few times you will see that I am telling the truth.


Sorry I did not get back to you sooner I was welding up a set of railings for a friend. I made some shop drawings about three weeks ago, and bent it up two weekends ago, and yesterday and today between doing laundry, I welded them up. Now it is back to work tomorrow, Ahhhhhh. 





                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick



 

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #35 on: 13/08/2012 04:33:28 »
Damocles,
did you have any trouble with the link I posted to the arc spectrum?

No.

Why do you ask?
 

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #36 on: 13/08/2012 04:55:57 »
If you check out this document, you will see during the war they decided that individuals on earth should not have the secret of the atom or the atom bomb. There was no conspiracy because they came out and said it. If you come out and tell people their government is going to make them as stupid as wood, there is no conspiracy. In the peoples defense they just thought the government was going to hide the bomb, not the atom. You know governments they are not always to smart, or truthful.

There was never a "secret of the atom". The discovery of nuclear fission was down to Hahn & Strassmann in Germany and Meitner and Frisch in Sweden in the year before the 2nd world war started. It was openly published in the science literature.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#History

Any chemist or nuclear physicist could easily tell from the information on the public record that nuclear fission was a branched chain reaction, and therefore potentially explosive. The only secret that the US government wanted to or would have been able to keep was a series of secrets about how to go about engineering the basic science to produce a bomb. There are about 7 or 8 features of the nuclear fission reaction that make this engineering quite tricky and problematic.

So there was certainly a secret of the bomb, indeed several of them. But secret of the atom? Not at all clear what you are getting at here, nor what its relevance to this particular topic is. But the way it has been told certainly sounds conspiratorial -- especially the bit about the Russians going haha!
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #37 on: 13/08/2012 21:51:11 »
My father worked at Grumman Aero Space. T

Sorry I did not get back to you sooner I was welding up a set of railings for a friend. I made some shop drawings about three weeks ago, and bent it up two weekends ago, and yesterday and today between doing laundry, I welded them up. Now it is back to work tomorrow, Ahhhhhh. 

                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick





My mum taught on of the Spice girls and, like you dad's job, that also has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

Unless your dad was using the word arc before My Davy, he's misusing it.

Nice railing.
It must be a right pain in the neck doing all that cutting to 6 digit accuracy. Do you have your own interferometer to check the pieces?
Also, how good is your air conditioning?
I find that temperature changes of just 1 degree alter the lengths of bits of steel by 15 parts in a million or so and Aluminium is even worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision

Damocles, I just wondered, given that William had struggled with it. He seems not to have understood much of it.

 

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #38 on: 13/08/2012 23:27:47 »
If you check out this document, you will see during the war they decided that individuals on earth should not have the secret of the atom or the atom bomb. There was no conspiracy because they came out and said it. If you come out and tell people their government is going to make them as stupid as wood, there is no conspiracy. In the peoples defense they just thought the government was going to hide the bomb, not the atom. You know governments they are not always to smart, or truthful.

There was never a "secret of the atom". The discovery of nuclear fission was down to Hahn & Strassmann in Germany and Meitner and Frisch in Sweden in the year before the 2nd world war started. It was openly published in the science literature.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#History

Any chemist or nuclear physicist could easily tell from the information on the public record that nuclear fission was a branched chain reaction, and therefore potentially explosive. The only secret that the US government wanted to or would have been able to keep was a series of secrets about how to go about engineering the basic science to produce a bomb. There are about 7 or 8 features of the nuclear fission reaction that make this engineering quite tricky and problematic.

So there was certainly a secret of the bomb, indeed several of them. But secret of the atom? Not at all clear what you are getting at here, nor what its relevance to this particular topic is. But the way it has been told certainly sounds conspiratorial -- especially the bit about the Russians going haha!

That is what you read, and learned.

However if you look at what Benjamin Franklin had discovered about matter and the particle of electricity. And the advancements some, not all, Americans made in science. You would know that the actual Hiroshima bomb, did in fact weigh just under a half ton. The duplicate of the bomb, dropped on Hiroshima, sat on display at West Point for many years. I believe they removed the display, shortly after I visited West Point.

When the Freedom of information Act was introduced in the seventies. They released the video of the women actually making those bombs. Women in hair nets. Complete with the substances and weights needed to build one. On public funded television.

My facetious question might be, "Was that the cover up of the bomb, and the atom, or was that the bomb and atom released?"

I am not saying believe me or trust me. I am saying give a possible truth a chance. Ask yourself this, why did we need the freedom of information act, to uncover zero secrets? Why were most of the secrets about pre-world war two weapons. This bomb I am mentioning was around before World War Two.

