[Aardwolf]

Obviously the trick to curing cancer is to invent subspace travel. Also, traveling through portals can remove poison from a man's bloodstream.

What does this have to do with the BFRed tech description

Alliance analysts have no explanation for this weapons system. The Sathanas' main beam cannons discharge kilotons of magnetically confined plasma at .9998 lightspeed. They are capable of continuous fire without overheating. It is unclear where the heat goes, leading GTI analysts to the unsettling conclusion that these weapons are not compatible with thermodynamics as we understand it. It is possible that waste heat is somehow shunted into subspace, or that the Shivans use quantum sleight-of-hand to process the heat out of local space. No allied warship can survive engagement with one of these weapons. Current GTVA tactical doctrine calls for concentrated bomber strikes to destroy these weapons before they can be brought to bear on allied capital ships.

[General Battuta]

Uh, what does that passage of science fiction technobabble from a soft SF video game written by someone who understands basic thermodynamics have to do with a failure to understand basic thermodynamics and chemistry

[samiam]

This forum needs more people citing FreeSpace ships.tbl entries in science arguments.

[Klaustrophobia]

This is why I advise everyone going to university to take a first-year Physics course as an elective or to fulfill a gen-ed requirement at some point.  Even if they don't remember a single equation, they'll learn and retain so many basic concepts that it'd be a lot harder to make them fall prey to this kind of bull****.

This is a terrible idea. 1) Not all first year physics courses cover the same material. Two semesters of physics and we didn't do anything with thermodynamics more in depth than a mention in passing. Here, you'd have much better luck taking an intro chemistry course to get this kind of knowledge. 2) Not every student has the time or money to take a full battery of introductory science courses. I managed to get 4 science classes out of the way in a year and a half, but I wouldn't want to spend any more of my time here on it because 3) Not every student needs to know this stuff. I'm here for computer science, not physics, and I wouldn't even think of forcing humanities or art students into university level science courses just to get their feet wet. Especially when you consider it will also require they take at least a couple semesters of calculus on top of that.

Those points aside, this is exactly what secondary school science classes are for. I'd guess that 90% of the material covered in the intro science courses at uni were covered in at least a conceptual basis in high school science courses, which for people that don't need to know how to use the knowledge is good enough. I'll go further and say the only way people will forget things they've learned in school is if they've never used it outside of school. Five years down the road if they haven't used it yet, they probably won't be using it. Jumping down people's throats because they don't understand the chemistry behind oxidation reactions is just immature when they don't do anything where they need to know.

while those may be valid reasons for some people not taking physics classes, that hardly makes ADVISING everyone to do so a terrible idea.  he didn't say force everyone to do it.  most universities have intro level classes for just about everything designed for non-majors to take as electives or just for interest.  these should be well within the capabilities of anyone in college.

high school science is a joke.  before i was able to take the advanced placement classes and was mixed in with the general population of retards, i had a science teacher who seriously thought gravity was stronger the futher apart you are.  her example was something to the effect of you get tired climbing a mountain because gravity wants to pull on you harder when you try to escape it.  i already learned in an economics class not to confront public schoolteachers when they are wrong, because you will just argue for half an hour in front of the class and get nowhere but pissed off.  luckily that one just called me stupid instead of trying to give me detention or something. 

[Mikes]

high school science is a joke.  before i was able to take the advanced placement classes and was mixed in with the general population of retards, i had a science teacher who seriously thought gravity was stronger the futher apart you are.  her example was something to the effect of you get tired climbing a mountain because gravity wants to pull on you harder when you try to escape it.  i already learned in an economics class not to confront public schoolteachers when they are wrong, because you will just argue for half an hour in front of the class and get nowhere but pissed off.  luckily that one just called me stupid instead of trying to give me detention or something.

Fond memories of asking my teacher to define what a soul is and how we can be sure that humans got it but my dog doesn't.

Mind you, after he told us what a soul was and how you can recognize it, the discussion eventually devolved into which pets might have souls and which not.

Never argue with a class full of 12-13 year olds who love their pets. Never lol.

[Dragon]

Cats do have a soul, that's for sure. Not that it changes anything. 

[jr2]

Hmm.  Ok, so:

Ammonia + Chlorine = poisonous gas.  Doesn't need any sort of catalyst, spark, what have you.

Hydrogen + Oxygen = ???

