| |
|
Article: <5e243e$5eu@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: EXPLOSIONS - the Zetas Explain
Date: 14 Feb 1997 16:32:46 GMT
In article <33022AFF.7F52@sc.hp.com> Chris Franks
writes:
> Mark Gallagher wrote:
>> Can there be a theory that incorporates the particle
>> and the energy principles? Such is the case with light,
>> behaving both as a particle and a wave, why not heat?
>
> Light is an electromagnetic energy transmission, travelling
> at c in a vacuum. Infra-red energy is a lower-frequency
> energy which also travels at c. It can be absorbed by a
> material object in its path, which converts the energy to
heat.
> This heat can be re-radiated at c, or flow to a colder
object
> by convection or conduction, which have a very much slower
> velocity, depending upon the thermal resistance of the
medium.
> This resistance is practically infinite for a vacuum.
> Chris Franks <cfranks@sc.hp.com>
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM[)
This was a delightful exchange between two open minded and
exploratory humans. Superb discussion! However, we take exception
to the term "convert". There are many subatomic
particles that fall into the classification you human would call
heat. When some of these or what humans term light particles
flood an area, others are crowded out. Simple as that.
Vacuums slow the transfer of heat, such as occur in the common
coffee flask, due to the un-crowded nature of the space. The heat
particles ARE there, having been pushed out from the hot coffee,
but are lingering in the vacuum. That the vacuum is not perceived
to be hot is simply due to the fact that the heat particles,
having all the elbow room they desire, are loath to leave. What
you perceive of as heat is simply heat particles ON THE MOVE. If
not moving, you perceive the object to be cold.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article: <33022E15.7223@sc.hp.com> Chris Franks
writes:
>> (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])
>
> If you add a local source of heat of about 500 degrees F or
> hotter ( such as a lit match, or a spark plug firing, or a
> lightning bolt), You will allow the hydrocarbon (gasoline)
> to combine rapidly with the oxygen, forming water and
> carbon dioxide. ...
>
> If you have a Diesel engine, you don't even need a spark
plug;
> the heat generated by compressing the fuel/air mixture to
1/22
> of its original volume is enough to cause the rapid burning
> (your "explosion").
> Chris Franks <cfranks@sc.hp.com>
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
What Chris is describing here, in detailing the explosion
process, are two ways that explosions are triggered - the
addition of heat and compression. As with spontaneous human
combustion, what humans call the burning process does not require
oxygen, as it is a chemical reaction and can occur wherever the
chemical mix is inclined to form new bonds.
Humans are most aware of atoms bonding due to the sharing of electrons, but bonding due to sharing of the many other subatomic particles on the move around the periphery of the atom also occur. During explosions, a bonding process begins AND DOES NOT END until an equilibrium is established. The addition of heat to spark an explosion or compression both result in the same atomic drama - heat particles and other subatomic particles flood a given atom in excess of what the surrounding areas contain, and these particles go on the move. At the point where this wave of motion is traveling outward, a temporary liquidity of atoms is created, as the heat particles form a type of lubricant, so the atoms have mobility beyond their prior state.
Suddenly freed from the prior bonding, atoms on the edge of the wave find themselves free to form NEW bonds, which they DO in accordance with their chemical nature, i.e. their ability to hold subatomic particles such as electrons based on the weight and composition of the nucleus. This new bonding results in excess heat particles, which now do not have room due to the new bonding arrangement, and the explosion process is acerbated. Where the new bonding has been facilitated by the lubrication factor of excess heat, heat particles are not the dominant factor in the new bonding. Other subatomic particles, such as electrons, dominate and dictate the bonding process.
If the chemical mix is such that this re-bonding IS JUST
WAITING TO HAPPEN, inhibited only due to the strength of the
prior bonds, then it is, as you say, an explosive mixture. This
is why certain chemicals or chemical mixes are handled with care,
and others are not deemed capable of engaging in an explosion.
Those chemical mixes that result in an explosion even without the
addition of heat or compression are a mixture of atoms prone to
many bonding combinations. They enter the explosion bonding in a
manner that is less stable than the new potential bond, which
they rapidly migrate to, causing the familiar release of heat and
light particles.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])