The half ton Hiroshima bomb, was in fact not made with highly radio active material. Only slightly radio active fuel oils. That is why they did hide the bomb, and the atom. When you release 7,600,000 BTU's in a fraction of a second, you get a blast, like the one at Hiroshima.

The bomb casing was some type of metal that although faintly developed a brown or reddish tint, on the welds, it did not rust. That could mean chrome-molly, or manganese steel, or even titanium. I did not test it.

The core of the bomb was a metal sphere filled with 25 pounds of ammonium nitrate with many precision detonators all around the sphere, all aiming at the center of the core. Each detonator had an equal length wire to each one, so that they would all fire exactly at the same time. The core was suspended by chain in the center of the bomb. A lot of women with hair nets were making them.  The core was suspended so it would stay in the center of the bomb casing and the oil payload in the bomb casing.

The oil was a high BTU oil, again I do not have the exact specifics of the oil, something like a #6 fuel oil or rosin oil, perhaps even a creosote oil.

When you try to blow oil apart, from the inside, you increase the pressure upon the oil so suddenly that, it almost solidifies. Very similar to doing a belly flop into water. For a split second that waters surface is almost as hard as cement. The water cannot be displaced fast enough.

The oil, for a split second, becomes an unmovable ojbect. It has to do with the physics of start change and stop. During that time, the core and the oil reach temperatures of the sun. Leveling just about anything within a quarter mile radius. Of course horrid effects move out much further. But the actual total devastation area is about a quarter mile radius. Which is to this day a very, very powerful bomb.

If you have ever detonated asphalt you know the power of asphalt. You just have to electrically or chemically shock asphalt to detonate it. Asphalt has much less BTU's then #6 fuel oil. #6 fuel oil is over two hundred times more powerful then asphalt.

Years ago here on the Island high performance race shops had a couple of cars detonate rather violently. What took place was a race engine trying to move oil at a velocity, the viscosity of the oil would not allow. They eventually filmed a race motor, with a plexi glass oil pan, and found that oil would at very high RPM's get pressed to the spinning crank shaft. Instead of naturally being thrown off, by the centrifugal forces. These shops developed oil scrapers, that not only kept this from happening but also gave them more horse power.

Science has been dictated by government, through grant monies and tax breaks for many generations now here in America. This is not conspiracy, rather fact.

I have heard many times now, that science is above petty politics. Well if that is true, scientists would not be taking grant monies from such people. The truth is money comes from the printing press, so if you want money that is where it will come from. The banks currently control the press, government has always been in control of the banks, and also the money.

Poverty is a tool, not a scientific reality that just happens. The government uses it for many purposes. Government does not repair poverty, because it makes people easier to control.

The government just does things by the book using our ignorance to steer us wherever it is convenient. The government does not like to get caught in a conspiracy, unless the false conspiracy, is better then the real one.

 

                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick

 

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #39 on: 14/08/2012 06:41:38 »
...(SNIP)...
That is what you read, and learned.

However if you look at what Benjamin Franklin had discovered about matter and the particle of electricity. And the advancements some, not all, Americans made in science. ***(COMMENT 1)***
You would know that the actual Hiroshima bomb, did in fact weigh just under a half ton. The duplicate of the bomb, dropped on Hiroshima, sat on display at West Point for many years. I believe they removed the display, shortly after I visited West Point. ***(COMMENT 2)***

When the Freedom of information Act was introduced in the seventies. They released the video of the women actually making those bombs. Women in hair nets. Complete with the substances and weights needed to build one. On public funded television.

My facetious question might be, "Was that the cover up of the bomb, and the atom, or was that the bomb and atom released?"

I am not saying believe me or trust me. I am saying give a possible truth a chance. Ask yourself this, why did we need the freedom of information act, to uncover zero secrets? Why were most of the secrets about pre-world war two weapons. This bomb I am mentioning was around before World War Two.
***(Comment 3)***

The half ton Hiroshima bomb, was in fact not made with highly radio active material. Only slightly radio active fuel oils. That is why they did hide the bomb, and the atom. When you release 7,600,000 BTU's in a fraction of a second, you get a blast, like the one at Hiroshima. ***(COMMENT 4)***

The bomb casing was some type of metal that although faintly developed a brown or reddish tint, on the welds, it did not rust. That could mean chrome-molly, or manganese steel, or even titanium. I did not test it.
***(Comment 5)***

The core of the bomb was a metal sphere filled with 25 pounds of ammonium nitrate with many precision detonators all around the sphere, all aiming at the center of the core. Each detonator had an equal length wire to each one, so that they would all fire exactly at the same time. The core was suspended by chain in the center of the bomb. A lot of women with hair nets were making them.  The core was suspended so it would stay in the center of the bomb casing and the oil payload in the bomb casing.
***(COMMENT 6)***

The oil was a high BTU oil, again I do not have the exact specifics of the oil, something like a #6 fuel oil or rosin oil, perhaps even a creosote oil.