IIRC, to combine freely (without needing a catalyst or a chain reaction of some sort), atoms need to be, hmm, what is it, out of balance? Like one needs to have less electrons and be positively charged, whilst the other needs to have that spare electron, thus, they will combine and share and electron, forming a molecule and thus making, say, water... Now it's been forever and a day since I touched chemistry (yuck! trying to balance the reaction or w/e they were called equations... ugh)... so.. just to refresh, hydrogen and oxygen are both balanced?  They need an outside force to combine and make water, (of course, I know that conversely, they need energy to un-combine from water, as they are 'balanced' as water and don't really want to release that bond).

Also: Aardwolf: having just finished Portal 2, may I say, ahahahahahahahaha.    I have a better solution then Cave Johnson's "We're throwing science at the wall here, we'll just see what sticks!"  I'm throwing science at HLP, knowing they cannot resist dissecting it.  I then observe, for much profit!  And hope that my observation does not have the same results as observing the double-slit experiment.  (Which, given the nature of online forums, most likely does!)

[Aardwolf]

Uh, what does that passage of science fiction technobabble from a soft SF video game written by someone who understands basic thermodynamics have to do with a failure to understand basic thermodynamics and chemistry

It was a joke, derp.

[z64555]

Hmm.  Ok, so:

Ammonia + Chlorine = poisonous gas.  Doesn't need any sort of catalyst, spark, what have you.

Hydrogen + Oxygen = ???

IIRC, to combine freely (without needing a catalyst or a chain reaction of some sort), atoms need to be, hmm, what is it, out of balance? Like one needs to have less electrons and be positively charged, whilst the other needs to have that spare electron, thus, they will combine and share and electron, forming a molecule and thus making, say, water... Now it's been forever and a day since I touched chemistry (yuck! trying to balance the reaction or w/e they were called equations... ugh)... so.. just to refresh, hydrogen and oxygen are both balanced?  They need an outside force to combine and make water, (of course, I know that conversely, they need energy to un-combine from water, as they are 'balanced' as water and don't really want to release that bond).

1 H + 1 O = 1 OH-.

Hydroxide, a component comonly used to determine acidity, is an unbalanced molecule and has a negative charge on it. Therefore it will try to combine with a + ion or molecule whenever it can.

3 H2O + Energy = 1 O3 + 3 H2

Or, a more stable compound:

2 H20 + Energy = 1 O2 + 2 H2

Therefore, the O2 and H2 from the reaction should theoretically be stable by themselves.

 However, the energy provided by the radio waves can also do this:

2 H2 + 1 O2 + ignition = 2 H20 + Energy

Meaning, the energy provided by the radio waves raises the H2 molecules to their ignition point at roughly a little later after they where released from their previous H2O bonds. The salts, apparently, reduced the boiling point and/or ignition point down to where this phenomenon was possible with the cancer researcher's gear.

At least, that's what my 2 years of community college Chemistry say.

[jr2]

+1, thanks.

[Polpolion]

while those may be valid reasons for some people not taking physics classes, that hardly makes ADVISING everyone to do so a terrible idea.  he didn't say force everyone to do it.  most universities have intro level classes for just about everything designed for non-majors to take as electives or just for interest.  these should be well within the capabilities of anyone in college.

That's silly. If something is an inappropriate course for someone, then advising them to take it anyway really is a terrible idea. Why would you advise someone to do something that isn't actually in their best interest? I haven't taken any science for non-majors nor do I know anyone that has, but I'd wager a guess that if people have taken it they would get nothing more out of it than they would from the standard course in high school. But like I said, just a guess.

high school science is a joke.  before i was able to take the advanced placement classes and was mixed in with the general population of retards, i had a science teacher who seriously thought gravity was stronger the futher apart you are.  her example was something to the effect of you get tired climbing a mountain because gravity wants to pull on you harder when you try to escape it.  i already learned in an economics class not to confront public schoolteachers when they are wrong, because you will just argue for half an hour in front of the class and get nowhere but pissed off.  luckily that one just called me stupid instead of trying to give me detention or something.

I don't know where you went but rest assured my high school (and probably most others) did not allow uneducated homeless people to teach our classes. Sure, there are always the occasional burnt-out jerks but total incompetence like what you've described is generally rare.

[watsisname]

Hydrogen + Oxygen = ???

OH^-
Water
H₂0₂

Take your pick, or read the info that was given to you on page 2.

[General Battuta]

Hydrogen + Oxygen = ???

Jesus ****ing Christ did you not read a single one of the replies that had already been given to you on page 2?

He pretty much never does.

[jr2]

Hydrogen + Oxygen = ???

OH^-
Water
H₂0₂

Take your pick, or read the info that was given to you on page 2.

Hydrogen + Oxygen = ???

Jesus ****ing Christ did you not read a single one of the replies that had already been given to you on page 2?

