| |
|
Article: <5dsoog$cf@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: ENERGY WAVES - the Zetas Explain
Date: 12 Feb 1997 15:48:32 GMT
In article <5dp0on$1eq@pollux.cmc.ec.gc.ca> Greg Neill
writes:
> First, the concept of heat as being composed of particles or
a
> fluid composed of particles was debunked back in 1798 by
> one Count Benjamin Thomson Rumford. At that time, it was
> thought that heat was a manifestation of a fluid like
substance
> called 'caloric' or in some instances, when it was related
to
> combustion, 'phlogiston'. Caloric supposedly permeated
matter
> and was responsible for the heat content and temperature,
> depending upon its concentration.
>
> What Rumford noticed was that during the process of boring
> brass cannon barrels, blocks of the metal grew very hot as
the
> boring tool gouged them out. ... The explanation at the time
> was that 'caloric' was being released from the material as
the
> metal was being torn up by the boring tool. Rumford noticed
> that the 'caloric' was released as long as the tool was in
action,
> and further, through measurement, that the amount of heat
> released during the process was enough to actually have
melted
> the block of metal if it were to be 'poured back in'. In
other
> words, more heat was being removed than could have possibly
> been contained in the metal to begin with.
>
> Rumford's conclusion was that it was in fact the mechanical
> motion of the boring tool being converted to heat energy,
> rather than some fluidic or particulate content that was
> responsible for the heat and temperature, and that heat was
> in fact a form of motion. Rumford even attempted to
calculate
> just how much heat was produced by a given amount of
> mechanical engergy. Nancy, you are postulating that
'caloric'
> particles are contained within matter, and their moving
about
> is responsible for the physical effects we see as heat and
> temperature. Rumford's two hundred year old observations are
> just as valid today in refuting your musings as they were in
his
> own day.
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Heat is simply motion, converted? Hahahahahah! Well then if you
think this explanation so magical, explain the heat emanating
from an explosion. Put a match to a gallon of gasoline, and BOOM.
Now, was all that heat and light caused by the motion of the arm
holding the match?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])