When you try to blow oil apart, from the inside, you increase the pressure upon the oil so suddenly that, it almost solidifies. Very similar to doing a belly flop into water. For a split second that waters surface is almost as hard as cement. The water cannot be displaced fast enough.

The oil, for a split second, becomes an unmovable ojbect. It has to do with the physics of start change and stop. During that time, the core and the oil reach temperatures of the sun. Leveling just about anything within a quarter mile radius. Of course horrid effects move out much further. But the actual total devastation area is about a quarter mile radius. Which is to this day a very, very powerful bomb.

If you have ever detonated asphalt you know the power of asphalt. You just have to electrically or chemically shock asphalt to detonate it. Asphalt has much less BTU's then #6 fuel oil. #6 fuel oil is over two hundred times more powerful then asphalt.
***(COMMENT 7)***

... (snip) ...

Science has been dictated by government, through grant monies and tax breaks for many generations now here in America. This is not conspiracy, rather fact.

I have heard many times now, that science is above petty politics. Well if that is true, scientists would not be taking grant monies from such people. The truth is ...(SNIP)...

***(Comment 8)***


(1) Ben Franklin was in many ways and in many areas a great man. His contribution to the science of electricity was important at the time it was made, but has since been shown to be flawed in many ways, and has been superseded by new experimental results and deeper insights. Ben Franklin's work on electricity has been relegated to the historical archive, where it rightly belongs.

(2) There was surely no "duplicate" of the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima? A replica maybe? Is the fact that the display was removed shortly after your visit significant? Did you ask too many inconvenient questions?

(3) It is quite unclear at this point whether you are talking about the Hiroshima bomb, or a production line of pre world war 2 bombs, or whether you believe, incredibly, that both were the same.

(4) I know that the Hiroshima bomb did contain a payload of highly radioactive material -- specifically U-235 at a very high level of enrichment.
---(a) An ex-colleague and friend of mine was a leading British mass spectrometrist who was fairly directly involved with the calutrons that were used for isotope separation, and has talked about it on more than one occasion.
---(b) The United States Government has been in no position to manipulate the information about the radioactive heritage of the Hiroshima neighbourhood -- neither to exaggerate it nor to diminish it.
---(c) No conventional bomb of a half ton could match the yield (i.e. energy output) of the Hiroshima bomb. The blast (i.e. energy output per unit time = peak power) could possibly have been matched by a conventional bomb through the sorts of effects you describe, though even that is doubtful. Total damage is best represented by the yield rather than the blast.

(5) One of the real secrets of the bomb was the use of beryllium as a neutron reflector in the casing of the bomb and design considerations around that. What that has to do with reddish coloration around the welds I have no idea. Maybe there was some iron somewhere as well?

(6) Another of the real secrets of the bomb is the need for a design to get several smaller pieces of U-235 to come together with perfect timing to make a single piece of U-235 large enough to trigger the explosive branched-chain reaction. Even a few milliseconds out and the uranium mass will simply melt and evaporate and melt the casing, and make a huge and dangerous mess without exploding. The sort of arrangement described here may well be an accurate representation of the conventional explosion required to initiate the nuclear explosion in a uranium bomb. I do not know.

(7) Half a ton of fuel oil or asphalt has a maximum chemical energy release of about 21 GJ, or about 20 million Btu. The yield of the Hiroshima explosion has had several estimates ranging between about 65 and 210 TJ, meaning 60 to 200 billion Btu, or 3000-10000 times larger. Of course the fuel oil payload of the Hiroshima bomb would not have been close to half a ton if the whole bomb weighed only half a ton.
Fuel oil 200 times more powerful than asphalt? yes. 200 times more energetic? no -- about the same. Fuel oil can be reacted in a very short time with high peak power; asphalt can not.

(8) I tend to agree with the sentiment and fact expressed here, but have cut off discussion of the rest of your post because this is strictly a science discussion, and discussion of your politics, which I do not agree with, is not the business of this forum.

 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #40 on: 14/08/2012 06:57:45 »
William,

Are you denying the existence of atomic bombs, or that two were dropped on Japan at the end of WWII?