He pretty much never does.

Any way to have an inhibitor to prevent re-combining of the hydrogen and oxygen?

No.  In order to burn hydrogen, oxygen must be present and the exothermic chemical reaction must occur, which will always produce water.

If you'll recall the fire triangle, in order for something to burn you require a fuel (hydrogen), oxygen, and an ignition source (energy).  Remove one and no burning can happen.

MMk, usually if I don't understand the answer, I tend to ask again until someone explains it in a way that I can understand.

In order to burn (exothermic) hydrogen, oxygen must be present... ok, duh so far, got that,.. ... and the exothermic chemical reaction must occur, which will always produce water. ok so far..
If you'll recall the fire triangle never used that, it just made sense once I was told about the basics of fire, but yeah, got that, in order for something to burn you need fuel, oxygen, and ignition source (energy). Remove one and no burning can happen.   Yes, got that, I was asking if there was a way to prevent the oxygen and hydrogen from combining to form water before it could combust and produce heat, because, you know, water tends to lower the temperature just a little.  Although I suppose if the exothermic reaction produced enough heat to get the water to form steam, it could still be useful...

Basically, what I'm getting at.. is there a way to consume some of the hydrogen and oxygen and convert it into heat?  Or does that never happen?  Why did the Hindenburg combust in a big ball of fire instead of exploding into a big cloudburst of steam?  Also, how the heck does LOx and Hydrogen make a nice rocket?!  (H2O2 makes a nice fuel too.)  I realize there's probably a simple answer, however, in my experience, someone explaining (z64555, thank you) with plain common sense is a lot easier for me to understand (since I have long lost the knowledge to figure out the answers myself, but can easily be reminded of the logic behind them) than trying to read up on all the extraneous information found by searching the internets.

[BlueFlames]

That's silly. If something is an inappropriate course for someone, then advising them to take it anyway really is a terrible idea. Why would you advise someone to do something that isn't actually in their best interest? I haven't taken any science for non-majors nor do I know anyone that has, but I'd wager a guess that if people have taken it they would get nothing more out of it than they would from the standard course in high school. But like I said, just a guess.

high school science is a joke.

I don't know where you went but rest assured my high school (and probably most others) did not allow uneducated homeless people to teach our classes. Sure, there are always the occasional burnt-out jerks but total incompetence like what you've described is generally rare.

I can't speak to typical public science education, as my high school was one of the top-rated public schools in the nation, but there was one gigantic problem with my high school science curriculum that's endemic to public science education:  Physics is not a required course.  In many school districts in the United States, it's not even offered.

Yes, I advise everyone take an introductory Physics course in university, even though it overlaps nearly 100% with what would be taught in a high school Physics course.  I advise everyone to take an introductory course in Physics at university because nearly nobody took one in high school, whether by choice or lack of the option.

Physics is also a course that I find people to be unnecessarily intimidated by.  I'll grant, the higher level stuff is pretty mind-boggling, but you don't hit that in an intro-level course.  Many people are perfectly capable of handling the material and wind up showing a genuine interest, once they've been nudged over the barrier of their own preconceptions.

So yes, when it's appropriate for me to advise someone on a course to take, if they've not touched Physics before, I recommend that they give the subject a try.  Don't **** a brick over me telling friends/associates, "Hey, think about an intro Physics course.  You'll learn a lot and impress your friends!"

[General Battuta]

Basically, what I'm getting at.. is there a way to consume some of the hydrogen and oxygen and convert it into heat?  Or does that never happen?

Yes. There is a way to consume hydrogen and oxygen and convert it into heat. This is called 'combustion'. It is a process whereby hydrogen and oxygen combine, releasing heat and water vapor. You may also have heard of it referred to as 'burning'.

The relevant equation -- as you've been told several times now -- is: 2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O(g) + heat

Why did the Hindenburg combust in a big ball of fire instead of exploding into a big cloudburst of steam?

The Hindenburg did in fact produce a vast amount of water vapor, as do LOX rockets. It also produced carbon, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates that did not undergo complete combustion.

Also, how the heck does LOx and Hydrogen make a nice rocket?!

LOX rockets work on the exact same equation: they burn hydrogen and oxygen to create heat and water vapor, which is expelled as steam. This is rocket exhaust. Most exhausts (including rocket exhaust) consist of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and nitrogen, plus scatterings of chemical contaminants which can (for example) give smoke various colors and smells.

I'm going to return to the core misunderstanding you seem to have:

Yes, got that, I was asking if there was a way to prevent the oxygen and hydrogen from combining to form water before it could combust and produce heat, because, you know, water tends to lower the temperature just a little.

What you are asking is, 'is there a way to prevent the oxygen and hydrogen from burning before they burn?' The act of combining into water is what release energy. You cannot have one without the other. You are essentially asking for free energy from nothing, as in a perpetual motion machine.

Although I suppose if the exothermic reaction produced enough heat to get the water to form steam, it could still be useful...

Congratulations, you've discovered smoke!

[jr2]

2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O(g) + heat

Am I correct in reading that as 2(2Hydrogen + 2Oxygen) therefore = 8 atoms reacts to produce 2(2Hydrogen,1Oxygen - gas form) + heat so 6 atoms, 2 are converted to heat?  Or is that not quite right?

Mayhaps what I'm doing is (I just realized) is thinking that the fire seen in combustion is actually something other than visible radiation, much as the heat is thermal radiation... so it would really be:

2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O(g) + various forms of radiation, in this case, visible and thermal?

[General Battuta]

2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O(g) + heat

Am I correct in reading that as 2(2Hydrogen + 2Oxygen) therefore = 8 atoms reacts to produce 2(2Hydrogen,1Oxygen - gas form) + heat so 6 atoms, 2 are converted to heat?  Or is that not quite right?

There is no nuclear fission in this reaction. I don't think you realize that you're suggesting that the simple act of burning a match involves nuclear fission. A chemical reaction conserves the atoms involved.

Two molecules of diatomic hydrogen - four atoms - react with a molecule of diatomic oxygen - two atoms (so six atoms total so far) to produce two molecules of water, with three atoms each. Six atoms on the left, six on the right. The heat that is released occurs because the chemical bonds required to bind two water molecules together are less energy-expensive than those in the reactants.

Mayhaps what I'm doing is (I just realized) is thinking that the fire seen in combustion is actually something other than visible radiation, much as the heat is thermal radiation... so it would really be:

2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O(g) + various forms of radiation, in this case, visible and thermal?

Heat is not thermal radiation. Heat is the kinetic energy stored in atoms and molecules. Electromagnetic radiation can be released by excited atoms whose electrons decay back to a lower orbital. The fire you see in combustion consists of hot (rapidly moving, kinetically energized) air emitting light. This air is contaminated with various particulates like soot.

The important lesson I need you to acknowledge is that you cannot avoid the production of water in combustion, because it is the production of water that allows energy release.

[watsisname]

2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O(g) + heat

Am I correct in reading that as 2(2Hydrogen + 2Oxygen) therefore = 8 atoms reacts to produce 2(2Hydrogen,1Oxygen - gas form) + heat so 6 atoms, 2 are converted to heat?  Or is that not quite right?

No.

The first "2" in 2H₂ means two molecules of diatomic hydrogen.  Thus, it represents four hydrogen atoms.

But that equation with those coefficients is not actually what happens -- the coefficients are used for mass balancing.  What is really happening is the bonds in each molecule are broken (releasing energy), and then reassembled, in a new configuration, as H₂O.  The sum of the energies in the bonds of H₂O is less than the amount of energy released from breaking the bonds in the first place.  (That's the point folks were making a while back regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics).

No atoms are being "converted to heat" in this process -- the heat is the net release of energy between the process of bond breaking / rebonding.

Edit:  This site explains all of this stuff rather well.

[z64555]

jr2, one of the fundamental laws of nature is that matter can never be created nor destroyed.

This means, during the entire life of Human existence, we haven't figured out how to create matter from absolutely nothing (we did figure out how to modify existing matter), nor have we found a way to utterly annihilate it out of existence (although we can blow it into tiny, tiny bits).

There is no way known to mankind at this moment to completely transform a chemical element into thermodynamic energy (heat), even though there are numerous theories postulating that said elements can very much do so (convert matter to energy and vice versa).

Therefore, whenever something combusts or burns, the starting matter is the same as the ending matter in the reaction, only transformed into different states (like vapor, liquid, solid, plasma).

The energy we obtain from burning, heat, is also a transformation of energy. That energy came from the molecules that where holding the elements together.

I guess in a sense, the molecules are like electromagnets keeping the elements together. If you can find the switch to turn off the electromagnet, you can not only disconnect the electromagnet's power source but also the elements it was keeping together... and use 'em for something else.

But keep in mind, not all of this energy is for the taking, a tiny bit of energy always remains after an exothermal reaction (combustion) in the bonds between the newly created molecules (ash, smoke, vapor, etc.).


P.S. Oh, if you don't understand what someone said, say so. That way you'll come across in a better light to them.