Fat Man, a relatively small atomic bomb by today's standards weighed just over 5 tons, with a blast yield of about 21,000 tons of TNT.

Little Boy weighed a little under 5 tons, with a blast yield of about 16,000 tons of TNT.

Little Boy was detonated at about 1,968 feet, and destroyed buildings in about a 2 mile diameter circle, killing about 66,000 people, and injuring another 69,000 people, and potentially leading to 200,000 fatalities. 

There is no conventional bomb weighing about 5 tons that could come close to that amount of destruction.

Your article above suggested that gasoline (or various oils) have a higher explosive content than TNT.  While that may be true, the caveat is that petroleum fuels require a stoichiometric ratio of an oxidizer (air) to be compressed and detonated with the fuel.  It is not sufficient to squirt hot oil into the air, but for an explosion, both the fuel and oxidizer must be compressed.  Explosives such as TNT or nitroglycerin do not require an additional oxidizer.  Likewise solid rocket fuels also include their own oxidizer as they must perform at high altitude where air is not readily available.  Keep in mind the LEO/GER oxidation/reduction reactions may be considered oxidation with other elements behaving similarly to oxygen.

So, consider two explosives.
A stick of dynamite immersed in a 5 gallons of oil, encased in heavy metal such as a propane tank with no trapped air.
A stick of dynamite encased in a tight fitting steel pipe.

The dynamite in the oil will not have sufficient oxidizer available, and will be no more powerful than the dynamite in the pipe.  In fact, the oil bath might absorb some of the blast, lowering the overall blast content.  The oil, of course, might burn causing a secondary fire, but not explosion.

As far as back to the topic with heat.
You may wish to read about Planck's Law..  Hot objects will emit light with a peak intensity at a wavelength corresponding to the temperature, but will emit that light over  many wavelengths.  Objects on Earth with temperatures between 0C and say 40C will emit light in the infrared range. 

The sun with a much hotter temperature, around 5500C will also emit some IR, but its peak intensity is with much shorter wavelength EM, in the middle of the visible light spectrum.
 

Offline bizerl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #41 on: 14/08/2012 07:38:42 »
The original question was raised in regards to heat applied at one end of a material, affecting the other end. I was interested in how that happens. Thanks for all those who answered. The turn taken by the "conversation"  ;) has raised another question, relating to this.

Obviously a nuclear explosion makes a vast amount of matter very, very hot very, very quickly. So is this the "thermal diffusion" of air working really well?, or just the incredibly hot reaction? It seems to me if it was placed in even something like diamond (which seemed to be the best thermal conductor), the heat would not radiate as quickly as in air.

Also, when you guys say "light", do you mean "electro-magnetic radiation"? I was led to believe that all light is electro-magnetic radiation, but not all electro-magnetic radiation is actually light.

In terms of heat vs infrared, I always thought that the effect of IR was heating (like a microwave), but that heating could occur without IR as well. The discussion has now made me think that perhaps IR is the expression of a transference of energy, which is felt by us as heat.

I have no links or formulas to back up anything I have said, just the musings of a curious mind.
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #42 on: 14/08/2012 08:30:59 »
Here is a list of thermal conductivities.  I didn't realize that Diamond was so high up on the list.  Aluminum or Copper are quite high, but much lower than the diamond.  Silica aerogel is near the bottom for thermal conduction, at least for solids.



Vacuum Thermoses, of course, use use the lack of conduction/convection through a vacuum to keep their contents hot.

All light is Electromagnetic Radiation (EM), or photons.  However, the EM spectrum covers a range of wavelengths.  It is essentially the same as light, but we define different ranges of wavelengths from high energy gamma rays to x-rays to UV to visible light to IR to microwaves to radiowaves (which can have wavelengths of several feet or more).  Our eyes are only sensitive to a narrow band of the "visible light".

So, if you think of a hot electric stove burner.  If you touched a diamond, or a piece of copper or aluminum to the hot stove burner, the conduction would be fast and hot. 

If you held your hand a foot above the stove burner, you would have slower conduction of heat through the air to your hand (conduction & convection), although the surrounding air would eventually be warmed which you would feel when you would put your hand near the burner.  As well as the hand being heated by infrared (or red) heat radiant heat.  But, the transfer of heat through the air is slow, so you wouldn't want to suspend your kettle even a few inches above the electric burner.

A piece of glass (or double-paned glass) above the burner might block the convection/conduction heat and you would be left with pure radiative heat.

Note, you can have a steel kettle with a steel handle, and not get burned (too badly at least).  But, a copper kettle with a copper handle would get the handle too hot too quickly, and transfer that thermal energy to your hand too quickly.  Copper or aluminum cookware, however, is good for even heat distribution.

I did try soldering/welding silver once.  It was a pain because of the rapid heat conduction throughout the whole piece.
« Last Edit: 14/08/2012 08:34:52 by CliffordK »
 

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #43 on: 14/08/2012 21:57:22 »
My father worked at Grumman Aero Space. T

Sorry I did not get back to you sooner I was welding up a set of railings for a friend. I made some shop drawings about three weeks ago, and bent it up two weekends ago, and yesterday and today between doing laundry, I welded them up. Now it is back to work tomorrow, Ahhhhhh. 

                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick





My mum taught on of the Spice girls and, like you dad's job, that also has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

Unless your dad was using the word arc before My Davy, he's misusing it.

Nice railing.
It must be a right pain in the neck doing all that cutting to 6 digit accuracy. Do you have your own interferometer to check the pieces?
Also, how good is your air conditioning?
I find that temperature changes of just 1 degree alter the lengths of bits of steel by 15 parts in a million or so and Aluminium is even worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision

Damocles, I just wondered, given that William had struggled with it. He seems not to have understood much of it.

That is actually to three digits iof accuracy, Or thousands of an inch. It is the default of the cadd drawing program.

I can output those to 1/16ths or even 1/32ths of an inch about all that is practicle. But the truth is that our tape measures are in 16ths of an inch, so we hardly ever practice 1/32ths. So hearing 11/32ths kind of throws us.

But having always done machining we are familiar with thousandths of an inch and where they fit within 16ths of an inch. So I just convert the hundredths place, to a spot within the 1/16 mark. There are aproximately six hundredths of an inch between sixteenths of an inch.

But another reason the three places are a good default is that if you are making a spacer to put between pieces you are placing, you will need accuracy to thousandths of an inch.

Myself and an Austrlian fellow created the macro that automatically measures each section within a concatinated line. So I just touch the line and it places those measurements at each break point. So I can lay out the marks on the pipe while it is straight. It takes me 30 minutes to draw the pipe rail and stoop. 30 minutes to bend the pipe. And then about eight hours to fabricate. Without the macro and drawing. It would take me two or more hours to lay it out and the two railings would never match so exactly. So it is just for speed ease and accuracy I do it that way.

I knew Roy Grumman, met him when I was 1 1/2 years old. He got down lower then me and looked up at me, gave me a real mans hand shake and welcomed me to the plant. He used to pay for family picnics that were pretty cool.

We had the technology to go anywhere, but slavery and the price of real estate do not profit from a real space program. So they cancelled any hope of it.

Sending this from my iPhone, please excuse typos.


                             Sincerely,


                                William McCormick
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #44 on: 14/08/2012 22:21:13 »
OK, so now we know that you can't even count.
104.372 has 6 digits (and 3 places of decimals).

"When you release 7,600,000 BTU's in a fraction of a second, you get a blast, like the one at Hiroshima. "
Nope, you get about ^ J or about 2 tons of TNT equivalent.
It would make roughly as much mess as a V2 rocket did (That was 1 ton so 7,600,000 BTU would give a slightly bigger crater if it was released suddenly enough).
It would take out a few buildings, but it wouldn't demolish a good chunk of a city.

Hiroshima was not a ton of oil catching fire.
This is the effect of 300 tonnes of petrol , largely premixed with air catching fire and progressing from a deflagration to a detonation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Hertfordshire_Oil_Storage_Terminal_fire

Death toll nil.

To say that the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 300 times less mass of a fuel which doesn't explode readily is not only absurd, but an insult to those who died there .
I'm happy to excuse the typos, but I find it very hard to excuse your delusional ramblings.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #45 on: 14/08/2012 22:54:59 »
Modnote:
Ok guys, let's keep it science, as per forum policy.  We'll step in and moderate the discussion if it gets too far off topic, especially if it tends toward conspiracy theories.
 

Offline alimeeabey

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #46 on: 14/06/2016 10:06:03 »
Silicon is semiconductor material. Due to its good heat transfer properties, it has huge application in the aluminum and steel industry and uses large amounts of silicon in alloys. The rate of heat transfer is dependent on the temperatures of the systems and the properties of the medium through which the heat is transferred. But its main application is in Semiconductor industry as silicon wafer used in various microprocessor devices.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is there a speed of heat?
« Reply #46 on: 14/06/2016 10:06:03 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums